Exploring Inclusive Teaching Practices of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Higher Education (HE): Progress, Challenges and Next Steps
English Language Centre, School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Law, Teesside University
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on the progress, challenges, and future directions of a research project investigating inclusive teaching practices in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Higher Education (HE). Funded by BALEAP, the project aims to develop a framework of recommendations to enhance inclusivity in EAP classrooms, improving student engagement, learning outcomes, and academic success. The paper provides a detailed analysis of the project's methodology, including data collection through qualitative surveys and co-production workshops with EAP practitioners. It summarises initial provisional findings while also highlighting and exploring challenges such as sample representativeness, participant engagement, comprehensiveness of data analysis, and cultural competency. The paper concludes by outlining future research actions, including a systematic literature review to complement empirical findings and ensure that the final set of recommendations is robust, evidence-based, and applicable to diverse EAP contexts. This paper contributes valuable insights for educators and researchers interested in promoting inclusivity in EAP and beyond.
KEYWORDS: English for Academic Purposes, Inclusive Teaching, Higher Education
INTRODUCTION
This work-in-progress paper presents an update on a BALEAP-funded research project that investigates inclusive teaching practices in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) within Higher Education (HE) (BALEAP, 2021). The project aims to develop a framework of actionable recommendations that enhance inclusivity in EAP classrooms, ultimately improving student engagement, learning outcomes, and overall academic success (Bakogiannis & Papavasiliou, 2023).
Rather than assuming a shared understanding of inclusivity, this study actively explores how different stakeholders in EAP education perceive and define the concept. Recognising that inclusivity may encompass multiple interpretations, the research deliberately refrained from adopting a predefined working definition. This decision ensured that participants could freely articulate their own perspectives, allowing the study to capture a diverse range of views.
By embracing this open-ended approach, the project seeks to reflect the complexity of inclusivity in EAP education and translate these varied insights into a comprehensive and contextually relevant framework of recommendations. In doing so, it acknowledges the multifaceted nature of inclusivity and ensures that the proposed framework is representative of the perspectives and experiences of those engaged in EAP teaching and learning.
This project addresses both the pedagogical and structural challenges of inclusivity faced by non-native English-speaking students and EAP practitioners working with them in university settings, aiming to create more equitable learning environments for EAP in HE. EAP students often encounter distinct barriers related to language proficiency, cultural differences, and academic expectations, which necessitate tailored teaching approaches that extend beyond general inclusivity practices. Tutors working with these students must be able to identify such challenges and develop strategies to effectively support them, such as providing differentiated instruction, fostering culturally responsive teaching practices, and offering targeted language support. Institutions should also facilitate this process by offering professional development opportunities, creating inclusive curricula, and ensuring access to resources that promote linguistic and cultural inclusivity, thus fostering a more supportive and adaptable learning environment for all students.
By focusing on inclusive teaching practices, specifically within the EAP context in HE, this ongoing project addresses a critical gap in the literature offering valuable insights for educators. Its outcomes have the potential to significantly enhance support for non-native English-speaking students, equip tutors with effective strategies, inform institutional policies, and provide the BALEAP community with evidence-based practices for fostering inclusivity in diverse learning environments.
CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
The need for teaching and learning approaches that prioritise inclusion and equity in higher education (HE) has been widely studied, with these concepts forming a central theme in research by scholars, practitioners, and policymakers (Dewsbury & Brame, 2019; Shaeffer, 2019; Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2021). The literature emphasises the importance of broadening participation (Bradley & Miller, 2010) and fostering academic cultures that respect and value diverse learners, promoting inclusive educational environments (Ouellett, 2005; Grace & Gravestock, 2009).
While much of the research on inclusive education focuses on access for students with learning disabilities or difficulties (Fuller et al., 2004; Riddell et al., 2007), there is increasing recognition of the impact of intersecting identities, such as ethnicity, socio-economic status, and religion, on learning (Cole & Ahmadi, 2010; Devlin et al., 2012; Ladson-Billings, 2014). This body of work situates inclusion as a global educational priority, aiming to increase participation and achievement among historically marginalised groups, ultimately transforming HE into a socially just pedagogical space (Ainscow et al., 2006).
Inclusive education is defined as a teaching approach that celebrates diversity, ensuring all students can access course content, actively engage in learning activities, and demonstrate their potential during assessments. It aims to safeguard legal rights and prevent discrimination based on age, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, or sexual orientation (Equality Challenge Unit, 2013). Scholars broadly agree that inclusion requires systemic transformation, rooted in principles of social justice (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996). However, the concept remains elusive, with varied definitions and practices across literature and educational contexts, leading to inconsistent implementation.
In language teaching, particularly in the TESOL field, research has largely addressed social justice issues like racism and the de-silencing of race (Kubota & Lin, 2006; Von Esch et al., 2020) or postcolonial practices to counter settler colonialism (Lin & Luke, 2006; Sterzuk & Hengen, 2019). Recent studies have explored designing content that integrates social justice principles (Mortenson, 2022). Empirical recommendations advocate for teaching practices that emphasise equity and inclusion in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction, drawing on social justice pedagogy and data such as classroom observations and interviews (Mortenson, 2021; 2022). However, these recommendations are limited by a lack of extensive evidence, underscoring the need for further research.
The project presented here on inclusive EAP teaching in HE aims to bridge these gaps by critically exploring the conceptualisation, benefits, and strategies for fostering social justice in pedagogy. Engaging a range of stakeholders, this initiative seeks to create a comprehensive framework for inclusive practices that address existing disparities. By synthesising diverse perspectives and examining frontline teaching practices, the project aspires to advance equity in HE, offering practical tools to ensure inclusive education is effectively enacted across varied contexts.
PROGRESS SO FAR
Methodology
The project followed a sequential (two-phase) qualitative research design (Morse, 2010) comprising an initial online qualitative survey (Braun et al., 2020) and a series of co-production workshops (Hickey, 2018) during which co-production focus groups were conducted. Both phases were designed to align with the inclusive nature of the research topic, not only in terms of content but also in terms of methodological choices, fostering participant engagement and collaboration throughout, as detailed below.
Phase 1: Qualitative Survey
The decision to begin with an online qualitative survey targeting EAP practitioners was driven by the exploratory nature of the project and the need to gather detailed, nuanced insights. Unlike quantitative methods, which could have provided broader statistical trends, qualitative surveys allow for the capture of complex, subjective experiences (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017). This is particularly important in the context of inclusivity, where individual perspectives and unique challenges vary widely depending on institutional contexts, personal teaching styles, and the diverse needs of students. The richness of qualitative data is critical in unpacking the barriers that EAP practitioners encounter, as well as the strategies they already employ or could develop to foster inclusivity. This choice aligns with the overall aim of the research to explore areas that are underrepresented in the literature, where generalisations and trends would not have been as valuable as deep, context-specific insights.
The selection of participants using convenience and snowball sampling methods was a practical choice to facilitate recruitment, especially given the often-difficult access to EAP practitioners across a range of institutions (Etikan et al., 2016). While these sampling methods are efficient for building an initial participant pool, they inevitably raise concerns about representativeness. Inclusivity-focused research must consider the diversity of perspectives it captures, as the goal is to understand challenges across various teaching environments and cultural contexts. Acknowledging this limitation, the survey was designed to minimise potential bias by inviting responses from practitioners in various roles, from program leads to learning developers, to capture a wider array of experiences. This allowed the research to account for differences in institutional structures, teaching responsibilities, and engagement with EAP students, which is critical to producing a comprehensive set of findings.
For data analysis, Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework for thematic analysis was selected due to its flexibility and robustness in handling qualitative data. Thematic analysis is particularly suited to the aims of this project because it allows for the systematic identification of recurring themes, patterns, and anomalies across diverse data sources. This flexibility made it an ideal choice for analysing the rich, varied insights gathered from the co-production focus groups, where participants contributed a range of perspectives on inclusivity in EAP classrooms. By applying this method, the project could uncover both the common barriers EAP practitioners face in fostering inclusivity and the nuanced ways in which they navigate these challenges. The ability of thematic analysis to capture both shared experiences and individual variations aligned with the project’s goal of developing a detailed, context-specific understanding of inclusivity in EAP.
