Critical Culturalized Comprehension: Exploring Culture as Learners Thinking about Texts
Saved in:
| Title: | Critical Culturalized Comprehension: Exploring Culture as Learners Thinking about Texts |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Alexandra List, Gala S. Campos Oaxaca (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Psychologist. 2024 59(1):1-19. |
| 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: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Cultural Awareness, Thinking Skills, Reading Comprehension, Reading Materials, Foreign Countries, Cultural Context, Reader Text Relationship, World Views, Social Influences, Cognitive Processes, Educational Psychology |
| Geographic Terms: | India, United States |
| DOI: | 10.1080/00461520.2023.2266028 |
| ISSN: | 0046-1520 1532-6985 |
| Abstract: | We examine the role of culture in comprehension. Prominent theories of comprehension conceptualized the outcome of reading as learners' construction of a cognitive representation of texts. We emphasize that such representation reflects not only texts' content, but also individuals' understandings of the real world, as described in texts. We suggest that, thus, individuals should be supported to question and analyze the mental representations that they form; we use the term "culture" to capture such questioning and analysis. Rather than an individual difference factor, we argue for conceptualizing culture as a way of thinking, or as individuals' reasoning about the commonalities and differences in their and others' worldviews and the linking of these to underlying values. When such reasoning is engaged in reference to texts, we refer to this as culturalized comprehension; when such reasoning is further engaged to resist or recast the values introduced in texts to generate counternarratives, we refer to this as critical culturalized comprehension. In emphasizing the importance of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension and describing the set of cognitive processes involved, we argue for research in educational psychology to examine how learners may be consciously, reflectively, and critically engaged in using texts to understand their world. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1412793 |
| 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_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFu1xdtJPklakiJMWvwD0oZAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDElwVMuaXsSr0Ta3pwIBEICBmu0vyKZCWLP9JviIraxZ6ZHosgGzMBok5yuj7U76S4tNHiXCNCnj8YKagsnnlBFAXJq9Fv7M_5nLeZMkm8j8RMfsNMAfSshHTbJGCMaNkJ0iLGfd7hKeCwZdTmOqn_6ja4duiWc5L_bqy-Dai6om1puYc3PPGJymlbkyLsbBkPHpYR_94rT1Fxmq5qrw40suO1l03LVr1__aP_k= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0175444104;epy01jan.24;2024Feb17.04:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0175444104-1">Critical culturalized comprehension: Exploring culture as learners thinking about texts </title> <p>We examine the role of culture in comprehension. Prominent theories of comprehension conceptualized the outcome of reading as learners' construction of a cognitive representation of texts. We emphasize that such representation reflects not only texts' content, but also individuals' understandings of the real world, as described in texts. We suggest that, thus, individuals should be supported to question and analyze the mental representations that they form; we use the term "culture" to capture such questioning and analysis. Rather than an individual difference factor, we argue for conceptualizing culture as a way of thinking, or as individuals' reasoning about the commonalities and differences in their and others' worldviews and the linking of these to underlying values. When such reasoning is engaged in reference to texts, we refer to this as culturalized comprehension; when such reasoning is further engaged to resist or recast the values introduced in texts to generate counternarratives, we refer to this as critical culturalized comprehension. In emphasizing the importance of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension and describing the set of cognitive processes involved, we argue for research in educational psychology to examine how learners may be consciously, reflectively, and critically engaged in using texts to understand their world.</p> <p>In this paper, we introduce a framework of how culture, readers, and texts intersect. Reading research has long been a dominant strand within educational psychology (Kiewra &amp; Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref1">66</reflink>]; McInerney, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref2">89</reflink>]), with early studies expressly focusing on the role of culture in comprehension (Kintsch &amp; Greene, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref3">71</reflink>]; Pritchard, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref4">109</reflink>]; see Barnitz, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>] for a review). A common approach within these studies has been to recruit individuals representing different cultural groups (e.g., Jewish[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>] vis-à-vis Catholic children, Lipson, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref7">82</reflink>]; individuals in the United States vis-à-vis India, Steffensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref8">132</reflink>]); to ask individuals to read about one another's cultural traditions (e.g., Bnei Mitzvot versus First Communions; American versus Indian wedding ceremonies); and to compare the processing and performance differences that emerged as a result. In this way, these studies have generally conceptualized comprehension as individuals' mental representation of texts, and culture as the schema, or as the (fairly fixed and inert) prior knowledge that individuals bring with them to a text and engage during reading (Barnitz, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Without denying the obvious importance of cultural schema and individuals' cognitive representations of texts, in this paper, we depart from these studies' views of culture and comprehension in two primary ways. First, rather than defining comprehension principally as individuals' construction of a mental representation of texts, we further underscore that this mental representation corresponds not only to texts' content, but also to the real world. Thus, when reading about American and Indian weddings, as participants were asked to do by Steffensen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref10">132</reflink>]), the mental representations that individuals form extend beyond the content introduced in texts, to elaborate individuals' schema for weddings. Given this continuity of representation between texts' content and the real world, we argue, in this paper, that individuals should be encouraged to analyze and question the cognitive representations of texts and the real world that they form. Failing to do so leaves the authored or deliberately constructed nature of texts unrecognized, creates the false impression of texts' content as inviolable and absolute, and allows dominant narratives to persist unquestioned (Alexander &amp; Fox, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]; List, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref12">83</reflink>]).</p> <p>To conceptualize how individuals may be supported to analyze and question the representations of the world that they construct based on texts, we use the term culture. Thus, as a second point of departure from prior work, in this paper we argue that, rather than viewing culture as a static individual difference factor (DeCuir-Gunby &amp; Schutz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref13">30</reflink>]; Gutiérrez &amp; Rogoff, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref14">52</reflink>]), culture should be viewed as a way of thinking or as a set of cognitive processes and as the outcome of such processes. That is, we define culture as individuals' recognition and analysis of the commonalities and differences in their and others' worldviews (Gray, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref15">49</reflink>]; Koltko-Rivera, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref16">73</reflink>]) and the values that these reflect. When applied to thinking about texts, culture involves individuals recognizing texts as intentionally constructed, mediated representations of the world, or as authored works, and their analyzing of texts for the commonalities and differences in worldviews and associated values that these reflect. We refer to the cognitive processes involved in culture as a way of thinking about texts, and their outcomes, as culturalized comprehension. When individuals not only recognize and analyze but also reject and recast the views of the world and associated values introduced in texts and construct counternarratives of texts, we refer to this as critical culturalized comprehension.</p> <p>In this paper, we introduce a Framework of Culturalized and Critical Culturalized Comprehension (C4 Framework), identifying the set of cognitive processes involved in individuals' engagement in culture as a way of thinking about texts, or in culturalized comprehension, as well as the set of cognitive processes involved in critical culturalized comprehension. In doing so, we specifically link our view of culture as a way thinking to a reconceptualization of individuals' comprehension of texts, to emphasize that in comprehending any text, individuals are inextricably building representations of the world, and thus, should be duly conscious of, reflective in, and, potentially, critical when doing so. This paper has five key parts. First, we discuss major theories of comprehension and how the C4 Framework elaborates upon these. Second, we introduce our conception of culture as a way of thinking and discuss texts as unique objects facilitating individuals' engagement in culture as a way of thinking. Third, we define the processes involved in culturalized comprehension and provide empirical examples of individuals' culturalized comprehension of texts. Fourth, we define the cognitive processes involved in critical culturalized comprehension and again provide empirical examples. Finally, we describe implications for future research and instructional practice.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-2">Theories of comprehension</hd> <p>Before presenting our Framework of Culturalized and Critical Culturalized Comprehension, reflecting culture as a way of thinking about texts, we first introduce common models and frameworks of comprehension. Five main models are reviewed as informing our work.</p> <p>The first is Kintsch and van Dijk's ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref17">72</reflink>]; Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref18">69</reflink>]) Construction-Integration model (CI), a foundational model, defining comprehension as individuals' construction of a coherent cognitive representation of the content in texts. Per the CI model, rather than an exact replica, the cognitive representations that readers construct are somewhat idiosyncratic, with some information from texts elaborated based on readers' inferencing or prior knowledge, and with other information, deemed less important or less relevant, excluded. Readers' idiosyncratic cognitive representations of texts are developed through two main processes—learners' <emph>construction</emph> of a text-base model, or a cognitive representation of the propositional phrases included in texts, and the <emph>integration</emph> of this text-base model with prior knowledge. This construction, of the text-base, and integration of the text-base, with prior knowledge, results in individuals' representation of texts as a coherent whole. This is referred to as the situation model, as it represents the general story or "situation" relayed in text.</p> <p>The CI model has further been expanded to capture how individuals comprehend, or cognitively represent, multiple texts through the Documents Model Framework (DMF, Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref19">14</reflink>]; Perfetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref20">104</reflink>]). The DMF suggests that when comprehending multiple texts learners construct two additional models or cognitive representations of texts. The integrated mental model represents a synthesis of the content introduced across texts and can be understood as a situations model, extended across multiple texts. The inter-text model is a structural representation and includes connections both between authors and content (i.e., source-content links) and connections across sources (i.e., source-source links; for example, representing authors as agreeing or disagreeing with one another).</p> <p>Readers may link these two models to varying extents. For instance, when individuals are successful in forming an integrated mental model but not an inter-text model, a mush model of multiple texts is the result. This model integrates content from across texts but "mushes," this together, leaving individuals unable to track "who said what," or to reconcile discrepancies, when these arise, for instance by considering author trustworthiness (Braasch &amp; Scharrer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]; Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>]). Conversely, when individuals are successful in forming an inter-text model but not an integrated mental model, a separate representations model is the result. This model represents the content included within each text, separately, with no integration or connections drawn across texts. Finally, when the integrated mental model and intertext model are successfully linked, a documents model of multiple texts is the result. Documents models reflect both "content integration," with information presented across texts synthesized, and "source separation," with documents of origin for information tracked (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]). This allows individuals to recognize, prioritize, and synthesize important information, from across texts, when texts agree, and to label and weigh, qualify, or reconcile discrepancies, when texts disagree (Braasch &amp; Scharrer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]; Stadtler &amp; Bromme, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref25">130</reflink>]).</p> <p>A complement to the Documents Model Framework is the Multiple-Documents Task-Based Relevance Assessment and Content Extraction model (MD-TRACE, Rouet &amp; Britt, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref26">116</reflink>]). The MD-TRACE conceptualizes learning from multiple texts as involving five core steps. In Step 1, learners are provided with a task assignment and use this as a basis for constructing a cognitive representation of task demands, referred to as learners' task model, guiding subsequent interactions with texts. In Step 2, learners determine whether multiple text use is necessary for task completion or whether their prior knowledge might suffice, referred to as individuals' determining of an information need. Step 3 involves learners' multiple text processing, with three subprocesses identified. These are selection, processing, and integration. Selection is a relevance-driven process wherein learners determine the overlap between information in texts and task goals. Processing involves learners further iterating between scanning and deep-level processing, depending on the relevance of texts' content. Integration involves learners forming connections across sources and content in texts, with this resulting in their development of a cognitive representation of multiple texts, as described in the Documents Model Framework. Importantly, the representations of multiple texts that learners form at the conclusion of Step 3 of the MD-TRACE are only cognitive or internal; these are externalized in Step 4 of the model, for instance through writing. Finally, in Step 5 of the MD-TRACE, learners compare the externalized task products that they generated in Step 4 to the task demands specified in their task models.</p> <p>The view of learning from multiple texts articulated in the MD-TRACE has further been expanded through the REading as problem SOLVing (RESOLV) model (Britt et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>]; Rouet et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref28">115</reflink>]). Beyond the task model introduced in the MD-TRACE, as guiding learners' interactions with texts, the RESOLV model specifies additional contextual features that learners may attend to and cognitively represent, and that therefore may have an influence on text processing. Five such features are specified. These are the (a) request, or the task that learners are assigned to complete, the (b) requester, or the actor assigning the task, the (c) audience, or expected targets for the task product, (d) the supports and constraints available within the task environment, and (e) self-features, or learners' self-assessments of their skills and competencies, relative to task demands. Learners' understanding of these various features results in their construction of a context model; this model then informs the task models that individuals develop, and ultimately, the multiple text processes and outcomes that emerge.</p> <p>Although the MD-TRACE and RESOLV models situate the Documents Model Framework within the broader context of learners interacting with multiple texts, in response to an assigned task, an additional model—the Cognitive Model of Meaning Construction from Texts (CM-MC; Goldman, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref29">45</reflink>])—can be understood as a complement to the DMF. Like the DMF, the CM-MC also seeks to document the types of cognitive representations that individuals construct as a consequence of reading single and multiple texts. The CM-MC suggests that the quality of the cognitive representations that individuals form as a result of reading a single text can be classified according to the extent to which these represent the text-base (i.e., to a large extent or not at all), and according to the extent to which these draw on individuals' prior knowledge, with more extensive prior knowledge engagement making the text-based information included in individuals' cognitive representations more coherent, richly elaborated, and complete. Goldman ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref30">45</reflink>]) further extended the CM-MC to describe how learners represent multiple texts. According to the CM-MC, learners may represent multiple texts (a) in an assimilative fashion, wherein one text "swallows up" other texts, (b) in a separate representations fashion, or (c) in a fragmented fashion, wherein one dominant text is used as the primary basis for individuals' cognitive representations, with segments of additional texts interspersed. Individuals' prior knowledge may, likewise, be integrated into each of these multiple text representations to varying extents.</p> <p>Key features of the CI model, the DMF, the MD-TRACE and the RESOLV models, and the CM-MC are summarized in Table 1. As reflected in Table 1, a number of commonalities, as well as differences, can be recognized across the conceptualizations of learning from text(s) articulated within these frameworks and models.</p> <p>Table 1. Comparison of prominent models and frameworks of single and multiple text comprehension.