Defining heritage language

Research among families who speak more than one language is situated against a complex background which refers variously to: immigrant families (Szecsi and Szilagyi Citation2012; Rumbaut and Portes Citation2001), bilingualism or multilingualism (Baker Citation2011) plurilingualism (Prasad Citation2013), home language (Eisenchlas, Schalley, and Moyes Citation2016) and heritage language (Cho and Krashen Citation2000; Szecsi and Szilagyi Citation2012). Throughout this paper, the term heritage language’ is used, since the vast majority of families had views of the ‘heritage language’ that aligned with Blackledge and Creese’s (Citation2010) interpretation, namely a minority language not spoken by the majority within the community or country, with both language and culture being passed down the generations. Within the context of this study, all languages other than English are referred as heritage languages.

Heritage language families

From birth, children inhabit a ‘cultural niche’ (Boyd, Richerson, and Henrich Citation2011), influenced by the cultural beliefs, customs, and practices of those around them. For heritage language families, these customs, beliefs and practices form a complex pattern of family life. Language holds an important place within this niche, facilitating communication with caregivers, community members, education professionals, classmates, and friends. Different languages may support different ties, and relate to children’s lives in terms of cognitive development (Baker Citation2011) and their developing cultural identity (Pavlenko Citation2004; Norton Citation2013).

Family efforts are vital in maintaining the heritage language (Garrett, Coupland, and Williams Citation2003), with the home environment and language habits of the families being the most accurate predictor of heritage language development (Fishman Citation1991). Many families facilitate the heritage language through spoken communication within the family, and through travelling to the home country, joining local groups, or using additional resources, such as books or television (Cho and Krashen Citation2000; Tse Citation2001), however, the use of apps and games within this context is as yet largely unexplored, necessitating a more over-arching look at technology use.

The role of technology in heritage language and literacy development

Much of the literature on virtual language and literacy development originates in the fields of either mother tongue literacy (Merchant et al. Citation2012; Kucirkova et al. Citation2014), or foreign or second language acquisition (Viberg and Grönlund Citation2012; Chik Citation2014). While space does not permit a comprehensive review of the full body of literature, it is not untypical for the foreign/second language learning field to focus on individual aspects of language and literacy development, including vocabulary (Ashraf, Motlagh, and Salami Citation2014), and writing/story telling (Kucirkova et al. Citation2014).

The use of technology (and in particular, commercially available games) among heritage language families remains under-researched, in particular, whether and how parents and children view the available apps in similar terms, namely, for language learning, or for game play which happens to be in the heritage language. With nearly one in five primary school children in the UK alone being classed as having English as an additional language (Tinsley and Board Citation2016), this group of children forms a significant part of the population not just in the UK, but worldwide, allowing this study to make both a timely and significant contribution to our understanding of technology use among heritage language families.

Among the few studies exploring this particular field is a pilot study in Australia (Eisenchlas, Schalley, and Moyes Citation2016), which used three specifically designed games to explore literacy development in the minority language (German) of nine children aged 5–8, finding improvement in literacy development in the minority language, and satisfaction and motivation among children and parents with regards to the games. Szecsi and Szilagyi (Citation2012) explored the perceptions of two immigrant Hungarian families on the use of media technology and heritage language development, with both families responding positively. These small pilot studies make an important start in highlighting an emerging field, which this study extends by juxtaposing parents’ desire to support the heritage language with concerns linked to mobile and screen technologies. This paper does not seek to belittle these concerns, instead, it aims to explore this dilemma sensitively, involving both parents and children in the discussion. Furthermore, this paper significantly extends the discussion by exploring how the use of apps and games links to children’s emergent identities as multilinguals.

Parental attitudes to technology

Since parents ultimately are their children’s gatekeepers when it comes to accessing and using technology (Hamilton et al. Citation2016), exploring parental attitudes is an important aspect of this study, especially since culturally differentiated views on technology use remain under-explored (Atkin et al. Citation2014) Studies of screen time reported an increase in obesity among young children (see e.g. Hamilton et al. Citation2016; Sanders et al. Citation2016). The ability of parents to control screen time decreases with age, making the exploration of parental attitudes a matter of particular importance when it comes to families with young children (Hamilton et al. Citation2016). Parental attitudes matter when it comes to permission, and active support: Neumann and Neumann (Citation2014) argue that while both quality and content of apps are important, they should not be viewed as a replacement for parental involvement. Throughout this study, care was taken to explore which apps were used, and how.

