1

Code-meshing Projects in K-12 Classrooms for Social and Linguistic Equity

WOONGSIK CHOI
Purdue University

ABSTRACT

To contest monolingualism in U.S. classrooms, which oppresses the language diversity of

multilingual students, Horner et al. (2011) called for a translingual approach to language

differences. As much of the literature on translingualism has remained at a theoretical

level, educators have been seeking to enact this disposition in their classrooms

pedagogically. As a response to this, code-meshing (Young, 2004, 2013; Canagarajah,

2006, 2011) can be used as a pedagogical application of the translingual approach. This

paper conceptualizes code-meshing as translingual pedagogy and explores how it can be

used in K-12 contexts by examining documented elementary and secondary classroom

examples of code-meshing projects (Zapata & Laman, 2016; Pacheco & Smith, 2015;

Pacheco et al., 2017). Despite the concerns that critics have voiced, the examples show

that code-meshing can be used as an effective pedagogical tool for developing the

translingual disposition, supporting students’ multilingual identity, and discussing social

and linguistic equity in K-12 settings. While the structural limitations for translingual

pedagogy are not unforeseen, teachers and researchers should be encouraged to

collaborate and keep developing translingual pedagogy for linguistic and social equity.

Keywords: code-meshing, translingual approach, translingual pedagogy,

multilingual students, K-12 English writing

Introduction

Linguistic diversity in U.S. classrooms is the status quo. Student diversity in college

classrooms has accelerated as U.S. colleges respond to internationalization and globalization.

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 2

The number of multilingual students in K-12 classrooms, including those identified as English

language learners (ELLs), has also been on the rise (Baker & Wright, 2021). Nonetheless, certain

English varieties (e.g., African American Vernacular English), heritage languages, and home

languages of multilingual students have often been regarded as illegitimate languages in U.S.

classrooms due to the myth of monolingualism that privileges one variety of English over other

varieties or languages.

Since Conference on College Composition and Communication’s (CCCC) 1974

statement of Students’ Right To Their Own Language, student linguistic diversity has been

widely accepted by writing scholars in U.S. composition studies (Horner & Trimbur, 2002; Lu,

1994; Young, 2004). Extending the CCCC resolution to differences within and across all

languages, Horner et al. (2011) called for a translingual approach. The approach “adds

recognition that the formation and definition of languages and language varieties are fluid.

Further, this approach insists on viewing language differences and fluidities as resources to be

preserved, developed, and utilized” (p. 304). The translingual approach to writing applies to

teachers and students in linguistically diverse classrooms and writers of standardized or

unconventional forms of writing (Canagarajah, 2013b; Canagarajah, 2016; Lu & Horner, 2013).

Thus, teachers who teach English writing to multilingual students in diverse contexts—general

education, English language arts, ESL, or college-level composition classrooms—may adopt this

approach in order to embrace the linguistic fluidity of multilingual students’ writing and open up

possibilities of contesting social and linguistic injustices.

Yet, the translingual approach has mostly been discussed at a theoretical level as a

teaching philosophy, and its pedagogical applications still need to be explored (Gevers, 2018).

As a way to enact the translingual approach, teachers of multilingual students can use code-

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 3

meshing, that is, using two or more languages, symbols, and modes in a single composition

(Canagarajah, 2006; Canagarajah, 2011; Young, 2004, 2013), as a writing project in multilingual

classrooms. Although code-meshing is not what the translingual approach is all about, code-

meshing can be a great way to lead students to a critical exploration of what threatens social and

linguistic equity. More importantly, the translingual orientation to languages needs to be

discussed at the K-12 level since students begin to shape their identities and attitudes towards

diversity at an early age.

In this paper, I will first summarize the tenets of the translingual approach and

translingual pedagogy. Next, I will review the scholars’ views on code-meshing, including the

proponents and the critics, and conceptualize the pedagogical use of code-meshing for a

translingual approach. Using the theoretical bases of the translingual approach and code-

meshing, I will analyze the documented K-12 classroom examples of code-meshing projects to

examine the feasibility and benefits of code-meshing projects. Finally, I will conclude with

suggestions for teachers and researchers.

Literature Review

The Translingual Approach to Language Differences

As a reaction to the gap between students’ diverse language practices and traditional U.S.

writing instruction, which takes linguistic homogeneity as the norm, Horner et al. (2011) called

for a translingual approach as a new paradigm. The approach asserts that the formation and

definition of languages are de facto heterogeneous and fluid and that language differences are the

norm and resources, not problems that need to be eradicated. It views “writing, writer identity,

language forms used, and writer competence as always emergent” (Lu & Horner, 2013, p. 26).

