The Meaning and Ideology of Bilingual Educational Policy for Children from Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in South Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language is the most essential forms of expression of culture. Since necessities for multicultural education have arisen in the field of early childhood education, discourses of bilingual education has been included as well. The Korean government supported bilingual education program for children with linguistically diverse backgrounds. What are the goals and ideologies of national bilingual education policies for these children in Korea? This study investigated the concepts, ideologies and goals of bilingual education in the policy document. In this study, CDA gives critical lens to investigate what the meaning of bilingual education is for young children with linguistically diverse backgrounds in Korea. Findings demonstrate that, the Korean government promotes bilingual education for parents and children with linguistically diverse backgrounds; their intention is to assimilate them into the Korean educational context. Based on a compensatory perspective, it was offered with the goal of reducing developmental gap between native Korean children and children from multicultural families. There has been little discussion of minority rights with regard to bilingual education. It is recommended that the focus on social justice and linguistic human rights issues need to be included in the process of bilingual program developing. Bilingual teachers need to be highly qualified educationally and linguistically and be critical since immigrant parents and their children have rights to be socially competent in Korea, but at the same time to maintain their own identity, language and pride. Children need to become aware of the power differential between Korean and their mothers’ language in the Korean society through education.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".