The following is my reflection, based on the LPP Project Reflection guideline/questions:
CONTENT
The most valuable thing I learned from working on our Korean case study was how deeply language preservation ties into community identity and the intergenerational connection. Examining the role of Korean churches as sociolinguistic hubs highlighted that language revitalization always happens through formal institutions. It can be sustained through communal networks that nurture both cultural and linguistic belonging. I also found it compelling that Korean dual-language programs are relatively recent developments shaped by shifting political ideologies like California's Proposition 58. It made me realize how policy, family transmission, and community initiatives must align for heritage languages to thrive.
From another group's presentation, I was particularly struck by the ASL team's discussion about manualism v.s. oralism and the Milan Conference's long-lasting impact on Deaf Education. Also, the notion that the development of sign language for white people had been halted/hindered due to the ideology of oralism (and Alexander Graham Bell) as opposed to other communities of color was something that hadn't even crossed my mind. Their integration of Crip Linguistics and Translanguaging frameworks helped me see how disability justice and linguistic justice intersect. I also appreciated the Spanish group's focus on Spanglish and how translanguaging can serve as resistance against assimilationist norms, paralleling the Korean community's use of 'Konglish' as a marker of hybrid identity.
After completing this project, I wanted to learn more about how policy decisions are made and what factors are taken into account, especially when those policies shift with sociopolitical climates. It would also be interesting to study how new immigrant groups build their own systems of language use/maintenance, capturing the different processes as they integrate into society.
PRESENTATION
In our presentation, I think we succeeded in making the connections between history, culture, and education very clear. The three different waves of Korean immigration to the US, along with examples from Korean dual-language schools/churches, made our argument grounded in reality and specific. I'm proud that we balanced both linguistic structure and sociolinguistic dimensions without overwhelming the audience with technical terms. It also helped that our slides were visually appealing and that each member's section flowed naturally into the next, building upon the information we were delivering.
I thought the AAVE group's presentation worked especially well in terms of storytelling and critical framing. Their use of the Ann Arbor case and Oakland Ebonics controversy brought policy, activism, and linguistic justice together in a powerful way. The way they connected Baker-Bell's Linguistic Justice to real classroom implications modeled exactly how policy can move from paper to practice.
If I were to give our presentation again, I'd include more multimedia elements, like short clips of how Korean speech is different in Korea v.s. in the US Korean immigrant communities, and showcasing how different dialects sound like. If I could, community interviews about Saturday Korean classes could also make the lived experiences of language learning more tangible.
GROUP DYNAMICS
Our group worked successfully because we divided the content strategically. Each member focused on a key section (linguistic structure, sociolinguistics, policy case studies, educational approaches), but we also cross-checked for coherence and flow. We made space for each person's input during revisions, which helped the final handout and presentation feel unified. The collaborative research process, especially gathering specific examples, was something I'd like to replicate in future group projects.
In the future, we might want to include more joint brainstorming time earlier in the process to synthesize our ideas sooner and leave more time for polishing. Coordinating across schedules is always a challenge, so setting shared milestones in researching different aspects would make it easier for us to complete our individual parts.