The strength of thematic analysis lies in its capacity to offer a deep, interpretive understanding of qualitative data (Nowell et al., 2017), which was essential for this project’s focus on inclusivity. The method not only allowed for the identification of broad themes - such as structural barriers or pedagogical challenges - but also enabled a more granular exploration of how different EAP practitioners approach these issues based on their unique contexts. This depth was crucial for ensuring that the recommendations to be developed would be both relevant and adaptable to various EAP settings. Moreover, thematic analysis supports an iterative process of reflection and refinement (Braun and Clarke, 2006), which was integral to this project as it progressed from identifying barriers to co-creating actionable solutions. This iterative nature ensured that the themes generated from the data would directly inform the practical outcomes of the research, reinforcing the participatory and inclusive ethos of the project.
However, careful consideration was given to the limitations inherent in the sampling and data collection process. While the thematic analysis provided valuable insights, it was important to ensure that the findings were interpreted within the context of the sample and not generalised beyond its scope. The project’s sample, though diverse, may not represent the full spectrum of experiences within EAP teaching, particularly across different cultural and institutional settings. Despite these limitations, the qualitative nature of the data combined with the rigor of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis framework offered a solid foundation for moving forward. The insights gleaned from this phase of the project provided a well-informed basis for the next steps, which aim to transition from understanding barriers to developing concrete, practical recommendations for enhancing inclusivity in EAP classrooms. This careful balance of flexibility, depth, and rigor in the data analysis process strengthens the credibility of the project’s findings and ensures their relevance to the wider EAP and HE community.
Phase 2: Co-Production Workshops
The decision to run co-production workshops using co-production focus groups (Van Eijk and Steen, 2016), which combined elements of both nominal group technique (Van de Ven and Delbecq 1972) and traditional focus groups (Stewart et al., 2007), was a strategic methodological choice for this project. Co-production focus groups are designed to foster collaboration and inclusivity, aligning with the project's overarching goal of creating more equitable teaching practices in EAP. In this format, participants are not just respondents but active contributors to the research process, blending the structured approach of nominal group technique - where individual ideas are generated and prioritised—with the open discussion format typical of traditional focus groups. This hybrid method was chosen to ensure that all voices, regardless of assertiveness or confidence, were heard and valued, reflecting the core principles of inclusive teaching. By incorporating the more egalitarian structure of nominal group technique, the co-production focus groups allowed participants to take ownership of the outcomes, embodying the project's commitment to inclusivity both in research and in educational practice.
Unlike traditional focus groups, which primarily focus on eliciting opinions through facilitated discussion (Stewart et al., 2007), co-production focus groups aim to generate concrete outputs through a combination of individual reflection and group dialogue. In traditional focus groups, discussions can sometimes be dominated by more vocal participants, which risks marginalising quieter voices (Moore et al., 2015). By integrating nominal group techniques, this method ensured that each participant had the opportunity to contribute individual insights before group discussion took place. This approach was particularly relevant to the EAP context, where participants come from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and some may feel less comfortable speaking in open group settings. By giving space for individual idea generation, followed by collaborative discussion, the co-production focus groups encouraged a more balanced and inclusive process of developing recommendations for inclusive teaching. This methodological choice directly supports the project’s aim to reflect the diverse perspectives of EAP practitioners in the final framework.
Conducting the co-production focus groups online allowed for wider participation, but it also posed challenges in terms of engagement and ensuring equal contribution from all participants (Kenny, 2005; Koch, 2013). To address these challenges, several strategies were implemented to enhance inclusivity. The structured component of the nominal group technique helped to ensure that all participants had an opportunity to contribute their ideas in writing before group discussion began, mitigating the risk of certain voices dominating the conversation. Meanwhile, the traditional focus group format allowed for dynamic interaction and deeper exploration of key themes. Additionally, the use of online platform features, such as moderated chat, timed speaking turns, and anonymous input, ensured that participants could engage on their own terms. These features were essential to creating an inclusive environment, allowing for a diversity of voices and perspectives to shape the final set of recommendations. This blended approach provided both structure and flexibility, making it an appropriate and effective choice for this project’s goals.
