Abstract
While the studies in this issue come from varying theoretical and methodological perspectives, there is a common thread throughout. Each of these studies aims to show how teachers can center student voices to better leverage their linguistic repertoires, implement their theorizing and translanguaging practices, and further develop their metalinguistic knowledge. The articles collectively challenge hegemonic language and literacy norms through what students say and do while engaging young adult literature, translanguaging practices, multimodal design, and argumentative scientific writing.
In “Himpathy, Herasure, and Down Girl Moves: A Critical Content Analysis of Sexual Assault in Young Adult Literature,” Henry Miller, Shelby Boehm, Kathleen Colantonio-Yurko, and Brittany Adams explore the portrayal of sexual violence in young adult literature. Drawing on Manne's theory of “himpathy” and “herasure,” they investigated how students engage in critical conversations surrounding incidents of sexual assault and misogyny. More importantly, this study connects the micro and the macro dimensions of literacy education by focusing on how students deconstruct the ideological and systematic dimensions of misogyny before, during, and after incidents of sexual assault in text.
The next three articles center on student voice by foregrounding translanguaging and transliteracy practices as a way to challenge dominant monoglossic language and literacy ideologies. In addition, these articles demonstrate how this can be done using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. The first article provides an in-depth case study, while the second provides a synthesis of studies focused on how students’ translanguaging practices are being taken up in the field of literacy.
In “Children Translating When Reading Dual-Language Books,” Lisa M. Domke shows how 63 third- and fifth-grade bi-literate students engage with dual-language texts. Some of the innovative practices include translation strategies that incorporate Spanish and English, as well as hybrid language practices invented by the students. By talking about their translation strategies with their peers and teachers, students not only develop metalinguistic knowledge about their translanguaging practices, but also see their linguistic repertoire and creativity as valued within a broader, dominant monoglossic society.
Over the last decade, translanguaging as a practice has come to represent a fundamental shift toward a more expansive view of literacy. It exemplifies a dynamic change from erasing the linguistic repertoires of nondominant populations toward embracing a more humanistic literacy pedagogy. In “Elementary Translanguaging Writing Pedagogy: A Literature Review,” Cori Salmerón presents a systematic analysis of 47 peer-reviewed studies of translanguaging pedagogy and writing development from a variety of contexts, offering the field of literacy a solid empirical basis for how to operationalize translanguaging. This review reveals how translanguaging differs from analogous concepts like “code-switching,” especially as it relates to students’ audience awareness, collaborative learning and composition, multimodal composition, simultaneous literacy instruction, and discovery of their authentic voice. Overall, Salmerón demonstrates how translanguaging pedagogy can fundamentally transform writing instruction while challenging monoglossic norms.
The next study also centers on student voices by exploring the semiotic theories of children. In “Centering Children's Voices and Purposes in Multimodality Research,” David E. Low and Jessica Zacher Pandya show how children's ideas about the nature, function, and purpose of language diverge from formal, top-down views of language and literacy. Low and Pandya conducted interviews with 75 children (ages 8 to 10) about videos they had made in language arts and social studies classes. The children discussed in depth their video-making process and their design decisions. The authors found that when children are situated as “theorizers,” what they privilege in terms of meaning-making goes beyond the linguistic form. Children were observed to select modes based on what was aesthetically pleasing, what worked well for their audience, affective impact, modes that approximated their intention, pragmatic considerations, and whatever would help their audiences understand, see, and feel their content. These stances often go against formal approaches to language and literacy. However, by foregrounding children's theorizing, Low and Pandya demonstrate the possibility of bridging formal systemic functional linguistics and social semiotic approaches.
The final two studies in this issue highlight the improved literacy outcomes to be derived when teachers, especially literacy educators, are willing to cross socioeconomic and disciplinary boundaries and center students as learners, theorizers, and collaborators. In “Interaction of Socioeconomic Status and Classroom Relations on Reading,” Amanda A. Olson and Francis L. Huang draw on a nationally representative data set and provide a large-scale model (8,380 students; 2,930 teachers) for how nurturing student–teacher relationships (STR) positively impacts reading achievement. They found a statistically significant interaction between STR and socioeconomic status, with the further finding that less conflictual STRs supported reading achievement. This was particularly beneficial for students coming from lower socioeconomic status.
Finally, in “Argumentative Writing as an Epistemic Practice in Middle School Science,” George Newell and Kate Misar reveal through microethnographic discourse analysis how relationships with students are built through instructional conversation in order to engage in the co-construction of evolutionary theory. Newell and Misar provide an in-depth contrast of the two students to indicate how divergent paths lead to the production of scientific writing. This cannot happen without teachers consciously employing design principles to create activities that leverage all of their students’ semiotic practices. By positioning students as experts in theory-making, the teacher in this study created a context in which students developed arguments and further strengthened scientific literacy practices such as claims and evidence to co-create a theory of evolution.
Overall, the studies in this issue show how it is possible to understand the centering of student voices in literacy learning using a range of theories and methodologies. These studies collectively help us better understand the micro and macro dynamics of centering student voice and reimagining teacher–student relationships. Empirical studies of translanguaging, transliteracy, teacher–student relationship-building, and scientific writing in diverse contexts collectively provide a basis for reimagining literacy education in expansive ways that can lead to more equitable outcomes.