







































 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/