For data analysis, thematic content analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1990) was employed to analyze the rich discussions from the co-production focus groups. This approach was selected due to its ability to systematically capture and interpret the depth and complexity of qualitative data, allowing for the identification of key themes related to inclusive teaching practices. Thematic content analysis is particularly well-suited to research that seeks to explore diverse perspectives, as it enables researchers to uncover patterns and themes within the data while remaining flexible enough to accommodate unexpected insights (Nowell et al, 2017). In the context of this project, where participant input was central to developing recommendations for inclusive EAP teaching, this method allowed for a detailed examination of the nuanced views and experiences shared during the workshops.
The choice of thematic content analysis aligns with the project’s collaborative and inclusive ethos, as it emphasises the importance of participants’ contributions by treating their ideas and perspectives as data that can drive meaningful outcomes. The interactive nature of the co-production focus groups generated a wealth of actionable insights, reflecting the diverse needs and experiences of EAP practitioners. By systematically analysing these discussions, thematic content analysis allowed for the identification of recurring themes that underpin effective inclusive teaching practices. These themes were not only descriptive but also helped to inform the development of practical, context-specific recommendations aimed at enhancing inclusivity in EAP classrooms.
Preliminary Findings
This section presents preliminary findings from the two phases of the project, offering insights into the challenges and strategies related to inclusive teaching practices in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) within Higher Education. The findings from Phase 1, based on the online qualitative survey, highlight key barriers and approaches to inclusivity, while Phase 2 expands on these themes through focus group discussions, providing deeper perspectives from EAP practitioners. Together, these insights can contribute to the development of a comprehensive framework for fostering inclusivity in EAP classrooms.
Phase 1: Qualitative Survey
The survey revealed two major themes: barriers to inclusion and approaches to inclusion of EAP in HE. Key barriers included a lack of awareness, knowledge, and training among educators, leading to uncertainty in implementing inclusive practices. Prescriptive delivery methods, often dictated by institutional structures, constrained flexibility in addressing diverse student needs. Additionally, a lack of consideration for diversity meant that teaching practices did not always accommodate varied learning styles or cultural backgrounds. Time constraints were another significant issue, with educators feeling pressured to cover extensive curricula, leaving little room for adaptation. Finally, the high cost of EAP courses was identified as a financial barrier that disproportionately affected students from low-income backgrounds, limiting access to inclusive learning opportunities.
To counter these challenges, participants proposed several approaches to fostering inclusion. An inclusive curriculum was highlighted as essential, with adaptations to make content more relevant and reflective of student diversity. Promoting equality and diversity was seen as a crucial strategy to ensure all students felt valued and included. Collaborative learning structures were suggested to enhance engagement, while personalised learning and competency-based progression allowed for flexibility in meeting individual student needs. The importance of student autonomy in shaping their learning experiences was also emphasised. Participants advocated for a supportive classroom environment where students felt safe and empowered to contribute. Additionally, differentiated instruction, culturally responsive teaching, and reflective practice were identified as key strategies to enhance inclusivity. Finally, establishing a procedure for conflict resolution was seen as necessary to maintain an inclusive and respectful classroom atmosphere.
Phase 2: Co-Production Workshops
The co-production focus groups identified key themes related to inclusive teaching practices of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Higher Education, organised into three levels: individual (micro), departmental (meso), and institutional (macro). At the individual level, participants emphasised the need to redefine needs analysis to account for diverse learning styles, cultural backgrounds, and accessibility requirements. Differentiated assignment briefs were also highlighted as essential in allowing multiple pathways to success, ensuring students with varying linguistic and academic skills could engage effectively. Additionally, fostering a classroom environment that actively challenges linguistic and cultural stereotypes was seen as key to promoting inclusivity. Reflexivity among educators was strongly encouraged, enabling teachers to critically assess their own biases and adjust their practices to better support diverse student populations.
At the departmental level, discussions focused on the importance of decolonising the curriculum by broadening the representation of perspectives and knowledge systems to challenge Eurocentric biases. Embedding EAP into disciplinary courses was seen as a crucial step in ensuring language learning was integrated into subject-specific content rather than treated as an isolated skill. The need for collaboration between EAP tutors and subject specialists was repeatedly stressed, as this would ensure that language support aligns with the specific demands of different disciplines. Additionally, participants advocated for ongoing staff training and professional development, equipping educators with the tools needed to implement inclusive teaching practices effectively and respond to the needs of an increasingly diverse student body.
