BEFORE  AND  BEYOND  READING  COMPREHENSION  STRATEGIES:  SIXTH  GRADERS’   DIVERSE  MODI  OPERANDI  (MOS)  FOR  READING     By     Paul  Mark  Morsink               A  DISSERTATION     Submitted  to   Michigan  State  University   in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements   for  the  degree  of     Educational  Psychology  and  Educational  Technology—Doctor  of  Philosophy     2015       ABSTRACT     BEFORE  AND  BEYOND  READING  COMPREHENSION  STRATEGIES:  SIXTH  GRADERS’   DIVERSE  MODI  OPERANDI  (MOS)  FOR  READING     By     Paul  Mark  Morsink     This  mixed-­‐methods  dissertation  study  investigated  the  hypothesis  that,  above  and   beyond  what  they  may  have  learned  in  school  about  garden-­‐variety  reading   comprehension  strategies  (e.g.,  predicting,  visualizing,  summarizing),  by  the  time  they  reach   6th  grade  most  adolescent  readers  possess  declarative  and  procedural  knowledge  of   diverse  and  sometimes  idiosyncratic  modi  operandi  (MOs)  for  reading.  On  the  basis  of  pilot   work  and  a  review  of  relevant  research,  these  reading  MOs  were  hypothesized  to  be   experientially  distinct,  subjectively  coherent,  and  habitual  ways  of  orchestrating  reading   activity  that  typically  comprise  reading  strategies  but  also  comprise  other  elements  and   features  (e.g.,  culture-­‐  and  subculture-­‐specific  attitudes,  topic  knowledge,  epistemic  beliefs,   affective  investments,  experience  with  particular  types  of  social  interaction  around  texts).   It  was  further  hypothesized  that  these  diverse  MOs  readers  know  and  use  are   superordinate  to  conventional  reading  strategies  and  in  fact  regulate  their  application,  such   that  a  reader’s  MO  selection  constrains  her  selection,  and  guides  her  application,  of  reading   comprehension  strategies,  not  the  other  way  around.  More  generally,  it  was  hypothesized   that  adolescent  readers  experience  reading,  and  view  whatever  conscious  choices  they   make  regarding  reading,  through  the  prism  of  these  MOs—as  opposed  to  through  the  prism   of  whatever  reading  comprehension  strategies  they  know,  or  through  the  prism  of  a   universally  applicable,  generic  goal  of  comprehending  text.     These  hypotheses  were  investigated  through  (a)  structured  written  interviews  with   30  randomly  sampled  6th  graders  in  one  school  district  and  (b)  follow-­‐up  case  studies  with   six  6th  graders  randomly  sampled  from  the  initial  30.  Analysis  of  interview  responses  and   case  study  data  (comprising  transcripts  of  conversations  as  well  as  think-­‐aloud  protocols  of   participants  reading  diverse  self-­‐chosen  and  researcher-­‐provided  texts)  indicated  that   100%  of  students  had  declarative,  procedural,  and  conditional  knowledge  of  two  or  more   MOs  for  reading,  with  students  on  average  reporting  more  than  six  MOs.  Across   participants  there  were  significant  differences  with  regard  to  types  of  MOs  used,   preferences  for  particular  MOs,  and  criteria  used  to  distinguish  among  MOs.  At  the  same   time,  all  participants  demonstrated  ability  and  willingness  to  describe  and  discuss  their   MOs—this  despite  the  fact  that  none  recalled  receiving  any  explicit  instruction  or   mentoring  to  develop  distinct  “ways  of  reading.”  In  sum,  the  study’s  findings  give   substantial,  preliminary  support  to  the  hypothesis  that  adolescent  readers  know  and  use  a   diverse  array  of  reading  MOs,  and  that  MOs  rather  than  reading  comprehension  strategies   constitute  the  level  at  which  adolescent  readers  make  strategic  choices  and  adjustments  in   reading.   Implications  for  cognitively  focused  models  of  reading  comprehension  are   discussed,  as  are  possible  implications  for  classroom  instruction.                                       Copyright  by   PAUL  MARK  MORSINK   2015         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS     What  happens  in  life  often  only  just  barely  happens.  Without  a  nagging  question,  a   kind  word,  some  timely  advice,  a  gifted  babysitter,  and  many,  many  helping  hands,  the  big   things  in  life  don’t  happen.  Here  it  is  my  pleasure  and  privilege  to  acknowledge  and  thank   some  of  the  key  people  behind  those  helping  words  and  hands  in  my  life.  Without  them,   this  dissertation  would  not  have  happened.   I  wish  to  thank  my  advisor,  Dr.  Rand  Spiro,  for  his  steadfast  intellectual  and  morale-­‐ boosting  support  throughout  this  journey.  I  equally  wish  to  thank  each  of  the  other   members  of  my  committee,  Dr.  Nell  Duke,  Dr.  Doug  Hartman,  and  Dr.  Susan  Florio-­‐Ruane,   for  their  mentoring  and  support.  The  fact  that  their  support  came  from  different  scholarly   perspectives,  and  that  they  did  not  always  give  the  same  advice,  greatly  enriched  my   development  as  a  literacy  researcher  and  scholar.  I  cannot  thank  them  enough.   Heartfelt  thanks  are  also  due  to  other  teachers  and  mentors  who  have  deepened  my   thinking  over  the  years.  I  thank  the  faculty  of  the  College  of  Education  at  MSU,  in  particular   Dr.  Steve  Weiland  and  Dr.  Punya  Mishra.    From  the  more  distant  past,  I  extend  thanks  to   teachers  who  stimulated  my  curiosity  about  reading  and  literacy,  and  whose  influence  led   me  to  write  this  dissertation  and  not  another:  Dr.  Andrzej  Warminksi,  Mr.  Paul  Lewton,  Mr.   Bill  O’Neil,  and  Mrs.  Thomas.  I  also  thank  the  Graduate  School  at  Michigan  State  University   and  the  Department  of  CEPSE  for  funding  that  made  it  possible  for  me  to  undertake  this   journey  and  complete  my  degree.     To  the  students  who  participated  in  this  dissertation  study  and  their  families,  I   extend  my  deepest  gratitude.  Your  trust,  hospitality,  and  generosity  made  this  work   v   possible.  I  am  also  very  grateful  to  the  teachers  and  administrators  who  welcomed  me  into   their  classrooms,  answered  long  emails,  and  helped  with  all  the  many  little  details  on  which   a  dissertation  like  this  depends.   Amber  White,  literacy  coach  and  reading  specialist  extraordinaire,  deserves  very   special  thanks  for  her  truly  uncountable  deeds  of  support  and  kindness  without  which  this   dissertation  would  not  have  been  written.  Thank  you,  Amber!   My  family  have  always  stood  by  me  and  behind  me  and  cheered  my  scholarly   pursuits.  On  family  vacations,  some  of  them  have  even  gamely  put  up  with  being  turned   into  research  participants  at  the  breakfast  table.  I  thank  them  all  for  their  love  and  support.   My  biggest  thanks  go  to  the  two  people  who  have  witnessed  up  close  every  step  of   this  long  journey  to  the  PhD  and  supported,  nudged,  and  cheered  me  forward  on  the  good   days  and  the  hard  days:  Naomi  Silver  and  Xander  Morsink-­‐Silver.  I  love  you  both  more  than   I  can  say.    I  can’t  wait  to  curl  up  with  you  and  a  good  book  tonight.     vi   TABLE  OF  CONTENTS     LIST  OF  TABLES   ......................................................................................................................................................xi   LIST  OF  FIGURES   ................................................................................................................................................. xiii   INTRODUCTION   ....................................................................................................................................................... 1     CHAPTER  1:  Theoretical  Framework   ...................................................................................................... 13   Constructivist  Perspective ....................................................................................................................... 14   Reader  Response  Perspective  ............................................................................................................... 16   Post-­Structuralist  Perspective  on  Textuality ................................................................................ 17   Critical  Sociocultural  Perspective........................................................................................................ 21   “Overlapping  Waves  Theory”  Perspective  on  Strategic  Change......................................... 22   Critical  Theory  Perspective ..................................................................................................................... 24   Triangulating  Theoretical  Perspectives   ......................................................................................... 26     CHAPTER  2:  Review  Of  Literature   ............................................................................................................. 28   Socioculturally  Focused  Studies ........................................................................................................... 28   Studies  of  Adolescent  Students’  Diverse  Ways  of  Reading .................................................... 35   Survey  Studies  of  Readers’  Purposes  and  Motivation  for  Reading................................... 38   Studies  of  the  Effects  of  Readers’  Purpose ...................................................................................... 40   Genre  Focused  Studies   .............................................................................................................................. 42   Studies  of  Emergent  Readers’  Exposure  to  Differentiated  Styles  of  Reading............. 44   Studies  of  Disciplinary  Literacies......................................................................................................... 46   Studies  Relevant  to  Methods  .................................................................................................................. 49   Summary  of  the  Foregoing  Review  and  Need  for  the  Present  Study ............................... 51   Research  Questions  ..................................................................................................................................... 53     CHAPTER  3:  Method  ........................................................................................................................................... 54   Design   .................................................................................................................................................................. 54   Design  rationale.................................................................................................................................... 55   Rationale  for  choice  of  population ............................................................................................. 58   Rationale  for  sample  size................................................................................................................. 60   Research  Context  .......................................................................................................................................... 61   General  demographics ...................................................................................................................... 61   Academic  achievement ..................................................................................................................... 62   Curriculum  and  instruction............................................................................................................ 63   Participants  ...................................................................................................................................................... 65   Procedure  for  Stage  1:  Structured  Written  Interviews   .......................................................... 66   Recruitment  and  selection  of  participants............................................................................ 66   Written  interview  instrument ...................................................................................................... 67   Other  materials ..................................................................................................................................... 69   General  procedure............................................................................................................................... 69   vii   Procedure  for  asking  about  “different  ways  of  reading” ................................................. 71   Procedure  for  Stage  2:  Case  Studies   .................................................................................................. 72   Recruitment  and  selection  of  participants............................................................................ 72   Materials.................................................................................................................................................... 73   General  procedure............................................................................................................................... 74   Unstructured  conversation  about  literacy  and  reading .................................................. 76   Concurrent  think-­aloud  protocols................................................................................................ 77   Concurrent  think-­aloud  protocols  training............................................................................. 78   Semi-­structured  conversations...................................................................................................... 79   Data  Analyses  .................................................................................................................................................. 82   Analyses  of  written  interview  data  ........................................................................................... 82   Unit  of  analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 83   Code  development ................................................................................................................................. 83   Interrater  agreement  for  criteria  used  to  distinguish  ways  of  reading .................. 84   Frequency  counts................................................................................................................................... 85   Correlation  between  reading  MOs  and  level  of  reading  proficiency.......................... 85   Correlation  between  criteria  used  to  distinguish  reading  MOs  and  level  of   reading  proficiency .............................................................................................................................. 86   Analyses  of  case  study  data   ........................................................................................................... 86   Unit  of  analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 87   Code  development ................................................................................................................................. 88   Interrater  agreement.......................................................................................................................... 91   Separate  coding  of  enacted  reading  comprehension  strategies.................................. 91   Interrater  agreement.......................................................................................................................... 92   Corroborative  analyses..................................................................................................................... 92     CHAPTER  4:  Results   ........................................................................................................................................... 94   Section  1:  6th  Graders’  Knowledge  and  Use  of  Diverse  Reading  MOs............................. 94   Two  illustrative  repertoires  of  MOs .......................................................................................... 96   Correlation  between  MOs  reported  and  reading  proficiency  level......................... 98   Case  study  participants’  additional  MOs................................................................................. 99   Corroboration  of  previously  mentioned  MOs....................................................................101   Section  2:  6th  Graders’  Criteria  for  Distinguishing  Among  MOs......................................102   Correlation  between  number  of  criteria  reported  for  distinguishing  among   MOs  and  reading  proficiency  level...........................................................................................108   Detailed  analysis  of  case  study  participants’  criteria  for  distinguishing         among  MOs.............................................................................................................................................109   Section  3:  6th  Graders’  Criteria  for  Regulating  their  Use  of  MOs ....................................112   Ongoing  awareness  and  monitoring  of  MOs.......................................................................113   Influence  of  preferences  on  MO  regulation.........................................................................115   Influence  of  self-­efficacy  beliefs  about  proficiency  on  MO  regulation ................115   Influence  of  subject  matter  on  MO  regulation...................................................................116   Influence  of  reading  purpose  and  content  sometimes  trumps  the  influence             of  genre.....................................................................................................................................................118   Section  4:  Relationship  Between  Regulation  of  MOs  and  Regulation  of   Conventional  Reading  Comprehension  Strategies...................................................................120   viii   Relationship  between  MOs  and  conventional  reading  comprehension   strategies.................................................................................................................................................124   Section  5:  Additional  Findings  Pertinent  to  the  Psychological  Reality  of  6th   Graders’  MOs ..................................................................................................................................................127   Capacity  and  willingness  of  6th  graders  to  describe  and  discuss  their  MOs ...127   Genesis  of  6th  graders’  MOs...........................................................................................................127   Influence  of  formal  schooling  on  6th  graders’  MOs .........................................................128   6th  graders’  interest  in  inventing  new  MOs .........................................................................130     CHAPTER  5:  General  Discussion  ...............................................................................................................132   Psychological  Reality  of  MOs  for  Reading .....................................................................................133   Demarcating  what  can  count  as  a  MO.....................................................................................135   Readers’  criteria  for  distinguishing  among  MOs .............................................................138   The  MO  as  an  integrative  construct  greater  than  its  component  parts ..............141   MOs  as  a  dimension  of  readerly  agency  and  identity....................................................143   Relationship  of  MOs  to  Reading  Comprehension  Strategies ..............................................147   Possible  Implications  for  Educators.................................................................................................150   Leveraging  students’  MOs  to  advance  learning  of  school-­privileged             academic  MOs.......................................................................................................................................153   Homegrown  MOs  that  echo  academic  MOs............................................................................153   Leveraging  the  fact  of  MO  diversity  to  heighten  attention  to  detail ........................156   Increasing  metacognition  about  reading  and  creating  new  tools  for  self-­ regulation................................................................................................................................................157   Limitations   .....................................................................................................................................................158   Limitations  pertaining  to  self-­report  data...........................................................................158   Participants’  ability  to  verbalize  their  thoughts ................................................................158   Social  desirability  bias .....................................................................................................................159   Limitations  pertaining  to  specific  procedures  used ......................................................160   Limitations  pertaining  to  population  and  sampling......................................................162   Future  Directions  for  Research ...........................................................................................................163     CHAPTER  6:  Conclusion   .................................................................................................................................167   Contribution  to  the  Field  of  Reading  Research ..........................................................................170   The  MO  construct ...............................................................................................................................170   Procedure  and  instrument ...........................................................................................................172   New  perspective  on  adolescent  readers  and  what  they  know.................................173     APPENDICES  .........................................................................................................................................................177   Appendix  A:  Structured  Written  Interview  Instrument................................................................178   Appendix  B:  Research  Script  for  Written  Interviews   ....................................................................191   Appendix  C:  Texts  Referenced  And/Or  Read  During  Case  Study  Sessions ...........................195   Appendix  D:  Example  Semi-­‐Structured  Conversation  Question  Stems  .................................198   Appendix  E:  Codes  Developed  for  Case  Study  Data.........................................................................200   Appendix  F:  Reading  Comprehension  Strategy  Codes...................................................................204   Appendix  G:  Case  Study  Participants’  MOs .........................................................................................206   ix   Appendix  H:  Examples  Of  Reading  Comprehension  Strategies  In  Use  By  Case  Study   Participants.......................................................................................................................................................215     REFERENCES   ........................................................................................................................................................221     x   LIST  OF  TABLES     Table  1  Repertoire  of  MOs  Reported  by  Participant  17........................................................................... 96   Table  2  Repertoire  of  MOs  Reported  by  Participant  05........................................................................... 97   Table  3  Overview  of  Case  Study  Participants  and  MOs  Reported......................................................101   Table  4  Criteria  Referenced  by  Two  or  More  Participants  to  Distinguish  Among  MOs ............103   Table  5  Criteria  Referenced  by  Six  Case  Study  Participants  to  Distinguish  Among  MOs..........110   Table  6  Criteria  Referenced  by  Case  Study  Participants  In  Relation  To  Regulating  MOs  in   Their  Personal  Repertoire .................................................................................................................................113     Table  7  Conventional  Reading  Comprehension  Strategies  Enacted  At  Least  Once  by  Six     Case  Study  Participants......................................................................................................................................120   Table  8  Codes  Used  to  Analyze  Transcripts  of  Case  Study  Sessions ..................................................200   Table  9  Codes  Used  to  Analyze  Verbal  Protocols  of  Reading  to  Identify  Reading     Comprehension  Strategies  Applied  by  Case  Study  Participants .........................................................204   Table  10  Case  Study  Participant  Nick’s  MOs   ............................................................................................206   Table  11  Case  Study  Participant  Samantha’s  MOs..................................................................................207   Table  12  Case  Study  Participant  Cara’s  MOs.............................................................................................209   Table  13  Case  Study  Participant  Harry’s  MOs ..........................................................................................210   Table  14  Case  Study  Participant  Astrid’s  MOs ..........................................................................................212   Table  15  Case  Study  Participant  Chris’s  MOs ............................................................................................213   Table  16  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Activating  Background  Knowledge..................215   Table  17  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Attending  to  Text  Features  and/or     Structures ................................................................................................................................................................215   Table  18  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Generating  and  Asking  Questions .....................216   Table  19  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Making  Predictions.................................................216   xi   Table  20  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Visualizing..................................................................217   Table  21  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Paraphrasing ............................................................218   Table  22  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Summarizing.............................................................218   Table  23  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Inferring......................................................................219   Table  24  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Making  Connections  to  Self .................................219   Table  25  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Making  Connections  to  Texts..............................220   Table  26  Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Monitoring  Comprehension.................................220               xii   LIST  OF  FIGURES     Figure  1.  Reading  MOs  estimated  and  actually  described  by  participants  (n  =  30)     during  written  interviews.................................................................................................................................. 95     Figure  2.  Number  of  criteria  mentioned  by  written  interviews  participants  (n  =  30)  to   distinguish  among  their  MOs..........................................................................................................................108     Figure  3.  Structured  written  interview  instrument..............................................................................179         xiii   INTRODUCTION   Over  the  past  40  years,  reading  comprehension  research  has  shed  much  light  on  the   efficacy  of  a  range  of  reading  comprehension  strategies  (e.g.,  visualizing,  summarizing)  for   readers  of  all  ages  (Duke  &  Carlisle,  2011;  Pressley,  1998).  Whether  such  strategies  are   taught  separately  and  one  at  a  time,  or  instead  as  a  “package”  or  set  from  which  individual   strategies  are  then  to  be  selected  and  flexibly  applied  as  needed,  strategy-­‐focused   instruction  has  consistently  been  shown  to  improve  the  reading  comprehension  of  those   who  receive  it  (Dewitz,  Jones,  &  Leahy,  2009;  Duke  &  Carlisle,  2011).  However,  reading   comprehension  researchers  have  devoted  less  attention  to  investigating  the  underlying   source(s)  and  structure(s)  of  readers’  capacity  to  think  and  act  strategically,  and  how  it   happens  that  some  readers  become  adept  at  flexibly  adjusting  reading  strategies  to   optimize  their  comprehension  while  others  do  not.  One  effect  of  this  intensive  focus  on   reading  comprehension  strategies—in  contrast  to  a  more  limited  focus  on  the  regulation  of   such  strategies—is  the  consternation  of  reading  scholars  and  classroom  teachers  at  the   phenomenon  of  students  either  (a)  not  applying  strategies  they  appeared  to  have  learned   or  (b)  applying  strategies  in  a  rote  and  non-­‐strategic  manner  (e.g.,  DeWitz,  Jones,  &  Leahy,   2009;  Dole,  Brown,  &  Trathen,  1996;  Duffy,  2002;  Frost,  n.d.;  Hall,  2007;  Marcell,  DeCleene,   &  Juettner,  2010;  Palincsar  &  Schutz,  2011;  Paris,  Lipson,  &  Wixson,  1983).  It  appears  that   one  can  know  a  number  of  reading  comprehension  strategies,  and  even  apply  them,  and  yet   not  act  strategically.  The  seat  of  strategic  intelligence  and  decision-­‐making  apparently  lies   elsewhere.     This  dissertation  study  attempts  to  shed  light  on  where  this  “elsewhere”  might  be  by   investigating  the  hypothesis  that,  above  and  beyond  their  knowledge  of  reading   1   comprehension  strategies,  all  readers  possess  a  personal  repertoire  of  diverse  and  in  some   cases  idiosyncratic  modi  operandi  (MOs)  for  reading  that  constitute  their  preferred,  “go-­‐to”   ways  of  transacting  with  texts.  I  define  MOs  as  experientially  distinct,  subjectively  coherent   approaches  to  reading  that  typically  comprise  reading  strategies  but  also  comprise  other   elements  and  features,  including  (for  example)  culture-­‐  and  subculture-­‐specific  attitudes,   topic  knowledge,  epistemic  beliefs,  affective  investments,  experience  with  particular  types   of  social  interaction  around  texts,  and  familiarity  with  particular  text  formats  and  genres.   As  such,  MOs  are  historically,  culturally,  and  personally  situated—that  is  to  say,  they  are   shaped  by  readers’  particular  historical,  cultural,  and  personal  circumstances,  and  can   therefore  be  expected  to  vary  from  reader  to  reader  and,  as  well,  to  evolve  over  time.  Some   may  be  highly  idiosyncratic  and  possibly  unique  to  individual  readers;  others  may  be   common  to  subgroups  of  readers  or  may  be  more  widely  shared.  Finally,  with  regard  to  the   issue  of  strategic  regulation  of  reading  with  which  we  opened  this  introduction,  it  was   hypothesized  that  reading  MOs—if  they  exist—would  constitute  a  resource  and  starting   point  for  strategic  action  distinct  from,  and  superordinate  to,  readers’  knowledge  of   conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies.     The  background  and  basis  for  this  hypothesis  are  more  thoroughly  laid  out  in   subsequent  chapters  (in  particular,  the  Theoretical  Perspectives  and  Literature  Review   chapters).  Already  here,  though,  the  structure  and  logic  of  the  hypothesized  relationship   between  MOs  and  reading  comprehension  strategies  may  be  succinctly  stated.  If  readers   possess  MOs,  and  if  they  experience  reading  first  and  foremost  through  the  prism  of  the   particular  MOs  they  have  in  their  personal  repertoire,  then  it  stands  to  reason  that,  in  the   hierarchy  of  constructs,  schemas,  and  scripts  through  which  reading  is  regulated,  MOs  must   2   be  superordinate  to  the  reading  comprehension  strategies  they  contain.  MOs  motivate  and   regulate  the  application  of  strategies—not  the  other  way  around.  Indeed,  in  terms  of  the   distinction  between  strategies  and  tactics  much  relied  on  in  other  fields  (e.g.,  military   science,  business)  as  well  as  in  everyday  usage,  the  hypothesized  relationship  sketched   here  between  MOs  and  reading  comprehension  strategies  would  put  MOs  in  the  position   and  role  of  strategies,  and  reading  comprehension  strategies  in  the  position  and  role  of   subordinate  tactics.1   Would  this  new  perspective  on  the  status  and  role  of  reading  comprehension   strategies  as  subordinate  to  higher-­‐level  MOs—if  supported  by  empirical  evidence—not   conflict  with  the  aforementioned  robust  findings  about  the  benefit  to  readers  of  strategies-­‐ focused  instruction?  It  would  not.  On  the  contrary,  the  existence  of  reading  MOs—MOs  that   comprise  reading  comprehension  strategies  and  motivate  the  application  of  particular                                                                                                                   1  Tactics  and  strategies  are  construed  somewhat  differently  across  different  fields  and   domains.  However,  in  domains  as  varied  as  military  history  and  theory,  sports,  business,   game  theory,  and  theories  of  interpersonal  communication  and  conflict  resolution,  the   tactics-­‐strategies  distinction  is  an  important  one.  The  two  terms  are  dynamically  relational,   with  lower-­‐level  tactics  construed  as  subordinate  to,  and  controlled  by,  higher-­‐level   strategies.  The  relationship  is  dynamic  in  the  sense  that,  depending  on  the  unit  of  analysis   being  used,  one  and  the  same  action  or  factor  may  be  counted  now  as  tactical,  now  as   strategic.  For  example,  in  military  science,  a  platoon’s  action  of  destroying  civilian  homes   might  be  counted  as  tactical  or  as  strategic,  depending  on  whether  it  is  considered  in   relation  to  a  higher-­‐level  strategy  for  winning  the  war  (e.g.,  the  army’s  overarching  strategy   to  win  the  war  by  isolating  enemy  units  and  cutting  off  their  supply  routes)  or,  on  the  other   hand,  in  relation  to  the  platoon’s  soldier-­‐level  tactics  (e.g.,  soldiers’  use  of  camouflage  and   cover  to  avoid  detection).  For  a  platoon  in  the  field,  destroying  civilian  structures  could   serve  as  a  strategy  for  gaining  control  of  a  particular  sector  or  district.  In  relation  to  the   commanding  general’s  strategy  for  winning  the  war,  on  the  other  hand,  destroying  civilian   structures  is  just  one  tactic  among  others.  The  etymologies  of  the  two  terms  are  helpful  in   this  regard.  Tactics  derives  from  the  Greek  taktikos,  meaning  “fit  for  arranging  or  ordering.”   Strategy  derives  from  strategos,  the  Greek  word  for  “general,”  which  in  turn  combines  the   noun  stratos  (army)  and  the  verb  agein  (to  lead).     3   strategies  to  serve  particular,  personally  meaningful  goals—would  deepen  our   understanding  of  when  and  why  reading  comprehension  strategies  get  applied—or  fail  to   get  applied—by  particular  readers,  with  particular  texts,  in  particular  contexts.   Take  for  example  a  reader  who  knows  and  applies  a  preferred  MO  for  reading  to  lose   myself  in  vicarious  identification  with  a  character  in  a  novel,  or  a  reader  who  chooses  to   apply  her  MO  for  reading  to  deepen  my  understanding  of  an  argument  by  disputing  its  claims   as  I  read  and  then  checking  to  see  if  the  text  provides  answers  to  my  objections.2  These   readers  know  about  much  more  than  just  the  canonical  reading  strategies  (e.g.,  visualizing,   inferring,  asking  questions)  that  are  included  as  subordinate  components  in  their  MO;  they   know  about  some  or  all  of  the  following:  their  personal  purpose  and  reasons  for  applying   this  or  that  MO  at  the  present  time,  the  type  of  knowledge  and/or  affective  experience  they   are  aiming  for  and  expect  to  achieve,  their  self-­‐efficacy  beliefs  about  using  the  MO  they   selected,  and  their  past  history  of  using  it.  Their  knowledge  of  this  MO—and  of  other   MOs—in  their  personal  repertoire  thus  mediates  between  a  generic  purpose  or  goal  they   might  invoke  to  explain  why  they  picked  up  a  text  (e.g.,  to  be  entertained,  to  study  for  a  test)   and  their  application,  during  reading,  of  particular,  locally  targeted  reading  strategies   (again:  visualizing,  inferring,  asking  questions,  and  so  on).  The  generic  purpose,  by  itself,   does  not  provide  the  reader  with  a  sufficiently  detailed  and  personally  meaningful  plan  to   guide  her  in  the  myriad  of  moment-­‐by-­‐moment  choices  and  micro-­‐adjustments  she  will   need  to  make  as  she  transacts  with  the  text  in  front  of  her—in  much  the  same  way  that  a   generic  purpose  of  simply  “writing  a  story”  would  not  be  sufficient  to  guide  an  author’s                                                                                                                   2  These  examples  of  reading  MOs  are  excerpted  from  pilot  data  collected  in  May  2013.   4   moment-­‐by-­‐moment  choices  as  she  composed  a  narrative  text.  For  a  reader  to  proceed,  as   for  an  author  to  proceed,  knowledge  of  one  or  another  particular  MO  is  necessary.3     In  this  sense,  a  MO  may  be  likened  to  a  particular  style  of  cooking  in  a  particular   cuisine.  Ask  a  cook—be  he  a  professional  chef,  or  a  homemaker—what  he  is  about  as  he   enters  the  kitchen,  and  he  may  well  answer  that  he  intends  to  “make  dinner.”  But  what   happens  next—as  our  cook  chooses  ingredients  and  commences  preparing  them—will  not   be  guided  by  some  generic  script  for  “how  to  make  dinner.”  (Indeed,  the  idea  of  “making   dinner”  in  a  generic,  cuisine-­‐  and  culture-­‐neutral  manner  would  seem  to  be  at  best  a   convenient  short-­‐hand  temporarily  used  in  place  of  a  detailed,  culturally  inflected   description  of  a  particular  way  of  preparing  dinner;  at  worst,  when  defended  as  a  useful   abstraction,  sufficiently  detailed  to  stand  on  its  own,  the  idea  of  “just  making  dinner”  starts   to  look  a  lot  more  like  a  deliberate  effort  to  obscure  differences  and  make  believe  that  there   is  but  one  way—or  one  “true”  or  “best”  way—to  make  dinner.)  The  reality  is  that  our  cook   in  his  kitchen  will  necessarily  proceed  to  “make  dinner”  in  one  of  many  possible  ways,   based  on  the  sorts  of  cultural,  social,  and  material  constraints  and  affordances  discussed   earlier.                                                                                                                     3  In  the  field  of  writing  studies,  such  knowledge  is  of  course  referred  to  as  genre   knowledge,  and  it  is  generally  understood  that  composing  with  words  must  always   necessarily  happen  in  some  particular  genre  (e.g.,  Bawarshi  &  Reiff,  2010;  Devitt,  2004).   When  one  sits  down  to  write,  one  composes  in  a  particular  genre  (e.g.,  five-­‐paragraph   essay,  marginal  note,  inquiry  email),  and  over  time  one  learns  to  write  in  different  genres.   In  the  field  of  reading  comprehension  research,  by  contrast,  despite  attention  by  some   scholars  to  factors  that  can  influence  reading  processes  and  outcomes  (e.g.,  Duke  &   Roberts,  2010),  the  idea  of  a  general,  all-­‐purpose  reading  ability  is  still  dominant.  For   example,  few  studies  that  report  measurements  of  participants’  reading  ability  specify  the   reading  MO(s)  participants  used  or  acknowledge  the  possibility  of  participants  knowing   more  than  one  way  of  reading  (e.g.,  McKeown,  Beck,  &  Blake,  2009).  (Such   acknowledgement  would  of  course  greatly  complicate  claims  made  about  readers’  level  of   reading  proficiency,  measurements  of  growth  in  proficiency,  and  so  forth.)   5   And  so  it  is,  I  hypothesize,  with  reading.  Readers  may  be  instructed  to  just  “read  the   text”—and  readers  themselves  may  even  report  that  that  is  all  they  are  doing,  simply   “reading  the  text”—but  the  reality  is  that  reading,  like  cooking,  will  always  proceed  in  a   particular,  culturally  and  historically  inflected  way,  through  implementation  of  a  particular   MO.4  In  the  context  of  this  MO,  decisions  about  initiating  or  continuing  the  application  of  a   particular  reading  comprehension  strategy,  or  about  suspending  one  strategy  and  applying   another,  is  not  made  in  the  service  of  some  generic,  universally  applicable  standard  of   “achieving  maximum  comprehension”  or  imperative  to  “comprehend  everything”   (whatever  that  would  mean),  but  instead,  in  relation  to  the  individual  reader’s  personal   knowledge  of—and  preference  for—this  or  that  MO  and  the  particular  goals  and  moves   associated  with  that  MO.  When  applying  her  MO  for  reading  to  lose  myself  in  vicarious   identification  with  the  protagonist  of  a  novel,  for  example,  a  reader  may  do  a  great  deal  of   visualizing  and  also  inferring  of  other  characters’  unspoken  thoughts;  on  the  other  hand,   when  applying  to  the  same  novel  her  MO  for  reading  to  prepare  for  a  test  by  seeing  the  text   through  my  teacher’s  eyes  and  anticipating  what  he  will  ask  questions  about,  she  may  focus   on  noticing  the  setting  (because  setting  is  a  story  element  her  teacher  recently   emphasized)  and  synthesizing  ideas  about  the  novel’s  overarching  themes.   With  reading  MOs  in  the  picture,  reading  comprehension  strategies  remain  just  as   essential  as  ever.  What  is  changed  with  MOs  in  the  picture  is  our  framework  for  thinking   about—and  for  investigating—why  exactly  it  happens  that  particular  canonical  strategies   get  applied,  or  not,  or,  at  an  even  more  basic  level,  why  they  get  activated,  or  not,  in  the                                                                                                                   4  Here  and  later,  I  use  “historically  inflected”  to  refer  broadly  to  historical  circumstances   and  forces,  but  also  and  especially  to  the  individual  reader’s  unique  history  of  particular   experiences  with  texts  and  with  reading.   6   minds  of  particular  readers  in  particular  reading  situations.  Among  other  things,  a   framework  that  brings  MOs  into  the  picture,  and  that  conceives  of  MOs  as  superordinate  to   strategies,  readily  suggests  a  plausible  explanation  for  why  a  given  reader  might  fail  to   apply  a  strategy  (a)  that  he/she  has  been  taught  and  (b)  that  research  has  demonstrated  is   relevant  and  beneficial:  the  issue  may  be  that  this  strategy  is  not  yet  attached  to,  or   integrated  into,  any  of  the  reader’s  favored  MOs.  And  a  MO-­‐focused  model  of  reading   comprehension  clearly  would  predict  that,  until  such  integration  happens,  no  reading   comprehension  strategy—no  matter  how  useful  the  research  has  demonstrated  it  to  be,   and  no  matter  how  many  times  a  reader  has  practiced  applying  it  to  texts  in  a  classroom   setting  or  in  a  reading  researcher’s  lab—is  likely  to  be  taken  up,  “owned”  by  the  reader,  and   spontaneously  applied  in  the  future.   There  are,  of  course,  alternative  explanations  for  why  some  readers  fail  to  apply   strategies—or  fail  to  apply  them  flexibly.  One  explanation  focuses  on  the  fact  that  reading   is  a  cognitively  demanding  activity,  with  many  component  resources  and  processes  to   coordinate  (e.g.,  letter-­‐sound  knowledge,  vocabulary  knowledge,  genre  knowledge,   comprehension  monitoring)  (e.g.,  Adams,  1990).  However,  readers  are  endowed  with  only   very  limited  working  memory  capacity  with  which  to  handle  this  work  (Daneman  &   Merikle,  1996;  Miller,  1956).  Consequently,  readers  who  have  below-­‐average  working   memory  capacity,  or  who  do  not  make  optimal  use  of  the  working  memory  capacity  they   have,  are  more  likely  than  their  peers  to  fail  to  apply  a  known  reading  comprehension   strategy,  more  likely  to  struggle  to  learn  a  new  strategy,  and  more  likely  to  apply  known   strategies  in  a  rote-­‐like  manner,  instead  of  applying  them  flexibly  and  adaptively  (e.g.,   Bayliss,  Jarrold,  Baddeley,  &  Leigh,  2005).   7   Building  on  this  working  memory  capacity-­‐focused  perspective,  a  related   perspective  advances  the  explanation  that  successful  reading  moreover  requires  cognitive   flexibility—the  capacity  to  hold  more  than  one  idea  in  mind  at  once  and  to  efficiently  shift   attention  from  one  idea  to  another  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  some  goal  (e.g.,   considering  the  two  meanings  of  a  homonym,  or  the  differing  perspectives  of  two   characters).  This  capacity  is  thought  to  develop  to  some  extent  on  its  own,  without   instruction,  through  children’s  involvement  in  commonly  occurring  social  situations   (Davidson  et  al.,  2006;  De  Luca  et  al.,  2003).    At  the  same  time,  research  has  shown  that,   within  and  across  age  cohorts,  cognitive  flexibility  is  unevenly  distributed  (i.e.,  at  every  age   level,  some  learners  have  more  cognitive  flexibility  than  their  peers,  and  some  younger   learners  also  demonstrate  more  flexibility  than  older  learners)  (Cartwright,  Isaac,  &  Dandy,   2006;  Jacques  &  Zelazo,  2005).  Further,  research  has  shown  that  learners’  cognitive   flexibility  can  be  significantly  increased  through  relatively  straightforward  and  brief   instructional  interventions,  such  as  by  having  elementary-­‐age  students  practice  sorting  sets   of  word  cards  according  to  each  word’s  incipient  sound,  its  meaning,  and  both  incipient   sound  and  meaning  at  the  same  time  (Cartwright  et  al.,  2010)  or  by  learning  to  identify   homonyms  (e.g.,  Zipke,  2008).  Most  important,  from  the  vantage  of  our  interest  in  reading   comprehension,  is  the  finding  that  increasing  students’  cognitive  flexibility  also  results  in   improved  reading  comprehension  (Cartwright  et  al.,  2010;  Yuill,  2007;  Zipke,  Ehri,  &   Cairns,  2009).  In  other  words,  increasing  readers’  capacity  for  flexibility—quite  aside  from   teaching  them  new  strategies  for  constructing  meaning  from  texts—appears  to  allow  these   readers  to  do  a  better  job  of  comprehending  alphabetic  text.   8   And  yet,  while  both  these  perspectives  shed  light  on  factors  that  impact  readers’   performance,  neither  one  can  explain  why  more  proficient  readers  use  their—on  average— slightly  larger  working  memory  capacity  and  slightly  greater  cognitive  flexibility  in  the   particular  ways  they  do,  and  why  less  proficient  readers  use  their—on  average—smaller   working  memory  capacity  and  lower  level  of  flexibility  in  the  particular  ways  they  do.   Indeed,  in  the  absence  of  caveats  about  what  can  and  cannot  be  explained  by   measurements  of  working  memory  capacity  and  cognitive  flexibility,  both  perspectives  risk   promoting  the  view  that,  if  only  all  readers  had  the  same  working  memory  capacity  and  the   same  capacity  for  cognitive  flexibility,  and  if  only  they  all  made  equally  optimal  use  of  these   capacities,  all  readers  could  be  expected  to  read  in  much  the  same  way,  with  equal  reading   proficiency.  In  other  words,  both  perspectives—and  the  explanations  they  provide  of   individual  differences  between  readers—bracket  the  sorts  of  socio-­‐cultural  and  personal-­‐ historical  factors  discussed  in  preceding  paragraphs.    They  do  not  explicitly  rule  out  the   possible  role  and  importance  of  these  factors.  But  they  do  imply  that,  with  regard  to  both   (a)  understanding  why  readers  read  as  they  do  and  (b)  improving  the  comprehension   performance  of  some  or  all  readers  (in  particular  those  performing  below  average),  it  is   practically,  epistemologically,  and  ethically  possible  to  approach  reading  as  an   undifferentiated  and  socio-­‐culturally  neutral  construct.5     The  perpective  adopted  in  this  dissertation  study  is  different.  While  acknowledging                                                                                                                   5  Personal  communication  with  scholars  whose  published  work  brackets  consideration  of   socio-­‐cultural  and  personal-­‐historical  factors  (as  described  above)  leads  me  to  believe  that,   in  many  cases,  this  bracketing  does  not  reflect  a  conscious  intent  to  sideline  these  factors  or   minimize  their  importance.  My  contention  remains  that,  as  published,  much  rigorous  and   valuable  scholarship  in  effect  promotes  an  “autonomous”  (Street,  1984,  1995)  view  of   reading  as  a  unitary  construct  (see  Duke,  2005)  that  can  be  studied,  understood,  and  taught   without  at  all  times  taking  into  account  readers’  diverse  ways  of  reading.   9   the  importance  of  such  factors  as  working  memory  capacity  and  cognitive  flexibility   (among  many  other  isolable  factors)  in  shaping  reading  comprehension  outcomes,  this   study  is  centrally  interested  in  the  socio-­‐cultural  and  personal-­‐historical  sphere—and   specifically  in  the  possibility  that,  by  virtue  of  their  unique  histories  and  the  unique  mix  of   influences  to  which  they  have  been  exposed,  some  or  all  readers  acquire  distinctive  and   possibly  unique  ways  of  transacting  with  texts  (i.e.,  reading  MOs).  Such  MOs,  if  found  to   exist,  would  not  simply  take  their  place  alongside  working  memory  capacity  and  other   factors  in  a  lengthening  list  of  factors-­‐to-­‐consider  when  studying  or  teaching  reading   (RAND  Reading  Study  Group,  2002).  Insofar  as  reading  MOs  may  constitute  alternative   types  of  reading  activity,  each  potentially  with  its  own  purpose  (or  set  of  micro-­‐purposes),   its  own  standards  of  coherence,  and  its  own  personal  and  cultural  raison  d’être,  the   existence  of  MOs  might  entail—or  indeed  require—some  critical  reconsideration  of  basic   assumptions  about  what  it  means  to  be  a  proficient  reader  and  the  validity  of  measuring   proficiency  on  a  single  scale.  If  shown  to  exist,  the  reality  of  reading  MOs  would  entail— among  other  things,  and  at  the  very  least—footnoting  every  reading  comprehension   intervention  with  regard  to  the  particular  MO  or  MOs  the  intervention  is  designed  or   proven  to  instill  (in  acknowledgement  of  the  diversity  of  MOs  readers  know  and  use),  and   similar  footnoting  of  every  reading  comprehension  assessment  used  and  every  rating  or   score  used  to  designate  a  reader’s  level  of  proficiency  (again,  in  acknowledgment  that   reading  outcomes  and/or  processes  are  measured  in  relation  to  particular  MOs,  but  not  all   MOs  at  once).6                                                                                                                     6  The  idea  that  reading  is  not  a  unitary  construct  has  so  far  received  only  sporadic   attention  from  mainstream  reading  comprehension  researchers  and  scholars  (e.g.,  Duke,   10   To  investigate  key  elements  of  this  hypothesis  about  the  existence  and  psychological   reality  of  reading  MOs  and  their  relation  to  reading  comprehension  strategies  in  particular,   this  dissertation  study  used  a  mixed-­‐methods  design  combining  (a)  structured  written   interviews  with  (b)  follow-­‐up  case  studies  (Creswell  &  Clark,  2011;  Johnson  &   Onwuegbuzie,  2004).  The  case  studies  involved  unstructured  conversation;  semi-­‐ structured  probing  of  participants’  prior  statements  about  reading  and  their  thoughts   about  diverse  reading  scenarios;  and  multiple  opportunities  for  participants  to  think  aloud   while  actually  reading  a  diverse  assortment  of  texts,  some  provided  by  the  researcher,  and   others  by  participants  themselves.   Using  these  research  methods,  I  gathered  a  large  amount  of  self-­‐report  data  from  a   sample  of  normally  progressing  adolescent  readers  (i.e.,  adolescents  of  widely  varying   levels  of  reading  proficiency,  as  measured  by  standardized  tests;  all  enrolled  in  school;  and   all  making  normative  progress  through  the  grades  and  through  the  school  curriculum).   Once  sorted  and  analyzed,  these  self-­‐report  data  yielded  multidimensional  descriptions  of  a   number  of  reading  MOs  described  and  used  by  my  participants.  As  well,  these  data  yielded   relatively  robust  findings  about  the  mean  prevalence  and  diversity  of  MOs  both  within  and   across  readers.   Given  the  study’s  emphasis  on  the  reality  and  importance  of  a  hitherto  under-­‐ studied  aspect  of  readers’  subjective  experience,  it  made  sense,  from  a  methodological   vantage,  to  focus  heavily  on  readers’  self-­‐report  data—their  personal  and  subjective   reports  about  what  they  do,  how  they  do  it,  and  why  they  do  it,  when  they  read.  Indeed,   insofar  as  this  study  stemmed—in  part—from  a  perception  that  mainstream  reading                                                                                                                   2005).   11   comprehension  research  may  have  paid  insufficient  attention  to  readers’  subjective   experience  of  reading  and  the  diversity  of  such  experience,  an  important  goal  of  the  study   was  accomplished  by  bringing  evidence  of  such  experience  center-­‐stage  and  analyzing  it   systematically.   At  the  same  time,  being  mindful  of  the  field’s  justified  skepticism  toward  self-­‐report   data  considered  in  isolation,  the  study  incorporated  several  checks  on  the  reliability,   accuracy,  and  completeness  of  participants’  reports.  Questions  were  designed  to  ground   participants’  reports  about  their  unobservable  mental  states  and  actions  during  reading  in   specific,  factual  information  about  texts  read,  locations  where  reading  occurred,  and  the   general  context  and  purpose  for  reading.  Follow-­‐up  questions  were  designed  to  require   participants  to  explain  or  further  elaborate  their  observations  about  reading  and  about   themselves  as  readers  (or  to  demonstrate  their  inability  to  do  so),  such  as  by  explaining  on   what  basis  they  distinguished  between  two  different  ways  of  reading.    Finally,  participants’   think-­‐aloud  data—recorded  during  unrehearsed  reading  of  familiar  and  unfamiliar  texts— was  used  to  corroborate  earlier  self-­‐report  data,  as  well  as  to  discern  discrepancies   between  what  participants  said  they  knew  and  did  habitually,  and  what  they  actually  did   during  reading.     In  the  chapters  that  follow,  I  describe  the  methods  I  used  in  greater  detail,  and  I   present  and  discuss  the  findings  distilled  from  my  investigation.  Modest  as  it  is  in  its  scope,   and  limited  as  it  may  be  by  its  heavy  reliance  on  self-­‐report  data,  I  hope  this  study  will  shed   some  preliminary  light  on  the  psychological  reality  of  this  construct  I  am  calling  the  reading   MO—and  on  the  possible  role  of  readers’  MOs  in  mediating  and  regulating  their  reading   activities,  including  regulating  their  use  of  reading  comprehension  strategies. 12   CHAPTER 1   Theoretical  Framework   This  dissertation  study  is  informed  by  several  overlapping  theoretical  perspectives   that  include  the  following:  a  constructivist  perspective  on  the  genesis  of  meaning  during   reading  (e.g.,  Spiro,  1980);  a  reader  response  perspective  on  the  inevitability  of  diversity  in   readers’  interpretations  of  the  same  text  (e.g.,  Rosenblatt,  1978;  Tompkins,  1980);    a   complementary  post-­‐stucturalist  view  of  the  radically  open-­‐ended  nature  of  textuality  (e.g.,   Derrida,  1978);  a  view  of  how  readers  cyclically  acquire,  test,  and  discard  reading   strategies  based  on  Siegler’s  (1996)  “overlapping  waves  theory”;  and  a  critical   sociocultural  perspective  on  the  ways  in  which  readers’  reading  choices  and  behaviors  are   shaped  by  social,  culural,  and  ideological  forces  (e.g.,  Au,  1997;  Street,  2000).  Additionally,   motivation  and  context  for  this  study  are  provided  by  a  critical  theory  perspective  (e.g.,   Horkheimer,  1982)  on  the  ideological  underpinnings  and  effects  of  “objectivist”  (Heap,   1991)  mainstream  accounts  of  reading,  of  standardized  conceptions  and   operationalizations  of  what  it  means  to  be  a  “proficient  reader,”  and  of  K-­‐12  curriculum   and  instruction  based  on  these  conceptions  and  operationalizations.     In  combination,  these  perspectives  frame  reading  as  a  fundamentally  meaning-­‐ constructive  transaction  undertaken  by  historically  and  culturally  situated  readers  applying   diverse  historically  and  culturally  situated  reading  practices  and  assumptions  to  the  texts   they  encounter.    The  particular  reading  experiences  and  understandings  readers  achieve  in   this  manner  are  deemed  by  them  to  be  more  or  less  satisfying,  pertinent,  and/or  true  in   relation  to  standards,  traditions,  and  assumptions  that  are  themselves,  in  turn,  historically   and  culturally  situated  (though  readers  may  at  times  perceive  them  as  natural,  obvious,   13   necessary,  and/or  universal).  The  upshot  is  that,  when  two  readers  arrive  at  contrasting   experiences  and/or  understandings  of  the  same  text,  we  cannot  assume  that  both  readers   were  in  fact  striving  for  the  same  comprehension  outcome,  and  that  their  divergent   experiences  and  understandings  must  thus  be  due  to  inattention,  ineptitude,  or  accident  on   the  part  of  one  or  both.  Rather,  the  theoretical  perspectives  underpinning  this  dissertation   study  insist  we  consider  the  possibility  that  diverse  experiences  and/or  understandings   emerge  through  the  application  of  slightly  different  or  very  different  meaning-­‐constructive   reading  MOs—distinctive  ways  of  reading  that  have  their  situated  purposes  and  rationales,   their  unique  personal  and  cultural  histories,  and  their  different  ways  of  proving  their  worth   in  the  lives  of  those  who  use  them.  As  well,  it  follows  that,  when  pairs  of  contrasting   reading  experiences,  understandings,  and  MOs  are  juxtaposed,  the  superiority  of  one  or  the   other  is  not  a  foregone  conclusion.  Judgments  regarding  the  superiority  of  a  given  reading   experience,  understanding,  or  MO  can  of  course  be  made  (and  such  judgments  are  in  fact   routinely  made,  in  formal  and  informal  settings,  by  educators,  researchers,  and  readers   themselves)  but  only  from  within  the  inevitably  partisan  perspective  of  a  particular   framework  or  tradition.     Constructivist  Perspective   The  constuctivist  perspective  adopted  for  this  study  is  that,  in  their  pursuit  of   comprehension,  all  readers,  regardless  of  their  level  of  reading  proficiency,  actively   construct  whatever  experience(s)  and  meaning(s)  they  end  up  deriving  from  a  text   (Bartlett,  1932;  Bransford,  Barclay,  &  Franks,  1972;  Bransford  &  Johnson,  1972;  Goodman,   1965,  1967;  Rumelhart,  1977,  1980;  Rumelhart  &  Ortony,  1977;  Spivey,  1987).  What  the   text  provides  are  raw  materials  and  a  blueprint  (Spiro,  1980),  as  it  were,  that  constrain  and   14   guide  readers’  meaning-­‐constructive  efforts;  but  it  is  always  up  to  the  reader  to  activate   his/her  prior  knowledge,  make  inferences,  make  intra-­‐  and  inter-­‐textual  connections,  and   so  on.7     Before  this  view  of  meaning-­‐making  gained  widespread  acceptance,  the  prevailing   model  was  of  readers  doing  a  better  or  worse  job  of  accessing  the  already-­‐established   meaning  (singular)  contained  inside  a  text  like  a  nut  inside  its  shell.  In  this  older  model  a   text’s  meaning  was  conceived  as  something  already  crystallized,  finite  and  unchanging,   objectively  “there”  in  the  text,  and  the  reader  endeavored  to  receive  that  meaning  as   intactly  and  completely  as  possible.8  When  two  readers  came  away  with  different   understandings,  the  difference  was  seen  as  reflective  of  a  difference  in  their  reading   proficiency,  or  in  difficult  cases  as  a  matter  to  be  arbitrated  and  resolved  by  consulting  the   text.     Thanks  to  the  growing  influence  of  scholars  such  as  Bartlett  (1932),  Rosenblatt   (1969),  Bransford  (e.g.,  Bransford,  Barclay,  &  Franks,  1972),  and  Anderson  (1978),   however,  this  model  started  to  show  cracks.  Over  time,  more  and  more  reading  researchers   became  interested  in  so-­‐called  reader,  task,  and  context  factors  that  were  found  to                                                                                                                   7  This  is  of  course  not  to  say  that  all  readers  are  sufficiently  active  or  that  all  readers   succeed  in  constructing  meaning  as  they  read.  Hyperlexic  readers  (Grigorenko,  Klin,  &   Volkmar,  2003)  and  “word  callers”  (e.g.,  Dymock,  1993),  for  example,  may  demonstrate   proficiency  at  decoding  words  and  reading  with  a  high  level  of  fluency,  and  yet  may  not   construct  any  meaning(s)  (at  least  not  that  they  can  verbalize  or  recall).   8  While  widely  criticized,  this  “old  model”  of  meaning  and  reading  is  by  no  means  defunct.   Its  influence  has  proven  hard  to  shake,  not  least  because  so  many  of  our  familiar  locutions   for  talking  about  texts  and  reading  tacitly  assume  or  actively  invoke  the  meaning-­‐like-­‐a-­‐ nut-­‐in-­‐a-­‐shell  view  (e.g.,  “What  did  you  get  out  of  the  text?”).  Even  in  scholarly  writing  by   authors  who  explicitly  reject  the  “old  model,”  it  may  subtly  re-­‐assert  itself,  such  as  when   Duke  and  Martin  (2008)  critique  a  particular  text  as  being  “so  empty  of  meaning  there  is   really  little  to  nothing  [in  it]  for  students  to  comprehend”  (p.  247).     15   influence  significantly  the  experience  of  reading  and  motivate  the  particular  sorts  of   meaning-­‐making  activities  readers  engage  in.  Above  all,  a  consensus  started  to  form  that,  in   the  act  of  reading,  readers  are  never  simply  extracting  already-­‐articulated  meaning   (singular)  “in”  the  text;  instead,  they  are  actively  constructing  meanings  (plural)  through   the  application  of  specific  resources  including  background  knowledge,  a  particular  purpose   for  reading,  and  a  variety  of  reading  strategies.     Reader  Response  Perspective   The  reader  response  perspective  (e.g.,  Fish,  1980;  Iser,  1978,  1980;  Rosenblatt,   1978)  builds  on  the  constructivist  perspective  and  takes  it  a  step  further  insofar  as  it  offers   an  explanation  for  the  reality  of  readers  often  arriving  at  slightly  different  or  very  different   interpretations  of  the  same  text.  Whereas  once  such  differences  were  ascribed  to  reader   error  or  to  one  or  another  type  of  reader  deficiency  (e.g.,  lack  of  relevant  background   knowledge)—the  implication  being  that,  if  only  these  errors  and  deficiencies  could  be   remedied,  all  readers  would  glean  the  same  meaning—the  reader  response  perspective   theorizes  that  readers’  diverse  interpretations  are  due  to  the  particular  interpretive  grid,   lens,  or  stance  every  reader  inevitably  brings  to  bear  whenever  he/she  transacts  with  a   text.     This  foregrounding  of  the  idea  of  a  reader’s  stance  is  not  meant  to  imply  that  other   reader,  task,  and  context  factors  are  insignificant.  