Examining Teacher Candidates’ Pedagogical Practices and Stances Towards Translanguaging and Multimodality in Writing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it