An exploratory study of mainland Chinese parents’ ideologies about bilingualism and bilingual education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study investigates mainland Chinese parents’ ideologies on bilingualism and biliteracy, specifically for those who chose Mandarin-English bilingual education for their children. We explored children’s language and literacy usage at home as they attend school with Mandarin and English as the instructional languages. Three hundred and eight survey responses were collected from parents in Shanghai, China. Results from an exploratory factor analysis showed that parents generally held positive attitudes toward both bilingualism and bidialectalism. Additionally, multiple correspondence analyses demonstrated that parents who reported more multilingual usage in daily conversation at home with their children generally aspired for their children to develop an identity of being a global citizen, whereas parents who reported more Mandarin literacy activities engagement typically expected their children to (a) have a flexible mind for learning regardless of the instructional language, (b) become internationally competitive, and (c) be communicative within diverse social groups. It is suggested that parental perceptions of the importance of bilingualism and bidialectalism should be taken into consideration in curriculum planning and language policy making. Understanding parents’ perception of bilingualism may facilitate schools to partner with parents and devise responsive language education goals in schools.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".