Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 55 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Research Paper English for Academic Purposes in Canada: Results From an Exploratory National Survey James N. Corcoran York University Julia Williams Renison University College, University of Waterloo Kris Pierre Johnston York University Abstract The growing trend of internationalization at Canadian institutions of higher education has led to increased need to support plurilingual students using English as an additional language (EAL). This support, often embedded in English for academic purposes (EAP) programs, is offered in a wide range of contexts across Canadian institutions of higher education. However, relatively little is known about this sector or those who work within it. In this article, we seek to delineate the Canadian EAP landscape by providing findings from the first phase of a mixed methods investigation into EAP programs and practitioners across Canada. We surveyed EAP programs and practitioners across three types of Canadian institutions involved in the provision of EAP support (n = 481). Findings point to a diversity of program models and practitioner profiles across Canadian regions and institutions, as well as significant differences in practitioners’ professional satisfaction based on role and institution type. Further findings point to substantial concern among EAP practitioners regarding job security, collaboration with other institutional stakeholders, and professional development opportunities. Adopting a critical pragmatic lens, we discuss findings, raising questions for consideration for EAP administrators, instructors, and post-secondary institutional policy makers, and conclude with a call for greater research into Canadian EAP programs and practitioners. Introduction Though figures are very much in flux due to Covid-19 (Languages Canada, 20211), internationalization policies at Canadian post-secondary institutions have led to a dramatic increase in the population of international students enrolled at Canadian universities and colleges over the past decades2 (Canadian Bureau for International Education, 2020; Douglas & Landry, 2021; MacDonald, 2016; McKenzie, 2018). Many of these international students achieve English language proficiency scores that allow them to directly enter their undergraduate or graduate programs of study without additional English academic language support. However, many international students who use English as an additional language (EAL) either do not achieve the required English language proficiency scores for admission or achieve scores that are borderline 1 The international language education sector in Canada is worth an estimated 22 billion dollars, according to the 2021 Languages Canada report. 2 Canada is ranked fourth internationally in terms of total international English language education. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 56 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 (e.g., IELTS 5.5–6.5), requiring further pre-program language or language and content integrated studies. Still other EAL students achieve language proficiency scores that permit entry to a post- secondary program that requires them to take language or language and content integrated (often credit-bearing) courses as part of their programs of study. For the former, these studies may happen at a range of locales, including post-secondary institutions such as colleges and universities, or off-campus at private language institutes3. For the latter, this academic language instruction necessarily happens within the confines of their academic programs at the post- secondary institution where they were accepted. Regardless of where it is offered, all the instruction mentioned above falls under the umbrella of English for academic purposes (EAP), a “specialist theory- and research-informed branch of English language and literacy education” (Ding & Bruce, 2017, p. 53) that prepares students for post-secondary study4 (Charles, 2022). As EAP programs have expanded to meet the global demand for English medium post- secondary study in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and Canada, so too has a burgeoning field of research that aims to better understand an expanding international educational sector that has been notoriously difficult to document. In Canada, for instance, recent EAP research has enhanced an understanding of Canadian EAP assessment practices (e.g., Abrar-ul-Hassan, 2021; Huang, 2018; Johnson & Tweedie, 2021), pedagogical approaches (e.g., Galante, 2020; Marr, 2021; Van Viegen & Zappa-Hollman, 2020), writing instruction (Maatouk & Payant, 2020; Uludag et al., 2021), (perceived) efficacy of EAP instruction (Fox et al., 2014; Tweedie & Kim, 2015), and teacher education and professionalism (Farrell & Ives, 2015; MacDonald, 2016; Valeo & Faez, 2013). However, despite this recent uptick in domestic EAP research, there is still little available data on EAP programs across Canada (Douglas & Landry, 2021; Van Viegen & Russell, 2019). For example, questions remain regarding how many practitioners work in the area of EAP in Canada, in which provinces and types of institutions these EAP programs are located, and what the professional profiles are of practitioners working in these EAP programs. Before we delve into our attempt to delineate the Canadian EAP landscape, it is worth considering why the EAP sector operates in a rather occluded space. Adopting a critical lens, answers to the occluded nature of the EAP sector may lie in the onto-epistemologies (Lau & Van Viegen, 2020) of neoliberal post-secondary institutions within the new global knowledge economy (Altbach, 2013; Demeter, 2019), where there is focus on the “production, processing, quality, and the cost-effective delivery of knowledge content to student consumers” (Hadley 2015, p. 39). Indeed, though such data are not made public, EAP programs often serve as cash cows5, delivering high yield profits (Ding & Bruce, 2017; Hadley, 2015). 3 Adding to the complexity of EAP support and terminology is that private language institutes may provide language support on-campus, as well, and be more or less integrated with institutions of higher education. These organizational arrangements are often unclear and shifting, and one caveat of this study is that survey respondents may have interpreted the term English language institute (ELI) differently when choosing between the university vs. college vs. ELI options. 4 Definitions and conceptions range from EAP as solely instruction to EAP as a legitimate sub-field of research and teaching at the intersection of Education and Applied Linguistics. We align with the latter conceptualization of the burgeoning field of EAP. 5 This is not always the case, however. For example, British Columbia has a range of post-secondary EAP programs (e.g., Capilano University) that are tuition free. See https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/adult- education/adult-upgrading-learn-english https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/adult-education/adult-upgrading-learn-english https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/adult-education/adult-upgrading-learn-english Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 57 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Within such educational models, where international students are akin to valued consumers, and EAP programs are delivering knowledge in the form of language or content and language integrated instruction, EAP practitioners are often positioned as disposable, interchangeable, or non-essential student support, leading to potentially precarious employment conditions (Breshears, 2018). From a pragmatic standpoint, however, such instruction is undoubtedly beneficial for many students who use EAL as they develop the academic literacies necessary to succeed at Canadian post-secondary institutions (Corcoran & Russell, 2021; Fox et al., 2014). As such, EAP instructors play an integral part in language support that affords EAL students access to post-secondary education that may benefit their academic and professional outcomes. But who are these EAP practitioners, where do they work, what are their linguacultural, educational, and professional backgrounds, and how do they view themselves and their work in these uncertain times? This study aims to shine a light into the dimly lit space of EAP in Canada—highlighting the programs and practitioners that provide instruction to the large cadre of students using EAL at post-secondary institutions—in an attempt to raise the profile of EAP practitioners, an under-appreciated and under-researched group of language educators. Specifically, in this article, we describe and interpret findings from the first of a two-phase, mixed-methods study of Canadian EAP: a survey-questionnaire administered in 2019 and completed by 481 EAP practitioners (directors and instructors), answering three research questions: 1) Where is EAP instruction taking place in Canada? 2) Who is providing EAP instruction? and 3) What are EAP practitioner levels of job satisfaction? The Study This study was a culmination of the researchers’ shared interests in EAP program characteristics and EAP practitioners’ perceptions of their profession. In this article, we present findings from the first of a two-phase mixed methods investigation into EAP practitioners across Canada. Findings are based on responses to the 62-item, exploratory survey-questionnaire regarding respondents’ EAP programs, workload, linguacultural and educational backgrounds, employment status, and job satisfaction levels (see Appendix). The Survey-Questionnaire: Data Collection and Analysis Drawing on past national and regional surveys in the field of EAP and language teacher education (Dyck, 2013; Sanaoui, 1997; TESL Canada, 2019), our survey-questionnaire aimed to explore the landscape of EAP across Canada. Survey items were constructed using Qualtrics software6 with the explicit aim of identifying salient characteristics of EAP programs and practitioners, considering similarities and differences across regions, institution types, and professional roles. Survey design also included the creation of eight Likert-scale questions and an open response item aimed at ascertaining practitioners’ job satisfaction. Anticipating a diverse group of respondents, and aiming to increase internal validity, the survey was piloted with EAP practitioners from different types of institutions and modified twice based on feedback received. Attempting to achieve a full sample, we recruited participants via official letters of recruitment posted on national (e.g., TESL Canada, Languages Canada) and provincial (e.g., TESL Ontario, 6 Technical support for survey construction provided by Qualtrics and IT specialists at the University of Waterloo. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 58 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 BC TEAL) TESL organization listservs, via emails sent to public-facing EAP program administrators across Canadian universities, colleges, and language institutes, and privately via our shared scholar and scholar-practitioner networks. Between October and December 2019, we received responses from 481 EAP practitioners (360 or 75% who identified as EAP instructors; 121 or 25% who identified as EAP directors). Figure 1 Proportion of Respondents Who Held Director vs. Instructor Positions in Their Institutions Given the exploratory nature of the survey-questionnaire (Dörnyei, 2010), data analysis was primarily descriptive, utilizing embedded Qualtrics graphing and tabling functions. Descriptive statistical analysis was carried out with all survey items, and inferential statistical analysis, employing SPSS software7, was carried out with respect to the eight Likert-scale questions, which were converted to a scale that would allow for comparison across multiple variables. Open-ended survey items were analyzed using a grounded approach, in which the data were open coded and then categorized according to thematic orientation. Quantitative and qualitative findings with respect to RQ #3 (practitioner satisfaction) were then combined and interpreted. Finally, data analysis with respect to RQ #3 also allowed for analytically driven sampling of Phase II of this study, where interview participants were selected based on variables identified as significant from Phase I (i.e., professional role, region, and institution type). Phase II findings will be reported in a subsequent paper. Findings EAP Programs in Canada Survey respondents (n = 481) included EAP practitioners from a diverse range of universities, colleges, and English language institutes (ELIs), and from five regions within Canada (see Table 7 Assistance with inferential data analysis was provided by the Institute for Social Research at York University. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 59 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 1). Respondents represented both program instructors and directors, from both credit-bearing and intensive EAP programs that offered both English for general academic purposes (EGAP) and discipline-specific EAP models. In this section, we attempt to represent the diversity of the distribution of respondents and their contexts. Despite some noteworthy limitations with respect to terminology, our findings represent a robust snapshot of EAP practitioners in Canada, their programs, linguistic and educational backgrounds, and levels of employment satisfaction prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. Of 481 respondents, an equal number, 202 respondents (or 42%), work at universities and colleges, while 77 (or 16%) work at ELIs. The respondents represented programs from the five Canadian regions of British Columbia (18%), the Prairies (18%), Ontario (52%) Quebec (three percent) and Atlantic Canada (nine percent). Seventy-five percent of the respondents were instructors while 25% were program directors. Table 1 The Distribution of EAP Programs across Canada EAP Programs BC Prairies Ontario Québec Atlantic Universities 15 13 40 5 14 Colleges 16 20 30 4 7 ELIs 5 6 16 3 8 Other (Adult EAL) 1 2 10 0 2 Total Programs8 45 43 102 13 33 The numbers in the first four rows in Table 1 reflect the programs of instructors and/or directors from whom we received survey responses. Universities and colleges are publicly funded institutions of higher education while ELIs are independently funded institutions. Programs indicated as “other” include responses from instructors and/or directors working in the Adult EAL sector at school boards, non-profit organizations, social-services organizations, and private schools. To identify the total number of EAP programs in each region as accurately as possible, we also completed exhaustive internet searches to identify EAP programs from which we did not receive responses. These programs are represented in the total institutions displayed in the final row of Table 1. The numbers yield program totals per region for a national total of 236 EAP programs. Low numbers of survey respondents from EAP programs in Québec demonstrate the need for more research of EAP practitioners and programs in that province. Douglas and Landry’s (2021) consideration of Canadian EAP programs via website analysis identified 74 EAP programs at 50 Canadian universities. Our comparable data is 87 EAP programs at 60 universities. Our data seems in line with Douglas and Landry’s findings, as they only included public university programs which were members of Universities Canada, which excluded some programs at private universities, Francophone universities, and public universities which were not part of Universities Canada. EAP programs reflected diversity in their names, sizes, and types. EAP programs were most commonly referred to as English Second Language (ESL), English Language Studies, English for Academic Purposes, English Language Training, English Language Bridging, and 8 This total includes institutions identified via pre- and post-survey internet searches. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 60 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 English Pathway programs. Program size, measured in number of students per year, also varied. Results showed that 19.4% of programs were small, serving fewer than 100 students (e.g., Royal Roads University, Selkirk College; University of Northern British Columbia); 39.5% were of medium size, with 101 to 400 students (e.g., Thompson Rivers University; VanWest College, Douglas College), 23.5% of programs were considered large, with 401 to 1000 students (e.g., Capilano University; UBC Vantage College, Langara College, Vancouver Island University), while 11.4% of programs were considered “super-sized,” serving more than 1001 students annually9 (see Figure 2). University super-sized programs were located at the University of Alberta, Carleton University, Dalhousie University, Université Laval, the University of Waterloo, and York University. College super-sized programs were housed at Centennial College, Conestoga College, Humber College, and Red River College. These data suggest that super-sized programs are most frequently found at universities and colleges in the Prairie (specifically Alberta) and Ontario regions, with none found in British Columbia. Figure 2 The Number of Students Enrolled in Respondents’ EAP Programs The size of EAP programs measured by number of instructors closely followed the pattern reflected by the annual number of students: 20.2% of programs are small, with just one to five instructors; 32.9% are of medium size with six to 15 instructors; 25.8% are large employing 16 to 30 instructors, while 14.4% are super-sized and employ more than 30 instructors (see Figure 3). 9 The remaining number of respondents, approximately six percent, were unsure of their program size, which may indicate that these respondents were precariously employed to the extent that they do not know the annual enrolment of the programs in which they work. We will discuss employment precarity in greater detail later in this paper. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 61 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Figure 3 The Number of Instructors Employed in Respondents’ EAP Programs Survey respondents also indicated their programs varied by program model or type. Respondents reported the types of programs in which they worked, and many respondents worked in multiple programs, either in the same institution or in different institutions. Therefore, the total number of responses for program type sum to greater than 481; as a result, we report the raw numbers (rather than percentages) for program type. With the caveat that there is overlap between categories (e.g., some EAP programs such as UBC’s English Foundation Program may indeed be both EGAP and bridging/pathway), the greatest number of responses, 270, indicate EAP instructors teach in an EGAP program where instruction prepares students for further education at a college or university level. Next, 235 responses indicate instructors work in a bridging or pathway program that leads to direct acceptance at a college or university. These two program types, EGAP and bridging/pathway programs, are the predominant types of EAP programs in Canada. Smaller numbers of responses report employment in alternative program types: 70 responses from instructors who teach in content-focused programs where EAP instructors deliver both content and language instruction; 60 responses from instructors who teach in English for specific academic purposes programs (e.g., EAP for science or engineering); and 41 responses from instructors who teach in content and language-integrated (CLIL) programs where content and EAP instructors teach collaboratively in the same program. We acknowledge the conversation regarding the limitations of labelling educators as either “content” or “EAP” instructors; however, we use these terms here to reflect a shared understanding of the differences between instructors with language-focused outcomes and those with disciplinary- focused outcomes in the fields these students wish to pursue. Our data reveal that very few EAP https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 62 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 instructors teach in programs where they interact with content instructors while the vast majority of EAP instructors teach in EGAP and/or bridging or pathway programs. As a way of further distinguishing program type, and again with the caveat that these category boundaries may be fuzzy, respondents were also asked whether their programs were credit-bearing or