This State-of-the-Art review examines second language (L2) writing assessment research over the past 25 years through a framework of fairness, justice, and criticality. Recognizing the socio-political implications of assessment, the authors argue for a shift toward more equitable and socially conscious approaches. Drawing from a corpus of 869 peer-reviewed articles across leading journals, the review identifies five major themes: (1) features of writing performance, (2) rating and scoring, (3) integrated assessment, (4) teacher and learner perspectives, and (5) feedback. Each theme is reviewed for foundational findings, then critiqued through questions related to fairness and justice using a critical lens. The authors advocate for a multilingual turn in writing assessment, greater attention to teacher and student voices, and questioning dominant norms embedded in assessment practices. The review concludes with a call for future research to engage with fairness, justice, and criticality in both theory and practice, ensuring that writing assessments serve as tools for empowerment rather than exclusion.

The timing of corrective feedback (CF), alternatively called feedback timing, refers to the choice of a timepoint for providing corrections on second language (L2) errors or making comments on the appropriacy of L2 learners' verbal or nonverbal behaviors. A typical distinction related to the notion of feedback timing is between immediate and delayed feedback, but what constitutes immediate or delayed has been interpreted and defined in different ways. In one stream of research, immediate feedback is operationalized as feedback provided during a learning task and delayed feedback as feedback provided after a task is completed (Arroyo & Yilmaz, 2018*; Li Zhu & Ellis, 2016a*; Quinn, 2014*). One methodological variation in this distinction is interim feedback, which is provided after the first task is completed and before the second task is started (Li, Li, & Qian, under review). Interim feedback is relevant or possible when multiple tasks are performed. It refers to feedback provided during the interval(s) between tasks. Interim feedback is different from delayed feedback in that the latter refers to feedback provided after the task (if there is only one task) or all tasks (if there are multiple tasks) are completed and there is no further task performance following the feedback session. This way of conceptualizing feedback timing is based on the positioning of feedback during a task cycle, instead of the proximity to errors. Another way to examine feedback timing is to distinguish feedback provided immediately after an error is made and feedback delayed until a later time in the instructional cycle, such as one week later (Lavolette, Polio, & Kahng, 2015*). In this case, both immediate and delayed feedback can occur either during or after the completion of a learning task. A third way is to define feedback timing options in terms of their relation to instruction, namely whether feedback is provided immediately after explicit instruction or at a later stage after learners complete some practice activities (Fu & Li, 2022*). It should be clarified that this way of operationalizing feedback timing is markedly different from that in other studies in that it focuses on feedback's relation to instruction instead of errors. To conclude this section, it is necessary to point out that the conceptualization and operationalization of feedback timing should be reconsidered in L2 research. Feedback timing is not merely a matter of the length of interval or the distance between errors and feedback, and other parameters of the instructional system where errors occur are also involved or relevant, such as the distance between feedback and instruction, the positioning of feedback in a task cycle (such as within, after, or between tasks), and so on. These parameters are important because they contribute to the effectiveness of different timing options. Despite the variation in the operationalization of feedback timing, we argue that it is a unified construct that is theoretically justifiable, empirically examinable, and pedagogically valuable.

As higher education increasingly embraces internationalisation, the surge in demand for English as the medium of education (EME) poses significant challenges for stakeholders. This keynote places disciplinary literacies (DLs), defined as the ability to appropriately participate in the communicative practices of a discipline (Airey, 2011), centre stage as a crucial construct for effective teaching and learning within specific subjects. Despite their critical role in facilitating comprehension and production of discipline-specific practices and texts, their integration into EME settings often remains overlooked, raising concerns about students’ mastery of disciplinary content. Against this backdrop, with the help of the ROAD-MAPPING framework (Dafouz & Smit, 2020) as a conceptual and analytical tool, and drawing on data from the SHIFT research project, I will illustrate how ROAD-MAPPING can be used to examine comprehensively and in a socially situated way the role of DLs in students’ learning experiences. The paper advocates for the importance of supporting students (and lecturers) in the development of DLs in EME underscoring the pivotal role ESP (English for Specific Purposes) and EAP (English for Academic Purposes) professionals play in facilitating effective EME implementation.

The prevalence of digital technologies, augmented by the emergence of generative AI, expands opportunities for language learning and use, empowers new modes of learning, and blurs the boundaries of in-class and out-of-class language learning. The language education community is challenged to reconceptualize the paradigm of language learning and utilize the affordances of technologies to synergize in-class and out-of-class language learning. To achieve this, in-depth understanding of in-class learning and out-of-class digital experiences in relation to one another is needed to inform curriculum and pedagogy conceptualization and implementation. With this aim in mind, we put forth a research agenda around six research themes. We hope that this Thinking Allowed piece can stimulate and guide systematic research efforts towards unleashing the potential of technologies to synergize in-class and out-of-class language learning and create holistic and empowering learning experiences for language learners.

Ronald P. Leow is Professor (Applied Linguistics) in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese and Language Program Director of Spanish Language Instruction at Georgetown University. He has initiated and published (over 100 articles and chapters) in several strands of research that include language curriculum development, research methodology, cognitive processes and depth of processing in language learning, (written and computerized) corrective feedback, textual enhancement, reactivity, and CALL. He has contributed to the field his 2015 Model of the L2 Learning Process in ISLA (in Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach, Routledge) and his 2020 Feedback Processing Framework (in R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas, John Benjamins) to provide a cognitive account for how L2 data and feedback are processed by L2 learners. His i10-index is 58 with over 6,500 citations.

Studies investigating the acquisition of multiword items (MWIs) from reading have furnished evidence that the likelihood of acquisition improves considerably if such items are typographically enhanced (e.g., bolded or underlined) in the texts. In the case of captioned audio-visual materials, however, an earlier study by the authors did not find such compelling evidence. In that study, indications of an effect emerged only when the same video was watched twice. Arguably, for learners to benefit more immediately from typographic enhancement in captions, they may need to be made aware of its purpose beforehand. The present article therefore reports an approximate replication of Majuddin et al. (2021), but this time the students were informed about the MWI-learning purpose of watching the video. As in the original study, the learners watched a video once or twice with standard captions, with captions in which MWIs were enhanced, or without captions. The positive effect of enhancement for MWI learning was clearer than in the original study, and it already emerged after a single viewing. On the downside, enhancement was found to have a negative effect on lower-proficiency learners' comprehension of the content of the video.