The past few years have witnessed an emergent growth of both academic and practical works on English medium instruction (EMI) teachers' professional development. This paper presents a critical analysis of 30 empirical studies on EMI teacher development in a wide range of higher educational settings from 2018 to 2022. Through a systematic process of paper selection and review, we have identified three general routes to EMI teacher development, namely: (1) formal training activities; (2) opportunities for teacher collaboration; and (3) self-initiated practices. For each route, we presented a critical appraisal of their design and implementation, as well as reported gains and challenges. Meanwhile, we also conducted a critical analysis of the methodological issues pertaining to the selected papers. Overall, we argue that EMI teacher development in higher education is largely construed as a hybrid, contested, and transformative enterprise featured by EMI teachers' constant boundary-crossing at different levels to seek professional growth in linguistic, pedagogical, cultural, and psychological domains. During this process, EMI teachers may encounter conflicted dispositions, power asymmetries, and individual contradictions. Such a process thus requires EMI teachers to rethink, reexamine, and reflect critically on their accustomed preconceptions and practices, in order to facilitate transformation and achieve sustainability in the long run. The review also presents implications for EMI teachers, teacher educators, policymakers, and researchers on effectively facilitating EMI teacher development in higher education.

Decades before educators were forced to confront the disruption posed by widely accessible generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, language learners, instructors, and researchers began dealing with its game-changing predecessor: machine translation (MT). Researchers began assessing MT systems and proposing language teaching applications for them as soon as universities and schools gained access to them in the mid-1980s (*Anderson, 1995*; Ball, 1989*; Corness, 1985; French 1991; Lewis, 1997; Richmond, 1994*). These inquiries accelerated in the early 2000s, when internet-enabled computer labs and increasingly smarter devices put free online MT services such as Babel Fish and Google Translate (GT) at students' fingertips, triggering concerns over output quality, academic dishonesty, and the short-circuiting of actual learning. In recent years, there has been a veritable explosion of research on MT's role in and impact on language teaching and learning, with many dozens of peer-reviewed articles published in the past five years alone, as documented in a handful of comprehensive literatures reviews (Gokgoz-Kurt, 2023; Jiang et al., 2024; Jolley & Maimone, 2022; Klimova et al., 2023; Lee, 2023). The present article provides a timeline of this rapidly expanding research domain.

During the past 20 years, the expansion of bilingual education programmes in Spain has generated a situation where the voices of stakeholders frequently go unheard. Accordingly, this paper is a critical review of bilingual programmes within the Spanish context. An analysis has been carried out on stakeholder perceptions, that is, of teachers, students, management teams, and families, as reflected in the literature published between 2014 and 2023. The corpus reviewed consists of 34 papers, ranging from pre-primary to higher education, with a particular focus on stakeholders' perceptions of the implementation of bilingual education in a foreign language (English). In terms of the characteristics of the studies analysed, the predominance of teachers' perceptions over other stakeholders and the scarcity of longitudinal studies and research based on national samples should be noted. The adoption of a more robust methodological design could provide a fuller assessment of the implementation of bilingual education in Spain. Nonetheless, this review highlights the need for specific improvements at each level of education if a more learner-centred approach to teaching is to be achieved. Such improvements could include additional training opportunities, collaboration among teachers, and measures to alleviate the additional workload associated with bilingual education.

This paper explores Chalmers and Glasziou's (2009) notion of ‘research waste’ from healthcare research to examine what it can offer the field of applied linguistics. Drawing on examples from both disciplines, we unpack Macleod et al.'s (2014) five research waste categories: (1) asking the wrong research questions, (2) failing to situate new research in the context of existing research, (3) inefficient research regulation/management, (4) failing to disseminate findings, and (5) poor research reporting practices. We advance this typology to help applied linguists identify and reduce avoidable research waste and improve the relevance, quality, and impact of their research.

This agenda identifies future research trajectories for the corpus revolution, proposing five specific research tasks designed to explore and advance the application of corpus linguistics in language education. These tasks focus on: (1) contrastive data-driven learning, (2) the development of corpus research for informing national language curricula, (3) the use of artificial intelligence for corpus informed language teaching and learning, (4) the reconsideration of the design and development of pedagogical corpora, and (5) the need for stakeholder engagement with corpus research design. Addressing these tasks requires a unified and collaborative effort as they sit at a number of key intersections in corpus applications to language pedagogy. We ask scholars executing them to engage in broad and cooperative research to meet the evolving needs of learners globally, to examine the potential of corpus linguistics for addressing new challenges in language education, and to influence and shape future directions in applied linguistics.

The massive increase in the use of English Medium Instruction (EMI) in universities around the world has been accompanied by an ever-growing body of publications. The majority focus on EMI policies, teacher identities, and teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards EMI, whilst there seems to be little research into pedagogical approaches to language and literacy support for students as well as into practices in EMI teacher education, areas that are fundamental to the successful delivery of EMI. Recommendations come predominantly from conceptual papers (e.g. Dafouz, 2018, 2021; Galloway & Rose, 2021; Lasagabaster, 2018), and it is noticeable that some of these papers, in line with other EMI publications, rarely draw on English for Academic Purposes (EAP), a field that offers a rich set of theories and practices relating to student support and teacher education that are based on a decades-old research history.

Over the past two decades in the applied linguistics subfield of second language (L2) writing, there has been considerable interest in the topic of collaborative writing (CW). Studies in this domain have investigated different phenomena such as the nature of learner-to-learner interactions, the learning outcomes of CW, and students' perceptions of these activities when implemented in the classroom. Despite the large number of studies that have been published to date, replication research has been scarce. As such, the current article opens by making a case for replication work in the area of L2 CW, arguing why such research is both important and necessary. Following this, the article turns to a discussion of two key CW studies that have been highly influential in the L2 writing sphere. These studies are described in detail, and suggestions are provided as to how and why these studies might be replicated in the future.

It is, perhaps, with some surprise that I find the native/non-native divide again attracting attention. The first I remember of this being an issue was when we were informed that the native speaker was dead (Paikeday, 1985). Needless to say, to those of us who did not feel at all deceased, this came as a surprise, but the announcement certainly attracted attention. The next contribution to the debate that I remember was Peter Medgyes's (1992) question regarding whether native or non-native was worth more. And so the dispute has continued spasmodically until the present, when we find two pieces on the subject within two recent issues of Language Teaching (Llurda & Calvet-Terré, 2024; Selvi et al., 2024).