Moving Between Diverse Cultural Contexts: How Important is Intercultural Learning to Chinese Heritage Language Learners?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on heritage language (HL) education has been robust in recent decades due to the increasing presence of HL learners in foreign language programmes in universities across the world, in particular, in multiethnic and multilingual contexts such as the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia. While much research explores issues such as the diversity of learner groups, learning motivation, attitudes towards the HL, and linguistic peculiarities, there has been limited research attention to heritage learners’ intersection with intercultural language learning. HL learners move between languages and cultures often on a daily basis, which ‘happens at the threshold of their homes, not at the border between two countries’ (Kagan 2012). However, how ‘intercultural’ are this group of learners? Is there an awareness and critical recognition of how they negotiate the different cultural aspects in their lives? As learners of their HL, how will they perceive the relevance and effectiveness of an intercultural approach to learning Chinese? This chapter explores Chinese heritage learners’ perceptions of an intercultural learning task which calls for intercultural critical thinking. Using the students’ reflective journals and post-project reflective writing, the study maps a number of different themes in the responses of the heritage learners. The reflection appears to play a role in enhancing self-awareness in heritage learners. The goal of the study was to identify how to support heritage learner students in activating their own enquiry into their views and opinions of the ‘other’ and the self, in relation to their personal knowledge of China and Australia, as part of enhancing and motivating their language learning as well as developing skills in supporting effective and appropriate interaction with the HL community.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".