Language Ideologies and Bilingual Education: A Korean-American Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is an ethnographic record of an ongoing journey during which I have tried to understand the kinds of language ideologies that my students and I have constructed about the Korean language. My students are mainly Korean-American university students who have never successfully achieved native fluency in their heritage language, although several attended Korean Saturday schools as children. A special expression, ‘FOB’ (Fresh Off the Boat), which I discovered during this journey, proved crucial to my understanding of my students' language ideology about the Korean language. My language ideology and that of my students appeared to be in conflict. My students were highly motivated to learn Korean, but they were opposed to Korean–English two-way immersion (TWI) programmes. I, however, strongly favoured these programmes. After a process of reflection, debate, journaling and interviewing, I reached a new understanding, reconciling the apparent ideological conflict that has separated me from my students. My findings suggest that ideologies towards the Korean language are inextricably bound to their views on English proficiency and Korean immigrants.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it