Survey study demonstrates that perceived family cultural capital predicts informal digital English learning in undergraduates, highlighting the primary role of cultural resources.
Purpose: This study develops and validates the Subjective Family Capital Scale (SFCS) and examines how university students’ perceived familial resources relate to their involvement in informal digital learning of English (IDLE).Design/methodology/approach: Grounded in the social theories of Coleman and Bourdieu, subjective family capital is conceptualized as learners’ internalized perceptions of the economic, social, and cultural resources available within their families. Data were drawn from a larger research project invovlving questionnaire responses from 1,000 Chinese undergraduates, divided into two independent subsamples (N = 500 each). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes were conducted to establish the scale’s factor structure, followed by tests of reliability, construct validity, and measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationships between subjective family capital and IDLE.Findings: Results supported a stable three-factor structure of subjective family capital with satisfactory reliability and validity, and measurement invariance was confirmed across subsamples. At the higher-order level, subjective family capital positively predicted IDLE (R² = 12%). At the dimensional level, only cultural capital showed a significant positive association with IDLE (R² = 13%), whereas economic and social capital were not significant predictors.Originality/value: This study extends sociological perspectives on informal language learning by operationalizing subjective family capital and demonstrating its differential effects on out-of-class digital learning. The findings highlight the central role of learners’ perceptions of family cultural resources, suggesting that how learners perceive these resources may be more consequential for participation in IDLE than the availability of economic or social assets alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: