Teacher Bilingual Ideology as Catalyst in EAP: Influencing Chinese Graduate Students’ Language Beliefs

Abstract

English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses primarily aim to cultivate academic communication, yet English-only norms and exam-oriented histories often discourage bilingual participation. This qualitative study traced Chinese graduate students’ language-belief development over one semester in a graduate EAP course and examined how the instructor mediated that process. Data included two rounds of open-ended surveys in two intact classes (N = 40), two interview rounds and end-of-semester reflections from ten purposively selected focus students (n = 10), and video-recorded classroom observations of 12 lessons. Findings show that the students increasingly legitimized bilingual participation and reframed English learning from test preparation toward academic communication. Beliefs nevertheless remained layered. Many still upheld an English-only ideal, treated English as the default language, and positioned the first language (L1) mainly as support when second language (L2) expression became difficult. Endorsement also exceeded uptake, with L1 use treated as a compensatory fallback rather than a co-equal academic resource. Instructor policy, conceptual framing, and interactional modeling reduced anxiety around bilingual moves and sometimes supported greater willingness to attempt more English, which identifies mechanisms for bilingual-aware EAP pedagogy in monolingual-leaning EFL contexts.

1. Introduction

In many English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education systems, classroom language policy and instructional practice are often implicitly shaped by an English-only orientation. Such monolingual ideologies can discourage learners from drawing on their full linguistic repertoires, including the L1, even when multilingual resources could support meaning-making and participation. Research on learner beliefs suggests that beliefs guide what learners attend to and do and shape strategy choices and classroom participation and engagement (Horwitz, 1988; Wesely, 2012). These issues are especially salient in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses, where the primary instructional target is academic literacy rather than general language proficiency alone. Graduate EAP learners face high cognitive and rhetorical demands and often work with complex texts and ideas. Their beliefs about how English is learned, what counts as effective learning, and what practices are legitimate in class can therefore shape both participation and learning opportunities. In monolingual-leaning EFL ecologies, multilingual practices may be evaluated as inappropriate for serious learning, which can constrain how learners use available resources for academic work.

1.1. Learner Beliefs and Belief Development

Learner beliefs are generally understood as learners’ subjective conceptions, assumptions, and evaluations regarding language, learning processes, instructional practices, and learner roles (Horwitz, 1988; Kalaja & Barcelos, 2003). These beliefs shape learners’ expectations, motivation, and strategic behavior, and they are closely related to learning engagement and achievement (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005; Horwitz, 1987). Empirical studies have linked learners’ beliefs to their strategy use and classroom engagement, including how they respond to instructional practices (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005; Wesely, 2012; Yang, 1999).

Although studies have documented learner beliefs across L2 settings and connected them to learning strategies and engagement (Boakye, 2007; Meshkat & Saeb, 2012; Sadeghi & Abdi, 2015; Sakui & Gaies, 1999), early research often conceptualized beliefs as relatively stable cognitive traits. More recent work increasingly views beliefs as contextually situated and open to change through learning experience and social interaction (Barcelos & Kalaja, 2011; Liu et al., 2023). From this perspective, beliefs are continuously reshaped by institutional contexts, classroom practices, and interpersonal relationships, which highlights the value of longitudinal, classroom-based research on belief development.

A growing body of empirical work supports this dynamic view. Longitudinal research in study-abroad contexts has documented changes in learners’ beliefs about autonomy, the role of grammar, and the value of interaction following sustained exposure to new pedagogical cultures (Amuzie & Winke, 2009; Tanaka & Ellis, 2003). More broadly, learner beliefs are increasingly conceptualized as socially mediated and responsive to changing learning experiences and institutional ecologies rather than as fixed learner characteristics (Barcelos & Kalaja, 2011; Sakui & Gaies, 1999). Similarly, research in university settings shows that learners’ beliefs about language learning, academic selves, and multilingual participation can evolve unevenly overtime and remain closely tied to local pedagogical conditions (Liu et al., 2023; Pirhonen, 2022).

1.2. Language Beliefs, Ideology, and (Multi)Lingual Repertoires in EAP/EFL

Beliefs about language learning also include ideological orientations toward what counts as effective, appropriate, and legitimate classroom language use. These orientations do more than describe preferred learning strategies. They often function as normative judgments about what “good” learners and “good” classrooms should look like, including whether the exclusive use of English is treated as a sign of quality, effort, or proficiency in EFL settings.

An English-only stance is frequently justified as maximizing exposure, yet this justification can coexist with longstanding evidence that multilingual resources can support comprehension, clarify meaning, and enable deeper engagement with complex tasks (Cook, 2001; Hall & Cook, 2012; Shin et al., 2020). Importantly, this belief domain is not limited to decisions about switching languages. It also concerns how learners conceptualize their linguistic repertoires, including whether languages are treated as separate codes that must be kept apart or as complementary resources that can be mobilized strategically for meaning-making.

This ideological dimension becomes especially salient in EAP because the instructional focus is academic literacy and disciplinary communication (Hyland, 2006). EAP tasks such as reading research texts, developing arguments, and producing discipline-aligned writing invite learners to draw on prior knowledge, conceptual systems, and analytical routines that may be more readily accessible through their full repertoires. Learners’ orientations toward monolingual versus multilingual repertoires can therefore shape how they interpret task demands, participate in classroom interaction, and position themselves as legitimate academic communicators.

At the same time, learners’ ideological orientations are socially situated. Research on learner beliefs emphasizes that these orientations reflect learning histories, institutional norms, and local language ideologies, and that they can evolve through sustained classroom experience and instructional framing (Barcelos & Kalaja, 2011; Liu et al., 2023; Pirhonen, 2022). Reviews of translanguaging-related beliefs in higher education indicate that teachers’ and students’ orientations are shaped by prior values, institutional policies, and course purposes (Wang et al., 2024). For research on belief development, integrating this literature helps specify what a “belief change” can involve, including shifts in how learners evaluate multilingual resources and the norms of legitimate classroom language use. It also prepares the ground for examining instructor influence, because teachers can legitimate or constrain learners’ repertoires through policy, modeling, and feedback.

1.3. Instructor Influence on Learner Beliefs

Another strand of research relevant to belief development concerns the role of instructors. Studies in teacher cognition have shown that instructors’ beliefs inform their pedagogical decisions, classroom discourse, and feedback practices (Borg, 2006; Pajares, 1992). In turn, these classroom norms shape the learning opportunities available to students and the meanings they attach to tasks and participation, including what counts as legitimate classroom language use (Gazioğlu & Cole, 2024; Seki, 2025; Kirana et al., 2026).