At the institutional level, key themes revolved around resource allocation and policy changes to support inclusivity on a broader scale. Providing additional time and resources for educators was highlighted as essential, recognising the extra effort required to develop and implement inclusive teaching strategies. Participants also emphasised the need for top-down collaborations, ensuring that institutional leaders, administrators, and educators work together to create a coordinated approach to inclusivity. Finally, introducing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and social justice initiatives was seen as crucial in addressing systemic inequalities and fostering an environment where diverse student needs are acknowledged and actively supported through institutional policies and practices.
The Role of Academic Literature
Academic literature on inclusion, inclusive education, and EAP played a central role in the design of both the survey and the co-production workshops. The survey questions were informed by literature addressing barriers to inclusivity in EAP contexts, such as access to materials, resources, and institutions (Moore and Piazza, 2023; Considine et al., 2014). These questions were designed to elicit detailed responses that reflected practitioners’ experiences and views on inclusivity, including issues such as representativeness of resources, topics, and languages, equitable support during a degree course, and the impact of prejudice in teaching or administration. By avoiding prescriptive definitions, the survey allowed participants to highlight the dimensions of inclusivity they found most relevant, which in turn provided a richer dataset for analysis.
Similarly, the co-production workshops employed the same exploratory approach, informed by literature that emphasised the importance of collaboration in inclusive education (Haeger et al., 2021). The workshops did not impose a singular definition of inclusivity but instead invited participants to share their interpretations of the term, rank its various aspects, and discuss actionable strategies for enhancing inclusivity. This inclusive process ensured that strategies and recommendations were grounded in the diverse perspectives and experiences of the participants, reflecting the multifaceted nature of the concept.
STRENGTHS & CHALLENGES
Up to now, the project has presented both significant outcomes and several challenges that shaped its development and execution. A major strength was the collaborative engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders, which contributed to a richer understanding of the complexities surrounding inclusive education. The involvement of various participants - including tutors, team leads, and senior management - provided a broad spectrum of perspectives. This diversity was crucial in examining the nuances of inclusion, particularly in relation to educational practices. The qualitative data collection, through surveys and focus groups, allowed for deep exploration of the experiences and viewpoints of EAP practitioners, offering insights that might not have been captured through quantitative methods alone (Braun and Clark, 2013).
The data from both phases of the project provided valuable insights into the state of inclusive teaching in EAP and highlighted several key areas for improvement. The qualitative survey revealed several barriers to inclusive teaching in EAP classrooms, including limited institutional support, insufficient professional development, and a lack of awareness about inclusive teaching strategies among practitioners. Participants noted the challenge of adapting pedagogical practices to meet the diverse needs of non-native English speakers, particularly in large, heterogeneous classrooms. The data also identified strategies that practitioners are currently using to enhance inclusivity, such as providing tailored feedback, creating a welcoming classroom environment, and fostering peer collaboration. However, many participants expressed a need for more targeted training on how to implement inclusive practices effectively.
The co-production workshops allowed for a deeper exploration of best practices. Participants collaborated to identify practical solutions to the challenges raised in the survey, with an emphasis on developing inclusive curricula and assessment methods that account for linguistic diversity. In the context, linguistic diversity encompasses the varied linguistic backgrounds and proficiencies of international students, multilingual learners, and those for whom English is an additional language. This diversity is particularly relevant to EAP cohorts, where students bring a range of academic literacies shaped by different educational systems and cultural norms. Addressing linguistic diversity in EAP means creating curricula that not only support language acquisition but also recognise and value the students’ existing linguistic and cultural resources. By doing so, the workshops emphasised the importance of designing assessment methods that are fair, equitable, and sensitive to these diverse linguistic repertoires, fostering a more inclusive and effective learning environment. The workshops also highlighted the importance of cultural competency training for EAP practitioners, with participants advocating for institutional support to provide ongoing professional development in this area. These findings have been synthesised into two papers, both of which are under review for publication.
