Framework of Reading Activity Throughout the Reading-Writing Cycle Given the numerous complexities embedded within reading activity that have been

addressed thus far—from scholars’ work on the schema-based cognitive processes of readers’ brains to the disciplinary lenses (Kreber, 2009) that readers can bring to their textual

engagements—it is clear that when instructors attempt to guide students’ reading, they bring the accumulation of their own life-long literate activity into these efforts, especially their most

formative salient experiences. This is consequential because, as Helmers (2003) claims, “Every reading or writing assignment is grounded in theory, whether consciously considered or not […] what an instructor believes about reading is an essential precondition to organizing and teaching in a writing classroom” (p. 4, as cited by Bosley, 2008, p. 287). Instructors’ reading and writing assignments—and the specific pedagogies that they adopt to guide students’ reading—then, reflect instructors’ broader experiences with literacy, both in and beyond their disciplines.

To determine which reading approaches play a prominent role in TAs’ reading pedagogies, I reviewed composition scholar-practitioners’ work on pedagogical reading strategies. This review led me to develop a framework for analyzing how TAs guide students’ reading that permits more robust explorations into reading activity. Before introducing this framework, though, I will briefly outline inconsistencies in the composition field’s terminology associated with reading activity. These inconsistencies are significant because they point to the need for a clearer conceptualization of reading, which this framework is intended to address. Inconsistent Terminology

There is a considerable amount of ambiguity, imprecision, and conflation in the

composition field’s use of terminology to describe reading activity. These issues are identified in two large-scale surveys (Bunn, 2013; Carillo, 2014) that have been administered to FYC

University of Michigan and tied his inquiry to students’ motivation for reading. Based on the 57 survey responses from graduate students and lecturers, Bunn concludes that some respondents lacked a name for the reading approaches they used, and others misnamed various approaches that they were using. He insists that instructors’ ability to name their reading approaches is crucial, in part, because each approach represents a “distinct and measurable skill—something far more likely to motivate students to read than encouraging an unnamed approach whose benefits remain unclear” (as cited by Carillo, 2014, p. 32).

Even some of the field’s most widely-published scholars seem to suffer from this “name game.” Downs (2010), for instance, characterizes content analysis as “a way of getting at ‘what texts talk about by combining quantitative and qualitative analysis of textual features’” but claims this is “somewhat analogous” to close reading (p. 38), though they appear to be quite distinct approaches with fundamentally different purposes. In a similar vein, Bunn (2016) states that his “reading like a writer” (RLW) method is “nearly identical” to the term critical reading (p. 59), but the scholarship on critical reading does not explicitly mention making reading-writing

connections—suggesting that critical reading has no immediately-apparent utility for RLW. Further, whereas RLW considers rhetorical and stylistic aspects of a text, the adjective critical in

critical reading connotes an evaluative component of reading that seems to require a level of

skepticism. Another example of compositionists’ conflation across terms is when Center (2010) claims that “reading-uncentered assignments” (emphasis added) are those for which “reading is assigned but the writing assignments that follow do not require close, critical reading” (p. 129). By pairing the words “close” and “critical” together, Center elects to seemingly join these two often-contested terms instead of teasing out differences in their prescribed activity.

Such interpretive license amongst terms is not uncommon; in fact, it seems to be the norm beyond FYC as well. In a study of faculty’s descriptions of and expectations for student

work at three different levels of coursework (introductory courses, lower-division courses, and the capstone), Anson et al. (2012) found that even seemingly-straightforward reading-dependent terms like analysis were not neutral, static entities. Analysis can fluctuate depending on disciplinary and genre-based expectations. In literature courses, for instance, the term analysis indicates the adoption of a theoretical lens, whereas in political science, faculty described analysis as

“disaggregating the logic found in secondary material so that it can be empirically evaluated” (p. 6). This evidence suggests two important points about terminology: (1) vague or imprecise meaning can lead to conflation across terms and (2) the operationalization of these terms—that is, what these concepts actually look and sound like in practice—are ultimately grounded according to disciplinary expectations.

