Reading between the Signs: A Qualitative Think-Aloud Study of L2 Learners' Meaning Construction around a Multimodal Web Text
Saved in:
| Title: | Reading between the Signs: A Qualitative Think-Aloud Study of L2 Learners' Meaning Construction around a Multimodal Web Text |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Kristen Michelson (ORCID |
| Source: | Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(2). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Protocol Analysis, Second Language Learning, Second Language Instruction, Reading Strategies, Critical Reading, Reader Text Relationship, Reading Processes, Internet, College Students, French, Multiple Literacies, Teaching Methods, Literary Genres |
| DOI: | 10.1002/rrq.70091 |
| ISSN: | 0034-0553 1936-2722 |
| Abstract: | This qualitative study employed a prompted think-aloud protocol to examine the "textual thinking," or meaning-making processes, of nine collegiate second language (L2) French learners at the intermediate level. Each participant took part in an individual 60-min session on Zoom with two researchers. Following a modeling and training session in performing think-alouds, each participant was instructed to read a digital multimodal web text and respond to a series of multiple-choice questions guided by multiliteracy pedagogies targeting both text-internal and text-external factors. Participants were instructed to voice their thoughts continuously while reading; researchers prompted participants periodically to expand or elaborate on their interpretations. Data consisted of participants' think-aloud protocols, which were professionally transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively through a sequential inductive to deductive coding process, and themed according to linguistic, multimodal, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions of literacy. Findings revealed participants' elaborate meaning-making processes as well as their ability to generate plausible interpretations of the text, despite some linguistic processing challenges. Findings point to the viability of teaching with authentic multimodal web texts and the importance of teaching reading as a multiliteracy practice and suggest ways to continue to build learners' analytical skills for contemporary digital genres. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1503791 |
| 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_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGa18z9r-49_qQkNbvnD8ZCAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDG1zV0Wa1MOH5-djTAIBEICBm7_LWCwji2qsiJJVTVPkSmSMOphPCpm5x75Nwvbb-q9ErKnjt3AwTSsHXX2tp0cNM_Zxqd-I-LjLpqssrWfXBlOEKaHg4gtrB6FlNrwKEzDTjzlCd1ISLRJYnyZ61NXoVR946TbvXFkr2HK7ftWpP0DV54I2qMQiCEs_d4Kk0EcONM_L-TE_09TC4Lw4RLkAGG0P-0RwTICle0Vp Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0193225958;[nrnu]02apr.26;2026Apr27.05:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193225958-1">Reading Between the Signs: A Qualitative Think‐Aloud Study of L2 Learners' Meaning Construction Around a Multimodal Web Text </title> <p>This qualitative study employed a prompted think‐aloud protocol to examine the textual thinking, or meaning‐making processes, of nine collegiate second language (L2) French learners at the intermediate level. Each participant took part in an individual 60‐min session on Zoom with two researchers. Following a modeling and training session in performing think‐alouds, each participant was instructed to read a digital multimodal web text and respond to a series of multiple‐choice questions guided by multiliteracy pedagogies targeting both text‐internal and text‐external factors. Participants were instructed to voice their thoughts continuously while reading; researchers prompted participants periodically to expand or elaborate on their interpretations. Data consisted of participants' think‐aloud protocols, which were professionally transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively through a sequential inductive to deductive coding process, and themed according to linguistic, multimodal, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions of literacy. Findings revealed participants' elaborate meaning‐making processes as well as their ability to generate plausible interpretations of the text, despite some linguistic processing challenges. Findings point to the viability of teaching with authentic multimodal web texts and the importance of teaching reading as a multiliteracy practice and suggest ways to continue to build learners' analytical skills for contemporary digital genres.</p> <p>Keywords: authentic texts; digital texts; French; multiliteracies; multimodal reading; think‐alouds</p> <p>Graphical abstract for the current study created by the author.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70091-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70091-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225958-3">Introduction</hd> <p>Second language (L2) reading practices in contemporary world language classrooms are often constrained by textbook materials, where texts are contrived, sanitized, or simplified (Michelson and Anderson [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref1">37</reflink>]; Swaffar [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref2">60</reflink>]), and tasks are focused on comprehension of facts, followed by elicitation of students' opinions about a topic (Lange [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref3">28</reflink>]; Stoller et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref4">58</reflink>]; Swaffar and Arens [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref5">59</reflink>]). Such tasks rarely invite students to consider the complexities of semiotic choices made by authors and their underlying meanings or rhetorical purposes. Consequently, the purpose of reading ends up being for development of second language knowledge or communicative practice rather than reading for reading's sake (Stoller et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref6">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, texts represent much more than containers of language structures and fixed meanings. They are material artifacts that bring together language and other semiotic designs, cultural values, personal and collective knowledges, and both reflect and constitute discourses of the communities for which, and in which, they are created (Byrnes [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]; Kramsch [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]). Reading for reading's sake involves expanding the range of text types that we ask L2 learners to read, and guiding students in textual analysis, making full use of all semiotic modes of a text. Such an orientation to reading shifts the focus from reading to decode or learn language toward reading as literacy.</p> <p>Indeed, the field of second/foreign language education has continued to promote the use of authentic texts in the L2 classroom; that is to say, texts written by and for members of target language discourse communities, which are typically created outside of educational contexts. By integrating the study of texts in beginning and intermediate L2 curricula, we provide opportunities for language learners to engage with stimulating topics, access cultural discourses, and ideally, cultivate strategies that empower them to seek out authentic L2 texts on their own. Among multiple benefits of authentic texts, Swaffar ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref10">60</reflink>]) asserts that authentic texts encourage reading for global information patterns rather than detail and that they:</p> <p>provide the reader with the redundant rhetorical features with which to play the 'psycholinguistic guessing game' because they offer multiple chances for guessing to be confirmed by encouraging students to ignore vocabulary items which are not understood and instead, to rely on continuation of the reading process to establish main meaning. (p. 18)</p> <p>Despite widespread promotion of authentic texts in L2 classrooms, research on the use of authentic texts has been limited to investigating student perceptions (Sletova [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref11">56</reflink>]), learner comprehension from modified texts (Safari and Montazeri [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref12">51</reflink>]) as compared to unmodified texts (Leow [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref13">30</reflink>]), traditional textbook texts (Aftab and Salahuddin [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]), or language development as a result of interacting with authentic texts (Pellicer‐Sánchez and Schmitt [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref15">47</reflink>]). Few studies have shed light on the dynamic reading processes involved when L2 learners interact with authentic texts. Yet, knowledge of learners' dynamic reading processes while interpreting a text is essential to understanding how to support learners in their developing and emergent L2 literacies.</p> <p>This study was conducted as a precursor to developing and refining teaching techniques that help L2 learners effectively read authentic L2 digital texts increasingly independently. This qualitative study employed a prompted think‐aloud methodology to examine L2 French learners' meaning‐making processes, or <emph>textual thinking</emph>, while interpreting a digital multimodal text from a French website. Specifically, this study asked:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Do participants understand the social and rhetorical purposes of the focal text?</item> <p></p> <item> Do participants comprehend basic facts and details of the focal text?</item> <p></p> <item> How do participants use textual elements and background knowledge to interpret meanings in an authentic multimodal text?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0193225958-4">Background and Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225958-5">Authentic Texts</hd> <p>Authentic texts in L2 instruction can be defined as texts created outside of educational contexts that do not have the primary purpose of fostering L2 development, but that have been written by and for members of target language discourse communities. They have long been promoted as sources of naturalistic input (Young [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref16">67</reflink>]), opportunities for interaction (Devitt [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]), or as windows into discourse worlds of target language cultures (Swaffar [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref18">60</reflink>]). Much debate has occurred over the years around what constitutes an "authentic" text (Gilmore [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>]; Rings [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref20">50</reflink>]; Simonsen [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref21">55</reflink>]) and whether authentic texts should be modified for L2 learners. Some have argued against authentic texts, suggesting that L2 learners will not understand authentic texts due to limited linguistic knowledge (see Gladwin and Stepp‐Greany [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]) or overly complex lexicogrammar and minimal cohesive devices (Crossley and McNamara [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]), and that such texts would need to be altered in order for learners to be able to understand them. Indeed, there is evidence that some forms of text modification can support comprehension. For example, Crossley and McNamara ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]) studied the reading comprehension of Spanish L1—English L2 university students, examining the relationship between text level and proposition recalls, as well as text level and extra‐textual propositions made by participants. Among the findings, researchers concluded that while simplified texts produced greater comprehension gains overall, simplified texts also resulted in readers generating fewer inferences—a cognitive process linked to improved learning and text comprehension.</p> <p>There is also some evidence that learners can understand unedited authentic texts when well‐scaffolded with carefully chosen tasks and collaborative dialogue around the text. Gladwin and Stepp‐Greany ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]) investigated the outcomes of third‐semester collegiate Spanish L2 students reading three authentic literary texts through a between‐groups experimental study where participants experienced either an "Interactive Reading with Instructor Support (IRIS)" model or traditional reading instruction. Grounded in sociocultural theory and interaction theory, the IRIS model conceptualizes reading as a dialogic process facilitated through cooperative interactions and strategic scaffolding. Results revealed a small though not statistically significant advantage for the IRIS group. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that well‐scaffolded tasks combined with opportunities for collaborative interpretation might support learning and recall of key textual information.</p> <p>Canning and Nelson ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]) found that the complexities of an unedited authentic text (George Eliot's [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>] novel Silas Marner) pushed university‐level EFL students in Japan into a dialogic space where they productively discussed the nuances of whether the author had appropriately compared the protagonist to a spider. Their dialogues prompted each other to elicit interpretations and pushed each other toward "collaborative interpretation and development of increasingly nuanced understanding" (p. 30). By presenting the corresponding textual passage from the graded reader of this same novel, Canning and Nelson demonstrated the way simplified texts often lay bare comparisons in unambiguous terms and thus demand little interpretive work of readers by "privileg(ing) denotation over connotation, comprehension (in the restricted sense of decoding) over interpretation, fluency over understanding" (p. 32). They conclude that rather than reading fluency, we might seek to promote 'collaborative dysfluency' which promotes slower and deeper interpretive work around a text. These two studies suggest that learners can indeed make substantial meaning from unmodified authentic texts when supported by thoughtfully selected activities and collaborative dialogue about texts.</p> <p>While modified texts may benefit reading comprehension for L2 learners, unmodified authentic texts can promote deeper meaning‐making. The difference in findings from studies conducted on authentic texts may well stem from a difference in focus: on local versus global comprehension. This point is corroborated by Uygur et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref28">65</reflink>]) who concluded that modified texts may favor local, surface‐level comprehension, while authentic texts promote deeper interpretive engagement. Thus, it would seem that the decision to modify a text ought to be tied to specific learning objectives.