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Emphasizes role of PK&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Focuses on context/task driving multiple text use&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Identifies processes of learning from text(s)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Describes cognitive representations of text(s)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CI Model&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;X&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;X&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;DMF&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;X&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MD-TRACE&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;X&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;X&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;RESOLV&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;X&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;x&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;CM-MC&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;X&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;X&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> PK refers to prior knowledge; An upper-case X connotes a major emphasis in the model/framework; a lower case x connotes an acknowledged, but not emphasized, aspect of the model/framework.</p> <p>A key commonality emerging across all of these frameworks and models is that they recognize comprehension as the result of learners' construction of a cognitive representation of content within texts, with some models further classifying or describing the types of cognitive representations that individuals form. In the view of comprehension emphasized here, the cognitive representations of text(s) that individuals construct reflect not only content from texts, but also correspond to learners' conceptions or representations of the real world. That is, when reading texts about wedding traditions, individuals are likely to represent texts' content not as confined to an author's message, in some disembodied fashion, but rather as contributing to their understanding of weddings overall. Cognitively, this means individuals (most commonly) integrate or assimilate author(s)' descriptions of the real world into their existing schema or (less commonly) simultaneously represent the information that authors introduce as discrepant with their prior knowledge (Braasch et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>]; Braasch &amp; Scharrer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]; Stadtler &amp; Bromme, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref33">130</reflink>]; van den Broek &amp; Kendeou, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref34">144</reflink>]). Evidence that individuals represent information, not only as confined to the message of a text, but rather as reflective of real world objects, phenomena, and ideas comes from (a) extensive work examining learners' attendance to inconsistencies or inaccuracies during reading (Cook &amp; O'Brien, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref35">29</reflink>]; van Moort et al., [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref36">148</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref37">147</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref38">149</reflink>]); from (b) more general evidence of individuals' prior knowledge engagement during reading and knowledge construction or revision as a result (Broughton et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>]; Butterfuss &amp; Kendeou, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref40">22</reflink>]; Taboada &amp; Guthrie, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref41">135</reflink>]; Tarchi, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref42">136</reflink>]); and (c) from work on individuals' reading of fantasy and science fictional texts, demonstrating that even within such false realities, readers expect certain real world rules to hold (Foy &amp; Gerrig, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref43">39</reflink>]; Walsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref44">150</reflink>]).</p> <p>Thus, when comprehending texts, individuals are constructing cognitive representations not confined to texts, but rather, cognitive representations of the real world. Indeed, many of individuals' conceptions or understandings of phenomena, objects, and ideas may come from texts. In our view, this requires expressly broadening theoretical definitions of comprehension to include individuals' cognitive representations of texts and the real world. Moreover, this means that when seeking to foster individuals' comprehension or cognitive representation of texts, it is necessary to foster their questioning and analysis, also. The term that we apply to such questioning and analysis is culture. We justify our use of the word "culture," in this way, in the section to follow.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-3">Culture as a way of thinking</hd> <p>The word "culture" is a comparatively recent term. Chaney ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>]) traced the original use of the word "culture" to descriptions of agricultural cultivation; contemporary uses date to the 18<sups>th</sups> century and were applied to characterize the changes that occurred in society as a result of modernity-shaping forces like industrialization and urbanization. Thus, modern uses of the term "culture" within academic circles reflect a "sociological commitment," to an "'anthropology of ourselves'" (Chaney, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>], p. 14). We agree with this sociological view of "culture," and, apply this to understanding students' reasoning about and learning from texts.</p> <p>To clarify our view of culture as a sociological project or as a way of thinking, it is helpful to distinguish our definition of culture from ritual or tradition. Culture has commonly been described as that (e.g., meaning, practices) which is common within a group of people, within an ecological setting, as socially transmitted, and as historically derived (see Brumann, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref47">20</reflink>], for a review; Gutiérrez &amp; Rogoff, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref48">52</reflink>]; Nasir et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref49">97</reflink>]; Zusho &amp; Clayton, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref50">157</reflink>]). These characteristics hold true for tradition, as well. That is, tradition can be defined as "the recurrence in approximately identical form of structures of conduct and patterns of belief over several generations of membership or over a long time within single societies...which are unified to the extent of sharing in some measure a common culture—which means common traditions" (Shils, [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref51">124</reflink>], p. 123). Although defined by Shils ([<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref52">124</reflink>]) as largely synonymous, we see a distinction between culture and tradition.</p> <p>We offer an example to demonstrate our conception of this difference. In the United States, and increasingly elsewhere in the world (McKechnie &amp; Tynan, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref53">90</reflink>]; Popelková &amp; Zajonc, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref54">107</reflink>]), Halloween is a "very popular holiday marked by a great deal of expressive culture...Traditional Halloween activities include...the making and wearing of costumes and masquerading in the streets of urban America" (Santino, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref55">118</reflink>], p. 1). Is Halloween culture or tradition? Within our conception, Halloween is a tradition. Halloween only becomes culture when it is analyzed as such, or when those participating in Halloween, or not, identify commonalities in Halloween traditions, compare these to other holiday traditions, and examine their norms and values. In our view, culture requires not only participating in meaningful, socially shared, and historically derived knowledge and activities. Rather, culture as a way of thinking requires (a) recognizing shared knowledge or activities as one set of a variety of possible ways of engaging with the world, with other ways of engagement also possible, (b) considering <emph>why</emph> particular traditions, practices, or worldviews were developed and continue to be enacted, and (c) identifying the explicitly stated and tacitly assumed values that these reflect.</p> <p>To provide further support for our use of the word culture to refer to a way of thinking, we analyze some foundational explorations of culture in the field of education and beyond. We suggest that such explorations use the term culture to signify reasoning about difference and commonality, and to instantiate value. Later, in introducing our framework of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension, we explore how these same dimensions of culture as a way of thinking can be applied to individuals' reasoning about texts.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-4">Culture as signifying difference</hd> <p>Moll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref56">95</reflink>]) introduced the concept of funds of knowledge as a way of helping teachers to more effectively educate working-class, Mexican American children, by valuing their home knowledge and experiences in the classroom. Moll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref57">95</reflink>]) described teachers collaborating with researchers to conduct an "ethnographic analysis of household dynamics," (p. 132) to recognize "households as containing ample cultural and cognitive resources with great, <emph>potential</emph> utility for classroom instruction" (p. 134). Although Moll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref58">95</reflink>]) conceptualized students' funds of knowledge as more specific than their culture, teachers' efforts to learn about students' funds of knowledge were undergirded by their recognition that these contrasted "sharply with typical classroom practices" (p. 133). In this way, Moll et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref59">95</reflink>]) description of teachers exploring students' funds of knowledge is illustrative of the commonality with which the label of culture is applied to others to connote difference, or by teachers and researchers to those aspects of students' home backgrounds that are different from the practices of the classroom (e.g., Parkhouse et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref60">103</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>]</p> <p>Further, as described in Moll et al.'s work, when teachers and researchers explored students' home backgrounds, they were not uncovering an objective culture ready-formed; rather they were active in constructing an understanding of students' cultures or funds of knowledge. The teachers and researchers described by Moll et al. recognized this: "In going into the homes, we carry with us cultural and emotional baggage that tend to color our understanding of interviews and observations" (p. 136). Moll et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref62">95</reflink>]) description is consistent with a view of culture as a way of thinking or as the process and outcome of actively constructing an understanding of a set of worldviews and practices that are different from one's own. In this paper, we argue for engaging students in culture as a way of thinking and in supporting them to develop a constructed understanding of culture, as was done by the teachers and researchers described by Moll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref63">95</reflink>]), and particularly within the context of learning from texts.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-5">Culture as signifying commonality</hd> <p>Beyond difference, culture as a way of thinking may also be focused on recognizing commonalities within worldviews and the underlying values and implications of these. This view of culture was demonstrated by Lave ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref64">77</reflink>]) in her conceptualization of communities of practice. She grounded her conceptualization in a critique of the "culture of transfer research." Lave uses the word "culture" deliberately to draw attention to the "typical practices," of transfer research so as to identify their "customary beliefs" (Lave, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref65">77</reflink>], p. 23). Burke described this use of the word "culture" to signify commonality as triggering: "a shift in perception," as "expressed in increasingly common phrases such as... 'gun culture,' 'teen culture,' or 'corporate culture'" (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>], p. 1). As exemplified by Lave ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref67">77</reflink>]) and Burke ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>]), applying the word culture to any practice or idea serves to direct attention to the patterns or commonalities within this, and in doing so to the implicit values that such patterns and commonalities perpetuated and uphold.</p> <p>We again consider the example of Halloween. Examining the "culture of Halloween," as Santino ([<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref69">118</reflink>]) did, requires considering common Halloween traditions, tracing their history, and analyzing their contemporary manifestations and implications. This thinking about or constructing the culture of Halloween is a wholly different process than participating in Halloween, as a holiday tradition. Likewise, when adults in Steffensen et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref70">132</reflink>]) study were asked to read about American and Indian weddings, they were reading about the traditions of themselves and others, and engaging relevant schema in doing so, but not necessarily engaging in culture as a way of thinking. Thus, we distinguish learning <emph>about</emph> culture (e.g., through texts) from culture as a way of thinking (e.g., about texts), although the former may be a precursor to the latter. Learning about culture (e.g., through texts) involves individuals reading about (or otherwise experiencing) traditions, practices, or ideas; however, such learning is primarily focused on understanding or on individuals receiving a representation of culture in fairly direct and incontestable form. Engaging in culture as a way of thinking (e.g., about texts), that is, the view of culture that we advocate for here, rather, involves individuals considering their own existing conceptions of topics (e.g., including Halloween and wedding traditions), comparing these to descriptions of topics introduced across texts, and, in doing so, recognizing and questioning the assumptions and values that their own and text-based conceptions reveal. That is, engaging in culture as a way of thinking (e.g., about texts) involves individuals being actively cognizant of, and therefore reflective about, their construction of a view of the world, for instance, through texts.</p> <p>A further implication of distinguishing between learning <emph>about</emph> culture through texts and culture as a way of thinking about texts, is that although only some texts may facilitate learning about culture (e.g., texts describing wedding traditions, as were used by Steffensen et al., [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref71">132</reflink>]), culture as a way of thinking can be engaged in relation to any text. This is because in comprehending any text, individuals are constructing cognitive representations of both texts' content and the real world. Thus, any text can be used to support individuals' understanding, analyzing, and questioning of the worldviews and values that texts reveal, and their common and distinct features. In this paper, we argue for culture as a way of thinking to be a much more common process and outcome of students' learning from texts. We refer to culture as a way of thinking about texts as culturalized comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-6">Culture as signifying value</hd> <p>The third way that the word "culture" is used is to signify value or to designate some practices or ideas as worthy of dedicated analysis and examination. The idea of culture as signifying value has been well-elaborated in the field of cultural studies. Fiske ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref72">36</reflink>]) argued that what constitutes culture is defined, in part, by its inaccessibility, exclusivity, or distance from everyday life. Fiske further rejected this notion; arguing instead for "ways of theorizing culture that grant the concrete practices of subordinated ways of living a degree of importance" (Fiske, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref73">36</reflink>], p. 165).</p> <p>Fiske's ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref74">36</reflink>]) argument for analyzing culture as the everyday, common, or mundane draws attention to analyses of culture as inherently grounded in issues of power. When differences within practices or worldviews are attended to, or their commonalities and implicit values sought to be understood, these are imbued with importance. Moreover, the individuals engaged in such analysis are imbued with epistemic authority (e.g., to recognize or define culture) (Janack, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref75">58</reflink>]; Keren, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref76">64</reflink>]). In the classroom, this suggests the need to both examine which curricular materials are deemed worthy of dedicated analysis and which are not (Gay, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref77">41</reflink>]; Jones, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref78">61</reflink>]; Levine, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref79">80</reflink>]; Shelby-Caffey, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref80">122</reflink>]) and to consider the extent to which students are empowered to analyze the practices and worldviews of themselves and others, or to engage in culture as a way of thinking. Thus, an additional implication of examining culture as a way of thinking is recognizing that what is deemed culture or which texts are subjected to culturalized comprehension is the result of an active, deliberate, decision-making process (e.g., on the part of teachers or curriculum designers; Colwell, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]; Sharma &amp; Christ, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref82">121</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, viewing culture as a way of thinking suggests the importance of explicitly engaging learners in such thinking. A key limitation of prior examinations of culture, in our view, is that these have relied on students' culture being largely determined or analyzed by others (e.g., teachers, researchers). If what is commonly termed "culture" is taken to be the outcome of a set of cognitive processes, the importance of explicitly engaging students in not just learning about culture ready-formed, but rather in constructing an active understanding of culture and in recognizing any understanding of culture as necessarily constructed, becomes clear. An additional implication of this paper, later described, is that reading multiple texts may be a particularly fruitful way of supporting individuals' engagement in culture as a way of thinking, as multiple texts necessarily introduced learners to multiple representations of worldviews and inviting comparison among these. Before discussing the potential ways that multiple texts may be used to support individuals' culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension, we discuss the value of texts,[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>] generally, as objects facilitating individuals' engagement in culture as a way of thinking.