Challenges Faced by Korean Transnational Students in the United States.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The data on Korean children leaving their country to study aboard in recent years have been somewhat remarkable. According to the Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI, 2006), the number of Korean elementary school children who departed their country to study abroad increased about 20 times, from 705 in 2000 to 13,814 in 2006. The number of middle school students grew 5.1 times from 1,799 to 9,246, while the number of high school students grew 3.4 times from 1,893 to 6,451 during the same period of time. In the summer of 2007 alone, about 4,500 elementary school children came to foreign countries for a short-term or long-term study, mostly to learn English (KBS News, 2007). The U.S. has been the prime destination, but countries like Canada, Australia, U.K., and New Zealand have also been popular alternatives.The rate of studying away has slowed down since it hit a peak in 2006, but KEDI statistics from 2011 still showed that 1 7,226 pre-college-aged Korean students departed the country for study purposes, and it was estimated that a total of 100,000 pre-college aged Korean students were studying in various foreign countries as of 2012. Those students may be staying abroad alone or with a single parent, mostly with their mothers. In the United States, some may also stay in boarding schools or with relatives and/or close friends.This new form of educational migrant appeared in the mid-1990s and has created a new type of family, the members of which are divided between two or more countries. Transnational fathers occasionally visit their families in the United States but mostly work in the home country to support them. Transnational parents, who are mostly in their forties and fifties, choose to split their families for their children's better education.The primary motivation of Korean parents is to expose their children to an English speaking culture at an early age so that they can speak English as fluently as a native speaker. They believe that fluent English will give their children favorable options in their lives and careers in a globalized economy where English is the most common means of communication. For that cause, they are willing to suffer years of separation (Park, 2009; The Chosun Daily, 2004).If their children's acquisition of fluent English is a pull factor, there is also a push factor for educational migration. Parents have often complained that they had to turn to private education services to supplement an insufficient public education. Children in South Korea as young as 10 years of age attend private cramming classes. Private education services for many families in South Korea are effective but costly. The average family spends a tenth of its income on private education services worth a total of $8 billion in a year (Ly, 2005). Parents have also pointed out other factors in society that caused them to send their children away to study such as the underdevelopment of higher education and the lack of diverse professional occupations in South Korea (Lee & Koo, 2006).Review of LiteratureAlthough the number of studies relating to this topic is limited, some research suggests positive prospects for transnational families. Lee (2010) interviewed several transnational mothers living in Hawaii to investigate how their identities as women were influenced in a transnational space. Those mothers indicated that their status was not only a matter of choice, but also a powerful transformational vehicle for their own lives. Like their children, transnational mothers were going through a cultural adaptation process, and they seemed to see positive prospects for their family's future.Lee and Koo (2006) conducted an interview study with transnational fathers, and suggested that the fathers were not mere passive or reluctant participants in the decision of splitting their families. They were maintaining stable conjugal relationships as well as a strong supportive role for the children despite their physical separation from the family (Lee & Koo). …
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".