This study reports data from a year-long ethnographic case study of a third-grade teacher's literacy instruction for her linguistically and culturally diverse students. Specifically, we use Bourdieu's social practice theory (1991, 1998) to examine the teacher's linguistic and literate habitus and the discourses of the field converge in her use of cognitive strategy instruction (CSI). In doing so, we spotlight CSI as a site of "struggle for the monopoly of legitimate discourse" (Bourdieu, 1983, p. 317) of the field of reading instruction and the potential effects for linguistically and culturally diverse students. We adapt Bourdieu's theories, however, by situating both habitus and field as performative (Butler, 1993) "as if" spaces (Holland, et al., 1998). Counter to the intentions of many who have developed and advocated the teaching of cognitive reading strategies, we found that CSI was performed in ways that may legitimize narrow conceptions of what "counts" as reading, and even thinking, or cognizing, about texts. At the same time, we identified a small number of instances in which the teacher's instruction challenged those conceptualizations. While we argue that CSI can benefit students, particularly those who struggle with reading, we are concerned that it may be implemented in ways that support current standardizing efforts in language and literacy education. We end with a

In this article, the researchers use the theoretical constructs of Bakhtin and de Certeau to examine how a fourth‐grade teacher negotiated multiple and competing ideologies of literacy and teaching, and how these negotiations related to her professional identity. Data for this case study were collected during a two‐year qualitative study investigating multimodal literacies, multilingualism, and teacher development. The researchers used constant comparative analysis and microethnographic analysis of talk and visual data to investigate how the teacher positioned herself with respect to four different space‐times impacting her literacy instruction (i.e., standardization, bilingual education, writers' workshop, novice teacher status). Findings demonstrate how her positioning involved the tactical recontextualization and creative adaptation of discourses across these space‐times as she poached off institutional powers to refashion curriculum, classroom spaces, and her teacher identity. These negotiations illustrate the microscopic and everyday dimensions of power and how literacy instruction and teacher identities are coconstructed in the particulars of everyday practice. In tandem with the analyses, the researchers argue for a syncretic theoretical framing and micro‐level analytic approach to literacy research to account for the particularities of discourse and classroom practice, and their potential to both reproduce and contest dominant ideologies of literacy and teaching. [Note: Lara Handsfield discusses the research presented in this article in a podcast at the “Voice of Literacy”: http://www.voiceofliteracy.org/posts/42119.] في هذه المقالة يستخدم الباحثون البنيات النظرية لباختين و سيرتو لفحص كيفية تعامل أستاذ الصف الرابع مع إيديولوجيات متعددة متنافسة في القراءة والكتابة والتدريس والعلاقة بين هذه المفاوضات والهوية المهنية للمدرس. تم جمع البيانات لهذه الدراسة الكيفية خلال مدة سنتين و البحث في تعدد أشكال القراءة و الكتابة وتعدد اللغات وتطوير المدرسين. يستخدم الباحثون التحليل الإثنوغرافي المجهري للبيانات الكلامية والمرئية للبحث في الكيفية التي يتموضع فيها المدرس فيما يخص أربعة أمكنة وأزمنة مختلفة تؤثر على تدريسه القراءة والكتابة ( أي المعايرة وتعليم ازدواجية اللغة والحلقة الدراسية للكاتب ووضعية المدرس المبتدئ). وتبيّن النتائج كيف يشمل تموضع المدرس لإعادة سياق الكلام التكتيكي والتكيف الخلاق للخطابات عبر المكان والزمان عندما يتجاوز المدرس سلطات المؤسسة من أجل إعادة تشكيل المناهج والأمكنة في الفصل وهويته كمدرس. ويوضح هذا التعامل الأبعاد المجهرية واليومية للسلطة وكيفية إعادة بناء تعليم القراءة والكتابة وهوية المدرس في تفاصيل الممارسة اليومية. ويحاول الباحثون، جنبا إلى جنب مع التحليلات، أن يبرهنوا على وجود صياغة نظرية توفيقية ونهج تحليلي مجهري لمستوى أبحات القراءة والكتابة من أجل تفسير خصوصيات الخطاب والممارسة في الفصل، وكذلك إمكانياتها لإنتاج وتفنيد الإيديولوجيات المهيمنة في تعليم القراءة والكتابة والتدريس. [Note: Lara Handsfield discusses the research presented in this article in a podcast at the “Voice of Literacy”: http://www.voiceofliteracy.org/posts/42119.] 在本文中研究员运用巴赫金(Bakhtin)与德塞都(de Certeau de Certeau)的...

Classrooms act as linguistic sieves when they continue to accept only dominant forms of English as the “correct” and “appropriate” language choice for all students. Students who speak other languages, such as African American Language or Spanish, are often encouraged to use those languages on the playground or at home but not in “official” spaces. This article interrogates such language practices by considering code‐meshing as an instructional approach that invites multiple languages within the classroom. The authors highlight the choices of teachers who encourage code‐meshing in their writing practices and offer pedagogical suggestions that can help teachers broaden their incorporation of all students' languages.

The field of literacy research has seen a recent surge in scholarship focusing on how matter—both human and nonhuman—comes to matter in literacy research and practice. This article explores how new materialist theories may be recruited for literacy research motivated by an anti-racist ethic. We present an illustrative intra-action analysis of a short autobiographical video produced by Malcolm, a Black male high school student, for a digital autobiography class assignment. Our analysis, informed by both new materialist and poststructuralist theories and emphasizing both discourse and materiality, produces varied interpretations of Malcolm and his literacy practices. Based on our multitheoretic analysis, we raise ethical concerns regarding analyses of racialized students’ literacy practices that emphasize materiality and affect without also retaining a critical eye toward powerful discourses of race and racism. We end with implications and recommendations for others engaging new materialisms in literacy research.

No abstract