Language choices and experiences of parents raising bilingual or multilingual children in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates parent perspectives of raising bilingual/multilingual children in Canada as part of an international project run by members of COST Action IS1406 Working Group 3 under the direction of Elin Thordardottir. The goal of this study was to obtain a better understanding of parent experiences to help guide clinical practices. A total of 34 parents from across the country participated in semi-structured interviews of approximately 30 minutes, which used questions from a previous study on bilingual children with Down syndrome (Elin Thordardottir, 2002). Data were analysed quantitatively using frequency counts, as well as qualitatively using a qualitative content analysis approach with a categorization matrix agreed upon by the working group. Responses were categorized into three main categories: Actions and decisions (what parents did and why), proficiency outcomes (desired and actual) and advice (advice received and advice they would give to others). It was shown that parents varied extensively in their strategies, language decisions, beliefs about bilingualism and values, as well as their expectations for their child’s proficiency level. Overall experiences, although positive for many, were also seen as stressful or difficult. Experiences may also be linked to language status (majority versus minority) and the location of the families (city with one or two majority languages). Most parents mentioned that exposure was important for their children’s language development. The lack of exposure opportunities was also the most mentioned perceived challenge. The advice they received was generally favourable to bilingualism, as was the advice parents would give. Clinicians working with bilingual children therefore must take into consideration the beliefs and needs of each family when making recommendation and should tailor these recommendations accordingly
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".