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-6">Multimodal Web Texts</hd> <p>One authentic text type is a web text. Web texts can be a website, a web page, a specific genre disseminated via a website or social media network (e.g., an article, an advertisement, a meme, etc.). Such texts often contain many embedded genres and text types. For example, a cooking blog typically contains a highly personalized logo, a written language narrative, images of food, a recipe, a comments section, and advertisements. Reading web texts differs from reading traditional written language texts in at least three important ways. First, web texts are inherently multimodal, as they draw on different semiotic modes of meaning‐making, all of which have different meaning potentials (Kress and Selander [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref29">22</reflink>]; Kress [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]). Different modes also have different "functional specializations" (Kress [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]; Lemke [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref32">29</reflink>], as cited in Unsworth [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref33">63</reflink>]): language makes sequential relations and categorical distinctions, while image involves spatial relations and formulating relationships such as degree, gradation, and so forth (ibid.). Second, the multimodal, modular, and hyperlinked nature of web texts drastically alters the reading path from one that might be more linear in nature to one that allows for flexible points of entry to a text, and affords various choices in what to read first, second, third, and so forth (Walsh [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref34">66</reflink>]). Luke ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref35">34</reflink>]) has asserted that "[a]lthough the fundamental principles of reading and writing have not changed, the process has shifted from the serial cognitive processing of linear print text to parallel processing of multimodal text‐image information sources" (p. 399). Third, reading web texts typically involves different roles and reading purposes for readers. Rather than reader as "code‐breaker" (Serafini [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref36">53</reflink>]), a skilled web text reader is an "interpreter ... an individual who is able to construct meanings and respond to the various communicative modes in the text" (Tungka [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref37">62</reflink>], 346). Additionally, readers of web texts often skim texts for very specific information and may not read word for word (ibid.).</p> <p>Using multimodal web texts in L2 learning is important for several reasons. First, the contemporary communication landscape is predominantly digital and inherently multimodal. Second, digital texts offer opportunities to expose students to diverse language styles, rather than teaching canonical forms of expression through contrived materials (Farías and Véliz [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>]). Third, they offer students opportunities to engage in authentic literacy practices of target language communities and thus expose students to cultural discourses in a way that transcends a typical monolithic culture‐box textbook text. Teaching L2 students to read multimodal web texts involves a paradigm shift from reading as comprehension of texts to reading as a multiliteracies practice. As Castek and Coiro ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]) have suggested, "information on students' cognitive activities during reading is essential for the instructor to guide students towards more strategic cognitive activities in reading web page texts. This implies that we need to design and develop instruction to assist students in becoming more literate in reading web page, by taking students' experiences during web page‐based literacy practices into account" (as cited in Tungka [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref40">62</reflink>], 346).</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-7">Reading Processes and Dimensions of Literacy</hd> <p>Regardless of text type, reading is considered to be a process of active meaning construction (Bernhardt [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>]; Grabe and Stoller [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>]; Swaffar [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref43">60</reflink>]). In this process, readers make use of both information from the text and their own background knowledge. Much reading research has centered around linguistic processes (such as decoding, lexical inferencing, using morphological cues, parsing syntax) (see Paesani [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref44">43</reflink>]); cognitive processes (such as predicting, inferencing, monitoring) (see Paesani et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref45">44</reflink>]); and metacognitive knowledge and strategies (Liao and Lee [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]). Scholars working in literacy studies have sought to foreground sociocultural dimensions of literacy, which focus on the contexts of production of a text (Serafini [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref47">53</reflink>]), as well as the identities and social purposes of authors and readers (Kern [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref48">17</reflink>]; Paesani et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref49">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>In his seminal book, Kern ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref50">17</reflink>]) laid out a comprehensive literacy framework, articulating how the concept of <emph>design</emph> could be applied to the teaching and learning of second language reading and writing, and outlining three dimensions of literacy: cognitive, linguistic, and sociocultural. Within cognitive dimensions, learners draw on background knowledge, use metacognitive strategies, and engage in skimming, scanning, predicting, inferencing, and summarizing. Linguistic dimensions involve processing linguistic signs at the level of the word, sentence, and longer stretches of discourse in texts, and recognizing how lexicogrammar works to convey meaning and sustain coherence and cohesion. Sociocultural dimensions of literacy involve recognizing that reading and writing are not individual processes, but rather part and parcel of our memberships in different social and cultural groups and the identities we embody (see also Kucer [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref51">25</reflink>]). According to Kern, a literacy orientation to reading or writing involves socialization into ways of interpreting and producing texts that are socially recognized and valued by members of a community. Although not discretely described in Kern's conceptualization of literacy, multimodal dimensions of communication and literacy are increasingly accounted for in texts and in reading practices (see Marzban and Fábián [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref52">35</reflink>]). Multimodal signs, like linguistic signs, are symbolic resources that are recruited and assembled for particular communication purposes. Like language, multimodal sign complexes are patterned, can be understood through grammars (Kress and Van Leeuwen [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]), and can be processed implicitly or explicitly.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-8">Reading Pedagogies</hd> <p>Regardless of theoretical approach, L2 reading pedagogies typically include multiple phases of reading, including pre‐reading, during reading, and post‐reading (Grabe and Stoller [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref54">14</reflink>]; Paesani et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref55">44</reflink>]). <emph>Pre‐reading</emph> activities may focus on activating background knowledge, skimming and scanning for information, or predicting content based on textual cues. <emph>During reading</emph> activities might focus on honing in on key information, updating predictions, identifying repetitions or metaphors, or critical reading activities such as analyzing tone and nuance. <emph>Post‐reading</emph> might involve activities assessing local or global comprehension or asking learners to summarize or synthesize a text's main argument.</p> <p>Multiliteracies (ML)‐oriented approaches have built on these traditional phases of reading, adding pedagogical interventions that engage learners in analysis of the relationship between textual forms (language, image, etc.) and meanings, whether overtly or subtly expressed (Paesani and Menke [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref56">45</reflink>]; Paesani et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref57">44</reflink>]). ML pedagogies recognize and account for the vital role of linguistic, multimodal, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions of literacy in all manner of textual interpretation and production, and offer frameworks (e.g., Paesani and Menke [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref58">45</reflink>]; Paesani et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref59">44</reflink>]) for scaffolding instruction in a way that foregrounds all of these dimensions of literacy.</p> <p>From an ML standpoint, reading is not merely an act of decoding, but a form of textual engagement that considers all semiotic modes, and considers text‐external factors (e.g., authorial identities, social contexts of production) as well as text‐internal factors (e.g., linguistic and semiotic designs). ML pedagogies draw upon social semiotic notions of communication, and theorize communication as a literacy activity involving choice in recruiting 'available design' resources (language, other signs and symbols, background knowledge) (New London Group [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]) in the production or interpretation of a text. ML pedagogies acknowledge the role that our identities, our languages, our histories of learning all play in the production and interpretation of texts. Thus, the activity of reading an authentic text in an L2 classroom can be described through a multiliteracies lens as engaging in textual thinking (Michelson et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref61">38</reflink>]; Paesani [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref62">43</reflink>]) rather than decoding a text. Pedagogical scaffolds developed through a multiliteracies lens help guide learners to consider form‐meaning connections in texts; in other words, to consider why certain symbolic choices might have been made by a text's author(s), and how these choices contribute to the messages and meanings conveyed by the text.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-9">Think‐Alouds</hd> <p>Think‐alouds are a time‐honored approach in both teaching (Carioli and Peru [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref63">6</reflink>]; Tungka [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref64">62</reflink>]) and researching (see Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref65">57</reflink>]). A think‐aloud involves asking a participant to voice their thoughts while performing a task and aims at understanding the mental processes involved in a task. Although there have been some criticisms of think‐alouds in terms of reactivity (Leow and Morgan‐Short [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref66">32</reflink>]), think‐alouds are generally accepted to be a valid measure of cognitive processes. In their methodological review of how verbal reports had been used in literacy studies with English Language Learners (ELLs) between 2000 and 2015, Smith et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref67">57</reflink>]) found that most research tended to be conducted from a cognitivist paradigm, and employed either quantitative or mixed methods approaches, often focusing on reading products rather than reading processes. They did also note that a small number of studies taking a sociocultural approach have emerged, which have tended to employ qualitative methods. Authors concluded with a call for more qualitative inquiry, and for "[s]ystematically explor[ing] students' thinking in conjunction with multimodal forms of literacy, ranging from the Internet to other technological and mobile tools" (p. 105). Kern ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref68">17</reflink>]) also called for a more "context‐sensitive approach to literary research, guided by the question: 'In what ways, and to what ends, do second language learners draw on the various linguistic and schematic resources available to them in particular contexts of reading and writing?'" (p. 318). This study begins to address these calls.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-10">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225958-11">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225958-12">Participants</hd> <p>This study[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>] was conducted at a large public research institution in the US Southwest. Participants (<emph>n</emph> = 9) were all recruited from two sections of fourth semester (intermediate) French in Spring 2020 from their regular classes and were provided with an informed consent document. They received two extra credit points for participating in the study. Appendix A depicts a brief overview of the eight participants who completed the background questionnaire. Most participants were completing this course as a requirement for their majors, which were disciplines other than French. Three students listed French as a minor. In response to the question about why reading in French was important, four participants' responses centered around language development; two participants mentioned expanding career networks; two participants listed access to knowledge or culture; and one participant tied reading importance to educational requirements.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-13">Materials</hd> <p>The study materials consisted of one practice text, one focal text, and three task phases. The focal text could be described as an industry brief and was one of several such briefs that appeared on the website for Bpifrance, which calls itself the bank of entrepreneurs. Its genre was somewhat ambiguous. The text was selected based on several factors. First, it was short and could be readily skimmed and scanned and discussed within a 60‐min prompted think‐aloud session. Additionally, it contained rich multimodal features, a preponderance of cognates, and was related to course themes. The inclusion of numbers and figures offered certain clues to content and genre. The text also contained several redundancies; in other words, several access points for understanding the text's meanings (image, repeated words, etc.). However, it was syntactically complex and densely packed with specific cultural references that would not necessarily be known to L2 learners at this level.</p> <p>The text itself was a web page; however, participants saw this text on a series of four PowerPoint slides. This methodological decision was driven by the fact that this study was initially envisioned as an eye‐tracking study but was converted to a prompted think‐aloud study during the pandemic. This modification effectively means that this text was not a truly authentic text, as students were not reading it in its original habitat on the internet, and thus did not have the ability to scroll, click on hyperlinks, or choose their reading path entirely independently; a limitation of the current study. However, participants saw all of the static multimodal and linguistic features of this text. At the top left corner of the page was the logo for Bpifrance appearing in gray and yellow font. In the same horizontal plane at the right of the screen were a search bar, an envelope and telephone icon with the words "nous contacter" [<emph>contact us</emph>], a padlock icon and the words "accéder à mon compte" [<emph>access my account</emph>], and an icon consisting of four short horizontal lines and the word "menu" [<emph>menu</emph>] to its right. Just below this logo was a thin horizontal yellow band stretching across the length of the page. On the left, the words "à la une" [<emph>front page</emph>] appeared. A series of navigation options appeared slightly right of center, including "Actualités" [<emph>news</emph>], "Dossiers" [<emph>special reports</emph>], "Evénements" [<emph>events</emph>], and "Appels à projets &amp; concours" [<emph>call for projects and competitions</emph>]. Just below this navigation bar was a carefully composed image featuring an aerial view of a candle, a side view of a bottle of perfume, and an aerial view of an open eye shadow palette. These three images were set side by side against an aubergine‐colored background with the words "La filière cosmétique, une industrie au parfum" [<emph>The cosmetics sector, an industry in the know</emph>[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]]. Just below this image was the beginning of a block of written language text describing the cosmetics industry.