Bridging Gaps or Reinforcing Hierarchies? A Methodological Critique of Research on Multilingual Study Mentors for Migrant Youth
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jhet.202615214
Author(s)
Zhiyu Ye
Affiliation(s)
Shanghai Lixin University of Accounting and Finance, Shanghai, China
Abstract
This critical review examines Hedman and Fisher’s study of Multilingual Study Mentors (MSMs) in Swedish preparatory classrooms using the framework of Critical Multilingual Language Awareness (CMLA). The review acknowledges the study’s evidence that MSMs can enhance student engagement, disrupt language hierarchies, and support migrant students’ identities. However, methodological weaknesses, such as a small sample size, absence of a control group, and lack of longitudinal data, limit its generalizability. While the study is a valuable initial contribution, future research must employ more rigorous and varied methodologies to truly assess the role of MSMs in fostering educational equity for linguistically diverse learners.
Keywords
Critical Multilingual Language Awareness (CMLA); Multilingual Study Mentors (MSMs); Newly Arrived Students; Epistemic Authority; Migrant Education; Linguistic Ethnography; Language Hierarchies; Sweden; Qualitative Methodology; Mixed-Methods Research
References
[1] Heath SB. Seeing our way into learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 2000;30(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640050005816
[2] García O. (2017). Critical multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language Awareness and Multilingualism (pp. 263–280). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02240-6_30
[3] Han S, Li Y, Haider SA. Impact of foreign language classroom anxiety on higher education students' academic success: Mediating role of emotional intelligence and moderating influence of classroom environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022;13, 945062. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.945062
[4] Motulsky H. Common misconceptions about data analysis and statistics and how to avoid them. British Journal of Pharmacology, 2015;172, 2126–2132.
[5] Alvesson M, Sköldberg S. (2017). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
[6] Goffman E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of Talk (pp. 124–159). Baltimore, MD: University of Pennsylvania Press.
[7] Curtis MJ, Bond RA, Spina D, Ahluwalia A, Alexander SP, Giembycz MA, Gilchrist A, Hoyer D, Insel PA, Izzo AA, Lawrence AJ, MacEwan DJ, Moon LD, Wonnacott S, Weston AH, McGrath JC. Experimental design and analysis and their reporting: New guidance for publication in BJP. British Journal of Pharmacology, 2015;172(14), 3461–3471. https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.12856