Several methodological challenges were also encountered during the research process, particularly in relation to sampling, participant engagement, data analysis, and cultural competency. To start with, the project initially relied on convenience and snowball sampling, which introduced selection bias and affected the representativeness of the sample (Etikan et al., 2016). This issue is particularly problematic in research aiming to capture a wide range of perspectives, as it can skew the data towards more accessible or willing participants. According to Vehovar et al. (2016) non-probability sampling is often criticised for its potential to introduce biases that affect the validity and generalisability of the research findings. Therefore, employing more robust sampling techniques, such as purposive or stratified random sampling, can help mitigate these issues by ensuring that different subgroups within the population are adequately represented. To mitigate potential biases, purposive sampling was introduced in the second phase of the project, which helped ensure that more diverse and comprehensive data was collected, to ensure the collection of rich, detailed data that enhances the reliability and transferability of findings.
Another important challenge was maintaining consistent participant engagement throughout the online co-production focus groups. While the online format allowed for broader participation, it also presented difficulties in ensuring sustained involvement (Moore et al, 2015). Some participants faced technical difficulties or lacked familiarity with the online platforms, which hindered their full engagement. Moreover, the virtual environment made it challenging to foster the same level of interpersonal connection that might occur in face-to-face settings (Kenny, 2005; Koch, 2013). This lack of personal interaction potentially limited the richness of the discussions, as participants may have been less comfortable sharing their experiences openly. To mitigate these issues, various online platform features, such as moderated chat, were implemented. However, these solutions could not fully replicate the dynamic and spontaneous nature of in-person interactions, leaving some gaps in participant engagement.
Ensuring comprehensive data analysis was yet another challenge, particularly when dealing with qualitative data from diverse sources such as surveys and focus groups (Stewart and Shamdasani 2015). The volume and complexity of qualitative data require meticulous organisation and analysis to draw meaningful conclusions. All data analyses were conducted by the Research Assistant, who was hired for 40 hours in each phase of the project, depending on available funding. The Research Assistant was responsible for analysing qualitative data and drafting the initial results. To ensure the robustness and reliability of the analysis, all work was double-checked for consistency and accuracy. Nearly all aspects of the analysis for the data collected in the second phase of the project were conducted from scratch. This was necessary due to a shift in focus from identifying barriers to providing recommended approaches. The change aimed to prevent repetition or overlap with previously produced and submitted outputs, ensuring that each phase of the research offered distinct and valuable insights. This meticulous approach to data analysis underscores the commitment to producing high-quality, reliable research findings.
Finally, another challenge related to the lack of cultural competency training among the research team, which presented obstacles in managing discussions with participants from diverse cultural backgrounds (Rodriguez et al, 2011). While the workshops were designed to promote an inclusive environment, the absence of formal cultural competency training limited the team’s ability to navigate cultural nuances effectively. This issue is particularly relevant in research focused on inclusion, where the researchers’ capacity to understand and engage with diverse perspectives is essential. Without a structured understanding of cultural differences, there is a risk that some participants' contributions could be misunderstood or undervalued, thereby affecting the overall inclusivity of the research process. However, this does not imply an essentialist or static view of culture, as critiqued in Hofstedean frameworks (Hofstede, 1980), where cultures are seen as fixed sets of characteristics. Instead, the research team approached culture as a dynamic, context-dependent, and interactional phenomenon that influences communication and collaboration in nuanced ways. This understanding acknowledges that individuals navigate multiple cultural identities and influences, rather than representing a monolithic cultural archetype. By adopting this perspective, the team sought to critically reflect on their own assumptions and biases about culture, fostering a research environment that prioritises mutual learning and the co-construction of meaning. This approach underscores the importance of flexibility and reflexivity in engaging with cultural diversity to avoid stereotyping and to enhance inclusivity in the research process.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS & NEXT STEPS
Considering the challenges and limitations identified during the research process, significant efforts have been made to mitigate or resolve these issues to enhance the primary outcome of the project that is to produce a robust set of recommendations for inclusivity in the EAP classroom. Despite the successful completion of the two-phase empirical research, it became evident that primary research data alone would not suffice for developing comprehensive recommendations. To increase the robustness and reliability of this framework, we decided to supplement the primary data with relevant evidence from existing scholarship. As part of this effort, a systematic review of existing literature on inclusive teaching practices and theoretical frameworks in EAP within HE contexts has been initiated. This review serves as a crucial component of the broader research endeavour, providing a comprehensive synthesis of existing knowledge that complements the primary data collected through the two-phase empirical research.
