JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
2022, VOL. 21, NO. 1, 30–45
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1777869
International Students and Faculty across the Disciplines:
A Language Socialization Perspective
Jason Schneider
and Li Jin
DePaul University
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
The number of international students in U.S. higher education has increased
in recent years. Many of these students face English language challenges, but
we know little about what faculty across the disciplines are doing to support
their linguistic needs. This article presents findings from a qualitative study
comprised of interviews with 15 faculty members at one institution to answer
two questions: a) To what extent do faculty across the disciplines recognize
the role of socialization in second language learning? and b) What practices
do faculty across the disciplines claim to use to linguistically socialize inter­
national students into local communities? Findings indicate that most faculty
in the study recognize basic tenets of language socialization and claim to
enact pedagogies to support international students’ socialization experi­
ences. However, a smaller number of participants are resistant to acting as
language socializers. The authors offer suggestions to administrators and
faculty interested in supporting international students.
English language learning;
faculty across the disciplines;
international students;
language socialization;
qualitative research
Introduction
Colleges and universities in the United States have aggressively recruited international students in
recent years. As a result, the number of students from abroad has increased by nearly 34% since 2012,
and there were more than 1.09 million international students in the United States during the
2017–2018 academic year, including students in both degree and non-degree programs, and students
completing post-graduate professional training (Open Doors, 2018). While new enrollments of inter­
national students have been declining since 2017, many institutions continue to see steady or
increasing enrollments, and total numbers remain quite high from a historical perspective (Redden,
2018). Thus, a key challenge at many U.S. colleges and universities is helping international students
integrate into local academic life. Given that these students are distinct from domestic students in
multiple ways—including their prior educational experiences and expectations, as well as their
linguistic and cultural backgrounds—established members of academic communities can struggle to
provide appropriate support.
In the case of faculty, many lack specific training in working with students from abroad. As multiple
studies show, faculty often see international students’ English language proficiency as an area of special
concern (Andrade, 2010; Cao et al., 2014; Haan et al., 2017; Nguyen, 2013; Roy, 2013; Ryan & Viete,
2009; Trice, 2003). Moreover, faculty often perceive students who use English as an additional
language through a deficit lens (Marginson, 2013; Ryan & Viete, 2009; Zamel, 1995). At the same
time, faculty express unease about supporting students’ linguistic needs in classes that are not
explicitly focused on language development (Andrade, 2010; Haan et al., 2017).
CONTACT Jason Schneider
jason.schneider@depaul.edu
Department of Writing, Rhetoric, & Discourse, DePaul University,
2320 N. Kenmore Ave, Schmitt Academic Center, Room 350, Chicago, IL 60614.
This article represents shared work, with equal contributions from both authors at all stages of the research process.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
31
Given the substantial enrollments of international students today, the authors see an urgent need to
gain a deeper understanding of faculty beliefs and choices around helping international students’
English language development, especially faculty whose expertise is not connected to language
education. The current study presents data from interviews with faculty across the disciplines at
a medium-sized private university in the Midwest region of the United States. More specifically, the
study adopts a language socialization (LS) perspective (Duff, 2010, 2012; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2012;
Watson-Gegeo, 2004) to learn what faculty from a range of academic expertise believe about the
relationship between second language learning and socialization, and to highlight strategies they claim
to use in order to support linguistic socialization of international students.
Literature review
Originally developed as a response to the narrowness of first language (L1) acquisition and child
development research methods in the 1960–1970s, language socialization holds that linguistic
development and enculturation constitute an intertwined process (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2012;
Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Simply put, language development depends on the extent to which one
is socialized into a target community; at the same time, the extent to which one is socialized into
a target community depends on the development of language skills. In their seminal research review,
Garrett and Baquedano-López (2002) define LS as being “concerned with all of the knowledge and
practices that one needs in order to function as—and, crucially, to be regarded by others as—
a competent member of (or participant in) a particular community or communities” (p. 345).
During this process, there are usually two types of participants: a) mentors, who include experts,
more experienced peers, teachers, care-givers as well as other physical or virtual resources; and b)
novices or newcomers, who seek or need certain proficiency to participate in the practices of the
mentors. Naturally, mentors play a major role in facilitating novices’ learning. However, according
to Duff and Anderson (2015), mentors may not always be effective, successful, or available to provide
timely mentoring. Furthermore, mentors may gain new insights and skills from the novices, and
complementary mentoring may come from novice-peers who socialize each other. Thus, LS is
a multidirectional process that is temporally and spatially specific.
Despite its origins in theories of first language acquisition, LS has been adopted to understand second
language (L2) learners as active, decision-making agents who construct their own roles in a new society
while simultaneously expanding their linguistic repertoires (Duff & Anderson, 2015). Many researchers
(e.g., Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Duff, 2010, 2012) have come to believe that LS offers a more
comprehensive lens than cognitively oriented second language acquisition (SLA) theories for under­
standing the complex web of challenges faced by L2 learners. LS researchers also stress that despite
similarities between young children who are being socialized into adulthood and L2 learners who are
being socialized into a new linguistic and cultural community, there are important differences (Bronson
& Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Duff, 2012; Duff & Anderson, 2015). For example, unlike child L1 learners, adult
L2 learners already possess a range of linguistic, cultural, and social repertoires. In addition, adult L2
learners are cognitively and emotionally more mature than children acquiring an L1, and can thus enact
more agency over their own socialization preferences. Furthermore, access to resources in the commu­
nity can differ dramatically between child L1 learners and adult L2 learners. Therefore, L2 language
socialization is generally seen as more complex and unpredictable (Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008;
Duff, 2010; Duff & Anderson, 2015).
