




































 Hu & Gonzales 91 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

English-as-an-Additional-Language Employees’ Perspectives on Writing in the Workplace 

 

Jim Hu 

Thompson Rivers University 

 

Lachlan Gonzales 

Thompson Rivers University 

 

Abstract 

 

This article presents study results on workplace writing from English-as-an-additional-language 

(EAL) employees’ perspectives, and shares findings about how educational institutions in British 

Columbia can better prepare EAL students to write in the workplace. In post-secondary academic 

writing, content rather than writing accuracy is often emphasized, yet most employers consider 

writing accuracy important as it reflects a company’s image (Hu & Hoare, 2017), and how EAL 

employees perceive their writing preparedness, workplace writing accuracy, and language 

challenges remains unexplored. Thus, we inquired: 1) How do EAL employees graduated from 

English-speaking universities and working in English-medium environments perceive workplace 

writing accuracy? 2) To what extent are they prepared for workplace writing? 3) What writing 

challenges do they encounter? 4) What do they think universities can do to better prepare EAL 

students for workplace writing? The study employed qualitative interviews with nine EAL 

employees who graduated from British Columbia universities and were working at English-

medium companies in Canada. Data analysis suggests that the participants highly valued writing 

accuracy; however, their education did not prepare them adequately. In addition, the participants 

suggested that universities offer more communication, business, and professional writing 

courses; enhance support services; invite employers and EAL employees as guest speakers; and 

incorporate real-life scenarios in the curriculum. 

 

Introduction 

 

When you are working, they [employers] expect you to know everything. They don’t 

want to teach you how to write an email. For a student, you should know all the basic 

stuff before you leave for a job. They expect it. (Participant I) 

 

After English–as-an additional-language (EAL) students finish university, one of their first tasks 

is to seek employment in the workforce using their newfound skills. This employment can be in 

any number of industry areas such as finance, information technology (IT), trades, nursing, 

business management, and general retail. However, their ability to obtain employment and career 

advancement in English-medium institutions can be related to their ability to write in English. 

Many employers find writing critical for the prospective employee, stating sentiments such as 

“In most cases, writing ability could be your ticket in or it could be your ticket out” (ESL Writer, 

2015). Bovee, Thill, and Scribner (2020) have highlighted communication as the most important 

business skill and “far and away the most commonly mentioned skill set” (p. 31) when 

employers look to hire employees. The more people advance in careers, the more important 

communication skills are than technical background (Lannon, Gurak, Klepp, & Kelly, 2021). 

Furthermore, the ability of graduates to write correctly and clearly can have a direct impact on 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 92 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

employers’ perceptions of employees, especially EAL speakers, who are often believed to have 

communication deficiencies (Marshall, 2009). Among other employer concerns, grammatical 

and mechanical errors can not only cause misunderstanding, but make the writer appear 

unprofessional (Ewald, 2017), and by extension, make the represented firm appear 

unprofessional (Hu & Hoare, 2017).  

 

Despite the importance of English communication in the workplace and the significance 

of second language (L2) employees for the British Columbia labour force (British Columbia, 

2019), few studies have investigated the communication skills of EAL speakers in the 

workplace, especially written communication.   

 

Technical Communication 

 

Technical writing is very important for business communication as it is used to fulfil many job 

responsibilities such as internal communications including memos, emails, and reports, and 

external communications directed to clients and customers. Ewald (2017) stated “Technical 

writing is a simple, stripped-down tool designed to get the job done, and that’s to convey 

information to people who need it. It’s not meant to be fancy. It’s meant to be clear and 

effective” (p. 3). The clearer the writing is, the better it is perceived, and many EAL students are 

expected to have the same ability to communicate in writing as native-English speakers (Hu & 

Hoare, 2017). Furthermore, businesses often do not offer training in their specific vernacular or 

methods of communication, expecting their employees to already have the skills needed.  

 

Ewald (2017) described four major attributes of technical writing. Technical writing is 

clear, complete, concise, and accessible. Being clear means the writing must be easily 

understood. Being complete means providing all the information needed to understand the 

situation. Concision means being as brief as possible. Finally, technical writing must be 

accessible, namely, organized and formatted to enable the reader to find specific information 

quickly. This clear, concise, and stripped-down writing is often at odds with what EAL students 

are used to, which is descriptive or research essays that allow for added details or complicated 

and narrative language created for peers. As Lannon et al. (2021) have pointed out, “When 

novice technical writers first encounter the task of producing scientific, technical, or business 

documents, they often rely on the strategies they’ve used to create essays or personal documents” 

(n.p.). These strategies are often incorrect and are not capable of creating the specialised 

language and format that technical documentation requires. Thus, while EAL students are taught 

academic essentials in their courses such as grammar and vocabulary, they often have trouble 

making the switch to the constraints of technical writing.  

 

Canadian Language Benchmark Policies towards EAL in the Workplace  

 

By describing Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB), we endeavour to provide a context where 

basic and more advanced business communication can occur. The CLB provides a benchmark 

for teachers, EAL students, and workplaces that describes different levels of listening, speaking, 

writing, and reading competency in English. These benchmarks provide a set of descriptions to 

determine a language user’s ability to communicate and understand in a general setting. It ranges 

from CLB 1, which indicates initial basic language ability, to CLB 12, which marks language 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 93 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

ability as fluent advanced. We look specifically at written communication with regards to 

workplace standards and relate them to CLB levels. 