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-7">Texts as the subjects of culture as a way of thinking</hd> <p>Hanks ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref84">54</reflink>]) defines texts as: "composed of interconnected sentences," elaborating this to mean: "any configuration of signs that is coherently interpretable by some community of users" (p. 95). We, likewise, adopt this definition of text as reified, connected discourse. While the connected aspect of text has long been a feature of its definition (Kintsch &amp; van Dijk, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref85">72</reflink>]), reification is further emphasized to capture the deliberate or planned nature of text construction (i.e., by authors) and its transmissibility from authors to readers and between readers; in contrast to connected discourse that is impermanent and dynamic—like conversation.</p> <p>Texts serve at least three functions in engendering culture as a way of thinking. First, as with any object or artifact, the use of text(s) can be subjected to culture as a way of thinking. That is, commonalties and differences in the uses of text and the values that these reveal can be examined (Allen, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref86">5</reflink>]; Barber, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref87">9</reflink>]; Gregory et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref88">51</reflink>]). For example, researchers have extensively catalogued how families, across racial, ethnic, national, and socioeconomic backgrounds, interact with and use texts (e.g., Capotosto et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref89">24</reflink>]; Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref90">60</reflink>]; Perry, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref91">105</reflink>]; Strommen &amp; Mates, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref92">134</reflink>]); and in doing so, have constructed an understanding of families' home literacy practices and traditions. Likewise, the attention given to families' home literacy practices, or even more basically, to the number of books in the home, can be understood as revealing the value assigned to, and, perhaps over-assigned to, print-based literacy in education research (Engzell, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref93">33</reflink>]; Graff, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref94">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nevertheless, texts have the potential to support culture as a way of thinking, more so than other objects of use. This is because texts are authored works, meaning that they encode within them authors' worldviews through the content that they put forth (Alexander &amp; Fox, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref95">4</reflink>]). This allows readers to construct an understanding of authors' conceptions of the world, compare this to other authors' conceptions and their own, identify differences and commonalities, and analyze the values that these reveal—uniquely supporting culturalized comprehension.</p> <p>Beyond this, although all texts encode authors' worldviews, allowing for culturalized comprehension, some texts are deliberately composed to foster this. This includes (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>) texts wherein authors' own constructions of culture are described as well as (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>) texts intended to prompt, in readers, a reflection on the values underlying commonly held worldviews. Examples of the former include entire disciplines, like history, anthropology, or cultural studies, that seek to impart authors' constructed descriptions and analyses of their own and others' cultures (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref98">21</reflink>]; Goodenough, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref99">46</reflink>]; Scupin, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref100">120</reflink>]), as well as specific instances of culture as a way of thinking manifest within other domains; for instance, examinations of families' home digital literacy cultures in education (Kumpulainen et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref101">75</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref102">87</reflink>]). Examples of the latter include satirical texts and other forms of social critique. Such texts use devices, like emphasis, analogy, and juxtaposition, to draw readers' attention to the patterns, underlying assumptions, and tacit values inherent within their worldviews (Brugman et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref103">19</reflink>]; Skalicky, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref104">126</reflink>]; Skalicky &amp; Crossley, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref105">127</reflink>]).</p> <p>To summarize, texts are important. They provide readers with a basis for comparing their own worldviews to authors' elaborated and reified worldviews, and across these, so as to uncover underlying assumptions and values. Texts may specifically record authors' constructed conceptions of culture or may seek to prompt, in readers, an analysis of their own worldviews. For these reasons, individuals' processing and outcomes when engaging in culture as a way of thinking about texts (i.e., culturalized comprehension) is the focus of this paper. In the next section, first, we describe the set of cognitive processes that we consider to be implicated in culturalized comprehension and, then, present a number of examples of culturalized comprehension in and outside of the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-8">Defining culturalized comprehension</hd> <p>We define culturalized comprehension as the set of cognitive processes involved in learners' engagement in culture as a way of thinking about texts, and as the outcome of these processes. Drawing on our analysis of the ways that the word "culture" is commonly used—there are at least three cognitive processes involved in learners' engagement in culturalized comprehension. These include learners (a) recognizing the constructed nature of texts—with these encoding or representing author(s)' worldviews; (b) reasoning about what is common and what is different either across worldviews, represented across texts, or between worldviews represented in text(s) and their own; and (c) readers' connecting commonalities and differences identified to underlying values, and elaborating on why these may have emerged and continue to be sustained (See Figure 1).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Framework of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension (C4). Note: Dashed lines represent cognitive processes; black arrows and black boxes represent the processes and outcomes of culturalized comprehension and critical culturalized comprehension.</p> <p>These cognitive processes, including recognizing texts as authored works and reasoning about commonalities and differences, require readers to draw inferences. Inferences are elaborations of texts' content based on prior knowledge or based on information included in other texts. Inferences are core to comprehension (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref106">70</reflink>]; McNamara, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref107">92</reflink>]). They support the integration of new information with what is already known and serve to fill in gaps in understanding, rendering the cognitive representations of texts that individuals construct richer and more complete (Cain et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref108">23</reflink>]; Graesser et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref109">47</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref110">128</reflink>]). Van den Broek and Helder ([<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref111">143</reflink>]) described reading processes as falling along a continuum from more passive, close-to-the-text, or "dumb," to more active, reader-initiated, and far-from-the-text or interpretive, with the former receiving more attention in reading research than the latter (van den Broek, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref112">142</reflink>]). Inferences can likewise be understood as comparatively low level or focused on coherence building (e.g., bridging inferences) or as comparatively high level or interpretive. The types of inferences that we examine here, in contrast to those emphasized in prior work (McNamara, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref113">91</reflink>]; O'Reilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref114">100</reflink>]; Ozuru et al., [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref115">101</reflink>]), are high level, requiring that learners consider prior knowledge, multiple texts, and author features when engaged in culture as a way of thinking about texts. For example, the types of inferences that readers may generate when engaged in the culturalized comprehension of texts about wedding traditions may involve their comparing descriptions of wedding traditions introduced across texts to one another or to their own, experienced or prototypical, conceptions of weddings; and their considering authors' reasons for emphasizing particular aspects of wedding traditions, while omitting or assuming others, or authors' reasons for writing about wedding traditions at all.</p> <p>Given the complexity of the inferences involved, an additional process is incorporated into our conception of culturalized comprehension—that of deliberate reflection. Deliberate reflection is a metacognitive process, requiring that learners actively recognize that they are engaged in culturalized comprehension, or in the development of a personal understanding of author(s)' writing and the world, and are thus rendering inferences that may be imperfect or incomplete. Deliberate reflection requires learners to consider the bases for their inferences and to consider additional (different) inferences or interpretations that may be formed. Metacognition, within the context of reading, has often been understood as a comprehension monitoring process, guided by internal standards of coherence (Afflerbach et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref116">2</reflink>]; van den Broek et al., [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref117">145</reflink>]). Within the context of culturalized comprehension, metacognition, as engaged during deliberate reflection, serves a further epistemic function, requiring that learners consider the truthfulness and completeness of their interpretations of texts, and alternative interpretations that may be formed.</p> <p>To varying extents, all of the reading processes that we have introduced as components of culturalized comprehensions thus far have been identified as important to reading in prior work. For instance, Wineburg ([<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref118">153</reflink>]) described experts' reasoning about historical documents as involving sourcing, or attendance to information about texts' origin and author information to make interpretive inferences about content; thus identifying readers' recognition of texts as authored works as key to historical reasoning. Elsewhere, the Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) framework has described how individuals activate existing knowledge (i.e., misconceptions) and compare this to (refutational) texts' content (Kendeou &amp; O'Brien, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref119">63</reflink>]). The Two Step Model of Validation proposed that learners deliberately validate text-based information relative to prior knowledge when reading (Richter &amp; Maier, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref120">112</reflink>]). Thus, both the KReC and the Two Step Model of Validation provided empirical support for individuals using their prior knowledge as a basis for determining what is the same and what is different between their conceptions of the world and authors' worldviews. Metacognitive monitoring has been extensively investigated as supporting comprehension (Thiede et al., [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref121">137</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref122">138</reflink>]); here, we suggest that such monitoring serves an epistemic function in helping individuals to recognize themselves as constructing interpretations of texts and the world and to consider the accuracy and completeness of their interpretations, and the potential for other interpretations to be formed. Thus, in specifying culturalized comprehension we offer ways that previously investigated reading-related processes can be directed toward learners developing constructed understandings of the world based on texts, or culturalized comprehension. Empirical examples of students engaging in culturalized comprehensions are described in the section to follow.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-9">Empirical examples of students' engagement in culturalized comprehension</hd> <p>Individuals using texts to construct an understanding of their own or others' worldviews and associated values (i.e., culturalized comprehension) has been examined to a surprisingly limited extent in prior work. Aligned with a schema-based view of culture, and paralleling work by Steffensen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref123">132</reflink>]), among others (e.g., Erwin, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref124">35</reflink>]; Pritchard, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref125">109</reflink>]; Reynolds et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref126">110</reflink>]), a large body of work in the field of foreign language learning has examined comprehension when different, culturally relevant or irrelevant texts are introduced to learners from different cultural groups (Babaee Chegeni et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref127">6</reflink>]; Barnitz, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref128">10</reflink>]; Jafari &amp; Aghaei, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref129">57</reflink>]; Yousef et al., [<reflink idref="bib156" id="ref130">156</reflink>]). Within this literature, the predominant finding has been that learners are better at processing and recalling information from texts aligned with their own cultures or schema. However, some limited evidence of learners' seeming engagement in culturalized comprehension has also emerged. For instance, Thirunavukarasu and Harun ([<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref131">139</reflink>]) conducted a study wherein Malays, Chinese, and Indian 11 and 12 year-olds were asked to read narrative, descriptive, and info graphic texts, describing various traditions, intended to be representative of each of their cultures (e.g., Diwali, the Mooncake Festival, wedding traditions).</p> <p>Consistent with our definition of culturalized comprehension, students readily attended to differences between wedding practices they were familiar with and those described in texts. For instance, one Indian student reported: "...For me I found the Indian wedding very different from what I have seen in my uncle's wedding." This sentiment was echoed by other Indian participants in the study because the wedding tradition described in-text was North Indian, whereas participants were largely South Indian. For us, this example demonstrates the value of viewing culture as a way of thinking about texts, rather than as an individual characteristic that can be externally (e.g., by teachers or researchers) and definitively determined and assessed (Gutiérrez &amp; Rogoff, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref132">52</reflink>]). Although the student quoted by Thirunavukarasu and Harun ([<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref133">139</reflink>]) was able to recognize differences in how they conceptualized and had experienced weddings vis-à-vis what was relayed in text, such differences were not further analyzed, compared to other descriptions of weddings, nor examined in terms of their implicit values, at least as was reported in the article. Thus, students' engagement in culturalized comprehension was ultimately limited, at least as reported by Thirunavukarasu and Harun ([<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref134">139</reflink>]), with comprehension, rather than culturalized comprehension, the focus of their work.</p> <p>An exception to cross-cultural work neglecting students' engagement in culture as a way of thinking is a study by Uysal ([<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref135">141</reflink>]). Uysal ([<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref136">141</reflink>]) asked American and Turkish graduate students to read an editorial about the U.S. election published in a Turkish newspaper. Both groups of students were frequent newspaper readers, expected to be familiar with the content and style of editorials commonly featured in American and Turkish newspapers, respectively. The editorial that students were asked to examine was written to be representative of those published in Turkish newspapers (e.g., making use of anecdotes, figurative language, and rhetorical questions). In the Uysal ([<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref137">141</reflink>]) study, both Turkish and American students, rather than being asked only to comprehend the text provided, were asked to mark places in text where the editorial was (a) difficult for them to understand, (b) different from what they were expecting, and (c) effective in communicating its message; with these questions, particularly those focused on difference, potentially fostering culturalized comprehension.</p> <p>Indeed, these questions seemed to do so. Multiple American students marked the phrase, "prayer may be needed," as one they noticed in the Turkish editorial. One participant, Robin, explained: "Even in editorials in most American newspapers, most writers do not take any religious bent on what they are writing about." Another participant, Jane, justified her marking by saying: "In the US, people say God bless America, but not prayer may be needed. Americans often veil and they tend to prevent religious things. There is melting pot in the US thus there are people who had different backgrounds, people who do not even believe in God. So talking about religion has been a taboo" (p. 20). As demonstrated in these quotes, being asked to deliberately consider what information in text was unusual or different from what was expected, prompted readers to reflect on the language typically used in American op-eds and on the role of religion in US public discourse and how this may be reflective of US values (e.g., the melting pot metaphor). In our view, this type of reasoning, albeit still limited, is reflective of culturalized comprehension.</p> <p>Likewise adopting a comparative approach, Levine ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref138">80</reflink>]) asked high school and graduate students to analyze the poem, <emph>To Paint a Water Lily,</emph> by English writer, Ted Hughes, and hip-hop lyrics from <emph>Mathematics</emph>, by the American writer and performer, Mos Def. Latinx, African American, and Filipinx high school students were recruited due to their high knowledge of hip-hop; graduate students were majority White, with one student identifying as Latinx and one as South Asian, and were selected to have limited hip-hop familiarity (but high knowledge of poetry). Participants were asked to share their "reactions and interpretations," of each text (p. 549).