Perhaps it comes as a surprise to start this overview of an Open Educational Resource by challenging the general assumptions in the field. In this paper, we join critical scholars who highlight silent structural conditions of the monolingual framing of “language” in teaching and learning, and of monomodal pedagogies. Though sociolinguists and applied linguists acknowledge variation in language, it has become a norm in multilingual countries that one named language, usually a dominant European language, is chosen as a medium of instruction, even though it is not spoken by many students, or within their families and their communities (Taylor-Leech & Benson, 2017). Nation state ideologies of one language, one nation (Alexander, 1989 & Makalela, 2015) are very much alive and strong in multilingual countries of the Global South, as a result of internalised coloniality. Maldonardo-Torres (2007:243) defines coloniality as that which ‘survives colonialism,’ long after colonialism has ended. In postcolonial states, one named language is not only expected to be used for teaching and learning but it has also to be used in its standard and pure form. This monolingual and monoglossic ideology or ‘oneness’ (Makalela, 2015a) in multilingual societies raises issues of social justice and has a potential to exclude and discriminate against those who are either unable or unwilling to fit the monoglot standard and to advantage those whose language is taken as the legitimate one.

These silent structural conditions in turn normalize the presence of hegemonic languages as preferable and eligible for “academic literacy” skills in Higher Education. Thus, anglonormativity, the expectation that students should be proficient in English and the idea that they are somehow deficient if they are not (McKinney, 2017:80), is prevalent in British colonies in the Global South. This linguistic apscet of the colonial matrix of power (Quijano, 2000) is often linked to the elite, racialised register of English, which Benor (2010) refers to as ‘ethnolinguistic repertoire’ of whiteness. Similar practices are experienced in countries that were colonised by the French and Portuguese, Belgians and Germans. Building on McKinney’s term, Anglonormativity, Guzula & Tyler (in press) have coined the term ‘Kolonilingo-normativity’ (derived from ‘colony’ and ‘lingua’) to describe the normalised expectation that indigenous people must be proficient in colonial languages in former colonies in the Global South.

When monoglossic (use of one single named language in its pure standardized form),anglonormative and monomodal ideologies shaping our pedagogic practices coalesce, many students struggle. A mode includes image, sound, writing, gesture, the body, speech, movement and is the name for the semiotic resources that are culturally and socially fashioned for meaning making (Jewitt and Kress, 2003). We talk of multimodality or multimodal pedagogies when different modes are combined to enhance meaning making (Newfield, 2011). Thus, monomodal, monoglossic and Anglonormative ideologies in Higher Education institutions of the Global South prevent academics from drawing on students’ primary languages and other culturally relevant semiotic resources in academic literacy classes. Hence, when students do not cope, they are positioned as deficient and in need of academic support.

Further, this epistemological violence of the colonial matrix of power excludes emotion and affect as embodied knowledge (Ahmed 2004) and renders embodied experiences as extractable raw material for knowledge by “dehumanizing colonized people through racialization” (Veronelli 2015: 119). In addition to our sociolinguistic and applied linguistics conceptual framing, our work also follows South African Black Consciousness psychologist Chabani Manganyi as read by Professor of Psychology Derek Hook in the chapter entitled “Racial ontologizing through the body”. Hook draws from Frantz Fanon’s “disturbed dialectic between the body and the world” and broadens Manganyi’s analysis of how white supremacist thinking devalues embodied knowledge. Emotion and affect are rendered invalid and relegated as “imposed embodiment” to the “excess physicality to Black subjects” (Hook, 2022:114). Thus, forms of embodied knowledge are evacuated from the realm of legitimate academic thought (ibid.), leaving students in a state of being zombified (their vitality and agency being taken away) (Mbembe, 1992). Our contribution highlights how the habitus of a monolingual standardized language as bodily disposition (Bourdieu 1991:86) and monomodality exclude indigenous thinking and casts it as invalid. It reclaims and accesses multilingual, multimodal and embodied languaging as multiliteracies (Cope and Kalantzis, 2000). This point is illustrated by providing two divergent examples of teaching practices, one based on multilingual literacies and multimodal learning that build on and encourage sensorial, affective sensations. It is presented in contrast to the resources based on monomodal, written verbal instruction. Therefore, our contribution aims to reclaim multimodal, trans-semiotic and translingual communication for pedagogies as these facilitate access to embodied knowledge.

In the current research, we observe fragmentation of approaches that hardly speak to each other and compartmentalize the role of primary language in training “academic literacy”. While sociolinguistics and applied linguistics scholars have addressed the “myth of linguistic homogeneity” in various contexts before (Matsuda 2006), most scholars in the Global North speak from the position of a linguistic minority or of plurilingual language training. In South Africa, as in many postcolonial contexts in the Global South, African language speaking students translanguage in order to learn. Translanguaging is an act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages’ (Garcia, 2009). They draw on the linguistic resources that exist in their repertoires to make meaning. The linguistic repertoire is a bundle of all the linguistic resources that a person has (Busch, 2010). However, their translanguaging practices are undermined as the students who tranlanguage are seen as semilingual (not good at either primary language or secondary language) or languageless (Rosa, 2016). Thus, multilingual students or, in some cases, first-language speaker majorities face the need of “Decolonising the Mind” (wa Thiong’o 1986) or of additional labour of writing to claim a presence in language policies, models of teaching and learning and the academic writing class (Motlhaka and Makalela 2016) so as to affirm their reality as translingual speakers/writers (Canagarajah 2020).

In this short framing introduction, we challenge the current underlying teaching philosophies in “academic literacy” programmes of Higher Education in English for Academic Purposes (EAP), Extended Degree Programmes, ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) that includes both EFL (English as a Foreign Language) and ESL (English as a Second Language). While remaining aware of different needs and conflicts in different contexts, this OER is based on work by allies in the field who argue that composition and rhetoric studies need to delink from “falsely universalized notions of rhetoric that have accompanied Western Modernity” and instead to “offer examples of this delinking in action through detailed work” (Ruiz & Sanchez 2016: xiv). Delinking is a new way of orienting the mind that cuts ties with Western Modernity and its universalising perspectives (Mignolo. 2007). At the same time, this resource remains aware of the need to accommodate institutional required distinctions such as Writing in the Disciplines (WID) or Writing Across the Disciplines (WAD) or giving access to valued forms of language and knowledges (Janks, 2010) and will offer further related literature in the appendix.

^[1] Based on Gee’s (2002) distinction between “primary” and “secondary” discourse.

Educators across the globe face different points of departure when using English as a language of teaching and learning. Moving beyond the veil of this alleged academic “lingua franca” and instead of limiting this resource to quick fixes or recommendations in the framework of “second-language tuition,” our contribution focuses on the importance of studying the context first. For educators, the social context of the local linguistic dispensation, forms of schooling, or social attitudes that share the real-life languaging practices of students can be inaccessible or may not be openly addressed by students who fear being marginalized for drawing on their linguistic repertoires. We don’t need to remind educators about the central position of affect in processes of languaging and learning. According to education theorist and psychologist Lev Vygotsky:

“Thought is not begotten by thought; it is engendered by emotion, i.e., by our desires and needs, our interests and emotions. Behind every thought there is an affective-volitional tendency, which holds the answer to the last "why" in the analysis of thinking” (1986: 252).

With this in mind, we believe that it is important for educators to make themselves acquainted not only with intricate details about the use of languages in the curriculum and language policies, but also about the lived forms of languaging or “Englishing” in students. In this OER, we emphasize the need to conscientize around the social context of schooling languages in non-English countries. Depending on the context, the realities of “translanguaging” or “translingual composition” differ from various students’ real-life languaging experiences. For example, in European contexts, English language is taught as a plurilingual option (García and Wei 2018: 3), meaning it adds to an individual’s linguistic repertoire without replacing or marginalising their primary languages in schooling or Higher Education. In postcolonial contexts, however, it replaced students’ first languages to inhabit the double-nature of “language of knowledge” as well as “language of elites”. As a result, in contexts like South Africa, it is common for English to be seen as a marker of intelligence and literacy (Abdbulatief, Guzula & McKinney, 2021, Kapp, 2006).

