I am absolutely fascinated by Canagrajah's article. He makes so many convincing arguments about the value of language diversity. It is also inspiring to think of the possibilities code meshing can open up for students so that they can resist and change dominant structures that might be holding them back or blocking their voice. However, I think that asking students to be subversive in their writing can also be risky. I think that it is great for teachers to offer a space in which students can code mesh and to hold up examples of successful instances of codemeshing. But this should be an invitation rather than a requirement because this sort of writing requires a lot of bravery. I think teachers have to acknowledge that within the best intentions of "giving" students a voice, there is the risk of rejection within the academic community.
I was also excited to see code meshing discussed in the context of an early childhood classroom because much of the research that I have read focuses on code switching in a way that often deems children's home languages as inappropriate for school. The Michael-Luna article sent me searching for other work on codemeshing at the primary level, but I didn't find much else. According to Google Scholar, the article has only been cited once. I'm a little confused about why this issue isn't being picked up by literacy scholars to a greater extent. If anyone knows of any other work on code meshing, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment