Examining Teacher Candidates’ Pedagogical Practices and Stances Towards Translanguaging and Multimodality in Writing

This study examines pre-service teacher candidates’ (TCs) stances and use of translanguaging and multimodality to support K-12 multilingual learners’ writing. Data were drawn from a course on supporting multilingual learners in a teacher education program in Ontario. Data sources were responses to the Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Language-Inclusive Teaching (PeCK–LIT) Test, and TCs’ unit plans and lesson plans. Analytical codes were derived from the literature on translanguaging: monolingual and translanguaging stance, translanguaging as a scaffold and resource, teacher-directed and student-directed, intentional and spontaneous translanguaging, and supporting monomodality and multimodality. Findings demonstrate the use of translanguaging strategies such as multilingual word walls and online translation tools. However, there were constraints to TCs’ stances, such as allowing translanguaging as a temporary scaffold towards English-only instruction and approaching writing as a discrete rather than multimodal skill. The paper recommends ways TCs can be supported in developing a holistic understanding of translanguaging and multimodality.


Examining Teacher Candidates' Pedagogical Practices and Stances Towards Translanguaging and Multimodality in Writing
In October 2020, the Canadian government announced that it would welcome over 400,000 immigrants per year moving forward.The fast-growing population of newcomers to Canada corresponds with the increasing number of languages that are spoken.In 2017, it was reported that at least 200 languages were spoken in Canada (Press, 2017), making it one of the most linguistically diverse countries in the world.With an ever-increasing population of multilingual speakers, Canadian teacher education programs (TEPs) need to adequately prepare pre-service teacher candidates (TCs) for the linguistic diversity present in the classrooms in which they will be teaching.In 2015, the Ontario government amended Regulation 347/02 Accreditation of Teacher Education Programs under its Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.The amended policy entailed structural changes to TEPs such as doubling the minimum time required for teacher accreditation from one to two years and mandating that all TEPs equip their TCs with the "pedagogical and instructional strategies knowledge" required to "teach students whose first language is not the language of instruction, whether English or French" (Ontario College of Teachers, 2015, p. 18).This amended policy made Ontario the only jurisdiction in Canada to require all TEPs to prepare their TCs to support students in mainstream K-12 education who are learners of English as an additional language.TEPs have responded to this policy in different ways, for example, by including content on supporting multilingual learners into existing courses, or by creating new mandatory or elective courses (Bale et al., forthcoming).To date, however, there is little empirical evidence on the beliefs, perspectives, and pedagogical knowledge of the TCs in Ontario's TEPs who are preparing to teach multilingual learners in mainstream K-12 classrooms.To address this gap, this study examined TCs' stances on supporting multilingual learners in mainstream K-12 classrooms, and the ways they planned to engage multilingual learners' diverse linguistic and non-linguistic meaning-making modes, with a focus on their writing pedagogy.

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Translanguaging, Multimodality and Writing
Recent empirical research highlights the dominance of language ideologies that reinforce a monolingual voice in writing and reify ideas of language separation and correctness in writing pedagogy (Kiramba, 2017;Velasco & García, 2014).Translanguaging (e.g., García & Wei, 2014) and plurilingualism (e.g., Coste et al., 2009;Payant & Galante, 2022) have been proposed as frameworks and pedagogical approaches which challenge monolingual ideologies and practices in writing pedagogy, recognizing that multilingual writers call upon the knowledge of diverse languages and semiotic resources strategically and fluidly for communication and meaning-making purposes.Whilst there are variations in the specific theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of translanguaging and plurilingualism, Payant and Galante (2022) emphasize that "both theories/approaches are vehicles for empowerment where spaces are created for individuals to negotiate and validate their plurilingual and cultural identities and for educators to experiment with plurilingual and multimodal tasks that resist monolingual discourses" (pp. vi-vii).
As language and teacher educators, we recognize the potential of both translanguaging and plurilingual pedagogies in creating classrooms where the linguistic and semiotic repertoires and identities of multilingual learners are respected, reflected, and centred.However, in conceptualizing this study and our analytical framework, we were guided specifically by the three components of a translanguaging pedagogy as identified by García et al. (2017): stance (the belief that learners' diverse cultural and linguistic practices are valuable resources to leverage in the classroom), design (instructional units, lesson plans, curriculum and assessment that are informed by learners' diverse linguistic practices and ways of knowing), and shifts (remaining flexible to and supportive of learners' feedback and making moment-by-moment changes based on it).Like plurilingualism, translanguaging pedagogy also broadens understanding of language as entangled with the diverse multimodal resources that multilingual learners have at their disposal (Lin, 2019;Tai & Wei, 2021).These multimodal resources include a combination of linguistic and non-linguistic modes such as audio, video, visuals, print, gestures, and bodily movements, to communicate and make meaning.
In writing pedagogy, translanguaging has been shown to provide several benefits to learners.Research has indicated that a translanguaging pedagogy can deepen multilingual learners' confidence in engaging in multiple types of literacies (e.g., digital, multimodal, print, visual), help them generate more diverse texts, enrich both the writing process and product (Kim & Wright, 2022), support multilingual writers' identities across and between languages and cultures (Kalan, 2022), and foster metalinguistic awareness (García & Kleifgen, 2020;Henderson & Ingram, 2018).In a study examining the incorporation of translanguaging into writing instruction for recently arrived emergent bilingual students in a public secondary school, translanguaging was a critical means for multilingual learners to engage in deep and complex thinking during the writing process (Ascenzi-Moreno & Espinosa, 2018).In another study, Velasco and García (2014) demonstrate how translanguaging impacts writing and voice development in academic writing.Prada (2022) demonstrates how digital collages provided a space for students' complex identities and experiences of raciolinguistic oppression and resilience to be represented through translanguaging.

Preparation of Teacher Candidates to Enact Translanguaging in Teacher Education
The benefits of translanguaging and plurilingual pedagogies for multilingual learners are well-reported in the literature (Kleyn & García, 2019;Machado & Gonzales, 2020;Wei & Ho, 2018).However, little is known about the preparation of TCs in TEPs for using these pedagogies in their practices, and TCs' beliefs about the importance and feasibility of these approaches (Barros et al., 2021;Maatouk & Payant, 2022).A study conducted by Deroo and Ponzio (2019) on teacher learning in a graduate-level TESOL certification course revealed several constraints to teachers' adoption of translanguaging in their practice: (1) micro-level constraints such as unfamiliarity with the theory, monolingual language practices, limited language learning and teaching experiences, and concerns about relinquishing their own "locus of control" (García & Sylvan, 2011, p. 391); (2) meso-level constraints such as the dominance of monolingual English ideologies among their colleagues and school administrators; and (3) macro-level constraints such as the emphasis in language policy, curriculum standards, and assessment on the "correct" and "proper" use of English (p. 227).
TEPs play a significant role in preparing TCs to overcome these constraints through the design of specific, strategic and targeted translanguaging practices to support multilingual learners.Several studies in the U.S. context suggest that engaging TCs in multimodal translanguaging activities during their TEPs can help them learn how to incorporate these strategies into their instructional toolbox and reject monolingual ideologies and practices.For example, in Ponzio and Deroo's (2021) study, pre-and inservice teachers were asked to create multimodal texts (i.e., using computer graphics, drawing, collage, video, etc.) to explore the relationship between language, identity, and power.The multimodal composition task contributed to TCs' learning by providing them with the opportunity to expand their communicative repertoires as they made sense of translanguaging, helping them conceptualize the critical and sociopolitical dimensions of translanguaging pedagogy, and encouraging them to leverage multimodal resources to confront issues of equity in the classroom.
In the Canadian context, several studies have highlighted a disconnect between what TCs believe about translanguaging and plurilingual approaches, and the pedagogies they enact.Shank Lauwo et al.'s (2022) study demonstrated that using a plurilingual and multiliteracies approach in a pre-service TEP in Western Canada supported TCs in embracing their own linguistic and racialized identities and envisioning more equitable ways of supporting their linguistically minoritized learners.However, while some TCs were open to teaching plurilingually, they struggled to translate their beliefs into pedagogical practice.Maatouk and Payant (2022) similarly found through an online questionnaire administered to undergraduate ESL teacher education programs in Quebec that while TCs held positive beliefs towards the underlying principles of plurilingualism, they were still receiving instruction in their TEP that aligned with monolingual principles.Bale et al.'s (forthcoming) case study of a TEP in Ontario also suggests that there is a gap between TCs' translanguaging stance and pedagogy.Although TCs in the study seemed to recognize the importance of drawing on students' linguistic repertoires, they were often unsure about how to incorporate translanguaging into their teaching in pedagogically effective ways, which was also a finding in Maatouk and Payant's study.Bale et al. (forthcoming) recommend that teacher educators support TCs in developing a more holistic understanding of translanguaging (i.e., translanguaging as more than an "add-on" to lessons, translanguaging as more than just a scaffold for developing English proficiency, and translanguaging as important for all multilingual learners) by modelling translanguaging in their instructional practices and selection of curriculum resources.
In order to bridge the gap between theory and practice, it is important for teacher educators to examine their TCs' stances towards translanguaging, and their knowledge of using translanguaging pedagogically to support their multilingual learners.Thus, this study aimed to address the following research questions: (1) What are TCs' stances on supporting multilingual learners in their writing through translanguaging?and (2) What translanguaging and multimodal practices do TCs plan to incorporate to support multilingual learners in their writing?

Method Data Sources
The data for this research came from a three-year Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) funded study of a 36-hour mandatory course on supporting multilingual learners in a two-year pre-service TEP in Ontario, Canada.More than half of the pre-service TCs in the program self-identified as multilingual.The cohorts in this TEP are organized by the grade levels in which TCs would be certified: Primary/Junior (P/J, Grades K-6), Junior/Intermediate (J/I, Grades 4-10), and Intermediate/Senior (I/S, Grades 7-12).One of the core assignments in the course includes working collaboratively in small groups to create a unit plan and lesson plans for any subject, grade and topic from the Ontario curriculum.The unit and lesson plans need to include profiles of multilingual learners.These multilingual learners could be made-up learners, learners that TCs have worked with in real-life, learners from the Purdue College of Education website (https://elllps.squarespace.com/),or learners from the Me Mapping with Multilingual Learners website (https://sites.google.com/view/memapping/home).This website, developed by the authors and their research teams (https://sites.google.com/view/memapping/about-us)contains a collection of videos created by K-12 multilingual learners in Ontario, Canada showcasing their linguistic repertoires, schooling experiences, important milestones, and other aspects of their diverse identities.
The first data source consisted of 9 unit plans with a total of 41 lesson plans developed by TCs in four cohorts (one Primary/Junior, one Junior/Intermediate, and two Intermediate/Senior cohorts).These unit and lesson plans were selected because they were developed by TCs in cohorts taught by Rajendram and Bale, included a writing component, and represented a range of grade levels and subjects.The second data source was TCs' responses to the Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Language-Inclusive Teaching (PeCK-LIT) Test created and administered by the research team (Bale et al., forthcoming).PeCK-LIT was adapted from an English-language translation of the DaZ-Kom test (Carlson et al., 2018), which assesses pre-service TCs' competencies for teaching German as a second language in mainstream classrooms in Germany.Language-inclusive teaching refers to pedagogical practices which intentionally integrate the diverse languages of multilingual learners in a classroom, consistent with translanguaging and plurilingual pedagogies.
The PeCK-LIT includes two versions titled Test A and Test B (see Table 1).Each version of the test had five tasks related to supporting multilingual learners across subjects, content areas, and grades.Year 1 candidates were invited to complete Test A in the first few months of their program and Test B was completed by Year 2 candidates near the end of the program.The TCs volunteered to complete the PeCK-LIT and responses were anonymous.Two items were from Test A's Report Writing task and Test B's Residential Schools task (see Appendix) which focused on supporting multilingual learners through the writing process, and asked TCs whether and/or how they would incorporate learners' home languages.These two items were chosen for the analysis because of their specific focus on writing.In total, we analyzed 498 responses to these two PeCK-LIT items (299 for Report Writing, and 199 for Residential Schools) from more than 410 TCs that completed either or both PeCK-LIT items.