Recent studies of learner beliefs indicate that students respond not only to tasks themselves but also to what they perceive teachers to believe about language learning and learner ability. Students’ interpretations of teachers’ stances can shape confidence and self-regulation (L. Dong, 2024). In EAP contexts, such influence may be particularly prominent because course instructors mediate students’ access to disciplinary norms and academic expectations (Hyland, 2006). Gazioğlu and Cole (2024) illustrate how teachers’ ideological orientations can shape the learning opportunities they create for multilingual learners and how everyday classroom practices may implicitly legitimize or marginalize certain language behaviors. Recent studies on translanguaging-related beliefs also suggest that teachers act as key policy agents, negotiating institutional language norms, and shaping the moment-to-moment classroom conditions under which multilingual participation becomes possible, constrained, or pedagogically valued (Seki, 2025; Tannenbaum et al., 2026).

Research has often approached teacher beliefs, teacher practices, and learner beliefs as related but analytically distinct strands. Teacher cognition scholarship, however, emphasizes that teachers’ beliefs inform instructional decisions and classroom routines, which in turn shape the learning environments in which learners’ beliefs develop (Borg, 2006; Pajares, 1992).

1.4. Research Gaps and the Present Study

Although research has increasingly challenged English-only assumptions and examined learners’ beliefs about language learning and multilingual resources, less is known about how learners’ beliefs evolve in large-scale EFL higher educational settings, where monolingual classroom norms are often taken for granted and where academic literacy demands may reshape what students consider effective and legitimate learning practices. China provides a particularly informative site for examining these issues. It hosts one of the world’s largest populations of English learners (Bolton & Graddol, 2012; Wei & Su, 2012), and high-stakes examinations continue to shape learning priorities and practices across schooling (M. X. Dong & Liu, 2022; Zhang & Bournot-Trites, 2021). At the university level, many institutions have begun shifting from test-driven general English to EAP-oriented curricula, alongside broader pressures for internationalized academic communication and English-medium publication (Cai, 2021; Tian et al., 2016). Yet classroom norms in university EFL/EMI contexts often continue to valorize exclusive English use, even as teachers and students report making strategic use of multilingual resources for comprehension and participation (Fang & Liu, 2020; Liu et al., 2020). Evidence from China can therefore extend theorizing on belief development and teacher mediation by showing how learners renegotiate what counts as “good” language learning when EAP participation unfolds within a historically exam-oriented and monolingual-leaning ecology.

Within this Chinese graduate EAP ecology, three gaps remain in the literature. First, belief development has seldom been traced longitudinally within graduate EAP courses in EFL higher education, despite the likelihood that sustained engagement with academic reading, writing, and discussion tasks reshapes learners’ beliefs about effective language learning and classroom participation. Second, studies of learner beliefs rarely examine instructors as active mediators of belief development by connecting learners’ changing beliefs to classroom language policy, pedagogical framing, and interactional routines. Third, context-specific evidence from Chinese graduate EAP programs is still limited, particularly research that triangulates learners’ accounts with classroom observation data to show how beliefs are enacted, negotiated, and sometimes contested in everyday classroom practice.

This article reports a longitudinal qualitative case study of a graduate-level EAP course in China. The study follows one cohort over a semester and triangulates learners’ perspectives with classroom interaction through multiple sources of evidence, including open-ended surveys, semi-structured interviews, written reflections, and video-recorded classroom observations. It was guided by the following two research questions:

RQ1. 

How did the students’ beliefs change over a semester?

RQ2. 

How did the course instructor influence the students’ belief development throughout the semester?

2. Materials and Methods

To address the aforementioned issues and gain a comprehensive understanding of the functions of course instructors in influencing student beliefs, this study used a qualitative approach to thoroughly and holistically trace the changes in students’ language beliefs and the functions of the instructor throughout the process. Although both surveys were administered to all 40 students across the two classes, the present study reports only on data from ten purposively selected focus students. The full-cohort surveys were used to establish an overall understanding of the learning context and to support the purposeful selection of information-rich cases for in-depth analysis. Only data from the ten focus students were subsequently analyzed and reported in this article, as the study adopts a qualitative design that prioritizes depth and longitudinal tracing of individual belief development.

2.1. Context and Participants

This study was conducted at a top-tier university in China, and most participants were graduate students majoring in STEM. English courses were mandatory for these non-English major graduate students to meet a graduation requirement. This study was situated in a master’s-level EAP course whose primary goal was to cultivate the students’ academic English literacy skills. No departmental-level language policy is required, but a tacit English-only policy is expected by the department that offers the course.

Two intact classes of the EAP course with a total of 40 students in both classes were included in this study, and both classes were taught by the corresponding author. All students were informed of the research purposes and provided consent. As graduate students from a STEM background, they had passed the national graduate school entrance examinations to be accepted by their programs. Most of these students had passed the College English Test Band 4 (CET 4), which is often used to measure the English language proficiency of non-English majors. Many universities in China also consider CET 4 scores an undergraduate English admission and graduation requirement. Among the 40 students, most had not passed CET-6, which is a higher-level English test than CET 4. That usually indicates that the average English proficiency of these students is low-to-intermediate (around the B1 level and below B2 on the CEFR scale) (Gu, 2018).

2.2. Data Collection

To trace changes in the students’ language beliefs and to understand the instructor’s influences, we collected multiple qualitative data sources across the fall semester of the 2024–2025 academic year.

Table 1. Overview of Data Collection Procedures.

Data Collection Round	Timeframe	Participants	Data Sources
Round 1	Beginning to mid-semester	All students	Survey 1 (N = 40)
Round 1	Beginning to mid-semester	Ten focus students	Interview 1 (N = 10)
Round 2	End of semester	All students	Survey 2 (N = 40)
Round 2	End of semester	Ten focus students	Interview 2 (N = 10)
Round 2	End of semester	Ten focus students	Written Reflections (N = 10)
Ongoing	Entire semester	Two Classes	Video-recorded classroom observations (N = 12)

summarizes each data source, its timing, participants, and primary use in analysis.

