Exploring multiliteracies competencies in Indonesian teacher education: a cross-disciplinary survey of pre-service teachers

Introduction: This study investigates the multiliteracy competence and pedagogical readiness of pre-service teachers in Indonesia, with a particular focus on their ability to implement multimodal pedagogy. It examines differences in three key areas: (1) conceptual multiliteracy knowledge, (2) pedagogical preparedness for designing multimodal instruction, and (3) perceptions of challenges in implementing multiliteracy.

Methods: A quantitative survey approach was employed to collect data from pre-service teachers enrolled in both language-related programs (e.g., English, Arabic education) and non-language programs. The relationships between Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Multiliteracies (PCKM) and multiliteracy frameworks were analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Results: The study identified significant differences between language-related and non-language program participants in terms of preparedness and knowledge. The findings contribute to an expanded understanding of multiliteracy in teacher education, particularly within developing countries such as Indonesia, which presents a unique context due to its cultural diversity, complex social dynamics, and regional disparities in digital access.

Discussion: These results offer practical recommendations for redesigning teacher education curricula, enhancing pre-service teachers’ readiness to integrate multimodal pedagogy, addressing the specific challenges they face, and developing culturally and contextually relevant multiliteracy assessment tools.

Introduction

In the era of rapid globalization and digital transformation, the demands on literacy have extended beyond traditional reading and writing skills. Literacy now encompasses multimodal communication abilities and cultural responsiveness, which are crucial within diverse and dynamic learning environments (Kalantzis and Cope, 2023; Papen and Gillen, 2024). The global education agenda promotes the development of multiliteracies as core competencies to prepare teachers for the complexities of digital media, multicultural classrooms, and ongoing technological changes (Kim et al., 2023). Accordingly, multiliteracy has become a foundational competency to equip pre-service teachers with the adaptive pedagogical skills necessary to respond effectively to educational challenges and to contribute toward inclusive and equitable education systems (Corkett and Benevides, 2015).

International research indicates that multiliteracy has been integrated into curricula in countries such as Singapore, Finland, Australia, and Hong Kong (Lim, 2023). Implementation efforts emphasize the importance of students’ ability to interpret and produce multimodal texts appropriate to contemporary digital communication contexts (Amgott, 2023; Lim et al., 2021). Rooted in the framework proposed by the New London Group (1996), multiliteracy encompasses more than linguistic competence—it involves the capacity to understand and create meaning through various modes of representation within complex social and cultural contexts (Nabhan and Habók, 2025). Various studies have also demonstrated that multiliteracy pedagogy can bridge learning experiences at home and school while fostering creative expression across diverse media (Lim et al., 2021). Collaborative and contextualized multiliteracy teaching practices have been shown to promote critical literacy, enhance learner engagement, and strengthen more inclusive education (Amgott, 2023; Lim, 2023; Shank Lauwo, 2025).

Most multiliteracy studies have developed within language education contexts, particularly in English language teaching and multilingual learning (Loerts and Belcher, 2024). However, the increasing need for multimodal communication competence and cultural sensitivity across various disciplines has heightened interest in multiliteracy applications beyond language learning. In this regard, teacher education institutions play a strategic role, as they are tasked with preparing future educators to face the increasingly complex and diverse challenges of 21st-century learning (Benade, 2017).

Therefore, higher education holds a critical position in shaping pre-service teachers who are responsive to cultural diversity, social dynamics, and technological advancement. In this context, multiliteracy is regarded as a key competence that can bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge taught at universities and practical classroom teaching (Esperat, 2023). Nevertheless, various studies reveal that many pre-service teachers lack adequate pedagogical readiness to implement multiliteracy effectively (Deroo, 2022; Howard et al., 2021).

Although there have been important contributions in developing multiliteracy measurement instruments (Nabhan and Habók, 2025), multiliteracy-based pedagogical designs (Maia, 2022), and language teaching practices, the implementation of multiliteracy in cross-disciplinary teacher education remains limited. Cross-disciplinary research shows that multiliteracy approaches also positively contribute to learning in science education (Humphrey, 2021), special education (Krishnan, 2021), and interdisciplinary learning (Kangas and Rasi, 2021).

Recent research found no significant differences in multiliteracy knowledge between pre-service teachers from language and non-language backgrounds (Esperat and Stickley, 2024). However, important aspects such as pedagogical readiness and the contextual application of multiliteracy based on academic background have not been extensively explored. Furthermore, Papen and Gillen (2024) emphasize the significance of multiliteracy in strengthening agency and engagement among marginalized learner groups, thereby extending the meaning of multiliteracy beyond conventional language education boundaries. This study assumes that the disciplinary background of pre-service teachers, whether from language-related or non-language education programs, does not pose a significant barrier to developing multiliteracy competencies (Kaya et al., 2010). While differences in multiliteracy knowledge might exist, it is assumed that these differences are not as pronounced in terms of pedagogical preparedness or implementation challenges, which will be further investigated in this study (Ajayi, 2010). Considering these points, this study specifically aims to examine differences in (1) conceptual multiliteracy knowledge, (2) pedagogical readiness in designing multimodal instruction, and (3) perceptions of multiliteracy implementation challenges between pre-service teachers from language and non-language programs in Indonesia (Corkett and Benevides, 2015).

There is also an ongoing theoretical debate on multiliteracy approaches that deserves serious attention. Some normative approaches focus on multiliteracy as a set of technical skills and adaptation to digital media (Alobaid, 2025; Rocca, 2024). Conversely, critical approaches view multiliteracy as a social practice demanding awareness of cultural and political values in the learning process (Shank Lauwo, 2025). Understanding this tension is crucial, especially when applying multiliteracy within cross-disciplinary teacher education, due to its implications for curriculum design and teaching practice (Lehtinen, 2025).