 

Business and professional written communication starts at CLB level 3 wherein the writer 

is able to “write simple, short business or service messages” (Gauthier, 2019, p. 3). At CLB 11, 

the writer can “write business or service correspondence for a broad range of purposes and for 

external use; formal business reports, requests for proposals and formal proposals; and effective, 

stylistically complex text” (Gauthier, 2019, p. 7). A writer at CLB 12 can “write highly 

specialized, complex formal correspondence and documents; and, effective and stylistically 

polished texts to inform, convince and persuade others” (Gauthier, 2019, p. 7). The descriptions 

of these last two levels match exactly what employers see in ideal employees as the former 

expect efficiency, professionalism, and competence and want the written image of the company 

to be perfect (Beason, 2001; Bovee et al., 2020; Ewald, 2017; Hu & Hoare, 2017; Lannon et al., 

2021). Yet, most EAL graduates will find it hard to meet these standards upon completing 

undergraduate, or even Master’s, studies. 

 

Literature Review 

 

Among the small number of studies on workplace communication of EAL speakers, Derwing 

and Munro (2009) used experiments to find out how native-English speakers in a petrochemical 

company in Alberta, Canada perceived the oral communication of EAL immigrant colleagues 

whose first language (L1) was Slavic or Mandarin. The participants listened to paired samples 

and offered opinions on their preferences. The study found that comprehensibility is more 

important than accentedness for successful communication. For example, one can “speak with a 

strong accent yet be highly intelligible and comprehensible” (p. 197). The study also noted that 

many EAL professionals have not developed satisfactory oral language skills upon completing 

English instruction in Canada and that there should be more emphasis on oral communication 

skills such as fluency and pronunciation in EAL and Language Instruction for Newcomers to 

Canada (LINC) programs. Acknowledging there are few studies on workplace communication 

between native English and EAL speakers, Derwing and Munro (2009) called for more research 

on such issues as they are significant not only for applied linguistics but also for the Canadian 

labour force and economy. 

 

The Study of Employer Perspectives on EAL Employees’ Writing 

 

This paper builds upon a previous study by Hu and Hoare (2017) which explored employer 

perspectives on EAL employees’ writing. Research has revealed that many university EAL 

students do not consider writing accuracy important and therefore, are not motivated to improve 

writing because, in academic disciplines, professors often emphasize content over language 

accuracy (e.g., Gimenez, 2009; Hirvela, 2011; Hoare & Hu, 2015; Hu, 2000, 2010; Hyland, 

2013; Ortega, 2011). To help raise the consciousness of language accuracy and clarity among 

university faculty and EAL students, Ferris (2011) called for research to explore the views of 

prospective employers on inaccurate and unclear writing of EAL employees. In response to the 

call, Hu and Hoare (2017) examined the perspectives of employers in Western Canada on 

workplace writing of their EAL employees. In particular, the study inquired: 1) What are the 

expectations of employers regarding accuracy and clarity in the writing of EAL employees?  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 94 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

2) What language problems do EAL employees have in work-related writing? 3) How might 

writing problems affect career opportunities and successes of EAL employees? Data were 

collected through individual qualitative interviews with ten participants recruited from one small 

city and one metropolitan area. The participants were typically company managers or other 

executives, representing tourism, banking, high-tech, medical service, education counselling, and 

other fields that tended to have a high percentage of EAL employees. The data were analyzed in 

two approaches, one to seek answers to the research questions and the other, a thematic 

approach, to identify themes or recurrent patterns of response (Crocker et al, 2014; Strauss & 

Corbin, 1990, 1998). The major findings of the study include the following: 

 

1 The employers mostly maintain the same writing standards for EAL employees as for native 

English speakers. 

2 Resumes containing inaccurate or unclear writing often are discarded during screening.  

3 EAL employees are expected to write accurate and standard English in communication with 

the external world since errors and unclear writing may reflect negatively on the image of the 

company as well as the writer, not only linguistically but also professionally. So, while 

employers expect one standard of writing, academia provides another. Beason (2001) used 

image theory to illuminate the “disparity between employer expectations and research on 

faculty feedback and practices in L2 disciplinary writing” (p. 10). 

4 For EAL employees whose technical or specific skills are valued over language proficiency, 

minor language errors are often tolerated in internal communication (e.g., emails) as long as 

the language is comprehensible and results in no undesirable consequence.  

5 Language problems contributing to workplace writing inaccuracy are related to grammar, 

vocabulary, word order, clarity, idiomatic expressions, and professional writing style among 

other concerns.    

6 EAL employees are generally expected to complete writing tasks with minimal assistance 

from colleagues.  

7 EAL employees who write inaccurate or unclear English may have difficulty finding certain 

employment, be dismissed, be offered a learning plan, have limited advancement 

opportunities, and be assigned roles dealing with internal colleagues only or requiring limited 

language skills. Thus, to properly prepare university EAL students for working in English-

medium environments, instructors need to provide feedback and treatment for EAL students’ 

writing problems. For example, composition courses should include editing skills. 

8 A disconnect exists between the academic and professional worlds in most fields concerning 

EAL writing accuracy and clarity. 

 

Since Hu and Hoare (2017) focused on the perspectives of employers on EAL employee 

writing, they call for further research on the perspectives of EAL employees who were former 

EAL students regarding their “writing preparedness for and writing challenges at the workplace” 

(p. 14).   

 

Research Questions 

 

Despite research conducted in previous studies (e.g., Beason, 2001; Hairston, 1981; Hu & Hoare, 

2017), few have explored how EAL university graduates perceive the importance of writing 

accurately and clearly in the workplace or examined their perceptions of the institutions that 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 95 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

trained them to write in English. The current study represents an extension of a previous study of 

employers’ perspectives on EAL employee writing in the workplace (Hu & Hoare, 2017) and 

reports on EAL employees’ perceptions on writing in the workplace. This research is critical 

because it may impact EAL students and university faculty. Currently, as mentioned earlier, 

many of these students have no interest in improving writing accuracy (Ferris, 2002, 2011; Hu, 

2010), tend to lack confidence in writing competence, and rely too much on institutional and 

tutor support; furthermore, academic faculty often choose to ignore language accuracy while 

focusing on content (Hoare & Hu, 2015; Hu, 2010; Hyland, 2013).  

