Through the Eyes and From the Mouths of Young Heritage-Language Learners: How Children Feel and Think About Their Two Languages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the affective responses and beliefs school-aged heritage-language learners (HLLs) hold regarding learning their two languages. Sixty-three HLLs in grades 3 and 4 were presented with pictorial scenarios involving activities across five language and literacy domains in their HL and second language (English). Children were asked to indicate the affect they associated with the scenario and were queried about their chosen affect. They associated positive affect with listening and speaking the HL at home and with English across all domains regardless of context. Qualitative analysis of children’s attributions revealed skill in the domain or language as the most common rationale for their chosen affective responses. Other common themes in children’s rationales in descending order of frequency included children’s degree of interest in the domain or language, the perceived availability of assistance from others, their membership in language groups, and the influence of language environments on language-learning. Implications for further research with this population and recommendations for relevant parties are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".