UC Riverside

In this qualitative comparative case study, I investigated the educational experiences of international students at two private Christian schools in Southern California, focusing on their positioning, curricular experiences, and systemic supports. I found that school personnel positioned international students into three categories: exceptional, normative, and at-risk based primarily on international students’ perceived linguistic and intercultural capital. School personnel positioned those international students who used their linguistic and intercultural capital to integrate into the dominant American culture of the school as exceptional, those who did not integrate but received passing grades and socialized with other international students as normative, and those who demonstrated little interest in academics or socializing as at-risk. Domestic students positioned international students who used their linguistic and intercultural capital to integrate into the dominant American culture of the school as social insiders—befriending them and interacting with them in and out of class, while those who did not integrate, they positioned as outsiders—ignoring them, criticizing their allegedly poor English proficiency, or only minimally interacting with them in assigned group work. I observed de facto segregation between international and domestic students at both sites, evidenced by their seating arrangements and socialization in class, chapel, lunch, and other settings.

International students demonstrated engagement in classes where teachers articulated clear learning and language objectives for each lesson, involved students in active learning, and employed dialogic instruction. International students demonstrated disengagement in classes where teachers did not articulate clear learning and language objectives and positioned students as passive learners through an over-reliance on lecture, video watching, and IRE-style discussion.

Although international students at both sites expressed respect and appreciation for their teachers and classmates, those at Elmshaven benefitted from a mutually supportive system that school personnel and students co-constructed, which lent positive synergy to their efforts and promoted authentic caring between them. Meanwhile, Fremont’s culture prized individual effort, not mutual support. It functioned only inconsistently as a mutually supportive system, as its personnel worked in parallel, not cooperation, resulting in much negative synergy, overwork, personnel turnover, and a culture that tended to promote aesthetic caring.