In this insightful post, Cathy Benson, an EAP Lecturer at English Language Education in the Centre for Open Learning and Coordinator of Academic Language and Literacies courses for Research Students at the University of Edinburgh, explores the evolution of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses to inclusively work with all doctoral students, irrespective of their first language. Initially focused on supporting English as an Additional Language (EAL) speakers, these courses have expanded to meet the diverse academic writing needs of all students. This initiative aligns with the university’s commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion, ensuring every student has the opportunity to excel in their scholarly communications. This post belongs to the Oct-Nov Learning & Teaching Enhancement theme: Engaging and Empowering Learning at The University of Edinburgh
At English Language Education (ELE), our core activity consists of teaching English for Academic Purposes (EAP), in various forms. Our in-sessional Academic Language and Literacies (ALL – hence my title!) provision for doctoral students includes several academic writing courses aimed at different stages of their research journey.
When these courses were first created, they were intended exclusively for international students with English as an additional language (EAL speakers). However, we became increasingly uncomfortable with this requirement, which seemed at odds with EDI principles; was it fair for students whose first language (L1) is English be denied opportunities to develop their writing skills, simply on the basis of their first language? There is a common misperception that EAP mainly involves correcting students’ grammar. In reality, EAP has always focused on discourse features, on characteristics of academic genres, on argumentation and critical evaluation, – and of course on language, but specifically the language of the academy. It is true that EAP in its early days was generally aimed at EAL speakers. However, the Academic Literacies movement [1, 2], has led to a move in our profession towards teaching all interested students, irrespective of their first language. Although none would deny that producing academic texts can pose challenges for EAL writers, there are convincing arguments that for L1 writers too, academic writing is a specific skill that needs to be developed [3].
We therefore began to offer our writing courses to all doctoral students, in the interests of inclusivity, irrespective of their L1. This has proven popular; in 2023-24, nearly 10% of enrolments were of students from majority-English speaking countries.
I have no doubt that this has been the right decision in principle; but what do stakeholders think? To what extent do these courses, designed with EAL speakers in mind, meet expectations of L1 speakers? Do they find them too weighted towards language, for example? And how do teachers accustomed to teaching classes of EAL speakers feel about teaching groups that include L1 speakers? Do they change the way they teach? Do they worry about what they can offer these students, or is the experience entirely positive and rewarding? For inclusivity to be more than a tick-box exercise, it has to work for those we aim to include, so I wanted to be sure this was the case.
Opinions I have garnered informally from both students and teachers suggest they are generally happy, but I wanted to explore their views in more depth. A survey sent to the 2023-24 cohort of L1 English students elicited only six responses – I realise I should have sought opinions closer to the time, to be able to report on a wider range of student voices. These responses provided some interesting insights though, and all pronounced themselves satisfied (2) or very satisfied (4) with their chosen course(s). Two did perceive their courses as being intended more for EAL speakers, and the suggestion from one that course publicity could be more explicit about the language element will be acted on. Others were happy with the academic language coverage; one even requested more about grammar and punctuation. Other comments were really positive; teachers were praised, there was appreciation of the feedback received, the confidence gained, the opportunities to hear about others’ research. Learning to structure texts more effectively was seen as a particular benefit. Given that this admittedly tiny sample expressed overall satisfaction, albeit with caveats, I am assuming no major changes are necessary. One concrete suggestion, for one course to “shift the focus more to critical thinking”, is already in place for 2024-25.
The majority of colleagues whose opinions I sought responded very positively. They generally believed the materials and class discussions were relevant for all students. Rather than a course for EAL speakers, it is “a writing course with a focus on language choices”. Indeed, one colleague proposed that L1 speakers “oftentimes need more help than EAL speakers because they aren’t as aware of language and the culture around language…”. Opportunities for co-construction of knowledge were highlighted, as “everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and “they can peer scaffold and fill each others’ gaps”. The greater classroom diversity was felt to be enriching, and one colleague suggested that participation in these classes can actually help promote L1 speakers’ cross-cultural awareness. Two colleagues did express caveats, though: the possibility of L1 speakers dominating, and thus changing the class dynamic, or of EAL speakers feeling inhibited by the presence of very articulate peers. It was clear, however, that for most colleagues the emphasis was very much on the advantages of L1 and EAL speakers being together in the same classes.
Not all colleagues believed the presence of L1 speakers led to a change in the way they taught, but some had made small changes to materials, one opting to include “more awareness raising and few, if any, practice exercises”, one making explicitly language-focused materials optional. Some thought their approach to feedback on L1 students’ writing might differ slightly, with “maybe less focus on more ‘mechanical’ aspects of language such as grammar and lexical choices”. And one acknowledged that the amount of time spent on certain activities might vary if L1 speakers were present. Perhaps these small adaptations contributed to the satisfaction expressed by the students surveyed?
We have sought to increase the inclusivity of these courses in other ways. We offer online versions of the courses, for the benefit of students who are collecting data overseas or would otherwise find in-person attendance problematic. We have thus been able (through Cara) to offer places to Syrian academics living in exile (mainly in Turkey). Many of these participants have been post-doctoral, but they have found the courses very useful when writing articles, for example. It can be hard for these academics to maintain their sense of academic identity, so I was delighted when one participant told me that the course had made her want to engage in research again.
[1] Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2010). The “Academic Literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 368-377.
[2] Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2011). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for Academic Purposes/Academic Literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 48-495.
[3] Hyland, K. (2016. Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69.
Cathy benson
Cathy Benson is an EAP Lecturer at English Language Education in the Centre for Open Learning, and Coordinator of Academic Language and Literacies for Research Students.