Considering these points, this study specifically aims to examine differences in (1) conceptual multiliteracy knowledge, (2) pedagogical readiness in designing multimodal instruction, and (3) perceptions of multiliteracy implementation challenges between pre-service teachers from language and non-language programs in Indonesia. A quantitative survey approach is employed to comprehensively capture these dimensions (Espadoto et al., 2019). This study contributes theoretically by broadening cross-disciplinary understanding of multiliteracy in the context of developing countries. Practically, it offers recommendations to redesign teacher education curricula to be more responsive to multiliteracy demands and cultural diversity (Kim et al., 2023).

Furthermore, the findings are expected to inform the development of multiliteracy assessment instruments aligned with the realities of teacher education in Indonesia. To contextualize these aims, Indonesia provides a highly relevant setting for this study due to its rich cultural diversity, complex social dynamics, and significant disparities in digital access across regions (Fatmawati, 2021; Mariyono, 2024). As an archipelagic nation with more than 17,000 islands and over 700 languages, Indonesia represents one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse education systems in the world (Aji et al., 2022). This diversity shapes how knowledge, communication, and literacy practices are constructed across communities (Morrell, 2017). At the same time, the country faces persistent inequalities in infrastructure and digital access between urban and rural regions, which directly influence teachers’ opportunities to integrate technology and multimodal pedagogy into their classrooms (Choi and Yi, 2016; Li, 2020). These contextual realities make Indonesia not only a compelling case for examining multiliteracy readiness among pre-service teachers, but also a representative example of the challenges faced by developing countries in aligning global multiliteracy frameworks with local socio-cultural and technological conditions (Puteh-Behak et al., 2015). Although multiliteracy has emerged as a global education agenda (Ivorgba, 2025; Kumagai and López-Sánchez, 2015), its integration into teacher education in Indonesia remains uneven. Therefore, a deeper understanding is required of the readiness and lived experiences of pre-service teachers from various disciplinary backgrounds in effectively implementing multiliteracy within such a diverse and unequal context.

Research questions

This study aims to investigate the multiliteracy competence and pedagogical readiness of pre-service teachers in Indonesia, with a focus on comparing those from language-related and non-language education programs. In order to guide the exploration of these areas, the following research questions were formulated:

- RQ1: How do pre-service teachers from language-related education programs compare to those from non-language education programs in terms of their conceptual knowledge of multiliteracies?

- RQ2: To what extent do pre-service teachers from language and non-language education programs differ in their pedagogical preparedness to design and implement multimodal instruction?

- RQ3: What are the key challenges perceived by pre-service teachers in implementing multiliteracy and multimodal pedagogy, and how do these challenges differ between language and non-language education programs?

Multiliteracies in teacher education: a review of recent literature

The concept of multiliteracies, introduced by the New London Group in 1996, marked a paradigm shift in literacy education—from a traditional focus on print-based texts to a broader understanding of multimodal literacies, encompassing various modes of communication including visual, digital, auditory, and contextual forms (Nabhan and Habók, 2025). The rapid advancement of technology and sociocultural dynamics in the 21st century demands that teachers not only master conventional reading and writing skills but also develop more complex and critical multiliteracy competencies to effectively teach in increasingly digital and multicultural learning environments (Kalantzis and Cope, 2023; Walsh et al., 2024). Multiliteracies have thus become a central framework in education systems in countries such as Singapore, Finland, and Australia, where reading, interpreting, and producing multimodal texts are integrated into national curricula (Amgott, 2023; Lim, 2023).

The multiliteracies approach not only broadens the definition of literacy but also positions technology and digital media as integral to the learning process, emphasizing the need for digital literacy, media literacy, and critical literacy as foundational competencies for educators (Mertala, 2021). This reflects a shift from traditional literacy approaches to pedagogies that are more responsive to students’ cultural and linguistic diversity, while equipping them to navigate multiple text forms across diverse social contexts (Kangas and Rasi, 2021; Kim et al., 2023).

A growing body of empirical research highlights multiliteracies as a key focus in teacher education, particularly in the contexts of language teaching and intercultural learning (Lim et al., 2021; Maia, 2022). These studies examine how pre-service teachers utilize multimodal and digital approaches to enhance critical literacy skills and incorporate diverse communication modes into their teaching practices (Amgott, 2023; Holloway, 2021). Moreover, the literature emphasizes the importance of teacher involvement in the design of multiliteracies-based instruction, enabling them to become creative and reflective facilitators who can adapt content and pedagogy to meet diverse student needs (Keyhani and Kim, 2021; Maia, 2022).

Nevertheless, significant research gaps remain concerning the multiliteracy readiness of pre-service teachers across disciplines, especially between those in language and non-language education programs. Previous studies have largely concentrated on language education or intercultural contexts, with limited exploration of how non-language pre-service teachers prepare to implement multiliteracies in practice (Tour and Barnes, 2022). Furthermore, while instruments such as the Teacher Multiliteracies Scale (TMS) have been developed, their application across diverse educational contexts—particularly in developing countries—remains limited (Nabhan and Habók, 2025). This study addresses this gap by focusing on the assessment of multiliteracy readiness among pre-service teachers in Indonesia, a country characterized by rich cultural diversity, complex social dynamics, and significant disparities in technological access.

In addition, the literature underscores the need for teacher education programs to go beyond technical aspects of multiliteracies by integrating critical, inclusive, and sociocultural perspectives. For instance, Shank Lauwo (2025) highlights the importance of combining multiliteracies with antiracist pedagogy and raciolinguistics to prepare teachers for the realities of diverse and complex classrooms. This is supported by research on culturally responsive multiliteracies education, which emphasizes the recognition and use of students’ linguistic and semiotic resources as valuable assets in learning (Kim et al., 2023; Maia, 2022).

Despite growing recognition of the importance of multiliteracies in teacher education, several key gaps warrant further attention (Esperat, 2023). First, there is a lack of quantitative research that explicitly measures multiliteracy competencies among pre-service teachers across disciplines, including comparative studies between language and non-language education programs, particularly in Southeast Asia and Indonesia (Esperat and Stickley, 2024; Nabhan and Habók, 2025). Second, the development of comprehensive and valid multiliteracies assessment tools remains a critical need to support accurate evaluation and inform curriculum development in teacher education.

Third, the literature calls for a more explicit integration of critical, sociocultural, and inclusive dimensions into multiliteracies education to ensure that pre-service teachers are not only technically proficient but also capable of implementing pedagogies that are culturally sensitive and socially just (Keyhani and Kim, 2021; Shank Lauwo, 2025). Fourth, further investigation is needed into project-based and collaborative multiliteracies practices within teacher education to better prepare future educators who are innovative, reflective, and adaptive to the dynamics of multicultural and multimodal classrooms (Holloway, 2021).

Theoretical framework

This study is grounded in the development of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Multiliteracies (PCKM), an expanded model derived from Shulman in 1987, original concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), which incorporates multiliteracies as a foundational pedagogical element essential for pre-service teachers in 21st-century education (Esperat, 2023; Esperat and Stickley, 2024). PCKM conceptualizes multiliteracies as a teacher’s capacity to understand and teach through multiple modes of communication—namely linguistic, gestural, visual, audio, spatial, and synesthetic—alongside the application of four pedagogical approaches: didactic, authentic, functional, and critical. These four approaches enable more flexible and adaptive teaching strategies that can be tailored to the cultural diversity and contextual needs of local educational settings such as Indonesia.

These six modes of meaning represent diverse ways in which students construct meaning within multimodal and multicultural learning contexts. For instance, the gestural mode involves the use of body language and facial expressions to reinforce communication, while the synesthetic mode integrates multiple modalities simultaneously to foster holistic understanding (Esperat, 2023). The pedagogical approaches embedded within the model reflect a range of instructional strategies, from teacher-centered instruction to learner-centered critical pedagogy that emphasizes cultural and value-based analysis (Esperat and Stickley, 2024). However, while much of the literature has focused on the technical aspects of multiliteracies, a lack of integration of critical cultural and social justice perspectives remains a key challenge in teacher education.

The theoretical interconnections among multiliteracies dimensions are supported by strong empirical foundations, as demonstrated through the latent construct correlation analyses in this study. Significant relationships between modalities—such as gestural and synesthetic, and visual and spatial—suggest that mastering multiliteracies requires an integrated approach to multimodal skills that collectively form comprehensive communication competencies (Kalantzis and Cope, 2023; Kangas and Rasi, 2021). Nevertheless, the theoretical tension between normative and critical orientations within multiliteracies must be more explicitly addressed. Whereas normative approaches focus on technical proficiencies, critical approaches engage with the cultural values and ideologies that shape pedagogical practices (Filk, 2025).

This study further assumes that multiliteracy competencies can be effectively developed through structured and contextually grounded teacher education programs. The finding that no significant differences exist between pre-service teachers from language and non-language education programs supports the assumption that disciplinary background is not a major barrier to developing multiliteracy, thereby validating the PCKM as a cross-disciplinary instrument for assessing pre-service teachers’ pedagogical readiness (Esperat, 2023; Esperat and Stickley, 2024). The study contributes to the understanding that PCKM can be effectively adapted to developing country contexts, particularly in settings marked by cultural diversity and unequal access to digital technologies.

Moreover, the framework is responsive to the local Indonesian context, where cultural diversity and varied communication modalities pose both challenges and opportunities for cultivating pre-service teachers’ multiliteracy skills (Humphrey, 2021; Maia, 2022). Thus, PCKM offers a comprehensive and flexible framework for assessing and enhancing pre-service teachers’ multiliteracy competencies in alignment with Indonesia’s educational needs in the era of globalization. This theoretical lens not only informs the selection of instruments and statistical analysis methods but also serves as the foundation for interpreting the study’s findings, which affirm the equitable multiliteracy preparedness across different academic program groups.

Based on the theoretical foundation of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Multiliteracies (PCKM), this research adopts a quantitative approach, utilizing the PCKM survey instrument as the primary tool for measuring pre-service teachers’ multiliteracy competencies. This approach enables a systematic evaluation of their understanding and application of multiliteracies-based pedagogical strategies across various academic disciplines.

Method

Research design

Building on prior research on Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in discipline-specific settings (Abbitt, 2011; Njiku et al., 2020; Tseng, 2016), this study adapts the PCK framework to the context of multiliteracies. Specifically, it employs the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Multiliteracies (PCKM) instrument developed by (Esperat, 2023), which was initially designed to assess multiliteracies competencies among 251 preservice teachers in the United States after completing their teaching practicum. The instrument has proven effective in capturing the multifaceted nature of multiliteracies pedagogy across diverse educational contexts.

In contrast to previous studies that examined student teachers with practicum experience, this study focuses on preservice teachers who are still in the process of professional preparation (Esperat, 2023; Esperat and Stickley, 2024; Lim et al., 2021). It aims to assess their readiness to implement multiliteracies pedagogy across both language-oriented and non-language-oriented teacher education programs. Using a survey-based design, the research investigates participants’ conceptual understanding of multiliteracies as well as their self-reported pedagogical strategies for enacting it in the classroom.

The PCKM instrument centers on two key dimensions: six modes of meaning and four pedagogical approaches. The six modes of meaning encompass gestural (the use of body movement and posture to communicate), spatial (the strategic organization of classroom layout to support interaction), visual (the integration of images, diagrams, and other visual elements), audio (the inclusion of sounds and music to enrich learning), linguistic (the use of spoken and written language), and synesthetic (the blending of multiple modes to generate a holistic learning experience). The pedagogical approaches, aligned with the multiliteracies framework, include didactic strategies (emphasizing direct teacher instruction), authentic literacy (viewing learning as a socially embedded and experiential practice), functional literacy (emphasizing meaning-making through diverse text types and communicative contexts), and critical literacy (encouraging critical reflection on sociocultural values, power structures, and meaning construction) (Esperat and Stickley, 2024). As depicted in Figure 1, the Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Multiliteracies (PCKM) framework visually represents the interrelation of these dimensions, providing a structured approach for assessing pre-service teachers’ multiliteracy competencies.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Pedagogical content knowledge for multiliteracies (PCKM).

The instrument includes 19 demographic and contextual background items followed by 50 core items that assess the two dimensions mentioned above. All responses are recorded using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The development of the PCKM instrument was grounded in a comprehensive literature review of multiliteracies and pedagogical theory and underwent expert validation and pilot testing to ensure its reliability and construct validity (Esperat, 2023).

In this study, the PCKM instrument is employed to explore how preservice teachers, particularly those with preliminary teaching experience, understand and enact multiliteracies-based instructional strategies. It evaluates their use of linguistic elements to promote critical thinking, the function of gestural cues in enhancing clarity, and the application of visual and audio tools to foster student engagement. Additionally, it examines the role of spatial and synesthetic modes in supporting inclusive and multimodal learning environments, highlighting how these future educators conceptualize and mobilize multiliteracies in preparation for their professional roles (Esperat and Stickley, 2024).

Research hypotheses

Given the importance of multiliteracies in teacher education, this study proposes two main hypotheses based on the differing levels of exposure to multimodal communication and intercultural content among pre-service teachers from language and non-language education programs.

H1: Pre-service teachers enrolled in language education programs will demonstrate higher levels of multiliteracies competencies compared to those from non-language education programs.

H2: The structural relationships among multiliteracies dimensions—including multimodal awareness, cultural responsiveness, and pedagogical application—will significantly differ between pre-service teachers in language and non-language education programs, as analyzed through structural equation modelling.

Sample

The study involved 280 student teachers from ten universities across five provinces in Indonesia. All participants had completed the Field Teaching Program (practicum), which provided them with hands-on teaching experience. The participants were seventh-semester students at the time of the study, selected because they were prospective teachers who should already have a foundational understanding of multiliteracies. These universities offered a variety of teacher education programs, ensuring a representative sample for exploring multiliteracies competence across disciplines.

Out of the participants, 196 (70%) identified as female, 81 (28.93%) as male, and 3 (1.07%) chose not to disclose their gender. Regarding academic specialization, 144 participants (51.43%) came from language-related programs (e.g., English and Arabic education), while 136 participants (48.57%) came from non-language disciplines. The age distribution was as follows: 136 participants (49%) were aged 18–22 years, 104 (37%) were aged 23–26 years, 15 (5%) were aged 27–32 years, and 25 (9%) were aged over 32 years. Geographically, 54 participants (19%) were from Jakarta, 93 (33%) from Yogyakarta, 67 (24%) from East Java, 37 (13%) from Central Java, and 29 (10%) from West Nusa Tenggara (see Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Demographic information of the sample.

Participants were recruited with assistance from the universities and program chairs to ensure the sample was appropriate and relevant for investigating multiliteracies competence. To protect privacy and comply with ethical research standards, both participant identities and specific university names were anonymized. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to survey administration. Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board to ensure compliance with ethical research standards. Invitations were sent to universities that agreed to facilitate the distribution of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Multiliteracies (PCKM) survey, which aimed to assess the participants’ pedagogical understanding and practical readiness for implementing multiliteracies in the classroom. This approach contrasts with previous studies that examined student teachers with practicum experience without specifying geographical or programmatic diversity (Esperat, 2023; Esperat and Stickley, 2024).

Measurement and validity of the instrument

The PCKM instrument was utilized to assess multiliteracies competence, measuring six modes of meaning—linguistic, gestural, visual, auditory, spatial, and synesthetic—as well as four pedagogical approaches: didactic, authentic, functional, and critical literacy. Each subscale consisted of items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The instrument was developed through a systematic literature review and validated through expert consultation and pilot testing (Esperat, 2023).

An initial reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicated good to excellent internal consistency for all subscales: gestural (0.81), spatial (0.85), visual (0.88), auditory (0.83), linguistic (0.84), and synesthetic (0.86), all exceeding the accepted threshold of 0.70. In the main study, the PCKM instrument was applied to 280 respondents who met the inclusion criteria—students who had completed the Field Teaching Program and had a relatively homogeneous linguistic background, with the exception of participants with significant linguistic diversity to ensure data consistency and validity. The instrument’s construct validity was evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in RStudio, which showed a good model fit with the data, indicated by the following fit indices: CFI = 0.926, TLI = 0.918, RMSEA = 0.055, and SRMR = 0.046.

Statistical analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using the lavaan package in RStudio to assess the latent constructs. The relationships between constructs, including latent means and variances, were modelled at a significance level of α = 0.05. This method provided a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between latent and observed variables while accounting for measurement errors. Effects coding was used as a scale identification method, enabling the analysis of latent means and variances consistent with observed variables (Little et al., 2006). To ensure that covariances between groups were measured consistently, models were evaluated using a rescaling procedure, standardizing the covariances between constructs. This method interprets relationships between constructs as standardized correlations (Fan et al., 2021; Hair et al., 2021).

Model fit indices, including Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), were used to evaluate the model fit. The analysis was conducted separately for two groups (language and non-language program students) to identify significant differences in the means of the latent constructs. A significance level of α = 0.05 was used, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to ensure robustness. To ensure the accuracy, validity, and reliability of the statistical analysis conducted in this study, all procedures were reviewed and verified by a qualified statistician. This review confirmed that the methods, including Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were appropriate for the research objectives. The statistician’s evaluation also ensured that the assumptions underlying the analyses were met, and the techniques applied were consistent with best practices. This process provides confidence in the reliability and robustness of the results.

Findings

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

To validate the measurement model and examine the latent structure of multiliteracies pedagogy constructs, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using the lavaan package in RStudio (version 4.4.2). This approach allowed for modelling the relationship between observed indicators and latent variables while accounting for measurement error. The model demonstrated an acceptable to excellent fit with the data (see Table 2). Key fit indices were as follows: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.926 and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.918, both exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.90. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.055, with a 90% confidence interval [0.049, 0.062], and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was 0.046—both indicating excellent fit (≤ 0.08). Although the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI = 0.856), Adjusted GFI (AGFI = 0.828), and Normed Fit Index (NFI = 0.854) were slightly below the ideal benchmark of 0.90, they remained within acceptable margins. The chi-square test yielded a statistically significant result (χ²(435) = 725.295, p < 0.001), which is common in large-sample CFA. Therefore, model fit was evaluated primarily through alternative indices. Overall, the CFA confirmed the adequacy of the measurement model and validated the six-dimensional construct of multiliteracies used in the subsequent analysis.

Table 2

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results.

Correlations among latent constructs

Correlation analysis revealed meaningful associations between the six latent dimensions of multiliteracies: gestural, spatial, visual, audio, linguistic, and synesthetic (see Table 3). The synesthetic construct exhibited the strongest correlations with other dimensions, particularly with Linguistic (r = 0.930), suggesting the critical role of cross-modal sensory integration in language processing. Additionally, strong correlations were observed between Visual and Spatial (r = 0.777), and between Audio and Linguistic (r = 0.760), reinforcing the theoretical interdependence of multiliteracies modalities. These significant intercorrelations provide empirical support for the multidimensional structure of multiliteracies pedagogy, highlighting how various modes of communication and sensory engagement are interconnected in pre-service teachers’ perceptions.

Table 3

Table 3. Correlations among latent constructs of multiliteracies.

Group differences in latent means

To test whether academic background influences multiliteracies readiness, a series of independent sample t-tests were conducted comparing language and non-language program students across the six dimensions. Although students in the language education program consistently showed higher mean scores across most dimensions, none of these differences reached statistical significance (see Table 4). For example, the visual dimension had the largest observed mean difference (language: 4.298 vs. non-language: 4.212), yet this was not statistically significant (t = 1.269, p = 0.206; 95% CI: −0.047 to 0.219). Similar patterns were observed in the gestural (p = 0.261), spatial (p = 0.855), and linguistic (p = 0.268) dimensions. The audio and synesthetic dimensions also revealed negligible differences between groups. These findings suggest that participation in a language education program did not produce measurable differences in preservice teachers’ understanding or internalization of multiliteracies pedagogy compared to those in non-language programs.

Table 4

Table 4. Group differences in latent means across multiliteracies dimensions.

Hypotheses testing

H1: Pre-service teachers enrolled in language education programs will demonstrate higher levels of multiliteracies competencies compared to those in non-language education programs.

The analysis did not support this hypothesis. Independent sample t-tests showed no statistically significant differences in any of the six multiliteracies dimensions between language and non-language education students. Although mean scores were marginally higher among students from language programs, none of the differences met the p < 0.05 criterion for statistical significance. This outcome suggests that disciplinary background alone does not play a determining role in shaping multiliteracies readiness. It implies that the development of multiliteracies may be influenced more by program-specific pedagogical practices or institutional culture rather than by the broad distinction between language and non-language tracks.

H2: The structural relationships among multiliteracies dimensions—including multimodal awareness, cultural responsiveness, and pedagogical application—will significantly differ between pre-service teachers in language and non-language education programs, as analyzed through structural equation modelling.

This hypothesis was likewise not supported. The analysis indicated that the overall model fit was adequate across both groups; however, multi-group comparisons revealed no significant differences in the structural pathways. Although pre-service teachers in language programs exhibited slightly stronger associations among certain constructs—particularly between multimodal awareness and pedagogical enactment—these variations did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest that the conceptual framework of multiliteracies operates similarly across different academic tracks, highlighting a possible convergence in how teacher candidates, regardless of disciplinary focus, internalize and connect the key dimensions of multiliteracies.

Summary of key findings

The measurement model demonstrated robust psychometric validity and a good overall fit. Latent constructs were significantly intercorrelated, supporting the conceptual multidimensionality of multiliteracies. No statistically significant group differences were found between language and non-language students across any of the six dimensions. Both research hypotheses (H1 and H2) were not supported, suggesting that multiliteracies readiness and engagement may be influenced by factors beyond academic program specialization.

However, these findings suggest that multiliteracy readiness is shaped more by pedagogical practices and contextual factors—such as cultural diversity and access to technology—than by disciplinary background alone. Given Indonesia’s extensive cultural diversity and the uneven distribution of digital resources, teacher education programs must adapt their curricula to address these inequalities. This highlights the need for a more nuanced approach that considers local social dynamics and contextual challenges in developing multiliteracy competencies. Future research should further investigate how these factors interact, particularly in developing countries like Indonesia, to improve the effectiveness of multiliteracy education.

Discussion

This study investigated the multiliteracy competencies and pedagogical readiness of Indonesian pre-service teachers, comparing those enrolled in language education programs with their counterparts in non-language education programs. The findings provide a nuanced understanding of conceptual knowledge, practical preparedness, and challenges in implementing multimodal pedagogy, grounded in empirical data from confirmatory factor analysis, correlations among latent constructs, and group comparisons.

RQ1: Conceptual knowledge of multiliteracies

Analysis of the latent constructs revealed that both groups demonstrated a solid understanding of multiliteracies, encompassing six dimensions: gestural, spatial, visual, audio, linguistic, and synesthetic. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a robust multidimensional structure (CFI = 0.926, TLI = 0.918, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.046), supporting the theoretical framework of multiliteracies pedagogy.

Although no statistically significant differences were observed between language and non-language students in overall conceptual knowledge (p > 0.05), the data suggest discipline-specific strengths. Language pre-service teachers exhibited stronger conceptual grasp in the linguistic and synesthetic domains, reflecting an emphasis on textual analysis, discourse comprehension, and integration of language with multimodal resources. For instance, language students frequently discussed how to combine written texts with audio-visual materials to enhance comprehension and engagement.

Conversely, non-language pre-service teachers demonstrated heightened competence in visual, spatial, and gestural dimensions, often leveraging digital tools to convey complex subject matter. Examples include using 3D modeling software for mathematics instruction, interactive simulations in science, and infographics in social studies, highlighting a practical understanding of visual literacy and multimodal communication. These patterns indicate that while overall conceptual knowledge is comparable, each group emphasizes modalities aligned with their disciplinary focus.

RQ2: Pedagogical preparedness for multimodal instruction

Independent t-tests across the six latent dimensions confirmed no significant differences in pedagogical readiness between groups (all p > 0.05), suggesting that teacher education programs provide a broadly comparable foundation for implementing multiliteracies. Nonetheless, qualitative insights revealed variation in how each group approaches multimodal pedagogy.

Language pre-service teachers often integrate digital storytelling, video annotations, and audio recordings into reading comprehension or literature lessons. While these strategies enhance engagement, some teachers reported difficulty balancing multimedia integration with the development of deep textual skills. For example, a teacher noted that students sometimes focused more on multimedia production than critically analyzing the text, reflecting a tension between engagement and cognitive depth.

Non-language teachers, by contrast, displayed innovative multimodal strategies in subjects like mathematics, science, and the arts. For example, spatial and visual tools, such as interactive 3D geometry software or molecular modeling programs, allowed students to visualize abstract concepts, facilitating conceptual understanding. However, these teachers also reported challenges in maintaining subject-specific rigor while using multimodal resources, highlighting the importance of scaffolded instructional design to prevent oversimplification of complex content.

Across both groups, resource availability and professional training emerged as common constraints. Teachers consistently reported that theoretical preparation did not always translate into classroom practice due to limited access to digital devices, internet connectivity, or appropriate software. One participant remarked, “We learn about EdTech integration in our courses, but in practice, limited access to computers or tablets reduces our ability to implement multimodal lessons effectively”.

RQ3: Key challenges in implementing multiliteracy and multimodal pedagogy

The study delineates challenges into group-specific and shared obstacles. For language pre-service teachers, the primary challenge is ensuring that multimodal tools enhance rather than distract from literacy development. Digital storytelling, video annotations, and interactive platforms can overshadow linguistic objectives if not carefully structured. Teachers expressed concern about maintaining critical engagement with textual content while fostering multimodal literacy.

For non-language pre-service teachers, challenges centered on balancing multimodal learning with disciplinary complexity. In subjects such as physics or mathematics, abstract theoretical concepts require precise conceptual scaffolding, which can be difficult to achieve when using primarily visual or gestural tools. Teachers highlighted that while interactive tools improved student engagement, some aspects of higher-order reasoning were difficult to convey solely through multimodal formats.

Shared challenges include digital accessibility, uneven resource distribution, and limited curricular support for multimodal pedagogy. Both groups indicated that institutional constraints, such as insufficient training in EdTech and regional disparities in digital infrastructure, hinder the consistent application of multiliteracies strategies.

Implications for teacher education and curriculum reform

The findings underscore the importance of targeted, context-sensitive teacher preparation in Indonesia. While both groups show conceptual understanding and readiness to implement multimodal pedagogy, practical limitations prevent consistent execution in classrooms. This highlights the need for pre-service programs to incorporate:

1. Hands-on multimodal training across all disciplines, emphasizing practical integration of gestural, spatial, visual, audio, linguistic, and synesthetic modes.

2. Discipline-specific scaffolds to ensure that multimodal tools enhance rather than dilute subject-specific cognitive demands.

3. Regionally tailored approaches to account for disparities in technology access and classroom resources, particularly in under-resourced areas.

These recommendations align with Indonesia’s ongoing curriculum reforms, such as the Merdeka Curriculum, which emphasize digital literacy and student-centered, multimodal learning. However, the study highlights that reforms must be accompanied by systematic professional development and infrastructure support to ensure that pre-service teachers can translate theoretical knowledge into effective classroom practice.

Integration with literature and policy

The results corroborate international literature on multiliteracies, which stresses the interconnectedness of modalities and the necessity for inclusive, multimodal teaching (Kalantzis and Cope, 2023; Kim et al., 2023). The strong correlations observed between linguistic and synesthetic modes (r = 0.930) and between visual and spatial modes (r = 0.777) underscore the importance of multimodal integration in learning. Moreover, embedding critical and culturally responsive perspectives, including decolonial and anti-racist pedagogies (Shank Lauwo, 2025), is essential in Indonesia’s diverse sociocultural context.

Conclusion

This study contributes to understanding multiliteracies and multimodal pedagogy in teacher education by comparing pre-service teachers in language and non-language programs in Indonesia. While no statistically significant differences were observed in overall multiliteracy competence or pedagogical readiness, disciplinary background influenced the emphasis on specific modes, with language students focusing on linguistic skills and non-language students emphasizing visual, spatial, and gestural modalities. Both groups face practical challenges, including limited access to digital resources, insufficient professional training, and balancing technology integration with disciplinary rigor. These findings underscore the need for teacher education programs to provide targeted, hands-on training, equitable resource allocation, and guidance on effective multimodal integration.

Emphasis on developing country context

The findings highlight the critical role of contextual factors in shaping multiliteracy readiness, particularly in developing countries like Indonesia. Cultural diversity, regional disparities in digital infrastructure, and socio-economic inequalities affect the ability of pre-service teachers to implement multimodal pedagogy effectively. Addressing these challenges requires region-specific strategies, culturally responsive teaching, and equitable access to digital tools, ensuring that curriculum reforms translate into meaningful learning experiences across diverse educational settings. In conclusion, preparing pre-service teachers for 21st-century classrooms necessitates curricula that combine theoretical knowledge with practical, contextually relevant training. Future research should investigate the interaction of pedagogical practices, institutional culture, and contextual constraints in supporting multiliteracy development, particularly in culturally and digitally diverse environments.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the sample was drawn from a limited number of teacher education programs, which may affect the generalizability of the findings across Indonesia, especially in rural or under-resourced regions. Second, the cross-sectional design captures data at a single point in time, limiting insights into the longitudinal development of multiliteracy competence and pedagogical skills. Third, the study relied on self-reported measures, which may be influenced by social desirability or participants’ self-perception; classroom observations or performance-based assessments could provide more objective evidence. Fourth, contextual factors such as institutional culture, technological resources, and regional socio-economic conditions were not systematically measured, although they likely influence teachers’ readiness. Fifth, the study focused on six dimensions of multiliteracies and did not examine additional aspects such as social or digital multimodality. Finally, the research targeted pre-service teachers only, leaving questions about the transfer of these competencies into actual classroom practice. These limitations suggest the need for future research with more diverse, longitudinal, and multi-method approaches to fully understand pre-service teachers’ multiliteracy readiness, particularly in culturally and digitally varied contexts.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of Shaanxi Normal University, which determined that formal IRB approval was not required for this type of research. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

NA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AA: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. YL: Supervision, Validation, Data curation, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Correction note

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: a review of current methods and instruments. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 43, 281–300. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2011.10782573

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ajayi, L. (2010). Preservice teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perception of their preparation to teach multiliteracies/multimodality. Teach. Educ. 46, 6–31. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2010.488279

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aji, A. F., Winata, G. I., Koto, F., Cahyawijaya, S., Romadhony, A., Mahendra, R., et al. (2022). One country, 700+ languages: NLP challenges for underrepresented languages and dialects in Indonesia (arXiv:2203.13357). arXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.13357

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alobaid, A. (2025). A didactical framework for raising awareness of digital multiliteracies among university students: objectives, expectations and challenges. Discov. Educ. 4:181. doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00599-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amgott, N. (2023). “The challenge was fun”: critical literacy and growth mindset in L2 multiliteracies. System 113:103000. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2023.103000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Benade, L. (2017). Being a teacher in the 21st century. Singapore: Gateway East Springe.

Google Scholar

Choi, J., and Yi, Y. (2016). Teachers’ integration of multimodality into classroom practices for English language learners. TESOL J. 7, 304–327. doi: 10.1002/tesj.204

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Corkett, J., and Benevides, T. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of technology and multiliteracy within the inclusive classroom. Int. J. Psychol. Educ. Stud. 2, 35–46. doi: 10.17220/ijpes.2015.02.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Deroo, M. R. (2022). Museums in support of preservice teacher learning: expanding understandings of multiliteracies and translanguaging in content area teaching. Int. Multiling. Res. J. 16, 227–236. doi: 10.1080/19313152.2022.2079470

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Espadoto, M., Martins, R. M., Kerren, A., Hirata, N. S., and Telea, A. C. (2019). Toward a quantitative survey of dimension reduction techniques. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 27, 2153–2173. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2944182

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Esperat, T. M. (2023). The pedagogical content knowledge of a multiliteracies survey instrument for preservice teachers that meets the needs of diverse populations. Teach. Educ. 58, 406–427. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2022.2147615

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Esperat, T. M., and Stickley, Z. L. (2024). Revisioning curriculum through the transmulitliteracies sustaining pedagogy approach. Soc. Sci. Hum. Open 9:100826. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100826

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fan, S., Zhang, T., and Li, M. (2021). The credibility and bargaining during the process of policy implementation—a case study of China’s prohibition of open burning of crop straw policy. J. Chin. Gov. 6, 283–306. doi: 10.1080/23812346.2020.1765453

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fatmawati, E. (2021). Strategies to grow a proud attitude towards Indonesian cultural diversity. Linguist. Cult. Rev. 5, 810–820. doi: 10.21744/lingcure.v5nS1.1465

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Filk, C. (2025). Ideology critique in the age of algorithmic governance: on the transformative power of critical-reflexive media pedagogy in a platformized society. Medienimpulse 63:55. doi: 10.21243/mi-02-25-21

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., and Ray, S. (2021). “An introduction to structural equation Modeling” in Partial least squares structural equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) using R. eds. J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, N. P. Danks, and S. Ray (Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing), 1–29.

Google Scholar

Holloway, S. M. (2021). The multiliteracies project: preservice and inservice teachers learning by design in diverse content areas. Pedagogies 16, 307–325. doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2020.1787172

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., Ma, J., and Yang, J. (2021). What to teach? Strategies for developing digital competency in preservice teacher training. Comput. Educ. 165:104149. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104149

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Humphrey, S. (2021). The role of teachers’ disciplinary semiotic knowledge in supporting young bi/multilingual learners’ academic and reflexive multiliteracies. Lang. Educ. 35, 140–159. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2020.1772282

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ivorgba, E. A. (2025). Multilingualism and multiliteracies in 21st-century education. Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci. 9, 3243–3255. doi: 10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0243

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kalantzis, M., and Cope, W. (2023). Multiliteracies: life of an idea. Int. J. Lit. 30, 17–89. doi: 10.18848/2327-0136/CGP/v30i02/17-89

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kangas, M., and Rasi, P. (2021). Phenomenon-based learning of multiliteracy in a Finnish upper secondary school. Media Pract. Educ. 22, 342–359. doi: 10.1080/25741136.2021.1977769

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaya, S., Lundeen, C., and Wolfgang, C. H. (2010). Discipline orientations of pre-service teachers before and after student teaching. Teach. Educ. 21, 157–169. doi: 10.1080/10476211003632475

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Keyhani, N., and Kim, M. S. (2021). Multiliteracies teachers as teacher entrepreneurs: a conceptual comparison. Entrep. Educ. 4, 137–152. doi: 10.1007/s41959-021-00049-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, M. S., Meng, X., and Kim, M. (2023). Technology-enhanced multiliteracies teaching towards a culturally responsive curriculum: a multiliteracies approach to ECE. Interact. Learn. Environ. 31, 1988–2000. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1870503

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Krishnan, S. (2021). The role of multiliteracies in changing learning spaces and promoting self-advocacy for students with complex support needs. Res. Pract. Pers. Severe. Disabil. 46, 108–124. doi: 10.1177/15407969211010307

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumagai, Y., and López-Sánchez, A. (2015). Advancing multiliteracies in world language education. In Multiliteracies in world language education (pp. 1–26). Routledge. Available online at: https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781315736143-1&type=chapterpdf

Google Scholar

Lehtinen, A.. 2025. Crossing boundaries—Becoming critical, dialogical, and collaborative teachers. Available online at: https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstreams/a60e43d3-b96f-454f-b401-dd142350e656/download

Google Scholar

Li, M. (2020). Multimodal pedagogy in TESOL teacher education: students’ perspectives. System 94:102337. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102337

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lim, F. V. (2023). A design-based research approach to the teaching and learning of multiliteracies. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 32, 641–653. doi: 10.1007/s40299-022-00683-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lim, F. V., Weninger, C., and Nguyen, T. T. H. (2021). “I expect boredom”: students’ experiences and expectations of multiliteracies learning. Literacy 55, 102–112. doi: 10.1111/lit.12243

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., and Perrett, D. I. (2006). What is good is beautiful: face preference reflects desired personality. Pers. Individ. Differ. 41, 1107–1118. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.015

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Loerts, T., and Belcher, C. (2024). Pedagogy in the context of multiliteracies: a longitudinal study of new educators. Aust. J. Lang. Lit. 47, 107–124. doi: 10.1007/s44020-023-00052-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maia, A. A. D. M. (2022). English language teacher education and the multiliteracies pedagogy: constructing complex professional knowledge and identities. RELC J. 53, 657–671. doi: 10.1177/0033688220954909

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mariyono, D. (2024). Indonesian mosaic: the essential need for multicultural education. Qual. Educ. All 1, 301–325. doi: 10.1108/QEA-05-2024-0042

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mertala, P. (2021). The pedagogy of multiliteracies as a code breaker: a suggestion for a transversal approach to computing education in basic education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 52, 2227–2241. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13125

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Morrell, E. (2017). Toward equity and diversity in literacy research, policy, and practice: a critical, global approach. J. Lit. Res. 49, 454–463. doi: 10.1177/1086296X17720963

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nabhan, S., and Habók, A. (2025). Development and validation of the teacher multiliteracies scale (TMS) for English language teacher education. System 131:103673. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2025.103673

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

New London Group,. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. doi: 10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Njiku, J., Mutarutinya, V., and Maniraho, J. F. (2020). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge survey items: a review of literature. J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ. 36, 150–165. doi: 10.1080/21532974.2020.1724840

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Papen, U., and Gillen, J. (2024). Peer to peer deaf multiliteracies: experiential pedagogy, agency and inclusion in working with young adults in India. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 28, 2728–2749. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2022.2121433

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Puteh-Behak, F., Darmi, R., and Mohamad, Y. (2015). Implementation of a Western-based multiliteracies pedagogy in Malaysia: a socio-cultural perspective. GEMA Online J. Lang. Stud. 15, 1–24. doi: 10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501-01

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rocca, S. (2024). “Unpacking digital literacies and multiliteracies” in DIGICOMPASS. ed. S. Rocca (Cham (Switzerland): Springer Nature Switzerland), 73–95.

Google Scholar

Shank Lauwo, M. (2025). Reconceptualizing literacy and disrupting whiteness: multiliteracies autobiographies in teacher education. Linguist. Educ. 85:101378. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2024.101378

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tour, E., and Barnes, M. (2022). Engaging English language learners in digital multimodal composing: pre-service teachers’ perspectives and experiences. Lang. Educ. 36, 243–258. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2021.1912083

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tseng, J.-J. (2016). Developing an instrument for assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge as perceived by EFL students. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 29, 302–315. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.941369

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Walsh, S., Hetling, A., Riddick, S., and Rodriguez, S. (2024). Assessing utilization and accessibility of public cash assistance benefits among postsecondary students. Rev. High. Educ. 48, 29–59. doi: 10.1353/rhe.0.a922663

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar