Parental Support of Language Development in Multilingual Contexts: Insights from Chinese and Chinese-Canadian Families
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This project explores how families living in China and Canada navigate parent-child interactions to support early bilingualism, integrating insights from four interconnected studies. Study 1 examines the perspectives of 16 Chinese parents of 3- to 6-year-olds living in China on two language support strategies: dialogic reading (DR) and co-viewing and conversing about television programs or videos (CVC). Parents recognized these strategies’ potential benefits for language and cognitive development but expressed reservations, including challenges related to child engagement, children’s potential resistance to interruptions, the parent’s own linguistic skills, and the practices’ demands on parental time and effort. These findings underscore the importance of adapting language support strategies to address parents’ practical concerns. Studies 2, 3 and 4 shift focus to 29 Chinese-Canadian families living in multilingual Montreal, where children were being raised in Mandarin and also regularly exposed to one or more of the local societal languages (French or English). Methods included a parent questionnaire, pretest-posttest observations of storybook reading by parent-child dyads, the use of DR and the digital reading pen by parents and children at home over an eight-week period, and focus group discussions with parents. Study 2 revealed that parents preferred interacting in Mandarin when reading together, even when reading a book written in a societal language. Parents used more dialogic talk, particularly literal questions, with societal language books, but inferential and distancing questions, critical for advanced cognitive and linguistic development, were used sparingly. Study 3 introduced DR instruction to parents, leading to increased use of DR strategies, and thus prompting richer interactions across languages. However, parents reported challenges to DR, such as practical constraints, divergence from home practices, and occasional child resistance. Study 4 introduced a digital reading pen to explore its role in multilingual storybook reading. While the pen eased language demands and promoted child autonomy, it often disrupted parent-child interaction, leading parents to view it as better suited to independent than interactive reading. Collectively, the studies bridge gaps between practices recommended in applied research and real-world parenting practices. The findings point to the need for greater collaboration between researchers, parents, and developers of educational tools to develop practices and create resources that align with families’ lived experiences and goals, enriching both research and practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».