The  reader  response  perspective  does   not  discount  the  influence  of  vocabulary  knowledge,  background  knowledge,  task   parameters,  and  other  such  factors  in  shaping  what  readers  do.  Rather,  the  central  claim  of   the  reader  response  perspective  is  that,  over  and  above  these  factors,  readers  always  adopt   some  particular  stance  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  the  text  they  are  reading  (e.g.,  a  more  efferent-­‐leaning   16   stance  or  a  more  aesthetic-­‐leaning  stance  [Rosenblatt,  1969]),  and  the  stance  adopted  is   not  unilaterally  determined  by  any  single  one  of  the  aforementioned  factors  nor  by  any   combination  of  such  factors.  As  Rosenblatt  famously  illustrated  with  her  example  of   reading  a  newspaper  weather  forecast  first  to  glean  immediately  actionable  information   and  then  as  though  the  forecast  were  a  poem  (attending  to  the  “sounds  and  associations”  of   the  forecast’s  words  [1969,  p.40]),  any  number  of  stances  can  in  principle  be  adopted  by   the  reader.   In  terms  of  explaining  why  readers  in  fact  adopt  one  stance  instead  of  another,  the   reader  response  perspective  theorizes  that  readers  learn  to  read—and  then  acquire  new   stances  and  ways  of  reading—through  membership  in  one  or  more  “interpretive   communities”  (Fish,  1980).  Members  of  a  particular  interpretive  community  or  sub-­‐ community  (e.g.,  university  literature  professors  who  self-­‐identify  as  Marxist  scholars)   share  a  set  of  cultural  assumptions  and  interpretive  conventions  (e.g.,  tacit  or  explicit  rules   about  what  interpretive  “moves”  are  allowed,  worth  making,  and  so  on).  When  reading  a   given  text,  then,  readers  orchestrate  and  subequently  evaluate  their  performance  not  in   relation  to  some  universal  and  universally  valid  rulebook  of  interpretation  or  touchstone  of   meaning,  but  rather  in  relation  to  the  standards  and  precedents  of  their  particular   interpretive  community.  (As  we  will  see  in  a  moment,  this  perspective  overlaps  strongly   with  the  critical  sociocultural  perspective  and  its  account  of  the  origins  and  epistemic   status  of  inter-­‐reader  differences.)       Post-­Structuralist  Perspective  on  Textuality     The  constructivist  and  reader  response  perspectives  focus  attention  on  the  reader’s   decisive  contribution  to  the  “reading  events”  in  which  he/she  is  seen  as  having  agency  and   17   indeed  as  playing  the  leading  role.  They  have  less  to  say  (at  a  theoretical  level)  about  the   ontological  status  of  the  texts  being  read  and  about  aspects  or  dimensions  of  these  texts— or  of  textuality  as  such—that  may  also  contribute  decisively  to  the  diversity  of  reading   outcomes.     The  post-­‐structuralist  perspective  on  textuality  supplements  the  constructivist  and   reader  response  perspectives  on  this  front  by  providing  a  radical  critique  of  the  still  widely   held  view  of  texts  as  autonomous,  discrete,  stable,  and  in  theory  (if  not  in  practice,  given   the  frailties  of  mortal  readers)  fully  knowable  objects  of  study.  Against  this  view,  the  post-­‐ structuralist  perspective  on  the  nature  of  textuality  argues  that  texts,  by  their  very  nature   as  texts,  preclude  the  possibility  of  a  single  correct  or  comprehensive  interpretation  or   understanding  of  their  meaning  (e.g.,  Barthes,  1967;  Derrida,  1973,  1978).   A  first  reason  for  this,  somewhat  simplistically  put,  is  that  texts  are  made  of   linguistic  signifiers  that  belong  to  larger  nested  and/or  overlapping  systems  of  signifiers   (e.g.,  the  alphabet,  English  language  words,  known  genres  of  writing,  published   advertisements,  presidential  speeches)  in  which  each  signifier  means  what  it  does  at  least   as  much  by  invoking,  or  alluding  to,  what  it  is  not  saying  as  by  virtue  of  what  it  is  saying.  In   other  words,  whether  we  are  talking  about  a  letter  of  the  alphabet  (a  as  opposed  to  c),  a   noun  designating  a  particular  way  of  walking  (e.g.,  strolling  versus  striding),  everyday   expressions  of  greeting  (e.g.,  “How  are  you  doing?”  versus  “What’s  up?”),  or  the  text  of  a   poem  or  a  TV  commercial,  each  signifier  gains  its  meaning(s)  by  dint  of  the  contrasts  and   distinctions  that  simultaneously  connect  it  to,  and  separate  it  from,  other  signifiers  in  a   constellation  of  signifiers.  Thus,  letters  of  the  alphabet  and  the  speech  sounds  with  which   they  are  associated  function  linguistically  by  belonging  recognizably  to  a  family  of  letters   18   and  sounds  (e.g.,  a  letter  “s”  in  a  handwritten  note  must  resemble  other  letters  in  the  note   at  least  enough  to  signal  that  it  is  not  a  random  doodle  or  a  drawing  of  a  snake)  and  at  the   same  time  contrasting  with  other  letters  and  speech  sounds  (e.g.,  our  handwritten  “s”  must   not  resemble  a  letter  “c”  too  much).  Similarly,  one  style  of  greeting  an  acquaintance  carries   the  meaning(s)  it  does  not  because  it  quintessentially  embodies  a  particular  quality  (e.g.,   gruffness,  kindness)  in  any  absolute  sense  but  rather  because,  within  a  system  of  possible   ways  to  greet  acquaintances,  it  contrasts  with  other  greetings  as  being  slightly  more  or  less   brusque,  slightly  more  or  less  formal.  And  one  TV  ad  for  coffee  generates  the  meanings  it   does  (e.g.,  for  being  risqué,  or  playful,  or  modern)  by  virtue  of  the  constrasts  it  evokes  with   other  coffee  ads.  In  this  way,  every  signifier  undeniably  signifies  (the  post-­‐structuralist   claim  is  clearly  not  that  signifiers  fail  to  signify  or  that  they  can  signify  anything  a  reader   wants  them  to),  yet  every  signifier  does  so  by  referring  the  reader  to  other  related   signifiers/texts  which  it  resembles  to  some  extent,  and  to  which  it  alludes,  even  as  it  differs   from  them.  A  given  text’s  meaning  is  thus  never  neatly  contained  “in”  itself;  rather,  meaning   accrues  as  readers  mentally  travel  the  pathways  linking  signifier  to  signifier,  text  to  text.   Actual  flesh-­‐and-­‐blood  readers  may  tire  of  this  travel  in  pursuit  of  meaning  and  settle  for   whatever  meaning(s)  they  have  constructed  so  far.  But  this  is  an  arbitrary  decision,  and  the   reality  of  the  text  is  that  there  are  always  further  pathways  and  linkages  of  meaning  to   pursue  and  to  try  to  comprehend.   Bakhtin’s  (1981)  notions  of  dialogicity  and  heteroglossia  develop  similar  claims   though  with  greater  emphasis  on  the  ideas  of  voice  and  discourse.  In  brief,  dialogicity  and   heteroglossia  suggest  that  utterances  are  never  sui  generis  and  never  come  into  the  world   ex  nihilo.  Utterances  necessarily  use  words  and  locutions  that  have  been  used  before,  in   19   identical  or  similar  form,  and  these  more-­‐or-­‐less  explicitly  borrowed  words  and  locutions   bring  with  them  their  histories  of  past  use  in  other  utterances  and  texts.  My   comprehension  of  the  words  I  speak  today  is  therefore  incomplete—possibly  even   incoherent—to  the  extent  that  I  try  to  shut  out  from  consideration  the  sources,  voices,   traditions,  and  perspectives  that  are  woven  into  these  words  and  into  the  conventions  and   genres  I  enact  as  I  use  them.  No  utterance  or  text  can  thus  be  univocal;  even  when  authored   by  a  single  hand,  utterances  are  always  permeated  by  other  voices.  Which  is  of  course  not   to  say  that  all  voices  have  equal  standing  or  are  guaranteed  to  be  equally  heard.  The   Bakhtinian  notions  of  dialogicity  and  heteroglossia  are  supplemented  by  recognition  of   possible  tensions  or  outright  contradictions  among  voices,  which  may  not  be  resolvable.   Authors  and  readers  are  thus  enmeshed—whether  they  like  it  or  not—in  sense-­‐making   work  that  involves  shuttling  among  and  negotiating  among  voices,  viewpoints,  and   traditions.  (A  reader  may  of  course  always  refuse  or  ignore  this  work  of  negotiating  among   voices,  viewpoints,  and  traditions—though  this  refusal  does  not  give  the  refuser  any   greater  degree  of  control  over  the  meaning  of  the  texts  and  text  fragments  he/she   traverses,  quotes,  remixes,  and  so  forth.)     The  post-­‐structuralist  view  is  thus  that  texts  are  always  open-­‐ended  and   multivoiced,  and  that  positivist  attempts  to  draw  hard  boundary  lines  around  texts,  and  to   pin  down  once  and  for  all  what  a  given  text  does  or  does  not  “contain,”  fundamentally   misrepresent  the  nature  of  textuality.  Textual  meaning  is  never  given  “in”  individual   signifiers  or  even  within  the  four  corners  of  the  text.  Textual  meaning  is  constituted   through  the  relational  interplay  of  signifiers  as  these  mark  their  differences  from  other   signifiers  (Derrida,  1973)  and  through  the  more  or  less  playful,  more  or  less  agonistic   20   dialogue  of  the  multiple  voices  texts  interweave  (Bakhtin,  1981;  Hartman,  2004).    And   meaning  is  never  complete  and  fully  achieved.  This  is  the  reality  readers  must  face  into   (according  to  the  post-­‐structuralist  view  of  textuality),  and  readers’  particular  beliefs  and   choices  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  this  reality  thus  become  features  of  their  preferred  MOs.   Critical  Sociocultural  Perspective   The  sociocultural  perspective  on  reading  focuses  on  the  web  of  causal  connections   that  exist  between  readers’  unique  social  and  cultural  backgrounds  and  living   circumstances,  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other,  such  things  as  their  beliefs  and   assumptions  about  literacy,  their  literacy  habits  and  practices,  and  the  relative  status  and   worth  of  these  practices  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  the  status  and  worth  of  other  people’s  practices.  With   regard  to  reading,  specifically,  the  sociocultural  view  is  that  readers  develop  unique   culturally  inflected  ways  of  reading  and  responding  to  texts  as  they  are  apprenticed—in   their  particular  family,  community,  workplace,  etc.—into  a  set  of  distinctive  social  practices   around  texts  (Au,  1997;  Brandt,  2001;  Lave,  1988;  Lave  &  Wenger,  1991;  Rogoff,  1990;   Vygotsky,  1978).     The  central  claim  is  that  the  sociocultural  dimension  of  these  text-­‐focused  and  para-­‐ textual  practices  is  always  of  paramount  importance.  Even  when  conducted  in  physical   isolation,  reading  in  this  view  is  fundamentally  a  social  process,  a  matter  of  intending  and   doing  things  with  words  in  communication  and  interaction  with  social  others.  Component   cognitive  processes  are  important,  of  course,  but  these  processes  coalesce  and  become  the   tools  they  are  only  after  being  molded  in  the  social  sphere.  Certainly,  reading  cannot  be   learned  in  any  way  other  than  through  interpersonal  interaction:  “Every  function  in  the   child's  cultural  development  appears  twice:  first,  on  the  social  level,  and  later,  on  the   21   individual  level;  the  first,  between  people  (interpsychological),  and  then  inside  the  child   (intrapsychological)”  (Vygotsky,  1978,  p.  57,  emphasis  in  original).   The  “critical”  dimension  of  the  sociocultural  perspective  on  reading  (and  on  literacy   more  generally)  arises  from  this  perspective’s  interest  in  the  dynamics  of  relations  among   divergent  practices  and,  especially,  in  what  happens  when  divergent  practices  come  into   tension  or  outright  conflict.  The  historical  record  indicates  that  when  alternative  practices   bump  up  against  each  other,  tolerant  acceptance  and  peaceful  coexistence  are  not  the  usual   outcome.  Abstracting  from  particular  historical  examples,  Street  (2001)  and  others  argue   that,  in  society,  literacy  ‘‘is  always  contested,  both  its  meaning  and  its  practices,  hence   particular  versions  of  it  are  always  ‘ideological,’  they  are  always  rooted  in  a  particular   world-­‐view  and  desire  for  that  view  of  literacy  to  dominate  and  to  marginalize  others’’  (pp.   7–8).     The  critical  point  worth  underscoring  here  is  not  that,  in  the  hands  of  flawed  human   beings,  literacy  can  at  times  become  a  tool  of  aggression  and  domination.  Rather  the  claim   here  is  that  there  is  contestation  built  into  the  very  nature  of  literacy  itself  as  a  web  of   social  practices  and  processes  that  inherently  involve  other  people  and  thus  inevitably  act   on  them  in  one  way  or  another  (e.g.,  to  their  advantage  or  disadvantage,  with  their  consent   or  without  it,  giving  equal  weight  to  their  voice  or  not),  regardless  of  whether  such  effects   are  consciously  intended  or  not.   “Overlapping  Waves  Theory”  Perspective  on  Strategic  Change   Siegler’s  (1996)  “overlapping  waves  theory”  complements  the  other  perspectives   presented  here  by  providing  a  developmental  cognitive  framework  for  understanding   strategic  diversity  and  strategic  change  over  time.  Specifically,  Siegler’s  theory  describes  a   22   cylical  and  recursive  process  of  strategy  acquisition,  testing,  and  winnowing  that  human   problem-­‐solvers  embark  on  at  a  very  young  age  (Siegler  suggests  the  process  begins  in   infancy)  and  that  they  continue  working  through  in  one  form  or  another  as  long  as  they   continue  to  learn  and  develop  (i.e.,  potentially  throughout  their  lifespan).     One  especially  interesting  aspect  of  Siegler’s  model  for  our  purposes  (given  our   focus  on  readers’  acquisition  and  use  of  multiple  reading  MOs)  is  its  explicit  theorization  of   reasons  for  problem-­‐solvers  to  possess  two  or  more  strategies  for  tackling  problems  of  the   same  class.  At  an  empirical  level,  Siegler  and  his  colleagues  (e.g.,  Siegler  &  Svetina,  2006)   have  found  that  this  is  the  case:  across  a  wide  range  of  domains,  learners  typically  possess   and  use  several  alternative  strategies.  With  regard  to  math  problems,  for  instance,  Siegler   has  found  that  children  typically  possess  several  alternative  strategies  for  solving  a  single   type  of  problem,  such  as  addition  problems  involving  two-­‐digit  numbers.  Moreover,  in   observations  of  large  numbers  of  consecutive  problem-­‐solving  trials,  Siegler  consistently   observed  that  children  applied  different  strategies  across  consecutive  trials  and  that  they   often  persisted  in  using  a  variety  of  strategies  even  when  one  strategy  appeared  to  the   researcher  to  have  objectively  proven  itself  more  efficient  or  reliable  than  the  others.  To   account  for  this  behavior  at  the  level  of  theory,  Siegler  develops  an  explanation  that  draws   on  concepts  from  evolutionary  theory:  problem  solvers  acquire  two  or  more  competing   strategies  in  the  manner  of  a  species  generating  offspring  with  diverse  mutations.  These   strategic  mutations  subsequently  strive  to  prove  their  viability—and  continue  trying  to  do   so,  even  in  the  face  of  competition  from  other  objectively  superior  strategies,  resulting  in  a   situation  of  strategic  diversity  and  eclecticism.  Over  time,  Siegler  points  out,  some   strategies  will  typically  be  abandoned  and  extinguished—though  the  timing  of  this   23   winnowing  process  may  vary  significantly  from  problem  solver  to  problem  solver  and  may   be  influenced  by  individual  dispositions  and  by  wider  cultural  factors  such  as  standards  of   “perfectionism”  (1988).  Interestingly,  Siegler  also  theorizes  an  overall,  long-­‐term   evolutionary  advantage  for  strategic  diversity.  The  evidence  suggests  that,  in  general,  the   amount  of  initial  strategic  variability  in  problem-­‐solvers’  repertoires  tends  to  be  predictive   of  subsequent  learning,  with  greater  initial  variability  correlating  with  superior  later   learning.  Siegler  concludes  that  this,  too,  is  consistent  with  what  evolutionary  theory  would   predict:  the  greater  the  diversity  in  a  learner’s  repertoire  of  strategies,  the  greater  the   likelihood  that  later  on,  when  faced  with  novel  problem-­‐solving  tasks,  or  when  faced  with   changed  requirements  and/or  standards  for  a  familiar  task,  this  learner  will  thrive.   With  regard  to  this  dissertation  study,  Siegler’s  “overlapping  waves  theory”  thus   provides  a  useful  perspective  on  readers’  acquisition  of  multiple  MOs  for  reading,  starting   at  a  young  age  and  then  evolving  over  time.  In  particular,  Siegler’s  theory  offers  a   compelling  answer  to  the  skeptic’s  objection  that,  for  a  task  such  as  reading,  a  single  MO   should  suffice,  or  that  readers  under  normal  conditions  should  “naturally”  tend  to  prefer  a   single  MO  to  the  logistical  burden  and  possible  confusion  of  multiple  MOs.  From  a  cognitive   developmental  perspective,  Siegler’s  theory  suggests  that,  if  anything,  diversity  and   multiplicity  are  the  “natural”  state  of  affairs,  that  strategic  diversity  is  a  feature  of  our   earliest  learning  experiences  as  well  as  later  ones,  and  that  if  diversity  is  eventually   curtailed,  it  is  only  because  of  sustained  external  pressures  or  demands  (e.g.,  the  demand  to   perform  “efficiently”  according  to  some  externally  imposed  standard).     Critical  Theory  Perspective     Finally,  context  and  motivation  for  this  dissertation  study  are  also  drawn  from  a   24   critical  theory  perspective  on  the  inescapably  ideological  nature  of  literacy.  Broadly  put,  a   critical  theory  perspective  is  focused  on  discerning  and  critiquing  the  ideological  structures   that  produce  and  sustain  authoritarian  or  repressive  relations  and  conditions  in  human   society  (e.g.,  Horkheimer,  1982).  As  such,  critical  theory  has  a  broadly  emancipatory   agenda—an  agenda  that  idealistically  aims  to  expand  the  scope  of  human  freedom  and   reduce  the  scope  of  domination—that  is  pursued  through  critique  of  the  status  quo  and  in   particular  of  beliefs,  assumptions,  and  knowledge  structures  that  can  be  shown  to  limit   human  freedom  or  human  potential  in  some  way.   With  regard  to  literacy,  the  critical  theory  perspective  takes  an  interest  in  such   things  as  the  ways  in  which  prevailing  understandings  of  literacy  are  infused  with   normative  values  and  attitudes  such  that  these  understandings  have  the  effect  (even  if   unintended)  of  perpetuating  existing  patterns  of  oppression,  exclusion,  or  marginalization.   Specifically,  the  critical  theory  perspective  on  literacy  (e.g.,  Barton  &  Hamilton,  2000;   Street,  1984,  1995;  Stuckey,  1991)  takes  an  interest  in  the  source(s)  and  tacit  commitments   of  accepted  definitions  of  literacy,  the  effects  and  deeper  implications  of  designating  some   forms  of  literacy  as  “standard”  or  “mainstream”  or  “normal,”  the  effects  and  deeper   implications  of  decisions  that  schools  and  teachers  make  to  read  particular  texts  (to  the   exclusion  of  others)  and  to  recognize  and  reward  particular  forms  of  proficiency  in  reading   and  writing  (to  the  exclusion  of  others),  and  the  role  of  literacy  research  in  supporting  or   discouraging  scholarly  and  popular  debate  around  these  issues  (e.g.,  Compton-­‐Lilly,  2007;   Norton-­‐Meier,  2005;  White,  2009).     A  critical  theory  perspective  informed  and  motivated  this  dissertation  study’s   interest  in  ascertaining  whether  it  is  the  case  (as  I  hypothesize)  that  readers  who  do  not   25   deploy  garden-­‐variety  reading  comprehension  strategies  in  the  ways  teachers  and   researchers  recommend,  and  whose  approach  to  reading  may  consequently  be  categorized   as  a-­‐strategic,  pre-­‐strategic,  or  dys-­‐strategic,  are  nonetheless  in  fact  generally  (a)  in   possession  of  procedural  knowledge  about  diverse  reading  MOs  (possibly  multiple  MOs)   and  (b)  routinely  making  executive  decisions  about  which  of  their  reading  MOs  to  use  in   particular  reading  situations.  If  this  turns  out  to  be  the  case,  the  mainstream  reading   comprehension  research  community  may  see  fit  to  acknowledge  that,  whereas  reading   comprehension  strategies  constitute  one  important  aspect  of  readers’  goal-­‐directed  activity   during  reading,  strategic  activity  and  intelligence  may  also  be  found  elsewhere—namely,  at   the  level  of  readers’  MOs.9     Triangulating  Theoretical  Perspectives     When  these  several  theoretical  perspectives  are  triangulated  with  each  other,  they   provide  a  multifaceted  account  of  what  happens—of  the  various  factors  that  come  into   play—whenever  a  reader  encounters  a  text  and  starts  to  read.  Whether  she  is  aware  of  it  or   not  (i.e.,  whether  she  thinks  of  reading  through  the  prism  of  a  metaphor  of  construction  and   consciously  attends  to  the  mental  processes  involved  in  making  meaning,  or  whether  she   instead  thinks  of  reading  through  the  prism  of  a  metaphor  of  extraction  or  transmission  and   imagines  her  mind  simply  receiving  meaning,  intact,  from  the  text  in  front  of  her),  the                                                                                                                   9  If  there  is  compelling  evidence  of  reading  MOs  existing  alongside  garden-­‐variety  reading   comprehension  strategies,  the  critical  theory  perspective  may  be  helpful  in  guiding  inquiry   into  (a)  ideological  factors  that  may  have  contributed  to  the  overlooking  of  MOs  (or   perhaps  to  lack  of  interest  in  investigating  them  when  they  were  detected),  and  (b)  the   unspoken  rationale  for  restricting  discussion  and  teaching  of  strategic  action  (and  of  what   it  means  to  be  strategic  with  regard  to  reading)  to  a  relatively  short  list  of  conventional   reading  strategies  (locally  targeted  tactics,  in  fact),  instead  of  researching  and  teaching   strategic  action  in  relation  to  the  diverse  overarching  strategies  (i.e.,  “true”  strategies)   readers  may  have  for  reading  in  particular  ways  at  particular  times.   26   meaning  a  reader  gleans  from  a  text  is  always  constructed  by  her.  Further,  whatever   meaning  she  ends  up  constructing  is  a  particular  time-­‐dependent,  always  partial,  always   still-­‐in-­‐progress  take  on  the  meaning  of  the  text.  In  other  words,  a  reader’s  meaning-­‐ constructive  efforts  are  always  of  a  particular  kind,  following  one  possible  procedure   instead  of  another,  based  on  one  set  of  assumptions  or  beliefs  instead  of  another,   embodying  one  particular  reading  style  or  stance  instead  of  another,  and  so  on.  Further,   these  characteristic  features  do  not  come  about  randomly.  They  are  socially,  culturally,  and   historically  situated,  shaped  by  period-­‐specific  socio-­‐cultural  forces  of  which  readers  may   or  may  not  be  cognizant  but  that  certainly  give  their  meaning-­‐constructive  efforts  a  shape,   rationale,  and  feel  that  are  different  from  those  of  the  efforts  made  by  some,  many,  or  all   other  readers  at  that  time  and  in  the  past.  At  the  same  time,  this  socio-­‐cultural  shaping  of   readers  is  neither  unilateral,  nor  absolute,  nor  final.  Given  the  open-­‐endedness  of  texts,  the   always  partial  and  open-­‐ended  nature  of  reading  activity,  and  the  changing  circumstances   of  human  readers,  reading  may  take  unpredictable  twists  and  turns.  Efforts  after   meaning—and  the  MOs  in  which  these  efforts  coalesce  and  achieve  some  kind  of   recognizable  shape—are  likely  to  evolve  over  time.  Some  MOs  may  be  short  lived;  a   reader’s  material  and  social  environment  may  not  favor  their  survival.  Other  MOs  may  be   used  continually,  with  only  minor  adjustments,  for  years.         27   CHAPTER  2     Review  Of  Literature   There  is  no  body  of  empirical  research  focused  on  reading  MOs  as  such.  That  said,   there  are  multiple  strands  of  research  across  a  number  of  areas  and  topics  that  are  relevant   to  the  idea  of  reading  MOs.  These  lines  of  research  include  the  following:  socioculturally   and  sociocognitively  focused  studies  of  the  diverse  ways  in  which  readers  of  different   genders  and  different  cultural  backgrounds  are  socialized  to  read  the  texts  that  are  part  of   their  lives;  survey  studies  of  readers’  capacity  to  distinguish  among  diverse  purposes  for   reading  and,  relatedly,  of  within-­‐reader  variance  in  motivation  to  read  in  relation  to   different  perceived  purposes  (e.g.,  reading  for  entertainment  vs.  reading  for  utility);   observational  and  quasi-­‐experimental  studies  of  the  influence  of  readers’  purpose(s)  for   reading  on  reading  processes  and  outcomes;  genre-­‐focused  studies  of  readers’   differentiated  development  of  reading  comprehension  skills  and  reading  processes;  studies   of  emergent  readers’  exposure  to  differentiated  styles  of  reading;  and  studies  of  the   disciplinary  literacy  practices  and  reading  “routines”  of  experts  and  more-­‐or-­‐less  advanced   initiates  in  a  variety  of  domains.  With  regard  to  the  methods  of  this  study,  it  is  also  relevant   to  review  studies  indicating  that  elementary-­‐age  children  have  the  metacognitive  capacity   and  expressive  language  capabilities  needed  to  report  on  what  they  know  about  reading   and  about  how  they  themselves  read.   Socioculturally  Focused  Studies   Socioculturally  focused  empirical  studies  of  reading  generally  take  as  their  object  of   study  what  Scribner  and  Cole  (1981),  Gee  (1990),  Street  (1995),  and  others  characterize  as   reading  “practices.”  As  described  in  these  studies  (e.g.,  Barton  &  Hamilton,  1998;  Heath,   28   1983;  Moje,  2000),  “practices”  are  akin  to  what  I  have  been  calling  reading  MOs,  with  the   difference  that  “practices”  tend  to  be  described  in  terms  of  interpersonal  and  more  broadly   social  functions,  cultural  beliefs,  and  traditions,  and  not  in  terms  of  component  reading   strategies  and  cognitive  processes  (Barton  &  Hamilton,  2000;  Street,  1995).  Gee  (1990)   makes  this  difference  clear  when  he  contrasts  situated  identity-­‐constructive  “practices”   with  disembodied  technical  “procedures.”  Further,  as  theorized  and  documented  by   socioculturally  oriented  researchers,  “practices”  are  generally  not  as  finely  differentiated   and  therefore  as  numerous  as  I  hypothesize  reading  MOs  to  be.  In  socioculturally  focused   studies,  readers’  home  practices  may  thus  be  broadly  contrasted  with  their  school  or  work   practices  (e.g.,  Barton  &  Hamilton,  2000;  Burnett  &  Myers,  2002;  Dickie  &  McDonald,  2011;   Knobel  &  Lankshear,  2003;  Moje,  2000).  But  these  studies  do  not  generally  drill  down   further  to  describe  an  array  of  distinct  home  practices  and  an  array  of  distinct  school   practices  that  readers  use—and  choose  among—to  engage  with  texts  of  different  types  and   for  varying  purposes.     An  example  of  a  study  focused  on  a  single  reading  practice  is  one  by  Radway  (1991)   of  the  women  of  Smithton  and  their  transactions  with  romance  novels.  The  women  of   Smithton  were  middle  class  married  homemakers,  and  Radway  investigated  the  material,   social,  and  psychological  dimensions  of  their  reading,  drawing  primarily  on  individual  and   focus-­‐group  interview  data.  What  she  found  was  that  the  Smithton  women  read  in  very   deliberate  and  strategic  ways,  in  particular  locations  and  at  particular  times  of  day,  to   achieve  a  specific  kind  of  emotional  affirmation  and  pleasure.  They  sought  “escape  into  [an]   imaginary  realm”  (p.  192)  where  they  could  enjoy  a  momentary  respite  from  the  draining   physical  and  emotional  labor  of  their  roles  as  wives  and  mothers—constantly  attending  to   29   the  needs  of  others—and  where  they  could  vicariously  enjoy  intimacy  with  a  desirable   significant  other  who  was  wholly  focused  on  them  and  on  satisfying  their  needs.     Beyond  describing  this  fantasy  dynamic  in  general  terms,  Radway  explored  how   exactly  it  played  out  in  the  act  of  reading.  For  example,  she  noted  the  importance  of   maintaining  an  illusion  of  effortless  reading  and  of  the  text  as  a  transparent  window  onto   another  world  (i.e.,  as  not  requiring  any  effort  of  interpretation).  Had  the  Smithton  women   experienced  the  reading  of  their  romance  novels  as  an  effortful  activity—yet  another   activity  requiring  them  to  be  attentive  and  careful—this  perception  would  have  clashed   with  the  underlying  escapist  rationale  for  this  particular  type  of  reading  activity.  Thus,  the   Smithton  women  became  adept  at  “read[ing]  the  romantic  text  as  if  such  simple  discovery   of  meaning  was  possible”  (p.  189);  they  deliberately  did  not  engage  with  features  of  the   text  that  could  “require  conscious  atttention  or  interpretation  on  the  part  of  the  reader”  (p.   190).     A  more  wide-­‐ranging  study  is  Heath’s  (1983)  well-­‐known  study  of  the  white  middle-­‐ class  inhabitants  of  Maintown,  white  working-­‐class  inhabitants  of  Roadville,  and  black   working-­‐class  inhabitants  of  Trackton  and  their  respective  literacy  practices.  Heath  paid   particular  attention  to  the  children  in  the  three  communities,  to  the  ways  in  which  they   were  exposed  at  home  to  very  different  linguistic  practices  and  resources,  and  to  the   relative  ease  or  difficulty  with  which  each  group  of  children  then  interfaced  with  school-­‐ privileged  literacy  practices  and  expectations.  Of  particular  interest  for  our  purposes  (in   relation  to  the  construct  of  reading  MOs)  are  Heath’s  data  regarding  the  ways  that   Maintown  children  from  an  early  age  were  apprenticed  into  routines  for  retrieving,   verifying,  rehearsing,  and  reciting  discrete  elements  of  information  from  texts  in  response   30   to  questions.  Texts  in  Maintown  were  many  and  varied,  and  children  were  additionally   exposed  to  other  routines  for  engaging  with  them.  However,  the  retrieve-­‐verify-­‐rehearse-­‐ recite  MO  was  a  prominent  one  in  their  lives—and  it  aligned  closely  with  a  mode  of   transacting  with  texts  that  was  central  to  their  school  success.10  By  contrast,  Heath   observed  that  children  in  Trackton  rarely  if  ever  experienced  this  routine  outside  school.   Instead,  they  were  preferentially  exposed  to  a  MO  of  dramatic  presentation  of  information   and  stories.  The  latter  often  drew  on  characters,  plotlines,  and  information  from  books;   however,  it  did  not  limit  itself  to  retrieving  or  reciting  what  was  told  in  the  books  (given   that  “abiding  by  the  written  word  limits  one’s  performance”  [p.  233]),  and  instead  prided   itself  on  leaving  source  texts  in  the  shadows  and  infusing  the  presentation  with   elaborations,  asides,  hyperbole,  and  other  drama-­‐enhancing  devices.  Heath  does  not  call   these  contrasting  approaches  to  reading  “MOs,”  and  one  might  argue  that  the  practices   described  encompass  much  more  than  just  reading.  Still,  these  practices  resemble  MOs  for   reading  insofar  as  they  comprise  canonical  reading  comprehension  strategies  as   subordinate  components,  yet  clearly  indicate  a  superordinate  level  of  srategic  organization   and  regulation.   Other  studies  along  similar  lines  include  Cochran-­‐Smith’s  (1984,  1985)  18-­‐month   study  of  pre-­‐K  children  attending  a  private  nursery  school  in  a  high-­‐SES  neighborhood.  Like   Heath,  Cochran-­‐Smith  found  that  adults  socialized  their  children  into  particular  patterns  of   literacy.  Of  particular  interest  for  me,  in  relation  to  the  present  study,  was  the  very  young                                                                                                                   10  Here  and  later  in  this  review  I  have  occasionally  used  the  term  MO  when  describing  a   study  that  appeared  to  me  to  be  referring  to  a  MO-­‐like  phenomenon.  In  none  of  these   studies  was  the  term  reading  MO  used  by  the  author(s),  nor  was  the  MO  construct   theorized  or  defined  as  it  has  been  in  this  dissertation.   31   age  of  the  children  and  the  fact  that,  already  before  they  had  learned  to  decode  text,  they   were  being  apprenticed  into  at  least  two  different  ways  of  incorporating  written  texts  into   their  socially  situated  interactions.  Cochran-­‐Smith  observed  that  “rug  time”  was  used  to   signal  a  shift  from  one  way  of  transacting  with  texts  to  another:  “The  rug-­‐time  framework   set  off  storyreading  events  from  other  preschool  literacy  events  that  occurred  outside  the   rug-­‐time  frame.  It  signaled  to  the  children  that  a  different  kind  of  print—decontextualized   print—would  be  used,  and  that  different  interpretive  strategies  would  be  needed”  (p.  25).   Specifically,  storyreading  during  rug  time  would  require  students  to  turn  away  from  their   physical  environment  and  bracket  their  present  concerns  in  order  to  enter  the  separate   world  of  the  story  and  experience  it  on  its  own  terms—making  inferences  within  the  story   world  and  monitoring  the  relevance  of  their  thoughts  and  reactions  solely  with  reference  to   that  story  world.  With  regard  to  this  dissertation  study’s  hypotheses  about  reading  MOs,   Cochran-­‐Smith’s  data  support  the  idea  that,  from  the  youngest  age,  readers’  transactions   with  texts  are  never  generic  or  all-­‐purpose,  but  rather  targeted  and  regulated  in  paricular   ways,  based  on  particular  assumptions,  beliefs,  and  values.   An  example  of  a  socioculturally  focused  study  that  identifies  a  larger  number  of   reading  practices  belonging  to  a  single  group  (though  still  only  in  terms  of  their  social   functions,  not  in  terms  of  their  component  comprehension  strategies  and  cognitive   processes)  is  Taylor  and  Dorsey-­‐Gaines’s  (1988)  study  of  the  diverse  literate  practices  of   elementary-­‐aged  African  American  children  and  their  parents  in  an  inner-­‐city   neighborhood.  Drawing  on  ethnographic  observational  and  interview  data,  the  authors   documented  in  detail  how  specific  reading  and  writing  practices  fit  into  the  lives  of  their   participants  and  were  experienced  by  them  as  meaningful  and  rewarding  (or  not).  They   32   inventoried  the  types  of  texts  owned,  written,  and  read  by  their  participants.  With  regard   to  reading  specifically,  they  documented  their  participants’  different  purposes  for  reading,   such  as  “instrumental  reading,”  “social-­‐interactional  reading,”  and  “news-­‐related  reading,”   usually  corresponding  to  different  genres  of  published  and  self-­‐made  texts  (e.g.,  love   letters,  children’s  poems).  Unfortunately  for  me,  the  authors  did  not  dig  down  further  to   describe  what  these  diverse  reading  practices  actually  consisted  of  at  a  cognitive  and   affective  level  (e.g.,  what  reading  comprehension  strategies  were  associated  with  each),  nor   did  they  ascertain  whether  participants  themselves  classified  their  practices  in  the  manner   the  authors  did.  On  the  other  hand,  they  did  document  on  more  than  one  occasion  that  a   single  text  or  type  of  text  (e.g.,  stories  for  young  children)  could  be  the  focus  of  more  than   one  type  of  reading  practice  (e.g.,  both  reading  to  build  and  maintain  social  relationships   and  also  reading  to  fulfill  educational  requirements  could  be  applied  to  a  children’s  story   book).  This  association  of  a  single  type  of  text  with  more  than  one  reading  practice  suggests   that  at  least  some  of  the  study’s  participants  were  occasionally  making  situational  strategic   decisions  about  how  to  engage  with  texts—opting  for  one  “practice”  over  another.     Overall,  these  socioculturally  focused  studies  provide  compelling  evidence  in   support  of  the  idea  that,  to  the  extent  they  know  how  to  read,  readers  of  all  ages  possess   more  than  just  a  body  of  foundational  reading  knowledge  (e.g.,  letter-­‐sound  associations),   an  array  of  reading  comprehension  strategies  and/or  reading  techniques,  and  a  general   purpose  to  comprehend  the  text  in  front  of  them.  Across  diverse  contexts,  readers  of  all   ages  are  shown  to  encounter  texts  through  the  prism  of  specific,  culturally  shaped   worldviews  and  ways  of  engaging  with  texts—not  through  the  prism  of  a  general,  all-­‐ 33   purpose,  and  culture-­‐neutral  intention  to  read.11    Further,  these  studies  indicate  that   readers  are  gradually  apprenticed  and  socialized  into  one  or  more  particular  ways  of   reading  through  significant  social  interactions  and  relationships.  None  of  these  studies   provides  an  example  of  a  way  of  reading  arising  solely  from  the  acquisition  of  knowledge  of   particular  reading  techniques  or  “procedures”  (Gee,  1990)  in  a  narrow  sense.    As  such,   these  studies  do  not  directly  contradict  findings  from  cognitively  focused  reading   research—research  devoted  to  disentangling,  describing,  and  measuring  the  component   cognitive  operations  readers  execute  while  reading.  Yet  they  strongly  indicate  the  extent  of   what  may  be  overlooked  when  readers’  reading  activities  are  decomposed  into  component   strategies  and  processes  and  when  these  components  are  studied  separate  from  contextual   and  historical  factors.   As  groundwork  for  this  dissertation  study,  these  studies  are  thus  invaluable—even   as  they  generally  stop  short  of  exploring  the  idea  that  individual  readers  and  groups  of   readers  may  possess  not  just  one  or  two  distinct  reading  “practices”  (e.g.,  a  reading  practice   for  Bible  study  or  for  composing  and  reading  grafitti,  in  addition  to  a  more  generic  practice   for  reading  school-­‐assigned  texts),  but  multiple  perhaps  idiosyncratic  practices  (which  I  am   callings  “MOs”).12  They  show  that  readers  everywhere  habitually  read  in  distinct,  culturally                                                                                                                   11   This  is  of  course  not  to  say  that  a  particular  reading  practice  might  not  be  championed   by   some   as   a   general,   all-­‐purpose,   and/or   culture-­‐neutral   practice   and   that   readers   themselves   might   not   perceive   one   particular   practice   as   general,   all-­‐purpose,   standard,   normal,  or  natural  (see  Heath,  1982).     12  The  existence  of  a  greater  diversity  of  “ways  of  reading”  (beyond  those  actually   documented)  is  sometimes  implied  in  these  studies.  For  example,  when  Radway  (1991)   investigated  the  romance  novel  reading  culture  of  the  women  of  Smithton,  it  was  strongly   implied—and  intuitively  plausible—that  these  women  did  not  apply  their  romance-­‐novel   “way  of  reading”  to  every  text  they  transacted  with,  such  as,  for  example,  their  children’s   story  books,  supermarket  flyers,  or  letters  from  their  relatives.  Radway’s  study  strongly   34   inflected  ways,  and  that  the  rationale  and  overarching  purpose  for  reading  in  a  particular   way  must  be  sought  at  a  level  beyond  that  of  readers’  decisions  to  apply  this  or  that  reading   comprehension  strategy.   Studies  of  Adolescent  Students’  Diverse  Ways  of  Reading   Overlapping  with  socioculturally  oriented  studies  of  the  kind  described  in  the   preceding  section  are  sociocognitively  oriented  studies  that  are  more  narrowly  focused  on   characterizing  two  or  more  contrasting  styles  of  reading  belonging  to  the  same  reader  or   group  of  readers  and  used  in  a  particular  context.  These  studies  often  start  from  the  well-­‐ supported  observation  that  diverse  readers  have  diverse  reading  diets  and  preferences.   For  example,  adolescent  readers  exhibit  tremendous  variance  in  terms  of  how  much  they   read,  the  particular  genres  of  texts  they  prefer,  the  amount  of  reading  they  do  online,  the   overall  diversity  of  their  reading  diet,  and  so  on  (Hughes-­‐Hassell  &  Rodge,  2007;  Moore,   Alvermann,  &  Hinchman,  2007;  Rideout,  Roberts,  &  Foehr,  2005).  A  logical  next  step,  then,   from  a  sociocognitive  perspective,  is  to  characterize  how  these  readers  habitually  engage   with  the  texts  they  prefer  (as  opposed  to  those  they  dislike,  say),  with  a  view  to  exploring   whether  readers  have  different  practices  or  MOs  for  these  different  cases.   One  example  of  this  kind  of  study  is  Cherland’s  (1994)  study  of  6th-­‐grade  girls  and   their  ways  of  reading  to  resist  social  control  and  construct  their  own  identities.  Cherland’s   declared  interest  was  in  the  intersection  of  gender  identity  (and  the  construction  of  specific   types  of  adolescent  gendered  identities)  and  the  acquisition  of  particular  reading  practices,   which  she  hypothesized  might  contribute  in  significant  ways  to  the  construction  and   maintenance  of  gendered  identities  (and  that  might  therefore  take  slightly  different  or  very                                                                                                                   implies  that,  with  these  other  texts,  the  women  of  Smithton  used  a  different  set  of  reading   practices.  However,  Radway’s  extensive  study  did  not  directly  investigate  this  matter.   35   different  forms  for  boys  and  girls).  The  data  Cherland  collected  from  her  seven  focal   participants  and  their  families  supported  this  theory.  She  found  that  girls  and  boys  from  an   early  age  were  exposed  to  a  gendered  reading  environment  (e.g.,  fathers  reading  non-­‐ fiction  texts,  mothers  reading  fiction).  More  to  the  point,  boys  and  girls  engaged  with  texts   in  divergent  ways,  attending  to  different  information  and  story  features  (when  reading   novels),  and,  more  generally,  invoking  different  standards  and  values.  The  boys,  for   instance,  focused  on  matters  of  logic  and  realism  and  debated  the  relative  merits  of   characters  (e.g.,  how  well  characters  performed  as  problem  solvers)  according  to  extra-­‐ textual  standards.  By  contrast,  the  girls  focused  on  their  emotion-­‐based  responses  to  a   story’s  characters  and  the  ways  characters  coped  with  the  emotional  ups  and  downs  of   their  lives.  Cherland  for  her  part  was  interested  in  exploring  the  social  and  political   consequences  of  these  gendered  reading  MOs;  she  was  critical  of  the  fact  that,  in  school,   neither  girls  nor  boys  were  systematically  challenged  to  adopt  alternative  reader   “positions”  and  to  question  the  validity  of  their  habitual  assumptions  and  attitudes.  For  my   purposes,  however,  a  key  take-­‐away  point  here  is  simply  that  boys  and  girls  in  this  study   employed  different  practices,  different  MOs,  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  the  same  texts.  These  MOs  exhibited   consistency  over  time  and  apparently  trumped  the  changing  demands  of  varied  texts  (i.e.,   even  as  students  tackled  new  texts,  the  MOs  they  used  persisted  recognizably).   Another  example  of  this  type  of  study  of  contrasting  reading  MOs  is  Gallagher’s   (2012)  case  study  of  a  9th-­‐grade  English  Language  Arts  class,  with  special  emphasis  on  one   student,  Marcus,  who  exhibited  sophisticated  out-­‐of-­‐school  literacy  practices  (e.g.,   researching  the  features  and  prices  of  consumer  products  across  multiple  websites).   Gallagher  followed  Marcus  as  he  navigated  between  these  out-­‐of-­‐school  practices  and   36   other,  more  traditional  reading  practices  he  was  exposed  to,  and  expected  to  master,  in   school  (e.g.,  reading  a  chapter  in  a  novel  to  identify  the  novel’s  theme  for  class  discussion).   Interestingly,  Marcus  was  positioned  in  his  ELA  class—and  positioned  himself—as  a  non-­‐ reader.  The  explanation  for  this  surprising  fact—surprising  in  light  of  the  significant   amount  of  time  Marcus  spent  reading  online  every  day—was  that  reading  was  construed  in   this  classroom  as  ideally  being  a  solitary,  immersive,  aesthetically  focused,  and  sustained   activity.  Yet  this  was  not  Marcus’s  preferred  MO  for  reading.  He  favored  efferent  reading  of   multimodal  texts  on  particular  information-­‐rich  topics  (e.g.,  sports).  With  these  texts,  he   preferred  to  engage  intellectually  as  an  opportunistic  seeker  of  accurate  and  useful   information  rather  than  emotionally  and  reflectively,  as  a  seeker  of  moral  truths  or  insights   into  personalities  and  belief  systems.  Gallagher’s  study  documents  how,  even  under  great   pressure  to  conform  and  to  adopt  school-­‐privileged  ways  of  reading,  a  diversity  of  ways  of   reading  may  persist  and  even  thrive  in  readers  like  Marcus.   In  a  similar  study  conducted  outside  school,  Graff  (2010)  documented  distinctions   made  by  seven  pre-­‐adolescent  girls  in  grades  4-­‐5  between  “reading”  (a  reading  MO  the  girls   applied  to  assigned  school  texts),  “looking”  (used  with  magazines),  “readin’”  (applied  to   “culturally  relevant”  picture  books  and  informational  books),  and  “skimming”  (used  for   relaxed,  recreational  co-­‐reading  of  books  and  magazines).  What  sets  Graff’s  study  apart   from  Gallagher’s  is  the  extent  to  which  she  captures  and  reports  the  texture  of  her   participants’  often  limited  ability  to  articulate  how  exactly  one  MO  differs  from  others.   Often  the  distinctions  drawn  are  articulated  in  negative  terms,  based  on  the  absence  of  a   particular  quality  (e.g.,  one  MO  is  described  as  differing  from  others  because,  when  using  it,   “I  don’t  have  to  answer  any  questions  about  every  little  thing  in  [the  text]”  [p.  182]).  Other   37   MOs  are  characterized  in  terms  of  the  affect  associated  with  them  or  in  terms  of  the   reader’s  level  of  choice  and  perceived  agency.  Graff’s  study  thus  illustrates  the  wide  variety   of  criteria  adolescents  may  use  to  distinguish  among  what,  to  them,  evidently  feel  like   distinct  and  disinctly  coherent  alternative  ways  of  reading.   As  with  the  socioculturally  oriented  studies  described  earlier,  here  too,  with  these   more  narrowly  focused  sociocognitive  studies,  one  finds  oneself  wishing  for  even  more   information—especially  about  the  moment-­‐by-­‐moment  unfolding  of  reading  events  that   involve  one  or  another  MO.  Still,  what  all  these  studies  suggest  is  that  many  adolescents  are   capable  of  making  distinctions  among  ways  of  reading  and  do,  in  fact,  routinely  make  such   distinctions  on  the  basis  of  a  variety  of  criteria.  And  that  they  are  aware  of  doing  so  and   able  to  talk  about  relevant  motivations,  aims,  and  criteria  in  some  detail.   Survey  Studies  of  Readers’  Purposes  and  Motivation  for  Reading     Sociocultural  and  sociocognitive  studies  using  ethnographic  observational  methods   tend  to  focus  on  very  small  numbers  of  participants  in  their  local  contexts.  Survey  studies,   by  contrast,  often  use  larger  or  much  larger  numbers  of  participants  and  shed  light  on   broad  trends  and  population  characteristics.  With  regard  to  the  construct  of  reading  MOs,   two  such  studies  are  especially  worth  mentioning  here—one  focusing  on  adolescent   readers’  perceptions  of  the  varied  purposes  they  may  have  for  reading,  the  other  focusing   on  adolescent  readers’  varying  levels  of  motivation  to  read  depending  on  the  particular   purpose  they  have  in  mind.  Taken  together,  these  studies  lend  further  empirical  support  to   the  hypothesis  that  most  readers  have  personal  experience  with  reading  in  more  than  one   way  and  readily  think  in  terms  of  the  distinct  ways  of  reading  they  know.   The  first  study  is  Greaney  and  Neuman’s  (1990)  investigation  of  the  “functions  of   38   reading”  identified  by  >1,200  8-­‐,  10-­‐  and  13-­‐year-­‐old  students  in  thirteen  different   countries.  The  authors  found  that  all  students  drew  distinctions  between  a  number  of   distinct  functions.  The  three  key  factors  underlying  these  many  functions  were  reading  for   utility,  reading  for  enjoyment,  and  reading  for  escape.  Consistent  with  the  idea  that  ways  of   reading  are  shaped  by  cultural  beliefs  and  norms,  the  authors  also  found  differences   between  countries,  with  responses  in  some  countries  indicating  the  presence  of  two   separate  utility  factors  (educational  utility  as  distinct  from  moral  utility)  and  responses  in   some  other  countries  indicating  a  single  factor  underlying  both  reading  for  enjoyment  and   reading  for  escape.     The  second  study  is  McKenna,  Kear,  and  Ellsworth’s  (1995)  national  survey  of   children’s  attitudes  toward  reading.  The  authors  previously  conducted  a  factor  analysis  on   pilot  data  indicating  the  psychological  reality  of  two  dimensions:  attitude  toward   recreational  reading  and  attitude  toward  school-­related,  academic  reading  (McKenna  &   Kear,  1990).  (Interestingly,  the  authors  acknowledge  that,  in  theory,  one  could  “delineate   reading  attitude  into  [further]  subtypes  according  to  [students’  reading]  interests.  Thus,   one  may  have  an  attitude  toward  reading  science  fiction  that  differs  considerably  from   one's  attitude  toward  reading  romantic  fiction"  [p.  934]  even  though  both  of  these  are   counted  as  targets  of  recreational  reading.)  For  their  national  survey  of  >18,000  students,   they  used  a  20-­‐item,  pictorial  instrument  assessing  attitudes  toward  just  recreational   reading  and  school-­related,  academic  reading.  Their  global  finding  was  of  a  gradual  decline   for  most  students  in  both  attitudes  across  grades  1  through  6.  The  interest  of  the  study  for   my  purposes,  however,  lies  less  in  the  content  of  the  finding  than  in  the  point  that   McKenna,  Kear,  and  Ellsworth’s  attitude  research  broadly  supports  the  hypothesis  that   39   elementary-­‐aged  readers  readily  distinguish  between  two  or  more  ways  of  reading   (especially  when  this  research  is  triangulated  with  research  on  readers’  differentiation  of   their  reading  processes  for  engaging  with  texts  of  different  genres).13   Studies  of  the  Effects  of  Readers’  Purpose   A  number  of  studies  have  explored  the  relationship  between  readers’  purpose  for   reading  and  the  moment-­‐by-­‐moment  reading  processes  they  engage  in  and  the   comprehension  outcomes  they  achieve.  Insofar  as  the  construct  of  readers’  purpose  is  one   that  could  plausibly  play  the  role  of  an  overarching  regulative  strategy—superordinate  to   lower-­‐level  reading  comprehension  strategies  such  as  predicting,  visualizing,  or  asking   questions,  and  governing  their  application—these  studies  merit  separate  mention  here.     A  number  of  studies  have  indicated  that,  when  readers  are  asked  or  told  to  read  for   distinct  purposes  (e.g.,  reading  to  study  versus  reading  for  recreation),  they  tend  to  process   the  same  text  in  different  ways.  For  example,  several  studies  with  college  students  have   shown  that,  when  asked  to  read  for  the  purpose  of  entertainment,  they  engaged  in  more   superficial  processing  of  information  (skimming,  associative  thinking);  whereas,  when   asked  to  read  the  same  text  for  study  purposes,  they  typically  engaged  in  deeper  processing   (e.g.,  pausing  to  summarize  new  information,  making  inferences).  And  as  might  be   expected,  differences  in  processing  generally  correlated  with  different  comprehension   outcomes:  when  processing  was  deeper,  college  students  generally  comprehended  better   and  recalled  more  (e.g.,  Linderholm,  Cong,  &  Zhao,  2008;  Linderholm  &  van  den  Broek,                                                                                                                   13   It   is   theoretically   possible   that   some   readers   read   in   exactly   the   same   way,   with   the   same  MO,  when  reading  recreationally  and  when  reading  for  school,  and  that  their  different   attitude   ratings   were   related   solely   to   the   purpose   of   their   reading   activity,   not   to   any   difference  they  perceived  in  the  quality  or  intensity  of  their  cognitive  work  while  reading.   In  light  of  the  available  evidence,  however,  this  seems  unlikely.   40   2002;  Narvaez,  van  den  Broek,  &  Ruiz,  1999;  van  den  Broek,  Lorch,  Linderholm,  &   Gustafson,  2001).   Other  studies  with  proficient  older  readers  have  looked  in  depth  at  their   deployment  of  a  full  range  of  diverse  reading  comprehension  strategies.  Zhang  and  Duke   (2008),  for  example,  investigated  the  reading  strategies  that  twelve  skilled  Internet  readers   used  while  doing  three  Internet  reading  tasks,  each  with  a  different  reading  purpose:   seeking  specific  information,  acquiring  general  knowledge,  and  being  entertained.  The   study  found  that  readers  applied  a  wide  range  of  strategies  (>50)  and  that  their  application   of  strategies  differed  by  reading  purpose.  Some  strategies  were  used  across  purposes,   while  others  were  not.  Readers  also  employed  different  patterns  of  reading  strategies  for   different  reading  purposes.     Of  particular  interest  for  our  purposes,  in  relation  to  the  MO  construct,  is  the  finding   reported  by  Linderholm,  Kwon,  and  Wang  (2011)  in  their  review  of  the  literature  on   readers’  purpose,  namely,  that  the  relationship  between  readers’  purpose  and   comprehension  outcomes  is  not  consistent.  Looking  across  studies,  they  found  that,  while  a   shift  in  purpose  reliably  caused  readers  to  make  some  adjustments  to  their  cognitive   processing,  the  effects  of  different  purposes  on  “the  product  of  reading”  (e.g.,  the  amount  of   text  information  recalled,  comprehension  test  performance)  was  less  consistent.   Unsurprisingly,  it  appears  that,  in  determining  comprehension  outcomes,  one  or  more   other  factors  must  come  into  play  to  moderate  the  influence  of  readers’  purpose.  Candidate   factors  to  play  this  moderating  role  might  include  such  factors  as  reader  interest  (e.g.,   Baldwin,  Peleg-­‐Bruckner,  &  McClintock,  1985),  motivation  to  read  and  learn  (e.g.,  Wigfield,   Guthrie,  Tonks,  &  Perencevich,  2004),  and/or  self-­‐efficacy  beliefs  (e.g.,  Walker,  2003).   41   A  small  number  of  studies  have  in  fact  explored  the  influence  of  readers’  purpose  in   conjunction  with  additional  factors.  For  example,  Bråten  and  Samuelstuen  (2004)   examined  whether  the  influence  of  reading  purpose  on  students’  reported  use  of  text-­‐ processing  strategies  was  moderated  by  students'  level  of  prior  knowledge  about  the  topic   of  the  text.  The  authors  found  that  the  influence  of  reading  purpose  on  reported  use  of   particular  strategies—memorization  and  elaboration  strategies—did  indeed  depend  on   students'  level  of  topic  knowledge.  For  participants  who  read  for  the  purpose  of  discussing   text  content,  reported  use  of  memorization  and  elaboration  strategies  was  on  average   higher  if  they  had  more  prior  knowledge  about  the  topic,  whereas  no  relation  was  found   between  reported  use  of  such  strategies  and  topic  knowledge  for  participants  who  read  for   the  purposes  of  test  taking  or  summary  writing.     The  available  research  on  readers’  purpose  for  reading  thus  suggests  that  most   proficient  readers  have  developed  the  ability  to  adjust  their  application  of  text-­‐processing   strategies  in  relation  to  overarching  goals  (e.g.,  reading  for  entertainment,  reading  to  study   for  a  test).  The  research  also  suggests  that  other  factors,  such  as  background  knowledge,   moderate  the  influence  of  reading  purpose.     Genre-­Focused  Studies   A  number  of  studies  have  documented  strong  genre-­‐exposure  effects  on  young   readers,  with  some  young  readers  developing  significant  knowledge  of  particular  genres  at   a  young  age,  even  before  they  can  decode  text  independently.  When  called  upon  to  invent   or  “pretend  read”  a  wordless  text,  these  young  readers  reproduce  genre-­‐specific  discursive   patterns  and  stock  language  (e.g.,  after  repeated  exposure  to  fairy  tales,  some  children  will   orally  narrate  a  wordless  fairy-­‐tale  picture  book  using  fairy-­‐tale  narrative  structures,   42   discursive  patterns,  and  stock  locutions,  such  as  “once  upon  a  time”)  (Chapman,  1994;   Duke  &  Kayes,  1998;  Loizou,  Kyriakides,  &  Hadjicharalambous,  2011;  Pappas,  1993;  Pappas   &  Brown,  1987).     Consistent  with  this  finding,  and  consistent  with  the  fact  that  young  children  in  the   U.S.  on  average  are  exposed  to  more  literary  narrative  texts  than  informational  texts  (e.g.,   Duke,  2000a,  2000b;  Yopp  &  Yopp,  2012),  studies  have  shown  that  a  majority  of  young   readers  in  this  country  demonstrate  better  reading  comprehension  of  narrative  texts  than   of  informational  texts  (e.g.,  Best,  Floyd,  &  McNamara,  2008;  Chapman,  1994;  Kamberlis,   1999).  International  comparisons  (Park,  2008)  further  suggest  that  this  phenomenon  is   due  to  U.S.  children’s  preferential  exposure  to  narrative  texts  and  to  parental  styles  of   involvement  in  lap  reading  of  stories  (e.g.,  Flood,  1977;  Haden,  Reese,  &  Fivush,  1996;   Reese  &  Cox,  1999),  rather  than  to  any  universal  innate  human  predilection  for  stories  or   cognitive  “fit”  between  stories  and  young  children’s  ways  of  processing  experience  (e.g.,   Pappas,  1993).  In  some  countries,  such  as  Finland,  an  opposite  trend  is  seen,  with  young   children  on  average  demonstrating  better  reading  comprehension  of  informational  texts   than  of  narrative  texts  (Park,  2008).   These  data  are  relevant  to  a  study  focused  on  investigating  adolescents’  reading   MOs  insofar  as  they  suggest  that,  from  an  early  age,  many  readers  develop  specialized   reading  routines  adapted  for  particular  genres.  These  readers  may  well  possess—in  their   personal  repertoire  of  reading  strategies—all  the  individual  strategies  they  would  need  to   be  proficient  at  comprehending  texts  of  unfamiliar  or  less-­‐liked  genres.  However,  they  may   not  yet  have  developed  the  superordinate  schema(s)  or  plan(s)  or  disposition(s)  they  need   to  have  in  mind  to  orchestrate  some  subset  of  the  strategies  they  already  know.  In  other   43   words,  readers  who  excel  at  constructing  meaning  from  one  type  of  text  (fairy  tales,  say)   may  stumble  at  doing  so  with  a  different  type  of  text  (political  speeches,  say)  not  because   their  knowledge  of  reading  strategies  is  deficient,  but  rather  because  they  do  not  have  a  MO   for  marshalling  and  applying  the  relevant  knowledge  they  have  to  the  unfamiliar  genre.   Studies  of  Emergent  Readers’  Exposure  to  Differentiated  Styles  of  Reading   As  briefly  alluded  to  above,  a  number  of  observational  studies  have  looked  at   parent-­‐caregiver  interactions  with  young  children  around  shared  book  reading  (e.g.,  Aram   &  Biron,  2004;  Audet,  Evans,  Williamson,  &  Reynolds,  2008).  These  studies  are  relevant   here  insofar  as  they  shed  light  on  the  possible  genesis  of  readers’  very  first  reading  MOs.   They  also  indicate  possible  sources  of  differentiation  already  in  very  young  children’s   emergent  MOs  for  transacting  with  texts,  as  in  Cochran-­‐Smith’s  (1984,  1985)  study   (already  mentioned  above)  of  pre-­‐K  children  attending  a  private  nursery  school  in  a  high-­‐ SES  neighborhood.  As  we  saw,  Cochran-­‐Smith  found  that  adults  socialized  their  children   into  particular  patterns  of  literacy  even  before  they  had  learned  to  decode  text  on  their   own.  It  stands  to  reason  that  the  same  general  pattern  and  dynamic  of  socialization  would   be  true  for  all  text-­‐and-­‐reading-­‐related  interactions  that  children  experience,  in  their   homes  and  elsewhere,  from  the  very  youngest  age  (i.e.,  starting  in  infancy).   The  studies  reviewed  here  focus  on  the  practice  of  lap  reading  with  infants,  toddlers,   and  older  children.  Lap  reading  is  a  physically  intimate  form  of  shared  reading  during   which  an  older,  usually  proficient  reader  (e.g.,  a  parent)  reads  aloud  from  a  text  and   explicitly  models  the  sorts  of  skills  proficient  readers  apply  to  texts,  including  reading  with   fluency  and  expression.  With  older  children,  shared  reading—as  the  term  suggests—may   feature  some  amount  of  shared  involvement  and  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  child  with   44   regard  to  turning  pages,  commenting  on  pictures,  or  even  identifying  letters  and  decoding   words.  With  very  young  children,  by  contrast,  lap  reading  may  appear  much  more  one-­‐ sided,  with  the  child  seemingly  contributing  relatively  little,  and  the  parent  or  caregiver   initiating  and  carrying  out  every  part  of  the  activity.   What  these  studies  show  (e.g.,  Bus  &  Ijzendoorn,  1988;  Evans,  Baraball,  &  Eberle,   1998;  Evans,  Shaw,  &  Bell,  2000;  Raikes  et  al.,  2006;  Sénèchal,  Cornell,  &  Broda,  1995;   Sénèchal  &  LeFevre,  2002;  Stolz  &  Fischel,  2003)  is  that,  already  before  children  begin   more  overtly  and  assertively  contributing  to  reading  events,  these  sorts  of  interactions  and   activities  around  books  can  contribute  to  the  development  of  important  emergent  literacy   knowledge  and  skills  (e.g.,  young  children’s  acquisition  of  concepts  for  print  [Clay,  2000]   and  letter  knowledge)  (e.g.,  Evans  &  Shaw,  2008;  though  see  Phillips,  Norris,  &  Anderson,   2008,  for  review  of  studies  indicating  no  consistent  benefit  in  these  areas).  Just  as   importantly,  early  lap-­‐reading  interactions  can  also  contribute  to  the  development  of   children’s  general  expectations  and  dispositions  regarding  future  interactions  around   books  (e.g.,  Ortiz,  Stowe,  &  Arnold,  2001).  Further,  because  parents  and  caregivers  cannot   help  but  infuse  lap-­‐reading  events  with  particular  rituals  (a  little  different  or  very  different   than  the  ones  followed  by  other  parents),  particular  attitudes  toward  reading,  particular   affective  elements,  particular  attention-­‐and-­‐activity-­‐guiding  procedures,  and  particular   discursive  moves,  these  lap-­‐reading  events  are  likely  to  shape  children’s  emerging   conception  of  reading  in  particular  non-­‐uniform  ways  (e.g.,  Anderson-­‐Yockel  &  Haynes,   1994;  Ninio,  1980;  Wheeler,  1982).   This  last  point—about  diversity  in  parental  lap  reading  styles—is  the  key  one  for   our  present  focus  on  the  acquisition,  already  very  early  in  life,  not  just  of  literacy-­‐related   45   knowledge,  but  of  distinctive  reading  MOs.    