Living reference work entry


Transliteracies involve people’s mobile, emergent sense-making practices across various phenomena in a world characterized by rapid circulation of objects, ideas, and people over widening networks. Literacy researchers interested in tracing these developing ontologies across new or expanding communicational landscapes need tools and frameworks to theorize and study the instability and contingency of literacy practices “on the move.” To this end, the transliteracies framework attends to the ways people dynamically configure, synthesize, and adapt across the material/immaterial world while taking into consideration the role of objects in those mobile, emergent engagements. Following from the New London Group’s (1996) call for broadening views of literacy, the transliteracies framework emphasizes the situated, contingent, and ideological nature of meaning-making and foregrounds issues of equity by examining the ways people and resources are simultaneously connected,...


Literacy Practice Digital Literacy Cultural Historical Activity Theory Learning Ontology Reflexive Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review or Research in Education, 34, 329–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2010). Artifactual literacies: Every object tells a story. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Prior, P. (2008). Flat CHAT? Reassembling literate activity. Paper presented at Writing Research Across Borders, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  8. Stornaiuolo, A., Smith, A., & Phillips, N. (in press). Theorizing a transliteracies framework for a connected world. Journal of Literacy Research. Google Scholar
  9. Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91.Google Scholar
  10. Thomas, S., Joseph, C., Laccetti, J., Mason, B., Mills, S., Perril, S., & Pullinger, K. (2007). Transliteracy: Crossing divides. First Monday, 12(12). doi:10.5210/fm.v12i12.2060Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA