"Studies that focus on contexts that instructors create for students’ reading..." (emphasis on "instructors")

Adler-Kassner, Linda and Estrem, Heidi. (2007). "Reading Practices in the Writing Classroom". WPA: Writing Program Administration, 31(1-2), 35-47.

Adler-Kassner and Estrem (2007) worry about how writing programs leave goals for reading unstated. They're worried about what's happening at a very high level of scale. They Part of their concern has to do with the fact that it's not popular to talk about pedagogies of reading in graduate education, which has the effect of leaving graduate students without the support to teach students how to read. This is a problem, Adler-Kassner and Estrem (2007) suggest, because, while grad students know that they are suppose to be getting undergraduates to actively read, the grad students's practices might not be geared to making that happen. Adler-Kassner and Estrem (2007) use the phrase "fall back" at one point (p. 39). They're worried about grad studnets falling back into bad habits--those bad habits in this case being a conflation of the role of reading and reading itself (p. 37). Drawing on Sheridan Blau at one point, Adler-Kassner and Estrem (2007) quote him with regard to his idea of  “the culture of interpretive dependence,” the assumption by teachers that their role is to tell students what reading is about—and the concomitant assumption by students that their role is to be told what reading is about (20-24)" (p. 39). At the same time, Adler-Kassner and Estrem (2007) draw on Deborah Brandt in order to talk about how, in order for undergrads to produce a "good reading," they will have to "...analyze  the  ideals  and values associated with the “sponsoring” situation at the same time as they consider  how  their  own  contexts  and  experiences  affect  their  interpretations of the texts being read" (p. 38). In other words, Adler-Kassner and Estrem (2007) do something similar to what Stuart Selber does with critical literacy, namely, students are supposed to analyze the situation of reading at multiple levels--the level of the personal, the programmatic, and the cultural. So the goal is, ostensibly, for students to analyze the encounter between different contexts, or perhaps even the context that's created as a result of that assemblage in that place at this time, etc. I wonder if this has anything to do with Malinowski's distinction between context of situation and context of culture. 

And here are just some key quotes: 

the critical need for composition instructors to carefully define how we want students to be as readers, and why, within the framework of  reading and writing in our classes, programs, and profession, participating in these ways is important for them as readers and writers. Leaving this work undone, undefined, unstated leaves yet another gap into which others can come and say, “here’s how you should do your work”

White's Law, sure, but then what if we want students to become something along the lines of the Liberal Arts curriculum that Perry outlines?

It’s important to note here that we have not asked how students read—that is, we are not asking how students interpret or use readings. Rather, we are interested in how “directions” for reading attempt to shape the roles that students play in reading and what ideological implications accompany those attempts. 

But isn't this exactly what I'm doing? 

composition’s frequently-repeated goal of finding a “third space” that can balance the perpetual tension between “inventing the university”—cultivating students’ acumen with conventions associated with academic genres while incorporating their ideas into them—and the desire to challenge the ideologies that are maintained by those genres at the same time (Bartholomae; also see Spellmeyer; Bizzell; Royster; Barwashi)

Isn't this Harris as well? Guess not. It sounds a lot like Coe maybe... This is Bartholomae: "students are supposed to relinquish prior language practices" (Mary Ann Cain).

Practice-based reading will also help readers navigate between what Sheridan Blau has identified as two “common and closely related misperceptions” about reading: “the widely held idea that there is only one authoritative and best interpretation for ... texts” implied in the idea of irreducibility, and “the opposite belief, which many students and some respected scholars think to be the logical alternative to the first position ... , that there is no single or authoritative interpretation for a literary text, ... [that] any and all interpretations have equal authority” implied in relationality (60). As Blau argues, both are myths—the boundaries around “acceptable” and “unacceptable” interpretations involve a performance that integrates one’s own interpretation and acknowledgement of the dominant interpretation, with a heavy dose of audience awareness thrown in.

And this just sounds like the two levels down in the Perry scheme. Dualistic and multiplistic, which is subordinated to relativistic. (see appendix below)

Thus, it is important to disentangle the complicated layers of reading expectations, cultural definitions of reading, student practices of reading, and the pedagogical imperatives surrounding reading in the writing classroom in order to examine and cultivate kinds of reading that we want students to perform. For some readers, the idea of asserting this much “control” over a role might seem shockingly teacher-directed—after all, don’t we want students to develop their own strategies, cultivate their own roles? Yes, but as the lenses adapted from Hanks’ work demonstrate, such relationally-informed performances have their limits. As with all of the read ing approaches described above, this reading must take place within (and with full understanding of ) conventions guiding the contexts in which they will interact as readers and writers. Just as “experienced writers understand that writing usually involves an element of role playing” (Clark), when readers develop strategies for inhabiting a variety of active roles, they are more comfortable moving among the various contexts for reading that they encounter.

That just sounds like Carillo, that last part "strategies for inhabiting a variety of active roles" (see appendix). And then there was this guy (Alexandria Peary) who seemed to capture the idea that "select the most applicable strategy" 

Of course, this approach to thinking about reading is, to some extent, prescriptive—after all, we are outlining distinct ways of reading that impose constraints on the possible range of interpretations that students are permitted. But just as Richard Straub argued that all instructor comments, even “non-directive” ones are really directive (and that it was more honest to not hide behind “suggestions” when those suggestions were invocations) (244-46), we would argue that the same holds true for reading. Reading theorists from Stanley Fish to Sheridan Blau have demonstrated that readers never interpret texts outside of communities (Fish) or cultures (Blau), and that those communities and cultures have vested interests in putting some boundaries around the range of possible interpretations. As Blau has put it, “our practice [of interpretation] is, in fact, governed by established disciplinary procedures that provide standards for distinguishing between valid and invalid interpretive claims” (75). 