Thus, standardized language norms that privilege a particular language practice while devaluing

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 4

other groups’ language practices are negotiable and should be contested. Horner et al. (2011)

summarize the translingual approach as an approach that argues for:

(1) honoring the power of all language users to shape language to specific ends; (2)

recognizing the linguistic heterogeneity of all users of language both within the United

States and globally; and (3) directly confronting English monolingualist expectations by

researching and teaching how writers can work with and against, not simply within, those

expectations. (p. 305)

More specifically, the translingual approach urges teachers and students to develop a

translingual disposition toward languages—an openness to language differences and the

cultivation of translingual sensibility (Horner et al., 2011; Lu & Horner, 2016). The translingual

approach “encourages reading with patience, respect for perceived differences within and across

languages, and an attitude of deliberative inquiry” (Horner et al., 2011, p. 304). It “aims to

develop and broaden the repertoire of students’ linguistic resources and to honor the resources of

all language users”—both multilingual students and English monolingual students (Horner et al.,

2011, p. 308).

Furthermore, the translingual approach values students’ writer agency. It asks teachers

and students to question “how, when, where, and why specific language strategies might be

deployed” (Lu & Horner, 2013, p. 27). This approach “calls for more, not less, conscious and

critical attention to how writers deploy diction, syntax, and style, as well as form, register, and

media,” whether they seemingly conform to dominant standards or not (Horner et al., 2011, p.

304). Thus, even dealing with students’ deviant forms or “errors” in their writing, teachers

acknowledge that writer agency is always in operation and development as students construct

themselves and language through recontextualization in writing (Lu & Horner, 2013).

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 5

Lastly, the translingual approach invites writers to work towards linguistic equity by

negotiating monolingual standards. The translingual approach decrees that “writers can, do, and

must negotiate standardized rules in light of the contexts of specific instances of writing”

(Horner et al., 2011, p. 305). It defies the common belief that students must learn the standard

language to meet the demands of the dominant discourse. Instead, it insists that students “must

understand how such demands are contingent and negotiable” (Horner et al., 2011, p. 305).

For educators who empathize with the translingual approach, how to enact the ideology

as pedagogy has been their primary interest. Schreiber and Watson (2018) summarize well what

translingual pedagogy should look like by saying:

pedagogy is translingual not merely by exposing students to language diversity or by

permitting students to use their full linguistic repertoires in their writing, but by asking

students to investigate/consider how language standards emerge, how and by whom they

are enforced, and to whose benefit, by bringing to light in the classroom how language

standards sustain and are sustained by social inequity. (pp. 94-95)

Code-meshing

The diverse student language practices that led Horner et al. (2011) to envision the

translingual approach include code-meshing (Canagarajah, 2006; Canagarajah, 2011; Young,

2004, 2013), which refers to the use of a variety of dialects, languages, symbols, and

communicative modes in a single composition. Such mixing of dialects and languages happens

naturally and more frequently in oral communication, so code-meshed texts can be seen to

“represent orality-based discourse in writing” (Gevers, 2018, p. 79). Such translingual literacy

practices are “widely practiced in communities and everyday communicative contexts, though

ignored or suppressed in classrooms” (Canagarajah, 2013a, p. 2).

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 6

The term code-meshing is coined by Vershawn Ashanti Young (2013), an African

American scholar in African American Studies and Rhetoric. He notes that the goal of his

coining the term was “to help code-meshing become an acceptable practice for what I hear and

see black people doing every day: blending, adjusting, playing and dancing with standard

English and academic discourse… anywhere and everywhere that communication takes place,

whether in informal or formal settings” (Young, 2013, p. 139). Non-monolingual writers often

purposefully engage in code-meshing, drawing from their entire language repertoire without

strict adherence to a set of particular language rules, such as standard English, to make sense of

their world and to show their identity, creativity, linguistic reality, and resistance to linguistic

injustice. In this sense, code-meshing can be thought of as “the realization of translanguaging in

texts” (Canagarajah, 2011, p. 403) or one of the translanguaging strategies (García & Li, 2017).

The examples of code-meshing range from writings of established writers, such as Gloria

Anzaldúa, to those of international graduate students in Canagarajah’s (2011) example, all of

whom established and presented the voices of bi/multidialectical, bi/multilingual, or multimodal

writers through code-meshing in formal writing.

Code-meshing is distinguished from codeswitching in that the latter views bilingual

students as having two discrete linguistic systems and being fully capable of switching between

the two according to the context (Canagarajah, 2011; Kafle & Canagarajah, 2017; Young, 2013).

It should be noted that codeswitching, in its broader definition that incorporates various language

mixing practices, has a long history in linguistic studies, and such studies have had a tremendous

impact on understanding and legitimizing bilingual practices (MacSwan, 2017). However, in

education systems that favor monolingualism, the narrow view of codeswitching and its

assumptions, combined with a deficit view of bilinguals’ language practice, have negatively

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 7

affected multilingual students (Otheguy et al., 2015; Young, 2013). Schools often consider

mixing of languages undesirable and require multilingual students to “codeswitch” and use

Standard English in the formal classroom setting and nonstandard language in other settings,

reinforcing “the superior/inferior linguistic dichotomy” (Young, 2013, p. 142), especially when

there are power inequalities between the codes. Code-meshing, on the other hand, defies the

structural limitation. Using code-meshing, students can put all their languages on an equal

footing in the same context, rather than being forced to switch between a formal language in one

context and an “informal” language in another.

Why Use Code-meshing in an English classroom?

Code-meshing empowers multilingual students by affirming their linguistic realities.

Using code-meshing “offers students a more realistic, humane, and useful means of experiencing

and profiting from composition” (M. E. Lee, 2014, p. 318). Code-meshing as a translingual

pedagogy constitutes “a transformative vision that has moved beyond a monolingualist

framework to a new ontological and epistemological conception based on ongoing consideration

of contemporary students’ linguistic realities” (M. E. Lee, 2014, p. 319).

Code-meshing allows students to “develop cognitive fluency and increase their

engagement with learning” (Milson-Whyte, 2013, p. 113). Producing code-meshed texts enables

students to “have a better chance of developing—as many of them are already in the process of

doing—“a full quiver” of the rhetorical and semiotic resources they need to have at their

disposal” (Guerra, 2016, p. 232).

Reading successful examples of multilingual peer students’ code-meshing can be a

powerful tool to motivate all students to engage in creative writing practices and discover

identities. Code-meshing by multilingual students was found to engender and stimulate

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 8

negotiation between code-meshers and readers (Canagarajah, 2013b). Through negotiation, the

class participants could reflect on peer writers’ language practices and identities. In a graduate

course that he taught, Canagarajah (2016) saw that some multilingual students’ active code-

meshing inspired more dynamic positioning of other multilingual students as translingual writers

and motivated English monolingual students to discover their hybrid identities.

Most importantly, code-meshing as a strategy also enables writers of diverse linguistic

backgrounds to challenge the dominant discourses that limit and oppress them with their own

alternative discourses. It helps “to honor students’ wishes to combat expectations about

communicative standards.” (Schreiber & Watson, 2018, p. 95). Milson-Whyte (2013) saw the

potential of code-meshing as “the intertwined socio-political, psychological, and pedagogical

benefits of helping to valorize minoritized languages, counter linguistic prejudices, and therefore

subvert the hegemony of standardized languages” (p. 113). By reading and writing code-meshed

text, teachers and students can see “that deviations from dominant expectations need not be

errors; that conformity need not be automatically advisable; and that writers’ purposes and

readers’ conventional expectations are neither fixed nor unified” (Horner et al., 2011, p. 304).

Criticism of Code-meshing

Before using code-meshing in the classroom, teachers should heed warnings of second

language writing and translingual scholarship. First, code-meshing can lead to the uncritical

valorization of visible language differences. Such practices should be avoided since it has the

potential for harmful exoticization, reinforcing ethnocentric perspectives, and perpetuating a

myth of joyful hybridity (Matsuda, 2014; Schreiber & Watson, 2018).

Next, code-meshing may not be readily appropriated by all students when considering the

heterogeneity of students’ language proficiency and backgrounds. Gevers (2018) noted that a

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 9

code-meshing pedagogy might not be feasible in classrooms for students with lower-level

English writing proficiency. To effectively use code-meshing to challenge established language

norms requires some linguistic proficiency and awareness in the meshed languages, but not all

students are multilingual, sensitive to the language difference, or metalinguistically aware

(Matsuda, 2014). It is also questionable that all students would wish to challenge the language

norms.

Code-meshing may not be practical in certain genres. “The options for bending and

challenging norms are very genre-dependent, and content-dependent” (Atkinson & Tardy, 2018,

p. 89). While genres are flexible, certain genres such as personal narratives are more compatible

with code-meshing, while other genres such as scientific research reports do not permit writers to

exercise linguistic individuality. Students need to learn to make their meaning clear in writing for

informational purposes, but there is less room for innovative language use in such functional

writing (Atkinson & Tardy, 2018).

The efforts to defend the production of conspicuous differences in writing can

inadvertently lead to the identification of writer agency only with the production of such writing

(Lu & Horner, 2013). Excessive focus on visible differences can reinforce monolingualism.

Code-meshing can draw “attention to combinations of fixed “languages” rather than subtler

variation, boundary pushing, or the fuzzy, complex histories in which words themselves cross

borders and are repurposed” (Schreiber & Watson, 2018, p. 95). Although code-meshing appears

to contest the discrete character of languages, it leads to multilingualism that still maintains the

boundaries between languages, making language practices into “readily identifiable and discrete

“codes” available for mixing or meshing” (Horner & Alvarez, 2019, p. 8).

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 10

While the criticisms are valid, this paper chooses to explore the pedagogical use of code-

meshing since it can be an effective way to catalyze the translingual approach to language

difference when used with purpose and adopted critically in the classroom. Code-meshing has its

value as an entry point to translingualism in the classroom. According to Wang and Silva (2021),

translingualism

(1) treats one’s languages not as discrete entities but as available codes in a repertoire; (2)

assumes that language is performative and always in contact with diverse semiotic

resources and generating new meanings; (3) sees language difference as a resource for

meaning making; and (4) negotiates purposeful textual practices, such as code-meshing,

as convention- and context-transforming. (p. 4)

The pedagogical use of multilingual students’ purposeful code-meshing can bring about

teachers’ and students’ conceptual change about language practices and deeper engagement with

translingualism.

How to Use Code-meshing as a Translingual Pedagogy

First, teachers should reflect on and question their language ideologies. Schreiber and

Watson (2018) ask teachers to consider “whether we are the ideal judges of rhetorical

effectiveness” and “whether we are inadvertently perpetuating status quo language uses by

telling our students their code-meshing just isn’t rhetorically effective or appropriate” (p. 96).

Teachers must be reminded of their subconscious affinities with standard languages and

typification of academic language and genres, which could reject certain language varieties.

Next, it is essential to shape a translingual ecology in the classroom, where code-meshing

is viable and negotiation is always at work through dialectical interactions among classroom

participants. Models of code-meshing by peer students and teachers provide significant

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 11

affordances (Canagarajah, 2011). In his ethnographic study of his students’ translingual writing,

Canagarajah (2013b) found that code-meshing invites complex processes of negotiation between

writers and readers. He identified four types of negotiation strategies used by writers and readers

to engage in code-meshing: envoicing, recontextualization, interaction, and entextualization.

Such strategies are “typical of contact zone communication” (p. 62). What enabled these

strategies were Bakhtinian dialogical pedagogy and “a conducive pedagogical environment that

will allow students to bring these strategies from contact zones outside the classroom” (p. 63).

Such a classroom ecology helps develop students’ language awareness, rhetorical sensibility, and

writing practices that they can build on for translingual literacy.

While working with multilingual students who are expanding their language repertoire in

the English language, or ELLs, teachers should consider the students’ language development and

learning goals. Teachers should recognize language learners’ desires to develop their language

proficiency to reach their academic and professional goals (Atkinson et al., 2015; Severino,

2017). In such cases, teachers can adopt knowledge from flexible theories of grammar and genre

in the second language writing scholarship, such as Larsen-Freeman’s grammaring theory,

Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics, and Tardy’s genre theory, which are compatible with

the translingual approach (Williams & Condon, 2016). Additionally, teachers should “consider to

what degree students might benefit from incorporating nonstandard language patterns into their

writing, and in what contexts doing so may be appropriate, effective, and desirable” (Gevers,

2018, p. 81).

In any case, code-meshing should not be enforced as a prescribed form of writing that

students must do or more favored than the standard form of writing. Noting that difference exists

“between a writing classroom that allows translingual writing and a writing classroom that

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 12

encourages or even requires translingual writing” (p. 189), J. W. Lee (2016) asserts that the

latter can disadvantage students who do not or cannot produce conspicuously translingual

writing. Following the translingual approach does not mean that teachers should require students

to mimic code-meshing; rather, “what we[teachers] want instead is for them[students] to call on

the rhetorical sensibilities many of them already possess but put aside because of what they see

as a jarring shift in context” (Guerra, 2016, pp. 231–232). Moreover, using code-meshing in

teaching writing does not mean refusing to teach standard English. Both the justification and

limitations of standard writing and code-meshing should be conveyed to and discussed with

students. The goal is for students to explore writer agency in recontextualization of all forms of

English, including those recognized as standard and those not (Lu & Horner, 2013).

The ultimate choice then should be left for students to make; the teacher should support

the students’ choice. “Teachers have to be prepared to have students decline invitations to code-

mesh or disregard translingualism because these students live/operate in situations where

languages are still treated as discrete systems” (Milson-Whyte, 2013, p. 121). For example, a

student may want to choose to meet readers’ expectations over projecting their identity. In this

case, teachers should help the student write in standard English, respecting the student’s agency

and choice. On the other hand, for those students who are willing to mesh codes purposefully,

teachers should be able to invite them to do so in their writings (Schreiber & Watson, 2018).

Lastly, producing code-meshed (or standardized) writing is not the end. “Code-meshing

is not an absolute solution to an abiding educational and racial crisis” (Young, 2004, p. 713). It

should be the starting point that leads the teacher and students to further questioning, negotiation,

and discussion about social and linguistic inequities. By engaging students in code-meshing,

teachers would want to draw students’ attention to the larger social inequities that cause

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 13

discrimination against language differences and those oppressed by monolingualism. As

Schreiber and Watson (2018) say, if code-meshed writing feels awkward or inappropriate to

students, they can interrogate where that sense comes from by asking such questions as “what

hierarchies of privilege are at work in our constructions of readers’ expectations, and what the

political and social consequences of infusing spoken and written registers might be” (p. 96). If

multilingual writers chose not to code-mesh, the teacher and the writers could probe why they

did not. Was it because of the specific demands of the social context, such as an environment

where they are deemed outsiders or foreigners?

Classroom Examples

Sun and Lan (2020) synthesized empirical studies on the enactment of a translingual

approach to writing and reported that most of the studies were done in college-level classrooms.

Among the few translingual writing research studies in the K-12 context were Zapata and Laman

(2016) and Pacheco and Smith (2015). The code-meshing projects in these studies show how

elementary and secondary teachers embraced the language practices of multilingual students in

linguistically diverse classrooms. Reviewing these examples, I will analyze the teachers’

pedagogical use of code-meshing, using the translingual lens to explore the feasibility and

benefits of using code-meshing in K-12 classrooms.

Elementary Classrooms

Zapata and Laman (2016) studied translingual approaches to writing in the elementary

classrooms of three teachers in the Southwest and the Southeast United States. First, Susan, a

monolingual English-speaking teacher, taught a second-grade general education classroom for

English-dominant students and a few bilingual students. Susan held a photo-poetry project and

invited a bilingual student’s mother to the classroom. The mother showed photos of Día de los

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 14

Muertos (Day of the Dead) and read Spanish-English bilingual poetry. This opened student

discussions about cognates and the bilingual peers’ languages and experiences. The teacher

“encouraged” (p. 371) a student to produce a bilingual poem including Spanish and English. In

this instance, the teacher demonstrated a translingual disposition of openness to language

differences. Exposure to language differences and talking about cognates allowed the students to

grow metalinguistic awareness, expand the students’ linguistic repertoire, and break the

monolingual norm. However, it would have been powerful if the choice of whether to write a

poem bilingually or not was left for the bilingual student, rather than the teacher inducing her to

code-mesh.

Next, Sophia was a bilingual teacher teaching a third-grade ESL classroom for

predominantly Latino students. Sophia wrote a bilingual picture book to reflect her “bilingualism

and activist beliefs about linguistic diversity” (p. 373). Inspired by the banning of multicultural

and multilingual curricula in Arizona and Georgia, Sophia wrote a bilingual picture book, where

a nine-year-old girl leads her community to save banned books from being burned. In writing the

book, she shared her draft with students, modeling how she negotiated the various language

features in her writing. She used a recontextualizing strategy to place Spanish first and an

entextualization strategy to make her approaches, negotiation, and purposes of code-meshing

explicit. When she shared the process, she made it clear that a particular audience in her mind

informed her of her language choices in her writing. In this case, Sophia successfully used her

code-meshing process and product to bring social issues about language into the classroom.