Data Analysis
In their study of plurilingual practices at the post-secondary level, Van Viegen and Zappa-Hollman (2020) propose a matrix for observation, action and reflection that draws on Cenoz and Gorter's (2017) distinction between spontaneous and intentional translanguaging, Lewis et al.'s (2012) distinction between classroom (planned and unplanned) and universal translanguaging, and other distinctions made in the literature on translanguaging of teacher-and student-directed, or pedagogic and non-pedagogic translanguaging (Jones, 2017;Paulsrud et al., 2017).For our analysis of the unit plans, lesson plans and PeCK-LIT responses, we created a coding scheme that draws on these similar distinctions.These codes were informed by our research questions, and by what the research and literature on translanguaging have suggested to be important characteristics of translanguaging pedagogy for supporting multilingual learners.We used "and" rather than "or" in each pair of codes in order to avoid dichotomizing them, and to account for the nuances and complexities in TCs' stances and pedagogical practices.Our analytical codes are described in Table 2.

Monolingual and translanguaging stance
We use the term monolingual stance to refer to language norms where the "native speaker" is used as the benchmark or the belief that mastering a language is necessary for communicative competence.A monolingual stance excludes home language use in the classroom.Following García et al. (2017), we use a translanguaging stance to refer to a "mindset or framework" (p.50) that teachers adopt and draw upon to create a translanguaging classroom which informs the way educators view multilingual learners' language and cultural practices.
Translanguaging as a temporary scaffold towards English-only and a resource for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment We use the term translanguaging as a temporary scaffold towards English-only to refer to a "stance that solely includes translanguaging as a way to transition students to English" (Kleyn & García, 2019, p. 73).We use the term translanguaging as a resource for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (Burton & Rajendram, 2019) to refer to a situation in which educators "view all linguistic features and practices of any given student as a resource in general and specifically for their learning" (Kleyn & García, 2019, p. 73), and integrate students' diverse language practices into the curriculum, classroom pedagogy, and assessment to create a multilingual ecology (Van Viegen & Zappa-Hollman, 2020).

Teacher-directed and student-directed translanguaging
Teacher-directed translanguaging is when the teacher initiates, designs and directs activities incorporating the use of multiple languages in the classroom, whereas student-directed translanguaging is when multilingual learners independently initiate and choose how they use their diverse language practices to complete classroom activities (Jones, 2017).

Intentional and spontaneous translanguaging
Intentional engagement with translanguaging refers to the intentional design and implementation of specific instructional strategies which activate students' full linguistic repertoires, while spontaneous engagement with translanguaging refers to the unplanned, spontaneous, moment-by-moment discursive practices of multilingual learners that naturally occur inside and outside the classroom (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017).

Supporting monomodality and multimodality
Teachers using a monomodal approach treat the modalities of reading, writing, listening, and speaking as discrete skills in their learning goals, pedagogical practices and assessment.Teachers adopting a multimodal approach use a more fluid approach to literacies, going between and beyond linguistic structures and systems, and integrating various interconnected modes such as linguistic, visual, audio, gestural and spatial (Wei, 2011).
Each response to the PeCK-LIT items was analyzed deductively by applying the codes in Table 2.When a response fell between two codes (e.g., in between a monolingual and translanguaging stance), it was coded as 'other'.Not all responses could be captured by the codes in Table 2 or by the 'other' category, so the n-values for each code differed slightly.After the PeCK-LIT responses were coded, the frequencies and percentages of the codes were calculated in order to identify any patterns in the responses by item.The unit plans (n = 9) and lesson plans (n = 41) were analyzed using the same analytical codes in Table 2.The results of the analysis of the PeCK-LIT responses, and unit and lesson plans are presented in the following section, in the order of the codes in Table 2.

Monolingual and Translanguaging Stance to Writing
This section aims to answer the first research question by identifying TCs' stances on supporting multilingual learners in their writing through translanguaging.The findings showed that TCs' lesson type influenced whether they had a monolingual or translanguaging stance.Generally, a translanguaging stance towards supporting multilingual learners was demonstrated more in lessons that had a greater focus on language (e.g., Language Arts and Social Studies) compared to lessons with a greater focus on subject-specific content (e.g., Science and Math).We did not observe any differences in stances across grade levels in TCs' lesson and unit plans.The translanguaging and monolingual stance percentages differed across the PeCK-LIT test items due to the framing of the items.In the Report Writing item, TCs were asked if they would allow students to use their home language(s) to support the writing process, whereas the Residential School asks not if but how TCs would integrate students' home languages into the classroom.As such, the data analysis indicated a much larger percentage of responses coded as a translanguaging stance for the Residential Schools Item (90%, n = 171) compared to the Report Writing Item (44%, n = 127).
The most common rationales for a translanguaging stance across both test items were: (1) awareness of content vs. language objectives (i.e., understanding that language may prevent students from demonstrating content knowledge); (2) prioritizing representation (i.e., recognizing the importance of class materials reflecting diversities and identities of students); and (3) valuing students' linguistic resources (i.e., using translanguaging as a resource for learning), which is discussed further in the next section.In addition, some TCs demonstrated a curiosity for and openness towards adopting translanguaging but were unsure of how to provide that support.Typical monolingual stances to supporting language-inclusive teaching ranged from TCs outright restricting multilingual learners from drawing on their diverse linguistic practices to encouraging or enforcing English-only or "as much English as possible" with the occasional use of home languages for specific purposes.For those TCs who allowed home language use in the classroom, their translanguaging stance was often predicated upon various conditions, as follows.

Translanguaging for Beginner Learners and Private Use
TCs' responses indicated a stance that translanguaging was appropriate for beginner learners.This was a typical PeCK-LIT response that demonstrated this conditional use for translanguaging, "Since these students are beginner level I would allow them to use their home languages to help them communicate their ideas."This finding was also reflected in TCs' unit and lesson plan designs.For example, in a Grade 4 Language Arts Story Writing lesson, TCs provided writing accommodations for three multilingual learners at different levels of language proficiency.While we acknowledge TCs' specific accommodations for each multilingual learner, in Figure 1 1 , incorporating students' linguistic resources was a translanguaging strategy provided for Rana (the multilingual on a Step 1), but not for Mansoor (the multilingual on a Step 2-3) or Aakifah (the multilingual on a Step 4-5).

