What Meaning-Making Means Among Us: The Intercomprehending of Emergent Bilinguals in Small-Group Text Discussions

Aukerman, Maren; Schuldt, Lorien Chambers; Aiello, Liam; Martin, Paolo C.

doi:10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.482

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, examining engagements with texts draws attention to how translingual practice might support what Short (1999) calls “balanced” literacy, or instruction that includes opportunities for students to learn language, learn about language, and learn content through language. We frame meaningful textual engagements as interactions in which teachers and students collaboratively work toward Short’s three goals, and likewise, negotiate interactions with one another and with available resources (Aukerman, Schuldt, Aiello, & Martin, 2017).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translingual Practice, Strategic Participation, and Meaning-Making

Pacheco

Daniel

Pray

et al. 2019

Journal of Literacy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case study examines one third-grade teacher’s strategic participation in translingual practice and the ways that this participation shaped emerging bilingual students’ meaningful engagements with texts. Using a transliteracies perspective, we describe instances of emergence and resonance as students and their teacher leveraged resources coded in English, Arabic, and Spanish to co-construct meaning. Analysis of small-group guided reading, buddy reading, and an interactive read-aloud detail how the teacher used entextualizing, envoicing, and recontextualizing strategies to support students’ participation. Analysis of postinstruction interviews describes how resources, expertise, and emotion resonated within each literacy event and across time for this teacher. We conclude with recommendations for including translingual pedagogies in similar classroom contexts, arguing for the importance of recognizing and developing teachers’ translingual competence, as well as their emerging multilingualism.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translingual Practice, Strategic Participation, and Meaning-Making

Pacheco

Daniel

Pray

et al. 2019

Journal of Literacy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assessments in line with this broader conception could be designed to look for and value difference across capacities and dispositions within and across students, with the goal of providing more multifaceted understandings of how students are engaging in the work of reading, rather than narrowly focusing on the extent to which they measure up to goals on a particular metric. For example, such assessments might provide insight into how different students draw on or build linguistic and cultural knowledge (Ascenzi-Moreno, 2018), the varied nature of students' intellectual grappling with text and with one another's ideas as they work with text (Auker man, Chambers Schuldt, Aiello, & Martin, 2017), and the various kinds of texts and text-related activities that students experience as engaging within literacy contexts they inhabit inside and outside school (M.W. Smith & Wilhelm, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Matters Most? Toward a Robust and Socially Just Science of Reading

Aukerman¹,

Schuldt²

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science of reading is a term that has been used variously, but its use within research, policy, and the press has tended to share one important commonality: an intensive focus on assessed reading proficiency as the primary goal of reading instruction. Although well intentioned, this focus directs attention toward a problematically narrow slice of reading. In this article, we propose a different framework for the science of reading, one that draws on existing literacy research in ways that could broaden and deepen instruction. The framework proposes, first, that reading education should develop textual dexterity across grade levels in the four literate roles first proposed by Freebody and Luke: code breaker (decodes text), text participant (comprehends text), text user (applies readings of text to accomplish things), and text analyst (critiques text). Second, the framework suggests that reading education should nurture important literate dispositions alongside those textual capacities, dispositions that include reading engagement, motivation, and self‐efficacy. Justification is offered for the focus on textual dexterity and literate dispositions, and we include research‐based suggestions about how reading educators can foster student growth in these areas. Finally, we propose that reading education should attend closely to linguistic, cultural, and individual variation, honoring and leveraging different strengths and perspectives that students bring to and take away from their learning. Reimagining a science of reading based on these principles has the potential to make it both more robust and more socially just, particularly for students from nondominant cultures.

show abstract

“…Aukerman, Schuldt, Aiello, and Martin () described a process similar to Hoffman's co‐reading, something they termed intercomprehending . These researchers observed emergent bilingual students collaborating to make meaning in text‐based discussions, and they argued for a collaborative and social view of comprehension that currently does not pervade literacy theory, assessment, or classroom practice.…”

Section: Classroom Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Hard Should the Books Be in Small‐Group Reading? It Depends

Kelly¹

2019

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teachers balance many goals when selecting texts for small‐group reading. The author explored the impact of one variable that teachers consider, quantitative text difficulty, on students’ participation, discussion, comprehension, and fluency in small‐group discussions of informational science texts. Six bilingual third graders identified as reading below grade level participated. Students’ comprehension scores were the same for matched and difficult texts. Matched texts benefited three students in terms of fluency and two students in terms of participation. Difficult texts benefited three students in developing conversations around print and ideas (rather than focusing on pictures) and in having more inferential (rather than merely literal) talk. Different levels of text had drawbacks and advantages, and the findings encourage teachers to use both matched and difficult texts at different times and for different instructional purposes.

show abstract

What Meaning-Making Means Among Us: The Intercomprehending of Emergent Bilinguals in Small-Group Text Discussions

Cited by 19 publications

References 48 publications

Translingual Practice, Strategic Participation, and Meaning-Making

Translingual Practice, Strategic Participation, and Meaning-Making

What Matters Most? Toward a Robust and Socially Just Science of Reading

How Hard Should the Books Be in Small‐Group Reading? It Depends

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About