Toward a Dynamic Idiolect: Multilingual Perspectives on the 'Science of Reading'
Saved in:
| Title: | Toward a Dynamic Idiolect: Multilingual Perspectives on the 'Science of Reading' |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Christine Montecillo Leider (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Psychologist. 2024 59(4):250-262. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 13 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Multilingualism, Reading Instruction, Educational Theories, Metalinguistics, Comprehension |
| DOI: | 10.1080/00461520.2024.2394026 |
| ISSN: | 0046-1520 1532-6985 |
| Abstract: | In this essay, we address the multilingual challenge that is faced by both the "science of reading" and the field of educational psychology. We describe some significant contributions made by educational psychology to the field's understanding of the "science of reading" as well as multilingual reading, more specifically. While these contributions have been productive, they do not reflect contemporary multilingual theories that pertain to reading and literacy. To move reading research toward a more multilingual orientation, we propose that "language" be considered as a verb, "to language," and that the language user be considered as a "languager," who brings their own unique set of linguistic resources to bear on the reading process. Each languager, we argue, possesses their own "dynamic idiolect," comprising three components: linguistic awareness, sensemaking, and linguistic lamination. After providing examples of the dynamic idiolect in instructional contexts, we illustrate how its three components can be captured in empirical contexts to operationalize the dynamic idiolect and move educational psychology toward a more multilingual "science of reading." |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1452412 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGjDOdsG_Ms26axXguIcNRuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCNSDXlOL7X522qgCgIBEICBmxNnmrig3iRKZUSoD3bdWKQYMU9ci4lkpeWg6NjvQh5O-0ZKhaV_L87B13RFbViDHfVyCJb4saGUCHulc_Cs0NNs_puxQF9u9EadO25fqubrBIGaMsruXnjQfFpW-8rF-V-9ag9uXCnmkFUkznPBsrTcZcWmmAgK0GGrbbyCtovWVcTpRmcczuZgG1o6ijrW99HdbZiXErxzqG-A Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0181257471;epy01oct.24;2024Dec04.04:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181257471-1">Toward a dynamic idiolect: Multilingual perspectives on the "science of reading" </title> <p>In this essay, we address the multilingual challenge that is faced by both the "science of reading" and the field of educational psychology. We describe some significant contributions made by educational psychology to the field's understanding of the "science of reading" as well as multilingual reading, more specifically. While these contributions have been productive, they do not reflect contemporary multilingual theories that pertain to reading and literacy. To move reading research toward a more multilingual orientation, we propose that language be considered as a verb, to language, and that the language user be considered as a languager, who brings their own unique set of linguistic resources to bear on the reading process. Each languager, we argue, possesses their own dynamic idiolect, comprising three components: linguistic awareness, sensemaking, and linguistic lamination. After providing examples of the dynamic idiolect in instructional contexts, we illustrate how its three components can be captured in empirical contexts to operationalize the dynamic idiolect and move educational psychology toward a more multilingual "science of reading."</p> <p>The "science of reading," according to Shanahan ([<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref1">93</reflink>]), is a term in the U.S. educational lexicon whose frequency of use has tended to ebb and flow since its inception in the late 1700s. In the current literacy moment of this twenty-first century, the data clearly show that the term is enjoying a renaissance, now tapping into new modes of dissemination, including research, pedagogy, policy, and the popular media. The debate over what counts as science-based reading research was rekindled in the twenty-first century by the George W. Bush administration's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known colloquially as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001). As part of NCLB, <emph>Reading First</emph> was a federal reading initiative that sought to incentivize states and districts to adopt "science-based reading research" with the goal of all students reading for comprehension (in English) by Grade 3. <emph>Reading First</emph> provided substantial federal funding to implement district- and school-based programming grounded in the findings from an influential reading research synthesis by the National Reading Panel (NRP, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref2">69</reflink>]) that identified phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension as key drivers of successful reading comprehension and instruction.</p> <p>Even though the impacts of that effort were shown to affect students' decoding but not comprehension (Gamse et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>]), nearly a quarter century later the "science of reading" movement continues to rely heavily on that turn-of-the-century NRP report. A key difference, however, in the current incarnation of these reading policy debates is that they have moved from the federal stage to state legislatures. Indeed, as of July 2022, 29 states and the District of Columbia had passed laws or implemented new policies related to "evidence-based" (read, "science of") reading instruction (Aydarova, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]). This phenomenon includes the state in which we, the authors of this essay, reside and work as practice-driven multilingual literacy researchers. As such, we enter into this resurgence of interest in, and implementation of, the "science of reading" through our work with multilingual students and their teachers across many districts and schools in our home state and across the country. As we bear witness to a swing of the pendulum back to the "science of reading," we consistently return to two basic questions: First, <emph>On what theory and research does the "science of reading" appear to be based?</emph> and second, <emph>Does this theory and research take multilingualism and multilingual learners into account, and if so, how</emph>?</p> <p>In this essay, we take on these two questions and examine the role that educational psychology has played, and can play, in integrating the "science of reading" with a more theoretically nuanced empiricism that centers multilingualism and multilingual learners. Educational psychology is an appropriate discipline to address this aim because it enjoys acceptance as a scientific domain of inquiry within a "science of reading" imaginary. Indeed, its focus on quantification, psychometrics, and developmentalism has allowed for multiple insights that have been useful in advancing our understanding of reading and readers. At the same time, educational psychology has an historical tendency to constrain reading research in terms of theory and method, particularly with respect to multilingual reading and readers.</p> <p>Part of that constraint is arguably due to a lack of attention to multilingualism in educational psychology. This is typified in the <emph>Handbook of Educational Psychology</emph> wherein relatively few pages have been dedicated to the topic. Indeed, in the first edition (Berliner &amp; Calfee, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]), Hakuta and McLaughlin ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref6">36</reflink>]) framed multilingualism as a site of schism. They identified seven domains of conflict: empiricism vs. nativism; linguistics vs. psychology; psycholinguistics vs. sociolinguistics; cognitive skills vs. whole language; elite vs. folk bilingualism; basic vs. applied research; and theory vs. data. While we address many of these broad constructs here (e.g., methodology, linguistics, language, cognition), we argue that these are not binary, two-dimensional issues, but rather dynamic systems that operate simultaneously and push us toward the dynamic idiolect framework we ultimately propose in this essay.</p> <p>Since Hakuta and McLaughlin's ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>]) contribution to that first edition of the Handbook, scant attention has been paid to issues of multilingualism. In the second edition, Padilla ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref8">76</reflink>]) articulated issues of research and teaching in second language acquisition, while in the third edition, O'Brien and Rogers ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref9">71</reflink>]) focused on "Sociocultural Perspectives on Literacy and Learning." And while the most recent edition of the Handbook (Schutz &amp; Muis, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref10">92</reflink>]) contains chapters pertaining to adjacent constructs, including race, cross-cultural research, literacy, and new literacies, it does not directly address issues of multilingualism in educational psychology.</p> <p>With the above as preamble, we begin this essay with our own positionality as multilingual literacy researchers. We then provide our own working view of the "science of reading" and describe some foundational contributions made by educational psychology to the "science of reading" generally, and to multilingual reading more specifically. We go on to suggest that recent multilingual theories are not currently taken up within educational psychology or the "science of reading." Specifically, García and Wei ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>]) have contested the notion that <emph>language</emph> is a count-noun (one language, two languages), arguing instead that <emph>language</emph> should be conceptualized as a verb, i.e., something that humans do with the unique linguistic resources they possess. Building on this, we posit our own person-centered view of the <emph>languager</emph> (García, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref12">26</reflink>]) who draws on their <emph>dynamic idiolect</emph> to engage with other languagers (e.g., students and teachers) as well as with various texts (e.g., print, video, assessments, curricula). We operationalize the dynamic idiolect via three components: linguistic awareness, sensemaking, and linguistic lamination. From there, we provide a contextualized example of the dynamic idiolect in a hypothetical reading instructional context followed by some empirical recommendations for operationalizing the dynamic idiolect in reading research. Our hope is to push educational psychology (and educational psychologists) to engage with contemporary multilingual theories and methodologies in service of a more comprehensive and inclusive "science of reading."</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-2">Positionality</hd> <p>We acknowledge that our own identities and experiences invariably influence our research (Jacobson &amp; Mustafa, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref13">40</reflink>]; Lin, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref14">58</reflink>]; Milner, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref15">67</reflink>]). We are both literacy researchers with roots in educational psychology, who work regularly with multilingual students and their teachers. Chris is Filipina American and second-generation immigrant. Her initial interests in educational psychology were rooted in the idea of using "scientific evidence" to understand language learning phenomena among bilinguals who, like her, grew up with multilingual parents but never fully learned their heritage language and studied a different "foreign" language in school. Over time, her research has come to focus on understanding the nature of teacher beliefs about language, language learning, and language diversity and their relationship to literacy instruction. Patrick is white, U.S.-born, and grew up in an English-speaking household, but attended K-12 schools where Spanish was spoken alongside English, thus promoting his own bilingualism and biliteracy. As a former elementary school bilingual teacher, his work in multilingual literacy research grew out of two notable intersections of racism and language: (a) that his bilingualism, that of a White home English-speaker, was celebrated, while that of his school-age Latinx/e peers from Spanish-speaking homes was viewed as an impediment to English; and (b) the English-only movement of the early 2000s that made bilingual education, and thus teaching children to read in their home languages, illegal.</p> <p>We both share the named languages of English and Spanish in our linguistic repertoires and together we have published multiple articles that utilize traditional educational psychology methods to study reading development among bilingual Latinx/e students in the United States (e.g., Leider et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref16">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref17">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref18">56</reflink>]; Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref19">84</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref20">85</reflink>]). Now, more than a decade after our first joint publication, we have questioned our former conceptualizations of language and our approaches to understanding multilingual reading.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-3">Can "science of reading" be defined?</hd> <p>Defining what counts as the "science of reading" can be challenging because the way in which it is understood, and thus defined, can and will vary at the individual and group levels. This includes the reality that the "science of reading" is not only an empirical entity, but also a cultural and political one. As we have noted, the "science of reading" in the twenty-first century is unique in that "the surge of attention to the science of reading is attributable to its use by the media and in the public debate" (Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref21">93</reflink>], p. S238). This phenomenon is facilitated by a highly digitized and interconnected technological era in which (dis)information has become increasingly common via multiple internet-based dissemination hubs (e.g., social media, blogs, podcasts, etc.). As such, the "science of reading" movement is composed not only of teachers and researchers, but also of non-expert parents, politicians, and journalists, who use specific languaging to achieve their goals of influencing policy and pedagogy. This social and political movement has gained traction in affecting legislation and curriculum adoptions in states across the U.S., with very specific messaging and an aggressive public engagement strategy. Given these multiple converging factors, it has been argued recently that there is a "science of reading" culture that has moved away from rigorous empiricism and toward a more rigid, and less scientific, dogma (Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref22">93</reflink>]; Snow, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref23">95</reflink>]).</p> <p>The reality that the "science of reading" has taken on a socio-political identity is important to acknowledge because it requires that we bound our understanding of the term. For the purposes of this essay, we focus our attention on the "science of reading" strictly as an empirical entity. More specifically, we conceptualize the term vis-à-vis the role that educational psychology has played in generating reading research. And to understand this role, one must begin with the seminal Simple View of Reading (Gough &amp; Tunmer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>]; Hoover &amp; Gough, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref25">38</reflink>]) because of its outsized role in reading research.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-4">The Simple View of Reading</hd> <p>The Simple View of Reading (SVR) is one of the bedrock theories of the "science of reading," and a mainstay of reading research in educational psychology. Briefly, the SVR presents a basic multiplicative relationship between three key components of reading: decoding, linguistic comprehension, and reading comprehension, such that reading comprehension = decoding × listening comprehension. The relationship is multiplicative because if either decoding or linguistic comprehension is equal to 0, then reading comprehension is also 0. That is, if one cannot convert graphic information to linguistic form (i.e., decode), then no amount of language comprehension will result in reading for comprehension. Conversely, without having proficiency in the language of the text, one cannot comprehend what they read even if their decoding is perfect.</p> <p>The developmental component of the SVR posits that as young readers begin to engage with text, they must expend substantially more cognitive effort to decode the words due to the novelty of the task. But as children age, and decoding becomes more automatic, then linguistic comprehension becomes the driving predictor of reading, which aligns with the increasing linguistic complexity of texts in schools at upper elementary and secondary levels. This concept has been enshrined in the "science of reading" imaginary via Scarborough's ([<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref26">91</reflink>]) reading rope model, in which decoding becomes increasingly automatic over developmental time, while linguistic comprehension becomes increasingly strategic.</p> <p>Research on the SVR has proliferated over the years, and the relationships between decoding, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension, are consistently shown to be significant and developmentally stable. Notably, a recent study (Quinn &amp; Wagner, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref27">87</reflink>]) used meta-analytic structural equation modeling to demonstrate the stability of the SVR's two major components, decoding and listening comprehension as singular predictors of reading comprehension specifically for younger students, while for older students decoding and listening comprehension also predicted reading comprehension, along with a third "cognitive" variable. Two other meta-analyses by Lee and Lee ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref28">53</reflink>], 2023) replicated that same structural equation approach to explore the SVR for second language reading comprehension, again with evidence supporting the predicted relationships and developmental moderators.</p> <p>The SVR's ubiquity in reading research stems, at least in part, from the reality that it is easy to operationalize for the correlational and developmental research that characterizes much of educational psychology. Proof can be found in the Quinn and Wagner ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref29">87</reflink>]) meta-analysis (described above) which reported a combined sample of over one million students from across the studies identified for analysis. Similarly, the Lee et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref30">53</reflink>], 2023) meta-analyses reported combined total samples of more than 46,000 students.</p> <p>Critics of the SVR (ourselves included) note that while the SVR's simplicity may be useful for statistical modeling, the model under-specifies the complexity of the reading process (e.g., Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref31">21</reflink>]). Indeed, there are many other theories of reading that take more nuanced perspectives, including Construction-Integration (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref32">48</reflink>]), the RAND Reading Comprehension Heuristic (Snow, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref33">97</reflink>]), the Componential Model of Reading (Joshi et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref34">44</reflink>]), the Reading Systems Framework (Perfetti &amp; Stafura, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref35">78</reflink>]), and, most recently, the Active View of Reading (Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]). However, we would argue the SVR has influenced multilingual reading research more than any other traditional theory of reading.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-5">Multilingual reading</hd> <p>Reading researchers have applied the SVR to many written languages, including English, Dutch, Greek, Finnish, French, German, Italian, and others (e.g., Florit &amp; Cain, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref38">53</reflink>], 2023). Such applications of the SVR in multiple languages constitute a multilingual contribution to reading research. Florit and Cain ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref39">23</reflink>]) explored the differences in the relationship between decoding, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension, comparing English with other languages characterized by a more transparent orthography. Consistent with SVR theory, results showed that decoding remained a much stronger predictor of reading comprehension for longer developmental time among English readers as compared with children reading in more transparent orthography. Relatedly, linguistic comprehension was a stronger predictor of reading comprehension much earlier in the reading process for readers of transparent orthographies as compared with English readers. Like Florit and Cain ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]), the meta-analytic work by Lee and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref41">53</reflink>], 2023) found strong evidence for age as a moderator of the decoding, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension relationship with linguistic comprehension becoming a stronger predictor than decoding over time. They also found that orthographic overlap between English and a reader's first language did not moderate the main effects of decoding and listening comprehension on reading comprehension.</p> <p>Lee et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref42">53</reflink>], 2023) focus on orthographic overlap among multilingual readers stems from a strong line of research in educational psychology dedicated to multilingual reading. Much of this line of inquiry can be traced back to Cummins' ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref43">11</reflink>]) linguistic interdependence hypothesis—a bilingual theory of second language acquisition (see Snow, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref44">96</reflink>]) in which one's first language (L1) is hypothesized to play a significant role in the speed and facility with which they acquire their second language (L2). This L1 → L2 effect is theorized to exist due to a <emph>common underlying proficiency</emph>, a cognitive mechanism that allows the bilingual reader to tap knowledge common across languages.</p> <p>To explore the hypothesis, researchers have examined the cross-linguistic covariances between components of reading that align with decoding, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension, including phonological awareness and word recognition (e.g., Branum-Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref45">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]; Cho &amp; McBride-Chang, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref47">9</reflink>]), morphological awareness (Cheung et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref49">103</reflink>]), vocabulary (e.g., Branum-Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>]; Leider et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref51">56</reflink>]; Mancilla-Martinez et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref52">61</reflink>]; Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref53">82</reflink>]), general language proficiency (Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]), and reading comprehension (e.g., Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref55">84</reflink>]; van Gelderen et al., [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref56">101</reflink>]). In these studies, linguistic interdependence is modeled such that L1 decoding and/or language skills are used as predictors or moderating variables for L2 reading outcomes both cross-sectionally (e.g., Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref57">82</reflink>]) and developmentally (e.g., Relyea &amp; Amendum, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref58">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>Three trends emerge from these findings: (a) effects of L1 skills on L2 reading are typically detectable but are attenuated when analogue English predictors are included in regression modeling (e.g., Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref59">46</reflink>]; Leider et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref60">54</reflink>]); (b) cross-linguistic correlations tend to be stronger for decoding, a more constrained skill, than they are for reading and linguistic comprehension (see Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref61">83</reflink>] for an overview); and (c) cross-linguistic correlations are further enhanced when the languages in question are orthographically similar (see Bialystok et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref62">4</reflink>]) and/or share a language family (i.e., cognates; see Proctor &amp; Mo, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref63">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>These findings derive from, and relate to, several broad theories of multilingual reading. Geva and Siegel ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref64">32</reflink>]), for example, proposed the <emph>script-dependent hypothesis</emph> as a means by which to understand cross-linguistic decoding processes in bilingual reading. Specifically, for decoding, "if the relationships between the graphic representation of words and their pronunciation is unambiguous, the reader will exploit phonological representation" (p. 2). Proctor et al. ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref65">83</reflink>]) proposed the <emph>interdependence continuum</emph>, which merged notions of linguistic interdependence and script dependence in a holistic model of Spanish-English bilingual reading that considered decoding skills in both languages to be highly correlated and proximally related to English and Spanish reading. On the other hand, cross-linguistic language proficiencies were hypothesized to be minimally correlated with each other, and thus distally related to cross-linguistic reading outcomes.</p> <p>Finally, Prevoo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref66">81</reflink>]) reported on a meta-analysis that examined cross-linguistic associations among reading variables across multiple language pairs. Building on the theories above, Prevoo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref67">81</reflink>]) argued that it is not just the orthographic commonalities or underlying cognitive processes that matter in understanding bilingual reading. Also critically important are the ways in which constructs are operationalized. That is, the ways in which linguistic comprehension, decoding, and reading comprehension, are measured, affect how they covary with one another cross-linguistically (see Cutting &amp; Scarborough, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref68">13</reflink>] and Leider et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref69">54</reflink>] for explorations of how different measures of reading are differentially associated with common predictors). Given these findings, Prevoo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref70">81</reflink>]) proposed a <emph>task-dependent bidirectional transfer hypothesis</emph> in which the "strength of...transfer depends on the type of oral language proficiency task and the type of school outcome" (pp. 262–263).</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-6">Moving beyond extant models</hd> <p>As the above suggests, both monolingual and multilingual reading research in educational psychology tends to operationalize the reading process into discrete components, which reflects some clear assumptions about language and multilingualism. Specific assumptions include: (a) languages (e.g., Spanish, English) are psycholinguistically separable; (b) components of language and reading are measurable and can be statistically covaried (e.g., Spanish vocabulary, English decoding, etc.); and (c) languages tend to have an order of acquisition (e.g., L1 Spanish, L2 English). In making these assumptions, many educational psychologists studying reading have tended to treat the bi or multilingual reader as "fractional" such that "the bilingual has (or should have) two separate and isolable language competencies; these competencies are (or should be) similar to those of the two corresponding monolinguals; therefore, the bilingual is (or should be) two monolinguals in one person" (Grosjean [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref71">34</reflink>], p. 4). We join Grosjean ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref72">34</reflink>]) in his early critique and argue that as long as we continue to operationalize "multilingual literacy" as discrete components that are both countable and decomposable, we cannot fully understand—or accurately study—multilingual reading as a holistic process.</p> <p>García and Wei ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref73">30</reflink>]) suggest that a discursive shift is necessary to move our views of language and reading beyond a discrete component model. Such a shift requires that we consider the word <emph>language</emph> as a verb, that is, <emph>to language</emph>. In its gerund form, <emph>languaging</emph> thus becomes the active representation of communication. Where Spanish as a named language (i.e., noun) refers to the conglomeration of a lexicon, grammatical structures, and a fixed orthographic code, <emph>to language</emph> (i.e., verb) operationalizes language, and <emph>languaging</emph>, as the communication that is actively done by a language user as they interact with other language users (García, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref74">26</reflink>]). Through languaging we create shared meanings and understandings that include engaging multiple semiotic systems including speech, signing, gesture, imagery, and writing (Makoni &amp; Pennycook, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref75">60</reflink>]). With regard to reading, languaging refers to the meaning-making process between languager (i.e., reader) and printed text. Such mutual creation results in "the simultaneous process of continuous becoming of ourselves and of our language practices, as we interact and make meaning in the world" (García &amp; Wei, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref76">30</reflink>], p. 8). Or, as Toni Morrison ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref77">68</reflink>]) famously put it, "...we do language. That may be the measure of our lives."</p> <p>With regard to multilinguals, García and Wei ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref78">30</reflink>]) build on the notion of languaging and propose <emph>translanguaging</emph> in an effort to more directly contest traditional perspectives in bilingual theory and research, such as linguistic interdependence. They argue that, psycholinguistically, the bi- or multilingual person does not have two or more languages separately residing in their cognitive architecture. Rather, there is a unitary language system that is composed of a variety of linguistic features, which, from a sociopolitical perspective, are attached to specific named languages (Tagalog, Spanish, etc.). To this end, "the unitary language system is focused on the proposal that the social and political duality that bilinguals manage when they strategically use their named languages does not correspond with a psycholinguistic duality" (Ossa Parra &amp; Proctor, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref79">72</reflink>], p. 769).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>] The prefix <emph>trans-</emph> is added to the root verb <emph>language</emph> to reflect how multilinguals go beyond language and "engage in selection of linguistic and other semiotic features within their repertoire in order to communicate effectively and not simply in the selection of two or more autonomous languages" (García, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref81">26</reflink>], p. 884).</p> <p>The research base on translanguaging has grown substantially in recent years. In a recent review on translanguaging in literacy research, Ossa Parra and Proctor ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref82">73</reflink>]) identified three domains of inquiry into translanguaging. Research in the first domain typically documents how multilingual students engage with translingual practices, with findings supporting "the development of interpretive frameworks that recognize multilingualism as an asset in the classroom community" (Ossa Parra &amp; Proctor, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref83">73</reflink>], p. 919). The second domain, often employing ethnographic approaches, examines how teachers of multilingual students actively foster translanguaging practices to increase curricular access, promote cognitive challenge, and promote students' own translanguaging (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref84">43</reflink>]; Pacheco et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref85">75</reflink>]). The third domain is less common and documents the ways in which "teachers design a democratic and inclusive space where students can experiment with language, bring their diverse sources of knowledge into the classroom, and develop their confidence and agency as active participants in the classroom community" (p. 921). Yet despite a burgeoning research base, very few studies on translanguaging and literacy emerge from journals of educational psychology, coming primarily instead from language, linguistics, bilingual, and second language research outlets.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-7">From languaging to languager</hd> <p>Perhaps educational psychology's limited attention to newer theories of multilingual literacy (i.e., languaging and trans-languaging) is due to the fact that the field has typically been guided by questions about the relationships between measurable language components (across multiple languages) while a translanguaging framework is typically guided by questions about how language is used (i.e., languaging). In our own work in educational psychology, for example, we have asked questions like, <emph>What is the relationship between English and Spanish oral language and the English literacy performance of bilingual students?</emph> where language and reading performance are operationalized and measured by standardized scores from a variety of individual assessments (see: Leider et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref86">54</reflink>]). In contrast, research that takes up a translanguaging perspective is often guided by questions like, <emph>How and what kinds of translanguaging practices did a multilingual family storybook project facilitate for families from diverse backgrounds?</emph> (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref87">47</reflink>]), where studies are framed around language users.</p> <p>Translanguaging's focus on the language user brings us to adopt the notion of the <emph>languager</emph> (García, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref88">26</reflink>]) to bring attention to the processes by which children, youth, and teachers, (i.e., languagers) interact with each other and with text in reading and literacy instructional contexts. As García ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>]) put it,</p> <p>Translanguaging focuses on the unbounded and agentive dynamic actions of bilinguals as they use their entire linguistic/multimodal repertoire. Bilingual readers leverage all of their meaning-making resources and all of themselves as they engage with text. Some of these resources are linguistic and verbal; others are visual; others involve gestures, the body, as well as the lives and knowledge systems with which speakers have engaged. (p. 557)</p> <p>Arguably, we cannot fully understand multilingual reading without also accounting for the agency of languagers and their languaging decisions. Indeed, adolescent literacy research has documented how individuals use language in certain ways in specific disciplinary contexts (Dobbs et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref90">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref91">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref92">20</reflink>]; Ippolito et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref93">39</reflink>]). Thus, the idea of a languager is not novel, but an orientation to asking research questions that center the languager, as opposed to the language, has potential to push educational psychology toward reading research that incorporates more contemporary multilingual theory. In the final sections, we propose a framework designed for this purpose.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-8">Centering the languager: A dynamic idiolect framework</hd> <p>Phillips Galloway and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref94">79</reflink>]) have argued that educational psychology and science of reading research need to broaden how language is conceptualized and move beyond a cognitive understanding of reading comprehension and "attend more explicitly and intentionally to the sociocultural and situated ways in which readers understand the academic language of text" (p. S337). In response to this, and building on the notion of languaging, we propose that languaging processes, inherent to the individual languager, can be conceptualized as a <emph>dynamic idiolect</emph>. The term reflects the unique linguistic repertoires upon which the languager draws, how they interpret input from other languagers (as well as from static language representations like written text), and how those interactions shape the developing linguistic repertoire to which the languager has access.</p> <p>In defining the term <emph>dynamic</emph>, we draw from García et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref95">28</reflink>]) early description of dynamism in the phenomenon of bilingualism, specifically "the development of different language practices to varying degrees in order to interact with increasingly multilingual communities" (p. 3). To operationalize <emph>idiolect</emph> we first break it down into its components, <emph>idio-</emph> and -<emph>lect</emph>: two bound morphemes whose combination forms a concept. Both deriving from Greek, the prefix <emph>idio-</emph> pertains to the individual while the suffix <emph>-lect</emph> refers to a variety of language. Otheguy et al's. ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref96">74</reflink>]) apt conceptualization of the idiolect is a "person's own unique, personal language, the person's <emph>mental grammar</emph> (Ortheguy et al.'s emphasis) that emerges in interaction with other speakers and enables the person's use of language" (p. 289). Merging these concepts into a single term, the <emph>dynamic idiolect</emph> reflects the multifaceted linguistic choices a languager makes as they interact with other languagers, including decisions around named language use, vocabulary, grammar, and register.</p> <p>In this sense, the dynamic idiolect resonates with Dynamic Systems Theory (DST), which has been applied in other areas of educational psychology such as identity development (e.g., Garner &amp; Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref97">31</reflink>]; Kaplan &amp; Garner, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref98">45</reflink>]), as well as bilingualism and second language acquisition (de Bot, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref99">15</reflink>]; de Bot et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref100">17</reflink>]; Larsen-Freeman, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref101">52</reflink>]). In the DST view, developmental constructs are not simple, or even complex, systems. Kaplan and Garner ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref102">45</reflink>]) liken simple systems to car breaks, and complex systems to cars, while suggesting that "the behavior of a complex system (e.g., the driver) is commonly nonlinear and much less predictable" (p. 2037). Dynamic systems, as compared with simple and complex systems, are not the sum of their component parts, but rather arise from an orchestration of characteristics that create a dynamic whole that empirically linear approaches too often oversimplify.</p> <p>A DST perspective in multilingual literacy similarly characterizes languaging as a state of nonlinear change that is not so neatly predictable. As de Bot et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref103">16</reflink>]) describe it, "[t]hey develop through interaction with their environment and through internal self-reorganisation" (p. 8), which, in context of various interlocutors is described as a dance, or "INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY, the seamless understanding between partners that are mutually attuned in the interactional process" (de Bot et al.'s emphasis, p. 9) which engenders linguistic agency and creativity. In addition to the exclusively human focus described in DST, we add the languager's interactions with static and printed language representations such as text, braille, assessments, and curricula in order to think more closely around the act and the teaching of reading. Our conceptualization of the dynamic idiolect is formed by three related domains: <emph>linguistic awareness</emph>, <emph>sensemaking</emph>, and <emph>linguistic laminating</emph>. We address each of these below and also highlight how our conceptualization of the dynamic idiolect is related to existing educational psychology theoretical frameworks for reading.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-9">Linguistic awareness</hd> <p>We use linguistic awareness to refer to the part of the dynamic idiolect that reflects the decisions a languager makes about how they language based on their interlocutor(s) or static language representations, such as texts and assessments. In other words, when two languagers communicate, Languager A (<emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph>) will intentionally use linguistic features (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) that they assume are high "quality" with Languager B (<emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph>). García ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref104">26</reflink>]) explores the human orientation of linguistic interaction where the languager specifically makes linguistically-informed decisions by selecting "the features of their repertoire that are more appropriate for the success of the interaction, gauging, of course, the overlap of the features selected with those with whom they are interacting" (p. 885).</p> <p>For instance, when two languagers' idiolects include features of the named languages English and Spanish, they have a range of linguistic choices to make with one another, which may include merging linguistic features to create novel words appropriate to the situation. For instance, L<subs>a</subs> might say to <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph> "I am <emph>comering</emph> tacos for lunch" and because these two languagers share both English and Spanish in their linguistic repertoire, <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph> and <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph> draw on their linguistic awareness to inform the usage and understanding of <emph>comering,</emph> respectively. Linguistic awareness is also reflected as a matter of culture. For example, <emph>to get first chair</emph> is a common phrase used among skiers to refer to being in line for a chair lift when a ski resort opens. Consider the case where <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph> and <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph> are going out skiing together. They both share linguistic features associated with the named language of English, but <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph> identifies with the cultural group of skiers while L<subs>b</subs> does not. <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph> asks <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph> if they want to "get first chair" for the day, a term with which <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph> is unfamiliar. In response, <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph> may simply ask <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph> what "getting first chair" means. Alternatively, <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph> might attempt to make sense of the phrase "get first chair," deducing that <emph>chair</emph> is referring to a <emph>chairlift</emph> and that <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph> is asking if they want to be the first in line. Across the entire interaction, both <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph> and <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph> are engaging with linguistic awareness to make and understand each other's communicative choices, though in the second interaction we refer to the internal process L<subs>b</subs> goes through to deduce the meaning on their own as sensemaking.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-10">Sensemaking</hd> <p>While linguistic awareness refers to making and interpreting language choices, <emph>sensemaking</emph> refers to the internal processes of understanding and comprehending. We borrow from García's ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref105">25</reflink>]) use of <emph>colanguaging</emph> which refers to the pedagogical practice of communicating with different named language groups at the same time, such as providing written directions in more than one named language or showing a video in Portuguese and providing English subtitles. Where colanguaging is about communicating to two different named language groups externally, we use <emph>sensemaking</emph> to refer to the internal process <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph> goes through when internally trying to make sense of <emph>first chair</emph> by drawing from the linguistic features available in their idiolect. In other words, sensemaking occurs as the languager draws on all their idiolect to comprehend their interaction with a human languager or printed text. This idea of sensemaking is based on the premise that languaging practices are not static and the field must also consider how one's languaging decisions depend not just on the individuals with which they are communicating (i.e., shared named languages or varieties), but also how one's <emph>in the moment languaging practices</emph> impacts their idiolect. During the process of sensemaking, languagers rely on their own idiolect and all the language input received in real time. As individuals language with others, they are continuously sensemaking in concert with being linguistically aware, which in turn may lead to blending new linguistic components with those existing in their repertoire or modifying existing linguistic components in their idiolect; a phenomenon we refer to as <emph>linguistic lamination.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0181257471-11">Linguistic lamination</hd> <p>Where linguistic awareness and sensemaking can be used to illustrate in-the-moment languaging, we use <emph>linguistic lamination</emph> to refer to the process of adding novel linguistic concepts to the dynamic idiolect. Building on the idea of laminated identity (Holland &amp; Leander, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref106">37</reflink>]) where different identities can "retain some of their original distinctiveness" (p. 13) or "thicken" through multiple interactions, linguistic laminating is the layering or building of one's idiolect vis-a-vis interactions with other languagers or printed language. For example, the internal mental process L<subs>b</subs> undergoes in adding <emph>comering</emph> to their idiolect, whether it be as a word and/or the linguistic action of blending <emph>Spanish infinitive + -ing</emph>, is an example of linguistic lamination. Further, the more L<subs>b</subs> embraces this sort of languaging, perhaps by responding to L<subs>a</subs> "Tacos sound delicious, what are you <emph>tomaring</emph>?" then the "thicker" this idea (<emph>Spanish infinitive +</emph> -<emph>ing</emph>) becomes in their idiolect. Likewise, if L<subs>b</subs> is not an avid skier the lamination process of <emph>first chair</emph> may not be as thick as this may not be a phrase they plan to language with often.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-12">Dynamic idiolect in educational psychology</hd> <p>The three processes that comprise a dynamic idiolect are not a sequence of events but rather the simultaneous process of languaging (simply rendered in Figure 1 below). Our understanding of dynamic idiolect is not necessarily distinct from Otheguy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref107">74</reflink>]), but rather reflects an attempt to operationalize the notion in a three-part framework that centers the on the internal processes of the languager, or reader. We hope this framework might help educational psychologists (and others) build on existing theories of reading beyond the named language and comprehension aspects of reading. For example, the ideas of "bridging processes" and "active self regulation" from Duke and Cartwright ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref108">21</reflink>]) active view of reading overlap with our idea of sensemaking, but in taking up a translanguaging perspective of literacy (i.e., languaging and languager) we aim to go beyond the traditional view of language as a concept that can be broken down into discrete components. Our proposed dynamic idiolect can provide a multilingual framework to understand how readers, as García and Kleifgen ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref109">29</reflink>]) put it, "engage in assemblages of the forms of semiosis that are made available (p. 557)."</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Three-part operationalization of the dynamic idiolect.</p> <p>A dynamic idiolect framework also maps on to existing conceptualizations of reading comprehension within educational psychology. <emph>Linguistic awareness</emph>, for example is similar to Perfetti's ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref110">77</reflink>]) Lexical Quality Hypothesis which suggests that the "reader's knowledge of a given word represents the word's form and meaning constituents and knowledge of word use that combines meaning with pragmatic features" (p. 359) where more knowledge results in "high quality representations" (i.e., written text that is more transparent to the reader), resulting in stronger reading comprehension. In other words, as a languager interacts with text, they are linguistically aware of the lexical representations that are in front of them and the more linguistic awareness they have the stronger their reading comprehension.</p> <p>Even when a reader encounters text that might be more opaque to the reader (i.e., less linguistic awareness to draw on), they must still make sense of it, which is the process we refer to as <emph>sensemaking</emph>. Our vision of sensemaking shares elements with the revised hierarchical model (Kroll &amp; Sholl, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref111">50</reflink>]; Kroll &amp; Stewart, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref112">51</reflink>]), which suggests that multilinguals have a conceptual knowledge base that is shared across two named languages where the lexical representations (e.g., vocabulary) available in each language might vary depending on traditional notions of "language proficiency." Our idea of sensemaking is theoretically distinct from the revised hierarchical model in that our conceptualization of dynamic idiolect is not made up of distinct lexical representations, but rather all linguistic features reside in one linguistic repertoire.</p> <p>Once a reader makes sense of representations that might be more opaque (e.g., text with language features that are only partially represented in their dynamic idiolect) they add this new meaning to their dynamic idiolect, which we refer to as <emph>linguistic lamination,</emph> an idea that is also similar to the four-step construction integration model (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref113">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref114">49</reflink>]). In particular, construction-integration suggests that when languagers encounter a new linguistic concept, they make sense of it through their available knowledge (arguably, this step is similar to our conceptualization of sensemaking) and then make connections with existing knowledge which is essentially integrated with existing linguistic knowledge. What sets dynamic idiolect apart from these existing models is that dynamic idiolect stems from a <emph>languager</emph> perspective where the focus is not on ultimately on comprehension or proficiency of named language constructs, but rather the <emph>process</emph> of languaging.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-13">Dynamic idiolect in reading contexts</hd> <p>We view languaging and reading as the same activity, where reading is the languaging process for a languager interacting with text. For example, consider Languager (<emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph>), a fourth-grade student from the Dominican Republic who learned to read in Spanish before coming to the U.S. and who is now receiving reading instruction in English. At this stage in their linguistic development, <emph>L<subs>a</subs>'</emph>s dynamic idiolect has more linguistic features associated with Spanish than with English, so reading a static text rendered only with English linguistic features is challenging. In <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph>'s literacy block, students are tasked with independently reading a text about language and identity. The text begins as follows:</p> <p>Many people say that language is one of the most unique things about being human, for we use it to communicate love, joy, frustration, and new ideas. We also use language to talk about topics and to pass down knowledge and history. Many languages are written, using different types of alphabets that represent language. Other languages are just spoken...with no alphabet system! Regardless of the type, languages help make us who we are as people. Languages are a big part of our identities, so it is important to understand that all languages are equally important.</p> <p>While reading this text, <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph> may engage their dynamic idiolect through linguistic awareness to tap into the developed and developing language features (e.g., alphabetic knowledge, vocabulary) in Spanish and English, respectively. Their linguistic awareness will also highlight lexical commonalities between Spanish and English words such as <emph>human</emph>, <emph>identity</emph>, and <emph>language</emph>. As <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph> encounters unfamiliar static text input, they then tap into sensemaking, or comprehending, by drawing on all the resources available in their dynamic idiolect; sensemaking can result in partial or full understanding, depending not just on linguistic features in their dynamic idiolect, but also on <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph>'s prior learning associated with language and identity. Insights made, terms learned, and ideas generated from the text all contribute to the linguistic lamination that takes place within the dynamic idiolect (see Figure 2 below).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Text input with a single languager's dynamic idiolect.</p> <p>In this sense, the process represented here is reminiscent of traditional reading processes described in the SVR (Hoover &amp; Gough, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref115">38</reflink>]) as well as cultural and agentive components of more modern perspectives on reading in the Active View of Reading (Duke &amp; Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref116">21</reflink>]). Further, while dynamic idiolect centers the reader it also builds on more recent perspectives on the Linguistic interdependence (Cummins, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref117">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref118">12</reflink>]), such as variation across named languages in the interdependence continuum (Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref119">83</reflink>]). The dynamic idiolect model takes a static text written in English and has a single languager engaging with it to simultaneously convert graphic information into linguistic form and identify known and unknown dimensions of the text's language (linguistic awareness), work to comprehend the language of the text (sensemaking), and integrate new linguistic and conceptual information into the existing (prior) knowledge (linguistic lamination).</p> <p>In order to truly engage students' dynamic idiolects in the literacy classroom where texts remain relatively static entities, reading research and instruction can explore the ways in which languagers bring themselves into the comprehension process by providing languaging opportunities with others in relation to text and in the service of comprehension. Figure 3 reflects one such configuration at the small group level.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Small group reading and writing context with three languagers engaging with text and each other. Note. La = Languager A; Lb = Languager B; Lc = Languager C.</p> <p>The figure represents one small reading group of three languagers (<emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph>, <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph>, and <emph>L<subs>c</subs></emph>). The languagers are tasked first with reading two texts (Text<subs>1</subs> and Text<subs>2</subs>), followed by a discussion of those texts, about which each must produce a written summary (WrittenText<subs>a</subs>, WrittenText<subs>b</subs>, WrittenText<subs>c</subs>). The two texts are represented as overlapping because they reflect a common topic with different specifics. The arrows pointing from each text to each student represent each languager's dynamic idiolect engaging with the static language represented in each text. Once the languagers have read the texts in question, they talk with one another about the texts, interactions which are represented by the bidirectional arrows between <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph>, <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph>, and <emph>L<subs>c</subs></emph>. Here, the interactions between languagers are more multifaceted, each with their own dynamic idiolect in which linguistic awareness (the linguistic choices and assumptions made by the languagers), sensemaking (what each languager comprehends), and linguistic lamination (any new linguistic features may be added to the languager's repertoire). Finally, WrittenText<subs>a,</subs> WrittenText<subs>b,</subs> and WrittenText<subs>c</subs> each represent the written product rendered by <emph>L<subs>a</subs></emph>, <emph>L<subs>b</subs></emph>, and <emph>L<subs>c</subs></emph>, respectively, as a result of their reading and discussion.