Data collection proceeded in two rounds. In Round 1 (the beginning to mid-semester), all 40 students completed Survey 1, which included nine open-ended questions designed to elicit prior English-learning experiences and their beliefs at that time. After both independently reviewing Survey 1 responses, we purposively selected ten focus students. The purpose of the selection was to retain a set of information-rich cases that collectively represented a relatively wide range of initial language beliefs within the cohort. We considered variation in respect with their goals of English learning (e.g., receiving high test scores, read English articles fluently, etc.), perceptions of Chinese in relation to English learning (e.g., strong monolingual preference, flexible attitudes toward the integration of Chinese, etc.), and prior English learning experiences (e.g., experiencing English-only policy in previous learning environment, having had English teachers using both Chinese and English for instructions, etc.). We also considered the students’ willingness and availability to participate in the following data collection procedures. The selection of the ten focus students allowed close longitudinal tracking through a diverse range of data sources, and the rich data collected through different data sources enabled within-case and cross-case analysis. The remaining students were not excluded from the study, and their survey responses remained part of the broader cohort-level dataset used to contextualize the focus students’ trajectories. Therefore, these ten focus students were selected to be qualitatively representatives of the entire cohort. Each focus student then completed Interview 1 (approximately 20 min per interview), in which each focus student was prompted to further elaborate and clarify their beliefs and Survey 1 responses.

Round 2 (end of semester) included Survey 2 for all students in both classes, Interview 2, and written reflections from all ten focus students. Survey 2 consisted of ten open-ended questions. To trace changes in the students’ beliefs, three questions were retained from Survey 1, and additional prompts asked the students to reflect on their learning experiences in the EAP course. Interview 2 was conducted with the ten focus students after we reviewed their Survey 2 responses. The interview focused on how students made sense of any belief change and how they interpreted the instructor’s influence. Each interview lasted approximately 30 min. At the end of the semester, the focus students were asked to submit a written reflection to provide a holistic account of their experience in the course. The reflections were also used to triangulate interview and survey data.

Video-recorded classroom observations were conducted across the entire fall semester to understand how bilingualism operated instructionally and interactionally in the course. Six lessons were recorded in each class (12 lessons in total), documenting the instructor’s language choices, language policy implementation, and classroom routines.

Both surveys (attached as Appendix A and Appendix B) were completed in class. The instructor provided hard copies and left sufficient time for the students to finish their responses. Given the students’ proficiency and to ensure rich responses, survey questions were provided in Chinese. The course instructor also made it explicit to the students that they could respond in Chinese, English, or both. In regard to individual interviews with the ten focus students, the dominant language for all interviews was Chinese, sometimes with English lexical items. Unless otherwise stated, the excerpts quoted in the Results section were originally produced in Chinese and are presented in the authors’ English translations. If English words and expressions were used in the original response, they are retained. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and the observations were selectively transcribed according to analysis needs. All ten focus students were assigned numbers (e.g., S1–S10) to protect confidentiality.

2.3. Researcher Positionality

In the current study, the corresponding author occupied a dual role as both the EAP course instructor and a researcher. This position provided sustained access to classroom interaction and close knowledge and understanding of how the course language policy and instructional framing unfolded across the semester. At the same time, the position also shaped how the student participants interpreted the survey and interview tasks and what they chose to report. To reduce such risk, all students were informed of the research purposes, and they were also notified that participation was voluntary and not associated with their evaluation in the course. All students gave consent to participate in this study. In order to elicit more externalization from the students, we provided open-ended questions in both surveys, and survey responses could be written in Chinese, English, or both, which alleviated the students’ cognitive burden and pressure in sharing their thoughts. Also, both researchers collaboratively interpreted the students’ accounts and triangulated multiple data sources rather than relying on a single source of evidence.

2.4. Data Analysis

All data were analyzed to address the two research questions using thematic analysis, following the six-phase analytical framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This approach enabled us to systematically identify and interpret recurring patterns across the multiple qualitative data sources.

The analysis began with data familiarization. Both of us read and re-read all students’ Survey 1 responses to gain an overall understanding of the dataset while noting initial analytic observations and highlighting salient excerpts. These preliminary insights informed the identification of ten focus students for the subsequent stages of data collection. Key segments from the first survey were also used to guide the development of Interview 1 with the focus students.

Following the second survey, we generated initial codes by independently examining meaningful segments across the two sets of survey responses and comparing similarities and differences in the students’ answers. After completing the initial coding, we met to compare our coding decisions, discuss discrepancies, and refine the coding scheme until a shared understanding of the codes and their meanings was established.

We then examined relationships among the codes and organized them into broader candidate themes that captured emerging patterns in the data. These themes were reviewed through iterative discussions to ensure that the coded extracts formed coherent patterns within each theme and that the themes accurately represented the dataset as a whole. During this process, the coding scheme and thematic structure were further refined.

In the later stages of analysis, the themes were clearly defined and named to capture patterns related to the students’ evolving beliefs and their perceptions of the instructor’s role in the course. These emerging themes informed the design of the second individual interviews with the focus students and guided the transcription and analysis of the observational data. Finally, the themes were used to guide the reporting of the findings of the study. Data collected from interviews, classroom observations, and written reflections from all ten focus students were analyzed alongside the survey responses to triangulate interpretations and support the presentation of the results.

All data analysis was conducted manually by both researchers. Consistent with thematic analysis, we did not calculate interrater reliability. Throughout the analytic process, we met regularly to review coded excerpts, revisit earlier coding decisions when necessary, and ensure consistency in the application of codes across different data sources. We engaged in collaborative and reflexive discussion of coding and theme development to deepen interpretation, interrogate assumptions, and refine the thematic account (Braun & Clarke, 2019). This collaborative and iterative process enhanced the credibility and reliability of the analysis.

3. Results

This section presents analyses of data collected from the two surveys, two rounds of individual interviews, video-recorded classroom observations, and written reflections. The results are organized by the research questions. We address RQ1 first to present what changed in the students’ beliefs throughout the semester. Then, we turn to RQ2 to explain how course instructions and instructor mediation were implicated in these changes. Thus, the observational data appear most in the subsection when answering RQ2 where they help account for the trajectories identified in RQ1. Excerpts are provided when necessary, and Chinese was translated into English by the authors.

3.1. RQ1: How Did the Students’ Beliefs Change over a Semester?

Across the semester, the students’ language beliefs moved toward a bilingual orientation. The students increasingly accepted bilingual classroom participation as legitimate and beneficial for academic learning. The changes were reflected in their conceptions of learning English and their beliefs about the relationship between their L1 and English development. At the same time, traces of their original monolingual ideology remained visible, especially in the assumptions that English should remain the default language of English classes and that Chinese is primarily a support option when English expression becomes difficult. To make individual-level change more visible,

Table 2. Illustrative Within-case Belief Trajectories from Round 1 to Round 2.