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-14">Prompted Think‐Alouds With Guiding Questions</hd> <p>In order to capture participants' dynamic meaning‐making processes while interpreting the focal text, we used a prompted non‐linguistic think‐aloud protocol (Leow et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref71">31</reflink>]). In a think‐aloud, participants voice their thoughts while completing a task. Following recruitment, participants received and completed a background questionnaire and scheduled an individual 60‐min‐long virtual lab session on Zoom. Each virtual session followed a scripted protocol that included a greeting, verification of technologies, explanation of session format, think‐aloud training, and the reading of the focal text. The training session consisted of a PowerPoint shown to all participants. It began with an explanation of a think‐aloud: "a think aloud asks you to say out loud what you are thinking as you are reading" and continued with a slide featuring a 4‐minute‐long pre‐recorded think‐aloud session created by one of the researchers in which they were talking through, in English, what they were seeing on a slide, in French. After listening to the model think‐aloud session while viewing the model text, participants were asked if they had any questions about how to perform a think‐aloud. Finally, the training PowerPoint included the same three task phases and questions as were used for the focal text, and participants were asked to practice a think‐aloud using these questions to guide their interpretation of a practice text: a French blog written by a professional female marketing her services in coaching people to embark on ecologically responsible travel. Participants were told that each of the task phases could be completed by reading more superficially, and that they did not necessarily need to read every word in each phase in order to answer the questions. Two researchers were present for each session; one researcher prompted and guided the participant through the tasks, while the other observed silently with their video hidden. In both the training phase and the focal text phase, participants performed the same reading tasks.</p> <p>Reading tasks consisted of questions adapted from Paesani et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref72">44</reflink>]) sequence for teaching reading in a multiliteracies framework. In addition to promoting well‐established cognitive reading processes, the framework emphasizes attending to particular linguistic and semiotic representational choices (e.g., <emph>designs</emph>) and making connections between designs and meanings. In Task Phase 1, the purpose of the questions was to guide students to make predictions about genre and content. In other words, this phase was interested in participants' understandings of macro textual features, and text‐external factors such as the text's social contexts of production. In Task Phase 2, participants scanned the text for facts and details about the cosmetics industry (how long, where, who). The purpose of this phase was to draw learners' attention to key facts about the industry and examine their understanding of micro textual features and their reading processes. Finally, Task Phase 3 featured a variation on a semantic mapping activity, which allows learners to see how words are related to each other and how they help develop a message in a text (Paesani et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref73">44</reflink>], 127). Instead of asking learners to map connections between a prescribed list of words, participants were given the topics and words and asked to determine which words were associated with beauty and wellness and contained positive connotations. While the questions were unique to this study and this text, they reflect typical pre‐reading and initial reading tasks in foreign language classrooms that prompt learners to predict what the text is about, look for global meanings, comprehend the main idea, and analyze semiotic features and their effects (see, for example, Kumagai and Iwasaki [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref74">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>In each task phase, participants saw the reading questions on one slide, then the text across four slides, followed by another slide with the reading questions again, this time with multiple‐choice responses (see Appendix B).</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-15">Data and Analysis</hd> <p>Data include: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>) a background questionnaire asking participants about their reading practices in English and French and their reasons for studying French, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>) transcripts of the audio files from the Zoom‐mediated prompted think‐alouds. To prepare the data, audio files were downloaded from Zoom. Files were trimmed using Audacity to remove any names, introductions, and explanations of the research process. Files were sent to a professional transcription service that provided transcripts in English and inserted the word "foreign" for any instance of French. All think‐aloud sessions were then reviewed again manually and any French used by participants was integrated into the transcripts.</p> <p>Analysis for RQ1 and RQ2 involved a descriptive analysis of participants' responses to task questions. To answer RQ1, which aimed to examine participants' comprehension of rhetorical purposes, responses to questions about authorship, audience, genre, and purpose (from Task Phases 1 and 3) were tallied in order to yield a descriptive account. To answer RQ2, which focused on participants' comprehension of facts and details, responses from Task Phase 2 were tallied. To answer RQ3, which focused on participants' meaning‐making processes, transcripts from think‐aloud data were analyzed through a sequential inductive to deductive process (Tisdell et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref77">61</reflink>]). In first‐cycle coding (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref78">52</reflink>]), transcripts were read one by one and coded inductively to capture how participants were making meaning from the text. While first‐cycle coding was data‐driven, analysis was informed by theories of reading. Some examples of initial codes were <emph>rare is positive, morphological cues gone wrong, bottom up, top down, hones in on key vocabulary, gendered reading</emph>, etc. Once all transcripts had been coded inductively, a query was conducted on each code through NVivo 12 (QSR International [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref79">49</reflink>]) in order to retrieve all instances of a given code and evaluate whether all examples fit that code. This process was included in order to establish internal consistency and conceptual coherence in the coding process. Some codes were revised in this process. For example, the initial code "Misunderstanding of <emph>Grâce à</emph>"—a more descriptive code—was later revised to the more analytical code, "first noun principle error" once it became clear that all instances of misunderstanding stemmed from participants reading "<emph>Grâce</emph>" as the subject of the sentence. Codes were also condensed and merged. For example, the codes <emph>top down</emph> (a general code) and <emph>Silicon Valley</emph> (a more specific code) were merged into the code <emph>background knowledge</emph>. All transcripts were re‐read and coded in light of new codes to ensure thorough coverage. In second‐cycle coding (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref80">52</reflink>]), codes were categorized according to Kern's ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref81">17</reflink>]) dimensions of literacy: linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural. Given the interest of this study in exploring second language learners' reading processes through a lens of literacy, this theoretical framework was used to structure and interpret the codes. However, it did not explicitly account for participants' processing of multimodal signs in the text. As a result, a multimodal dimension was added as a fourth analytic category. Following this modification, a subsequent deductive analysis (Patton [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref82">46</reflink>]) was conducted in which all transcripts were re‐examined to systematically identify instances of participants noticing and interpreting multimodal signs across the entire dataset. To support credibility, analytic interpretations were triangulated across participants by examining whether identified meaning‐making processes recurred across multiple transcripts rather than being limited to individual cases.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-16">Findings</hd> <p>Findings are reported for each research question in turn. Findings for RQ1 and RQ2 are derived from participants' responses to questions across different task phases. The task questions posed to participants have been regrouped below in order to align with the first two research questions focusing on comprehension of rhetorical purposes (RQ1) and comprehension of facts and details (RQ2). Findings for RQ3 are derived from the qualitative analysis of the think‐aloud transcripts generated from the prompted reading sessions.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-17">RQ1: Do Participants Understand the Social and Rhetorical Purposes of the Focal Text?</hd> <p>This research question focuses on learners' understanding of text‐external factors, which was measured by their responses to the questions about genre, authorship, audience, and purpose (Task Phases 1 and 3).</p> <p>In response to the question: "What is the genre of this text?", eight (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>) participants selected the target response (industry profile); one participant did not select the target response but did rule out implausible options. In response to the question: "Who produced this text?" (an institution or an individual), all nine participants understood that the text had been created by an institution, which corresponded to the target response. Participants' understanding of audience was measured by their selection from a list of probable and less probable choices (social media fans, entrepreneurs, politicians, other) in response to the question: "Who is the intended audience of this text?" Seven participants selected the most probable choice (entrepreneurs) while two participants supplied a response of their own ("make up enthusiasts", "anybody who's just interested in knowing about the cosmetic industry in France"). Finally, participants' understanding of purpose was measured by their response to the question "Why did the author choose these words?" following the prompts to identify words with positive connotations and words associated with beauty and wellness in Task Phase 3. Seven participants identified a plausible purpose from the list of choices ("to sustain a positive association with investing in innovation"). One participant (Gabriela) hesitated between two choices ("to get readers to have a pleasant reading experience" and "to sustain a positive association with investing in innovation"), providing a lengthy rationale for the former, but accepting that the latter could also be possible. Finally, one participant (Angela) also identified the response "to get readers to have a pleasant reading experience" and also suggested, "to really sell them on the success of the perfume and cosmetics industry".</p> <p>In conclusion, most participants did indeed get the gist in terms of the social contexts of production and reception of this text. For those who did not identify the target response, they justifiably ruled out implausible choices from the list of options. For example, Angela said in response to the question about genre: "I don't really see anything that's like a news channel logo or anything similar. I think we can rule out personal blog as well. It just seems like a general website that talks about—so maybe not news news, but it's a makeup magazine or website or something. So I would say D, other, a makeup blog or something."</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-18">RQ2: Do Participants Comprehend Basic Facts and Details of the Focal Text?</hd> <p>This research question examined participants' understandings of text‐internal factors, specifically facts and details in the focal text, which were measured by their responses to the questions in Task Phase 2. Five participants selected the target response to the question about how long the perfume industry had been in a state of continual growth; four participants did not select the target response. One participant (Radi) initially selected a non‐target response and revised his response to the target at the end of Task Phase 3 while scanning the text again for words with positive connotations.</p> <p>In response to the question about where most of the activity related to cosmetics takes place, eight participants responded with the target response; one did not (Brianna). Finally, for the question about which company uses organic essential oils, only one participant supplied the target response, "Panier des Sens" (Angela), while all eight other participants selected the same non‐target answer, "Grasse", the name of a city in France, and not a company. Although Angela initially selected the target response, she revised her response moments later, settling on Grasse. Overall, participants demonstrated varied comprehension of text‐internal details (<emph>how long</emph>, <emph>where</emph>, <emph>who</emph>), with moderate success identifying information about industry growth and cosmetics activity. However, they struggled across the board with specific details involving proper nouns, as only one participant correctly identified "Panier des Sens" while eight confused the French city "Grasse" with a company name. Overall, the data suggest that while participants could grasp general details related to <emph>how long</emph> and <emph>where</emph>, they had difficulty with details related to <emph>who</emph>, potentially indicating challenges distinguishing between proper nouns representing different categories.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-19">RQ3: How Do Participants Use Textual Elements and Background Knowledge to Interpret Meanings...</hd> <p>Findings for this research question are derived from a sequential inductive to deductive qualitative analysis of all nine participants' think‐aloud protocols and are organized according to linguistic, multimodal, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions of literacy (Kern [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref84">17</reflink>]), adding a separate multimodal dimension. It is understood, however, that these dimensions of literacy are often overlapping.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-20">Linguistic Dimensions of Literacy</hd> <p>Three distinct linguistic processing patterns emerged with respect to morphological and syntactic/semantic knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-21">Missed Morphological Cues</hd> <p>The first pattern can be characterized as missed morphological cues, which were manifest in two ways. First, through correct identification of a root but incorrect deduction of meaning, and second, by a misinterpretation of derivational morphemes. For example, several participants did not know the meaning of 'filière' [branch] and did not try to understand it but skipped over it. Others had a vague sense that this referred to a company or "the perfume department" (Kyle). Hayden offered, "...like I mentioned before, it makes me think of brotherhood, but I don't think I'm—that's where I think I'm just using the first three words (sic: letters) and correlating it with something else." Finally, Radi said, "I saw 'la filière' and I thought that it said 'la fille' [girl]. So that's why I initially said, Oh, this says female."</p> <p>In terms of derivational morphology, this was salient with two terms in particular: 'huiles essentielles biologiques', consisting of a noun ('huiles' [oils]) modified by two adjectives ('essentielles' [essential], and 'biologiques' [organic]), and the word 'dynamisme' [dynamism], a noun that was processed as an adjective. For example, Radi processed 'huiles essentielles biologiques' (organic essential oils) as "essential biology", stating, "It's just saying that maybe the industry is very dynamic and that it uses essential biology to make its products or maybe it's—if you were talking about food, you would say like, oh, it's non‐GMOs. So I guess for this, it's saying, since it's essential biology, maybe it's being researched, natural research, that it's good for you or it's not going to harm your body." Adjectives in French generally follow nouns they modify. The morpheme '‐ique', or '‐iques' (plural) automatically signals the grammatical class adjectives. However, Radi processed this as a noun, biology, and processed the preceding word, 'essentielles' [essential], as an adjective. Using syntactic rules for English, he translated this as "essential biologies". Nevertheless, Radi was still able to hone in on this passage when looking for response to a question about organic essential oils. Furthermore, by linking what he read as "essential biology" with non‐GMOs he demonstrated a sense of this phrase even if he did not describe it precisely. Three participants (Hayden, Gabriela, Radi) processed 'dynamisme' (a noun) as an adjective. For Hayden, processing 'dynamisme' as dynamic still helped her answer the question about words with positive connotations. Despite instances of incorrect grammatical class assignment, participants still made sense of the reading.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-22">How 'Grasse' Was Read</hd> <p>The second pattern can be characterized by participants' interpretations of Grasse, the name of the so‐called perfume capital of the world. The relevant passage of the focal text is depicted in Figure 1.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70091-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70091-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Excerpt from the focal text (La filière cosmétique, une industrie au parfum [27])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In this passage, the target sentence reads: 'Basée à Grasse, capitale mondiale du parfum, l'entreprise allie nature et recherche, en formulant ces produits avec des huiles essentielles biologiques.' [Based in Grasse, perfume capital of the world, the company brings together nature and research in formulating its products with organic essential oils.] This passage contains a patterned structure that repeats once and that can be analyzed as follows. The company is named through a pattern of [example with COMPANY] ('Exemple avec Panier des Sens') and [another success story with COMPANY] ('...autre success story avec Berdoues'). In a subsequent sentence, the company is modified with a head‐initial adjective phrase, 'basée' [based], and 'installée' [settled], followed by a prepositional phrase consisting of 'à' [in] and a location expressed as a proper noun (i.e., Grasse, Toulouse, respectively). Subsequently, the proper nouns referring to companies (i.e., Panier des Sens, Berdoues) are replaced by a generic content noun—'l'entreprise' [company], which becomes the agent of the second clause (see Figure 2).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70091-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70091-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Illumination of parallel structures in the focal text." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Interpretations of Grasse were unstable across five participants throughout their respective think‐aloud sessions. Some participants initially understood Grasse as a region or city (Angela, Nicole, Gabriela, Andrea) when they first encountered the phrase "Grasse, capitale mondiale du parfum". Another participant read Grasse as a perfume or a product (Kyle). However, by the time these five participants answered the question about which company uses organic essential oils, they had modified their understanding of Grasse to "company". For example, while reading aloud the first time, Angela said: "Grasse capitale mondiale du parfum. So Grasse is the capital of perfume?" However, when scanning for companies, she later said: "And then number three, which perfume company uses organic essential oils? I want to say Grasse because that's who they mention prior to them mentioning the essential oils, because they mentioned [Panier des Sens], but that was in a different sentence before they mentioned the organic essential oils. Grasse was included in that statement." Also while reading aloud, Gabriela said: "Grasse, capitale mondiale du parfum. So seeing that it's one of the world capitals of perfume. So I would say—[Grasse]. I don't know if that's a—not sure if that's a place or not, but definitely I would say France is one of the capitals of perfume just with the title and that bolded in the middle." Several minutes later, Gabriela affirms: "So looking at it now, the [Basée à Grasse] I would say that is a place." By the time she reached the end of Task Phase 2, she said: "Which perfume company—this is where I was confused. So I know it's not C (Berdoues) because that was a story right after it. And then A (Grasse) or B (Panier de Sens) I'd probably say A because it was in the same sentence of it. And just with context clues, I would say that that would be the company that uses it. The [Panier de Sens], that was in the first sentence or the sentence right before the capital of the word perfume. So I think ... I would go with ... Grasse." Finally, Radi suggested: "So for 3, I'm going to go for [Grasse], since it says it directly here, that they use organic essential oils."</p> <p>For the other four participants, Grasse was first mentioned during Task Phase 2, and was understood as a company. For example, Hayden said: "Grasse was in that sentence. It said something about with [Berdoues], but that could be their sister company. But I think that the overall company that was really making or using essential oils was Grasse just to start off with." Beatriz said: "[Grasse, capitale mondiale de...]. So I'm guessing Grasse is an enterprise? And nature and research, they formulate products with essential—so I'm guessing more natural products. Yeah. I would definitely say, I think Grasse is the company that does that, the perfume." Brianna offered: "I'm looking at [l'entreprise allie nature et recherche]. Okay. Yeah. This is talking about essential oils. It says [avec des huiles essentielles biologiques]. So the company is basée à Grasse. Basée à Grasse? I'm not sure how to say that, but that's the company that uses the largest percentage of natural essential oils."</p> <p>In all of these examples, participants are not sensitive to argument structure but instead seem to be relying on assumptions of simple sentence constructions and relying on adjacency, where the agent in question is assumed to be in the same sentence as the theme in question. Unsuccessful interpretations seem to have been driven by missed thematic roles: specifically, participants erroneously assigned the role of agent to the first noun or noun phrase in the sentence.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-25">How 'Grâce' Was Read</hd> <p>The third pattern involved interpretations of 'Grâce à...' [Thanks to...]. The relevant passage of the focal text reads: 'Grâce à un potentiel d'innovation exceptionnel, elle est en croissance continue depuis quinze ans.' [Thanks to an exceptional potential for innovation, it has been in a continual state of growth for 15 years.] Figure 3 underlines and shows this passage in context.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70091-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70091-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 First of four screens displaying the focal text." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In two instances, participants interpreted 'Grâce' as a proper noun and the subject of the sentence. Nicole interpreted <emph>Grâce</emph> as a proper noun, stating: "I don't know [Grâce] might be a name of the company". When asked why she thought this, she replied, "Because it's the subject of the sentence." She later reconsidered: "Unless Grâce is a place ... because it says that it's big on innovation, I thought that was a certain company, but that might be a place that has the innovation." Similarly, Andrea questioned whether <emph>Grâce</emph> referred to a name or a company before shifting her interpretation to the clause about continued growth over 15 years: "So Grâce, so I'm guessing Grâce is the—is it a name? Is it a company? Or I guess it's saying..., so probably she, after 15 years, continues to employ 170,000 people...".</p> <p>In the original sentence, 'Grâce à...' contains important diacritical marks that signify "thanks to...". 'Grâce à' [thanks to] points to the instrument, in this case "an exceptional potential for innovation", where "perfume industry" is the experiencer of this sentence. Removing the diacritical marks yields 'Grace has', and leads to potentially processing Grace, as well as the following pronoun, 'elle' [she/it] as agents. Because French has grammatical gender, the subject pronoun 'it' must agree in gender with its antecedent, which in this case is feminine ('la filière cosmétique‐parfums' [the perfume and cosmetics industry]). For earlier stage French learners, this is likely still an unfamiliar convention, and the feminine third person pronoun 'elle' may cue an interpretation akin to 'Grace has an exceptional potential for innovation, [she] has been in a continual state of growth for 15 years...', suggesting a reading of 'Grâce' as a human, feminine agent.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-27">Multimodal Dimensions of Literacy</hd> <p>Multimodal dimensions of literacy involve recognizing and interpreting semiotic cues in a text that are not linguistic in nature but interact with linguistic signs to create meaning. The degree of participant engagement with multimodal signs spanned from superficial to moderate, with no instances of deep engagement observed. Although participants noticed and used multimodal signs to interpret the text's genre, their engagement with other multimodal signs was primarily limited to ascribing importance to a word or phrase that was bolded or italicized, or using images to make predictions about the text's content.</p> <p>In terms of genre features expressed multimodally, participants noticed the contact button (<emph>n</emph> = 7), the navigation bar (<emph>n</emph> = 6), and the social media links (<emph>n</emph> = 2). For example, Kyle noted: "Okay. So definitely, right off the bat, I definitely think this is a website, a makeup website, because it has a search bar, it has the menu where you can drop‐down and see and go to more links." Angela stated: "I see there's the Bpifrance, the title. And then it's the contact. They've got a little search bar. And then it's got links to their Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. So yeah. I wonder if it's this little company that keeps track on the big perfume, cosmetic companies and their sales and whatnot." Brianna said: "I see a menu with a drop‐down item, so I think this is a website or a blog." Finally, Gabriela noted: "Yeah. I think website just with the search bar at the top, contacting.... You have the projects area. You have—I'm pretty sure events, not really sure what that word is, but—". In this case, although Gabriela encountered unfamiliar language, she was able to discern the text type, broadly.</p> <p>Participants' interpretations of text formats such as bold and italics were primarily limited to equating bolded or italicized words with importance. For example, Gabriela noted: "I don't know if that's a—not sure if that's a place or not, but definitely I would say France is one of the capitals of perfume just with the title and that bolded in the middle." Differently from the other three participants' interpretations of text formats, Angela equated italics with mocking: "—it's just like in English and italicized. I don't know why I think the English italicized correlates to making fun of something, but I guess, in my head, it does."</p> <p>Although almost all participants (<emph>n</emph> = 7) noticed the picture containing perfume, make up, and a candle, they did not notice that this was a carefully constructed image and that multiple perspectives had been juxtaposed to yield an aerial view of a candle and an eye shadow palette, and a side view of a perfume bottle. Nicole said: "So this one is definitely an advertisement of some sort, a website that would maybe sell cosmetics. And I get that because of the pictures of the cosmetics and also the title talks about the—I think is fragrance cosmetics? Like a perfume industry?" Brianna shared: "I'm seeing it's about cosmetics due to the title and the picture of the cosmetics behind it." Aside from Angela, who conjectured that italics suggested mocking, no other participants drew deeper interpretations from the multimodal features they noticed. Instead, they used these features to make predictions about content, importance, and to corroborate their interpretations of the topic.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-28">Cognitive Dimensions of Literacy</hd> <p>Cognitive dimensions of literacy were evidenced in patterns of drawing on background knowledge and inferencing to build mental representations from the textual cues and strategic reading.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-29">Background Knowledge</hd> <p>Participants' recruitment of background knowledge around industry and social media practices seemed to support successful interpretations. For her part, Beatriz initially suggested that the audience could be social media fans, because: "... right now, cosmetics is a really big thing, especially on social media". However, she immediately revised her response to entrepreneurs, noting, "...the more I read it or skimmed through the text, it seemed more of numbers, so [social media fans] probably wouldn't want to read about that. ... Maybe [entrepreneurs] would be more interested in the numbers, seeing how popular the cosmetic industry might be". Nicole also drew upon knowledge of social media practices to produce a more nuanced interpretation, saying, "Because I think if it was on social media fans, it would be geared towards influencers of some sort to encourage them to use a certain type of cosmetic, and they'd be advertising for them a little bit for free on social media, and it didn't seem to be doing that." Gabriela reasoned: "Entrepreneurs probably with seeing if they're in the perfume industry or the cosmetic industry, they'll see that France is one of the top perfume places. So then they'll probably want to either source from France or start to try to have a business in France. Social media fans, I'd rule out just because it's not really a personal blog. She's not talking to anybody or wanting them to do anything". Radi reasoned: "I don't think it's social media fans. I don't think people—most social media don't go and look for demographic blogs or articles or posts along those lines".