








































Article 
 

Ji Ma 马 骥, Doctoral Student, Department of Middle and Secondary Education, College of Education 
and Human Development, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA; email jma16@student.gsu.edu. 
 

Challenges and Strategies Facing 
International Students and Faculty 
in U.S. Higher Education: A 
Comprehensive Literature Review 

GATESOL Journal 
2022, Vol. 32(1), pp. 18–38 

doi:10.52242/gatesol.122 
ISSN: 2331-6845 

 

 
Ji Ma 马 骥 
Georgia State University 
 
 

Abstract 
With increasing numbers of international students on university campuses in the U.S., 
culturally and linguistically responsive (CLR) practices become more important than ever in 
helping students fit in a new environment and achieve their academic goals. However, not all 
universities and faculty are prepared or equipped with the knowledge to adopt CLR methods 
in classrooms across the disciplines. The purpose of this literature review is three-fold: (1) to 
examine the cultural and linguistic challenges that international students face in U.S. higher 
institutions; (2) to investigate faculty’s perspectives on international students and 
implementing CLR practices in their classroom teaching; and (3) to explore CLR strategies or 
recommendations that have been used successfully to alleviate the challenges. In assessing the 
current status of CLR in tertiary education, this article reviewed 21 research studies and found 
that both international students and faculty at U.S. institutions of higher education are facing 
challenges in terms of language, culture, classroom discussions, academic expectations, and 
interpersonal relationships. These findings hold implications for promoting the development 
of CLR practices among faculty and tertiary institutions to foster a diverse campus capable of 
truly accommodating and supporting students from multicultural backgrounds.  
 
Keywords 
international students, culturally and linguistically responsive practices, challenges, faculty 

 
Introduction 
In the past decades, the number of international students in the U.S. has continued to increase, 
especially in higher education institutions. According to the Open Doors 2019 Fast Facts released 
by the Institute of International Education (2019), during the 2018/19 school year, the number of 
international students reached 1,095,299, representing 5.5% of the total number of students in the 
U.S. higher education. At each of the top 20 higher education institutions in the U.S., the 
percentage of enrolled international students ranges from 10% to over 40% of the whole student 
population (Martirosyan et al., 2019). This large number of international students has brought 
benefits to the U.S. in different aspects, such as increasing diversity and intercultural perspectives 
in the classroom, bringing knowledge in many fields, contributing capital to the U.S. economy, 
and promoting cultural exchange between countries (Lee & Rice, 2007). Referring to the latest 
report from the Association of International Educators, international students studying at U.S. 
colleges and universities contributed $28.4 billion and supported 306,308 jobs in the U.S. in 2020–
2021 (NAFSA, 2021). In addition to their roles as economic contributors, Kaya (2020) also pointed 
out that international students are diplomatic and peace leaders globally. 

mailto:jma16@student.gsu.edu


Ma 19 
 

However, this group of students faces unique challenges and pressures, including language 
barriers, academic challenges, social isolation, and cultural adjustments (Contreras-Aguirre & 
Gonzalez, 2017; Kibelloh & Bao, 2014; Wu et al., 2015). Among these, international students’ 
limited English language proficiency in college-level coursework became the primary obstacle for 
them to achieve academic success as well as for professors to explain course tasks and concepts 
(Wu et al., 2015). For international students whose primary language is one other than English, it 
may take five to seven years to achieve the level of cognitive academic language proficiency 
(CALP), which requires a complete understanding of the cultural and linguistic knowledge in the 
target language (Bilash, 2011). International students who plan to complete their programs or 
degrees in the U.S., whether at the undergraduate or graduate level, need support in discipline-
specific language learning, academic performance, and social connections to overcome language 
and sociocultural barriers. According to Arthur (2017) and Crose (2011), professors and 
classmates are vital resources for international students to learn the content knowledge and culture 
in the target language, especially for newcomers. Another resource lies in the peers that share the 
same language or culture; however, this kind of support may not prove reliable or consistent 
(McMahon, 2018). 

Even though international students expect high levels of language and academic support 
from faculty, faculty often have a belief that language support for international students is not part 
of their responsibilities. Thus, faculty prefer international students to seek assistance outside of 
their classes in the form of language instructors, writing centers, and staff in the international office 
(Gallagher & Haan, 2018). In other words, faculty believe that language teaching should not be 
covered in their classes; a belief that contrasts with our understanding of the interconnectedness of 
language and content knowledge (Cummins, 1981). Indeed, Haan et al. (2017) found that there 
was a gap between “international students’ needs and the faculty’s knowledge of this group of 
students” (p. 38). Further exacerbating the situation is that faculty and even language instructors 
have limited training and knowledge of teaching multilingual students (Schneider, 2018). 
Therefore, there is a need to help faculty and staff understand the challenges international students 
face and provide the skills they need to meet students’ linguistic and cultural expectations in 
courses. 

One promising practice that has developed over the past 50 years is culturally responsive 
teaching (CRT) which aims to support students with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds 
(Gay, 2000; Hollins, 2008; Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). It is “a 
pedagogy that empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using 
cultural and historical references to convey knowledge, to impart skills, and to change attitudes” 
(Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 13). Based on CRT, Hollie (2017) developed culturally and 
linguistically responsive (CLR) teaching and learning practices and describes them as “the 
validation and affirmation of the home (indigenous) culture and home language for building and 
bridging the student to access in the culture of academia and mainstream society” (p. 23). Hollie 
(2017) stated that CLR is opposite to the “sink-or-swim approach” (p. 23) that lets the students 
survive or fail themselves; CLR emphasizes the support and appropriate instructions students 
received from teachers until they became independent in learning. Researchers believe that CLR 
benefits all students, especially those from different races, cultures, and languages (Haan et al., 
2017; Hollie, 2017). Similarly, describing linguistically responsive instruction (LRI), Gallagher 
and Hann (2018) cited an LRI framework that explains the knowledge and skills to support 
emergent multilingual students, 
 



20 GATESOL Journal 32(1)  
 

(a) understanding ELLs [English language learners] from a bilingual and bicultural 
perspective; (b) understanding how language and culture shape school experiences and 
inform pedagogy for bilingual learners; and (c) ability to mediate a range of contextual 
factors in the schools and classrooms where they teach. (de Jong et al., 2013, p. 306) 
 

However, there is a dearth of literature on CLR practices. One reason for the lack of work in this 
area may stem from the perceptions that the academic outcomes of CRT/CLR/LRI practices are 
hard to measure, or that these practices are at once comprehensive and too abstract for application 
in classroom teaching (Hollie, 2017). Also, most of the existing literature focuses on students in 
K–12 settings in the U.S. While scholars have stressed the importance of learner-centered 
education and culturally relevant teaching in K–12 settings, one finds minimal attention to CLR 
practices at the tertiary level (Han et al., 2014). While we understand pre-service and in-service 
teachers’ needs to understand diverse students’ needs and integrate CLR teaching strategies, we 
do not have that same expectation for college professors. How do we equip professors in different 
disciplines with the knowledge to effectively teach their international students? When 
monolingualism is the norm in the U.S. education system, how do we prepare faculty and 
reexamine the higher education level curriculum when we enroll an increasing number of 
international students? Research in this area is vital because a large number of international 
students struggle with adjusting to new academic and cultural standards (Haan et al., 2017). 
Therefore, the purpose of the literature review is to explore challenges faced by international 
students, examine how CLR might improve their experiences, and make recommendations for 
institutions and faculty who want to help them. Ultimately, the literature review will focus on the 
following questions: 
 

1. What challenges do new international students face in higher education in the U.S.?  
2. What are faculty’s perspectives towards international students and their academic 

performance? 
3. How do faculty understand and apply CLR practices in their classroom teaching? 
4. What CRT/CLR/LRI practices are recommended to mediate challenges for international 

students in U.S. tertiary institutions? 
 
