Research

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/287122098
Across Languages, Modes, and Identities: Bilingual Adolescents’ Multimodal

Codemeshing in the Literacy Classroom
Article in Bilingual Research Journal · September 2015

DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2015.1091051
CITATIONS READS
83 1,335
2 authors:
Mark B. Pacheco Blaine E Smith

University of Florida Vanderbilt University
40 PUBLICATIONS 900 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 1,250 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Mark B. Pacheco on 13 March 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bilingual Research Journal
The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education
ISSN: 1523-5882 (Print) 1523-5890 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ubrj20
Across Languages, Modes, and Identities: Bilingual

Adolescents’ Multimodal Codemeshing in the
Literacy Classroom
Mark B. Pacheco & Blaine E. Smith
To cite this article: Mark B. Pacheco & Blaine E. Smith (2015) Across Languages, Modes, and
Identities: Bilingual Adolescents’ Multimodal Codemeshing in the Literacy Classroom, Bilingual
Research Journal, 38:3, 292-312
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2015.1091051
Published online: 15 Dec 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ubrj20
Download by: [Mark Pacheco] Date: 15 December 2015, At: 14:24

Bilingual Research Journal, 38: 292–312, 2015
Copyright © the National Association for Bilingual Education
ISSN: 1523-5882 print / 1523-5890 online
DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2015.1091051
Across Languages, Modes, and Identities: Bilingual

Adolescents’ Multimodal Codemeshing in the Literacy
Classroom
Mark B. Pacheco
Vanderbilt University
Downloaded by [Mark Pacheco] at 14:24 15 December 2015
Blaine E. Smith
University of Miami
We seek to understand how bilingual adolescent students leverage multiple languages and modes
in digital composition. Using a translingual and multimodal perspective of composition, this
study reports on the distinct communicative affordances associated with four students’ multimodal
codemeshing practices. Through analysis of students’ digital products and retrospective design inter-
views, we found that students meshed linguistic and modal resources to engage multiple audiences,
convey multidimensional and nuanced meanings, and (re)voice their subjects’ experiences. We con-
clude with pedagogical implications for practitioners seeking to incorporate students’ multilingual
and multimodal meaning-making resources in the classroom.
INTRODUCTION
Students who speak more than one language are the fastest-growing population in America’s
classrooms (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA], 2010). García
and Sylvan (2011) posit that these students regularly draw from multiple languages and regis-
ters of speech to make sense of their multilingual worlds. Recent scholarship has argued that
student and teacher translanguaging, or the bilingual practices associated with accessing “differ-
ent linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages in order
to maximize communicative potential” (García, 2009, p. 140), holds rich possibilities for stu-
dents’ academic and linguistic achievement (Canagarajah, 2011; Cummins, 2007; García & Wei,
2013). Whereas the majority of this work has explored translanguaging in oral forms in print-
centric classrooms, less is known about how students move across and mesh languages, registers
of speech, and modes (e.g., images, sound, text, animation) when engaged in digital multimodal
Mark B. Pacheco is affiliated with Peabody College at Vanderbilt University.

Blaine E. Smith is affiliated with the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami.
Address correspondence to Mark B Pacheco, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, 2116 Acklen Avenue, Apt. 1,
Nashville, TN 37212. E-mail: mark.b.pacheco@vanderbilt.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/UBRJ.
ACROSS LANGUAGES, MODES, AND IDENTITIES 293
composition. As classrooms increasingly integrate an expanded view of literacy and educators

seek to incorporate students’ heritage languages in instruction, it is critical that we understand
how students translanguage when composing multimodal texts, a practice we call multimodal
codemeshing, and the affordances for making meaning associated with these practices.
Michael-Luna and Canagarajah (2008) argue that students shuttle back and forth between
languages in written compositions to communicate to different audiences, convey subtle nuances
of meaning, and build proximity and distance between the author and the reader, among other
rhetorical functions. Similarly, Velasco and García (2014) found that translanguaging in writing
affords students the opportunity to not only draw from multiple languages to facilitate planning,
drafting, and composing but also the opportunity to develop their entire linguistic repertoires.
This movement across and meshing of languages in written forms can encourage students to draw
from a wide range of resources in their meaning-making tool kits (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López
& Tejada, 1999; Pacheco, David, & Jiménez, 2015) and simultaneously develop their abilities to
strategically access these tools (Canagarajah, 2011; Cummins, 2007).
Similarly, multimodal composition encourages students to draw from a range of communica-
tive repertoires through using multiple modes (or modalities)—including but not limited to text,
sound, images, color, and animation—to convey meaning to audiences (New London Group,
1996). A multimodality framework (Kress, 2003; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001) emphasizes that
modes are imbued with certain communicative affordances, and the dynamic interaction among
modes is significant for communication (Jewitt, 2009). Multimodal projects often create space
for students to draw upon their cultural lifeworlds and out-of-school interests and provide an
“inversion in semiotic power” (Kress, 2003, p. 9) that allows students to express themselves in
empowering ways not typically afforded with written texts (Honeyford, 2014; Vasudevan, 2006;
Zapata, 2014).
This study seeks to address a major need in translanguaging and multimodal scholarship.
Whereas research has detailed the unique communicative affordances of oral translanguaging
practices, like code-switching and language brokering in the classroom (for a review, see García
& Wei, 2014), far less attention has been given to translanguaging in students’ written composi-
tions, especially at the middle school level (Lee, 2014). Similarly, while multimodal composition
offers distinct communicative opportunities (Dalton et al., 2015; Smith, 2013), and can be partic-
ularly powerful in engaging students who are learning English as an additional language (Ajayi,
2009; Hafner, 2014), little research has detailed the forms and functions associated with meshing
multiple modes with students’ multiple languages.
This study seeks to understand the meaning-making potential of multimodal codemeshing in
the classroom. We first explore the forms of students’ multimodal codemeshing by attending to
how languages and modes interact in students’ digital compositions—a multimodal PowerPoint
exploring the life of an “everyday hero.” We then explore the communicative affordances of
students’ multimodal codemeshing by analyzing their products and eliciting student experiences
and perceptions of their design choices. We conclude with implications for instruction that seeks
to leverage students’ linguistic and multimodal repertoires.
TRANSLANGUAGING AND CODEMESHING IN THE CLASSROOM
Theories of translanguaging treat an individual’s multiple languages as part of a single integrated

system that this individual accesses to make meaning in different contexts (Garcia, 2009).
294 PACHECO AND SMITH
Languages are not autonomous sets of rules, structures, or discreet skills to be acquired but
are tools for negotiating and constructing meaning between individuals and products of social
relations (Pennycook, 2010). Like other social practices, oral and text-based translanguaging
practices cannot be extracted from social contexts, the tools used to enact these practices, and
individuals’ goals when participating in these practices (Street, 1984). García and Kleifgen’s
(2010) concept of dynamic bilingualism and Canagarajah’s (2013) model of negotiated literacy
reflect this practice-oriented view of language use: An individual responsively and strategically
leverages linguistic resources within a holistic language system to achieve communication pur-
poses. As interlocutors, contexts, and activities change, so do the resources that the individual
employs to negotiate meaning (Pennycook, 2010).
Translanguaging practices include the activities that individuals participate in when mov-
ing across and meshing linguistic resources in communication. Recent work on code-switching
(Martínez, 2010), language brokering (Coyoca & Lee, 2009), and translation (Jiménez et al.,
2015) all suggest these practices’ potential for making meaning in classrooms when English is
not “bracketed off,” and teachers encourage the strategic use of multiple languages, dialects, and
registers of speech (García & Wei, 2014). Canagarajah (2011) uses the term codemeshing to
identify the practice of meshing languages, registers of speech, and modalities in written texts.
Though codemeshing occurs in written forms, he emphasizes that this practice always involves
the negotiation of meaning between the author and an imagined reader. An author draws upon
and meshes multiple resources to help the author and reader reach consensus when negotiating
meaning in texts (Canagarajah, 2012).
When considering codemeshing in students’ written products, it is important to note that an
individual does not solely draw from resources in different languages when conveying multiple
messages to possible audiences. As its name suggests, codemeshing involves the individual’s
meshing or mixing of these resources within and across languages at the graphemic, lexical,
phrasal, and textual levels to create distinct communicative affordances. At the phrasal level,
for example, Canagarajah (2011) found that a Saudi Arabian student codemeshed in Arabic,
English, and French for a variety of aesthetic and persuasive purposes. Using French offered this
student the chance to represent an aspect of her “literary identity,” whereas juxtaposing Arabic
and English phrases encouraged her Anglophone readers to question the meanings of her text,
which could promote reader engagement. At the lexical level, Velasco and García (2014) found
that a fifth-grade student writing in Korean used content-specific English phrases and vocabulary
to engage the reader in a scientific discussion while simultaneously demonstrating “his complex
linguistic repertoire” (p. 20).
At the graphemic level, Hinrichs and White-Sustaíta’s (2011) analysis of blog posts and e-
mails of speakers of Jamaican Creole and English shows that choices in spelling can accomplish
specific rhetorical functions. When writers living in Jamaica used nonstandard spellings for words
shared by Creole and English, they marked their attitudes that Jamaican Creole was a separate
language from English and not simply a dialect. At the textual level, Sebba’s (2012) analysis of
a poster written primarily in Greek for a Greek Orthodox church service in England shows how
inserting an entire paragraph in English in the center of the poster achieved a practical function
of providing road directions in the script and language in which a person in England would
encounter these words when asking for directions or reading street signs. Sebba concludes that
juxtaposing large sections of English and Greek texts creates a multilingual document that both
assumes and engages multiple readerships.
These studies suggest that the inclusion and interaction of students’ multiple languages within
writing can extend beyond that of, at best, a scaffold for the writing process and, at worst, an
interference or error to be eradicated in written products (Valdés, 1992). Canagarajah empha-
sizes that codemeshing (2013) is essential for facilitating the negotiation of meaning between
individuals who use “divergent codes” for communication (p. 43). Proficiency in codemeshing
supports an author in accurately representing identities and interests, establishing a shared context
with readers, building consensus with the reader concerning meanings of texts, and facilitat-
ing text production and reception. Lam (2013) echoes this necessity for developing students’
codemeshing, urging educators to “leverage these young people’s communicative repertoires
instead of keeping them invisible or marginalized in the classroom” (p. 823).
These studies also underscore García and Wei’s (2014) argument that all translanguaging
practices are essentially multimodal. As the individual codemeshes, they draw from multiple
linguistic modes to communicate messages within specific contexts. These semiotic resources
within languages are then amplified as they interact with one another and with other modalities
(Jewitt, 2009). For example, choices in spelling might interact with lexical choices to communi-
cate attitudes about language, just as paragraphs of English text can be situated next to paragraphs
of Greek text to address multiple audiences simultaneously. In the 21st-century classroom, the
communicative potential inherent in the interaction between languages can be further amplified
through the use of multimodal composition, as detailed in the following.
MULTIMODAL COMPOSITION
Though Canagarajah (2011) argues that codemeshing “accommodates the possibility of mixing
communicative modes and diverse symbol systems other than language” (p. 403), scant research
has detailed how composers extend these symbols to include the variety of modes made avail-
able through multimodal composition (see Rowe, Miller, & Pacheco, 2014 and Hafner, 2014 for
exceptions). The interaction between modes is significant for meaning making, and the unique
combination of different modes communicates messages that no single mode communicates on
its own. Multimodal composers “orchestrate meaning through their selection and configuration of
modes. . . . The meanings in any mode are always interwoven with the meanings made with those
of all other modes co-present and co-operating in the communication event” (Jewitt, 2009, p. 15).
In multimodal research, these intersemiotic relationships between modes are a main focus of
inquiry, which includes analyzing how co-occurring modes align to emphasize a complementary
message (Dalton et al., 2015; Smith, 2013) or diverge to create dissonance and convey different
messages simultaneously (Unsworth, 2006).
A multimodality framework also explains how modes are shaped by social, cultural, and his-
torical factors, which influence how they are employed in communication. A mode carries with
it specific semiotic resources and potentials for constructing meaning, which also interact and
contribute to the overall multimodal message:
Semiotic resources have a meaning potential, based on their past uses, and a set of affordances based
on their possible uses, and these will be actualized in concrete social contexts where their use is
subject to some form of semiotic regime (Van Leeuwen, 2005, p. 285).
These affordances of a mode, based on its history and material nature, offer potentials that
make it better for certain communicative tasks than other modes. For example, Smith’s (2013)
comparative analysis found that adolescent composers exhibited and described differing modal
preferences when creating multimodal projects in an English class. Some students attuned to visu-
als first during their process and relied on images and image collages to carry the communicative
weight of their projects, while others exhibited a textual modal preference.
Research on multimodal composition demonstrates how the layering of modes allows for
students to express identities in ways not typically afforded by written texts (Chandler-Olcott
& Mahar, 2003; Honeyford, 2014; Zapata, 2014). These findings are particularly salient with
ELL students who are able to leverage their cultural knowledge by communicating with mul-
tiple modes. Zapata (2014) described how Latino third graders “braided” multilingual and
multimodal material from the classroom and from the home together to craft and develop a nar-
rative” (p. 119) when creating picturebooks. She found students intentionally used color, images,
formatting, and writing in two languages to create engaging and personal narratives.
Multimodal projects offers adolescents “different points of entry into a text” (Jewitt, 2005,
p. 329) based on the cultural and social capital resources they bring to the composing process
(Bailey, 2009; Smith, 2013; Walsh, 2009). For example, in an ethnographic study (Smythe &
Neufeld, 2010) of sixth- and seventh-grade bilingual students from a range of countries, includ-
ing India, China, Afghanistan, and the Sudan, students created podcasts where they told original
stories with incorporated sound effects and music. They found that students drew from multiple
semiotic resources and that their unique background experiences and skills were an asset dur-
ing composition: “Students usually known as struggling readers and writers were repositioned
as historical and cultural subjects, knowledgeable and skilled in practices embedded in their
transnational identities” (Smythe & Neufeld, 2010, p. 492).
In addition to finding various entry points into composing, students were also able to use their
multimodal projects to reflect on their own social and cultural experiences and critique society and
the discursive practices that marginalize them (Kinloch, 2009; Vasudevan, 2006; Walsh, 2009).
Vasudevan (2006) described how one African American adolescent male engaged in multimodal
composition outside of school in order to “(re)make and (re)present” himself in ways he could
not in school (p. 207). She explained, “digital and visual modalities make it possible to perform
and author new selves that are not only resistant to dominant images but that offer new sites of
inquiry and exploration” (Vasudevan, 2006, p. 214).
Along with leveraging their cultural backgrounds, critiquing society, gaining agency and self-
efficacy, students can also develop proficiency in English when participating in self-sponsored
multimodal composition outside of school (Black, 2009; Skinner & Hagood, 2008). Yi and
Hirvela (2010) concluded that by maintaining numerous “online diaries” for both Korean and
American peers online, one female teen exhibited high levels of metacognitive and metalinguis-
tic knowledge. Black (2006) described how a Chinese Canadian immigrant girl who did not speak
any English and struggled in school was able to improve her English-speaking skills in only two
months of writing and reading fanfiction stories.
MULTIMODAL CODEMESHING: A TRANSLINGUAL AND MULTIMODAL STUDY
In our study, we adapt Horner, Lu, Royster, & Trimbur’s (2011) translingual approach to writ-
ing to understand the semiotic potential of students’ meshing of languages and modes in digital
compositions. At its center, this framework argues that there is an “inevitability and necessity
of interaction among languages” that enables composers to address a “diverse range of read-
ers’ social positions and ideological perspectives” (Horner et al., 2011, p. 307). We adapt this
framework to include the use of modalities that extend beyond print and ask not whether these
languages and modalities are used as part of “Standard Written English” but “what the writers
are doing with the language and why” (p. 304). Drawing from Canagarajah’s (2013) notion that
codemeshing is a practice that facilitates meaning making between individuals, we explore the
ways in which students use and mesh multiple languages, images, music, voice recordings, text,
slide transitions, animations, and other design features (e.g., color and font) to support or extend
their messages when composing digital products for actual and imagined audiences. As such, we
ask the following two research questions:
1. How do students mesh languages and multiple modes in digital compositions?