</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-30">Inferencing</hd> <p>Participants demonstrated inferencing using both linguistic and numeric cues in the text. In some cases, this supported successful readings, while in others it led participants astray. For example, participants who arrived at the target response about how long the industry had been in a state of continual growth appear to have scanned for keywords to find the response. For example, Kyle indicated: "because they said 'croissance ... depuis quinze ans' [growth ... for 15 years]. So I'm going to guess it's the answer." Andrea departed from the choices offered in the task questions, using these as prompts to drive her search and selection of key words: "So I'm trying to find—so 'quinze ans' [15 years] so 'continue depuis' [has continued since] okay, so the innovation has been going for 15 years. So '<emph>quinze</emph>', right, so 15 years." Some participants who did not select the target response seem to have scanned for numbers rather than keywords. Hayden indicated: "Okay. So I see an increase of 2%, so that could be the answer to the first question that you've been increasing since 2016. I'm assuming that's a constant growth each year. I'm not really sure." Angela said: "I'm looking at 'plus de personnes par rapport à' [more people compared to] 2015. Since 2015 maybe?" In this case, she was focused on the date, rather than the meanings of surrounding lexical cues. While she identified logical clues, they did not help her identify the target response in this case.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-31">Rare Is Positive</hd> <p>Another salient pattern centered around interpretations of the word 'rare'. Three participants honed in on the word 'rare' [rare] as a word with positive connotations. Although this was not one of the choices in the question asking participants to scan for words with positive connotations, three participants named this word while re‐reading the text. Hayden said: "I understand it as rare, valuable, unique, which is usually a good thing." Nicole said: "<emph>produits rares</emph> [rare products] positive connotation ... Because they're rare products, so they're kind of special." Finally, Andrea demonstrated extensive elaboration in her response: "And then it's talking about how the products that they use are rare, which kind of gives you this idea that they're good for you, better because not everybody has them, things that are from Tahiti, vanilla, right? It's selective, the distribution. And that kind of gives you the idea that it's almost a secret because it's so good." While each interpretation is unique, these three participants' interpretations converge around the idea that something that is 'rare' is positive.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-32">Strategic Skipping</hd> <p>The text mentioned two highly specific acronyms, with which readers were not familiar: TPE ('très petites entreprises' [very small businesses]) and PME ('petites et moyennes enterprises' [small and medium‐sized businesses]). These acronyms appeared just following the mention of well‐known large groups such as L'Oréal and Chanel. Most participants (<emph>n</emph> = 5) strategically skipped these references, in some cases naming them and moving on. For example, Hayden said: "whatever GPE and PME means. They are either the big names, the big companies that own the big names." Gabriela reasoned: "And then the TPE‐PME. I'm not sure what those are, but just reading the sentence, it looks like it's either beauty product or beauty brand". Andrea offered: "France has big companies for perfume and makeup, like L'Oréal, Chanel, TPE". These participants seemed to rely on proximity within the sentence to understand these as beauty brands. Nicole suggested: "Not sure what PME stands for, but maybe it has to do with the total France economy? Or French economy?", seeming to relate this to the idea of GNP. No participant demonstrated an understanding of these acronyms; yet they did not belabor this point, and instead strategically skipped over these references while continuing to scan the text for clues to help them answer the task questions.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-33">Sociocultural Dimensions of Literacy</hd> <p>Sociocultural dimensions of literacy were evident in patterns of ascribing a gender to either author or audience, and in patterns of drawing upon genre knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-34">Gendered Readings</hd> <p>In answering questions about audience and authorship factors (in Task Phases 1 and 3), six of nine participants ascribed a gender to either the author or the presumed audience, although there were no questions asking about gender. Three interpreted author or audience as feminine; three interpreted author or audience as masculine. Andrea said about the presumed audience: "So I'm guessing the audience is probably going to be people that are interested in the beauty industry or want to know more about it, so probably women for the most part. Yeah, so women maybe that are trying to get into the beauty industry." Radi offered: "I thought that said 'la fille' [the girl] when I read it. I thought it said female. But I would assume—this is just my assumption that most females deal with cosmetics and perfume. I would assume this blog is maybe not for them, but I feel like a lot of women would read this." Three other participants interpreted the author or audience as masculine. Nicole suggested: "Well, I said in the last one that it wasn't geared towards investors, but C [to sustain a positive association with investing in innovation] is probably the closest to probably why he [the author] used it." Brianna also used a masculine pronoun for the author. When the researcher asked for follow up, she hedged: "I don't know if it's a he author. That's my bad. I guess, in my mind, I've always connected investments with males. And I know that's completely not right, but I'm guessing that's why my mind automatically went to male. But clearly, this is for the beauty industry, which I believe is, I guess, a female‐run industry. So yeah. I don't know why I used the word he. My mistake." While Brianna walked back on her interpretation that the author was male, nevertheless, she doubled down on a gendered association with the different foci of the text, which was about industry and investment around cosmetics and perfume. In sum, six participants made gendered readings by ascribing femininity or masculinity to authorship or audience. Participants who read authorship or audience as feminine saw this text as primarily about perfume and cosmetics; participants who read authorship or audience as masculine saw this text as primarily about industry and investing.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-35">Genre Knowledge</hd> <p>Genre knowledge is a kind of background knowledge that involves an understanding of conventional textual patterns and their social purposes. Genres construe meaning potentials and contain socially recognizable, patterned ways of organizing text and content (Swaffar and Arens [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref85">59</reflink>]). Genre knowledge appeared to contribute to successful interpretations of author purpose and genre for most participants (<emph>n</emph> = 7). Participants drew upon conventional content and conventional linguistic forms for particular genres. Hayden stated: "In my experience, personal blogs don't usually use their country name in their title. That will usually be like, 'My thoughts,' or, 'Beauty tips with Susan,' or something like that". In thinking about the purpose of the article, she noted: "There are a lot more numbers on this page, which definitely makes me think that it's not a personal ... or it's not meant for an audience of one person." Gabriela also recognized the purpose of this text as "... more so informing, kind of telling history about the perfume industry in France, giving the statistics for it, and just kind of overall informing people about it."</p> <p>One way that genre awareness can be manifest is by recognizing what is missing as compared with prototypical examples of a genre. Three participants noted the absence of expected linguistic features for a particular text type. Angela stated: "I don't really see a whole lot of 'je' [I] or 'j'ai' [I have]." Hayden also referred to the lack of the first‐person singular pronoun: "I see 'je' [I] used a lot less just on this first page. So that also kind of ... is probably written by author that either works for this organization or owns this organization or something." Similarly, Kyle stated that it "wasn't a personal blog. There were no ... no I pronouns, we pronouns." They had just seen a personal blog in the training phase, and they had been primed through the contrast between the more personal genre they had explored in the practice phase and the more impersonal focal text. In terms of expected content features of particular genres, Kyle stated: "It wasn't a news report. There wasn't a date on it. It was definitely from a certain website". Similarly, Andrea noted: "I don't think it's a news report. It didn't have a date or—did it have a date?" Both participants associated the convention of including a date with the genre of a news report and used this as a distinguishing criterion. Overall, participants read this text through their experiences with genres and with discourses in which gendered stereotypes of cosmetics and business and industry abound.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-36">Discussion</hd> <p>Several factors appear to be at work in participants' interpretations of the text, which are both text‐based and reader‐based and cut across multiple dimensions of literacy.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-37">Text‐Based Factors</hd> <p>As mentioned, the focal text contained complex syntactic structures that likely contributed to processing difficulties. What is more, these structures contained potentially unfamiliar proper nouns, for which readers would have had to rely on textual cues to understand as either cities or companies (the two classes of proper nouns that were addressed in the task questions). Without familiarity with the company, 'Panier des Sens', its meaning is ambiguous. The mention of different regions in the preceding paragraph could have primed interpretation of 'Panier des Sens' as a place, rather than as the name of a company. Indeed, as has been shown by Nicklin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref86">41</reflink>]), "[Proper Nouns] ... should not be assumed to be known by second language learners, but should be assumed to disrupt reading fluency, and thus potentially inhibit reading comprehension as much as equally frequent or infrequent [content nouns]" (p. 21). Furthermore, the target response is interrupted by a line break and is surrounded by bolded text, rendering it less visually salient than the bolded text (indicating a hyperlink on the original website). If participants had read the text in its original context, they might have clicked the link and learned that Grasse is not a company.</p> <p>Both Radi's and Angela's responses to the question about which company uses organic essential oils seemed to be driven by proximity of a proper noun and the key words tied to the question (i.e., 'huiles essentielles biologiques' [organic essential oils]). In other words, they were not sensitive to argument structure, but rather were relying on assumptions of simple sentence constructions, where the <emph>agent</emph> in question is assumed to be in the same sentence as the <emph>theme</emph> in question. Difficulty seems to have arisen from misunderstanding argument structure combined with the fact that the meaning of Grasse is opaque. As a proper noun with reference to a very specific locality which might be unfamiliar to French L2 learners, this proper noun was not recognized as a place, but as a company.</p> <p>Although the think‐aloud protocol revealed several morphological processing difficulties, this did not impede understanding, at least in terms of the tasks and questions relevant to this study. This finding echoes previous studies, which have found that "... it was possible to arrive at a completely accurate semantic meaning of a word and yet associate the word with a wrong syntactic category..." (Nassaji [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref87">39</reflink>], 652). In this case, readers were likely relying on roots for meanings. On one hand, non‐target like processing of these particular morphemes did not impede readers' comprehension on the task questions. On the other hand, processing morphemes is necessary for language acquisition; thus, there may be a tradeoff between learning to read and reading to learn (language).</p> <p>Interestingly, we asked all participants to rate the text difficulty on a scale of one to five with one being most difficult and five being least difficult. Seven participants rated the text neutrally (three); one participant gave the text three and a half; one participant rated the text at four. All readers suggested vocabulary knowledge as a determinant of difficulty. Three participants also included reasons such as content, acronyms, and clarity of expression. Contrary to participants' own statements, it does not appear that lexical knowledge deterred participants from understanding the text—at least not in terms of the task questions. Rather, it was syntactic structures that caused misunderstandings. Given the disconnect between learners' perceived and actual difficulties, it is important to empower learners by making them aware of multiple facets of their knowledge base and by helping them develop strategies in using different kinds of linguistic knowledge in reading processes.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-38">Reader‐Based Factors</hd> <p>Despite processing difficulties related primarily to complex syntax and unfamiliar proper nouns, readers' use of strategies and recruitment of background knowledge seem to have helped with these processing difficulties. Participants demonstrated adequate understanding of some of the facts and details, and, more importantly, substantial understanding of the social and rhetorical purposes of the text (e.g., the authors' intentions or purposes in writing the text, and the text's social functions in terms of intended audiences). As Kern ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref88">17</reflink>]) has suggested: "It is not knowledge of an assortment of scattered facts that helps people to become culturally literate, but rather understandings of the contexts and relationships that bring coherence to facts" (p. 31).</p> <p>In terms of multimodal features, participants <emph>noticed</emph> multimodal features, but they did not engage in deep or extensive analysis of multimodal features, other than in using the website's navigation bar, contact info, and social media icons to understand this text as a website. Multimodal features were interpreted at the level of their content, but not for their forms, per se, and were used primarily to answer questions about the text's genre and purpose. However, an analysis of multimodal features was not necessary in helping participants respond to the task questions, suggesting that participants were also strategically focusing on elements of the text that would help them complete the reading tasks. Additionally, reading multimodal signs is not traditionally part of reading in a foreign language (see Michelson and Anderson [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref89">37</reflink>]), and participants may not have been explicitly socialized into this practice. Prichard and Atkins ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref90">48</reflink>]) similarly found that L2 readers in their (eye‐tracking) study generally did not attend to images in pre‐viewing: only 23.7% of participants fixated on images before reading written language, with a mean fixation duration of 1.46 s, thus affording very little attention to images in a reading task.</p> <p>Participants' strategies led to different interpretations. For the question about how long the cosmetics industry had experienced continual growth, it was expected that participants would rely on cognates and scan for <emph>croissance continue</emph> [continuous growth], which contains the temporal cue <emph>continue</emph>, a cognate of the English 'continuous'. This cognate was expected to support lexical inferencing of <emph>croissance</emph> [growth], a word likely unfamiliar to French L2 learners at this level. However, only two participants appeared to use this strategy. As noted in the findings, successful responses involved focusing on key vocabulary (i.e., <emph>croissance continue</emph>) rather than scanning for dates or numbers, whereas unsuccessful readings involved interpreting <emph>Grâce</emph> as the subject of the sentence. Although scanning for numbers can be an effective strategy, in this case it was not paired with verifying comprehension by reading adjacent propositions.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-39">Implications</hd> <p>Traditional L2 reading pedagogies that foreground decoding tend to give way to a deficit orientation to learners. They invite a focus on errors and knowledge gaps. Furthermore, assessment often relies on comprehension questions, and while comprehension questions might illuminate one facet of reading, comprehension is a static measure that obscures a range of reading processes and meanings that learners derive from a text. Swaffar ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref91">60</reflink>]) asserts that "listening and reading are assessed on the basis of instructionally created rather than student generated answers" (p. 15). Instead of prioritizing alignment with assumed textual meanings, a multiliteracies perspective invites attention to how readers actively construct meaning across linguistic and semiotic resources and may help us move "beyond cognitivist perspectives that often reflect deficit orientations of language learners, towards orientations that foreground[...] the social and contextual factors involved in this process" (Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref92">57</reflink>], 41).</p> <p>We can take cues from the broader field of literacy studies. In her piece, "Re‐reading the signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy research", Marjorie Siegel ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref93">54</reflink>]) argues for an increased emphasis on emergent literacies, advocating for approaches that take up L2 learners' reading on their own terms rather than compared with adult literate practice. This argument reflects longstanding conversations in the field of second language acquisition cautioning educators against holding language learners up to the standard of a native speaker (see Kramsch and Whiteside [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref94">20</reflink>]; Ortega [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref95">42</reflink>]). Siegel further reminds us that:</p> <p>[e]arly efforts by educators to make room for semiotic systems other than language in the school literacy curricula showed that children come to school with well‐stocked, semiotic tool kits that, when tapped, positioned them as meaning makers. This was a particularly significant for students who acquired labels when they failed to display the language required for successful participation in schooling. (p. 69)</p> <p>Although her work primarily addresses adolescents, a similar case can be made for university level students in their foreign language classes. As this study demonstrates, the participants came to this text with "well‐stocked semiotic toolkits" (ibid.) that allowed them to demonstrate substantial textual thinking (Michelson et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref96">38</reflink>]; Maxim [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref97">36</reflink>]; Paesani [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref98">43</reflink>]) through successful identification of the focal text's genre, author and purpose, audience factors, and through elaborative interpretations that drew upon their background knowledge.</p> <p>Recognizing students' emergent literacies shifts the focus of assessment from one that holds learners up to a fixed standard to one that recognizes the ways that they make meaning from all semiotic modes and through interpreting texts in their sociocultural contexts. In L2 education, we often take as "signs of learning" (Kress [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref99">21</reflink>]) a reader's ability to pronounce the language of the text or answer basic comprehension questions about the text, which are largely based on linguistic dimensions of literacy. A view of reading as a multiliteracies practice shifts the focus such that educators might read <emph>between</emph> traditional signs of learning, recognizing all the ways students make meaning from a text.</p> <p>Teaching reading as a multiliteracies practice, rather than as an exercise in decoding linguistic signs, entails clear pedagogical design decisions that differentiate text purposes and reader purposes. It does not mean jettisoning comprehension as an outcome of reading; rather, it means expanding reading pedagogies into the realm of comprehensive textual analysis, accounting for text‐internal and text‐external factors. It means looking beyond mere comprehension to understand how message systems work within the text, and how those message systems are in relationship with broader cultural discourses and social practices. As Kramsch ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref100">18</reflink>]) has offered:</p> <p>This polarity‐reading to learn the forms, reading to extract informational content‐excludes other sources of meaning. It ignores, for example, the unexpected particularities of a writer's style, the social conventions regarding the use of genres and registers, the fractured symmetries of a literary text, and the special kind of interaction all these features require of the reader. It deceives learners into believing that all they have to do is 'retrieve' a meaning that is already in the text. It does not account for the fact that a text creates its reader through its very structure or form, and that readers in turn create the text as they imbue it with meaning. (p. 7)</p> <p>It also means emphasizing through our pedagogies that the importance of comprehension is task and context‐dependent. For example, if a reader is interpreting a house manual for a short‐term rental in a foreign language, it is a matter of respect for hospitality—and possibly even safety—to understand facts and details of the house rules. If a reader is interpreting a formal email with a request from a superior in the context of their professional work, understanding facts and details is critical to sustaining politeness and professionalism, and possibly keeping one's job. However, if a reader is searching for information on the internet, it is arguably more important to be able to hone in on a text's genre and purposes, in order to determine relevance for themselves. Once relevance has been established, more detailed reading can occur.</p> <p>Approaching reading as a multiliteracies practice demands a rethinking of assessment practices. As Jacobs ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref101">16</reflink>]) has asserted it involves, "watching and noticing what students are doing and then using that information to guide the students toward new skills and knowledge" (p. 626). Beyond assigning value to "correct" answers, we could instead assign value to students' textual thinking processes, which might look as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Learner engages with the text by constructing personal meaning, with emerging connections to textual evidence.</item> <p></p> <item> Learner proposes an interpretation that reflects active sense‐making, with initial or partial grounding in the text.</item> <p></p> <item> Learner identifies a plausible interpretation and begins to reference relevant textual evidence, though connections may remain implicit or underdeveloped.</item> <p></p> <item> Learner articulates a plausible interpretation and clearly integrates relevant textual evidence to support meaning‐making.</item> </ulist> <p>Such a framework shifts the focus from a deficit view of the learner or reader to a strengths‐based view that acknowledges learners' emergent literacies. We can then continue to support learners in expanding their available designs (New London Group [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref102">40</reflink>])—additional language knowledge or culture‐specific knowledge—so that they might expand their meaning‐making repertoires.</p> <p>One implication from this study is that enhancing learners' linguistic available designs around grammar could afford expanded opportunities for meaning‐making. In traditional foreign language classes, explicit language work tends to be oriented around pedagogical grammar and oversimplified through terminology such as "verb conjugations" rather than "inflections"; "parts of speech" rather than "grammatical class". With recognition that we are not trying to train linguists but rather are trying to teach language and literacy, there may still be a place for teaching students several foundational linguistic concepts, including argument structure, and the difference between sense and reference. In L2 French, specifically, we tend to teach syntax as a relatively uncomplicated exercise in constructing subject‐verb‐object (SVO) or subject‐object‐verb (SOV) sentences. Explicitly teaching argument structure, or theta roles, could help students understand critical relationships between syntax and semantics, and eventually help students develop more agility in writing as well as in reading. Helping learners understand the difference between sense and reference might also help them develop a stance toward reading that is akin to textual thinking. In order to get the <emph>sense</emph> of a word, we must have shared understandings of cultural meanings, which derive from shared experiences, or participation in the same discourses as our interlocutors. Teaching students how to make sense of words—by focusing on authorial choices, contexts of production and sites of reception—is arguably more important than merely helping them understand a <emph>reference</emph>, as it is through our choices of words, with different <emph>senses</emph> that we express personal, culturally embedded, value‐laden meanings.</p> <p>Another available design resource we can help learners develop are tools for engaging with multimodal texts. Although learners in this study did look at text structure (e.g., website features), they were not necessarily using all multimodal features to interpret the text. Furthermore, they were not scrutinizing images to understand the carefully composed images. This is likely because of task demands in this study, which did not specifically engage participants in multimodal analysis, as well as prior contexts of learning. Michelson and Anderson ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref103">37</reflink>]) found that even when multimodal texts were included in beginning and intermediate French textbooks, the associated tasks largely oriented learners' attention to the linguistic mode; only 4.23% of the tasks across the corpus specifically invited learners to interpret the multimodal textual elements. While our textbooks might not help us in this regard, we can supplement without extensive preparation. A typical multimodal text type we might find in language textbooks is a map. Often used as a springboard for oral communication and practicing giving directions and using prepositions of location, maps offer much more in terms of semiotic content. As a supplement to traditional communicative tasks, why not ask questions about what the number of green spaces suggests about cultural values, or about what the presence or absence of a river suggests, or ask learners to describe the organization of streets (grid or spiral?). These supplements need not involve extensive preparation. Rather, they involve a shift in attention to the text's broader semiotic landscape and the purposeful inclusion of tasks that encourage interpretation of multiple modes.</p> <p>Beyond teaching and learning, this study has important implications for reading research. First, this study adds insights to the debate about authentic texts by demonstrating that even when authentic texts contain complex linguistic structures that give rise to local misunderstandings, these do not necessarily impede learners' ability to construct meaningful interpretations. These findings call into question the very debate in the field about whether and to what extent authentic texts should be modified to ensure "successful comprehension", which distracts us from the more important focus on learners' unique meaning‐making processes.</p> <p>This study further demonstrates the viability of a think‐aloud protocol to uncover meaning‐making practices of learners while interpreting a text, as the think‐aloud transcripts revealed unfamiliar and challenging linguistic designs as well as the way in which participants drew upon background knowledge and genre knowledge in their interpretations. Although the individualized think‐aloud sessions and extended engagement with each participant in this study may not be feasible in classrooms, the findings underscore the importance of attending more closely to students' reading processes as they unfold. Locating reading primarily outside the classroom risks obscuring the emergent literacies learners develop as they engage with texts.</p> <p>Finally, this study demonstrates the usefulness of Kern's ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref104">17</reflink>]) dimensions of literacy as an approach to examining reading processes, and offers concrete examples of how different literacies are at work in the interpretation of a text. These discrete dimensions of literacy helped elucidate participants' capacity to construct meaning while engaging with linguistically complex textual features, underscoring that linguistic complexity does not preclude interpretive depth. While Kern's work acknowledges multimodality as essential to the semiotic landscape, a separate multimodal dimension of literacy seems vital to understanding the semiotic work of learners, and as a prompt for educators to overtly integrate multimodal textual analysis into reading pedagogies. Indeed, many scholars have since raised the profile of multimodality by advocating for teaching a metalanguage for multimodal signs (Unsworth [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref105">63</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref106">64</reflink>]), new forms of assessment (Jacobs [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref107">16</reflink>]), and proposing concrete multimodal pedagogies (Alvarez‐Valencia [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref108">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-40">Conclusion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to explore L2 French learners' dynamic meaning‐making processes while reading a multimodal web text in their second language. Findings demonstrated that learners demonstrated substantial textual thinking even as they engaged with linguistically complex aspects of the text. A literacy orientation was applied to the study procedures and to the analysis of the think‐aloud protocols by considering multiple dimensions of literacy. This allowed a picture of learners to emerge as capable of deriving substantial meaning from a multimodal web text. Findings also pointed to specific ways we might support students' emergent literacies in L2 settings by teaching language through concepts from linguistics and by explicitly guiding students in multimodal analysis.</p> <p>Several limitations are inherent in this study. While the small number of participants in this study limits the generalizability of findings, the small sample afforded time to conduct an individual, prompted think‐aloud with each participant, as well as conduct a fine‐grained examination of participants' interpretive processes. Participants read the text on four separate screens, rather than on the original website and therefore had a modified literacy experience, rather than a natural experience of scrolling and clicking through the text. Additionally, the number of questions in each task phase was limited to only three questions. While this may be a limitation in terms of research design, the types and extent of questions were designed to reflect a sequence and scope of pre‐reading questions that might figure in a classroom instructional sequence. Although background information was collected from participants via a questionnaire, this did not include details about their knowledge of L1 textual genres or L1 reading skills. Finally, analysis was conducted by a single researcher. A future similar study might include member checks as a method of triangulation.