And that sounds like Zizek. (see appendix below)

For some readers, something nearly unspeakable can happen during the reading process. The problem comes when instructors are unclear about what that sense of mystery and magic means, when they expect students to achieve it but are unable to identify its elements, when they forget that it comes as much from a synchronicity between a reader’s values and her interpretation of a text as from the context where the reading is done. When instructors expect magic, they sometimes take for granted that reading is a complex interaction between reader, text, and context. Student readers, too, sometimes find that the very mysterious nature of what instructors “want” brings them to complete frustration.

And so a tabulation of the (virtual?) background, like in wilder & wolfe (not Kaufer and Geisler, with whom you always mix it up). 

As James Gee has argued, there is always “a way (or the way) of reading a text,” and that way “is

only acquired ... by one’s being embedded (or apprenticed) as a member of a social practice wherein people not only read texts of this type in this way, but also talk about such texts in certain ways, hold certain attitudes and values about them, and socially interact over them in certain ways” (39-41).

And this of course is Downs (apprenticed), you need to email him

Appendix:

Perry maintains that most college students who construe reality from a dualistic orientation have already begun to realize that complex topics generate a diversity of opinion, but that they accommodate this diversity in terms of black and white. While these students might not believe that they themselves have access to knowledge about reality, they believe that legitimate authorities do. Thus, they confront diversity from dualistic orientations, unreflec- tively adopting the point of view of the "right" authorities, and dogmatically denouncing the position of the "wrong" ones. Other students, however, those who have confronted the fact that even good authorities do not know everything yet, and in at least some areas may never acquire total knowledge, have different metaphys- ical and epistemological assumptions. These students, who con- strue experience from a multiplistic orientation, might implicitly assume that objective reality exists, but they do not believe that it can be known without uncertainty. And since multiplistic students assume that absolute knowledge is not available to even the experts, they believe that one point of view is as valid as another. Finally, according to Kitchener and King, there are other students who, having been confronted by teachers and peers who have asked them to support their opinions with evidence and reasoning, come to approach the .experiences of college with reflective thinking constructs. These students accept the inherent ambiguity of knowledge and yet, through evaluating and analyzing alternative opinions, make judgments concerning which points of view probably offer better or worse approximations to reality. They realize that even though authorities cannot know reality without uncertainty, some perspectives are more rational or based on stronger evidence. Since reflective students understand the know- ing process to be fallible, however, their decisions are necessarily tentative and contingent upon reevaluation. (55-56) 

Slattery, P. (1990). Applying Intellectual Development Theory to Composition. Journal of Basic Writing, 9(2), 54–65.

And so, when students are frustrated by the elements of the text that remain inaccessible despite the eight questions the textbook provides, they may not be able to recognize that this is only one reading approach that happens to be failing them at that moment, and that they might more readily access the text using a different approach. Taught within a mindful reading framework, to read rhetorically is as much a deliberate decision as is the decision to abandon that approach and employ another in its place.

Ellen C. Carillo. (2016). Creating Mindful Readers in First-Year Composition Courses A Strategy to Facilitate Transfer. Pedagogy, 16(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3158573

This reflexivity undermines the notion of the Post-Modern subject free to choose and reshape his identity. The psychoanalytic concept that designates the short-circuit between the repression and what it represses is the superego. As Lacan emphasised again and again, the essential content of the superego’s injunction is ‘Enjoy!’ A father works hard to organise a Sunday excursion, which has to be postponed again and again. When it finally takes place, he is fed up with the whole idea and shouts at his children: ‘Now you’d better enjoy it!’ The superego works in a different way from the symbolic law. The parental figure who is simply ‘repressive’ in the mode of symbolic authority tells a child: ‘You must go to grandma’s birthday party and behave nicely, even if you are bored to death – I don’t care whether you want to, just do it!’ The superego figure, in contrast, says to the child: ‘Although you know how much grandma would like to see you, you should go to her party only if you really want to – if you don’t, you should stay at home.’ The trick performed by the superego is to seem to offer the child a free choice, when, as every child knows, he is not being given any choice at all. Worse than that, he is being given an order and told to smile at the same time. Not only: ‘You must visit your grandma, whatever you feel,’ but: ‘You must visit your grandma, and you must be glad to do it!’ The superego orders you to enjoy doing what you have to do. What happens, after all, if the child takes it that he has a genuinely free choice and says ‘no’? The parent will make him feel terrible. ‘How can you say that!’ his mother will say: ‘How can you be so cruel! What did your poor grandma do to make you not want to see her?

zizek [at this link: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v21/n06/slavoj-zizek/you-may!] 

Wilder, L., & Wolfe, J. (2009). Sharing the Tacit Rhetorical Knowledge of the Literary Scholar: The Effects of Making Disciplinary Conventions Explicit in Undergraduate Writing about Literature Courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(2), 170–209.

Kaufer, D., & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in Academic Writing. Written Communication, 6(3), 286–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006003003