Language,Education : The Multicultural Education in Korea : A Comparative Study of Korea & Canasa`s Multicultural Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the observation technique and in-depth interview, the current study compared various aspects of multicultural education between Korea and Canada and suggested the direction Korea`s multicultural education needs to take. As a part of class curriculum, the researcher interviewed the representative of Ansan Foreign Center (AFC) and the president of the Kosian`s House, a NGO for multicultural educations. The observations and experiences of the researcher were also used in this study. The results of the current study are as follows. First, multicultural education is provided for the minority group in Korea, whereas multiculturalism is included and taught for every student in Canada. In addition, the current multicultural education of Korea focuses on language and culture acquisition to help the students to adjust. Canada, on the other hand, focuses on accepting other cultures and ethnic equality, creating both identities as their ethnic origin and as Canadians Second, in language educations, both countries had students enrolled in lower school years than their age. However, the differences occurred in terms of emotional support and availability of expert teachers. Third, comparing teacher`s attitude towards multicultural education, Korean teachers were not free from perceiving the multicultural student as ‘different’, whereas Canadian teachers have been taught since little to consider multicultural students as Canadians, but accept their ethnic backgrounds. Based on the results, the current study suggested multicultural education program for the majority group, increase in number of expert language teachers and teachers and teaching assistants, and an education program to teach multiculturalism as part of an identity of humankind. The limitations and suggestions for future studies were provided afterwards.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".