Figure 1 Individual Writing Accommodations for a Grade 4 Language Arts Lesson
In addition to translanguaging for beginner learners, TCs' responses to both PeCK-LIT items provided evidence for translanguaging for private use, but not public domains.Private use refers to spaces where students were using their home language individually or in groups, but not whole-class activities, as demonstrated in the following response: "I would allow them to speak the language with their peers in class but would like them to answer in English.The reason why is because they are planning to work or study here, they will need to know how to use the science terminology in English."

Translanguaging for Specific Purposes
PeCK-LIT responses and unit and lesson plan data indicated that translanguaging was useful for certain functions such as clarification, giving instructions, and providing explanations.For example, a TC suggested: "I would allow them to use their home language to support their explanation but for the most part, it should be in English because they are in an academics course that lead [sic] into university, which uses English as the language of instruction.Also, they are in an English speaking country so this would better prepare them for daily uses of the language".The lesson plan data indicated several examples of TCs' translanguaging stances in practice that were not captured in the PeCK-LIT data.This assignment asked TCs to plan for future multilingual learners.Sometimes, TCs thought about this in abstract ways and sometimes they created profiles of multilingual learners, either from their previous practicum experience or from the Me Mapping website (https://sites.google.com/view/memapping/home)and planned their lessons with these learners in mind.We observed that for those TCs who only imagined having multilingual learners in their classrooms but did not personalize these learners' profiles or identify their STEP levels, the modifications and accommodations in their lesson plans were broad and general.This demonstrated mostly a monolingual stance whereby translanguaging appeared to be an add-on or afterthought.For example, in a Grade 12 Biology unit plan on Homeostasis, the only accommodations for multilingual learners were: "ELL [English Language Learners] students are encouraged to develop vocabulary of new terminology and grammar in their first language to support their reading of science texts and scientific writing."In this example, these "ELLs" were not specified.In contrast, when TCs worked with profiles of multilingual learners based on real students from the Me Mapping website, they provided more specific and nuanced modifications and accommodations in their lesson plans based on the individualized needs of each multilingual learner as identified by their STEP levels.For example, the profiles written by the TCs were assets based -that is, TCs did not focus on what multilingual learners were lacking in English -and provided contextual information on multilingual learners extending beyond language to include social, emotional, geographical andfamiliar information that would be useful for TCs to plan multimodal and multilingual tasks and activities.

Translanguaging as a Scaffold During the Initial Steps of the Writing Process
TCs' stances towards translanguaging were also demonstrated in the purposes for which they envisioned using translanguaging: either as a temporary scaffold towards English-only, or as a more holistic resource for curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment.The majority of responses to the Report Writing item (73%, n = 219) were coded as translanguaging as a scaffold towards English, while only 13% were coded as translanguaging as a resource for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, and 14% were coded as 'other.'Most TCs stated in their responses to the Report Writing item that they would allow learners to use their home languages while they brainstormed and worked on the initial steps of the writing process.TCs cited that the use of translanguaging was a "scaffolded approach" to "transition them to use English-only" and that learners' "final product" would be completed and submitted only in English.Learners' home languages were thus seen only as a temporary scaffold during the writing process, and as learners' English proficiency improved, they would be required to switch to writing only in English.
TCs provided several rationales for requiring English-only products.Many TCs emphasized that it was important for multilingual learners' writing to be accessible to them as teachers so that they would be able to understand, assess, grade, and provide feedback on what their learners had written.This rationale is illustrated in the examples below: "I will allow students to have discussion in their home language if they can understand the content better that way… However, students will have to explain in English because I will not be able to read their language.""I would allow discussion and peer feedback in their home language.Since I have to grade it and I'm only fluent in English, I don't see how I could accept the final written product in any language other than English.""If the students were to complete their worksheet in Mandarin, I unfortunately wouldn't be able to provide any feedback to their work because I myself cannot speak or read Mandarin." While TCs acknowledged the benefits of translation as a pedagogical tool, they did not want their learners to develop a "reliance" on it.As one TC suggested: "I would allow them to talk with other students who spoke the same language or use Google Translate/other translating aid.However, I would expect their reliance on translation to diminish over the course of the semester and for all final results to be presented in English." TCs' responses to the Report Writing item revealed systemic constraints to the use of translanguaging as a resource.TCs spoke about needing to adequately prepare their multilingual learners for standardized and school-based assessments in English: "I would allow the students to write their initial answers in their native language so they have a reference of the material that was being taught.But I would need those answers to be translated by the students into English because for evaluations and assignments, I can only mark answers that are written in English (as that is the language that I know and one of the primary languages in Canada)." The quote above also reflected ideological constraints to TCs' adoption of a translanguaging stance.Several TCs justified their exclusion of translanguaging from learners' written products by invoking the importance of English as the primary or official language of the country.They implied that getting newcomer multilingual learners to submit work in their home languages would be akin to "isolating them in a language they are not comfortable with," and that using English-only in their writing was a way for learners to integrate into Canadian society and the English language.

Translanguaging as a Resource Beyond the Writing Process
TCs' responses to the Residential Schools item were strikingly different from their responses to the Report Writing item, as they provided many more examples of how translanguaging could act as a pedagogical resource (44%, n = 198) instead of only as a scaffold towards English (31%).The Residential Schools task is based on a model lesson plan presented by Ontario's Ministry of Education (Ontario Ministry of Education, n.d.).The text in this sample lesson plan teaches learners about the residential school system, the physical and emotional abuse that the Indigenous children in the schools suffered, and the marginalization of their culture and language.Findings suggest that this topic may have prompted TCs to think about the role of translanguaging in developing multilingual learners' understanding of Indigenous languages and cultures, and the importance of maintaining their own linguistic and cultural heritage.When asked how they might integrate home languages into the classroom, TCs' responses included: "Weekly/monthly learning of a phrase in a student's home language.Given Canada's history with Indigenous people in particular, I'd argue an active [translanguaging] approach speaks more to intentional reconciliation" "The most appropriate for this lesson will be the word wall as it valorizes the indigenous language by giving it a visual importance in the classroom" "For this lesson, specifically, it might be interesting to have students consider the importance of their own language and culture for their everyday lives and consider how those same feelings might have been amplified by Indigenous children who were put in residential schools.""Perhaps in small groups, students can share in their own language how to say the important key terms from the text (i.e Indigenous, and homes).Students can share with the class, what their native languages and perhaps talk about what their language means to them (in what ways is it important to maintain their own language, what opportunities have they had because of their language skills) and to imagine what life might be like if all these languages vanished from the community -to connect with the lesson."TCs recommended both "active" and "passive" strategies to include translanguaging for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.Translanguaging was envisioned as a pedagogical resource for the following purposes: • creating multilingual products (e.g., "multilingual products where students use both their home languages and English.")• encouraging criticality and creativity in engaging with tasks and assessments (e.g., "personalized journals that allow students to respond creatively to course content", "I would encourage multi-lingual products as students construct their response to the critical question") • creating a welcoming classroom environment (e.g., "posters in the classroom promoting different languages, cultivating a welcoming environment") • affirming cultural diversity and diversifying the curriculum (e.g., "allow space for students to incorporate their cultures and history into class and find ways to diversify Canadian history") • promoting classroom-wide language learning (e.g., "Students in the class, in general, can benefit from learning a new language") • drawing on the expertise of family and community members (e.g., "create opportunities for students to interview parents/community members with shared languages and invite parents and community members into the space.")TCs' responses to the Residential Schools item demonstrates the importance of using materials that challenge TCs to think about issues of linguistic inequalities and injustice in their communities, and how they can promote language maintenance and revitalization in their work with multilingual learners.

