Arabic as a heritage language: A scoping review

Abstract

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: Second language researchers have focused increasingly in recent years on “heritage language learners,” or adult learners who wish to learn, relearn, or improve their linguistic proficiency in a family language they spoke while growing up. The present study examines this domain with a particular focus on Arabic. Design/Methodology/Approach: We present in this paper a “scoping review” that systematically examines the theoretical approaches, methods, contexts, instruments, and linguistic foci found in empirical research on Arabic heritage language learning and learners. Following a comprehensive search, 34 empirical studies (27 journal articles and seven dissertations/theses) were identified that met our criteria. Data and Analysis: Each study was coded for the samples, designs, theoretical approaches, data collection instruments, and a number of other substantive and methodological features and practices. Frequencies and percentages of study features were then calculated. Findings/Conclusions: Among other results, the study revealed a variety of approaches to defining heritage learners/learning. Although studies in this domain most often employed cross-sectional designs and interviews to collect data, a variety of theoretical approaches both socially and cognitively oriented can be found. Originality: This study presents the first attempt to apply synthetic research techniques to the growing body of research on heritage language learning/learners. Significance/Implications: Our results describe this growing domain, identifying current trends and potentially fruitful directions for future research.

A scoping review of world Englishes in the Middle East and North Africa

“…Our coding scheme (see Table 1) for the studies was informed by our research questions and previous scoping review studies in applied linguistics (Gurzynski‐Weiss & Plonsky, 2017; Visonà & Plonsky, 2019). The coding instrument includes bibliographic features, study design and analysis features, and then substantive features related to WE topic, approach, and contribution to WE paradigm.…”

“…As part of the nonlinear, iterative process regarding what studies to include, we decided to further exclude 16 studies, reducing the final sample size to 59 studies. Following Visonà and Plonsky's (2019) scoping review analysis, we calculated frequencies and percentages for the values of the coding scheme variables, providing a descriptive numerical summary analysis and conducted a thematic analysis of the open variable related to significance of study. In the next section, we map out the volume, nature, and characteristics of WE in MENA studies by presenting both the quantitative and qualitative results of the review addressing our research questions.…”

“…This study employs a scoping review (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010), a rigorous method for mapping areas of research. While this approach has been more popular in health evidence research, recently it has been employed in the field of applied linguistics (Gurzynski‐Weiss & Plonsky, 2017; Tullock & Ortego, 2017; Visonà & Plonsky, 2019). Scoping reviews share some similarities with other types of empirical approaches to reviewing literature such as ‘research synthesis’, ‘rapid review’, ‘literature review’, and ‘systematic review’ (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005, p. 20).…”

A Scoping Review of the “Nest/Nnest Studies” in Turkey: A Country in Focus

“…From a methodological standpoint, the current investigation is defined as a scoping review (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005;Levac et al, 2010)-a systematic and rigorous approach that enables researchers to map the key concepts underpinning a research area with direct connections to the primary sources and main types of evidence (Mays et al, 2001). Scoping reviews have recently been adopted as a powerful methodological tool by scholars in the examination of various topics in applied linguistics such as World Englishes research (Author, 2020), heritage language learners (Visonà & Plonsky, 2019), massively multiplayer online games (Jabbari & Eslami, 2019), study abroad contexts (Tullock & Ortega, 2017) and non-teacher/non-peer interlocutors (Gurzynski-Weiss & Plonsky, 2017). Unlike literature reviews or systematic reviews, a scoping review "tends to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable" (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005, p. 20).…”

“…To highlight the inherent problem associated with the term, it has been consistently used in quotation marks in the title and throughout the paper. (Gurzynski-Weiss & Plonsky, 2017;Hillman et al, 2020;Jabbari & Eslami, 2019;Tullock & Ortega, 2017;Visonà & Plonsky, 2019).…”