Focus Student	Round 1	Round 2	Note
S1	“In an English class, if the teacher asks me something, it doesn’t feel appropriate to answer in Chinese—I prefer to use English” (Interview 1)	“Now I can use Chinese for things that I can’t express in English. What matters is that others understand me, not showing how good my English or Chinese is” (Interview 2)	From an English-only expectation and participation norm to bilingual legitimacy for meaning-making.
S4	“When others speak English and I use Chinese, I feel a bit inferior” (Interview 1)	“Mixing the two languages can enrich our vocabulary and help us understand the world better” (Survey 2)	From peer-pressure and face threatening to valuing bilingual resources.
S6	“If you mix Chinese into English, it can sound really choppy... Either don’t say it, or just say it all in English” (Interview 1)	“I don’t really care if I mix the two languages—as long as I can express my thoughts clearly, that’s fine.” (Interview 2)	From code separation to communicative acceptance of bilingual use.

shows three illustrative within-case trajectories. The table is not intended to provide a comprehensive coding summary for all focus students or replace the cross-case analysis. It, however, offers a roadmap depicting Round 1–Round 2 shift that informed the broader themes reported in the remainder of this section. Thus, the formal presentation of results below emphasizes cross-case findings.

3.1.1. Changing Perceptions of Learning English

Exam-oriented preconceptions. During the first round of the data collection, including data gathered from the students’ Survey 1 responses and Interview 1, all ten focus students assumed an exam-oriented understanding of English learning. They often described their prior English learning as being strongly shaped by test preparation with attention concentrated on vocabulary and grammar and comparatively less attention to communication which was not assessed in high-stakes examinations (e.g., College Entrance examinations, CET 4, and CET 6) (“To me, learning English is mostly about knowing more words, learning grammar, and understanding sentences” (S2, Survey 1); “I feel like learning English is mainly listening, reading, and writing—speaking is a smaller part” (S8, Survey 1); “In my previous English courses, teachers often did dictation and made us memorize new words” (S1, Interview 1); “From when I was a kid up to now, I’ve mostly focused on vocabulary and what’s in the textbooks” (S5, Interview 1)). Meanwhile, the students also noted that full English-medium classroom interaction was difficult to sustain in practice in their prior contexts and also questioned whether English-only participation consistently produced better learning effects.

A stronger recognition of English as a communication tool. By the end of the semester, the students’ beliefs showed a noticeable shift toward viewing English as a communication tool. Across the second round of data collection, the students increasingly reframed English from a school subject or test object toward a functional tool for communication and expression. Several students explicitly referenced graduate-level academic demands as a driving force that they began to view oral communication as more urgent and practical than their earlier test-focused experiences (“English is a really important tool for academic study and communication” (S1, Survey 2); “It really helps with my future study and work, and it lets me learn more in my field” (S6, Survey 2); “Learning English helps me keep up with international trends, publish papers in English, and maybe get chances to study abroad” (S10, Survey 2)).

In Interview 2 and written reflections, many students further explained how their changing academic needs promoted this shift (“I learn English to communicate with colleagues in my field (and people outside it), not just to take exams” (S1, Interview 2); “If I want to keep developing in my field, I’ll inevitably need to give presentations and go to conferences, and that might require English” (S9, Interview 2); “To me, whether it’s Chinese or English, language is mainly for communication. As long as people understand you, it’s okay even if your grammar isn’t perfect” (S7, Reflection)). Their statements showcased a belief shift corresponding to the students’ emerging academic identities as graduate students and novice researchers. Overall, throughout the semester, the students’ beliefs shifted from a predominantly test-driven view toward a more use-oriented and communicative understanding of English learning, which is an orientation consistent with bilingual participation.

3.1.2. Changing Beliefs About the Relationship Between L1 and English Development

Initial translation-only framing and code separation. During Round 1 data collection, the ten focus students’ accounts of the relationship between Chinese and English were frequently framed in terms of translation. All referenced translation as their primary linkage between the two languages, implicitly treating Chinese and English as two separate codes rather than as flexible resources for meaning-making (“When I learn English, I usually understand sentences by translating them into Chinese” (S1, Survey 1); “For example, if I read an article and don’t get the grammar, I’ll translate it word by word into Chinese” (S4, Interview 1); “I think Chinese helps my English learning mainly through translation” (S7, Interview 1)).

Although they accepted using Chinese for translation purposes, most focus students strongly resisted inserting Chinese into English expressions when speaking (“If I mix a few Chinese words into an English sentence, it feels kind of awkward… I’ll try to say it in English. If I can’t, I’ll use a translation tool first; if that still doesn’t work, I’ll just give up” (S2, Interview 1); “Mixing Chinese into English doesn’t feel great—it feels like you’re stumbling over your words” (S4, Interview 1); “If you mix Chinese into English, it can sound really choppy… Either don’t say it, or just say it all in English” (S6, Interview 1)). Therefore, the extent of the students’ acceptance of mixing Chinese and English, which is often seen as one form of bilingual practice, varied by context. To most students, Chinese and English were two separate codes that should not be incorporated into one another.

Social norms, peer pressure, and the tacit equation of English-only with proficiency. The discomfort the students experienced when inserting Chinese into English oral expressions was not only linguistic but also social, revealing a tacit classroom rule formed through their years of EFL schooling. To most students, English classes meant speaking English (“In an English class, if the teacher asks me something, it doesn’t feel appropriate to answer in Chinese—I prefer to use English” (S1, Interview 1); “Deep down, in an English class—no matter what language the teacher uses—if I’m called on, my first thought is: I have to answer in English” (S8, Interview 1)). Long-term socialization in a learning environment shaped by monolingual ideology led students to develop the understanding that the mixed use of both languages was inappropriate and embarrassing.

In addition, peer norms amplified the discomfort with mixed-language production. Some linked the English-only performance with being good at English and conversely viewed resorting to Chinese as evidence of deficit and insufficient English proficiency (“I feel like if you’re good enough at English, you should limit how much Chinese you use. Using Chinese shows your English isn’t that strong” (S3, Interview 1); “I feel my English isn’t that good compared with my peers who can speak English fluently... In class, if others answer in English, I won’t answer in Chinese. It’s kind of a face thing. When others speak English and I use Chinese, I feel a bit inferior” (S4, Interview 1)). In the students’ view, when their classmates used English, speaking Chinese could feel face-threatening, making them reluctant to use Chinese even when it could support comprehension or participation. This pattern suggests that early beliefs were sustained by a combination of monolingual social norms in EFL schooling, peer pressure, and an implicit proficiency ideology equating English-only performance with competence.