The  suggestion  is  that,  above  and  beyond  the   measurable  contributions  that  lap  reading  may  make  to  children’s  knowledge  in  specific   areas  such  as  print  concepts,  alphabet  knowledge,  or  vocabulary  knowledge  (Evans & Shaw, 2008),  lap  reading  cannot  but  apprentice  children  into  some  particular,  culturally   inflected,  and  more  or  less  idiosyncratic  MO  for  reading.  Moreover,  this  MO-­‐instilling  effect   is  likely  to  hold  true  even  when  the  lap  reading  unfolds  in  such  a  way  that  it  does  not  result   in  any  measurable  gain  in  children’s  emergent  literacy  knowledge  (e.g.,  Phillips,  Norris,  &   Anderson,  2008).  For  example,  studies  by  Anderson-­‐Yockel  and  Haynes  (1994)  and  Ninio   (1980)  detected  race-­‐  and  SES-­‐linked  patterns  of  difference  with  regard  to  the  frequency   with  which  mothers  asked  questions  during  lap  reading  as  well  as  the  types  of  questions   they  asked.  It  stands  to  reason  that,  over  time,  these  different  patterns  of  questioning   experienced  by  young  children  would  contribute  to  the  formation  of  diverse  MOs  for   reading  in  which  posing  questions—or  posing  certain  types  of  questions—will  be   perceived  and  experienced  by  some  as  normal,  enjoyable,  and  useful,  and  by  others  as  less   so.  Also,  further  differentiation  of  home-­‐grown  reading  MOs  is  likely  to  come  about  as   caregivers  expose  children  to  a  lengthening  list  of  different  text  formats  and  genres  (e.g.,   Duke  &  Purcell-­‐Gates,  2003),  whether  planfully  or  through  accident  and  circumstance.   Studies  of  Disciplinary  Literacies   Studies  of  disciplinary  literacy  practices  are  relevant  to  this  dissertation  study   because  they  indicate  the  existence  of  what  might  be  characterized  as  advanced  reading   MOs.  As  described  by  disciplinary  literacy  researchers  (e.g.,  Shanahan  &  Shanahan,  2008;   Shanahan,  Shanahan,  &  Misischi,  2011),  a  disciplinary  way  of  reading  is  a  distinctive   reading  routine  acquired  over  time  by  a  disciplinary  expert,  drawing  on  deep  content   46   knowledge,  and  involving  the  application  of  a  distinctive  set  of  knowledge-­‐constructing,   knowledge-­‐interpreting,  and/or  knowledge-­‐evaluating  moves  and  strategies.  The   appropriate  orchestration  of  these  moves  and  strategies,  in  turn,  is  guided  by  a  particular   epistemic  stance  and  by  assumptions  and  values  shared  by  discipline  “insiders”  (Geisler,   1994).  For  example,  historians  share  the  view  that  the  full  significance  of  any  text  can  only   be  understood  by  seeing  it  in  the  context  of  other  contemporary  texts  and  artifacts  and  the   perhaps  divergent  perspectives  these  other  texts  and  artifacts  may  contain.  A  historian’s   disciplinary  reading  routine  will  therefore  always  involve  taking  careful  note  of  a  text’s   authorship,  publication  date,  and  publication  venue,  as  well  as  the  contemporary  or  past   interlocutors  it  explicitly  names  or  perhaps  implies.  The  historian  does  not  seek  to  extract   from  the  text  some  nugget(s)  of  accurate  information;  she  is  intent  on  discerning  bias,   conflicting  perspectives,  and  vying  agendas.   Readers  who  achieve  this  level  of  disciplinary  expertise  go  from  being  proficient   “generalist”  readers  to  being  specialized  expert  readers—capable  of  reading  as  chemists,   say,  as  historians,  or  as  literary  critics  (Geisler,  1994;  Shanahan  &  Shanahan,  2008;   Shanahan,  Shanahan,  &  Misischi,  2011;  Wineburg,  1991;  Wyatt,  Pressley,  El-­‐Dinary,  Stein,   Evans,  &  Brown,  1993).  As  such,  reading  through  their  respective  disciplinary  lenses,  they   are  enabled  to  construct  meaning  and  achieve  insights  they  could  not  previously  have   attained.  As  several  studies  have  shown  (e.g.,  Haas,  1994;  Shanahan,  Shanahan,  &  Misischi,   2011),  experts  and  novices  navigate  domain  texts  in  different  ways,  focus  on  different  text   elements,  and  in  general  glean  somewhat  different  or  very  different  information  and   understandings  of  what  they  have  read.   This  research  is  relevant  to  the  proposed  study  because,  mutatis  mutandis,   47   everything  found  to  be  true  of  the  reading  routines  of  disciplinary  experts  may  be  true  of   adolescent  readers  who  acquire  expertise  of  a  perhaps  more  modest  kind  (e.g.,  knowledge   of  the  architecture  of  a  favorite  website,  knowledge  of  a  particular  author’s  biography)  and   subsequently  acquire  or  evolve  specialized  reading  routines  to  leverage  this  expertise.   Interestingly,  the  field  of  disciplinary  literacy  has  not  yet  explored  this  possible   parallel  between  the  practices  and  expertise  of  “true”  experts  and  the  more  modestly   scoped  and  (to  some)  perhaps  trivial-­‐looking  practices  and  proto-­‐expertise  of  younger   readers  (e.g.,  Alvermann,  Huddleston,  &  Hagood,  2004).  To  the  contrary,  some  in  the  field   (Shanahan  &  Shanahan,  2008)  have  explicitly  ruled  out  this  possibility  and  have  proposed  a   model  of  reading  and  literacy  development  in  which  young  readers  first  acquire  a  generic,   all-­‐purpose  way  of  reading  and  only  much  later  acquire  more  specialized  reading  routines,   sometimes  in  middle  school  but  often  not  until  high  school  or  college.  Yet  this  narrowed   view  of  adolescents’  literacy  knowledge  and  activities  now  appears  increasingly  at  odds   with  the  data  we  have  (e.g.,  Ito,  Baumer,  Bittanti,  et  al.,  2009).  Many  adolescents  are   acquiring  unprecedented  forms  of  digitally  mediated  literacy  to  higher  and  higher  levels,   and  even  the  less  specialized  versions  of  this  (e.g.,  acquiring  advanced  knowledge  and   strategies  for  using  online  search  engines)  can  involve  reading  and  writing  practices  that   count  as  expertise  in  the  eyes  of  less-­‐knowledgeable,  less-­‐adept  peers,  not  to  mention  less   tech-­‐literate  adults  (e.g.,  Nesset,  2011).  It  therefore  seems  likely  that  the  field’s   understanding  of  what  can  count  as  disciplinary  expertise  must  sooner  or  later  be   broadened  to  account  for  disciplinary  expertise  in  such  subfields  as  MMORPG  (Massively   Multiplayer  Online  Role-­‐Playing  Game)  playing,  say,  or  online  fan  fiction  writing  (e.g.,  Black,   2008).  In  the  meantime,  the  disciplinary  literacy  framework  is  a  useful  one  for  investigating   48   and  discussing  what  I  am  calling  MOs  (if  one  ignores,  for  the  time  being,  its  rejection  of  the   idea  of  younger  readers  possessing  less  sophisticated  and  less  codified  forms  of   disciplinary  literacies).  The  framework  underscores  the  idea  that  reading  activity  may  be   orchestrated  in  and  through  specialized  “routines”  that  comprise  much  more  than  just   reading  comprehension  strategies.  Such  routines  weave  together  domain  knowledge,   epistemic  assumptions,  and  various  norms  and  protocols  of  interpretation,  in  addition  to   procedural  knowledge  about  applying  garden-­‐variety  reading  strategies.     Studies  Relevant  to  Methods   A  key  methodological  issue  at  the  heart  of  this  dissertation  study  pertains  to   adolescent  readers’  metacognitive  capacity  and  their  ability  to  verbalize  and  express  the   contents  of  their  thinking.  It  therefore  seems  relevant,  as  part  of  this  literature  review,  to   briefly  detail  some  research  findings  in  these  areas—findings  that  underlie  my  choice  of   methods  for  this  study.  It  would  be  irresponsible  to  undertake  an  investigation  of  this  kind   without  being  confident,  based  on  the  available  evidence,  that  adolescent  readers  are  in   general  capable  of  attending  to  their  own  mental  processes  and  states  of  mind,  and,  further,   likely  to  be  able  and  willing  to  report  accurately  about  what  they  notice  and  what  they   think.   In  general,  empirical  studies  of  the  development  of  metacognitive  ability—the   ability  to  think  about  one’s  thinking,  both  in  terms  of  being  able  to  describe  it  and  also  in   terms  of  monitoring  and  regulating  it  (Flavell,  1979;  Flavell,  Miller,  &  Miller,  2002)— indicate  that  it  increases  with  age  and  emerges  already  before  the  start  of  formal  schooling   (Lockl  &  Schneider,  2006).  Its  development  can  be  accelerated  through  targeted   interventions  (e.g.,  Lucangeli,  Galderisi,  &  Cornoldi,  1995),  but  under  normal  conditions,   49   without  any  particular  instructional  attention,  it  appears  to  increase  gradually  in  tandem   with  language  development.  For  example,  metacognitive  vocabulary  (e.g.,  knowledge  and   use  of  verbs  describing  mental  processes),  theory  of  mind,  and  general  metamemory  have   been  found  to  increase  steadily  already  over  the  course  of  the  preschool  years  (Lockl  &   Schneider,  2006,  2007).  Development  is  not  uniform,  and  individual  differences  have  been   detected  already  at  the  age  of  four.  That  said,  growth  in  metacognitive  ability  has   consistently  been  found  to  be  true  for  all  normally  developing  learners,  not  just  for  gifted   or  advanced  learners  (e.g.,  Kreutzer,  Leonard,  &  Flavell,  1975;  Schneider,  Kron,   Hünnerkopf,  &  Krajewski,  2004).  And  development  has  been  found  to  accelerate  once   children  begin  formal  schooling.   With  regard  to  reading,  specifically,  numerous  studies  have  indicated  that  children   in  the  6th  grade  range  (11-­‐13  years  old)  and  younger  are  capable  of  reporting  in  detail   about  their  reading  processes,  motivation  to  read,  and  other  related  matters.  Many  of  these   studies  are  intervention  studies  in  the  course  of  which  self-­‐report  data  about  strategy   awareness  and  strategy  use  were  collected  from  students.  For  example,  as  part  of  a  year-­‐ long,  quasi-­‐experimental  study  of  the  effects  of  transactional  strategies  instruction,  Brown,   Pressley,  Van  Meter,  and  Schuder  (1996)  followed  60  struggling  readers  in  grade  2.   Students  participated  in  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐test  strategy  interviews  and  were  asked  questions   about  reading  strategies  they  used  and  when  and  why  they  used  them  (e.g.,  “What  do  good   readers  do?  What  makes  someone  a  good  reader?  What  do  you  think  about  before  you  read   a  new  story?”  [p.  24]).  The  majority  of  these  low-­‐achieving  second  graders  were  able  to   report  specifically  about  “what  good  readers  do”  and  about  the  various  reading  and   problem-­‐solving  strategies  they  used.  Other  studies  have  focused  specifically  on  students’   50   awareness  of  the  general  utility  and  possible  situational  appropriateness  of  various  reading   strategies  (e.g.,  Baker  &  Brown,  1982;  Myers  &  Paris,  1978)  (the  general  finding  being  that   such  awareness  often  accompanies  improvement  in  reading  and  may  in  fact  be  a   contributing,  causal  factor  propelling  such  improvement).  These  studies,  too,  suggest  that   most  readers  are  able  to  reflect  and  report  on  what  they  know  about  reading  and  at  least   some  aspects  of  what  they  actually  do  while  reading.   Summary  of  the  Foregoing  Review  and  Need  for  the  Present  Study   The  empirical  studies  reviewed  in  the  preceding  sections  together  strongly  suggest   that  all  readers  possess  cognitive  and  cultural  resources  for  transacting  with  texts  and  for   regulating  their  reading  behavior  above  and  beyond  their  knowledge  of  such  things  as   letter-­‐sound  correspondences,  sight  words,  vocabulary,  and  school-­‐taught  reading   comprehension  strategies.  These  studies  further  suggest  that,  in  the  experience  of  at  least   some  readers  (and  perhaps  most  or  all  readers),  these  resources  do  not  exist  separate  from   their  ability  to  read,  but  instead,  that  they  are  intertwined  with,  or  infused  into,  one  or   more  particular  ways  of  reading—with  the  result  that  each  “way  of  reading”  looks  and  feels   slightly  different  or  very  different  to  the  reader  using  it.     The  available  evidence  suggests  that  this  differentiation  begins  to  happen  already  at   a  young  age.  Already  before  they  have  begun  decoding  words  on  the  page,  it  appears  that   readers’  transactions  with  texts  are  inevitably  being  shaped  and  molded  by  the  particular   socio-­‐cultural  influences  to  which  they  are  exposed—influences  that  vary  from  reader  to   reader  and  home  to  home.  Over  time,  it  stands  to  reason  that  these  early  influences  create   expectations,  habits,  values,  beliefs,  and  routines  regarding  what  reading  looks  like  and   feels  like  and  should  look  like  and  feel  like,  what  can  count  as  reading,  and  what  reading   51   entails.  Thus,  already  before  they  start  their  formal  schooling,  children  appear  to  be   familiar  with—and  to  be  preferentially  attached  to  and  comfortable  with—one  or  more   very  particular,  culture-­‐specific  ways  of  transacting  with  texts.     As  readers  progress  through  their  years  of  schooling,  the  limited  evidence  we  have   suggests  that  some  new  MOs  are  acquired,  while  old  ones  may  evolve  or  perhaps  be   discarded.  Leaping  ahead  in  readers’  lives,  there  is  strong  evidence  that,  as  readers  acquire   advanced  content  knowledge  at  the  college  level  (though  no  doubt  earlier  and  later  than   that,  too),  some  are  apprenticed  into  very  specialized  and  sophisticated  disciplinary   reading  routines  (e.g.,  Shanahan  &  Shanahan,  2008).  We  know  much  less,  however,  about   what  may  happen  in  the  intervening  years,  between  the  beginning  of  formal  schooling  and   the  acquisition  of  a  basic  level  of  reading  proficiency,  and  the  later  development  of  these   specialized  disciplinary  literacies.  Some  studies  (e.g.,  Graff,  2010;  Gallagher,  2012)  strongly   indicate  the  reality  of  at  least  some  adolescent  students  being  able  to  distinguish  among   two  or  more  distinct  ways  of  reading,  describe  them,  have  preferences  among  them,  and   make  strategic  reading  decisions  based  on  them.  But  little  is  known  about  the  prevalence   and  extent  of  this  phenomenon.  No  prior  studies  have  tried  to  ascertain  the  full  range  of   adolescent  readers’  possibly  numerous  MOs  for  reading,  or  the  extent  of  the  diversity  of   reading  MOs  that  may  exist  within  and  across  adolescent  readers.  As  well,  no  prior  studies   have  explicitly  made  the  argument  that  reading  MOs  constitute  a  distinct  construct  and   object  of  study  relevant  to  understanding  adolescent  readers,  that  reading  MOs  are   superordinate  to  reading  comprehension  strategies  and  regulate  the  application  of  such   strategies,  and  that  readers  may  possess  multiple  MOs,  including  idiosyncratic  MOs  not   shared  with  other  readers.     52   Research  Questions   Based  on  the  foregoing  review  of  empirical  research,  and  drawing  on  the  theoretical   perspectives  outlined  in  the  preceding  chapter,  this  study  asked  the  following  four   questions:   1. What  distinct  MOs  for  reading  (if  any)  do  adolescent  readers  in  grade  6  know  and   use  for  reading  school-­‐assigned  and  self-­‐chosen  texts?   2. What  criteria  do  adolescent  readers  in  grade  6  use  to  distinguish  among  the  diverse   MOs  for  reading  (if  any)  in  their  personal  repertoire  of  MOs?   3. What  criteria  do  adolescent  readers  in  grade  6  use  to  regulate  their  application  of   diverse  MOs  for  reading  (if  any)?     4. How  is  the  regulation  of  diverse  MOs  (if  any)  by  adolescent  readers  in  grade  6   related  to  the  regulation  of  conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies  they   know  and  use?   53   CHAPTER  3   Method   Design   To  investigate  the  hypothesis  that,  above  and  beyond  what  they  may  know  about   reading  comprehension  strategies,  6th  graders  know  and  use  a  variety  of  reading  MOs,  I   used  a  mixed-­‐methods  design  combining  structured  written  interviews  with  follow-­‐up  case   studies.  In-­‐person  written  interviews,  conducted  with  thirty  randomly  selected  6th  grade   participants  from  one  small  school  district,  asked  participants  to  report  on  their  reading   activities  and  on  the  different  ways  of  reading  (if  any)  they  used  on  a  recent  school  day  and   non-­‐school  day.  Multi-­‐session  case  studies  were  conducted  with  six  6th  graders  randomly   selected  from  the  first  group  of  thirty.  Each  case  study  session  incorporated  (a)   unstructured,  open-­‐ended  conversation  about  participants’  personal  experiences  and   perceptions  of  reading;  (b)  stretches  of  conversation  resembling  a  semi-­‐structured   interview,  during  which  I  asked  a  number  of  planned  questions  (making  sure  to  ask  the   same  or  similar  questions  of  all  six  participants)  and  probed  participants’  answers  to   clarify  important  points;  and  (c)  multiple  opportunities  for  each  participant  to  read  self-­‐ chosen  and  researcher-­‐provided  texts  while  thinking  aloud.  Self-­‐chosen  texts  were  texts   participants  brought  to  sessions  at  their  own  initiative.  Additionally,  case  study   participants  were  asked  to  use  a  digital  camera  to  take  pictures  of  texts  they  read  between   case  study  sessions  and  to  bring  these  pictures  with  them  for  us  to  examine  and  discuss.     In  combination,  written  interviews  and  case  studies  yielded  a  wealth  of  interlinked   self-­‐report  and  descriptive  data.  The  interconnectedness  of  the  data  (e.g.,  case  study   participants  enacting  the  reading  MOs  they  had  previously  identified  in  their  written   54   interviews)  allowed  for  corroboration  of  the  reliability  and  accuracy  of  the  data,  and  also   increased  confidence  in  the  generalizability  of  some  of  the  study’s  findings.   Design  rationale.  The  decision  to  collect  this  particular  mix  of  data  types  stemmed   from  my  twin  goals  of  (a)  documenting  adolescent  readers’  ways  of  thinking  about  their   reading  activities,  with  particular  attention  to  the  question  of  whether  they  themselves   spontaneously  distinguished  among  two  or  more  distinct  “ways  of  reading”  that  they   claimed  to  both  know  and  use;  (b)  taking  steps  to  verify  the  authenticity,  accuracy,  and   completeness  of  participants’  self-­‐report  data;  and  (c)  doing  (a)  and  (b)  with  a  sufficiently   large  number  of  participants  to  obtain  a  relatively  robust  estimate  of  the  true  prevalence   and  diversity  of  MOs  in  a  larger  population  of  6th  graders  (to  start,  in  the  larger  population   of  6th  graders  in  the  school  district  where  the  study  was  conducted).   Given  my  interest  in  the  relationship  between  conventional  reading  comprehension   strategies  and  possible  higher-­‐level  constructs  (such  as  reading  MOs)  during  reading,  I   considered  the  option  of  relying  exclusively  on  concurrent  think-­‐aloud  data.  This  approach   would  have  had  the  benefit  of  yielding  very  detailed,  high-­‐resolution  snapshots  of  what   adolescent  readers  actually  did  during  reading.  Concurrent  think-­‐aloud  data  have  generally   been  found  to  be  more  reliable  than  retrospective  think-­‐aloud  data  and  interview  data   (Ericsson  &  Simon,  1980,  1984/1993;  Pressley  &  Hilden,  2004).   However,  based  on  a  review  of  prior  studies  in  which  K-­‐12  participants  were  asked   to  think  aloud  while  reading  (e.g.,  Brown,  Pressley,  Van  Meter,  &  Schuder,  1996;  Caldwell  &   Leslie,  2010;  Martin,  2011;  Meyers  et  al.,  1990),  I  was  mindful  of  the  problem  of  relying  so   exclusively  on  participants’  verbal  protocol  data—obtained  from  just  a  single  reading  task   or  just  a  small  number  of  reading  tasks—that  one  loses  sight  of  the  issue  of  participants’   55   perceptions,  preferences,  and  purposes  outside  the  confines  of  this  or  that  episode  of   reading.  Concurrent  think-­‐aloud  data  may  earn  high  marks  for  reliability,  in  the  sense  that   such  data  emphatically  demonstrate  that  a  given  participant  was  capable  of  doing   something  (e.g.,  summarizing,  making  an  inference)  and  did,  in  fact,  actually  enact  a   particular  strategy  at  a  particular  moment  in  time.    However,  in  the  absence  of  additional   interview  data—data  capturing  the  participant’s  opinion  of  the  reading  task,  his/her   commentary  on  what  he/she  was  trying  to  accomplish  by  reading  in  the  particular  way   he/she  did,  and  so  on—think-­‐aloud  data  in  isolation  risk  providing  a  very  incomplete   picture  of  the  whole  reader  behind  the  data  and  of  how  a  particular  think-­‐aloud   performance,  and  a  particular  act  of  reading,  fits  into  the  full  range  of  this  whole  reader’s   multifaceted  experience.14     To  capture  more  of  this  “full  range”  of  my  participants’  experience,  together  with   data  indicating  the  possible  diversity  in  their  personal  ways  of  transacting  with  texts,  I   chose  to  rely  to  some  extent  on  self-­‐report  data  derived  from  interviews.  These  self-­‐report   data  might  be  open  to  questions  and  concerns  regarding  their  accuracy  and  reliability  (e.g.,                                                                                                                   14  The  example  of  Martin’s  (2011)  exemplary  study  of  elementary-­‐aged  students  reading   three  texts  of  different  genres  (a  persuasive  text,  a  biographical  text,  and  a  procedural  or   how-­‐to  text)  may  help  to  clarify  this  point.  Through  coding  of  her  participants’  verbal   protocols  and  through  statistical  analysis  of  the  frequency  with  which  they  used  particular   strategies  and  processes  across  the  three  genres  they  read,  Martin  was  able  to  show  that   some  strategies  and  processes  were  used  slightly  more  or  less  often  than  others  depending   on  the  genre  of  the  text  being  read.  This  is  a  significant  finding.  However,  in  relation  to  my   interest  in  readers’  regulation  of  strategies  and  processes  through  implementation  of   particular  reading  MOs,  the  Martin  study  stopped  tantalizingly  short  by  not  collecting   participants’  responses  to  interview  questions  about  whether,  to  them,  it  felt  like  they  were   reading  in  the  same  way  across  all  three  texts;  whether,  to  them,  it  felt  like  they  were   reading  these  texts  with  the  researcher  present  in  the  same  way  they  would  on  their  own   at  home;  and  so  on.  Responses  to  questions  like  these  would  shed  light  on  the  extent  to   which  the  think-­‐aloud  performance  of  these  participants  actually  captured—or  didn’t   capture—the  full  range  and  diversity  of  their  known  “ways  of  reading.”   56   Merriam,  1998;  Paulhus,  1991),  yet  these  questions  and  concerns  could  be  addressed  to   some  extent  by  aligning  participants’  self-­‐report  data  given  at  a  first  point  in  time  with  self-­‐ report  data  given  at  a  later  time  (and  cross-­‐checking  for  consistency),  as  well  as  by  aligning   self-­‐report  data  from  interview  sessions  with  verbal  protocol  data  collected  during   unrehearsed  reading  of  familiar  and  unfamiliar  texts.   The  balanced  approach  I  opted  for  was  to  trust  and  also  verify—to  collect  self-­‐ report  data  about  my  participants’  personal  perceptions,  preferences,  and  purposes  in   order  to  gain  insights  into  their  possibly  idiosyncratic  and  possibly  diverse  ways  of  reading   and  of  thinking  about  reading;  and  at  the  same  time,  to  take  specific  steps  to  verify  that  the   self-­‐report  data  they  provided  were  internally  consistent  and  corresponded  to  specific   referents  in  the  world  (e.g.,  specific  texts  and  specific  locations  and  contexts  where  reading   occurred)  and  specific  reading  behaviors  they  actually  demonstrated  while  reading  and   thinking  aloud.   In  sum,  by  combining  interview  and  think-­‐aloud  data-­‐collection  methods  and  opting   for  a  two-­‐stage  design  featuring  structured  written  interviews  followed  by  case  studies,  I   addressed  concerns  associated  with  more  narrowly  focused  approaches.  Written   interviews  allowed  me  to  efficiently  gather  snapshots  of  the  self-­‐reported  reading  MOs  of   thirty  6th  graders—a  sufficiently  large  number  to  enable  robust  inferences  about  the  larger   population  from  which  they  were  randomly  sampled.  Follow-­‐up  case  studies  with  a  subset   of  participants  from  the  initial  group  of  thirty—during  which  I  asked  follow-­‐up  questions   about  the  MOs  they  described  in  their  written  interview  and  engaged  them  over  the  course   of  multiple  meetings  in  enacting  several  of  their  MOs—allowed  me  to  corroborate  and  also   augment  findings  from  the  written  interviews.   57   Rationale  for  choice  of  population.  The  decision  to  focus  on  a  single  small  school   district  was  motivated  by  a  preference  for  depth  over  breadth  and  the  judgment  that  more   nuanced  findings  about  6th  graders  in  a  single  well-­‐defined  population  would  provide  a   more  productive  basis  for  future  research  and  professional  development  work  than  less   nuanced  findings  about  6th  graders  across  a  number  of  districts.  Randomly  sampling  all   thirty  of  my  participants  from  a  single  small  district  meant  that  I  would  come  away  with   findings  about  the  range  and  diversity  of  reading  MOs  in  a  single  population—and  the   prevalence  of  such  diversity.  Furthermore,  with  this  number  of  participants  from  a  single   population  of  6th  graders,  I  expected  to  be  able  to  make  some  preliminary  observations   and  inferences  about  the  role—or  non-­‐role—of  school  curriculum  and  instruction  in   fostering  6th  graders’  MOs,  especially  if  it  turned  out  that  students  exposed  for  years  to  the   same  curriculum  and  instruction  in  a  relatively  homogeneous  district  nonetheless   demonstrated  knowing  and  using  somewhat  different  or  very  different  MOs  for  reading.   These  in-­‐depth  findings  could,  in  turn,  provide  a  solid  foundation  for  future  research  as   well  as  professional  development  work  with  teachers  in  this  district—and  in  other  similar   districts.   The  decision  to  study  6th  graders  as  opposed  to  older  or  younger  adolescents  was   motivated  by  (a)  prior  experience  and  pilot  work  with  6th  graders  that  encouraged  me  to   hypothesize  that  many  or  most  children  in  this  age  band  possess  multiple  MOs  and  (b)   prior  research  about  broad  trends  in  children’s  reading  at  this  age  (e.g.,  Alexander,  2005;   Alexander  &  Jetton,  2000;  Kendeou,  van  den  Broek,  White,  &  Lynch,  2007).  In  the  upper-­‐ elementary  years,  students  generally  face  growing  reading  demands  at  school  both  in   terms  of  being  expected  to  read  more,  overall,  and  also  in  terms  of  being  expected  to  read  a   58   greater  range  of  texts  belonging  to  a  greater  variety  of  genres  and  text  formats  than  ever   before  (Carnegie  Council  on  Advancing  Adolescent  Literacy,  2010;  Duke  &  Carlisle,  2011;   Hopper,  2005;  Krause,  2013).  As  well,  students  at  this  age  tend  to  have  increasing   opportunity  and  freedom  to  explore  new  genres  of  texts  and  new  topics  on  their  own,   including  on  the  Internet,  to  which  younger  students  in  the  primary  grades  may  have  more   limited  access  (e.g.,  Alvermann,  2008;  Alvermann,  Hinchman,  Moore,  Phelps,  &  Waff,  2006;   Lenhart,  Purcell,  Smith,  &  Zickurh,  2010).  In  light  of  these  trends,  it  stands  to  reason  that,   among  upper-­‐elementary  students,  one  might  find  a  proliferation  and  diversification  of   reading  MOs.  And  that  is  also  what  my  pilot  work  with  six  6th  graders  indicated.   Another  important  consideration  pertained  to  participants’  likely  willingness  to   participate  in  a  study  of  this  kind—in  particular,  their  level  of  comfort  with  talking  with  a   friendly  but  unfamiliar  adult  about  their  reading  and  thinking.  A  closely  related   consideration  concerned  my  participants’  ability  to  articulate  their  thoughts  and   observations  about  a  mental  activity  as  complex  as  reading.  On  both  these  fronts,  the  6th   grade  level  appeared  to  be  a  safe  choice.  Most  readers  at  this  age  (irrespective  of  their   overall  level  of  reading  proficiency)  have  achieved  a  basic  level  of  fluency  in  reading  and   are  confident  in  their  understandings  of  basic  aspects  of  traditional  print  texts  and  how   text  works.  As  well,  while  the  quantity  of  their  reading  may  vary  considerably,  especially   outside  school  (Allington  &  McGill-­‐Franzen,  2004;  Moje  &  Tysvaer,  2010),  most  6th  graders   read  independently  for  a  variety  of  purposes,  in  a  variety  of  domains.  Crucially,  their   language  knowledge  and  oral  communication  skills  are  now  sufficiently  advanced  to  talk   about  what  they  know  and  do  as  readers,  and  previous  interview-­‐based  studies  indicated  a   high  likelihood  that  6th  graders  would  feel  confident  and  willing  to  share  what  they  know   59   with  an  interested  adult  researcher  (e.g.,  Bulfin  &  Koutsogiannis,  2012;  Gallagher,  2012;   Wyatt-­‐Smith  &  Elkins,  2008).     Rationale  for  sample  size.  In  the  absence  of  any  prior  research  specifically  focused   on  6th  graders’  reading  MOs,  a  sample  size  of  30  was  chosen  based  on  a  review  of  relevant   studies  with  older  adolescents  (e.g.,  Graff,  2010;  Gallagher,  2012)  and  pilot  work  I   conducted  with  six  6th  graders.  This  pilot  sample  exhibited  a  range  of  4  to  8  different  “ways   of  reading,”  with  a  mean  of  6.33  reading  MOs  per  reader.  Using  these  results  to  estimate  an   appropriate  sample  size,  I  first  calculated  a  sample  variance  of  1.86  and  standard  deviation   of  1.36.  Assuming  a  normal  distribution  of  reading  MOs  in  the  population,  and  setting  the   desired  margin  of  error  to  0.5  and  the  desired  confidence  level  to  95%  confidence  (Z  =   1.96),  I  derived  an  estimated  necessary  sample  size  of  29  participants  (“necessary”  for   estimating  the  mean  number  of  MOs  per  student  in  the  larger  population  within  a  margin   of  error  of  0.5  and  with  95%  confidence).  To  give  myself  an  “insurance  policy”  of  one   participant,  I  rounded  29  to  30.   For  the  case  studies  component  of  the  study,  my  choice  of  six  case  studies  was  based   on  the  fact  that  six  participants  constitutes  20%  of  the  pool  of  30  structured  written   interview  participants.  In  terms  of  auditing  my  30  participants’  interview  responses  for   authenticity  and  accuracy,  an  audit  rate  of  20%  seemed  appropriate.  As  importantly,  six   case  studies  would  allow  me  to  capture  six  different  adolescent  voices  and  perspectives  on   the  experience  of  reading  strategically  in  the  year  2014.  With  each  case  involving   approximately  five  hours  of  in-­‐person  data  collection,  six  case  studies  would  allow  for  in-­‐ depth  description  and  nuanced  insight  in  each  case  as  well  as  opportunities  to  discern   parallels  and  contrasts  across  multiple  cases.   60   Research  Context   General  demographics.  Participants  in  this  study  were  twelve-­‐  and  thirteen-­‐year-­‐ old  6th  graders  from  one  small  rural  school  district  in  a  Midwestern  state.  In  2012-­‐2013,   the  district  enrolled  a  total  of  2,446  students  across  K-­‐12—roughly  200  students  per  grade   level.  The  total  enrollment  at  the  upper-­‐elementary  building  where  participants  were   recruited  was  374,  with  202  of  these  students  enrolled  in  6th  grade.  In  terms  of  racial   make-­‐up,  the  district  overall  was  overwhelmingly  white  (>99%),  and  this  was  true  of  the   6th  grade  cohort  at  the  time  of  this  study.   At  the  time  of  the  study,  the  district  had  a  policy  of  inclusion  for  students  with   learning  differences  (i.e.,  students  with  all  but  the  most  severe  learning  differences  were   “mainstreamed”  in  regular  classes).  Given  that  I  did  not  exclude  from  the  study  students   with  learning  differences,  it  is  relevant  to  report  here  that,  in  2012-­‐13,  33  out  of  202  6th   grade  students,  33  (16.34%)  were  categorized  by  the  state  as  “students  with  disabilities.”   Also  relevant  here  is  the  fact  that  in  2012-­‐2013  no  6th  grade  students  were  categorized  as   English  Language  Learners.   With  regard  to  family  income  (another  demographic  factor  known  to  be  predictive   of  academic  achievement  as  well  as  literacy  development,  specifically  [e.g.,  Harwell  &   LeBeau,  2010]),  in  2012-­‐13,  97  of  202  6th  grade  students  (48.02%)  were  determined   eligible  for  the  federal  subsidized  lunch  program  and  were  categorized  by  the  state  as   “economically  disadvantaged.”  The  US  Department  of  Agriculture’s  Income  Eligibility   Guidelines  (IEGs),  used  in  determining  eligibility  for  free  and  reduced  price  meals,   indicated  that  in  2013  a  family  of  five  with  annual  income  below  $51,006  qualified  for   reduced  price  meals  and  with  annual  income  below  $38,842  qualified  for  free  meals.   61   Finally,  with  regard  to  students’  longevity  in  the  district,  it  is  worth  noting  that,   while  there  has  been  some  attrition  and  mobility  every  year  (i.e.,  students  and  their   families  entering  and  leaving  the  district),  a  majority  of  students  who  enroll  in   Kindergarten  have  historically  remained  enrolled  in  the  district  for  the  entire  span  of  their   K-­‐12  education.  Consequently,  it  is  usually  the  case  that  a  majority  of  students  at  any  grade   level  have  been  classmates  for  many  years  and  have  experienced  similar  or  identical   curriculum  and  instruction  for  many  years.  The  district’s  high  school  graduation  statistics   are  strong  relative  to  the  state  average.  In  2012-­‐13  the  high  school  graduation  rate  was   90.4%,  well  above  the  state  average  of  76.96%.  Roughly  50%  of  graduating  seniors  in  that   year  enrolled  in  community  college  or  a  four-­‐year  college  or  university.   Academic  achievement.  With  regard  to  academic  performance  (as  measured  by   the  state’s  standardized  assessment  of  educational  achievement  in  math  and  reading   administered  annually  to  students  in  grades  3-­‐8),  this  district  has  historically  performed   slightly  above  the  state  average  in  reading  and  slightly  below  the  state  average  in  math.  In   2012-­‐13,  for  example,  the  district’s  percentage  of  students  scoring  at  the  proficient  level  in   reading  surpassed  the  state  average  by  between  2.9  and  12.7  percentage  points  in  grades   3-­‐7;  only  in  grade  8  was  the  state  average  (65.7%  proficient)  higher  than  the  district’s   percentage  (64.4%  proficient).  In  math,  by  contrast,  this  district’s  percentage  of  students   scoring  at  the  proficient  level  has  consistently  lagged  the  state  average,  with  the  exception   of  6th  grade.  In  2012-­‐13,  the  district’s  percentage  of  students  proficient  in  math  lagged  the   state  average  by  between  2.7  and  13.3  percentage  points;  only  in  grade  6  was  the  district’s   percentage  (53.3%  proficient)  higher  than  the  state  average  (40.2%  proficient).   62   In  reading,  specifically,  6th  graders  in  this  district  have  historically  modestly   outperformed  the  state  average  at  each  of  the  achievement  levels  designated  by  the  state   standardized  assessment.  In  2012-­‐13,  for  example,  28.2%  of  6th  graders  scored   “Advanced”  (the  highest  of  four  levels),  compared  to  22.7%  statewide;  49.7%  scored   “Proficient,”  compared  to  45.5%  statewide;  16.9%  scored  “Partially  Proficient,”  compared   to  17.4%  statewide;  and  <10%  scored  “Not  Proficient”  (the  lowest  of  the  four  levels),   compared  to  14.4%  statewide.     Curriculum  and  instruction.15  Students  in  this  district  experience  reading   curriculum  and  instruction  that  are  in  many  ways  reflective  of  recent  trends  in  reading   instruction  throughout  the  state  and  the  nation  (Burns,  Griffin,  &  Snow,  1999;  National   Early  Literacy  Panel,  2008;  National  Institute  of  Child  Health  and  Human  Development,   2000).  Starting  in  Kindergarten,  class  time  is  devoted  to  building  students’  decoding   accuracy,  oral  reading  fluency,  and  comprehension,  and  expanding  their  vocabulary.   Activities  include  teacher  read-­‐alouds  of  illustrated  texts  (mostly  narrative),  shared   reading  of  texts  (mostly  narrative),  and  phonics  instruction  and  practice.  Over  the  primary   years,  phonemic  awareness  and  phonics  instruction  continues,  in  tandem  with  an  emphasis   on  oral  reading  fluency,  which  teachers  assess  on  a  regular  basis.     As  students  become  fluent  readers,  time  and  attention  are  gradually  refocused  on   more  explicitly  meaning-­‐constructive,  comprehension-­‐focused  activities,  including  shared   reading,  small-­‐group  guided  reading,  guided  independent  reading,  small-­‐group  book  clubs,   and  writing.  As  well,  there  is  growing  diversity  over  the  years  in  the  genres  of  texts  to                                                                                                                   15   This   brief   overview   of   reading-­‐related   curriculum   in   the   district   was   reviewed   and   approved  for  factual  accuracy  by  three  teachers  in  the  district:  a  Grade  1  teacher,  a  Grade  5   teacher,  and  the  district’s  upper-­‐elementary  reading  specialist.     63   which  students  are  exposed.  Certainly  by  the  time  students  start  the  upper-­‐elementary   grades,  the  ratio  of  narrative  fiction  reading  to  non-­‐fiction,  informational  text  reading  has   shifted  toward  greater  emphasis  on  informational  texts  (though  the  former  still   predominate).  As  well,  starting  in  5th  grade,  students  experience  increasing  exposure  to   digital  and  web-­‐based  reading  and  writing  activities.   With  regard  to  reading  comprehension  instruction,  specifically,  there  is  an  ongoing   and  explicit  focus  on  improving  students’  comprehension-­‐relevant  skills  and  strategies  that   starts  in  Kindergarten.  Even  before  they  can  decode  simple  texts  independently,  all   students  practice  retelling  short  narratives  and  learn  about  the  various  elements  stories   contain  (e.g.,  characters,  setting,  problem,  solution).  As  well,  students  start  learning  early   on  about  specific  reading  comprehension  strategies,  such  as  predicting,  visualizing,  and   making  connections  (e.g.,  making  “connections  to  self,”  “connections  to  the  world,”  and   “connections  to  other  books”).  This  emphasis  on  reading  comprehension  strategies   continues  through  6th  grade,  with  additional  strategies  being  added  to  ones  learned  in   previous  years.  As  students  move  into  the  upper-­‐elementary  grades,  there  is  also  more   concerted  and  sustained  attention  to  text  features  and  text  structures  (e.g.,  problem-­‐ solution,  chronological  sequence,  cause-­‐effect,  compare-­‐contrast,  hierarchical  description),   as  well  as  texts’  stylistic  features.  Such  features  and  structures  are  explored  both  from  the   angle  of  reading  and  from  the  angle  of  writing,  and  in  English  Language  Arts  as  well  as  in   other  content  area  classes  (e.g.,  social  studies,  science).   In  relation  to  the  present  study’s  focus  on  the  strategic  self-­‐regulation  of  reading   activities  and  6th  graders’  development  of  reading  MOs,  it  is  also  worth  noting  that,  in  the   upper-­‐elementary  grades,  ELA  teachers  do  not  teach  reading  comprehension  strategies   64   only  in  isolation.  Students  are  also  taught  suites  or  “packages”  of  strategies,  such  as   Question-­‐Answer  Relationships  (QAR)  and  Reading  Around  the  Text  (RAT).  QAR,  for   example,  is  a  framework  for  thinking  about  different  types  of  questions  that  can  be  asked   about  a  text  (e.g.,  “right  there  in  the  text”  questions,  “think  and  search”  questions,  “on  my   own”  questions)  and  the  search  and  reading  strategies  relevant  to  each  type  (Raphael,   1986).  RAT  is  a  strategy  applied  upon  first  contact  with  an  unfamiliar  text  and  is  used  to   orient  the  reader  to  the  text  and  what  it  contains—so  she  can  set  a  purpose  for  reading  and   jump-­‐start  the  process  of  locating  the  text’s  main  points,  or  locating  specific  information   she  especially  needs.   Participants   Data  for  this  study  were  collected  from  thirty  participants  who  were  all  twelve-­‐  and   thirteen-­‐year-­‐old  6th  graders  at  the  end  of  their  6th  grade  year.  All  thirty  participated  in   the  first  stage  of  data  collection,  in  the  form  of  a  structured  written  interview.  Six   participants  from  the  group  of  thirty  then  additionally  participated  in  the  second  stage,   consisting  of  case  studies.   Reflecting  a  district-­‐wide  pattern,  a  high  percentage  of  participants  had  been   enrolled  in  the  district  since  1st  grade  (21  of  30,  or  70%).  Two  others  joined  in  3rd  grade,   and  five  more  joined  in  4th  or  5th  grade.  Only  2  of  30  (<7%)  interview  participants  entered   the  district  at  the  start  of  6th  grade.  In  other  words,  all  but  2  of  30  participants  had  been   grade-­‐mates  or  classmates  for  at  least  two  years  prior  to  this  study,  and  the  majority  had   been  grade-­‐mates  or  classmates  since  1st  grade.  They  had  thus  experienced  similar   curriculum  and  instruction  for  at  least  two  years  and,  in  most  cases,  six  years  of  schooling   prior  to  the  study.   65   Among  my  six  case  study  participants,  five  of  six  had  been  enrolled  in  the  district   since  1st  grade.  The  sixth  joined  in  3rd  grade.  Thus  all  six  case  study  participants  had   experienced  similar  curriculum  and  instruction  for  at  least  four  years  of  schooling  prior  to   meeting  with  me  in  the  last  weeks  of  their  6th  grade  year.     As  a  consequence  of  the  selection  method  used  (see  details  below),  gender  parity   was  achieved:  exactly  half  of  the  study’s  participants  in  both  stage  one  (written  interviews   with  thirty  participants)  and  also  stage  two  (case  studies  with  six  participants)  were   female,  and  the  other  half  were  male.  Also  as  a  consequence  of  the  selection  method  used  at   stage  one  (in  which  participants  were  randomly  sampled  from  the  full  population  of  6th   graders),  participants’  academic  achievement  levels  and  learning  profiles  were  reflective  of   the  larger  population.  The  roster  of  thirty  participants  selected  to  participate  in  the  written   interviews  comprised  students  at  all  levels  of  reading  proficiency  (as  measured  by  the   state’s  annual  assessment),  including  (a)  four  students  of  lower  reading  proficiency  who  in   2013  took  an  alternative,  modified  form  of  the  state  assessment,  and  (b)  one  student  who   took  a  different  alternative  assessment  designed  for  students  with  cognitive  impairments.   Finally,  consistent  with  the  overall  demographics  of  the  district  and  the  school,  100%  of   study  participants  were  categorized  as  “white”  and  none  were  categorized  as  English   Language  Learners.   Procedure  for  Stage  1:  Structured  Written  Interviews   Recruitment  and  selection  of  participants.  To  ensure  equal  numbers  of  male  and   female  participants,  as  well  as  a  sample  representative  of  the  full  range  of  reading   proficiency  levels  in  the  population,  a  list  of  all  6th  graders  was  sorted  by  gender  into  two   alphabetized  lists.  Fifteen  names  were  then  selected  from  each  list,  for  a  total  of  thirty   66   participants,  using  a  systematic  sampling  method.  Counting  from  the  top  of  each  list,  every   seventh  name  was  circled  for  selection.  An  informational  letter  about  the  study,  along  with   a  parent-­‐guardian  permission  form,  was  then  given  to  every  randomly  selected  student.  6th   graders  who  were  not  selected  for  the  study  were  informed  that  the  principle  of  selection   was  random  chance.     Twenty-­‐nine  of  the  thirty  initially  selected  and  invited  students  agreed  to   participate  and  returned  signed  parent-­‐guardian  permission  forms.  One  male  student   declined  to  participate.  To  replace  this  student,  the  next-­‐listed  student  on  the  alphabetized   list  of  all  male  6th  graders  was  invited  to  participate.  This  student  agreed  to  participate  and   returned  a  signed  parent-­‐guardian  permission  form.   Written  interview  instrument.  The  written  interview  instrument  (see  Appendix   A)  was  designed  to  elicit  a  maximum  amount  of  specific  information  about  reading  MOs  in   as  short  a  time  as  possible  from  6th  grade  participants  not,  in  general,  accustomed  to   reporting  at  length  about  their  reading  practices  and  processes.  The  instrument  was  also   designed  to  contain  internal  checks  on  the  authenticity  and  reliability  of  participants’  self-­‐ report  data.     With  regard  to  obtaining  information  from  participants  as  efficiently  as  possible,  the   interview  instrument  contained  the  following  features:  (a)  it  provided  graphical  elements   (silhouettes  of  people  walking,  running,  dancing,  etc.)  to  accompany  the  researcher’s  brief   oral  explanation  of  the  idea  that  particular  activities  are  done  by  some  people  in  more  than   one  way  (see  Appendix  B  for  the  researcher  script);  (b)  it  provided  participants  with  blank,   labeled  charts  they  were  asked  to  use  to  list  all  the  times  they  read  and  what  they  read  each   time  (e.g.,  “my  math  textbook,”  “texts  from  my  friends”)  from  morning  till  night,  on  a  recent   67   school  day  and  a  recent  non-­‐school  day;  (c)  it  provided  adolescent-­‐friendly  instructions   about  indicating  which  reading  events—among  those  listed  by  the  participant—involved   “the  same  way  of  reading,”  and  which  (if  any)  involved  reading  in  a  way  that  the  participant   him/herself  counted  as  a  different  way  of  reading;  and  (d)  it  provided  spaces  for   participants  to  explain  what  they  saw  as  the  nature  of  the  differences  (if  any)  between   these  different  ways  of  reading  they  indicated  using  in  (c).     The  instrument  was  piloted  on  eleven  occasions  with  a  total  of  six  6th  graders,  one   8th  grader,  one  2nd  grader,  and  four  adult  readers  to  optimize  its  clarity  and  ease-­‐of-­‐use  for   a  6th  grade  audience.  Feedback  was  solicited  from  pilot  participants  and  was  used  to   improve  the  wording  of  several  questions.  Input  was  also  solicited  from  a  K-­‐12  reading   specialist  and  from  university  experts  with  extensive  experience  conducting  research  with   adolescent  students,  and  this  input  resulted  in  further  improvements  in  layout  and   wording.  (At  the  same  time,  it  should  be  noted  that,  at  no  point  during  the  piloting  of  the   instrument,  or  during  its  subsequent  use  in  the  study  reported  here,  did  any  6th  grader   express  confusion  about  the  directions  in  general  or,  in  particular,  about  the  request  to   indicate  different  “ways  of  reading”  and  to  explain  differences  between  ways  of  reading.)   With  regard  to  the  issue  of  internal  checks  on  the  authenticity  and  reliability  of   participants’  self-­‐report  data,  the  interview  instrument  was  designed  to  address  the   concern  that,  out  of  confusion  or  out  of  a  misplaced  desire  to  make  their  answers  look  more   impressive,  participants  might  indicate  knowing  more  different  ways  of  reading  than  they   actually  did  (see  Maxwell,  1996,  for  this  and  other  types  of  undesirable  “researcher   effects”).  To  address  this  concern,  the  instrument  had  participants  first  provide  relatively   straightforward  factual  information  about  the  times  they  read  on  two  recent  days.  This   68   factual  account  of  reading  on  two  different  days  then  provided  the  basis  for  participants  to   reflect  and  report  on  their  personal  perceptions  regarding  their  different  ways  of  reading   (if  any).  Further,  in  a  subsequent  section  of  the  written  interview,  participants  were  asked   to  explain  what,  for  them,  made  each  way  of  reading  they  identified  different  from  others.  If   a  participant  had  fabricated  or  embellished  one  or  more  of  the  ways  of  reading  he/she   reported,  this  step  might  prove  difficult  to  accomplish.  On  the  spot,  this  difficulty  might   cause  a  participant  to  reconsider  and  correct  any  exaggeration  or  fabrication.  During  later   review  and  analysis  of  participants’  responses,  this  design  feature  might  at  the  very  least   increase  the  chances  of  detecting  any  such  exaggeration  or  fabrication.   Finally,  to  avoid  under-­‐reporting  by  participants  of  their  possibly  numerous   different  ways  of  reading,  the  interview  instrument  included  a  final  request  for  participants   to  report  any  additional  ways  of  reading  known  to  them—in  particular,  any  ways  of   reading  known  to  them  that,  for  whatever  reasons,  they  did  not  use  on  the  two  days  they   earlier  chose  to  report  on  in  detail  and  therefore  did  not  mention  in  the  preceding  section   of  the  written  interview.   Other  materials.  Other  materials  used  during  the  written  interviews  included  pens   and  colored  pencils.  Pens  were  used  by  participants  to  write  responses  to  written   interview  questions;  colored  pencils  were  used  by  participants  to  code  their  notations   about  the  times  they  read  on  two  recent  days  (using  color  to  indicate  similar  or  different   ways  of  reading).  These  materials  were  provided  by  the  researcher.   General  procedure.  Over  the  course  of  three  weeks  in  May  2014,  structured   written  interviews  were  conducted  in  person  in  sessions  that  involved  1-­‐3  students  each.   These  sessions  were  conducted  at  the  participants’  school,  during  the  school  day,  in  an   69   empty  classroom.  Students  were  released  from  class  by  their  teachers  to  meet  with  the   researcher  at  pre-­‐arranged  times,  usually  between  morning  recess  and  lunch.  At  the   conclusion  of  each  written  interview  session,  the  researcher  accompanied  participants   back  to  their  classroom.   At  each  session,  participants  were  thanked  for  their  participation  and  re-­‐assented  to   confirm  they  still  wished  to  participate  (i.e.,  they  read  and  signed  an  age-­‐appropriate   participant  assent  form  they  had  already  signed  before).  They  were  reassured  that  the   written  interview  was  not  an  assessment  of  any  kind,  that  their  responses  would  be  de-­‐ identified  (making  it  impossible  for  teachers  or  anyone  else  to  find  out  which  answers  were   theirs),  and  that  there  were  no  right  or  wrong  answers.  They  were  asked  to  consider  each   question  thoughtfully  and  to  respond  to  all  questions  honestly,  to  the  best  of  their   knowledge,  and  as  specifically  as  possible.  (See  Appendix  B  for  the  full  researcher  script.)   Throughout  the  written  interview,  participants  worked  alone.  Steps  were  taken  to   create  a  relaxed  and  welcoming  environment,  and  participants  were  encouraged  to  ask  for   clarification  whenever  needed.  However,  there  was  no  discussion  permitted  about  the   participants’  actual  or  contemplated  answers  to  questions.  This  was  done  to  avoid   participants  influencing  each  other’s  responses.  Simple  procedural  questions  were  of   course  promptly  answered.  Participants  took  anywhere  from  50  to  70  minutes  to  answer   the  written  interview  questions.  Snacks  were  provided  at  the  end  of  the  session.  (Snacks   were  also  provided  to  all  6th  grade  students  who  were  not  selected  to  participate.)  At  the   conclusion  of  each  session,  participants  were  thanked  and  accompanied  back  to  their   classroom.   70   Procedure  for  asking  about  “different  ways  of  reading.”  For  each  written   interview  session,  participants  were  seated  at  a  large  table.  Each  participant  was  provided   with  a  pen,  a  box  of  colored  pencils,  and  a  copy  of  the  written  interview  instrument.   After  participants  were  welcomed,  thanked,  and  re-­‐assented,  the  researcher  gave  a   brief  overview  of  the  written  interview  and  introduced  the  idea  of  “different  ways  of   reading.”  This  idea  was  introduced  by  stating  that,  while  people  may  do  some  activities  the   same  way  every  time,  there  may  be  other  activities  that  they  habitually  do  in  one  or  more   different  ways.  The  researcher  illustrated  this  idea  with  a  personal  example,  referring  to   the  fact  that,  while  his  seven-­‐year-­‐old  son  has  different  ways  of  brushing  his  teeth,  he   himself  brushes  his  teeth  every  evening  in  exactly  the  same  way.  The  researcher  then   contrasted  his  singular  way  of  brushing  his  teeth  with  the  fact  that  he  knows  and  uses   several  ways  of  “moving  around  on  his  feet”:  strolling,  striding,  jogging,  sprinting,  dancing.   To  support  this  point,  the  researcher  referred  participants  to  the  first  page  of  the  interview   instrument,  which  showed  silhouettes  of  people  engaged  in  different  types  of  movement   (e.g.,  jogging,  walking,  dancing—see  Appendix  A).     At  this  point  the  researcher  invited  participants  to  reflect  on  their  known  ways  of   brushing  their  teeth  and  moving  around  on  their  feet.  Did  they  do  these  things  in  a  single   uniform  way  every  time,  or  did  they  know  different  ways  of  doing  these  things—ways  that   looked  different  or  felt  different  to  them,  personally,  even  if  someone  else  watching  them   might  not  see  the  difference?  Participants  were  then  asked  to  estimate  how  many  different   ways  of  moving  around  on  their  feet  they  knew  and  used,  and  to  write  that  number  on  the   first  page  of  the  instrument.     71   Next,  the  researcher  asked  participants  to  turn  their  attention  to  the  activity  of   reading,  and  to  reflect  on  whether,  for  them  personally,  reading  was  an  activity  they  did  in   the  same  way  every  time,  or  whether  it  was  an  activity  they  knew  how  to  do,  and  did  in  fact   do,  in  different  ways.  Participants  were  then  asked  to  estimate  how  many  different  ways  of   reading  they  knew  and  used,  and  to  write  that  number  on  the  first  page  of  the  instrument.   (See  the  full  researcher  script  in  Appendix  B.)   It  should  be  noted  that,  throughout  this  introduction  of  the  idea  of  reading  possibly   being  done  in  different  ways,  the  researcher  followed  a  script  that  emphasized  and   legitimized  individual  differences—the  idea  that  “we  all  do  things  in  different  ways,  and   that’s  great”—and  remained  agnostic  on  the  issue  of  whether  there  is  any  benefit  or   advantage  to  having  more  than  one  way  of  doing  an  activity.     With  the  idea  of  “reading  in  different  ways”  on  the  table,  the  researcher  then   focused  participants’  attention  on  the  printed  instrument  and  guided  them  through  the   activities  and  questions  printed  in  the  instrument.  All  directions  in  the  instrument  were   read  aloud.  When  participants  had  procedural  questions,  these  were  promptly  answered.   Procedure  for  Stage  2:  Case  Studies   Recruitment  and  selection  of  participants.  As  soon  as  the  in-­‐person  written   interviews  were  completed,  six  6th  graders  from  the  first  group  of  thirty  were  randomly   selected  and  invited  to  participate  in  the  follow-­‐up  case  studies.  To  ensure  equal   representation  of  boys  and  girls,  as  well  as  inclusion  of  students  of  different  levels  of   reading  proficiency,  a  stratified  selection  method  was  used.  The  thirty  students  who   participated  in  the  written  interviews  were  sorted  by  gender  and  then  sorted  again  into   three  equal  reading  achievement  bands  (high,  medium,  and  low)  based  on  their  scores  on   72   the  reading  section  of  the  most  recent  state  standardized  assessment  of  academic  progress.   One  boy  and  one  girl  were  then  randomly  selected  from  each  band.  These  students  were   then  invited  to  take  part  in  a  series  of  case  study  sessions  spread  over  3-­‐8  weeks—starting   in  May  and  continuing  through  July  or  in  some  cases  early  August,  depending  on  each   student’s  summer  vacation  plans  and  availability.  All  six  students  agreed  to  participate  and   returned  a  signed  parent-­‐guardian  permission  form.   Materials.  For  the  case  studies  I  assembled  a  small  collection  of  diverse  texts  for   case  study  participants  to  read  while  thinking  aloud.  The  collection  included  one  or  more  of   each  of  the  following:  novels,  poems,  application  forms,  social  studies  textbooks,  science   textbooks,  self-­‐improvement  books,  speeches,  religious  texts,  and  graphic  novels.  Some  of   these  were  borrowed  (with  teachers’  permission)  from  the  school’s  own  collection  of   reading  materials  (e.g.,  three  novels  that  6th  graders  had  read  at  the  beginning  of  their  6th   grade  year),  and  a  subset  of  these  were  therefore  familiar  to  some  or  all  of  the  case  study   participants.  (A  full  list  of  titles  is  provided  in  Appendix  C.)   Other  materials  included  one  or  two  laptops  with  wireless  internet  access,  Morae   software  loaded  on  the  laptops  to  record  mouse  and  keyboard  actions  along  with  audio  of   the  user’s  voice,  a  digital  audio  recorder,  a  back-­‐up  digital  audio  recorder,  a  digital  camera,   participants’  written  interview  notes  from  their  prior  interview  session,  whatever  books  or   other  texts  the  participant  chose  to  bring  with  him/her  to  the  session,  and  individual   websites  accessed  on  the  internet.  Texts  supplied  by  participants  included  the  following:   novels,  autobiographies,  illustrated  history  books,  telephone  books,  magazines,  video   games,  smartphone  apps,  digital  photographs,  videos,  news  websites,  student-­‐made   73   websites,  baseball  cards,  product  manuals,  product  catalogs,  competition  entry  forms,   pattern  cards  for  equestrian  competitions,  and  text  messages.   General  procedure.  Once  six  case  study  participants  were  randomly  selected  and   had  all  returned  their  signed  parent-­‐guardian  permission  forms,  I  scheduled  individual   meeting  times  with  participants  and  their  families.  Meetings  were  held  at  times  and   locations  convenient  for  each  participant  and  his/her  family.  Meeting  locations  included   the  school  building,  local  libraries,  and  participants’  homes.  Meeting  times  were  spaced  to   accommodate  participants’  plans  for  sports  events,  summer  camps,  and  summer  vacation   travel.  In  rare  cases,  meetings  with  a  particular  participant  occurred  on  two  consecutive   days.  In  most  cases,  meetings  were  spaced  one  week  apart.  Meetings  were  scheduled  to  last   approximately  90  minutes  and  in  fact  lasted  anywhere  from  75  minutes  to  120  minutes.   Each  case  study  session  followed  the  same  basic  pattern.  At  the  beginning  of  each   session,  after  greetings  were  exchanged,  I  sat  side-­‐by-­‐side  with  the  participant  at  a  table   (where  laptops,  books,  and  other  materials  were  within  reach)  and  proceeded  to  engage   the  participant  in  relaxed,  back-­‐and-­‐forth  conversation  about  reading.  Over  the  next  90   minutes,  we  then  cycled  through  three  types  of  activities:  (a)  open-­‐ended,  relatively   unstructured  conversation  about  the  participant’s  literacy  activities,  likes  and  dislikes,  and   texts  he/she  had  recently  read  or  with  which  he/she  described  some  sort  of  reading-­‐like   contact  (e.g.,  playing  video  games);  (b)  stretches  of  time  during  which,  at  my  invitation,  the   participant  read  a  text  while  thinking  aloud;  and  (c)  conversational  stretches  where  we   talked  about  the  participant’s  just-­‐enacted  reading  of  one  or  more  texts,  using  this   experience  as  a  starting  point  for  observations,  questions,  and  reflections  about  the   participant’s  diverse  “ways  of  reading”  (as  already  indicated  by  his/her  responses  to   74   questions  in  the  written  interview).  As  part  of  this  last  type  of  activity,  we  also  often   revisited  the  participant’s  actual  written  interview  responses  and/or  my  notes  about  what   he/she  said  during  a  prior  case  study  meeting.   In  a  typical  case  study  session,  we  cycled  through  these  three  activities  three  or  four   times.  That  said,  I  did  not  overtly  try  to  make  the  session  adhere  to  any  kind  of  timetable,   schedule,  or  pacing.  On  the  contrary,  every  effort  was  made  to  keep  the  tone  and  pace  of   the  session  relaxed  and  free  flowing.  For  example,  if  the  participant  wished  to  talk  about  a   reading-­‐related  hobby  or  interest  (e.g.,  train-­‐spotting,  horseback  riding),  the  conversation   was  allowed  to  follow  this  path  until  it  eventually  found  its  way  back  to  the  topic  of  literacy   and  reading  (because  inevitably  there  would  be  some  kind  of  connection  between  the  topic   at  hand,  whatever  it  might  be,  and  reading  or  writing).     The  guiding  principle  of  each  session  was  to  provide  the  participant  with  as  many   opportunities  as  possible  to  describe  and  enact,  in  as  much  detail  and  as  fully  as  possible,   what  he/she  himself  or  herself  perceived  to  be  the  different  “ways  of  reading”  in  his/her   repertoire.  The  goal  of  this  approach  was  to  seek  corroboration,  correction,  and/or   augmentation  of  data  provided  by  the  participant  during  his/her  earlier  written  interview.     At  the  same  time,  I  seized  every  opportunity  to  elicit  self-­‐report  and  enactment  data   about  whatever  other,  additional  ways  of  reading  my  participants  alluded  to  or  specifically   mentioned.  For  instance,  if  a  participant  commented  that,  when  reading  a  self-­‐provided  or   researcher-­‐provided  text,  she  felt  or  thought  that  she  might  be  reading  in  a  slightly   different  or  very  different  way  from  other  ways  she  had  previously  described,  I  asked  her   to  say  more.     75   Between  sessions,  case  study  participants  were  invited  to  take  photographs  of   reading  materials  and/or  reading  settings  in  their  daily  lives  that  might  be  difficult  to   describe  in  words  or—in  the  case  of  reading  materials  or  devices—that  might  be  difficult  to   transport  to  a  case  study  session  (e.g.,  a  wall-­‐mounted  screen,  or  a  large-­‐format  or  fragile   book  it  might  not  be  safe  or  physically  possible  to  transport).  Participants  were  invited  to   bring  these  photographs  with  them  to  the  next  case  study  session.  Following  the  example   of  studies  by  Burnett  and  Myers  (2002)  and  Dickie  and  McDonald  (2011),  the  researcher   provided  a  camera  for  this  purpose.  However,  all  six  case  study  participants  indicated  that   they  owned  a  cellphone,  smartphone,  or  tablet  with  a  built-­‐in  camera  that  they  preferred  to   use  for  this  purpose.    As  well,  at  the  end  of  every  session,  participants  were  invited  to  bring   with  them  to  the  next  session  two  or  three  texts  from  home.  Every  time  this  invitation  was   made,  I  reiterated  that  “texts”  should  be  understood  very  broadly  and  inclusively  as   comprising  short  and  long  texts,  digital  and  print  texts,  strictly  alphabetic  texts  as  well  as   multi-­‐modal  texts—whatever  texts  participants  found  themselves  reading  between  case   study  sessions.   Unstructured  conversation  about  literacy  and  reading.  As  already  mentioned,   stretches  of  unstructured  conversation  constituted  one  staple  component  of  each  case   study  session.  Having  already  participated  in  the  structured  written  interviews,  my  case   study  participants  were  aware  from  the  start  of  the  general  focus  of  the  study  (i.e.,  how   adolescents  read)  and  the  likely  conversational  focus  of  our  case  study  meetings,  namely,   their  personal  experiences  of  reading  and  how,  at  times,  they  might  read  in  different  ways.   Stretches  of  unstructured  conversation  were  therefore  rarely  entirely  off  topic,  in  the  sense   of  having  no  discernible  connection  to  literacy  at  all.  In  general,  unstructured  conversation   76   consisted  of  meandering  dialog  about  literacy-­‐related  activities,  with  occasional   conversational  tangents  during  which  the  participant  (and  sometimes  the  researcher)   spoke  for  a  minute  about  a  personally  important  topic  or  interest  (e.g.,  a  favorite  YouTube   channel,  a  family  trip,  a  pet).  By  dint  of  shared  expectation  and  consent,  however,  these   tangents  were  always  relatively  quickly  connected  back  to  a  literacy-­‐related  topic,  or  they   were  simply  dropped.     Concurrent  think-­aloud  protocols.  Although  every  self-­‐report  a  reader  gives  about   his/her  reading  activity  has  some  informational  value  (in  the  sense  that,  even  if  highly   inaccurate,  a  reader’s  account  of  how  she  reads  may  yield  useful  data  regarding  what  she   thinks  proficient  readers  do,  or  what  she  thinks  she  ought  to  do  during  reading),  the  least   likely  procedure  for  obtaining  accurate  data  involves  asking  participants  to  report   retrospectively  about  what  they  may  have  done  in  the  past  or,  in  general,  about  what  they   usually  do  (Ericsson  &  Simon,  1980).  In  contrast,  when  participants  are  given  a  specific  text   to  read  and  asked  to  think  aloud  while  reading  it,  they  tend  to  be  more  explicit,  specific,  and   precise  (Ericsson  &  Simon,  1984/1993;  Pressley  &  Afflerbach,  1995;  Pressley  &  Hilden,   2004).  Furthermore,  insofar  as  think-­‐aloud  utterances  are  connected  to  specific  features  of   the  text  and/or  to  specific  aspects  of  the  reader  or  the  context,  they  provide  a  basis  for   additional  comparisons  across  readers  and  other  additional  inferences.  For  this  reason,  I   made  sure  that  every  case  study  session  involved  several  opportunities  for  participants  to   engage  in  actual  reading  of  texts  of  various  kinds—some  provided  by  me,  some  provided   by  the  participant—while  thinking  aloud.   These  stretches  of  reading  and  thinking  aloud  were  another  staple  component  of   each  case  study  session.  After  participating  in  a  few  minutes  of  concurrent  think-­‐aloud   77   training  during  the  first  session  (see  below),  participants  were  repeatedly  invited  to  pick   up  a  text  and  spend  a  few  minutes  reading  it  while  verbalizing  the  contents  of  their  short-­‐ term  memory.  In  these  invitations  to  read,  great  care  was  taken  never  to  ask  the  participant   to  demonstrate  any  particular  way  of  reading,  nor  to  convey  to  the  participant,  explicitly  or   implicitly,  any  expectation  that  he/she  would  or  should  read  a  selected  text  in  any   particular  way.  Rather,  the  participant  was  invited,  first,  to  read  and  think  aloud,  and  only   then,  after  concluding  a  section  of  reading,  to  provide  observations  or  reflections  about   what  he/she  had  done  during  reading  (adding  this  after-­‐the-­‐act  layer  of  observation  and   commentary  to  a  primary  layer  of  raw,  think-­‐aloud  data).  In  this  way,  great  care  was  taken   not  to  influence  participants  to  read  in  particular  ways,  nor  to  convey  in  any  way  that   certain  ways  of  reading  were  more  interesting,  or  more  valued,  than  others.   As  noted,  the  texts  that  participants  read  while  thinking  aloud  were  sometimes   provided  by  me  and  sometimes  by  participants  themselves.  Most  case  study  sessions  were   long  enough  to  allow  for  both  scenarios—invitations  by  me  to  the  participant  to  read  one   or  more  particular  texts  I  provided,  as  well  as  opportunities  for  the  participant  to  read  one   or  more  texts  of  his/her  choice  that  he/she  brought  to  the  session.  Over  the  course  of   roughly  five  hours’  worth  of  case  study  meetings  per  participant,  I  also  made  a  point  of   reading  a  core  set  of  texts  with  all  six  participants.  Doing  so  allowed  me  to  compare   participants’  diverse  reading  MOs  with  each  other  in  additional  and  specific  ways—such  as   comparing  MOs  participants  enacted  when  reading  the  very  same  text.  (In  Appendix  C,   texts  read  by  all  six  participants  are  marked  with  an  asterisk.)   Concurrent  think-­aloud  protocols  training.  At  the  first  case  study  session  with   each  participant,  time  was  spent  on  concurrent  think-­‐aloud  training.  First,  a  brief  definition   78   and  explanation  of  thinking  aloud  were  provided  to  participants  (e.g.,  “Thinking  aloud   while  you  read  means  saying  out  loud  whatever  is  going  through  your  mind  while  you’re   reading  the  words  and  sentences  that  are  on  the  page,  or  maybe  the  screen,  in  front  of   you.“)  Next,  participants  were  invited  to  practice  or  “warm  up”  thinking  aloud  while  going   online,  on  the  researcher’s  laptop,  to  find  the  weather  forecast  for  the  following  day.  When   participants  did  this,  the  researcher  scrupulously  avoided  making  any  approving  or   disapproving  comments  about  the  contents  of  the  participants’  verbal  protocols  (to  avoid   influencing  them,  in  the  future,  from  artificially  restricting  their  thinking  aloud  to  just   particular  topics).  Rather,  by  repeatedly  asking  participants  to  say  “what  are  you  thinking   or  doing  now?”  the  researcher  focused  on  instilling  the  idea  that  thinking  aloud  involves  a   steady  stream  of  verbalizations,  and  that  thinking  aloud  can  continue  even  when  the   person  thinking  aloud  is  in  the  middle  of  a  series  of  steps  he/she  is  carrying  out,  or  even   when  he/she  does  not  think  he/she  is  doing  anything  especially  interesting.   After  this  initial  training,  the  researcher  continued  to  provide  frequent  requests  and   reminders  to  participants  (whenever  they  were  invited  to  spend  a  few  minutes  reading  in   text)  to  verbalize  their  thoughts  and  reactions  during  reading,  and  not  to  wait  to  do  so  until   they  felt  they  had  a  “complete  thought”  in  mind  or  something  “important”  to  say.   Semi-­structured  conversations.  Stretches  of  semi-­‐structured  conversation   constituted  the  third  staple  component  of  each  case  study  session.  These  stretches  of   conversation  typically  followed  those  periods  of  time  during  which  participants  read  a  text   and  thought  aloud.  I  characterize  this  case  study  component  as  “semi-­‐structured   conversation”  because  I  repeatedly  posed  a  core  set  of  premeditated  questions—or   variants  of  these  core  questions—and  probed  participants’  answers  to  clarify  their   79   meaning  and/or  elicit  additional  details.  (See  Appendix  D.)  By  maintaining  a  relaxed  and   friendly  demeanor,  I  tried  to  make  these  stretches  of  questioning  and  probing  feel  as   comfortable  and  enjoyable  as  possible  for  participants.  I  also  periodically  praised   participants,  and  thanked  them,  for  rising  to  the  challenge  of  responding  to  difficult   questions  about  their  inner  mental  states  and  processes—questions  that  are  intrinsically   difficult  and  that  “most  grownups  would  have  a  hard  time  answering.”  That  said,  there  was   a  clear  contrast  between  stretches  of  time  devoted  to  open-­‐ended,  sometimes  digressive   conversation  about  reading  in  general,  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  hand  these   stretches  of  semi-­‐structured  conversation  during  which  I  directed  participants’  attention  to   specific  aspects  of  what  they  were  doing  while  reading  and  thinking  aloud.   Across  sessions,  I  also  made  a  point  of  asking  the  same  sorts  of  questions  (during   these  semi-­‐structured  conversations)  of  all  my  case  study  participants.  As  well,  I  made  a   point  of  asking  both  direct  and  oblique  corroborative  questions  and  follow-­‐up  questions   about  all  the  different  “ways  of  reading”  initially  reported  by  participants  during  their  in-­‐ person  written  interview.  These  questions  were  “direct”  when  I  explicitly  referred  to  a   response  they  gave  on  the  interview  (e.g.,  a  description  they  provided  of  one  of  their  ways   of  reading)  and  directly  asked  whether  a  way  of  reading  they  enacted  or  described  during  a   case  study  session  was  the  same  or  different.  Questions  were  “oblique”  when,  without   explicitly  referring  to  a  participant’s  written  interview  responses,  I  asked  about  a  detail  or   distinction  the  participant  had  previously  mentioned.  Both  types  of  questions  served  a   corroborative  purpose—checking  for  consistency  across  data  points.  When  a  participant   indicated  consistency  (e.g.,  by  answering  “yes”  to  a  direct  question  about  alignment  of  an   enacted  reading  MO  with  one  previously  described  in  the  written  interview),  I  always   80   followed  up  with  additional  probes  (e.g.,  “Remind  me  again  about  how  that  way  of  reading   felt  different,  for  you,  from  the  others?”).   Whenever  I  observed  an  apparent  discrepancy  between  what  a  participant  actually   appeared  to  do  during  reading  and  thinking  aloud,  or  what  he/she  observed  or  explained   during  a  case  study  session,  and  what  he/she  had  previously  described  or  reported   (whether  in  his/her  written  interview  or  during  a  previous  case  study  session),  I  followed-­‐ up  with  questions  that  probed  the  apparent  discrepancy.  I  invited  the  participant  to  “say   more”  about  the  topic  or  to  “explore”  the  discrepancy.  I  also  always  emphasized  that   describing  and  explaining  how  one  reads  is  a  difficult  thing  to  do  and  that,  in  the  end,  the   participant  him-­‐  or  herself  was  and  is  the  best  judge  of  what,  from  the  inside  (so  to  speak),   feels  like  a  distinct  way  of  reading  different  from  other  ways  of  reading.     Finally,  as  part  of  these  semi-­‐structured  conversations,  I  made  a  point  of  probing   every  case  study  participant’s  knowledge  of  conventional  reading  comprehension   strategies  and  eliciting  information  about  participants’  perceptions  of  the  roles  and   experiential  status  of  strategies  and  reading  MOs  in  relation  to  each  other.  On  many   occasions,  these  probes  fit  naturally  into  the  flow  of  conversation,  because  a  participant   referenced  a  strategy,  because  his/her  concurrent  thinking  aloud  had  indicated  the   application  of  a  strategy,  or  because  he/she  made  a  comment  about  reading  instruction  in   school.  Topics  such  as  these  provided  a  convenient  place  to  pivot  the  conversation  toward   the  topic  of  reading  comprehension  strategies.  Additionally,  with  all  case  study   participants,  I  at  some  point  asked  several  explicit  questions  about  their  knowledge  of   conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies,  how  they  learned  such  strategies,  and   81   their  application  of  such  strategies  during  reading—whether  separate  from,  or  in   combination  with,  reading  MOs.   Data  Analyses   With  all  data  collected,  data  were  prepared  and  organized  for  analysis.  Participants’   names  were  deleted  and  replaced  with  unique  two-­‐digit  identifier  numbers.  All  data  were   then  de-­‐identified.  Case  study  participants  were  additionally  given  pseudonyms.  These   pseudonyms  were  Chris,  Astrid,  Harry,  Cara,  Samantha,  and  Nick.   In  preparation  for  analysis,  all  case  study  audio  recordings  were  then  transcribed.   29.33  hours  of  audio  recordings  (approximately  five  hours  per  participant)  yielded  over   175,000  words,  or  just  over  29,000  words  per  participant,  on  average.  These  transcripts   were  stored  as  separate  files  (four  files  per  case  study  participant,  corresponding  to  four   case  study  sessions  per  participant)  for  subsequent  coding.  As  well,  the  responses  given  by   all  thirty  written  interview  participants  to  questions  about  their  different  ways  of  reading   were  extracted  from  the  paper-­‐and-­‐pencil  written  interview  response  sheets  and  digitized   for  subsequent  coding.   Analyses  of  written  interview  data.  As  a  first  step,  numerical  responses  given  in   the  written  interviews  (e.g.,  participants’  estimates  of  the  number  of  “ways  of  moving  on   their  feet”  they  knew  and  their  initial  and  final  estimates  of  the  number  of  distinct  “ways  of   reading”  they  knew)  were  tabulated  and  descriptive  statistics  were  calculated.     Next,  participants’  color-­‐coded  descriptions  of  their  distinct  “ways  of  reading”  were   read  through  and  checked  to  verify  that  there  was  no  accidental  duplication  of  descriptions   (i.e.,  no  instances  where  a  participant,  through  inattention  or  on  purpose,  wrote  the  same   description  twice).  Participants’  verified  descriptions  were  then  numbered,  counted,  and   82   tabulated,  and  descriptive  statistics  were  calculated  (e.g.,  mean  number  of  reading  MOs  per   participant).  At  this  stage,  no  attempt  was  made  to  analyze  or  evaluate  the  content  of  the   descriptions;  as  long  as  a  description  did  not  duplicate  another  existing  description  (by  the   same  participant),  it  was  counted  as  a  full-­‐fledged  reading  MO  equal  in  standing  to  any   other  self-­‐reported  MO.   Next,  the  constant  comparative  method  (Glaser  &  Strauss,  1967;  Merriam,  1998;   Strauss  &  Corbin,  1998)  was  used  to  develop  codes  that  could  be  applied  to  participants’   descriptions  of  their  distinct  ways  of  reading  to  identify  the  number  and  variety  of  different   criteria  participants  used  to  distinguish  among  these  ways  of  reading.     Unit  of  analysis.  Before  codes  could  be  developed,  a  unit  of  analysis  had  to  be   determined.  I  chose  to  divide  the  data  into  “idea  units”  (Chafe,  1980,  1985),  because  in   their  relatively  short  handwritten  responses,  participants  had  often  referenced  two  or   more  criteria  for  distinguishing  among  their  reading  MOs  in  a  single  sentence  or  a  single   bulleted  point  (e.g.,  “This  way  [of  reading]  is  for  assignments  and  homework,  or  what  I   have  to  do  but  really  wish  I  could  do  something  else”).  Given  this  density  of  criteria   mentioned  per  syntagm,  using  the  idea  unit  as  my  unit  of  analysis  would  allow  me  to  apply   more  than  one  code  per  sentence  or  bullet  point.  (For  example,  with  the  description  quoted   above,  I  would  be  able  to  apply  one  code  to  the  idea  unit  “what  I  have  to  do”  and  a  separate   code  to  “really  wish  I  could  do  something  else.”)   Code  development.  Next  I  used  an  iterative  code-­‐reread-­‐revise  procedure  to   develop  emergent  codes:  I  read  the  first  idea  unit,  applied  a  short  natural-­‐language  code  to   succinctly  describe  any  criterion  referenced  in  that  idea  unit,  read  the  next  idea  unit,   applied  the  same  code  or  a  new  code,  and  so  on  until  all  the  idea  units  in  a  description  had   83   been  coded.  Then  I  reread  all  idea  units  and  their  codes,  checking  for  cases  where  I  had   created  or  applied  different  codes  to  identical  or  almost  identical  idea  units;  cases  where,   upon  rereading  an  idea  unit,  I  noticed  a  reference  to  a  criterion  I  previously  overlooked;   and  cases  where  the  wording  of  a  code  was  unclear  or  confusing.  I  addressed  these   problems  (in  the  few  cases  they  occurred)  by  deleting  or  combining  codes,  creating  new   codes,  and/or  rewording  codes  for  greater  clarity.   This  procedure  was  repeated  across  all  the  descriptions  of  distinct  reading  MOs   provided  by  a  single  participant,  and  was  then  continued  across  the  descriptions  provided   by  one  third  of  all  the  other  participants.  At  this  point,  before  conducting  a  check  of   interrater  agreement,  a  list  of  all  codes  developed  so  far  was  reviewed  and  edited  (a)  to   sharpen  or  clarify  the  wording  of  particular  codes  and  (b)  to  collapse  codes  that  appeared   semantically  and  referentially  equivalent  (e.g.,  collapsing  into  a  single  code  two  previously   separate  codes  for  “used  for  homework”  and  “used  for  school  stuff”).  At  the  same  time,  care   was  taken  not  to  erase  nuances  of  possibly  important  difference  between  participants  and   their  diverse  criteria  for  distinguishing  MOs.  For  example,  when  two  participants  explained   what  was  distinctive  about  a  MO  of  theirs  by  referring,  in  one  case,  to  studying  for  tests  (“I   read  this  way  when  there’s  a  test”)  and,  in  the  other  case,  to  memorizing  words  for  later   verbatim  performance  (“to  learn  the  words  by  heart”),  these  codes  were  not  combined  or   collapsed.   Interrater  agreement  for  criteria  used  to  distinguish  ways  of  reading.  At  this   point,  with  one  third  of  30  participants’  descriptions  of  their  reading  MOs  coded  to  identify   the  criteria  they  used  to  distinguish  among  them,  I  conducted  an  interrater  reliability  check   (Stemler,  2001).  I  asked  a  literacy  scholar  to  participate  in  a  brief  orientation  to  the   84   material  and  introduction  to  the  codes  developed  thus  far.  This  second  rater  then   independently  coded  the  MO  descriptions  I  had  previously  coded.     Comparison  of  codes  indicated  an  interrater  agreement  rate  of  92%.  Disagreements   pertained  to  syntagms  in  which  a  participant  explicitly  referred  to  one  criterion  for   distinguishing  between  MOs  (e.g.,  for  school  or  not  for  school)  but  arguably  also  implied  a   second  criterion  (e.g.,  level  of  enjoyment).  These  few  disagreements  were  resolved  through   discussion  by  agreeing  that,  to  merit  a  code,  a  syntagm  should  contain  some  specific   reference  to  the  criterion  at  issue,  and  not  just  imply  it  (in  the  judgment  of  the  rater,  based   on  his/her  general  sense  of  adolescent  psychology).  For  example,  a  reference  to  a   particular  MO  being  used  for  “school  reading”  exclusively  should  not  also  be  coded,  on  the   basis  of  that  fact  alone,  for  the  criterion  “level  of  enjoyment.”   Based  on  this  high  level  of  interrater  agreement,  the  remaining  un-­‐coded  MO   descriptions  of  the  remaining  20  participants  were  then  coded.   Frequency  counts.  Once  all  participants’  descriptions  of  their  distinct  reading  MOs   were  coded  to  identify  all  the  different  criteria  they  had  used  to  distinguish  among  MOs,  all   criteria  mentioned  by  participants  were  counted  and  descriptive  statistics  were  calculated.   Correlation  between  reading  MOs  and  level  of  reading  proficiency.  To  test  for   possible  correlation  between  the  number  of  MOs  participants  reported  and  their  level  of   reading  proficiency  (as  measured  by  the  state  standardized  reading  assessment),  I  ran  (a)  a   Pearson  Product-­‐Moment  Correlation  Test  on  data  from  25  participants  for  whom  scaled   scores  from  the  same  version  of  the  state  assessment  were  available  and  (b)  a  Spearman's   Rank-­‐Order  Correlation  Test  on  data  from  all  30  participants  using  within-­‐group  rankings   85   of  reading  achievement  instead  of  scaled  scores.16  Additionally,  I  ran  a  Pearson  Product-­‐ Moment  Correlation  Test  with  all  30  participants  using  their  scores  on  a  different   standardized  reading  assessment,  the  nationally  used  STAR  Reading  assessment.   Correlation  between  criteria  used  to  distinguish  reading  MOs  and  level  of   reading  proficiency.  To  test  for  possible  correlation  between  the  number  of  different   criteria  participants  used  to  distinguish  among  their  reading  MOs  and  their  level  of  reading   proficiency,  I  again  ran  (a)  a  Pearson  Product-­‐Moment  Correlation  Test  (using  data  from  25   participants  for  whom  I  had  scaled  scores  from  the  same  version  of  the  state  assessment)   and  (b)  a  Spearman's  Rank-­‐Order  Correlation  Test  on  data  from  all  30  participants  using   within-­‐group  rankings  of  reading  achievement  instead  of  scaled  scores.  As  before,  I  also   again  ran  a  Pearson  Product-­‐Moment  Correlation  Test  with  all  30  participants  using  their   scores  on  the  STAR  Reading  assessment.   Analyses  of  case  study  data.  Data  from  six  case  study  participants  consisted   primarily  of  transcripts  of  29.33  hours  of  audio  recordings  (approximately  five  hours  per   participant).  This  came  to  just  over  29,000  words  of  transcribed  speech  per  participant.   Other  data  included  the  digital  photographs  that  three  of  six  participants  brought  to  case   study  sessions,  texts  that  all  six  participants  brought  to  case  study  sessions  or  accessed  on   the  web  (and  which  I  documented  with  my  digital  camera),  and  screen-­‐and-­‐audio                                                                                                                   16  Five  of  my  thirty  participants  took  an  alternative  version  of  the  state  assessment  in  2013   that  reported  scores  on  a  scale  different  than  the  one  used  for  the  main  assessment.   Unfortunately,  there  is  no  formula  for  converting  these  scores.  Nonetheless,  given  the   overall  relative  difficulty  of  the  assessments,  all  thirty  students  could  still  be  ranked   according  to  their  reading  proficiency,  with  the  highest  of  the  five  scores  on  the  alternative   assessment  being  ranked  as  26th  in  a  ranked  list  of  all  thirty  scores.  These  top-­‐to-­‐bottom   rankings,  in  turn,  can  be  used  to  conduct  a  Spearman's  Rank-­‐Order  Correlation  Test,  a  non-­‐ parametric  measure  of  the  strength  and  direction  of  association  that  exists  between  two   variables  (in  this  case,  total  number  of  MOs  reported  and  reading  proficiency  level).   86   recordings  made  with  Morae  software  of  participants’  mouse  and  keyboard  actions  when   they  searched  and  read  online.   As  a  first  step,  I  read  through  all  transcripts  and  extracted  those  sections  where   participants  read  a  particular  text  while  thinking  aloud.  I  marked  these  sections  as  verbal   protocols  of  reading.  The  remaining  pages  of  transcript  were  marked  as  “conversation   about  reading.”   Next—and  with  a  view  to  corroborating,  as  well  as  deepening  and  augmenting,  what   I  had  learned  about  participants’  reading  MOs  from  the  written  interviews—I  again  applied   the  constant  comparative  method  (Glaser  &  Strauss,  1967;  Merriam,  1998;  Strauss  &   Corbin,  1998)  to  develop  a  second  layer  of  categories  and  codes  for  the  case  study   transcripts.  I  continued  using  the  codes  previously  developed  during  analysis  of   participants’  written  interviews  (codes  for  the  diverse  criteria  participants  used  to   distinguish  among  their  MOs).  However,  given  that  the  case  study  transcripts  contained   information  about  a  wide  variety  of  additional  reading-­‐related  topics,  I  now  proceeded  to   identify  additional  categories  and  develop  additional  codes.     Unit  of  analysis.  A  crucial  first  step  was  to  determine  the  unit  of  analysis  I  would   use  for  the  case  study  data.  As  with  the  written  interview  data,  I  chose  to  divide  the  case   study  transcripts  into  “idea  units”  (Chafe,  1980,  1985),  and  for  much  the  same  reason:  in   their  case  study  utterances  about  reading  and  about  themselves  as  readers,  participants   often  referenced  two  or  more  ideas  in  a  single  utterance  (e.g.,  “It's  like,  when  you  read  [a   news  article],  it  is  emotional  and  then  you  want  to  spread  the  news”).  Using  the  idea  unit  as   my  unit  of  analysis  would  allow  me,  as  necessary,  to  apply  more  than  one  code  per   utterance.  (For  example,  with  the  transcribed  statement  quoted  above,  I  would  be  able  to   87   apply  one  code  to  the  idea  unit  “it  is  emotional”  and  a  separate  code  to  “then  you  want  to   spread  the  news.”)   Code  development.  As  noted,  for  data  from  the  case  study  sessions  I  developed  a   coding  manual  that  built  on  the  codes  for  participants’  criteria  for  distinguishing  their   diverse  reading  MOs.  As  before,  I  applied  the  constant  comparative  method  (Glaser  &   Strauss,  1967;  Merriam,  1998;  Strauss  &  Corbin,  1998)  to  identify  categories  and  develop   codes.  Identifying  categories  for  this  data  was  a  more  complex  task,  given  that  participants   had  talked  about  a  multitude  of  topics  besides  the  criteria  they  used  to  distinguish  among   MOs.     I  proceeded  by  randomly  selecting  a  transcript  and,  to  start,  reading  its  first  line   with  a  view  to  identifying  idea  units  that  pertained  to  reading  or  to  literacy  more  generally.   This  filter  excluded  from  consideration  idea  units  containing  information  unrelated  to   reading  or  literacy,  such  as  statements  the  participant  made  about  how  early  he/she  woke   up  in  the  morning,  his/her  plans  for  summer  travel,  and  similar  topics.    When  I  encountered  an  idea  unit  with  information  about  reading  or  literacy,  I  first   considered  the  possible  relevance  of  codes  developed  earlier.  If  one  of  these  codes  was   relevant,  I  applied  it.  When  none  of  the  available  codes  was  relevant,  I  used  an  iterative   code-­‐reread-­‐revise  procedure  to  develop  emergent  codes:  I  reread  the  idea  unit,  applied  a   short  natural-­‐language  code  to  succinctly  describe  the  idea  about  reading  (if  any)   expressed  in  that  idea  unit,  read  the  next  idea  unit,  applied  the  same  code  or  a  new  code,   and  so  on  until  all  the  idea  units  in  a  given  transcript  had  been  coded.  Then  I  reread  all  idea   units  and  their  codes,  checking  for  cases  where  the  wording  of  a  code  needed  clarification   88   or  where  two  codes  could  be  collapsed  into  one  because  they  appeared  to  overlap  to  a  large   degree.   One  entirely  new  category  of  codes  pertained  to  case  study  participants’  identified   reading  MOs—those  already  identified  by  participants  in  their  written  interview  and   additional  ones  they  now  identified  and  described  in  the  course  of  case  study  sessions.  All   MOs  were  given  unique  numeric  codes,  and  these  codes  were  applied  whenever  a   particular  MO  was  referenced  (whether  just  mentioned  in  passing,  or  taken  up  as  the  target   of  further  description  or  commentary).  In  cases  where  a  previously  described  MO  was   referenced  but  also  described  in  a  significantly  new  and  different  way  (i.e.,  in  cases  where,   as  a  result  of  further  introspection,  a  participant  revised  or  augmented  his/her  earlier   description  of  a  MO),  a  new  code  was  applied  that  indicated  this  revision.  Similarly,  in  cases   where  a  participant  designated  a  not-­‐before-­‐mentioned  MO  as  a  sub-­‐type  or  version  of  a   previously  described  MO,  this  relationship  was  indicated  in  the  code.  (For  example,  the   participant  Samantha  initially  identified  and  described  a  MO  she  used  for  reading  novels,   and  this  MO  was  coded  MO05.01.02.  In  a  subsequent  case  study  session,  Samantha  then   distinguished  between  two  sub-­‐versions  of  this  MO,  one  that  she  used  for  reading  novels   for  pleasure,  and  a  different  one  that  she  used  for  reading  novels  about  which  she  knew  she   would  be  tested  at  school.  The  first  of  these  sub-­‐versions  of  MO  MO05.01.02  was  coded   MO05.01.02a;  the  second  was  coded  MO05.01.02b.)   When  idea  units  contained  information  about  literacy-­‐  and  reading-­‐related  topics   other  than  participants’  MOs  for  reading,  such  as  comments  about  the  content  of  books  or   video  games,  or  comments  about  school  reading  instruction,  new  codes  were  created.  In   general,  though,  given  the  study’s  primary  focus  on  participants’  reading  MOs,  categories   89   and  codes  developed  for  these  other  literacy-­‐related  topics  were  not  as  fine-­‐grained  as   those  developed  to  capture  the  nuances  of  participants’  fine  distinctions  among  their  MOs.   For  example,  when  a  participant  referenced  a  text  she  had  read,  a  general  code  was  applied   for  “reading  media  referenced.”  As  appropriate,  a  further  sub-­‐code  was  applied  for   “traditional  paper  media,”  “digital  media,”  or  “other  media”  (based  on  the  observation  that,   in  participants’  descriptions  of  their  MOs,  the  distinction  between  reading-­‐on-­‐a-­‐screen  and   reading-­‐on-­‐paper  was  often  salient).  However,  no  further  codes  were  created  to  capture   finer  distinctions  that  participants  sometimes  made  in  referring  to  texts  they  read,  such  as   between  different  formats  and/or  genres  of  print  texts.   With  the  study’s  third  and  fourth  research  questions  in  mind—regarding  the   regulation  by  case  study  participants  of  their  possibly  diverse  MOs  for  reading,  and  the   relationship  between  the  regulation  of  MOs  and  the  application  and  regulation  of   conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies—special  care  was  taken  to  code  for   comments  about  the  regulation  of  MOs  and/or  reading  comprehension  strategies.   This  coding  procedure  was  repeated  across  other  transcripts  until  20%  of  all  the   transcripts  had  been  coded.  At  this  point,  before  conducting  a  check  of  interrater   agreement,  a  list  of  all  codes  developed  to  this  point  was  again  reviewed  and  edited  (a)  to   sharpen  or  clarify  the  wording  of  particular  codes  and  (b)  to  collapse  codes  that  appeared   semantically  and  referentially  equivalent.  At  the  same  time,  care  was  taken  not  to  erase   possibly  important  nuances  and  differences  between  participants’  accounts  of  their  reading   90   activities.17  For  example,  even  though  just  a  single  participant  spoke  about  privately   “making  up  jokes,”  during  reading,  to  poke  fun  at  characters  and  situations  described  in  the   texts  he  read,  a  specific  code  was  created  and  retained  to  document  this  phenomenon.   Interrater  agreement.  At  this  point,  with  20%  of  the  case  study  session  transcripts   coded,  I  conducted  an  interrater  reliability  check  (Stemler,  2001).  I  asked  a  literacy  scholar   to  participate  in  a  brief  orientation  to  the  material  and  introduction  to  the  codes  developed   thus  far.  This  second  rater  then  independently  coded  25%  of  the  transcripts  I  had   previously  coded.     Comparison  of  codes  indicated  an  interrater  agreement  rate  of  85%.  Discrepancies   pertained  primarily  to  places  in  the  transcript  where  one  coder  applied  a  code  while  the   other  coder  did  not.  When  these  places  in  the  transcript  were  revisited,  there  was  rarely   any  disagreement  about  which  code  to  apply.  Discrepancies  in  coding,  when  these   occurred,  appeared  to  be  due  primarily  to  the  length  of  the  list  of  available  codes  and  the   challenge  of  applying  it.  In  the  few  instances  where  coders  initially  disagreed  about  a  code,   the  disagreement  was  quickly  resolved  through  discussion.     Based  on  this  high  level  of  interrater  agreement,  the  remaining  un-­‐coded  transcripts   were  then  coded.  (A  list  of  all  codes  is  provided  in  Appendix  E.)   Separate  coding  of  enacted  reading  comprehension  strategies.  To  assess   participants’  enacted  procedural  knowledge  of  garden-­‐variety  reading  comprehension   strategies,  I  coded  four  250-­‐word  excerpts  from  the  transcript  of  each  participant’s  verbal   protocols  of  reading.  The  eleven  reading  comprehension  strategies  coded  for  were:                                                                                                                   17  With  regard  to  developing  categories  and  codes  for  participants’  reading  MOs,  my   approach  thus  differed  from  that  recommended  by  Merriam  (1998)  and  others  regarding   the  importance  of  limiting  the  number  of  categories  and  codes.     91   activating  prior  knowledge,  attending  to  text  features  and/or  text  structure,  generating  and   asking  questions,  making  predictions,  visualizing,  paraphrasing,  summarizing,  making   connections  to  self,  making  connections  to  other  texts,  making  inferences,  and  comprehension   monitoring.  Descriptions  of  these  strategies  were  taken  from  Pressley  and  Afflerbach   (1995).   With  these  a  priori  codes  in  hand,  I  read  through  each  participant’s  verbal  protocols   of  reading  excerpts.  Whenever  one  of  these  eleven  reading  comprehension  strategies  was   explicitly  enacted  or  implied  as  having  occurred,  I  applied  the  relevant  code.     Interrater  agreement.  To  assess  interrater  reliability  (Stemler,  2001)  with  regard   to  coding  of  reading  comprehension  strategies  in  verbal  protocol  data,  I  asked  a  literacy   scholar  to  participate  in  training  and  then  independently  code  17%  of  the  data  (4  of  24   excerpts).  Comparison  of  codes  indicated  an  interrater  agreement  rate  of  95%.   Disagreements  pertained  to  applications  of  codes  for  similar  strategies  (e.g.,  paraphrasing   and  summarizing)  and  to  places  in  the  transcript  where  the  use  of  a  strategy  was  arguably   implied  as  having  already  occurred  (e.g.,  a  participant  stating  while  reading  that  she  “heard   about  this  before,”  implying  that  she  had  activated  her  prior  knowledge  about  the  topic—at   least  enough  for  her  to  realize  that  she  already  possessed,  in  memory,  some  information   that  matched  or  echoed  what  she  was  currently  reading  about).  All  disagreements  were   quickly  clarified  and  resolved  through  discussion.     Based  on  this  high  level  of  interrater  agreement,  the  remaining  un-­‐coded  verbal   protocols  of  reading  were  coded.   Corroborative  analyses.  With  all  references  to  reading  MOs  coded  for  all   participants  across  all  case  study  sessions,  corroborative  checks  were  conducted  to  detect   92   discrepancies  between  data  from  the  written  interviews  and  data  from  the  in-­‐depth  case   studies.  These  checks  consisted  of  comparing  MOs  identified  and  described  by  participants   during  case  study  sessions  with  MOs  initially  identified  and  described  in  their  written   interviews.  Interview  responses  and  case  study  descriptions  and  comments  were  aligned,   re-­‐read,  and  carefully  compared  to  detect  any  inconsistencies  or  possible  fabrications  (i.e.,   situations  where  a  participant  initially  reported  knowing  and  using  a  particular  MO  but   then  later  neither  enacted  this  MO  nor  said  anything  further  about  it).   Results  of  these  various  analyses  are  presented  in  the  following  chapter.   93   CHAPTER  4   Results   Results  are  reported  in  five  sections.  The  first  four  sections  correspond  to  the   study’s  four  research  questions,  while  the  fifth  reports  additional  findings  that  do  not  fit   neatly  in  any  of  the  four  preceding  sections.  Section  1  presents  findings  from  written   interview  responses  and  case  study  sessions  about  the  number  and  variety  of  distinct   reading  MOs  known  to,  and  used  by,  6th  graders  (research  question  #1).  Section  2  reports   findings  regarding  the  criteria  participants  used  to  distinguish  among  their  respective  MOs   (research  question  #2).  Section  3  reports  findings  about  the  criteria  that  guided  the   decision-­‐making  of  case  study  participants  when  regulating  their  use  of  MOs  (research   question  #3).  Section  4  reports  findings  regarding  the  relationship  between  reading  MOs   and  conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies  in  the  experience  of  case  study   participants  (research  question  #4).  Finally,  Section  5  reports  additional  findings  regarding   the  psychological  reality  of  participants’  reading  MOs,  including  findings  about  the  capacity   and  willingness  of  thirty  randomly  sampled  6th  graders  to  reflect  on,  and  report  about  their   MOs;  the  genesis  of  case  study  participants’  MOs  (as  retrospectively  reported  by  them);  and   case  study  participants’  experience  of  the  influence  of  formal  schooling  on  their  reading   MOs.   Section  1:  6th  Graders’  Knowledge  and  Use  of  Diverse  Reading  MOs   100%  of  6th  graders  in  this  study  reported  knowing  and  using  two  or  more  reading   MOs.  The  average  number  of  MOs  per  participant  reported  and  described  in  written   interviews  (n  =  30)  was  6.2,  with  a  high  of  12  and  a  low  of  2,  and  standard  deviation  of   2.50.     94   The  sequencing  of  the  questions  on  the  written  interview—which  first  asked   participants  for  an  initial  global  estimate  of  the  number  of  MOs  known  to  them  and  used  by   them  personally,  before  walking  them  through  a  scaffolded  review  of  specific  reading   events  they  recalled  from  two  recent  days  and  the  possibly  plural  “ways  of  reading”  they   used  during  those  reading  events—yielded  an  additional  finding:  subsequent  to  the   scaffolded  review  of  specific  reading  events,  20  of  30  participants  (67%)  reported  knowing   and  using  more  MOs  than  they  initially  estimated;  six  participants  (20%)  reported  the   same  number  they  estimated;  and  four  (13%)  reported  fewer  than  they  initially  estimated.   (See  Figure  1.)     Figure  1.  Reading  MOs  estimated  and  actually  described  by  participants  (n  =  30)  during  the   written  interviews.     These  final  counts  of  participants’  MOs  comprise  all  MOs  that  participants  described   in  their  written  interview,  including  ones  they  reported  knowing  but  did  not  report  actually   95   using  on  either  of  the  two  days  for  which  they  were  asked  to  recollect  all  the  reading  events   in  which  they  had  engaged,  from  waking  in  the  morning  until  going  to  sleep  at  night.  If  we   exclude  these  MOs  that  participants  reported  as  part  of  their  repertoire  but  that  they  did   not  report  actually  using  on  one  or  both  of  the  two  days  for  which  they  gave  a  detailed   accounting  of  reading  events,  the  average  number  of  MOs  per  participant  drops  from  6.2  to   4.8,  with  a  high  of  10  and  a  low  of  2,  and  standard  deviation  of  2.25.    Two  illustrative  repertoires  of  MOs.  To  illustrate  the  range  of  distinct  MOs   reported  by  individual  written  interview  participants  (n  =  30),  Tables  1  and  2  present  the   MO  repertoires  of  two  participants  randomly  selected  from  the  middle  68%  of  participants   (i.e.,  randomly  selected  from  among  the  20  participants  reporting  a  total  number  of  MOs   within  one  standard  deviation  of  the  mean  of  6.2  MOs).  Participants’  descriptions  are   presented  alongside  the  specific  texts  with  which  each  MO  was  associated  in  the  context  of   the  written  interview.   Table  1   Repertoire  of  MOs  Reported  by  Participant  17   MO  #   Target  Text(s)   MO  Description   #1   wrapping  on  pop   tarts,  instructions   on  popcorn   “This  way  of  reading  is  different  because  I'm  reading   instructions,  or  I'm  reading  the  ingredients,  or  reminders   and  this  is  stuff  I  all  do  in  the  kitchen.”   #2   math  worksheet   with  instructions,   science  chapter,   Spanish  words   from  Spanish   dictionary   “This  way  of  reading  is  different  because  I'm  reading   worksheets  or  something  to  get  informed  on  for  school   because  school  is  important.”     96   Table  1  (cont’d)     #3   text  messages,   “This  way  of  reading  is  different  because  I'm  reading   words  on  my  Nook,   something  from  an  electronic  device.  This  is  different  also   Pinterest  blurbs   because  you  can  highlight  stuff,  save  the  text,  or  just  copy  a   word  and  search  it  up  while  you're  reading.”   #4   novels   “This  way  of  reading  is  when  I'm  reading  a  novel  during  a   certain  time  like  lunch,  or  outside  swinging.”   #5   coupons,  boxes  of   cereal   “This  is  for  reading  small  things  that  go  to  something  like   how  coupons  go  to  certain  stores.”   #6   sheets  of  music   “This  way  is  different  because  I'm  reading  music  as  I  play  it   at  the  same  time  as  I'm  reading  it.”   #7   whatever  I’m   reading  outside   “This  way  is  reading  outside  with  a  paper  in  hand.  I  do  this   outside  during  any  part  of  the  day  when  I  can  bring  a  paper   so  I  can  draw  when  a  picture  comes  in  my  mind.  It  makes  it   different,  because  if  I  get  a  picture  in  my  head,  I  draw  it  with   great  detail.”   #8   whatever  I’m   reading   “This  way  of  reading  is  when  I  write  in  the  margin.  This  is  at   home  and  at  school,  any  part  of  the  day.  I  do  it  so  I  can  write   questions  and  other  notes.  It  makes  it  different  because  I   can  write  and  put  down  things  that  I'm  thinking  when  I  read   a  certain  sentence  or  paragraph.”   Note:  Minor  spelling  errors  in  the  participant’s  hand-­‐written  notes  have  been  corrected.   Table  2   Repertoire  of  MOs  Reported  by  Participant  05   MO  #   Target  Text(s)   MO  Description   #1   magazines   “I  read  this  way  for  more  of  a  fun.  I  just  skim  or  look  at   pictures  and  captions.”   #2   books,  papers   “I  read  way  more  in  depth.  I  use  all  of  my  reading  skills  and  I   really  understand  what  I'm  reading.”   #3   text  messages   “I  have  to  read  abbreviations  and  I  usually  have  a  reply  for   this  kind  of  reading.  Like  thinking  as  I'm  reading  of  what  I'm   going  to  say  back  to  them.”   #4   text  on  the  screen,   books  with   questions   “This  way  of  reading  I  have  to  follow  instructions  for  this   kind  of  reading.  To  understand  what  I  need  to  do.”     97   Table  2  (cont’d)     #5   math  problems   “This  way  of  reading  I  have  to  really  think  and  answer  all   the  questions  to  the  problem.”   #6   text  on  the  screen,   Facebook,  TV   sometimes   “Reading  on  technology  is  completely  different  because  you   have  to  read  abbreviations  or  reading  fast  if  it's  moving.”   #7   plays  or  scripts   “Reading  plays  or  scripts,  when  I'm  in  a  play,  so  I  know  my   lines.  You  have  to  use  a  lot  of  emotion  out  loud.”   Note:  Minor  spelling  errors  in  the  participant’s  hand-­‐written  notes  have  been  corrected.   Correlation  between  MOs  reported  and  reading  proficiency  level.  A  visual   inspection  of  the  chart  presenting  the  total  number  of  MOs  participants  reported,  with   participants  ranked  from  low  to  high  according  to  their  standardized  test  scores  for   reading  (Figure  1),  indicated  no  apparent  relationship  between  participants’  reading   proficiency  and  the  number  of  MOs  they  knew  and  used.  To  test  this  observation,  I  ran  (a)  a   Pearson  Product-­‐Moment  Correlation  Test  (using  data  from  25  participants  for  whom  I  had   scaled  scores  from  the  same  version  of  the  state  assessment)  and  (b)  a  Spearman's  Rank-­‐ Order  Correlation  Test  on  data  from  all  30  participants  using  within-­‐group  rankings  of   reading  achievement  instead  of  scaled  scores.18  I  also  ran  a  Pearson  Product-­‐Moment   Correlation  Test  with  all  30  participants  using  their  scores  on  a  different  assessment  of   reading  proficiency,  the  STAR  Reading  assessment.                                                                                                                   18  The  Pearson  product-­‐moment  correlation  coefficient  (or  Pearson  correlation  coefficient)   is  a  measure  of  the  strength  of  a  linear  association  between  two  variables.  The  coefficient,  r,   can  take  a  range  of  values  from  +1  to  -­‐1,  with  a  value  of  0  indicating  that  there  is  no   association  between  the  two  variables.  A  value  greater  than  0  indicates  a  positive   association;  a  value  less  than  0  indicates  a  negative  association.  In  general,  an  r-­‐value   between  .1  and  .3  (or  between  -­‐0.1  and  -­‐0.3)  is  considered  small;  an  r-­‐value  between  .3  and   .5  (or  between  -­‐0.3  and  -­‐0.5)  is  considered  medium;  and  a  r-­‐value  between  .5  and  1.0  (or   between  -­‐0.5  and  -­‐1.0)  is  considered  large.  The  Spearman’s  Test  is  a  non-­‐parametric   measure  of  the  strength  and  direction  of  association  that  exists  between  two  variables,  and   it  can  be  used  when  one  of  the  variables  is  on  an  ordinal  scale.     98   All  three  tests  indicated  no  relationship  between  reading  proficiency  and  number  of   MOs  reported.  The  Pearson  Product-­‐Moment  Correlation  Test  (using  data  from  25   participants)  indicated  no  relationship  (r  =  .015,  n  =  25,  p  =  .944).    The  Spearman’s  Rank-­‐ Order  Correlation  Test  also  yielded  a  correlation  coefficient  barely  different  than  zero   (rs(28)  =  .007,  p  =  .972).  Finally,  the  second  Pearson  Product-­‐Moment  Correlation  Test   (using  participants’  scores  on  the  STAR  assessment)  indicated  a  very  small,  negative   correlation  between  reading  proficiency  and  the  total  number  of  MOs  reported—though  it   was  not  statistically  significant  (r  =  -­‐.148,  n  =  30,  p  =  .435).   Case  study  participants’  additional  MOs.  Written  interview  participants  were   given  an  opportunity,  at  the  very  end  of  their  interview,  to  mention  “any  other  ways  of   reading  that  [they]  sometimes  use  that  [they]  haven’t  mentioned  yet.”  (See  Appendix  A  for   the  full  instrument.)  That  said,  written  interviews  never  lasted  more  than  75  minutes,  and   participants  did  not  have  much  time  to  do  the  challenging  mental  work  of  recollecting  and   reflecting  on  their  reading  MOs.  As  will  be  further  discussed  in  the  General  Discussion   chapter,  it  therefore  seems  highly  unlikely  that  the  lists  of  MOs  reported  by  written   interview  participants  were  exhaustive  or  complete.  It  seems  much  more  likely  that  these   lists  represented  a  subset  of  the  total  set  of  reading  MOs  known  to  them,  with  a  likely  bias   toward  inclusion  of  preferred  MOs,  frequently  used  MOs,  and  socially  approved  MOs.   By  contrast,  the  six  case  study  participants  had  much  more  ample  time  and   opportunity  to  recollect  and  reflect—and  to  return  more  than  once  to  particular  MOs  to   confirm,  correct,  or  augment  a  comment  or  detail  they  had  provided  before.  Additionally,   case  study  participants  at  every  session  read  two  or  more  texts  (some  familiar,  some   unfamiliar)  and  these  reading  events  provided  concrete  reference  points  for  further   99   observations  and  reflections  about  reading  MOs.  Finally,  case  study  participants  also   received  regular  verbal  scaffolding—in  the  form  of  questions,  requests  for  clarification,  and   general  encouragement  from  the  researcher—to  clarify  and  flesh  out  their  descriptions  of   their  reading  MOs.   Consequently,  it  is  perhaps  not  surprising  that,  as  we  move  from  (a)  written   interview  participants’  (n  =  30)  initial  self-­‐reports  of  the  total  number  of  reading  MOs  they   knew  and  used  (mean  =  4.8),  to  (b)  written  interview  participants’  (n  =  30)  final  self-­‐ reports  (at  the  end  of  a  roughly  hour-­‐long  written  interview  session)  of  the  total  number  or   reading  MOs  they  knew  and  used  (mean  =  6.2),  to  (c)  case  study  participants’  (n  =  6)  final   self-­‐reports  (at  the  end  of  roughly  five  hours  of  conversation  spread  over  several  meetings)   of  the  total  number  of  MOs  they  knew  and  used  (mean  =  11.3),  we  observe  a  trend  of   increasing  numbers  of  MOs  being  identified  and  described.     Over  the  course  of  roughly  five  hours  of  unstructured  conversation,  reading  while   thinking  aloud,  and  semi-­‐structured  conversation  about  reading  and  reading  MOs,  case   study  participants  identified  and  described  between  4  and  7  additional  MOs  beyond  the   ones  they  had  described  by  the  end  of  their  written  interview.    Tables  10  through  15  in   Appendix  G  list  all  the  MOs  reported  by  each  of  the  six  case  study  participants.  Each  unique   MO  is  identified  by  an  alphanumeric  code  and  provides  a  short  summary  of  the   participant’s  description  of  that  MO.     100   Table  3   Overview  of  Case  Study  Participants  and  MOs  Reported   Participant   Gender   Reading   MOs   Proficiency   Initially   Level   Estimated   (Written   Interview)   MOs   Actually   Described   (Written   Interview)   Additional   MOs   Described   (Case  Study   Sessions)   Final  Total   of  All  MOs   Described   Chris   male   -­‐4.29*   4   5   7   12   Astrid   female   -­‐0.50   3   4   5   9   Harry   male   -­‐0.09   3   6   6   12   Cara   female   +0.23   2   6   5   11   Samantha   female   +1.48   5   7   4   11   Nick   male   +3.07   3   6   7   13   *Chris’s  information  is  based  on  his  scaled  score  for  the  2012-­‐13  assessment  (in  relation  to   the  mean  scaled  score  for  that  year),  not  the  2013-­‐14  assessment.   Note:  Reading  proficiency  is  reported  here  as  a  Standard  Score,  in  terms  of  the  number  of   standard  deviations  by  which  each  participant’s  scaled  score  on  the  2013-­‐14  state   standardized  assessment  for  reading  was  above  or  below  the  mean  scaled  score  for  all  6th   graders.  (For  example,  Nick’s  scaled  score  is  more  than  three  standard  deviations  above  the   mean  scaled  score.)     Corroboration  of  previously  mentioned  MOs.  Case  study  sessions  served  the  dual   purpose  of  (a)  eliciting  from  participants  descriptions  of  additional  MOs  they  did  not   mention  on  their  written  interview  and  also  (b)  corroborating  the  authenticity  and   accuracy  of  whatever  information  they  did  provide  on  the  written  interview.   With  regard  to  this  second  purpose,  analysis  of  case  study  transcripts  did  not  turn   up  any  evidence  of  participants  having  fabricated  self-­‐report  information  about  a  reading   MO  (in  their  written  interview  responses)  that  they  then  later  had  to  retract  or  disavow,  or   about  which  they  later  either  (a)  fell  silent  and  provided  no  further  information  or  (b)   101   provided  inconsistent  information.  In  other  words,  analysis  of  the  case  study  transcripts   did  not  yield  any  specific  basis  for  concern  regarding  the  overall  authenticity  and  accuracy   of  participants’  self-­‐reports.    At  the  same  time,  analysis  of  data  from  case  study  sessions  provided  multiple   examples  of  participants  clarifying,  augmenting,  or  fine-­‐tuning  a  MO  description  provided   at  an  earlier  point  in  time  (whether  on  the  written  interview,  or  during  a  prior  case  study   session).  For  example,  the  participant  Samantha  initially  described  a  MO  she  used  with   novels  in  the  following  terms:  “[This  way  of  reading  is  when]  I  read  way  more  in  depth.  I   use  all  of  my  reading  skills  and  I  really  understand  what  I'm  reading.”  Over  the  course  of   subsequent  case  study  sessions,  Samantha  clarified  that  this  MO  for  novel  reading  in  fact  in   her  experience  had  two  different  sub-­‐types.  The  first  of  these  was  the  one  she  used  when   preparing  for  a  test:  “it’s  my  way  of  reading  a  novel  when  it’s  for  AR  [a  computerized  test   students  regularly  took  to  assess  their  comprehension  of  a  book  they  had  just  finished   reading].  When  it’s  for  AR  testing  I  really  pay  attention  to  get  one  hundred  percent.  I  do   more  rereading  and  I  use  all  my  reading  skills,  like  inferring,  looking  back,  asking   questions,  and  others.  I  also  look  up  new  words.  [Reading  this  way]  involves  staying   focused  on  just  one  book  only.”  The  other  version  was  for  recreational  novel  reading  and   looked  and  felt  different  to  Samantha:  “I  do  some  skimming  if  it’s  boring.  I  sometimes  draw   pictures.  And  I  can  intersperse  one  book  with  another.  For  example,  I  sometimes  read  one   chapter  in  one  book  and  then  switch.”  This  clarification  by  Samantha  did  not  contradict  her   earlier  self-­‐report,  but  rather  added  a  further  layer  of  nuance.   Section  2:  6th  Graders’  Criteria  for  Distinguishing  Among  MOs   102   Already  prima  facie,  the  reading  MOs  reported  by  participants  in  their  written   interviews  appeared  to  be  very  diverse,  across  participants  as  well  as  within  participants.   They  ranged  from  a  MO  for  relaxed  reading  of  self-­chosen  novels  to  enjoy  “tuning  out”  one’s   surroundings  to  a  MO  for  reading  interspersed  with  talking  to  someone  else  about  the   interesting  parts  of  the  text  one  is  reading,  and  from  a  MO  for  reading  one’s  personal  journal   to  become  “calm”  by  appreciating  the  “good  things”  one  has  experienced  and  written  about  to   a  MO  for  repeated  reading  of  short,  familiar  texts  (e.g.,  product  labels  and  signs)  “because  it   lets  some  stress  out.”   This  first  impression  of  great  diversity  was  borne  out  by  systematic  analysis  of  the   criteria  participants  used  to  distinguish  among  their  MOs.  Emergent  coding  of  participants’   descriptions,  using  the  constant  comparative  method  (Glaser  &  Strauss,  1967;  Merriam,   1998;  Strauss  &  Corbin,  1998),  resulted  in  identification  of  thirty-­‐one  criteria  that  were   referenced  by  at  least  two  participants  in  their  written  interview  responses  (see  Table  4).   Table  4   Criteria  Referenced  by  Two  or  More  Participants  to  Distinguish  Among  MOs   Criterion   Notes   alphabetic  text  only  or   mixed/additional  sign   systems   Numerous  participants  (>6)  stated  that  one  or  more  of  their   MOs  was  for  use  with  a  particular  system  of  signs,  such  as   musical  notation,  or  for  texts  consisting  mostly  of  numbers   or  containing  other  non-­‐alphabetic  signs  or  symbols  (e.g.,   “for  symbols,  arrows,  and  abbreviations”;  “it’s  [math]   problems  instead  of  just  words”).   combined  with  writing   activity  or  not   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  writing  activities   happening  concurrent  with  reading  or  immediately  after   reading  (e.g.,  “I  write  in  the  margin”).     103   Table  4  (cont’d)     depth  of  understanding   aimed  for   Several  participants  (≤6)  referred  to  the  depth  of   comprehension  they  were  aiming  for  as  a  feature  of  a   particular  MO  (e.g.,  “when  I  really  want  to  understand   something”).   duration  of  reading  event   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  the  length  or  duration   of  reading  events  as  being  connected  to  a  particular  MO  (e.g.,   “this  is  a  longer  reading  time  for  me”).   emotions  experienced   Numerous  participants  (>6)  referenced  the  emotional   valence  or  impact  of  enacting  a  particular  way  of  reading   (e.g.,  “it  feels  like  I’m  living  with  them  in  the  book”).   enjoyment   Numerous  participants  (>6)  referenced  their  level  of   pleasure  or  enjoyment  as  a  feature  of  one  or  more  MOs  (e.g.,   “this  is  the  one  I  enjoy”).   frequency  of  use   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  the  frequency  with   which  they  used  a  particular  MO  as  a  criterion  that   distinguished  it  from  others  (e.g.,  “mostly  use  this  one”).   genre   Numerous  participants  (>6)  referenced  text  genre,  usually  by   way  of  stating  that  a  particular  MO  was  “for  reading  novels,”   “for  reading  worksheets,”  or  for  reading  some  other   particular  genre.   graphical  elements   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  engagement  with   graphical  elements  as  an  aspect  of  a  particular  MO  (“I  look  at   the  pictures”).   involving  memorizing  or   not   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  memorization  as  an   aspect  of  one  of  their  MOs  (e.g.,  “so  I  can  remember  my   lines”;  “to  remember  for  the  test”).   learning  new  information   or  not   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  the  fact  that,  when   using  a  particular  MO,  they  gleaned  information  (e.g.,  “I  try  to   pick  up  as  much  info  that  I  can  of  what  I’m  reading”).  Given   that  such  statements  did  not  always  reference  the  genre  of   the  texts  being  read  (e.g.,  reading  informational  text  versus   reading  novels),  the  reference  to  acquiring  new  information   (or  not)  was  coded  separately.   104   Table  4  (cont’d)     level  of  concentration   Numerous  participants  (>6)  referred  to  their  level  or  amount   of  focus,  attention,  or  concentration  while  reading  (e.g.,  “you   read  really  carefully  because  you  might  not  understand  it”).   level  of  interest   Numerous  participants  (>6)  referred  to  their  level  of  interest   in  a  text,  class  of  texts,  or  activity  as  an  important  feature  of   one  or  more  of  their  MOs  (e.g.,  “when  it’s  boring”).   level  of  stress   Numerous  participants  (>6)  referenced  their  level  of  stress,   worry,  or  anxiety  as  a  salient  feature  of  a  MO  (e.g.,  “I  feel   more  stressed”).   location  of  reading     Numerous  participants  (>6)  referenced  a  specific  or  general   location  where  they  used  a  particular  MO  (e.g.,  “in  my  bed”).   malleability  of  the  text   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  their  ability  during   reading  to  change  the  appearance  of  the  digital  text  (e.g.,   “you  change  the  way  it  looks”).   navigation  options   Several  participants  (≤6)  specifically  referenced  a  particular   way  of  navigating  through  a  text  (e.g.,  “lots  of  scrolling”).   purpose  for  reading   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  a  specific  purpose  in   relation  to  a  particular  MO  (e.g.,  “to  let  some  stress  out”;  “to   learn  my  lines”).  There  is  arguably  some  overlap  between   this  factor  and  some  others,  such  as  enjoyment  or  learning   new  information,  insofar  as  those  factors  might  be   interpreted  as  referencing  particular  purposes  for  reading.     reader’s  physical  posture   and  movements   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  their  physical  posture   and/or  movements  during  reading  as  an  aspect  of  a   particular  MO  (e.g.,  “lying  in  bed”).   reading  comprehension   strategies   Several  participants  (≤6)  directly  referenced  their  use  of   conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies,  and  some   named  individual  strategies  (e.g.,  “I  use  all  of  my  reading   skills,  like  inferring”).     105   Table  4  (cont’d)     referentiality  of  the  text   Several  participants  (≤6)  referred  to  the  referential   dimension  of  texts—and  their  awareness  of,  and  engagement   with  that  dimension—as  a  feature  of  a  particular  MO  (e.g.,   “because  it’s  true  information”;  “about  a  real  person”).     required  or  choice   Numerous  participants  (>6)  referred  to  a  MO  being  used   with  texts  that  were  required  or,  on  the  other  hand,   voluntarily  chosen  (e.g.,  “I  have  to  do  it”;  “with  my  type  of   book,  whatever  I  chose”).   single  text  or  multi-­text   Several  participants  (≤6)  characterized  a  MO  with  regard  to   whether  it  involved,  or  permitted,  reading  just  a  single  text   or  more  than  one  text  at  a  time  (e.g.,  “I  read  one  chapter  in   one  book  and  then  switch”).   social  dimension   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  interactions  or   relationships  with  others  (usually  peers  or  siblings)  as  an   aspect  of  one  or  more  of  their  MOs  (e.g.,  “I’m  thinking  of  what   I’m  going  to  say  back”).   speed  of  reading   Several  participants  (≤6)  of  participants  referenced  the   velocity  with  which  they  read  as  a  criterion  setting  a  MO   apart  from  others  (e.g.,  “I  read  slower”).   subject  matter  or  topic   In  characterizing  one  or  more  of  their  MOs,  numerous   participants  (>6)  referenced  a  particular  subject  or  domain   (e.g.,  “reading  about  science”).   technology   Numerous  participants  (>6)  referenced  technology.   References  to  this  criterion  mostly  took  the  form  of  a   comment  about  reading  “on  a  screen”  or  “on  the  computer.”   Some  participants  additionally  characterized  a  MO  in  terms   of  a  particular  way  of  navigating  text  on  a  screen  (e.g.,   scrolling  up  and  down),  digitally  annotating  text  on  a  screen,   or  morphing  the  appearance  of  digital  text  during  reading,   and  separate  codes  were  created  to  capture  these  details   (viz.,  navigation  options  used,  combined  with  writing  activity   or  not,  malleability  of  text).     106   Table  4  (cont’d)     text  difficulty   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  the  difficulty  level  of   particular  texts  or  classes  of  texts  (e.g.,  “when  it’s  hard”;   “with  hard  words”).   text’s  style  and  craft   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  specific  elements  of   style  or  craft  as  part  of  their  characterization  of  a  MO  (e.g.,   “when  it’s  in  the  first  person”).   time  of  day/week   Several  participants  (≤6)  referenced  a  particular  time  of  day   and/or  a  particular  day  of  the  week  when  describing  a  MO   (e.g.,  “at  night”).   to  guide  specific  action   Numerous  participants  (>6)  referred  to  reading   “instructions”  or  “directions,”  and  this  was  captured  with  the   code  for  genre.  Additionally,  however,  a  few  participants   referenced  the  fact  that  a  particular  way  of  reading   immediately  resulted  in  physical  activity,  or  was  concurrent   with  action  (e.g.,  “you’re  doing  it  right  away”;  “putting  it  all   together  to  make  it”),  and  this  additional  layer  was  thought   to  merit  a  separate  code.   Note:  None  of  these  factors  by  itself  was  credited  with  single-­‐handedly  shaping  a  reading   MO.  Participants’  descriptions  of  MOs  always  referenced  two  or  more  criteria;  most   descriptions  referenced  three  or  more  criteria.       Figure  2  displays  the  total  number  of  criteria  participants  referenced  in  their  written   interviews  to  distinguish  between  their  MOs.   107     Figure  2.  Number  of  criteria  mentioned  by  written  interview  participants  (n  =  30)  to   distinguish  among  their  MOs.     Correlation  between  number  of  criteria  reported  for  distinguishing  among   MOs  and  reading  proficiency  level.  A  visual  inspection  of  the  chart  presenting  the  total   number  of  criteria  participants  indicated  using  to  distinguish  among  their  MOs,  with   participants  ranked  from  low  to  high  according  to  their  standardized  test  scores  for   reading  (Figure  2),  indicated  no  clear  overall  relationship  between  participants’  reading   proficiency  and  the  number  of  criteria  they  mentioned.  To  test  this  observation,  I  ran  (a)  a   Pearson  Product-­‐Moment  Correlation  Test  (using  data  from  25  participants  for  whom  I  had   scaled  scores  from  the  same  version  of  the  state  assessment)  and  (b)  a  Spearman's  Rank-­‐ Order  Correlation  Test  on  data  from  all  30  participants  using  within-­‐group  rankings  of   reading  achievement  instead  of  scaled  scores.  I  also  ran  a  Pearson  Product-­‐Moment   108   Correlation  Test  with  all  30  participants  using  their  scores  on  the  STAR  Reading   assessment.   The  results  of  these  tests  were  mixed.  With  the  five  least  proficient  readers  excluded   from  consideration,  the  first  Pearson  Product-­‐Moment  Correlation  Test  (using  data  from  25   participants)  indicated  a  modest  positive  relationship  between  reading  proficiency  and  the   number  of  criteria  reported  for  distinguishing  among  MOs—though  the  relationship  was   not  statistically  significant  (r  =  .326,  n  =  25,  p  =  .111).    The  Spearman’s  Rank-­‐Order   Correlation  Test  (using  assessment  scores  for  all  30  participants)  indicated  a  very  small,   negative  correlation  between  reading  proficiency  and  the  total  number  of  MOs  reported— though  it  was  not  statistically  significant  (rs(28)  =  -­‐.176,  p  =  .351).  Finally,  the  second   Pearson  Product-­‐Moment  Correlation  Test  (using  participants’  scores  on  the  STAR   assessment)  indicated  no  correlation  between  reading  proficiency  and  the  criteria   mentioned  (r  =  .056,  n  =  30,  p  =  .769).   Detailed  analysis  of  case  study  participants’  criteria  for  distinguishing  among   MOs.  Coding  of  transcripts  of  case  study  sessions  allowed  for  more  detailed  and  in-­‐depth   investigation  of  the  criteria  6th  graders  used  to  differentiate  among  their  MOs.  Table  5   presents  all  thirty-­‐six  criteria  referenced  at  least  once  by  case  study  participants  over  the   course  of  the  entire  length  of  the  study  (i.e.,  their  written  interview  and  all  case  study   sessions).  In  the  row  devoted  to  each  criterion,  the  table  indicates  which  participants   referenced  that  criterion  at  least  once.   109   Table  5   Criteria  Referenced  by  Six  Case  Study  Participants  to  Distinguish  Among  Their  MOs   Criterion   Chris   Astrid   Harry   Cara   Sam-­‐ antha   Nick   genre   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   technology   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   subject  matter  or  topic   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   emotions  experienced   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   social  dimension   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   reading  comprehension  strategies   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   level  of  interest   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   depth  of  understanding  aimed  for   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   enjoyment   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   frequency  of  use   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   speed  of  reading   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   relative  preference   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   referentiality  of  the  text   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   alphabetic  text  only  or  mixed/additional   sign  systems   n.r.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   combined  with  writing  activity  or  not   n.r.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   text’s  style  and  craft   n.r.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.r.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   navigation  options   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   required  or  choice   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.r.   ✓   n.r.   level  of  concentration   ✓   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   ✓   time  of  day/week   ✓   n.r.   ✓   n.r.   ✓   ✓   learning  new  information  or  not     110   Table  5  (cont’d)     text  difficulty   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   purpose  for  reading   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   graphical  elements   ✓   n.r.   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.r.   single  text  or  multi-­text   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   ✓   ✓   reader’s  proficiency   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   to  guide  specific  action   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.r.   ✓   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   involving  memorizing  or  not   n.r.   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   ✓   level  of  reverence   n.r.   ✓   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   malleability  of  the  text   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   level  of  stress   n.r.   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   n.r.   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   involving  running  commentary  or  not   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   reader’s  level  of  intellectual  independence   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   ✓   reader’s  physical  posture  and  movements   ✓   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   n.r.   Total  number  of  criteria  referenced  by   each  participant:   23   24   27   23   27   29   location  of  reading     duration  of  reading  event   Note:  The  notation  “n.r.”  indicates  that  a  criterion  was  “not  referenced”  by  that  participant.     No  single  factor  was  ever  credited  with  single-­‐handedly  shaping  a  reading  MO;  in  all   cases,  MOs  were  described  as  being  shaped  by  several  factors  in  combination.  Also,  as   shown  in  Table  5,  no  participant  mentioned  every  single  one  of  the  listed  factors.  Yet  every   participant  mentioned  more  than  half  of  the  listed  factors  at  least  once,  and  some  factors   were  mentioned  by  all  participants  multiple  times  (e.g.,  genre,  level  of  interest,  emotions   experienced).  A  small  number  of  factors  were  mentioned  by  fewer  than  half  of  the   111   participants;  only  four  criteria  were  unique  to  a  single  case  study  participant  (e.g.,  reader’s   physical  posture  and  movements;  reader’s  level  of  intellectual  independence).19   Section  3:  6th  Graders’  Criteria  for  Regulating  their  Use  of  MOs   Analysis  of  case  study  transcripts  brought  to  light  a  variety  of  criteria  participants   used  for  regulating  their  application  of  MOs.  In  this  context,  “regulating”  was  taken  to  refer   to  participants’  decision-­‐making  about  which  MO  to  apply  when,  and/or  when  to  switch   from  one  MO  to  another.     In  many  cases,  and  as  might  be  expected,  the  same  criteria  used  to  distinguish   among  MOs  (as  reported  in  Section  2  above)  also  functioned  as  criteria  for  regulation  of   MOs.  For  example,  many  MOs  were  characterized  as  being  associated  with  a  particular   genre  of  text.  In  case  study  sessions,  all  six  participants  indicated  that  they  also  considered   a  text’s  genre  at  the  moment  of  deciding  which  of  their  MOs  to  apply,  or  whether  to  switch   from  one  MO  to  another.  For  example,  after  realizing  that  a  text  she  had  never  seen  before   was  not  a  Mickey  Mouse  comic  book  but  instead  a  graphic  novel  about  the  Holocaust  (the   book  was  Spiegelman’s  [1981]  Maus  II),  participant  Cara  indicated  that  she  switched  from   her  “problem  solving”  MO  (i.e.,  MO04.01.01)  to  the  MO  she  used  for  informational  reading   (MO04.02.07).  Table  6  lists  criteria  mentioned  by  case  study  participants  in  relation  to   their  regulation  of  MOs  in  their  personal  repertoire.                                                                                                                   19  As  will  be  further  discussed  in  the  General  Discussion  chapter,  the  fact  that  a  participant   was  not  observed  referencing  a  particular  criterion  should  not  be  taken  as  evidence  that   the  participant  did  not  know  that  criterion  or  did  not  ever  take  it  into  account  in   distinguishing  among  MOs.       112   Table  6   Criteria  Referenced  by  Case  Study  Participants  In  Relation  To  Regulating  MOs  in  Their   Personal  Repertoire     Criterion   Chris   Astrid   Harry   Cara   Sam-­‐ antha   Nick   genre  of  text  being  read   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   technology   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   relative  preference   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   proficiency  with  MO   n.o.   n.o.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   level  of  interest   n.o.   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.o.   ✓   level  of  reverence   n.o.   ✓   ✓   n.o.   n.o.   ✓   referentiality   n.o.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   text  difficulty   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.o.   n.o.   social  dimension   n.o.   ✓   n.o.   n.o.   ✓   ✓   purpose  for  reading   n.o.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   5   10   10   9   8   10   subject  matter  or  topic   Total  number  of  criteria  referenced:   Note:  The  notation  “n.o.”  indicates  that  a  particular  criterion  was  “not  observed”  for  that   participant  (i.e.,  neither  explicitly  mentioned,  nor  referenced  in  passing,  nor  observed  by   the  researcher  when  the  participant  read  and  thought  aloud).  This  should  not  be   interpreted  as  indicating  that  the  participant  in  question  did  not  ever  consider  that   particular  criterion  when  regulating  his/her  application  of  MOs.  The  results  reported  here   of  criteria  participants  considered,  or  not,  were  based  on  a  relatively  tiny  sampling  of  each   participant’s  reading  activity  (roughly  5  hours).     Ongoing  awareness  and  monitoring  of  MOs.  With  regard  to  participants’  general   level  of  awareness  of  the  MOs  they  used—and  thus,  by  extension,  their  possible  awareness   of  the  steps  and/or  processes  by  which  they  chose  to  use  a  particular  MO  rather  than   another  or  switched  between  MOs—there  was  wide  variability  across  participants.  Some   113   participants  reported  knowing  multiple  MOs  but  also  reported  not  often  giving  deliberate   thought  to  their  selection  of  MOs.  These  participants  did  not  readily  provide  detailed   explanation  about  why  and  how  exactly  they  came  to  apply  a  particular  MO  in  a  particular   situation.  On  the  other  hand,  some  participants  reported  a  much  higher  level  of  moment-­‐ by-­‐moment  awareness  of  their  MOs  and  of  changes  they  made  in  their  application  of  MOs.   These  participants  were  at  times  very  articulate  with  regard  to  explaining  why  and  how   they  ended  up  using  a  particular  MO—or  why  they  switched  from  one  to  another.     In  this  group  of  six  case  study  participants  (Nick,  Samantha,  Cara,  Harry,  Astrid,  and   Chris),  Nick  was  one  of  the  most  self-­‐aware  about  his  application  of  MOs.  In  response  to  a   question  about  whether,  in  general,  he  knew  which  MO  he  was  about  to  apply  whenever  he   started  reading,  Nick  replied:  “I  think  I  know  some  of  the  times  [which  MO  I  am  going  to   use  when  I  start  reading],  but  not  all  of  the  times.  Like,  normally  when  I  read  a  novel  or   something,  I  know  that's  my  …  I'm  going  to  be  reading  that  specific  way.  But  with  this  [a   history  textbook],  I’m  not….    Since  if  I  ever  read  this  [textbook]  just  for  fun….  It  could  be   this  one  [Nick’s  MO  for  reading  informational  texts,  MO06.01.02]  or  that  one  [Nick’s  MO  for   reading  novels,  MO06.01.01].”  Samantha,  by  contrast,  reported  being  less  aware:  “I  think   I'm  not  really  aware  of  it  [the  MO  I’m  using],  until  after  I  think  about  it  for  a  minute,  which  I   don't  really  think  about  that  much.  It  just  kind  of  happens....”  Cara  was  somewhere  in  the   middle  on  the  MO-­‐awareness  spectrum  between  Nick  and  Samantha.  She  stated  that  in   reading  often  “you  do  different  things,  but  you  just  don't  realize  it.”  At  the  same  time,  Cara   was  sometimes  very  perceptive,  precise,  and  articulate  about  particular  reading  situations   114   and  the  ways  in  which  she  had  found  herself  switching  MOs  or  even  combining  one  MO   with  another.20   Influence  of  preferences  on  MO  regulation.  As  indicated  in  Table  6,  all  case  study   participants  reported  having  favorite  or  preferred  MOs.  Such  preferences  varied  from   participant  to  participant  (and  of  course,  as  reported  in  Section  1,  no  two  participants  had   identical  repertoires  of  MOs  about  which  to  feel  or  express  preferences)  in  terms  of  their   intensity  and  the  importance  ascribed  to  them.  As  well,  some  participants  indicated  a   hierarchy  of  preference  in  which  they  could  rank  all  their  MOs  from  top  to  bottom.  Other   participants  indicated  having  a  most-­‐preferred  MO,  and  perhaps  a  second-­‐  and  third-­‐most-­‐ preferred  MO,  but  then  did  not  express  any  further  preference  rankings  for  their  other   MOs.   With  regard  to  regulating  their  application  of  MOs,  all  six  participants  indicated  that   their  relative  preferences  influenced  their  decision-­‐making  about  using  or  not  using   particular  MOs,  or  finding  opportunities  to  use  them  or  not.  Five  of  six  participants   reported  that,  overall,  their  favorite  MO  was  the  one  they  used  most  frequently,  and  all  six   described  their  favorite  MO  as  the  one  they  would  most  happily  switch  back  to  or  continue   using  for  a  longer  period  of  time.   Influence  of  self-­efficacy  beliefs  about  proficiency  on  MO  regulation.  A  majority   of  participants  also  reported  having  opinions  about  their  proficiency  with  particular  MOs                                                                                                                   20  Over  the  course  of  multiple  case  study  sessions  with  each  case  study  participant,  it  was   also   the   case   that   most   participants   gradually   became   more   adept   at   reflecting   on   their   various  “ways  of  reading”  and  more  fluent  and  articulate  at  verbalizing  their  thoughts  and   observations.   Cara’s   observation   that   “you   do   different   things   [i.e.,   you   apply   different   MOs],   but   you   just   don’t   realize   it”   was   made   at   our   first   case   study   meeting.   In   subsequent   sessions,  she  spoke  at  length  about  the  many  things  she  did  realize  about  her  MOs  and  her   varied  application  of  those  MOs.   115   relative  to  their  proficiency  with  other  MOs  in  their  repertoire,  as  well  as  relative  to  their   peers’  proficiency.21  And  this  self-­‐appraisal  of  proficiency  was  cited  as  a  factor  that   influenced  their  decision-­‐making  about  which  MO  to  apply  when.  At  the  same  time,  these   personal  estimates  of  proficiency  were  not  always  the  best  predictor  of  preference   rankings  or  of  reported  actual  use.  For  example,  after  describing  the  MOs  he  used  for  (a)   reading  the  screen  while  playing  video  games  (i.e.,  MO03.02.07),  (b)  reading  informational   text  (i.e.,  MO03.01.02),  and  (c)  reading  novels  (i.e.,  MO03.01.03),  participant  Harry   estimated  that  he  was  most  proficient  at  (c),  less  proficient  at  (b),  and  least  proficient  at  (a).   He  further  reported  that,  based  on  personal  observation  and  his  knowledge  of  his  peers’   school  grades,  these  rankings  of  proficiency  also  accurately  reflected  how  he  compared  to   his  peers:  he  was  “better”  than  his  peers  at  applying  MO  (c)  to  comprehend  school-­‐assigned   texts  and  earn  high  grades  on  tests,  and  “below”  his  peers  with  regard  to  MO  (a).   Nonetheless,  Harry  reported  that  (a)  was  his  favorite  MO  and,  in  the  absence  of  restrictions   set  by  his  parents  and  limited  access  to  the  internet  at  home,  it  would  also  be  his  most   frequently  used  MO.   Influence  of  subject  matter  on  MO  regulation.  All  six  case  study  participants   indicated  that  a  text’s  topic  or  subject  matter  was  a  factor  influencing  their  selection  and   application  of  MOs.  All  six  had  previously  identified  topic  or  subject  matter  as  a  criterion   contributing  to  the  definition  of  one  or  more  of  their  MOs,  and  this  sensitivity  to  textual   content—separate  from  their  sensitivity  to  text  genre—again  came  into  play  as  they  talked                                                                                                                   21  Interestingly,  this  self-­‐assessment  relative  to  peers  suggests  that  participants  believed   that  peers  had  identical  or  at  least  very  similar  MOs.  This  belief  would  provide  the   necessary  basis  for  a  comparison.  In  the  absence  of  this  belief,  it  would  not  be  meaningful   to  compare  one’s  proficiency  level  with  the  proficiency  level  of  someone  else.   116   about  why  they  would  choose  to  apply  one  MO  instead  of  another,  or  how  they  could  intuit   (without  giving  the  matter  any  deliberate  thought)  that  a  particular  MO  would  be  the   “right”  one  for  a  text  they  were  about  to  read.  Participant  Harry’s  MO  for  reading  baseball   cards  (i.e.,  MO03.03.11)  nicely  illustrates  this  point.  For  him,  this  MO  was  fitted  for  reading   baseball  cards  specifically,  a  very  particular  genre  of  text.  Yet,  as  Harry  explained,  it  wasn’t   the  genre  but  rather  the  to-­‐him  familiar  and  emotionally  significant  baseball  content  that   activated  and  then  sustained  the  MO.  Cards  of  the  same  genre  but  for  a  different  sport  did   not  provide  Harry  with  the  same  reading  experience.   Some  participants  reported  a  heightened  alertness  and  sensitivity  to  text  content— and  to  what  they  perceived  as  significant  shifts  or  anomalies  in  content.  These  shifts  and   anomalies,  in  turn,  were  credited  with  causing  the  reader  to  sometimes  change  MOs.  Nick,   for  example,  reported  a  reconsideration  of  MO  being  triggered  by  a  single  textual  detail.   While  reading  Chief  Joseph’s  famous  surrender  speech  of  1877  with  his  MO  for  reading   informational  text  (i.e.,  MO06.01.02),  Nick  came  across  the  name  of  a  Native  American  chief   that  struck  him  as  “weird.”  This  one  detail,  and  his  reaction  to  it,  almost  caused  him  to  shift   to  his  MO  for  reading  autobiographical  text  (i.e.,  MO06.02.08):  “with  the  name  a  little  weird,   like  Chief  Ta  Hool  Hool  Shute,  I  mean,  that's  just  weird,  I  mean.  So,  yeah,  I  would  be   thinking  autobiography,  a  type  of  …  story?  Just  because,  since  it's  his  perspective,  and  it's   honestly  about  truthful  events,  I  would  think  he'd  be  writing  it  to  tell  his  grandson  or   something  about  what  happened.  So  I  could  read  it  that  way.”  Nick  clarified  that  switching   to  reading  the  text  “that  way”  for  him  meant  reading  it  with  more  emotional  receptivity  to   the  characters  in  the  narrative  and  their  experiences  and  reacting  to  the  text  in  his  own   head,  during  reading,  with  “clever”  comments  and  quips.   117   Other  participants  reported  similar  moments  where  an  encounter  with  surprising   text  content  caused  them  not  just  to  update  or  revise  their  understanding  of  the  text,  but   instead  to  consider  shifting  from  one  MO  to  another.  Astrid,  for  example,  reported   occasionally  being  “bumped”  out  of  her  MO  for  reading  text  messages  (i.e.,  MO02.01.02)   when  she  encountered  a  text  with  surprising  content—content  requiring  her  to  suspend   her  texting  MO  and  switch  to  her  MO  for  concentrated,  emotionally  receptive  reading  (i.e.,   MO02.01.03):  “Like  with  the  texting  thing,  I  was  with  my  friends,  and  I've  like  texted  this   person  so  much  that  I  think  I  know  what  they're  going  to  say.  So  I'll  say  like  the  thing  back,   because  I  think  I  know  what  they're  going  to  say....  But  really  they  say  something  different,   and  I'm  like,  ‘Oh,  look!’  I  haven't  sent  it  [the  message  I  already  wrote  while  waiting  for  them   to  write],  but  as  soon  as  they  say  that,  I'm  about  to  go  send.  But  then  I'm  like,  ‘Oh,  wait:  they   said  something  different.’  I  probably  shouldn't  have  said  that.  …  So  that’s  when  I  switch  [to   her  novel-­‐reading  MO].”  Astrid  continued:  “It's  not  a  novel  [i.e.,  the  unexpected  text   message  is  not  a  novel],  but  you're  still  thinking  about  what  you're  reading,  you're  taking   the  time,  you're  taking  the  time  to  like  read  what  they're  talking  to  you  about,  and  like,  to   actually  like  listen  to  the  conversation,  and  not  just  predict  what  they're  going  to  say.”   Influence  of  reading  purpose  and  content  sometimes  trumps  the  influence  of   genre.  As  already  mentioned,  all  six  participants  described  at  least  one  of  their  MOs  with   reference  to  text  genre.  And  case  study  sessions  provided  numerous  examples  of  each   participant  initially  activating  and  applying  a  particular  MO  from  his/her  repertoire  of  MOs   on  the  basis  of  an  initial  judgment  made  about  the  genre  of  a  target  text.  When  participants   were  invited  to  read  a  novel  I  provided,  for  example,  they  did  not  randomly  select  a  MO   from  their  repertoire  and  try  it  on  for  size.  Rather,  having  discerned  that  the  text  in  front  of   118   them  was  a  novel,  they  started  by  applying  the  MO  that,  for  them  individually,  was  the  one   they  habitually  used  with  novels.  In  this  sense,  genre  was  a  decisive  factor  in  participants’   regulation  of  their  MOs.   At  the  same  time,  the  transcript  provided  several  examples  of  the  genre  factor  being   trumped  by  other  considerations,  such  as  purpose  for  reading  and  topic  or  subject  matter.    A   section  of  transcript  from  Nick’s  third  case  study  session  illustrates  the  latter.  Nick  read  a   few  pages  from  Robertson’s  (2013)  autobiography  Si-­cology:  Tales  and  wisdom  from  Duck   Dynasties  favorite  uncle,  and  described  his  MO  for  reading  autobiographies  in  general  (i.e.,   MO06.02.08).  However,  upon  continuing  to  read,  he  came  across  some  paragraphs   containing  Robertson’s  musings  on  his  Christian  faith.  And  these  paragraphs,  according  to   Nick,  caused  him  to  shift  from  his  MO  for  autobiography  to  his  MO  for  reading  the  Christian   Bible  (i.e.,  MO06.02.11).  Regarding  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  shift,  Nick  explained:   Yeah,  I  did  [change  the  way  I  was  reading],  because  it  normally  depends  on  the   topic.  Since  back  there  [on  an  earlier  page]  we  were  talking  about  the  50  pound   squirrels,  and  I  can  easily  read  that  lightly,  but  when  he's  talking  about  religions,   and  Jesus  and  God  and  things,  I  have  to  read  that  of  course  very  seriously  because   that's  something  I  also  worship,  too.  So  it  depends  on  the  topic  for  when  I  switch   between  that  one  [i.e.,  MO06.02.08]  and  that  one  [i.e.,  MO06.02.11].   An  example  of  genre  being  trumped  by  consideration  of  purpose  for  reading  may  be   taken  from  Samantha’s  transcript.  In  Samantha’s  case,  MOs  with  explicit  purpose  included   her  MO  for  novel  reading  to  prepare  for  a  test  (i.e.,  MO05.01.08)  and  her  MO  for   memorizing  lines  for  a  future  play  performance  (i.e.,  MO05.01.07).  As  she  explained,  one   and  the  same  text  could  be  approached  with  different  MOs,  depending  on  her  purpose.  For   119   example,  if  she  found  out  that  a  particular  novel  she  was  reading  was  not  going  to  be  tested   after  all,  she  might  switch  to  her  recreational  novel-­‐reading  MO  (i.e.,  MO05.02.09)  and  read   the  rest  of  the  novel  “for  fun,”  skipping  or  skimming  dull  parts,  pausing  to  draw  pictures,   and  freely  interspersing  her  reading  of  chapters  or  sections  from  more  than  one  book  at  a   time.   Both  these  examples  (Samantha’s  and  Nick’s),  then,  illustrate  how,  even  when  there   was  no  change  in  a  reader’s  perception  of  a  text’s  genre,  a  change  in  subject  matter  or  in   purpose  might  sometimes  cause  a  shift  in  MO.  The  regulation  of  MOs  in  participants’   reading  lives  thus  often  appeared  to  be  influenced  by  several  factors  at  once,  rarely  by  a   single  factor.     Section  4:  Participants’  Knowledge  and  Use  of  Conventional  Reading  Comprehension   Strategies   Excerpts  from  case  study  participants’  think-­‐aloud  protocols  were  coded  to   ascertain  whether  participants  in  fact  used  any  of  eleven  commonly  taught  reading   comprehension  strategies.  Table  7  shows  how  many  participants  used  each  of  these   strategies  at  least  once.   Table  7   Conventional  Reading  Comprehension  Strategies  Enacted  At  Least  Once  by  Six  Case  Study   Participants     Reading  comprehension  strategy   Chris   Astrid   Harry   Cara   Sam-­‐ antha   Nick   activating  prior  knowledge   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   attending  to  text  features  and/or  text   structure   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓     120   Table  7  (cont’d)     generating  and  asking  questions   ✓*   n.o.   n.o.   ✓   n.o.   ✓   making  predictions   ✓   ✓   n.o.   ✓   ✓   ✓   visualizing   ✓   n.o.   n.o.   ✓   ✓   ✓   paraphrasing   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.o.   ✓   summarizing   n.o.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   making  inferences   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   making  connections  to  self   ✓   n.o.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.o.   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   comprehension  monitoring   ✓   ✓   ✓   ✓   n.o.   ✓   Total  number  of  reading   comprehension  strategies  enacted  (out   of  the  eleven  strategies  coded  for):     9     8     8     11     8     11   making  connections  to  other  texts   Note:  The  notation  “n.o.”  indicates  that  a  strategy  was  “not  observed”  for  that  participant  in   excerpts  from  his/her  verbal  protocols  of  reading.  This  obviously  does  not  mean  that  the   participant  did  not  know  that  strategy,  only  that  he/she  was  not  observed  enacting  it.   *For  Chris,  asking  a  question  often  took  the  form  of  simply  asking,  “What  does  that  mean?”   thus  formulating  a  generic  and  all-­‐purpose  question,  as  opposed  to  a  question  somewhat   tailored  or  very  tailored  to  a  specific  text  or  context.     As  shown  in  Table  7,  every  one  of  the  eleven  commonly  taught  reading   comprehension  strategies  was  used  by  at  least  three  of  six  participants,  and  most  strategies   were  enacted  at  least  once  by  a  majority  of  participants.  (Tables  16-­‐26  in  Appendix  H   provide  quotations  from  the  verbal  protocols  of  reading  of  each  of  the  six  case  study   participants  illustrating  an  enactment  of  each  strategy  they  used.)  Further,  as  indicated  by   the  totals  in  the  bottom  row  of  Table  7,  and  as  suggested  by  a  visual  inspection  of  the   distribution  of  check  marks,  no  clear  pattern  emerged  across  participants  with  regard  to   the  use  or  non-­‐use  of  particular  strategies.  For  example,  while  Nick  and  Cara,  the  most   121   proficient  and  third  most  proficient  readers  respectively  (as  estimated  by  their  reading   scores  on  the  state  standardized  test),  enacted  all  eleven  strategies,  the  three  least   proficient  readers  (Chris,  Astrid,  and  Harry)  enacted  as  many  strategies  as  the  second  most   proficient  reader  (Samantha)  and  only  two  or  three  strategies  fewer  than  their  most   proficient  peer  (Nick).  Based  on  the  observed  distribution  of  check  marks,  it  seems  likely   that  further  coding  of  additional  pages  of  verbal  protocols  of  reading  would  yield  examples   of  all  participants  at  some  point  using  all  eleven  strategies.   At  the  same  time,  some  variability  was  observed  across  participants  with  regard  to   both  (a)  the  depth  of  their  declarative  knowledge  about  reading  comprehension  strategies   and  (b)  their  perceptions  of  the  usefulness  of  such  strategies.   Some  participants  recalled  the  names  of  specific  strategies  without  assistance  and   offered  detailed  information  about  their  past  use  of  such  strategies.  Others  initially  had   difficulty  recalling  specific  strategies  (“Looking  back  is  one….This  is  bad—I  don’t  remember   them….”),  yet  with  some  scaffolding  from  me,  they  soon  recalled  more  and  were   furthermore  able  to  describe  when  they  had  learned  about  strategies,  how  they  had  used   them  in  the  past,  and  how  they  continued  to  use  them  in  the  present.  Only  one  participant   had  great  difficulty  recalling  the  names  of  any  strategies  and,  even  after  scaffolding  and   prompting  from  me,  still  had  next  to  nothing  to  say  about  his  past  use  of  strategies.     Among  participants  who  recalled  specific  strategies,  Samantha  may  serve  as  an   example  of  a  6th  grader  demonstrating  knowledge  in  all  three  of  the  areas  Paris,  Lipson,  and   Wixson  (1983)  and  others  have  described  as  necessary  for  skilled  and  independent   application  of  strategies:  declarative,  procedural,  and  conditional  knowledge.  After  initially   having  some  difficulty  recalling  the  names  of  specific  strategies,  Samantha  recalled  several,   122   including  inferring,  asking  questions,  activating  background  knowledge,  rereading,   visualizing,  and  summarizing.  Samantha  also  affirmed  her  use  of  such  strategies  in  her   description  of  one  of  her  MOs.  She  independently  enacted  multiple  strategies  while  reading   and  thinking  aloud,  and  she  explained  that  using  reading  comprehension  strategies  was   one  of  the  measures  she  took  to  improve  her  comprehension  of  texts  that  were  challenging   to  understand  and/or  that  she  needed  to  comprehend  well  enough  to  earn  a  high  score  on   a  test.   Chris,  by  contrast,  had  no  recollection  of  any  of  the  eleven  commonly  taught  reading   comprehension  strategies  I  coded  for  (though  he  enacted  nine  of  them  at  least  once  while   reading  and  thinking  aloud).  When  asked  about  strategies  on  different  days,  Chris’s  reply   did  not  change:  “They’re  things  you  do  while  reading.  I  never  really  got  it.”  Interestingly,   though,  Chris  did  recall  learning  more  complex  strategy-­‐involved  routines  and  frameworks,   such  as  the  RAT  (Read-­‐Around-­‐the-­‐Text)  routine  and  the  QAR  (Question  Answer   Relationships)  framework.  With  both  of  these,  Chris’s  level  of  recall  was  relatively  shallow:   beyond  remembering  the  acronyms,  and  recalling  that  RAT  was  for  “when  you  first  start   reading  something”  whereas  QAR  was  about  “asking  questions,”  he  did  not  volunteer  any   further  information.  Still,  while  Chris  struggled  to  remember  any  of  the  classic  individual   strategies  (e.g.,  visualizing,  predicting,  summarizing,  asking  questions),  he  did  recall  these   more  elaborate  constructs.  Finally,  with  regard  to  conditional  knowledge  about  when  and   why  to  use  strategies,  Chris’s  one  observation  was  that,  when  he  felt  confused  by  what  he   was  reading,  it  sometimes  helped  to  slow  down  and  reread.   With  regard  to  participants’  perceptions  of  the  usefulness  and  importance  of   reading  comprehension  strategies,  four  of  the  six  made  straightforward  and  unequivocal   123   comments  in  favor  of  strategies.  The  least  proficient  reader,  Chris,  as  we  saw,  was  not  able   to  retrieve  many  specific  memories  of  using  strategies  (even  though  he  enacted  them).   Beyond  once  noting  that  slowing  down  and  rereading  sometimes  helped  him  comprehend   better,  he  did  not  make  any  global  pronouncements  about  the  value  of  strategies.  At  the   same  time,  Nick,  the  most  proficient  reader  among  the  six  case  study  participants,   demonstrated  good  declarative  knowledge  of  strategies  (relative  to  his  peers),  but  he  also   expressed  skepticism  about  the  value  of  learning  strategies  and  devoting  mental  resources   to  monitoring  and  applying  them:  “I  would  use  them  [reading  comprehension  strategies].   But  to  be  honest,  when  the  teachers  teach  them,  I  don't  really  listen,  because,  that's  not  the   thing  you  would  learn  by  teaching  someone,  that's  the  thing  you  would  learn  on  your  own   just  by  reading.  So  to  be  honest,  I've  probably  used  those,  and  I  just  don't  know  it,  but  I've   never  really  wanted  to  or  tried  to  use  those.”  As  reported  in  Table  7,  Nick  enacted  all  eleven   of  the  strategies  I  coded  for;  and  when  I  drew  his  attention  to  moments  where  his  think-­‐ aloud  verbalizations  (during  reading)  indicated  he  had  likely  used  a  strategy,  such  as   inferring  or  visualizing,  he  readily  acknowledged  that  this  was  the  case.  Still,  he  maintained   that,  “eventually  you  just  learn  it  [applying  strategies]  on  your  own  without  any  real   teacher  help.”   Relationship  between  MOs  and  conventional  reading  comprehension   strategies.  Whereas  all  case  study  participants  demonstrated  some  level  of  familiarity  with   conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies,  none  of  the  six  indicated  that  they   regulated  the  MOs  in  their  personal  repertoire  through  the  prism  of  these  strategies.  On  the   other  hand,  all  participants  implied,  and  five  explicitly  stated,  that  reading  comprehension   124   strategies  were  in  their  experience  contained  within  MOs  and  might  or  might  not  be   applied  in  particular  reading  situations  depending  on  the  MO  currently  being  applied.     This  perspective  was  most  emphatically  stated  by  Nick,  the  most  proficient  reader  in   the  group,  who,  as  we  just  saw,  reported  generally  not  thinking  about  common  reading   comprehension  strategies  during  reading:  “Normally,  I  would  use  the  novel  reading  and   internet  text  reading  and  info  text  reading  [three  of  Nick’s  MOs:  MO06.01.01,  MO06.01.02,   and  MO06.02.07],  just  because  as  I  said  before,  I  don't  particularly  want  to  use  those   [reading  comprehension  strategies]  as  like  a  specific  set,  like,  I  just  don't  want  to  be   inferring...  And  so  normally  I  would  use  novel  reading  [MO06.01.01],  which  involves,  I   guess,  all  of  those  things  [strategies].  I've  never  actually  listed  them  out.”  As  a  relatively   proficient  reader  for  his  grade,  Nick  appeared  to  do  the  kind  of  flexible,  unpremeditated,   on-­‐the-­‐fly  application  of  strategies  that  Afflerbach,  Pearson,  and  Paris  (2008)  describe   when  they  write  about  “effortful  strategies”  eventually  becoming  “automatic  skills”  by  dint   of  long  practice.  Whatever  the  nature  of  this  automaticity,  Nick  consistently  reported—and   demonstrated—focusing  his  conscious  strategic  intelligence  on  the  matter  of  MO  selection,   and  of  then  monitoring  the  suitability  of  his  chosen  MO  in  relation  to  such  things  as  his   reading  task,  his  enjoyment  of  the  reading  experience,  and  the  text’s  genre  and  subject   matter  (and  any  shifts  or  anomalies  in  the  text’s  subject  matter).   The  majority  of  other  case  study  participants  (four  of  six)  reported  being   occasionally  mindful  of  reading  comprehension  strategies.  They  straightforwardly  affirmed   the  value  of  knowing  and  applying  such  strategies,  and  they  credited  strategies  with   improving  their  comprehension.  At  the  same  time,  all  four  indicated  that,  in  their   experience,  strategy  selection  and  application  occurred  in  the  context  of,  and  in  the  service   125   of,  one  or  more  of  the  particular  MOs  in  their  repertoire  of  MOs.  This  apparent   subordination  of  strategies  to  MOs  was  especially  clear  in  the  case  of  participants  who   characterized  a  MO  at  least  partly  in  terms  of  its  mobilization  of  classic  reading   comprehension  strategies.   In  this  latter  scenario,  participants  indicated  that,  because  they  were  enacting  a   particular  MO  (usually  one  associated  with  seeking  a  deeper-­‐than-­‐usual  level  of   comprehension),  they  were  mindful  of  recognizing  and  seizing  opportunities  to  apply   strategies.  For  example,  Samantha  reported  that,  when  she  applied  her  MO  for  reading   novels  “in  depth”  (i.e.,  MO05.01.02),  or  her  MO  for  reading  in  depth  and  preparing  to  take  a   test  (i.e.,  MO05.02.08),  she  made  a  point  of  using  “all  of  her  reading  skills”  including   “inferring,  looking  back,  asking  questions,  and  others.”   Harry’s  view  of  the  relationship  between  MOs  and  strategies  was  somewhat  less   siloed.  He  reported  drawing  on  his  full  repertoire  of  strategies  (“mostly  all  of  them”),  as   needed,  whenever  he  sat  down  to  read  (“each  time  I  read”).  When  asked  to  say  more  about   what  it  meant  to  him,  in  his  reading  experience,  to  use  strategies  “as  needed,”  Harry   described  situations  in  which  he  set  out  to  enact  a  MO,  and  commenced  reading,  but  then   encountered  difficulty  (“Because  sometimes  it  gets  confusing”).  Strategies  would  then  be   applied  (mostly  comprehension-­‐repairing  strategies,  such  as  re-­reading  or  searching  one’s   memory  for  possibly  relevant  background  knowledge),  in  order  to  resolve  confusion.  Still,   these  strategies  would  be  applied  in  the  service  of  continuing  the  type  of  reading  activity   associated  with  a  particular  MO  (e.g.,  Harry’s  MO  for  reading  baseball  cards,  MO03.03.11,   or  his  MO  for  reading  the  Christian  Bible,  MO03.03.08),  not  universally,  nor  always  in   exactly  the  same  way,  whenever  Harry  engaged  in  any  act  of  reading.     126   In  sum,  case  study  participants  mostly  viewed  reading  comprehension  strategies  as   useful  and  necessary;  and  most  participants  reported  having  some  control,  or  a  great  deal   of  control,  over  their  application.  At  the  same  time,  participants’  responses  to  questions   about  strategies  and  MOs,  together  with  their  verbal  protocols  of  reading,  indicated  that   they  viewed  strategies  as  secondary  and  subordinate  to  their  MOs,  which  constituted  the   main  lens  through  which  they  orchestrated  and  monitored  their  reading  activities  and   made  decisions  about  whether  or  not,  and  how  exactly,  to  adjust  or  change  what  they  were   doing  and  thinking  as  they  read.   Section  5:  Additional  Results  Pertinent  to  the  Psychological  Reality  of  6th  Graders’   MOs   Capacity  and  willingness  of  6th  graders  to  describe  and  discuss  their  MOs.  A   basic  and  important  finding  from  this  study  was  that  thirty  6th  graders  had  no  apparent   difficulty  answering  questions  about  MOs,  reflecting  on  their  knowledge  and  use  of  MOs,   and  describing  differences  between  MOs.  Participants  performed  these  tasks  with  varying   levels  of  verbal  and  cognitive  dexterity,  and  the  descriptions  they  provided  exhibited   varying  levels  of  detail  and  complexity.  Yet  the  basic  finding  remains  that  all  thirty  gave   coherent  and,  for  them,  meaningful  and  authentic  responses  to  questions  about  reading  in   diverse  ways  and  how  they  distinguished  among  those  different  ways.     Genesis  of  6th  graders’  MOs.  The  genesis  of  participants’  MOs  was  not   systematically  investigated.  Nonetheless,  analysis  of  case  study  transcripts  yielded  a   number  of  comments  and  observations—at  least  one  per  participant,  and  in  some  cases   many  more—shedding  light  on  possible  trajectories  of  MO  development,  as  retrospectively   reported  by  6th  graders  themselves.     127   One  common  theme  across  participants’  comments  and  observations  was  that  MOs   were  not  acquired  or  inculcated  through  formal  instruction.  Several  participants  claimed   they  had  gradually,  over  time,  settled  into  their  various  ways  of  reading  on  their  own.  Nick,   for  example,  stated:  “like,  how  to  novel  read,  or…  that's  just  something  I  learned  on  my   own.  And  that's  the  same  with  the  informational  text  and  my  way  of  reading  it;  I  learned   that  on  my  own.”  Cara  echoed  Nick:  “It's  something  [i.e.,  developing  my  different  ways  of   reading]  I  did  on  my  own.  Because  I  taught  myself  how  to  read,  um,  before  first  grade.”   At  the  same  time,  several  participants  acknowledged  influences.  Nick,  for  example,   credited  his  parents’  reading  of  bedtime  stories  with  having  laid  a  foundation  for  his   development  of  his  novel-­‐reading  MO  (i.e.,  MO06.0101):  “The  exception  [to  Nick’s   independent  development  of  MOs]  is  really  my  parents  reading  me  bedtime  stories.  Um,   the  bedtime  reading  is  sort  of  a  precursor  to  novel  reading.”  Cara  for  her  part  credited  her   father  with  modeling  for  her  a  MO  for  reading  the  newspaper  in  a  critical  and  emotionally   engaged  manner;  she  stated  that  seeing  her  father  respond  angrily  to  newspaper  articles  he   found  upsetting  influenced  her  development  of  her  MO  for  reading  about  current  events  in   a  social  context  (i.e.,  MO04.02.08),  in  which  she  is  hyper-­‐alert  to  information  and   viewpoints  worthy  of  being  relayed  to  others.  Samantha  credited  her  friends  with   introducing  her  to  emojis  and  with  fueling  the  development  of  her  MO  for  reading  text   messages  (i.e.,  MO05.01.03).   Influence  of  formal  schooling  on  6th  graders’  MOs.  Analysis  of  data  from  six  case   study  participants  yielded  numerous  observations  and  comments  about  the  impact  of   formal  schooling  on  the  development  and  use  of  MOs,  usually  in  conjunction  with   observations  and  comments  made  about  the  impact  of  formal  schooling  on  participants’   128   acquisition  and  use  of  conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies.  These  observations   and  comments  were  extracted  from  the  transcripts  of  all  six  participants.  However,   whereas  some  participants  contributed  many  observations  and  comments  on  this  topic,   others  contributed  only  one  or  two.  A  summary  of  these  contributions  should  therefore  not   be  seen  as  reliably  representative  of  the  experiences  and  views  of  all  six  participants.   One  view  expressed  by  all  six  participants  was  that  school  had  not  been  a  source  of   instruction  or  learning  regarding  MOs.  All  participants  commented  that,  at  school,  teachers   did  not  explicitly  talk  about  “ways  of  reading.”  On  the  other  hand,  all  six  participants   indicated  that  it  was  in  school  that  they  learned  about  reading  comprehension  strategies.   Students  credited  school  and/or  individual  teachers  they  remembered  by  name  with   teaching  them  about  individual  reading  strategies  (e.g.,  visualizing,  inferring,  summarizing)   as  well  as  about  certain  multi-­‐strategy  routines,  such  as  RAT  (Reading  Around  the  Text).     With  regard  to  the  status  and  use-­‐value  of  their  MO  knowledge  in  the  school  setting,   participants  reported  varied  experiences  and  points  of  view.  Among  those  who  provided   information  about  it  (five  of  six),  some  viewed  their  MOs  as  an  asset  they  could  use  in   school  and  outside  school  in  whatever  ways  they  saw  fit.  While  their  MOs  were  not   recognized  by  teachers,  and  were  not  purposefully  engaged  by  curriculum  and  instruction,   these  participants  did  not  report  any  sense  of  disjuncture  between  what  they  knew  about   MOs  and  the  demands  of  their  daily  routines  of  schoolwork.  Others  expressed  some   amount  of  mild  puzzlement  or  consternation  about  a  disconnection  between  their   knowledge  of  multiple  ways  of  reading  and  the  narrower  focus  of  their  school-­‐based   reading  experiences.  One  participant  who  went  a  step  further  was  Cara,  who  expressed   frustration  with  what  she  portrayed  as  a  dominant  school  view  of  reading  as  a  unitary,   129   uniform  activity.  Cara  dramatized  her  critique  of  this  unitary  view  in  the  form  of  a  portrait   of  Mrs.  Smith  (a  pseudonym):  “Mrs.  Smith,  like,  she  thinks,  she'll  tend  to  say,  reading  is  just   one  thing,  and  I'm  thinking  no,  you've  got  step  by  step,  you've  got  problem  solving,  you  got   understanding,  you  got  comprehension,  you  got  all  the  different  ways  of  reading,  and  yet   you  think  that's  all  one.  It's  not;  it's  different  things.”22   6th  graders’  interest  in  inventing  new  MOs.  At  the  end  of  the  written  interview,   participants  were  asked  (a)  whether  or  not  they  had  ever  in  the  past  invented  a  MO  and   also  (b)  whether  or  not,  in  the  future,  they  expected  they  would  at  some  point  invent  a  new   MO.  Twenty  of  thirty  (67%)  participants  answered  that  they  had  no  recollection  of  ever   inventing  a  MO;  the  other  ten  (33%)  reported  they  had.  Looking  to  the  future,  fourteen  of   thirty  participants  (47%)  said  they  did  not  expect  they  would  ever  invent  a  new  MO;  the   other  sixteen  (53%)  said  they  expected  they  would.  Among  case  study  participants,  the   answers  to  these  questions  followed  roughly  the  same  pattern,  with  four  (67%)  answering   that  they  had  never  in  the  past  invented  a  MO,  and  three  (50%)  answering  that,  in  the   future,  they  did  not  expect  to  invent  a  new  MO.   Case  study  sessions  provided  opportunities  to  engage  this  latter  subset  of   participants  in  conversation  about  their  answers  to  these  questions.  The  three  participants   who  said  they  did  not  expect  to  invent  any  new  MOs  in  the  future  generally  explained  their                                                                                                                   22  The  transcript  of  Cara’s  comments  about  her  experience  of  school-­‐based  reading   instruction,  and  how  this  instruction  influenced  her  development  of  reading  MOs,  also   contains  an  intriguing  aside  about  occasionally  turning  “small”  strategies  into  “big”  ways  of   reading:  “Sometimes  [in  school]  …  they  could  teach,  like,  say  like  a  little  way  of  reading,  but   then,  like,  I'll  make  it  a  big  way  of  reading.”  Whether  this  “small”  versus  “big”  distinction   corresponds  to  a  distinction  between  “small”  strategies  and  “big”  MOs  is  a  question  worthy   of  further  investigation.  From  a  theoretical  standpoint,  it  makes  sense  that  some  classic   reading  comprehension  strategies  (e.g.,  asking  questions)  could  be  elaborated  into  a  full-­‐ blown  MO  (e.g.,  a  MO  centered  on  adopting  a  disputatious  or  forensic  stance).   130   answer  by  stating  that  they  did  not  think  they  would  need  to  invent  new  MOs  because  their   existing  MOs  were  satisfactory.  Participants  who  said  they  expected  they  would  invent  one   or  more  new  MOs  in  the  future  did  not  express  dissatisfaction  with  their  existing  MOs,  but   rather  seemed  to  enjoy  the  idea  of  being  inventive.  Several  tried  on  the  spot  to  give  an   example  of  a  new  MO  they  might  invent.  Cara,  for  instance,  having  recently  spent  a  few   minutes  reading  on  the  Internet,  stated:  “Like  the  way,  with  the  split  thing  [reading  two   texts  side-­‐by-­‐side  using  a  “split  screen”  web  browser  add-­‐on],  like  that's  a  new  way  of   reading,  because  not  a  lot  of  people  can  do  that.  And  so  then,  that's  a  new  way  of  reading,   no  one  has  really  did  it  yet.  So  I'm  going  to  make  a  new  way  of  reading,  and  it  is  a  new  way   of  reading,  because  yeah,  you're  switching  [between  two  texts  displayed  side-­‐by-­‐side].”     131   CHAPTER  5   General  Discussion   The  results  reported  in  the  previous  chapter  appear  to  provide  strong  support  for   the  study’s  main  hypothesis,  namely,  that  above  and  beyond  what  they  know  about   conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies,  most  or  all  adolescent  readers  know  and   use  diverse  MOs,  and  experience  reading  and  regulate  their  reading  activities  through  the   prism  of  reading  MOs.   In  summary  form,  the  results  are  striking:  100%  of  participants  (n  =  30)  reported   that  they  knew  and  used  two  or  more  “ways  of  reading”  in  their  daily  lives.  One  hundred   percent  of  participants  connected  the  MOs  they  reported  knowing  to  specific  reading   events  they  located  on  a  recent  school  day  and/or  weekend  day,  and  100%  provided   information  about  each  of  their  MOs  and  why,  to  them  personally  and  in  their  day-­‐to-­‐day   experience,  each  counted  as  a  distinct  way  of  reading.  Further,  100%  of  case  study   participants  (n  =  6)  provided  further  corroborative  detail  about  the  MOs  they  had   previously  briefly  described,  and  100%  of  these  participants  enacted  some  or  all  of  their   self-­‐reported  MOs  while  reading  both  familiar  and  unfamiliar  texts  (i.e.,  no  evidence  was   found  of  fabrication,  exaggeration,  or  embellishment  in  participants’  earlier  or  later  self-­‐ reports  regarding  MOs).  As  well,  case  study  participants  all  identified,  described,  and   enacted  additional  MOs  beyond  the  ones  they  initially  identified.  And  while  these   participants  mostly  demonstrated  robust  knowledge  of  conventional  reading   comprehension  strategies,  they  all  indicated  navigating  and  regulating  their  reading   activities  not  via  such  strategies,  but  instead,  through  the  prism  of  their  diverse  and  even   idiosyncratic  reading  MOs.   132   These  results  are  striking,  and  yet  their  meaning  and  significance—how  they  should   be  interpreted,  in  what  respects  they  may  be  considered  robust  and  in  what  respects  they   should  be  seen  as  tentative—need  to  be  carefully  and,  as  necessary,  critically  unpacked.   This  is  the  task  to  which  I  now  turn.   The  following  discussion  is  divided  into  five  sections  that  address  five  key  areas.  The   first  is  devoted  to  the  central  issue  of  the  psychological  reality  of  reading  MOs  in  the  lives  of   6th  graders  in  the  context  of  a  skeptical  reconsideration  of  the  MO  construct.  The  second   section  addresses  the  issue  of  readers’  strategic  regulation  of  reading  activity  and  the   relationship  between  MOs  and  conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies.  The  third   section  turns  to  a  discussion  of  possible  broad  implications  for  classroom  instruction.   Section  four  acknowledges,  and  discusses,  a  number  of  important  limitations  on  the  study’s   findings.  The  chapter  concludes  with  a  section  devoted  to  possible  future  directions  for   research.     Psychological  Reality  of  MOs  for  Reading   As  summarized  above,  the  study’s  results  appear  to  give  strong  support  to  the  claim   that,  quite  aside  from  what  they  know  about  reading  comprehension  strategies,  most  or  all   6th-­‐grade  readers  know  and  use  multiple  reading  MOs.  Further,  the  results  strongly  support   the  claim  that  many  or  all  6th-­‐grade  readers  perceive  reading,  reflect  on  their  reading   experience,  and  make  decisions  about  reading  through  the  lens  of  these  MOs—as  opposed   to  doing  so  through  the  lens  of  reading  comprehension  strategies  or  through  a  generic,  all-­‐ purpose  lens  of  always  striving  for  maximum  comprehension  of  the  text  they  are  reading.   Written  interview  responses,  combined  with  transcripts  of  case  study  sessions,  provided   plentiful  and  vivid  evidence  of  6th  graders  distinguishing  among  MOs,  expressing   133   preferences  about  MOs,  recalling  past  applications  of  particular  MOs,  reflecting  on   influences  that  shaped  their  MOs,  enacting  particular  MOs,  and  even  speculating  about  MOs   they  might  need  to  invent  in  the  future.  “Psychological  reality”  is  a  somewhat  loose  concept   and  standard,  yet  it  seems  accurate  to  say  that,  for  the  6th  graders  in  this  study,  MOs  were   “psychologically  real”  and  personally  meaningful.   That  said,  a  review  of  participants’  varied  and  idiosyncratic  repertoires  of  MOs   provides  examples  of  MOs  so  disparate—not  just  in  terms  of  their  details,  but  in  terms  of   the  underlying  dimensions  of  experience  they  invoke,  from  physical  posture  during  reading   to  reverence  for  the  text  being  read,  for  instance—that  it  seems  appropriate,  here,  to  play   devil’s  advocate,  and  to  ask:  how  confident  can  we  really  be  that,  in  answering  the  study’s   central  question  about  their  different  “ways  of  reading,”  all  participants  (a)  understood   what  the  question  was  asking,  and  (b)  provided  information  pertaining  to  the  same   dimension  or  level  of  reading  experience  (namely,  the  MO  level)?  In  other  words:  how   confident  can  we  be  that  the  diversity  of  MOs  catalogued  in  this  study  was  not,  at  least  in   part,  an  artifact  of  some  participants  not  understanding  what  they  were  being  asked?    The   information  these  participants  provided  may  well  have  been  accurate  and  truthful  (e.g.,  “I   look  up  then  back  down  again”;  “I’m  in  the  car  reading”).  However,  they  may  simply  have   been  reporting  incidental  information  about  past  reading  events,  and  not  actually   describing  differences  between  separate  and  distinct  ways  of  reading  they  personally  know   and  use.   These  reservations  about  the  data—and  the  validity  of  the  findings  derived  from   them—are  important  to  consider  here.  Responding  to  them  directly  may  help  more  fully   134   clarify  the  nature  of  the  MO  construct  and  the  epistemological  status  of  the  evidence  we   now  appear  to  have  in  hand  regarding  its  psychological  reality  for  6th  graders.   Demarcating  what  can  count  as  a  MO.  It  is  conceivable  that,  in  the  future,  MOs  will   have  been  so  extensively  studied  that,  when  a  reader  reports  a  MO,  it  will  be  possible  to   search  a  database  of  all  previously  reported  and  verified  MOs  and  say  whether  that   reader’s  MO  is  (a)  similar  or  identical  to  one  already  catalogued  or  (b)  truly  unprecedented.     In  the  meantime,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  database,  the  predicament  of  MO   researchers  is  to  have  no  choice  but  to  defer—at  least  at  first—to  the  testimony  and   judgment  of  readers  themselves  regarding  what  is,  and  what  is  not,  a  MO.  Once  a  MO  has   been  identified  as  such  by  a  given  reader,  the  researcher  can—and  must—immediately   take  steps  to  verify  the  accuracy  and  completeness  of  the  description  he  has  obtained.  He   can  elicit  further  information  about  the  MO  and  how  it  differs  from  other  MOs  in  the   reader’s  repertoire.  He  can  check  that  it  is  linked  to  actual  reading  events  with  specific   texts.  He  can  try  to  verify  the  reader’s  ability  to  actually  enact  the  MO  as  it  was  described.   He  can  even  try  to  ascertain  the  frequency  with  which  the  reader  applies  this  particular  MO   in  her  daily  life.     The  first  step,  however,  is  always  to  defer  to  the  reader’s  testimony  and  judgment.   Even  in  the  future  scenario  sketched  above,  in  which  thousands  of  distinct,  verified  MOs   have  been  catalogued  in  a  searchable  MO  database,  the  researcher  presented  with  a  novel   and  unheard-­‐of  MO  would  have  no  choice  but  to  accept  it—at  least  at  first—at  face  value.     The  reason  is  that,  through  the  lens  of  the  MO  construct,  the  researcher  tries  to   bring  into  focus  not  the  objective  reality  of  the  reader’s  cognitive  processes,  nor  an   accurate  assessment  of  the  reader’s  knowledge  or  proficiency,  but  rather  one  aspect  of  the   135   reader’s  subjective  experience  of  reading—the  way  in  which,  from  her  perspective  and  in   her  experience,  shaped  by  particular  sociocultural  influences,  reading  activity  takes  specific   forms,  namely,  those  identified  by  the  reader  as  “hers.”   Each  of  these  personally  “owned”  ways  of  reading  will  of  course  inevitably  be  linked   to  external,  observable  reality  in  a  variety  of  ways—linked  to  particular  texts,  particular   situations,  particular  tasks,  and  so  on.  And  once  these  links  to  external,  observable  reality   are  ascertained,  a  given  MO  can  then  be  further  studied  via  these  objective  correlates  (e.g.,   once  it  is  known  that  a  given  reader  uses  a  specific  MO  for  reading  poetry,  say,  or  for   reading  the  Christian  Bible,  a  researcher  can  learn  more  about  that  MO  by  studying  the   reader’s  transactions  with  those  texts).   But  the  reverse  is  not  true.  No  amount  of  careful  observation  of  a  reader’s   transactions  with  texts  will  reliably  disclose  what  she  counts  as  a  MO  or  the  particular   criteria  she  uses  to  distinguish  one  MO  in  her  repertoire  from  another.     Two  readers  may  habitually  transact  with  the  same  types  of  texts,  at  roughly  the   same  times  of  day,  and  for  apparently  roughly  similar  overarching  purposes  (e.g.,  to  relax,   to  learn  new  information).  A  researcher  may  feel  confident  in  extrapolating  from  these   observations  that  the  two  must  know  and  use  roughly  the  same  set  of  MOs.  Yet  these   readers’  testimony  about  their  respective  “ways  of  reading”  may  reveal  that  the  first  of  the   two  makes  a  hard-­‐and-­‐fast  distinction  between  reading  “for  school”  and  “to  learn  new   information,”  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other,  reading  “to  experience  emotional   connection  and  intimacy”;  whereas  the  second  of  the  two  distinguishes  her  ways  of  reading   primarily  in  terms  of  whether  the  text  being  read  is  “factual”  and  “true”  versus  “made  up”   and  “not  true,”  with  a  pronounced  preference  for  the  former.       136   By  the  same  token,  analysis  of  an  individual  reader’s  verbal  protocols  of  reading   may  indicate  that,  with  two  texts  of  different  genres,  she  engaged  in  two  somewhat   different  or  even  very  different  types  of  processing.  The  researcher  may  point  to  specific   objective  differences  with  regard  to  the  reading  comprehension  strategies  the  reader   applied  and  the  complexity  and  coherence  of  the  mental  representations  the  reader   constructed.  And  yet,  this  reader  may  report  that,  for  her,  these  two  episodes  of  reading   involved  one  and  the  same  MO.  The  researcher  may  argue  that  the  observed  differences  are   significant—and  no  doubt,  from  the  perspective  of  objectively  cataloguing  the  reader’s  use   of  reading  comprehension  strategies,  or  assessing  her  reliance  on  particular  text  features   (e.g.,  table  of  contents,  index,  diagrams),  they  are.  But  the  issue  of  the  reader’s  personally   and  culturally  inflected  “ways  of  reading”  is  a  different  matter.  MOs  may  or  may  not  align   with  the  distinctions  the  researcher  privileges  as  the  important  ones.   Nor  is  this  predicament  of  the  researcher  studying  MOs  resolved  once  and  for  all   when  he  has  obtained  accurate  and  complete  information  from  a  reader  about  the  MOs  she   knows  and  uses  today.  If  it  is  the  case,  as  I  have  hypothesized,  and  as  would  be  consistent   with  theories  of  strategic  change  over  time  (e.g.,  Siegler,  1996)  and  what  we  know  about   the  larger  history  of  reading  (e.g.,  Manguel,  1997;  Stahl  &  King,  2000),  that  MOs  are  in   principle  in  a  constant  state  of  flux,  always  in  principle  open  to  augmentation  and  revision,   the  researcher’s  deference  to  the  reader’s  judgment  is  not  something  that  is  ever  left   behind.  With  increasing  knowledge  of  MOs  and  how  they  evolve  over  time,  a  researcher   may  develop  expertise  in  noticing  objective  correlates  that  likely  indicate  a  significant   change  in  MO—or  the  emergence  of  an  entirely  new  MO.  Even  then,  however,  confirmation   will  need  to  be  sought  from  the  reader.  And  even  with  expertise,  it  is  likely  the  researcher   137   will  periodically  be  surprised  by  a  reader’s  report  that,  for  her,  a  new  way  of  reading  has   emerged—a  new  way  that  the  researcher,  for  his  part,  was  not  in  a  position  to  anticipate.   In  sum,  the  methodological  challenge  of  demarcating  reading  MOs  is  a  challenge   qualitatively  different  from  that  of  demarcating  other  reading-­‐related  phenomena,  such  as   reading  comprehension  strategies  or  a  reader’s  knowledge  of  letter-­‐sound  associations  (at   least  as  these  phenomena  are  currently  defined  and  studied).  Further,  the  epistemological   status  of  the  knowledge  we  have,  at  any  given  point  in  time,  about  a  reader’s  MOs  also  is   different  from  that  of  knowledge  we  may  have  about  other  reading-­‐related  phenomena.  In   the  case  of  MOs,  every  instance  of  the  phenomenon  must  be  asterisked  with  the  notation,   “as  reported  by  reader  Y”  or  “as  reported  by  reader  X.”  And  this  notation  is  not  simply   about  the  provenance  of  the  information,  a  standard  sourcing  citation  of  the  kind  expected   in  all  responsible  research.  The  “as  reported  by  reader  Y”  notation  is  an  acknowledgment  of   the  researcher’s  initial  necessary  deference  to  the  reader’s  judgment,  an  acknowledgment   that,  on  his  own,  the  researcher  could  not  finally  have  determined  for  certain  that  the   reading  phenomenon  described  was  its  own,  distinct  MO.   Readers’  criteria  for  distinguishing  among  MOs.  The  diverse  criteria  participants   reported  in  this  study  for  distinguishing  among  their  MOs  illustrate  the  foregoing  general   discussion  regarding  the  procedure  required  to  initially  identify  and  describe  MOs,  and   subsequently  to  verify  and  corroborate  readers’  reports.   As  reported  in  the  previous  chapter,  the  thirty  participants  in  this  study  together   mentioned  a  grand  total  of  thirty-­‐six  different  criteria  at  least  once  to  distinguish  among   their  MOs.  No  participant  mentioned  all  thirty-­‐six  criteria,  and  when  initially  asked  to   distinguish  among  their  reported  MOs  on  the  written  interview  (with  not  much  time  to   138   reflect),  participants  readily  asserted  between  three  and  twelve  different  criteria  each.   Across  participants,  the  particular  criteria  asserted  to  distinguish  MOs  varied  considerably.   Some  participants  demarcated  MOs  in  terms  of  genre,  level  of  concentration,  enjoyment,   level  of  stress,  technology,  subject  matter,  and  location  of  reading;  others  invoked  criteria   such  as  emotions  involved,  level  of  reverence,  single  text  or  multi-­text,  and  referentiality.   