Scholars have attempted to resolve some of these inconsistencies associated with terminology by categorzing reading activity according to various taxonomies. Most recently, Edwards (2016) outlines nine purposes for reading: analysis, apprenticeship, challenge,

development, didactics, discovery, enculturation, inquiry, and modeling. Morrow (1997) sorts the possible ways of reading into seven main areas: reading for or reading to build an intellectual

repertoire, negotiate ambiguity, the unexpected, the stylistic play of language, argumentation and evidential strategies of persuasion, genre conventions, and the overall reading experience. A third organizational approach emerges from Adler-Kassner and Estrem’s (2007) study on instructors’ practices at the writing program at Eastern Michigan University. They divide instructors’ strategies for guiding students’ reading into content-based reading, process-based reading, and 
structure-based reading. While there is modest bleed-over across these three approaches to categorizing reading—for instance, Morrow’s “genre conventions” is included as a component of Adler-Kassner and Estrem’s “structured-based reading” approach—there is also considerable divergence across these three arrangements.

Constructing Elements of a Framework: “Reading Behaviors” And “Reading Domains” As a result of my review of the scholarship on reading in the postsecondary writing classroom, alongside my analysis of the data generated by surveys and interviews with TAs, I’ve developed a framework to describe how TAs—trained in humanities disciplines and exposed to composition theories of genre, transfer, and threshold concepts—guide students’ reading in FYC. This framework emerged from the literature on reading that I have reviewed and from an analysis of the data collected for this study. In this dissertation, I use it to facilitate a clearer exploration of my inquiry to a greater extent. At the same time, beyond the immediate purposes of the research here, this framework also can provide a means of examining reading activity in educational settings on a more general level.

I introduce the term reading behaviors as a means to more precisely situate reading activity within this framework. When instructors enact their reading pedagogies, they attempt to

cultivate particular behaviors in their students; the term reading behaviors, conceptually, provides a more microscopic view of reading activity. This term builds off of Bunn’s (2010) use of “reading approaches” (similar to reading strategies or reading methods) which he describes as “systematic ways of engaging with a text that encourage readers to attend to certain textual features while reading with very particular goals in mind” (p. 29) by including the numerous and sometimes subtle skills, strategies, and stances that instructors seek to cultivate in their students. Reading

behaviors attends to what instructors seek to have student-readers think, feel, or do, thus

incorporating the range of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social outcomes of any reader- text transaction. Figure 3 portrays a taxonomy of the nested nature of literate activity

surrounding reading behaviors. TAs’ understandings of these situated practices form the basis of this study and brings greater specifity to the framework which I will introduce.

From Specific Reading Behaviors to Broad Literate Activity: Taxonomy of Nested Literate Activity

Conceptually, then, the idea of a reading behavior takes into consideration how scholar- practitioners have imagined the internal schema-based cognitive processes and stances that occur within readers’ minds (i.e., comprehending texts and being motivated to read), as well as the explicit and observable actions that can make students’ reading activity visible (i.e., annotating texts or summarizing). Reading behaviors, as a term for understanding how readers engage with texts, is crucial to this study because it serves as a grounding point for one of my research questions: what reading behaviors do TAs seek to cultivate in their FYC students, and why?

Framework: Situated Reading Behaviors Along a Reading-Writing Cycle

The framework that that has emerged from my research (and through which I describe my analysis) situates the specific reading behaviors that TAs seek to cultivate at points along a reading-writing cycle. To outline this framework, I begin by describing its essential elements,

each of which were each grounded in the literature on how scholar-practitioners guide students’ reading in their postsecondary writing classrooms. On the most foundational level, this

framework positions reading activity across an iterative cycle between two broad domains of reading activity: reading for textual consumption and reading for textual production. Reading activity aligned with the textual consumption is strictly limited to heightening readers’ understanding, interpretation, and engagement with the principal text under consideration. For all intents and purposes, reading for textual consumption is the starting point for all literate activity that instructors design for students3_{; in some instances, students’ purposes for reading end here. At} the other end of the cycle is textual production: here, the immediate and ultimate goal of reading activity is to inform writing; when instructors’ pedagogies cultivate particular reading behaviors aligned with this domain, they make attempts to directly shape students’ writing.

