Reductive policies for teaching and defining reading largely ignore the assemblage of multiple factors and forces that impact one's engagement with text. In this paper, we attend to the complex layers of reader response among emergent multilingual elementary students while engaging with multiple modalities and genres of social justice texts. We examine reader response through critical translingual and posthumanist lenses, highlighting not just the assemblage of human–nonhuman–beyond-human bodies, but the dynamic relationship among its components. We argue that exploring this relationship allows us not just to observe students’ response to texts, but also the challenges to linguistic normativities, intra-active agency, and vibrant becomings involved. By facilitating spaces for multimodal, multigenre, and multilingual reader response, educators can counter oppressive forms of pedagogy that limit what students, especially linguistically marginalized youth, are allowed to do when responding to texts and instead nurture literacies that increase possibilities for vibrancy in multilingual students’ response to text.
AhnC.BalyasnikovaN.HorstR.JamesK.MoralesE.TakedaY.YungE. (2023). Enhancing relationality through poetic engagement with PhoneMe: Transmodal contexts and interpretive agency. Language and Literacy, 25(2), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29617
2.
BaradK (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 801–831. https://doi.org/10.1086/345321
3.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
4.
BarthesR. (1967). The death of the author. Aspen, 5.
5.
BeachR. (1993). A teacher's introduction to reader-response theories. National Council of Teachers of English.
6.
BeachR.WendlerL. (1987). Developmental differences in response to a story. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 286–297. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte198715576
7.
BeneE.RobillardS. M. (2023). Reading the Tulsa Race Massacre: A study exploring a white reader’s shifts in stance across genres of historical text. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 22(4), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-05-2022-0064
8.
BennettJ. (2010). Vibrant matter. Duke University Press.
9.
BradenE. G. (2018). Do you have papers? Latinx third graders analyze immigration policy through critical multicultural literature. Children's Literature in Education, 50, 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-018-9359-5
10.
BrooksW.BrowneS. (2012). Toward a culturally situated reader response model. Children's Literature in Education, 43(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-011-9154-z
11.
BrownM. (2010). Side by side/Lado a lado: The story of Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez/La historia de Dolores Huerta y César Chávez. HarperCollins.
12.
Caro-BruceC. (2004). Action research. In Powerful designs for professional learning. National Staff Development Council.
13.
ChisholmJ. S.WhitmoreK. F. (2017). Reading challenging texts: Layering literacies through the arts. Routledge.
14.
Cochran-SmithM.LytleS. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. Teachers College Press.
15.
ColemanJ. J. (2021). Affective reader response: Using ordinary affects to repair literacy normativities in ELA and English education. English Education, 53(4), 254–276. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee202131482
16.
DávilaD. (2012). In search of the ideal reader for nonfiction children's books about el Día de Los Muertos. Journal of Children's Literature, 38(1), 16–26.
17.
DeleuzeG. (1995). Negotiations: 1972-1990 (M. Joughin, Trans.). Columbia University Press.
18.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
19.
DernikosB. (2018). ‘It’s like you don’t want to read it again’: Exploring affects, trauma and ‘willful’ literacies. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879841875618
20.
DernikosB.ThielJ. J. (2019). Literacy learning as cruelly optimistic: Recovering possible lost futures through transmedial storytelling. Literacy, 54(2), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12207
21.
EncisoP.EdmistonB. (2020). Drama and response to literature: Reading the story, re-reading “the truth”. In KarolidesN. (Ed.), Reader response in elementary classrooms: Quest and discovery (pp. 69–94). Routledge.
22.
EnriquezG. (2016). Reader response and embodied performance: Body poems as performative response and performativity. In EnriquezG.JohnsonE.KontovourkiS.MallozziC. (Eds.), Literacies, learning, and the body: Putting theory and research into pedagogical practice (pp. 41–56). Routledge.
23.
EnriquezG. (2022). “I don’t want to finish this book!”, or a posthumanist view of affect, reader response, and children’s literature. Children's Literature in Education, 53, 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-022-09501-z
24.
EnriquezG.WagerA. C. (2018). The reader, the text, the performance: Opening spaces for the performing arts as reader response. Voices from the Middle, 26(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.58680/vm201829770
25.
FishS. E. (1970). Literature in the reader: Affective stylistics. New Literary History, 2(1), 123–162. https://doi.org/10.2307/468593
26.
FlintT. K. (2024). Sparking joyful learning: A teacher’s guide to connecting play and reader response. Rowman & Littlefield.
27.
FoxN. J.AlldredP. (2021). Applied research, diffractive methodology, and the research-assemblage: Challenges and opportunities. Sociological Research Online, 28(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804211029978
28.
GaldaL. (1990). A longitudinal study of the spectator stance as a function of age and genre. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 261–278. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte199015490
29.
GardnerR. P. (2017). Unforgivable Blackness: Visual rhetoric, reader response, and critical racial literacy. Children's Literature in Education, 48, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-016-9291-5
30.
GeeJ. P. (2000). From ‘socially situated’ to the work of the social. In BartonD.HamiltonM.IvanicR. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180–196). Routledge.
31.
GuiceS. L. (1995). Creating communities of readers: A study of children's information networks as multiple contexts for responding to texts. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969509547888
32.
HammondH. (2012). Graphic novels and multimodal literacy: A high school study with American born Chinese. Bookbird: A Journal of International Children's Literature, 50(4), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1353/bkb.2012.a487148
33.
HaoL.BrownS. (2022). Drawings + talk: Capturing the multimodal authoring of emergent bilinguals through culturally responsive teaching. Language Arts, 100(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.58680/la202232137
34.
HardingD. W. (1937). The role of the onlooker. Scrutiny, 6, 247–258.
35.
HarrisonD.LinaresR. E. (2023). Engaging elementary students beyond the text through multimodal critical literacy. Language Arts, 100(6), 448–461. https://doi.org/10.58680/la202332542
HuR.ChenX.LiX. (2012). Exploring bilingual books with five Chinese first graders: Children’s responses and biliteracy development. Reading Horizons, 52(1).
38.
IserW. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
JacksonA. Y.MazzeiL. M. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. Routledge.
40.
KeslerT. (2011). Expanding pre-service teachers’ conceptions of texts, readers, and response through multimodal response. Language and Literacy, 13, 72–97. https://doi.org/10.20360/G2001V
41.
KhatibS. (2011). Applying the reader-response approach in teaching English short stories to EFL students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.1.151-159
42.
KimS. J. (2015). “It is not fair”: Literary discussions about race and social justice among Korean-origin kindergarten children. The International Journal of Early Childhood Learning, 22(2), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7939/CGP/v22i02/48438
43.
KimM. (2024). New reader response: An examination of three high-achieving high school readers and their literacies. Essays in Education, 31(1), 1–21.
44.
KinlochV.San PedroT. (2014). The space between listening and storying: Foundations for projects in humanization. In ParisD.WinnM. (Eds.), Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 21–42). Sage.
45.
KressG. (2008). “Literacy” in a multimodal environment of communication. In FloodJ.HeathS. B.LappD. (Eds.), Handbook on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (Vol. II, pp. 91–100). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46.
KubyC.SpectorK.ThielJ. J. (2018). Posthumanism and literacy education: Knowing/becoming/doing literacies. Routledge.
47.
LangerJ. (1989). The process of understanding literature (Report Series 2.1). State University of New York, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
48.
LewisC. (2000). Critical issues: Limits of identification: The personal, pleasurable, and critical in Reader Response. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(2), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960009548076
49.
LewisC., & TierneyD. (2013). Mobilizing emotion in an urban classroom: Producing identities and transforming signs in a race-related discussion. Linguistics and Education, 24(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.03.003
50.
López-RobertsonJ. (2012). “Oigan, tengo un cuento”: Crossing la Frontera of life and books. Language Arts, 90, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.58680/la201220685
51.
MacLureM. (2013). Classification or wonder? Coding as an analytic practice in qualitative research. In ColemanB.RingroseJ. (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 164–183). Edinburgh University Press.
52.
MartinezD. C.MoralesP. Z.AldanaU. S. (2017). Leveraging students’ communicative repertoires as a tool for equitable learning. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 477–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X17691741
53.
Martínez-RoldánC.López-RobertsonJ. (1999). Initiating literature circles in a first-grade bilingual classroom. The Reading Teacher, 53(4), 270–281.
54.
McArdleK.BriggsS.ForresterK.GarrettE.McKayC. (2021). The impact of community work: How to gather evidence. Cambridge University Press.
55.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.
56.
PachecoM. B.SmithB. E. (2015). Across languages, modes, and identities: Bilingual adolescents’ multimodal codemeshing in the literacy classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(3), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2015.1091051
57.
PennycookA. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203088807
58.
RodriguezN. N.VickeryA. (2020). Much bigger than a hamburger: Disrupting problematic picturebook depictions of the Civil Rights Movement. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 22(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v22i2.2243
59.
RosenblattL. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois Press.
60.
RosenblattL. M. (1984). Viewpoints--transaction versus interaction: A terminological rescue operation. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 96–107.
61.
SchererL. (2022). ‘Where would you be in the picture?’: Using reader-response with children in primary school. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 22(2), 182–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420913991
62.
SchroeterS.WagerA. C. (2016). Blurring boundaries: Using drama to examine 17th-century witch hunts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(4), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.585
63.
SeltzerK. (2019). Reconceptualizing “home” and “school” language: Taking a critical translingual approach in the English classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 986–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.530
64.
ShortK. G.KauffmanG.KahnL. H. (2000). I just need to draw: Responding to literature across multiple sign systems. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 160–171.
65.
SimsR. (1983). Strong black girls: A ten-year old responds to fiction about Afro-Americans. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16(3), 21–28.
SmagorinskyP.CoppockJ. (1995). The reader, the text, the context: An exploration of a choreographed response to literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(3), 271–298.
68.
SpectorK.MurrayE. A. (2023). Reading with love: The potential of critical posthuman reading practices in preservice English education. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 22(4), 482–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-05-2022-0074
69.
StewartM. A. (2017). “I love this book because that’s like me!” A multilingual refugee/adolescent girl responds from her homeplace. International Multilingual Research Journal, 11(4), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1246900
70.
St. PierreE. A. (2011). Refusing human being in humanist qualitative inquiry. In DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the global crisis (pp. 40–55). Left Coast Press.
71.
ThielJ. J. (2015). Vibrant matter: The intra-active role of objects in the construction of young children’s literacies. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 64, 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336915617618
YiJ. (2022). Reading diverse books is not enough: Challenging racist assumptions using Asian American children's literature. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 34(3), 8–13.
76.
ZapataA. (2020). Cultivating a critical translingual landscape in the elementary language arts classroom. Language Arts, 97(6), 384–390. https://doi.org/10.58680/la202030718
77.
ZapataA.Van HornS. (2017). Because I’m smooth”: Material intra-actions and text productions among young, Latino picturebook makers. Research in the Teaching of English, 51, 290–316. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201728977
