Employer Perspectives on EAL Employee Writing Problems

Abstract

In academic disciplines, content rather than writing accuracy is usually emphasized (Hyland, 2013), leaving many English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) students unmotivated to improve writing accuracy. However, the workplace may demand accurate and clear writing. Thus, Ferris (2002, 2011) calls for research into employers’ perspectives on inaccurate and unclear writing of EAL employees to help raise academic faculty and EAL student consciousness. To respond to Ferris' call, this study investigated: 1) employers’ expectations regarding writing accuracy of EAL employees, 2) EAL employees’ language problems in work-related writing, and 3) the impact of writing problems on EAL employees’ employment and career opportunities. The study employed qualitative interviews with ten Canadian employers for data collection and a grounded theory approach for data analysis. Results indicated that the participants generally maintained the same writing standards for EAL and native-English-speaking (NES) employees. The study showed a disconnect between the academic and professional worlds regarding EAL writing standards.

The Workplace Writing Experiences of EAL Professionals

“…With respect to interns and new graduates, some studies suggest that disciplinespecific, tertiary instruction generally offers minimal training in real-life workplace writing practices. Rather, such instruction emphasizes writing for academic purposes and assesses written assignments almost exclusively for content knowledge or "demonstration of learning" (Freedman & Adam, 1996, p. 411), offering little or no feedback on errors, which prevents students from improving their writing skills (Arkoudis et al, 2009;Hu & Hoare, 2017;Knoch et al, 2016: Kohn, 2015. Hu and Hoare (2017) reported…”

“…The literature search yielded 14 studies related to the workplace writing experiences of L2 speakers employed in an EAL context. Those studies were conducted in Australia (Arkoudis et al, 2009;Knoch et al, 2016); the United States (Bausser, 2000;Du, 2020;Hartig & Lu, 2014;Pihlaja, 2020); and Canada (Artemeva, 1998;Duff et al, 2000;Faez, 2010;Hu & Gonzales, 2020;Hu & Hoare, 2017;Myles, 2009;Parks, 2000;Parks & Maguire, 1999). Eight additional studies involved L2 professionals employed in multinational companies and global work teams.…”

“…Eight additional studies involved L2 professionals employed in multinational companies and global work teams. Five of the 22 studies focused to some extent on the transition from writing for academic purposes to workplace writing (Arkoudis et al, 2009;Hu & Gonzales, 2020;Hu & Hoare, 2017;Knoch et al, 2016;Myles, 2009), one study highlighted internationally educated professionals (IEPs) and paid brief attention to writing (Faez, 2010), and one study involved both IEPs and international students, and challenges associated with the use of plain English for legal writing in the United States (Hartig & Lu, 2014). Apart from the three studies on technology use, presented earlier (Fraiberg, 2013(Fraiberg, , 2018Lockwood;2017), there were few detailed references to the use of technology in L2 workplace writing activities.…”

“…There are several reasons for these concerns. Writing errors have the potential to harm an organization's image (Beason, 2001;Gubala et al, 2020;Hu & Hoare, 2017) and lead to business-to-business and business-to-consumer misunderstandings, sometimes causing costly delays or jeopardizing profits (Du, 2020;Knoch et al, 2016). Writing errors may have legal implications (Davies & Birbili, 2000;Knoch et al, 2016) or cause accidents or injury (Duff et al, 2000;Hu & Gonzales, 2020;Parks, 2000;Parks & Maguire, 1999), particularly in professions where a misplaced decimal or word, or the wrong units of measurement, can result in serious misunderstandings.…”

Challenges in BCOM: Student and Faculty Perceptions on English as an Additional Language

“…Wolfe et al (2016) found that potential employers rated students' use of pragmatic skills more seriously than grammatical accuracy. Another study found that employers considered unprofessional tone or writing style as the fourth most grievous communication error of their EAL employees (Hu & Hoare, 2017).…”