voices : perception of and apprenticeship in multiliteracies-oriented teaching

As Lord, Liskin-Gasparro, and Lacorte (2013) put it, “it is to everyone’s benefit that our graduate students become well-prepared, competent language teachers. The graduate students benefit, of course, but so do the students in the language courses and the department as a whole” (p. 107). Approximately 77.5% of Graduate Student Teachers (GSTs) assigned to Foreign Language (FL) departments support language learners at the important stages of beginner and intermediate development (Allen, 2011). However, relatively little effort is made by FL departments to ensure that GSTs receive appropriate professional development, and yet “good teaching doesn’t happen by accident” (White, Martin, Hodge, & Stimson, 2008, p. 18). In 2007, the Modern Language Association (MLA) recommended to “provide substantive training in language teaching and in the use of new technologies” (MLA, 2007, p. 7) and “enhance and reward graduate student training” (p. 8) so GSTs would be better prepared to help FL students reach “translingual and transcultural competence” (p. 3). The report, however, did not provide guidelines on the content or form that this professionalization should take in order to achieve its goals (as discussed by Allen & Dupuy, 2010; Allen & Negueruela-Azarola, 2010). While it was suggested that literacy-based approaches might be particularly appropriate to achieve the report’s recommendations, less attention was given to the nature


Introduction
put it, "it is to everyone's benefit that our graduate students become well-prepared, competent language teachers. The graduate students benefit, of course, but so do the students in the language courses and the department as a whole" (p. 107). Approximately 77.5% of Graduate Student Teachers (GSTs) assigned to Foreign Language (FL) departments support language learners at the important stages of beginner and intermediate development (Allen, 2011). However, relatively little effort is made by FL departments to ensure that GSTs receive appropriate professional development, and yet "good teaching doesn't happen by accident" (White, Martin, Hodge, & Stimson, 2008, p. 18). In 2007, the Modern Language Association (MLA) recommended to "provide substantive training in language teaching and in the use of new technologies" (MLA, 2007, p. 7) and "enhance and reward graduate student training" (p. 8) so GSTs would be better prepared to help FL students reach "translingual and transcultural competence" (p. 3). The report, however, did not provide guidelines on the content or form that this professionalization should take in order to achieve its goals (as discussed by Allen & Dupuy, 2010;Allen & Negueruela-Azarola, 2010). While it was suggested that literacy-based approaches might be particularly appropriate to achieve the report's recommendations, less attention was given to the nature 1. California State University, Fresno, California, United States; tarahashemi@csufresno.edu How to cite this chapter: Hashemi, T. (2020). Graduate student teacher voices: perception of and apprenticeship in multiliteracies-oriented teaching. In B. Dupuy and M. Grosbois (Eds), Language learning and professionalization in higher education: pathways to preparing learners and teachers in/for the 21st century (pp. 99-134). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2020Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet. .44.1103 of professional development opportunities that should be offered to GSTs in order for them to be better able to instantiate such approaches in their classrooms.
Given the frontline position held by GSTs when curricular reform efforts are being undertaken (Gómez Soler & Tecedor, 2018) and in a context in which little is known about the changes that need to be introduced in GSTs' professional development to facilitate the implementation of literacy-based teaching at the basic level, the purpose of the current study aimed at examining GSTs' perceptions of the use of such approaches as well as the professional development opportunities they have received in order to teach in ways that align with such approaches. The current study's results show that although it is clear that GSTs in programs informed by a literacy-based framework receive what they perceive as adequate professional development, they still would like more opportunities to improve their teaching skills.

Overview of GSTs' professional development in FL programs
In an effort to move away from the 'fragmented' and 'unfocused' (Freeman, 1989) approach to GSTs' professional development, scholars have for many years advocated that FL departments provide graduate students with several opportunities to enhance their professional development. Very often due to time and budget restrictions, the most typical opportunities adopted by FL departments remain as of today a preservice workshop or orientation, a onesemester long methodology course, occasional observations conducted by a GST's supervisor or an experienced GST, and occasional meetings that most often focus on housekeeping issues. With over a decade apart, Di Donato (1983) and Azevedo (1999) provided several guidelines meant to prepare preservice GSTs in about a week-long orientation context. Di Donato (1983) explained that during this time, GSTs should be exposed to a 'shock' language session and experience first-hand what it is like to be a basic language student. He further suggested that orientation should also provide an opportunity for GSTs to partake into collaborative sample lesson planning, get familiarized with university and departmental policies, be introduced to former first-year GSTs, get acquainted with available material (labs, textbooks), and participate in other interventions. Azevedo (1999) also argued that a preservice workshop is the least preparation that should be offered to GSTs. He added that orientation could also serve as a time to perform a teaching demo and to get to meet not only the GSTs' direct supervisor but also higher hierarchy faculty members.
Ryan-Scheutz and Rustia (1999) however underscored that while a preservice workshop might theoretically seem beneficial to GSTs, it would be unrealistic to expect them to be competent and well prepared to teach after only a week of orientation. That is why in-service professional development is also crucial to GSTs' training in teaching. Allen and Negueruela-Azarola (2010) showed that in-service professional development often takes the shape of a three-credit methods course for new GSTs concurrent to their first teaching assignment and usually focuses on lower-level language instruction. It thus represents for many GSTs the core of their training as FL instructors, hence the numerous scholarly articles that analyze its efficacy, constraints, and need for improvements.
In an empirical study aiming at finding out how the FL methods course had evolved since the 1940's, Warford (2003) concluded that it had shifted from "a prescriptive approach focusing on an essential core of pedagogical knowledge to a way of seeing FL teaching that puts teacher beliefs and decisions making at the core of the curriculum" (p. 29). Yet, the author highlighted the fact that, as recommended by the contemporary literature, it might be time to "articulate a course sequence beyond the one-semester methods course" (Warford, 2003, p. 33) that defines one out of three main criticisms against the method course that I will discuss later in this chapter.
Most studies in considering GST training reform have called for fundamental change in the training structure (e.g. Arens, 2010) or have made concrete pedagogical suggestions for educating future FL professors (Blyth, 2011;Enkin, 2015).

The issue of the current professional development structure
As can be seen from the above-mentioned approaches to GST professional development, FL departments are still primarily in a 'teacher training paradigm' addressing short-term teaching-centered themes and not so much in a 'professional development' dynamic that reflects long-term needs of graduate students (Allen & Dupuy, 2010). In very few cases will GSTs ever have to select course materials, collaborate on the development of a curriculum or a syllabus, or even have the occasion to partake in an informed discussion about their performance with experts in language pedagogy (a fundamental part of GSTs' training according to Brandl, 2000).
Given the current makeup of GST training, one is left to wonder whether the goals of professional development set by the ad hoc MLA committee in 2007, namely that it should "provide substantive training in language teaching and in the use of new technologies" (MLA, 2007, p. 7) and "enhance and reward graduate student training" (p. 8) in order to create "educated speakers who have deep translingual and transcultural competence" (p. 3), can be achieved. The lack of guidelines on content or form to be able to reach these goals (as discussed by Allen & Dupuy, 2010; Allen & Negueruela-Azarola, 2010) might be part of the problem.
As Lord et al. (2013) pointed out, "a preservice orientation, a teaching methods course, and ongoing professional development opportunities and workshops" are elements that "share the primary function of ensuring that instructors have the knowledge and skills needed to carry out their duties" (p. 107). In reality, the literature shows that GSTs may not uniformly receive training based on these proven methods, or even tailored to their specific needs as instructors from varied disciplinary backgrounds. In this respect, the specter of disciplinary turf wars looms large over the topic of appropriate and effective teacher training.
Though the methods course is the only guaranteed opportunity during which substantive training in language teaching is provided to GSTs in most universities, many scholars have highlighted its flaws (Allen & Dupuy, 2010;Allen & Negueruela-Azarola, 2010;Allen, Paesani, & Dupuy, 2011;Angus, 2016;Freeman, 1989;Grosse, 1993). Indeed, it appears that most methods classes today may continue to rely on an inadequate and outdated model of transmission of knowledge (Johnson, 2009) that compresses large amounts of theory into a single-semester course. Freeman (1993) referred to this as the frontloading model, where GSTs are provided with maximum knowledge to be used in their immediate professional development to meet the short-term needs of the department in which they teach rather than an investment in their long-term professional development. Furthermore, this approach has also been proven to be problematic by studies that focus on GSTs' perspectives over their training in language teaching. Novice GSTs are sometimes unwilling and maybe even unable to translate the instructed theory from the methods course to their classroom (Allen, 2011;Brandl, 2000;Rankin & Becker, 2006). Wilbur (2007) argued that this might be due to the fact that most activities in the methods course often fail to illustrate a connection between theory and practice. What might also influence the theory/practice gap for GSTs is the standardized approach of the methods course, which fails to acknowledge the various backgrounds of graduate students. Indeed, as Allen and Negueruela-Azarola (2010) argued, the "one-size-fits-all professional development model does not reflect the reality of graduate students as diverse individuals with varied cultural and educational backgrounds and unique needs" (p. 388).
Finally, and probably most importantly, because the methods course mostly focuses on training GSTs to teach in lower-division FL classes without introducing them to strategies for teaching upper-division literature or content classes, it further promotes the long-standing 'two-tiered' system that divides language and literature faculty and results in a precarious situation for SLAfocused faculty and graduate students operating in these departments, and even arrogance on the part of literature faculty when considering the importance of teaching, as "teaching language is consistently viewed as a less sophisticated, hence less difficult, task than teaching literature" (Kramsch, 1993, p. 7). Along the same line, Bernhardt (2001) added that: "[i]t is indeed within 'the methods course' that the (future) profession is socialized into the 'lang-lit split'. [...] If the only teacher preparation available is language teacher preparation, a clear message is sent that language gets taught, but the corollary collocation for literature remains awkward. A further part of the message communicated within the structure of the traditional methods course is that language and literature are clearly separable units. As long as this message is sent from the outset of the graduate student socialization process, the 'lang-lit split' will remain entrenched in graduate departments" (p. 199).

GSTs' perceptions of their professional development
While the professionalization of GSTs may still have some limitations, studies examining their experiences working in FL programs are relatively few. Gonglewski andPenningroth (1998), Brandl (2000), and Angus (2016) examined GSTs' perceptions of professional development opportunities available to them and found that overall GSTs desire more opportunities for collaboration in publication, conference presentations, and course development. They however do not usually take the initiative to request any of these opportunities, primarily because of their lack of confidence in themselves as future scholars. Interestingly, some GSTs seem to favor their roles as 'researcher' or 'student' over their professionalization as teachers, which Angus (2016) explained to be "unsurprising given the two-tiered system that exists in some FL departments [(MLA, 2007)]" (p. 834).
Among all possible forms of professional development opportunities, GSTs appear to value informal discussions with peers and their supervisor, end-of-course student evaluations, and small-group student interviews most. Angus (2016) also reported that collaborating in teaching courses, reading current research about language teaching, and assembling a teaching portfolio were selected by GSTs as making the greatest contributions to their success in their current roles. Zannirato and Sánchez-Serrano (2009) and Gómez Soler and Tecedor (2018) examined differences in perceptions of training effectiveness between GSTs and different departmental stakeholders, including Language Program Directors (LPDs). They found substantial differences of opinion between GSTs and faculty in charge of the training regarding the different professionalization opportunities. For LPDs, GST training must include lesson planning sessions, lectures targeting in-classroom and out-of-classroom time management, and SLA theory and practice. On the other hand, GSTs expressed a preference for 'howto' workshops (how to lesson plan, prepare exams, motivate students, grade, teach grammar), interaction with senior GSTs on 'what students have responded well to in the past' or on 'good or bad experiences of activities that work or don't work', and classroom visits (i.e. by all new teachers to other new experienced teachers). While most GSTs agreed on the usefulness of some sort of formal training in FL teaching, to the question "I feel the department should do more to train me in foreign language teaching", only 23% GSTs responded that they agreed. Zannirato and Sánchez-Serrano (2009) explained that more work needed to be done to understand this contradiction but that the respondents' inflated levels of self-confidence in their teaching might be reduced with more training to reveal their basic needs and gaps in knowledge of teaching preparation. Similar observations as the ones reported above were made by Mills and Allen (2007) and Mills (2011), who found that GSTs were not confident in their ability to teach literature even though they had reported satisfaction with the amount of professional development they had received in general. The authors argued that "since [Teaching Assistants (TAs)] essentially never teach such content courses, the limited amount of professional development that they do receive has tended to focus on instructional approaches that are appropriate in the first four semesters -that is, for beginning-and intermediate-level courses" (Mills & Allen, 2007, p. 231), which explains the findings.
Furthermore, it seems that all parties suffer from "problems of discord and disenfranchisement at the departmental level and on some classroom-specific or administrative issues" (Gómez Soler & Tecedor, 2018, p. 48), which often stem from curricular bifurcation with differences in objectives between lower-level classes that are more focused on language and advanced-level classes focused on literature.
In sum, even with the dearth of studies examining the experiences of GSTs working in FL programs, previous research seems to point toward a disconnect between the professional development opportunities available to GSTs and their actual use of these resources. GSTs' lack of perceived importance of what is offered by language programs and the discrepancy that exists between what they need and what they would like to receive as professional development might explain why this training is based on immediate teaching needs rather than longterm professionalization goals.