2. What are the communicative affordances of these multimodal codemeshing practices?
The Site and Students
This study was conducted in one eighth-grade English class at an urban school in a major southern
city, with 26% of the students at the school designated as English language learners (ELLs) and
96.1% receiving free or reduced-price lunch. In the classroom, all of the 28 students were profi-
cient in speaking languages other than English, which included Spanish, Mandarin, Pashto, Thai,
Vietnamese, Arabic, Bahdini and Sorani (Kurdish languages), and Mushunguli (a Somali lan-
guage). All students in the class were either receiving ELL services or were formerly designated
as ELLs.
Through purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990), four focal bilingual students were selected from
this class for in-depth analysis of their multimodal codemeshing processes and products. Focal
students were selected based on conferrals with the teacher, initial researcher observations, and
student interest surveys. We selected students to represent a variation in heritage languages, pro-
ficiencies in these languages (as reported by the students), proficiencies in English (as identified
by state assessments), academic abilities (as reported by the teacher and state assessments), class
engagement, and experience with technology (see Table 1) Jonul speaks English and Bahdini,
TABLE 1
Self-identified Demographics of Focal Students
Heritage
Name Age Gender language/country∗ Herit. Lang. Prof./ Eng. Lang. Prof. Birthplace
Valerie 14 female Pashto/Afghanistan Intermediate/Advanced USA

Sandra 14 female Viet/Vietnamese Intermediate/Advanced USA
Jonul 14 male Bahdini/Kurdistan Advanced/Intermediate USA
Megan 15 female Spanish/El Salvador Advanced/Beginner El Salvador
Note: We use the term heritage language to denote the language students use in their communities or with
their families that are tied closely to their cultural heritage.
Megan speaks English and Spanish, Sandra speaks English and Vietnamese, and Valerie speaks
English and Pashto.
“My Hero” Multimodal Project
Students participated in a 4-week literature unit connected to the anchor text, The Warrior’s Heart
(Greitens, 2012), a memoir featuring stories of a Navy SEAL’s humanitarian work. The culmi-
nating project was a multimodal presentation where students chose a person in their life who
they considered a personal hero. The first phase of the assignment required students to record
an interview with their hero—with many choosing to speak in their heritage languages. Next,
students used PowerPoint to create a multimodal presentation that provided background informa-
tion of their hero, synthesis of their interview, connections to the novel, and personal reflections.
According to the teacher, there were several purposes of this assignment, including for students
to (a) make personal connections to the novel by telling the story of a hero in their life, (b) reflect
on themes of heroism in the novel, (c) gain technical skills, and (d) learn to express themselves
through multiple modes in digital environments. As many of the heroes students interviewed did
not speak English, students chose to use languages other than English in their digital products.
The teacher encouraged students to use these languages in their digital products, but no direct
instruction was given on how to use these languages in students’ compositions.
Throughout the unit, students participated in a Scaffolded Digital Writer’s Workshop (Dalton,
2012/2013; Dalton & Smith, 2012), which supported students in seeing themselves as “design-
ers” and understanding how multiple modes can be used for expression. This workshop model
also focused on developing a supportive class community where students shared their work and
relied on one another as resources.
Throughout the workshop, students were given explicit instruction on how to use PowerPoint
and other technical skills (e.g., recording their voices, editing images). They were shown why and
how a multimodal project was created and examined teacher-created and real-world examples
that made clear the various design decisions a composer could make. Students also had multiple
opportunities to share their work, both in class (e.g., whole-class presentations, gallery walks, and
peer workshops) and with a larger audience in a project showcase that included their classmates
as well as students and teachers across the grade level at the conclusion of the unit.
Data Sources
A variety of data was collected to construct a multidimensional understanding of students’