Methodology of Literature Review 
This literature review aims to examine the research findings in published, empirical and conceptual 
research on culturally and linguistically responsive teaching in higher education, focusing 
specifically on international students who have just started their university lives in the U.S. 
Therefore, the review is limited to peer-reviewed articles that focused on faculty members and 
international students in academia between 2010 and 2020 since this is the period when the U.S. 
higher education institutions enrolled the largest number of international students in history (Israel 
& Batalova, 2021). First, empirical studies employing quantitative and qualitative methods and 
conceptual research from international sources, such as Google Scholar, ERIC, EBSCOhost, Jstor, 
Psyc Infor, Sage, and Wiley Online Library were identified. Manuals, guidelines, and books 
published on the Institute of International Education (2019) website, an organization supporting 
international education and collaboration across higher education institutions, were also included. 
The key terms included faculty, new international students, culture and linguistic or language, 
challenges or barriers or difficulties, linguistically responsive teaching, culturally responsive 
teaching, higher education, and some synonymous terms, such as professors, internationalization, 



Ma 21 
 

college, university, and academia. One primary aim of the review is to provide practical 
instructions for faculty in different disciplines to help international students achieve their academic 
goals and accommodate an intercultural learning environment. Therefore, conceptual articles and 
commentaries that are related to language support programs and learner-centered pedagogical 
practices were examined. The last step was to examine the articles’ references to locate additional 
relevant articles that could be included in the literature review. Finally, one book and 37 articles, 
16 of which focused on K–12 and teacher education were identified. I excluded these 16, leaving 
a sample of 21 articles dealing with a tertiary educational context. After the initial review, I wrote 
an annotated bibliography entry for each article and marked the themes that emerged from the 
article and connected them to the research questions. The table in the appendix shows the basic 
information of each article and the frequency of emerged themes that include benefits of hosting 
international students, challenges that international students face, faculty’s opinions and 
knowledge on international students and CRT/CLR/LRI practices, and suggested CRT/CLR/LRI 
practices. 
 
Theoretical Frameworks and Models 
The literature review is grounded on the epistemology of constructivism, which “maintains that 
individuals create or construct their own new understandings or knowledge through the interaction 
of what they already believe and the ideas, events, and activities with which they come into 
contact” (Ültanır, 2012, p. 195). According to Ladson-Billings (2003), it is crucial to reinforce this 
epistemological concept because it reveals a system of knowing the world. It helps us understand 
that how one views the world is influenced by what knowledge one possesses, and what knowledge 
one is capable of possessing is influenced deeply by one’s worldview. The conditions under which 
people live and learn shape both their knowledge and their world views. The process of developing 
a worldview that differs from the dominant world view requires active intellectual work on the 
part of the knower, because schools, society, and the structure and production of knowledge are 
designed to create individuals who internalize the dominant worldview and knowledge production 
and acquisition processes (Ladson-Billings, 2000, p. 258). 

Before attempting to support international students’ learning and academic success, it is 
necessary to understand their “ways of knowing” (Kasun, 2015, p. 277) which is shaped by their 
cultural and educational experiences. Under the constructivist epistemology, the overarching 
theoretical perspectives that inform this literature review are sociocultural theory and critical 
inquiry. First, sociocultural theory was developed by Vygotsky (1978), who posited that social 
interactions, language, and culture play an important role in learning and understanding the world. 
Influenced by Vygotsky, Bruner (1966, 1971, 1996) emphasized the impact of teachers’ 
instruction, schooling and curricula, cultural awareness, and interactions on students’ cognitive 
development. Since instruction must be structured and designed with concerns of the learners’ 
experiences and their willingness to learn (Bruner, 1966), it is necessary to examine the faculty’s 
thoughts in accommodating an increasing number of international students. Thus, the second focus 
of the literature review is to investigate faculty’s awareness when they host international students 
whose cultures, values, languages, and studying habits are different from the dominant ones. 

Critical inquiry is another lens to examine learning in social, cultural, and historical 
contexts. Lewis et al. (2012) stated that sociocultural theory “has allows us to explore the 
intersection of social, cultural, historical, mental, physical, and, more recently, political aspects of 
people’s sense-making, interaction, and learning around texts” (p. 2). However, it did not address 
the impact of “power, identity, and agency” (p. 2) on learning and practice. Power exists in our 



22 GATESOL Journal 32(1)  
 

social micro and macro systems, and it plays a vital role in opportunities to learn and impacts 
people’s lives in unpredictable ways (Moje & Lewis, 2012), especially for those who are in 
marginalized and neglected positions. For international students who live in a country other than 
their own, they have no power against policies, routines, regulations, rules when the dominate 
culture reproduces, enacts, and normalizes the social and learning system that subordinate the 
cultures of others. According to Potts and Brown (2005), from a critical perspective, “research 
must be about empowering the marginalized and promoting action against inequities” (p. 208). In 
sum, the literature review examines the CLR practices in higher education through sociocultural 
and critical lenses and includes perspectives from international students, faculty, staff, and school 
administrators or leaders. The following section discusses what the literature says about 
international students’ challenges and how faculty could help with alleviating the challenges by 
integrating CRT/CLR/LRI practices. 
 
Synthesis of Literature 
 
International Students’ Challenges  
In addition to the barriers and struggles international students face to varying degrees, such as 
cultural adjustment, mental stress, academic pressure, financial hardships, and homesickness 
(Hung, 2006; Martirosyan et al., 2015; McMahon, 2018; Wu et al., 2015), they also confront 
cultural and linguistic challenges upon moving to the U.S. When examining the challenges that 
international students face, it is vital to avoid generalization. Instead, there is a need to pay close 
attention to differences among international students since they have contextual and multifaceted 
needs (Kaya, 2020). As Heng (2018) stated, it was a stereotype and bias to generalize Chinese 
students as passive, unsocial, and annoying learners without a theoretical framework to examine 
their experiences in-depth. We need to know what reasons typically cause the students’ lack of 
ability in language, social involvement, and academic performances. 
 
