This project looks at how English writing is taught to international students at Canadian universities, and how it can be made to be fairer and more inclusive. Right now, writing classes often expect students to use only English and follow narrow rules about what "good" writing looks like. This can ignore the strengths of students who speak and think in more than one language.
We want to change that. This project explores how a multilingual approach, called plurilingualism, can help make writing classes more welcoming and responsive to students' diverse backgrounds. Our goals are to:
Understand how English-only rules can limit students, and how a plurilingual approach can open up new, more inclusive ways of teaching;
Create a practical toolkit that offers strategies to support students’ full language abilities;
Offer training and mentoring for teachers and students so they can use these tools and help make writing classes more equitable.
In short, this project aims to give teachers and students better options for teaching and learning academic writing in more just and inclusive ways.
This research addresses growing concerns in international education, especially in light of recent disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic, which sharply reduced international student enrollment in Canada. These shifts have brought new challenges for international students, particularly when it comes to identity, inclusion, and how they are expected to use language in university classrooms. Many of these students are navigating learning environments that continue to uphold English-only norms shaped by colonial histories, even in multilingual, multicultural contexts (Bock & Stroud, 2021; Garcia & Lin, 2018).
The project focuses on English for Academic Purposes (EAP), where instruction often emphasizes a narrow version of “proper English.” This can exclude students' home languages and knowledge systems and make them feel they must leave important parts of themselves behind in order to succeed (Yao, 2015; Tierney, 1999). By applying the theory of plurilingualism, which supports the use of all a learner’s languages in meaningful ways, the project challenges the idea that students must conform to rigid, monolingual standards (Coste, Moore, & Zarate, 2009; Piccardo, 2017). Instead, it supports teaching practices that view students’ full linguistic and cultural repertoires as valuable resources for learning.
The project builds on innovative models such as Baker-Bell’s (2020) anti-racist Black plurilingual pedagogy and Erling and Moore’s (2021) socially just plurilingualism in Europe. These approaches promote shared knowledge-making between students and teachers, and aim to reduce power imbalances rooted in race, class, and language (Lin, 2012; García & Kleifgen, 2020). When students are able to use the languages they know best, it can reduce stress and improve learning, identity development, and overall well-being (Hall & Cook, 2012; Cummins, 2007).
Practically, the project contributes to EAP by developing a Decolonizing Options Pedagogical Toolkit (DOPT). This toolkit will help instructors (and students) challenge English-only norms and offer more inclusive teaching options. Teachers are at the center of this work. While they often have to teach within monolingual systems, they also have the power to shift classroom practices. The DOPT will provide both theory and tools through free online webinars and in-person training to support that change.
This work is part of a broader rethinking of language education in Canada, where increasing diversity has outpaced institutional change (Ballinger et al., 2017). While universities benefit from internationalization, long-standing English-only policies can undermine the very diversity they aim to celebrate. This project offers a path forward by combining practical tools with a commitment to social justice in language education.
All instructors had advanced academic training and extensive teaching experience, often including graduate degrees in language-related fields.
While none strictly enforced English-only policies, many supported them to promote inclusivity and English language development, though they also allowed flexibility for lower-proficiency learners.
Teachers acknowledged students’ plurilingual practices in the classroom, often seeing benefits such as comfort and comprehension, though most hesitated to fully integrate them into formal instruction.
Inclusion was widely valued, with instructors emphasizing its role in student success and taking personal or institutional steps to foster a welcoming environment.
Many instructors identified as plurilingual themselves and used this identity to connect with students, but felt constrained by practical limitations and a lack of support in applying plurilingual strategies more fully.
Students commonly used their home language (L1) as a tool to better understand difficult concepts, especially in reading and writing academic texts.
Many expressed concern that overreliance on L1 could hinder their English development by limiting immersion and creating dependency.
While using L1 provided comfort, reduced stress, and fostered connection, students also noted it could be distracting or unhelpful, particularly in advanced academic contexts.
Most students felt included regardless of language background, appreciating when teachers acknowledged their languages but desiring inclusive practices that didn’t exclude others.
Focus groups revealed students preferred a social balance, using L1 informally with peers while prioritizing English for academic tasks and instruction.
This is an ethnographic action research project conducted at two Canadian universities, both officially English-medium but located in bilingual contexts: one in Quebec (Institution A) and one in Ontario (Institution B). Both institutions serve diverse, urban populations and offer English language support (ESL, EAP, and EAW courses) to international and domestic students, particularly those admitted conditionally. These programs are situated within formally bilingual but functionally plurilingual environments due to high levels of immigration and international student enrollment.
The instructor component of this project focuses on the perceptions and practices of ESL, EAP, EAW courses. Participants were all employed as full-time or sessional faculty primarily teaching required non-credit or double-credit EAP/EAW courses writing courses. All participants held graduate-level qualifications in applied linguistics or second language education and brought extensive professional experience (10–50+ years), offering insight into a highly experienced.
Data collection involved semi-structured instructor interviews of approximately 1.5 hours each, conducted online (n=10) which focused on instructors’ perceptions and practices related to plurilingual pedagogies. Three instructors also participated in classroom observations (3 x 1.5 hours sessions for a total of 13.5 hours) followed with post-observation interviews (N=9). The purpose for the classroom observations was to document the formal and informal presence of monolingual norms. Subsequently, the follow-up interview covered the possibility for the integration of plurilingual pedagogies to enhance teaching and learning.
Questions regarding:
1. Demographic and Professional Background
2. Perceptions of EAP Writing Instruction
3. Monolingual Policies and Classroom Practices
4. Instructor Beliefs about Plurilingual Practices and Monolingual Normativity
5. Inclusion, Identity, and Belonging
6. Understanding of and Engagement with Plurilingualism and Pluriculturalism
Questions regarding:
Main Points and Issues Covered
1. Lesson Content and Objectives
2. Classroom Language Use
3. Student Engagement and Inclusion
4. Reflection on Lesson Implementation
5. Pedagogical Reflexivity and Possibilities for Plurilingual Pedagogies
The student component of the study involved 16 high-intermediate international ESL students (6 females, 10 males) at an English-medium university in Montréal, Canada. Participants were enrolled in either an academic English development course (ESL 202; n = 4) or a more advanced academic refinement course (ESL 204; n = 12). Students came from diverse linguistic backgrounds, including Mandarin, Russian, Persian, Arabic, Azeri, Portuguese, Spanish, Turkish, Ewe, and French. All but two participants were multilingual, and most had received English instruction outside of their country’s public education system.