A systematic review on the role of language anxiety for the language learners from a minority background
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research that enhances our understanding of disadvantaged students who experience learning barriers (due to their linguistic and cultural backgrounds) that their mainstream peers do not is vital given the rise in minority students around the world. As seen by the academic gap and high dropout rates among minority students, such barriers hinder access to educational opportunities or to support. As a result, their experience of alienation within the context of the mainstream environment triggers or is affected by Language Anxiety (LA). Due to the extensive attention in the phenomena, the literature and findings on LA might appear inconsistent, which reduces the literature body's accessibility and limits the potential for practical application. LA is generally portrayed in literature on language learning as having a negative impact. Even though this idea is commonly discussed, there is a lack of empirical data. Minority children already deal with a variety of challenges, and a big part of adjusting to a new environment is learning a new language. As a result, it's critical to comprehend this phenomenon and identify the pedagogical techniques minority pupils or their teachers might employ to effectively support them. This is why the systematic review’s aim is to find out more about the nature and extent of research on the role of LA for minority students. The purpose of this study is to ascertain whether or not there is a research gap in this specific area and whether or not existent literature may be utilised by educators. To do this, the review acknowledges and subsequently increases awareness of the challenges minority students may face as a result of their precarious position within educational systems, encouraging other studies and educators to follow suit. This review makes use of the ‘best-evidence’ to address the research questions. This review quality assesses each study and employs pre-established and pre-registered inclusion and exclusion criteria during the selection process to foster trustworthiness and transparency. The thorough search for the review revealed 15 studies from America, Canada, and Australia. This review presents the studies through narrative synthesis because of their heterogeneous nature, which includes a range of sample sizes, ages, and measures. These findings are succinctly laid out before being contextualised with pertinent literature to address broader implications. The key takeaway from this review is that it informs researchers about the lack of research on LA's effects on minority students as well as how the concept's inconsistent literature, with its various interpretations and measurements, yields contradictory results. Because of this, it is challenging to assess the effectiveness of strategies and demonstrate to educators which ones are most beneficial and why. Further research using empirical data that is aware of LA related measuring methodological limitations and considers minority students' socio-emotional role in learning is required in order to equip educators for responding with LA's effects on the minority student. Findings alert educators to the detrimental effects LA has in demonstrating what can induce anxiety for student groups, such as Spanish-speaking students in America.
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 | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".