What is this project about? 

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.

• Individual Interviews consisted of four sections:
  1. Background: Linguistic and educational histories.
  2. L1 Use: Frequency, benefits, and drawbacks of using other languages in ESL learning.
  3. Instructor Policies: Reactions to encouragement or restriction of L1 use.
  4. Inclusion: Perceptions of L1 value, classroom inclusion, and respect for linguistic identity.
• Focus Group Discussions (3–6 students per group) extended the interview themes through peer interaction and collective reflection. Following an initial warm-up, the discussions addressed:
  1. Academic English learning histories.
  2. In-class use of other languages.
  3. Out-of-class language practices.
  4. Sense of inclusion related to L1 use in ESL classrooms.

• Overlap: Both teachers and students acknowledged the pragmatic value of using multiple languages for comprehension, learning, and emotional support. Teachers allowed informal L1 use for tasks like brainstorming, and students reported using their L1 for scaffolding academic English tasks.
• Tension: Despite this acknowledgment, both groups largely upheld English as the instructional default, especially for academic writing. This reflects a compartmentalized view of language use rather than the fluid, integrated repertoire that plurilingualism promotes.
• Trend: Teachers often saw plurilingualism as a student-led, informal practice, rather than a pedagogically structured approach. Similarly, students valued L1 use socially and cognitively but internalized the idea that “real” learning happens in English.
• Implication: The findings suggest partial alignment with a plurilingual view, but highlight a need for intentional integration of plurilingual strategies to support academic literacy without marginalizing students' other languages.

• Student Experience: Students expressed ambivalence or guilt about using their L1s, fearing it would hinder their acquisition of “proper” English. Some even described L1 use as making them “lazy,” reflecting internalized colonial ideologies.
• Instructor Ambivalence: Teachers, although supportive of linguistic inclusion, reproduced Colonial English norms by limiting L1 use during instruction and maintaining English-only as the de facto goal of the classroom.
• Structural Limitation: Both groups appeared constrained by institutional and curricular pressures that prioritize English proficiency in a narrow, standardized form. This reinforces the perceived superiority of monolingual academic English.
• Implication: The continued dominance of Colonial English shapes both teaching and learning practices, creating a dissonance between teachers’ inclusive intentions and the ideological expectations of English-only success.

• Emerging Awareness: Teachers demonstrated a nascent decolonial orientation by acknowledging their own plurilingual identities and taking symbolic steps to value students’ languages (e.g., using greetings or cultural references).
• Limits of Praxis: However, most instructors lacked the training, resources, or confidence to translate these values into pedagogical practice. Without institutional support, efforts toward plurilingual inclusion remained superficial.
• Student Desires: Students appreciated recognition of their languages but noted limited opportunities to meaningfully use them in academic settings. They valued belonging but still felt pressure to conform to dominant norms.
• Implication: For plurilingualism to serve as a genuine decolonial option, educators need pedagogical tools and systemic support to integrate it into core academic practices. Otherwise, it risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.