Supporting International Students in English-Speaking Universities: A Research Summary

Download PDF (print-ready version of this review)

By Genevive Bjorn, Ed.D. (ORCID 0000-0002-2856-1067) and Clara Fangfang Ma, Ed.D. (ORCID 0009-0000-7382-157X), Higher Learning Lab

Citation: Bjorn, G., & Ma, C. F. (2026). Supporting international students in English-speaking universities: A research summary. Higher Learning Lab. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23541098

Higher Learning Lab

Introduction

International students represent a growing segment of higher education enrollment in English-speaking universities, with more than 6 million students enrolled outside their home countries (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2023). While this population enriches campus diversity and contributes significantly to institutional revenues and intellectual exchange, international students face distinct academic, social, and psychological challenges that domestic students do not encounter (Andrade & Evans, 2009). These challenges—spanning language acculturation, academic integration, mental health concerns, and institutional belonging—require comprehensive, evidence-based institutional responses.

This research summary synthesizes contemporary peer-reviewed literature on supporting international student success in English-speaking universities. The brief examines five critical dimensions: academic acculturation processes, language support strategies beyond traditional ESL programming, mental health and social isolation, faculty-level interventions, and institutional policies that demonstrate measurable outcomes. Throughout, we prioritize practical, scalable recommendations grounded in empirical research that institutions can implement immediately.

Academic Acculturation and Integration

Academic acculturation—the process by which international students adapt to the academic norms, expectations, and practices of their host institution—is foundational to retention and academic success (Sawir et al., 2008). Research by Zhou et al. (2008) found that international students experience significant challenges adapting to Western pedagogical approaches, particularly in understanding implicit expectations for classroom participation, critical thinking, and independent research.

Key Acculturation Challenges:

• International students often struggle with the transition from examination-based assessment systems in their home countries to portfolio, project-based, and discussion-oriented assessment in English-speaking universities. Andrade and Evans (2009) documented that students from Asian educational backgrounds report particular difficulty with the Socratic method and peer discussion formats. Additionally, the implicit academic communication norms—such as the value of classroom debate, the integration of personal perspectives in academic writing, and the interpretation of plagiarism—create hidden curricula that are rarely explicitly taught.
• Academic confidence gaps emerge when international students perceive their prior educational preparation as misaligned with host institution expectations. This perception, whether empirically accurate or not, correlates with lower GPA and higher withdrawal rates (Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002). Institutional research from Carroll and Ryan (2005) indicates that international students benefit from explicit instruction in academic conventions, including discipline-specific writing expectations, citation practices, and the rhetorical structures valued in English-language academic discourse.

Language Support Beyond ESL

While English as a Second Language (ESL) pathways and pre-sessional English programs remain important, research increasingly demonstrates that language support must extend throughout students’ academic careers and integrate discipline-specific communication competencies (Macaro et al., 2018). International students’ language needs are not uniform; many international students enter with strong English proficiency yet struggle with discipline-specific terminology, academic writing conventions, and social communication expectations.

Discipline-Integrated Language Support

Research by Hellekjær (2009) and Macaro et al. (2018) highlights that the most effective language support embeds English instruction within disciplinary contexts. Institutional case studies show success when writing centers employ discipline-specialists who understand field-specific conventions and when departments integrate academic communication modules into introductory courses. This approach differs fundamentally from standalone English programs, which often fail to transfer to discipline-specific contexts.

Integrated Classroom Strategies

Faculty members directly influence international students’ language development through classroom communication practices. Research by Flowerdew and Miller (1997) demonstrates that international students benefit from explicit instruction on lecture conventions, opportunities for regular low-stakes speaking, written feedback on language use, and vocabulary pre-teaching for content-heavy units. Institutions implementing systematic faculty training in inclusive language practices report improved international student confidence and engagement metrics (Carroll & Ryan, 2005).

Mental Health and Social Isolation

International students experience mental health and wellbeing challenges at significantly higher rates than domestic students. National college health surveillance documents high rates of anxiety, depression, and academic distress among undergraduates generally (American College Health Association, 2023), and international students face compounding stressors that domestic students do not. Furthermore, international students face compounding stressors including geographic distance from support networks, visa restrictions, financial pressures, and discrimination.

Acculturation Stress and Belongingness

Poyrazli and Lopez (2007) found that international students report significantly more perceived discrimination and homesickness than American students, and that lower English proficiency and younger age predict greater homesickness. Acculturative stress for this population spans language barriers, academic difficulties, social alienation, financial pressures, cultural adjustment, and discrimination (Mori, 2000). Interview research with 200 international students in Australia found that two-thirds had experienced loneliness, arising from loss of family contact, weak ties with local students, and the absence of a shared cultural community (Sawir et al., 2008). Notably, international students often experience selective belonging—strong connections within international student communities but weak integration with domestic peers.

Institutional Mental Health Responses

Effective institutional responses require multilayered approaches. Research by Andrade and Evans (2009) and Mori (2000) identifies evidence-based practices: (a) culturally competent mental health services with providers trained in cross-cultural psychology; (b) peer mentoring and buddy systems that facilitate early social integration; (c) international student affinity spaces that provide both cultural connection and bridge-building to campus community; and (d) proactive outreach during high-risk periods (semester transition, visa renewal, academic probation). Institutions that systematically train residential staff and faculty in recognizing distress signals and making appropriate referrals show improved retention outcomes.

Faculty Strategies and Classroom Inclusion

Faculty members serve as critical gatekeepers of international student success yet often lack training in cross-cultural pedagogy or awareness of international students’ distinct needs. Research on teaching international students documents that faculty expectations, inclusion practices, and communication patterns shape international students’ academic outcomes and sense of belonging (Carroll & Ryan, 2005; Macaro et al., 2018).

Evidence-Based Faculty Practices:

• Explicit syllabus communication regarding academic expectations, assessment criteria, and classroom norms reduces international students’ cognitive load and increases clarity. Carroll and Ryan (2005) recommend syllabi that model expected written forms, provide discipline-specific glossaries, and explicitly state participation expectations.
• Structured opportunities for classroom participation—think-pair-share protocols, written reflections before discussion, small group work before whole-class engagement—allow international students to process in English at their own pace while reducing the anxiety associated with spontaneous verbal participation (Carroll & Ryan, 2005).
• Prompt, substantive feedback on writing that addresses both content and language mechanics supports development without demotivation. Research by Hyland and Hyland (2001) shows that feedback simultaneously addressing grammar and academic substance yields stronger improvement than isolated grammar correction.
• Office hour accessibility and relational teaching—where faculty signal interest in students as individuals—strongly predicts international student academic confidence and sense of belonging (Andrade & Evans, 2009). Even brief interactions that acknowledge students’ backgrounds and validate their learning trajectories have measurable retention effects.

Institutional Policies That Work

Institutional-level policies create the structural conditions for international student success. Research on internationalization policy shows persistent gaps between institutional commitments and international students’ lived experience (Guo & Guo, 2017); the following practices are most consistently recommended.

Comprehensive Orientation and Transition Programs

Extended orientation programs (minimum 5-7 days before fall semester) that address cultural adjustment, campus navigation, local resource access, and academic expectation-setting predict stronger first-year retention and academic outcomes. Effective programs move beyond entertainment-focused activities to include faculty interaction, discipline-specific academic introductions, and peer mentoring structures. Andrade’s (2006) study of persisting international students found that academic and social integration—supported by orientation, faculty contact, and peer networks—underpinned their decision to stay, without requiring them to abandon cultural identity.

Designated International Student Support Offices

Institutions with dedicated international student services—with staff trained in visa regulations, immigration law, credential evaluation, and cross-cultural advising—are better positioned to close the gap between internationalization policy and students’ actual experiences (Guo & Guo, 2017). Effective offices serve as central hubs integrating ESL services, academic advising, mental health referrals, and community connection. These offices are most effective when located within student services rather than isolated within international program offices.

Housing and Community Integration Policies

Classic research on international students’ friendship networks (Furnham & Alibhai, 1985) and more recent work on loneliness (Sawir et al., 2008) indicate that integrated housing—where international and domestic students live alongside one another with intentional community-building—facilitates stronger cross-cultural friendships and reduces social isolation compared to clustered international housing or entirely off-campus residence. Institutions implementing peer mentor residential programs, language exchange initiatives, and culturally themed housing (organized around shared interests rather than nationality) report improved belonging metrics.

Implications for Practice

This research summary illuminates a core institutional reality: international student success requires coordinated, evidence-based action across academic, student support, and administrative functions. Siloed initiatives—a writing center without faculty engagement, mental health services without international student cultural competence, or orientation programs without ongoing integration—show limited impact. Instead, institutions maximizing international student outcomes implement coherent, multi-faceted strategies grounded in research.

For higher education leaders committed to supporting international students, key priorities include:

• Conduct a comprehensive institutional audit of international student support infrastructure, identifying gaps and redundancies across academic, residential, mental health, and administrative systems.
• Implement or strengthen faculty development programming focused on culturally responsive pedagogy, with particular emphasis on discipline-integrated language support and inclusive classroom practices.
• Establish dedicated international student support offices with staff trained in cross-cultural competence, immigration regulations, and mental health advocacy.
• Design extended orientation and transition programming that begins before arrival and continues throughout the first year, with explicit focus on academic acculturation and community integration.
• Measure institutional effectiveness through longitudinal tracking of retention, academic performance, mental health service utilization, and belonging metrics disaggregated by international student status.

Going further? The Lab’s founder co-authored a practical guide for students and the staff who support them, with free resources at International Student Success.

References

American College Health Association. (2023). National College Health Assessment III: Spring 2023 overview. ACHA.

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International student persistence: Integration or cultural integrity? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.2190/9MY5-256H-VFVA-8R8P

Andrade, M. S., & Evans, N. W. (Eds.). (2009). International students: Strengthening a critical resource. Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Carroll, J., & Ryan, J. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching international students: Improving learning for all. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203696132

Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1997). The teaching of academic listening comprehension and the question of authenticity. English for Specific Purposes, 16(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00030-0

Furnham, A., & Alibhai, N. (1985). The friendship networks of foreign students: A replication and extension of the functional model. International Journal of Psychology, 20(3–4), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598508247565

Guo, Y., & Guo, S. (2017). Internationalization of Canadian higher education: Discrepancies between policies and international student experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293874

Hechanova-Alampay, R., Beehr, T. A., Christiansen, N. D., & Van Horn, R. K. (2002). Adjustment and strain among domestic and international student sojourners: A longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 23(4), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302234007

Hellekjær, G. O. (2009). Academic English reading proficiency at the university level: A Norwegian case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(2), 198–222.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8

Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350

Mori, S. C. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02571.x

Poyrazli, S., & Lopez, M. D. (2007). An exploratory study of perceived discrimination and homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The Journal of Psychology, 141(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.141.3.263-280

Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 148–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307299699

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2023). Global flow of tertiary-level students [Data set]. https://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow

Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Todman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701794833