multimodal codemeshing processes and products. Data sources included whole-class and focused
observations for each class and workshop session. Camtasia, a real-time screen-recording pro-
gram, captured what was happening on screen and students’ talk while composing, and a video
camera recorded the group’s physical interactions and conversations.
Before the project, semistructured interviews were conducted with 24 students in the class
about their language and technology use. At the end of the project, we collected the four focal stu-
dents’ final PowerPoint digital compositions and conducted one individual retrospective design
interview (Dalton et al., 2015) with each student to gain further insights into their composing
process, language use, and design decisions.
Data Analysis
We employed comparative case study methods (Stake, 2006) to glean a fine-grained

understanding of students’ final products and perspectives. Through the constant comparative
method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), interviews, video observations, and screen capture data were
openly and iteratively coded to establish categories and subcategories about students’ compos-
ing products. In this first phase of open coding, we identified instances where students used a
language other than English in text or as a sound recording in their digital products. We also iden-
tified instances where students included images and design choices that reflected their heritage
languages or transnationalism, which we define as aspects of students’ identities that suggest the
bidirectional flow of information or goods across national borders (Portes, Guarnizo & Landolt,
1999). We connected students’ perspectives shared in their retrospective design interviews by
relating their design insights to specific modal usages in their products.

In the axial coding phase, we then analyzed students’ use of mode and language at three inter-
related levels in their final digital products. First, we analyzed how a single image, music clip, oral
recording, or piece of text was used by the student. Next, we considered how the student meshed
these modalities with other co-occurring modalities, such as the juxtaposition of an oral recording
in Spanish and a text written in English. Lastly, we considered the entire assemblage of modali-
ties used by the student on a single slide. In this phase, overall themes for students’ multimodal
codemeshing processes and products were generated across students. This process of disassem-
bling and reassembling the data (Charmaz, 2000) required not only looking for similarities but
also noting differences among composers and projects.
We worked to establish trustworthiness (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993) by tri-
angulating different sources and methods, looking for disconfirming evidence, and performing
member checks with participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
FINDINGS
Multimodal Codemeshing Forms
Whereas students’ digital products included texts, images, animations, fonts, colors, slide tran-
sitions, and sound, students’ multimodal codemeshing took three major forms that included
meshing audio recordings, meshing texts, and meshing images. Before describing the interre-
lated and overlapping functions associated with these forms, we will share these forms’ most
salient features found in students’ digital products.
Meshing Audio Recordings
All students chose to include audio segments in their digital products. Audio segments
included snippets of recorded interviews with students’ heroes, student-narrated voice-over
recordings that accompanied an image or a text, and audio recordings of popular music. In all
cases when students included segments of their hero interviews in their digital products, they also
included written or orally recorded translations in English to accompany these interview seg-
ments on the same slide. For example, Jonul included a segment of his interview with his father
in which his father described his feelings about Saddam Hussein in Bahdini. Jonul meshed this
recording with a written English translation of his father’s speech, writing that “all of middle east
has no freedom” beneath the audio recording. Similarly, students chose to record their own voices
by accessing the recording feature in PowerPoint. When these messages were recorded in a lan-
guage other than English, as in Sandra’s Vietnamese recording of her feelings about her mother’s
dedication to her, these recordings were meshed with a written or oral message in English. Lastly,
students meshed audio recordings of popular music with images and texts. While students pri-
marily chose songs sung in English, Megan included a cumbia song, accompanied by its lyrics,
written in Spanish.
Meshing Texts
Students chose to include English and their heritage languages in text form throughout their
digital products. Texts included titles of slides, captions of photographs, song lyrics, and quo-
tations from the text, as well as single phrases, sentences, and complete paragraphs composed
by the student in both English and their heritage languages. Students also wrote direct quota-
tions from their interviews, as in Megan’s writing in English that her mother’s “best job was
taking care of my family,” which she meshed with writing in Spanish that mi mejor trabajo fue
cuidar a mi familia. While this interview was conducted in Spanish, Megan meshed English
and Spanish phrases on the same slide. Similarly, students chose to mesh their own messages in
English and their heritage languages on the same slide. In nearly all cases, these messages did not
contain identical information across languages, as students chose to include or exclude informa-
tion, depending on possible audiences. Jonul, for example, wrote in Kurdish leheng min Kurdistan
xodeu dai be, which roughly translates to, “my hero was born in Kurdistan,” but wrote in English
“my hero was born and raised in Kurdistan, Iraq, in a small city named Zaxo.” Megan also pro-
vided extensive contextual information about the death of her uncle when writing in English but
omitted much of this information when writing about this same event in Spanish. In all cases,
when students included text written in a language other than English, they meshed this with text
written in English on the same slide.
Meshing Images
Consistent with other work on multimodal composition (Smith, 2013), students used images
to convey distinct meanings in their digital products. Students included maps, images of cities in
their heroes’ home countries, photographs of family members, and depictions of scenes or peo-
ple that reflected aspects of their heroes’ stories. Many images reflected students’ transnational
affiliations, such as photographs from a recent trip to Vietnam or an image of a famous bridge
in Kurdistan. At no point, however, did students include a stand-alone image without meshing
it with an accompanying text or oral recording. For example, on the left-hand side of one of
Megan’s slides (see Figure 1), she meshed a black-and-white photograph of a child soldier with
an oral recording in Spanish and a text written in English that explained how her mother was
just a child during the war in El Salvador. To the right of the slide, however, Megan included an
image of a torogoz, the national of bird of El Salvador, to represent her mother’s “innocence and
hope.” In all cases across composers, students meshed images with texts or oral recordings, and
FIGURE 1 Megan’s meshing of images with text for a PowerPoint slide

of her “everyday hero” multimedia project.
this interaction between modes created distinct communicative affordances, as will be discussed
in greater detail in the following.
Multimodal Codemeshing Functions
Students used multimodal codemeshing to engage multiple audiences, convey multidimensional

and nuanced meanings, and give voice to their subjects’ experiences. It is important to note that
these three categories are both overlapping and interrelated. For example, as students incorpo-
rated multiple, and at times differing, messages on a single slide through the use of images and
texts, they also engaged multiple audiences when conveying these messages. In the following, we
share key examples from students’ digital products that represent the major communicative func-
tions associated with students’ multimodal codemeshing, as identified in the analysis of student
products and through interviews with students.
Engaging Multiple Audiences
Students used multiple languages and modes to simultaneously communicate with multiple
local and global audiences—including their teacher, classmates, heroes, and a broader “they” who
might engage with their digital products. They often described compositional decisions in relation
to specific audience experiences they attempted to achieve. A single PowerPoint slide frequently
included multiple languages and multimodal elements intended for these different audiences.
Interviews revealed that students saw the assignment as a vehicle for engaging their audience
through their hero’s story while also showcasing their own personalities. Students talked about
doing this in subtle ways, such as using fonts, colors, and representative images. For example,
Valerie explained that she wanted “to make it [her final project] look like really cool and you
know represent me.” Similarly, on one of his PowerPoint slides, Jonul included a song and image
of a main character from the movie Karate Kid. He explained he was inspired to make this pop
culture connection because his “friends were always singing it,” and it would showcase to them
how he is a “funny guy.” He viewed the movie connection as an inside joke that his friends would
appreciate.
Students also used multiple languages to engage their heroes directly. This often included
sending an oral message to that person. For example, Sandra included an English written trans-
lation of her Vietnamese narration that she recorded in class. Whereas she directly addressed her
mother in the Vietnamese oral recording (Con thu’o’ng me. nhiếu lăm)´ meaning “I love you very
much,” her English text speaks about her mother in the third person (I love my mom so much),
which suggests that this message is intended for simultaneously both her mother and a broader
audience. Sandra explained, “I kinda want my mom to hear it as well because she can’t read
English. I wanted her to hear what I thought.”
Similarly, Megan included a recorded Spanish oral commentary about why she believed her
mother was her hero “so my mom understands, like she doesn’t really know English, but a little
bit, I just want her to know what I’m saying.” She orally recorded the following message in
PowerPoint, which she then paraphrased into English text: Yo escogí esta fotografía por que se
conecta al trabajo de mi mamá. Ella trabaja en un restaurante donde ella nos provee con los
recursos necesarios. Ella trabaja muy duro y por esa razón yo la quiero mucho.
Interestingly, the Spanish oral translation differed from the English text (Figure 2). In Spanish,
she stated she loves her mother (yo la quiero mucho), wherein in English, she wrote, “I appreciate
her hard work.” Her Spanish message conveyed affection directly toward her mother, a possible
audience for this recording, wherein her English text conveyed a more general description of her
feelings toward her mother’s work, possibly to English-speaking classmates, whom she identified
as “other people.”
FIGURE 2 Megan’s use of Spanish voice recording and English text to

engage multiple audiences.
In this same slide, Megan included an image of a pupusa, a Salvadorean food served in the
restaurant where her mother works. Megan used the image to show her classmates and teacher
a restaurant that “is very famous” while simultaneously expressing to them through the written
text the challenges her mother faced providing for her. This meshing of languages and images
allowed her to engage her Spanish-speaking mother and English-speaking classmates and teacher,
which reflects Creese and Blackledge’s (2010) findings that translanguaging practices facilitate
“transmitting information” by incorporating the linguistic competencies of interlocutors. Megan
meshed images, texts, and English and Spanish oral recordings to convey to multiple audiences
her love for her mother, the pride she has in her Salvadorean heritage, and the challenges inherent
in her mother’s work.
It is important to note that the audience for the multimodal projects was also at times personal
for students. In a sense, the composers were their own audiences; by interviewing their “everyday
heroes,” students sought to learn new things about their own cultural histories. Sandra’s project
focused on her mother, who was abandoned by Sandra’s father and left to raise three young
children. In her interview, Sandra explained that a driving goal for her project was to “find out
why [her] dad left.” Beyond sharing her mother’s story and representing herself, Sandra also
experienced an introspective journey.
The digital and multimodal nature of the “hero” project allowed students to compose for
an audience beyond their teacher—and often multiple audiences simultaneously. Rhetorical
decisions regarding language—including when and how to use English and their heritage
languages—in combination with visual, textual, and aural modes were often described in rela-
tion to these audience experiences. Students’ design decisions reflect a strategic use of linguistic
resources in the compositional process that Canagarajah (2013) identifies as entextualization; stu-
dents were able to successfully “monitor and manage” these resources in their compositions to
engage specific and multiple audiences (p. 84).
Conveying Multidimensional and Nuanced Meanings
Along with composing for multiple audiences, students also leveraged the open and flex-
ible nature of their projects to construct multidimensional meanings. They meshed modes
and languages for different rhetorical purposes, which ranged from conveying subtle nuances
in meaning—similar to how an individual might use a Spanish word that best represents
an idea when speaking in English when communicating with another bilingual individual
(Martínez, 2010)—to choosing visual and aural modes to “connect” to broader themes, emotions,
experiences, and identities.
Many times the combination of multiple languages and modes explained, intensified, or
extended textual descriptions to create a multidimensional message on a PowerPoint slide. For
example, Megan spoke about the need to use a religious image of Jesus being placed in a tomb to
reflect her mother’s strength when she buried a younger brother in El Salvador. In Megan’s words,
the image helped her express something personal because “You see a connection, that puts your
mind in, I don’t know . . . an image says something, some kind of meaning, a relationship.” For
Megan, including this image helped her express a particular relationship between her mother and
her uncle that was not evident in the text that she included on this same slide. These purposeful
meshings of modes—whether detected or not from an outsider—enriched portions of students’
projects to make them more personal and meaningful to the student, thus adding an affective layer
to textual descriptions.
Students also included images to represent undergirding themes in their hero’s journey that
were not explicitly described in their writing or voice recording. This meshing was seen through-
out Megan’s project where she included images to represent themes like “innocence” and “faith.”
In one example, she included the national bird of El Salvador, to simultaneously represent her
cultural heritage and “hope” to not “not stay” but fly to a “bigger population”—a thematic con-
nection to her mother’s journey to America. Across interviews, students explained similar ways
of using images to represent themes of heroism not present in their writing.
Students also described integrating images, colors, and songs to convey meanings about their
heroes. Some of these examples were quite literal, with students scanning and inserting pho-
tographs of the relatives they described. Sandra explained that she included an image of her father
“because it connects.” She said, “I wanted them [the audience] to know who left and wanted them
to have the idea in their head of what he looked like.” Other uses of multiple modes were more
subtle and personal, as students expressed their heroes’ personalities or fond memories about
these heroes. Sandra made detailed decisions about color and design to represent her mother: “I
wanted to incorporate my mom’s personality into the PowerPoint, so her favorite color is purple.
That’s why I chose this color.” Megan explained that she inserted a clip of cumbia music, a pop-
ular genre in El Salvador, because her mom loves that music and it “brings [her] so many happy
memories” of dancing with her relatives.
Similarly, students meshed modes and languages to convey meanings about their own identi-
ties. In Jonul’s presentation, for example, the title page of his presentation included his father’s
name as part of the title of his presentation. Jonul reported that he chose this font and layout
because he “went to Kurdistan last summer and they had newspapers with this type of font, yeah,
like the design, and I was like, oh yeah, that’s nice.” While the text is written in English, it is
meshed with a Kurdish font. This design choice allowed Jonul to convey an English-language
message while subtly communicating an aspect of his Kurdish identity.
Similarly, his choice of a picture of a map of the United States conveyed not only part of
his father’s immigration history but also part of Jonul’s experiences traveling to Kurdistan (see
Figure 3).
While other images of the United States were readily available and accessible, Jonul
purposefully chose this image for his composition, stating:
I use this picture because it like brings it out and it looks nice, because like when you’re in the plane
over a city you can actually see the lights and stuff, like, oh yeah, it reminded me of Kurdistan when
we fly into Turkey the city was all lighted up.
Thus, while the image is of the United States, it is meshed with imagery that Jonul experienced
in Kurdistan, again conveying a subtle message about Jonul’s transnational identity.
Analysis of students’ multimodal projects and design interviews revealed that they layered
textual, visual, and aural modes to convey multidimensional and nuanced meanings. All stu-
dents described using these modes to create meanings that “connected” both their audience and
themselves to their personal heroes.
FIGURE 3 Jonul’s use of image to express his transational identity.
(Re)Voicing the Subject
Students meshed their multilingual and multimodal resources to represent the subject of
their interviews and also to simultaneously control how these representations were expressed.
Canagarajah (2012) suggests that authors use an envoicing strategy to encode their identities
into text. We suggest that students used a revoicing strategy to encode not only their own iden-
tities in texts but also those of their interviewees. Students leveraged textual, aural, and visual
resources to articulate aspects of their interviewees’ identities. At the same time, students used
these modalities to agentively control how their heroes’ identities were presented to possible
audiences. Whereas students wanted to “give voice” to their subjects and their subjects’ experi-
ences through using language and modalities, they used revoicing strategies to convey the most
salient features of these experiences. Across cases, students did this primarily when translating
their hero’s story into English and when visually depicting their subjects’ home countries.
A prevalent mode in which all students articulated their hero’s story was through including
segments of interviews they conducted with them in their heritage language. Sandra included a
recording of her Vietnamese interview that outlined her mother’s views on what it means to be
a hero. However, Sandra also included a written paraphrase of this interview in English on the
same slide (see Figure 4 with translation of Vietnamese).
This paraphrase is not a word-for-word translation, and Sandra explained she wanted to make
the translation “sound better” through her revisions:
My mom doesn’t really use the proper grammar when she talks, and so her sentences are really short
and they kinda say the same thing over and over again. I just like mashed those [sentences] together,
but yet to make it exactly what she says.
FIGURE 4 Sandra’s strategic use of translation to revoice the subject.
Sandra gave voice to her mother by including her Vietnamese speech but also controlled how
an English-speaking audience received this message by editing out repetitions and run-on sen-
tences in the English translation. She struggled with the design decision of making her language
aesthetically pleasing to her audience while still having the text represent “exactly what she says.”
Through meshing her mother’s speech and an English paraphrase, Sandra achieved this goal by
simultaneously giving voice to her subject and then revoicing this subject for her audience.
Whereas Sandra chose to exclude words when translating her mother’s Vietnamese into
English, Jonul chose to include English words that supplied additional meanings to revoice his
subject. On a single slide, Jonul included a paraphrase of a segment of his interview, writing
that his father “was born in Kurdistan” in Bahdini. Jonul also included a translation of this text
into English, stating his father “was born in Zaxo, a small city in Kurdistan.” Jonul gave voice
to his father’s experience by including his words directly in Bahdini but then revoiced these
words to make their meaning accessible to audiences not familiar with Bahdini or geography
in Kurdistan. Sandra and Jonul’s meshing of multiple languages on the same slide expressed
a rhetorical awareness, or “the ability to assess the situation and frame one’s language accord-
ingly” (Canagarajah, 2011, p. 404) in that they were able to balance the linguistic competencies
and possible sensibilities of their audience with their desire to accurately reflect their subjects.
Students also used the multimodal project as a space to visually revoice their home countries
and combat any negative perceptions a viewer might possess. In telling the story of their heroes
who came from countries with historical conflicts with the United States—including Vietnam,
Iraq, and Afghanistan—students sought to show a different side of their homes. For example,
Sandra included several “beautiful” images of her mother’s hometown, as well as images of
places she had visited on a recent trip to Vietnam with her family. On one slide she collaged five
images depicting a water park from that area. Sandra explained why she chose those images:
I think all people remember about Vietnam is the war, but that’s not it. Like this water park, it’s so
pretty. It’s ten times better than ours. And it’s so big and it’s so colorful and the water. Look at the
water. Look at the color of it. I mean, come on! And I just wanted to show off its beauty in some way.
Similarly, Valerie challenged assumptions about Afghanistan as a war-torn country by includ-

ing pictures of a peaceful village similar to the one in which her father was raised (see Figure 5).
We asked her why she chose this picture and she told us:
Every time I searched for Afghanistan it’s always showing military tanks and people dying and it’s
really not like that. . . . There are also fun parts too. There are buildings and cities and bridges and
then there is the war part. They just don’t show the good stuff. . . . I want them to know that we’re
not just those poor people halfway across the world who are accused of blowing up the Twin Towers.
We’re not that. We’re fun and we do stuff.
Valerie contested dominant discourses about her father’s birthplace by strategically including
peaceful images. This composition decision was consistent with our observations of students
carefully crafting their hero’s story through the use of multiple modes and languages. They voiced
and revoiced their subjects for multiple and multilingual audiences when translating by excluding
and including information and chose images that they thought authentically represented their
home countries.
FIGURE 5 Valerie challenging dominant discourses about Afghanistan

through image.
CONCLUSION: A TRANSLANGUAGING SPACE IN THE CLASSROOM
We found that multimodal codemeshing pedagogies offered students of varying degrees of pro-
ficiency in English and their heritage language the opportunity to communicate messages to
multiple audiences, convey multidimensional and nuanced meanings, and give voice to often
unheard voices in the classroom. In doing so, students leveraged and meshed multiple semiotic
resources to not only connect multiple audiences to the distinct experiences of their subjects
but also to connect their own identities to these experiences. While our analysis focused on the
communicative functions in students’ compositions, it is important to also note the more global
functions associated with multimodal codemeshing that extend beyond students’ digital products.
Wei (2011) argues that translanguaging practices must be understood as performative, where
the act of translanguaging creates a social space for the multilingual language user in which
different identities, values, and practices don’t simply coexist but “combine together to create
new identities, values and practices” (p. 1223). We argue that students created a translanguaging
space through their use of language, as well as through their use of music, images, and other
design choices. We emphasize that the multimodal nature of students’ compositions also afforded
students the opportunity to create a transnational space, where students’ composition practices
indexed an intersection, and movement across, local and global contexts as well as students’
transnational affiliations (Lam & Warriner, 2012).
In this new translanguaging and transnational space, for example, Sandra reported that she
used Vietnamese in her presentation to show her peers that her language “wasn’t funny” but
was a tool for completing academic tasks. Whereas she previously felt embarrassed to speak
Vietnamese in front of her classmates, she used her composition as a means to record her voice
in Vietnamese for an authentic and empowering classroom purpose. In doing so, she shaped her
heritage language as a tool for communication in the classroom and simultaneously shaped this
classroom as a translanguaging space, thus underscoring Gutiérrez et al.’s (1999) argument that
hybridity in the classroom can inform new tools for production and new sets of knowledge.
Similarly, while our analysis focused primarily on students’ products, it is important to note
the ways in which students moved across languages during the composition process. Along with
interviewing family members and accessing Web sites when researching information for their
compositions, we observed students drafting texts in their heritage language before composing
messages in English and consulting with classmates in multiple languages when composing.
If multimodal codemeshing is to be further incorporated into literacy instruction, more research
must explore the productive ways that students make use of their heritage languages in recursive
composing processes, such as the planning and drafting phases of composition.
Despite these possible affordances for compositional processes and products identified in our
analysis, Lee (2014) warns that we cannot romanticize the potential of codemeshing as a peda-
gogical tool. She notes that monolingual language ideologies can still push students and teachers
toward viewing competency in writing as a competency in writing a standardized English associ-
ated with “economic and social power” (p. 326). Similarly, while our analysis might suggest that
students’ multimodal codemeshing is a “fluid” and “normal” practice (Horner et al., 2011; Lee,
2014), we argue that the movement across languages in composition is a cognitively and socially
complex task that requires a sophisticated awareness of audience, subject, and the semiotic tools
used in communication. As Canagarajah (2006) has insisted, “codemeshing demands more, not
less, from minority students” (p. 598). Educators and students must be aware of these social,
linguistic, and ideological challenges inherent in multimodal codemeshing.
Multimodal codemeshing involves students’ use and mixing of multiple semiotic resources
in compositions to negotiate meanings with imagined and actual audiences. We conclude that
this translanguaging practice, like all practices, can be honed through instruction. Canagarajah
(2013) argues that this instruction is most effective when it builds on students’ existing practices
as multilingual communicators (p. 63). Conversations with students about their design choices
offer one avenue for promoting students’ awareness of their design choices, and peer review of
presentations allows students to evaluate the effect of their presentations on different audiences
(Dalton, 2012/2013). As students become more aware of the affordances of meshing of modalities
and languages, they can then add this awareness to their meaning-making tool kit for future
compositions. Juxtaposing a map of Vietnam next to a recording in Vietnamese about where the
interviewee was born, for example, might provide an entry point for an Anglophone reader into a
classmate’s composition. This type of instruction reflects the possibility of developing students’
awareness of the communicative potential in meshing various modes and languages, as well as
their awareness of how to negotiate meaning with actual and imagined readers.
We concur with Hornberger and Link (2012) that the inclusion of translanguaging practices
in classrooms is not just desirable but necessary for promoting student achievement in that suc-
cessful participation in multimodal codemeshing is a type of student achievement in and of itself.
As students learn the communicative affordances of meshing images and sound or the affordances
of including a phrase in Spanish alongside a voice recording in English, they can develop impor-
tant understandings about how to represent content material and to communicate messages to
multiple audiences. As 21st-century literacies demand that students use technology and digital
media to “strategically and capably respond to the varying demands of audience, task, purpose
and discipline” (Common Core State Standards Initiative [CCSS], 2010), it is vital that educators
come to understand and hone students’ multimodal codemeshing in the classroom.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the teacher and students who participated in this study.
REFERENCES
Ajayi, L. (2009). English as a second language learners’ exploration of multimodal texts in a junior high school. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(7), 585–595. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.7.4
Bailey, N. M. (2009). “It makes it more real”: Teaching new literacies in a secondary English classroom. English
Education, 41(3), 207–234.
Black, R. W. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(2), 170–184.
Black, R. W. (2009). Online fanfiction, global identities, and imagination. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4),
397–425.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition
and Communication, 57, 586–619.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2012). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1),
40.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The
Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. doi:10.1111/modl.2011.95.issue-3
Chandler-Olcott, K., & Mahar, D. (2003). “Tech-savviness” meets multiliteracies: Exploring adolescent girls’ technology-
mediated literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 356–385. doi:10.1598/RRQ.38.3.3
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & liter-
acy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/
CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
Coyoca, A. M., & Lee, J. S. (2009). A typology of language-brokering events in dual-language immersion classrooms.
Bilingual Research Journal, 32, 260–279. doi:10.1080/15235880903372837

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching?
The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115. doi:10.1111/modl.2010.94.issue-1
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classarooms. Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240.
Dalton, B. (2012/2013). Multimodal composition and the common core state standards. The Reading Teacher, 66(4),
333–339. doi:10.1002/trtr.2012.66.issue-4
Dalton, B., Robinson, K., Lavvorn, J., Smith, B. E., Alvey, T., Mo, E. . . . Proctor, C. P. (2015). Fifth-grade stu-
dents’ multimodal compositions: Modal use and design intentionality. Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 548–569.
doi:10.1086/681969
Dalton, B., & Smith, B. E. (2012, December). “It sounds all dramatic like in a movie”: Two middle school males collab-
oratively design a multimodal digital folktale. Paper presented at the 62nd annual meeting of the Literacy Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: Global perspectives. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English
language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. The
Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400. doi:10.1111/modl.2011.95.issue-3
Garcia, O., & Wei., L. (2014). Translanguaging: Implications for language, bilingualism, and education. Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Pivot.
Greitens, E. (2012). The warrior’s heart: Becoming a man of compassion and courage. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language
practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303. doi:10.1080/10749039909524733
Hafner, C. A. (2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching: Students’ digital video projects as
multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 655–685. doi:10.1002/tesq.138
Hinrichs, L., & White-Sustaíta, J. (2011). Global Englishes and the sociolinguistics of spelling: A study of Jamaican blog
and email writing. English World-Wide: A Journal of Varieties of English, 32(1), 46–73. doi:10.1075/eww.32.1
Honeyford, M. A. (2014). From aquí and allá: Symbolic convergence in the multimodal literacy practices of adolescent
immigrant students. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 194–233. doi:10.1177/1086296X14534180
Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms:
A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 261–278. doi:10.1080/
13670050.2012.658016
Horner, B., Lu, M. Z., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach.
College English, 73(3), 303–321.
Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, “reading”, and “writing” for the 21st Century. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics
of education, 26(3), 315–331.
Jewitt, C. (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jiménez, R. T., David, S., Fagan, K., Risko, V., Pacheco, M., Pray, L., & Gonzales, M. (2015). Using translation to drive
conceptual development for students becoming literate in English as an additional language. Research in the Teaching
of English, 49(3), 248–271.
Kinloch, V. (2009). Literacy, community, and youth acts of place-making. English Education, 41(4), 316–336.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media qge. London, England: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media for contemporary communication.
London, England: Edward Arnold.
Lam, W. S. E. (2013). Multilingual practices in transnational digital contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 820–825.
doi:10.1002/tesq.132
Lam, W. S. E., & Warriner, D. S. (2012). Transnationalism and literacy: Investigating the mobility of people, languages,
texts, and practices in contexts of migration. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 191–215.
Lee, M. E. (2014). Shifting to the world Englishes paradigm by way of the translingual approach: Code-meshing as a nec-
essary means of transforming composition pedagogy. TESOL Journal, 5(2), 312–329. doi:10.1002/tesj.2014.5.issue-2
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Martínez, R. A. (2010). Spanglish” as literacy tool: Toward an understanding of the potential role of Spanish-English
code-switching in the development of academic literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 124–149.
Michael-Luna, S., & Canagarajah, S. (2008). Multilingual academic literacies: Pedagogical foundations for code meshing
in primary and higher education. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 55–77. doi:10.1558/japl.v4i1.55
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA). (2010) The growing numbers of English learner
students: 1997/98–2007–08. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/9/growingLEP_0708.pdf.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66,
60–93. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Pacheco, M. B., David, S., & Jiménez, R. T. (2015). Translating pedagogies: Leveraging students’ heritage languages in
the literacy classroom. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(1), 49–63.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London, England: Routledge.
Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, P. (1999). The study of transnationalism: pitfalls and promise of an emergent
research field. Ethnic and racial studies, 22(2), 217–237.
Rowe, D. W., Miller, M. E., & Pacheco, M. B. (2014). Preschoolers as digital designers: Composing dual language
eBooks. In R. S. Anderson & C. Mims (Eds.), Handbook of research on digital tools for writing instruction in K-
12 settings (pp. 279–306). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Sebba, M. (2012). Multilingualism in written discourse: An approach to the analysis of multilingual texts. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 17(1), 97–118. doi:1367006912438301
Skinner, E. N., & Hagood, M. C. (2008). Developing literate identities with English language learners through digital
storytelling. The Reading Matrix, 8(2), 12–36.
Smith, B. E. (2013). Composing across modes: Urban adolescents’ processes responding to and analyzing literature.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Smythe, S., & Neufeld, P. (2010). “Podcast time”: Negotiating digital literacies and communities of learning in a middle
years ELL classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(6), 488–496. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.6.5
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded
theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources
of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 55–76.
Valdés, G. (1992). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing toward professionwide responses to a new
challenge. Written Communication, 9(1), 85–136. doi:10.1177/0741088392009001003
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
Vasudevan, L. (2006). Making known differently: Engaging visual modalities as spaces to author new selves. E-Learning
and Digital Media, 3(2), 207–216.
Velasco, P., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal,
37(1), 6–23. doi:10.1080/15235882.2014.893270
Walsh, C. S. (2009). The multi-modal redesign of school texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 126–136.
doi:10.1111/jrir.2009.32.issue-1
Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese
youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035
Yi, Y., & Hirvela, A. (2010). Technology and “self-sponsored” writing: A case study of a Korean-American adolescent.
Computers and Communication, 27, 94–111.
Zapata, A. (2014). Examining the multimodal and multilingual composition resources of young Latino picturebook mak-
ers. In L. B. Dunston, S. K. Gambrell, V. R. Fullerton, K. H. Gillis, & P. M. Stecker (Eds), 62nd yearbook of the
Literacy Research Association (pp. 76–93). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.
View publication stats

Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Across Languages, Modes, and Identities: Bilingual Adolescents’ Multimodal

Article in Bilingual Research Journal · September 2015

Mark B. Pacheco Blaine E Smith

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 1523-5882 (Print) 1523-5890 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ubrj20

Across Languages, Modes, and Identities: Bilingual

Mark B. Pacheco & Blaine E. Smith

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2015.1091051

Published online: 15 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [Mark Pacheco] Date: 15 December 2015, At: 14:24

Across Languages, Modes, and Identities: Bilingual

Mark B. Pacheco is affiliated with Peabody College at Vanderbilt University.

composition. As classrooms increasingly integrate an expanded view of literacy and educators

TRANSLANGUAGING AND CODEMESHING IN THE CLASSROOM

Theories of translanguaging treat an individual’s multiple languages as part of a single integrated

MULTIMODAL CODEMESHING: A TRANSLINGUAL AND MULTIMODAL STUDY

1. How do students mesh languages and multiple modes in digital compositions?

The Site and Students

Valerie 14 female Pashto/Afghanistan Intermediate/Advanced USA

“My Hero” Multimodal Project

A variety of data was collected to construct a multidimensional understanding of students’

We employed comparative case study methods (Stake, 2006) to glean a fine-grained

relating their design insights to specific modal usages in their products.

Multimodal Codemeshing Forms

Meshing Audio Recordings

FIGURE 1 Megan’s meshing of images with text for a PowerPoint slide

Multimodal Codemeshing Functions

Students used multimodal codemeshing to engage multiple audiences, convey multidimensional

Engaging Multiple Audiences

FIGURE 2 Megan’s use of Spanish voice recording and English text to

Conveying Multidimensional and Nuanced Meanings

FIGURE 3 Jonul’s use of image to express his transational identity.

(Re)Voicing the Subject

FIGURE 4 Sandra’s strategic use of translation to revoice the subject.

Similarly, Valerie challenged assumptions about Afghanistan as a war-torn country by includ-

FIGURE 5 Valerie challenging dominant discourses about Afghanistan

CONCLUSION: A TRANSLANGUAGING SPACE IN THE CLASSROOM

Bilingual Research Journal, 32, 260–279. doi:10.1080/15235880903372837

View publication stats

You might also like