</p> <p>Traditional reading assessment and instruction tend to be anchored in text‐internal factors to the detriment of text‐external factors, largely ignoring how texts operate in the world, and ignoring their creators, their identities, and social purposes. An overemphasis on comprehension as an outcome of reading obscures readers' emergent literacies. Teaching L2 reading as a multiliteracies practice invites learners to engage multiple interpretive processes that foreground their knowledge bases. It foregrounds social and contextual factors involved in the creation and interpretation of texts, and engages students' personal, dynamic, and variable reading positions. Finally, it underscores the importance of the tasks that surround the interpretation, the dialogues that scaffold readers' interpretations, and the lenses we use to make sense of their reading processes and evolving interpretations.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-41">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>I thank James Lee for our synergistic collaboration which led to the methodological suggestion to use a think‐aloud protocol in this study; for creating the think‐aloud training materials; for collaborating in data collection; and for the invitation to present preliminary findings in his graduate seminar, all of which shaped this study in impactful ways. I thank Mourad Abdennebi for his fastidiousness in collaborating in data collection. I thank Jim and Mourad for a stimulating and productive collaboration around analyzing three case studies from these data. I wish to also thank the two anonymous reviewers and editors for their deep engagement with this research and transformational comments on the initial manuscript. Declaration of generative AI and AI‐assisted technologies in the writing process: During the revision of this manuscript the author used ChatGPT to rephrase individual sentences for clarity and conciseness in nine instances. The author used ChatGPT and <emph>Elicit: The AI Research Assistant</emph> to supplement traditional literature search processes. After using these tools, the author reviewed, cross‐checked, and edited all content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-42">Funding</hd> <p>The author has nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-43">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>This research was approved by the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board (IRB2018‐886). The most recent protocol ("Renewal") was approved on 12‐01‐2024.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-44">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The author declares no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-45">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <hd id="AN0193225958-46">A Appendix Participant Table</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;P#&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Pseudonym&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Reason for enrolling&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Major&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Minor&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Year in school&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Years learning French prior to university&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Languages known&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;In what circumstances do you anticipate using French in a real&amp;#8208;world setting?&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Reading is...&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Reading in French is...&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Reasons for reading in French (participant response)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Reasons for reading in French (analytical code)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Angela&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;General education requirement&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Women's and Gender Studies&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Senior&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Frankly, none&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reading is fun&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reading in French is a pain in the butt&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;So I can pass [this class]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;educational requirement&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hayden&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Requirement for my major&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Anthropology&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Biology&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Junior&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English, Latin&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;When working with French speakers abroad (non&amp;#8208;profit)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Important for linguistic comprehension&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes difficult&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I feel like it helps me to think more in the language, especially when reading aloud in my head. That, in turn, helps my fluency&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Language development&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kyle&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Requirement for my minor&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Biology&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;French, Chemistry&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Senior&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kinyarwanda, English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I am planning to go into the health professional field, So I think I will be using it a little bit for translating. I am also very big into traveling so I think I will need it when I start traveling into francophone countries&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reading is a very essential skill to have&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reading in French is challenging for French beginners but can be overcome with practice&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think it is a part of knowing the language, actually the most important part because it goes with comprehension&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Language development&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beatriz&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nicole&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Requirement for my major &amp; minor&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Honors Arts and Letters and Social Work&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;French and Legal Studies&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sophomore&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I hope that it will be useful in my career. I plan to be a lawyer&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Communicating&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Difficult&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I hope to understand the language better by reading it&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Language development&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gabriela&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Requirement for my minor&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Apparel Design and Manufacturing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;French and General Business&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sophomore&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I would like to become bilingual so in the fashion industry I have more career opportunities and travel experiences&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reading is a fun and relaxing way to unwind&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reading in French is sometimes hard, but once you get a few words down you can use context clues for the meaning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;One reason for me being able to read in French is being able to correspond with French business owners in the fashion world&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Expand career networks&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Brianna&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;General education requirement&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;History&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Art history&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Senior&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English, Latin, basic Spanish&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I want to be a museum curator. It is often essential to know French to engage in conversation with other museums I am interest in&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Relaxing but time consuming&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hard&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reading French news&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Access to knowledge or culture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;8&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Andrea&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Requirement for my minor&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Political Science&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;French&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Junior&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spanish, English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;For work &amp; travel&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Crucial&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hard&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;One day, I hope to work abroad and will need to be able to communicate and read in multiple languages&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Expand career networks&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Radi&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Requirement for my major&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Microbiology&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Chemistry&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Senior&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Talking to patients/traveling&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fun&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Difficult but doable&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;It helps you understand French more and how to speak because speaking is a lot more difficult but you can extrapolate information from your readings&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Language development; access to knowledge or culture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225958-47">B Appendix Task Phases and Questions, as Seen by Participants</hd> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70091-gra-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70091-gra-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <ref id="AN0193225958-49"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> This article is one of multiple articles reporting different findings from the same data set. In Michelson et al. ([38]), three case studies are reported, whereas the current study reports on meaning‐making patterns and processes of all nine participants.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref70" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> "In the know" is one of many possible, yet incomplete, translations of the original "au parfum", a metaphorical expression that plays on the word 'parfum' [perfume].</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0193225958-50"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Aftab, A., and A. Salahuddin. 2015. "Authentic Texts and Pakistani Learners' ESL Reading Comprehension Skills: A Mixed‐Method Study." Language Education in Asia6: 122–134. https://doi.org/10.5746/leia/15/v6/i2/a4/aftab_salahuddin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alvarez‐Valencia, J. A.2016. "Meaning Making and Communication in the Multimodal Age: Ideas for Language Teachers." Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal18, no. 1: 98–115. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v18n1.8403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref41" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bernhardt, E.2011. Understanding Advanced Second‐Language Reading. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852408.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Byrnes, H.2006. "A Semiotic Perspective on Culture and Foreign Language Teaching: Implications for Collegiate Materials Development." In Language and Culture Out of Bounds: Discipline‐Blurred Perspectives on the Foreign Language Classroom, edited by V. Galloway and B. Cothran, 37–66. Heinle Thomson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Canning, N. A., and M. E. Nelson2018. "Unraveling the Affordance of Silas Marner in a Japanese University EFL Context." L2 Journal10, no. 2: 16–35. https://doi.org/10.5070/l210235419.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref63" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carioli, S., and A. Peru. 2016. "The Think‐Aloud Approach. A Promising Tool for Online Reading Comprehension." Journal of Media Literacy Education8, no. 1: 49–61. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle‐8‐1‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref39" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Castek, J., and J. Coiro. 2015. "Understanding What Students Know." Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy58, no. 7: 546–549. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref23" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Crossley, S. A., and D. S. McNamara. 2016. "Text‐Based Recall and Extra‐Textual Generations Resulting From Simplified and Authentic Texts." Reading in a Foreign Language28, no. 1: 1–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Devitt, S.1997. "Interacting With Authentic Texts: Multilayered Processes." Modern Language Journal81, no. 4: 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐4781.1997.tb05512.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eliot, G.1861/1994. Silas Marner. Wordsworth Classics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farías, M., and L. Véliz. 2019. "Multimodal Texts in Chilean English Teaching Education: Experiences From Educators and Pre‐Service Teachers." Profile: Issues in Teachers´ Professional Development21, no. 2: 13–27. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n2.75172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilmore, A.2007. "Authentic Materials and Authenticity in Foreign Language Learning." Language Teaching40, no. 2: 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444807004144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gladwin, R. F., and J. Stepp‐Greany. 2004. "An Interactive, Instructor‐Supported Reading Approach vs. Traditional Reading Instruction in Spanish." Foreign Language Annals41, no. 4: 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944‐9720.2008.tb03325.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grabe, W., and F. L. Stoller. 2018. "Building an Effective Reading Curriculum." In Teaching English to Second Language Learners in Academic Contexts: Reading, Writing, Listening, and Speaking, edited by J. M. Newton, D. R. Ferris, C. C. M. Goh, W. Grabe, F. L. Stoller, and L. Vandergrift, 28–47. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315626949‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grabe, W., and F. L. Stoller. 2020. Teaching and Researching Reading. 3rd ed. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs, G. E.2013. "Designing Assessments: A Multiliteracies Approach." Journal of Adolescent &amp; Adult Literacy56, no. 8: 623–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kern, R.2000. Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kramsch, C.1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kramsch, C.2002. "Language and Culture: A Social Semiotic Perspective." ADFL Bulletin33, no. 2: 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1632/adfl.33.2.8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kramsch, C., and A. Whiteside. 2007. "Three Fundamental Concepts in Second Language Acquisition and Their Relevance in Multilingual Contexts." Modern Language Journal91, no. s1: 907–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐4781.2007.00677.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kress, G.2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Communication. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kress, G., and S. Selander. 2012. "Multimodal Design, Learning and Cultures of Recognition." Internet and Higher Education15, no. 4: 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kress, G., and T. Van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kress, G.2003. Literacy in the New Media Age. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kucer, S.2014. Dimensions of Literacy: A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and Writing in School Settings. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumagai, Y., and N. Iwasaki. 2016. "Reading Words to Read Worlds: A Genre‐Based Critical Multiliteracies Curriculum in Intermediate/Advanced Japanese Language Education." In Multiliteracies in World Language Education, edited by Y. Kumagai, A. López‐Zánchez, and S. Wu, 107–131. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> La filière cosmétique, une industrie au parfum. 2016. "Bpifrance."https://<ulink href="http://www.bpifrance.fr/A&amp;#8208;la&amp;#8208;une/Actualites/La&amp;#8208;filiere&amp;#8208;cosmetique&amp;#8208;une&amp;#8208;industrie&amp;#8208;auparfum&amp;#8208;7534">www.bpifrance.fr/A&amp;#8208;la&amp;#8208;une/Actualites/La&amp;#8208;filiere&amp;#8208;cosmetique&amp;#8208;une&amp;#8208;industrie&amp;#8208;auparfum&amp;#8208;7534</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lange, K.2018. "Textbook Literacies—Investigating the Potential of Commercial Textbooks for Literacies‐Oriented Instruction and the Professional Development of Graduate Students." Unpublished doctoral diss., University of Arizona.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemke, J.1998. "Multiplying Meaning: Visual and Verbal Semiotics in Scientific Text." In Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, edited by J. R. Martin and R. Veel, 87–113. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leow, R. P.1993. "To Simplify or Not to Simplify: A Look at Intake." Studies in Second Language Acquisition15, no. 3: 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leow, R. P., S. Grey, S. Marijuan, and C. Moorman. 2014. "Concurrent Data Elicitation Procedures, Processes, and the Early Stages of L2 Learning: A Critical Overview." Second Language Research30, no. 2: 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313511979.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leow, R. P., and K. Morgan‐Short. 2004. "To Think‐Aloud or Not to Think‐Aloud: The Issue of Reactivity in SLA Research Methodology." Studies in Second Language Acquisition26, no. 1: 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263104026129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liao, R. J., and K. Lee. 2024. "The Interplay Between Metacognitive Knowledge, L2 Language Proficiency, and Question Formats in Predicting L2 Reading Test Scores." Education in Science14, no. 4: 370.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luke, C.2003. "Pedagogy, Connectivity, Multimodality, and Interdisciplinarity." Reading Research Quarterly38, no. 3: 397–403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marzban, S., and G. Fábián. 2022. "Second Language Learners' Reading Strategies. The Case of Intersemiotic Relations." Argumentum18: 392–409. https://doi.org/10.34103/argumentum/2022/22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxim, H. H.2006. "Integrating Textual Thinking Into the Introductory College‐Level Foreign Language Classroom." Modern Language Journal90, no. 1: 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐4781.2006.00382.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michelson, K., and A. Anderson. 2022. "Ideological Views of Reading in Contemporary Commercial French Textbooks: A Content Analysis." Second Language Research and Practice3, no. 1: 34–61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michelson, K., J. F. Lee, and M. Abdennebi. 2022. "Textual Thinking as Evidenced Through Think‐Alouds: Designing Meanings in Interpreting Authentic L2 Web Texts." Language Teaching Research29, no. 4: 1807–1836. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221096782. (Original work published 2025).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nassaji, H.2003. "L2 Vocabulary Learning From Context: Strategies, Knowledge Sources, and Their Relationship With Success in L2 Lexical Inferencing." TESOL Quarterly37, no. 4: 645–670.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> New London Group. 1996. "A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures." Harvard Educational Review66, no. 1: 60–92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicklin, C., A. Patterson, and S. McLean. 2022. "Quantifying Proper Nouns' Influence on L2 English Learners' Reading Fluency." Studies in Second Language Acquisition45, no. 4: 1–929. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226312200050x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortega, L.2019. "SLA and the Study of Equitable Multilingualism." Modern Language Journal103, no. S1: 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12525.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paesani, K.2018. "Researching Literacies and Textual Thinking in Collegiate Foreign Language Programs: Reflections and Recommendations." Foreign Language Annals51, no. 1: 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12312.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paesani, K., H. W. Allen, and B. Dupuy. 2016. A Multiliteracies Framework for Collegiate Foreign Language Teaching. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paesani, K., and M. Menke. 2023. Literacies in Language Education: A Guide for Teachers and Teacher Educators. Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/book103998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. Q.2015. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 4th ed. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellicer‐Sánchez, A., and N. Schmitt. 2010. "Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition From an Authentic Novel: Do Things Fall Apart?" Reading in a Foreign Language22, no. 1: 31–55. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/66652.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prichard, C., and A. Atkins. 2016. "Evaluating L2 Readers' Previewing Strategies Using Eye Tracking." Reading Matrix16, no. 2: 110–130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> QSR International. 2018. "NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software, Version 12."https://<ulink href="http://www.qsrinternational.com">www.qsrinternational.com</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rings, L.1986. "Authentic Language and Authentic Conversational Texts." Foreign Language Annals19, no. 3: 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944‐9720.1986.tb02835.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Safari, M., and M. M. Montazeri. 2017. "The Effect of Reducing Lexical and Syntactic Complexity of Texts on Reading Comprehension." Journal of Teaching Language Skills36, no. 3: 59–83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J.2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serafini, F.2012. "Expanding the Four Resources Model: Reading Visual and Multi‐Modal Texts." Pedagogies: An International Journal7, no. 2: 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480x.2012.656347.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegel, M.2006. "Rereading the Signs: Multimodal Transformations in the Field of Literacy Education." Language Arts84, no. 1: 65–77. https://doi.org/10.58680/la20065611.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonsen, R.2019. "An Analysis of the Problematic Discourse Surrounding 'Authentic Texts'." Hispania102: 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2019.0045.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sletova, N.2025. "Multiliteracies Pedagogy: Novice‐High Learners' Perception of Discourse‐Length Authentic Texts in a World Language Classroom." Language Learning Journal: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2025.2539519.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, P., D. Kim, O. Vorobel, and J. R. King. 2020. "Verbal Reports in the Reading Processes of Language Learners: A Methodological Review." Review of Education8, no. 1: 37–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3170.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoller, F. L., N. Anderson, W. Grabe, and R. Komiyama. 2013. "Instructional Enhancements to Improve Students' Reading Abilities." English Teaching Forum1: 2–11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swaffar, J., and K. Arens. 2005. Remapping the Foreign Language Curriculum: An Approach Through Multiple Literacies. Modern Language Association of America.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swaffar, J. K.1985. "Reading Authentic Texts in a Foreign Language: A Cognitive Model." Modern Language Journal69, no. 1: 15. https://doi.org/10.2307/327875.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tisdell, E. J., S. B. Merriam, and H. L. Stuckey‐Peyrot. 2025. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 5th ed. John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tungka, N. F.2018. "Guided Literacy Instruction: Helping Students Read Multimodal English‐Medium Texts." Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics8, no. 2: 345–357. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13281.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unsworth, L.2006. "Towards a Metalanguage for Multiliteracies Education: Describing the Meaning‐Making Resources of Language‐Image Interaction." English Teaching: Practice and Critique5, no. 1: 55–76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unsworth, L.2008. "Multiliteracies and Metalanguage: Describing Image/Text Relations as a Resource for Negotiating Multimodal Texts." In Handbook of Research on New Literacies, edited by J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, and D. J. Leu, 377–405. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410618894.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uygur, M. E., H. H. Mutlu, and E. Çinpolat. 2025. "The Effect of Text Modification on Comprehension and the Exploration of Perceptions." Reading in a Foreign Language37, no. 1: 1–34. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/67519.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, M.2006. "The 'Textual Shift': Examining the Reading Process With Print, Visual and Multimodal Texts." Australian Journal of Language and Literacy29, no. 1: 24–37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, D. J.1993. "Processing Strategies of Foreign Language Readers: Authentic and Edited Input." Foreign Language Annals26, no. 4: 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944‐9720.1993.tb01180.x.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kristen Michelson</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref106"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1503791 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Reading between the Signs: A Qualitative Think-Aloud Study of L2 Learners' Meaning Construction around a Multimodal Web Text – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kristen+Michelson%22">Kristen Michelson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5669-4246">0000-0002-5669-4246</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(2). – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – 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: 2026 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Protocol+Analysis%22">Protocol Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Strategies%22">Reading Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Reading%22">Critical Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reader+Text+Relationship%22">Reader Text Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Processes%22">Reading Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Internet%22">Internet</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22French%22">French</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+Literacies%22">Multiple Literacies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literary+Genres%22">Literary Genres</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/rrq.70091 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This qualitative study employed a prompted think-aloud protocol to examine the "textual thinking," or meaning-making processes, of nine collegiate second language (L2) French learners at the intermediate level. Each participant took part in an individual 60-min session on Zoom with two researchers. Following a modeling and training session in performing think-alouds, each participant was instructed to read a digital multimodal web text and respond to a series of multiple-choice questions guided by multiliteracy pedagogies targeting both text-internal and text-external factors. Participants were instructed to voice their thoughts continuously while reading; researchers prompted participants periodically to expand or elaborate on their interpretations. Data consisted of participants' think-aloud protocols, which were professionally transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively through a sequential inductive to deductive coding process, and themed according to linguistic, multimodal, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions of literacy. Findings revealed participants' elaborate meaning-making processes as well as their ability to generate plausible interpretations of the text, despite some linguistic processing challenges. Findings point to the viability of teaching with authentic multimodal web texts and the importance of teaching reading as a multiliteracy practice and suggest ways to continue to build learners' analytical skills for contemporary digital genres. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1503791 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503791 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/rrq.70091 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Protocol Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Strategies Type: general – SubjectFull: Critical Reading Type: general – SubjectFull: Reader Text Relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Internet Type: general – SubjectFull: College Students Type: general – SubjectFull: French Type: general – SubjectFull: Multiple Literacies Type: general – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Literary Genres Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Reading between the Signs: A Qualitative Think-Aloud Study of L2 Learners' Meaning Construction around a Multimodal Web Text Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Kristen Michelson IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 04 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0034-0553 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1936-2722 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 61 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