End-of-semester endorsement of bilingual legitimacy. The analysis of the second round of data unveiled a change in the students’ perceptions of the relationship between Chinese and English learning. Their beliefs shifted toward accepting bilingual participation as legitimate and useful for EAP learning. They no longer treated the use of Chinese as a violation of classroom norms, and it became an allowable and sometimes beneficial option (“Mixing the two languages can enrich our vocabulary and help us understand the world better” (S4, Survey 2); “Now I can use Chinese for things that I can’t express in English. What matters is that others understand me, not showing how good my English or Chinese is” (S1, Interview 2); “The main thing is to make the meaning clear. I don’t really care if I mix the two languages—as long as I can express my thoughts clearly, that’s fine” (S6, Interview 2); “Before, I thought mixing Chinese and English wasn’t appropriate. But now I feel as long as I can make myself clear, using both is a good way to express myself—and it can also help my English communication” (S5, Reflection)). The students presented a more open and accepting perception toward the mix of both languages when expressing ideas. They showed their awareness of the value of Chinese as a resource, rather than a separate code, that they could draw upon to make sense of their thinking and expressions.

Residual influence of monolingual ideology. However, the shift was not a complete replacement of the long-held monolingual ideology. Although all ten focus students presented their recognition of the benefit of bilingualism, some interpreted it as permission to use Chinese when English expressions break down. They explicitly described Chinese as a fallback route rather than a fully equal resource for academic thinking (“Chinese is often my way out. When I can’t communicate well in English, I can use Chinese to help me” (S2, Interview 2); “When I realize I can’t express it well in English, I switch to Chinese—it’s kind of my emergency backup” (S9, Interview 2)). Otherwise stated, Chinese was legitimized mainly as a compensatory option when English expression failed. The students moved from the L1 as illegitimate toward the L1 as permitted support, but many were still influenced by a monolingual ideology and had not fully reconceptualized bilingual practice as an agentive and strategic choice, leading to a partial belief shift.

Additionally, when students endorsed bilingual legitimacy, many still positioned English as the preferred or default instructional language. Some continued to state that if proficiency were high enough, an English-only classroom would be more beneficial, and English-only performance is desirable (“Although I agree that we’re encouraged to become Chinese people who can speak a lot of English, I still subconsciously feel those who speak like native speakers are ‘better’ and show a higher level of English” (S2, Interview 2); “To learn English better, I think it’s really important to have an all-English environment” (S3, Interview 2); “If our English improves, I think an English-only class has its advantages” (S10, Interview 2)). Although bilingual legitimacy was acknowledged in principle, English-only remained the imagined end-state of successful learning, reflecting the persistence of an English-only ideal. Interestingly, all the students expressed their aspiration to develop academic English literacy skills while continuing to improve English as a language in the EAP course. This dual orientation in the course also helps explain why English remained a default choice for many students even as bilingual legitimacy increased.

Overall, toward the end of the semester, many students showed changes in perceptions and beliefs compared to their responses and statements in the Round 1 data collection, but continuity cannot be overlooked. On the one hand, the students became more open and more communication-oriented in their English learning goals and moved from a monolingual belief that problematized Chinese use to a bilingual belief that recognized bilingual practice as legitimate and helpful. On the other hand, earlier monolingual norms continued to shape how fully and confidently the students enact bilingual practices. Their underlying assumptions about language separation and the status of English versus Chinese often remained partially intact.

3.2. RQ2: How Did the Course Instructor Influence the Students’ Belief Development Throughout the Semester?

Drawing mainly on data collected during the second round, the instructor’s influence was found to operate through three interrelated mechanisms: (1) implementing an explicit bilingual policy, (2) building awareness of bilingualism, and (3) modeling language choice through the instructor’s own classroom language use, which served both as a bilingual role model and an implicit participation norm.

3.2.1. Establishing an Explicit Bilingual Policy

From tacit norms to explicit legitimacy. In the very first lesson of the semester, the instructor had established an explicit bilingual language policy in the course, telling the students that both Chinese and English were allowed in the class when needed, and that a mix of both languages was also welcomed for communication and expression purposes (observation, 2 September 2024). This language policy exerted an impactful influence on the students’ participation in the course.

Many students contrasted this course with their earlier English learning experiences in which teachers often had no explicit language policy, and students thus defaulted to the tacit English-only rule, which often led students to be reluctant to participate in English courses to avoid using the target language. In this EAP course, however, the explicit bilingual policy clarified what was appropriate and legitimate and weakened cognitive burden around English-only performance. In the second round of data collection, the focus students reported that once bilingual use was officially allowed, they were able to speak up more readily and feel less pressure and less embarrassment (“Because everyone was doing it, and the instructor didn’t force us to answer in English, I felt it was okay and there wasn’t any pressure” (S4, Interview 2); “I didn’t really accept inserting Chinese into English before—I thought it was awkward. But after this course, I realized it wasn’t that bad. Everyone does it anyway” (S5, Interview 2); “If you clearly say we can use Chinese to express ideas, we won’t feel guilty about it” (S10, Interview 2)). Accordingly, formalizing a bilingual policy can reduce peer pressure and create a psychologically safer participation environment.

Observational data also illustrate how this legitimacy was enacted in the EAP course. The instructor periodically reminded the students that bilingual participation was acceptable and responded to bilingual contributions without sanction, helping normalize bilingual moves in interaction. For example, in the second lesson on argumentation development (observation, 4 November 2024), the instructor led a review session on what had been covered in the previous lesson. Here is an excerpt of part of a conversation between the instructor and the students about the reasons for providing counterarguments (the original language used during the conversation is presented. Chinese is translated into English, and the translated versions are presented as italicized texts in brackets):

Instructor: why should we provide counterarguments?

Students: familiar.

Instructor: ok, to show familiarity of the topic. Why?

Students: [silence].

Instructor: 为什么我们要 show familiarity? [why should we show familiarity?]

Students: to make the audience 信服. [to make the audience convinced]

Instructor: 那为什么这样就能让我们的 audience 信服? [why can it convince our audience?]