Translanguaging as a Resource for Drawing on the Expertise of Multilingual Learners
Several unit plans and lesson plans also provided examples of TCs taking up a translanguaging as resource stance.For example, in a Grade 4 Language Arts Creative Writing -Poetry unit plan, translanguaging was incorporated as a resource for the purpose of leveraging the expertise of multilingual learners and bringing them into leadership roles in the classroom.During Lesson 1 of the unit (Meaning through a Song), which combined elements of poetry writing and music, learners work in small groups to explore and rewrite or "remix" English and multilingual poems and songs (see Figures 2 and 3 for examples) to make them more reflective of their linguistic and cultural identities.The multilingual learners in each group are given the opportunity to take the lead during this activity.Various translanguaging strategies were integrated throughout the unit with the purpose of leveraging the learners' linguistic expertise.For example, during Lesson 5 (Producing Drafts for Poetry), "students would be paired using intentional grouping based on the multilingual writing partners strategy" and each pair would organize their ideas into a Frayer model (Frayer et al., 1969), a graphic organizer for defining or clarifying the meaning of vocabulary words, which would serve as the basis for their co-constructed identity text (see Figure 4).Pairing students who speak a common home language, according to this group, "helps them pool their linguistic resources to create a more complex piece of writing.As learners work together in both languages, they learn from one another."

Figure 4 Translanguaging Strategies in a Grade 4 Language Arts Lesson
The following justification (see Figure 5) for TCs' intentional grouping and teaching strategies reflects their understanding of translanguaging as resource for positioning multilingual learners as experts in the classroom:

Teacher or Student-Directed, and Intentional and Spontaneous Translanguaging Practices
This section addresses the second research question by identifying the various types of translanguaging and multimodal practices TCs planned to incorporate to support multilingual learners in their writing: teacher-directed, student-directed, intentional or spontaneous.During data analysis, we noticed that patterns of teacher-directed translanguaging were often intentional, and those of student-directed translanguaging were mostly spontaneous.Given this complementarity, we have grouped these codes together to introduce this finding.When intentional, teachers planned on implementing translanguaging strategies and when spontaneous, multilingual learners' use of home languages was unplanned.In the few responses of intentional and student-directed translanguaging, examples included having students translate a text into their home languages and discuss it with their parents or placing multilingual learners in leadership roles so they can voice their opinions on how to incorporate home languages into the classroom.Since this study was not designed to explore students' translanguaging practices, our coding of student-directed translanguaging was based on how TCs described students in their future classrooms.These descriptions gave us insights into whether TCs imagined or expected their students to use translanguaging strategies and whether they would respond to or incorporate students' spontaneous translanguaging practices into the lesson.

Intentional Teacher-Directed Translanguaging Practices
Many of the PeCK-LIT responses were intentional teacher-directed translanguaging practices, with 42% (n = 93) responses from the Report Writing item and 32% (n = 64) from the Residential School item.In teacher-directed translanguaging, the responses reflected more involvement by the TCs in guiding learners on how to use home languages to facilitate their learning so that translanguaging was a part of the process and not an addon to learning.For example, TCs proposed working with multilingual learners to translate content or provide translations rather than only having them independently use translation tools.In situations when TCs foresaw not having the time or the necessary resources, they suggested asking for the expertise of others such as support staff to help multilingual learners.In other words, they would take on the responsibility to understand and support students' translanguaging as opposed to placing the burden on the students.Strategies that were teacher-directed included the following: "I would ideally sit with a student who could speak both English and Mandarin to translate the worksheet.I would then have the students complete their work and use translation sites, scribes or other devices to translate work.""I would allow them to use their home language(s).I would support them in doing so by translating the instructions and the chart into Mandarin, and provide dictionaries so that they can search any words we may have already learned and translate them into Mandarin for deeper understanding.I would have students hand in their work electronically so that I could translate it for my own understanding." Both in the PeCK-LIT data and unit and lesson plans, the teacher was more involved because teachers directed and strategically planned to support students' learning throughout the lessons such as providing materials in the student's home language.In a Grade 12 English Short Story unit for the Elements of a Short Story lesson, the TCs wrote "use their home languages as a tool to complete the different tasks outlined" as a translanguaging objective.Furthermore, they included translanguaging opportunities in a lesson activity titled "Character 'Graffiti Carousel'" where multilingual learners could write in any language or draw to express their understanding of character traits.In a Grade 9, English unit plan on Poetry (see Figure 6), translanguaging practices were teacherdirected and intentional so that multilingual learners could receive support from the teacher if they had any questions, and they could use their home languages to complete their journals or use translation tools.

Onus of Responsibility on Multilingual Learners
In both PeCK-LIT responses and unit and lesson plans, when translanguaging practices were directed by the students, the onus of responsibility was on multilingual learners to make sense of how to use their linguistic repertoire to engage with learning, indicating less teacher involvement in guiding multilingual learners on utilizing home languages.The duty was placed on learners to independently employ their home languages without strategic pedagogical support from teachers.
Student-directed translanguaging practices were much lower with 14% (n = 31) from the Report Writing responses and 14% (n = 28) from the Residential School responses.In student-directed translanguaging, teachers were less involved in engaging multilingual learners with how to use their home languages for learning.The onus of responsibility was on the students to decide if they would use their languages and strategize how to use their linguistic repertoire to understand the content and complete the tasks.Some examples of student-directed translanguaging included multilingual learners reading, writing, researching or discussing in their home languages, and teachers not enforcing an "English-only" rule in the classroom so multilingual learners had the option to use their home languages.However, in these instances, TCs still did not provide further strategies on how to support multilingual learners when they chose to engage in translanguaging practices.
While TCs provided a variety of ways for implementing translanguaging strategies, gaps or contradictions existed between their stance as indicated in their responses to the PeCK-LIT and the demonstration of this knowledge in their lesson plans.In some instances, translanguaging practices were an add-on to the lesson plans, with little explanation as to how multilingual learners could utilize their linguistic repertoire, as evidenced in the following annotation made by the TCs (see Figure 7) in a Grade 11 World History unit on Flourishing Societies and Civilizations:

Figure 7 Annotation by TCs for Translanguaging in Same Language Groups
In the lesson, students would "converse/brainstorm in home languages" by working in the same language groups for the Introduction lesson.According to TCs' annotation, multilingual learners could be grouped with language proficient peers 2 as well as have the opportunity to use their home languages if they spoke the same language.However, no further guidance was provided for students on how to implement translanguaging practices when collaborating with others.
'Other' responses usually consisted of teachers offering the option or allowing for translanguaging practices and the students making the choice to do so, but the TCs' strategies varied.Responses that were categorized as 'other' reflected a higher percentage with 45% (n = 100) for the Report Writing item and 32% (n = 64) for the Residential Schools item.These strategies included the use of translating and translation tools, working with the same language groups or partners, and including home languages in the writing process, but not supporting students to do so in the product.In addition, translanguaging was not always pedagogically supported since the students were tasked with the responsibility to access their home languages.This was demonstrated through responses such as "allow students to access dictionaries," "allow to talk to a peer who shares the same L1," and "allow them to use their home languages."These responses indicated a shift from the teacher to the student in using or including home languages during the learning process.

Passive and Active Translanguaging as Intentional Translanguaging Practices
Intentional translanguaging practices are the intentional implementation of specific instructional strategies which activate students' full linguistic repertoires.Intentional translanguaging practices for the Report Writing item were 47% (n = 108) and 70% (n = 137) for the Residential Schools item.There were more intentional translanguaging practices with the Residential Schools item since the prompt asked for passive and active strategies, signalling TCs to intentionally think about how to plan for translanguaging.Passive translanguaging strategies (e.g., offering students the option to use home languages, but without providing additional support) were usually student-directed.Active translanguaging strategies tended to involve teacher-directed strategies such as encouraging students to write in their home languages or receiving peer feedback from the same home language group.Spontaneous translanguaging practices were much lower with 15% (n = 34) for the Report Writing item and 10% (n = 19) for the Residential Schools item.These responses were usually student-directed such as asking the students to speak or write in their home language if they felt comfortable, and mainly involved TCs not restricting home language use in class.

Supporting Monomodality and Multimodality in Writing
The PeCK-LIT data and unit and lesson plans reflected pedagogical practices and activities to support multilingual learners in their writing that reflected a monomodal or multimodal design.In Table 3, TCs mainly specified the monomodal linguistic skills (reading, writing, listening, or speaking skills) that multilingual learners would need to complete the tasks for 66% of the Report Writing item's responses.However, suggestions for implementing multimodality were higher for the Residential Schools item with 52% and lower for the Report Writing item with 31%.Responses that specified both monomodality and multimodality were coded as multimodality as it includes linguistic modes (written or spoken words).

Monomodality in the Writing Process
TCs focused on writing and print (including digital print) as the medium to use in the Report Writing item.For example, they viewed writing as a discrete skill by describing the writing of text as the only part of the writing process and using print as the medium for dictionaries and worksheets.Responses often included allowing students to use dictionaries to translate words or provide translations on worksheets.In the responses to the Residential Schools item, 45% of which were identified as monomodality, TCs recommended textbased strategies such as "note-taking in home language," "write[ing] their ideas in their own language as a draft," and "write[ing] their responses both in English and their home language."

Incorporating Multimodality in the Process and Final Product
An analysis of the PeCK-LIT responses and unit and lesson plans indicated that TCs incorporated a combination of monomodality and multimodality during the process of learning and in the final product.For example, in the Residential Schools item, TCs recommended the use of digital tools such as Google Translate during the learning process, but the final product would be in written text.However, it was not always clear if students were to use print dictionaries, online/digital translators, or ask their peers when they were allowed to translate.They also suggested using visuals (e.g., pictures and photographs) for subject-specific courses such as Biology, and one TC recommended the use of "drawings as the information asked for [in the Report Writing item] is numerical and technical, rather than descriptive."The use of home languages in graphic organizers was also recommended so that students could "better connect with what they are reading," indicating that visuals could help multilingual learners (and all learners) process content.
Since the unit and lesson plans required detailed and descriptive explanations of the activities and evaluations, TCs could provide a variety of strategies that incorporated both monomodality and multimodality for multilingual learners, such as the translanguaging strategy of multilingual word walls.In a Grade 4 Language Arts unit on story writing, multilingual learners would "tell their stories in their home language or incorporate home language words into their charades" which engaged with movement and visuals.Online audio and visual texts of content were provided as an accommodation to support multilingual learners in a Grade 1 Mathematics unit plan on Measurement Using Non-Standard Units.Multilingual learners were also allowed to insert pictures in their written reflections.In addition, pedagogy that adapted or supported the use of technology was prevalent in the activities.In one lesson plan for a Grade 12 Biology unit plan on homeostasis, the TCs made an accommodation for only multilingual learners to be in a computer lab for a video-lesson assignment so they could watch the video at their own pace.
TCs were asked to provide "passive" and "active" strategies for the Residential Schools item, making room for more responses that made use of multimodal ways to complete and present the final product, rather than focusing solely on text.In comparison to the Report Writing item, this prompt was more open-ended, allowing TCs to consider different ways content could be delivered such as including the use of tangible objects to engage students in the classroom (e.g., sharing artifacts from their homes that represent their home lives).More common strategies included the use of audio or visuals such as: "Daily greetings, music played in class, asking questions in their L1 and giving opportunities for them to answer in their L1.""Passive strategies could be incorporating books or videos of Residential School survivors into the lessons which may match some Indigenous languages that my students speak at home." These examples indicated several creative ways for multilingual learners' home languages and cultures to be present in the classroom.One TC indicated that "the passage is quite text-heavy" in the Residential Schools item and suggested that the use of movement could get the students to actively think and learn with their classmates who share the same home languages.Other multimodal translanguaging strategies include multilingual research, multilingual word walls, Frayer models, graphic organizers, and online translation tools to support multilingual learners in their writing.

Discussion & Implications
The findings provide evidence of TCs' developing knowledge base on supporting multilingual learners in their writing through translanguaging and multimodality.In the PeCK-LIT items, and the unit and lesson plans, TCs incorporated various multimodal translanguaging strategies they had learned about in their course on supporting multilingual learners.However, our analysis also revealed challenges in TCs' understanding of translanguaging, such as imposing conditions on the use of translanguaging, not allowing learners to submit texts bi/multilingually, and reducing translanguaging to a scaffold towards English-only, rather than as a pedagogy to foster multilingualism and create language-inclusive classrooms, thereby undermining the theoretical and political basis of translanguaging (García et al., 2021;Wei, 2021).Further, TCs' translanguaging stances were restricted to certain proficiency levels (i.e., beginners), settings (i.e., private use for multilingual learners, rather than for the whole class) and purposes (i.e., explanation to understand content).Constraints, such as English being the language of the school or the only language the teacher or other students could understand, greatly influenced TCs' stance towards adopting a translanguaging stance (Allard, 2017;Galante, 2020).
The findings also highlighted gaps and contradictions between TCs' stances towards translanguaging and their demonstration of knowledge of translanguaging pedagogy.Although many TCs indicated an openness towards the use of home languages in their PeCK-LIT responses, these stances did not always translate into the intentional design of unit and lesson plans informed by multilingual learners' diverse language practices.This finding confirmed Goodman and Tastanbek's (2021) and Iversen's (2020) suggestions that there is generally less evidence of teachers' strategic and targeted use of translanguaging.
The results also demonstrated that TCs who used profiles of real multilingual learners broadened their perspective from a deficit focus of what multilingual learners lack in English to encompass a fuller whole-person perspective.This whole-person perspective includes the diverse languages, cultures, social interests, and identities of multilingual learners who are often treated as a homogenous group.An important consideration when working with multilingual learners is the acknowledgement that they are not a homogenous group and, therefore, we suggest that TEPs provide TCs with the opportunity to get to know and develop relationships with real multilingual learners (e.g., during their practicum) so that TCs can personalize their unit and lesson plans to their learners' needs.Building rapport can humanize and contextualize the translanguaging and multimodal supports needed for writing pedagogy (García & Kleifgen, 2020;Li & Luo, 2017;Neito, 1994).
Although over half of TCs in this study were multilingual, many positioned themselves as only able to teach and assess in English, which they perceived as a constraint to encouraging student translanguaging.One possibility to counter this is to help all TCs recognize their own plurilingual abilities and identities, as Ponzio andDeroo (2021) andShank Lauwo et al. (2022) did with their TCs.It is important for teacher educators to emphasize that TCs do not need to know all the languages of their students.In fact, adopting a translanguaging stance means that teachers are learners, and, as such, need to continuously develop new pedagogical knowledge on how to leverage the resources of multilingual learners to support them in their writing and other language skills.TCs could also build critical multilingual awareness of the languages in their environment and become language ethnographers as they learn and understand their multilingual learners' language practices.
Most of the focus in TCs' PeCK-LIT responses reflected teacher-directed and intentional use of translanguaging.An important implication from these findings is that TCs need to be taught explicit ways to integrate spontaneous student-led translanguaging practices into a comprehensive translanguaging pedagogy (Goodman & Tastanbek, 2021;Iversen, 2020).This could consist of TCs learning "active" translanguaging strategies so they can be prepared to plan for multilingual learners' learning throughout an activity or lesson.In addition, writing needs to be expanded so that it includes the use of translanguaging and multimodality as a stepping stone in the writing process, and potentially also in the product itself.TCs should learn how to teach multimodal and multilingual writing through technology, which is important especially given the recent turn to online and hybrid learning.The shift towards the use of multimodality to support multilingual learners in completing the tasks provided more creative and innovative ways for translanguaging strategies to be implemented, as literacy skills were no longer fostered only through texts.Some examples of how TCs can learn this is by encouraging them to submit assignments in the modes of their choice, and reflecting on real-life examples of writing that students often use (e.g., memes, TikTok videos, and instant messaging).Strategies to support translanguaging and multimodality in writing could include identity texts, linguistic landscapes and photovoice (for an example of each strategy see Rajendram et al., 2022).
A recurrent finding in our study was that TCs were generally open to translanguaging, but only as discrete and temporary strategies for beginner English learners, a finding that echoes previous research on plurilingualism and translanguaging (see, for example, Burton & Rajendram, 2019;Dault & Collins, 2017;Salmerón, 2022).When they included translanguaging, this was followed by qualifications and conditions, which reflected a distinct monolingual ordering of school life (Kim et al., 2020).When translanguaging and multimodality were incorporated into TCs' instructional plans, they were often described as accommodations for learners of lower English proficiency levels rather than as whole-class strategies, highlighting the dominance of English.The implication of this is that TEPs need to encourage TCs to engage politically and personally with translanguaging, as much as they do pedagogically.
Our study suggested that contextualizing the discussion of translanguaging in Canada's colonial history and the marginalization of Indigenous peoples (i.e., through the Residential Schools item) helped TCs to understand how translanguaging could be used to protect language practices that have been historically marginalized.Thus, teacher educators should help TCs develop an understanding of translanguaging as a pedagogy that is critical to counter the marginalization of multilingual learners' linguistic and cultural identities and repertoires (e.g., García et al., 2017;García et al., 2021;Payant & Galante, 2022).Also, TEPs need to make explicit efforts to increase TCs' understanding of translanguaging strategies across languages.In other words, strategies of language inclusion differ based on how close students' languages are to English.As such, TEPs need to engage TCs in conversations about differentiated strategies based on the diverse linguistic needs of each classroom context.Further, TCs should be encouraged to recognize the various micro-level constraints (Deroo & Ponzio, 2019) such as monolingual practices and concerns about giving up their "locus of control" (García & Sylvan, 2011, p. 391), and the meso-, and macro-level constraints that operate within their broader social, cultural, political, and historical contexts, such as standard language ideologies, native speakerism, language hierarchies, and a monolingual bias in language policy, curriculum, and assessment.Teacher educators can lead TCs in interrogating how these ideologies are implicitly embedded in policy, curricula, and school practices, and challenging these ideologies through multilingual teaching.
Finally, we propose that the codes we used in our analysis (see Table 2) be utilized as a heuristic in teacher education to help TCs explore and reflect on stances and pedagogical practices towards supporting multilingual learners.It is important to note, however, that many of the translanguaging practices captured by the codes are not dichotomous but interrelated.For example, the analysis of TCs' responses showed how translanguaging could be both teacher-and student-directed, and how they could include both monomodality as well as multimodality.As such, the connection between the various translanguaging practices is integral to their implementation in the classroom.Teacher educators can identify and address how these practices work together and teach TCs how to apply them across subject areas and grades so that they can reflect on how they think about and implement translanguaging pedagogy.TCs can also analyze their own assignments and critically reflect and assess their own practices with the use of the heuristic proposed in this paper.In addition, conversations about power in the classroom can reveal constraints TCs may experience in order to examine resistance to translanguaging practices.As agents of change, TCs can be encouraged to exercise their agency to support multilingual learners by evaluating the school and educational board's policies for gaps or contradictions regarding language use and students' rights to represent their linguistic and cultural identities.

Conclusion
This study underscores the relationality between beliefs and practices, and the importance of having both a translanguaging stance and pedagogy in fostering translanguaging and multimodal writing spaces (Skein et al., 2020) in multilingual K-12 classrooms.The findings also demonstrate the role of TEPs in preparing TCs to carry out this type of work in K-12 educational contexts; specifically, the necessity for TEPs to prepare TCs to expand conceptualization of translanguaging pedagogy beyond a scaffold towards monolingual proficiency, and towards a critical stance whereby these pedagogies encourage deep and complex knowledge of multilingual learners in writing processes and products (Ascenzi-Moreno & Espinosa, 2018).Additionally, this study highlights the kinds of activities, materials and tasks that can give TCs the pedagogical content and language knowledge base to support multilingual learners through translanguaging.The design of the PeCK-LIT items played a significant role in shaping TCs' translanguaging stances and practices.In the case of the Residential School item where translanguaging was assumed, students responded more positively to translanguaging and provided more specific details as to how to support a translanguaging stance in practice.Therefore, translanguaging should be framed as the norm in the curriculum and materials used in TEPs -thereby confronting language hierarchies within educational discourses (Barros et al., 2021) -in order to adequately prepare TCs for the linguistic and cultural diversity of multilingual classrooms.Engaging TCs with tasks such as the Residential Schools item in this study can be an effective means of helping them work towards a deeper understanding of a translanguaging pedagogy based on equity and social justice.
A limitation of this study is that we could not match individuals who answered the PeCK-LIT data to the unit and lesson plans, thus, we could not directly trace how a TC's stated ideologies played out in practice or compare the Year 1 and Year 2 responses.Further, while the pedagogical practices as identified in the unit and lesson plans present robust examples of teacher-directed translanguaging practice in design, we do not know how these practices will unfold in real-life dynamic classroom interactions.However, some of these unit and lesson plans also included TCs' annotations, providing additional information on why they chose to implement specific translanguaging strategies, so these annotations were also a part of the data.Finally, the PeCK-LIT items led to different types of responses for the TCs.For example, since the Report Writing item asked TCs if they would "allow" home language use, this may have prompted TCs to think about whether they would "allow" translanguaging as an option for students to choose, rather than how they could encourage it purposefully to support students' learning.
Further studies of translanguaging pedagogy in classroom practice are needed, particularly given that one limitation of this study is in not observing TCs' ideologies and practices in action.As such, future directions for research could include collaborating with TCs and practicum teachers to co-develop materials and resources to meet the specific needs of the multilingual learners in their given contexts and to study the application of translanguaging and multimodality in practice.Further research could also focus on how TCs can engage with multilingual learners to understand their goals and what they believe are useful translanguaging and multimodal practices within and beyond the classroom.TEPs have the potential to act as powerful agents of change by integrating content and language knowledge grounded in principles of an expansive translanguaging theory and pedagogy which encompasses multimodality in their programs in order to contribute to more equitable teaching practices that benefit all learners.

Notes
The sample lesson plan identifies a critical question to focus the reading, discussion, and culminating assessment: "Should the government compensate Indigenous people for the way they were treated in residential schools?If so, what would be fair compensation for this historical wrongdoing?"Source: http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesLiteracy/CE/7-12/SubjectSpecific/CanadianWorldStudies/ThinkLitHistoryCivics.pdfItems (Responses to Item 2 were selected for the analysis)

Figure 2
Figure 2Rewriting the Lyrics to the 'Great Big House in Edmonton' Song

1.
The sample lesson plan suggests that you ask students to create a fishbone organizer, like the one pictured below, to help demonstrate their understanding of the text.What do students have to know about the conventional structure of expository texts in order to create this fishbone organizer successfully?2.You and your co-worker are trying to integrate students' home languages more into the life of your classrooms.Which passive strategies might you use?Which active strategies might you use?Which of these might be the most appropriate for this lesson, and why?3.The culminating assessment asks students to write a 2-page stance paper in response to the critical question: "Should the government compensate Indigenous people for the way they were treated in residential schools?If so, what would be fair compensation for this historical wrongdoing?"How would the Success Criteria for this assessment change to support a student at Level 2 on the STEP scale versus a student at Level 5?

Table 1
Description of PeCK-LIT Tasks