Towards an Inclusive Language Education System in the Age of Superdiversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although both home and school are essential places for culturally and linguistically diverse children to acquire bilingualism, the two entities have not always worked as an inclusive system to support this development. This lack of inclusivity has contributed to the long-standing heritage/home language loss among these superdiverse children that, in turn, has resulted in a series of negative consequences including alienation from their family members, communication rifts between generations and identity crises. There is an urgent need for school and home to work as one inclusive system to support bilingual learning and well-being for children from superdiverse backgrounds. Based on semi-structured interviews with 179 Chinese-immigrant parents and 11 Canadian elementary schoolteachers, this chapter aims to understand both school and home perspectives and practices in supporting children&s;s bilingual and biliteracy development and identify factors that contribute to the dichotomy between home and school. Thematical analyses revealed that although both the Chinese-immigrant parents and the mainstream teachers favour bilingualism, both home literacy practices and school literacy instruction are subtly subscribed to an assimilative ideology of prioritizing the mainstream language such as English over the heritage/home language. In addition, the inadequate, superficial knowledge of parents and teachers about each other&s;s culture, perspectives and practices has impeded home–school collaborations in facilitating children&s;s growth of biliteracy skills and aggravated the mis(sed)-communication between home and school. The chapter concludes with an urgent call for engaging teachers and parents to co-construct an inclusive and mutually conducive educational system for minoritized children&s;s bilingual development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".