Across  participants  there  were  some  significant  overlaps,  yet  no  two  participants  used   exactly  the  same  list  of  criteria.   These  results  may  be  considered  in  light  of  the  foregoing  discussion  (in  particular,   the  point  about  the  error  of  assuming  that  superficially  similar-­‐looking  readers  possess   similar  MOs)  and  in  light  of  what  was  known  about  the  study’s  research  context  and   participants—the  participants’  demographic  and  academic  characteristics,  and  the  school   district’s  profile  and  history  of  academic  achievement.   The  main  observation  to  be  made  here  is  that,  contrary  to  what  might  have  been   predicted  based  on  the  relative  homogeneity  of  the  population  from  which  participants   were  randomly  selected,  there  was  significant  diversity.  This  diversity  in  “ways  of  reading”   was  of  a  kind  hitherto  undocumented  (at  least  at  this  level  of  detail  and  for  an  entire  cohort   of  readers)  and  it  did  not  correspond  in  any  discernible  way  to  other  general  patterns  in   the  population  (e.g.,  participants’  general  level  of  reading  proficiency).  It  was  not  the  case,   for  example,  that  only  the  more  proficient  readers  knew  and  used  MOs.  Indeed,  as  earlier   reported,  no  relationship  was  found  between  participants’  number  of  MOs  reported  or  their   number  of  criteria  used  to  distinguish  MOs  and  their  assessed  level  of  reading  proficiency.   Pending  corroboration  in  future  replication  studies  in  other  school  districts  with  different   demographics,  I  therefore  tentatively  conclude  that,  consistent  with  my  initial  hypothesis   139   and  the  theory  and  relevant  prior  research  (e.g.,  Gallagher,  2012;  Graff,  2010;  Moje,  2000)   on  which  that  hypothesis  was  based,  most  if  not  all  6th  graders  know  and  use  multiple  MOs,   and  vary  their  use  of  MOs  in  non-­‐random  ways  throughout  the  day.   With  regard  to  the  mean  number  of  MOs  per  participant  reported  in  this  study  (6.2   per  participant  at  the  end  of  the  written  interview,  and  11.3  per  case  study  participant  by   the  conclusion  of  the  last  case  study  session),  it  seems  likely  that  these  numbers  represent   little  more  than  rough  ballpark  estimates  of  what  may  be  found  in  other  contexts.  It  seems   likely  that  considerable  variability  would  be  found  from  one  population  to  another,  and   even  within  a  single  population,  from  one  sub-­‐group  to  another,  based  in  part  on  such   factors  as  (among  many  others):  readers’  past  exposure  to  diverse  forms  of  emergent   literacy  experiences  at  home  and  in  their  communities,  readers’  past  and  present  exposure   to  diverse  genres  of  texts,  readers’  past  and  present  exposure  to  diverse  forms  of  schooling,   and  readers’  past  and  present  exposure  to  diverse  purposes  and  uses  for  reading  activity.   That  said,  it  also  seems  likely  that,  with  any  population  of  readers,  researchers  will  find  a   diversity  of  MOs  both  across  and  within  readers,  even  when  a  population  presents  as   relatively  homogeneous.  It  also  seems  likely  that,  if  a  data-­‐collection  procedure  is  used  that   is  similar  to  the  one  employed  in  this  study,  initial  reports  of  MOs  known  to  and  used  by   participants  will  represent  an  underestimate  of  the  true  number  of  MOs  known  to  and  used   by  each  participant.  A  considerable  metacognitive  effort  is  required  to  review  the  various   MOs  one  employs  in  one’s  daily  life,  and  unless  there  is  a  shift  in  school  curriculum  and   instruction  (with  increased  practice  in  metacognitive  activities  resulting,  in  general,  in   adolescents  developing  greater  metacognitive  ability),  it  seems  likely  that  additional  time   140   for  scaffolded  reflection  will  in  all  or  almost  all  cases  elicit  reporting  of  additional  MOs  (as   was  the  case  in  this  study).     The  MO  as  an  integrative  construct  greater  than  its  component  parts.  Given   that  6th  graders  were  found  to  demarcate  their  MOs  in  terms  of  criteria  that,  for  the  most   part,  are  familiar  to  the  field  of  reading  research  (e.g.,  genre,  reader  interest,  text  content  or   subject  matter,  readers’  purpose  for  reading),  it  seems  reasonable  to  ask:  what  does  the  MO   construct—and  the  prospect  of  studying  readers  through  the  lens  of  their  MOs—add  to   what  the  field  already  knows  about  readers  and  the  nature  of  reading  activity,  thanks  to   research  focused  on  individual  criteria  readers  apparently  use  to  distinguish  their  MOs?   For  example,  given  what  the  field  knows  about  the  importance  of  text  genre  in  shaping   readers’  processing  of  text  and  comprehension  outcomes  (e.g.,  Chapman,  1994;  Duke  &   Roberts,  2010;  Loizou,  Kyriakides,  &  Hadjicharalambous,  2011;  Pappas,  1993;  Pappas  &   Brown,  1987),  what  does  the  MO  construct  add  to  our  understanding?   Given  the  newness  of  the  MO  construct,  and  the  limited  empirical  data  so  far  about   readers’  actual  experience  with,  and  application  of,  MOs,  it  may  be  too  early  to  tell.  Still,   based  on  the  definition  offered  in  this  dissertation  of  the  MO  as  a  higher-­‐level,  regulative   construct  with  which  readers  “orchestrate  their  reading  activities,”  it  seems  plausible  that   consideration  of  MOs  would  add  to  our  understanding  of  how  exactly,  why  exactly,  and   when  exactly  individual  factors,  such  as  text  genre,  have  the  particular  and  not-­‐always-­‐ consistent  effects  they  do,  independently  or  in  combination  with  other  factors.     This  new  layer  of  insight  may  be  illustrated  with  data  from  the  study.  As  was   reported,  all  the  case  study  participants  at  some  point  invoked  the  criterion  of  text  genre  to   explain  why  they  did  or  did  not  read  in  particular  ways  (Table  6).  For  example,  participant   141   Chris  mentioned  the  referential  status  of  social  studies  textbooks  as  a  reason  for  his   enjoyment  of  books  about  Michigan  (“I  care  about  the  people  in  the  book  because  they  are   in  Michigan”);  Cara  offered  detailed  comments  about  the  shifting  focus  of  a  typical  chapter   in  a  social  studies  textbook  (e.g.,  shifting  from  one  aspect  of  colonial  life  to  another   unrelated  aspect)  and  how  this  forced  her  to  visualize  the  information  in  snapshots  instead   of  as  a  movie  (as  she  would  do  with  a  chapter  of  continuously  unfolding  action  in  a  novel);   and  Astrid  described  in  detail  how  reading  text  messages  on  her  phone,  with  social   pressure  to  reply  immediately,  caused  her  to  develop  a  skimming,  rejoinder-­‐anticipating   reading  MO.  Yet  beyond  demonstrating  knowledge  of,  and  sensitivity  to,  genre,  several   participants  also  provided  examples  of  how,  in  the  context  of  multiple  MOs  in  their   personal  repertoire  of  MOs,  the  influence  of  text  genre  on  their  reading  activity  was  not   always  straightforward.  For  example,  participant  Nick  provided  an  example  of  a  shift  in  a   text’s  subject  matter  causing  him  to  temporarily  switch  from  one  MO  to  another:  while   reading  Robertson’s  (2013)  autobiographical  Si-­cology,  for  which  he  used  his  MO  for   autobiographies  (i.e.,  MO06.02.08),  Nick  encountered  passages  in  which  Robertson   discusses  his  Christian  faith,  and  this  prompted  Nick  to  switch  to  a  different  MO  (i.e.,   MO06.02.11)  that  he  used  for  reverential  reading  of  “serious”  texts  with  ideas  or   information  pertaining  to  spiritual  matters  of  soul  and  salvation.  Astrid  similarly  described   how  encountering  an  unusually  sincere  and  personally  meaningful  text  message  from  a   friend  prompted  her  to  switch  from  one  MO  to  another.   What  these  examples  illustrate  are  ways  in  which,  with  the  MO  construct  in  hand,   and  with  awareness  of  the  diverse  MOs  readers  know  and  use,  our  understanding  of  the   impact  on  readers  of  a  factor  such  as  text  genre  may  become  more  precise  and  nuanced— 142   and  better  equipped  to  explain  apparent  anomalies  or  inconsistencies  in  the  ways  readers   transact  with  texts.     MOs  as  a  dimension  of  readerly  agency  and  identity.  Relatedly,  attention  to  MOs   may  bring  into  focus  additional  ways  in  which  readers  are  in  principle  capable  of  (a)   exercising  agency  and  (b)  at  the  same  time  constructing,  asserting,  or  renegotiating  the   identity—or  identities—underlying  and/or  deriving  from  their  actions  (see  Hall,  2010,   2012;  Moje  &  Lewis,  2007;  Moje  &  Luke,  2009;  Sarup,  1998).     Readers  in  general  can  of  course  be  agentic  in  a  wide  variety  of  ways,  such  as  at  the   level  of  decisions  about  the  particular  texts  they  choose  to  read,  the  amount  of  time  they   devote  to  reading,  or  the  level  of  effort  they  put  into  reading.  The  data  collected  in  this   study  indicate  that  adolescent  readers  can  and  do  additionally  exercise  agency  at  the  level   of  the  MOs  they  know,  and  the  choices  and  adjustments  they  make  among  these  MOs   during  reading.     As  already  reported,  all  six  case  study  participants  talked  about  choices  they  made   and  actions  they  took  as  readers  at  least  in  part  in  terms  of  particular  MOs.  They  did  so  to   varying  degrees.  Chris,  at  one  end  of  the  spectrum,  rarely  referenced  assertive  and   deliberate  choices  made  during  reading;  most  of  the  time  he  appeared  to  read—and  think   about  reading—in  a  more  reactive  and  self-­‐protective  manner,  in  terms  of  avoiding   discomfort  or  confusion.  That  said,  even  he  talked  about  his  preferences  among  MOs,  about   his  enjoyment  of  a  particular  “way  of  reading”  (by  contrast  with  another),  about  wanting  to   continue  reading  in  a  particular  way  (as  opposed  to  simply  reading  in  general),  and  about   the  importance  of  particular  MOs  (e.g.,  MO01.02.06,  his  MO  for  reading  the  identifying   markings  on  locomotives)  to  his  self-­‐image  as  a  vintage  train  hobbyist.  Other  participants   143   were  more  articulate,  specific,  and  assertive.  In  the  course  of  reflecting  on  the  MOs  in  their   personal  repertoire,  they  referred  to  reasons  for  switching  from  one  to  another,  and  they   expressed  pleasure  in  their  actual  and  potential  efficacy  as  readers  capable  of  undertaking   specific  reading  actions.  As  we  saw  in  the  previous  section,  Nick  and  Astrid  (for  example)   responded  to  what  they  perceived  as  significant  shifts  in  the  content  of  the  texts  they  were   reading  by  deliberately  switching  MOs.  Though  these  actions  may  perhaps  be  classified  as   reactive,  in  the  sense  that  they  were  taken  in  response  to  words  in  the  text  being  read,  they   also  evinced  a  sense  of  control—and  in  fact  required  the  exercise  of  both  critical  judgment   and  cognitive  dexterity  on  Nick’s  and  Astrid’s  part.  They  noticed  a  shift  in  text  content,  and   then  they  were  able  to  do  something  in  response.     Nick  was  the  participant  who  demonstrated  the  most  pronounced  and  sophisticated   sense  of  his  readerly  agency.    He  reflected  on  his  MOs  in  terms  of  such  things  as  (a)  the   situational  appropriateness  of  the  running  commentary  that  he  reported  often  playing  in   his  mind  while  he  read  and  (b)  his  pride  in  maintaining  his  intellectual  independence  as  a   reader—trying  always  to  arrive  at  his  own  interpretation  of  the  text  he  was  reading  rather   than  ask  someone  else  or  “look  for  an  answer  online.”  Given  the  complexity  of  these  MO   features  (viz.,  generating  running  commentary  and  asserting  readerly  independence),  Nick   appeared  especially  alert  to  actions  he  might  take  or  choices  he  might  make  to  sustain  them   or  regulate  them.     Alongside  these  agentic  choices  and  actions,  participants  on  numerous  occasions   additionally  indicated  the  projection  of  a  sense  of  readerly  identity  connected  to,  but   144   separate  from,  their  procedural  knowledge  about  a  particular  MO.23  Nick,  for  example,  did   not  simply  describe  the  steps  and  procedures  he  implemented  to  puzzle  out  the  meaning  of   a  text  on  his  own;  in  addition,  he  indicated  a  high  level  of  commitment  to,  and  affective   investment  in,  preserving  his  self-­‐image  as  an  independent-­‐minded,  autonomous  reader   capable  of  constructing  his  own  interpretations  of  difficult  or  puzzling  passages.  He   expressed  pride  regarding  this  identity.  Similarly,  Harry  indicated  that  his  skill  at,  and   pleasure  in,  reading  baseball  cards  (i.e.,  MO03.03.11)  was  connected  to  his  identity  as  a   baseball  player.  For  him,  reading  and  rereading  his  collection  of  baseball  cards  both   expressed  and  reinforced  this  identity—connecting  him  to  the  exploits  and  lore  of  the   sport’s  greatest  players  and  providing  him  and  his  teammates  with  a  standard  of   comparison  for  their  own  pitching  and  batting  records.  For  her  part,  Astrid  indicated  that   her  MO  for  reading  the  Bible  (i.e.,  MO02.04.09)  was  connected  to  her  identity  as  a   practicing  Christian.     In  general,  then,  MOs  appeared  to  function  for  the  majority  of  case  study   participants  as  (among  other  things)  a  tool  for,  and  also  an  arena  of,  personal  agency  and   also  identity  construction.  When  applying  a  particular  MO,  the  majority  of  participants   indicated  that  they  knew  what  they  were  up  to—what  particular  kind  of  activity  they  were   doing.  Indeed,  in  the  absence  of  such  orienting  schemas  for  reading,  we  might  expect                                                                                                                   23  I  have  used  the  term  “projection”  here  (instead  of  “presence”  or  “existence”)  to  indicate   the  idea  that  readerly  identity  never  achieves  the  status  of  an  established  and  simply   verifiable  fact  but  is  rather  always  (re)constructed  and  (re)asserted  anew,  over  and  over   again,  through  readers’  specific  activities  (see  Holland  et  al.,  1998).  Furthermore,  these   activities  unfold  in  a  dynamic  social  context  where  more  and  less  powerful  others  are  also   engaged  in  constructing  and  asserting  their  identities  through  similar  and  also  different   readerly  activities.  In  this  dynamic  social  context,  it  seems  more  accurate  to  speak  of   readerly  identities  as  being  constructed,  projected,  and/or  negotiated  rather  than  as  being   established,  discovered,  or  simply  known.     145   readers  to  more  often  become  confused  or  overwhelmed.  After  all,  texts  may  be  navigated   and  read  in  so  many  different  ways  (cf.  Derrida,  1978;  Rosenblatt,  1969,  1978).  An  MO  in   this  regard  may  be  seen  as  a  kind  of  playbook  that  gives  the  reader  the  option  of  doing   “just”  one  particular  type  of  reading  activity  at  a  time—whether  for  just  a  few  seconds  or   for  many  minutes  or  even  hours.     Further,  with  a  particular  MO  in  play,  a  reader  can  proceed  with  some  measure  of   clarity  and  equanimity—clarity  regarding  the  types  of  micro-­‐actions  she  will  perform  while   reading  (a  subset  of  all  possible  micro-­‐actions)  and  the  kinds  of  thoughts  and  feelings  she  is   likely  to  experience;  and  equanimity  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  all  the  many  other  things  she  will  not  be   doing,  thinking,  or  experiencing.  In  making  these  choices,  she  is  in  effect  carving  out  for   herself  a  sense  of  identity  as  someone  who  knows  about,  who  is  capable  of,  and/or  who   cares  about  one  or  another  particular  way  of  reading.  Whether  this  identity  is  one  the   reader  perceives  herself  as  sharing  in  common  with  some  or  many  others  (e.g.,  Samantha’s   sense  of  herself  as  someone  with  specialized  knowledge  of  emojis  she  can  use  to  text  back   and  forth  with  her  friends),  or—on  the  other  hand—as  one  that  sets  her  apart  (e.g.,  Nick’s   sense  of  himself  as  a  reader  with  a  unique  perspective,  as  expressed  in  the  sometimes   sardonic  commentary  that  plays  in  his  mind  during  reading),  it  may  anchor  and  orient  her   in  the  literacy  landscape  she  inhabits.   In  sum,  with  the  MO  construct  in  mind  and  with  awareness  of  adolescents’  multiple   and  diverse  MOs,  we  may  be  better  equipped  to  notice  diverse  forms  of  readerly  agency   and  readerly  identity.    By  virtue  of  knowing  plural  and  diverse  MOs,  the  6th  graders  in  this   study  were  able  to  be  agentic  in  specific  ways—ways  beyond  what  could  be  imagined  (a)  if   they  all  were  applying  versions  of  a  single  generic,  all-­‐purpose  MO  for  meaning   146   construction  and/or  (b)  if  their  decision-­‐making  as  readers  were  restricted  to  choosing   among  reading  comprehension  strategies.  At  the  same  time,  and  in  connection  with  their   MOs,  these  6th  graders  were  able  to  cultivate  particular  sociocultural  and  readerly   identities.   Relationship  of  MOs  to  Reading  Comprehension  Strategies   As  was  reported  in  the  Results  chapter,  all  six  case  study  participants  demonstrated   practical  knowledge  of  several  common  reading  comprehension  strategies,  and  most   demonstrated  declarative  knowledge.  In  addition,  all  reported  having  learned  about   reading  comprehension  strategies  in  school.  Yet  none  reported  using  such  strategies  in   order  to  be  strategic  (in  the  larger  sense  of  that  word)—to  plan,  adjust,  or  regulate  the   overall  direction  or  tenor  of  their  reading  activity.    Those  who  did  reference  reading   comprehension  strategies—whether  in  general,  or  with  regard  to  a  recent  experience  of   reading  while  thinking  aloud—talked  about  applying  them  in  specific  targeted  ways,  as   needed,  to  improve  comprehension  of  difficult  sentences  or  passages.   By  contrast,  as  described  and  discussed  in  the  previous  section,  all  six  case  study   participants  referred  to  being  agentic  and/or  were  in  fact  agentic  with  regard  to  the   reading  MOs  they  reported  knowing.  Further,  once  a  given  MO  was  activated  and  being   applied,  it  appeared  to  function  as  a  “true”  strategy  in  terms  of  appearing  to  govern  and   regulate  the  application  of  component  elements  or  sub-­‐actions.  For  example,  when  Astrid   used  her  MO  for  attentive  and  absorbed  reading  of  novels  (i.e.,  MO02.01.03),  she  tracked   and  thought  about  words  that  communicated  or  connoted  emotion  (“It’s  all  about  tone”),   which  she  specifically  did  not  do  when  she  switched  to  her  MO  for  reading  informational   text  (i.e.,  MO02.02.05),  which  involved  frequent  re-­‐reading  of  phrases  and  entire  sentences   147   to  fix  information  in  memory.  Similarly,  when  Cara  applied  her  puzzle-­‐solving  MO  (i.e.,   MO04.01.01)  to  novels  and  occasionally  to  informational  texts,  she  focused  her  attention  on   ferreting  out  and  mentally  cataloging  interesting  details  that  she  took  to  be  “clues”—in  the   expectation  of  eventually  being  able  to  connect  these  clues  and  solve  a  larger  “puzzle”  or   “problem”  hidden  in  the  text.  This  was  not  something  she  ever  did—or  expected  to  do— when  she  applied  her  MO  for  reading  and  following  directions  for  the  purpose  of  making   something  (i.e.,  MO04.01.04).   Six  short  case  studies  with  six  6th  graders  represents  a  minuscule  sampling  of  reader   activity  and  provides  little  basis  for  inductive  generalizations.  Still,  the  observations  made   here  (about  MOs  apparently  playing  the  role  of  overarching  strategies  in  the  experience  of   these  participants)  are  worthy  of  discussion  insofar  as  they  are  consistent  with  the  theory-­‐ based  analysis  presented  in  the  Introduction  chapter  regarding  the  following:  (a)  the   importance  of  a  strategy-­‐tactics  distinction  and  the  idea  that  garden-­‐variety  reading   comprehension  strategies  resemble  tactics  more  than  overarching  strategies;  (b)  the   deductive  inference  that,  if  reading  comprehension  strategies  are  not  the  source  of  readers’   overarching  strategic  regulation  of  their  reading  activity,  that  source  must  be  sought  at  a   superordinate  level;  (c)  the  critical  point  that,  contrary  to  the  still  widely  accepted  and  still   hugely  influential  “autonomous  view”  of  reading  (Au,  2006;  Garcia  &  Flores,  2012;  Street,   1984,  1995),  every  reading  event  unfolds  in  some  particular,  socioculturally  and   historically  situated  way;  and  (d)  the  hypothesis  that  reading  MOs—defined  as  personally   and  socioculturally  situated  ways  of  orchestrating  reading  activities—could  constitute  a   source  of  strategic  orientation  and  regulation  of  reading  activity,  including  the  targeted  and   as-­‐needed  application  of  conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies.   148   At  this  point,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  data  collected  and  analyzed  for  this  dissertation   study,  it  does  indeed  appear  that  reading  MOs  could  provide  a  plausible  answer  to  the   question  of  what  might  guide  and  regulate  reading  comprehension  strategies.  MOs  provide   a  plausible  answer  to  the  question:  What  must  be  there,  in  the  mind  and  experience  of  a   proficient  reader,  that  allows  her  to  flexibly  and  adaptively  apply  appropriate  reading   comprehension  strategies  in  the  ways  she  does  to  achieve  the  particular  kinds  of   comprehension  outcomes  that  mainstream  reading  researchers  and  educators  praise  as   “proficient”?  And  by  the  same  token:  What  must  be  there,  in  the  minds  and  experiences  of   all  readers,  be  they  proficient  or  not,  that  allows  them  to  read  the  texts  they  commonly   read,  with  enjoyment  or  not,  in  the  particular  idiosyncratic  but  non-­‐random,  culturally   inflected,  familiarly  paced  and  structured  ways  they  do?   As  illustrated  in  this  study’s  case  study  data,  6th-­‐grade  readers  know  and  apply  such   MOs.  And  in  the  reading  lives  of  these  6th  graders,  MOs  do  indeed  appear  to  play  some  kind   of  regulative,  strategic  role—superordinate  to  conventional  reading  strategies.   Possible  reasons  for  this  apparent  subordination  of  reading  strategies  to  MOs  might   include  the  fact  that  MOs  represent  a  kind  of  higher-­‐level  chunking  of  the  work  of  strategic   regulation.  Chunking  of  this  kind  is  advantageous  to  a  reading  mind  operating  with  limited   working  memory  capacity  (Daneman  &  Merikle,  1996;  Miller,  1956).    Conscious  control  of   numerous  individual  reading  comprehension  strategies  may  involve  a  big  commitment  of   cognitive  resources—especially  for  readers  who  are  still  in  the  process  of  acquiring   strategies.  If  the  commitment  is  prohibitively  high,  the  reader’s  mind  may  shut  down   (Sinatra,  Brown,  &  Reynolds,  2002).   149   MOs  may  perhaps  save  a  reader  from  this  type  of  shutdown  by  efficiently  organizing   and  streamlining  her  attention  and  activity.  With  MOs,  less  deliberate  awareness  of   individual  component  strategies  may  be  necessary.  Instead,  the  reader  may  be  able  to   devote  her  limited  mental  resources  to  the  challenge  of  processing  ideas.     Thus,  MOs  may  allow  readers  to  focus  on  ideas  and  on  constructing  a  coherent  and   situationally  useful  representation  of  the  text—not  ideas  “in  general,”  or  a  universally   coherent  and  useful  representation,  but  instead  ideas  and  representations  that  make  sense   and  are  satisfying  in  the  context  of  a  particular  MO  (McKeown,  Beck,  &  Blake,  2009).   Possible  Implications  for  Educators   It  is  premature  to  draw  any  definite  practical  implications  for  educators—let  alone   make  any  specific  recommendations—on  the  basis  of  a  small  study  exploring  a  newly   proposed  construct.  Nonetheless,  already  on  the  basis  of  the  results  reported  here,  it  seems   reasonable  to  tease  out  some  tentative  and  modest  possible  implications  for  educators   regarding  the  study’s  main  findings.     The  most  obvious  implication  to  be  drawn  from  this  study  is  that  many,  if  not  all,  6th   graders  are  likely  to  be  capable  of  reporting  specific  information  about  whatever  different   ways  of  reading  they  know  and  use.  In  this  study,  100%  of  participants  were  able  and   willing  to  do  this,  and  these  participants  represented  a  full  range  of  reading  proficiency   levels.  Insofar  as  6th  grade  teachers  are  interested  in  learning  more  about  their  students   and  what  appears  to  be  an  important  dimension  of  their  experience  of  reading,  it  therefore   seems  safe  to  predict  that,  with  proper  introduction  and  explanation,  questions  posed   about  students’  “ways  of  reading”  will  for  the  most  part  elicit  intelligible  answers  and   potentially  useful  information.     150   The  good  news,  in  this  regard,  is  that  the  work  of  “properly”  introducing  and   explaining  the  idea  of  different  “ways  of  reading”  appears  to  be  relatively  straightforward   and  low-­‐cost.  As  was  demonstrated  in  this  study  with  thirty  randomly  selected  students  on   fifteen  separate  occasions  (i.e.,  in  each  of  fifteen  separate  research  meetings  with  one,  two,   or  three  participants  at  a  time  lasting  50-­‐70  minutes),  eliciting  information  about  “ways  of   reading”  may  take  just  a  few  minutes,  brief  oral  instructions,  a  simple  printed  instrument,   and  some  colored  pencils.   Based  on  the  actual  content  of  responses  obtained  from  6th  graders  in  the  course  of   this  study,  it  also  seems  reasonable  to  expect  that,  whatever  information  educators  obtain   from  their  students,  it  is  likely  to  be  diverse  and  possibly  idiosyncratic.  Further,  insofar  as   students’  responses  are  linked  by  them  to  specific  details  about  the  various  “reading   events”  in  which  they  engaged  on  a  recent  weekend  day  and  a  recent  school  day,  the  data   obtained  are  also  likely  to  provide  teachers  with  useful  information  about  the  diverse  texts   students  read  (especially  outside  school),  the  diverse  situations  in  which  students  read,  the   diverse  forms  of  enjoyment  or  satisfaction  students  derive  from  reading,  and  so  on.     With  regard  to  processing  this  information,  and  thinking  about  ways  to  use  it  as  a   basis  for  classroom  conversation  and  learning,  guidance  may  perhaps  be  taken  from  the   home-­‐culture  “funds  of  knowledge”  research  by  González,  Moll,  and  Amanti  (2005)  and   allied  research  on  “culturally  relevant  teaching”  (Ladson-­‐Billings,  1995).  This  research  has   indicated  that  intellectual  and  motivational  benefits  may  derive  from  forging  connections   between  school  curriculum  and  instructional  activities  and  students’  outside-­‐school   knowledge  and  interests  (e.g.,  May,  2010;  May,  Bingham,  &  Pendergast,  2014;  Pendergast   et  al.,  2015).  Similarly,  with  regard  to  MOs,  it  seems  plausible  that  acknowledging  and   151   building  on  students’  MOs  for  reading  may,  in  general,  as  well  as  in  particular  targeted   ways,  improve  student  learning  and  engagement.   A  related  implication  derived  from  the  study’s  case  study  sessions—during  which   participants  spoke  with  me  for  roughly  five  hours  each  about  their  different  “ways  of   reading”—is  that,  under  the  right  circumstances,  MOs  can  provide  a  rich  and  sustaining   focus  for  lively  conversation  with  6th  graders.  Obviously,  there  is  a  huge  difference  between   a  one-­‐on-­‐one  research  meeting  and  a  class  period  with  one  teacher  and  30-­‐40  students;  a   classroom  teacher  could  not  possibly  engage  all  her  students  at  the  same  time  in  in-­‐depth   conversation  about  their  individual  MOs.  Still,  a  takeaway  implication  remains  that   adolescent  readers  of  widely  varying  levels  of  proficiency  may,  in  principle,  be  able  and   willing  to  talk  about  their  MOs.  With  judicious  use  of  digital  platforms  and  tools  (when   those  are  available),  combinations  of  synchronous  and  asynchronous  conversations,  and   strategic  grouping  of  students  to  allow  for  peer-­‐to-­‐peer  sharing  as  well  as  conversation   involving  the  teacher,  it  seems  possible  that,  at  some  point,  classroom  teachers  might  find   ways  to  involve  all  their  students  in  reflective  conversation  about  MOs.  Scaffolded   reflective  discussion—with  the  teacher,  as  well  as  between  peers—has  generally  been   found  to  improve  the  metacognitive  abilities  and  the  learning  achievement  of  students  of   all  ages,  including  elementary-­‐age  students  (e.g.,  Manion  &  Alexander,  1997;  Meloth  &   Deering,  1992).24                                                                                                                     24  Teachers  and  students  engaging  in  mutually  informative  conversation  about  their   reading  MOs  could  overlap  with  talk  about  readerly  identities—as  advocated  by  Jetton  and   Lee  (2012)  among  others,  who  call  for  teachers  to  “find  opportunities  in  the  classroom  to   appreciate  and  value  [students’]  narratives”  about  their  identities  “developed  through  the   sociocultural  activities  in  which  they  participate  inside  and  outside  of  school”  (p.  95).   152   Leveraging  students’  MOs  to  advance  learning  of  school-­privileged  academic   MOs.  Whereas  it  seems  plausible  that  acknowledging  students’  diverse  MOs  and   encouraging  students  to  share  and  discuss  their  MOs  could  have  general  intellectual  and   motivational  benefits  for  student  learning,  classroom  teachers  may  worry  that  devoting   precious  time  to  students’  MOs  could  distract  their  attention  from  high-­‐value  academic   reading  strategies  and  goals—those  that  students  most  urgently  need  to  learn  and   internalize  if  they  are  to  do  well  on  high-­‐stakes  standardized  tests  and  succeed  in  college   and  career.  Teachers  may  also  worry  that  giving  too  much  attention  to  students’   homegrown  MOs  may  promote  a  relativistic,  any-­‐MO-­‐is-­‐as-­‐good-­‐as-­‐another  attitude  among   students.   These  concerns  are  not  without  merit,  and  they  raise  important  pedagogical  and   indeed  political  questions  too  complex  to  be  thoroughly  addressed  here.25  Still,  drawing  on   what  we  know  from  decades  of  education  research  about  the  role  of  prior  knowledge  in   successful  learning  (e.g.,  Bransford,  Brown,  &  Cocking,  1999)  and  specifically  about  the   importance  of  directly  engaging  students’  existing  knowledge  (including  whatever   misconceptions  they  may  have),  it  seems  possible  to  respond  to  these  concerns  by   sketching  some  possible  scenarios—and  tentative  guidelines—for  leveraging  students’   knowledge  of  diverse  reading  MOs  to  advance  learning  of  school-­‐privileged  academic   reading  routines  and  strategies.   Homegrown  MOs  that  echo  academic  MOs.  One  scenario  teachers  may  encounter   is  that  of  a  student  describing  and/or  demonstrating  a  homegrown  MO  that  already  prima                                                                                                                   25  Among  these  questions  must  surely  be  the  following:  What  ethical  responsibility  do   teachers  have  to  treat  students’  homegrown  reading  MOs  with  the  same  level  of  respect   they  would  afford  students’  home  cultural  practices  more  generally?   153   facie  closely  parallels  a  particular  academic  MO  of  interest.  For  example,  a  student  might   describe  a  MO  she  uses  to  research  coveted  consumer  products  online.  Insofar  as  this  MO   involves  using  the  Internet  to  research  a  product’s  details,  compare  prices  across  different   websites,  read  customer  reviews,  and  pursue  leads  to  find  less  expensive  substitutes,  it   might  in  many  respects  closely  parallel  a  school-­‐valued  academic  MO  for  using  the  web  to   research  a  historical  event  or  a  controversial  issue.  Or  again,  a  student  might  report  a   homegrown  MO  for  rapidly  skimming  text  messages  from  her  friends  yet  with  heightened   sensitivity  for  words  or  phrases  that  reveal  her  friends’  true  underlying  feelings  (whether   about  her,  about  someone  else,  or  about  a  particular  topic  or  event).  Teachers  might  see  in   this  MO  a  close  parallel  to  a  school-­‐privileged  MO  for  reading  novels,  poems,  speeches,  and   other  texts  with  an  eye  for  words,  turns  of  phrase,  or  other  details  that  convey  the  author’s   or  narrator’s  tone—that  is  to  say,  his  or  her  implied  attitude  toward  a  particular  idea  being   explained  or  a  character  being  described.    As  will  be  clear  from  both  these  examples,  even  when  a  student’s  MO  parallels  or  in   some  way  anticipates  a  particular  academic  MO,  a  good  deal  of  explanation  and  scaffolding   may  still  be  needed  before  the  student  herself  sees  the  connection  and  learns  from  it.  Two   MOs  are  unlikely  to  be  perfectly  congruent.  The  teacher  will  likely  need  to  explain  (for   example)  that,  in  noticing  emotionally  charged  words  in  her  friends’  text  messages,  and  in   trying  to  puzzle  out  the  various  layers  of  emotion  sometimes  being  expressed  via  a  single   short  phrase  (or  via  a  single  emoji,  for  that  matter),  the  student  has  in  fact  engaged  in  a   type  of  interpretive  detective  work  very  similar  to  that  of  a  reader  of  literary  texts  or   political  speeches  trying  to  discern  the  author’s  or  narrator’s  true  feelings  or  attitude.   Given  that  the  teacher  is,  in  effect,  drawing  an  elaborate  analogy  between  the  MOs,  he  or   154   she  may  need  to  spend  time  drawing  out  and  making  explicit  all  the  point-­‐to-­‐point   connections  and  parallels  (e.g.,  the  student’s  friends  don’t  always  express  exactly  what   their  true  feelings  are,  and  that  is  analogous  to  the  author  of  a  poem  [for  example]  not   directly  stating  what  her  true  feelings  and  thoughts  are).   Still,  with  a  student’s  homegrown  MO  in  play  as  a  starting  point  and  ongoing   reference  point  for  the  instructional  conversation  about  a  new  academic  reading  MO,   teacher  and  student  are  likely  to  experience  a  very  different  teaching-­‐learning  dynamic  and   trajectory  than  they  would  in  a  classroom  where  the  teacher  does  not  acknowledge  and   build  on  students’  pre-­‐existing  knowledge.  In  the  first  place,  with  a  student’s  MO  explicitly   acknowledged  as  a  legitimate  and  indeed  essential  starting  point  for  the  instructional   conversation,  the  student  is  positioned  as  a  knowledgeable  and  active  partner  in  the   learning  event,  rather  than  as  a  passive  recipient  of  the  teacher’s  instruction.  She  is  the   expert  regarding  her  MO,  and  as  the  teacher  draws  out  the  analogy  between  the  two  MOs  of   interest,  she  will  therefore  have  an  important  role  to  play  in  determining  whether  the   analogy  “works”  or  not.     Further,  as  the  analogy  gets  spelled  out,  with  the  student’s  MO  as  a  reference  point,   the  instructional  conversation  is  likely  to  be  much  more  specific  and  multifaceted.  It  should   in  principle  now  bounce  back  and  forth  between  specific  aspects  of  the  student’s  MO  (e.g.,   how  exactly  the  student  figures  out  which  words  in  a  text  message  to  focus  on)  and  parallel   aspects  of  the  academic  MO.  Drawing  on  her  own  knowledge  and  experience,  the  student   may  also  find  herself  much  more  interested  than  otherwise  in  asking  clarifying  or   exploratory  questions  about  the  academic  MO  she  is  being  apprenticed  into.  And  aspects  of   academic  MOs  that  are  in  general  not  often  discussed,  but  that  are  potentially  of  great   155   interest  to  students  (e.g.,  whether  and  why  academic  MOs,  like  so  many  homegrown  MOs,   involve  or  indeed  require  some  kind  of  affective  investment  on  the  reader’s  part),  are  more   likely  than  otherwise  to  be  addressed.   In  sum,  when  a  student’s  homegrown  MO  echoes  or  anticipates  a  particular   academic  MO  a  teacher  wants  students  to  acquire,  there  are  solid  reasons  to  think  that   making  this  connection  explicit  will  benefit  student  learning.   Leveraging  the  fact  of  MO  diversity  to  heighten  attention  to  detail.  Even  when   students’  MOs  do  not  closely  parallel  desired  academic  MOs,  the  activity  of  explaining  and   illustrating  what  MOs  are—and  underscoring  the  important  fact  of  MO  diversity—may   create  conditions  for  accelerated  and  deeper-­‐than-­‐usual  learning  of  new  MOs.     Recognition  of  MO  diversity  may  be  beneficial  on  at  least  two  fronts.  In  the  first   place  (as  has  already  been  pointed  out),  acknowledging  the  existence  of  diverse  MOs,  and   demonstrating  that  students  themselves  know  and  use  multiple  MOs,  may  promote  a  sense   among  students  of  both  newfound  competence  and  confidence.  With  MOs  in  the  picture,   students  of  all  backgrounds  and  all  levels  of  reading  proficiency  are  in  effect  being  told,   “You  know  much  more  about  reading  than  you  thought  you  did,”  and,  “What  you  already   know  provides  a  foundation  you  can  build  on.”26     Second,  and  perhaps  more  importantly,  recognition  and  discussion  of  MO  diversity   can  provide  students  with  a  new  and  more  helpfully  granular  and  detail-­‐focused   perspective  on  reading  and  what  it  means  to  become  a  proficient  reader.  The  first  big  step                                                                                                                   26  The  magnitude  of  this  boost  to  students’  confidence  and  perceived  competence  will  no   doubt  be  greatest  among  students  who  have  hitherto  accepted  a  global  and  negative   assessment  of  their  proficiency  as  readers,  seeing  themselves  as  poor  or  struggling  readers   in  a  global  sense.   156   is  for  students  to  see  that  reading  is  not  one  uniform  activity,  but  instead,  like  cooking  or   playing  sports,  a  type  of  activity  that  can  take  many  different  forms.  But  it  may  be  the   smaller  follow-­‐up  steps  that  in  fact  yield  the  most  valuable  learning.  For  once  a  number  of   reading  MOs  have  been  described  and  illustrated  (starting  with  those  reported  by  students   and  teacher),  learners  can  engage  in  a  process  of  comparing  and  contrasting  their  MOs,   with  an  eye  to  describing  what  each  one  is  “good  for”  or  “useful  for,”  not  just  intellectually,   but  affectively  and  culturally,  too.  This  kind  of  appreciative  attention  to  detail  may  lay  the   groundwork  for  detailed  attention  to  the  features  and  uses  of  a  new  academic  MO  the   teacher  plans  to  introduce.  When  this  new  MO  is  explained  and  illustrated,  it  may  be   helpfully  woven  into  the  ongoing  conversation  about  multiple,  diverse  MOs,  and  the  value   of  growing  and  refining  one’s  personal  repertoire  of  MOs  to  become  a  versatile  and   resilient  reader.   Increasing  metacognition  about  reading  and  creating  new  tools  for  self-­ regulation.  In  the  end,  the  biggest  single  benefit  to  be  derived  from  acknowledging  and   honoring  students’  diverse  MOs  and  from  making  these  MOs  a  focus  of  instructional   conversations—whether  in  small,  ad  hoc  ways,  or  more  substantial  ways—may  be  the   boost  given  (a)  to  students’  metacognitive  powers  and,  relatedly,  (b)  to  their  ability  to  self-­‐ regulate  their  reading  activities  in  new  and  more  precise  ways.   It  is  likely  not  the  case  that  the  mere  fact  of  making  MOs  a  topic  of  conversation  will   automatically  yield  metacognitive  benefits.  Still,  assuming  that  the  topic  of  MOs  is   introduced  by  a  teacher  who  (a)  explains  and  illustrates  what  MOs  are,  (b)  involves   students  in  sharing  and  discussing  their  own  MOs,  and  (c)  emphasizes  that  becoming  a   proficient  reader  entails  growing  and  refining  one’s  personal  repertoire  of  multiple  MOs,  it   157   seems  likely  that  a  MO-­‐focused  instructional  approach  may  have  at  least  as  much  benefit   for  students’  metacognitive  awareness  and  self-­‐monitoring  as  other  metacognition-­‐ enhancing  interventions  that  have  shown  positive  effects  on  student  learning  (see  Paris  &   Winograd  [1990]  for  overview;  Taylor,  1999).   With  awareness  of  his/her  own  MOs,  every  student  in  effect  acquires  a  new  target   for  introspection  and  self-­‐reflection.  Nor  is  this  a  static  target,  to  be  acknowledged  and   described  once  and  then  forgotten.  Assuming  the  teacher  has  made  the  point  that  new  MOs   may  be  acquired  and  that  existing  ones  may  evolve,  and  that  becoming  a  proficient  reader   entails  growing  and  refining  one’s  personal  repertoire  of  useful  MOs,  noticing  and   reflecting  on  MOs  should  be  an  ongoing  source  of  insight—and  a  useful  new  tool  for  self-­‐ regulation.       Limitations   Findings  from  this  study  must  be  viewed  in  light  of  a  number  of  limitations.  These   limitations  arise  from  several  sources:  specific  design  choices  I  made,  as  well  as  broader   methodological  and  epistemological  issues  that  pertain  more  generally  to  the  type  of   research  I  conducted.   Limitations  pertaining  to  self-­report  data.  General  concern  is  warranted   regarding  the  reliability  of  self-­‐reported  data  about  internal  mental  states  and  actions.  The   fact  that  this  study  relied  heavily  on  self-­‐report  data  is  an  important  limitation.   Participants’  ability  to  verbalize  their  thoughts.  A  specific  aspect  of  this  limitation   pertains  to  participants’  language  knowledge  and  skills—in  particular,  their  expressive   vocabularies  and  their  knowledge  of  language  for  drawing  fine  distinctions.  Differences   between  participants  with  regard  to  these  factors  may  have  resulted  in  data  that   158   inaccurately  reflected  participants’  actual  experience  and  knowledge  of  MOs.  For  example,   a  participant  with  less  advanced  expressive  language  skills  may  have  been  unable  to  find   appropriate  words  to  express  everything  she  knew  about,  and  did  with,  MOs.     Social  desirability  bias.  Another  specific  concern—and  limitation—pertaining  to   the  study’s  reliance  on  self-­‐report  data  involves  the  risk  of  social  desirability  bias  and  social   desirability  responding  (SDR)  (Paulhus,  1991).  Social  desirability  bias  is  the  tendency  of   respondents  to  say  what  they  think  a  researcher  wants  to  hear  or,  more  generally,  to  give   answers  they  anticipate  will  be  viewed  favorably  by  others.  It  can  take  the  form  of  over-­‐ reporting  "good  behavior"  or  under-­‐reporting  "bad”  or  undesirable  behavior.     In  this  study,  it  is  possible  that,  despite  my  best  efforts  to  remain  publicly  neutral   and  agnostic  regarding  the  desirability  of  knowing  and  using  more  than  just  one  MO,  and   despite  the  statements  I  made  about  individual  differences  and  the  idea  that  “all  that   matters  is  saying  what’s  true  for  you  personally,”  some  participants  may  have  been  led  to   believe  that  reporting  a  larger  number  of  “ways  of  reading”  would  make  them  appear   smarter.  As  described  above  in  the  Method  chapter,  the  study’s  design  contained  features   intended  to  both  deter  and  detect  any  exaggeration  or  outright  fabrication  of  MOs  by   participants.  In  the  written  interview,  for  example,  participants  first  listed  specific  reading   events  in  which  they  had  engaged,  and  only  then  were  they  asked  to  identify  the  “ways  of   reading”  they  had  used  on  those  particular  occasions.  Additionally,  they  were  asked  to   describe  each  “way  of  reading”  and  explain  how  it  differed  from  other  ways.  Case  study   participants,  in  turn,  were  asked  to  further  describe  and  explain  each  of  their  previously   mentioned  MOs,  and  they  enacted  many  of  the  MOs  they  had  earlier  reported.  Nonetheless,   despite  these  precautions  and  checks,  it  is  possible  that  some  participants  may  have   159   exaggerated  their  total  count  of  MOs,  if  not  by  inventing  MOs  from  whole  cloth,  then   perhaps  by  taking  what  for  them,  at  this  point  in  time,  was  really  a  single  MO  (e.g.,  reading   online)  and  splitting  it  into  two  MOs  (e.g.,  reading  online  alone  and  reading  online  with  a   friend).     What  is  especially  troubling  about  the  threat  of  SDR  is  that  the  effect  may  be   unevenly  distributed  across  participants.  Some  participants  may  be  more  prone  to  SDR   than  others,  and  there  is  no  easy,  clear-­‐cut  way  to  separate  those  who  are  more  susceptible   from  those  who  are  less.  This  explains  why  SDR  is  a  special  concern  in  studies  that  measure   individual  differences  using  self-­‐report  data.  In  this  study,  the  concern  would  be  that  the   mean  number  of  MOs  per  participant  may  be  an  overestimate  of  the  true  mean.27   Limitations  pertaining  to  specific  procedures  used.  Specific  concerns  are   warranted  regarding  particular  aspects  of  the  procedures  used,  including  the  initial   explanation  of  “ways  of  reading”  given  to  participants  and  the  instrument  used  for  the   written  interview.     Participants  had  not  previously  been  asked  to  report  about  their  diverse  “ways  of   reading”  and  were  not  (as  far  as  I  could  ascertain)  at  all  familiar  with  the  phrase  “ways  of   reading.”  There  can  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  the  initial  introduction  to  the  idea  of  “reading  in                                                                                                                   27  It  is  very  difficult  to  estimate  the  size  of  the  SDR  threat  in  this  study.  When  a   phenomenon  has  been  more  extensively  studied  (e.g.,  lying,  frequency  of  sexual  activity),  or   when  the  answers  of  at  least  some  participants  can  be  independently  verified,  it  is   sometimes  possible  to  evaluate  data  for  SDR  distortions  and  even  to  statistically  adjust   participants’  responses  to  account  for  SDR  (see  Paulhus,  1991).  Those  steps  are  obviously   not  possible  in  this  case,  given  that  the  MO  construct  is  being  investigated  for  the  first  time.   At  this  point,  given  the  consistency  of  participants’  answers,  and  given  that  case  study   participants  on  several  occasions  explicitly  rejected  an  opportunity  to  add  another  MO  to   their  list  of  reported  MOs  (e.g.,  after  reading  an  unfamiliar  text  I  provided),  I  tend  to  think   that  the  impact  of  social  desirability  bias  in  this  study  was  relatively  small.     160   different  ways,”  including  the  two  analogies  I  provided  (likening  different  ways  of  reading   to  different  ways  of  brushing  one’s  teeth  and  different  ways  of  moving  on  one’s  feet),   strongly  influenced  participants’  initial  responses  and,  possibly,  their  underlying  thinking   about,  and  filtering  of,  their  personal  experiences  and  memories  of  reading.   Earlier  in  this  chapter,  I  proposed  one  interpretation  of  the  fact  that,  after  just   relatively  brief  and  minimal  explanation,  and  with  relatively  little  scaffolding,  100%  of   participants  reported  knowing  and  using  two  or  more  MOs.  The  interpretation  offered  was   that,  while  participants  had  no  prior  experience  talking  about  their  MOs,  they  all  in  fact  had   years  of  daily  experience  with  distinguishing  among  their  different  ways  of  reading.   Consequently,  when  a  researcher  asked  them  to  identify  and  describe  their  MOs,  this   request  was  readily  intelligible  and  not  difficult  to  comply  with.  The  only  hard  part,  for   some  participants,  lay  in  verbalizing  the  criteria  used  to  distinguish  MOs  (as  would  likely   also  be  the  case  for  6th  graders  asked  to  verbalize  their  criteria  for  distinguishing  among   their  different  ways  of  walking  and  running,  such  as  strolling,  marching,  jogging,  and   sprinting).     That  said,  a  competing  interpretation  of  the  high  percentage  of  participants   reporting  two  or  more  MOs  could  be  that  the  script  used  to  introduce  participants  to  the   idea  of  “ways  of  reading”  was  leading,  and  that  the  instrument  was  leading,  too.  Specifically,   it  might  be  argued  that,  simply  by  virtue  of  referring  to  ways  (plural)  of  reading,  and   providing  an  instrument  containing  tables  with  multiple  blank  rows  for  participants  to   describe  their  possibly  plural  MOs,  I  biased  participants  to  report  more  “ways  of  reading”   than  they  would  otherwise  have  reported.   This  possible  biasing  effect  introduces  another  limitation  on  the  study’s  findings.   161   Limitations  pertaining  to  population  and  sampling.  It  goes  without  saying  that,   while  apparently  robust  (e.g.,  100%  of  participants  reported  knowing  and  using  at  least   two  distinct  MOs),  the  findings  reported  here  are  based  on  a  relatively  small  sample  (n  =   30)  from  a  single  school  district  and  the  generalizability  of  the  findings  to  other   populations  of  6th  graders  is  therefore  limited.     A  more  specific  concern  and  limitation  pertains  to  the  homogeneity  of  the  studied   population.  As  described  in  the  Method  chapter  (see  especially  the  Research  Context   section),  the  population  from  which  participants  were  sampled  contained  students  at  many   different  levels  of  reading  proficiency  and  family  income,  and  the  thirty  adolescents   randomly  selected  and  enrolled  were  representative  of  that  diversity.  That  said,  all   participants  were  white  and  none  were  English  Language  Learners.  Further,  a  strong   majority  of  participants  had  been  grade-­‐mates  or  even  classmates  in  the  same  district  for   as  many  as  six  years  prior  to  6th  grade.  In  other  words,  they  had  experienced  very  similar,  if   not  identical,  curriculum  and  instruction  for  most  of  their  school  careers.   By  design,  I  used  this  homogeneity  of  school  experience  as  the  basis  for  inferences   about  the  likely  source  and  development  of  participants’  MOs.  I  reasoned  as  follows:  given   that  students  who  have  experienced  such  similar  curriculum  and  instruction  for  multiple   years  have  ended  up,  at  the  end  of  their  6th  grade  year,  with  such  diverse  and  idiosyncratic   repertoires  of  MOs,  it  seems  reasonable  to  infer  that  MOs  are  not  primarily  shaped  by   school  experience.  Otherwise  we  would  expect  to  see  much  more  similarity—if  not   uniformity—across  participants,  at  least  with  regard  to  their  more  academically  focused   reading  MOs.  I  thus  arrived  at  the  tentative  conclusion  that  adolescents’  MOs  are  likely  to   be  heavily  shaped  by  personal  and  cultural  factors,  and  that  new  academically  purposed   162   MOs  do  not  easily  or  automatically  become  established  in  adolescents’  MO  repertoires  as  a   result  of  attending  school—even  in  a  district  where  literacy  curriculum  and  instruction  are   as  high-­‐quality  as  they  were  in  the  district  where  this  study  was  conducted.   However,  inferences  along  these  lines  are  based  on  certain  key  assumptions.  For   example,  it  is  assumed  that,  if  school  curriculum  and  instruction  were  a  source  of  students’   MOs,  this  would  result  in  recognizably  similar-­‐looking  MOs  across  participants.  Yet  this   may  not  be  the  case.  That  is,  it  may  be  the  case  that  school  experience  does  powerfully   shape  students’  MOs  yet  does  so  in  diverse  and  idiosyncratic  ways.  It  is  possible,  in  other   words,  that  the  participants  in  this  study  acquired  their  diverse  MOs  at  least  in  part  as  a   consequence  of  experiencing  the  uniform  and  high-­‐quality  curriculum  and  instruction  they   experienced,  most  of  them  over  multiple  years,  and  that,  in  the  absence  of  this   homogeneous  school  experience,  their  MOs  would  be  less  diverse.   The  design  of  this  study  does  not  allow  us  to  answer  questions  along  these  lines.   Further  research  is  needed.   Future  Directions  for  Research   While  this  study  found  strong  initial  evidence  of  the  psychological  reality  of  diverse   non-­‐instructed  reading  MOs  among  6th  graders  in  one  rural  school  district,  it  raises  as  many   questions  as  it  answers.  Some  of  these  questions  pertain  to  doubts  we  can  and  should   reasonably  entertain  regarding  the  soundness  of  the  study’s  procedures  and  the  reliability   and  validity  of  the  results  that  were  obtained.  Others  pertain  to  extending  and  deepening   the  study’s  findings  and  to  illuminating  the  MO  construct—and  its  psychological  reality— from  additional  angles.    These  questions  call  for  further  research.   163   Most  urgently,  there  is  a  need  to  replicate  the  study  in  other  school  districts  with   participants  drawn  from  other  populations  with  more  diverse  demographic  and  cultural   characteristics.  Based  on  theory  and  empirical  research  we  have  about  differences  and   similarities  across  populations  (e.g.,  research  on  students  in  urban  versus  suburban  and   rural  contexts),  it  seems  likely  that  6th  graders  everywhere  know  and  use  diverse  non-­‐ instructed  MOs.  At  the  same  time,  it  seems  plausible  that  the  nature  of  that  diversity  will   differ  from  one  population  to  another,  with  general  trends  possibly  emerging  with  regard   to  the  criteria  adolescents  invoke  to  distinguish  among  their  MOs,  preferences  for   particular  MOs,  the  number  of  MOs  directly  tied  to  school-­‐centered  reading  purposes,  and   so  on.  Given  the  diversity  that  was  documented  in  this  study  with  participants  drawn  from   a  single  relatively  homogeneous  population  of  6th  graders,  it  seems  plausible  that  at  least  as   much  internal  diversity—and  possibly  much  more—will  be  found  in  other  contexts  with   less  homogeneous  populations.     In  conjunction  with  such  replication  studies,  there  is  also  now  a  basis  for   investigating  MOs  among  younger  readers.  Given  that  100%  of  the  randomly  sampled  6th   graders  in  this  study  reported  knowing  and  using  two  or  more  MOs,  it  stands  to  reason  that   MOs  first  emerge  prior  to  6th  grade.  Here  again,  based  on  theory  and  the  empirical  research   we  have  about  younger  and  older  readers  in  general,  it  seems  highly  likely  that  diverse   MOs  will  be  documented  across  the  lifespan.  Research  on  differences  in  caregiver   approaches  to  lap  reading  (e.g.,  Anderson-­‐Yockel  &  Haynes,  1994;  Ninio,  1980;  Wheeler,   1982)  provide  a  basis  for  the  hypothesis  that,  even  before  children  begin  independently   decoding  words,  they  acquire  situated,  culturally  inflected  attitudes  and  expectations   164   toward  reading,  and  that  these  attitudes  and  expectations  are  the  seeds  of  children’s   earliest  reading  MOs.   With  regard  to  studying  the  emergence  of  MOs  and  their  development  across  time,  a   longitudinal  study  would  of  course  be  ideal.  Such  a  study  would  perhaps  enroll  participants   in  Kindergarten,  if  not  before  that,  and  would  then  follow  them  across  several  years,  using   regularly  spaced  interview  and  think-­‐aloud  sessions  to  capture  data  illuminating  the   earliest  stages  of  MO  development.  A  cross-­‐sectional  study—sampling  participants  from   grades  K,  1,  2,  3,  and  4,  for  example—would  also  be  revealing  in  this  regard.  A  cross-­‐ sectional  study  would  be  less  informative  than  a  longitudinal  study  about  readers’   developmental  trajectories  and  the  particular  processes  and  dynamics  of  MOs  emerging,   developing,  and  likely  also  sometimes  being  abandoned  (one  thinks  here  of  Siegler’s  [1996]   micro-­‐genetic  studies  of  preschool-­‐  and  primary  school-­‐aged  children  and  their  acquisition   and  regulation  of  various  types  of  strategies),  yet  it  might  at  least  answer  the  question:  At   what  age  do  young  readers  first  report  knowing  and  using  distinct  reading  MOs?   Beyond  looking  at  younger  readers  to  determine  when  they  start  using  MOs  and   first  report  experiencing  reading  through  the  prism  of  diverse  MOs,  future  research  might   also  try  to  shed  light  on  the  “lifespan”  of  especially  significant  individual  MOs  (as  so   designated  by  participants  themselves,  or  as  designated  by  researchers  in  relation  to  a   particular  context  of  application,  such  as  school).  For  example,  if  we  assume  that  readers’   acquisition  of  particular  MOs,  or  classes  of  MOs,  are  positively  correlated  with  improved   academic  achievement,  it  may  be  of  interest  to  shed  light  on  the  genesis  and  development   of  these  “high  value”  MOs.  In  particular,  given  the  focus  in  many  schools  on  teaching   reading  comprehension  strategies  (e.g.,  visualizing,  predicting,  asking  questions),  it  may  be   165   of  great  interest  to  trace  how  exactly  young  readers  do  or  don’t  integrate  newly  learned   strategies  into  one  or  more  of  their  existing  MOs.   Relatedly,  future  studies  might  test  the  relative  efficacy  of  teaching  conventional   reading  comprehension  strategies  (a)  in  the  context  of  also  explicitly  teaching  about  MOs,   acknowledging  the  existence  of  students’  MOs,  and  making  efforts  to  connect  new   strategies  to  students’  existing  MOs;  and  on  the  other  hand,  (b)  in  the  context  of  teaching   strategies  by  themselves,  without  acknowledgement  of  the  existence  and  role  of  MOs.  The   present  study  provides  a  starting  point  for  thinking  about  the  development  of  such   modestly  scoped  interventions  and  quasi-­‐experimental  intervention  studies.  In  light  of  the   finding  that  6th  graders  in  one  district  were  universally  willing  and  able  to  report  about   their  MOs  with  relatively  minimal  explanation  and  scaffolding,  it  seems  plausible  that  a   modest  talk-­‐focused  intervention  (i.e.,  teachers  engaging  students  in  exploratory   conversation  about  MOs,  describing  some  of  their  own  MOs,  and  inviting  students  to   periodically  jot  observations  about  their  MOs  in  a  MO  journal,  for  instance)  could  be   designed  to  be  very  low  cost  and  minimally  disruptive  to  existing  curriculum  and   instructional  routines.  A  simple  quasi-­‐experimental  comparison  of  treatment  and  control   classrooms  would  begin  to  illuminate  the  possible  benefits  of  making  MOs  part  of  the   school  curriculum,  not  only  for  improving  students’  test  scores,  but  also—and  more   importantly—for  deepening  and  enriching  in-­‐class  discussion  around  reading  and  the   varied  challenges  and  joys  of  transacting  with  texts.       166   CHAPTER  6   Conclusion   This  study  sought  to  test  the  hypothesis  that,  above  and  beyond  whatever   knowledge  they  may  have  of  conventional  reading  comprehension  strategies  (e.g.,   visualizing,  predicting,  summarizing),  adolescent  readers  know  and  use  a  diverse  array  of   reading  MOs  to  orient  and  regulate  their  everyday  reading  activities.  For  this  study—and   drawing  on  a  review  of  diverse  lines  of  reading  research—I  conceptualized  readers’  MOs  as   experientially  distinct,  subjectively  coherent,  and  habitual  ways  of  orchestrating  reading   activities  that  typically  comprise  reading  strategies,  but  also  comprise  other  elements  and   features  including  culture-­‐  and  subculture-­‐specific  attitudes,  topic  knowledge,  epistemic   beliefs,  affective  investments,  and  experience  with  particular  types  of  social  interaction   around  texts.   This  hypothesis  about  the  ubiquity  and  importance  of  diverse  reading  MOs  in   readers’  lives  stemmed  from  a  critical  review  of  three  main  areas  of  reading  scholarship:   cognitively  focused  theoretical  models  of  reading  processes  (e.g.,  Kintsch,  1998;  McNamara,   Miller,  &  Bransford,  2000;  Paris,  Lipson,  &  Wixson,  1983)  and  related  accounts  of  the   development  of  reading  ability  and  reading  comprehension  proficiency  (e.g.,  Adams,  1990;   Duke  &  Carlisle,  2011;  Johnston,  Barnes,  &  Desrochers,  2008;  National  Early  Literacy  Panel,   2008;  Paris,  2005);  descriptive  and  experimental  research  on  reading  comprehension   strategies  (e.g.,  Paris  &  Oka,  1986;  Pressley,  2006);  and  socioculturally  focused  research  on   readers’  diverse  reading  practices  (e.g.,  Heath,  1983;  Moje,  2000).     My  review  of  this  extensive  body  of  scholarship  led  me  to  question  the  adequacy  of   available  cognitive  models  of  reading  and  accounts  of  the  development  of  reading  ability  to   167   explain—and  study—the  full  range  of  diverse  approaches  to  reading  that  researchers  have   documented  within  and  across  readers  (e.g.,  Gallagher,  2012;  Graff,  2010).  How  might  such   diverse  approaches  be  explained?  Over  the  years,  cognitively  oriented  researchers  have   pointed  to  the  influence  of  a  variety  of  factors  including  text  genre,  readers’  purpose,  and   background  knowledge.  And  yet,  the  evidence  we  have  suggests  that,  influential  as  these   factors  (and  others  like  them)  may  be,  they  are  not  unilaterally  determinative.  Readers  may   approach  texts  of  a  particular  genre  in  more  than  one  way  (e.g.,  Cherland,  1994);  readers   with  the  same  general  purpose  in  mind  (e.g.,  studying  for  a  test)  may  tackle  that  task  by   reading  in  more  than  one  way  (Barnett,  2000);  and  readers  drawing  on  the  same  level  of   background  knowledge  may  apply  that  knowledge  in  more  than  one  way  (e.g.,  Kendeou  &   van  den  Broek,  2007).  Above  and  beyond  the  influence  of  these  factors,  there  thus  appears   to  be  room  for  readers  to  exercise  a  degree  of  strategic  choice  on  the  basis  of  whatever   habitual  “go-­‐to”  ways  of  reading  they  have  acquired  and  come  to  rely  on—the  reading  MOs   in  their  personal  repertoire.       Which  is  not  to  say  that  readers’  decisions  at  this  level  of  strategic  self-­‐regulation   are  always—or  even  often—of  the  sort  that  reading  researchers  and  teachers  will  find   “optimal”  or  “adaptive”  (in  terms  of  achieving  the  particular  types  of  comprehension   outcomes  that  researchers  and  teachers  tend  to  value).  Indeed,  readers  may  know  and  use   a  diverse  array  of  reading  MOs,  switch  strategically  among  them,  and  yet  score  below   average—even  well  below  average—on  traditional  standardized  measures  of   comprehension.  As  I  have  conceptualized  them,  knowledge  and  use  of  diverse  reading  MOs   would  not  by  themselves  be  at  all  predictive  of  readers’  achieving  conventionally  valued   168   comprehension  outcomes  (i.e.,  outcomes  requiring  application  of  particular  school-­‐ privileged  reading  MOs).     The  MO  construct  thus  returns  to  center-­‐stage  the  question  of  what  it  means  to  read   strategically  and,  by  extension,  the  question  of  how  readers  acquire  and  develop  strategic   intelligence.  