Our Students

In order to break down compartments now existing within the profession, [we] must begin to see the 'new' student population not as a special group destined to disappear quickly into the mainstream but as a population that will significantly change the character of the entire student community in this country. Tomorrow's mainstream student group will be made up of what we consider today to be 'diverse' students. Guadalupe Valdés (2006: 64–65)

There are, as of the time of writing, 723,277 international students enrolled in United States colleges and universities (Institute of International Education, 2011). This does not include students who are US citizens or permanent residents and whose native language is not English, nor does it include students who may speak one language at home and a second language at school. These students are described by a number of labels and served by a veritable alphabet soup of programs. We realize that categorizing students, however it is done, is at least problematic, if not controversial. We do not wish to essentialize students and seek instead to recognize each as an individual. Nonetheless, certain categories can be helpful in understanding the distinctive linguistic and cultural issues that arise among our students.

Demographics of Multilingual Students

International students

As we noted above, there are currently over 700,000 students who are classified as international students – those who are studying here on student visas and intend to return to their country of origin when their studies are completed – currently enrolled in US educational institutions, including community colleges and technical schools. This represents 3.5% of total college enrollment in the US (Institute of International Education, 2011). Roughly half are undergraduates and half are graduate students, with a much smaller number of non-degree seeking students. The Institute of International Education (IIE), which conducts an annual census of international students in the US, notes that of these, approximately half come from just five countries – China, India, South Korea, Canada and Taiwan. Of particular note is the significant increase in the number of students reporting China as their country of origin – a 29.8% increase in the one-year period 2008/9 to 2009/10 (IIE, 2010) and a 23.5% increase from 2009/2010 to 2010/2011 (IIE, 2011). Duke University reported that the number of matriculated students from China increased in three years from 8% to 30%, and Carleton College reported that 'In the past few years, the number of annual applications from China has grown to 300 from 50 or 60 most years' (Jaschik, 2009). In 2010/2011, the country with the greatest increase over the previous year was Saudi Arabia (43.6%) (IIE, 2010). At the same time, there has been a significant decline (-14.3% in 2010/2011) in the number of Japanese students studying in the US (IIE, 2011).

Other countries that show a large number of international students include Germany and France (20%), Japan, Canada and New Zealand (13%), and Malaysia, Singapore and China (12%) (IIE, 2010). While each of the countries defines international student somewhat differently, the common factor is that the student is not a citizen and has traveled to that country with the express purpose of gaining an education. All these statistics highlight the fact that students on campuses in many countries are becoming more diverse, with increasing numbers of international students.

'Parachute kids'

A subset of international students are those who have attended high school, and sometimes middle school, at a boarding school in the US or another English-speaking country. These students are sometimes called 'parachute kids' in that they have been dropped or 'parachuted' into the educational boarding school system so that they do not live with their families on a full-time basis. Like all international students, they study on student visas and are not permanent residents. Often, after completing high school, they continue their education in the US. These students have often studied English in their native countries before coming to the US, but the English instruction may have been uneven and/or sporadic. In addition, those who attended boarding schools with large numbers of international students may have had little opportunity to interact with native English speakers. International students who graduate from US high schools generally take the SAT or ACT test rather than a TOEFL, IELTS or other standardized English test to gain admission to a US postsecondary institution.

Standardized tests, however, may be poor indicators of these students' English abilities because the students may be conversationally proficient in English but weak in academic English skills. Typically they do better on the math portions of standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT than the verbal sections. They may share some characteristics with native speakers in that they have absorbed American culture from movies, music, television, fashion or other influences, so they are often Americanized, yet they lack the academic skills needed to do college-level reading, writing, listening or even speaking. These students often escape our notice because of their apparent fluency, leaving us to wonder why they are having so much difficulty in the classroom.

Generation 1.5 students

The demographic data for international students does not account for all the multilingual students that may be in our classrooms. There are a number of other categories into which our students may fall, including a number of categories that pertain to US multilingual students. One significant and growing subset of multilingual students is that group generally referred to as Generation 1.5 (Gen 1.5), often a label of convenience. Defining these students and their backgrounds is difficult, as Harklau et al. (1999) and many others have noted. Harklau et al. (1999: 4–5) argue that definitions based on single characteristics are problematic. Common definitions include (a) a generational or resident status definition (when did they and/or their parents arrive in the US); (b) an educational experience definition (how many years of US education have they had and was their schooling interrupted); or (c) an affiliational definition (what do they identify as their native language). Harklau and her co-authors conclude 'In all, the picture that emerges ... is of a tremendously diverse student population along continua of language proficiency, language affiliation, and academic literacy backgrounds' (Harklau et al., 1999: 5). Nonetheless, a typical feature of these students is that they speak their parents' native language in the home but English at school and with their friends. They may serve as translators both of language and culture for their parents and grandparents. Often they are the links between the native language and culture of their family and their family's adopted language and culture. Not surprisingly then, many consider themselves to be native English speakers or bilingual. They may have a feeling of 'between-ness', falling between the first and second generation immigrants. However, Matsuda and Matsuda (2009: 60) caution that 'the use of the term "generation 1.5" then is best understood as metaphorically – it is not to be taken too literally'.

Because many Gen 1.5 students identify themselves as native speakers of English, and because information about students' home languages and language abilities is not kept by K-12 or postsecondary institutions, the demographic figures for Gen 1.5 students are more difficult to obtain than figures for international students. Additionally, census figures do not count those of student age as a separate category. However, the 2007 US Census reported that there are 322 separate languages spoken by US residents (Shin & Bruno, 2003: 4). Over 55 million respondents said that they spoke a language other than English in the home. Of those, about 40 million indicated they spoke English 'well' or 'very well'; the rest chose 'not well' or 'not at all'. The predominant languages were Spanish (34.5 million), other Indo-European languages (10.3 million), Asian and Pacific Island languages (8.3 million) and Other (2.2 million) (Shin & Kominski, 2010: 2). Even though Gen 1.5 students indicate they speak a language other than English at home, they may use English extensively to communicate outside the family. Gen 1.5 students may not be completely fluent or literate in the language used in the home (variously called the Mother Tongue, Heritage Language, Home Language, First Language or Native Language), having been educated mostly in US schools. Harklau et al. (1999) note that although they speak English at school, their academic skills may be weak. They often do not self-identify with either international students or native English speakers, another instance of feeling 'inbetween-ness'. Many Gen 1.5 students have had interrupted educations due to their family situations and may have had no ESL instruction from qualified ESL instructors.

Blurring the Lines

The task of describing or labeling multilingual students is further complicated by the fact that regardless of which of the above groups they belong to, they are at different stages of their grasp of the second (or third or fourth) languages and each individual is unique. Diebold (1961: 99) coined the term incipient bilingualism to denote students who are beginning to learn the language, whereas functional bilingualism applies to those who are able to perform meaningful, but not necessarily grammatically accurate, communications.

A more recent essay (Valdés, 2006: 37) uses the terms incipient and functional with the same basic meanings as Diebold's, but further divides bi- or multilinguals into elective ('those who choose to become bilingual') versus circumstantial ('individuals who, because of their circumstances, find that they must learn another language in order to survive'). A simple example will illustrate the difference: a US native English speaker who chooses to study Spanish and becomes fluent is an elective bilingual; a worker who emigrates to the US from Mexico and must learn English to get a job is a circumstantial bilingual.

Cook (2002), on the other hand, rejects the designation of bilingual or multilingual and argues for the use of the term L2 (second language) user. In this case, an L2 user is defined as an individual who has knowledge of and facility with the language, as distinguished from an L2 learner, an individual who is still acquiring the L2. The differences in the terms is one of perception, with an L2 user viewed positively (he is capable of using the language) whereas an L2 learner is seen as less positive or even negative (he is somehow lacking in language skills). Drawing on research on monolinguals and multilinguals, Cook (2002: 9) emphasizes that 'the minds, languages, and lives of L2 users are different from those of monolinguals'. Valdés et al. (2009) cite both Cook and Grosjean in arguing that L2 users are not simply equivalent to two monolinguals. Rather they have, Valdés et al. (2009: 20) assert, 'acquired their two languages in particular contexts and for particular purposes'. The authors continue, 'By definition, L2 users have internalized two implicit linguistic knowledge systems – one in each of their languages.' In describing bilingualism, García (2009: 71) asserts that 'Bilingualism is not monolingualism times two'.

We struggle with the complexity of these multiple definitions and classifications and accept their inherent ambiguities. Just as we all belong to multiple groups and play multiple roles, so do our students. Complicating clear definitions and classifications is the complexity and variety within each group and the fluidity between groups. We continually must guard against placing students into strict categories and must strive to see them as unique individuals. Roberge (2009: 19) notes that any labels are problematic, whether they are 'Ethnic labels that equate immigrants with US born minorities ... Linguistic labels such as "ESL" ... or Academic labels such as "remedial" or "basic writer"'. Nevertheless, for convenience sake, we must choose a term that, while admittedly inadequate in capturing the complexities, will provide a convenient 'handle' for the array of groups and categories. In this volume, we use the term multilingual to include all of these various categories: international students, including 'parachute kids', and Gen 1.5 students.

Multilinguals and Native Speakers: Much the Same but with a Difference

Although multilingual students are a diverse group culturally, linguistically and geographically, they share certain similarities among themselves and with native speakers. First and foremost, most want to succeed academically. In fact, in a recent poll (2012) of Chinese high school students who want to study in the United States, respondents listed a desire to 'learn skills of critical thinking, problem solving, and intellectual creativity important to success in all fields today' as the single most important reason for their interest in studying in the US, followed closely by their perception that 'the US has the best colleges and universities in the world' (StudentPoll, 2012: 7). Beyond wanting to succeed academically, though, they share many other interests and characteristics with all college students around the world. New students may be apprehensive about the college experience and unsure of their ability to succeed. The same poll of Chinese high school students indicates that for these students, the most important concern, reported by 45% of respondents, is whether they are 'academically prepared to study in the US'. Another 28% are concerned about their English competency (StudentPoll, 2012: 8). Multilingual students want to make new friends; they are concerned about social relationships; they generally enjoy many of the same recreational activities – music, shopping, video games, movies, sports; they get stressed about assignments and exams. They may be adjusting to a new environment and living arrangement; they may suffer from culture shock. As an example of concerns about adjusting to college life, students in the StudentPoll China (StudentPoll, 2012: 8) reported that they were concerned about their lack of knowledge of US schools (37%) and about being such a distance from home (25%) and having difficulty leaving their families (11%). Finally, after graduation they want a good job and to lead a 'good life'. In other words, they are normal college students with all the doubts, fears and hopes that are universal.

It should also be said, however, that, similar to native speakers, most of our multilingual students are young people, and that means some of them may exhibit the same unproductive habits as their native-speaking counterparts – missing class, not turning in assignments, not reading the required materials. In these cases, multilingual students should be treated no differently than domestic students, and should understand that class rules apply to them as well.

Like increasing numbers of college students overall, multilinguals have mental health issues (e.g. homesickness, depression, substance abuse, eating disorders, bipolar disorder) (Kadison & DiGeronimo, 2004; Soet & Sevig, 2006). Students may arrive on campuses with mental health issues or may develop them upon arrival. Similarly, college is stressful for all students, and multilingual students may have more stress associated with cultural adjustment (i.e. culture shock), lack of support systems and new freedoms than US students who are more familiar with US society and the academic environment. Additionally, students deal with stress differently, and some of this difference is cultural. Mori (2000) notes that US students tend to experience stress as anxiety, depression or both, whereas international students exhibit physical signs of stress and may not distinguish 'emotional distress' from 'physical distress'.

What do we as faculty do if we notice students exhibiting symptoms of stress or showing signs of violent or self-destructive behavior? First, we need to be mindful of the fact that cultural views of mental illness differ in terms of what constitute mental illnesses, how they are spoken about and how they are treated (e.g. Watters, 2010). We need to be sensitive to cultural differences. Second, we need to assist multilingual students in finding appropriate professionals to help them. This might mean referring students to counseling and psychological services, to advisors who handle students at risk or, in extreme cases, to the campus public safety office. We can show concern and support for students, but if there seems to be a mental health problem, we need to direct the students to professional help.