Lastly, Alexandra was an emerging bilingual teacher who taught a fourth-grade ESL

classroom of ethnically and linguistically diverse students. Alexandra attended to the language

variety that students bring to the classroom, such as rap vernacular, southern regional dialects,

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 15

etc. She introduced linguistically diverse picture books to students and invited the students to

choose their writing mentors. Her students used code-meshing in their narrative writing,

appropriating the ways the mentor authors did. Students code-meshed to reveal the character’s

bilingual identity or to convey intimacy with her grandfather in Mexico. In this classroom, the

teacher “did not expect students to write across their languages, but instead expected students to

make purposeful decisions about if and when to do so” (p. 375). This shows that the students

engaged in purposeful code-meshing with their writer’s agency.

These translingual practices in elementary classrooms show how teachers and young

students can benefit from pedagogical and purposeful code-meshing. The code-meshing projects

led to both the teachers’ and students’ favorable orientation towards language differences and the

construction of texts in innovative ways. Students grew awareness of language practices,

monolingualism, their bilingual identities, and writer agency.

Zapata and Laman (2016) highlight three features of these projects, one of which is

parent and community involvement. This naturally brings code-meshing of the multilingual

communities into the classroom and positions the community’s diverse languages as resources

for communication and writing. Furthermore, the teachers modeled as translingual writers. The

teacher’s active modeling of code-meshing enabled teachers’ reflection of their own language

practices and meaningful negotiation with students about societal issues. Finally, the teachers

shared code-meshed literature as models of writing. Picturebook reading and writing are

inherently multimodal and easy for code-meshing.

Secondary Classroom

Pacheco and Smith (2015) and Pacheco et al. (2017) examined a multimodal code-

meshing project in an eighth-grade English Language Arts classroom in an urban context, where

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 16

the majority of the students were current and former ELLs. Pacheco and Smith (2015)

specifically focused on multilingual students’ multimodal code-meshing practices to understand

how bilingual adolescents leverage their linguistic repertoires in digital composition.

The students in this classroom participated in a multimodal code-meshing project called

“everyday heroes” as a culminating project of a unit on heroism and reading of Eric Greitens’s

book, The Warrior’s Heart. First, the students recorded interviews with heroes in their

communities such as family members, many of whom did not speak English. A student, for

example, chose to draft questions in English and translated them into Spanish for her mother.

Throughout the project, the students engaged in a scaffolded workshop, where they learned about

multimodal composition and developed a supportive class community for sharing ideas.

Next, students composed digital texts using PowerPoint, synthesizing the interview,

connections to the novel, and personal reflections. While composing, students were put in groups

of four so that they could share ideas. Depending on the language the interviewee used, the text

could employ code-meshing. A student who had strong literacy in Spanish helped edit her

classmate’s Spanish writing. In this stage, the students were “encouraged… to be creative in

structuring their compositions and using different languages and modalities” (Pacheco et al.,

2017, p. 65). As a result, the students’ final products meshed text, visuals, sound, and movement.

The researchers analyzed the students’ digital products and identified three major forms of code-

meshing: meshing audio recordings, meshing texts, and meshing images. In all cases, students

meshed their heritage language with English on the same slide.

Finally, the teacher held a digital showcase so that the students could share their

compositions in small groups. During the conversations, the students were “encouraged… to

inquire about different language choices, leading to important conversations about not only what

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 17

certain words or phrases meant, but why the composer chose to write in that language” (Pacheco

et al., 2017, p. 65). The conversations about writer agency such as this are an essential part of

translingual pedagogy, and teachers can further develop such conversations into a critical

discussion about social and linguistic injustice, questioning monolingual norms.

The students’ language practices in this classroom project show that secondary students

can purposefully mesh codes using various translingual strategies such as entextualization,

envoicing, and revoicing. The students used code-meshing to engage multiple local and global

audiences and (re)voice the subject. The students made compositional decisions based on what

specific audience experiences they wished to achieve and how to showcase their personalities.

The students also code-meshed to revoice as well as envoice the identities of their interviewees.

While the students leveraged their biliteracy as a resource, not all students meshed their heritage

languages in their slides. This shows that the code-meshing project raised students’ rhetorical

awareness for balancing their linguistic competencies and sensibilities of their audience.

What is remarkable about this particular project is that it encouraged the composition of

multimodal code-meshing, which goes beyond just code-meshing in reading and writing text,

reflecting the expanded definition of literacy. Also, similarly to the elementary classrooms in

Zapata and Laman (2016), the project brought the voice of the multilingual community into the

classroom, which concomitantly invited students’ translingual practices used in the communities

but seldom visible in the classroom.

Conclusion

A translingual approach to language difference was called for to challenge the problems

of the monolingualism prevalent in U.S. classrooms. While translingualism is theoretical,

educators have sought how to enact the translingual approach in their teaching, and code-

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 18

meshing can be used as translingual pedagogy. Some critics have shown concerns about

uncritical adoption of code-meshing, students’ readiness for code-meshing, and possible

reinforcing of monolingualism. However, code-meshing is not necessarily detrimental to

students; rather, it can be used as a productive pedagogical strategy in the classroom for

developing a translingual disposition, supporting students’ multilingual identity, and discussing

social and linguistic equity.

The studies of Zapata and Laman (2016) and Pacheco et al. (2017) show what elementary

and secondary students can do with and achieve from pedagogical and purposeful use of code-

meshing in general education, ESL, and English language arts classrooms. They also illuminate

teachers’ local attempts to act against the myth of monolingualism through code-meshing

projects and bringing in community language to the classroom. Such a translingual approach to

writing contributes to “a developing and democratic vision for teaching writing that strives to

value, leverage, and teach into students’ everyday languaging practices” (Zapata & Laman, 2016,

p. 366).

Although this paper’s scope was limited to code-meshing, the translingual pedagogy can

be and should be translated into practice in many other ways by teachers. However, a hindrance

to implementing translingual pedagogy often goes beyond what individual teachers can do, such

as standardized tests and school systems that adhere to the monolingual orientation. While this is

true, it “does not mean we[educators] should avoid translingual pedagogies, awaiting the kinds

of large-scale and top-down changes that will take lifetimes to fully unfold.” (Schreiber &

Watson, 2018, p. 97). Young (2013) strongly asserts to teachers that:

When we say that our hands are tied because of standardized tests and public perception,

we allow test makers, the commercial world, and the general public to dictate our

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 19

professional responsibilities, to decide in effect what we teach, and negate our own

professional training and credentials. We choose not to use our individual and collective

agency to alter the prevailing linguistic prejudice. (pp. 144-145)

Another deterrent could be that teachers are afraid of trying out a new pedagogy and the

possible danger of doing it “wrong” as some scholars fear (e.g., Matsuda, 2014). However, as

Schreiber and Watson (2018) said, “flawed applications of translingual pedagogy… may be seen

as an inevitable part of the work of educators puzzling through newly uncovered concepts,

problems, and possibilities” (p. 97). It should be the researchers’ and theorists’ labor to learn

from practitioners and help them apply the theories and research findings through collaboration.

Teachers and researchers’ collaborative endeavor to apply the translingual approach for equity

despite structural limitations should be welcomed and highly encouraged.

The studies introduced in this paper focused mostly on exploring pedagogical efforts to

understand, validate, and develop young multilingual students’ language diversity through code-

meshing. Future research of translingual pedagogy can explore the code-meshing experiences of

both monolingual students and multilingual students in elementary and secondary classrooms.

Also, more research should be done to illuminate ways in which a translingual pedagogy might

assist K-12 students in negotiating a balance between constructing rhetorically effective

monolingual texts and expressing multilingual writer agency and identities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Tony Silva for his Translingual Writing course and commenting on

the earlier draft of this paper, and two anonymous reviewers for their encouraging feedback.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 20

Woongsik Choi is a graduate teaching assistant and Ph.D. candidate in the Literacy and

Language Education program at Purdue University. He holds an M.Ed. in English language

education from Pusan National University, South Korea. Prior to Purdue, he was a high school

English language teacher in South Korea for about six years. His current research interests

include TESOL, translanguaging pedagogy, bilingual education, multilingualism, language

ideologies, and K-12 classroom research.

Inquiries can be directed to Woongsik Choi at [email protected]

References

Atkinson, D., Crusan, D., Matsuda, P. K., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., Ruecker, T., Simpson, S., &

Tardy, C. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between L2 writing and translingual writing:

An open letter to writing studies editors and organization leaders. College English, 77(4),

383–386.

Atkinson, D., & Tardy, C. M. (2018). SLW at the crossroads: Finding a way in the field. Journal

of Second Language Writing, 42, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.10.011

Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2021). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (7th

ed.). Multilingual Matters.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued.

College Composition and Communication, 57(4), 586–619.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013a). Introduction. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual

practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 1–10). Routledge.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013b). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the

Teaching of English, 48(1), 40–67.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 21

translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x

Canagarajah, S. (2016). Translingual writing and teacher development in composition. College

English, 78(3), 265–273.

García, O., & Li, W. (2017). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. In W. E.

Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual

Education (pp. 241–252). Wiley-Blackwell.

Gevers, J. (2018). Translingualism revisited: Language difference and hybridity in L2 writing.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.04.003

Guerra, J. C. (2016). Cultivating a rhetorical sensibility in the translingual writing classroom.

College English, 78(3), 228–233.

Horner, B., & Alvarez, S. P. (2019). Defining translinguality. Literacy in Composition Studies,

7(2), 1–30.

Horner, B., Lu, M., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward

a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303–321.

Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. (2002). English only and U.S. college composition. College

Composition and Communication, 53(4), 594–630.

Kafle, M., & Canagarajah, S. (2017). Multiliteracies, pedagogies, and academic literacy. In W.

E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual

Education (pp. 241–252). Wiley-Blackwell.

Lee, J. W. (2016). Beyond translingual writing. College English, 79(2), 174–195.

Lee, M. E. (2014). Shifting to the world Englishes paradigm by way of the translingual

approach: Code-meshing as a necessary means of transforming composition pedagogy.

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1

 22

TESOL Journal, 5(2), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.121

Lu, M.-Z. (1994). Professing multiculturalism: The politics of style in the contact zone. College

Composition and Communication, 45(4), 442–458.

Lu, M.-Z., & Horner, B. (2013). Translingual literacy and matters of agency. In S. Canagarajah

(Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 26–38).

Routledge.

Lu, M.-Z., & Horner, B. (2016). Introduction: Translingual work. College English, 78(3), 207–

218.

MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational

Research Journal, 54(1), 167–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216683935

Matsuda, P. K. (2014). The lure of translingual writing. PMLA, 129(3), 478–483.

Milson-Whyte, V. (2013). Pedagogical and sociopolitical implications of code-meshing in

classrooms: Some considerations for a translingual orientation to writing. In S. Canagarajah

(Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 115–

127). Routledge.

Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing

named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–

307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014

Pacheco, M. B., & Smith, B. E. (2015). Across languages, modes, and identities: Bilingual

adolescents’ multimodal codemeshing in the literacy classroom. Bilingual Research

Journal, 38(3), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2015.1091051

Pacheco, M. B., Smith, B. E., & Carr, S. (2017). Connecting classrooms and communities with

language and technology: A multimodal code-meshing project. Voices From the Middle,

Code Meshing Projects for Social and Linguistic Equity

 23

24(3), 63–67.

Schreiber, B. R., & Watson, M. (2018). Translingualism ≠ code-meshing: A response to Gevers’

“Translingualism revisited” (2018). Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 94–97.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.10.007

Severino, C. (2017). “Multilingualizing” composition: A diary self-study of learning Spanish and

Chinese. Composition Studies, 45(2), 12–31.

Sun, Y., & Lan, G. (2020). Enactment of a translingual approach to writing. TESOL Quarterly.

Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.609

Wang, Z., & Silva, T. (2021). Introduction: Reconciling translingualism and second language

writing. In T. Silva & Z. Wang (Eds.), Reconciling translingualism and second language

writing (pp. 1–10). Routledge.

Williams, J., & Condon, F. (2016). Translingualism in composition studies and second language

writing: An uneasy alliance. TESL Canada Journal, 33(2), 1–18.

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v33i2.1234

Young, V. A. (2004). Your average nigga. College Composition and Communication, 55(4),

693–715.

Young, V. A. (2013). Keep code-meshing. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual

practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 139–140). Routledge.

Zapata, A., & Laman, T. T. (2016). “I write to show how beautiful my languages are”:

Translingual writing instruction in English-dominant classrooms. Language Arts, 93(5),

366–378.

ITJ 2021, Volume 18, Issue 1