Gottesman, Bennett, Nathan, and Kelly (1996) described students in a literacy program who could possibly be part of the 13 percent that Sussman made reference to. Based on formal test measures, students were described as sometimes having a developmental disorder or below average cognitive functioning, living in poverty, having few skills, unemployed, and experiencing health–related problems, especially substance abuse. Malicky and Norman (1996), on the other hand, created profiles based on in–depth interviews that were markedly different. Their findings could help to understand the 33 percent of Allophones who are at IALS Level One. Over half of the 94 students in the study were born in a country other than Canada and did not speak English or French as a first language. These students lived in poverty but only a minority mentioned financial problems; and nearly half of the students belonged to at least one community or cultural group, suggesting they were connected to their communities.

With regards to their opinions about education, Quigley (1993) found that adults with low literacy skills who chose not to participate in a program valued education and learning but resisted attending literacy programs because they were aligned with schooling. In other words, they wanted to learn but didn't feel a school–based literacy program could meet their learning goals. In addition, adults with low literacy skills thought learning was distinct from literacy, and that the greatest deterrence to participation related to literacy program education, rather than the desire to learn. Zieghan (1992) also found that practical application, understanding, and challenge motivated adults with low literacy skills to learn. Both of the studies suggested that adults who chose not to participate in literacy programs viewed literacy within a school-based learning paradigm, whereas learning was viewed separately.

For the adults with low literacy skills who did want to enroll in a program, Long and Middleton (2001) found that over half of all 338 callers to literacy information lines were motivated to participate in a literacy program because of intrinsic goals, such as personal, social, or general education; whereas, the remainder were motivated by more extrinsic goals such as employment or retraining. Malicky and Norman (1994) found that learners entered a program with job–related (functional) goals but viewed literacy learning in a much more skills–based and academic (fundamental) way. This could suggest, similar to Quigley’s and Zieghan’s findings, that they viewed learning separate from literacy. Further complicating these findings, Fagan (1988) found that 52 low literate adults (26 prison inmates and 26 learners in programs) "possessed a very restrictive view of literacy, viewing reading mainly as a decoding task and writing as a hand–writing and spelling activity" (p. 47). The distinction between learning and literacy will be explored in depth in the final chapter.