With  reading  MOs  in  the  picture  (and  assuming  that  readers  know  and  use   more  than  one  MO),  mainstream  conceptions  of  what  strategic  reading  looks  like  are   considerably  broadened.  Whereas  cognitively  oriented  research  has  reserved  the  “strategic   reader”  label  for  readers  who  flexibly  adjust  their  application  of  conventional  reading   comprehension  strategies  to  achieve  particular  school-­‐privileged  outcomes  (e.g.,  better   recall  of  a  text’s  main  claims  and  supporting  evidence),  an  MO-­‐focused  framework  uses  the   “strategic  reader”  label  for  any  reader  with  more  than  one  MO—no  matter  how  apparently   unproductive  those  MOs  may  be.   In  thus  broadening  the  mainstream  view  of  what  can  count  as  strategic  reading   activity,  the  MO-­‐focused  perspective  seeks  to  recognize  whatever  type  and/or  level  of   strategic  intelligence  readers  possess,  no  matter  how  apparently  minimal  or  ineffectual  it   may  be.  Yet  the  point  of  this  approach  is  not  to  assert  that  all  instances  of  strategic   decision-­‐making  are  equally  effective  or  equally  important  to  study  and  teach;  it  is   abundantly  clear  that,  depending  on  a  given  reader’s  context  and  her  individual  needs  and   goals,  particular  strategic  priorities  and  particular  reading  MOs  will  be  more  valuable  than   others.  That  said,  the  MO-­‐focused  perspective  does  insist  on  recognizing  and  celebrating   strategic  intelligence  wherever  it  may  be  found,  and  whatever  forms  it  may  take— including  that  of  a  6th  grader  (for  example)  applying  her  MO  for  high-­speed  skimming  of   gossipy  text  messages  from  friends  instead  of  her  MO  for  figuring  out  the  emotional  tone  and   169   unspoken  implications  of  the  text  she’s  reading.  If  a  6th  grader  makes  a  distinction  of  this   kind,  it  merits  being  noticed—by  researchers,  teachers,  and  by  the  6th  grader  herself.   The  all-­‐important  first  step  in  this  regard—the  step  this  dissertation  study  has   attempted  to  take—is  simply  to  establish  whether  or  not  readers  in  fact  possess  and  use   MOs.  For  regardless  of  how  effective  particular  MOs  may  be,  the  available  evidence  points   to  the  reality  of  readers’  MOs  constituting  a  distinct  level  of  conscious  awareness  at  which   readerly  choices  are  made  and  reading  activity  is  regulated—a  level  separate  from,  and   arguably  superordinate  to,  the  level  at  which  readers  choose  and  regulate  conventional   reading  comprehension  strategies.   Based  on  results  of  this  first  investigation  of  the  psychological  reality  of  the  MO   construct  for  a  small  sample  of  6th  grade  students,  I  conclude  for  now—pending  future   corroborative  investigation—that  my  main  hypothesis  about  the  existence  of  a  diversity  of   MOs  within  and  across  readers  has  been  substantially  affirmed.  By  the  end  of  their  6th   grade  year,  100%  of  adolescent  readers  in  one  Midwestern  school  district  apparently  knew   and  used  a  diverse  array  of  MOs  for  reading.  Further,  it  appeared  that  6th  graders   consciously  viewed  their  reading  activity,  and  orchestrated  that  activity,  through  the  prism   of  their  often  idiosyncratic  reading  MOs—as  opposed  to  doing  so  through  the  lens  of  the   reading  comprehension  strategies  or  text  genres  they  knew,  or  through  the  lens  of  a   generic,  unitary  construct  of  reading,  based  on  a  single  all-­‐purpose  MO  of  always  striving   for  maximum  comprehension.   Contribution  to  the  Field  of  Reading  Research   The  MO  construct.  This  study’s  primary  contribution  to  the  field  of  reading   research  is  its  articulation  of  the  construct  of  the  reading  MO.  As  tentatively  defined  and   170   operationalized  in  this  study,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  MO  construct  raises  as  many   questions  as  it  answers.  For  instance:  are  there  minimum  requirements  a  candidate  MO   must  meet,  or  certain  features  a  candidate  MO  must  have,  to  count  as  a  MO?  Or:  what  would   we  say  to  a  reader  who,  in  all  seriousness,  reported  knowing  hundreds  of  MOs,  because  he   could  reliably  distinguish  between  (for  instance)  (a)  his  particular  way  of  reading   newspaper  articles  about  controversial  current  events  issues  when  he  is  feeling  relaxed   and  purposefully  civically  engaged,  (b)  his  particular  way  of  reading  newspaper  articles   about  controversial  current  events  issues  when  he  is  feeling  relaxed  but  also  somewhat   disenchanted  with  the  state  of  civil  society,  (c)  his  particular  way  of  reading  newspaper   articles  about  controversial  current  events  issues  when  he  is  feeling  anxious  as  well  as   disenchanted  with  the  state  of  civil  society,  and  so  on,  virtually  ad  infinitum?  This   dissertation  has  proposed  and  tentatively  articulated  the  construct  of  the  reading  MO,  but  it   has  barely  begun  to  answer  these  sorts  of  thorny  questions.   Nonetheless,  with  encouragement  taken  from  the  study’s  robust  empirical  results,  it   seems  plausible  to  use  the  tentative  formulations  put  forward  in  these  pages  as  a  starting   point  for  future  clarificatory  work.     Work  in  this  direction  seems  especially  worthwhile  given  the  divide  that  has  grown   up  between  the  more  cognitively  oriented  branch  of  reading  research,  with  its  more   decontextualized,  “autonomous  view”  (Street,  1984)  of  reading  and  how  reading   proficiency  is  attained;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  more  socioculturally  oriented  branch   with  its  more  “ideological  view”  (Street,  1984)  of  reading  as  being  always  socially  situated   and  contested  (for  discussion  of  these  branches,  see  Purcell-­‐Gates,  Jacobson,  &  Degener,   2004).  Insofar  as  the  MO  construct  brings  together  factors  usually  prioritized  by  the   171   cognitively  focused  branch  (e.g.,  readers’  acquisition  of  such  things  as  reading   comprehension  strategies,  genre  knowledge,  and  topic  knowledge)  with  factors   traditionally  prioritized  by  the  socioculturally  focused  branch  (e.g.,  the  influence  of  readers’   sociocultural  backgrounds,  outside-­‐school  funds  of  knowledge,  and  issues  of  identity   formation  and  social  positioning),  it  may  perhaps  open  a  new  space  for  dialogue  and   connections  across  perspectives.  It  seems  possible  that  cognitively  oriented  and   socioculturally  oriented  scholars  might  share  an  interest  in  a  construct  that  (a)  recognizes   the  importance  of  readers’  knowledge  of  such  things  as  reading  comprehension  strategies   while  it  also  (b)  recognizes  that  such  knowledge—and  the  application  of  such  knowledge— is  never  neutral  and  is  always  socioculturally  situated  and  motivated,  and  can  legitimately   take  diverse  forms.   Procedure  and  instrument.  A  construct  that  is  too  complex  to  investigate   empirically  may  be  of  limited  use  to  the  field.  A  second  contribution  made  by  this  study   therefore  lies  in  the  demonstration  that  the  MO  construct  can  be  relatively   straightforwardly  operationalized  and  empirically  studied.  As  reported,  100%  of  randomly   sampled  6th  graders—adolescent  readers  of  varying  levels  of  reading  proficiency,  from  >3   standard  deviations  above  to  >3  standard  deviations  below  the  state  average  in  reading,  as   measured  by  the  state  standardized  reading  assessment—were  able  and  willing  to  report   about  their  diverse  “ways  of  reading.”     There  is  no  doubt  that  the  researcher  script  and  the  written  interview  instrument   used  in  this  study  can  be  improved—to  achieve  greater  clarity,  and  to  further  reduce   possible  biasing  effects  due  to  the  wording  of  the  questions  and  instructions.  As  well,  it   seems  likely  that  the  script  and  the  interview  instrument  would  need  to  be  revised  for  use   172   in  different  contexts.  Still,  the  encouraging  finding  was  that,  with  relatively  minimal   prompting  and  scaffolding,  and  with  the  aid  of  a  relatively  simple  instrument  (i.e.,  the   written  interview  form),  100%  of  participants  were  willing  and  able  to  report  about  their   diverse  “ways  of  reading.”  It  appears  that,  despite  being  raised  in  a  world  where  reading  is   still  mostly  conceived  of,  and  spoken  of,  as  a  unitary  ability,  adolescents  remain  aware  of   knowing  and  using  distinct,  non-­‐uniform,  culturally  and  personally  inflected  ways  of   reading.  It  seems  reasonable  to  expect  that  6th  graders  in  other  school  districts  would,  in   principle,  possess  the  same  awareness  and  the  same  willingness  to  report  it.  The   procedures  and  instrument  used  in  this  study  may  thus  provide  other  researchers   interested  in  adolescents’  reading  MOs  with  a  starting  point  for  their  work.   New  perspective  on  adolescent  readers  and  what  they  know.  A  third   contribution  this  study  makes  to  the  field  is  a  new  and—I  would  argue—greatly  enriched   perspective  on  the  scope  of  adolescent  readers’  knowledge  about  reading  and  about   themselves  as  readers.     To  a  certain  extent,  this  perspective  builds  on  the  one  espoused  by  socioculturally   and  sociocognitively  oriented  scholars  (e.g.,  Cherland,  1994;  Gallagher,  2012;  Gee,  1989,   1990;  Heath,  1982,  1983;  Ives,  2011;  Moje,  2000)  who  have  shed  light  on  how  readers’   varied  literacy  activities—including  their  particular  ways  of  constructing  meaning  from   texts—are  deeply  shaped  by  their  sociocultural  backgrounds  and  the  ways  they  are   positioned  (and  position  themselves)  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  the  surrounding  culture  and  social  forces.   The  work  of  these  scholars  has  offered  the  field  much  deeper  understanding  of,  and   appreciation  for,  such  practices  as  “gangsta”  adolescents’  reading  and  writing  of  graffiti   (Moje,  2000),  Samoan  children’s  memorizing  of  passages  from  the  Christian  Bible  (Dickie  &   173   McDonald,  2011),  and  struggling  readers’  performance  of  “discursive  identities”  to  save   face  and  protect  status  in  the  classroom  (Hall,  2007).   The  perspective  offered  by  this  study,  and  supported  by  its  empirical  findings,   builds  on  this  sociocultural  and  sociocognitive  perspective,  yet  at  the  same  time  deepens   and  extends  it.  Rather  than  focus  on  a  single  reading  practice,  it  casts  its  net  as  widely  as   possible  to  consider  all  of  the  everyday  reading  activities  of  adolescents—their  school-­‐ based  reading  activities  alongside  their  out-­‐of-­‐school  activities,  their  most  apparently   humdrum  activities  alongside  their  most  unusual  ones.  Further,  rather  than  have  it  be  the   researcher  who  identifies  a  practice  as  being  “of  interest,”  this  perspective  starts  from   adolescents’  own  descriptions  of  the  diversity  they  see—uncovering  the  actual  diversity   and  depth  of  what  these  readers  know  and  do  from  the  inside.  In  short,  it  takes  the  big   picture  view  of  diversity  in  readers’  practices  and  zooms  in  to  show  that  there  is  a  further   level  of  diversity  within  many  areas  of  reading  activity  (e.g.,  reading  of  informational  text  at   school)  that  until  now  were  generally  seen  as  homogeneous  (though  perhaps  more   expertly  executed  by  some  readers  than  by  others).     The  new  perspective  offered  by  this  dissertation  study,  then,  suggests  that   adolescent  readers  know  much  more  about  reading,  and  about  themselves  as  readers,  than   has  generally  hitherto  been  recognized.  The  content  of  this  knowledge  may  not  look   impressive  to  all.  A  proficient  adult  reader—not  to  mention  a  field  expert  focused  on   his/her  disciplinary  reading  routines—may  look  at  the  MOs  reported  by  a  striving  6th-­‐ grade  reader  and  see  little  of  promise.  The  6th  grader’s  MOs  may  be  differentiated  on  the   basis  of  criteria  our  more  advanced  reader  deems  unimportant  (e.g.,  enjoyment,  graphical   elements,  social  dimension),  and  none  of  the  6th  grader’s  MOs  may  look  like  a  good  fit  for   174   important  academic  reading  tasks  (e.g.,  identifying  a  text’s  main  ideas  or  central  theme,   judging  a  text’s  trustworthiness).  The  new  perspective,  however,  insists  on  recognizing   what  the  6th  grader  has  achieved—namely,  a  level  of  differentiation  and  specialization  in   reading  MOs  or  “routines”  (Shanahan  &  Shanahan,  2008)  that  was  previously  thought  to  be   the  purview  of  disciplinary  experts  and  those  being  apprenticed  into  one  or  another   specialized  disciplinary  reading  routine.28     To  those  who  see  little  of  value  in  this  proliferation  of  specialized  or  niche  reading   MOs  among  6th  graders,  this  new  perspective  offers  two  responses.  First,  it  points  to  the   idea  that,  for  better  or  worse,  human  experience,  in  all  its  diversity,  is  the  source  and  fuel  of   all  learning  and  growth  (Dewey,  1938/1975).  Whether  or  not  they  are  deemed  impressive   or  promising,  these  MOs  represent  the  cognitive,  affective,  and  motivational  ground  from   which  all  future  reading  routines  and  forms  of  reading  proficiency—however  proficiency   may  be  defined—will  develop.  There  is,  then,  a  strong  case  to  be  made  in  favor  of   understanding  these  MOs,  valuing  them,  and  trying  to  tap  into  them  as  a  resource  for  future   growth—rather  than  ignoring  them  or  trying  simply  to  overwrite  them.  Indeed,  if  we  can   learn  to  connect  with,  and  build  upon,  a  6th  grader’s  knowledge  and  use  of  her  diverse  MOs,   we  may  be  able  to  help  her  achieve  more  rapid,  personally  meaningful,  and  self-­‐sustaining   growth  over  the  long  run  than  we  would  by  trying  to  impose  a  uniform,  decontextualized   conception  of  proficient  reading  and  “what  good  readers  do.”                                                                                                                   28  Indeed,  this  study’s  findings  may  be  fruitfully  connected  to  the  recent  surge  of  interest  in   the  disciplinary  reading  routines  of  advanced  readers—and  of  less  advanced  readers  being   apprenticed  into  these  routines  (e.g.,  Jetton  &  Shanahan,  2012;  Moje,  2008;  Monte-­‐Sano,   2010).  This  study  embraces  the  idea  of  specialized  reading  routines  (Shanahan  &   Shanahan,  2008)  and  suggests  that,  in  fact,  by  the  end  of  6th  grade  all  readers  at  all  levels  of   test-­‐determined  reading  proficiency  possess  specialized  reading  routines  of  some  kind  and   make  decisions  about  when  to  apply  which  ones.   175   Second,  and  building  on  this  first  response,  the  new  perspective  offered  here  points   to  the  work  of  cognitive  scientists  such  as  Siegler  (1996)  who  have  shown  that,  across   domains,  proliferation  and  diversification  in  children’s  strategic  repertoires  is  normal  and   also,  in  the  long  run,  advantageous  to  the  learner.  Children  develop  and  apply  diverse   problem-­‐solving  strategies,  and  continue  to  do  so—perplexingly,  from  the  point  of  view  of   many  teachers  and  parents—even  when  they  appear  to  have  seen  with  their  own  eyes  that   one  strategy  is  superior  to  another.  As  Siegler  explains,  this  phase  of  inconsistent  and  non-­‐ optimal  strategy  application  (at  least  from  an  “expert”  perspective)  appears  to  be  a  time  of   great  cognitive  growth.  For  it  turns  out  (among  other  things)  that  the  amount  of  initial   strategic  variability  in  a  child’s  problem-­‐solving  actions  tends  to  be  predictive  of  her   subsequent  progress.  And  so  it  may  well  be  with  readers’  MOs.  In  addition  to  their  being  a   reflection  of  readers’  backgrounds  and  influences,  MOs  represent  a  reader’s  store  of   strategic  options  and  resources.  Whatever  may  be  said  about  their  effectiveness  and   efficiency  today  (as  judged  in  relation  to  a  particular,  culturally  situated  standard),  their   efflorescence  may  be  a  necessary  and  healthy  stage  in  the  development  of  greater  strategic   intelligence.   Yet  here  we  have  reached  the  point  where  speculation  about  what  may  be  the  case   has  begun  to  outrun  the  results  of  the  present  study.  It  goes  without  saying  that  much   follow-­‐up  research  will  be  necessary  to  corroborate,  deepen,  and  extend  this  study’s   findings.  I  look  forward  to  contributing  to  that  next  phase  of  research.     176                         APPENDICES   177   Appendix  A:  Structured  Written  Interview  Instrument       The  structured  written  interview  instrument  is  reproduced  on  the  following  pages   as  Figure  3.  It  has  been  re-­‐formatted  in  places  to  fit  on  8.5”  by  11”  pages;  as  used  in  the   study,  the  instrument  was  formatted  for  U.S.  legal-­‐size  paper  with  dimensions  of  8.5”  by   14”.  The  longer  pages  made  it  possible  for  students  to  report  all  the  reading  events  they   could  remember  from  a  single  day,  from  waking  in  the  morning  until  going  to  sleep  at  night,   on  a  single  sheet  of  paper  (as  opposed  to  having  the  chart  run  on  to  a  second  sheet,  and   requiring  participants  to  do  much  more  page  turning).   178   Figure  3.  Structured  written  interview  instrument.   Ways of Reading – Written interview Grade: _________ Gender (circle one): Male / Female Thank you for taking a few minutes to complete this short survey about reading. Question #1: How many different ways do you know to move using your feet? In your head, count the number of different ways you know how to move using your feet. Write that number here: __________ Question #2: How many different ways do you know how to read? In your head, count the number of different ways you know how to read. Write that number here: __________ Part 1: Reading at School Question #3: This next question is about what you do as a reader on a typical school day. Directions 179   Figure  3  (cont’d)   First step: Think of a typical school day—maybe yesterday or the day before. Then, in the empty chart on the following page, draw a black circle dot in the middle column under the title “Times I Read” for each time you did some reading on that day. (It doesn’t matter what you were reading. Reading the back of a cereal box or a text message counts as reading. So does reading a textbook or a novel.) Next, write a short description of what you were reading next to each black dot (like in the example below). Don’t worry about spelling. Time of Day Times I read 6am – 7am  I read words on screen while playing my video game  I read the back of a cereal box  I read my novel on the bus  I read a text message from my friend  I read my social studies textbook  I read my math textbook 7am – 8am 8am – 9am Short description Now it’s your turn: Time of Day Times I read Short description 5am – 6am 6am – 7am 7am – 8am 8am – 9am 9am – 10am   180   Figure  3  (cont’d)     10am – 11am 11am – 12noon 12noon – 1pm 1pm – 2pm 2pm – 3pm 3pm – 4pm 4pm – 5pm 5pm – 6pm 6pm – 7pm 7pm – 8pm 8pm – 9pm 9pm – 10pm 10pm – 11pm 11pm – 12midnight 181   Figure  3  (cont’d)     12midnight – 1am Second step: When you are done adding black dots to the chart, choose a colored pencil (any color you like). Then go through the whole chart, top to bottom, and circle all the “reading times” (all the black dots) where it felt like you were reading in the same way. For example, if it felt like you were doing the same thing when you read the words on the screen in your video game and when you read the back of a cereal box, you would circle those two black dots with the same color. When you get to a “reading time” (a black dot) where you think you were reading in a different way, switch to a different colored pencil. For example, if you were reading in a different way when you read your novel and when you read the back of a cereal box, switch to a different color to show the difference. Keep going down the page and switch to a new color whenever you say to yourself, “For this black dot, I was reading in a different way than at the other times I read.” After filling in the chart for a few minutes, it might look something like this: Time of Day 6am – 7am Times I read Short description I read words on screen while playing my video game I read the back of a cereal box 7am – 8am I read my novel on the bus I read a text message from my friend 8am – 9am I read my social studies textbook I read my math textbook Question #4: Directions Now you’re going to make a legend to explain the colors you used in your school day reading chart. 182   Figure  3  (cont’d)   In the “Color” column of the chart below, draw a circle in a separate row with each different colored pencil that you used before. Then use the column on the right to explain what made this way of reading different from other ways of reading. Don’t worry about spelling or writing complete sentences! What’s important is to jot down your thoughts about what made each way of reading seem different or feel different to you. My ways of reading on a school day: Color Explain what makes this way of reading look or feel different   183   Figure  3  (cont’d)     (If you need more space to write, please use the back of this page.) Part 2: Reading on the Weekend Question #5: This next question is about what you do as a reader on a typical weekend day. Directions First step: Think of a typical weekend day—maybe last Saturday or Sunday. Then, in the chart on the next page, draw a black circle dot in the “Times I Read” column for each time you did some reading on that day. (It doesn’t matter what you were reading. Reading the back of a cereal box or a friend’s Facebook webpage counts as reading. So does reading a novel or a magazine.) Next, write a short description of what you were reading next to each black dot (like in the example below). Don’t worry about spelling. Time of Day 8am – 9am Times I read Short description I read the back of a cereal box I read my novel on the couch 9am – 10am I read a magazine I read an email from my grandparents 10am – 11am I read my friend’s Facebook webpage 184   Figure  3  (cont’d)   Time of Day Times I read Short description 5am – 6am 6am – 7am 7am – 8am 8am – 9am 9am – 10am 10am – 11am 11am – 12noon 12noon – 1pm 1pm – 2pm 2pm – 3pm 3pm – 4pm 4pm – 5pm 5pm – 6pm   185   Figure  3  (cont’d)     6pm – 7pm 7pm – 8pm 8pm – 9pm 9pm – 10pm 10pm – 11pm 11pm – 12midnight 12midnight – 1am Second step: When you are done adding black dots to the chart, choose a colored pencil (any color you like). Then go through the whole chart, top to bottom, and circle all the “reading times” (all the black dots) where it felt like you were reading in the same way. For example, if it felt like you were doing the same thing when you read the back of a cereal box and when you read a magazine, you would circle those two black dots with the same color. When you get to a “reading time” (a black dot) where you think you were reading in a different way, switch to a different colored pencil. For example, if you think you were reading in a different way when you read your novel and when you read the back of a cereal box, switch to a different color to show the difference. Keep going down the page and switch to a new color whenever you say to yourself, “For this black dot, I was reading in a different way than at the other times I read.” After filling in the chart for a few minutes, it might look something like this: Time of Day 8am – 9am Times I read Short description I read the back of a cereal box 186   Figure  3  (cont’d)     I read my novel on the couch 9am – 10am I read a magazine I read an email from my grandparents 10am – 11am I read my friend’s Facebook webpage Question #6: Directions Now you’re going to make a legend to explain the colors you used in your weekend reading chart (like you did for the school day reading chart). In the “Color” column of the chart below, draw a circle in a separate row with each different colored pencil that you used before. Then use the column on the right to explain what made this way of reading different from other ways of reading. Don’t worry about spelling or writing complete sentences! What’s important is to jot down your thoughts about what made each way of reading seem different or feel different to you. My ways of reading on a weekend day: Color Explain what makes this way of reading look or feel different 187   Figure  3  (cont’d)     (If you need more space to write, please use the back of this page.) Part 3: Other Ways of Reading Question #7: Next-to-Next-to-Last Question Directions Are there any other ways of reading that you sometimes do that you haven’t mentioned yet? Please use this next chart to name any other way of reading you can think of—even if it is a way of reading that you’re not sure “counts” as a way of reading. Other ways of reading I haven’t mentioned so far   Where/when/why do you do this? 188   What makes this way of reading different from other ways? Figure  3  (cont’d)     Question #8: Next-to-Last Question Directions Turn back to Question #2 on the first page of the survey and look at the answer you wrote. Take a minute to decide if you have changed your mind about this answer. If you have changed your mind at all, draw a line through the number you wrote earlier and write your new answer next to it. If you have not changed your mind, put a check mark (√) next to the answer you wrote earlier. Question #9: Last Question Directions Have you ever invented a new way of reading? (Circle one:) YES / NO In the future, do you think you will invent a new way of reading? (Circle one:) YES / NO If you answered YES to either of these questions, please give an example and/or explain your answer here: 189   Figure  3  (cont’d)   (If you need more space to write, please use the back of this page.) This is the end of the survey. Thank you very much for your time!   190   Appendix  B:  Researcher  Script  For  Written  Interviews    [After  confirming  the  names  of  the  1-­‐3  student(s)  attending  the  session  and  having   each  student  read  and  sign  the  participant  assent  form,  the  researcher  said  the  following:]     Thank  you  very  much  for  meeting  with  me  today  to  answer  some  questions  about   reading  and  about  you  as  a  reader—what  you  read  and  when  you  read,  at  home  and  at   school,  what  you  like  to  read,  and  so  on.     As  you  already  know,  this  is  not  a  test  of  any  kind.  There  are  no  right  or  wrong   answers  to  the  questions  I’m  going  to  ask  you.  This  is  simply  a  chance  for  me  to  find  out,   from  you,  about  your  reading  habits,  the  sorts  of  things  you  like  to  do  or  don’t  like  to  do   when  you  read,  and  so  on.   All  that  really  matters  is  that  you  take  your  time  with  each  question  and  answer  it  as   honestly,  fully,  and  specifically  as  possible.     As  you  already  know,  your  answers  today  will  be  de-­‐identified-­‐-­‐which  means  that   no  one  will  know  which  answers  were  given  by  you.  Your  name  will  not  be  connected  to   your  answers.  So  I  hope  that  makes  you  feel  comfortable  about  giving  completely  honest   answers.  No  teachers  or  parents  or  anyone  else  will  know  which  answers  were  given  by   you.   And  of  course,  if  you  have  any  questions  about  the  questions-­‐-­‐if  it’s  not  clear  to  you   what  a  question  is  asking,  or  if  there’s  a  word  that’s  confusing-­‐-­‐please  go  ahead  and  ask  me   right  away.     Any  questions  for  me  so  far?   [After  answering  any  questions:]  Great.  Well,  let’s  turn  to  the  written  interview   pages  you  have  in  front  of  you.  The  questions  I’m  going  to  ask  you  are  printed  on  these   191   pages.  I  thought  it  would  be  helpful  to  have  the  questions  written  down.  That  way,  I’ll  read   the  questions,  but  you  can  reread  them  if  you  want,  and  you  can  take  your  time  to  think  and   then  write  your  answer  in  the  space  that’s  provided.     So  let’s  get  started  on  the  first  page.   One  main  thing  I’m  curious  about,  in  terms  of  you  as  a  reader  and  how  you  read,  is   whether  to  you  it  feels  like  you  always  read  in  the  same  way  every  time  you  read.  When   you  pick  up  a  book  or  a  magazine  or  read  something  on  the  computer,  does  it  feel  to  you   like  your  brain  is  doing  the  same  thing  every  time?  Or  does  it  sometimes  feel  like  there’s  a   difference,  and  that  now  when  you’re  reading  your  brain  is  doing  one  sort  of  thing,  but  at   another  time,  when  you’re  reading  something  else,  or  when  you’re  at  home  instead  of  at   school,  or  when  you’re  in  a  different  mood,  your  brain  is  doing  something  different?   That  may  sound  a  bit  confusing,  so  I’ll  explain  what  I  mean  a  bit  more  by  comparing   reading  to  other  things  we  all  probably  do  every  day,  like  brushing  our  teeth,  or  moving   around  on  our  feet.     Think  about  those  activities  for  a  minute,  brushing  your  teeth  and  moving  around   on  your  feet.  Do  you  always  do  those  things,  brush  your  teeth  and  move  around  on  your   feet,  in  pretty  much  exactly  the  same  way?  Or  do  you  sometimes  do  them  in  different  ways?   If  I  were  answering  that  question,  I  might  say:  Well,  I  pretty  much  brush  my  teeth  in   exactly  the  same  way  before  I  go  to  bed  every  night.  My  son,  on  the  other  hand-­‐-­‐he  seems  to   brush  his  teeth  in  several  different  ways.  So  he  would  give  a  different  answer.  But  me,  I   brush  my  teeth  in  basically  the  same  way  every  time.  But  now  with  moving  around  on  my   feet,  that’s  different  for  me.  With  that  I’d  say,  I  sometimes,  stroll,  when  I’m  not  in  a  rush.   192   Sometimes  I  jog,  to  get  exercise.  Sometimes  I  sprint-­‐-­‐when  I’m  playing  soccer.  And  I  also   dance.  So  those  are,  for  me,  different  ways  of  moving  around  on  my  feet.   And  these  silhouette  pictures  here,  on  the  page,  show  some  different  ways  that  some   people  have  of  moving  around  on  their  feet.   But  it’s  probably  the  case  that  everyone  is  a  bit  different,  or  even  very  different.  You   might  brush  your  teeth  in  just  one  way,  the  same  way  every  time,  or  you  might  have   different  ways  of  brushing  your  teeth.  And  the  same  thing  with  moving  around  on  your   feet.  You  might  have  just  one  way,  or  three  or  four  ways,  or  more  than  that.  It’s  very   different  from  person  to  person,  and  that’s  completely  okay.   So  let’s  start  by  thinking  about  just  that  one:  moving  around  on  your  feet.  Think   about  yourself,  and  what  you  do  in  your  life,  at  school  and  at  home,  on  weekdays  and  on  the   weekend.  And  then  answer  that  first  question  on  page  one:  How  many  different  ways  do   you  know  to  move  around  on  your  feet?  Write  the  number  there.  [Pause]   Great.  Now  let’s  go  back  to  talking  about  reading.  The  rest  of  this  interview  is  about   reading,  and  in  a  minute  I’m  going  to  ask  you  to  tell  me  about  a  regular  school  day,  and  all   the  times  that  you  read  something  on  a  regular  school  day,  from  when  you  woke  up  until   when  you  went  to  sleep.     But  before  we  get  into  those  details,  I’m  curious  to  know  what  you’re  thinking  right   now,  about  reading,  and  about  whether  as  a  reader  you  have  one  way  of  reading  that  you   use  all  the  time,  or  more  than  one.  Take  a  minute  to  think:  When  I  read,  does  it  feel  like  I’m   doing  the  same  thing  every  time,  or  do  I  sometimes  read  in  one  way,  sometimes  in  a   different  way?  How  many  different  ways  of  reading  do  I  know  and  do  I  do  on  a  typical  day?   One  way,  two  different  ways,  or  more  than  that?     193   And  again:  there  are  no  correct  or  incorrect  answers  here.  It’s  simply  what’s  true  for   you.  This  is  a  personal  question  that  only  you  can  answer  for  yourself  and  what  you  do.     After  thinking  about  it,  go  ahead  and  write  your  answer  there.  [Pause]   Great.   [From  this  point  on,  the  script  follows  the  directions  printed  on  the  written   interview  instrument  (see  Appendix  A).  The  researcher  read  these  directions  aloud,  one   section  at  a  time,  and  then  waited  for  participants  to  complete  that  section  before  moving   on  to  the  next  section.]     194   Appendix  C:  Texts  Referenced  And/Or  Read  During  Case  Study  Sessions     List  One:  Texts  provided  by  the  researcher   Note:  Texts  marked  with  an  asterisk  were  provided  to,  and  read  by,  all  six  case  study   participants  during  one  of  their  case  study  sessions.     Anderson,  M.  T.  (2002).  Feed.  Somerville,  MA:  Candlewick  Press.     Brittain,  B.  (1983).  The  wish  giver:  Three  tales  of  Coven  Tree.  New  York,  NY:  HarperTrophy.     Carnegie,  D.  (1981).  How  to  win  friends  and  influence  people  (rev.  ed.).  New  York,  NY:   Pocket  Books.     *The  History  Place  Great  Speeches  Collection.  (n.d.).  Chief  Joseph  surrenders.  Retrieved  from   http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/joseph.htm     *Ciardi,  J.  (1962).  About  the  teeth  of  sharks.  In  You  read  to  me,  I’ll  read  to  you.  Philadelphia,   PA:  Lippincott.     The  Charters  of  Freedom.  (n.d.).  The  Declaration  of  Independence:  A  transcription.   Retrieved  from  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_   transcript.html.     Edwards,  A.  (1967).  The  Bible  for  young  readers:  The  Old  Testament.  New  York,  NY:  Golden   Press.     *Florian,  D.  (1999).  The  tick.  In  Insectopedia.  New  York,  NY:  Scholastic.     *Gibbons,  G.  (1998).  Planet  earth  inside  out.  New  York,  NY:  HarperCollins.     *Lewis,  J.  P.  (1990).  The  beak  of  the  pelican.  In  A  hippopotamusn’t.  New  York,  NY:  The  Dial   Press.     *McConnell,  D.  (2002).  Michigan’s  story.  Hillsdale,  MI:  Hillsdale  Educational  Publishers.     *Nesbitt,  K.  (2005).  Good  morning,  dear  students.  In  When  the  teacher  isn’t  looking.   Minnetonka,  MN:  Meadowbrook  Press.     Ryan,  P.  M.  (2000).  Esperanza  rising.  New  York,  NY:  Scholastic.     *Schmidt,  G.  (2011).  Okay  for  now.  New  York,  NY:  Houghton  Mifflin  Harcourt.     *Spiegelman,  A.  (1992).  Maus  II:  A  survivor’s  tale.  New  York,  NY:  Pantheon  Books.   195     *The  Common  Application.  (2014).  The  common  application:  First-­‐year  application.   Retrieved  from  https://www.commonapp.org     List  Two:  Texts  provided  by  participants   Note:  All  participants  referenced  and/or  showed  and  read  text  messages,  images,  posts,   comments,  and  other  content  on  web  platforms  such  as  Facebook  or  Pinterest.  For  these   items,  I  have  listed  below  only  the  platform  used—not  the  individual  texts  that  were   referenced,  shown,  and/or  read.     Bushnell  Trail  Scout  Hunting  Camera.  (n.d.).  In  Bushnell  Company  website.    Retrieved  from   http://www.bushnell.com/getmedia/9006f198-­‐317c-­‐44c7-­‐8af1-­‐ 369c205d5e15/119835_119937_1199071LIM.pdf?ext=.pdf     Clare,  C.  (2008).  City  of  bones.    New  York,  NY:  Margaret  K.  McElderry  Books.     Clash  of  Clans.  (2012).  Supercell  [Mobile  application  software].  Retrieved  from   http://supercell.com/en/games/clashofclans/     Clash  of  Clans  Wiki.  [Web  application  software].  (n.d.)  Retrieved  from   http://clashofclans.wikia.com/wiki/Clash_of_Clans_Wiki     Collins,  S.  (2008).  The  hunger  games.  New  York,  NY:  Scholastic.     D’Arge,  M.  (2009).  Lifting  the  sky.  New  York,  NY:  Bloomsbury  USA  Childrens.     Facebook.  [Web  application  software].  (n.d.).  Retrieved  from  http://www.facebook.com     Fun  Run.  (2012).  Dirtybit  [Mobile  application  software].  Retrieved  from   http://dirtybit.no/funrun/#.VSQu95TF-­‐oA     Geometry  Dash.  (n.d.).  RobTop  Games  AB  [Mobile  application  software].  Retrieved  from   http://www.robtopgames.com/     Grizzly  attack.  (July/August  2014).  In  Turkey  Country  Magazine,  5(6),  50-­‐65.     Heritage  Units.  (n.d.).  [Website].  Retrieved  from  https://heritageunits.com/     Herzog,  B.  (2009).  Full  count:  A  baseball  number  book.  New  York,  NY:  Ann  Arbor,  MI:   Sleeping  Bear  Press.     Hunter,  E.  (2011).  The  forgotten  warrior.  New  York,  NY:  HarperCollins.     196   Model  Railroader.  (n.d.).  [Online  magazine].  Retrieved  from   http://mrr.trains.com/magazine.       Patterson,  J.  (2012).  Angel.  New  York,  NY:  Little,  Brown  and  Company.     Peterson,  M.  (2004).  Among  the  barons.  New  York,  NY:  Simon  &  Schuster.     Pinterest.  [Web  application  software].  (n.d.).  Retrieved  from  http://www.pinterest.com     Robertson,  S.  (2013).  Si-­cology:  Tales  and  wisdom  from  Duck  Dynasties  favorite  uncle.  New   York,  NY:  Howard  Books.       Sullivan  Supply.  (n.d.).  [Online  catalog].    Retrieved  from  https://www.sullivansupply.com/     Trains  (n.d.).  [Online  magazine].  Retrieved  from  http://trn.trains.com/magazine     Tumblr.  [Web  application  software].  (n.d.).  Retrieved  from  https://www.tumblr.com     Turkey  Country.  (n.d.).  [Online  magazine].  Retrieved  from   http://www.turkeycountrymagazine.com/     Twitter.  [Web  application  software].  (n.d.).  Retrieved  from  http://www.twitter.com               197   Appendix  D:  Example  Semi-­‐structured  Conversation  Question  Stems       Below  are  examples  of  core  questions  and  follow-­‐up  questions  used  during  the   semi-­‐structured  conversation  component  of  the  study’s  case  study  sessions  conducted  with   six  participants.       • Tell  me  more  about  what  you  were  doing  and  feeling  just  now,  as  a  reader,  while   you  were  reading….?   • The  way  you  were  reading  just  now—was  that  the  same  as,  or  different  from,  what   you  were  doing  and  feeling  earlier  when  you  were  reading….?   • Can  you  say  more  about  what  felt  different  to  you?   • Were  there  things  you  noticed  your  brain  doing  here,  when  you  were  reading  this   text,  that  you  didn’t  notice  your  brain  doing  earlier  when  you  were  reading...?   • Can  you  tell  me  a  bit  more  about  that?   • Were  there  things  you  noticed  your  eyes  doing  here,  when  you  were  reading  this   text,  that  you  didn’t  notice  your  eyes  doing  before  when  you  were  reading...?   • Can  you  tell  me  a  bit  more  about  that?   • Were  there  things  you  were  feeling  as  you  read  this  text  that  felt  different  from  what   you  were  feeling  when  you  were  reading….?   • Can  you  tell  me  more  about  that?   • Can  you  tell  me  more  about  the  times  or  places  that  you  read  in  this  way?   • Can  you  tell  me  a  bit  more  about  that?   • Can  you  tell  me  about  when  you  first  started  reading  in  this  way?   198   • Can  you  tell  me  about  how  you  learned  to  read  in  this  way?   • Can  you  tell  me  a  bit  more  about  that?   • Anything  else?       199   Appendix  E:  Codes  Developed  For  Case  Study  Data     The  following  codes  were  used  with  participants’  case  study  data.  In  Table  8  below,   codes  are  grouped  in  two  areas:  codes  to  identify  criteria  participants  used  to  distinguish   among  their  MOs,  and  codes  to  identify  other  types  of  information  provided  by  participants   about  reading,  about  themselves  as  readers  (globally),  about  the  genesis  of  reading  MOs,   about  reading  instruction  at  school,  and  other  reading-­‐  and  literacy-­‐related  topics.   Table  8   Codes  Used  to  Analyze  Transcripts  of  Case  Study  Sessions   Code  ID   Code  Short  Description   Code  Explanation   Codes  for  criteria  used  to  distinguish  among  MOs   ACT   To  guide  specific  action   Information  about  a  MO  being   connected  to  specific  action  in  the  world.   ALPH   Alphabetic  text  only  or   mixed/additional  sign  systems   Information  about  a  MO  being  fitted  for   strictly  alphabetic  text  only  or  for  text   involving  other  semiotic  systems.   COMM   With  internal  running   commentary   Information  about  a  MO  involving   interior  running  commentary  in  the   reader’s  mind.   CONC   Reader’s  level  of  concentration   matters   Information  about  a  MO  having   particular  requirements  for   concentration  or  focus  on  the  reader’s   part.   CRFT   Text’s  craft  or  style  matter   Information  about  a  MO  being  fitted  for   texts  based  on  their  style  or  craft.   DIFF   Difficulty  of  the  text  being  read   matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  fitted  for   texts  based  on  their  level  of  difficulty  (as   perceived  by  the  reader  him/herself).   DUR   Duration  of  the  reading  event   Information  about  a  MO  being  suitable   based  on  the  duration  of  the  reading   event.     200   Table  8  (cont’d)     EFF   Reader’s  level  of  effort  matters   Information  about  a  MO  involving  or   requiring  a  particular  level  of  effort  on   the  reader’s  part.   EMO   Emotions  associated  with  this   MO  matter   Information  about  a  MO  being  linked  to   particular  emotions  or  a  particular  level   of  emotional  intensity.   ENJ   Reader’s  enjoyment  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  linked  to   a  particular  level  of  quality  of   enjoyment.   FREQ   Frequency  of  use  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  identified   by  virtue  of  the  frequency  with  which  it   is  used.   GENR   Genre  of  the  text  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  linked  to   a  particular  genre  or  genres.   GRAPH   Graphical  dimension  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  linked  to   elements  of  graphicacy.   IND   Independence  as  reader  matters   Information  about  a  MO  involving  or   requiring  a  particular  experience  of   readerly  independence.   INFO   Learning  new  information   matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  suited  to   learning  new  information.   INTS   Reader’s  level  of  interest  matters   Information  about  a  MO  involving  or   requiring  a  particular  level  of  reader   interest.   LOC   Location  of  reading  event   matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  linked  to   a  particular  location.   MALL   Malleability  of  the  text  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  fitted  for   texts  that  are  malleable.   MEM   Memorization  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  suitable   for  memorizing  information.   NAV   Navigability  of  the  text  matters   Information  about  a  MO  involving  or   requiring  particular  text-­‐navigation   affordances  and/or  skills.   NUMB   Number  of  texts  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  suited  for   suited  for  reading  one  text  at  a  time  or   more  the  one  text  at  a  time.     201   Table  8  (cont’d)     PHYS   Reader’s  physical  posture   and/or  movements  matter   Information  about  a  MO  being   associated  with  particular  physical   posture  and/or  body  movements.   PREF   Personal  preference  for  MO   matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  preferred   or  not.   PROF   Proficiency  with  MO  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  identified   by  its  user  by  virtue  of  his/her   proficiency  with  it.   PURP   Reader’s  purpose  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  linked  to   a  particular  purpose  the  reader  aims  to   accomplish.  (There  is  arguably  some   overlap  possible  between  this  code  and   enjoyment  and  learning  new  information   [if  either  of  those  is  perceived  as  the   purpose  a  reader  aims  to  achieve].   However,  there  are  obviously  many   other  purposes  besides  enjoyment  and   learning  new  information,  and  it  is   appropriate  to  code  both  for  PURP  and   also  for  ENJ  and/or  for  INFO  in  cases   where  a  purpose  such  as  “memorizing   lines”  or  “relieving  stress”  is  aimed  for   and  the  reading  experience  is   additionally  enjoyable  or  informative.)   REF   Referentiality  of  the  text  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being   specifically  linked  to  the  referential   status  or  authenticity  of  a  text.   REQ   Whether  the  reading  is  required   or  not  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  identified   by  its  user  in  terms  of  whether  or  not  a   particular  reading  activity  was  required   or,  on  the  other  hand,  freely  chosen.   REV   Reader’s  level  of  reverence   matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  fitted  for,   or  responsive  to,  a  particular  level  of   reverence  the  reader  feels  for  the  text.   SOC   Social  interactions  or  context   reading  is  connected  to  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being   associated  with,  and/or  fitted  for,   particular  social  interactions  or  context.   SPEE   Speed  of  reading  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being   associated  with,  or  fitted  for,  a  particular   speed  of  reading.   202   Table  8  (cont’d)     STR   Use  of  reading  comprehension   strategies  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being   associated  with,  or  fitted  for,  the  use  of   particular  reading  comprehension   strategies.   STRS   Stress  during  reading  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  linked  to   a  particular  type  or  level  of  stress   experienced  by  the  reader.   SUBJ   Subject  matter  of  the  text   matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  linked  to,   or  suited  to,  particular  topic  or  subject   matter.   TECH   Technology  used  to  read  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being   associated  with,  or  fitted  for,  particular   use  of  reading  technology.   TIME   Time  of  day/week  matters   Information  about  a  MO  being  linked  to,   or  fitted  for,  reading  at  a  particular  time   of  day  or  week.   WRIT   Combined  with  writing  activity   matters   Information  about  a  MO  involving  or   requiring  some  type  of  writing  activity.   Code  ID   Code  Description   Code  Details   Codes  for  other  categories  of  information   GEN   Genesis  of  MO(s)   Information  provided  about  the  history   of  a  MO.   INFL   Influence  on  MOs   Information  about  a  specific  influence   that  shaped  one  or  more  MOs.   R-­‐MAT   Reading  materials  referenced   Information  about  specific  reading   materials.   REG-­‐M   Regulation  of  MOs     Information  about  the  regulation  of   MOs,  especially  about  choices  or   decisions  regarding  which  MO  to  apply,   or  switching  between  MOs.   REG-­‐S   Regulation  of  reading   comprehension  strategies   Information  about  the  regulation  of   reading  comprehension  strategies.     203   Appendix  F:  Reading  Comprehension  Strategy  Codes     Table  9  lists  the  eleven  codes  and  corresponding  reading  comprehension  strategies   for  which  I  coded  case  study  participants’  verbal  protocols  of  reading.  These  eleven   strategies  were  selected  as  examples  of  the  sorts  of  locally  targeted  strategies  that  since  the   1980s  have  increasingly  been  taught  to  students  in  K-­‐12  classrooms.  In  the  school  district   where  this  dissertation  study  was  conducted,  these  strategies  are  taught  starting  in   Kindergarten.  At  the  Kindergarten  level,  visualizing,  predicting,  and  making  connections  are   taught  and  practiced;  additional  strategies  from  this  list  are  taught  in  subsequent  years.  All   the  strategies  listed  here  have  been  taught  and  practiced  by  the  end  of  fourth  grade.     Table  9   Codes  Used  to  Analyze  Verbal  Protocols  of  Reading  to  Identify  Reading  Comprehension   Strategies  Applied  by  Case  Study  Participants     Code  ID   Code  Description   Code  Explanation   KNOW   activating  prior  knowledge   The  reader  recalls  what  he/she  already   knows  about  a  topic.   CRFT   attending  to  text  features  and/or   The  reader  uses  observations  of  text   text  structure   features  or  text  structures  to  guide   his/her  construction  of  meaning  from  the   text.   QUES   generating  and  asking  questions   The  reader  formulates  and  poses   questions  during  reading.   PRED   making  predictions   The  reader  formulates  a  prediction  about   what  will  happen  next  in  the  text.   VISU   visualizing   The  reader  makes  a  mental  image  as   he/she  constructs  meaning  from  the  text.     204   Table  9  (cont’d)     PARA   Paraphrasing   The  reader  reformulates  words  or   sentences  he/she  has  just  read  in  his/her   own  words.   SUMM   summarizing   The  reader  distills  the  main  ideas  or  gist   of  a  passage  he/she  has  just  read.   INFER   making  inferences   The  reader  infers  information  that  was   not  explicitly  stated  in  the  text.   CON-­‐S   making  connections  to  self   The  reader  draws  a  link  between   information  in  the  text  and  an  aspect  of   his/her  own  life  and  experience.   CON-­‐T   making  connections  to  other   texts   The  reader  draws  a  link  between   information  in  the  text  he/she  is  reading   and  information  in  another  text.   MONIT   comprehension  monitoring   The  reader  checks  that  his/her   comprehension  of  the  text  he/she  is   reading  appears  to  be  satisfactorily   coherent  and  accurate.     205   Appendix  G:  Case  Study  Participants’  MOs     The  following  six  tables  (10-­‐15)  list  all  the  reading  MOs  reported  by  six  case  study   participants  over  the  course  of  this  study,  comprising  both  (a)  MOs  they  initially  reported   in  their  responses  to  the  written  interview  and  (b)  MOs  they  subsequently  reported  during   case  study  sessions.   Table  10   Case  Study  Participant  Nick’s  MOs     MO  ID   MO  Description   MO06.01.01     Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  “normal  or  regular  novel   reading.”  This  MO  is  used  when  Nick  can  “concentrate  the  best.”  “It's   normally  when  I'm  at  home  or  when  the  place  I'm  at  is  quiet  or   tranquil.”   MO06.01.02   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  print   informational  texts.  “I  do  this  with  history  or  science  texts.”   MO06.01.03   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  the  clock.  It's   different  because  it  involves  reading  numbers  on  the  clock  face.   MO06.01.04   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  “learning  words  in  [his]   spelling  word  book.”     MO06.01.05   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  labels  on   products.   MO06.01.06   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  “special   symbols”  that  are  “normally  in  older  books.”  He  noted  that  he  does  not   use  this  MO  much.   MO06.02.07   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  articles  on  the   internet.  “It’s  a  quick  skimming  way  of  reading.”  Even  though  he   associates  it  strongly  with  reading  on  the  internet,  Nick  reported  that   he  can  “use  it  when  reading  online  but  also  with  some  print  texts  for   reading  news  articles.”   MO06.02.08   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  autobiographies.   This  MO  is  a  sub-­‐type  of  MO06.01.01  that  he  uses  for  reading  novels.   “This  is  a  bit  different,  because  it’s  the  story  of  a  real  person.”     206   Table  10  (cont’d)     MO06.02.09   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  poems.  This  MO   is  a  sub-­‐type  of  MO06.01.01  according  to  Nick.   MO06.02.10   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  football  player   cards  containing  stats  and  biographical  information.   MO06.02.11   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  the  Christian   Bible  specifically.  It  is  most  similar  to  MO06.01.02  used  with   informational  texts.   MO06.02.12   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  sports   magazines  specifically,  such  as  the  ESPN  sports  magazine.  He  is  an   avid  sports  fan.   MO06.04.13   Nick  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  what  he  called  “social   reading”:  “This  is  for  reading  YouTube  comments  and  text  like  that.   You  can  reply  and  also  be  replied  to.”     Table  11   Case  Study  Participant  Samantha’s  MOs     MO  ID   MO  Description   MO05.01.01   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  pleasure  reading:   “I  read  this  way  for  more  of  a  fun.  I  just  skim  or  look  at  pictures  and   captions.”  This  MO  is  often  used  with  magazines.   MO05.01.02   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  to  read  “in  depth.”  In   this  MO,  she  uses  “all  of  [her]  reading  skills  and  I  really  understand   what  I'm  reading.”  This  MO  is  mostly  for  novel  reading.   MO05.01.03   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  texting.  It  involves   knowing  and  using  many  “abbreviations”  and  “I  usually  have  a  reply   for  this  kind  of  reading.”  While  reading,  she  is  “thinking  as  I'm  reading   of  what  I'm  going  to  say  back  to  them.”  This  MO  also  involves  special   symbols  such  as  emojis.   MO05.01.04   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  when  reading   instructions  to  accomplish  a  task  outside  the  world  of  the  text:  “I  have   to  follow  instructions  for  this  kind  of  reading.  To  understand  what  I   need  to  do.”   MO05.01.05   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  math   problems:  “This  way  of  reading  I  have  to  really  think  and  answer  all   the  questions  to  the  problem.”   207   Table  11  (cont’d)     MO05.01.06   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  on  a   screen:  “Reading  on  technology  is  completely  different  because  you   have  to  read  abbreviations  or  reading  fast  if  it's  moving”  (i.e.,  if  you  or   someone  else  is  scrolling  up  or  down  a  page).  This  MO  is  separate  from   MO05.01.03  for  texting.   MO05.01.07   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  plays  or   scripts:  “when  I'm  in  a  play,  so  I  know  my  lines.”  This  MO  also  involves   activating  and  using  “a  lot  of  emotion.”   MO05.01.08   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  a  novel   when  she  will  have  to  take  a  test.  This  MO  is  a  sub-­‐type  of  MO05.02.02.   “When  it’s  for  AR  testing  I  really  pay  attention  to  get  100%.  I  do  more   rereading  and  I  use  all  my  reading  skills,  like  inferring,  looking  back,   asking  questions,  and  others.  I  also  look  up  new  words.  It  involves   staying  focused  on  just  one  book  only.”   MO05.02.09   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  novel  reading  that   is  entirely  recreational.  This  MO  is  a  sub-­‐type  of  MO05.02.02.  “I  do   some  skimming  if  it’s  boring.  I  sometimes  draw  pictures.  And  I  can   intersperse  one  book  with  another.  For  example,  I  sometimes  read  one   chapter  in  one  book  and  then  switch.”   MO05.02.10   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading   informational  texts.  “You’re  learning  a  lot.  They  don’t  use  first  person,   so  that  makes  it  boring.  It  involves  retelling  and  using  some  reading   skills.  It  involves  remembering  what  teachers  have  said.”   MO05.03.11   Samantha  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  and   memorizing  pattern  cards  for  horse  showmanship  competitions.  This   MO  is  somewhat  similar  to  MO05.01.04  insofar  as  it’s  about  following   instructions,  but  this  way  centrally  involves  non-­‐alphabetic  symbols.   (Note:  MO05.01.03  for  texting  also  involves  non-­‐alphabetic  symbols,   such  as  emojis,  but  these  convey  emotion,  not  just  referential   information,  and  they  require  different  skills  and  mindset  to  read.)     208   Table  12   Case  Study  Participant  Cara’s  MOs     MO  ID   MO  Description   MO04.01.01   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  that  involves  reading  to  find  clues  to   solve  problems  that  are  objectively  there  in  the  text:  “I  would  read  to   find  a  problem,  then  I  would  try  to  get  the  answer  before  the  answer  is   given  away.  I  would  find  clues  or  go  ahead  a  couple  pages.”  This  MO   “can  be  used  with  a  novel  [and]  also  with  a  news  article  or  an   informational  text.”   MO04.01.02   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  music:  “I  would   read  a  sheet  of  music  so  that  I  know  what  notes  to  play  and  get  the   song  right.”   MO04.01.03   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  when  she  reads  a  text  to   assist  someone  else:  “I  would  be  reading  to  someone  who  needs  help   to  read  or  had  some  trouble  with  a  word.”  Cara  has  younger  siblings   who  are  learning  to  read.  She  uses  this  MO  when  her  goal  is  to  “show   him  [a  sibling]  and  tell  him  the  clues  to  find  the  meaning.”   MO04.01.04   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  instructions,   such  as  recipes:  “I  would  be  reading  instructions  on  how  to  make   something  correctly.”  This  way  of  reading  is  harder  and  slower  than   (MO04.01.02),  which  she  uses  for  reading  musical  notation.  “They  are   similar,  though.”   MO04.01.05   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  when  reading  on  her   tablet:    “This  way  of  reading  is  what  things  I  ...  do  on  my  tablet,  or  tell   someone  something  on  my  tablet.”  Cara  referred  to  playing  games  on   her  tablet.   MO04.01.06   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  when  doing  assignments   that  require  her  to  follow  a  sequence  of  steps:  “Step  by  step  reading.  I   do  this  only  if  I  can't  figure  out  how  to  make  or  do  something.  I  don't   like  step-­‐by-­‐step  papers  because  there's  nothing  exciting  about  it.”   MO04.02.07   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  informational   texts,  especially  school  texts.  “The  paper  is  informational  and  not   funny  or  emotional.”     209   Table  12  (cont’d)     MO04.02.08   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  informational   texts  when  they  contain  news  that  she  knows  she  will  want  to  relay  to   others.  “This  way  of  reading  is  for  reading  news.  It  is  close  to   informational  reading  [MO04.02.07],  but  after  you  read  you  want  to   spread  it  urgently  and  share  the  news.  It  can  be  emotional,  though  it   isn’t  always.  This  also  makes  it  different  from  informational  reading   which  is  not  funny  or  emotional.”   MO04.03.09   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  her  “confused  way  of  reading”  for  fixing-­‐ up  comprehension  breakdowns.  She  switches  into  this  MO  when  she   feels  lost:  “like  if  I  get  to  a  confusing  paragraph,  I'll  reread  it,  and  then   go  back  over  what  I  read,  and  reread  up  to  that  paragraph,  and  then   you  read  it,  and  try  to  understand  what  the  author  meant.”   MO04.04.010   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  switches  into  for  reading  novels   when  she  is  experiencing  deep  and  intense  absorption  in  the  events   and  characters  of  a  story.  She  sometimes  called  this  her  “riding  along”   way  of  reading,  as  in  the  following  comment:  “I'm  like  riding  along   with  them  [the  characters  in  the  novel  Haddix],  and  then  somebody,   sometimes  when  she  [the  protagonist]  forgets  something,  I'll  instantly   remember  it,  and  it's  like,  I'm  with  them,  but  then  I  can't  tell  them   anything.  So  it's  like  I'm  just  riding  along  with  them.”   MO04.04.11   Cara  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  math  problems.   “This  is  a  math  problem  way  of  reading.  I  use  it  with  catalogs  as  well.  It   involves  figuring  out  the  one  best  way  and  right  way  to  solve  a   problem.”  It  involves  coming  to  a  single  definite  answer.  For  example,   looking  for  the  precise  difference  in  price  between  two  items  in  a   catalog.       Table  13   Case  Study  Participant  Harry’s  MOs     MO  ID   MO  Description   MO03.01.01   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  when  reading  on  a  screen,   such  as  a  computer  screen.  (Note  that  MO03.02.07  below  is  also  used   for  reading  on  screens,  but  specifically  for  reading  and  using  screen   information  that  gets  displayed  during  a  video  game.)   MO03.01.02   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  textbooks  and   other  school  texts.       210   Table  13  (cont’d)     MO03.01.03   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  daily  for  pleasure  reading   and  enjoys  using  more  than  any  other  of  his  MOs  for  reading   traditional  print  text  (i.e.,  excluding  MOs  for  reading  on  a  screen):  “I   enjoy  reading  [this  way]  the  most,  like  after  school  and  free  time.”   Harry  explained  that  this  MO  is  somewhat  tied  to  the  time  of  day  when   he  tends  to  use  it,  but  “mostly  about  what  I’m  reading-­‐-­‐mostly  fiction,   adventure,  mystery.”   MO03.01.04   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  time  on  an   analog  clock  face.   MO03.01.05   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  “reading  my  spelling   book  to  sort  the  words  and  spell  them  and  learn  the  spelling.”   MO03.01.06   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  piano  notes.   MO03.02.07   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  specifically  for  “reading   stats,  numbers,  names”  when  he’s  playing  a  sports  video  game  on  the   screen.  This  MO  is  different  because  “it’s  hands  on,  and  I  can  change   the  appearance  of  the  text”  and  “you  get  to  control  everything.”   MO03.03.08   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  in  the  Christian   Bible.  He  explained  that,  “the  vocabulary  can  be  difficult,  but  it’s   truthful.”     MO03.03.09   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  specifically  for  reading  in   the  phone  book,  where  his  mind  works  “back  and  forth  from  symbols   to  numbers.”   MO03.03.10   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  “reading  forms  to  fill   out,  like  applications,  and  also  reading  instructions,  cookbooks,  and   blueprints.”  It  is  very  action  oriented  “because  you’ve  got  to  do   something  right  away.”   MO03.03.11   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  specifically  for  reading   baseball  cards.  It  combines  several  ways  of  reading,  such  as   informational  reading  (MO03.02.02),  enjoyment  reading   (MO03.01.03),  and  stats  reading  (MO03.01.07).   MO03.04.12   Harry  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  in  a  football   playbook  to  learn  plays.  The  text  being  read  consists  of  symbols,   arrows,  and  abbreviations.     211   Table  14   Case  Study  Participant  Astrid’s  MOs     MO  ID   MO  Description   MO02.01.01   Astrid  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  directions   and  instructions:  “When  I  read  directions  I'm  thinking  what  will  I  have   to  do  [in  the]  future,  and  I'm  focusing  on  them,  and  what  they  say,  and   what's  my  job.”   MO02.01.02   Astrid  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  when  texting:  “When  I'm   texting  mostly  because  I'm  not  thinking  about  it,  I'm  just  replying  to   the  person.”   MO02.01.03   Astrid  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  attentive,  sustained   reading:  “I'm  thinking  about  what  I'm  reading  but  I'm  mostly  trying  to   understand  what  the  author  is  telling  me  and  what's  going  on  in  the   story.”  This  way  of  reading  is  attentive  to  the  text’s  emotional  valence:   “It's  all  about  tone.”   MO02.01.04   Astrid  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  resorts  to  when  she  is   overwhelmed  by  the  text:  “You're  reading  but  you  don't  even  know   what  the  author  is  telling  you.”  This  MO  involves  reading  fast  and   skimming:  “I  tend  to  read  really  fast  and  skim.”   MO02.02.05   Astrid  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  informational  text   reading:  “This  means  that  you  have  to  slow  down  and  think  about   what  you’re  reading.  To  memorize  dates,  names,  etcetera,  and  really   think  about  the  information.”  This  MO  often  involves  rereading   sentences  and  paragraphs.   MO02.02.06   Astrid  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  on  a   computer  screen.  