</p> <p>Reflective of culturalized comprehension, students focused on the real world meanings of each poem (i.e., on the worldviews these reflected) by analyzing their language use and by considering the extent to which these poems were representative of their respective genres. One high school student, analyzing the Mos Def lyrics, explained, "so all the rappers like to introduce themselves before they actually get into it" (p. 551). In this case, the student was connecting elements of the Mos Def song to other songs within the hip-hop genre, with further culturalized comprehension able to be engaged had the student been asked to consider the significance, purpose of, or values inherent within such introductions (Kopano, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref139">74</reflink>]; Newman, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref140">98</reflink>]; Salaam, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref141">117</reflink>]). Another high school student made the connection between Mos Def lyrics, other hip-hop songs, and their social implications: "I like this song because...from 80s to now, 80s and 90s, they kind of talked about the actual stuff, like problems that are still present today" (p. 554). This quote reflects culturalized comprehension because this student recognized the Mos Def lyrics as authored, or as encoding a worldview, compared the worldview that these lyrics introduced to others in the hip-hop genre, and generalized from the similarities identified to recognize hip-hop as forwarding a critical lens on issues of racism in society and encouraging its listeners to likewise do so.</p> <p>Analysis of author's intent in language use, and its reflection of societal values, was likewise evidenced by students responding to the Ted Hughes poem. For example, one graduate student explained: "The word 'lady' carries connotations of femininity and softness, while the flies suggest masculine aggression" (p. 551). In this way, this student was connecting the particular words that the author chose to use to cultural (i.e., commonly shared) ideals of femininity and masculinity, or engaging in, albeit limited, culturalized comprehension. Thus, culturalized comprehension emerged when individuals reasoned about features of author(s)' worldviews and their commonalities (e.g., across authors, within a genre) and connected these to societal values.</p> <p>A further contribution of Levine's work (2022) to our articulation of culturalized comprehension is her identification of an overall theme—wherein both high school and graduate students were found to make allusions to a common reader in their poem analyses. This was indicated by students' use of the pronoun "we." Notably, such allusions were particularly common when readers were responding to the work that better aligned with their existing knowledge (i.e., schema) or, what Levine ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref142">80</reflink>]) termed, their interpretive community; although graduate students used "we" considerably more often than their high school counterparts. To us, this allusion to a "we," further indicates that culturalized comprehension involves not only a set of reasoning processes, but also epistemic agency. When engaged in culturalized comprehension, individuals feel efficacious in analyzing texts for the commonalities and differences in worldviews and values that these reflect, to develop their own conceptions of the world and understandings of culture.</p> <p>A second overall theme, identified by Levine ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref143">80</reflink>]), captured both high school and graduate students' expressions of uncertainty. According to Levine ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref144">80</reflink>]), and consistent with our conceptualization of deliberate reflection, such expressions included both students' personal recognitions of not knowing and their consciousness of a multitude of interpretations for authored works possible. This was expressed by one graduate student, responding to the Ted Hughes poem, as: "To me the most important part of these four lines is the end. 'Study, these the two minds of this lady'—which I kind of got hung up on, partly because I see two readings; one is a command 'study, these...'. But also the inverted object of the sentence, that the two minds of the lady study these, so I'm not quite sure where this lady is yet." To us, this comment reflects the student's recognition of themselves as active in constructing an interpretation (rather than a definitive understanding) of text and, therefore, their generation of a plurality of possible interpretive inferences; although not yet their weighing or comparison of these; with all of these processes emblematic of deliberate reflection, as a part of culturalized comprehension.</p> <p>One final example of culturalized comprehension comes from McCarthy and Goldman ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref145">88</reflink>]), who specifically asked individuals to analyze a text intended to provoke culturalized comprehension in readers, much like the Mos Def lyrics that Levine ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref146">80</reflink>]) introduced. In particular, McCarthy and Goldman ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref147">88</reflink>]) asked experts (i.e., English PhDs) and undergraduate students to read the short story, <emph>The Elephant</emph>, by Sławomir Mrożek, satirizing the Polish communist government, with this genre context not provided to either group of readers. Participants were assigned to one of three instructional conditions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref148">1</reflink>) the rules of notice condition (i.e., encouraging them to attend to signal words that the author may have included, such as juxtaposition or deviations from the norm), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref149">2</reflink>) the rules of signification condition (i.e., indicating to readers that the author commonly used satire), or (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref150">3</reflink>) assigned to a combined rules of notice and signification condition.</p> <p>Considerable culturalized comprehension was demonstrated within the expert sample. In particular, all four experts recognized the text as satire. One expert reported, "...So I'm wondering if this is a satire or a farce? Because certainly this does not make sense;" while another explained, "This is written in the style of absurdity [...] which you see in a lot of Soviet literature, which shows the absurdity of the ways that the socialist authorities governed" (p. 247).</p> <p>As demonstrated by these two experts, recognizing the text as an authored work, with deliberate decisions (e.g., regarding word choice) made by the author, and attending to what was different (i.e., in this case, than what was expected) and similar, in this case within genre, in this text, helped experts to understand the satirical nature of Mrożek's work. We would argue this reflects culturalized comprehension, as well, as experts came to understand Mrożek's conceptualization and critique of the Polish socialist government and its values. Importantly, undergraduate students, even when receiving instructions intended to facilitate their recognition of satire and forming of literary interpretations, largely did not do so or did so only to a limited extent. To us, this suggests the need to deliberately and systematically support students' culturalized comprehension in the classroom.</p> <p>McCarthy and Goldman made a similar point, concluding that: "even if a reader adopts an interpretive stance, it may be difficult to generate interpretations if the reader has no knowledge about the author or the time in which the author was writing" (2019, p. 250). We see this conclusion as linking work by McCarthy and Goldman ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref151">88</reflink>]) to work by Thirunavukarasu and Harun ([<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref152">139</reflink>]), among others. Although students may readily attend to, particularly, differences, and, potentially, commonalities in worldviews across texts or between a text and their own worldview, they seem to require dedicated support (or extensive knowledge, as demonstrated by the experts in McCarthy and Goldman's study) to do so systematically and to elaborate on why identified commonalities and differences may emerge and on the values underlying these. Likewise, at least as described within the studies reviewed here, limited evidence of deliberate reflection was identified; moreover students' generation of multiple interpretations for texts, correspondent to deliberate reflection, has been found to be limited in prior work (e.g., Hall &amp; Piazza, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref153">53</reflink>]). This renders systematically supporting students' engagement in culturalized comprehension an important instructional goal in the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-10">From culturalized comprehension to critical culturalized comprehension</hd> <p>Uysal ([<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref154">141</reflink>]), Levine ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref155">80</reflink>]), and McCarthy and Goldman ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref156">88</reflink>]) provided evidence of learners' abilities to engage in culturalized comprehension, to varying extents. Still, additional processes, beyond these, are required for learners to demonstrate critical culturalized comprehension. We define critical culturalized comprehension as readers using their understanding of texts, as an outcome of culturalized comprehension, to generate textual counternarratives or critiques. Counternarratives are stories that resist, recast, counter, or otherwise deviate from dominant discourse (Bamberg, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref157">7</reflink>]; Milner, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref158">94</reflink>]). These are often produced by members of marginalized communities and therefore, have the potential to empower their progenitors, as well as reframing issues for an audience (Solorzano &amp; Yosso, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref159">129</reflink>]). Critique refers to learners' explicit recognition of the tacit, implicit, missing, or assumed message of texts. As defined by Foucault, critique involves: "pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, [on] what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought, the practices that we accept rest" (Foucault, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref160">38</reflink>], p. 154). Thus, distinct from culturalized comprehension, critical culturalized comprehension requires an oppositional stance, or readers' resistance to, and therefore, reconstruction or reformulation of the content of texts.</p> <p>Counternarratives and critiques are developed through at least four main processes. These include readers (a) encoding and (b) identifying the <emph>surface</emph> (i.e., explicitly stated, like content) and <emph>deep</emph> (i.e., implied, such as underlying values) message of texts, with the latter elsewhere referred to as the "master" narratives or frames that texts put forth (Bamberg &amp; Wipff, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref161">8</reflink>]; Stanley, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref162">131</reflink>]); (c) mapping these surface and deep features to their own views of the world to determine potential (mis)alignments; and (d) drawing on these (mis)alignments to generate counternarratives of texts, particularly ones that are on the surface similar to the information presented in texts (i.e., addressing a common topic) but distinct in the counter-framings introduced. Critical culturalized comprehension may be linked to culturalized comprehension via the process of deliberate reflection, wherein among the multitude of competing interpretations of texts that individuals consider are ones that subvert the norm. Such inferences or interpretations can serve as a basis for learners' formulation of counternarratives or critiques. As with culturalized comprehension, in generating counternarratives or critiques, individuals are required to recognize their epistemic agency as authors putting forth messages sustaining or challenging dominant narratives. Individuals' generation of text-based counternarratives or critiques and recognition of their own epistemic and authorial role in doing so is referred to as critical culturalized comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-11">Empirical examples of students' engagement in critical culturalized comprehension</hd> <p>Students' engagement in critical culturalized comprehension has been examined to varying extents in prior work. Philip et al. ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref163">106</reflink>]) examined students' development of racial data literacy in a classroom context, through racial-ideological micro-contestations or instances when race figured into students' and teachers' interpretations of data visualizations, with these micro-contestations constituting "new categories of things in the world that help explain how it works" (p. 363). Philip et al. ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref164">106</reflink>]) examined how, Mr. Romero, a high school teacher, introduced students to the New York Times data visualization, <emph>A Peek into Netflix Queues</emph>, examining Netflix viewing patterns by neighborhood. Specifically, Mr. Romero demonstrated for students the popularity of the film, <emph>The Curious Case of Benjamin Button</emph>, throughout much of California, vis-à-vis the popularity of the "Black film" <emph>Not Easily Broken</emph>, in historically Black neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Throughout the discussion of these two films, the two Black students in the class reported seeing and enjoying <emph>Not Easily Broken</emph>, a student referred to the neighborhoods where <emph>Not Easily Broken</emph> was popular as "ghetto," with William, a Black student, then countering that the popularity of the film in historically Black neighborhoods was the result of Black solidarity.</p> <p>In analyzing the class's discussion, Philip et al. ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref165">106</reflink>]) suggested that the introduction of these two data visualizations could have served as a means of engaging Black students' out-of-school knowledge in the computer science classroom, helping students to recognize data visualizations as authored works, reflecting creators' conceptions of race and societal racism, and affording students the epistemic agency to variably interpret the visualizations introduced, while making use of data literacy concepts. Asking students to consider the societal importance of films, what defines something as a "Black film," or the values revealed in the ways in which films are marketed, movies ranked, or cities chosen for display in the Netflix data visualization, all could have served as devices for realizing the potential of culturalized comprehension in the classroom—a potential not realized, as described by Philip et al. ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref166">106</reflink>]). Still, William, in this scenario, was able to use his culturalized comprehension of the significance of the film <emph>Not Easily Broken</emph>, constructed based on his viewing of the film and his experiences as a Black youth, to develop a counternarrative (i.e., of Black solidarity) to combat the interpretation of the data visualization that another student put forth (i.e., that the film was popular in the "ghetto"), demonstrating critical culturalized comprehension.</p> <p>Examining critical culturalized comprehension on a larger scale, Lee ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref167">79</reflink>]) analyzed textual poaching on Black Twitter (i.e., a subculture on Twitter, instantiated via the use of specific hashtags), with textual poaching referring to audience responses to media. Among the examples of textual poaching that Lee analyzed was Black Twitter critiquing and satirizing the AP headline, <emph>Suburban Detroit homeowner convicted of second-degree murder for killing woman who showed up drunk on porch,</emph> assigned to a story describing an injured Black woman (Renisha McBride) being shot by a White man, when seeking help following a car accident. The counternarratives produced by Twitter users, under the hashtag #APHeadlines, included: "<emph>homeless blasphemer from low-income Nazarene family, low on stamina, fails to survive crucifixion</emph>" (@LaToubabNoire) and "<emph>children flee tourist locations in Latin America in hunt for government handouts and comfy beds in deportation centers</emph>" (@CmartinezClass) (p. 2).</p> <p>The counternarratives (or counter-headlines) that individuals produced emerged from their culturalized comprehension of the AP Headline, or their recognition of the societal values reflected in this headline (e.g., the valuing of personal property over human life). Such culturalized comprehension may have emerged, in part, by readers comparing this headline to other racist framings of crime reporting, common in the media (Duxbury, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref168">32</reflink>]; Jackson, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref169">56</reflink>]; van Dijk, [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref170">146</reflink>]). Beyond culturalized comprehension, the Twitter users Lee ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref171">79</reflink>]) examined were able to analytically consider the headline (e.g., describing a convicted killer as a "suburban Detroit homeowner" and Renisha McBride as "drunk" rather than "injured"), to replicate its deep structure, with different surface features (i.e., topics) introduced. This served to make explicit the disconcerting narrative (i.e., of racist victim blaming) that this headline put forth. Individuals' counter-headline generation demonstrated the intertwined nature of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension, as did the classroom vignette analyzed by Philip et al. ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref172">106</reflink>]).</p> <p>One additional example of critical culturalized comprehension comes from Ajayi ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref173">3</reflink>]) who, to our knowledge, introduced among the few curricular interventions that we could find, that sought to engage students in culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension (see also Gibson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref174">42</reflink>]; Nyachae, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref175">99</reflink>]; Price-Dennis, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref176">108</reflink>]). Ajayi ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref177">3</reflink>]) introduced a critical multimodal literacy curriculum to a class of 9<sups>th</sups>-grade girls in Nigeria, with this curriculum emphasizing the "integration of multiple modes and media for meaning making and offer[ing] the possibility of increased agency for female students to bring their personal and community-based resources—their everyday literacies and self-identities—into classrooms in ways that are significant for learning" (p. 219). In part, this curriculum asked students to examine various multimodal documents (e.g., pictures of 22 male politicians in the National Assembly; the story, <emph>The Rivers Osun and Oba</emph>, about polygamy in a royal household in an English-language textbook) and to pose critical questions (e.g., "What view of reality is represented in text?" "How does the text relate to my life?" "What biases do I see in the story?" p. 223).