The literacy-based framework
The MLA (2007) report called for a replacement of "the two-tiered languageliterature structure with a broader and more coherent curriculum in which language, culture, and literature are taught as a continuous whole", arguing that it would "reinvigorate language departments as valuable academic units central to the humanities and to the missions of institutions of higher learning" (p. 3). Drawing on the concept of multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996), several scholars (e.g. Allen & Paesani, 2010;Kern, 2000;Paesani, Allen, & Dupuy, 2015;Swaffar & Arens, 2005) foregrounded the notion of these newly redefined literacies as a possible way forward to unifying the undergraduate FL curriculum, as they could "envelop communication in the textual" (Paesani et al., 2015, p. 9) throughout the four-year FL curricular sequence. Such an approach has been articulated in a variety of ways in the literature and all rely on the same critical set of notions and assumptions, namely, "(1) a view of language as a socioculturally situated semiotic system (Halliday, 1978), and of language learning as a process of gaining access to meaning-making resources; (2) a curriculum that is 'text'based including written and multimodal texts; and (3) a pedagogy that emphasizes 'what texts do and how texts mean rather than what they mean'" (Bazerman & Prior, 2004, p. 3, cited in Kumagai, López-Sánchez, & Wu, 2015 3 ).
In other words, such a curriculum merges language and content while focusing on contextualized language use through meaningful interaction with authentic literary and non-literary texts. As put by Kern (2000), this purpose-sensitive and dynamic view of literacy "entails at least a tacit awareness of the relationships between textual conventions and their contexts of use, and ideally, the ability to reflect critically on these relationships" all while "drawing on a wide range of cognitive abilities, on knowledge of written and spoken language, on knowledge of genres, and on cultural knowledge" (p. 16). Paesani et al. (2015) add that a literacy-based framework "unifies, rather than separates, the study of language and the study of literary-cultural content" (p. 22), including "an understanding of the relationships among various oral, written, and visual forms and how these forms contribute to textual meaning; the ability to construct meaning through the process of creating and transforming knowledge; and a recognition of the dynamic nature of language and the socially and culturally embedded resources used in literacy-based practices" (p. 21).
In the multiliteracies framework, "meaning design" reflects the view of "discovering" in learning "because it is a dynamic process of discovering formmeaning connections through the acts of interpreting and creating written, oral, visual, audiovisual, and digital texts" (Paesani et al., 2015, p. 23). To be able to 'meaning design', the New London Group (1996) evokes four different components/stages to be implemented in a lesson plan: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice. In the situated practice stage, learners use their real lived experiences to deduce meaning from a text by looking at what is 'available' to them (culturally, linguistically, socially). In overt instruction, learners refer to the metalanguage (Kern, 2000) of the text and understand it enough to be able to reuse it in the 'transformed practice' stage of the lesson. Critical framing relies on the learner's understanding of the text from a sociocultural perspective. Finally, 'transformed practice' sees learners using acquired knowledge of the text to elaborate a new text of their own, by adapting or adding to it for example. These pedagogical stages may occur in any order but must occur not only concurrently but also in a related way.
It cannot be expected that GSTs will understand and apply the complex notions on which the multiliteracies framework and multiliteracies pedagogy are built without proper professional development. In fact, Allen and Paesani (2010) explained that "given the predominance of CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) in introductory-level textbooks and pedagogical materials, graduate [TAs] and part-time instructors teaching in introductory programs are by necessity trained in CLT, and thus may have limited or no knowledge of alternative frameworks, such as the multiliteracies approach, or how to apply them in the classroom" (p. 125).
In two longitudinal case studies, Allen (2011) and Allen and Dupuy (2012) analyzed the conceptual development of novice GSTs. Allen (2011) explained that the most valuable opportunities where her participants developed concepts about the literacy-based framework were two pedagogy seminars as well as ongoing dialogic mediation with their LPD. Allen (2011) concluded her study by suggesting that "expanding formal pedagogy instruction for FL graduate students beyond the methods course and focusing on one framing construct relevant to language and literary-cultural teaching" (p. 101) while maximizing extant forms of professional development such as the methods course and classroom observations would contribute to "articulate alternative means of supporting conceptual growth" (p. 101). In fact, Allen and Dupuy (2012) demonstrated how GSTs' participation in an advanced pedagogy seminar several semesters after they had taken a methods course contributed to their conceptual understandings of literacy, its application in classroom instruction, and its role as a framework to structure the undergraduate FL curriculum (p. 186). As mentioned in the abovecited studies, a literacy-based framework would support the replacement of a two-tiered language-literature structure and as such, with relevant professional development opportunities, would bolster GSTs' confidence in their ability to teach across the four-year language curriculum.

Research questions
In a context where current common professionalization options might not entirely succeed in providing GSTs with adequate knowledge and experience to implement the MLA (2007) report recommendations and more specifically teach within a literacy-based approach, this study sought answers to the following Research Questions (RQ): RQ1: How do GSTs understand a literacy-based approach to teaching, and how do they respond to being taught about it?
RQ2: How are GSTs teaching in a literacy-based curriculum professionalized?
RQ3: What are GSTs' perceptions of their professional development as it relates to the literacy-based framework?

Participants and context of the study
After approval was received from the Institutional Review Board, a questionnaire was distributed by email in the fall of 2018 to GSTs teaching in literacy-based FL programs in three different U.S. public institutions and four different language programs. Study participants were recruited from language programs that had recently undergone curricular changes guided by the multiliteracies framework so that they would align with the recommendations of the MLA (2007) report. These programs were specifically selected based on the published research done by the LPDs regarding the programs they are or were directing. Data about each LPD was also collected in order to better understand their academic rank and background, as it would reflect on the type of professional development they might favor (Table 1 below).
Twenty-four GSTs teaching and studying in four different language programs (in French, German, and Spanish) at three different public universities agreed to participate. Sixteen were domestic students and eight were international, and their teaching experience ranged from less than a year to three years. Three were pursuing a Master's degree, and the remaining 21 were enrolled in a doctoral program. For additional demographic data, see supplementary materials, Appendix 1.

Data collection and analysis
Data were collected by means of a questionnaire that included both closed and open-ended questions. Participants took on average 28 minutes to complete the questionnaire. It focused on three main topic areas: the participant's biographical information (eight questions), the participant's personal conception of multiliteracies-oriented language teaching (nine questions), and the participant's nature and perceived quality of professional development opportunities (five questions). For every question, participants had to choose among a predesigned list of options and were always offered the possibility of adding their own choices.
Quantitative results were analyzed using Excel. To supplement and elaborate on the quantitative data, qualitative data were collected through the openended questions of the questionnaire. I used an inductive approach to code the qualitative data and looked for recurring themes related to multiliteracies teaching and professional development.

Findings
Findings for each research question are reported in turn.

RQ1: How do GSTs understand a literacy-based approach to teaching and how do they respond to being taught about it?
To answer this first research question, I focused on responses related to multiliteracies-oriented teaching, definitions of a multiliteracies approach, and text use. When asked if they believed their teaching was anchored in a multiliteracies perspective, a majority of the study participants reported that it was. The remaining participants replied that they were not sure because of the use of certain methods that they judged contrary to multiliteracies-oriented teaching ( Figure 1).

Figure 1. Multiliteracies-oriented teaching
Emily, a fourth-year PhD student in Hispanic and Lusophone literatures, cultures, and linguistics and a GST in advanced-level Spanish, explained that because of the nature of the class she was teaching (a 'writing intensive' class), she had to focus on explicit grammar lessons "to support stronger writing skills" which to her brings a certain nuance to multiliteracies-oriented teaching. Just like Emily, Kimmy, a PhD student in French literature and a GST in French, indicated that she was not comfortable saying that her teaching was multiliteracies-oriented because of the way she introduced grammar in her classroom (she used "overt grammar instruction", which would not be considered consistent with a multiliteracies-oriented way of teaching). However, her use of authentic texts "whenever possible" and the pre, during, and post scaffolding activities she used were more multiliteracies oriented, which told her that her teaching was a "mix of communicative multiliteracies and overt instruction". By communicative instruction, it is assumed that Kimmy meant instruction that fell within CLT. Other reasons for arguing that their teaching might not follow a multiliteracies orientation included the lack of 'transformed practice' activities in which students get to apply what they have learned in new ways because "the classes are too short" (Anna) or because of the heavy focus on a certain kind of text rather than another ("my class has a heavy literature focus", Kristen).
Kate, who used to teach a Global Simulation (GS) class in French, also answered that "in the beginning (pre-GS) [the class] did not follow an ML approach, as I was not as sensitive to that approach at the time. In the development of the GS, principles of ML were incorporated by using the [four curricular components] as a guide to plan different ways of getting students to engage with texts".
GSTs who replied that their teaching was indeed multiliteracies-oriented justified it by either explaining that it was because of the nature of the materials they used or the kinds of activities carried out by students. Peter, for example, mentioned, "I use authentic materials and different media", and Gerdine added, "I use a variety of texts such as music videos, music, poems, statistics and books from Germany to teach the students". One could however argue that using authentic materials/sources could also be part of a communicative language teachingoriented classroom; what one does with texts is more indicative of one's orientation to teaching than the types of texts used. Other participants focused on the types of activities they conducted with students to show that their teaching was multiliteracies-oriented: "With these texts I guide students through pre, during, and post text reflection, focusing first on global meaning before drawing their attention to detail, and finally using an expansion activity to have them recycle pieces of the text in their own work" (Kimmy).
"I scaffold my lessons around the processes of experiencing, analyzing, practicing, transforming, and reflecting" (Cassy).
While most GSTs replied that their teaching was multiliteracies-oriented, it was important to know what that implied for them. Participants were asked, "How would you define a multiliteracies-oriented approach to language teaching"? The definitions provided by the study participants were divided into two main groups: definitions with an emphasis on the nature of material used (such as Laura's: "Using a wide variety of literature and other types of written/spoken media to assist in teaching language") and definitions with an emphasis on the types of activities that would be included in a multiliteraciesoriented approach (such as Daphne's: "Integrating all the skills, not trying to teach them in isolation, and way of teaching"; supplementary materials, Appendix 2).
In order to find out how participants engaged in multiliteracies-oriented teaching, GSTs were asked to say more about their use of texts in the classroom. All GSTs but two reported that they used texts to introduce something new (a new topic, a new grammatical point, new vocabulary). Over half reported using texts as "models to teach many skills that students can then reproduce" (Helen). Two GSTs from Program 2 reported relying on their textbooks to find texts once a week to teach culture: "we have an online textbook and each chapter has a short excerpt that is called the 'lectura'. Thursdays in class we go over strategies and then answer questions on it" (Renee). Sandra explained that most texts from lectura are aimed at "practicing reading" and "doing activities based on the content of the text".

