Korean adolescents’ experiences studying abroad and subsequent readjustment to life after returning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This qualitative study explored the socio-cultural adjustment and re-adjustment experiences of South Korean adolescents who studied in English-speaking countries and later returned to South Korea. Methods: The study interviewed 12 adolescents (6 males, 6 females) aged 12-16 who studied in countries such as the U.S., Canada, England, New Zealand, and Australia. Results: The findings highlight the students' adjustment processes abroad, including the initial "honeymoon" phase, followed by crises like language barriers, homesickness, and difficulties in relationships with peers and teachers. Upon returning to Korea, students faced challenges with academic performance, stricter school regulations, and social reintegration, often exacerbated by biases toward those who studied abroad. Discussion: The study underscores the importance of support systems during both phases and highlights the need for educational interventions that can ease the transition both abroad and at home. This research contributes to understanding the complexities of cross-cultural adjustment and re-entry, especially in the context of adolescents' identity and belonging, suggesting sustainable education system to support students' both abroad and returning process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".