English proficiency. As the predominantly used language in classes, English is a tool with which 
international students survive and succeed in the U.S. higher institutions. A higher level of English 
proficiency is a challenge for emergent multilingual students who must meet the requirements of 
disciplinary knowledge, academic language, and social conventional English skills at the same 
time (Haan et al., 2017). To make sure that international students’ English skills are proficient 
enough to fulfill the academic requirements, most American universities need students to pass 
some standardized English proficiency tests, such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language 
(TOEFL) or the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), as one of the required 
admission requirements. However, a satisfactory test score is not equivalent to a higher level of 
ability in listening, speaking, reading, and writing English. In Heng’s (2018) study, which focused 
on the challenges of Chinese undergraduate students who were admitted to U.S. universities, he 
found that participants felt inadequate in their English foundation knowledge, particularly in 
speaking, writing, and logical thinking skills. The Chinese students achieved the required English 
proficiency test scores but still struggled with communicating in English, understanding lectures, 
and writing assignments. One of the reasons for their successful proficiency scores stems from 
intensive test training courses, which emphasize exam techniques over language skills 
(Ravichandran et al., 2017; Tung, 2016). 

In the study by Ravichandran et al. (2017), researchers found their participants who were 
15 international graduate students representing 11 countries from various fields of study faced 



Ma 23 
 

language challenges tied to academic performance. The results of their study showed that writing 
was the most challenging language skill for international graduate students, especially in “English 
grammar and vocabulary, style guide use, organization and flow of information, critical thinking, 
understanding of plagiarism, and assignment completion time” (p. 772). Because there is a positive 
correlation between international students’ English language ability (writing, reading, listening, 
speaking) and their academic performance (measured by GPA; Martirosyan et al., 2015), 
international students who struggle with English may have anxiety that weakens their academic 
performances in higher education. 

Other researchers (e.g., Daller & Phelan, 2013; Gautam et al., 2016; Li et al., 2010) also 
found that language proficiency is the key determinant that could influence international students’ 
academic performance and international students whose first language is one other than English 
would take a longer time to master academic skills in the host country. Therefore, Martirosyan et 
al. (2015) stated that professors in different disciplines are critical to support the students’ English 
language needs by building up an international student-friendly environment and providing 
appropriate courses, tutoring, and pedagogical strategies. In addition, Roy (2013) demonstrated 
that the differences between Asian (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) international students’ native 
language systems and English had caused their insufficient English proficiency. She pointed out 
that the American professors’ teaching styles and language usages, such as using idioms, jokes, 
colloquialisms, and complex sentences, also created barriers for the international students’ 
understanding of the content of lectures. 
 
Social isolation. In addition to language challenges and academic pressure, international students 
also face cultural shock and social disconnections. Social isolation is a common issue among 
international students, and it has been reflected in many studies (Kaya, 2020; Martirosyan et al., 
2015; Ravichandran et al., 2017; Tung, 2016). This phenomenon was caused by many reasons, 
such as personalities, language deficiencies, unfamiliarity with the culture (Tung, 2016), and 
having no access to get involved in social activities (Kaya, 2020). Lack of social activities could 
impact international students’ mental health and academic performance. There were many 
suggested solutions, for example, providing opportunities for international students to interact with 
domestic students who can help with their social adjustment (Martirosyan et al., 2015), and pairing 
international students and local students as language peers, or setting up a community for 
conversations and sharing different perspectives (Lin & Scherz, 2014). 

Even though many universities provided opportunities to promote intercultural 
communication between local and international students, the outcomes did not fulfill the goals. 
From international students’ perspective, it is hard to build up friendships, enhance their English 
language skills, and get a deeper understanding of American culture through limited 
communication times with native-English speakers (Kaya, 2020). Also, Ravichandran et al. (2017) 
found that conversational partners did not work well because the communication was not 
consistent. Some native English-speaking peers were not talkative or had no knowledge to start a 
conversation with a non-native speaker. Some of them just showed up one or two times and never 
contacted the international students because of their schedule. Therefore, many international 
students were still in a socially isolated situation and had limited opportunities to enhance their 
English and understanding of the culture outside of the classrooms. 

In Tung’s (2016) study, Chinese international students’ social isolation in the U.S. was 
caused by lack of knowledge of western culture and their cultural heritage and traditions. These 
studies clearly revealed that these challenges were caused by the differences between students’ 



24 GATESOL Journal 32(1)  
 

cultural and educational background but not their learning skills or abilities. Hence, it is critical to 
look beyond the international students’ challenges and to avoid assumptions before constructing a 
supportive curriculum, a class, a strategy, or practices. In the next section, the literature review 
focuses on faculty’s perspectives on international students and CRT/CLR practices. 
 
Faculty’s Views on International Students and CRT/CLR Practices  
It is also necessary to think from the faculty’s perspective in terms of the trend of 
“internationalization” in the context of higher education. What are faculty facing when they have 
international students in their classes, yet they lack adequate awareness and training? How do 
faculty understand CRT or CLR practices in academia with full teaching and research loads? 
Among 21 reviewed articles, only eight of them addressed this issue and studied the faculty’s 
position towards international students as well as CLR practices. Compared to the other three 
themes (see Table 1), faculty’s opinions and experiences are underrepresented in the literature. 
 
Faculty’s challenges. According to Haan et al. (2017), although internationalization benefits the 
host campus, local students, and international students, both students and faculty face challenges 
caused by cultural and linguistic differences. This issue is more obvious for emergent multilinguals 
who need to meet the requirements of disciplinary knowledge, academic language, and social 
conventional English skills at the same time. Haan et al. (2017) stated that international students 
have been considered as guests but never a host in the university. They may not have the power to 
request that the dominant schooling system make accommodations for their cultural and linguistic 
needs. From the faculty’s perspective, it is not acceptable to lower the curricular standards to 
satisfy the students. Rather, it is the students’ responsibility to fit in the mainstream culture and 
meet the standards (Hann et al., 2017). Also, when faculty are expected to adjust their teaching 
and curriculum, it is necessary to consider the professional training, guidance, and even allowances 
to support their efforts. Without any agreement between the school leaders and faculty on the goals 
of recruiting and cultivating international students, it is hard to expect outcomes of successful 
international education. As stated in Ravichandran et al. (2017), it is not enough to recruit 
international students but ignore their unique cultural and linguistic needs. In most studies, 
researchers found that faculty welcome internationalization and international students, but they 
also face unique challenges and have low self-efficacy in serving this group of students’ needs 
(Hann et al., 2017; Jin & Schneider, 2019; Washburn & Hargis, 2017). 

To illustrate, in Washburn and Hargis’ (2017) case study, they interviewed nine faculty in 
three distinct U.S. universities and found four themes of faculty’s challenges that emerged from 
transcripts coded by a cross-case analysis method. The themes included language/cultural 
challenges, teaching and learning challenges, ethnic perceptions, and enrollment desires. First, the 
presence of international students may have impacted the dynamics in the classroom because of 
cultural and linguistic differences. Some faculty stated that they need to learn about cultures and 
be sure that the local students can respect the international students’ cultures as well. Meanwhile, 
faculty need to make a balance between international students and local students’ needs because 
they cannot pay too much attention to international students and neglect local students. Also, they 
expressed that international students’ various levels of English proficiency impacted the depth of 
their instruction. Second, faculty face challenges regarding instructional preparation and 
adjustments to create a more inclusive learning environment. Some of them said that they need 
support from the administration before preparing classes, otherwise faculty members were not able 
to make any adjustments since students’ names alone do not suffice for information about cultural 



Ma 25 
 

differences before the start of the semester. Third, faculty also experience ethnic challenges with 
various cultures in the classroom. 

As Kisch (2014) discussed, university professors face challenges when they have an 
increasing number of international students with diverse cultural backgrounds. For example, they 
may not be aware of the cultural norms in different countries, such as gender separation during 
group work for students from Saudi Arabia. Washburn and Hargis (2017) also found that faculty 
prefer European students over Asian students because of their more potent English abilities and 
similar cultural backgrounds. The last challenge mentioned in the study is the enrollment pressure 
the faculty face. The researchers found that faculty stressed giving international students’ passing 
grades “regardless of their academic abilities” (p. 14) because their schools would like to keep the 
students for financial revenues and religious missions. Overall, the faculty in this small-sample 
study showed a positive attitude towards international students. Still, they were also stressed with 
enrolling a larger number of culturally and linguistically diverse students in the face of limited 
support from the administration. 
 
Faculty’s attitudes on hosting and teaching international students. Even though faculty face 
multifaceted challenges in supporting international students, they held a positive attitude towards 
internationalization and having more international students (Hann et al., 2017; Jin & Schneider, 
2019). In Jin and Schneider’s (2019) empirical study, the results showed that faculty held a positive 
stance of hosting international students on campus and would like work with them for the 
following reasons: “international students offer different and diverse views; they have better 
academic performances; they bring global perspectives to class discussions and assignments; and 
they contribute to campus multilingualism” (p. 89). Also, the researchers found that faculty could 
understand the challenges that international students face, which had been categorized as 
“academic challenges, sociocultural challenges, and other challenges related to finances, legal 
status, and professional aspirations” (p. 89). However, faculty have low self-efficacy in serving 
international students’ needs and have a high ratio of negative responses regarding the level of 
support the university was providing for the students (Hann et al., 2017). Faculty felt that 
international students’ cultural and linguistic characteristics could become obstacles for them to 
teach, which indicated a negative attitude toward the need to adjust teaching methods (Jin & 
Schneider, 2019). The faculty also believed that the primary supports should be “outside of the 
classroom” (p. 44), since the university received the benefits from recruiting international students 
whereas faculty did not receive additional benefits, such as a salary increase (Hann et al., 2017). 
 
University level CRT/CLR/LRI support. To explore what efforts universities made to support 
international students, Martirosyan et al. (2019) examined academic and social support services 
provided to international students by reviewing websites of the top 20 universities with the greatest 
enrollment of international students in 2016. Among the top 20 institutions, the percentage of 
international student enrollment ranged from over 10% to over 40% of the overall student 
population. The researchers categorized six themes from content analysis of academic and social 
services offered by the institutions: English language programs, academic support and student 
success initiatives, targeted writing support, social and cultural events, professional development 
workshops, and family member programs. These services were free of charge to international 
students except the English language programs. Most of these language programs focused on 
general English skills, instead of the language that is connected to the students’ content area. There 
is only one institution that offers English courses in students’ specific disciplines (Boston 



26 GATESOL Journal 32(1)  
 

University Global Programs) in addition to general English language classes. This indicates a gap 
between English language acquisition and content knowledge learning in the English language 
preparation programs. Also, only one institution provided speech therapy to all students who 
needed accent modification. Several universities provided English Conversation Hours and 
Language Exchange for international students to communicate or to pair up with local students. 
These are chances to improve their English proficiency and get to know peers from the same 
discipline. However, there is no data to show how many students utilize these services or their 
feedback about their effects. The other services, such as academic support (online or face-to-face 
workshops and webinars) and writing support, were available to all students at the university. 
Among 20 institutions, there is only one university that provides writing consultants for graduate 
students who need to improve their writing skills and navigate graduate life. 

From this study, it is obvious that the packaged services are not customized for 
international students. The English language program charged extra and was disconnected from 
students’ content knowledge. In addition, this study was based on descriptions of universities’ 
websites that tended to recruit more international students, therefore, it was not reflective of the 
users’ perspectives. For example, many schools include writing centers to improve writing ability, 
however, there was no evidence on how international students benefit from this service when they 
meet difficulties in their disciplines. Furthermore, none of the websites mentioned the support that 
international students could get from faculty in their disciplines. 

From these studies, it is evident that faculty have dichotomous views on international 
education and students. On one hand, they understand the challenges that international students 
face and most faculty participants in the studies agreed that international students needed extra 
attention and support not only in the class but also from the administration. On the other hand, 
faculty faced challenges in learning the international students’ cultures and languages to facilitate 
their academic work. To be specific, they were also expecting support to create an inclusive 
classroom and construct an effective teaching environment that could meet both international 
students and local students’ needs. Furthermore, the services that universities provided are not 
adequate to support international students’ English language and content knowledge learning. 
Fortunately, many researchers and educators (Gallagher & Haan, 2018; Gopal, 2011; Haan et al., 
2017; Roy, 2013) paid attention to the gap between students’ and faculty’s challenges and the 
resources provided for them. They emphasized the importance to equip faculty with CRP/CLRLRI 
knowledge and implement CRP/CLR/LRI related practices to teaching, since CPR/CLR/LRI 
practices can benefit students (Hoekje & Stevens, 2018). Therefore, the following studies focused 
on CLR teaching practices that could be incorporated into higher education. 
 
Suggested CRP/CLR Related Practices for Higher Education Educators 
The previous sections demonstrate that both international students and faculty face dilemmas in 
higher education. Even though CRP/CLR /LRI practices are an effective framework to serve 
multilingual and multicultural students, it is challenging to articulate CRP/CLR/LRI practices or 
frameworks in higher education because of its complex and multidimensional features (Han et al., 
2014). Applying CRP/CLR/LRI practices to the U.S. higher institutions involves multiple layers 
of understanding about culture, language, educational differences, teachers’ cognition, students’ 
backgrounds, classroom practices, and administrators’ efforts. The following section describes 
practices that could support faculty understanding international students’ linguistic and cultural 
needs in higher education. 
 



Ma 27 
 

Professional Development  
First and foremost, it is necessary to provide professional development (PD) opportunities to 
prepare the faculty’s mindsets and intercultural competencies for teaching international students. 
As Arthur (2017) states, “many faculty members in higher education are appointed due to their 
expertise in an academic discipline and they may not receive formal training in pedagogical 
practices for supporting international students” (p. 889). Gopal (2011) asserts that it is difficult for 
faculty to provide equitable learning opportunities to international students if there is no adequate 
and systematic cross-cultural training. Haan et al. (2017) advocated PD in Linguistically 
Responsive Instruction (LRI) for faculty because “using linguistically-responsive and supportive 
practices and responding flexibly to students’ varying needs promotes equitable educational 
outcomes for all students.” (p. 48). Gallagher and Haan (2018) also state that faculty need to 
understand the knowledge of second language acquisition as well as linguistically responsive 
teaching practices to support students’ language development. 

Since faculty are vital resources for international students to make connections and adjust 
to the local context, it is essential to introduce the unique characteristics and challenges 
international students have in the new faculty orientation and ongoing professional development 
sessions (Arthur, 2017). When discussing the faculty’s responses toward time limitation for the 
professional development of learning pedagogical practices of LRI, Gallagher and Haan (2018) 
proposed a “university-wide effort to involve all stakeholders in planning for supporting faculty, 
staff, and student success throughout the internationalization process and clearly communicating 
these decisions and plans to all” (p. 318). 
 
Faculty’s beliefs. First, faculty must learn to be open to other cultures and to avoid ethnocentricity 
which is the belief that one culture is superior to the others. According to Arthur (2017), 
ethnocentrism is problematic in the curriculum since it privileges local practices and neglects 
students’ voices from other cultures. Teaching international students provides faculty an 
opportunity to examine their own cultural awareness, which allows them to understand their 
identities and cultures from a different perspective. Gopal (2011) stated that intercultural 
competency is essential “for navigating the continuum of globalization” (p. 379). Both Gopal 
(2011) and Roy (2013) emphasized the core elements of developing faculty’s intercultural 
competence included self-reflection and self-awareness of cultural differences. It starts with 
faculty’s attitudes of valuing students who have diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, 
beliefs, and habits of learning. It requires faculty awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, 
and social skills (Roy, 2013) to realize the international students’ learning habits and struggles. 
Faculty in international education also need to be aware that international students are not a 
homogeneous group. While delivering instructions (Roy, 2013) and developing programs and 
curriculum (Arthur, 2017), it is important for faculty to consider the impact of international 
students’ identities on their academic performances (Arthur, 2017; Roy, 2013). 

To achieve the goal, Roy (2013) provided American professors recommendations in their 
work with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean international students. For instance, professors need to 
be aware of the meaning of students’ body language because the students may feel uncomfortable 
asking questions in class or have difficulties expressing their feelings in English. Also, professors 
need to understand the process and stages of international students’ English language development. 
Roy listed methods to help overcome the language barriers between students and professors, such 
as using translating tools and providing notes ahead of classes. More importantly, Roy pointed out 
that professors need to be empathetic to what international students are experiencing to overcome 



28 GATESOL Journal 32(1)  
 

language and life challenges for their academic goals and be respectful to their efforts. Even though 
Roy’s article focused on Chinese, Japanese, and Korean students who shared a culture distinct 
from that of western and local students, the strategies can be useful in other settings to support 
international students from other countries. 

Kisch (2014) also provided ten practical tips for faculty to support international students, 
such as “being proactive in communicating with international students, normalizing office hours, 
checking in with students after assigning group work, talking to students individually and 
encouraging them to share their unique perspectives, and clarifying expectations from students” 
(p. 46). These tips and suggestions aim to with examining faculty’s beliefs while working with 
international students. Because “teachers’ beliefs, pedagogical approaches, and resources” (Li, 
2020, p. 35) are all important in fostering the language learners’ active learning attitude. 

In addition to emphasizing the importance of faculty’s self-reflection and self-awareness, 
Arthur (2017) listed two other key factors that could support international students’ transition to 
the host country: counselors who can help with initial adjustment and culture shock, and local 
students who could also benefit from interaction with international students. Meanwhile, merely 
putting international students and local students together does not always promote cross-cultural 
interactions. It is a complicated and stressful process since “interacting with people from different 
cultures can create feelings of uncertainty and anxiety” (Gopal, 2011, p. 379). Effective and mutual 
learning happens in more structured, collaborative, and scaffolded activities (Arthur, 2017). In 
other words, it takes systematic efforts to increase the quality of international education, not just 
the quantity of recruited students. In addition to suggestions on faculty PD, some researchers 
introduced models and strategies to alleviate the challenges that international students and faculty 
face. 
 
Program design. Kisch (2014) introduces a one-stop service that integrates academic, 
immigration, and student/community engagement for international students and faculty at Virginia 
Commonwealth University (VCU) in the U.S. According to Kisch, the International Student and 
Scholar program contributed to international students’ retention by 3.7% from 2008 to 2013. Shane 
et al. (2020) introduced a first-term foundation course that is required for all international graduate 
students who received their undergraduate or higher degrees from countries other than the U.S. 
The 11-week course’s overarching goal was to improve international students’ academic skills and 
build their self-confidence in English oral and written communication. There were several 
advantages of the program. First, to ensure that instructors know each students’ challenges well, 
the class size was limited to 16 students. Second, the course scaffolded the students in different 
areas but was not limited to academic skills. For example, students had opportunities to interact 
with native English speakers and build up their social network at a place called Communication 
Cafe. To keep the program running, all the native speakers were volunteers who earned points for 
classes. The instructors also directed students to participate in various on-campus clubs and other 
university events. Furthermore, the course covered required knowledge for success in the graduate 
programs, such as presentation skills, academic honesty, and creative thinking skills. 
 
Classroom practices. In terms of strategies to help international students alleviate academic and 
social challenges, there are practical suggestions that could be integrated into the classroom 
teaching in U.S. higher education system. The suggestions provided by Crose (2011), Gallagher 
and Haan (2018), and Ravichandran et al. (2017) are summarized in Table 1 below.  
 



Ma 29 
 

Table 1 
Classroom Practices that Alleviate Challenges 
 
Instructional 
Strategies 

 Provide explicit and constructive feedback on assignments, not only research 
ideas but also grammatical usage. 

 Pay more attention to linguistic errors on the writing assignments.  
 Provide printed handouts to students and allow students to record the classes. 
 Introduce a variety of assessment methods and grading rubrics. To provide 

formative feedback.  
 Eliminate timed writing assignments to ensure students have enough time to have 

a deeper reflection on their writing. 

Classroom 
Environment 

 Create an inviting classroom environment by not skewing to the host culture.  
 Cultivate an internationalized classroom: encourage the local students to interact 

with international students who view the interaction as opportunities to improve 
their English and integrate into the host culture. 

 Utilize techniques to help international students overcome the language barriers, 
such as further explanation of slang or an outline of key concepts of a lecture.  

 Involve international students in classroom discussion and facilitate the 
discussions by providing opportunities for students to know each other before 
dividing them into small groups. Provide discussion topics in advance so students 
will be more prepared. Provide feedback, not a grade only. 

 Organize group-oriented activities in the international classroom. Design 
collaborative group activities to understand interpersonal communication better, 
for example, learn to pronounce students’ names correctly. 

Student Services  ESL services: it is better to have a department-specific trained ESL personnel to 
assist graduate-level academic writing. 

 Orientation programs: provide more information and include more specific 
information about how to succeed academically. 

 
Writing instruction. One of the biggest challenges reflected by international students is their 
English writing competence. Further, the faculty in the writing programs also struggled with 
teaching multilingual writers because they lack specialized training in this area (Schneider, 2018). 
Schneider (2018) offered five macro-topics related to college writing to expand writing instructors’ 
and professionals’ understanding of teaching multilingual students, which the researcher believed 
that was necessary for faculty with an increasing number of diverse students with different 
linguistic backgrounds. The first topic is the Nature of Second Language Writers which could help 
faculty understand the differences between international students and immigrant/resident ESL 
students. Therefore, Schneider suggested distinct paths for various types of multilingual writers in 
the first-year writing curriculum. The second topic is to help faculty understand the Theories of 
Second Language Development which implies that second language learning is a lifelong process. 
Faculty, especially the writing instructors need to understand that it takes years to achieve 
academic proficiency in an additional language. The third topic is Assignment Design and Teacher 
Response, which suggests that writing assignments for L2 learners should be different from L1 
students. Meanwhile, multilingual students benefited from instructors’ explicit, constructive, and 
responsive feedback on their writing, especially in language and grammar. The fourth topic talked 
about Grammar which Schneider (2018) believed that “teachers absolutely must have solid 
knowledge of descriptive grammar in order to make well- founded pedagogic choices in relation 



30 GATESOL Journal 32(1)  
 

to multilingual students — or any other students” (p. 361). Hence, he recommended writing 
instructors to get equipped with descriptive linguistics as well as pedagogical grammar knowledge. 
The last topic Schneider introduced was Sociolinguistics, which emphasized the connection 
between language and “social, political, and economic power” (p. 363). To this extent, 
understanding monolingualism, multilingualism, translingualism, and code-meshing in the field of 
writing studies is essential for teaching diverse learners. 

Based on the macro-topics, Schneider (2018) outlined four suggestions that could 
incorporate applied linguistics to improve language learners’ writing competence in higher 
education. One of those is to provide professional development in applied linguistics for faculty 
so they can integrate the knowledge to daily practices. This article was a strong argument in 
supporting educators to be linguistically and culturally responsive writing instructors. Regarding 
writing support for international students, Gallagher and Haan (2018) suggested providing a full-
time writing tutor who can communicate in the students’ first languages. Researchers stated that 
services provided by the University Writing Center were not enough to support international 
students, especially for those in the graduate programs, because the content of their papers could 
not be addressed (Gallagher & Haan, 2018; Ravichandran et al., 2017). 

In sum, international students are part of the multilingual student population, and they are 
overwhelmed by the academic writing challenges. They need language support from their subject 
teachers. As stated by Haan et al. (2017), “all faculty are instructors of language in their 
disciplines” (p. 47). Gallagher and Haan (2018) listed some strategies that could be applied to 
disciplinary classes, including “focusing on language demands of the disciplinary tasks, offering 
opportunities for student interaction, creating a supportive classroom environment, supplementing 
oral and written texts, scaffolding learning, and providing feedback on both disciplinary and 
language content” (p. 316). The practices introduced above could inform faculty’s perspectives in 
teaching L2 learners with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and help faculty understand 
and learn strategies to apply to their classroom teaching. 
 
Discussion and Implications 
Overall, researchers employed qualitative and quantitative methods to examine international 
education in U.S. institutions of higher education. The topics included the challenges faced by 
students and faculty, CLR teaching practices, faculty beliefs, and recommendations for staff and 
administrators. The literature indicates that international students and faculty face challenges in 
terms of language, culture, classroom discussion, academic expectations, as well as adjustment to 
each other. International students’ prior educational, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds are their 
funds of knowledge but also obstacles to adopt into a new learning environment. Transitioning 
from one culture to another, the conflicts between different systems and values cause new 
international students to feel confused, lost, and uncomfortable (Arthur, 2017). However, it is 
clearly shown that faculty’s perspectives are less discussed in the literature. More research, 
especially large-scale empirical studies focusing on faculty’s experiences are needed in the future 
to better understand and support the needs of those who teach international students. 

From the literature review, it is obvious that faculty is seen as a vital resource for 
international students’ development in cognition, language, social interactions, and academic 
performance. In a diverse classroom where students share multicultural identities, faculty’s 
scaffolding and supportive activities could lead students through their Zone of Proximal 
Development (ZPD)—“the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by 
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through 



Ma 31 
 

problem-solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 
1978, p. 86)—and achieve their potential. One important factor to consider in teaching 
international students is that it takes years of exposure for them to gain confidence when speaking 
a different language and participating in a new culture (Martirosyan et al., 2015). Therefore, during 
curriculum design and classroom teaching, instructors need to be aware that the newcomers are 
experiencing a long and challenging process to understand and accommodate the mainstream 
norms. 

Also, students bring an abundance of prior knowledge to the class, which also greatly 
impacts their learning and understanding (Rosenblatt, 1994). Thus, it is beneficial for faculty to 
understand students’ cultural and language backgrounds during curriculum planning and 
instruction delivery. Rather than judging all students’ performances with the same standards, 
neglecting students’ diverse backgrounds, and marginalizing the international students because of 
their special needs, it is vital to take them into consideration during classroom instruction. To 
achieve the goals, researchers recommended professional development and various CLR practices 
for faculty to support multilingual and multicultural students. The suggestions covered teachers’ 
beliefs, building social connections, program design, classroom practices, and writing instruction. 
In general, the suggestions will likely benefit both faculty and students. However, most of the 
literature had small sample sizes or were conducted in one university. Some suggestions were from 
faculty’s own experiences of working with international students. Therefore, the practices may not 
fit into other institutions. Another finding from the literature is that there is a lack of clarity about 
roles of supporting international students. The international offices at some universities provide 
immigration information. Their primary goal is to make sure that the international students obey 
U.S. laws and regulations. The faculty’s primary responsibility focuses on serving local students 
and the community. An executive order like International Initiatives is not motivated enough to 
promote a change in their curriculum and teaching if faculty’s needs, working load, and 
expectations are not considered. The criteria of evaluating international education were too vague 
as well. Therefore, future research needs to investigate international students’ feedback towards 
these practices and compare their academic performances between groups with and without CLR 
support. 

It is also necessary to examine the issue from a critical stance and see how power and 
people’s mindsets impact their practices. On one hand, faculty held a positive attitude towards 
diversity, globalization, internationalization, and international students on campus. On the other 
hand, without appropriate training, faculty’s monolingualist beliefs and the perception of 
superiority of Western values may leave few spaces for equal intercultural communication. 
Nonetheless, researchers found a significant relationship between faculty background and their 
beliefs about international students. Compared to English monolingual faculty, faculty who have 
similar experiences to international students, such as studying abroad and speaking more than one 
language, were able to understand and empathize with them better (Jin & Schneider, 2019). It is 
clear that faculty were expecting more support from other departments, such as the international 
office, writing centers, and graduate offices. However, these services provided by U.S. higher 
institutions would be superficial to meet international students’ linguistic and cultural differences 
if they mainly focus on serving domestic students. Hoekje and Stevens (2018) believed that it is 
necessary to challenge the belief that “U.S. higher education can continue to open its doors to the 
world’s students without changing anything beyond the obvious student services” (p. 12), because 
it takes efforts from administrators, faculty, and cultural gatekeepers to create a linguistically and 



32 GATESOL Journal 32(1)  
 

culturally diverse environment that could lead to a transformation of the campus ecosystem under 
the initiative of internationalization. 

To sum up, the literature review aims to challenge the normativity of the value of 
international education and international students by examining CLR practices to support 
international students and faculty holistically in the U.S. higher education. Since “power is 
involved in the determination of what will or should be learned and in how that learning will be 
supported and measured” (Esmonde & Booker, 2017, p. 168), it is crucial to consider if current 
policy, system, curriculum design, and assessment standards have taken account of international 
students and faculty’s needs. In general, there is much more to do to build up a truly international, 
intercultural, and diverse environment for students, especially international students who brought 
their linguistic and cultural experiences to the host country but were not valued. International 
students should be supported at an institutional level not only because of their rights but also their 
contributions to the hosting institutions and local economy (Martirosyan et al., 2019). As stated by 
Arthur (2017), “an absence of content about international perspectives, misinformed, or 
stereotypical interpretations of international practices may perpetuate bias and historical biases of 
colonialism and racism, at minimum resulting in student disinterest or dissatisfaction with the 
quality of their educational experiences” (p. 888). This is a call for attention to unfold the beliefs 
and practices of international education in the U.S. higher education. With the efforts from faculty, 
staff, scholars, and students from multiple cultures, we can build linguistic and culturally diverse 
spaces in academia that could benefit all. 
 
References 
 
Arthur, N. (2017). Supporting international students through strengthening their social resources. 

Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 887–894. https://doi.oeg/10.1080/03075079.2017. 
1293876 

Bilash, O. (2011). BICS/CALP: Basic interpersonal communicative skills vs. cognitive academic 
language proficiency. https://bestofbilash.ualberta.ca/bics%20calp.html 

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Belkapp Press.  
Bruner, J. S. (1971). The relevance of education. Norton.  
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.  
Contreras-Aguirre, C. H., & Gonzalez, G. E. (2017). Experiences of international female students 

in U.S. graduate programs. College Student Journal, 51(1), 33–46. 
Crose, B. (2011). Internationalization of the higher education classroom: Strategies to facilitate 

intercultural learning and academic success. International Journal of Teaching and 
Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 388–395. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ946 
165.pdf 

Cummins, J. (1981). Empirical and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal of 
Education, 163(1), 16–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42772934 

Daller, M. H., & Phelan, D. (2013). Predicting international student study success. Applied 
Linguistics Review, 4(1), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0008 

de Jong, E. J., Harper, C. A., & Coady, M. R. (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for 
elementary mainstream teachers of English language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 
89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770326 

https://doi.oeg/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293876
https://doi.oeg/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293876
https://bestofbilash.ualberta.ca/bics%20calp.html
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ946165.pdf
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ946165.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42772934
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0008
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770326


Ma 33 
 

Esmonde, I., & Booker, A. N. (2017). Toward critical sociocultural theories of learning. In I. 
Esmonde & A. N. Booker (Eds.), Power and privilege in the learning sciences (pp. 180–
192). Routledge. 

Gallagher, C. E., & Haan, J. E. (2018). University faculty beliefs about emergent multilinguals 
and linguistically responsive instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 304–330. https://doi. 
org/10.1002/tesq.399 

Gautam, C., Lowery, C. L., Mays, C., & Durant, D. (2016). Challenges for global learners: A 
qualitative study of the concerns and difficulties of international students. Journal of 
International Students, 6(2), 501–526. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i2.368 

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College 
Press. 

Gopal, A. (2011). Internationalization of higher education: Preparing faculty to teach cross-
culturally. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 
373–381. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE1028.pdf 

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 & Learning, 
17(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.14434/v17i1.20008 

Han, H., S., Vomvoridi-Ivanović, E., Jacobs, J., Karanxha, Z., Lypka, A., Topdemir, C., & 
Feldman, A. (2014). Culturally responsive pedagogy in higher education: A collaborative 
self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3), 290–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425 
964.2014.958072 

Heng, T. T. (2018). Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international 
students in U.S. higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22–36. https://doi. 
org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1152466 

Hoekje, B. J., & Stevens, S. G. (2018). Creating a culturally inclusive campus: A guide to 
supporting international students. Routledge. 

Hollie, S. (2017). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: Classroom 
practices for student success. Teacher Created Materials. 

Hollins, E. R. (2008). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning. Taylor and Francis. 
Hung, H. (2006). What is missing in U.S. higher education: Looking into the learning experiences 

of Asian international students from cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. Journal of 
Curriculum and Pedagogy, 3(2), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2006.1041 
1611 

Institute of International Education. (2019, November 18). Number of international students in the 
United States hits all-time high. https://www.iie.org/Why-IIE/Announcements/2019/11/ 
Number-of-International-Students-in-the-United-States-Hits-All-Time-High 

Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. Teachers College 
Press. 

Israel, E., & Batalova, J. (2021, January 14). International students in the United States. Migration 
Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/international-students-united-
states-2020#enrollment_numbers_trends  

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 

Kasun, G. S. (2015). “The only Mexican in the room”: Sobrevivencia as a way of knowing for 
Mexican transnational students and families. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 46(3), 
277–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12107 

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.399
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.399
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i2.368
https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE1028.pdf
https://doi.org/10.14434/v17i1.20008
https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2014.958072
https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2014.958072
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1152466
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1152466
https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2006.10411611
https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2006.10411611
https://www.iie.org/Why-IIE/Announcements/2019/11/Number-of-International-Students-in-the-United-States-Hits-All-Time-High
https://www.iie.org/Why-IIE/Announcements/2019/11/Number-of-International-Students-in-the-United-States-Hits-All-Time-High
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/international-students-united-states-2020#enrollment_numbers_trends
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/international-students-united-states-2020#enrollment_numbers_trends
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.268
https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12107


34 GATESOL Journal 32(1)  
 

Kaya, J. (2020). Inside the international student world: Challenges, opportunities, and imagined 
communities. Journal of International Students, 10(1), 124–144. https://doi.org/10.32674/ 
jis.v10i1.1031 

Kibelloh, M., & Bao, B. (2014). Perceptions of international female students toward e-learning in 
resolving high education and family role strain. Journal of Educational Computing 
Research, 50(4), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.b 

Kisch, M. (2014). Helping faculty teach international students. International Educator, 23(6), 44–
47. https://www.nafsa.org/sites/default/files/ektron/files/underscore/ie_novdec14_fsa.pdf 

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. 
Jossey-Bass. 

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. Denzin & Y. 
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 257–277). Sage. 

Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). It’s your world, I’m just trying to explain it: Understanding our 
epistemological and methodological challenges. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 5–12. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800402239333 

Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of 
discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-
4508-3 

Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (2012). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: 
Identity, agency, and power. Routledge. 

Li, G. (2020). Principles for developing learner agency in language learning in a new eduscape 
with COVID-19. Language Learning, 5, 30–40. 

Li, G., Chen, W., & Duanmu, J.-L. (2010). Determinants of international students’ academic 
performance: A comparison between Chinese and other international students. Journal of 
Studies in International Education, 14(4), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153 
09331490 

Lin, S. Y., & Scherz, S. D. (2014). Challenges facing Asian international graduate students in the 
U.S.: Pedagogical considerations in higher education. Journal of International Students, 
4(1), 16–33. 

Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the 
foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98–109. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327 

Martirosyan, N. M., Bustamantea, R. M., & Saxon, D. P. (2019). Academic and social support 
services for international students: Current practices. Journal of international Students, 
9(1), 172–191. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.275 

Martirosyan, N. M., Eunjin Hwang, & Wanjohi, R. (2015). Impact of English proficiency on 
academic performance of international students. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 
60–71. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v5i1.443 

McMahon, P. (2018). ‘Making the grade’: A grounded theory explaining the student experience 
of Asian and Middle-Eastern postgraduates in a British university. Journal of Higher 
Education Policy and Management, 40(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017 
.1411061 

Moje, E. B, & Lewis, C. (2012). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical 
sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing 
sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15–48). Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i1.1031
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i1.1031
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.b
https://www.nafsa.org/sites/default/files/ektron/files/underscore/ie_novdec14_fsa.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800402239333
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309331490
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309331490
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.275
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v5i1.443
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1411061
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1411061


Ma 35 
 

NAFSA. (2021). Economic value statistics. https://www.nafsa.org/policy-and-advocacy/policy-
resources/nafsa-international-student-economic-value-tool-v2  

Potts, K., & Brown, L. (2005). Becoming an anti-oppressive researcher. In L. A. Brown & S. 
Strega (Eds.). Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive 
approaches. Canadian Scholars’ Press. 

Ravichandran, S., Kretovics, M., Kirby, K., & Ghosh, A. (2017). Strategies to address English 
language writing challenges faced by international graduate students in the U.S. Journal of 
International Students, 7(3), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.570033 

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. 
Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1057–
1092). International Reading Association.  

Roy, S. R. (2013). Educating Chinese, Japanese, and Korean international students: 
Recommendations to American professors. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 10–16. 
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v3i1.514 

Schneider, J. (2018). Learning how to support multilingual writers: A framework for faculty 
education. Pedagogy, 18(2), 345–374. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-4359245 

Shane, M. J., Carson, L., & Macri, D. G. (2020). First term support for international graduate 
students attending small colleges and universities. Journal of International Students, 10(2), 
527–538. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i2.1126 

Tung, M. L. (2016). The roots of the challenge: Undergraduate Chinese students adjusting to 
American college life. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 121–130. 
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p121 

Ültanır, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: Constructivist 
learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 195–
212. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533786.pdf 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological. Harvard 
University Press. 

Washburn, C., & Hargis, J. (2017). Changes in faculty practice for international students: A case 
study. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 10(1), 1–18. 
https://journals.kpu.ca/index.php/td/article/view/949 

Wu, H., Garza, E, & Guzman, N. (2015). International student’s challenge and adjustment to 
college. Educational Research International, 2015, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/ 
202753 

____________________________________________________________________________ 
 

Received: February 1, 2021 | Accepted: September 10, 2021 | Published: April 18, 2022 
 

https://www.nafsa.org/policy-and-advocacy/policy-resources/nafsa-international-student-economic-value-tool-v2
https://www.nafsa.org/policy-and-advocacy/policy-resources/nafsa-international-student-economic-value-tool-v2
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.570033
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v3i1.514
https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-4359245
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i2.1126
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p121
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533786.pdf
https://journals.kpu.ca/index.php/td/article/view/949
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/202753
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/202753


Article 
 

 

Appendix Table 

Literature Collected and Analyzed 

No. Literature Research Type Method Participants Location Benefits Challenges Faculty 
Views 

Suggested 
Practices 

1 Arthur (2017) Commentary N/A N/A N/A  *  * 

2 Crose (2011) Conceptual N/A N/A N/A * *  * 

3 Gautam et al. 
(2016) 

Empirical Online survey 
and interview 

28 survey 
respondents and 
6 interviewees 
(international 

students) 

A U.S. university 
in a small town 
in the southern 

region  

* *  * 

4 Gallagher & 
Haan (2018) 

Empirical Surveys 197 faculty Mid-size 
comprehensive 

university in 
midwestern 

United States 

* * * * 

5 Gopal (2011) Conceptual N/A N/A N/A    * 

6 Han et al. (2014) Empirical Collaborative 
self-study 

7 teacher 
educators 

College of 
Education at the 

University of 
South Florida 

  * * 

7 Haan et al. 
(2017) 

Empirical Self-reported 
online survey (12 
Likert items and 

open-ended 
items) 

192 respondents 
(among over 500 

full-time and 
adjunct faculty) 

Mid-size, private, 
comprehensive 
university in the 

U.S. 

* * * * 

8 Heng (2018) Empirical Demographic 
questionnaire, 3 
semi-structured 

interviews, and 4 

18 Chinese 
undergraduates 

Three private, 
four-year, liberal 
arts colleges in a 

large city in 

 *   



Ma 37 
 

journal entries 
throughout an 
academic year 

North East USA 

9 Jin & Schneider 
(2019)  

Empirical Online survey 261 respondents 
(full-time and 

part-time faculty) 

A comprehensive 
private university 

in the Midwest 
U.S. 

 * *  

10 Kaya (2020) Empirical Interviews 5 international 
graduate students 

A midwestern 
U.S. university 

* * * * 

11 Kisch (2014) Commentary N/A N/A N/A  * * * 

12 Lin & Scherz 
(2014) 

Empirical Interviews 5 Asian 
international 

graduate students 

A Medium-sized 
university in the 
Northwest of the 

United States 

 *  * 

13 Martirosyan et al. 
(2015)  

Empirical Self-reported 
questionnaire 

59 international 
undergraduate 

students 

4-year university 
in north central 

Louisiana 

* *   

14 Martirosyan et al. 
(2019)  

Exploratory Analyze website 
content 

Top 20 
universities with 

greatest 
enrollment of 
international 

students in 2016 

United States * *  * 

15 Ravichandran et 
al. (2017) 

Empirical Semi-structured 
interviews 

15 international 
graduate students 

United States * * * * 

16 Roy (2013) Conceptual N/A N/A United States  *  * 

17 Schneider (2018)  Conceptual N/A N/A United States  *  * 

18 Shane et al. 
(2020) 

Descriptive Discuss a 
required first-

term foundation 

An 11-week 
course 

A small, private 
institution in 

Southern 

* *  * 



38 GATESOL Journal 32(1)  
 

course for 
international 

graduate students 

California 

19 Tung (2016) Conceptual Literature review Chinese students U.S. higher 
education 

* *  * 

20 Washburn & 
Hargis (2017)  

Empirical Interviews 9 faculty 3 higher 
institutions in the 

Western U.S. 

 * * * 

21 Wu et al. (2015) Empirical Interviews 10 international 
students  

Southernmost 
part of the U.S. 

* *  * 

No.  21     11 19 8 18 

 
Note. Benefits = Benefits/value of embracing international students; Challenges = International students’ challenges; Faculty Views = Faculty’s views on 

international students and CRT/CLR/LRI practices; Suggested Practices = Suggested CLR/CLR/LRI practices 


	GATESOL Journal2022, Vol. 32(1), pp. 18–38
	Challenges and Strategies Facing International Students and Faculty in U.S. Higher Education: A Comprehensive Literature Review
	doi:10.52242/gatesol.122
	ISSN: 2331-6845