Several studies have been conducted to understand L2 learners’ socialization processes in
various social and cultural contexts (see Duff, 2012 for a review). One line of research relevant
to the current study is tertiary international students’ socialization into English-speaking academic
contexts (Duff, 2010; Duff & Anderson, 2015). Within this scholarship, oral academic discourse has
received special attention (e.g., Mori, 2014; Morita, 2004; Octaçtepe, 2013; Zappa-Hollman, 2007).
Octaçtepe (2013) explored how a Turkish doctoral student in the United States struggled with
reconstructing his identity and building meaningful social networks through daily oral
32
SCHNEIDER AND JIN
communication with the target language community. Through the concepts of “audibility,”
“cultural capital,” and “investment,” the study illustrates how a lack of meaningful social interac­
tions with target language speakers (experts) can impede meaningful investment in language
development and recognition as a competent member of the new community. Similarly, Morita
(2004) investigated how international students at a Canadian university negotiated their participa­
tion and membership in L2 classroom communities through oral academic tasks. Following six
international students from Japan, Morita discovered that these students took active agency in
negotiating their participation and constructing new identities in class discussions. However, when
instructors ascribed deficit identities to the students, they resisted participation and remained
marginalized members. Focusing on the genre of academic presentations, Zappa-Hollman (2007)
found that while international graduate students perceived academic presentations as a positive
opportunity to develop skills in western academic discourses, some Asian students resisted due to
a conflict between valued practices for academic presentations in a North American setting (e.g.,
expected non-verbal behaviors such as eye contact) and practices in their home cultures. Some
students also expected instructors and peers to offer more explicit advice on their language
problems.
Other scholars have focused on LS within the realm of written academic discourse (e.g., Belcher,
1994; Casanave, 1992; Guo, 2006; Krase, 2007; Nam & Beckett, 2011; Spack, 1997). Such studies
demonstrate that learning to write is not only a matter of mastering linguistic skills, but also a process
of becoming socialized into the academic discourse community (Casanave, 1992; Spack, 1997).
However, this process needs to be supported and encouraged by experienced mentors and professors.
Belcher (1994) investigated the relationship between three doctoral students and their faculty advisors,
discovering that advisors play a significant role in L2 graduate dissertation writers’ socialization. Guo
(2006) reached a similar conclusion, drawing on her own academic writing experience to stress the
significant role that her supervising professor played in recognizing the importance of her Chinese
identity and cultural background in shaping the development of her English writing skills and
construction of a new linguistic identity. Nam and Beckett (2011) reported on how some multilingual
writers can fail to find needed LS experts by examining the experiences of five Korean graduate
students at an American research university. Results show that all five students remained peripheral
users of university resources after five months, mostly relying on themselves and each other to
complete writing tasks. Thus, their socialization into American academic writing discourses was
frustrating and disempowering, and restricted by a lack of coordination among institutional resources,
including an ESL center, a writing center, and research courses offered in disciplinary departments.
Also highlighting a situation of LS failure, Krase (2007) examined a “dysfunctional” professorgraduate student relationship at a U.S. university. As the L2 student completed her master’s thesis
under the supervision of the professor, the two never managed to reconcile their differing under­
standings of the advisee-advisor relationship, partly because the student expected more explicit
guidance from the professor.
Collectively, these findings confirm the claim by LS researchers that L2 language socialization into
academic communities is a dynamic, socially and culturally situated process with “unpredictable
uptakes, intentions, behind-the-scenes power plays, investments on the part of learners, and out­
comes” (Duff, 2010, p. 186). One clear pedagogical implication is that in order to improve
students’ second language development, educational institutions should be more attentive to the
ways in which mentors and experts foster novices’ admissions into local linguistic and social com­
munities. However, as research shows (e.g., Morita, 2004; Nam & Beckett, 2011; Octaçtepe, 2013;
Zappa-Hollman, 2007), not all experts and mentors are competent or accessible socializers. Duff
(2010) explains that “[experts] who are most successful not only display, but also make explicit, the
values and practices implicit in the culture and provide novices with the language, skills, support, and
opportunities they need to participate with growing competence in the new culture and its core
activities” (p. 176, emphasis added). As the primary mentors and experts in the university context,
faculty are key participants in such socialization processes, whether or not they consciously position
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
33
themselves in such a role, and whether or not their courses are specifically focused on the development
of language skills.
The current study draws on these insights but also expands the scope by dedicating full attention to
the perceptions and stated practices of faculty across the disciplines, as they have not been a primary
area of focus in existing literature.
Methodology
Acknowledging L2 socialization as a life-long, discursive, non-linear, and multi-directional process,
LS theorists and researchers emphasize the value of ethnographic approaches (Barley & Langman,
2011; Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Duff, 2012; Duff & Anderson, 2015). Duff and Anderson
(2015) summarize three types of methodologies for typical studies of classroom-oriented L2
socialization, all of which utilize data collected from learners: (a) direct and sustained observations
of learners’ oral interactive learning processes in classrooms; (b) indirect access to learners’ class­
room interaction data including learners’ compositions and learning materials, interview data in
which learners reflect on their learning experience, and additional data from learners and their
interlocutors; and (c) researchers’ autobiographies of their own socialization experiences. Departing
from these approaches, the current study presents data collected solely from faculty who teach
international students. In LS terminology, this methodological choice represents a shift in focus
from the experiences of novices to the experiences of mentors, which, according to Bronson and
Watson-Gegeo (2008), is called “LS as topic” rather than “LS as approach” or “LS as method.” Given
the unique importance of faculty as socialization agents for international students, the authors
believe that an LS perceptive can shed new light on the extent to which a diverse range of faculty
understand their crucial role.
Based on interview data collected from 15 faculty volunteers across 13 different academic dis­
ciplines, this study addresses two research questions:
(1) To what extent do faculty across the disciplines recognize the role of socialization in L2 learning?
(2) What practices do faculty across the disciplines claim to be using to linguistically socialize
international students into local communities?
Study context
The study was conducted in winter 2018 at a private, teaching-focused university in a major urban
area in the U.S. Midwest. At the time of the study, the university enrolled approximately 14,000
undergraduate students and 7,000 graduate students. The majority of students come from the local
area, and one-third of the students are the first in their families to attend college. The international
student enrollment was about 9% of the total student population, representing more than 100
countries, with China, India, and Saudi Arabia as the top three countries of origin. Most interna­
tional students were graduate students, and almost all were full-time tuition-paying students whose
primary purpose in the U.S. was to study and receive a degree; indeed, F-1 visa status does not
permit a student to work off-campus in most cases. Overall, the university is comprised of ten
colleges and employs about 1,800 faculty, half of whom are full-time faculty at various ranks and the
other half of whom are part-time faculty. As enrollment numbers suggest, the primary focus is on
undergraduate education.
Participants
In order to recruit participants who could contribute meaningfully to the study, the researchers used
purposeful sampling (Seidman, 2013). More specifically, only faculty members from the five largest
colleges at the university were invited to participate, since these colleges have the largest enrollments of
34
SCHNEIDER AND JIN
international students. The participants, who included both full-time and part-time faculty, had
diverse backgrounds in terms of academic rank, discipline, gender, race/ethnicity, and multilingual
skills. As shown in Table 1, among the 15 faculty participants, eight were full-time tenure-track, four
were full-time non-tenure-track, and three were part-time (adjunct). All participants claimed prior
experience teaching international students.
Data collection
Upon receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board, the two researchers sent a generic
recruitment email to the dean’s offices in the five colleges asking each dean’s assistant to distribute the
recruitment email to their respective faculty listservs. Interested faculty members were invited to respond
to the researchers and share more details about their backgrounds, including academic rank, discipline,
gender, race/ethnicity, multilingual skills, and prior experience studying or working abroad. These
specific attributes were considered important due to findings from a previous study, which demonstrated
that such factors can affect faculty attitudes toward international students (Jin & Schneider, 2019). After
the recruitment deadline passed, the researchers met, discussed the 50 email responses from participant
candidates, and then selected 15 participants. These decisions followed a narrowing process of three
steps: (a) choosing at least two representatives from each of the five selected colleges; (b) including faculty
at multiple ranks from each college; (c) constructing a sample that would include diversity in terms of
gender, race, multilingual skills, and experience abroad. The overall aim of the process was to interview
a pool of participants who the researchers believed could provide divergent points of view.
After the participants were finalized, the researchers created two lists in order for each researcher to
email 7–8 faculty participants to schedule individual, semi-structured interviews. Each one-on-one
interview lasted from 45 minutes to one hour, during which the researcher asked a list of mostly openended questions (see Appendix). These questions were carefully designed to prompt interviewees to
discuss their views and practices in relation to international students in their own classes (e.g., What
are your perceptions of the English-language skills of international students at [the university]? If these
students have language challenges, in what area(s) do they need extra help? Have you ever made efforts
to support the English skills of international students? If so, explain.). All interviews were audio-taped
and later transcribed by a research assistant.
Data analysis
After all transcriptions were complete, the researchers employed a grounded theory approach (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998) involving two phases. The first phase was a theoretically informed and deductive
process aimed at identifying examples of or references to language socialization in the interview
transcripts (e.g., how faculty help international students overcome their language challenges, or what
faculty think should be done to help international students integrate into the university community).
As the focal analytical construct adopted in this study, language socialization was defined as any effort
by faculty to help international students become legitimate participants of various communities within
the university or other sites in the United States. An assistant worked with the researchers to identify
all the scenarios related to faculty beliefs and practices around language socialization. Both researchers
then reviewed and agreed on the identified scenarios and references before starting phase two.
In phase two, the two researchers reviewed all data independently and then categorized and coded
all identified language socialization scenarios with distinct themes, such as faculty stressing the
importance of practices to support language development or expressing resistance to offering such
support. When categorizing faculty beliefs about second language learning and socialization, which
helped answer research question 1, each researcher focused on participant statements that were
framed as either general observations or specific commentaries on international students. When
categorizing faculty self-reported pedagogical practices, which helped answer research question 2,
the researchers focused on what faculty said they do in and out of the classroom. The two researchers
a
M
M
M
M
F
M
F
M
M
F
M
F
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
United States
United States
United States
Latin America
Europe
Asia
United States
United States
United States
Europe
U.K.
United States
United States
Place of origin
United States
United States
White
White
White
Hispanic
White
Mixed
White
African-American
White
White
White
White
African-American
White
White
Race
FT NTT
FT NTT
PT NTT
FT TT
FT TT
FT TT
FT TT
FT NTT
FT TT
FT TT
FT TT
PT NTT
FT TT
Faculty statusa
PT NTT
FT NTT
TT = tenure-track; NTT = non-tenure-track; FT = full-time; PT = part-time.
F
Gender
F
M
C
Prof
A
B
Table 1. Self-identified demographic information of research participants.
English monolingual
English monolingual
English monolingual
Bilingual
English monolingual
Bilingual
Bilingual
English monolingual
English monolingual
Bilingual
Multilingual
English monolingual
Multilingual
Language skills
Bilingual
English monolingual
Accounting
Advertising
Rhetoric & Composition
Screenwriting
Hospitality
Business/
Entrepreneurship
Political Economy
Public Health
Web Design
Math
Web Development &
Programming
Philosophy
Academic discipline
Art History
Business/
Law
Accounting
Childhood in Asia; study and work in UK and Canada;
some time in China
Majority of life in Latin America
More than two years in Asia, including travel and
work
Extensive worldwide travel
Over 12 years living and working in Europe
One summer of study in Japan
Two years in Continental Europe for study and
teaching
Some travel and work in Europe
First 21 years of life in Europe; two years in Middle
East; a month in S. America
Several weeks in E. Africa for academic and/or public
health work
Several months in China as student
Some of childhood in Asia; studied in Europe; has led
study abroad in Europe
Vacation only
Experience abroad
10 years in Asia
Seven weeks in Asia
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
35
36
SCHNEIDER AND JIN
then met to compare and contrast the themes and examples. Discrepancies were discussed to reach
agreement on final themes. The results of the coding process answer research questions 1 and 2.
Findings
Research question 1: To what extent do faculty across the disciplines recognize the role of
socialization in L2 learning?
None of the research participants claimed academic expertise in applied linguistics or closely related
fields (e.g., education or linguistic anthropology); thus, presumably none had formal training in SLA
theories. Nonetheless, the vast majority (11) described beliefs and practices that reflect recognition of
the assumption that international students can develop English language skills by being socialized into
local communities by various experts, and especially faculty. A smaller number (4) made no claims
suggesting that they hold such views and made clear that they rarely or never undertake practices in
their own teaching aimed at linguistically socializing international students. This range of perspectives
can be categorized into three groups: (a) participants who articulated explicit awareness of the role of
socialization in L2 learning; (b) participants who implicitly acknowledged the role of socialization in L2
learning; and (c) participants who expressed little awareness of the role of socialization in L2 learning.
Articulating explicit awareness of the role of socialization in L2 learning
Four participants (Professors A, C, G, and K) expressed views that fall into this category and
articulated various tenets of LS. They also claimed they took steps to linguistically socialize interna­
tional students. One such view is that language learning is most successful when integrated with social
experiences in the local culture. Professor C, an accounting professor with extensive experience living
abroad, put it this way:
To develop English language competency, you need to take yourself often out of your native language. . . . And
spend a lot of time with people outside of your group. . . . The more socialized you are—and this, I don’t have any
academic literature to back this up—but I would imagine the more socialized you are, the more likely you are to
speak the language better.
When reflecting on her role in socializing her international students, she also highlighted the bidirec­
tional nature of communication, noting that interactions with students offer her new insights about
the field: “Language is a two-way street, right. . . . It’s about me communicating with them, and it’s
about them communicating with me. And so sometimes I pick up things as well.”
Professor G, who grew up in Europe and was once an international graduate student in the United
States himself, stressed the importance of making “American friends” and experiencing group
dynamics to support language learning:
Some students have tried to become better speakers by diversifying their group of friends . . . or their environ­
ment. . . . Because some of them come here and they, they don’t talk English very frequently. . . . If they don’t have
any, any American friends . . . or if they don’t have to talk a lot during class, then they don’t make the progress that
they, they could make . . . in terms of their language skills. I think it would be nice if people had opportunity or
they were encouraged to work with different classmates of theirs, you know, in groups.
Professor K, an immigrant to the United States who teaches screenwriting, stressed the importance
of discourse-level skills and cultural knowledge. He also emphasized that faculty and the institution
must help international students develop such competencies:
[Having] enough of the language to be able to get into a program and having a language that’s good enough for
screenwriting. . . . [These are] two very different things. . . . It’s not that their ideas [on assignments] were not
good, it’s just that they didn’t know how to structure them. And it’s not about grammar, it’s not—it’s just about
the way they think about their creativity that is different from what we do here. . . . It’s not just about bringing
international students here. It’s about helping them live through the experience as best as possible.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
37
Acknowledging implicitly the role of socialization in L2 learning
Although half of the participants (Professors E, I, J, L, M, N, and O) did not articulate a connection
between language learning and socialization, they recognized some tenets of LS and acknowledged the
efforts faculty including themselves or other experts should make to help international students
develop language skills through engagement with local communities. Professor I, who teaches
entrepreneurship, shared his philosophy that international students should take agency for their
own learning. One strategy for this is asking questions in real-life communication, which he sees as
a way to develop the kind of communicative competence needed in future workplaces. Furthermore,
he argues that faculty should be responsive to student agency:
[P]art of my communication to them is that if they’re going to work here, then, if they’re in a company and
somebody uses a word they don’t understand, they need to make a record of it, or go and find out later, or maybe
ask the person right then when they said it, “What does that mean?” They don’t need to learn it here before they
go to work. I, I guess that’s my, that’s my point. It can help them, but they don’t, they don’t need to. Also, because
the, there’s new words all the time like this. I mean, new words are coming out every year . . . I think they’re going
to learn anyway. They’re gonna struggle and learn anyway, no matter what they do. . . . I don’t view this as
a problem. I view it more as an opportunity for faculty development.
Pinpointing the connection between language proficiency and identity, Professor N, in public
relations and advertising, did not directly articulate a belief that language learning can take place
through socialization. However, he did indicate that he wanted to help international students feel
that they are accepted into the local community by working on their language skills: “I think that
language is, is, you know, one of the greatest ways to be integrated. But it’s also one of the ways that
people keep you out, and can tell, ‘Oh, you’re not from here.’ You know. So, I don’t want them to
have to feel that.”
Expressing little awareness of the role of socialization in L2 learning
This third category includes only four participants (Professors B, D, F, and H) who expressed little
awareness of the connection between language learning and socialization. They also did not claim to
engage in practices aimed at linguistically socializing international students, and some indicated it was
students’ own responsibilities to improve their language proficiency. Although Professor D, who
teaches web development and programming, noticed international students’ language needs, he was
not sure whether or how he could offer help: “Well, I guess I have a role to play. I haven’t been given
any direction or any training as to what the expectation is of me or how to do it . . . where to draw
boundaries.” Professor H, who teaches public health, expressed her reluctance in addressing language
issues in her international students’ writing due to time constraints: “Because I’m like, if I have to
spend a bunch of time, like, doing grammar and editing and stuff, I spend less time on content. And
you don’t want that.”
Professor B, teaching economics and law, expressed strong dissatisfaction with students’ writing
skills, noting that he often gives international students a “gentleman’s C,” due to the fact that their
writing is in “basic English,” with “very simplistic word usage” and “[m]aybe one or two thoughts.” He
also expressed the view that many of the international students he sees should not have been admitted
in the first place:
I appreciate the university and the enrollment pressures. . . . And the financial pressures the university is under.
I think the university has probably made a deal, uh, that we’ll take students in, uh, regardless of their ability in
English—regardless of their ability in writing. And somehow, some way, they will get through the system. We will
get their tuition money.
Thus, he did not see it as his role to support the students’ language development. In the case of
students who he believes do want to improve their skills, he has recommended that they enroll in
courses that emphasize writing: “I basically have encouraged them to go take a history class, an English
literature class. . . . Or something where they are forced to write.”
38
SCHNEIDER AND JIN
Research question 2: What practices do faculty across the disciplines claim to be using to
linguistically socialize international students into local communities?
Among faculty who expressed explicit or implicit awareness of LS principles, they usually claimed to
engage in practices aimed at supporting language development and offered many descriptions of their
practices. These can be organized into three categories: (a) fostering language socialization into the
academic community inside the classroom; (b) promoting language socialization into the academic
community beyond the classroom; and (c) offering experiences that linguistically socialize students
into future professional communities.
Fostering language socialization into the academic community inside the classroom
Several interviewees highlighted efforts to create comfortable classroom spaces in which international
students can easily integrate into the academic community. These practices often aim to counteract the
anxieties that cultural outsiders feel in a new environment. Professor L from hospitality described an
approach grounded in empathy:
I think their perception of their English skills sometimes impacts their confidence. And I think that their lack of
confidence sometimes hinders their performance in the course. . . . I’m an incredibly shy person. I know what it
feels like to be in an environment being an incredibly shy person. My perception is for a lot of international
students, they feel very shy and very anxious and very nervous in an environment like this. Anything that I can do
to help ease that shyness and that anxiety, I want to be able to do.
Another method described by some participants for creating comfortable classroom spaces revolves
around personal sharing. In particular, faculty who had lived or studied abroad or were international
in the U.S. themselves drew on those experiences to make international students feel included.
Professor L achieves this goal with Chinese students, in particular, by utilizing the most popular social
media app in China, WeChat:
So if I have a student that comes into my classroom the very first day, that’s an international student, one of the
very first things, let’s say they’re from China, that I’ll go up to is, I’ll say, “Are you on WeChat?” And inevitably,
you know what they’ll say? “Yes, I am.” “Are you on WeChat?” “Absolutely, I am.” You know what I’ll do? I’ll
show them my QR code. And they’ll scan it. And they’ll go on QR code and I’ll immediately send them a message.
And I’ll say, “Hi.” And it’s, immediately we’ve communicated. And, or I’ll say “Ni hao.” I don’t speak Mandarin.
But I know ni hao. And they might respond back to me in Mandarin and I’ll just hit translate. And that’s all it is.
Or I’ll send them an emoji. . . . Then we’ve created safety there.
Professor J, who grew up in Asia and later studied in the U.K. and Canada before settling in the
United States, described how she bonded with a student through her own experience as a former
international student:
[S]he said, “I love this class. What I read in the readings, this is my life.” Then she said in the course of our
conversation about other things about the readings, then she said to me, she said, “You know, I still have this
problem that I have to write sometimes in my own language . . . and then translate later.” And I said, “But
I understand that. I did that when I first went to school in the U.K.”
For other faculty members, the effort to create a comfortable classroom environment revolves
around linguistic tolerance. For Professor O, an instructor of academic writing, such an attitude guides
her approach to assessment:
I’m not a, a teacher who thinks that having the perfect sentence is the most important thing in their writing. It’s
more, are they engaging with higher-order concerns? Are they fulfilling the SLOs [student learning objectives] in
the course that are relating more to the course at large? . . . Um, that’s certainly, in my philosophy, more
important than having the perfect sentence every time.
Professor I also emphasized the role of linguistic tolerance, in his case through patient listening:
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
39
I think there’s a competency that you have as a, as a professor where you’re better able to connect with them
across cultural boundaries. . . . I, I do not get uncomfortable in uncomfortable conversations. I am calm, cool, and
collected. And with international students, I think that puts them at ease. And so, if they’re trying to explain
something to me and I don’t understand at first, I don’t start acting uncomfortable because I don’t understand.
I just keep listening and dealing, dealing with them.
These statements demonstrate the extent to which many research participants treat classroom
inclusivity as a key dimension of both linguistically and culturally integrating international students
into U.S. academia. Other faculty (Professors K and E) help socialize international students by working
to demystify the implicit knowledge required for academic success. For example, Professor K aims to
explicate the U.S. “culture of education” for students: “How do you adapt to the new way of teaching?
Of learning? What expectations do you have? All of that is different from their countries.”
Promoting language socialization into the academic community beyond the classroom
Several faculty participants discussed their efforts to create and promote spaces of linguistic socializa­
tion beyond the classroom. For two interviewees, this entailed encouraging international students to
attend campus events. Professor G described how he and his colleagues in mathematics reach out to
international students: “[W]e are trying to have more social events. . . . [S]ocialize, that’s a good thing.
Network, that’s a great thing that they need to be aware of. We try to encourage that, that social
aspect.” He also promotes membership in student groups:
I think that’s, that’s a very good way to be exposed to something outside of, outside of what you’re, you know,
what you, you really know and what you have been exposed to, what you are familiar with. . . . Because they, they
can interact with American students and with everybody, you know, on a more equal basis. And expose them to,
maybe, to other students. . . . It’s the idea of getting them, the students, the American students and international
students, together in groups to share and they, then they build that oral comprehension, so that when they come
to class, they’re more able to know what’s going on.
Professor C offered a similar view:
[E]nglish is also a—all language, I would assume, there’s the formal language and then there’s everything else. . . .
And you got to be able to, to have the informal dialogue as well. And sometimes our students who are
international don’t have these social conversations because I think they really don’t know what to say. We
could encourage students to have English-speaking groups, not just with each other, but encourage students who
are native English speakers to participate.
Beyond the practices outlined above, two faculty participants noted that they participate in an
initiative organized by the university through which faculty host small groups of international students
as dinner guests in their homes. Faculty participants believe these practices help socialize international
students into informal discourses.
Offering experiences that linguistically socialize students into future professional communities
While the two previous categories highlight practices and attitudes around socializing students into
the academic community, the data included in this section document how some faculty are taking
focused steps to socialize students into the linguistic practices of future professional communities.
Professor E, who works primarily with international PhD students in Philosophy, describes the
extensive critical feedback he and his colleagues give to students on their writing as directly linked to
professionalization: “Philosophy is very writing-intensive and, really, it’s everything in terms of your
professionalization and ability to be hired. And it depends on you being able to write good research
papers, good books, and get them published.”
For other faculty, professional socialization begins with developing the linguistic skills needed for
a job search. As Professor M put it, “[t]he majority of the jobs that our students will use this degree
[accounting] for will be jobs in professional services, where they will need to communicate regularly to
40
SCHNEIDER AND JIN
do their work effectively. And, and that’s going to begin during that interview process.” In addition to
offering interview practice, she gives students pointed critiques on written job application materials:
It’s really interesting when those [international] students then are writing things like emails or something else
because, you know, they, they tend to make poor choices. . . . So, clearly in the career management space, it is well
within my purview to say something to them. Like, “You know what? If you send an email like this to
a professional. This will never go anywhere. You’ve already—you know, you’re trying to get into a profession
where, where you’re, you’re going to be, perhaps, out at a client’s site, or representing your firm. . . . And the way
you write is a reflection on that firm. So, this email that you sent to me, if you sent something like this with this
nice resume that you worked on—and this hard-earned grade point average that you have—will go nowhere.”
In a similar vein, Professor G linked interview practice to both linguistic skills and cultural knowledge:
I am involved in uh, sometimes, giving advice and helping prepare students for interviews. . . . And that, that’s
a place where I think, you know, I could contribute a little bit in terms of their language. . . . For example, some
students . . . um . . . it’s not just language, but it relates to the language. Uh, they, they may not understand how—
what are the expectations here in terms of business, in terms of interviewing . . . in terms of answering certain
questions.
Discussion
The findings described here complement existing literature by expanding the focus to the perceptions
and practices of faculty across the disciplines. We see three key insights emerging from our research.
First, the large majority of participants (11) recognize, and in some cases even embrace, their own
role in socializing international students into local communities as a way to support language
development. There is implicit consensus among these 11 participants that language learning is an
integral and inevitable part of international students’ socialization process, and, moreover, that they
themselves have a vital role to play. These findings differ from what has been reported in some other
studies (e.g., Andrade, 2010; Haan et al., 2017), which highlight general resistance among faculty
across the disciplines in helping international students improve their English language competencies.
This difference could be due partly to the fact that the research participants who agreed to be
interviewed for this study have a special interest in teaching and supporting international students,
and they may not have felt comfortable expressing negative or deficit perceptions of international
students in one-on-one interviews; additionally, the fact that the institution defines itself as teachingfocused may indicate a dominant view among faculty that their primary role is supporting students.
As a way to map out the positionings of faculty participants in relation to LS beliefs and stated
practices, we present Figure 1, which places participants into three groups on the basis of their
comments in the interviews: explicit language socializers (Profs. A, C, G, K), implicit language
socializers (Profs. E, I, J, L, M, N, O), and resistant language socializers (Profs. B, D, F, H). Explicit
language socializers are those who recognize that language development and socialization into a local
community are an intertwined process and take conscious steps to support that process. Implicit
language socializers also express some recognition of LS and want to support it, even if they are less
articulate about how their own practices can play a role. Resistant language socializers show little
awareness of LS processes and express unwillingness to take on pedagogic responsibilities that would
support student development in this area. It is worth noting that this categorization is a descriptive
effort to organize findings from a fairly small group of faculty at one institution. Furthermore, in the
case of resistant language socializers in particular, motivations are not always clear. Some faculty in this
category may resist pedagogical interventions around language due to various pressures, including
time constraints or disciplinary emphases. For instance, the content of web programming classes likely
places less emphasis on students’ English language proficiencies, compared to classes in business, the
humanities, or the social sciences. Thus, resistant language socializers’ choices should not necessarily
be read as representing a certain ideological orientation (although they could be that, too); rather, they
are situated responses to a specific labor and institutional context.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
41
Figure 1. Three categories of language socializers.
An important additional note about the three groups is that all of the explicit and implicit language
socializers claimed extensive experience living or working abroad, are immigrants to the United States,
or defined themselves as bi-/multilingual. By contrast, none of the four resistant language socializers
claimed to be bi-/multilingual or had extensive experience abroad. This suggests that even within the
same institutional environment, faculty members’ linguistic abilities and prior experience abroad may
indicate an increased likelihood that they will become the kinds of competent and accessible mentors
that LS researchers argue are needed for successful socialization (Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008;
Duff, 2010, 2012; Duff & Anderson, 2015). In terms of faculty recruitment and hiring, this finding
points to the value of considering such background attributes, as discussed elsewhere (Jin & Schneider,
2019). Additionally, explicit language socializers may be the faculty members on campus who can serve
as LS models for their colleagues. Institutions can tap into their talents and insights by inviting them to
mentor other faculty with less experience, particularly those in the same disciplines. Even faculty who
have time constraints can learn about peers’ minor adjustments in class activities that do not demand
much extra time to support linguistic socialization of international students. The goal is to help
a larger number of faculty move from the outer circle indicated in Figure 1 into the circles of implicit
language socializers and explicit language socializers. This may also require better communication from
administration on the institution’s evolving relationship to international enrollments and the new
expectations for faculty, especially in the case of resistant language socializers.
A second key insight from our findings is that explicit and implicit language socializers claim to
employ a range of similar practices, including the following: creating comfortable, inviting, and
tolerant classroom spaces; mentoring students to improve their linguistic and cultural knowledge;
explicating values behind academic practices; creating and promoting socialization spaces beyond the
classroom; and supporting students’ entrée into future professional communities. These practices, and
the attitudes they represent, contrast with the faculty behaviors reported in previous studies (e.g., Guo,
2006; Morita, 2004), in which some faculty ascribed a deficit identity to international students.
Furthermore, the efforts by faculty to demystify the hidden assumptions of U.S. academia, in
particular, reflect their awareness of how important it is to be explicit when socializing international
students, which is absent among some faculty as reported in previous studies (Duff, 2010; Krase, 2007;
Nam & Beckett, 2011; Zappa-Hollman, 2007). Likewise, faculty initiatives to encourage international
students to form study groups with domestic English-speaking students and expand their language
42
SCHNEIDER AND JIN
repertoires in informal settings avoid the issue reported in Ortaçtepe’s study (2013), in which an
international student failed to have meaningful interactions with random interlocutors, and thus
lowered his investment in English language learning.
A third important insight connects to the understanding that language socialization is multidirectional and multi-faceted, and that L2 learners can enact agency within the LS process (Bronson
& Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Duff, 2010, 2012; Duff & Anderson, 2015). The findings show that at least one
faculty participant (Prof. C) thinks she has gained new insights into her own discipline when helping
international students. On the other hand, unlike previous LS studies, which focus on L2 students’
experiences and thus reveal how students execute their agency while being socialized by faculty or peers
(e.g., Guo, 2006; Mori, 2014; Morita, 2004; Octaçtepe, 2013), the current study does not reflect deep
awareness on the part of faculty about international students’ reactions to their socialization efforts. This
could be attributed to an assumption by faculty that all international students want to be socialized by
faculty into local communities. If so, such an assumption would prevent faculty from noticing students’
potential resistance to tasks that conflict with home culture values, such as reported in Zappa-Hollman
(2007). Thus, despite the effective pedagogical practices shared earlier, faculty across the disciplines can
still benefit from increased awareness of how international students’ cultural values or previous
experiences may shape their individual socialization processes. More training on intercultural differ­
ences and the importance of respecting student agency could help faculty develop this awareness.
Conclusion
The goal of the current study was to discover some of the beliefs and stated practices among 15 faculty
members from 13 academic disciplines at a specific institution. To this extent, the results must be under­
stood as local, shaped by the distinctive features of the specific teaching environment. Also, given the
exclusive focus on faculty, the study design emphasized only research participants’ own points of view. This
was a conscious methodological choice. However, a limitation of the approach is that faculty claims were
not corroborated with additional data, such as classroom observations or teaching materials. In other
words, faculty claims may not reflect their actual behaviors; furthermore, the study does not offer insights
on how the international students in these professors’ classes perceived the language socialization efforts.
Finally, the findings may not reflect the perceptions of faculty from other disciplines and at other types of
institutions, and in particular research-intensive universities focused on doctoral education.
Nonetheless, we believe the study offers an important first step in exploring the LS views and
practices of faculty across the disciplines, a topic that remains largely unexamined. Moreover, the study
makes four more specific contributions by suggesting a basic model of three categories to capture the
range of LS perceptions and practices for faculty across the disciplines; highlighting the extent to which
faculty backgrounds may shape their LS beliefs and stated pedagogical interventions; reporting workable
practices that faculty can adopt both inside and outside the classroom; and offering suggestions to
university administrators about recruitment of new faulty and support for current faculty. In light of the
high levels of global mobility among students today, faculty across the disciplines increasingly have to
address language challenges encountered by international students. Future studies could incorporate
more comprehensive research designs that include data from interviews with professors and students,
field observations, and pedagogical materials. Faculty from more diverse disciplines at research-oriented
universities also merit further study. Such work would deepen our understanding of what faculty are
and are not doing, and suggest ways that institutions could intervene to provide as much support as
possible to the language development experiences of international students.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank DePaul University’s Center for Teaching and Learning, which supported this project with a
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning grant. Also, thanks to Madeline Crozier for her research assistance.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
43
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
About the authors
Dr. Jason Schneider is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Writing, Rhetoric, & Discourse at DePaul University,
where he also coordinates the Graduate Certificate in TESOL. His research and teaching focus on multilingual college
writers, TESOL education for future writing instructors, and the rhetorics of immigration.
Dr. Li Jin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Modern Languages at DePaul University. She also directs the
Chinese Studies Program and Global Asian Studies Program. Her primary research interests include second language
acquisition, study abroad and language socialization, and intercultural communication and collaboration.
ORCID
Jason Schneider
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1415-3935
Li Jin
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6078-5837
References
Andrade, M. (2010). Increasing accountability. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(3), 221–239. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1028315308331295
Barley, R., & Langman, J. (2011). Language socialization in multilingual and second language contexts. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 291–302). Routledge.
Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors.
English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90022-1
Bronson, M. C., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2008). The critical moment: Language socialization and the (re)visioning of
first and second language learning. In P. A. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education
(pp. 43–56). Springer.
Cao, Y., Li, X., Jiang, A., & Bai, K. (2014). Motivators and outcomes of faculty actions towards international students:
Under the influence of internationalization. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 49–63. https://doi.org/
10.5430/ijhe.v3n4p49
Casanave, C. P. (1992). Cultural diversity and socialization: A case study of a Hispanic woman in a doctoral program in
sociology. In D. E. Murray (Ed.), Diversity as resource: Redefining cultural literacy (pp. 148-182). TESOL.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
30, 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000048
Duff, P. A. (2012). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of
language socialization (pp. 564–586). Wiley-Blackwell.
Duff, P. A., & Anderson, T. (2015). Academic language and literacy socialization for second language students. In
N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 337–352). Wiley Blackwell.
Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation
and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31(1), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.
085352
Guo, Y. (2006). Between the worlds: Searching for a competent voice. In G. Li & G. Beckett (Eds.), “Strangers” of the
academy: Asian women scholars in higher education (pp. 211–232). Stylus.
Haan, J. E., Gallagher, C. E., & Varandani, L. (2017). Working with linguistically diverse classes across the disciplines:
Faculty beliefs. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.14434/v17i1.
20008
Jin, L., & Schneider, J. (2019). Faculty views on international students: A survey study. Journal of International Students,
9(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.268
Krase, E. (2007). “Maybe the communication between us was not enough”: Inside a dysfunctional advisor/L2 advisee
relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.12.001
Marginson, S. (2013). Equals or others? Mobile students in a nationally bordered world. In S. Sovic & M. Blythman
(Eds.), International students negotiating higher education: Critical perspectives (pp. 9–27). Routledge.
Mori, M. (2014). Conflicting ideologies and language policy in adult ESL: Complexities of language socialization in a
majority-L1 classroom. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 13(3), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15348458.2014.919810
44
SCHNEIDER AND JIN
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly,
38(4), 573–603. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588281
Nam, M., & Beckett, G. H. (2011). Use of resources in second language writing socialization. TESL-EJ: The Electronic
Journal for English as a Second Language, 15(1), 1–20.
Nguyen, H. M. (2013). Faculty advisors’ experiences with international graduate students. Journal of International
Students, 3(2), 102–116.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2012). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1–21). Wiley-Blackwell.
Octaçtepe, D. (2013). “This is called free-falling theory not culture shock!”: A narrative inquiry on second language
socialization. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 12(4), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2013.
818469
Open Doors. (2018). International Institute of Education. www.iie.org
Redden, E. (2018, November 13). New international enrollments decline again. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.inside
highered.com/news/2018/11/13/new-international-student-enrollments-continue-decline-us-universities
Roy, S. R. (2013). Educating Chinese, Japanese, and Korean international students: Recommendations to American
professors. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 10–16.
Ryan, J., & Viete, R. (2009). Respectful interactions: Learning with international students in the English-speaking
academy. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898866
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15(1), 163–191. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.an.15.100186.001115
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social sciences (3rd ed.).
Teachers College Press.
Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written
Communication, 14(1), 3–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088397014001001
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and technique (2nd ed.). Sage.
Trice, A. (2003). Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: The benefits and challenges. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 7(4), 379–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303257120
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The
Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00233.x
Zamel, V. (1995). Strangers in academia: The experiences of faculty and ESL students across the curriculum. College
Composition and Communication, 46(4), 506–521. https://doi.org/10.2307/358325
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). Academic presentations across post-secondary contexts: The discourse socialization of
non-native English speakers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(4), 455–485. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.
63.4.455
Appendix
Interview Script
1. Where are you from originally?
2. What is your racial identification?
3. Would you describe yourself as bilingual or multilingual? If so, what languages do you speak other than English, and
how competent are you in those languages?
4. Have you ever lived or studied abroad for a period longer than one month? Where, when, and for how long?
5. What is your faculty position at [the university]?
6. What are some of the courses that you teach?
7. What percentage of international students would you estimate that you have in any given class, or during any given
quarter? Do you know where they are from originally?
8. What are your general thoughts about and experiences with teaching international students?
9. What are your perceptions of the English-language skills of international students at [the university]? Can you give
examples of specific experiences that help explain those perceptions? If these students have language challenges, in
what area(s) do they need extra help?
10. How do international students’ English-language skills affect their work in the courses you teach?
11. Who do you think should offer language support to these students? Do you believe you have a role to play in
helping develop these students’ language skills and cultural knowledge? Please explain.
12. Have you ever made efforts to support the English skills of international students? If so, explain.
13. Do you ever try to provide support for international students outside of the classroom, for example, through office
hours or other kinds of meetings?
14. If so, have you ever used those interactions to support students’ English language development specifically? Please
explain.
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
45
15. Can you explain why you prefer to help your international students in certain ways? How do you think your
background experiences and knowledge influence the approaches you prefer?
16. How do you think international students’ English language skills affect their broader efforts to integrate socially at
[the university]? Can you provide any specific examples that help explain your thoughts?
17. Have you ever made efforts to help international students integrate socially at [the university]? If so, please explain.
Copyright of Journal of Language, Identity & Education is the property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.