 

 The goal of this study is to provide a different perspective on workplace writing and to 

raise university faculty’s and EAL students’ awareness of the importance of writing proficiency. 

The study was guided by the following questions: 

 

1. How do EAL employees graduated from English-speaking post-secondary institutions 

perceive English writing accuracy for the workplace?  

2. To what extent are they prepared for writing in English in the workplace?  

3. What writing tasks and challenges do they encounter in the workplace? 

4. How do they think universities can better prepare EAL students for writing in the 

workplace?  

 

Defining Key Terms 

 

As in Hu and Hoare (2017), work-related writing in this study refers to writing for work-related 

purposes, consisting of a phrase or sentence but typically comprised of multiple sentences in one 

or more paragraphs. Examples are letters, emails, memos, service orders, manuals, and work-

related reports. Workplace correspondence is a type of work-related writing and includes emails, 

letters, text messages, newsletters, and memos. 

 

 Language problems are those that affect one or more dimensions of language in 

communication. The major dimensions (see Fig. 1 next page) are grammatical accuracy, 

meaning clarity, and contextual appropriateness of a language unit such as a phrase, sentence, 

paragraph, or article (see Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999). The shared intersection in 

Fig. 1 refers to the same language unit which may exhibit different meanings in different 

domains. For example, in the sentence “It’s OK.” the grammar is correct, while the meaning may 

or may not be clear depending on the meaning of “it.” However, the sentence is acceptable in 

informal writing but generally not appropriate in formal writing. The language problems include, 

but are not limited to, those in the following categories: grammar, vocabulary, spelling, 

punctuation, upper and lower cases, and professional writing style.  

 

 Language accuracy typically indicates language free of grammatical and mechanical 

errors. Language proficiency refers to the degree a person has mastered the receptive (i.e., 

listening and reading) and productive (i.e., speaking and writing) skills of a language. Language 

accuracy constitutes part of language proficiency, especially in productive skills. Professional 

writing style means using profession-specific terminology and writing clearly and concisely 

without using contracted forms (e.g., they’ll), colloquial expressions, or choppy sentences (i.e., 

two or more sentences in a row with less than 10 words in each) (see Hu, 2011). 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 96 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

 

 
Figure 1. Dimensions of language problems 

 

Study Methodology 

 

Semi-Structured In-Depth Qualitative Interviews 

 

Like the previous study on employer perspectives on the writing problems of EAL employees 

(Hu & Hoare, 2017), this study employed semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews to 

uncover the perspectives of EAL employees on their writing preparedness and challenges for the 

workplace (Creswell, 1998; Crocker et al., 2014; Gonzales, 2018; Hu, 2009; Newton, 2010; 

Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). As the writing preparedness and challenges were personal for each 

research participant, they were highly sensitive and confidential. Savin-Baden and Major (2013) 

observed that “interviews are particularly appropriate when the information to be shared is 

sensitive or confidential” (p. 358). Furthermore, writing in the workplace is complex because it 

involves not only grammatical and mechanical accuracy but more importantly, semantic clarity 

and pragmatic appropriateness (Hu & Hoare, 2017). The complexity is compounded by the 

variety of jobs and writing responsibilities of the research participants in different positions (see 

participant profiles below). In-depth qualitative interviews were a suitable approach as they can 

generate rich data and in-depth insights into complex issues (Hu, 2009; Hu & Hoare, 2017; 

Newton, 2010). Finally, we adopted semi-structured interviews, namely, interviews with a 

prepared guide because the guide can enable efficient use of the interview time and allow a 

degree of comparability across the participants (see the appendix for the interview guide) 

(Gonzales, 2018). However, the open-ended nature of the interviews also means that researchers 

have the option to pursue interesting and meaningful issues that emerge during the interview 

(Gonzales, 2018). As Savin-Baden and Major (2013) suggested, this was especially important as 

we had only one interview opportunity with each participant since they were very busy and some 

were working in other cities of Canada (see Hu & Hoare, 2017). 

 

Participants 

 

A total of nine participants were recruited from a diverse set of industries ranging from banking 

to retail, and their work experience ranged from half a year to eight years. The diversity ensured 

that a wide range of responses were received. Eight of them originally came from Asian 

countries and one was from Argentina. Their ages ranged from 25 to 35, with one outlier being 

51. All but one had graduated from an institution in British Columbia with either a Master’s or 

Grammatical 
Accuracy

Pragmatic 
Appropriateness

Semantic Clarity

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 97 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

Bachelor’s degree; the outlier had graduated from an institution in British Columbia with a Care 

Aid Certificate. All but one had taken courses in an EAL program; the outlier had instead taken 

four undergraduate English courses (see Table 1 for participant profiles).   

 

Table 1 

 

Participant Profiles 

 
Participants Business and 

Position 

Gender Length of 

Employment 

Age Country/

Region of 

Origin 

EAL Courses 

Completed 

Degrees 

Earned 

A Bank, Advisor Male 2 Years 27 South 

Korea 

Levels 2-5 BBA-

HR 

B Retail, 

Cellphone 

Manager 

Male 2.5 Years 29 China Levels 3-5 BBA 

C Import-Export, 

Credit 

Coordinator 

Female 11 Months 35 Argentina Levels 4-5 MBA 

 

D Retail Store, 

Assistant 

Manager 

Female 1.5 Years 28 China Levels 3-5 M.Ed. 

E Bank, Financial 

Services 

Manager 

Male 3 Years 30 China Levels 3-5 M.Ed. 

BBA 

F Nursing, Senior 

Care Aide 

Female 2.5 Years 51 China Levels 3-5 Care 

Aide 

Cert. 

G Retail, 

Manager/Owner 

Male 7 Years 30 China Levels 4-5 BBA 

H Animal Care 

Attendant 

Female 8 Years 33 Taiwan Levels 4-5 MBA 

I IT, Web 

Developer 

Male 0.5 Years 25 Pakistan 4 Undergraduate 

English Courses 

BS  

Note. Level 1 is the lowest and Level 5 is the highest of the EAL courses at the institution in question. 

