Metaphor analysis procedures for uncovering participant conceptualizations have been wellestablished in qualitative research settings since the early 1980s; however, one common criticism of metaphor analysis is the trustworthiness of the findings. Namely, accurate determination of the conceptual metaphors held by participants based on the investigation of linguistic metaphors has been identified as a methodological issue because of the subjectivity involved in the interpretation; that is, because they are necessarily situated in specific social and cultural milieus, meanings of particular metaphors are not universally constructed nor understood. In light of these critiques, this article provides examples of two different triangulation methods that can be employed to supplement the trustworthiness of the findings when metaphor analysis methodologies are used.Keywords: Metaphor analysis, triangulation, metaphor checking, dual-analysis approach Acknowledgment: The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers, as well as the IJQM editorial team, for their helpful and insightful feedback on this manuscript.

In this article, we describe an approach to uncovering learners' literacy‐oriented conceptualizations while they are enrolled in transitional, or developmental, reading and writing classes in a college context. This approach entailed eliciting and then analyzing the metaphors for academic literacies produced by students in 15 sections of a mandatory paired reading and writing course. We examine major themes that emerged from our analysis en route to promoting and discussing the utility of short stem prompts as being beneficial to instructors for understanding their students' conceptualizations of reading and writing for their own pedagogical purposes. We conclude with an extended pedagogical implications section, wherein we provide narrative descriptions of the use of metaphors in a college transitional reading class as practical suggestions for how such prompts can be used in classroom settings to support students' apprenticeships into academic literacy practices.

o all readers read alike? Most educators would answer no. Even within a group of readers with similar proficiency levels there is variation and unpredictability in many aspects of the reading process. Differences can include the variety of ways readers approach the text, the types of oral reading miscues they make, the level of comprehension they demonstrate, the connections they make, and more. There is also intrareader variability in these aspects across texts and situations. A reader reading the same text at two different times would be unlikely to read in exactly the same way each time. Many literacy professionals might agree that no two reading acts are exactly the same; within the parameters of what is viewed as "reading" exist much inter-and intrareader variability and unpredictability. Few theoretical models of reading, however, emphasize this variability. In his analysis of contemporary models of reading, Tierney (1994) pointed out that while some theorists include variation and idiosyncrasy in models of reading, "their ramifications for ongoing and indefinite meaning-making are not embraced" (p. 1172). Instead, aspects of reading that are not predictable and do not fit neatly into a model or theory are typically disregarded or ignored. Such models "appear to offer a more segmented and straightforward depiction of the elements and their interrelationships than may exist" (Tierney, p. 1176). Robinson and Yaden (1993) offered a similar critique in terms of literacy research, questioning research that is based on data that assume linearity and a direct relationship between a particular variable and the desired outcome. They argued that "reductionist models that center on only one aspect of the reading process may in fact present an invalid picture of what is actually taking place during reading instruction" (p. 20). A perspective on 338 339 THIS THEORETICAL article examines reading processes using chaos theory as an analogy. Three principles of chaos theory are identified and discussed, then related to reading processes as revealed through eye movement research. Used as an analogy, the chaos theory principle of sensitive dependence contributes to understanding the difficulty in predicting the nature of a reader's eye movement regressions, the principle of self-similarity is realized in the statistical similarity of a reader's eye movements at different levels of text, and the principle of nonlinearity is demonstrated through the intersection of eye movements and oral reading miscue analysis. When related to chaos theory in this way, reading can be described as a self-similar, nonlinear dynamical system sensitively dependent on reader and text characteristics throughout the reading process. Implications of viewing reading processes through a chaos theory perspective are discussed.Viewing eye movements during reading through the lens of chaos theory: How reading is like the weather ESTE ENSAYO teórico examina los procesos de lectura usando la teoría del caos como analogía. Se identifican y discuten tres princ...

No abstract

No abstract