</p> <p>We believe this focus on languagers and the three components of the dynamic idiolect moves the focus from named language outcomes (i.e., standardized language batteries) to the languager, a shift that can also help pivot reading research methods to more holistically and accurately examine the multilingual reading experience. For example, the dynamic idiolect could serve as a guiding framework for student centered research such as cognitive interview protocols such as think aloud research studies by Jimenez and colleagues (1995, 1996) or in mixed-methods research that utilizes open-ended student surveys (e.g., Townsend et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref120">99</reflink>]). It is this languager/reader-centered idea that we push educational psychologists to consider both theoretically and methodologically as it shifts the focus from named language outcomes to understanding the reading behavior of the languager.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-14">Dynamic idiolect in reading research</hd> <p>A conceptual framework is only worthwhile if it can be empirically tested. In our view, we can start moving toward a dynamic idiolect framework through existing approaches and tools in reading research. To that end, while not meant to be exhaustive, we offer some suggestions for educational psychologists who might seek to apply the dynamic idiolect framework in service of integrating a contemporary multilingual perspective into their reading research efforts. We note here that all three components of the dynamic idiolect (linguistic awareness, sensemaking, linguistic lamination) can be operationalized to various extents with these approaches.</p> <p>First, surveys can provide entrée into dynamic idiolect components. The use of surveys like the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (Guthrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref121">35</reflink>]; Wigfield et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref122">104</reflink>], Wigfield &amp; Guthrie, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref123">105</reflink>]) have been useful in understanding motivational constructs among multilingual readers, specifically with respect to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and self-efficacy (e.g., Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref124">85</reflink>]; Taboada-Barber et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref125">98</reflink>]). Similarly, reading attitude surveys have targeted students' feelings about reading for specific purposes across distinct modalities (e.g., McKenna et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref126">65</reflink>]; McKenna &amp; Kear, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref127">66</reflink>]), with items that could serve as starting points for constructing linguistic awareness, sensemaking, and linguistic lamination scales. Surveys are also good candidates for exploring the distinctiveness of the three components and/or characterizing types of dynamic idiolects. Such dynamic idiolect profiles could be incorporated into regression models of reading comprehension as new predictors to augment, for example, the Simple View of Reading.</p> <p>From a qualitative perspective, data sources including think aloud protocols (Jiménez et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref128">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref129">42</reflink>]; Pressley &amp; Afflerbach, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref130">80</reflink>]), cognitive interviews (McKenna et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref131">65</reflink>]), viewing sessions (Erickson &amp; Shultz, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref132">22</reflink>]; Townsend et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref133">100</reflink>]), and stimulated recall (Sanchez &amp; Grimshaw, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref134">90</reflink>]), are all adoptable data sources that could be designed to capture components of the dynamic idiolect with smaller samples of students in thicker detail. Indeed, dynamic idiolect studies could employ mixed methods by combining complex survey and regression analyses with subsequent interviews or observations to paint nuanced pictures of how the dynamic idiolect is implicated in the act and teaching of reading.</p> <p>Less common methodological approaches might include eye tracking research and behavioral studies that examine digital reading (e.g., Bar-Zvi Shaked et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref135">2</reflink>]; Daley et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref136">14</reflink>]; Vuorinen et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref137">102</reflink>]). These typically rely on frequency analyses, but might provide insights into students' linguistic awareness and/or sensemaking. Finally, we see potential in research on embodied learning and cognition (e.g., Liew et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref138">57</reflink>]; Sadoski, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref139">89</reflink>]; Shapiro &amp; Spaulding, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref140">94</reflink>]) as a means by which to collect classroom observational data that, combined with other data sources, could shed light on how students behave in classrooms as reflections of their dynamic idiolects.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-15">Conclusion</hd> <p>In positing a dynamic idiolect framework, we join List and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref141">59</reflink>]), whose Framework of Culturalized and Critical Culturalized Comprehension seeks to shift attention from understanding reading predictors and outcomes to the process of how readers arrive at comprehension. Adopting such perspectives requires a shift in the focus from the language output (i.e., reading comprehension and other linguistic components operationalized via named language "scores") to the simultaneous processes of linguistic awareness, sensemaking, and linguistic lamination. Through a dynamic idiolect framework, educational psychology can move toward asking research questions that are not just about <emph>if</emph> and <emph>what</emph> readers comprehend but <emph>how</emph> and <emph>why</emph> they comprehend text. Rather than treating outcomes as external to the languager, a dynamic idiolect framework respects the languager's agency and engages with interdisciplinary perspectives that can move educational psychology, and thus the "science of reading," toward a more comprehensive educational science that centers multilingual learners and literacy.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-16">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank Qinghua Liu for her work collecting relevant studies for the literature review included in this essay. They would also like to thank Dr. Christina Dobbs for sharing the literature on "laminated identity."</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-17">Authors contributions</hd> <p>Both authors contributed equally to the writing of this essay and thus share first authorship.</p> <hd id="AN0181257471-18">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0181257471-19"> <title> References cited </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aydarova, E. (2023). Whatever You Want to Call It: Science of reading mythologies in the education reform movement. Harvard Educational Review, 93 (4), 556 – 581. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-93.4.556</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref135" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bar-Zvi Shaked, K., Shamir, A., &amp; Vakil, E. (2020). An eye tracking study of digital text reading: A comparison between poor and typical readers. Reading and Writing, 33 (8), 1925 – 1944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10021-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Berliner, D.C. &amp; Calfee, R.C. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of educational psychology (1st ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref62" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., &amp; Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (4), 580 – 590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.580</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref50" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Branum-Martin, L., Mehta, P. D., Francis, D. J., Foorman, B. R., Cirino, P. T., Miller, J. F., &amp; Iglesias, A. (2009). Pictures and words: Spanish and English vocabulary in classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (4), 897 – 911. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref45" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Branum-Martin, L., Tao, S., Garnaat, S., Bunta, F., &amp; Francis, D. J. (2012). Meta-analysis of bilingual phonological awareness: Language, age, and psycholinguistic grain size. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 932 – 944. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref46" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Branum-Martin, L., Tao, S., &amp; Garnaat, S. (2015). Bilingual phonological awareness: Reexamining the evidence for relations within and across languages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (1), 111 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Branum-Martin, L., Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., &amp; Mehta, P. D. (2010). Contextual effects of bilingual programs on beginning reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (2), 341 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref47" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cho, J. R., &amp; McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Levels of phonological awareness in Korean and English: A 1-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (4), 564 – 571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, H., Chung, K. K. H., Wong, S. W. L., McBride-Chang, C., Penney, T. B., &amp; Ho, C. S. H. (2010). Speech perception, metalinguistic awareness, reading, and vocabulary in Chinese–English bilingual children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (2), 367 – 380. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222 – 251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts (Vol. 19). Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cutting, L. E., &amp; Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10 (3), 277 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daley, S. G., Xu, Y., Proctor, C. P., Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., &amp; Goldowsky, B. (2020). Behavioral engagement among adolescents with reading difficulties: The role of active involvement in a universally designed digital literacy platform. Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly, 36 (3), 278 – 295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1635545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Bot, K. (2007). Dynamic systems theory, lifespan development and language attrition. In B. Köpke, S. Dostert, M. Keijzer, and M.S Schmid (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 53 – 68). John Benjamins Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Bot, K., Lowie, W., &amp; Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (01), 7 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. L., &amp; Verspoor, M. (2013). Dynamic systems theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development. In M. Mayo, M. Gutierrez-Mangado, &amp; M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 199 – 220). John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobbs, C. L., Ippolito, J., &amp; Charner-Laird, M. (2016). Layering intermediate and disciplinary literacy work: Lessons learned from a secondary social studies teacher team. Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy, 60 (2), 131 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.547</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobbs, C. L., Ippolito, J., &amp; Charner-Laird, M. (2017). Investigating disciplinary literacy: A framework for collaborative professional learning. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobbs, C. L., Ippolito, J., &amp; Charner-Laird, M. (2020). Disciplinary literacy: exemplary processes and promising practices. In What's hot in literacy: Exemplar models of effective practice (Vol. 11, pp. 17 – 31). Emerald Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K., &amp; Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S25 – S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erickson, F., &amp; Shultz, J. (1982). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. In J. L. Green &amp; C. Wallet (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 147 – 160). Ablex.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Florit, E., &amp; Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23 (4), 553 – 576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., &amp; Jacob, R. T. (2008). Reading first impact study: Interim report. NCEE 2008-4016. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O. (2018). The multiplicities of multilingual interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (7), 881 – 891. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1474851</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O. (2020). Translanguaging and Latinx bilingual readers. The Reading Teacher, 73 (5), 557 – 562. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1883</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O., Flores, N., &amp; Chu, H. (2011). Extending bilingualism in US secondary education: New variations. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5 (1), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.539486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O., &amp; Kleifgen, J. A. (2020). Translanguaging and literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (4), 553 – 571. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.286</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O., &amp; Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. Palgrave, Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garner, J. K., &amp; Kaplan, A. (2019). A complex dynamic systems perspective on teacher learning and identity formation: An instrumental case. Teachers and Teaching, 25 (1), 7 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1533811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geva, E., &amp; Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12 (1/2), 1 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008017710115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough, P. B., &amp; Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (1), 6 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36 (1), 3 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934x(89)90048-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., &amp; Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3 (3), 231 – 256. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hakuta, K., &amp; McLaughlin, B. (1996). Seven tensions that define research on bilingualism and second language acquisition. In The handbook of educational psychology. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holland, D., &amp; Leander, K. (2004). Ethnographic studies of positioning and subjectivity: An introduction. Ethos, 32 (2), 127 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.2004.32.2.127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover, W. A., &amp; Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2 (2), 127 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ippolito, J., Dobbs, C. L., &amp; Charner-Laird, M. (2017). What literacy means in math class. The Learning Professional, 38 (2), 66 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobson, D., &amp; Mustafa, N. (2019). Social identity map: A reflexivity tool for practicing explicit positionality in critical qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 160940691987007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., &amp; Pearson, P. D. (1995). Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 67 – 97. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032001067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., &amp; Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31 (1), 90 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.1.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, S. I., García, O., &amp; Seltzer, K. (2019). Biliteracy and Translanguaging in Dual-Language Bilingual Education. In D. E. DeMatthews &amp; E. Izquierdo (Eds.), Dual language education: Teaching and leading in two languages. Language policy (Vol. 18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10831-1_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, R. M., &amp; Aaron, P. G. (2008). Assessment of literacy performance based on the componential model of reading. In G. Reid, A. Fawcett, F. Manis, L. Siegel (Eds.), The Sage dyslexia handbook (pp. 268 – 289). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan, A., &amp; Garner, J. K. (2017). A complex dynamic systems perspective on identity and its development: The dynamic systems model of role identity. Developmental Psychology, 53 (11), 2036 – 2051. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000339</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kieffer, M. J. (2012). Early oral language and later reading development in Spanish-speaking English language learners: Evidence from a nine-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33 (3), 146 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2012.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S., Dorner, L. M., &amp; Song, K. H. (2021). Conceptualizing community translanguaging through a family literacy project. International Multilingual Research Journal, 15 (4), 293 – 316. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2021.1889112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 163 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5, 1270 – 1328.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kroll, J. F., &amp; Sholl, A. (1992). Lexical and conceptual memory in fluent and nonfluent bilinguals. Advances in psychology, 83, 191 – 204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kroll, J. F., &amp; Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (2), 149 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18 (2), 141 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, H., Jung, G., &amp; Lee, J. H. (2022). Simple view of second language reading: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (6), 585 – 603. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2087526</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leider, C. M., Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., &amp; Harring, J. (2013). Examining the role of vocabulary depth, cross-linguistic transfer, and types of reading measures on the reading comprehension of Latino bilinguals in elementary school. Reading and Writing, 26 (9), 1459 – 1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9427-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leider, C. M., Proctor, C. P., &amp; Silverman, R. D. (2014). The biliteracy translation measure: Using written translations to index bilingualism and biliteracy in Spanish and English. NYS TESOL Journal, 1, 9 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leider, C. M., Proctor, C. P., &amp; Silverman, R. (2021). Language growth trajectories: Does immigrant generation status moderate linguistic interdependence? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24 (5), 605 – 621. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1500998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liew, J., Erbeli, F., Nyanamba, J. M., &amp; Li, D. (2020). Pathways to reading competence: Emotional self-regulation, literacy contexts, and embodied learning processes. Reading Psychology, 41 (7), 633 – 659. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1783145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, A. M. (2015). Researcher positionality. In F. M. Hult and D. Cassels Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 21 – 23). John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> List, A., Campos Oaxaca, G. S., Du, H., Lee, H. Y., &amp; Lyu, B. (2024). Critical culturalized comprehension: Exploring culture as learners thinking about texts. Educational Psychologist, 59 (1), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2266028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makoni, S., &amp; Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Multilingual Matters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mancilla-Martinez, J., Hwang, J. K., Oh, M. H., &amp; McClain, J. B. (2020). Early elementary grade dual language learners from Spanish-speaking homes struggling with English reading comprehension: The dormant role of language skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (5), 880 – 894. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal, 54 (1), 167 – 201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216683935</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacSwan, J. (2018). Academic language as standard language ideology: A renewed research agenda for asset-based language education. Language Teaching Research, 24 (1), 28 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacSwan, J. (2020). Translanguaging, language ontology, and civil rights. World Englishes, 39 (2), 321 – 333. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B. G., &amp; Meyer, J. P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a US survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (3), 283 – 306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenna, M. C., &amp; Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43 (8), 626 – 639. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.43.8.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milner, H. R. IV, (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36 (7), 388 – 400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrison, T. (1993). Nobel lecture. https://<ulink href="http://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1993/morrison/lecture/">www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1993/morrison/lecture/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 101, Stat. 1425 (2002/2012). https://<ulink href="http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/pdf/PLAW-107publ110.pdf">www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/pdf/PLAW-107publ110.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien, D., &amp; Rogers, T. (2015). Sociocultural perspectives on literacy and learning. In Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 325 – 336). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ossa Parra, M., &amp; Proctor, C. P. (2021). Translanguaging to understand language. TESOL Quarterly, 55 (3), 766 – 794. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ossa Parra, M., &amp; Proctor, C. P. (2023). The translanguaging pedagogies continuum. Journal of Education, 203, 917 – 924.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Otheguy, R., García, O., &amp; Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6 (3), 281 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pacheco, M. B., Smith, B. E., Combs, E., &amp; Amgott, N. A. (2022). Translanguaging within multimodal composition products and processes: A systematic review. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 17 (4), 389 – 407. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2022.2139256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Padilla, A. (2012). Second language learning: Issues in research and teaching. In P. A. Alexander &amp; P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11 (4), 357 – 383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., &amp; Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 22 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips Galloway, E., McClain, J. B., &amp; Uccelli, P. (2020). Broadening the lens on the science of reading: A multifaceted perspective on the role of academic language in text understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S331 – S345. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pressley, M., &amp; Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prevoo, M. J., Malda, M., Mesman, J., &amp; van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Within-and cross-language relations between oral language proficiency and school outcomes in bilingual children with an immigrant background: A meta-analytical study. Review of Educational Research, 86 (1), 237 – 276. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315584685</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., &amp; Snow, C. E. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 159 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P., August, D., Snow, C., &amp; Barr, C. D. (2010). The interdependence continuum: A perspective on the nature of Spanish–English bilingual reading comprehension. Bilingual Research Journal, 33 (1), 5 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235881003733209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., &amp; Montecillo, C. (2012). The role of vocabulary depth in predicting reading comprehension among English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children in elementary school. Reading and Writing, 25 (7), 1635 – 1664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9336-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P., Daley, S., Louick, R., Leider, C. M., &amp; Gardner, G. L. (2014). How motivation and engagement predict reading comprehension among native English-speaking and English-learning middle school students with disabilities in a remedial reading curriculum. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 76 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, C. P., &amp; Mo, E. (2009). The relationship between cognate awareness and English comprehension among Spanish–English bilingual fourth grade students. TESOL Quarterly, 43 (1), 126 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00232.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, J. M., &amp; Wagner, R. K. (2018). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to study developmental change in relations between language and literacy. Child Development, 89 (6), 1956 – 1969. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Relyea, J. E., &amp; Amendum, S. (2020). English reading growth in Spanish-speaking bilingual students: Moderating effect of English proficiency on cross-linguistic influence. Child Development, 91 (4), 1150 – 1165. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13288</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadoski, M. (2018). Reading comprehension is embodied: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (2), 331 – 349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9412-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanchez, H. S., &amp; Grimshaw, T. (2019). Stimulated recall. In J. McKinley &amp; H. Rose (Eds), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 312 – 323). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman &amp; D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 97 – 110). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutz, P. A., &amp; Muis, K. R. (Eds.). (2024). Handbook of educational psychology. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S235 – S247. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro, L. A., &amp; Spaulding, S. (Eds.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. (2023, March 24). To weather the "literacy crisis," do what works. [Audio Podcast]. https://<ulink href="http://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/edcast/23/03/weather-literacy-crisis-do-what-works">www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/edcast/23/03/weather-literacy-crisis-do-what-works</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E. (1992). Perspectives on second-language development: Implications for bilingual education. Educational Researcher, 21 (2), 16 – 19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C., RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). A research agenda for improving reading comprehension.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taboada-Barber, A., Lutz Klauda, S., &amp; Stapleton, L. M. (2020). Cognition, engagement, and motivation as factors in the reading comprehension of Dual Language Learners and English Speakers: Unified or distinctive models? Reading and Writing, 33 (9), 2249 – 2279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10034-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend, D., Carter, H., &amp; Knecht, R. (2023). What's the purpose? A mixed-methods exploration of purposes for reading in secondary classrooms. Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly, 39 (1), 72 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2022.2046220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend, D., Brock, C., &amp; Morrison, J. D. (2018). Engaging in vocabulary learning in science: The promise of multimodal instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (3), 328 – 347. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1420267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., &amp; Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first-and second-Language reading comprehension: a componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (1), 19 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vuorinen, P. T. E., Tatler, B. W., &amp; Keller, F. (2024, January). Tracking e-reading behavior: uncovering the effects of task context, electronic -experience, and motivation. In Frontiers in education (Vol. 8, p. 1302701). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1302701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M., Park, Y., &amp; Lee, K. R. (2006). Korean-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language phonological and orthographic transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 148 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., &amp; McGough, K. (1996). A questionnaire measure of children's motivations for reading. Instructional Resource No. 22. National Reading Research Center, University of Georgia and University of Maryland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., &amp; Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (3), 420 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181257471-20"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> It is worth noting here that some scholars (i.e., Otheguy et al., [74]) view this psycholinguistic duality as "ordered and categorized lexical grammatical features" (p. 289) under one unified system, while MacSwan ([62]) proposes "internalized mental grammars" that are both shared and discrete (see also, MacSwan, [63], [64]). While it is beyond the scope of this essay to argue for one perspective over another, we want to highlight that contemporary multilingual theorists agree on the need for a conceptualization of multilingualism that reflects a marked departure from its theoretical predecessor.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Christine Montecillo Leider and C. Patrick Proctor</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref141"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1452412 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Toward a Dynamic Idiolect: Multilingual Perspectives on the 'Science of Reading' – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christine+Montecillo+Leider%22">Christine Montecillo Leider</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1617-8527">0000-0003-1617-8527</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22C%2E+Patrick+Proctor%22">C. Patrick Proctor</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Psychologist%22"><i>Educational Psychologist</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(4):250-262. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 13 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multilingualism%22">Multilingualism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Theories%22">Educational Theories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Metalinguistics%22">Metalinguistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comprehension%22">Comprehension</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/00461520.2024.2394026 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0046-1520<br />1532-6985 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: In this essay, we address the multilingual challenge that is faced by both the "science of reading" and the field of educational psychology. We describe some significant contributions made by educational psychology to the field's understanding of the "science of reading" as well as multilingual reading, more specifically. While these contributions have been productive, they do not reflect contemporary multilingual theories that pertain to reading and literacy. To move reading research toward a more multilingual orientation, we propose that "language" be considered as a verb, "to language," and that the language user be considered as a "languager," who brings their own unique set of linguistic resources to bear on the reading process. Each languager, we argue, possesses their own "dynamic idiolect," comprising three components: linguistic awareness, sensemaking, and linguistic lamination. After providing examples of the dynamic idiolect in instructional contexts, we illustrate how its three components can be captured in empirical contexts to operationalize the dynamic idiolect and move educational psychology toward a more multilingual "science of reading." – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1452412 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1452412 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/00461520.2024.2394026 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 13 StartPage: 250 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Multilingualism Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Theories Type: general – SubjectFull: Metalinguistics Type: general – SubjectFull: Comprehension Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Toward a Dynamic Idiolect: Multilingual Perspectives on the 'Science of Reading' Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Christine Montecillo Leider – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: C. Patrick Proctor IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0046-1520 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1532-6985 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 59 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Educational Psychologist Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