RQ2: How are GSTs teaching in a literacy-based curriculum professionalized?
GSTs were asked to report the kind of professional development opportunities in which they had participated (Table 2).

Preservice orientation 24
Methods course 22 In-service meetings 18 In-class visit by my language program director 22 Other 5 The data show that all participants reported having taken a methods course, including two GSTs who reported having taken their methods course at their previous institution while completing a master's degree. All GSTs reported that they had participated in a preservice orientation. A total of six participants indicated that they did not have any in-service meetings. The GSTs were also asked to provide a brief description of the professional development opportunities in which they had participated. An analysis of their descriptions revealed very little variation between their experiences across the four language programs included in this study. Consequently, all participants' answers were combined while still providing details about the content of each professional development opportunity.

The preservice orientation
All participants reported that they had participated in a week-long preservice orientation before the start of the fall semester when they were incoming GSTs. It was conducted by the LPD and included presentations from the FL department's administrators as well. GSTs described it as the time when they were introduced to the language program's culture, the syllabus with which they would be working, and the teaching method adopted in the level they would be teaching. The preservice orientation was also the time GSTs got familiarized with the adopted textbook and its online platform. Finally, GSTs reported that their preservice orientation included teaching demonstrations by senior GSTs or language professors from other language programs.

The methods course
In all four language programs included in this study, the methods course consisted of a three-credit course offered in the fall semester. Although usually taught by an LPD, it was not always taught by the LPD of the language program in which a GST taught, and the course appears to have been taught by different professors every year, which led to variation in the GSTs' experiences since each professor might follow a different approach to teaching this course. Overall, the data show that the methods course introduced a myriad of different teaching approaches. Some GSTs reported that it was very general, and others reported it had a strong focus on communicative language teaching or on literacy-based teaching. Students from Language Programs 1 and 4 also had as part of their methods class hour-long sessions, usually led by a senior graduate student from their language programs. One student wrote, "there was a departmental breakout session that at the time did not align with the content of the methods course whatsoever" (Daphne).

In-service meetings
The GSTs' experience with the in-service meetings varied as the frequency and content of the meetings differed greatly. GSTs from Language Program 1 reported meeting every week or every other week; GSTs from Language Program 2 every other month; GSTs from Language Program 3 and 4 every month. Meetings were conducted by the LPD and the GSTs' course coordinator when applicable (Language Program 3). The in-service meetings served as time to discuss "course-specific issues (tests, projects, students), but also teaching in general" (Kristen). GSTs reported that it is during in-service meetings that they usually bring up questions they might be facing in their teaching: "In-service orientation gave me the opportunity to discuss any concern and issues that you could have in our classrooms" (Elodie).

Classroom visitations
The frequency of classroom visitations varied as well. While GSTs in Language Programs 1 and 2 reported being observed teaching once per semester, those in Language Programs 2 and 4 reported being observed once in the fall semester "during our 5th week of the semester" (Sandra). GSTs from Program 3 were visited by the LPD in the fall and by the head GST in the spring, whereas the GSTs in other programs were visited by the LPD. All class visits were done by at least the LPD or the head GST, and in the context of Language Program 1, the LPD was accompanied by other GSTs. All visits appeared to be followed by a post-observation meeting where the GSTs received feedback on their teaching: The "director came to watch class and then discussed positive and negative aspects of my teaching in a one-on-one meeting" (Laura) and the impact of the lesson on students: "We discussed how the overall class went" (Callie).

Ranking of professional development opportunities
The GSTs were asked to rank the above-cited professional development opportunities from most useful to least useful for their understanding of what is involved with a multiliteracies approach. Many students from Language Program 1 reported that all the above-cited professional development opportunities were seen as somewhat helpful, but the methods class was the professional development opportunity that garnered the most uneven support. Laura indicated, "I have found all four to be helpful", and Helen wrote, "I don't find any of these very much more beneficial than the others". Gerdine volunteered, "I don't consider any of these to have been unhelpful". It is however worth noticing that four out of nine GSTs ranked the preservice orientation as least helpful, with some feeling "really overwhelmed by all the new information" (Carol), an opinion echoed by Cassy, who wrote, "Preservice orientation just went too fast. There was a lot of good information, but not enough time to process it". Others indicated that the content of the preorientation did not align with the approach adopted in the language program. For example, Daphne volunteered, "The preservice orientation was fine, but at that time was conducted by the predecessor of the current LPD, who did not work from a multiliteracies perspective". Two GSTs, Laura and Gerdine, who had never taught before, however ranked the preservice orientation as the most helpful professional development opportunity they received. Laura wrote, "The preservice orientation was most helpful, as it provided a basis for teaching that I didn't previously possess", and Gerdine reported, "I had not taught in a classroom before I started with the MA program. The preservice orientation was therefore most helpful to help me find my feet and to know what is expected of me".
Finally, any forms of direct feedback from the LPD, whether it was after inclass visits or in-service meetings, were thought of as being very useful to GSTs. For example, Cassy wrote, "I found the direct feedback from my LPD the most valuable". Callie shared, "Getting personal feedback in the midst of the semester was the most helpful because I could implement it quickly". Direct and personalized feedback from the LPD was also given high marks by Anna, who reported that she believed that "in class visit has [sic]  While LPDs' feedback was considered very useful, GSTs were divided when it came to the usefulness of the methods course. Renee, a GST in Language Program 2, confessed that "the methods course I'm enrolled in seems to be a bit repetitive and too much course load for teachers who are currently learning by doing". Laura, another GST from Language Program 1, admitted that she "ranked the methods course as the least useful because it feels difficult to apply the things, we are learning in the methods course in such a low-level, fastpaced Spanish course". The difficulty of putting theoretical knowledge into practice was a common thread in the participants' answers across the language programs. As Laureen, one of the participants from Language Program 2, shared, "it's not always easy to transfer what you learn, even the practical parts, to your teaching practice without further guidance and feedback". Gerdine, from Language Program 2, also felt that the focus on one single method was unfortunate and would have liked to learn about other teaching approaches as well. Meanwhile, Shery from Language Program 3 shared that "the methods course was helpful since […] we use the multiliteracies methods, it was a new approach for me". Similarly, Celia from Program 4 reported that the methods course allowed her to "understand (her) craft", and Elodie from the same program explained that it allowed her "to gain a deeper understanding of the expectations at a college-level".
The results show that most of my participants participated in a preservice orientation, a methods course, and in-service meetings, and some had in-class visits. I provided a description of what these professional development opportunities look like and had study participants rank them in terms of usefulness. The data show that the preservice orientation was the least useful one, as it tends to be too overwhelming and fast-paced. It was however reported to be useful by some GSTs who appreciated being given the basic tools for their teaching as well as clear expectations regarding their jobs. Direct feedback from the LPD was definitely appreciated by GSTs in this study. Finally, rankings of the methods course diverged: some GSTs reported that it was too much course load and provided information that was too difficult to apply. Others enjoyed having a dedicated opportunity to learn about the literacy-based framework.

RQ3: What are the GSTs' perceptions of their professional development as it relates to the literacy-based framework?
To answer my last question, I asked my participants about the appropriateness of their pre-and in-service professional development opportunities. Although preservice orientation was not ranked as the most useful professional development opportunity in any of the programs included in this study, results show that a majority of GSTs believed that they had received appropriate professional development prior to starting teaching (Figure 2).

Figure 2. GSTs' perceptions of appropriateness of professional development opportunities before service
As Laureen explained, "I think we got all the information we needed and could have digested before actually starting in and trying it ourselves". Her most useful experience was to see examples of lessons, including one based on the multiliteracies framework, and then working in collaboration with other GSTs to lesson plan. Coming from the same program, Ralph shared, "the university has given me very good opportunities to prepare myself for my position as a TA. This included weeks of preparation on an individual level, as well as ongoing instruction about teaching throughout my first semester". Shery appreciated interacting with more experienced GSTs during her orientation and explained that her institution's orientation is complete and very well organized. Many GSTs also shared that the experience they received at their previous institution along with the preservice orientation made them confident to teach as a GST.
While most GSTs agreed that they received appropriate professional development opportunities before starting their position as a GST, many nuanced their justifications. Cassy, for example, shared that the preservice orientation provided her with too much information to process in too little time. She also explained that she would have benefited from having the methods course before she started teaching, but also felt it was useful "to be trying out the things (she) was learning right away". Just like Cassy, Emily (who had no teaching experience when she started as a GST in Spanish) believed that a single week of orientation was insufficient to prepare her. Kimmy, who disagreed that she received appropriate training prior to taking on her role as a French GST, argued that "throwing people into a teaching role with no more than two days of training, with NO [sic] classroom management advice, is not enough. Pedagogical theory in general is not enough. We need linguistic training on theories of acquisition as well".

Teaching beyond the lower level
In this study, 19 participants (79.17%) reported that they were teaching lowerlevel classes (first to fourth semester), and five (20.83%) were teaching advancedlevel classes. The vast majority believed that the professional development opportunities they had received had taught them to teach both lower-level and upper-level FL classes (Figure 3 below).
A significant number of GSTs explained that their knowledge of the multiliteracies framework made them confident that it would be 'transferable' to any level. Shery underscored that "the multiliteracies framework are [sic] the foundation of our teaching. From there, we are prepared to teach any level". Cassy also shared that although she had yet to teach upper-level courses, she felt confident that her "knowledge of scaffolding lessons around texts and content" had prepared her to teach "more culturally-focused courses". Gerdine also reported that "the focus on scaffolding a lesson as to support students to understand the work is applicable at both beginner and advanced levels". However, many GSTs had more nuanced answers, mainly because of the curricular divide between lower-and upper-level classes. Elodie wrote, "I agree that these professional development opportunities were enough for me as an experienced language teacher, but I am not sure it was enough for novice teachers. In addition, the fact the lower-level and upper-level are separated in terms of focus (language versus literature), I am not sure novice teachers are fully prepared to do both".

Figure 3. GSTs' perceptions on capacity to teach lower-and upper-level classes
Emily also shared that given the differences in-between levels in terms of teaching approaches, she was not sure that she was provided with the best tools to teach at all levels. She noted, "There is a certain inconsistency across our course levels about different methodologies, which made our professional development opportunities either too broad or too specific to each class".
Finally, some GSTs believed that because of their lack of training in teaching upper-level classes and the curricular divide between lower-and upper-level classes, they were not only not prepared to teach upper-level classes but also did not feel ready to be on the job market. Ashlee shared that she would like more professional development opportunities in teaching upper-level classes to better understand the differences between the different levels and more particularly the teaching of literature versus language. Danielle, a former GST in German, argued that the lack of experience in teaching upper-level classes but also in designing her "own syllabi for any level" were things that "would have prepared (her) even better for the academic job market".

The need for more professional development opportunities
As I previously indicated, a majority of GSTs reported that they had received appropriate training prior to starting teaching and believed that the professional development they had received prepared them to teach both lower-and upperlevel classes. Nonetheless, it also appears that the vast majority of the GSTs in this study would have liked more professional development opportunities to improve their multiliteracies-oriented teaching skills (Figure 4). As Gerdine put it, "I agree that we received professional development opportunities, but [teaching with a multiliteracies framework] was still a very daunting process to go through". Many GSTs expressed their need for more demonstration of multiliteracies-oriented lessons from which they could model their teaching as well as more professional development opportunities to guide them into finding and creating materials for the classroom. Elodie, for example, shared her struggles with the approach used by textbooks and their lack of alignment with the multiliteracies framework: "I think CLT is still too present in most of the textbook and departmental expectations, and more professional development would help to shift this CLT tendency". Making proper or appropriate use of their teaching material was a challenge many GSTs also reported. Several GSTs shared that they were not sure what was important and what was not when using texts. Kristen wondered, "Is all grammar meaningful? Sometimes I feel it's only on a grammatical level (like adjective endings in German). How do I deal with these structures"? Cynthia, a former GST in French, also worried about "the authenticity of the contexts" she was bringing in the classroom. As a nonnative speaker of French, she shared that she "feared that my contexts were too stereotypical and not reflective of actual French culture and language".
In addition to making proper use of their teaching material, a vast majority of GSTs shared their concerns about "covering everything" in a short amount of class time: "it is difficult to go beyond the superficial cultural components with such little time to work with" (Sandra). Just like Sandra, Laureen shared her struggles with the lack of time she had when teaching from a multiliteracies perspective: "it's definitely time consuming. These texts are very rich. There is a lot of information, and much of it is new to me. Our in-class discussions can go kind of long, which can be great, but it's always taking time away from something else. I wish I had more time to really learn a lot about the text we are treating".
Time management was not only an issue in the classroom but also in the GSTs' professional development. Many shared that although rewarding at times, using the multiliteracies framework is "time consuming and ask[s] for a lot of reflection while doing it" (Elodie). Kate also shared that because she was "teaching a full-time section, taking three grad-level classes, plus preparing for [the] Master's exam, prelim exams, dissertation proposal, and/or the dissertation itself", she found it very difficult to spend more time on developing multiliteracies lessons. As a result, some GSTs shared that although they would like more professional development opportunities, it just did not seem very realistic given their already very busy schedules.

Discussion and implications
This study was purposefully focused on a specific sample of GSTs. All study participants belonged to language programs that had recently undergone curricular changes and had implemented a multiliteracies framework at the basic level. In this context, it was important to find out if adequate measures had been taken to adapt the GSTs' professional development in such a way that they could implement a multiliteracies approach in their classrooms.
I started by asking the participants whether they believed their teaching was multiliteracies oriented and how they would define it. While 79% of respondents said they believed their teaching was informed by the multiliteracies framework, 21% said it was not. Emily and Kristen argued that because of the nature of the classes they were teaching ("writing intensive" for Emily and with a "literature focus" for Kristen), they believed their teaching might not be totally informed by the framework. It is worth mentioning that intensive writing and literaturefocused classes are not incompatible with a multiliteracies framework. In fact, through a multiliteracies perspective, "writing is an act of meaning design that includes linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural dimensions" and is a modality closely intertwined with reading (Paesani et al., 2015, pp. 179-180). As such, the nature of the classes taught cannot serve as a pretext for not being able to implement a multiliteracies teaching approach.
On the other hand, Kimmy and Anna also felt uncomfortable saying that their teaching was multiliteracies oriented because of a focus on explicit grammar for Kimmy and a lack of transformed practice activities for Anna. Their strong reliance on the textbook in use might help explain this. Indeed, "the approach taken by many textbooks suggest that mechanical practice of structural patterns is effective for acquisition of grammar and vocabulary" (Paesani et al., 2015, p. 87), which goes against the implementation of meaningful grammar and vocabulary instruction grounded in textual instruction as well as transformed practice activities. Although textbook use may vary between institutions, curricula, programs, and instructors, textbooks maintain their "enduring centrality in classrooms around the world" (Gray, 2013, p. 2) and remain "the bedrock of syllabus design and lesson planning" (Kramsch, 1988, p. 63). Far from only having an impact on learners, the content of language textbooks impacts the work of LPDs and the professional development of the GSTs they oversee when implementing a literacy-based curriculum. LPDs often find themselves adapting and supplementing textbooks or even choosing to replace the commercial textbook altogether with an open education resource that they find easier to use in a literacy-based classroom (see Hashemi, forthcoming). While textbooks might present an obstacle to teaching using a multiliteracies framework at the basic level, I thought it would also be important to clarify what our participants' definitions of this concept was. I soon realized that although all the definitions included at least one of the words 'text', 'authentic text', 'material', 'source/ input', 'different modes of meaning', 'variety of literature', and 'cultural and linguistic components', a number of definitions revealed confusion among some study participants.
This is the case of the definitions provided by Emily and Kimmy. To the question, Emily replied, "an approach that considers anything to be a 'text'".
Although not incorrect, this definition lacks important consideration of the purpose for using texts. Kimmy on the other hand defined the multiliteracies approach as "using authentic texts (with potential slight modifications to be appropriate for levels) to demonstrate grammar and communicate culture". Kimmy's definition rightfully includes the notions of authentic texts, grammar, and culture. It does however seem that the sole purpose of the text is to illustrate a grammatical point she might have introduced in a prior lesson or to illustrate a cultural point to her students. As previously mentioned in this study, the multiliteracies pedagogy assumes "an understanding of the relationships among various oral, written, and visual forms and how these forms contribute to textual meaning; the ability to construct meaning through the process of creating and transforming knowledge; and a recognition of the dynamic nature of language and the socially and culturally embedded resources used in literacy-based practices" (Paesani et al., 2015, p. 21).
As such, rather than giving her students an opportunity to create meaning from the texts she incorporated in her instruction, Kimmy instead remained at a shallow level of analysis and failed to engage her students in finding the ways in which a text's goals are achieved or the context in which the text was produced for example. The selected definitions included in supplementary materials, Appendix 2 show that a fair number of participants are able to offer a definition that I believe is correct although each chose to emphasize different aspects based on what they believed to be important. At this point of the study, I could already tell that my participants had received recent, and even extensive, training in multiliteracy-oriented teaching and were thus able to word the important aspects of a complicated concept. It is important, however, to proceed with caution here, as the ability to correctly define a concept does not mean that it is appropriately implemented (see Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999). Overall, GSTs' reported knowledge about and use of literacy-based approaches to teaching show that there seems to be an understanding of what this approach implies in terms of the nature of the material used and the goals of using such material in the classroom. In fact, because of GSTs' awareness of the importance of authentic texts to situate learning in social and historical contexts, many of them seemed to be increasingly frustrated when having to use made-up texts from the textbook (see for example Andersen, Lund, & Risager, 2006;Brown, 2010;Etienne & Sax, 2009;Gilmore, 2007). Instead, they would have preferred to bring texts that were truly reflective of language use in the target language and to which students could relate.
Results related to the GSTs' professionalization showed that although this study's participants did follow a rather traditional professional development path with a preservice orientation week, a one-semester methods class, and in-service meetings including occasional visits from the LPD or a course coordinator, it was also clear that efforts had been made to provide them with useful preparation. While a few GSTs shared that their methods course was useful, the data show that the professional development of the GSTs in this study was still by and large frontloaded (Freeman, 1993) and continued to focus on providing them with information and strategies for their immediate rather than their long-term professional development teaching needs. Ongoing reflection and practice with understanding the relationship between SLA, content, and pedagogy to articulate better and more cohesive curricular design and cultivate self-reflective (and collaborative) practices would probably benefit GSTs the most in the long term.
This study's participants shared on various occasions that direct personalized feedback and teaching demonstrations showing examples of a multiliteraciesoriented lesson were elements that proved to be the most useful to them, which is similar to Zannirato and Sánchez-Serrano's (2009) findings indicating that GSTs favor 'how-to' professional development. In several comments made by my participants who wished they had more professional development opportunities, a 'how-to' pattern emerged: how to create material for the class, how to work with a CLT textbook, how to teach grammar, how to not be too stereotypical, and how to 'cover everything' in short classes. Paradoxically, a majority of my participants also reported that they were satisfied with the professional development opportunities they had gotten prior to setting foot in the classroom. A few reported that although it had been an overwhelming process, they were confident that the knowledge they had acquired would allow them to teach all levels across the curriculum. It was however noted that with multiliteracies programs being focused on the basic level and with some programs in this study still in the current state of bifurcated curricula, where lower-level classes are focused on language and advanced-level classes are focused on literature, GSTs might not be fully prepared to teach at the advanced level.
A number of practical implications for LPDs and other collegiate FL entities in charge of GSTs' professional development relate to my findings. First, this chapter shows that all GSTs participating in this study received professional development opportunities beyond the methods course. As mentioned by Allen and Dupuy (2012), formal instruction on the theoretical construct of literacy or a series of face-to-face or online workshops (since "not all TAs initially consider formal training […] beneficial to them", Brandl, 2000, p. 366) are essential in order to provide GSTs with continual grounding in classroom practices. GSTs in this study expressed difficulty in practically applying the notions of the multiliteracies approach to teaching, especially in a 50-minute class format, thus proving a need for more opportunities to apply their conceptual understanding. A way to meet GSTs' needs in that aspect would be for LPDs to teach a basic-level FL class once a year and have GSTs visit each other's classes a couple of times a month. Visits could be followed by online peer discussions about what GSTs thought about the lesson and the students' response to it and thus engagement in ongoing lesson study.
Furthermore, this study's participants shared that they favored personal and targeted feedback from their LPDs on their teaching. This is not a surprising finding, since a 'one-size-fits all' approach to professional development is inadequate (Allen & Negueruela-Azarola, 2010;McKibbin, 2001). As such, it is important to provide GSTs with continual mentorship (Angus, 2016) that they can use not just in their current teaching assignments but beyond their career as graduate students. While I am aware of the long list of tasks LPDs have to attend to, I would like to suggest that they encourage senior and more experienced GSTs to take these mentorship roles, which could prove to be a valued and valuable experience when they are on the job market and beyond. For example, they could visit their peers' classes and provide them with feedback. In order to conduct low-anxiety observations, the LPD might want to reorient the observation to be not so much on the GSTs' performances but more so on their students' responses to the different parts of the lesson. As such, these observations would be purely formative instead of being evaluative/punitive. The LPD could also implement or encourage some action-reflection assignments, modeling Grosbois and Sarré (2017), in which GSTs would implement and teach a lesson that was collaboratively prepared with other GSTs and the LPD and then post a reflection on a shared platform regarding that same lesson.
Finally, this study showed that most GSTs believed that their professional development prepared them to teach both lower and advanced levels. While this is an encouraging result, it must be interpreted carefully. It shows that GSTs believed that the multiliteracies framework can be applied across the curriculum; however, it does reveal the participants' perspectives on how this could be done. Some GSTs expressed that they were aware of the curricular divide in most FL programs. It would be beneficial to GSTs to be taught how to apply a multiliteracies approach to writing courses taught at the upper level, for example, even when teaching in a bifurcated department.
Some important limitations apply to this study's findings. First, for the data analysis, it would have been preferable to establish an interrater reliability coefficient when coding the open-ended responses. Second, as is often the case with long questionnaires, participants may have responded with brief answers, preventing me from getting the full picture. Follow-up interviews would have allowed me to contextualize some of the collected answers, especially when there was variation in answers among GSTs from the same language program. Focus groups would also have been beneficial when discussing the notions of multiliteracies-based teaching and the types of texts the participants would like to favor in their classrooms. Finally, being able to observe my participants' teaching over a given period of time would have further informed this study about the teaching practices used (or not) to implement a multiliteracies-based framework.

Future research and conclusion
Professional development is understood as a complex relationship between a wide range of factors, including reflective and critical stances taken by the instructor. Future research should control for GSTs' academic disciplines and years of experience, as well as other factors such as university, language taught, and other local factors.
This study of GSTs' professionalization and perceptions of professionalization in a context of multiliteracies-oriented teaching revealed that although some clear efforts are being made by the LPDs to provide them with a large variety of tools to teach in optimal conditions, GSTs could benefit from more opportunities that would provide them with direct and personalized feedback on their teaching as well as more demonstrations of concrete lessons applying the concepts of this framework. Some recommendations have been made in order to better meet GSTs' needs and move away from professional development "directed much more toward the needs of institutions than toward preparing graduate students to be self-reliant and knowledgeable practitioners" (Guthrie, 2001, p. 43).
Therefore, it is hoped that LPDs or other stakeholders in applied linguistics will implement more conceptually driven, reflection-focused, and classroom-based professional development opportunities in order to cater to GSTs' needs.