Availability of apps and games for heritage language children

Principally, commercial apps and games are not developed with heritage language speakers in mind. Instead, there is a duality in the availability of resources, with apps and games either aimed at new language learners (e.g. learning the language as a ‘foreign’ language), to support early literacy development (e.g. spelling/literacy apps for young children), or apps focusing primarily on game-play, in the heritage language, for fluent speakers. Heritage language children often develop their multiple languages asynchronously, resulting in a specific set of needs (Baker Citation2011). Among these needs is the concept of ‘meaningful challenges’ (Whitton Citation2014) linked to game play. Whitton points out that ‘edutainment games’ – those designed with specific learning outcomes in mind – are typically less engaging, and devoid of meaningful interactivity.

In research among heritage language children, the focus is more frequently on the facilitation of the in-country (rather than the heritage) language (see e.g. the work of Verhallen and Bus Citation2010). What has been neglected so far is how gameplay links to the concept of identity, an aspect this study explores.

Online questionnaire

Volunteer questionnaire participants were recruited via social media posts, posted in six international and UK-based online parenting groups linked to heritage language or bilingualism. While this restricted the sample to those families already interested in facilitating the heritage language, and those frequenting social media, it was deemed a suitable medium to reach a large audience, since the initial posts got shared by a variety of additional parenting groups, increasing the overall reach of the study. An introductory paragraph to the questionnaire made it clear that views were sought from families living in the UK, seeking to provide an indicative picture of heritage language families whose children are part of the UK education system. This approach ensured that English (with the easiest access to apps and games) was not classed as the ‘heritage language’. While a future study may helpfully explore views of specific heritage language groups or socio-economic backgrounds, this study focused on identifying families who felt they had a story to share. As can be seen from the data, not only technology-friendly families were recruited, although it may be possible that the study attracted participants with polar views, e.g. either fervent supporters or opponents of technology use. In total, the questionnaire logged 268 responses. After discarding double and blank entries, there were 212 viable responses available for analysis. Whilst data are incomplete, it is apparent that most respondents were mothers.

The questionnaire collected background data around family composition and which languages were spoken by whom (and to what extent) in the family. Certain aspects of the survey (such as emotional attachments to the heritage language) have been reported separately (Little Citation2017). Of specific importance to this article are attitudinal questions about technology use (both for parents and for children), usage patterns with regards to technology, and comments linked to children’s or parents’ identity perceptions in relation to technology use.

Family interviews

The questionnaire included the option to volunteer for interview. In order to explore gaps in the literature surrounding younger language learners’ voices, these volunteers were first categorised according to children’s age, aiming to identify those at primary school (aged 5–11). Thirteen volunteering families fitted this criterion. These families were approached, and, following some scheduling issues, 10 families completed the interview. A simply worded information sheet and consent form ensured that all family members (including children and those less confident in the English language) would be able to understand them. Forms were emailed out, and all family members involved in interviews signed them. Families photographed or scanned the forms before returning them via email, and the content was reiterated, with verbal consent sought again, before interviews started.

In seven of the 10 family interviews, children were present and offered their own views. Although it is impossible to exclude parental influence in a study such as this, the sample group was such that parents were, in all cases, actively encouraging children to share their own views, since the parents themselves had a vested interest in understanding their children’s motivations in relation to heritage language learning. Caduri (Citation2013) points out that, while ‘truth’ is necessarily a flexible concept in qualitative research, relying on remembered instances and interpretation of events, eliciting qualitative responses nevertheless serves to highlight previously unexplored issues. In the case of this study, having both parents and children present strengthened the data by facilitating a dynamic, relational approach, allowing for triangulation of experiences from different viewpoints.

Questionnaire responses were taken as a starting point for the interviews, with responses being expanded further through additional questions focusing on capturing family narratives and stories around technology use, favourite apps or games, family practices (such as regulated screen time), and attitudes of parents and children towards technology use.

Interviews with nine families were conducted by video-call (Skype), one mother preferred the telephone. All interviews were fully transcribed. While the use of Skype as an interview tool may hinder the interpretation of non-verbal cues and make it more difficult to establish rapport (Lo Iacono, Symonds, and Brown Citation2016), advantages included the possibility to draw on a wider sample, and to make the research financially feasible (Lo Iacono, Symonds, and Brown Citation2016). In addition, 9 of the 10 families interviewed used Skype regularly to speak to relatives abroad, making the tool familiar to both the parents and the children, and helping to minimise negative impact. While the interviews were semi-structured, participants were aware that, as a parent of a heritage language child, I occupied the same ‘space’ as them. The interviews frequently continued beyond the official questions, and beyond official recording, evolving into an exchange of experience, and, on occasion, co-constructing knowledge (Mann Citation2011) with the parents. While these data were not included in the study, to avoid researcher input leading responses, these exchanges were seen as an ethical way to acknowledge the time families dedicated to their participation (Bagley, Reynolds, and Nelson Citation2007).

Ethical considerations

Voltelen, Konradsen, and Østergaard (Citation2017) warn of ethical issues related to interviewing families, either together or apart. Their review of the literature highlights how the expression of contradictory views may damage family relationships. Both the drive to maintain the heritage language, and the discussions around control and use of technology, are topics fraught with strong views and are potentially long-standing familial ‘battle zones’, and interviews were conducted carefully and sensitively, with family well-being at the centre of ethical considerations. All participating parents voiced their interest in the study, and 9 out of 10 indicated that their motivation to participate was to identify future ways of negotiating both the heritage language and the use of technology with their children. It was, therefore, important to explain to both parents and children that listening to each other was important, and that sharing opinions honestly and without fear of causing offense was not only beneficial to the research, but also for future family relationships.

Approach to data analysis

In order to ensure robust findings, data collection adopted a rigorous approach, combining questions linked to certain pre-determined themes dictated by the research questions (technology use, attitude towards both technology and the heritage language, as well as links to identity) with open-ended questions which allowed for further expansion into sub-themes (such as further outlining access to and availability of resources), as well as new, emerging areas for investigation (e.g. parental fears). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, while a coding framework was developed which allowed text and interview data to be grouped or ‘chunked’ (Bamberger and Schön Citation1991), before parallels were identified and explored. This framework led to the identification of close links between family’s various emotional and pragmatic attachments to the heritage language on the one hand, and their concept of identity on the other hand, aspects which are further explored in Little (Citation2017). This paper, while still exploring aspects of identity, is fully focused on the data linked to technology use. For the families involved in the in-depth interviews, both questionnaire data and interview data were combined to triangulate the data and provide a fuller picture of each family’s situation, focusing on the narrative of the heritage family in each familial context. The findings which follow draw on the full data set, focusing on the pre-determined themes in turn, and the exploration of sub-themes where appropriate.

Sample

In order to situate the findings, a brief overview of the families involved is important. This exploratory study aimed to deliberately include as many different family languages as possible, in full awareness that findings would differ across the sample, especially in terms of availability of resources. Overall, more than 40 different languages were spoken among the 212 responding families; there was a broad spread of languages, including those with many native speakers (e.g. Mandarin, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic), as well as some lesser-spoken languages (e.g. Icelandic, Maltese). The languages represented among the family interviews included Hindi, French, Italian, Chinese (Putonghua), Malay, German (×3), Russian, Japanese, Dutch, and Greek (two families spoke multiple languages). Apart from Hindi and Malay, all languages represented at interviews have a strong online presence, with considerable (though not equal) resources available. The preferred supported language in the family speaking Malay was actually Chinese (Putonghua). For all families who took part in the interviews, the children were born in the UK.

One-third of all 212 families (33%) spoke more than one heritage language (other than English) in the home, which is of particular importance because the availability of resources may influence which language is favoured by parents and/or children.

The questionnaire did not specifically ask about socio-economic background, however, parents, in their comments, made reference to academic studies and jobs requiring university-level qualifications, allowing the conclusion that most parents were educated to this level. All interviewed parents had university-level qualifications.

The age of children in the household differed widely, however, the vast majority (203 out of 212) had at least one child in compulsory education (aged 4–18). All 10 interviewees had children currently in primary school (aged 5–11).

In the findings below, all qualitative responses are described according to method, participant/position in family, age of child, heritage language (e.g. Interview, Daughter, Italian, 10yo; Questionnaire, Father of 6-year-old boy, Dutch).

Books vs. apps and games in heritage language literacy development

In order to understand what resources families were used, the questionnaire asked about a wide variety of resources – since books were the most used and referred to, and games and apps are the focus of this study, the resources relevant to these have been chosen for closer inspection. While bearing in mind the relationship between ‘use’ and ‘availability’, the following table outlines what percentage of the 212 families used some of the resources at least once a week:

The study found considerable overlap between users of internet-based games and mobile apps – if families used one, they were likely to also use the other. Overall, 25% of families used technology-based games or apps to support heritage language and literacy development. In the majority of these families, technology co-existed with traditional book reading, providing additional exposure, rather than one type of resource being used at the expense of the other (Table 1).

This was true across the various age ranges of children in the families, and is important, as the data contradict fears expressed by some parents, that their children’s desire to use technology would somehow supersede the use of books in the household.

Data on technology-based games for heritage language learning

Looking for reasons behind the comparatively low figures for online and mobile games and apps, the survey explored accessibility, interest, and children’s and parents’ attitudes.

Parental attitudes to technology

Some parents used the questionnaire open response questions to voice strong views about the use of technology, specifically, of games and apps:

This response was echoed by a total of six families across the questionnaire data, whose oldest child was 5 or under, a relatively small number, but more significant when considering that this sub-group (oldest child 5 or younger) comprised only 15 families in the whole data set of 212 families. In the interviews, one mother (again of a child similarly aged) gave further background:

It is clear, and perhaps unsurprising, that parents of younger children show more concerns linked to the dangers of screen time (Hamilton et al. Citation2016), however, there also seems to be a lack of differentiation on what ‘screen time’ is used for. Some parents who were against screen time explicitly linked this to computer screens, rather than television screens, and the line between one and the other becomes blurred when one focuses on use (i.e. whether children watch or play), rather than device (i.e. computer or television). Similarly, screen time was linked to passivity, rather than interaction or engagement, and most typically as something the child would do alone, without parental involvement (Neumann and Neumann Citation2014). While all parents interviewed mentioned shared reading of books, only one mentioned shared use of online materials in the heritage language – in this case, a homework website, rather than a game. While books are spoken about as a ‘shared’ resource, the language used by parents in terms of games and apps shows an expectation to ‘motivate’ and ‘incentivise’. This suggests that parents’ expectations of technology-enhanced language resources are more multi-faceted than their expectations of books – to not only facilitate language learning, but to also motivate children to learn, often independently of the parents.

Some parents used ‘gamification’ to motivate children actively to explore heritage language or literacy development, regardless of their child’s preferences. One mother reported:

The app in question awards points for correct writing of Chinese characters, so while there is some level of gamification, it is a thinly veiled learning app, of which both child and mother seem to be aware, with the mother differentiating between this app and ‘gaming apps’. The mother’s use of language (‘getting’ the child to ‘do’ the app, and having to do it ‘correctly’) points at a mismatch between traditional gameplay for enjoyment, and gamified learning (Whitton Citation2014), something the mother herself acknowledges when she says the app is ‘like homework’. In another family (Italian-speaking, daughter aged 10), the father commented: ‘the Holy Grail [of games or apps] is something that teaches you anything without you realising you’re being taught’.

These comments, then, necessitate a closer look at how children view themselves in this context, and the extent to which apps and games support or hinder their identity construction as heritage language speakers.

‘Language learners’ or ‘game players’?

The apps and games mentioned in this study were either aimed at non-native speakers of the respective heritage language (language learning apps), or native speakers of the heritage language, echoing Baker’s (Citation2011) argument that heritage language learners’ needs may not be generally acknowledged in society. Unsurprisingly, the most frequently mentioned apps were available in multiple languages, and, without exception, aimed at language learners (e.g. MindSnacks, Duolingo, Memrise). Most children were clear about their preferences and all interviewed children seemed well-aware of the difference, as one child explained:

Another child who stated she was not yet at a language level to play games aimed at native speakers expressed her wish for a more authentic gaming experience when learning the language:

Asked to explain further, the same participant stated that, while gamified vocabulary learning apps motivated her to progress through levels (‘On Mindsnacks […] what I was trying to do is when you get to the highest level you get a little baby bird’), this gamification would make her race through the levels and, subsequently, quickly forget the vocabulary learnt. Both these older children struggled to identify their cultural niche (Boyd, Richerson, and Henrich Citation2011) – while they could have accessed games aimed at younger native speakers, this did not mesh with their gaming preferences, forcing them to focus on their shortcomings in the heritage language, rather than their existing knowledge.

A desire for an immersive, realistic experience (Ryan and Deci Citation2017) was expressed in the interview by the 10-year-old daughter in the Finnish-speaking family, who explained what would make her engage with Finnish more would be ‘something that made everything everybody says speak Finnish, so like the whole … .so like everyone I meet is like Finnish’.

The notion of game play as a social experience is also picked up on by the mother of the Dutch/Greek trilingual family, who explains what would be useful would be:

The importance of shared experiences between children and their peers is the focus of the Funds of Knowledge approach (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti Citation2005), and several of the children’s quotes illustrate that they are aware that their experience is different both from monolingual peers in the UK, multilingual peers in the UK who have a different heritage language, and peers in the heritage language country. Each family is thus a microcosm of experience, showing the relevance of a study which focuses on multilingual families not necessarily linked to larger linguistic communities.

According to the findings, both parents and children in the study were aware of the dual status of heritage language apps, as tools for learning, and for entertainment. By extension, children made comments which showed them as either language learners or players. Foreign language learning apps in the heritage language, while they may meet parental ‘learning’ requirements, were incongruous with children’s self-perceptions of themselves as having an identity as a heritage language speaker.

The notion of ‘proper German children’ in particular indicates a need to further explore how heritage language children view themselves, others, and their cultural identity.

Limitations

This study makes the point that all heritage language families are different, therefore, results should not be homogenised or regarded as being universally applicable. Nevertheless, the key findings presented here were representative across the sample, families were, as a matter of fact, similar in their uniqueness. Conducting the research in English undoubtedly led to the exclusion of many voices worth listening to, furthermore, it needs to be acknowledged that an outsider researcher will not be able to fully understand family relationships, and their evolution, within the space of a questionnaire and interview. More in-depth research is needed with specific communities, to enhance knowledge and understanding of the issues raised in specific contexts.