Case studies of seven Korean-Canadian students' identity and use of heritage language in a Korean heritage Saturday school in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this qualitative inquiry, I explore seven Korean-Canadian youth's perceptions of their identities and lived experiences of learning Korean in a Korean heritage Saturday school in Montreal.I use Bakhtin's dialogic theory of language, Vygotsky's sociocultural theory of development, and Bourdieu's concept of different forms of capital to frame this inquiry.I use a case study methodology to understand the diverse ways that these seven Korean-Canadian youth represent their sociocultural worlds as heritage language learners in a Korean heritage Saturday school.Data includes individual interviews and group conversations with these youth over four months I observed at the Korean heritage Saturday school.Rather than making essentialized generalizations about their behaviors, values, or beliefs, data analysis indicates that although these participants appear to be similar as Korean heritage language learners, they expressed, voiced, and differently represented, negotiated, socially constructed their identities in their social interactions with others within different languages and ideological social environments such as home, school, and Korean heritage Saturday school.Understanding their dynamic identity construction in learning Korean as a heritage language or first language is an important consideration to understand their diverse positionings, values, and beliefs as they negotiate their multiple social worlds.More qualitative inquiries of heritage language learners and their voices are needed to better understand how heritage language learners perceive, negotiate, and construct their identity construction in multiple social spaces and places.v Résumé Dans cette enquête qualitative, j'étudie la perception d'identité et les expériences vécues de sept jeunes coréens-canadiens apprenant la langue coréenne dans une école du patrimoine coréen du samedi à Montréal.La théorie dialogique des langues de Bakhtine, la théorie socioculturelle du développement de Vygotsky et le concept des types de capitaux de Bourdieu servent de cadre à cette enquête.J'emploie une méthodologie des études de cas pour cerner les diverses façons dont ces sept jeunes coréens-canadiens représentent leur monde socioculturel en tant qu'apprenants d'une langue d'origine dans une école du patrimoine coréen du samedi.Plutôt que de fournir des généralisations stéréotypées sur leur comportement, leurs valeurs ou leurs croyances, l'analyse des données indique que, malgré leur similitude en tant qu'apprenants de langue d'origine coréenne, ils diffèrent par leur façon d'exprimer, de représenter, de négocier et de construire leur identité sociale lors de leurs interactions dans de différentes langues et de différents environnements sociaux idéologiques tels que la maison, l'école et l'école du patrimoine coréen du samedi.Comprendre leur façon dynamique de construire leur identité lors de l'apprentissage de la langue d'origine ou maternelle coréenne permet de reconnaître leurs divers positionnements, valeurs et croyances lorsqu'ils naviguent entre leurs nombreux mondes sociaux.Des enquêtes qualitatives supplémentaires sur les apprenants de langue d'origine sont nécessaires pour mieux comprendre leur façon de percevoir, de négocier et de construire leur identité dans plusieurs contextes sociaux.heritage language learners' sociocultural worlds.I also present relevant key concepts from Bakhtin, Vygotsky, and Bourdieu, whose work significantly influenced the way I understand and interpreted the participants' lived experiences.In Chapter 3, I explain the narrative case study methodology and introduce the research site, research participants, data collecting process and methodological tools of inquiry.In Chapter 4, I describe the youth narratives as Korean heritage language learners and their perceptions of their lived experiences in a Korean heritage Saturday school.In Chapter 5, I critically discuss and interpret the major themes that emerged from my inquiry and provide future directions for further research.I discuss the implications of my research for better understanding heritage language learners in a multicultural society.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".