Students: 显得我们更客观. (to make our argumentation more objective)

In this conversation, when the use of English in the question caused the students’ silence, the instructor re-raised the question in Chinese while maintaining the key concept (show familiarity) in English. The rephrased question generated student responses, which were given in a mix of both Chinese and English. The instructor, then, confirmed the mixed use of both languages by asking another question in the same way the students did without criticizing it in the next turn. The instructor’s confirmation of language use allowed the continuity of the conversation and encouraged student participation, yielding more prompt responses from the students. Thus, when bilingual use became a legitimate and shared norm, the classroom no longer framed using Chinese to help with expressions as a failure. The instructor’s approval of language use and task framing converted an implicit and anxiety-producing norm into an explicit and supportive participation condition. Consequently, in this EAP course, the social anxiety the students had experienced in their previous English courses was reduced, and their motivation to participate in the course was boosted.

The paradoxical effect: legitimizing Chinese encouraged more English use. When Chinese became legitimate and guilt-free, the emotional burden of performing English perfectly appeared to decrease, and the fear of breaking the rule was removed. The students were also more willing to take risks in English and focus more on communicating ideas rather than performing flawless English. A couple of students reported that the explicit bilingual policy did not lead them to use more Chinese unreflectively. Instead, they explained that because the course was labeled as bilingual, they felt secure to try English more, and they became more proactive in using English rather than defaulting to Chinese (“Sometimes if the teacher explicitly says we must answer in English, I just stop thinking—it feels too hard—and then I give up. But if the teacher says it’s a bilingual class, since there are two languages, I’ll at least try to get the answer right. Maybe I can even do better and answer in English” (S2, Interview 2); “Before, I often used Chinese instead of English whenever I could, unless the teacher asked me to speak English. But now, since you said we can use both Chinese and English in the course, I actually want to use more English” (S5, Interview 2); “In this course, I use Chinese less often (compared with my previous English class) because I want to actually use English to answer questions” (S7, Interview 2); “I began to truly see English as a tool for communication, instead of something kind of fancy and out of reach. After changing my mindset, learning English became much easier for me” (S4, Reflection)). S9 (Interview 2) even stated that he could skip the translation process sometimes and understand the information by the language it was presented in. This suggests that the explicit bilingual language policy functions not only as permission but as reframing because it had changed the meaning of participation from proving English ability to expressing ideas, which facilitated English production.

3.2.2. Providing Explicit Instruction About Bilingualism

Expanding what students counted as acceptable English learning and use. In several lessons, the instructor provided explicit instruction about bilingualism, translanguaging, and the strategic use of L1. For example, at the beginning of the lesson on 18 November 2024, the instructor explained bilingualism by drawing upon the materials and information she obtained from a conference speech delivered by Prof. Li Wei (27–29 October 2023, The 10th International Conference on Second Language Acquisition Research in China, Jinan, China) (Li, 2023). In this introduction section, the instructor explained some myths about bilingualism, the goals of learning a foreign language, and what bilingualism aims to achieve. In addition, she also problematized the native-like ideal and challenged the long-held monolingual language learning ideology. Also, the instructor used an analogy to help the students understand the benefits of translanguaging. Another example is when the instructor was teaching the comparison and contrast structure (observation, 16 September 2024). She used the groups of bilinguals and monolinguals to explain why the two items for comparison and contrast should make sense. The instructor used this opportunity to help students view the differences between bilinguals and monolinguals and why it is problematic to compare themselves to native speakers of English. These explicit introductions explained what counts as effective learning and why bilingual resources are invaluable.

The students described these explanations as necessary and impactful, expanding their understanding of language learning beyond prior monolingual and exam-oriented assumptions (“In previous English courses, I kind of assumed I couldn’t use Chinese and that I was forced to learn English. But now I’ve realized English and Chinese aren’t in conflict—they’re both tools for learning and communication” (S1, Survey 2); “Previously, when speaking English, I felt my pronunciation wasn’t ‘authentic,’ my vocabulary wasn’t enough, and I couldn’t express myself clearly. So I didn’t like speaking English. Your explanations about bilingualism and bilingual development really help me use English. I realized I’m not a foreigner, so there’s no need to force myself to sound native” (S6, Survey 2); “I used to have this vague feeling that whatever language I spoke, it wasn’t ‘pure’—but I couldn’t even explain what ‘pure’ meant. Now, with the introduction to bilingualism and your point that learning English is about becoming a Chinese person who knows a lot of English, I finally feel ‘defined’ as a bilingual, and it took away a lot of unnecessary stress” (S2, Interview 2); “I gained a deeper understanding of the relationship between Chinese and English. This will guide me to better coordinate the two and support my bilingual development” (S7, Reflection)). According to the students, these instructions and explanations allowed them to reinterpret the learning of a foreign language and use L1 as a legitimate strategy. This explicit framing released the students from guilt, strengthened their confidence, reduced fear of negative evaluation, and encouraged more active engagement.

Theoretical endorsement without full behavioral uptake. At the same time, data also showed that the students’ acceptance of the knowledge about bilingualism remained partly theoretical. Even after agreeing with bilingual rationales, the students reported limited change in practice. As shown in the previously presented student statements, some still connected inserting Chinese into English to not being good enough, reinforcing the idea that L1 appears only when L2 fails. This suggests that explicit instruction can open the door to belief change, but the internalization may require sustained practice, repeated opportunities, and a longer time horizon.

3.2.3. Teacher Language Use as an Implicit Policy and Bilingual Role Model

A consistent theme was that teacher language use functioned as an implicit language policy. Even with an explicit bilingual policy, all the focus students reported that the instructor’s language dictated the language they would use for responses (“If the teacher keeps using a certain language, students will also use that language... The teacher’s status can affect students. If the teacher keeps using English and doesn’t speak Chinese, students may subconsciously feel they have to answer in English… The teacher’s behavior can influence students” (S1, Interview 2); “[If the teacher uses English to ask questions,] I think it’s better to use English. By ‘better,’ I mean it sounds more coherent. When someone speaks in English, I might also respond in English” (S4, Interview 2)). In this sense, teacher language choice functioned as an implicit and moment-by-moment policy that can silently signal participation norms and shape the students’ language decisions. Thus, the instructor’s bilingual language use confirmed the legitimacy of using both Chinese and English in this EAP course.

The students also described the instructor as a bilingual role model in a nuanced way. In the course, the instructor maintained English as the primary medium for instruction and academic discussion while strategically accommodating bilingual contributions. She often used English to lecture and then drew upon Chinese to explain and reemphasize key points and parts that students found difficult. For example, when introducing a new concept synthesis, the instructor first explained its definition in English and then used Chinese to highlight core notions of the concept, such as discussion and meaningful combination (observation, 11 November 2024). Through this bilingual instructional approach, the instructor presented a language model to the students, showing how bilingual resources can be strategically used and viewed as a legitimate approach that helped with communication. On the one hand, her English-dominant delivery provided exposure and encouraged English practice; on the other hand, the bilingual policy prevented the students from feeling punished or ashamed when they needed Chinese support. In other words, the instructor’s bilingual role model was not necessarily through equal bilingual output but through legitimizing Chinese while maintaining English as the main channel of academic communication.

3.2.4. How EAP Course Features Shaped Teacher Influence

The students frequently described the EAP course as a course centered on information exchange and academic literacy development (reading, writing, and critical thinking). The major purpose of the course made the bilingual policy and bilingual awareness-building particularly impactful. In this course, the students felt encouraged to communicate ideas without being blocked by linguistic anxiety, which supported the course objectives. At the same time, many students explicitly stated that even in the EAP course, they did not want to abandon English practice for language development. They expected to learn content and academic skills and to continue improving English. This dual goal helps explain why English remained the preferred choice in classroom response, and why bilingual legitimacy was often understood as permission to fill gaps rather than full parity between both languages. It also reinforces the interpretation that the students’ belief change was strongly positive, while residual monolingual language learning ideology continued to shape how the students distributed effort and evaluated good participation in an English-titled course.

4. Discussion

Over one semester, the students’ language beliefs moved toward a bilingual orientation. They increasingly viewed bilingual classroom participation as legitimate and beneficial for graduate EAP learning. At the same time, an English-only ideal continued to shape their sense of what an English class should look like, with English treated as the default and Chinese positioned mainly as support when English expression became difficult.

Two belief domains captured this development. First, the students shifted from exam-driven conceptions of English learning toward seeing English as a tool for academic communication. Second, they moved beyond translation-only and code-separation views and began to endorse bilingual legitimacy, although many still framed L1 use as a fallback rather than as a fully equivalent resource for academic thinking and interaction. These shifts were closely tied to instructor mediation through explicit classroom policy, direct conceptual framing, and bilingual modeling during classroom interaction.

4.1. Belief Development as Dynamic and Socially Situated in Graduate EAP

The observed changes align with scholarship that treats learner beliefs as socially situated and open to development through sustained learning experiences rather than as stable cognitive traits (Barcelos & Kalaja, 2011; Liu et al., 2023; Pirhonen, 2022; Sakui & Gaies, 1999). Recent work on classroom language ideologies likewise shows that beliefs about appropriate language use are negotiated through local norms, teacher practices, and participation expectations rather than simply held as private preferences (Fang & Liu, 2020; Gazioğlu & Cole, 2024). In this study, belief development involved more than adopting new strategies. It involved re-evaluating what counted as legitimate learning and participation in an English-titled course.

The shift was also strongly shaped by the demands of graduate EAP. Because EAP foregrounds academic literacy, disciplinary communication, and complex meaning-making, exclusive reliance on English can limit participation for learners whose earlier experiences were shaped by exam-oriented instruction (Hyland, 2006). Within this learning ecology, the students’ movement from test-driven preconceptions to communication-oriented goals can be read as an adjustment to emerging academic identities. They began to treat English less as an object of testing and more as a practical resource for engaging with international scholarship and disciplinary communities. This pattern is in line with research showing that sustained engagement with new learning ecologies can reorganize what learners consider valuable and effective in language learning (Amuzie & Winke, 2009; Tanaka & Ellis, 2003).

At the same time, the coexistence of increased bilingual legitimacy and a lingering English-only ideal suggests that belief development can be layered rather than replacement-based. Students could accept bilingual participation as legitimate while still treating English-only performance as a benchmark of proficiency. This layered trajectory clarifies how belief change may unfold in monolingual-leaning EFL higher education contexts, where monolingual norms are often taken for granted and exam-oriented histories remain influential. In this regard, the study adds context-specific evidence from a Chinese graduate EAP ecology and shows how learners renegotiate what counts as good language learning under the demands of EAP.

4.2. Reframing the L1–L2 Relationship from Translation Bridge to Meaning-Making Resource

Early in the semester, the students largely conceptualized Chinese–English relations through translation and treated the two languages as separate codes. Many resisted the insertion of Chinese into English oral production because it felt awkward or illegitimate. Their accounts also highlighted peer pressure and face concerns that linked English-only performance with competence, which discouraged bilingual moves even when such moves could support comprehension and participation.

These perceptions reflect the ideological dimension of language beliefs. The students’ beliefs were more than preferences about strategies. They were also normative judgments about what a proper English class should look like and what language practices index proficiency. This helps explain why English-only assumptions can remain compelling in EFL settings, even though research has shown that multilingual resources can support comprehension, clarify meaning, and enable deeper engagement with cognitively demanding tasks (Cook, 2001; Hall & Cook, 2012; Shin et al., 2020).

By the end of the semester, the students more explicitly endorsed bilingual classroom participation as legitimate, and they increasingly prioritized clarity of meaning and successful communication over performance purity. This shift is compatible with translanguaging scholarship that conceptualizes bilingual users as drawing on an integrated repertoire for sense-making, rather than operating with two sealed codes (García & Li, 2014; Li, 2018). It also aligns with what pedagogical translanguaging argues: instead of replacing English with the students’ L1, strategically mobilizing the full repertoire can deepen learning and expand participation (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Lewis et al., 2012).

However, bilingual legitimacy was often framed as conditional. Several students positioned Chinese as a compensatory option used when English production fails rather than as a co-equal resource. This nuance strengthens the contribution of the study because it specifies what belief change can look like in a monolingual-leaning EFL ecology. Learners may move from treating bilingualism as inappropriate to treating it as permissible, while still maintaining a hierarchy in which English remains the default and the primary measure of competence. Rather than indicating a full ideological shift, the findings of the study suggest a partial reorientation shaped by the local classroom ecology and longer-term EFL socialization.

4.3. Instructor Mediation Through Policy, Framing, and Interactional Modeling

The instructor’s influence can be interpreted through teacher cognition and mediation perspectives, which argue that teachers’ beliefs inform pedagogical decisions and classroom routines and that these routines shape learners’ opportunities and evaluations of legitimate participation (Borg, 2006; Pajares, 1992). This influence is particularly consequential in EAP, where instructors mediate access to academic expectations and disciplinary norms (Hyland, 2006).