non-credit bearing. Within the three institutional categories (universities, colleges, and ELIs), and across the five regions, respondents reported teaching or administering credit bearing programs under two conditions: the EAP courses held credit status and/or the EAP courses supported a credit-bearing disciplinary (or content) course. Results reveal that the highest percentage of credit-bearing EAP programs are offered at universities and colleges in the regions of Ontario (74% and 61%) and British Columbia (67% and 33%). Credit-bearing EAP programs are less prevalent in the Prairie, Québec, and Atlantic Canada regions. In the regions where respondents reported that universities and colleges offered the highest percentage of credit-bearing programs (i.e., British Columbia, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada), the ELIs offered the lowest (or zero) percent of credit-bearing programs. In regions where respondents indicated the universities and colleges offered fewer credit-bearing EAP programs, the ELIs offered a higher percentage of credit-bearing programs, perhaps compensating for the lack of such programs at the publicly funded institutions of higher education. Further research on programs offered through ELIs, as defined in this paper, should be undertaken to determine what program models they are adopting to offer credit-bearing opportunities for students. EAP Practitioners in Canada One of the objectives of this investigation was to identify a full sample of EAP practitioners in Canada. Through a combination of survey responses and exhaustive internet searches (one pre- survey and one post-survey) of public-facing EAP programs, we have established the population of practitioners to be 1,90910. Clearly, given the range of limitations when delineating the EAP practitioner population (lack of distinction between EAP and other language support programs; occluded nature of private EAP programs; lack of survey responses from Québec; etc.), this number is open to scrutiny. However, this is clearly a robust cadre of practitioners. The remainder of this section is focused on these practitioners. Survey data reveal the linguacultural diversity of EAP practitioners in Canada. Respondents reported their first language status as predominantly English (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2). Native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) comprised 56% of the instructors at ELIs, 58% at colleges, and 73% at universities. Respondents in Atlantic Canada and the Prairie regions were most likely to be NESTs where 78.9% and 70.5% respectively reported their first language as English. Across Canada, when respondents were divided by employment categories, 60% of instructors and 73% of directors identified as NESTs. These data suggest that being Anglophone is still the norm for EAP practitioners in every region except Québec (where only 35.7% 10 This number is by no means definitive. The exact process of identifying this total of EAP practitioners included, first, an initial search for public-facing EAP programs at institutions of higher education and private ELIs. Subsequently, we drew upon survey data and tallied responses from directors and instructors about the size of the programs in which they work. Next, we identified programs we missed based on program names provided by survey respondents. Finally, we did another exhaustive internet search, identifying any programs we had previously missed, estimating the practitioner population in these programs based on like programs (according to size and region). https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 63 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 identified as Anglophone). However, our data also reveal a more complex linguistic landscape; of those who did not identify as Anglophone, respondents indicated their first languages as French, Japanese, Spanish, German, or other11. Further, ten percent of practitioners identified as having multiple first languages. In Ontario, the highest percentage of practitioners (21%) identified as having a first language other than English, with the lowest percentage of similarly identified practitioners (7.9%) in the Atlantic region. Figure 4.1 Self-Identified Native English-Speaking EAP Practitioners by Role and Institution Next, our data reveal that Canadian EAP practitioners are a highly educated cohort. EAP practitioners holding PhD degrees can be found in all three institutional categories: 14% of university, 11% of college, and 9% of ELI EAP practitioners hold PhDs (See Figure 5.1). Practitioners indicated their academic disciplines by identifying the area of their undergraduate degrees to reveal that 76% completed their undergraduate degrees in arts, humanities, or education, 12.8% in social sciences (including linguistics), 8.3% in natural sciences, and 2.8% in engineering (see Figure 5.2). Perhaps most noteworthy, given the expectations for supporting students from across disciplines, is that not a single respondent reported a terminal or graduate degree in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Though it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the open question of efficacy of discipline-specific versus discipline-broad EAP support, one wonders at how reasonable or desirable it is to expect EAP programs to have instructors with advanced STEM degrees. Finally, the low percentage of EAP practitioners with 11 Of note, respondents were asked what were the most common first languages of the students they taught. Responses indicated that across all regions, Mandarin was the first language of the majority of students. Other frequently identified student first languages included Arabic, Spanish, Korean, Cantonese, and Punjabi (most common in British Columbia). https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 64 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 PhD degrees is remarkable and may impact relations between EAP practitioners and their potentially higher-educated colleagues at post-secondary institutions. Figure 4.2 The Proportion of Native English-Speaking EAP Practitioners by Region Figure 5.1 Proportion of EAP Practitioners with PhDs https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 65 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Figure 5.2 EAP Practitioners’ Areas of Undergraduate Degrees Canadian EAP practitioners form a highly experienced workforce, reporting many years of EAP teaching experience (see Figure 6). Forty percent of practitioners report more than 16 years of teaching experience, with 29% of directors and 23% of instructors indicating they have taught for 21 or more years. Thirty-six percent of practitioners have six to 15 years of teaching experience, and 18% have one to five years of teaching experience. While only three percent of overall respondents reported teaching experience of less than one year, 10% of EAP directors report no classroom teaching experience whatsoever. This lack of teaching experience is a potentially troubling finding, and fuels critique of EAP as a profit-driven sector; that being said, much more research is necessary in order to better understand EAP directors across institution types. Within the three institutional categories, EAP practitioners with more than five years of teaching experience are found at universities (79%), colleges (76%), and ELIs (68%). A full 65% of EAP practitioners have international teaching experience. ELI practitioners have the fewest years of overall English language teaching experience but the highest amount of international teaching experience. This finding suggests that many practitioners returning from international teaching secure a Canadian EAP contract at ELIs. The precarity of employment in the field of EAP has been previously documented (most recently by Breshears, 2018). Our survey respondents confirmed this reality with 41% indicating they worked part-time, or more than part-time for less than a full year (see Table 2). Directors (at 89%) are more likely than instructors (at 50%) to have full-time work. Similarly, directors (at 96%) are more likely than instructors (57%) to work a full year. Across all five regions, 47% of practitioners reported they have temporary or limited-term positions. Those working in the Prairie and British Columbia regions are most likely to have permanent positions while Ontario has the highest percentage of temporary and limited-term contract positions. This precarity is also reflected in the number of programs and institutions at which practitioners work: 15% work at more than one institution; 32% work in more than one program or unit; and 12% work in more https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 66 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 than three programs/units. Overall, 36% of directors and 41% of instructors work in more than one program or unit. The impact of this employment precarity is addressed further in Phase II of our research and expanded upon briefly in the section that follows. Figure 6 Years of EAP Work Experience Among EAP Practitioners Table 2 A Comparison of the Level of Employment Precarity Between Directors and Instructors Full-Time Employment Full-Year Employment Multiple Institutions or Programs Directors 89% 96% 36% Instructors 50% 57% 41% Practitioner Satisfaction We were also interested in EAP practitioner satisfaction with their work. Our survey asked respondents about their satisfaction in relation to the quality of the work environment, level of compensation, level of respect and collaboration within and outside the program, and opportunities for professional development (See Figure 7 for an overview). The Likert scale responses generated satisfaction scores within a 1-to-32-point range and revealed satisfaction differences between directors and instructors, among practitioners at the three institution types (colleges, universities, and ELIs), and between full-time and part-time practitioners. First, the https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 67 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 data indicate a significant difference (p value = .001) in mean satisfaction between directors (M = 26.4, n = 67) and instructors (M = 24.2, n = 284), indicating that directors are significantly more satisfied than instructors. Among practitioners working at colleges, universities, and ELIs, those working at colleges reported higher levels of work satisfaction (M = 25.8, n = 160) than those at universities (M = 24.3, n = 164, p value = .044) and ELIs (M = 23.0, n =57, p value = .005). While no significant differences in satisfaction were evident across the five regions, results from a t-test for equality of mean satisfaction between full-time and part-time practitioners showed that there is a significant difference between their mean satisfaction. The means for full- time practitioners and part-time practitioners are 25.24 and 23.93 respectively, with a confidence interval of 0.14–2.50, p value = .028. These data indicate that directors experience more work satisfaction than instructors, college practitioners are more satisfied than those at universities, and university practitioners are more satisfied than those at ELIs. Finally, practitioners who work full-time are more satisfied than those who work part-time. Figure 7 A Comparison of the Levels of Self-Reported Satisfaction Examining the qualitative survey data12 for specific areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction reveals differences between instructors and directors. As seen on Table 3, instructors indicate they are most satisfied with their work environments, classroom teaching experience, and degree of autonomy; however, they express dissatisfaction with employment precarity, lack of benefits, insufficient remuneration, and lack of collaboration with non-EAP colleagues. Regarding the issue of precarity, instructors clearly related their concerns: “Our 12 These responses came from an open-ended survey question that prompted respondents to add anything further about satisfaction or dissatisfaction with EAP work. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 68 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 program is cost recovery, based on enrolment. EAP student enrolment is always volatile, and this makes us feel insecure and under threat of layoffs. This is the big concern.” (Anonymous university EAP instructor). As another university EAP instructor noted, “Work at EAP is mostly limited to contract, part-time (less than 6 hours per week) …making employment precarious. Some are lucky to be in permanent or partial load contracts, which come with benefits…” (Anonymous EAP instructor). Finally, as a college EAP instructor reflected, “I am not satisfied with the precariousness of contract teaching [at my college]. After some time, it does take a toll on my mental health. With no job security, I have come to see it [EAP] as a job rather than a career.” (Anonymous EAP instructor). In contrast, the data highlight director satisfaction with employment stability, ability to impact the work environment, and opportunities for growth, engagement, and innovation. However, they are dissatisfied with the lack of institutional collaboration and respect, workload, and program instability, with many noting frustrations at relations with non-EAP units at their institutions: “It is unfortunate that there is limited appreciation for the [EAP] expertise…colleges find themselves struggling to provide academic support for international students…providing this support is something EAP programs and instructors do every day!” (Anonymous College EAP director). Table 3 Emergent Themes of Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction Among EAP Instructors and Directors Instructors Directors Satisfaction ● Engagement and interaction with students ● Autonomy ● Intra-program respect ● Employment stability ● Program impact ● Program growth and innovation Dissatisfaction ● Employment precarity ● Poor remuneration and benefits ● Student lack of motivation ● Lack of opportunities for PD and collaboration ● Lack of respect for EAP within institutions ● Workload ● Sector / program instability Discussion EAP Programs The findings from this study add to the literature on EAP across Canadian post-secondary contexts, allowing for a wide-angled view of the sector, and providing a baseline from which to understand its programs and practitioners. The main finding with respect to Canadian EAP programs and practitioners is that of diversity. With respect to programs, our findings point to a range of institutional contexts (university vs. college vs. ELI programs) where EAP happens, as well as a wide range of program names (e.g., English as a Second Language; English for Academic Purposes), affiliations (Departments of Education, Applied Linguistics, Continuing Education; International Education; Independent); sizes (serving anywhere from under 100 to over 1000 students); and types (general vs. specific EAP; pre-sessional vs. bridging). The https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 69 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 diversity of EAP programming highlighted in our findings is very much in line with the extant literature, adding to a growing body of work pointing to a diverse, diffuse landscape of EAP programming across a variety of Canadian institutions (Douglas & Landry, 2021; Fox et al., 2014; MacDonald, 2016). Given the small number of studies into EAP programs, the vast majority of which are case studies (e.g., Van Viegen & Russell, 2019), there exists a clear need for greater research at the national and regional levels, including in British Columbia. However, our study has unearthed some minor areas of divergence. For example, while Douglas and Landry (2021), in their website analysis of university EAP programs, estimated that approximately 25% of programs include credit-bearing options13, our respondents reported much higher numbers (closer to 65%). This disparity may be explained by survey participant misinterpretation of “credit-bearing” or our inclusion of “pass/fail” as included within the “credit-bearing” category. Where our findings diverge substantially from previous work is in the additional data related to programs and practitioners working in non-university EAP settings (colleges, off-campus private language institutes, and schools). Though there is occasionally crossover of terminology with respect to universities and colleges (e.g., Renison University College, University of Waterloo, where several EAP programs are housed within a “University College” within the University of Waterloo), any discussion of EAP in Canada needs to take stock of programs taking place at colleges (which house some of the largest EAP programs in the country), and, though far less numerous in terms of total EAP programs and practitioners, private programs that feed universities and colleges and operate at the margins of the post-secondary sector (Larsen, 2020; MacDonald, 2016; Maqsood, 2021). Building on other recent work (e.g., Douglas & Landry, 2021), our study highlights the fuzzy boundaries of EAP, raising questions of what programs belong in this rather nebulous category of teaching and research. Employing our critical, pragmatic lens, what counts as EAP is perhaps less important than better understanding how EAP programs and practitioners contribute to the necessary work of supporting EAL students’ academic literacies at neoliberal institutions of higher education ostensibly ever more interested in profit accumulation (Ding & Bruce, 2017; Hadley, 2015). Ultimately, there is a clear need for in-depth charting of the robust Canadian EAP sector, both the transparent and the occluded, particularly given findings from our study that point to the lowest levels of satisfaction among instructors working in private ELI and pathway programs. Elucidation of the landscape of EAP programs, and their place within our institutions of higher education, is a necessary precursor to better understanding the lived experiences of the thousands of practitioners working therein. EAP Practitioners As suggested earlier, diversity is one of the key findings of this study, including with respect to EAP practitioners. The cultural and linguistic diversity of the EAP cadre in Canada is noteworthy, but not uniform, with certain regions displaying a higher percentage of self- identified “native” English speaking teachers (referred to earlier as NESTs) than others. Unsurprisingly, Ontario and British Columbia have the greatest number of “non-native” English speaking teachers (NNESTs) or those who identify as “both/neither.” The high percentage of 13 Douglas and Landry (2021) defined credit-bearing as courses that resulted in credit towards graduation at the undergraduate or graduate levels. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 70 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 NNEST and “both/neither” respondents across Canada, but particularly in provinces with larger cosmopolitan centres such as Ontario and British Columbia, may denote a shift in the profession away from NEST dominance (Faez, 2011; Galante et al., 2019; Moussu, 2016); however, more research is necessary on these types of demographic trends in the profession moving forward. Also of interest is the much higher percentage of NEST EAP directors (particularly acute in Atlantic Canada). Drawing on our conceptual lens once again, these findings raise specific questions related to power relations within the “market” of Canadian EAP. Does the higher number of NEST directors vs. instructors suggest that power is still skewed towards NEST practitioners? This situation is likely the case, but, again, more research is necessary into directors’ backgrounds, especially given findings that a rather surprising percentage of EAP program directors have never taught EAP. In terms of professional experience in the field, EAP practitioners were quite experienced, with over 80% of respondents having been in the profession for more than five years. In line with results from another recent survey (TESL Canada, 2019), this finding points to a very experienced group of EAP professionals, but perhaps needs to be considered a candidate for selection bias given that these respondents may have more job security than novice EAP practitioners (those with less than 5 years’ experience) and thus more time to complete such a survey. With respect to educational backgrounds, again, the cadre of respondents are highly educated, with approximately 70% of instructors and 75% of directors holding a graduate degree, with graduate degrees being far less common at ELIs than at colleges and universities. However, one wonders if the lack of PhD status among EAP practitioners (only 14% of respondents) may be one of the causes of their (real or perceived) marginalized institutional status, particularly at universities, where content faculty are almost certain to have PhDs (Bell, 2021; Ding, 2019). Perhaps a better question should be, do EAP instructors need a PhD in order to provide effective academic language support for EAL students? And if a PhD is indeed a form of “equalizer” that can enhance the status of EAP professionals at their institutions, what are the financial incentives for EAP instructors to pursue this degree in a labour market where there is a dearth of opportunities for commensurate employment? Digging a bit deeper, there is a clear lack of STEM disciplinary expertise among EAP practitioners (only 11% have an undergraduate degree in STEM and none had a graduate degree14), something that may impact the ability to deliver effective support to students in those areas (see Hyland [2018] for a discussion of EAP and disciplinary specificity) and may be mitigated through effective collaboration between EAP and content (STEM) experts15 (Zappa- Hollman, 2018), especially when supporting graduate students. More research is necessary to identify trends with respect to educational backgrounds and terminal degrees of EAP practitioners in Canada, including how educational backgrounds and credentialization position EAP practitioners as (un)equal partners in the provision of post-secondary education as they operate in what MacDonald (2016) has termed, the marginalized “third space” (p. 106). 14 Another caveat here is that those who provide language support may not self-identify as EAP, and thus may not have taken this survey despite being actively involved in EAP instruction at institutions of higher education. 15 This collaboration may be beneficial to both EAP and content instructors, and given the applied language teaching expertise of EAP instructors, might enhance their status at the institution. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 71 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Perhaps the most salient finding with respect to EAP practitioners was that there are differing, statistically significant satisfaction levels between directors and instructors, those who are fully vs. partially employed, and those who work at colleges and universities vs. private language institutes. Drawing on a combination of the quantitative and qualitative survey data, some explication of these different levels of satisfaction is possible. With the caveat that the qualitative findings—driven by coding of a single open-ended item on the survey—are just a precursor to more substantive data from Phase II of this project (semi-structured interviews), there appear to be salient reasons for greater dissatisfaction among instructors, those working at private language institutes, and those working only part-time. While there are several areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction for both directors and instructors (see Table 3), the most salient area of complaint was job precarity, something noteworthy not only in this study, but in other research investigating the political economy and experiences of English language instructors across Canada, including EAP (Breshears, 2018; Sanoui, 1997; Valeo & Faez, 2013). While it is reasonable to question the validity of findings with respect to perceived satisfaction without more qualitative follow-up (Phase II of this project is forthcoming), these findings amplify an issue endemic in the field, and of concern to practitioners working in increasingly neoliberal-oriented institutions of post-secondary education in Canada (Breshears, 2018; Rockwell, 2021; Walsh Marr, 2021). Teachers as a marginalized group is not a novel concept, nor are findings of EAP instructor precarity surprising (Fong, 2018; Raphael et al., 2020). Thus, once again drawing on our critical lens, we pose a simple question without an obvious answer: what is to be done in order to attend to real conditions of precarity that plague this cadre of professionals, and who is responsible for enacting measures to counter these conditions? In pandemic times, these questions are much more than academic (CAUT, 2020). Limitations Phase I of this study was not without its limitations. First, as is always the case with survey data, selection bias (e.g., perhaps those with more job security were more likely to take time to respond to the survey invitation) and response bias (e.g., perhaps those with stronger feelings about their job satisfaction were more likely to share their qualitative comments) cannot be ignored. Next, through our data analysis, it is clear that not all survey respondents interpreted our terminology in the same ways. For example, we categorized instructors employed at private, for- profit institutions as working at ELIs; however, there are some ELIs that are embedded in universities and colleges. Also, several respondents shared after taking the survey that they were unsure whether to self-identify as director or instructor, given that they have acted or are acting in both roles. These inconsistencies in interpretation of terminology resulted in messy data that may have clouded our results; at the same time, they made clear one of the challenges of surveying EAP practitioners is accurately defining terminology. Though these issues of survey clarity may have impacted the validity of results—and thus claims of generalizability of findings—we posit that the fuzziness of category boundaries is a feature of EAP programs and practitioners, potentially confounding to researchers, but salient nonetheless. Next, though we attempted to ascertain an accurate total Canadian EAP practitioner population size, N = 1,909, even using survey responses to triangulate with public-facing data, our exploratory data suggest only a data-driven estimate of the total population of practitioners in https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 72 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 EAP or EAP-adjacent roles. Further, with what appears to be a low response rate from Québec practitioners, much more accurate data is necessary regarding this under-researched population. Finally, when considering this cadre of EAP practitioners, we erred by avoiding the topic of gender; in a precarious profession that skews female identifying (our randomly selected interviewees suggest a great disparity), we should have allowed for self-identification that could have enabled an even fuller analysis based on this potentially important variable. Conclusions The first phase of this research project has yielded survey results that point to a diverse set of Canadian EAP programs across three major institutional post-secondary contexts. In tandem with recent research emanating from the emerging field of EAP (e.g., Douglas & Landry, 2021), our results should provide a clearer picture of the Canadian EAP landscape. However, our charting of the breadth and depth of EAP programs—while potentially instructional for EAP researchers, administrators, and practitioners—is far from definitive. Ultimately, more research is necessary across regional and institutional contexts in order to paint a more complete picture of this area of post-secondary language support, including in British Columbia. This need is especially true given the fluid nature of EAP programs in what seem like never-ending pandemic times. With respect to better understanding EAP practitioner populations across Canada and in British Columbia, our survey has outlined the extensive professional experience and the cultural and linguistic diversity of this under-researched cadre of language support professionals. In addition, survey results point to segregated levels of satisfaction between directors and instructors, and those working in private ELIs versus colleges and universities. Although British Columbia reported the second highest level of overall satisfaction across regions (Ontario was first), qualitative data pointing to employment precarity and related dissatisfaction among EAP instructors are concerning. We aim to provide greater levels of clarity as to the divide in satisfaction between those with different professional roles, as well as those working in different sectors, via interviews in Phase II of this research project. The findings from Phase I of this mixed-methods study have provided baseline data on EAP programs and practitioners that can be used by post-secondary policy makers, practitioners, and researchers. The data have also raised a number of questions that require further investigation, both empirically and ethically, including perhaps most importantly, attending to the issue of employment precarity among EAP instructors. How should teacher educators prepare future language teachers for this uncertain employment? How might EAP programs promote greater bi-directional knowledge exchange with other institutional stakeholders? How can researchers better understand the political economy of post-secondary English language teaching given the oft-occluded nature of EAP programs? Though Phase II of this study will surely shed more light on how EAP instructors navigate the shifting EAP economic landscape, much more research into EAP instructors’ and directors’ lived experiences is necessary. As neoliberal institutions of higher education continue to court increasing numbers of international students using EAL, understanding and attending to EAP practitioners’ perspectives and experiences is crucial. Better understanding of the lived experiences of EAP professionals—including how they navigate precarious professional https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 73 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 waters—may lead to improved employment conditions for EAP practitioners across Canada, which, one hopes, would result in more equitable and effective language education. Acknowledgements First, we would like to thank the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, York University, and Renison University College, University of Waterloo for their generous financial support of this project. Next, we would also like to recognize the support of TESL Canada, Languages Canada, and multiple provincial EAL teaching and learning organizations in spreading word about the survey. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we would like to thank the hundreds of EAP directors and instructors who participated in this project—we hope that sharing these findings leads to greater recognition of not only some of the systemic inequities many of you face, but also the fine work you do, often under challenging circumstances. References Abrar-ul-Hassan, S. (2021). English for academic purposes in Canada: practitioners’ assessment practices and construction of assessment literacy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation,. University of British Columbia. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0406080 Altbach, P. G. (2013). Advancing the national and global knowledge economy: The role of research universities in developing countries. Studies in higher education, 38(3), 316– 330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.773222 Bell, D. (2021) Accounting for the troubled status of English language teachers in Higher Education, Teaching in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1935848 Breshears, S. (2018). The precarious work of English language teaching in Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 36(2), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i2.1312 Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). (2020). Impacts of the pandemic on postsecondary teachers and staff. https://www.caut.ca/sites/default/files/covid_release- impacts_of_pandemic-en-final-08-19-20.pdf Canadian Bureau for International Education. (2020, February 21). International students in Canada continue to grow in 2019. https://cbie.ca/international-students-in-canada- continue-to-grow-in-2019/ Charles, M. (2022). EAP research in BALEAP 1975–2019: Past issues and future directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 55, 101060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101060 Corcoran, J. N., & Russell, B. (2021). Teaching academic integrity: Lessons learned from a Canadian EAP program. BALEAP Conference Proceedings, 31–43. Garnet. https://www.garneteducation.com/app/uploads/3_Paper-BALEAP_GS_2019-3.pdf Demeter, M. (2019). The world-systemic dynamics of knowledge production: The distribution of transnational academic capital in the social sciences. Journal of World-Systems Research, 25(1), 112–144. https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2019.887 Ding, A., & Bruce, I. (2017). The English for academic purposes practitioner. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59737-9 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0406080 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.773222 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1935848 https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i2.1312 https://www.caut.ca/sites/default/files/covid_release-impacts_of_pandemic-en-final-08-19-20.pdf https://www.caut.ca/sites/default/files/covid_release-impacts_of_pandemic-en-final-08-19-20.pdf https://cbie.ca/international-students-in-canada-continue-to-grow-in-2019/ https://cbie.ca/international-students-in-canada-continue-to-grow-in-2019/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101060 https://www.garneteducation.com/app/uploads/3_Paper-BALEAP_GS_2019-3.pdf https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2019.887 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59737-9 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 74 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Douglas, S. R., & Landry, M, H., (2021). English for academic purposes programs: Key trends across Canadian universities. Comparative and International Education/Éducation comparée et internationale. 50(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.5206/cieeci.v50i1.10925 Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd edition). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864739 Dyck, G. N. (2013). Chinese and Canadian students in undergraduate degree programmes in a Canadian university: A quantitative comparison. In T. Coverdale-Jones (Ed.). Transnational higher education in the Asian context (pp. 216–225). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137034946_14 Faez, F. (2011). Developing the knowledge base of ESL and FSL teachers for K-12 programs in Canada. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 29–49. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19865 Farrell, T. S. C., & Ives, J. (2015). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541722 Fong, F. (2018). Navigating precarious employment in Canada: Who is really at risk? CPA Canada. https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/the-cpa-profession/about-cpa-canada/key- activities/public-policy-government-relations/economic-policy-research/rise-precarious- employment Fox, J., Cheng, L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). Do they make a difference? The impact of English language programs on second language students in Canadian universities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 57–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.103 Galante, A., Okubo, K., Cole, C., Elkader, N. A., Carozza, N., Wilkinson, C., Wotton, C., & Vasic, J. (2019). Plurilingualism in higher education: A collaborative initiative for the implementation of plurilingual pedagogy in an English for academic purposes program at a Canadian university. TESL Canada Journal, 36(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1305 Galante, A. (2020). “The moment I realized I am plurilingual”: Plurilingual tasks for creative representations in EAP at a Canadian university. Applied Linguistics Review, 11(4), 551– 580. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0116 Hadley G. (2015) English for academic purposes in neoliberal universities: A critical grounded theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10449-2 Huang, L. S. (2018). A call for critical dialogue: EAP assessment from the practitioner's perspective in Canada. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.07.005 Hyland, K. (2018). Sympathy for the devil? A defence of EAP. Language Teaching, 51(3), 383– 399. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444818000101 Johnson, R. C., & Tweedie, M. G. (2021). “IELTS-out/TOEFL-out”: Is the end of general English for academic purposes near? Tertiary student achievement across standardized tests and general EAP. Interchange, 52(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-021- 09416-6 Languages Canada (2021). State of the Language Education Sector in Canada. Languages Canada. https://www.languagescanada.ca/en/research Larsen, M. (2020). University of Western Ontario Faculty Association. https://www.uwofa.ca/ Lau, S. M. C., & Van Viegen, S. (2020). Plurilingual pedagogies: Critical and creative. Springer, 10, 978-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36983-5_6 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 https://doi.org/10.5206/cieeci.v50i1.10925 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864739 https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137034946_14 https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19865 https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541722 https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/the-cpa-profession/about-cpa-canada/key-activities/public-policy-government-relations/economic-policy-research/rise-precarious-employment https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/the-cpa-profession/about-cpa-canada/key-activities/public-policy-government-relations/economic-policy-research/rise-precarious-employment https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/the-cpa-profession/about-cpa-canada/key-activities/public-policy-government-relations/economic-policy-research/rise-precarious-employment https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.103 https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1305 https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0116 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10449-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.07.005 https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444818000101 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-021-09416-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-021-09416-6 https://www.languagescanada.ca/en/research https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36983-5_6 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 75 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Maatouk, Z., & Payant, C. (2020). Moving Beyond Individual Peer Review Tasks: A Collaborative Written Corrective Feedback Framework. BC TEAL Journal, 5(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.341 MacDonald, J. (2016). The margins as third space: EAP teacher professionalism in Canadian universities. TESL Canada Journal, 34(1), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i1.1258 Maqsood, S. (2021, March 15). Ryerson moves ahead with Navitas program as Western halts negotiation. The Eyeopener. https://theeyeopener.com/2021/03/ryerson-moves-ahead- with-navitas-program-as-western-halts-negotiations/ Marr, J. W. (2021). The Promise and Precarity of Critical Pedagogy in English for Academic Purposes. BC TEAL Journal, 6(1), 132–41. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.449 McKenzie, A. M. (2018). Academic integrity across the Canadian landscape. Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity, 1(2), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.11575/cpai.v1i2.54599 Moussu, L. (2016). Academic English learners’ attitudes towards native and non-native English- speaking teachers. In J. Crandall & M. Christison (Eds.). Teacher education and professional development in TESOL (pp. 68–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315641263 Raphael, D., Bryant, T., Mikkonen, J., & Alexander, R. (2020). Social determinants of health: the Canadian facts (2nd Ed.). Ontario Tech University Faculty of Health Sciences. https://www.thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts-2nd_ed.pdf Rockwell, C. (2021, May 1). Precarity in TESL in Atlantic Canada [Conference Presentation]. TESL Atlantic Conference. Online. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Cenoz, J. (2015). Way forward in the twenty-first century in content- based instruction: Moving towards integration. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1686512 Sanaoui, R. (1997). Professional characteristics and concerns of instructors teaching English as a second language to adults in non-credit programs in Ontario. TESL Canada Journal, 14(2), 32–54. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v14i2.684 TESL Canada Federation (2019). Professional standards for the teachers of English as a second language (TESL) sector in Canada: Survey report. TESL Canada Federation. Tweedie, M., & Kim, M. (2015). EAP curriculum alignment and social acculturation: Student perceptions. TESL Canada Journal, 33(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v33i1.1226 Uludag, P., Crawford, W. J., & McDonough, K. (2021). English for academic purposes writers’ use of reporting verbs in argumentative and cause-and-effect essay exams. BC TEAL Journal, 6(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.388 Valeo, A., & Faez, F. (2013). Career development and professional attrition of novice ESL teachers of adults. TESL Canada Journal, 31(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v31i1.1164 Van Viegen, S., & Russell, B. (2019). More than language—Evaluating a Canadian university EAP bridging program. TESL Canada Journal, 36(1), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1304 Walsh Marr, J. (2021). The Promise and Precarity of Critical Pedagogy in English for Academic Purposes. BC TEAL Journal, 6(1), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.449 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.341 https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i1.1258 https://theeyeopener.com/2021/03/ryerson-moves-ahead-with-navitas-program-as-western-halts-negotiations/ https://theeyeopener.com/2021/03/ryerson-moves-ahead-with-navitas-program-as-western-halts-negotiations/ https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.449 https://doi.org/10.11575/cpai.v1i2.54599 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315641263 https://www.thecanadianfacts.org/The_Canadian_Facts-2nd_ed.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1686512 https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v14i2.684 https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v33i1.1226 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.388 https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v31i1.1164 https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1304 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v6i1.449 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 76 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Zappa-Hollman, S. (2018). Collaborations between language and content university instructors: Factors and indicators of positive partnerships. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1491946 Appendix EAP Across Canada Survey 2020 Thank you for taking the time to complete a survey of those working to support students’ academic English—a field widely known as English for academic purposes (EAP) —at Canadian colleges and universities. This survey is the first Canadian EAP survey of its kind, and the results will delineate the Canadian EAP landscape. It is hoped that sharing these research findings leads to greater recognition of the importance of English language support at our post-secondary institutions. Topics covered on the survey include the academic and professional background of EAP professionals, the structure of EAP programs, and the professional satisfaction of EAP practitioners. Although this survey asks for some minor demographic information (educational background; teaching experience; etc.), rest assured that this information is not linked to your name. Those who complete the survey will have the option of entering a draw to win one of ten $50 gift cards! If you agree to participate in this study, be assured that participants’ privacy will be protected at all times. The online survey strives to protect participant anonymity, with no identifying features. Further, data will be reported in aggregate so that no individual respondent can be identified. This survey is divided into three sections, and it will take you approximately 20 minutes to complete. Please allow sufficient time to complete all the questions in the survey. If you work in more than one EAP program, please complete this survey with information from your primary program (i.e., the program in which you work the most). This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance from XXXX and XXXX. If you have ethical questions or concerns, please contact XXXX with any questions or concerns you may have about this study. Please indicate your willingness to complete the survey by clicking on the “Yes, I consent” button below (or if you do not consent, please click the “No, I do not consent” button). ● YES, I consent. ● NO, I do not consent. Q1 Please note that by agreeing to participate in the study, you are not waiving your legal rights or releasing the investigator(s) or involved institution(s) from their legal and professional responsibilities. Please indicate your willingness to complete the survey by clicking on the “Yes, I consent” button below (or if you do not consent, please click the “No, I do not consent” button). ● YES, I consent. ● No, I do not consent. Q2 What term best describes your primary EAP role within the institution? Select only one. ● Program Director ● Program Assistant Director ● Program Coordinator ● Head/Lead Instructor ● Instructor ● Department Chair ● Professor (Research) ● Professor (Teaching) ● Other ___ (Text) https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1491946 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 77 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Q3 Please identify any of your additional EAP roles Check all that apply. ● Program Director ● Program Assistant Director ● Program Coordinator ● Head/Lead Instructor ● Instructor ● Department Chair ● Professor (Research) ● Professor (Teaching) ● Other ___ (Text) Q4 At what kind of institution do you teach/administer EAP? ● University ● College affiliated with or located within a university ● College ● English language school or institute Q5 In which province or territory do you work? ● British Columbia ● Northwest Territories ● Nunavut ● Yukon ● Alberta ● Saskatchewan ● Manitoba ● Ontario ● Quebec ● New Brunswick ● Nova Scotia ● Prince Edward Island ● Newfoundland and Labrador Q6 What is the name of your academic institution? (Optional) Q7 What is the name of the program/unit in which you work? (Optional) Q8 Each year, approximately how many students’ study in your primary EAP program? ● Less than 100 ● 101-200 ● 201-400 ● 401-600 ● 601-800 ● 801-1000 ● More than 1000 ● I do not know Q9 Each year, approximately how many instructors teach in your primary EAP program? ● 1-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● More than 30 ● I do not know Q10 Please indicate where the course/program is housed. ● An academic department ● A continuing education unit ● Another unit (please specify-text option) ● Off campus (please specify-text option) ● I do not know Q11 (Internal logic – if an academic department is the response to Q10) In which academic department is the course/program housed? ● English ● Applied Linguistics ● Education ● Modern/Second/Foreign Languages ● Other (please specify-text option) https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 78 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Q12 The EAP program in which I work is __. (check all that apply) REMINDER: If you work in more than one EAP program, please complete this survey with information from your primary program (i.e., the program in which you work the most). ● An English for general academic purposes program ● An English for specific academic purposes program (e.g., science or engineering stream EAP) ● A content-oriented program where EAP instructors deliver both content and language instruction. ● A content and language-integrated program where both content and EAP instructors teach together in the same program or course. ● A bridging/pathway program that, upon completion, leads to direct acceptance to the university / college. ● I do not know Q13 Students who successfully complete your EAP program/course receive ___. (check all that apply) ● A university/college course credit listed on their transcript (credit with a grade). ● A university/college course credit listed on their transcript (credit - pass/fail). ● An EAP certificate that allows successful students to obtain admission to university/college. ● An EAP certificate and one or two “content” credits that allows successful students to fully participate in their academic programs. ● I do not know Q14 Students in the EAP program in which I work are __________. (check all that apply) ● Currently enrolled in a university or college program. ● Preparing to enter the Canadian university/college where I work. ● Preparing to enter other Canadian universities/colleges. ● Preparing to enter universities/colleges in other countries that use English as a medium of instruction. ● Preparing to enter universities/colleges that DO NOT use English as a medium of instruction. ● Preparing to enter the workplace. ● Planning to return home upon graduation. Q15 What is/are your first language(s)? ● Arabic ● Cantonese ● English ● Farsi ● French ● German ● Indigenous language (please specify) ● Italian ● Japanese ● Korean ● Mandarin ● Polish ● Portuguese ● Punjabi ● Russian ● Spanish ● Tagalog ● Urdu ● Vietnamese ● Other (please specify) Q16 Which language(s) do you speak/use/teach? (Check all that apply) ● Arabic ● Cantonese ● English ● Farsi ● French ● German ● Indigenous language (please specify) ● Italian ● Japanese ● Korean ● Mandarin ● Polish ● Portuguese https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 79 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 ● Punjabi ● Russian ● Spanish ● Tagalog ● Urdu ● Vietnamese ● Other (please specify) Q17 Which is/are your EAP students’ first language(s)? (Check all that apply) ● Arabic ● Cantonese ● English ● Farsi ● French ● German ● Indigenous language (please specify) ● Italian ● Japanese ● Korean ● Mandarin ● Polish ● Portuguese ● Punjabi ● Russian ● Spanish ● Tagalog ● Urdu ● Vietnamese ● Other (please specify) Q18 Which is the most common first language of EAP students in your program? (Select only 1) ● Arabic ● Cantonese ● English ● Farsi ● French ● German ● Indigenous language (please specify) ● Italian ● Japanese ● Korean ● Mandarin ● Polish ● Portuguese ● Punjabi ● Russian ● Spanish ● Tagalog ● Urdu ● Vietnamese ● Other (please specify) Q19 Please indicate the number of institutions where you do EAP work. ● One ● Two ● Three ● Four or more Q20 Please indicate the number of programs/units in which you do EAP work (across all institutions). ● One ● Two ● Three ● Four or more Q21 I have other paying work besides my EAP work. ● Yes (please specify) ● No Q22 In my primary EAP program (the one in which I work most), I work… ● Full-time ● Part-time (anything less than full-time) Q23 In my primary EAP program (the one in which I work most), I work… ● Full year ● Partial year (less than 12 months) Q24 In my primary EAP program/unit (the one in which I work most), my contract is... ● Permanent (renews automatically) ● Limited term (one to three years) ● Temporary (may or may not be renewed) Q25.1 In general, my EAP workload is (Please enter a percentage for each of the types of workloads indicated below) % teaching (including preparation and feedback) Q25.2 In general, my EAP workload is (Please enter a percentage for each of the types of workloads indicated below) % administration (e.g., hiring; scheduling; managing; etc.) https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 80 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Q25.3 In general, my EAP workload is (Please enter a percentage for each of the types of workloads indicated below) % research (e.g., researching, presenting, and writing for publication) Q25.4 In general, my EAP workload is (Please enter a percentage for each of the types of workloads indicated below) % service (e.g., committee work) Q26 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week resolving student issues (e.g., academic integrity, mental health, special needs, etc.). ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 Q27 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week preparing to teach (e.g., lesson planning). ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 Q28 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week teaching in class. ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 Q29 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week marking/ grading/ evaluating/ providing feedback. ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 Q30 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week performing service work (e.g., committees and meetings). ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 Q31 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week developing curriculum for new/existing course(s). ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 Q32 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week providing out-of-class student support (e.g., office hours). ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 Q33 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week providing leadership/support/training to instructors. ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 81 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Q34 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week mentoring student teachers (e.g., supervising practicum). ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 Q35 With respect to my EAP work, I spend ___ hour(s) each week doing other activities (please specify). ● 0 ● < 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● > 31 Q36 With respect to my EAP work, courses are ___ instructional hour(s) per week. ● Less than 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● More than 5 Q37 With respect to my EAP work, courses generally run for ___ weeks. ● < 4 ● 5-8 ● 9-13 ● 14-24 ● > 24 Q38 With respect to my EAP work, I teach ___ course(s) per year. ● 0 ● 1 ● 2 ● 3 ● 4 ● 5 ● 6 ● 7 ● 8 ● > 8 Q39 With respect to my EAP work, class sizes range from __ to __ students per class. ● 5-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● 21-25 ● 26-30 ● 31->31 ● I do not know Q40 Please answer the following questions with respect to your job satisfaction: The quality of my work environment is... ● Completely satisfying ● Mostly satisfying ● Somewhat satisfying ● Somewhat dissatisfying ● Mostly dissatisfying ● Completely dissatisfying ● I prefer to skip this section Q41 Please answer the following questions with respect to your job satisfaction: The level of compensation is... ● Completely satisfying ● Mostly satisfying ● Somewhat satisfying ● Somewhat dissatisfying ● Mostly dissatisfying ● Completely dissatisfying ● I prefer to skip this section Q42 Please answer the following questions with respect to your job satisfaction: The level of respect shown to me by colleagues within my EAP program/unit is... ● Completely satisfying ● Mostly satisfying ● Somewhat satisfying ● Somewhat dissatisfying ● Mostly dissatisfying ● Completely dissatisfying ● I prefer to skip this section https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 82 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Q43 Please answer the following questions with respect to your job satisfaction: The level of respect shown to me by institutional colleagues (e.g., content faculty) outside my EAP program/unit is... ● Completely satisfying ● Mostly satisfying ● Somewhat satisfying ● Somewhat dissatisfying ● Mostly dissatisfying ● Completely dissatisfying ● I prefer to skip this section Q44 Please answer the following questions with respect to your job satisfaction: The opportunities for professional development are... ● Completely satisfying ● Mostly satisfying ● Somewhat satisfying ● Somewhat dissatisfying ● Mostly dissatisfying ● Completely dissatisfying ● I prefer to skip this section Q45 Please answer the following questions with respect to your job satisfaction: The workload assigned to me is... ● Completely satisfying ● Mostly satisfying ● Somewhat satisfying ● Somewhat dissatisfying ● Mostly dissatisfying ● Completely dissatisfying ● I prefer to skip this section Q46 Please answer the following questions with respect to your job satisfaction: The level of collaboration among instructors in my program/unit is... ● Completely satisfying ● Mostly satisfying ● Somewhat satisfying ● Somewhat dissatisfying ● Mostly dissatisfying ● Completely dissatisfying ● I prefer to skip this section Q47 Please answer the following questions with respect to your job satisfaction: The level of collaboration among EAP instructors and content instructors at my institution is... ● Completely satisfying ● Mostly satisfying ● Somewhat satisfying ● Somewhat dissatisfying ● Mostly dissatisfying ● Completely dissatisfying ● I prefer to skip this section Q48 Please add any further comments regarding your satisfaction (or lack thereof) with your EAP work. Q49 The benefits I receive for my EAP work include… (check all that apply) ● Pension ● Health ● Professional development funds ● Teaching relief ● Other _______ (text) ● I do not know https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 83 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Q50 Through my EAP employment, I am a member of... (check all that apply) ● A union ● An association ● Neither a union nor an association ● Other _______ (text) ● I do not know Q51 If you would like to provide further clarification regarding your employment benefits (or lack thereof), please provide comments in the space below: Q52 What are the minimum educational / professional expectations for instructors in your EAP program/unit? (Check all that apply) ● Undergraduate degree ● Master’s degree ● Ph.D. ● Member of provincial EAP/ESL organization ● Member of TESL Canada ● Language teaching certification / accreditation ● Experience working with English language learners ● Other (please specify) ● Please check the minimum educational/professiona l expectations for instructors in your EAP program. (Check all that apply.) ● Other (please list any further requirements) ● Text response Q53 What are your formal educational qualifications? (Choose highest degree obtained) ● Undergraduate degree ● Master’s degree ● Ph.D. Q54 (If chose undergraduate for Q 54) Undergraduate Degree Faculty: ● Arts/Humanities/Education ● Social Sciences (including Linguistics) ● Natural Sciences ● Engineering ● Math Q55 (If chose Master’s for Q54) Master’s Degree Faculty: ● Arts/Humanities/Education ● Social Sciences (including Linguistics) ● Natural Sciences ● Engineering ● Math Q56 (if chose PhD for Q54) Ph.D. Faculty: ● Arts/Humanities/Education ● Social Sciences (including Linguistics) ● Natural Sciences ● Engineering ● Math Q57 What are your formal teaching qualifications? (Check all that apply) ● Bachelor of Education ● TESL Certification ● Graduate degree in TESOL or language studies ● None of the above ● Other ________ (please specify) https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Corcoran, Williams, & Johnston 84 BC TEAL Journal Volume 7 Number 1 (2022): 55–84 https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 Q58 (If TESL Certification selected for Q58) TESL Certification from which category of association? (Choose all that apply) ● Provincial association (e.g., BC TEAL; TESL Ontario; ATESL) ● National association (e.g., TESL Canada) ● International association (e.g., Cambridge; Oxford) ● Private association (e.g., Oxford Learning Seminars) Q59 How many years of post-secondary teaching experience do you have? ● 0 ● Less than 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● More than 21 Q60 How many years of EAP teaching experience do you have? In Canada? ● 0 ● Less than 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● More than 21 Q61 How many years of EAP teaching experience do you have? Outside of Canada? ● 0 ● Less than 1 ● 1-2 ● 3-5 ● 6-10 ● 11-15 ● 16-20 ● More than 21 Q62 Thank you for completing the question portion of our survey. Click the “right arrow” button below to record your answers and have the opportunity to a) participate in phase 2 of this research project; and b) win a prize for completion of this survey. The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Copyright rests with the author(s). https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v7i1.498 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/