 

Data Collection and Analysis 

 

The participants were initially sent an invitation to participate in the study. Once they accepted 

the invitation, they were emailed an interview guide to prepare them for the study. From August 

2015 to February 2016, seven of the participants were interviewed individually by the authors 

face-to-face in the former’s offices or a classroom at the latter’s institution. Two who were 

working in another city were interviewed individually by phone. Each interview lasted about 45 

minutes and was audio-recorded with their permission. The interview questions were designed to 

elicit responses on the participants’ writing ability, error awareness, EAL training opportunities 

and resources in the workplace, and suggestions for educational institutions in British Columbia. 

 

It is worth noting that while the last interview question asked for suggestions for the 

study itself, almost all the participants answered by using the opportunity to provide further 

suggestions about how universities could better prepare EAL students’ writing skills for the 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 98 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

workplace. They did so after having answered a previous question specifically designed for this 

purpose.  

 

During the interview, the second author transcribed simultaneously on a laptop computer 

with the help of the interview guide and, afterwards, checked the transcription against the audio-

recording. While interviewing, the first author also made notes on a hard copy of the interview 

guide and checked the transcription with the notes. Since the transcripts were double-checked, 

they were supposed to be accurate and reliable. As the participants were busy and no honorarium 

was available, we did not attempt member checking.  

 

We conducted the data analysis using a thematic approach, also known as the grounded 

theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). In this approach, we read the interview 

transcripts repeatedly, performed constant comparison of ideas (Crocker et al., 2014), and 

identified themes or recurrent patterns of response (Gonzales, 2018; Hu, 2000). The themes 

identified included workplace writing tasks, writing challenges, workplace writing resources, 

institutional English writing, and suggestions for academia. These themes are presented in detail 

in the following section. 

 

Research Findings 

 

This section presents the themes identified through thematic analysis of the interview data.  

 

Workplace Writing Tasks 

 

The study participants were required to complete a variety of writing tasks depending on their 

specific jobs. For example, a participant in the banking industry was required to write internal 

and external emails, provide account summaries, and complete credit and loan applications on 

behalf of clients and companies. The participants working in the retail industry mentioned 

writing meeting minutes; drafting sales summaries; writing reports to supervisors, and creating 

purchase, production, and sales orders. Those participants working in health care, specifically 

nursing and animal care, described writing detailed patient descriptions, daily notes, and emails 

to colleagues and customers. All the participants used emails in their regular communications 

with customers, clients, and the public, and internally with colleagues and supervisors.  

 

Writing Challenges 

 

The needs and challenges faced by EAL employees are diverse, but in the context of this study, 

factors such as work environment, demographics, employment experience, and time out of 

educational institutions were seen as a direct influence (Marshall, 2009). Common challenges 

included difficulty with spelling when writing on paper, unfamiliar technical vocabulary, 

grammar, clear expressions, and professional writing style. These challenges arose from a lack of 

education on these specific subjects at their previous educational institutions and a lack of 

training in the workplace. 

 

The participants found that job-specific vocabulary was required to write in a 

professional manner, and this vocabulary had not been taught at their educational institutions. 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 99 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

Grammar difficulties included those involving forms and structures such as verb tenses and 

prepositions. Furthermore, the quality expectations for writing emails to supervisors and external 

recipients were rated at the same level as that for native-English speaking employees. As 

Participant D commented, “they have the same expectations for me. It’s the same as Canadians. 

The expectations in writing are equally high.” This finding echoes the previous study on 

employer perspectives on EAL employee writing (Hu & Hoare, 2017).  

 

Several participants noted that at the start of their job, they did not know how to write 

professional emails. For example, one participant stated that emails in the professional workplace 

were far different from the writing he had previously encountered: “When I start to work, writing 

emails and the paper writing were totally different” (Participant G). Similarly, in response to our 

question regarding writing challenges, Participant E, a bank manager, expressed frustrations 

about emails, specifically how to communicate clearly with adequate details.  

 

Along with challenges in vocabulary and grammar, the participants faced issues with 

clear and concise writing and professional writing style (Ewald, 2017). Nearly all the participants 

indicated that the ability to write in a clear, concise, and professional manner was critical and 

that employers assumed that employees already knew how to do so. Participant I elucidated:  

 

When you are working, they expect you to know everything. They don’t want to teach 

you how to write or do an email. For a student, you should have to know all the basic 

stuff before you leave for a job. They expect it. 

 

While, for non-critical internal communications, minor writing errors were sometimes 

tolerated, when asked about the necessity of accurate and clear writing, the participants 

emphasized that such writing was critical to their jobs; it was expected in all written 

communications both internally and externally. Failure to do so could have consequences; these 

could range from mere embarrassment in front of employers and clients to life-threatening in 

health care situations. One participant stated: “That’s very important for dealing with contractors 

and supervisors. You need to make them understand. If the other person doesn’t understand, they 

might take it another way and that could be disastrous” (Participant I). Another participant 

reiterated: 

 

Because whatever the resident says, if we are not clear [in writing], the nurse doesn’t 

know and then the doctor doesn’t know. They [nurses and doctors] can get confused or 

misinformed. And then they [residents] might not be able to get the care they need; 

maybe not able to catch the best time for the best medical help. It could be very 

dangerous for the patients. High consequences. (Participant F) 

 

Workplace Writing Resources 

 

When queried about their access to professional development opportunities, specifically writing 

resources, all the participants reported that their workplaces did not offer any language or writing 

development. While the workplaces offered workshops such as job skill development and 

management training, they appeared to expect non-native English speakers to operate at the same 

level as their Canadian English-speaking employees in terms of language proficiency (see 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 100 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

above). To deal with the writing challenges and lack of workplace writing resources, the 

participants utilized various strategies such as asking colleagues, using Internet resources, 

Googling, and proofreading multiple times. As Participant H observed, “I ask friends and 

colleagues to proofread…. I use Google to search for templates. Internet is the first go-to 

source.” Hu and Hoare (2017) reported that some employers paid for programs to improve their 

employees’ language skills, but most employers described collegial aid for the EAL employees 

as a strategy instead. If a company has a significant number of EAL employees who need 

language development, Brooks (2009) recommended that workplaces provide English language 

coaches, bilingual writing materials, classes, and seminars for the employees to learn workplace 

vocabulary and writing in the workplace. These add-ons to workplace language learning could 

alleviate the issues reported by the participants related to the lack of language resources and give 

EAL employees an avenue to learn the language that they need to succeed.  

 

Institutional English Writing 

 

When asked about how their educational institutions prepared them for the workplace, there 

appeared to be a consensus among the participants. They indicated that while they were taught 

the basics of the English language, it was routinely insufficient. They did not receive enough 

practice in terms of workplace writing; however, weekly journals and vocabulary for some 

course topics were beneficial. They suggested that workplace writing skills were de-emphasised 

at the educational institution in favour of English for academic purposes, including a reliance on 

textbooks that had little or nothing to do with the workplace. One participant indicated that he 

learned more in a workplace setting than in a classroom. “I didn’t learn much from [the 

institution]. It’s more the working environment that helped me” (Participant B). One reason was 

that as a store manager, he was constantly exposed to English and work-specific vocabulary and 

grammar whereas in the university setting, the EAL emphasis is usually on English for academic 

purposes. 

 

Suggestions for Academia to Improve EAL Student Writing  

 

When asked about what teachers and educational institutions in British Columbia could do to 

better prepare EAL students to write in the workplace, the participants had several valuable 

suggestions. One was for the university to offer more business, technical, and professional 

writing courses that would benefit EAL graduates in the workplace. As Participant H explained, 

“For four years we write lots of papers. When you got to the workplace, it’s totally different 

when writing memos or emails. I have to write reference or recruitment letters, but I was never 

taught how.” Thus, she suggested “more English courses for different academic areas and more 

preparation for workplace writing, e.g., proposals, recruitment letters.” She also thought that a 

“professional workplace-writing course should be in the Bachelor’s or the Diploma program. 

[EAL] is still too broad for the professional writing. It [EAL] should focus on the grammar and 

the basics.” Similarly, the student participants in Hu (2000) also made requests for discipline-

specific English. 

 

 Furthermore, the participants in this study expressed a need for the institution to prepare 

them for the real working world by incorporating real-life examples and inviting employers and 

recent EAL graduates as guest speakers. As Participant I advised, “for some programs you could 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 101 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

invite the employers [as guest speakers] …What are you looking for in a student [i.e., employee 

candidate], talk about skill expectations including writing skills. They [university programs] can 

base their curriculum on what employers want.” While educational institutions should provide 

more than just skill training (Rickman, 2016), this advice is worth considering (see Brooks, 

2009). 

 

 The participants also wanted a dedicated lesson or workshop where they could learn how 

to write professional emails. All the participants had to write internal and external emails daily; 

however, writing emails in a professional style for business proved to be a challenge. Therefore, 

Participant E stated: “I wish I learned how to write emails [in school].” Lastly, while 

commending university support systems such as writing centres, co-op opportunities (paid work 

experience), and service-learning (student volunteering in community organisations, see Wisla, 

Krauza, & Hu, 2017), the participants acknowledged that such services could be improved. The 

writing centre could be more accessible for students with increased hours and staff. Participant C 

commented: “I always went there [to the writing centre] and I wish they had more hours.” Since 

academic faculty typically focus on content in student writing (Hu, 2000, 2010; Hyland, 2013), 

the writing centre is often the sole source of help for EAL students to improve their language. 

The issue has become more noteworthy as international student populations continue to grow on 

most university campuses in British Columbia. According to the BC Council for International 

Education, BC added a 31% increase in international students between 2015 and 2017, and in 

2017 B.C.’s post-secondary institutions and K-12 schools were home to 152,390 international 

students (Roslyn Kunin & Associates, Inc., 2017). This increase represents a substantial 

jump from previous years and could have resulted in a strain on existing systems of support such 

as the writing centres in BC post-secondary institutions.  

 

Discussion 

 

Summary of Answers to the Research Questions 

 

This section discusses the themes from the data analysis and participant interviews with regard to 

the research questions.  

 

 1. How do EAL employees graduated from English-speaking post-secondary 

institutions perceive English writing accuracy for the workplace? The study findings indicate 

that writing correct and clear English is very important, and it is a critical requirement for 

external communications. This finding is supported by business, technical, and professional 

writing textbooks (Bovee et al., 2020; Ewald, 2017; Lannon et al., 2021). Failure to write 

accurately and clearly can have differing levels of consequences such as financial losses, legal 

issues, client complaints and mistrust, damage to company image, and lost business or 

customers. Ewald (2017) explained that “poor communication at any stage of a project is very 

costly… [an email] can cause hurt feelings, ill will, and inaction. That inaction means that your 

good ideas or requests…or dire warnings may be ignored” (p. 3). An example Ewald (2017) 

cited is the 2006 Deepwater Horizon incident, where ignored warnings directly resulted in 

catastrophic damage and loss of life. As mentioned earlier, according to image theory (Beason, 

2001, Hu & Hoare, 2017), inaccurate or unclear writing for the public can have a negative 

impact on the image of both the writer and the company. Unfortunately, as Hu and Hoare (2017) 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 102 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

noted, few studies have examined the negative consequences of poor writing in the workplace 

since Beason (2001) or communication in the workplace between native-English-speakers and 

non-native-English speakers (Derwing & Munro, 2009).  

 

Although the participants did not mention dismissal owing to writing incompetence, Hu 

and Hoare (2017) indicated some employers did let employees go after the latter’s repeated 

failures to improve language. Finally, employers and colleagues expect the same level of writing 

standards for EAL employees as they do for native-English speakers. Nevertheless, in general, 

the employee participants in this study appeared to have higher expectations of themselves 

regarding language clarity and accuracy than what the employer participants in the previous 

study (Hu & Hoare, 2017) expected of their EAL employees. However, in non-critical situations, 

less than perfect writing could be tolerated for internal communications, as was also found in the 

previous study (Hu & Hoare, 2017).  

 

 2. To what extent are the employees prepared for writing in English in the 

workplace? The interviews indicated that only learning basic writing skills at an academic 

institution was far from adequate for the workplace because the participants had to learn 

specialized work-related vocabulary and professional writing styles that were not taught at the 

institution. Therefore, the EAL employees generally did not feel well prepared for workplace 

writing. This incongruity between the writing skills that are taught in academia and those 

required in the workplace is a common issue among EAL graduates as language programs and 

universities mostly focus on academic language skills. They are different from business, 

technical, and professional writing styles that are field-specific and concerned with getting the 

point across clearly and efficiently (Bovee et al., 2020; Ewald, 2017; Lannon et al., 2021). For 

example, Lannon et al. (2021) distinguished literary writing and technical writing this way: 

“unlike poetry and fiction, which appeal mainly to our imagination, technical documents appeal 

to our understanding. Technical writing rarely seeks to entertain, create suspense, or invite 

differing interpretations” (n.p.). The emphasis on creativity and interpretation clearly makes 

literary writing feel different than what EAL graduates would see in the workplace. Technical 

writing requires “clearly defined structures and concise, readable prose. Those emphases result 

from meeting the reader's needs and priorities, not the writer's needs and goals” (Lannon et al., 

2021, n.p.). While EAP is very useful for writing essays, creating arguments and discussions, and 

fostering a learning atmosphere within an academic structure, many students are taught to do this 

by universities that might assume they are going into an academic field. This can hurt the 

student’s ability to understand and write in technical or business genres, which as stated above 

require vastly different methods and are written for different purposes. The participants echoed 

this mismatch and expressed a desire for universities to have taught them workplace writing 

styles. 

 

One way to address the issue is to have the business sector provide a curriculum or ideas 

to help shape the curriculum (Brooks, 2009). This would give EAL students a better jumping-off 

point to learn specialised terms and writing styles in a general sense and be better prepared for 

learning highly specialised field-specific genres later on. 

 

 3. What writing tasks and challenges do the employees encounter in the workplace? 

The major writing tasks for the participants included emails, work notes, reports, letters, memos, 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 103 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

purchase and sale orders, and credit or loan applications. Challenges to writing in English came 

in many forms, but several commonalities the participants shared were professional writing style, 

grammar, unfamiliar technical terminology, unclear idiomatic expressions, and business and 

legal language. It is worth emphasizing that both this and the previous study (Hu & Hoare, 2017) 

found professional writing style to be a major challenge for EAL employees. 

 

 4. How do the employees think universities can better prepare EAL students for 

writing in the workplace? The participants suggested more business English, professional 

writing, and communication courses. Some of these English courses can be tailored to the needs 

of specific programs, such as business writing for business students, technical writing for science 

and technology students, and professional writing for healthcare and service-related students. If 

these courses are already offered, EAL students need to be made more aware of their importance 

for future careers. They also suggested enhanced support facilities such as a writing centre 

capable of accommodating more students. Furthermore, they suggested inviting employers and 

EAL graduates as guest speakers to learn about workplace expectations and experiences in 

British Columbia. Finally, they suggested increased co-op opportunities as well as using real-life 

examples and scenarios in class to prepare for life in the workplace in British Columbia. 

 

 Brooks (2009) made several similar recommendations for businesses to help EAL 

employees by placing emphasis on in-house training and utilizing work vocabulary and context. 

Training by third parties might decontextualize the context which is the most important part of 

the learning process. Brooks (2009) also made recommendations for educational institutions. For 

example, professors can teach or create classes that promote business-centric language and 

vocabulary as well as provide real-life and workplace scenarios, and EAL speakers with 

workplace experience can be consulted to help direct the course content. Finally, teaching 

English for the workplace such as emails, memos, and reports as well as the expectations of 

workplace communication, may help EAL students feel more prepared and help alleviate the 

pressure placed on businesses to re-train EAL graduates.  

 

Conclusions 

 

The study suggests that the EAL participants had high expectations of themselves regarding 

language clarity and accuracy in the workplace, possibly higher than what some of the employers 

had of their EAL employees in the previous study (Hu & Hoare, 2017). However, the 

participants generally did not feel well prepared for the writing tasks in the workplace. Thus, 

educational institutions need to strive to improve English education for EAL students so that 

EAL graduates can write accurately and clearly for the workplace. Moreover, targeted courses 

such as communications and business English could potentially alleviate some of the writing 

challenges that EAL graduates face at work. In addition, businesses and employers have a duty 

to provide professional development opportunities and resources concerning language for EAL 

employees. For instance, instead of third-party training, in-house training classes and seminars 

should be offered that utilize work vocabulary and writing (Brooks, 2009). However, businesses 

usually expect to hire employees who are competent in their ability to write effectively; thus, the 

burden is placed upon the educational institution to provide effective education that prepares 

EAL students for the workplace.   

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 104 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

Recommendations for Educational Institutions  
 

If a university does not offer such courses as communications, business writing, technical 

writing, and professional writing, then it should consider them. If it does offer the courses, then 

EAL students should be made aware of them. To that end, increased advertising and 

communication should be directed towards enrolling EAL students in these courses. This could 

be in the form of a simple class presentation to EAL students or provided as an option along with 

EAL courses. In addition, the university curriculum should include real-life examples and reflect 

what employers expect employees to be able to perform in terms of writing duties and standards. 