Research on learner beliefs has often treated teacher practices and learner beliefs as related but analytically separate strands (Borg, 2006; Pajares, 1992). This study brings them into a tighter explanatory relationship by linking the students’ belief shifts to specific teacher-mediated mechanisms. One mechanism was the explicit bilingual policy established at the start of the course. By turning an assumed English-only norm into an articulated participation condition, the policy reduced anxiety and face threat and helped students reinterpret bilingual moves as legitimate rather than as rule-breaking. This mechanism demonstrates that teachers can shape the classroom conditions under which multilingual participation becomes possible, constrained, or pedagogically valued (Seki, 2025; Tannenbaum et al., 2026). It also aligns with the argument that classroom norms shape the learning opportunities available to students and the meanings attached to participation and legitimate language use (Kirana et al., 2026; Seki, 2025). This matters in an EFL higher education context where students often carry long-standing tacit assumptions that English class means English, and where peer comparison can make multilingual participation feel risky.

A second mechanism was explicit conceptual framing. The instructor provided instruction about bilingualism and translanguaging and challenged native-like ideals, which the students described as releasing them from guilt and enabling more confident participation. The finding indicates that students’ responses are shaped by tasks and their perceptions of teachers’ beliefs regarding language learning and learner ability (L. Dong, 2024). It also clarifies why legitimizing Chinese does not necessarily reduce the students’ willingness to use English. Several students reported that reduced anxiety and clearer participation norms made them more willing to attempt English and focus on expressing ideas rather than on performing perfect English. This mechanism-level account demonstrates how bilingual policies can support, rather than undermine, English development in academically demanding classrooms, such as graduate-level EAP courses. A third mechanism was bilingual modeling. In this EAP course, the instructor functioned as a policy actor constantly negotiating language norms, and her language choices in the course offered a bilingual model to the students, which established implicit and moment-by-moment language policy (Seki, 2025; Tannenbaum et al., 2026).

More broadly, this study links longitudinal belief change to concrete, observable teacher-mediated mechanisms. By triangulating surveys, interviews, observations, and reflections, the study addressed a common limitation in belief research that relies dominantly on self-report and rarely shows how beliefs are enacted, negotiated, or contested in everyday classroom practice. The combination of a clear directional shift toward bilingual legitimacy and the persistence of an English-only ideal offers a more fine-grained account of belief development than simple change/no change narratives. Therefore, instead of being a simple shift from one position to another, belief development is best understood as a process in which new classroom norms become plausible and usable while older monolingual criteria remain sedimented in learners’ evaluations of proficiency and appropriate participation.

The paradox identified in this study is noteworthy. For some students, legitimizing Chinese reduced the performance pressure attached to English and thereby increased willingness to attempt English. This finding adds process-level evidence to current translanguaging debates by showing that bilingual legitimacy and English development need not be treated as competing goals in graduate EAP. In monolingual-leaning EFL classrooms, a bilingual-aware pedagogy may support English use precisely because it shifts the meaning of participation from flawless display to successful academic communication.

5. Conclusions

This qualitative study investigated how Chinese graduate students’ language beliefs developed over one semester in an EAP course and how the instructor mediated that development. Using two rounds of open-ended surveys and interviews, video-recorded classroom observations, and written reflections, the study traced ten focus students’ belief trajectories and the classroom processes that shaped bilingual participation. Overall, the findings show a shift toward bilingual legitimacy. Across the semester, students increasingly accepted bilingual classroom participation as useful for graduate EAP learning, and they moved from exam-driven views of English learning toward seeing English as a tool for academic communication. At the same time, a residual English-only ideal remained, with English treated as the default and Chinese often positioned as support when English expression became difficult. The analysis also explains how this shift was mediated in practice. An explicit bilingual policy, explicit conceptual framing about bilingualism/translanguaging, and the instructor’s interactional modeling of language choice collectively reduced anxiety around bilingual moves. In many cases, this legitimacy supported greater willingness to attempt English and to prioritize meaning-making over “perfect” English performance.

These findings have several implications for graduate EAP pedagogy in EFL settings. At the classroom level, bilingual participation can be treated as an instructional resource that supports the core aims of EAP, including academic literacy, disciplinary communication, and complex meaning-making. One practical step is to make classroom language policy explicit from the outset and to revisit it as needed, so that participation norms do not rely on students’ prior assumptions about English-only classrooms. Equally important is that stated policy needs to be enacted through interaction. When instructors ratify bilingual turns as academically relevant contributions, students are able to experiment with bilingual resources without incurring face threat, which can expand opportunities for participation.

A second implication concerns how bilingualism is framed. If students have long experienced Chinese as legitimate mainly for translation, they may initially interpret bilingual legitimacy as permission to use Chinese only when English breaks down. Instruction can therefore move beyond “translation-only” positioning by explaining how bilingual resources can support reasoning, clarification, and idea development in graduate-level academic talk. Such framing is especially important in contexts where peer comparison and proficiency ideologies attach social meaning to language choice. Teaching that explicitly addresses those ideologies, while also modeling strategic bilingual choices, can help students re-evaluate what competent participation looks like and build confidence to engage in English-dominant academic interaction.

At the department level, the study suggests that bilingual approaches and English development need not be competing goals in graduate EAP. When bilingual participation reduces linguistic anxiety and stabilizes participation norms, students may become more willing to take risks in English and to prioritize communicating ideas over performing “perfect” English. For EAP programs and teacher development, this implies value in supporting instructors to design bilingual-aware classroom routines, to align participation expectations with course objectives, and to recognize policy as something that is continuously produced in everyday classroom talk rather than only stated in syllabi.

This study also has limitations. First, it focused on ten purposefully selected focus students and one course at a single institutional site, which constrains transferability across disciplines, institutions, and instructor styles. Second, the study captured belief development over one semester, so it cannot establish whether the observed layered changes persist, deepen, or reverse over longer time spans. Third, although the design triangulated multiple qualitative data sources, parts of the analysis relied on self-report and researcher interpretation. Fourth, the corresponding author was both the EAP course instructor and one of the researchers. Due to this dual-role position, the students’ survey and interview responses may have been shaped by perceived expectations or the interpersonal dynamics of the course. Future research could extend this work through multi-site and longer-term designs, comparisons across different policy regimes and instructional approaches, and additional analytic attention to how peer norms and assessment practices interact with bilingual participation over time.