Reading  with  this  MO  involves  skimming  and  more   shallow  processing  of  information:  “When  you’re  reading  on   electronics  or  on  the  Internet,  you  don’t  really  think  about  it  as  much   as  books.”  (Note:  this  MO  for  “reading  on  electronics”  is  different  than   MO02.01.02,  used  for  reading  text  messages;  Astrid  describes  this  MO   as  being  most  similar  to  MO02.02.05,  used  for  informational  reading.)   MO02.03.07   Astrid  characterized  this  MO  as  one  that  is  “focused  on  paraphrasing   for  the  purpose  of  telling  someone  else  about  it.  You’re  still  taking  in   information,  like  with  the  other  one  [MO02.02.05],  but  this  is  more   stressful  than  that  [MO02.02.05].”   MO02.03.08   Astrid  characterized  this  MO  as  one  that  is  for  “reading  to  fill  out  an   [application]  form.  You’re  thinking  while  you’re  reading  to  grab   information  about  yourself  and  your  stuff.”     212   Table  14  (cont’d)     MO02.04.09   Astrid  characterized  this  MO  as  one  she  uses  for  reading  the  Christian   Bible:  “this  is  different  because  I’m  Christian  and  this  story  is  true,   while  a  novel  is  not  true.”     Table  15   Case  Study  Participant  Chris’s  MOs     MO  ID   MO  Description   MO01.01.01   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  involving  cursory  scanning  of  text  and   looking  at  pictures:  “I  look  up  then  back  down  to  what  I'm  reading.   Don't  pay  attention  to  much.”   MO01.01.02   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  the  MO  he  enjoys  most  and  uses  most   frequently:  “I  read  the  words,  then  do  something  else.  I  mostly  read   like  this.  I  like  to  read  like  this  alot.”  Chris  also  indicated  that  he  uses   this  MO  when  he  has  ample  time  to  read  (i.e.,  this  is  not  the  MO  he   would  use  when  reading  under  pressure  of  time  to  finish  reading  a   school-­‐assigned  text).         MO01.01.03   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  when  he  needs  to  stay   intently  focused  on  the  text  he  is  reading:  “I  stay  on  the  page  and  don't   really  look  up.  I  keep  my  eye  on  the  page.”  Compared  to  MO01.01.02,   this  MO  is  less  enjoyable  for  Chris.   MO01.01.04   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  one  in  which  he  does  not  have  sole   responsibility  for  decoding  the  text  at  hand;  a  second  and  more   proficient  reader  is  involved:  “I  let  the  person  read  and  I  follow.”   MO01.01.05   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  a  form  of  distracted,  desultory,  bored   reading:  “I  read,  then  I  look  up,  then  I  read  more.”  This  MO  is  used  “in   my  bed  [in  the  afternoon]  when  I  do  not  want  to  read.”  MO01.01.05   appears  similar  to  MO01.01.01.   MO01.02.06   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  when  reading  labels  and   names  on  objects,  such  as  the  names  painted  on  the  sides  of   locomotives.  Chris  is  an  avid  train  enthusiast  and  weekend  train-­‐ spotter;  he  collects  and  builds  model  trains,  and  spends  hours   watching  passing  trains  at  locations  he  has  scouted  out  in  advance.   Asked  to  explain  what  makes  this  MO  different  from  others,  he   explained:  “They're  shorter.  Words.  And  easier  to  read.”     213   Table  15  (cont’d)     MO01.03.07   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  to  “read  computers.”  (Note   that  Chris  reported  a  separate  MO,  MO01.05.12,  for  reading   specifically  on  a  small  hand-­‐held  digital  device.)   MO01.03.08   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  when  he  reads  “to  do   something  …  like  you're  going  to  be  writing  about  it.  So  you  read  it   different.”   MO01.04.09   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  when  studying  for  a  test.  It   feels  different  because  “I  wouldn't  read  fast,  I  would  read  slower,  and  I   would  probably  read  it  over  and  over  again.”   MO01.04.10   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  when  reading  texts  that  are   “not  normal  or  weird.”  Chris  reported  this  MO  as  distinct  from  the  MO   he  applies  when  a  text  is  “easy  and  it  makes  sense.”     MO01.04.11   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  when  reading  challenging   texts  for  which  he  is  prepared  to  think  hard  and  try  hard:  “In  this  way   of  reading,  I  think  more;  I  try  to  think  what’s  it’s  talking  about.”   MO01.05.12   Chris  characterized  this  MO  as  one  he  uses  for  reading  on  a  hand-­‐held   digital  device,  such  as  his  iPhone.  To  Chris  this  “feels  different  because   the  book  is  like  in  your  hand”  and  “it’s  different,  in  terms  of  what  your   hands  and  your  fingers  do.”  This  is  not  Chris’s  preferred  way  of   reading;  he  said  he  preferred  reading  a  paper-­‐print  book  “because  you   can  like  see  the  cover,  and  on  here,  it  just  opens  it  up  to  a  page  when   you  start  up.”       214   Appendix  H:  Examples  Of  Reading  Comprehension  Strategies  In  Use  By  Case  Study   Participants       Table  16   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Activating  Background  Knowledge   Participant   Example  of  activating  background  knowledge  in  use   Chris   “I  heard  of  the  bear  dunes,  I  think.”   Astrid   “I  remember  this  unit  we  did  in  science.”   Harry   “Like,  I've  heard  of  Wrigley  before.  Like  the  Chicago  Cubs,  I  think  their   stadium  is  called,  like,  Wrigley  Field.”   Cara   “Because  I  know  Al  Qaeda  is  the  main,  is  the  group  that  does  terrorist   attacks.”   Samantha   “They  can  make  anything  out  of  goat's  milk.  They  can  make  soap  with  it.”   (Note:  Samantha  reading  a  page  in  a  novel  that  mentions  goat  cheese.)   Nick   “I  think  I  read  something  about  that  guy,  Carmello  Anthony.     Table  17   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Attending  to  Text  Features  and/or  Structures   Participant   Example  of  attending  to  text  features  and/or  structures  in  use     Chris   “I  don't  know  who  that  is.  And...  Wait.  Where  is  the  first  page  at?  This  isn't   the  first  page.  Here,  this  is  the  first  page.”  (Note:  Chris  orienting  himself  to   the  opening  pages  of  the  graphic  novel  Maus.)   Astrid   “Normally  when  I'm  reading  like,  this  in  the  background  right  here,  these   little  captions  you  can  read  those,  but  you're  kind  of  thinking,  this  is  what   this  is,  but.…  Or  if  people  want  to  comment,  if  you're  thinking,  that's  really   cool,  you  just  kind  of  put  your  comment  up  here,  what  you're  thinking   about  it.”  (Note:  Astrid  reading  through  a  webpage  on  the  Pinterest   platform.)     215   Table  17  (cont’d)     Harry   “And  it  has  these  [quotation  marks],  so  it  must  be  someone  talking.  A   speech.”   Cara   “Sometimes  when  I  read  the  book,  they'll  drop  off...  like  if  they  switch   between  characters  [at  the  end  of  a  chapter],  they'll  drop  off.  And  then   switch  to  another  whole  story,  and  pick  up.”   Samantha   “There's  only  two  people  talking  and  there's  no  describing  of  things   really....  And  there's  tons  of  pictures.”   Nick   “Oh  god,  this  is  all,  how  long  is  this  [article]?  Okay,  this  is  probably  where   I'm  going  to  skim  some  parts.”     Table  18   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Generating  and  Asking  Questions   Participant   Example  of  generating  and  asking  questions  in  use     Chris   “The  earth  was  covered  with  oceans?”   Astrid   NA   Harry   NA   Cara   “Like  I'm  thinking,  like,  how  could  they  have  been  married  if  he's  like   mean  to  her,  and  then  like,  how  could  his  father  have  a  heart  attack  when   he  just  phoned  them.”   Samantha   NA   Nick   “The  Kremlin?  What  was  that?”     Table  19   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Making  Predictions   Participant   Example  of  making  predicting  in  use     Chris   “In  the  winter,  if  water  is  going  through,  it  can  freeze.”     216   Table  19  (cont’d)     Astrid   “I  wouldn't  read  all  of  them,  because,  basically,  I  can  already  expect  what   they're  going  to  say,  like,  oh  yeah  you're  so  cool,  I  love  you.”   Harry   NA   Cara   “I  thought  it  would  be  like  rodeo  stuff.”  (Cara  starting  to  read  through  a   product  catalog.)   Samantha   “Maybe  they  want  to  sweat  it  all  out  before  the  fair.”  (Note:  Samantha  is   making  a  prediction  about  the  purpose  of  a  product  in  a  catalog  and  the   effect  this  product  will  have  on  the  animals  using  it.)   Nick   “So,  they're  saying  something  about  like,  of  course,  dissolving  political   bands.  I'm  guessing  they're  saying,  like,  in  case  something  goes  bad.”     Table  20   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Visualizing   Participant   Example  of  visualizing  in  use     Chris   “I’m  picturing  it  …  them  [the  locomotives]  running.”   Astrid   NA   Harry   NA   Cara   “It's  just  like,  she  looks  for  wiggly  fishes,  and  I'm  seeing  the  fish  go   weeeee.”   Samantha   “When  it  says  the  mists  hang  low  on  the  mountains,  I'm  just  like  picturing   mountains  with  mists.”   Nick   “One  thing  I  was  picturing  was,  the  stork  carrying  like  the  baby,  from  one   of  the  Disney  movies.  And  also,  since  I  just  heard,  how  does  she  get  that   face-­‐full,  so  I  was,  like,  eating  the  fish,  the  face  full.”     217   Table  21   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Paraphrasing   Participant   Example  of  paraphrasing  in  use     Chris   “[They’re]  in  the  mountains.  And  they’re  fighting  the  US.”   Astrid   “So  it’s  like,  him  and  a  few  friends  were  like,  throwing,  like  they  were   pitching  and  playing  baseball  together.”   Harry   “He's  a  switch  hitter,  he  plays  catcher  sometimes,  not  that  often  now,  but   he  plays  catcher  sometimes,  and  then  he  plays  first  base  sometimes.”   Cara   “It's  like,  because  Al  Qaeda  could  be  like  changing  the  name,  so  that,  like,   people  won't  blame  Al  Qaeda.”   Samantha   NA   Nick   “Okay,  so  here  they're  talking  about  the  rights  that  we  have,  you  know,  the   right  to  bear  arms,  and  stuff  like  that.”     Table  22   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Summarizing   Participant   Example  of  summarizing  in  use     Chris   NA   Astrid   “I  think  it's  terrorists  that  attacked  Kenyan  people  who  live  in  a  coastal   town,  on  the  coastal  shores.  So....  terrorists  attacked.”   Harry   “John  316.  This  one  is  how  we  know  what  love  is.”   Cara   “Like,  this  book  wants  to  teach  people  how  to  be  a  good  citizen,  and  how   they  can  improve  their  job.”   Samantha   “So  they  were  trying  to,  like,  take  possession  of,  um,  Lake  Huron  and   Superior...  And  all  of  the  other  countries.”   Nick   “So  it's  basically  talking  about  how,  different,  you  know,  ways  you  can  do   that....  Get  around  the  rules.”     218   Table  23   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Inferring   Participant   Example  of  inferring  in  use     Chris   “Yeah,  it  wouldn't  be  fire  in  the  tubes,  because  that  would  burn  off.”   Astrid   “Joe  Pepitone  and  Horace  Clarke,  I  think,  are  like  important,  because  he   said  like,  ‘to  me,’  so  he  must  be...  honored,  I  guess.”   Harry   “Because,  they  probably  didn't  see  the  bear,  because  bears  like  hiding.”   Cara   “It  looks  like  they're  in  a  school  and  the  mouse  is  drawing  pictures  or   something.”   Samantha   “It’s  not  a  novel.  They  don't  normally  have  surrender  speeches  written  in   novels.”  (Samantha  inferring  that  the  excerpt  she’s  reading  is  from  a   speech,  not  a  novel.)   Nick   “So,  also  I'm  wondering,  since  the  ladies  didn't  have  the  power  to  go  into   government  back  then,  that’s  maybe  why  they  only  said  the  men’s  rights.”     Table  24   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Making  Connections  to  Self   Participant   Example  of  making  connections  to  self  in  use     Chris   “So  this  [indicating  location  on  map]  is  where  I'll  be  going  to  go  see  it  [a   vintage  locomotive].”   Astrid   NA   Harry   “I  can  relate  to  it,  because  I'm  a  [baseball]  catcher.”   Cara   “I've  been  to  a  fair  with  cows,  but  not  to  something  like  that  [a  big   agricultural  fair].”   Samantha   “Reminds  me  of  the  other  day  when  I  had  a  scary  dream  and  I  got  in  bed   with  my  mom.”   Nick   “That  sounds  like  me  on  the  phone.”     219   Table  25   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Making  Connections  to  Texts   Participant   Example  of  making  connections  to  texts  in  use     Chris   NA   Astrid   NA   Harry   “Like  based  on  war,  like  I've  read  textbooks  that  are  based  on  World  War   One  or  World  War  Two.”   Cara   “In  the  other  book  [in  the  series],  she  got  hit  by  a  car,  and  broke  both  her   legs.”     Samantha   “I  love  Grey's  Anatomy  [TV  drama],  so  I've  seen  a  lot  of  these  conjoined   twins  on  there  actually.”   Nick   “Have  you  heard  of  Jim  Kilbarg,  Kelberg.  I  can't  pronounce  his  last  name.   It's  spelled  like  K-­‐J-­‐E-­‐L.  But  he  made  one  of  my  favorite  books,  I  absolutely   love  this  book,  it's  called  Red.  And  I  read  that  book,  and  it  starts  off  talking   like  this  one.”     Table  26   Examples  of  Case  Study  Participants  Monitoring  Comprehension   Participant   Example  of  monitoring  comprehension  in  use     Chris   “Only  the  first  little  sentence  made  sense.”   Astrid   “So  here  is  where  I  would  normally  stop,  because  there's  a  lot  of  words   that  I  can't  really  pronounce,  so  I  won't  really  know  what  they  are.”   Harry   “Like,  um,  I'm  kind  of  confused  here,  because  it  didn't  give  you,  like,  a   headline.”   Cara   “Um,  it's  a  little  confusing  why  he  didn't  want  to  go  find  his  own  kids.”   Samantha   NA   Nick   “The  Catskill  Mountains?  Is  that  what  that  was?  I  thought  it  was  like   another  word  for  the  ghetto.  Maybe  not.”     220                       REFERENCES 221   REFERENCES     Adams,  M.  J.  (1990).  Beginning  to  read:  Thinking  and  learning  about  print.  Cambridge,  MA:   MIT  Press.     Afflerbach,  P.,  Pearson,  P.  D.,  &  Paris,  S.  G.  (2008).  Clarifying  differences  between  reading   skills  and  reading  strategies.  The  Reading  Teacher,  61(5),  364-­‐373.   doi:10.1598/RT.61.5.1     Alexander,  P.  A.  (2005).  A  path  to  competence:  A  lifespan  developmental  perspective  on   reading.  Journal  of  Literacy  Research,  37,  413–  436.   doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3704_1     Alexander,  P.  A.,  &  Jetton,  T.  L.  (2000).  Learning  from  text:  A  multidimensional  and   developmental  perspective  In  M.  L.  Kamil,  P.  B.  Mosenthal,  P.  D.  Pearson  &  R.  Barr   (Eds.),  Handbook  of  reading  research  (Vol.  3,  pp.  285-­‐310).  Mahwah,  NJ:  Erlbaum.     Allington,  R.  L.,  &  McGill-­‐Franzen,  A.  (2004).  Looking  back,  looking  forward:  A  conversation   about  teaching  reading  in  the  21st  century.  In  R.  B.  Ruddell  &  N.  J.  Unrau  (Eds.),   Theoretical  models  and  processes  of  reading  (5th  ed.,  pp.  5-­‐32).  Newark,  DE:   International  Reading  Association.     Almasi,  J.  F.,  &  Fullerton,  S.  K.  (2012).  Teaching  strategic  processes  in  reading  (2nd  ed.).  New   York,  NY:  Guilford  Press.     Alvermann,  D.  E.  (2008).  Why  bother  theorizing  adolescents’  online  literacies  for  classroom   practice  and  research?  Journal  of  Adolescent  &  Adult  Literacy,  52(1),  8-­‐19.   doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.1.2     Alvermann,  D.,  Hinchman,  K.,  Moore,  D.,  Phelps,  S.,  &  Waff,  D.  (Eds.).  (2006).   Reconceptualizing  the  literacies  in  adolescents’  lives.  New  York,  NY:  Erlbaum.     Alvermann,  D.  E.,  Huddleston,  A.,  &  Hagood,  M.  C.  (2004).  What  could  professional  wrestling   and  school  literacy  practices  possibly  have  in  common?  Journal  of  Adolescent  &  Adult   Literacy,  47(7),  532-­‐540.  Retrieved  from  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40017188     Anderson,  R.  C.  (1978).  Schema-­‐directed  processes  in  language  comprehension.  In  A.  M.   Lesgold,  J.  W.  Pelligrino,  S.  D.  Fokkema,  &  R.  Glaser  (Eds.),  Cognitive  psychology  and   instruction  (pp.  67-­‐82).  New  York,  NY:  Plenum.       Anderson-­‐Yockel,  J.,  &  Haynes,  W.  O.  (1994).  Joint  book-­‐reading  strategies  in  working-­‐class   African  American  and  White  mother-­‐toddler  dyads.  Journal  of  Speech  and  Hearing   Research,  37(3),  583-­‐593.  doi:10.1044/jshr.3703.583     222   Aram,  D.,  &  Biron,  S.  (2004).  Joint  storybook  reading  and  joint  writing  interventions  among   low  SES  preschoolers:  Differential  contributions  to  early  literacy.  Early  Childhood   Quarterly,  19,  588-­‐610.  doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.10.003     Au,  K.  H.  (1997).  A  sociocultural  model  of  reading  instruction:  The  Kamehameha   Elementary  Education  Program.  In  S.  A.  Stahl  &  D.  A.  Hayes  (Eds.),  Instructional   models  in  reading  (pp.  181-­‐202).  Hillsdale,  NJ:  Erlbaum.     Au,  K.  H.  (2006).  Multicultural  issues  and  literacy  achievement.  Mahwah,  NJ:  Lawrence   Erlbaum.     Audet,  D.,  Evans,  M.  A.,  Williamson,  K.,  &  Reynolds,  K.  (2008).  Shared  book  reading:  Parental   goals  across  the  primary  grades  and  goal-­‐behavior  relationships  in  junior   kindergarten.  Early  Education  and  Development,  19(1),  112-­‐137.   doi:10.1080/10409280701839189     Baker,  L.,  &  Brown,  A.  L.  (1982).  Metacognitive  skills  and  reading.  In  P.  D.  Pearson,  M.  Kamil,   R.  Barr,  &  P.  Mosenthal  (Eds.),  Handbook  of  reading  research  (pp.  353-­‐  394).  New   York,  NY:  Longman.     Bakhtin,  M.  M.  (1981).  The  dialogic  imagination  (C.  Emerson  &  M.  Holquist,  Trans.).  Austin,   TX:  University  of  Texas  Press.     Baldwin,  R.  S.,  Peleg-­‐Bruckner,  Z.,  &  McClintock,  A.  H.  (1985).  Effects  of  topic  interest  and   prior  knowledge  on  reading  comprehension.  Reading  Research  Quarterly,  20(4),   497-­‐504.  Retrieved  from  http://www.jstor.org/stable/747856     Barnett,  J.  E.  (2000).  Self-­‐regulated  reading  and  test  preparation  among  college  students.   Journal  of  College  Reading  and  Learning,  31(1),  42-­‐53.   doi:10.1080/10790195.2000.10850100     Barthes,  R.  (1967).  Elements  of  semiology.  New  York,  NY:  Hill  and  Wang.     Bartlett,  F.  C.  (1932).  Remembering:  A  study  of  experimental  and  social  psychology.   Cambridge,  UK:  Cambridge  University  Press.     Barton,  D.,  &  Hamilton,  M.  (1998).  Local  literacies:  Reading  and  writing  in  one  community.   London,  UK:  Routledge.       Barton,  D.,  &  Hamilton,  M.  (2000).  Literacy  practices.  In  D.  Barton,  M.  Hamilton,  &  R.  Ivanic   (Eds.),  Situated  literacies:  Reading  and  writing  in  context  (pp.  7-­‐15).  London,  UK:   Routledge.     Bawarshi,  A.  S.,  &  Reiff,  M.  J.  (2010).  Genre:  An  introduction  to  history,  theory,  research,  and   pedagogy.  Anderson,  SC:  Parlor  Press.       223   Bayliss,  D.  M.,  Jarrold,  C.,  Baddeley,  A.  D.,  &  Leigh,  E.  (2005).  Differential  constraints  on  the   working  memory  and  reading  abilities  of  individuals  with  learning  difficulties  and   typically  developing  children.  Journal  of  Experimental  Child  Psychology,  92,  76-­‐99.   doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.04.002     Best,  R.  M.,  Floyd,  R.  G.,  &  McNamara,  D.  S.  (2008).  Differential  competencies  contributing  to   children’s  comprehension  of  narrative  and  expository  texts.  Reading  Psychology,   29(2),  137-­‐164.  doi:10.1080/02702710801963951     Black,  R.  W.  (2008).  Adolescents  and  online  fan  fiction.  New  York:  Peter  Lang  Publishing.     Brandt,  D.  (2001).  Literacy  in  American  lives.  New  York,  NY:  Cambridge  University  Press.     Bransford,  J.  D.,  Barclay,  J.  R.,  &  Franks,  J.  J.  (1972).  Sentence  memory:  A  constructive  versus   interpretive  approach.  Cognitive  Psychology,  3,  193-­‐209.  doi:10.1016/0010-­‐ 0285(72)90003-­‐5     Bransford,  J.  D.,  Brown,  A.  L.,  &  Cocking,  R.  R.  (1999).  How  people  learn:  Bridging  research   and  practice.  Washington,  DC:  National  Academy  Press.     Bransford,  J.  D.  and  Johnson,  M.  K.  (1972).  Contextual  prerequisites  for  understanding:   Some  investigations  of  comprehension  and  recall.  Journal  of  Verbal  Learning  and   Verbal  Behavior,  11,  711-­‐726.  doi:10.1016/S0022-­‐5371(72)80006-­‐9     Bråten,  I.,  &  Samuelstuen,  M.  S.  (2004).  Does  the  influence  of  reading  purpose  on  reports  of   strategic  text  processing  depend  on  students'  topic  knowledge?  Journal  of   Educational  Psychology,  96(2),  324-­‐336.  doi:  10.1037/0022-­‐0663.96.2.324     Brown,  R.,  Pressley,  M.,  Van  Meter,  P.,  &  Schuder,  T.  (1996).  A  quasi-­‐experimental  validation   of  transactional  strategies  instruction  with  low-­‐achieving  second-­‐grade  readers.   Journal  of  Educational  Psychology,  88(1),  18-­‐37.  Retrieved  from   http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-­‐0663.88.1.18     Bulfin,  S.,  &  Koutsogiannis,  D.  (2012).  New  literacies  as  multiply  placed  practices:   Expanding  perspectives  on  young  people's  literacies  across  home  and  school.   Language  and  Education,  26(4),  331-­‐346.  doi:10.1080/09500782.2012.691515     Burnett,  C.,  &  Myers,  J.  (2002).  “Beyond  the  frame”:  Exploring  children’s  literacy  practices.   Reading,  36(2),  56-­‐62.  doi:10.1111/1467-­‐9345.00187     Burns,  M.  S.,  Griffin,  P.,  &  Snow,  C.  E.  (1999).  Starting  out  right:  A  guide  to  promoting   children’s  reading  success.  Washington,  DC:  National  Academy  Press.     Bus,  A.  G.,  &  van  Ijzendoorn,  M.  H.  (1988).  Mother-­‐child  interactions:  Attachment  and   emergent  literacy:  A  cross-­‐sectional  study.  Child  Development,  59,  1262-­‐1272.   Retrieved  from  http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130489   224     Caldwell,  J.,  &  Leslie,  L.  (2010).  Thinking  aloud  in  expository  text:  Processes  and  outcomes.   Journal  of  Literacy  Research,  42,  308-­‐340.  doi:10.1080/1086296X.2010.504419     Carnegie  Council  on  Advancing  Adolescent  Literacy.  (2010).  Time  to  act:  An  agenda  for   advancing  adolescent  literacy  for  college  and  career  success.  New  York,  NY:  Carnegie   Corporation  of  New  York.       Cartwright,  K.  B.,  Isaac,  M.  C.,  &  Dandy,  K.  L.  (2006).  The  development  of  reading-­‐specific   representational  flexbility:  A  cross-­‐sectional  comparison  of  second  graders,  fourth   graders,  and  college  students.  In  Alea  Mittel  (Ed.),  Focus  on  educational  psychology   (pp.  173-­‐194).  New  York,  NY:  Nova  Science.       Cartwright,  K.  B.,  Marshall,  T.  R.,  Dandy,  K.  L.,  &  Isaac,  M.  C.  (2010).  The  development  of   graphophonological-­‐semantic  cognitive  flexibility  and  its  contribution  to  reading   comprehension  in  beginning  readers.  Journal  of  Cognition  and  Development,  11(1),   61-­‐85.  doi:10.1080/15248370903453584     Chafe,  W.  (1980).  The  deployment  of  consciousness  in  the  production  of  narrative.  In  W.   Chafe  (Ed.),  The  pear  stories:  Cognitive,  cultural,  and  linguistic  aspects  of  narrative   production  (pp.  9-­‐50).  Norwood,  NJ:  Ablex.       Chafe,  W.  (1985).  Linguistic  differences  produced  by  differences  between  speaking  and   writing.  In  D.  Olson,  N.  Torrance  &  A.  Hildyard  (Eds.),  Literacy,  language,  and   learning:  The  nature  and  consequences  of  reading  and  writing  (pp.  105-­‐122).   Cambridge,  MA:  Cambridge  University  Press.       Chapman,  M.  (1994).  The  emergence  of  genres:  Some  findings  from  an  examination  of  first-­‐ grade  writing.  Written  Communication,  11(3),  348-­‐380.   doi:10.1177/0741088394011003003     Cherland,  M.  R.  (1994).  Private  practices:  Girls  reading  fiction  and  constructing  identity.   London,  UK:  Taylor  &  Francis.     Clay,  M.  (2000).  Concepts  about  print:  What  have  children  learned  about  the  way  we  print   language?  Portsmouth,  NH:  Heinemann.     Cochran-­‐Smith,  M.  (1984).  The  making  of  a  reader.  Northwood,  NJ:  Ablex  Publishing.     Cochran-­‐Smith,  M.  (1985).  Looking  like  readers,  talking  like  readers.  Theory  into  Practice,   24(1),  22-­‐31.  doi:10.1080/00405848509543142     Compton-­‐Lilly,  C.  (2007).  Re-­reading  families:  The  literate  lives  of  urban  children  four  years   later.  New  York,  NY:  Teachers  College  Press.     225   Creswell,  J.  W.,  &  Clark,  V.  L.  P.  (2011).  Designing  and  conducting  mixed  methods  research   (2nd  ed.).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  SAGE  Publications.     Daneman,  M.,  &  Merikle,  P.  M.  (1996).  Working  memory  and  language  comprehension:  A   meta-­‐analysis.  Psychonomic  Bulletin  &  Review,  3(4),  422-­‐433.   doi:10.3758/BF03214546     Davidson,  M.  C.,  Amso,  D.,  Anderson,  L.  C.,  &  Diamond,  A.  (2006).  Development  of  cognitive   control  and  executive  functions  from  4  to  13  years:  Evidence  from  manipulations  of   memory,  inhibition,  and  task  switching.  Neuropsychologia,  44,  2037-­‐2078.   doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006     De  Luca,  C.,  R.,  Wood,  S.  J.,  Anderson,  V.,  Buchanan,  J.-­‐A.,  Proffitt,  T.  M.,  Mahony,  K.,  &   Pantelis,  C.  (2003).  Normative  data  from  the  Cantab  I:  Development  of  executive   function  over  the  lifespan.  Journal  of  Clinical  and  Experimental  Neuropsychology,   25(2),  242-­‐254.  doi:10.1076/jcen.25.2.242.13639     Derrida,  J.  (1973).  “Différance.”  In  Speech  and  phenomena  and  other  essays  on  Husserl’s   theory  of  signs  (pp.  129-­‐160)  (D.  B.  Allison,  Trans.).  Evanston,  IL:  Northwestern   University  Press.     Derrida,  J.  (1978).  Writing  and  difference  (A.  Bass,  Trans.).  Chicago,  IL:  University  of  Chicago   Press.     Devitt,  A.  J.  (2004).  Writing  genres.  Carbondale,  IL:  Southern  Illinois  University  Press.     Dewey,  J.  (1938/1975).  Experience  and  education.  New  York,  NY:  Collier  Books.     Dewitz,  P.,  Jones,  J.,  &  Leahy,  S.  (2009).  Comprehension  strategy  instruction  in  core  reading   programs.  Reading  Research  Quarterly,  44(2),  102-­‐126.  doi:10.1598/RRQ.44.2.1     Dickie,  J.,  &  McDonald,  G.  (2011).  Literacy  in  church  and  family  sites  through  the  eyes  of   Samoan  children  in  New  Zealand.  Literacy,  45(1),  25-­‐31.  doi:10.1111/j.1741-­‐ 4369.2011.00574.x     Dole,  J.  A.,  Brown,  K.  J.,  &  Trathen,  W.  (1996).  The  effects  of  strategy  instruction  on  the   comprehension  performance  of  at-­‐risk  students.  Reading  Research  Quarterly,  31(1),   62-­‐88.  doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.1.4     Duffy,  G.  G.  (2002).  The  case  for  direct  explanation  of  strategies.  In  C.  C.  Block  &  M.  Pressley   (Eds.),  Comprehension  instruction:  Research-­based  best  practices  (pp.  28-­‐41).  New   York,  NY:  Guilford.     Duke,  N.  K.  (2000a).  3.6  minutes  per  day:  The  scarcity  of  informational  texts  in  first  grade.   Reading  Research  Quarterly,  35(1),  202-­‐224.  doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1     226   Duke,  N.  K.  (2000b).  For  the  rich  it’s  richer:  Print  experiences  and  environments  offered  to   children  in  very  low-­‐  and  very  high-­‐socioeconomic  status  first-­‐grade  classrooms.   American  Educational  Research  Journal,  37(1),  441-­‐478.   doi:10.3102/00028312037002441     Duke,  N.  K.  (2005).  Comprehension  of  what  for  what:  Comprehension  as  a  nonunitary   construct.  In  S.  G.  Paris  &  S.  A.  Stahl  (Eds.),  Children's  reading  comprehension  and   assessment  (pp.  93-­‐104).  Mahwah,  New  Jersey:  Lawrence  Erlbaum.     Duke,  N.  K.,  &  Carlisle,  J.  F.  (2011).  The  development  of  comprehension.  In  M.  L.  Kamil,  P.  D.   Pearson,  E.  B.  Moje  &  P.  Afflerbach  (Eds.),  Handbook  of  Reading  Research  (Vol.  IV,  pp.   199-­‐228).  London,  UK:  Routledge.     Duke,  N.  K.,  &  Kays,  J.  (1998).  “Can  I  say  'once  upon  a  time'?”:  Kindergarten  children   developing  knowledge  of  information  book  language.  Early  Childhood  Research   Quarterly,  13(2),  295-­‐318.  doi:10.1016/S0885-­‐2006(99)80041-­‐6     Duke,  N.  K.,  &  Martin,  N.  M.  (2008).  Comprehension  instruction  in  action:  The  elementary   classroom.  In  C.  C.  Block  &  S.  R.  Parris  (Eds.),  Comprehension  instruction:  Research-­ based  best  practices  (pp.  241-­‐257).  New  York,  NY:  Guilford  Press.     Duke,  N.  K.,  &  Purcell-­‐Gates,  V.  (2003).  Genres  at  home  and  at  school:  Bridging  the  known  to   the  new.  The  Reading  Teacher,  57(1),  30-­‐37.  Retrieved  from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/20205313     Duke,  N.  K.,  &  Roberts,  K.  L.  (2010).  The  genre-­‐specific  nature  of  reading  comprehension.  In   D.  Wyse,  R.  Andrews,  &  J.  Hoffman  (Eds.),  The  Routledge  international  handbook  of   English,  language,  and  literacy  teaching  (pp.  74-­‐86).  New  York,  NY:  Routledge.     Dymock,  S.  (1993).  Reading  but  not  understanding.  Journal  of  Reading,  37(2),  86-­‐91.   Retrieved  from  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40033404     Ericsson,  K.  A.,  &  Simon,  H.  A.  (1980).  Verbal  reports  as  data.  Psychological  Review,  87,  215-­‐ 251.  Retrieved  from  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-­‐295X.87.3.215     Ericsson,  K.  A.,  &  Simon,  H.  A.  (1993).  Protocol  analysis:  Verbal  reports  as  data.  Cambridge,   MA:  MIT  Press.  (Original  work  published  1984).       Evans,  M.  A.,  Baraball,  L.,  &  Eberle,  T.  (1998).  Parental  responses  to  miscues  during  child-­‐ to-­‐parent  book  reading.  Journal  of  Applied  Developmental  Psychology,  19,  67-­‐84.   doi:10.1016/S0193-­‐3973(99)80028-­‐8     Evans,  M.  A.,  &  Shaw,  D.  (2008).  Home  grown  for  reading:  Parental  contributions  to  young   children's  emergent  literacy  and  word  recognition.  Canadian   Psychology/Psychologie  canadienne,  49(2),  89-­‐95.  Retrieved  from   http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0708-­‐5591.49.2.89   227     Evans,  M.  A.,  Shaw,  D.,  &  Bell,  M.  (2000).  Home  literacy  activities  and  their  influence  on   early  literacy  skills.  Canadian  Journal  of  Experimental  Psychology,  54,  65-­‐75.   Retrieved  from  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087330     Fish,  S.  (1980).  Is  there  a  text  in  this  class?  The  authority  of  interpretive  communities.   Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.     Flavell,  J.  H.  (1979).  Metacognition  and  cognitive  monitoring:  A  new  area  of  cognitive   developmental  inquiry.  American  Psychologist,  34(10),  906-­‐911.  Retrieved  from   http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-­‐066X.34.10.906     Flavell,  J.  H.,  Miller,  P.  H.,  &  Miller,  S.  A.  (2002).  Cognitive  development.  Englewood  Cliffs,  NJ:   Prentice-­‐Hall.       Flood,  J.  E.  (1977).  Parental  styles  in  reading  episodes  with  young  children.  The  Reading   Teacher,  30(8),  864-­‐867.  Retrieved  from  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20194414     Frost,  S.  (n.d.).  Towards  thoughtful  strategy  instruction.  Choice  Literacy.  Retrieved  April  12,   2014,  from  www.choiceliteracy.com/articles-­‐detail-­‐view.php?id=475     Gallagher,  J.  D.  (2012).  Being  a  “reader”  in  new  times:  A  case  study  examining  the   construction  of  a  reader  in  a  ninth-­‐grade  English  class.  Reading  &  Writing  Quarterly,   28(3),  201-­‐228.  doi:10.1080/10573569.2012.676354     García,  O.,  &  Flores,  N.  (2012).  Literacy  in  multilingual  classrooms.  In  C.  A.  Chapelle  (Ed.),   The  encyclopedia  of  applied  linguistics  (pp.  1-­‐7).  Oxford,  UK:  Wiley-­‐Blackwell.     Gee,  J.  P.  (1989).  Two  styles  of  narrative  construction  and  their  linguistic  and  educational   implications.  Discourse  Processes,  12,  287-­‐307.  doi:10.1080/01638538909544732     Gee,  J.  P.  (1990).  Social  linguistics  and  literacies:  Ideology  in  discourse.  New  York,  NY:   Falmer.       Geisler,  C.  (1994).  Academic  literacy  and  the  nature  of  expertise:  Reading,  writing,  and   knowing  in  academic  philosophy.  Hillsdale,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum.     Glaser,  B.  G.,  &  Strauss,  A.  L.  (1967).  The  discovery  of  grounded  theory:  Strategies  for   qualitative  research.  Chicago,  IL:  Aldine.       González,  N.,  Moll,  L.,  and  Amanti,  C.  (2005).  Funds  of  knowledge:  Theorizing  practices  in   households,  communities,  and  classrooms.  Mahwah,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum   Associates.     Goodman,  K.  (l965).  A  linguistic  study  of  cues  and  miscues  in  reading.  Elementary  English,   42,  639-­‐643.  Retrieved  from  http://www.jstor.org/stable/41387554   228     Goodman,  K.  (1967).  Reading:  A  psycholinguistic  guessing  game.  Journal  of  the  Reading   Specialist,  6(4),  126-­‐135.  doi:10.1080/19388076709556976     Graff,  J.  M.  (2010).  Reading,  readin’,  and  skimming:  Preadolescent  girls  navigate  the   sociocultural  landscapes  of  books  and  reading.  Language  Arts,  87(3),  177-­‐187.   Retrieved  from  http://www.jstor.org/stable/41804687     Greaney,  V.,  &  Neuman,  S.  B.  (1990).  The  functions  of  reading:  A  cross-­‐cultural  perspective.   Reading  Research  Quarterly,  25(3),  172-­‐195.  doi:10.2307/748001     Grigorenko,  E.  L.,  Klin,  A.,  &  Volkmar,  F.  (2003),  Annotation:  Hyperlexia:  Disability  or   superability?  Journal  of  Child  Psychology  and  Psychiatry,  44,  1079–1091.   doi:  10.1111/1469-­‐7610.00193     Haas,  C.  (1994).  Learning  to  read  biology:  One  student's  rhetorical  development  in  college.   Written  Communication,  11,  43-­‐84.  doi:10.1177/0741088394011001004     Haden,  C.  A.,  Reese,  E.,  &  Fivush,  R.  (1996).  Mothers’  extratextual  comments  during   storybook  reading:  Stylistic  differences  across  time  and  across  texts.  Discourse   Processes,  21(2),  135-­‐169.  doi:10.1080/01638539609544953     Hall,  L.  (2007).  Understanding  the  silence:  Struggling  readers  discuss  decisions  about   reading  expository  text.  The  Journal  of  Educational  Research,  100(3),  132-­‐141.   doi:10.3200/JOER.100.3.132-­‐141     Hall,  L.  (2010).  The  negative  consequences  of  becoming  a  good  reader:  Identity  theory  as  a   lens  for  understanding  struggling  readers,  teachers,  and  reading  instruction.   Teachers  College  Record,  112(7),  1792-­‐1829.  Retrieved  from   http://www.tcrecord.org     Hall,  L.  A.  (2012).  The  role  of  reading  identities  and  reading  abilities  in  students'   discussions  about  texts  and  comprehension  strategies.  Journal  of  Literacy  Research,   44(3),  239-­‐272.  doi:10.1177/1086296X12445370     Hartman,  D.  (2004).  Deconstructing  the  reader,  the  text,  and  the  context:  Intertextuality   and  reading  from  a  "cognitive"  perspective.  In  N.  Shuart-­‐Faris  &  D.  Bloome  (Eds.),   Uses  of  intertextuality  in  classroom  and  educational  research  (pp.  349-­‐368).   Greenwich,  CT:  Information  Age  Publishing.     Heap,  J.  L.  (1991).  A  situated  perspective  on  what  counts  as  reading.  In  C.  Baker  &  A.  Luke   (Eds.),  Towards  a  critical  sociology  of  reading  pedagogy:  Papers  of  the  XII  World   Congress  On  Reading  (pp.  103-­‐139).  Amsterdam,  Netherlands:  John  Benjamins   Publishing  Company.     229   Heath,  S.  B.  (1982).  What  no  bedtime  story  means:  Narrative  skills  at  home  and  school.   Language  in  Society,  11,  49-­‐76.  Retrieved  from   http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009039     Heath,  S.  B.  (1983).  Ways  with  words:  Language,  life,  and  work  in  communities   and  classrooms.  Cambridge,  UK:  Cambridge  University  Press.     Holland,  D.,  Lachicotte,  W.,  Jr.,  Skinner,  D.,  &  Cain,  C.  (1998).  Identity  and  agency  in  cultural   worlds.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.       Hopper,  R.  (2005).  What  are  teenagers  reading?  Adolescent  fiction  reading  habits  and   reading  choices.  Literacy,  39(3),  113-­‐120.  doi:10.1111/j.1467-­‐9345.2005.00409.x     Horkheimer,  M.  (1982).  Critical  Theory.  New  York,  NY:  Seabury  Press.     Hughes-­‐Hassell,  S.,  &  Rodge,  P.  (2007).  The  leisure  reading  habits  of  urban  adolescents.   Journal  of  Adolescent  and  Adult  Literacy,  51(1),  22-­‐33.  doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.1.3     Iser,  W.  (1978).  The  act  of  reading:  A  theory  of  aesthetic  response.  Baltimore,  MD:  Johns   Hopkins  University  Press.     Iser,  W.  (1980).  The  reader  in  the  text.  Princeton,  NJ:  Princeton  University  Press.     Ito,  M.,  Baumer,  S.,  Bittanti,  M.,  Boyd,  D.,  Cody,  R.,  Herr-­‐Stephenson,  B.,  et  al.  (2009).   Hanging  out,  messing  around,  and  geeking  out:  Kids  living  and  learning  with  new   media.  Cambridge,  MA:  MIT  Press.     Ives,  D.  (2011).  Spotting  foolbirds:  Literacies  hiding  in  plain  sight  in  an  urban  English   Language  Arts  classroom.  Journal  of  Literacy  Research,  43(3),  250-­‐274.   doi:0.1177/1086296X11413721     Jacques,  S.,  &  Zelazo,  P.  D.  (2005).  On  the  possible  roots  of  cognitive  flexibility.  In  B.  D.   Homer  &  C.  S.  Tamis-­‐LeMonda  (Eds.),  The  development  of  social  cognition  and   communication  (pp.  53-­‐81).  Mahwah,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum  Associates.     Jetton,  T.  L.,  &  Lee,  R.  (2012).  A  model  for  teacher  planning  with  text  in  the  academic   disciplines.  In  T.  L.  Jetton  &  C.  Shanahan  (Eds.),  Adolescent  literacy  in  the  academic   disciplines:  General  principles  and  practical  strategies  (pp.  91-­‐119).  New  York,  NY:   Guilford  Press.     Jetton,  T.  L.,  &  Shanahan,  C.,  (Eds.).  (2012).  Adolescent  literacy  in  the  academic  disciplines:   General  principles  and  practical  strategies.  New  York,  NY:  The  Guilford  Press.     Johnson,  R.  B.,  &  Onwuegbuzie,  A.  J.  (2004).  Mixed  methods  research:  A  research  paradigm   whose  time  has  come.  Educational  Researcher,  33(7),  14-­‐26.   doi:  10.3102/0013189X033007014   230     Johnston,  A.  M.,  Barnes,  M.  A.,  &  Desrochers,  A.  (2008).  Reading  comprehension:   Developmental  processes,  individual  differences,  and  interventions.  Canadian   Psychology/Psychologie  canadienne,  49(2),  125-­‐132.  Retrieved  from   http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0708-­‐5591.49.2.125     Kamberlis,  G.  (1999).  Genre  development  and  learning:  Children  writing  stories,  science   reports,  and  poems.  Research  in  the  Teaching  of  English,  33,  403-­‐460.  Retrieved  from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171463     Kendeou,  P.,  &  van  den  Broek,  P.  (2007).  The  effects  of  prior  knowledge  and  text  structure   on  comprehension  processes  during  reading  of  scientific  texts.  Memory  &  Cognition,   35(7),  1567-­‐1577.  doi:10.3758/BF03193491     Kendeou,  P.,  van  den  Broek,  P.,  White,  M.  J.,  &  Lynch,  J.  (2007).  Comprehension  in  preschool   and  early  elementary  children:  Skill  development  and  strategy  interventions.  In  D.  S.   McNamara  (Ed.),  Reading  comprehension  strategies:  Theories,  interventions,  and   technologies  (pp.  27-­‐45).  New  York,  NY:  Psychology  Press.       Kintsch,  W.  (1998).  Comprehension:  A  paradigm  for  cognition.  New  York,  NY:  Cambridge   University  Press.     Knobel,  M.,  &  Lankshear,  C.  (2003).  Researching  young  children's  out-­‐of-­‐school  literacy   practices.  In  N.  Hall,  J.  Larsen,  &  J.  Marsh  (Eds.),  Handbook  of  early  childhood  literacy   (pp.  51-­‐65).  London,  UK:  SAGE.     Krause,  M.  B.  (2103).  “A  series  of  unfortunate  incidents”:  The  repercussions  of  print-­‐ literacy  as  the  only  literacy  for  talented  boys.  Gifted  Child  Today,  36(4),  236-­‐245.   doi:10.1177/1076217513501805     Kreutzer,  M.  A.,  Leonard,  C.,  Flavell,  J.  H.,  &  Hagen,  J.  W.  (1975).  An  interview  study  of   children’s  knowledge  about  memory.  Monographs  of  the  Society  for  Research  in  Child   Development,  40(1),  1-­‐60.  doi:10.2307/1165955     Ladson-­‐Billings,  G.  (1995).  Toward  a  theory  of  culturally  relevant  pedagogy.  American   Educational  Research  Journal,  32(3),  465–491.  doi:10.3102/00028312032003465     Lave,  J.  (1988).  Cognition  in  practice:  Mind,  mathematics  and  culture  in  everyday  life.   Cambridge,  MA:  Cambridge  University  Press.       Lave,  J.,  &  Wenger,  E.  (Eds.).  (1991).  Situated  learning:  Legitimate  peripheral  participation.   Cambridge,  MA:  Cambridge  University  Press.       Lenhart,  A.,  Purcell,  K.,  Smith,  A.,  &  Zickurh,  K.  (2010).  Social  media  and  mobile  Internet  use   among  teens  and  young  adults.  Washington,  DC:  Pew  Internet  &  American  Life   Project.  Retrieved  from  http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525056.pdf   231     Linderholm,  T.,  Cong,  X.,  &  Zhao,  Q.  (2008).  Differences  in  low  and  high  working-­‐memory   capacity  readers'  cognitive  and  metacognitive  processing  patterns  as  a  function  of   reading  for  different  purposes.  Reading  Psychology,  29,  61-­‐85.   doi:10.1080/02702710701568587     Linderholm,  T.,  Kwon,  H.,  &  Wang,  X.  (2011).  The  effects  of  reading  purpose  on  advanced   readers.  In  M.  T.  McCrudden,  J.  P.  Magliano,  &  G.  Schraw  (Eds.),  Text  relevance  and   learning  from  text  (pp.  197-­‐222).  Charlotte,  NC:  Information  Age  Publishing.     Linderholm,  T.,  &  van  den  Broek,  P.  (2002).  The  effects  of  reading  purpose  and  working   memory  capacity  on  the  processing  of  expository  text.  Journal  of  Educational   Psychology,  94,  778-­‐784.  Retrieved  from  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-­‐ 0663.94.4.778     Lockl,  K.,  &  Schneider,  W.  (2006).  Precursors  of  metamemory  in  young  children:  The  role  of   theory  of  mind  and  metacognitive  vocabulary.  Metacognition  and  Learning,  1(1),  15-­‐ 31.  doi:10.1007/s11409-­‐006-­‐6585-­‐9     Lockl,  K.,  &  Schneider,  W.  (2007).  Knowledge  about  the  mind:  Links  between  theory  of   mind  and  later  metamemory.  Child  Development,  78,  148-­‐167.  doi:10.1111/j.1467-­‐ 8624.2007.00990.x     Loizou,  E.,  Kyriakides,  E.,  &  Hadjicharalambous,  M.  (2011).  Constructing  stories  in   kindergarten:  Children’s  knowledge  of  genre.  European  Early  Childhood  Education   Research  Journal,  19(1),  63–77.  doi:10.1080/1350293X.2011.548939     Lucangeli,  D.,  Galderisi,  D.,  &  Cornoldi,  C.  (1995).  Specific  and  general  transfer  effects   following  metamemory  training.  Learning  Disabilities:  Research  and  Practice,  10,  11-­‐ 21.     Manguel,  A.  (1996).  A  history  of  reading.  New  York,  NY:  Penguin  Books.     Manion,  V.,  &  Alexander,  J.  M.  (1997).  The  benefits  of  peer  collaboration  on  strategy  use,   metacognitive  causal  attribution,  and  recall.  Journal  of  Experimental  Child   Psychology,  67(2),  268-­‐289.  doi:10.1006/jecp.1997.2409     Marcell,  B.,  DeCleene,  J.,  &  Juettner,  M.  R.  (2010).  Caution!  Hard  hat  area!  Comprehension   under  construction:  Cementing  a  foundation  of  comprehension  strategy  usage  that   carries  over  to  independent  practice.  The  Reading  Teacher,  63(8),  687-­‐  691.  doi:   10.1598/RT.63.8.8     Martin,  N.  M.  (2011).  Exploring  informational  text  comprehension:  Reading  biography,   persuasive  text,  and  procedural  text  in  the  elementary  grades  (Unpublished  doctoral   dissertation).  Michigan  State  University,  East  Lansing,  MI.     232   Maxwell,  J.  A.  (1996).  Qualitative  research  design.  Newbury  Park,  CA:  SAGE.     May,  L.  A.  (2010).  Situating  strategies:  An  examination  of  comprehension  strategy   instruction  in  one  upper  elementary  classroom  oriented  toward  culturally  relevant   teaching.  Literacy  Research  and  Instruction,  50(1),  31-­‐43.   doi:10.1080/19388070903441132     May,  L.  A.,  Bingham,  G.  E.,  &  Pendergast,  M.  L.  (2014).  Culturally  and  linguistically  relevant   readalouds.  Multicultural  Perspectives,  16(4),  210-­‐218.   doi:10.1080/15210960.2014.952299     McKenna,  M.  C.,  &  Kear,  D.  J.  (1990).  Measuring  attitude  toward  reading:  A  new  tool  for   teachers.  The  Reading  Teacher,  43,  626-­‐639.  Retrieved  from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200500     McKenna,  M.  C.,  Kear,  D.  J.,  &  Ellsworth,  R.  A.  (1995).  Children's  attitudes  toward  reading:  A   national  survey.  Reading  Research  Quarterly,  30(4),  934-­‐956.  Retrieved  from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/748205     McKeown,  M.  G.,  Beck,  I.  L.,  &  Blake,  R.  G.  K.  (2009).  Rethinking  reading  comprehension   instruction:  A  comparison  of  instruction  for  strategies  and  content  approaches.   Reading  Research  Quarterly,  44(3),  218-­‐253.  doi:10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1     McNamara,  T.,  Miller,  D.,  &  Bransford,  J.  D.  (2000).  Mental  models  and  reading   comprehension.  In  R.  Barr,  M.  L.  Kamil,  P.  B.  Mosenthal  &  P.  D.  Pearson  (Eds.),   Handbook  of  reading  research  (Vol.  2,  pp.  490-­‐511).  New  York,  NY:  Longman.       Meloth,  M.  S.,  &  Deering,  P.  D.  (1992).  Effects  of  two  cooperative  conditions  on  peer-­‐group   discussions,  reading  comprehension,  and  metacognition.  Contemporary  Educational   Psychology,  17(2),  175–193.  doi:10.1016/0361-­‐476X(92)90057-­‐6     Merriam,  S.  B.  (1998).  Qualitative  research  and  case  study  applications  in  education.  San   Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass.     Miller,  G.  A.  (1956).  The  magical  number  seven,  plus  or  minus  two:  Some  limits  on  our   capacity  for  processing  information.  The  Psychological  Review,  63,  81-­‐97.  Retrieved   from  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043158     Moje,  E.  B.  (2000).  To  be  part  of  the  story:  The  literacy  practices  of  gangsta  adolescents.   Teachers  College  Record,  102,  652-­‐690.  Retrieved  from  http://www.tcrecord.org       Moje,  E.  B.  (2008).  Foregrounding  the  disciplines  in  secondary  literacy  teaching  and   learning:  A  call  for  change.  Journal  of  Adolescent  &  Adult  Literacy,  52(2),  96-­‐107.   doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1     233   Moje,  E.  B.,  &  Lewis,  C.  (2007).  Examining  opportunities  to  learn  literacy:  The  role  of  critical   sociocultural  literacy  research.  In  C.  Lewis,  P.  Enciso,  &  E.  B.  Moje  (Eds.),  Reframing   sociocultural  research  on  literacy:  Identity,  agency,  and  power  (pp.  15-­‐48).  Mahwah,   NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum.       Moje,  E.  B.,  &  Luke,  A.  L.  (2009).  Literacy  and  identity:  Examining  the  metaphors  in  history   and  contemporary  research.  Reading  Research  Quarterly,  44,  415-­‐437.   doi:10.1598/RRQ.44.4.7     Moje,  E.  B.,  &  Tysvaer,  N.  (2010).  Adolescent  literacy  development  in  out-­of-­school  time:  A   practitioner’s  guidebook.  New  York,  NY:  Carenegie  Corporation  of  New  York.     Monte-­‐Sano,  C.  (2010).  Disciplinary  literacy  in  history:  An  exploration  of  the  historical   nature  of  adolescents’  writing.    Journal  of  the  Learning  Sciences,  19,  539-­‐568.   doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.481014     Moore,  D.  W.,  Alvermann,  D.  E.,  &  Hinchman,  K.  A.  (2007).  Literacies  in  and  out  of  school:  A   survey  of  U.S.  youth.  The  Reading  Matrix,  7(3),  170-­‐190.  Retrieved  from   http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/moore_hinchman/article.pdf     Meyers,  J.,  Lytle,  S.,  Palladino,  D.,  Devenpeck,  G.,  &  Green,  M.  (1990).  Think-­‐aloud  protocol   analysis:  An  investigation  of  reading  comprehension  strategies  in  fourth  and  fifth-­‐ grade  students.  Journal  of  Psychoeducational  Assessment,  8,  112-­‐127.   doi:10.1177/073428299000800201     Myers,  M.,  &  Paris,  S.  (1978).  Children’s  metacognitive  knowledge  about  reading.  Journal  of   Educational  Psychology,  70,  680–690.    Retrieved  from   http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-­‐0663.70.5.680     Narvaez,  D.,  van  den  Broek,  P.,  &  Ruiz,  A.  B.  (1999).  The  influence  of  reading  purpose  on   inference  generation  and  comprehension  in  reading.  Journal  of  Educational   Psychology,  91(3),  488-­‐496.  Retrieved  from  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-­‐ 0663.91.3.488     National  Early  Literacy  Panel.  (2008).  Developing  early  literacy:  Report  of  the  National  Early   Literacy  Panel.  Jessup,  MD:  National  Institute  for  Literacy.  Available  at  www.nifl   .gov/earlychildhood/NELP/  NELPreport.html     National  Institute  of  Child  Health  and  Human  Development.  (2000).  Report  of  the  National   Reading  Panel:  Teaching  children  to  read.  Washington,  DC:  Author.  Available  at   www.nationalreadingpanel.org/  Publications/researchread.htm     Nesset,  V.  (2011).  Following  the  signs:  Children’s  use  of  visual  cues  to  facilitate  website   evaluation.  Human-­Computer  Interaction,  6764,  599-­‐606.  doi:10.1007/978-­‐3-­‐642-­‐ 21619-­‐0_72     234   Ninio,  A.  (1980).  Picture-­‐book  reading  in  mother-­‐infant  dyads  belonging  to  two  subgroups   in  Israel.  Child  Development,  51,  587-­‐590.  Retrieved  from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/1129299     Norton-­‐Meier,  L.  A.,  (2005).  A  thrice-­‐learned  lesson  from  the  literate  life  of  a  five-­‐year-­‐old.   Language  Arts,  82,  286–295.  Retrieved  from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/41483489     Ortiz,  C.,  Stowe,  R.  M.  &  Arnold,  D.  H.  (2001).    Parental  influence  on  child  interest  in  shared   picture  book  reading.  Early  Childhood  Research  Quarterly,  16(2),  263-­‐281.   doi:10.1016/S0885-­‐2006(01)00101-­‐6     Palincsar,  A.  S.,  &  Schutz,  K.  M.  (2011).  Reconnecting  strategy  instruction  with  its   theoretical  roots.  Theory  Into  Practice,  50(2),  85-­‐92.   doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.558432     Pappas,  C.  C.  (1993).  Is  narrative  “primary”?  Some  insights  from  kindergarteners’  pretend   readings  of  stories  and  information  books.  Journal  of  Reading  Behavior,  25(1),  97– 129.  doi:10.1080/10862969309547803     Pappas,  C.  C.,  &  Brown,  E.  (1987).  Young  children  learning  story  discourse:  Three  case   studies.  Elementary  School  Journal,  87,  455-­‐466.  Retrieved  from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001539     Paris,  S.  G.  (2005).  Reinterpreting  the  development  of  reading  skills.  Reading  Research   Quarterly,  40(2),  184–202.  doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.2.3     Paris,  S.  G.,  Lipson,  M.  Y.,  &  Wixson,  K.  K.  (1983).  Becoming  a  strategic  reader.  Contemporary   Educational  Psychology,  8,  293-­‐316.  doi:10.1016/0361-­‐476X(83)90018-­‐8     Paris,  S.  G.,  &  Oka,  E.  R.  (1986).  Children's  reading  strategies,  metacognition,  and   motivation.  Developmental  Review,  6,  25-­‐56.  doi:10.1016/0273-­‐2297(86)90002-­‐X     Paris,  S.,  Lipson,  M.,  &  Wixson,  K.  (1983).  Becoming  a  strategic  reader.  Contemporary  Educa-­   tional  Psychology,  8(3),  293-­‐316.  doi:10.1016/0361-­‐476X(83)90018-­‐8     Paris,  S.  G.,  &  Winograd,  P.  (1990).  How  metacognition  can  promote  academic  learning  and   instruction.  In  B.  F.  Jones  &  L.  Idol  (Eds.),  Dimensions  of  thinking  and  cognitive   instruction:  Implications  for  educational  reform  (pp.  15-­‐42).  Mahwah,  NJ:  Lawrence   Erlbaum  Associates.     Park,  H.  (2008).  Home  literacy  environments  and  children's  reading  performance:  A   comparative  study  of  25  countries.  Educational  Research  and  Evaluation:  An   International  Journal  on  Theory  and  Practice,  14(6),  489-­‐505.   doi:10.1080/13803610802576734     235   Paulhus,  D.  L.  (1991).  Measurement  and  control  of  response  biases.  In  J.  P.  Robinson,  P.  R.   Shaver,  &  L.  S.  Wrightsman  (Eds.),  Measures  of  personality  and  social  psychological   attitudes  (pp.  17-­‐59).  San  Diego,  CA:  Academic  Press.     Pendergast,  M.,  May,  L.,  Bingham,  G.,  &  Kurumada,  K.  S.  (2015).  Acquiring  responsive   practices:  Preservice  teachers  learn  to  conduct  interactive  readalouds.  Action  in   Teacher  Education,  37(1),  65-­‐81.  doi:10.1080/01626620.2014.969851     Phillips,  L.  M.,  Norris,  S.  P.,  &  Anderson,  J.  (2008).  Unlocking  the  door:  Is  parents'  reading  to   children  the  key  to  early  literacy  development?  Canadian  Psychology/Psychologie   canadienne,  49(2),  82-­‐88.  Retrieved  from  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0708-­‐ 5591.49.2.82     Pressley,  M.  (1998).  Comprehension  strategy  instruction.  In  J.  Osborn  &  F.  Lehr  (Eds.),   Literacy  for  all:  Issues  in  teaching  and  learning  (pp.  113-­‐133).  New  York,  NY:  Guilford   Press.     Pressley,  M.  (2006).  Reading  instruction  that  works  (3rd  ed.).  New  York,  NY:  Guilford  Press.     Pressley,  M.,  &  Afflerbach,  P.  (1995).  Verbal  protocols  of  reading:  The  nature  of   constructively  responsive  reading.  Hillsdale,  NJ:  Erlbaum.     Pressley,  M.,  &  Hilden,  K.  (2004).  Verbal  protocols  of  reading.  In  N.  K.  Duke  &  M.  H.  Mallette   (Eds.),  Literacy  research  methodologies  (pp.  308-­‐321).  New  York,  NY:  Guilford  Press.       Purcell-­‐Gates,  V.,  Jacobson,  E.,  &  Degener,  S.  (2004).  Print  literacy  development:  Uniting   cognitive  and  social  practice  theories.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.     Radway,  J.  A.  (1991).  Reading  the  romance:  Women,  patriarchy,  and  popular  literature.   Chapel  Hill,  NC:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press.     Raikes,  H.  H.,  Raikes,  H.  A.,  Pan,  B.  A.,  Luze,  G.,  Tanis-­‐Lemonda,  C.  S.,  Rodrigues,  E.  T.,  et  al.   (2006).  Mother-­‐child  book  reading  in  low-­‐income  families:  Correlates  and  outcomes   during  the  first  three  years  of  life.  Child  Development,  77,  924-­‐953.   doi:10.1111/j.1467-­‐8624.2006.00911.x     RAND  Reading  Study  Group.  (2002).  Reading  for  understanding:  Toward  an  R&D  program  in   reading  comprehension.  Santa  Monica,  CA:  RAND.  Retrieved  from   http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1465.html       Raphael,  T.  (1986).  Teaching  question-­‐answer  relationships,  revisited.  The  Reading   Teacher,  39,  516-­‐522.  Retrieved  from  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199149     Reese,  E.,  &  Cox,  A.  (1999).  Quality  of  adult  book  reading  affects  children's  emergent   literacy.  Developmental  Psychology,  35(1),  20-­‐28.  Retrieved  from   http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-­‐1649.35.1.20   236     Rideout,  V.,  Roberts,  D.  F.,  &  Foehr,  U.  G.  (2005).  Generation  M:  Media  in  the  lives  of  eight  to   18-­year-­olds.  Menlo  Park,  CA:  Henry  J.  Kaiser  Family  Foundation.     Rogoff,  R.  (1990).  Apprenticeship  in  thinking.  New  York,  NY:  Oxford  University  Press.     Rosenblatt,  L.  M.  (1969).  Towards  a  transactional  theory  of  reading.  Journal  of  Literacy   Research,  1(3),  31-­‐49.  doi:10.1080/10862969609546838     Rosenblatt,  L.  M.  (1978).  The  reader,  the  text,  the  poem:  The  transactional  theory  of  the   literary  work.  Carbondale,  IL:  Southern  Illinois  University  Press.     Rumelhart,  D.  E.  (1977).  Toward  an  interactive  model  of  reading.  In  S.  Dornic  (Ed.),   Attention  and  performance  (Vol.  6,  pp.  573-­‐603).  New  York,  NY:  Academic  Press.     Rumelhart,  D.  E.  (1980).  Schemata:  The  building  blocks  of  cognition.  In  R.  J.  Spiro,  B.  C.   Bruce,  &  W.  F.  Brewer  (Eds.),  Theoretical  issues  in  reading  comprehension  (pp.  33-­‐ 58).  Hillsdale,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum.     Rumelhart,  D.  E.,  &  Ortony,  A.  (1977).  The  representation  of  knowledge  in  memory.  In  R.  C.   Anderson,  R.  J.  Spiro,  &  W.  E.  Montague  (Eds.),  Schooling  and  the  acquisition  of   knowledge  (pp.  99-­‐135).  Hillsdale,  NJ:  Erlbaum  Associates.       Sarup,  M.  (1998).  Identity,  culture,  and  the  postmodern  world.  Athens,  GA:  University  of   Georgia  Press.     Schneider,  W.,  Kron,  V.,  Hünnerkopf,  M.  &  Krajewski,  K.  (2004).  Development  of  young   children’s  memory  strategies:  First  findings  from  the  Würzburg  Longitudinal  Study.   Journal  of  Experimental  Child  Psychology,  88,  193-­‐209.   doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.02.004     Scribner,  S.,  &  Cole,  M.  (1981).  The  psychology  of  literacy.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard   University  Press.       Sénèchal,  M.,  Cornell,  E.  H.,  &  Broda,  L.  S.  (1995).  Age-­‐related  differences  in  the  organization   of  parent-­‐infant  interaction  during  picture  book  reading.  Early  Childhood  Research   Quarterly,  10,  317-­‐337.  doi:10.1016/0885-­‐2006(95)90010-­‐1     Sénèchal,  M.,  &  LeFevre,  J.  A.  (2002).  Parent  involvement  in  the  development  of  children’s   reading  skill:  A  five-­‐year  longitudinal  study.  Child  Development,  73,  445-­‐460.   doi:10.1111/1467-­‐8624.00417     Shanahan,  T.,  &  Shanahan,  C.  (2008).  Teaching  disciplinary  literacy  to  adolescents.  Harvard   Educational  Review,  78(1),  40-­‐59.     237   Shanahan,  C.,  Shanahan,  T.,  &  Misischi,  C.  (2011).  Analysis  of  expert  readers  in  three   disciplines:  History,  mathematics,  and  chemistry.  Journal  of  Literacy  Research,  43(4),   393-­‐429.  doi:10.1177/1086296X11424071     Siegler,  R.  S.  (1988).  Individual  differences  in  strategy  choices:  Good  students,  not-­‐so-­‐good   students,  and  perfectionists.  Child  Development,  59(4),  833-­‐851.  Retrieved  from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130252     Siegler,  R.  S.  (1996).  Emerging  minds:  The  process  of  change  in  children's  thinking.  New  York,   NY:  Oxford  University  Press.     Siegler,  R.  S.,  &  Svetina,  M.  (2006).  What  leads  children  to  adopt  new  strategies?  A   microgenetic/cross-­‐sectional  study  of  class  inclusion.  Child  Development,  77(4),  997-­‐ 1015.  doi:10.1111/j.1467-­‐8624.2006.00915.x     Sinatra,  G.  M.,  Brown,  K.  J.,  &  Reynolds,  R.  (2002).  Implications  of  cognitive  resource   allocation  for  comprehension  strategies  instruction.  In  C.  C.  Block  &  M.  Pressley   (Eds.),  Comprehension  instruction:  Research-­based  best  practices  (pp.  62–76).  New   York,  NY:  Guilford  Press.     Spiro,  R.  J.  (1980).  Constructive  processes  in  prose  comprehension  and  recall.  In  R.  J.  Spiro,   B.  C.  Bruce,  &  W.  E.  Brewer  (Eds.),  Theoretical  issues  in  reading  comprehension  (pp.   245-­‐278).  Hillsdale,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum.     Spivey,  N.  N.  (1987).  Construing  constructivism:  Reading  research  in  the  United  States.   Poetics,  16(2),  169-­‐192.  doi:10.1016/0304-­‐422X(87)90024-­‐6     Stahl,  N.  A.,  &  King,  J.  R.  (2000).  A  history  of  college  reading.  In  R.  F.  Flippo  &  D.  C.  Caverly   (Eds.),  Handbook  of  college  reading  and  study  strategy  research.  Mahwah,  NJ:   Lawrence  Erlbaum  Associates.     Stemler,  S.  (2001).  An  overview  of  content  analysis.  Practical  Assessment,  Research  &   Evaluation,  7(17).  Retrieved  from  http://www.pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17       Stolz,  B.  M.,  &  Fischel,  J.  E.  (2003).  Evidence  for  different  parent-­‐child  strategies  while   reading.  Journal  of  Research  in  Reading,  26,  287-­‐294.  doi:10.1111/1467-­‐9817.00204     Strauss,  A.  L.,  &  Corbin,  J.  (1998).  Basics  of  qualitative  research:  Techniques  and  procedures   for  developing  grounded  theory  (2nd  ed.).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  SAGE.       Street,  B.  V.  (1984).  Literacy  in  theory  and  practice.  Cambridge,  UK:  Cambridge  University   Press.     Street,  B.  V.  (1995).  Social  literacies.  London,  UK:  Longman.     238   Street,  B.  (2000).  Literacy  events  and  literacy  practices:  Theory  and  practice  in  the  new   literacy  studies.  In  M.  Martin-­‐Jones  &  K.  Jones  (Eds.),  Multilingual  literacies  (pp.  17– 30).  Philadelphia,  PA:  John  Benjamins.     Street,  B.  (2001).  Introduction.  In  B.  Street  (Ed.),  Literacy  and  development  (pp.  1–17).  New   York,  NY:  Routledge.     Stuckey,  J.  E.  (1991).  The  violence  of  literacy.  Portsmouth,  NH:  Heinemann.     Taylor,  S.  (1999).  Better  learning  through  better  thinking:  Developing  students’   metacognitive  abilities.  Journal  of  College  Reading  and  Learning,  30(1),  34-­‐45.  doi:   10.1080/10790195.1999.10850084     Taylor,  D.,  &  Dorsey-­‐Gaines,  C.  (1988).  Growing  up  literate:  Learning  from  inner-­city   families.  Portsmouth,  NH:  Heinemann.     Tompkins,  J.  P.  (1980).  The  reader  in  history:  The  changing  shape  of  literary  response.  In   Jane  P.  Tompkins  (Ed.),  Reader-­response  criticism:  From  formalism  to  post-­ structuralism  (pp.  201-­‐232).  Baltimore,  MD:  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press.     Van  den  Broek,  P.,  Lorch,  R.  F.,  Jr.,  Linderholm,  T.,  &  Gustafson,  M.  (2001).  The  effects  of   readers’  goals  on  the  generation  of  inferences.  Memory  &  Cognition,  29(8),  1081-­‐ 1087.  doi:10.3758/BF03206376     Vygotsky,  L.  S.  (1978).  Mind  in  society:  The  development  of  higher  psychological  processes.   Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.     Walker,  B.  J.  (2003).  The  cultivation  of  student  self-­‐efficacy  in  reading  and  writing.  Reading   &  Writing  Quarterly,  19(2),  173-­‐187.  doi:10.1080/10573560308217     Wheeler,  M.  (1982).  Context-­‐related  age  changes  in  mother's  speech:  Joint  book  reading.   Journal  of  Child  Language,  10,  259-­‐263.  Retrieved  from   http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900005304     White,  C.  L.  (2009).  “What  he  wanted  was  real  stories,  but  no  one  would  listen”:  A  child’s   literacy,  a  mother’s  understandings.  Language  Arts,  86(6),  431-­‐439.  Retrieved  from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/41483572     Wigfield,  A.,  Guthrie,  J.  T.,  Tonks,  S.,  &  Perencevich,  K.  C.  (2004).  Children's  motivation  for   reading:  Domain  specificity  and  instructional  influences.  The  Journal  of  Educational   Research,  97(6),  299-­‐310.  doi:10.3200/JOER.97.6.299-­‐310     Wineburg,  S.  (1991).  Historical  problem  solving:  A  study  of  the  cognitive  processes  used  in   the  evaluation  of  documentary  and  pictorial  evidence.    Journal  of  Educational   Psychology,  83(1),  73-­‐87.  Retrieved  from  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-­‐ 0663.83.1.73   239     Wyatt,  D.,  Pressley,  M.,  El-­‐Dinary,  P.  B.,  Stein,  S.,  Evans,  P.,  &  Brown,  R.  (1993).   Comprehension  strategies,  worth  and  credibility  monitoring,  and  evaluations:  Cold   and  hot  cognition  when  experts  read  professional  articles  that  are  important  to   them.  Learning  and  Individual  Differences,  5(1),  49-­‐72.  doi:10.1016/1041-­‐ 6080(93)90026-­‐O     Wyatt-­‐Smith,  C.,  &  Elkins,  J.  (2008).  Multimodal  reading  and  comprehension  in  online   environments.  In  J.  Coiro,  M.  Knobel,  C.  Lankshear  &  D.  J.  Leu  (Eds.),  Handbook  of   research  on  new  literacies  (pp.  899-­‐940).  New  York,  NY:  Routledge.     Yopp,  R.  H.,  &  Yopp,  H.  K.  (2012).  Young  children's  limited  and  narrow  exposure  to   informational  text.  The  Reading  Teacher,  65(7),  480-­‐490.  doi:10.1002/TRTR.01072     Yuill,  N.  (2007).  Visiting  joke  city:  How  can  talking  about  jokes  foster  metalinguistic   awareness  in  poor  comprehenders?  In  Danielle  S.  McNamara  (Ed.),  Reading   comprehension  strategies:  Theories,  interventions,  and  technologies  (pp.  325-­‐346).   Mahwah,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum  Associates.     Zhang,  S.,  &  Duke,  N.  K.  (2008).  Strategies  for  Internet  reading  with  different  reading   purposes:  A  descriptive  study  of  twelve  good  Internet  readers.  Journal  of  Literacy   Research,  40(1),  128-­‐162.  doi:10.1080/10862960802070491     Zipke,  M.  (2008).  Teaching  metalinguistic  awareness  and  reading  comprehension  with   riddles.  The  Reading  Teacher,  62(2),  128-­‐137.  doi:10.1598/RT.62.2.4     Zipke,  M.,  Ehri,  L.  C.,  &  Cairns,  H.  S.  (2009).  Using  semantic  ambiguity  insruction  to  improve   third  graders’  metalinguistic  awareness  and  reading  comprehension:  An   experimental  study.  Reading  Research  Quarterly,  44(3),  300-­‐321.   doi:10.1598/RRQ.44.3.4       240