By synthesising and analysing existing literature, this systematic review aims to enrich the findings and support triangulation (Carter et al. 2014), thereby ensuring a more comprehensive set of recommendations. The review will account for approaches and frameworks already recorded in the literature that may not have been identified through the primary research conducted so far. This integrated approach ensures that the final recommendations are not only grounded in empirical evidence but also aligned with established best practices and theoretical insights from the broader field of inclusive education. This approach of combining empirical data with a systematic review of existing literature will contribute significantly to the advancement of inclusive teaching practices in EAP within HE, fostering a more equitable and supportive learning environment for all students. Through this comprehensive framework, the project will provide actionable, evidence-based recommendations that educators can implement to enhance inclusivity in their classrooms.
Moving forward, a detailed protocol will be drafted and submitted for publication to guide the proposed systematic review. Establishing a systematic review protocol before commencing the actual review ensures methodological rigor, enhances transparency, and minimises potential biases in the review process (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). This protocol also enables peer feedback and validation of the planned methods, further strengthening the reliability of the review. The protocol has already been registered with the International Database of Education Systematic Reviews.
Efforts will also focus on disseminating the findings produced by the project to date. The results will be shared through presentations at academic conferences, fostering scholarly discourse and facilitating networking with other experts in the field. Workshops or webinars will be conducted, in collaboration with BALEAP, the funder of this work, to engage both practitioners and researchers in the domain. These interactive sessions aim to bridge the gap between research and practice, ensuring that findings are accessible and applicable to the wider BALEAP community.
To ensure that dissemination efforts are themselves inclusive, particular attention will be paid to designing events and materials that accommodate diverse audiences. This includes offering sessions in multiple formats, such as virtual webinars for accessibility, and providing resources in plain language alongside academic presentations. Furthermore, opportunities will be created for feedback and dialogue, allowing participants from varied linguistic, cultural, and professional backgrounds to contribute their perspectives. By adopting these inclusive strategies, the dissemination of work on inclusive teaching can reflect the very principles it seeks to promote, ensuring that it reaches and benefits a diverse and global audience.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this work-in-progress paper has explored the progress, challenges, and future directions of a wide scale BALEAP-funded research project aimed at enhancing inclusive teaching practices of EAP in HE. The project employed a combination of online qualitative survey and co-production workshops with EAP practitioners to gather rich insights into the barriers and strategies related to inclusivity in EAP classrooms. Through a robust methodology grounded in thematic analysis, the research identified key challenges, with the co-production workshops, designed to foster collaboration and inclusivity, allowing participants to discuss and explore further and generate practical, context-specific solutions. This aligned with the project’s goal of developing a comprehensive framework of recommendations.
Moving forward, the project will incorporate a systematic literature review to complement the empirical data, ensuring that the final set of recommendations is evidence-based and applicable to a variety of EAP contexts. The paper underscores the significance of addressing inclusivity within EAP teaching, particularly in terms of meeting the needs of non-native English-speaking students. By combining primary research with a thorough review of existing scholarship, the project aims to produce actionable, well-rounded recommendations that can be used to foster more equitable learning environments in higher education. Through its detailed analysis and focus on inclusive methodologies, this research contributes valuable insights to both educators and researchers striving to improve inclusivity of EAP in HE.
Address for correspondence: - a.bakogiannis@tees.ac.uk
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Inclusion and the standards agenda: Negotiating policy pressures in England. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4–5), 295–308.
Bakogiannis, A. and Papavasiliou, E. (2023) ‘Exploring inclusive teaching practices of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in higher education (HE): research protocol’, International Journal of English for Academic Purposes: Research and Practice, 3(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3828/ijeap.2022.10.
Bradley, J., & Miller, A. (2010). Widening participation in higher education: Constructions of “going to university”. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26(4), 401–413.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2020). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 20(6) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., Neville, AJ. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5):545-7.
Cash, C., Cox, T., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. (2021). Distance Educators Attitudes and Actions towards Inclusive Teaching Practices. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i2.27949
Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2010). Reconsidering campus diversity: An examination of Muslim students’ experiences. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 121–139.
Considine, J. R., Mihalick, J. E., Mogi-Hein, Y. R., Penick-Parks, M. W., & Van Auken, P. M. (2014). “Who am I to bring diversity into the classroom?” Learning communities wrestle with creating inclusive college classrooms. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(4), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.14434/v14i4.3895
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, L., & Mckay, J. (2012). Effective teaching and support of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Practical advice for institutional policy makers and leaders. Office of Learning and Teaching.
