CASE STUDY OF CHINESE IMMIGRANT CHILDREN’S BILINGUAL LITERACY (MANDARIN AND ENGLISH) PRACTICES AT HOME, AT SCHOOL, AND IN A COMMUNITY LANGUAGE SCHOOL IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demographic context of Canada, a multicultural and multilingual country, provides an exciting research site for the investigation of immigrant children’s bilingual literacy practices. According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2006, the People's Republic of China has been the top source country of immigrants to Canada, and Mandarin has been reported as the top minority language since 1998. It is worthwhile to explore the bilingual literacy practices of young Chinese immigrant children in Ontario, where fifty percent of immigrants have chosen to settle.\nThis research project consisted of a qualitative case study. Semi-structured interviews and classroom observations were employed as the main tools of data collection. Family visits were made, and artwork and documents were also collected as supplementary sources of data. Interpretational and domain analysis methods were used to analyze the data (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007; Wolcott, 1994).\nFindings of the study indicate that there is a complementary learning community, including a formal public school education, supportive community language school and home literacy environments facilitating the five participating children's bilingual literacy developiftent. The public school culture, parents' perceptions and support of their children's bilingual literacy development, as well as the community Chinese language school have all influenced the five participating children's biliteracy development. Based on the findings, this study makes suggestions for teachers, parents and curriculum designers. Public schools should create democratic school cultures where minority children's culture and first languages are valued and embraced. Teachers should apply effective literacy instruction to help minority children's bilingual literacy development in an authentic literacy environment. Curriculum designers should pay attention to English language learners’ cultural backgrounds and meet diverse teachers' and children's needs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".