While this OER is written in the context of South African Higher Education, we hope that it will be relevant for educators elsewhere. We are convinced that it is important to consider the social context, to take a step back and question familiar assumptions and silent premises around institutionalized forms of languaging across different indigenous multilingual speakers. Noam Chomsky (1986:4-6) also posits that language is an innate social capacity of humans and that children “learn” any language they are socialized in. Thus, linguists face the paradox of how children can form a complete grammar from the incomplete input of everyday languaging.

How could this be relevant for our discussion of English as a language of teaching and learning in the multilingual classroom? Educators in the Global South work in the context of a hegemonically established disregard of first/primary languages or indigenous multilingualisms in the classroom (García et al 2021), where educational and pedagogical frameworks are steeped in neo-colonial attitudes. We argue that it is a fundamental necessity to first reflect on these factors before embarking into a debate around the use of translanguaging in Higher Education. In other words, apart from the language of academic disciplines, each specific institutional, regional and national context differs with regards to historic and socio-linguistic context. We want therefore to challenge SOTL scholars and researchers to reflect on the complex dispensation of students facing Use Of English (UOE) in the context of specific HEIs (Makalela 2015) and to add their own research in and experiences with translanguaging in the classroom and languages of teaching and learning.

We find it important to raise these points before providing an overview of the field because, in the context of ESOL at South African HEIs, scholars have been cautioning against the use of first languages, which at times are called “vernacular” in South Africa, in the classroom (Boughey & McKenna 2021). Our contention is that if students need to become proficient in English as an academic language, also known as Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins 1979), they also need to be proficient speakers of the natural language of English, i.e. acquire Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS).

Perhaps this is tied to one of the more neglected distinctions that we ask to become aware of when it comes to “literacy” in general, or “academic literacy”. Studies of languages of teaching and learning are dominated by discourse from contexts where the local (or “national”) language is the language of knowledge. In European context, for example, the debate around ESL or EAP is part of a plurilingual practice where students learn “other” languages (i.e. European languages) in secondary school as “additional” and thus as optional knowledge (García and Wei 2018: 3). In most cases of European HEIs, English is introduced only at the tertiary level. Students have acquired “academic literacy” in their first language and then continue to compose papers and conference presentations in English languages as part of their “academic literacy” that is based on self-translation. Thus, scholars will be able to converse in the English academic discourse independently from the everyday use of English. In the context of South Africa, as in other postcolonial linguistic contexts, it is important to be aware of this distinction, because in these countries English has come to replace first languages not as the language of majority but as the dominant language, which minoritizes majority languages (Bourdieu, 1977). Thus, we observe coloniality of language (Veronelli 2015) in many HEIs, expressed through Kolonilingo-normativity (Guzula & Tyler, in press; Guzula & Abdulatief, 2021), where colonial languages (both English and Afrikaans in SA and French and Portuguese in other African countries) continue to be normative. In South African HEIs, specifically, Anglonormativity (McKinney, 2017:80) is very strong.

As a result of the Anglonormative ideology, the established teaching and learning approach in many South African HEIs is that English is the sole medium of instruction, except in historically white Afrikaans institutions where the policy promotes dual medium instruction in Afrikaans-English. Thus, we have single-medium universities where many African language-speaking multilinguals attend, teaching in English and dual medium universities teaching in English and Afrikaans. This means that many students from diverse linguistic backgrounds have to learn in English mainly, even if they are not highly proficient in the medium of instruction in both contexts. The system thus benefits many white English and Afrikaans students for whom these languages are home languages and some black students who have had the privilege of attending former white English schools from childhood (Guzula 2022). It disadvantages many African language multilingual students who have had to learn in English from grade 4, even though English is not their home language.

Thus, teaching, learning, assessment and tutorials in HEIs are mostly done in English. Presentational talk in lecture format, accompanied by PowerPoint presentations, lecture notes and English textbooks or articles is the dominant approach, while assessment is mostly writing- and reading-based, with written feedback from lecturers also given in English. Major assignments, especially in undergraduate studies, are individualised and require both independent reading and writing. The academic register is expected in both oral and written work and thus, dialogue, interactional, and exploratory talk tend to be missing in many lectures (Barnes, 1992, Gibbons, 2009) where the students do not have confidence in the spoken English. This is because in many rural and township schools that majority African language-speaking students attend, students learn the Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) before the Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) (Cummins, 1979). They can read and write English but may struggle to conceptualise or express themselves confidently in oral discourse. Until recently, the use of African languages as resources for teaching and learning has not been encouraged and, as such, many students remain silenced. Alexander (2003) argues that “those who were advantaged before the fall of apartheid, are still advantaged after the fall of apartheid”.

The consequence of such an Anglonormative practice is that throughput rates are low, as students do not finish their degrees in record time. Students from diverse linguistic backgrounds are viewed to be lacking English literacies and as struggling with academic literacies. The result has been remedial academic writing courses variously known as English for Academic Purposes, English Academic Studies or ESOL. These are set up in various institutions to assist with students’ academic literacies and to deal with unexpressed assumptions about the students’ writing difficulties. Mona (2019) writes about instances such as Extended Degree Programmes, which are also viewed as stigmatising students from low socio-economic backgrounds who also happen to speak African languages. While these courses are needed by many students, including English home language speakers, deficit discourses about students from African language-speaking multilingual communities are strong.

Though bilingual approaches exist in dual medium Afrikaans/English universities, the response to them has been varied. English is either seen as dominating over Afrikaans, or English-speaking multilinguals reject the interpreting tools being used (Pather 2015) demanding English-only medium. In English university contexts, very few students have demanded use of African languages as additional mediums of instruction, except for a few cases during the #RhodesMustFall movement, where Noluvuyo Mjoli expressed the need for her work to be valued if she produces academic texts in isiZulu (2015). The rest of the work has been pilots, where academics have been experimenting with multilingual pedagogies (Abdulatief, Guzula, McKinney 2021; Hurst & Mona 2017; Ncube 2020).

While multimodal pedagogies are recognised in the arts, where students can submit art portfolios or perform their understandings, in many disciplines there is an overreliance on written language for assessment via academic essays. Multimodal communication and pedagogies in the form of oral, performative, gestural and visual literacies are limited, even though it is widely accepted that communication encompasses both written and non-written dimension (New London Group, 2000; Archer, 2015). Multilingual communication is also inclusive of multimodal, and multisensory communication. Courses such as mathematics, science, and history rely on the orchestration of different modes (Newfield, 2011), yet, many disciplines continue to value print literacies more than other multimodal literacies.

In what follows, we present two different sets of teaching materials which are highlighted by a different page colour. The conventional technique (blue) relies on the use of language as a mono-modal and monolingual resource. While students are provided with a detailed handout that introduces distinctions in core concepts, the tutorials are built on the silent assumption that students are able to manage the transfer of concepts known in the natural language to the academic discourse. The resource pack presented here introduces the distinction between opinion and argument a) solely relying on the transfer of knowledge based on the natural language, b) based on monolingual exploration of the concepts as well as c) in a monomodal way of exploration. As it relies solely on written information, lectures and tutorials will be unpacked in English without drawing on further modalities to explore relevant distinctions that are needed to explore these threshold concepts in detail. Instead, it is silently assumed that students will gain knowledge about the relevant application of concepts from their engagement with exercises and readings.

For example, tutors are instructed: “They [students] may make a thinking mistake and craft a thesis sentence that declares an observation rather than an argument.” However, without elaborating on the significance of the links between the theoretical discourse around relevant threshold concepts and their application, the teaching material moves on to task students to apply these skills when composing a “thesis statement.” While this technique shows how to introduce an intermediate step towards more complex definitions that follow in the process, the task of unpacking these concepts towards grasping the nuances of an academic argument remains difficult. The process silently relies on an understanding of how they are used in everyday language and in the academic field. As discussed above, students need to be proficient speakers of the natural language of English (BICS) before developing the academic requirement of cognitive proficiency (CALP) or at least develop these at the same time.

While this material is elaborate and instructive, it limits them to engage with first-year students in English only and thus shows how conventional teaching techniques restrict their engagement to the singular mode of printed and monolingual monomodal language. This presents significant obstacles when grappling with threshold concepts, where students could be given the opportunity to engage in translingual and multimodal discussion (exploratory mode) which could be followed by English-language interaction with peers and lecturers (presentational mode).

In contrast, the innovative teaching technique (orange) immerses PGCE students from the outset in a radically different relationality with fundamental habituated assumptions of the normalised practices of languaging: using different media, activating different modalities, and changing the relationality between speaking and writing. Students are introduced to how to challenge not only the monolingual and anglonormative bias through verbal instruction but also extending the lesson to include collaborative design and production of books. Further, by presenting the existing historical material, students were inspired to further explore how to introduce translanguaging across modalities in their classrooms. Many students in postcolonial contexts and from historically disadvantaged backgrounds have accepted the normalised raciolinguistic standard that relegates (non-European) first languages outside of the field of academic knowledge production, which renders them languageless (Rosa, 2016; Rosa & Flores 2017). We believe that it is essential to confront students with their own assumptions and aspirations with regards to how language is used in teaching and learning.

The teaching resource moves students outside of the expected modalities and processes of academic teaching and learning. By creating self-made books, new senses are activated in the process of learning. Drawing from decolonial semiotician Walter Mignolo and educator Rolando Vazquez’ practice of “decolonial aestheSis” (2013), students’ senses are re-oriented outside of the narrow verbal channel of printed and spoken words towards an embodied engagement with both the meta- and pre-linguistic realm. “Decolonial aestheSis” means to move outside of canonised standards of European “aesthetics” and instead to focus on processes of sensing and perceiving the world, to engage senses as well as emotions, beliefs, memories as relevant in sensing as knowing. This movement then de-centers education as consumable object towards student-centred, active learning as process (Gaztambide-Fernández 2013). Mignolo and Vazquez (2013) elaborate how the Greek idea of ‘aesthesis’ entered the discourse on Western aestheTics established by German philosophers Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten and Immanuel Kant, promoting Western ideas of beauty, culture and the sublime, as well as the idea of the individual genius artist. This colonial terminology is inscribed in teaching and learning discourse as well. In the interview “Decolonial Options and Artistic/AestheSic Entanglements”, Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Walter Mignolo elaborate further the difference between “aestheSis” which is “related to popular culture and popular arts, and ‘everyday aesthetic practices and the senses’” (Gaztambide-Fernández 2014: 201) – away from the European “modern aestheTics”, which “emerged from European experience and local history, and that became, even already in Kant’s work, the regulator of the global capability to ‘sense’ the beautiful and the sublime” (Mignolo and Vázquez 2013).

The juxtaposition of the following rather different resources aims at illustrating how decolonial aesthesis can be applied as a process of unlearning and critical questioning. We hope that the selected examples highlight the contrast between multimodal learning and instruction that is limited to the verbal channel. We intentionally chose resources from different fields to challenge the pedagogic imagination of lecturers across different ages and grades. Our contribution claims further that the task of creating a booklet from scratch can be a suitable assignment for students in a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) course as well as engineering students for different reasons. By creating a new publication, students’ awareness of paratextual elements is raised: title of publication, subtitle, publisher and place of publication, etc. Further, the process of using materials to create a booklet from scratch shifts the traditional framing of “academic literacy” that is limited to the verbal channel towards trans-semiotic and material aspects of literacy: questions of community, ecology, sustainability, diversity among others. US American scholar and feminist Alison Piepmeier argues that the holistic approach of Zine-making furthers the formation of epistemological communities: “Literacy, then, may be said to include not only textual competence but material competence, an ability to read the semiotics of the concrete forms that embody, shape, and condition the meanings of text” (2008:216). Other scholars explore how introducing Zine-making in the academic literacy class can become a pedagogical practice towards “learning traditional collegiate skills like scholarly research, database searching, close reading, critical thinking, applied methods, and analytic writing” (Scheper 2023:23). This Open Education Resource invites educators to rethink how to interweave usages and practices in media, materialities and languages with pedagogies. It goes without saying that this approach is not limited to Humanities students, but encourages lecturers across curricula and faculties to invite students to experience the open materiality of creating a Zine from scratch. While it might appear unfamiliar and unexpected, we are convinced that the physical experience of creating a booklet can make visible different levels in academic writing (and publishing) that are taken for granted. This experience might increase in significance as students get increasingly used not only to digital publications but also to texts generated by machine learning. While digital tools and algorithms facilitate access to research results and references, we are convinced that students need to remain aware of the bricks-and-mortar of writing and publishing. This includes unexpressed premises and silent assumptions behind the very form of the printed publication. Further, allowing students to access and to reflect on the physical realities of a publication can generate critical reflections on the contemporary context of information disorder. Thus, we hope this OER contribution will inspire lecturers to try out new writing-rich pedagogical practices that will assist students to understand and respond to the rigorous demands of academic publications across disciplines, languages and discourses.

To summarize, our contribution aims to argue that an Open Educational Resource that is based in the Global South should not only question how primary languages and competences of students are activated – through translanguaging and embodied pedagogies – but also to make available to all students across the spectrum of cognitive and bodily abilities a trans-semiotic and multimodal repertoire that will allow them to explore different avenues of meaning-making. We hope that the real-life teaching material from our academic practice presented below supports this claim.

The following example of a conventional educational technique is taken from tutorial material that the Academic Development Unit (ADU) has developed for the School of Construction Economics and Management (CEM) which is located in the Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment (FEBE) at the University of the Witwatersrand. The ADU is tasked with three main mandates:

• Contribute to improved faculty through-put,
• Coordinate and oversee the Engineering common first year (CFY) programme, and
• Provide student and staff support at all strata [Academic (student & staff), Eco-social support and Psycho-social support].

The first-year critical thinking skills literacy course aims to improve Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) as well as prepare students for Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1991). Although the course includes exercises and tasks that include multimodal levels of learning that activate visual skills by drawing diagrams and mapping exercises and include tasks where the oral is connected to writing tasks, it makes use of exclusively English-based written instruction.

First-year engineering students are required to attend the first-year course “Introduction to the Engineering Profession”. To illustrate a conventional teaching technique, we present the material from the “Critical Thinking Component” of tutorial classes that rely on a step-by-step process. Below we provide sample materials that are provided to tutors as guidelines to run tutorials on the sub-section of the Critical Thinking Component focusing on “Argument”. We won’t present the entire material related to this component (excluding information and exercises about Referencing, Mapping, and Free-Writing) and will only show material that is given to A) tutors and B) students for the session on “Writing the Thesis Statement” and on “Writing Academic Essays”. We thought it would be important to illustrate the process of teaching on the tutorial level where a more informal interaction between students and tutors is possible.

As mentioned above, tutorials are not limited to verbal tasks, but include mapping tasks and activating students' everyday reasoning in oral exchange, among others. However, in the context of this OER, it is important to observe how the detailed form of this tutorial guide relies on conventional teaching methods that leave little room for tutors to activate their individual resources (e.g., how they could draw from their individual multilingual background and translingual practice to engage with students in translingual and trans-semiotic way across modalities). At the same time, one would assume that a critical thinking module could activate multimodal forms of reasoning outside the limited monolingual channel of English reading and discussing. The following material is supplied in full to evidence that conventional teaching guides rely heavily on written English language.

To challenge the normative print-based literacies, Xolisa and her colleague Jill Joubert, in teaching the Foundation Phase (grade R-3) Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE), taught students how to make bi/multilingual books. First, Jill taught the students the component of designing the book using recycled materials such as paper, cardboard, cloth, etc. Secondly, she showed them how to cut the pieces of cardboard and shape them into a book with pages and then bind them using thread, as can be seen below.

Afterwards, she taught them about how a book must have a title, author and illustrator. As an art teacher, she had done sculptures with them as well as paper mache dolls. The students were to use some of that knowledge for the design of their book, but they could also draw to illustrate or cut out pictures from magazines. She also taught them how to make pop up images for the books as well.

Later, Xolisa, who had already taught the students about multilingual pedagogies, which involve translanguaging in oral language as well as written language, and the value of that for learning and meaning making, brought multilingual books to show students different designs.
Some books had simple sentences in English on a page that got translated into isiXhosa and Afrikaans with different font colours. Other books had a paragraph in English at the top of each of the pages, an image in the middle and a translation into isiXhosa at the bottom. Xolisa taught students about how books with different sentences separated by language or colour coding or with one language on top and another at the bottom show a monolingual orientation to bilingualism as languages are clearly seprated. She also gave examples of books with one page in one language and another page in another language to emphasize the point. Having taught them about translanguaging as a bilingual and biliteracy communication practice of multilinguals that combines features that would normally be thought of as belonging to two languages, to a hybrid use of both or more languages or one linguistic repertoire (Garcia, & Li 2014), Xolisa then showed them some books with text written in one dominant language for narration and dialogue in a different languages or varieties, as can be seen below:

Xolisa and her Stars of Today Literacy Club# (STLC#) members, a club that was established for her PhD study were approached by Cover 2 Cover publishers to turn an existing English story into a translingual story. Xolisa showed this book to her PGCE class as a demonstration of a translingual book which draws on the linguistic repertoires of bi/multilingual speakers. She showed the student teachers this book to demonstrate how to challenge the monolingual and anglonormative bias in the design and production of books as well as in the assessment of students at university. Showing existing bilingual books to student teachers gave them an idea of how to work with multilingualism in their classrooms and how to produce books that children could relate to, the ones that use familiar language resources to theirs.

Abdulatief, S., Guzula, X., & McKinney, C. (2021). Delinking from colonial language ideologies: Creating third spaces in teacher education. In Z. Bock & C. Stroud (Eds.), Language and decoloniality in higher education: Reclaiming voices from the South (pp. 135–158).

Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh University Press.

Alexander, N. (1989). Language policy and national unity in South Africa/Azania. Buchu Books.

Alexander, N. (2003). Sink or swim. PRAESA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bJt5FVJYis&ab_channel=RobynTyler

Archer, A. (2015). Multimodal designs for learning in contexts of diversity. Designs for Learning, 7, 8–27.

Barnes, D. (1992). The role of talk in learning. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 123–128). Hodder & Stoughton.

Benor, S. B. (2010). Ethnographic repertoire: Shifting the analytic focus in language and ethnicity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(2), 159–183.

Boughey, C., & McKenna, S. (2021). Understanding higher education: Alternative perspectives. African Minds.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Blackwell.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2020). Transnational literacy autobiographies as translingual writing. Routledge.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Praeger.

Claims, Claims, Claims. (n.d.). Odegaard Writing and Research Center (OWRC). https://depts.washington.edu/owrcweb/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Claims-Claims-Claims.pdf.

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.

García, O., & Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1488

García, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2021). Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: A manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18(3), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2021.1935957

Gaztambide-Fernández, R. (2013). Why the arts don’t do anything: Toward a new vision for cultural production in education. Harvard Educational Review, 83, 211–236.

Gaztambide-Fernández, R. (2014). Decolonial options and artistic/aestheSic entanglements: An interview with Walter Mignolo. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(1), 196–212.

Gee, J. P. (2002). Literacies, identities and discourses. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power. Routledge.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Heinemann.

Guzula, X., & Tyler, R. (in press). Disrupting coloniality in Southern schooling: A decolonial lens on languaging in textbooks. In S. Bagga-Gupta (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Decolonizing Educational and Language Sciences. PaDELS.

Guzula, X. (2022). De/coloniality in South African language-in-education policy: Resisting the marginalisation of African language speaking children. In P. Christie & C. McKinney (Eds.), Decoloniality, language and literacy: Conversations with teacher educators (pp. xx–xx). Multilingual Matters.

Hook, D. (2022). Racial ontologizing through the body. In L. Laubscher, D. Hook, & M. U. Desai (Eds.), Fanon, phenomenology, and psychology (pp. 110–124). Routledge.

Hurst, E., & Mona, M. (2017). “Translanguaging” as socially just pedagogy. Education as Change, 21, 126–148.

Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2003). Multimodal literacy. Peter Lang.

Kapp, R. (2006). Discourses of English and literacy in a Western Cape township school. In L. Thesen & E. van Pletzen (Eds.), Academic literacy and languages of change (pp. 30–52).

Makalela, L. (2015). Translanguaging practices in complex multilingual spaces: A discontinuous continuity in post-independent South Africa. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 234, 115–132.

Maldonado-Torres, N. (2007). On the coloniality of being: Contributions to the development of a concept. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 240–270.

Mbembe, A. (1992). Provisional notes on the postcolony. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 62(1), 3–37.

McKinney, C. (2017). Language and power in post-colonial schooling. Routledge.

Mignolo, W., & Vázquez, R. (2013). Decolonial aesthesis: Colonial wounds/decolonial healings. Periscope. https://socialtextjournal.org/periscope_article/decolonial-aesthesis-colonial-woundsdecolonial-healings/ (Accessed: May 25, 2014)

Mignolo, W. (2007). Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 449–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162647 (Accessed: October 19, 2017)

Mjoli, N. (2015). Rhodes Must Fall diary entry – How I envision UCT to be like. Johannesburg Workshop in Theory and Criticism, 9. https://web.archive.org/web/20160414043015/https://jwtc.org.za/the_salon/test/noluvuyo_mjoli.htm (Accessed: May 25, 2024)

Mona, M. (2019). Opening up academic citizenship for students from previously excluded groups: The case of a foundation course at the University of Cape Town. In I. Hazama, K. Umeya, & F. B. Nyamnjoh (Eds.), Citizenship in motion: South African and Japanese scholars in conversation. Langaa RPCIG.

Motlhaka, H. A., & Makalela, L. (2016). Translanguaging in an academic writing class: Implications for a dialogic pedagogy. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(3), 251–260.

Ncube, K. (2020). Yintoni i-marketing ngeSintu: An exploration of learning in marketing using translanguaging. Paradigms: Journal for Research and Innovation in Teaching and Learning at CPUT, 21, 58–69.

New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9–37). Routledge.

Pather, R. (2015, May 14). Open Stellenbosch protest: “It’s like the remnants of apartheid live here.” The Daily Vox. https://web.archive.org/web/20150722105511/http://www.thedailyvox.co.za/open-stellenbosch-protest-its-like-the-remnants-of-apartheid-live-here/.

Piepmeier, A. (2008). Why zines matter: Materiality and the creation of embodied community. American Periodicals, 18(2), 213–238.

Rosa, J. (2016). Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26(2), 162–183.

Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647.

Ruiz, I. D., & Sánchez, R. (Eds.). (2016). Decolonizing rhetoric and composition studies: New Latinx keywords for theory and pedagogy. Springer.

Taylor-Leech, K., & Benson, C. (2017). Language planning and development aid: The (in)visibility of language in development aid discourse. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(4), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2017.1360690

Teaching argument. (n.d.). Dartmouth Writing Program. https://writing.dartmouth.edu/teaching/first-year-writing-pedagogies-methods-design/teaching-argument.

Veronelli, G. (2015). The coloniality of language: Race, expressivity, power and the darker side of modernity. Wagadu, 13, 108–134.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). MIT Press.

Wa Thiong’o, N. (1981). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. Zimbabwe Publishing House.