Code meshing is the combining of multiple dialects within any single context of communication, written or oral. Code meshing raises issues of identity, voice, and choice of the writer in their own writing as that intersects with the context of the institution of higher education and our work as peer tutors. Some questions for peer tutors to consider are: what type of language do we expect to find in academic writing? Who do those expectations advantage or disadvantage?
My main motivations in researching this topic were to be a more engaged and critical member of the writing and tutoring community, to engage in conversation around code meshing and identity, and to think about how I, as a peer writing tutor, either challenge or support certain beliefs inscribed within academic writing.
Here are my findings and thoughts about how peer writing tutors can present code meshing as a rhetorical choice in conversation with writers and why it matters.
Zone of Proximal Development
Voice and choice of a writer are important aspects of their agency. In our tutor training class, we learned about Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, which is the space between what a writer can do without any help and what they cannot do. Between these two spaces is what the writer can do with help or support. Evaluating the zone of proximal development is part of meeting the writer where they are: what skills and knowledge do they already have? What are their goals?
Gutiérrez’s work on sociocritical literacy and the third place in the zone of proximal development pushes Vygotsky’s theory even further to consider a wider amount of context such as the social, political, and cultural discourse and identity that a writer brings with them to their work. How have their experiences and identity shaped their beliefs and understandings? How is this conveyed or not in their writing? By meeting writers where they are, not just in academics but across greater contexts, we can begin to understand their goals and how to help accomplish them.
Strategies for Code Meshing in Academic Writing
Just as voice and tone are devices used intentionally to convey particular meaning, so is code meshing. I took three strategies found in my research and developed them to apply more directly to the work I do as a peer writing tutor. Here are some things to consider about the rhetorical choice of code meshing as you work with writers. I provide many different questions you can ask, with the goal to create conversation that keeps appointments mutually engaging!
Contextual
This strategy refers to how compatible the assignment is with code meshing. Some questions to consider are:
- What is the assignment?
- Who is the intended audience?
- Is there space for analysis or commentary in the work?
- What is the genre of the writing?
If we consider these questions and think about the effects the writer can or might wish to produce through code meshing, it can help the writer make their own decisions about how to effectively employ their voice.
Personal
This strategy considers what the writer thinks and how they want to convey their ideas. Considering personal voice is consistent with the third space in the zone of proximal development as mentioned earlier. Questions to consider would be:
- What experiences, dialects, ideas, or beliefs does the writer bring with them?
- If they wish to use these, how do we create space for them in writing?
- What knowledge or linguistic skills does the writer possess that can be put to use in their writing?
More directly, you could ask:
- How do you feel about this topic?
- What experiences or ideas do you relate to and how does your own commentary or narrative fit into this assignment?
Social
In the social/interpersonal strategy, the UCWbL’s core value of collaboration is very important. How do we as tutor and writer collaboratively discuss meaning? In this strategy, it is effective to use the phrase “As a reader.” For example, you could start the conversation with: “As a reader, this is how I understood this, is that what you meant?” By stepping into the role of the reader, you help the writer to become aware of the effect that their words might have on their audience and can help them to be strategic about how they employ their voice in code meshing and writing.
In summary, the ultimate goal of seeing code meshing as a rhetorical choice is not to analyze and make assumptions about writer’s identities and experiences or even to push them to use their voice a certain way. The goal is to ask questions, provide comments, and collaborate in a way that is conducive to choice, agency, and an intentional and effective use of voice by the writer.
By presenting code meshing as a rhetorical choice and meeting the writer where they are across contexts, we, as peer writing tutors, can communicate respect and understanding while supporting writers’ unique and important voices at any stage in their process!
Works Cited
Canagarajah, Suresh. “Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable Strategies of Translanguaging.” The Modern Language Journal, vol. 95, no. iii, 2011. pp. 401-417.
Gutiérrez, Kris D. “Developing a Sociocritical Literacy in the Third Space.” Reading Research
Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 2, 2008. pp. 148-164.
Nordlof, John. “Vygotsky, Scaffolding, and the Role of Theory in Writing Center Work.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, 2014. pp. 45-64.