Dewsbury, B., & Brame, C. J. (2019). Inclusive teaching. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 18(2), 1–5.
Equality Challenge Unit (2013). Equality and diversity for academics: Inclusive practice. www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/e-and-d-for-academics-factsheets.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
Fuller, M., Bradley, A., & Healey, M. (2004). Incorporating disabled students within an inclusive higher education environment. Disability & Society, 19(5), 455–468.
Grace, S., & Gravestock, P. (2009). Inclusion and diversity: Meeting the needs of all students. Routledge.
Haeger, H., White, C., Martinez, S., & Velasquez, S. (2021). Creating More Inclusive Research Environments for Undergraduates. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i1.30101
Hickey, DG. (2018). The potential for coproduction to add value to research. Health Expectations, 21(4):693-694.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Kenny, A. (2005) Interaction in cyberspace: an online focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49, 4, 414-22.
Koch, N. (2013) Technologising the opinion: focus groups, performance, and free speech. Area, 45(4), 411-18.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2006). Race and TESOL: Introduction to concepts and theories. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 471–493.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.
Lin, A., & Luke, A. (2006). Coloniality, postcoloniality, and TESOL. Can a spider weave its way out of the web that it is being woven into just as it weaves? Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 3(2–3), 65–73.
Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1996). Equity requires inclusion: The future for all students with disabilities. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds.) Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice (pp. 145–155). Open University Press.
Moore, T., McKee, K. & McLoughlin, PJ. (2015). Online focus groups and qualitative research in the social sciences: their merits and limitations in a study of housing and youth. People, Place and Policy, 9(1), 17-28.
Moore, M., & Piazza, B. (2023). Inclusive Access Course Materials: An Analysis of a Technical College’s Inclusive Access Program. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v23i3.34262
Moore, S. E., Wallace, S. L., Schack, G. D., Thomas, M. S., Lewis, L. P., Wilson, L. L., Miller, S. M., & D’Antoni, J. L. (2012). Inclusive Teaching Circles: Mechanisms for Creating Welcoming Classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 14–27. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/1730
Morse, J. M. (2010). Simultaneous and Sequential Qualitative Mixed Method Designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 483-491.
Mortenson, L. (2021). White TESOL instructors’ engagement with social justice content in an EAP program: Teacher neutrality as a tool of white supremacy. BC TEAL Journal, 6(1), 106–131.
Mortenson, L. (2022). Integrating social justice-oriented content into English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 1–14.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1-13.
Ouellett, M. (ed.) (2005). Teaching inclusively: Resources for course, department and institutional change in higher education. New Forum’s Press.
Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Blackwell
Riddell, S., Weedon, E., Fuller, M., Healey, M., Hurst, A., Kelly, K., & Piggott, L. (2007). Managerialism and equalities: Tensions within widening access policy and practice for disabled students in UK universities. Higher Education, 54(4), 615–628.
Rodriguez, K. L., Schwartz, J. L., Lahman, M. K. E., & Geist, M. R. (2011). Culturally Responsive Focus Groups: Reframing the Research Experience to Focus on Participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4), 400-417.
Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: A prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20, 181–192.
Stentiford, L., & Koutsouris, G. (2021). What are inclusive pedagogies in higher education? A systematic scoping review. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2245–2261.
Sterzuk, A., & Hengen, S. (2019). “When I came to Canada like I heard lots of bad stuff about Aboriginal people”: Disrupting settler colonial discourses through English language teaching. In M. López Gopar (Ed.), International perspectives on critical pedagogies in ELT (pp. 19–37). Palgrave MacMillan.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Sage Publications, Inc.
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1972). The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies. American Journal of Public Health, 62(3), 337-342.
Van Eijk, C., & Steen, T. (2016). Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 28-46.
Vehovar, V., Toepoel, V. and Steinmetz, S. (2016) Non-Probability Sampling. In: Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T and Fu, Y.C. (Eds). The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology, SAGE Publications Ltd, New York.
Von Esch, K., Motha, S., & Kubota, R. (2020). Race and language teaching. Language Teaching, 53(4), 391–421.