In this sense, the university can invite employers and EAL graduates with workplace experience 

as guest speakers to give lectures and workshops to both instructors and students.   

 

Writing centres for EAL students. As academic faculty tend to focus on disciplinary 

content rather than language (Hoare & Hu, 2015; Hu, 2000; Hu & Hoare, 2017; Hyland, 2013) 

and may not have the time or language expertise to help EAL students (Hu, 2000; Hu, 2010), 

university writing centres should provide additional instruction for students by providing general 

vocabulary and specific terminology. Writing centres should also teach essay skills, both editing 

and revision, and supplementary education or general business practices such as workplace 

emails, memos, reports, manuals, and presentations. Indeed, as the second author of this article 

has witnessed, the use of the writing centre by EAL students at one BC institution has increased 

dramatically over the past few years, and many of the students went for help with business 

English. EAL students primarily use writing centres to learn technical writing, essay formats, 

editing and revision skills, and practical language skills, not all of which can be taught in 

academic classes. Writing centres have the advantage of flexibility in adapting to the needs of 

individual EAL students. However, this can only occur if writing centres are provided the 

appropriate resources to accommodate the increasing demands by students.  

 

While the participants lauded writing centres for their services, they did report that there 

were shortfalls such as not being able to book an appointment or short hours which did not 

accommodate student schedules. An increase in staffing, hours of operation, and online 

asynchronous sessions could alleviate appointment problems. Writing centres could also add 

specific supplementary presentations and workshops on business and technical writing as well as 

workshops on writing emails, memos, and workplace correspondence. Finally, instructors could 

incorporate the use of a writing centre into a syllabus as an assignment to aid in students’ 

education.  

 

Further Research 

 

The small sample size has limited potential to create a comprehensive overview of EAL 

employee perceptions on writing requirements of the workplace in British Columbia. Thus, 

future research could include surveys and interviews with additional participants representing a 

greater variety of professions. Finally, future research may involve universities considering the 

possibility of implementing suggestions from this study.  

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343


 Hu & Gonzales 105 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

Acknowledgements 

 

We wish to thank the study participants for their support of the study, the anonymous reviewers 

for their suggestions for manuscript improvement, the editor Scott Douglas for his publication 

guidance, and Thompson Rivers University for funding.  

 

References 
 

Beason, L. (2001). Ethos and error: How business people react to errors. College Composition 

and Communication, 53(1), 33–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/359061  

Bovee, C. L, Thill, J. V., & Scribner, J. A. (2020). Business communication essentials (5th ed.). 

Don Mills, ON: Pearson. 

British Columbia. (2019). British Columbia labour market outlook: 2019 edition. Retrieved from 

https://www.workbc.ca/getmedia/18214b5d-b338-4bbd-80bf-

b04e48a11386/BC_Labour_Market_Outlook_2019.pdf.aspx 

Brooks, A. K., (2009). Complexity and community: Finding what works in workplace ESL. New 

Directions for Adults and Continuing Education, 121, 65–74. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.326  

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's 

course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. 

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five 

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  

Crocker, T., Besterman-Dahan, K., Himmelgreen, D., Castañeda, H., Gwede, C. K., & Kumar, 

N. (2014). Use of semi-structured interviews to explore competing demands in a prostate 

cancer prevention intervention clinical trial (PCPICT). The Qualitative Report, 19(95), 1–

16. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/crocker95.pdf  

Derwing, T. R., & Munro, M. J. (2009). Comprehensibility as a factor in listener interaction 

preferences: Implications for the workplace. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 

66(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.2.181  

Ewald, T. (2017). Writing in the technical fields: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: 

Oxford University Press.  

ESL Writer. (2015). Business leaders: Writing is important! Retrieved from 

http://eslwriter.net/professional-writing-resources/why-writing-is-important-what-

business-leaders-say  

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: 

University of Michigan Press. 

Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). Ann 

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 

Gauthier, M. (2019). Overview of CLB and NCLC competency levels. Centre for Canadian 

Language Benchmarks. Retrieved from: https://www.language.ca/overview-of-clb-and-

nclc-competency-levels/ 

Gimenez, J. (2009). Beyond the academic essay: Discipline-specific writing in nursing and 

midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 154–164. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.005  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343
https://doi.org/10.2307/359061
https://www.workbc.ca/getmedia/18214b5d-b338-4bbd-80bf-b04e48a11386/BC_Labour_Market_Outlook_2019.pdf.aspx
https://www.workbc.ca/getmedia/18214b5d-b338-4bbd-80bf-b04e48a11386/BC_Labour_Market_Outlook_2019.pdf.aspx
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.326
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/crocker95.pdf
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.2.181
http://eslwriter.net/professional-writing-resources/why-writing-is-important-what-business-leaders-say
http://eslwriter.net/professional-writing-resources/why-writing-is-important-what-business-leaders-say
https://www.language.ca/overview-of-clb-and-nclc-competency-levels/
https://www.language.ca/overview-of-clb-and-nclc-competency-levels/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.005


 Hu & Gonzales 106 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

Gonzales, C. L. (2018). Evolve your history: Learner engagement in the university history 

classroom explored through augmented reality. Unpublished master’s thesis, Thompson 

Rivers University, Kamloops, BC. 

Hairston, M. (1981). Not all errors are created equal: Non-academic readers in the professions 

respond to lapses in usage. College English, 43, 794–806. https://doi.org/10.2307/376679  

Hirvela, A. (2011). Writing-to-learn in content areas: Research insights. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), 

Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 37–60). 

Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 

Hoare, A., & Hu, J. (2015). Faculty perceptions of ESL students’ academic, linguistic, and 

cultural preparedness and effective teaching practices. In L.T. Wong and J. Aditi (Eds.), 

English language education in a global world: Practices, issues, and challenges (pp. 

125–136). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 

Hu, J. (2000). Academic writing of Chinese graduate students in sciences and engineering: 

Processes and challenges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British 

Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 

Hu, J. (2009). Discovering emerging research in a qualitative study of ESL academic writing. 

The Qualitative Report, 14(4), 629–644. Retrieved from 

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR14-4/hu.pdf  

Hu, J. (2010). Faculty perceptions of Chinese graduate students’ communication challenges in 

the science and engineering disciplines. Canadian and International Education Journal, 

39(3), 59–80. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cie-eci/vol39/iss3/6   

Hu, J. (2011). Teaching ESL students to achieve academic writing style. In J. Dobson and M. 

Galli (Eds.), Dimensions of Practice: Principled, Progressive & Practical—Proceedings 

of the BC TEAL 2009 Interior Conference. Retrieved from https://www.bcteal.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/12/Compiled-Conference-Proceedings.pdf  

Hu, J., & Hoare, A. (2017). Employer perspectives on ESL employees’ writing problems. 

Comparative and International Education, 46(1), 1–19. Retrieved from 

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cie-eci/vol46/iss1/5  

Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. 

Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 240–253. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003  

Lannon, J., Gurak, L. J., Klepp, D., & Kelly, S. (2021). Technical communications (8th ed). Don 

Mills, ON: Pearson.  

Marshall, S. (2009). Re-becoming ESL: Multilingual university students and deficit identify. 

Language and Education, 24(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780903194044  

Newton, N. (2010). The use of semi-structured interviews in qualitative research:  Strengths and 

weaknesses. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1561689/The_use_of_semi-

structured_interviews_in_qualitative_research_strengths_and_weaknesses  

Ortega, L. (2011). Reflections on the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of second 

language writing. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an 

additional language (pp. 237–250). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 

Rickman, P. (2016, April/May). Education versus training. Philosophy Now: A Magazine of 

Ideas, 47. Retrieved from 

https://philosophynow.org/issues/47/Education_versus_Training  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343
https://doi.org/10.2307/376679
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR14-4/hu.pdf
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cie-eci/vol39/iss3/6
https://www.bcteal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Compiled-Conference-Proceedings.pdf
https://www.bcteal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Compiled-Conference-Proceedings.pdf
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cie-eci/vol46/iss1/5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780903194044
http://www.academia.edu/1561689/The_use_of_semi-structured_interviews_in_qualitative_research_strengths_and_weaknesses
http://www.academia.edu/1561689/The_use_of_semi-structured_interviews_in_qualitative_research_strengths_and_weaknesses
https://philosophynow.org/issues/47/Education_versus_Training


 Hu & Gonzales 107 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

Roslyn Kunin & Associates, Inc. (2017). An assessment of the economic impact of international 

education in British Columbia: An update in 2017. Final report. Vancouver, BC. 

Retrieved from https://bccie.bc.ca/wp- content/uploads/2019/07/Kunin-report-2019.pdf   

Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and 

practice. New York, NY: Routledge. 

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory 

procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.  

Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures 

for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage. 

Wisla, H., Krauza, W., & Hu, J. (2017). Service-learning: Boldly going where EAL students 

have not gone before. BC TEAL Journal, 2(1), 1–13. 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v2i1.243  

 

Appendix 

 

Interview Guide for EAL Employees 

 

EAL Employees’ Perspectives on Writing Accuracy, Preparedness, and Challenges for the 

Workplace 

 

Certificate of Approval #100943 

 

Background Information 

 

Name: 

Gender: [  ] male [  ] female. Year of birth: 

Company/Institution: 

Job title in company/institution (e.g., nurse): 

Length of employment in the company/institution: 

Country of origin:   

EAL courses completed at university: 

Degrees, diplomas, and certificates earned in anti-chronological order in Canada: 

 

Sample questions 

 

Views on language errors in work-related writing 

 

Explanation: Work-related writing in this study can consist of one sentence but normally 

multiple sentences in one or multiple paragraphs. Typical examples are work-related reports, 

business correspondence, memos, minutes, and business/work emails. 

 

Language errors can be in any of the following categories: 

a. grammar 

b. vocabulary 

c. spelling 

d. punctuation 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343
https://bccie.bc.ca/wp-%20content/uploads/2019/07/Kunin-report-2019.pdf
https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v2i1.243


 Hu & Gonzales 108 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 91–108 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.343 

e. upper/lower cases (capital and small letters) 

f. professional writing style (clear, concise, and appropriate language)  

g. clear expressions 

h. other 

 

1. What kinds of writing do you need to do for work at your company/institution? 

2. Do you think writing correctly and clearly is important for success in your 

company/institution? Please answer and explain. 

3. Do your supervisors, colleagues, and clients have the same kind of expectations regarding 

your writing ability and accuracy as for native-English speakers? 

4. Have you ever had any challenges or problems in writing correctly and clearly in the 

workplace? Please explain. Possible challenges/problems can be in  

a. grammar 

b. vocabulary 

c. spelling 

d. punctuation 

e. upper/lower cases (capital and small letters) 

f. professional writing style (clear, concise, and appropriate language)  

g. clear expressions 

h. other 

5. Do you want to deal with the writing problems? If so, do you have any ideas or plans for 

dealing with them? 

6. Does your company/institution provide professional development opportunities and/or 

resources? If so, explain. 

7. To what extent do you think your English-speaking post-secondary educational institution(s) 

(i.e., EAL department, academic courses, and other facilities such as a writing centre) 

prepared you for writing in English in the workplace?   

8. What do you wish you had learned or learned to do at the institution mentioned in #7 in order 

to prepare for writing in the workplace? 

9. What do you think EAL teachers, academic faculty, and the university should do respectively 

to best prepare EAL students for success in English writing in the workplace? 

10. Do you have any comments or suggestions for the study? 

 

 

 
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.v5i1.343
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

