Doctor of Philosophy, Miami University, 2019, English

In this dissertation, Animate Literacies, I argue that conventional notions of literacy sponsorship (Brandt) fail to account for all the complexities of meaning making and power relations in queer lives, especially in othered places like Appalachia. I conduct queer literacy research in Appalachia in order to expand the scope of literacy sponsorship beyond a traditional focus on human individuals and institutions. By queering literacy methodologies and theories, I suggest that becoming literate involves a vast diversity of non-human agents, ranging from but not limited to the landscape, embodied technologies, mundane objects, and more, as well as the relations among these agents. Through a new materialist lens (Barad; Bennett; Chen), I theorize literacy as an active, participatory force—moving, shifting, flowing, perhaps even alive in its own way. My theory of animate literacies evolves from the literacy stories of five queer Appalachian participants. By bringing together queer (Alexander; Chen; Pritchard), Appalachian (Bradshaw; Donehower & Webb-Sunderhaus; Snyder), and new materialist rhetorics (Barad; Gries), my theory of animate literacies offers a queer, new materialist approach for studying the immediate affects and materiality of literacy practices. In this way, Animate Literacies forges queerly forward in order to make room for the nonhuman world to enter into its study. Complicating our relationship with the environment and all its nonhuman actors — from the food we eat, the local landscapes, to our pets, the trees, even the trash we throw away — a theory of animate literacies brings into relief how literacy is about being-with the world in more meaningful ways. Ultimately, Animate Literacies seeks to present an explanation as to how we survive in the Anthropocene and the inevitable, queer futures ahead.

Committee: Jason Palmeri (Committee Co-Chair); Sara Webb-Sunderhaus (Committee Co-Chair); Michele Simmons (Committee Member); Emily Legg (Committee Member); Roxanne Ornelas (Committee Member) Subjects: Linguistics; Literacy; Regional Studies; Rhetoric

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2017, English

Since 2009, approximately 8 million student veterans have used $84 Billion in GI Bill benefits to attend college or university in the United States (U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, “Annual Benefits Report” 2009-16). Student veterans represent 4% of students nationwide (Molina). Despite these numbers, 92% of composition faculty reported that they had experienced no professional development related to the military or veterans' learning needs (Hart and Thompson, “Ethical Obligation,” 8). Patricia Bizzell wrote, “We in this field want to know who our students are” (442). This project works to help scholars in composition and literacy studies know more about who student veterans are. This project addresses the research questions: • How do student veterans from the same branch of service understand and describe writing, reading, and literacy sponsored by that service? • How do student veterans discuss the connections and relationships between military literacy practices and academic literacy? • What can be learned about transfer of learning and prior knowledge by studying the experiences of student veterans? • When individuals move between the military and higher education how do they recognize and negotiate expectations regarding reading, writing, and literacy? To answer these questions, I conducted a qualitative study of Marines, veterans, and reservists. Through surveys and interviews with current and former Marines, I collected data about their beliefs and memories about their literacy practices, their military service, and their experiences in college classes. I use these data to support a series of claims about the literacy practices of student veterans and how understanding those practices can improve composition instruction. In Chapter 1, I argue that an asset frame may allow composition and literacy studies to better understand student veterans' literacy practices than hero/time-bomb dichotomies. In Chapter 2, I argue that the United States (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Jonathan Buehl (Committee Chair); Daniel Keller (Committee Member); Cynthia L. Selfe (Committee Member) Subjects: Composition; Literacy; Military Studies; Rhetoric

EdD, University of Cincinnati, 2019, Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services: Literacy and Second Language Studies

The purpose of this qualitative descriptive case study was to examine the literacy learning experiences and perceptions of four focal high school students in an after-school mentoring program in order to gain insight on the gap between in-school and out-of-school literacy practices. Data sources included pre-and post-interviews, focus groups, observations, Photovoice, and artifact analysis. Data was analyzed using a qualitative approach designed by Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014). Results from this study revealed that while reading and writing were literacy practices used in and out of school, the types of reading and writing practices that were utilized in and out of school were vastly different from one another. In addition, the findings in this study indicated that there was little to no relationship between the participants' in- and out-of-school literacy practices.

Committee: Connie Kendall Ph.D. (Committee Chair); Holly Johnson Ph.D. (Committee Member); Stephen Kroeger Ed.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Education