Concerned with disinformation, fake news, and a posttruth era, literacy research on digital learning ecologies has focused on content of the texts that youth encounter but less explicitly on aesthetics—issues of form or the way a text is written. Drawing on critical sociocultural theories, this article examines youth aesthetic meaning-making with non-neutral digital texts. The data analyzed are part of a multiyear multimethod study of the aesthetic literacy practices of queer youth of color and allies. Data were collected during an online summer literary salon where youth discussed textual content alongside issues of aesthetic forms. Findings illustrate that youth drew on a broad range of aesthetic tools to achieve (1) a poetic function concerned with how aesthetic forms elicit figurative, connotative, and storied meanings; (2) a catalytic function concerned with how aesthetic forms persuade, manipulate, or encourage particular actions; and (3) an ideological function concerned with how aesthetic forms inscribe or contest social inequalities. These tools and functions, complicate previous understandings of disinformation, fake news, and critical reasoning in literacies research. This study suggests a critical sociocultural approach to aesthetics as territory for further scholarship across many areas of literacy research.
BartonR.CappelloM. (2023). Visualizing hope through Black children’s multimodal messages reflecting the multiple pandemics. Departures in Critical Qualitative Research, 12(2), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1525/dcqr.2023.12.2.54
2.
BeckS. W. (2018). A think aloud approach to writing assessment. Teachers College Press.
3.
BeckS. W.JonesK.StormS.TorresJ. R.SmithH.BennettM. (2021). Moves that matter: Dialogic writing assessment and literary reading. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-12-2019-0167
4.
BloomeD.Power-CarterS.BakerW. D.CastanheiraM. L.KimM.RoweL. W. (2022). Discourse analysis of languaging and literacy events in educational settings: A microethnographic perspective. Routledge.
5.
BuchholtzB. A. (2016). Dangling literate identities in imagined futures: Literacy, time, and development in a K-6 classroom. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65, 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336916661536
6.
ColemanJ. J. (2021). Affective reader response: Using ordinary affects to repair literacy normativities in ELA and English education. English Education, 53(4), 254–276. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee202131482
7.
ComberB.GrantH. (2018). Working critically and creatively with fake news. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(3), 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.905
8.
DeweyJ. (1934). Art as experience. Minton, Balch.
9.
DressmanM.FaustM. (2014). On the teaching of poetry in English Journal, 1912–2005: Does history matter?Journal of Literacy Research, 46(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X14521194
10.
EagletonT. (2013). How to read literature. Yale University Press.
11.
FishS. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Harvard University Press.
12.
FreireP.MacedoD. (1987). Reading the word and the world. Bergin & Garvey.
13.
GramsciA. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. International Publishers.
14.
GreeneM. (1995). Releasing the social imagination: Essays on education, art, and social change. Jossey-Bass.
15.
GreeneM. (2001). Variations on a blue guitar: The Lincoln Center Institute lectures on aesthetic education. Teachers College Press.
16.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
17.
JakobsonR. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In SebeokT. A. (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). MIT Press.
18.
JanksH. (2010). Literacy and power. Routledge.
19.
JohnsonL. P. (2017). Writing the self: Black queer youth challenge heteronormative ways of being in an after-school writing club. Research in the Teaching of English, 52(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201729198
20.
JonesK.StormS. (2022). Sustaining textual passions: Teaching with texts youth love. Journal of Literacy Research, 54(4), 458–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X221141393
21.
JonesK.StormS.CorbittA. (2023). Literary play gone viral: Delight, intertextuality, and challenges to normative interpretations through the digital serialization of Dracula. English Teaching Practice & Critique, 22(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-08-2022-0116
22.
KellyL. L. (2020). Exploring Black girls’ subversive literacies as acts of freedom. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(4), 456–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X20966367
23.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
24.
LeeC. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 608–630. https://doi.org/10.2307/748192
25.
LevineS.TrepperK.ChungR. H.CoelhoR. (2021). How feeling supports students’ interpretive discussions about literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 53(4), 491–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X211052249
26.
LewisC.EncisoP.MojeE. B. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Erlbaum.
27.
McDanielD. S. (2023). Supporting justice-oriented English instruction through teens’ digital activist literacies. English Journal, 113(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej202332630
28.
McGrewS. (2021). Skipping the source and checking the contents: An in-depth look at students’ approaches to web evaluation. Computers in the Schools, 38(2), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2021.1912541
29.
MirraN.GarciaA. (2022). Guns, schools, and democracy: Adolescents imagining social futures through speculative civic literacies. American Educational Research Journal, 59(2), 345–380. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221074400
30.
MuñozJ. E. (2009). Cruising utopia: The then and there of queer futurity. New York University Press.
31.
NashB. L.HicksT.GarciaM.FassbenderW.AlvermannD.BoutelierS.McBrideC.McGrailE.MoranC.O’ByrneI.PiotrowskiA.RiceM.YoungC. (2023). Artificial intelligence in English education: Challenges and opportunities for teachers and teacher educators. English Education, 55(3), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee202332555
NicholsT. P.LeBlancR. J. (2021). Media education and the limits of “literacy”: Ecological orientations to performative platforms. Curriculum Inquiry, 51(4), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1865104
34.
PhilipsN. C.SmithB. E. (2012). Multimodality and aurality: Spaces in student digital book trailers. Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association, 61(1), 84–99.
35.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (2012). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Routledge.
36.
PritchardE. D. (2017). Fashioning lives: Black queers and the politics of literacy. Southern Illinois University Press.
37.
ReinkingD.BradleyB. A. (2007). On formative and design experiments. Teachers College Press.
38.
RosenblattL. (1938). Literature as exploration. D. Appleton-Century Company.
39.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.
40.
ShrodesA. (2022). “SAME GURL”: Political feeling in LGBTQ+ digital composing. Journal of Literacy Research, 54(4), 434–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X22114086
41.
SipeL. R. (2008). Storytime: Young children’s literary understanding in the classroom. Teachers College Press.
42.
StormS. (2016). Teacher-researcher-leaders: Intellectuals for social justice. Schools: Studies in Education, 13(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/685803
43.
StormS. (2020). Black words matter: Bending literary disciplinary literacies toward justice. In DychesJ.SamsB.BoydA. (Eds.), Acts of resistance: Subversive teaching in the English language arts classroom (pp. 7–21). Myers Education Press.
44.
StormS.JonesK.BeckS. (2022). Designing interpretive communities toward justice: Indexicality in classroom discourse. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 21(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-06-2021-0073
45.
StormS.RaineyE. C. (2024). Who does English? Learning from youth and professional literarian communities. English Journal, 113(5), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej2024113461
46.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
47.
StreetB. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Routledge.
48.
ThakurtaA. G. (2023). Solidarity-as-project: Charting democratic co-inquiries in an Asian American girl and woman-centric English education community. English Education, 55(4), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.58680/ee202332697
49.
ThielJ. J. (2015). Vibrant matter: The intra-active role of objects in the construction of young children’s literacies. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 64, 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336915617618
ToliverS. R. (2021). Freedom dreaming in a broken world: The Black radical imagination in Black girls’ science fiction stories. Research in the Teaching of English, 56(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte202131344
52.
TysonL. (2015). Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide (3rd ed.). Routledge.
53.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
54.
WargoJ. M. (2018). Writing with wearables? Young children’s intra-active authoring and the sounds of emplaced invention. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(4), 502–523. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1086296X18802880