</p> <p>In examining the learning of three students, a number of themes emerged, including students: (a) critiquing the traditional cultural prejudices forwarded in the materials introduced, (b) evaluating representations of themselves and their communities and forming personal connections to texts, and (c) forwarding alternative readings or counternarratives to those introduced—with each of these themes manifesting culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension in various ways. For example, one student (Haminat) wrote in response to <emph>The Rivers Osun and Oba</emph> story, "...Yes, I think that religion shows unequal status between men and women. This story shows that polygamy is a bad idea for women. I will rewrite the story to say that men and women are equal. My mother is very educated. At home, my mother treats my brother and I as equals" (p. 228). Emblematic of critical culturalized comprehension, Haminat drew on her views of both religion and her experiences at home to determine a misalignment between the values advanced in the story and her own. She further expressed her intention to use this misalignment in values as a basis for "rewriting," or what Ajayi ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref178">3</reflink>]) described as, "subvert[ing] [the] message of the text" (p. 228). Although demonstrated to varying extents in prior work, critical culturalized comprehension includes learners (a) identifying the explicitly stated and tacitly implied meaning and values of texts, (b) appraising these in light of their own views of the world, and (c) using any emergent misalignments as a basis for the generation of counternarratives or critiques.</p> <p>To summarize, when individuals are engaged in culture as a way of thinking about texts, or in culturalized comprehension, they consider commonalities and differences in their own worldviews and those expressed in text(s), make inferences regarding where these may originate from and the values these reflect, and engage in deliberate reflection to consider the validity of such inferences and alternative interpretations that may be formed. What emerges from individuals' engagement in culturalized comprehension, beyond a representation of the content of texts, is a reflective understanding, or representation, of the world. Moreover, when individuals recognize the surface and deep structures of text(s), or the dominant narratives that these put forth, find these to be misaligned with their own values or worldviews, and use these misalignments as a basis for counternarrative construction, critical culturalized comprehension is the result.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-12">Relating culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension to other models of comprehensio...</hd> <p>We now discuss how the proposed C4 Framework compares to existing theoretical views of learning from texts. Our hope in proposing the C4 Framework is to greatly broaden conceptions of comprehension, as an outcome of students' learning from single and multiple texts, to include culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension. In defining these constructs, we suggest that an aspect of learning from texts should be students not only understanding authors' intended messages but also recognizing these messages as representations of the world, and, therefore, analyzing these messages for the worldviews and values that these reflect, with all of these processes corresponding to culturalized comprehension.</p> <p>Beyond this, students should be asked to construct counternarratives of texts. This outcome is particularly essential when texts forward marginalizing narratives or advance hegemony-perpetuating aims (Gay, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref179">41</reflink>]; Mills &amp; Godley, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref180">93</reflink>]; Reynolds &amp; Mayweather, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref181">111</reflink>]; Stewart et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref182">133</reflink>]). The need for students to do so is perhaps best demonstrated through Lee's ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref183">79</reflink>]) work documenting how individuals responded to the seemingly neutral and factually accurate AP headline, <emph>Suburban Detroit homeowner convicted of second-degree murder for killing woman who showed up drunk on porch</emph>. Although individuals may have accurately comprehended this headline, culturalized comprehension was required for them to recognize the racist nature of this headline and its typification of racist modes of reporting on crime (Entman, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref184">34</reflink>]; Wright &amp; Washington, [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref185">155</reflink>]). Critical culturalized comprehension was required for individuals to construct counternarrative headlines that were likely to be shared online (e.g., because these were phrased so as to prompt culturalized comprehension in others; for instance by describing Jesus as a "<emph>homeless blasphemer</emph>").</p> <p>In our view, students recognizing racist, or otherwise marginalizing, narratives in texts, critiquing these, and constructing counternarratives for these is a valuable and essential academic and social outcome, and one that may be promoted by fostering culturalized and critical cultural comprehension. To the extent that the AP Headline, in this case, was widely disseminated by a trustworthy source and presented as a seemingly neutral and otherwise non-remarkable text, it is clear that culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension should be routine aspects of instruction, or frequently taught and assessed, in the classroom and regularly practiced by students during everyday reading. Further, Lee's ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref186">79</reflink>]) analysis suggested the importance of engaging students in the culturalized comprehension of not only distal or unfamiliar texts, as was done by Uysal ([<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref187">141</reflink>]), Levine ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref188">80</reflink>]), and McCarthy and Goldman ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref189">88</reflink>]), but also, of every-day and popular texts (e.g., AP headlines) (Fiske, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref190">36</reflink>]). Doing so requires students to analyze the implicit and often unquestioned worldviews, values, and assumptions that texts uphold. The power of engaging students in doing so was demonstrated by Levine ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref191">80</reflink>]), in documenting how high school students responded to Mos Def lyrics, by Philip et al. ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref192">106</reflink>]) in suggesting ways that students can question the values embedded within Netflix recommendation systems, and by Ajayi ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref193">3</reflink>]) in examining how students recognize and recast the values reflected in everyday multimodal documents, like political portraits or folk tales.</p> <p>Engaging students, particularly Black students and students from minoritized backgrounds, in culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension may afford them what Gray et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref194">50</reflink>]) termed instructional opportunity structures, with these constituting means of fostering students' sense of belongingness in school. Instructional opportunity structures are those that, "engage students in scholastic activities that uphold and reinforce students' esteemed cultural meaning systems" (Gray et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref195">50</reflink>], p. 2). Instructional opportunity structures allow students to explore their cultural heritage and affirm their cultural distinctiveness, while at the same time counteracting any negative messaging about themselves and their backgrounds that students may (and commonly do, Jones, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref196">61</reflink>]; Stewart et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref197">133</reflink>]) receive. Gray et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref198">50</reflink>]) emphasized the importance of Black students, in particular, experiencing cultural distinctiveness in school, defining this as: "instructional experiences that validate students of color by holding the norms, standards, and mores of their cultural group in high esteem" (p. 6). Thus, when students are afforded the epistemic agency to analyze their worldviews in relation to those expressed in texts (i.e., engaging in culturalized comprehension) and to question the values advanced in texts and, if need be, construct counternarratives for texts (i.e., engaging in critical culturalized comprehension), they are afforded instructional opportunities to build understandings of culture in affirming ways.</p> <p>At its core, the difference between the C4 Framework, proposed here, and earlier models of single and multiple texts comprehension lies in scope. Current cognitivist models of single and multiple text comprehension, principally, envisioned reading as the result of an interaction between a reader and a text. We, of course, acknowledge readers and texts as prerequisites for and integral to reading. Nevertheless, when culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension are the focus, the scope of what is involved in reading is necessarily broader. Students engaging in culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension necessarily requires their (a) considering author, (b) comparing texts to other texts, (c) analyzing texts in terms of their alignment with particular values or as forwarding dominant narratives, and, potentially, (d) their generating critiques and counternarratives of texts—all of these processes, reflective of culture as a way of thinking about texts, cast reading within a broader real-world, societal, and social context, that students should be made aware of and actively engaged in reasoning about. Put more simply, students engaging in culture as a way of thinking about texts requires viewing reading not only as a coming to know of an author's intended meaning, but also as a coming to know of many meanings, and through analyzing and questioning these, of the world.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-13">Implications</hd> <p>We assign a great deal of importance to promoting culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension in learners. We see emphasizing culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension as particularly important to do at a time when efforts to promote equity and critical reading and reasoning are systematically under attack through book bans and anti-Critical Race Theory legislation (López et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref199">85</reflink>]). López ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref200">84</reflink>]) emphasizes that such attacks are not new. Valuing culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension in the classroom has a number of implications. We view these implications as primarily directed toward researchers, due to the need to investigate, not only define, culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension. Nevertheless, we hope that these implications can likewise be translated and applied to the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-14">The need to foster and assess culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension</hd> <p>Descriptions of classroom instruction in the areas of curriculum studies and teacher education suggested that teachers, particularly in Language Arts and at the elementary level, are engaging students in culturalized comprehension and critical culturalized comprehension in various ways (Fontanella-Nothom, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref201">37</reflink>]; Glenn, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref202">43</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref203">67</reflink>]; Price-Dennis, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref204">108</reflink>]; Saxby, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref205">119</reflink>]; Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref206">140</reflink>]). For example, Kim ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref207">68</reflink>]) examined how animated storybooks can be used to support kindergarteners' reasoning about these books' representations of gender and socioeconomic class. Price-Dennis ([<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref208">108</reflink>]) examined fifth-grade students' writing during a Language Arts unit focused on race and racism in society (e.g., with students reading, <emph>Roll of Thunder, Hear my Cry,</emph> by Mildred D. Taylor, and poetry by Langston Hughes, among other texts). Price-Dennis ([<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref209">108</reflink>]) described the fifth graders as "wrestle[ing] with the social construction of race and the maintenance of racism...question[ing] notions of meritocracy and the numerous ways race, gender, and class intersect to restrict opportunities for some while providing them for others...[and] highlight[ing] several current issues addressing race and racism" (p. 331)—or engaging in culturalized comprehension. Given these rich descriptions, the literature in educational psychology needs to catch up to understand the cognitive processes involved in culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension and how these may be fostered, and to incorporate culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension into prevailing understandings of what reading is. For educational psychologists, we suggest a shift in focus from culture, as the static knowledge or schema that students bring to reading (i.e., culture as an individual difference factor), to culture as the set of processes involved in reading and as the outcome of these, or as the personal and societal understandings that students may actively construct through texts.</p> <p>As a further point, the truism that we assess what we value, and value what we assess, applies to culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension, as well. Common assessments of comprehension or learning from texts, particularly those outside of the domain of literature, have largely failed to examine the extent to which students can engage in culture as a way of thinking about texts or generate counternarratives of texts (O'Reilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref210">100</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref211">151</reflink>]). This is despite both culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension constituting essential higher-order reading and learning outcomes, connecting classroom content to learners' lives. We see great value in educational psychologists developing assessments of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension, provided that these assessments (a) allow students' epistemic agency to be expressed in variably interpreting author(s)' messages, (b) value comparison across texts and the analysis of texts' subtext or underlying values, and (c) provide students with opportunities to both invoke their outside knowledge in constructing and critically questioning the meaning of texts, and in developing counternarratives of texts.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-15">The need to develop curricular materials to support culturalized and critical culturalized co...</hd> <p>A persistent challenge facing U.S. teachers is a dearth of quality instructional materials (Carpenter &amp; Shelton, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref212">25</reflink>]; Doan et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref213">31</reflink>]; Kauffman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref214">62</reflink>]; Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref215">114</reflink>]). A 2016 survey found teachers to spend an average of 5.2 hours per week creating instructional materials and an average of 7.3 hours searching for free or paid instructional materials for the classroom (Goldberg, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref216">44</reflink>]). At the same time, many of the materials that teachers are likely to find (e.g., on Pinterest or Teachers Pay Teachers) have been described as not aligned to standards or otherwise low in quality (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref217">55</reflink>]; Shelton et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref218">123</reflink>]). And, although the supplemental instructional materials that teachers are likely to find online have been found to be particularly poor at fostering the types of reasoning reflective of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension (Gallagher, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref219">40</reflink>]; Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref220">114</reflink>]; Shreiner &amp; Martell, [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref221">125</reflink>]), textbooks and other commercially available materials are likely to be similarly limited (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref222">18</reflink>]; Jimenez, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref223">59</reflink>]; Lucy et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref224">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>To us, this adds particular urgency to the need for researchers and curriculum designers to help teachers create rich instructional materials able to foster culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension. This is particularly the case given that texts constitute uniquely important objects to subject to culture as a way of thinking, given the richness of the communicative content that these put forth. Thus curating and developing text-based curricular materials is an especially important direction for future work.</p> <p>The challenge of doing so well is described by Philip et al. ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref225">106</reflink>]). The Netflix data visualization that Mr. Romero used, in Philip et al.'s study (2016), was explicitly designed as part of a curriculum on data science and was included by designers to show that data on films' popularity within different neighborhoods was largely a proxy for their racial makeup. Yet, "William, Jessica, Ramon and other students all read race through the data visualizations in ways that the curriculum designers could not conceive. There was a significant gap between authorial intent on the part of the curriculum developers and the students' reading of the visualization" (p. 378). To us, this demonstrates the importance of curricular designers, alongside teachers and researchers, viewing culture as a way of thinking and, in doing so, recognizing that any materials or texts that they select or create, even if culturally relevant, constitute only a representation of some worldview. This constructed or representational nature of all classroom materials, with authorial intent exercised by both authors, writing texts, and by those choosing texts for the classroom, should be made explicit for learners. Learners should, in turn, be encouraged and supported to analyze, compare, and question the worldviews that the materials themselves and their selections for classroom use reveal—or to engage in culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension. Put another way, any development of curricular resources ought be done with the recognition that materials will be variably understood and actively interpreted and counter-interpreted by students, or subjected to culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension. As suggested by Philip et al. ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref226">106</reflink>]), this should not deter curricular development, but rather should promote the purposeful development of curricula that open the opportunity for culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension to emerge (e.g., Ajayi, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref227">3</reflink>]; Gray et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref228">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-16">Multiple texts as foundational to culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension</hd> <p>A third implication, derived from the empirical examples previously reviewed (e.g., Ajayi, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref229">3</reflink>]; Philip et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref230">106</reflink>]), is that culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension may, in part, best emerge from the introduction of multiple texts. The presentation of more than a single text provides students with an explicit instantiation of a multitude of interpretations and invites the identification of commonalities, differences, and patterns in worldviews across these, and an analysis of their underlying values. That is, providing students with more than one text better fosters their engagement in culture as a way of thinking by prompting their consideration of what may be shared across authors and why. This stands in contrast to students viewing any one text as an author's strictly idiosyncratic message or, conversely, students taking a single author to be a valid stand-in for an entire group. Introducing students to multiple texts, and therefore necessarily to multiple perspectives, serves as a basis for helping students to recognize that they are constructing an understanding of culture based on authors' expressed worldviews, and that other, constructed understandings are also possible. Thus, we argue, that the participants in Steffensen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref231">132</reflink>]) would have benefited from being asked to analyze even two texts describing American or Indian weddings, rather than only a single text, with this introduction of multiple texts suggesting to individuals the possibility of a multitude of conceptions of "American," or "Indian" weddings.</p> <p>Of course, culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension may emerge from students reading only a single text, provided that students have an existing conception of the issue discussed to compare texts to. Individuals engaging in culturalized comprehension based on only single texts was demonstrated by the experts in McCarthy and Goldman's study ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref232">88</reflink>]) and by the users of Black Twitter described by Lee ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref233">79</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref234">4</reflink>] Nevertheless, we view introducing students to multiple texts as a basis for reasoning about shared worldviews to be a particularly fruitful means of engaging learners in culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension. Doing so may be especially useful when students are learning about issues that they have limited experience with or knowledge about (e.g., Soviet absurdist literature), or conversely, when they are learning about issues that they are so familiar with and embrace so thoroughly and unquestioningly that there is particular merit in encouraging them to critically consider or analyze the culture of these (e.g., Netflix recommendation systems) (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref235">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-17">Engaging students in culture as a way of thinking</hd> <p>Although our interest is primarily in how culture as a way of thinking can be applied to supporting individuals' learning from texts, we see value in more broadly conceptualizing culture as a way of thinking in the classroom. There have been widespread calls to attend to the role of culture in learning (Gay, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref236">41</reflink>]; Ladson-Billings, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref237">76</reflink>]; Paris, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref238">102</reflink>]). Commonly, these calls have been answered by teachers, among others (e.g., researchers, curricular designers), seeking to incorporate culturally relevant texts and materials into the classroom, alongside other culturally relevant pedagogies (Adam &amp; Harper, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref239">1</reflink>]; Christ &amp; Sharma, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref240">27</reflink>]; Kibler &amp; Chapman, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref241">65</reflink>]; Sharma &amp; Christ, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref242">121</reflink>]; Wanless &amp; Crawford, [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref243">152</reflink>]). We consider there to be great value and urgency in teachers and others doing so.</p> <p>However, in setting out a framework of culture as a way of thinking, we offer what we consider to be a valuable complement to these efforts, in four main ways. First, engaging students in culture as a way of thinking shifts the responsibility from teachers determining students' culture and identifying texts wherein this may be reflected, to teachers supporting students to construct an understanding of shared and distinct worldviews, and associated values through texts. This imbues students with the epistemic agency to engage in the construction of culture through culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension. Second, viewing culture as a way of thinking shifts the focus from culture as static and existing within learners in some definitive form, to culture as actively constructed and dynamically evolving. Viewing culture as a way of thinking suggests that students develop their conceptions of culture throughout schooling and life to understand themselves and the world in increasingly sophisticated ways. This also positions students as the drivers for societal adaptation and change, as, through constructing culture and engaging in critical culturalized comprehension, students contribute to new ways of viewing the world (Lave, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref244">77</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref245">78</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, viewing culture as a way of thinking broadens the scope of what culture entails. Although choosing culturally relevant texts is essential, viewing culture as a way of thinking suggests that culturalized comprehension can emerge in response to any, not only specifically designated as such, texts. The converse of this is that even when culturally relevant texts are chosen, these do not guarantee that critique, analytic thinking, or culturalized or critical culturalized comprehension will emerge, rather students need to be deliberately engaged in such thinking. We argue that, when students are engaged in culture as a way of thinking about text, any text has the potential to become a part of their "interpretive community" (Levine, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref246">80</reflink>]), or to be incorporated into their view of the world and their constructed understandings of culture, be this poetry from Ted Hughes or lyrics from Mos Def. Students should likewise be asked to question which texts are featured within the "interpretive community" of their classroom and why.</p> <p>Fourth, in defining culture as a way of thinking, we underscore that such thinking includes both construction and critique. Engaging in culture as a way of thinking involves students developing a rich understanding of their and others' worldviews as well as questioning why such worldviews may have developed, why these continue to be sustained, and how these ought to be adjusted or changed. As demonstrated by authors describing students' engagement in critical culturalized comprehension (e.g., Lee, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref247">79</reflink>]; Philip et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref248">106</reflink>]), engaging students in this type of counternarrative construction and critique is essential for preparing students to confront the explicitly marginalizing and tacitly hegemonic texts that unfortunately permeate everyday reading, and for developing students' social justice advocacy in the classroom (Linder et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref249">81</reflink>]; Nance-Carroll, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref250">96</reflink>]; Ritchie, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref251">113</reflink>]; Wray-Lake, [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref252">154</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>Models and frameworks conceptualize comprehension as individuals' cognitive representation of texts. Foundational studies have conceptualized the role of culture in comprehension primarily in terms of the (cultural) schema that readers bring to a text. In this paper, we diverge from these predominating views in two ways. First, we make the case that comprehension involves individuals cognitively representing not only the content of texts, but also the real world—this means that the representations of texts that individuals construct should be analyzed and questioned. And second, that culture can best be understood as an active, sociological process of meaning construction, wherein learners come to understand their own and others' worldviews (e.g., as expressed through texts). Grounded in these two premises, we introduce the constructs of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension to describe how learners may reflectively formulate views of the world, and counter-views, based on texts and, more importantly, to suggest that they ought to be encouraged to do so. We offer these expanded conceptions of learning from texts to, hopefully, spur investigations of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension in future educational psychology research.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-19">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We are immensely grateful to Jeff Greene and three anonymous reviewers for their feedback on this manuscript. Their comments were indispensable in helping us to develop the ideas introduced in this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0175444104-20">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <p>Correction Statement</p> <p>This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.</p> <ref id="AN0175444104-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref6" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adam, H., &amp; Harper, L. (2016). Assessing and selecting culturally diverse literature for the classroom. Practical Literacy, 21 (2), 10 – 13. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.212531</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref61" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. Y., Kim, J. Y., Crassas, M. E., &amp; Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: what else matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66 (6), 440 – 448. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.1146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref83" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ajayi, L. (2015). Critical multimodal literacy: How Nigerian female students critique texts and reconstruct unequal social structures. Journal of Literacy Research, 47 (2), 216 – 244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15618478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, P. A., &amp; Fox, E. (2004). Historical perspectives on reading research and practice. In R. B. Ruddell &amp; N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 33 – 59). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref86" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, S. M. (1999). Rare books and the college library: Current practices in marrying undergraduates to special collections. Rare Books and Manuscripts Librarianship, 13 (2), 110 – 119. https://doi.org/10.5860/rbml.13.2.157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref127" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Babaee Chegeni, F., Phuong, U. N., &amp; Shirkhani, S. (2020). Reading comprehension of L1 culture-and L2 culture-based texts: Same or different? i-Manager's Journal on English Language Teaching, 10 (3), 57 – 63. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.10.3.16402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref157" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bamberg, M. (2004). Considering counter narratives. In M. Bamber &amp; M. Andrews (Eds.), Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense (pp. 351 – 373). John Benjamins Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref161" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bamberg, M., &amp; Wipff, Z. (2020). Counter-Narratives of crime and punishment. In M. Althoff, B. Dollinger, &amp; H. Schmidt (Eds.), Conflicting narratives of crime and punishment (pp. 23 – 41). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47236-8_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref87" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Barber, K. (2007). The anthropology of texts, persons and publics. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnitz, J. G. (1986). Toward understanding the effects of cross-cultural schemata and discourse structure on second language reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18 (2), 95 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968609547559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bloome, D., &amp; Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28 (4), 304. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/747928">www.jstor.org/stable/747928</ulink> https://doi.org/10.2307/747928</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braasch, J. L., &amp; Scharrer, L. (2020). The role of cognitive conflict in understanding and learning from multiple perspectives. In P. Van Meter, A. List, D. Lombardi, &amp; P. Kendeou (Eds.), Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives (pp. 205 – 222). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braasch, J. L., Rouet, J. F., Vibert, N., &amp; Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers' use of source information in text comprehension. Memory &amp; Cognition, 40 (3), 450 – 465. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., &amp; Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, &amp; P. van den Broek Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209 – 233). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., &amp; Braasch, J. L. G. (2013). Documents experienced as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, &amp; J. F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading from words to multiple texts (pp. 160 – 179). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., &amp; Durik, A. (2017). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., &amp; Reynolds, R. E. (2010). The nature of the refutation text effect: An investigation of attention allocation. The Journal of Educational Research, 103 (6), 407 – 423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-010-9095-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, K. D. (2011). Breaking the cycle of Sisyphus: Social education and the acquisition of critical sociocultural knowledge about race and racism in the United States. The Social Studies, 102 (6), 249 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2011.563726</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brugman, B. C., Burgers, C., Beukeboom, C. J., &amp; Konijn, E. A. (2022). Humor in satirical news headlines: Analyzing humor form and content, and their relations with audience engagement. Mass Communication and Society, 2022, 1 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2144747</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brumann, C. (1999). Writing for Culture: Why a successful concept should not be discarded. Current Anthropology, 40 (S1), S1 – S27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, P. (2019). What is cultural history? United Kingdom: John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butterfuss, R., &amp; Kendeou, P. (2021). KReC-MD: Knowledge revision with multiple documents. Educational Psychology Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09603-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., &amp; Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory &amp; Cognition, 29 (6), 850 – 859. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196414</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Capotosto, L., Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Oh Park, S., Mulimbi, B., Donaldson, M., &amp; Kingston, H. C. (2017). Family support of third-grade reading skills, motivation, and habits. AERA Open, 3 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417714457</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, J., &amp; Shelton, C. (2022). Educators' perceptions of the challenges of using online educational marketplaces. In E. Langran (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology &amp; teacher education international conference (pp. 1794 – 1799). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://<ulink href="http://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/220952/">www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/220952/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaney, D. (1994). The cultural turn: Scene-setting essays in contemporary cultural history. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christ, T., &amp; Sharma, S. A. (2018). Searching for mirrors: Preservice teachers' journey toward more culturally relevant pedagogy. Reading Horizons, 57 (1), 55 – 73. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol57/iss1/5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colwell, J. (2019). Selecting texts for disciplinary literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 72 (5), 631 – 637. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1762</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, A. E., &amp; O'Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during narrative text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51 (1–2), 26 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., &amp; Schutz, P. A. (2014). Researching race within educational psychology contexts. Educational Psychologist, 49 (4), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.957828</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doan, S., Eagan, J., Grant, D., Kaufman, J. H., &amp; Setodji, C. M. (2022). American Instructional Resources Survey. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://<ulink href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/research%5freports/RRA134-14.html">www.rand.org/pubs/research%5freports/RRA134-14.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duxbury, S. W. (2023). A threatening tone: Homicide, racial threat narratives, and the historical growth of incarceration in the United States, 1926–2016. Social Forces, 2023, 1 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engzell, P. (2021). What do books in the home proxy for? A cautionary tale. Sociological Methods &amp; Research, 50 (4), 1487 – 1514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119826143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Entman, R. M. (1992). Blacks in the news: Television, modern racism and cultural change. Journalism Quarterly, 69 (2), 341 – 361. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909206900209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erwin, B. (1991). The relationship between background experience and students' comprehension: A cross cultural study. Reading Psychology, 12 (1), 43 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271910120105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiske, E. (1992). Cultural studies and the culture of everyday life. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson &amp; P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 154 – 173). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fontanella-Nothom, O. (2019). "Why do we have different skins anyway?": Exploring race in literature with preschool children. Multicultural Perspectives, 21 (1), 11 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2019.1572485</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault, M. (1988). Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foy, J. E., &amp; Gerrig, R. J. (2014). Flying to Neverland: How readers tacitly judge norms during comprehension. Memory &amp; Cognition, 42 (8), 1250 – 1259. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0436-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallagher, J. (2022). An emerging critical lens: Elementary teacher candidates' developing evaluation of social studies resources on online sites of curriculum sharing. Journal of International Social Studies, 12 (1), 2 – 21. https://iajiss.org/index.php/iajiss/article/view/669/455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (2), 106 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, M. L. (2018). Scaffolding critical questions: Learning to read the world in a middle school civics class in Mexico. Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy, 62 (1), 25 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.735</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glenn, W. J. (2012). Developing understandings of race: Preservice teachers' counter-narrative (re)constructions of people of color in young adult literature. English Education, 44 (4), 326 – 353. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23238778">www.jstor.org/stable/23238778</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberg, M. (2016). Classroom trends: Teachers as buyers of instructional materials and users of technology. Market Data Retrieval. Retrieved from: https://mdreducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/StateofK12Market2016_ClassroomTrends.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris &amp; D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317 – 351). Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodenough, W. H. (1970). Description and comparison in cultural anthropology. Aldine.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., &amp; Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 (3), 371 – 395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graff, H. J. (1986). The legacies of literacy: Continuities and contradictions in Western society and culture. In S. de Castell, A. Luke, &amp; K. Egan (Eds.), Literacy, society, and schooling (pp. 61 – 86). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, A. J. (2011). Worldviews. International Psychiatry, 8 (3), 58 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1192/S1749367600002563</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, D. L., Hope, E. C., &amp; Matthews, J. S. (2018). Black and belonging at school: A case for interpersonal, instructional, and institutional opportunity structures. Educational Psychologist, 53 (2), 97 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregory, E., Choudhury, H., Ilankuberan, A., Kwapong, A., &amp; Woodham, M. (2013). Practice, performance and perfection: Learning sacred texts in four faith communities in London. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2013 (220), 27 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2013-0012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gutiérrez, K. D., &amp; Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32 (5), 19 – 25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032005019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, L. A., &amp; Piazza, S. V. (2008). Critically reading texts: What students do and how teachers can help. The Reading Teacher, 62 (1), 32 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.1.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanks, W. F. (1989). Text and textuality. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18 (1), 95 – 127. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.18.100189.000523</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, L. M., Archambault, L., &amp; Shelton, C. C. (2023). Issues of quality on Teachers Pay Teachers: An exploration of best-selling US history resources. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55 (4), 608 – 627. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.2014373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, J. M. (2019). Black Americans and the "crime narrative": Comments on the use of news frames and their impacts on public opinion formation. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7 (1), 231 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1553198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jafari, S. S., &amp; Aghaei, H. (2013). The effects of culture of Muslim students on their reading comprehension. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 1 (3), 150 – 156. https://doi.org/10.13189/lls.2013.010303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janack, M. (1997). Standpoint epistemology without the "standpoint"?: An examination of epistemic privilege and epistemic authority. Hypatia, 12 (2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1997.tb00022.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jimenez, J. (2020). Race, language, and the passive voice: Hardship narratives in US social studies textbooks from 1860 to the present. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11 (2), 1 – 26. https://<ulink href="http://www.learntechlib.org/p/217560/">www.learntechlib.org/p/217560/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, A. S. (2010). The Jones family's culture of literacy. The Reading Teacher, 64 (1), 33 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.64.1.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, S. P. (2020). Ending curriculum violence. Teaching Tolerance, 64, 47 – 50. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c8734287eb88c4d76aef6cc/t/5f8de7230c18e7474d4b52bc/1603135273863/Ending±Curriculum±Violence±Teaching±Tolerance.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., &amp; Peske, H. G. (2002). "Lost at sea": New teachers' experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104 (2), 273 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810210400202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendeou, P., &amp; O'Brien, E. J. (2014). The Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In D. N. Rapp &amp; J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353 – 377). The MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keren, A. (2007). Epistemic authority, testimony and the transmission of knowledge. Episteme, 4 (3), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1742360007000147</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kibler, K., &amp; Chapman, L. A. (2019). Six tips for using culturally relevant texts in diverse classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 72 (6), 741 – 744. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1775</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiewra, K. A., &amp; Creswell, J. W. (2000). Conversations with three highly productive educational psychologists: Richard Anderson, Richard Mayer, and Michael Pressley. Educational Psychology Review, 12 (1), 135 – 161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009041202079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S. J. (2016). Expanding the horizons for critical literacy in a bilingual preschool classroom: Children's responses in discussions with gender-themed picture books. International Journal of Early Childhood, 48 (3), 311 – 327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-016-0171-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S. J. (2022). Facilitating critical dialogues with bilingual kindergartners through animated books: A qualitative case study. Learning, Media and Technology, 47 (4), 498 – 511. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2036189</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. (2005). An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39 (2), 125 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651676</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W., &amp; Greene, E. (1978). The role of culture‐specific schemata in the comprehension and recall of stories. Discourse Processes, 1 (1), 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537809544425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W., &amp; van Dijk, T. (1978). Cognitive psychology and discourse: Recalling and summarizing stories. In W. U. Dressler (Ed.), Current trends in text linguistics (pp. 61 – 80). Walter de Gruyter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8 (1), 3 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kopano, B. N. (2002). Rap music as an extension of the black rhetorical tradition: Keepin'It Real. Western Journal of Black Studies, 26 (4), 204 – 214.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumpulainen, K., Sairanen, H., &amp; Nordström, A. (2020). Young children's digital literacy practices in the sociocultural contexts of their homes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20 (3), 472 – 499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420925116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465 – 491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C. D. (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher, 37 (5), 267 – 279. https://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/centrality-culture-scientific-study-learning/docview/216905094/se-2">www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/centrality-culture-scientific-study-learning/docview/216905094/se-2</ulink> https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08322683</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, L. A. (2017). Black Twitter: A response to bias in mainstream media. Social Sciences, 6 (1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6010026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levine, S. (2022). Situated expertise in literary interpretation: An expert-expert study of high school and PhD students reading canonical hip-hop and poetry. Cognition and Instruction, 40 (4), 540 – 562. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2022.2092482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linder, C., Quaye, S. J., Stewart, T. J., Okello, W. K., &amp; Roberts, R. E. (2019). The whole weight of the world on my shoulders: Power, identity, and student activism. Journal of College Student Development, 60 (5), 527 – 542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipson, M. Y. (1983). The influence of religious affiliation on children's memory for text information. Reading Research Quarterly, 18 (4), 448 – 457. https://doi.org/10.2307/747379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> List, A. (2023). Social justice reasoning when students learn about social issues using multiple texts. Discourse Processes, 60 (4–5), 244 – 272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2197692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López, F. (2022). Can educational psychology be harnessed to make changes for the greater good? Educational Psychologist, 57 (2), 114 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2052293</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López, F., Molnar, A., Johnson, R., Patterson, A., Ward, L., &amp; Kumashiro, K. (2021). Understanding the attacks on Critical Race Theory. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED616105.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucy, L., Demszky, D., Bromley, P., &amp; Jurafsky, D. (2020). Content analysis of textbooks via natural language processing: Findings on gender, race, and ethnicity in Texas US history textbooks. AERA Open, 6 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420940312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, J., Hannon, P., Lewis, M., &amp; Ritchie, L. (2017). Young children's initiation into family literacy practices in the digital age. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15 (1), 47 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15582095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarthy, K. S., &amp; Goldman, S. R. (2019). Constructing interpretive inferences about literary text: The role of domain-specific knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 60, 245 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McInerney, D. M. (2005). Educational psychology–Theory, research, and teaching: A 25‐year retrospective. Educational Psychology, 25 (6), 585 – 599. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500344670</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKechnie, S., &amp; Tynan, C. (2008). Halloween in a material world: Trick or treat? Journal of Marketing Management, 24 (9–10), 1011 – 1023. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725708X382028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38 (1), 1 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3801_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNamara, D. S. (2021). If integration is the keystone of comprehension: Inferencing is the key. Discourse Processes, 58 (1), 86 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1788323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills, K. A., &amp; Godley, A. (2017). Race and racism in digital media: What can critical race theory contribute to research on techno-cultures ? In K. A. Mills, A Stornaiuolo, A Smith, &amp; J. Z. Pandya (Eds.), Handbook of writing, literacies, and education in digital cultures (pp. 111 – 122). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milner, H. R. IV. (2008). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counter-narratives of teachers and community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (6), 1573 – 1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., &amp; Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31 (2), 132 – 141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nance-Carroll, N. (2021). Children and young people as activist authors. International Research in Children's Literature, 14 (1), 6 – 21. https://doi.org/10.3366/ircl.2021.0374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., &amp; Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 489 – 504). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newman, M. (2005). Rap as literacy: A genre analysis of hip-hop ciphers. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 25 (3), 399 – 436. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.3.399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nyachae, T. M. (2019). Social justice literacy workshop for critical dialogue. Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy, 63 (1), 106 – 110. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/48555660">www.jstor.org/stable/48555660</ulink> https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.977</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Reilly, T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J., Halderman, L., &amp; Steinberg, J. (2014). Designing reading comprehension assessments for reading interventions: How a theoretically motivated assessment can serve as an outcome measure. Educational Psychology Review, 26 (3), 403 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9269-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., &amp; McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19 (3), 228 – 242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41 (3), 93 – 97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parkhouse, H., Lu, C. Y., &amp; Massaro, V. R. (2019). Multicultural education professional development: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89 (3), 416 – 458. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319840359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., &amp; Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Ostendorp &amp; S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 88 – 123). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, K. H. (2020). Sharing stories, linking lives: Literacy practices among Sudanese refugees. In K. H. Perry (Eds.), Cultural practices of literacy (pp. 57 – 84). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Philip, T. M., Olivares-Pasillas, M. C., &amp; Rocha, J. (2016). Becoming racially literate about data and data-literate about race: Data visualizations in the classroom as a site of racial-ideological micro-contestations. Cognition and Instruction, 34 (4), 361 – 388. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1210418</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popelková, K., &amp; Zajonc, J. (2022). Halloween and Valentine's Day in Slovakia: New holidays or new opportunities for celebration? Łódzkie Studia Etnograficzne, 61, 21 – 37. https://<ulink href="http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1080051">www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1080051</ulink> https://doi.org/10.12775/LSE.2022.61.02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price-Dennis, D. (2016). Developing curriculum to support Black girls' literacies in digital spaces. English Education, 48 (4), 337 – 361. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/26492573">www.jstor.org/stable/26492573</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25 (4), 273 – 295. https://doi.org/10.2307/747692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, R. E., Taylor, M. A., Steffensen, M. S., Shirey, L. L., &amp; Anderson, R. C. (1982). Cultural schemata and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17 (3), 353. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/747524">www.jstor.org/stable/747524</ulink> https://doi.org/10.2307/747524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, R., &amp; Mayweather, D. (2017). Recounting racism, resistance, and repression: Examining the experiences and hashtag activism of college students with critical race theory and counternarratives. The Journal of Negro Education, 86 (3), 283 – 304. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.86.3.0283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richter, T., &amp; Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 148 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritchie, J. (2021). Movement from the margins to global recognition: Climate change activism by young people and in particular indigenous youth. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 30 (1-2), 53 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2020.1854830</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, N., Brown, M., &amp; Vickery, A. (2020). Pinning for-profit? Examining elementary preservice teachers' critical analysis of online social studies resources about Black history. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20 (3), 497 – 528. https://<ulink href="http://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216743/">www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216743/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., &amp; Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers' representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 200 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rouet, J. F., &amp; Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processing in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, &amp; G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19 – 52). Information Age.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salaam, M. Y. (1995). The aesthetics of rap. African American Review, 29 (2), 303 – 315. https://doi.org/10.2307/3042309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santino, J. (1983). Halloween in America: Contemporary customs and performances. Western Folklore, 42 (1), 1 – 20. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1499461">www.jstor.org/stable/1499461</ulink> https://doi.org/10.2307/1499461</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saxby, G. (2022). Searching for a happily ever after: Using fairy tales in primary classrooms to explore gender, subjectivity and the life-worlds of young people. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 45 (2), 219 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-022-00017-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scupin, R. (1992). Cultural anthropology – A global perspective. Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharma, S. A., &amp; Christ, T. (2017). Five steps toward successful culturally relevant text selection and integration. The Reading Teacher, 71 (3), 295 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1623</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shelby-Caffey, C. (2021). Beyond apple pies, popsicles, and patriotism: Leveraging digital literacy to unpack matters of race, power, and privilege. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 23 (3), 25 – 42. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1328023.pdf https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v23i3.3001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shelton, C. C., Koehler, M. J., Greenhalgh, S. P., &amp; Carpenter, J. P. (2022). Lifting the veil on TeachersPayTeachers. com: An investigation of educational marketplace offerings and downloads. Learning, Media and Technology, 47 (2), 268 – 287. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1961148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shils, E. (1971). Tradition. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 13 (2), 122 – 159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500006186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shreiner, T. L., &amp; Martell, C. C. (2022). Making race and racism invisible: A critical race analysis of data visualizations in online curricular materials for teaching history. Race Ethnicity and Education, 2022, 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2022.2106473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skalicky, S. (2019). Investigating satirical discourse processing and comprehension: The role of cognitive, demographic, and pragmatic features. Language and Cognition, 11 (3), 499 – 525. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skalicky, S., &amp; Crossley, S. A. (2019). Examining the online processing of satirical newspaper headlines. Discourse Processes, 56 (1), 61 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1368332</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, R., Snow, P., Serry, T., &amp; Hammond, L. (2021). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology, 42 (3), 214 – 240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solorzano, D. G., &amp; Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter storytelling as an analytical framework for educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8 (1), 23 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stadtler, M., &amp; Bromme, R. (2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp &amp; J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.) Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379 – 402). The MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanley, C. A. (2007). When counter narratives meet master narratives in the journal editorial-review process. Educational Researcher, 36 (1), 14 – 24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X06298008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., &amp; Anderson, R. C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15 (1), 10 – 29. https://doi.org/10.2307/747429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart, A., Schuschke, J., &amp; Tynes, B. (2019). Online racism: Adjustment and protective factors among adolescents of color. In H. Fitzgerald, D. Johnson, D. Qin, F. Villaruel, and J. Norden (Eds.), Handbook of children and prejudice: Integrating research, practice, and policy (pp. 501 – 513). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strommen, L. T., &amp; Mates, B. F. (2004). Learning to love reading: Interviews with older children and teens. Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy, 48 (3), 188 – 200. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.48.3.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taboada, A., &amp; Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38 (1), 1 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of reader's prior knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (5), 415 – 420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., &amp; Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 66 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., &amp; Redford, J. S. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky &amp; A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 85 – 106). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thirunavukarasu, I., &amp; Harun, R. N. S. R. (2021). The effects of cultural based text types in reading comprehension. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 6 (1), 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp1-23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, E. E. (2015). We always talk about race: Navigating race talk dilemmas in the teaching of literature. Research in the Teaching of English, 50 (2), 154 – 175. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24890031">www.jstor.org/stable/24890031</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uysal, H. H. (2012). Cross-cultural pragmatics of reading: The case of American and Turkish students reacting to a Turkish text. Reading, 12 (1), 12 – 29. https://<ulink href="http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april%5f2012/uysal.pdf">www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april%5f2012/uysal.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Broek, P. (2012). The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. In D. A. Balota, G. B. F. d'Arcais, &amp; K. Rayner (Eds). Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423 – 446). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Broek, P., &amp; Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54 (5–6), 360 – 372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1306677</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Den Broek, P., &amp; Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co‐activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22 (3), 335 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1418</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., &amp; Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Dijk, T. A. (1989). Mediating racism: The role of the media in the reproduction of racism. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, power and ideology (pp. 199 – 226). John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Moort, M. L., Jolles, D. D., Koornneef, A., &amp; van den Broek, P. (2020). What you read versus what you know: Neural correlates of accessing context information and background knowledge in constructing a mental representation during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 149 (11), 2084 – 2101. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000764</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Moort, M. L., Koornneef, A., &amp; van den Broek, P. W. (2018). Validation: Knowledge-and text-based monitoring during reading. Discourse Processes, 55 (5–6), 480 – 496. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1426319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Moort, M. L., Koornneef, A., &amp; van den Broek, P. W. (2021). Differentiating text-based and knowledge-based validation processes during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Discourse Processes, 58 (1), 22 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1727683</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, E. K., Cook, A. E., &amp; O'Brien, E. J. (2018). Processing real-world violations embedded within a fantasy-world narrative. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71 (11), 2282 – 2294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817740836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Z., O'Reilly, T., Sabatini, J., McCarthy, K. S., &amp; McNamara, D. S. (2021). A tale of two tests: The role of topic and general academic knowledge in traditional versus contemporary scenario-based reading. Learning and Instruction, 73, 101462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101462</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wanless, S. B., &amp; Crawford, P. A. (2016). Reading your way to a culturally responsive classroom. YC Young Children, 71 (2), 8 – 15. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren.71.2.8">www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren.71.2.8</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 73 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wray‐Lake, L. (2019). How do young people become politically engaged? Child Development Perspectives, 13 (2), 127 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12324</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, V., &amp; Washington, H. M. (2018). The blame game: News, blame, and young homicide victims. Sociological Focus, 51 (4), 350 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2018.1457934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yousef, H., Karimi, L., &amp; Janfeshan, K. (2014). The Relationship between Cultural Background and Reading Comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4 (4), 714. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.4.707-714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zusho, A., &amp; Clayton, K. (2011). Culturalizing achievement goal theory and research. Educational Psychologist, 46 (4), 239 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.614526</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0175444104-22"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Throughout this manuscript, we refer to individuals' religious, ethnic, racial, and national identities using the same terms as were used by the authors cited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson-Billings ([76]) in her description of highly effective teachers of African American children likewise wrote: "Perhaps I could argue, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, that the kind of teaching that is culturally occurring in public classrooms IS culturally relevant. However, the culture to which it is relevant—white, male, middle-class—is not the culture of reference for increasing numbers of students" (p. 112); exemplifying the use of the work "culture," to connote difference (e.g., between African American students' home backgrounds and the classroom).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Because we are informed by theories and studies of reading comprehension, we primarily focus on students' learning from text(s). Culturalized comprehension and critical culturalized comprehension can be engaged in reference to other resources as well (e.g., images, videos). However, the culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension of information of different modalities requires further examination and lies beyond the scope of this manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Although, even in these cases, individuals' culturalized comprehension of single texts was likely still influenced by their experiences with prior texts, a phenomenon referred to as intertextuality (Bloome &amp; Egan-Robertson, [11]; Goldman, [45]).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Alexandra List; Gala S. Campos Oaxaca; Hongcui Du; Hye Yeon Lee and Bailing Lyu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib149" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib150" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib157" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib156" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref202"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref203"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref219"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl134" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl135" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref222"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl136" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl137" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref224"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl138" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref237"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl139" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref238"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl140" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref240"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl141" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref241"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl142" bibid="bib152" firstref="ref243"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl143" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref245"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl144" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref249"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl145" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref250"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl146" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref251"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl147" bibid="bib154" firstref="ref252"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1412793 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Critical Culturalized Comprehension: Exploring Culture as Learners Thinking about Texts – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alexandra+List%22">Alexandra List</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gala+S%2E+Campos+Oaxaca%22">Gala S. Campos Oaxaca</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1698-3884">0000-0003-1698-3884</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hongcui+Du%22">Hongcui Du</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hye+Yeon+Lee%22">Hye Yeon Lee</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2273-0744">0000-0003-2273-0744</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bailing+Lyu%22">Bailing Lyu</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Psychologist%22"><i>Educational Psychologist</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(1):1-19. – 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: 19 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Awareness%22">Cultural Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Materials%22">Reading Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Context%22">Cultural Context</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reader+Text+Relationship%22">Reader Text Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22World+Views%22">World Views</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Influences%22">Social Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Psychology%22">Educational Psychology</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22India%22">India</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%22">United States</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/00461520.2023.2266028 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0046-1520<br />1532-6985 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: We examine the role of culture in comprehension. Prominent theories of comprehension conceptualized the outcome of reading as learners' construction of a cognitive representation of texts. We emphasize that such representation reflects not only texts' content, but also individuals' understandings of the real world, as described in texts. We suggest that, thus, individuals should be supported to question and analyze the mental representations that they form; we use the term "culture" to capture such questioning and analysis. Rather than an individual difference factor, we argue for conceptualizing culture as a way of thinking, or as individuals' reasoning about the commonalities and differences in their and others' worldviews and the linking of these to underlying values. When such reasoning is engaged in reference to texts, we refer to this as culturalized comprehension; when such reasoning is further engaged to resist or recast the values introduced in texts to generate counternarratives, we refer to this as critical culturalized comprehension. In emphasizing the importance of culturalized and critical culturalized comprehension and describing the set of cognitive processes involved, we argue for research in educational psychology to examine how learners may be consciously, reflectively, and critically engaged in using texts to understand their world. – 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: EJ1412793 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1412793 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/00461520.2023.2266028 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 StartPage: 1 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Cultural Awareness Type: general – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Materials Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Cultural Context Type: general – SubjectFull: Reader Text Relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: World Views Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Influences Type: general – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Psychology Type: general – SubjectFull: India Type: general – SubjectFull: United States Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Critical Culturalized Comprehension: Exploring Culture as Learners Thinking about Texts Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Alexandra List – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Gala S. Campos Oaxaca – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Hongcui Du – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Hye Yeon Lee – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bailing Lyu 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: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Educational Psychologist Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
