Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently the Korean government has promoted, as part of a national plan for facilitating English education, the introduction of English immersion programs into public secondary schools in Korea. English immersion programs have been installed in many elementary schools in Canada and the U.S. as a practice of bilingual education, especially to help students in the linguistic minority. The government has also emphasized that the program will be further utilized for teaching general subjects in addition to English, and that it will be installed in the elementary schools as soon as possible. This paper critically reviews the suitability and validity of the English immersion program for Korean public schools from the socio-cultural, politico-economical, and language educational perspectives. Before doing that, this paper discusses: i) the origin and the objects of the immersion program, ii) the English immersion program implemented in the U.S., and iii) the difference between the features of English Immersion programs in the U.S. and those that have been introduced to Korea. Based on these discussions, this paper argues that the English immersion program is not an optimal, nor a suitable program for English education in Korean public schools. This paper suggests some ideasfor planning foreign language education policy in the future.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".