Essentially, textual consumption and textual production form two poles of an iterative reading-writing cycle, thereby extending Rosenblatt’s (1978) theorization of efferent reading practices. When a reader engages with a particular text, they do so for a specific purpose: they primarily read for textual consumption or, alternatively, for textual production. It is important to note, though, that these two domains are interdependent because textual production is

oftentimes predicated on textual consumption—that is, students’ basis for their writing is, oftentimes, connected to the texts that they have read. When instructors attempt to guide students’ reading at any given moment, they direct their pedagogical resources towards

cultivating particular reading behaviors in one of these two broad domains. Figure 4 illustrates this relationship.

Figure 4

Two Domains of the Reading-Writing Cycle: Textual Consumption and Textual Production

This representation depicts a broad overview for understanding reading activity in the writing classroom and the cyclical relationship between reading (textual consumption, in red) and writing (textual production, in blue). A reader’s textual consumption provides a significant basis for his or her textual production. In turn, that same reader’s textual production—based on a particular text(s)—can also enhance his or her textual consumption of that same text(s). The act of writing (textual production) can also strengthen, recalibrate, or otherwise inform a student’s understanding or interpretation of a given text(s)—that is, return a student-reader to textual consumption—which is denoted by the black dotted arrow.

A much more detailed framework, though, emerged from my literature review and data analysis. It extends another element of Bunn’s (2010) research: a continuum which moves reading activity from textual consumption to textual production, beginning with close reading and progressing toward reading like a writer. The expanded framework that I offer includes a more holistic view of the iterative nature of the reading-writing process, while also facilitating a more microscopic examination of readers’ activity. Figure 5, below, depicts the four essential

dimensions of reading activity that are situated at specific moments during the reading-writing process: two of these dimensions occur within the domain of textual consumption, intratextual

foci and extratextual expansion. Two other dimensions occur within the domain of textual production: intertextual integration and transtextual embodiment. The graphic below illustrates the relationships that these dimensions play within the greater reading-writing cycle of literate activity. Also evident in this graphic, off-set to the left, is the crucial role that a reader’s prior experiences with literacy play within their ever-expanding textual engagements. While these prior experiences are certainly important, the four dimensions denoted by the red and blue arrows, below, form the foundation of the framework that predominantly drives my data analysis. Figure 5

Framework of Reading Pedagogies: Situated Reading Dimensions in the Reading-Writing Cycle

The asterisk (*) next to “Intratextual Foci” denotes the start of each reader-text relationship.

In each of the four broad dimensions of reading activity that are depicted above— intratextual foci, extratextual expansion, intertextual integration, and transtextual embodiment— student-readers exhibit particular reading behaviors for distinct purposes. In turn, writing instructors’ reading pedagogies attempt to guide students’ towards cultivating particular reading

behaviors in each of these domains at various points in their courses. These more nuanced reading behaviors are the main focus of my investigation (which I analyze in in greater detail below), but to provide contextualize this framework, I first provide an overview of these two general domains, followed by a description of their accompanying dimensions.

Textual Consumption Domain of Reading Activity.

Reading behaviors that are situated within the textual consumption domain are primarily intended to guide readers towards generating more meaning from texts. These approaches are designed to facilitate the foundational layer of a reading transaction—namely, strengthening readers’ understanding of content—as well as enabling readers to expand meaning-making possibilities. Two dimensions comprise this textual consumption domain, which each denote a different purpose for reading: clarification of and attention to content (intratextual foci) and acknowledgement of and appreciation for context (extratextual expansion).

Intratextual Foci Dimension of Reading Activity. Reading behaviors within this

intratextual foci dimension draw readers’ attention to various aspects of the primary text itself in isolation. Beginning with recognition of an array of textual features, they also include

comprehension, close reading, applying visual literacy, and deconstructing genres. Embedded within the

confines of the holistic text—the language, content, and formatting—these reading behaviors do not prescribe attending to any other dimensions of or purposes for reading. Attention is limited to aspects contained within the text itself. All reading activity requires readers to engage in some degree of intratextual foci.

Examining Textual Features. Broad’s (2003) DCM model, based on faculty conversations

about students’ FYC portfolios, suggests that texts can be broken down into two basic categories: textual features and textual qualities. Textual features, alternatively called “units of analysis” (Huckin, 2004), can range from lower-order surface-level inscriptions to more

complex, higher-order ideas embedded within texts. Faculty’s discussions generated fifteen textual features, spanning from mechanics, content, examples, titles, appearances, and graphics.

Similar to the “textual features” that Broad uses to classify different textual units, Dryer’s (2013) textual analysis of 83 first-year introductory academic writing rubrics from 166 public Research I and II institutions also provide clues to what different textual features readers seem to privilege. His investigation revealed ten textual features which he calls “canonical traits.” In order of their most frequent prevalence, the traits were grammar (78), evidence (73), thesis (71), style (67), organization and structure (59), critical thinking and analysis (59), audience and rhetorical awareness (53), assignment and engagement (48), creativity and originality (39), and writing process and revision (16). However, reading behaviors within the intratextual foci dimension exclusively refer to directing readers’ attention to the “features,” “units of analysis,” or “traits” that are objectively emdedded within the texts. Readers’ judgments of a writer’s ability to employ specific textual features (as well as their interplay), while incredibly important, are

components of another reading dimension—reader response, which I will detail in greater depth later.

Comprehending Content and Recalling Information. Readers’ abilities to understand the basic

ideas in a text is inextricably tied to that text’s textual features, which is why it is aligned with the intratextual foci dimension. Although comprehension and recall are both bound up in more complex issues of cognitive processing and memory, these reading behaviors are clearly situated to

promote textual consumption. While some compositionists resist pedagogies intended to guide students’ comprehension because they are perceived to be reductive, others acknowledge its crucial role as the foundational layer of meaning-making.

Adams (2016), a writing center researcher, labels this reading behavior—along with other reading behaviors that target such fundamental areas—as “remedial” (p. 81). In one hypothetical

scenario, he states, “Amy is a college reader who needs reading instruction with what are often considered remedial reading skills—vocabulary, pronunciation, comprehension, and

contextualizing. Much of the challenge here, and in general when tutoring is reading focused, has everything to do with not wanting to simply give readers the ‘answer’ or, in this case, the correct meaning of the word along with an explanation of how that word applied” (p. 81, emphasis added). Salvatori (1996) attacks the cultivation of such “remedial” reading behaviors in the writing classroom such as “reading for the main idea, for plot, for argument, for meaning, for message” and insists that they are “meaningless and arbitrary exercises” that “restrain students and teachers from asking questions of a text other than the ones the textbooks have already ‘gridded’” (p. 442). She argues that such pedagogies limits dialogical opportunities in class, adding, “They shut down discussion and inquiry, and so shut down learning, while an increased digital focus on processes might encourage a more active learning” (as cited by Edwards, 2016, p. 142). Bazerman (1980), though, seems to acknowledge that comprehension is part of readers’ developmental trajectory, i.e., the starting point of the conversation model and a student-reader’s participation in such activity, albeit with more of a rhetorical emphasis. He notes, “Intelligent response begins with accurate understanding of prior comments not just of the facts and ideas stated, but of what the other writer was trying to achieve” (p. 658, emphasis added).

Conducting a Close Reading. Hayles (2010) defines close reading as “a detailed and precise

attention to rhetoric, style, language choice, and so forth through a word by word examination of a text’s linguistic techniques” (p. 64) and “a meticulous attention to the effects of each written word within a single text” (p. 74, as cited by Morris, 2016). Carillo (2014) notes that it is often associated with the teaching of literature and the New Criticism movement which “aimed to give students the critical tools they needed in order to differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ poetry” (p. 51).

Applying Visual Literacy. Shipka (2015) describes visual literacy as “examin[ing] the design

of words on a page as well as the relationships among words, images, codes, textures, sounds, colors, and potentials for movement” (p. 212), thereby expanding writers’ and readers’ rhetorical capabilities. Wysocki (2003) provides a practical explanation for guiding students towards

interpreting the rhetorical function of images, which she callls “visual rhetoric,” stating: “take a visual text—any web page or software interface, any advertisement, any television newsscreen— and ask students how the text would be different if it were changed in some way […] if (for example) the red in the text were replaced with green, if the classical looking typeface were replaced with something hand-painted” (Bunn, 2010b, pp. 50-51). As a distinct reading behavior,