As digital or video gaming has grown in popularity around the globe in the last few decades, attention to its potential as a means to learn L2s (second, foreign, or additional languages) has grown, as evidenced by an increase in academic journal-based treatment of research in DGBELLT (digital game-based and enhanced second/foreign language learning and teaching), alongside monographs and edited volumes. To identify common findings and research trends, we conducted a review of recent research and scholarship in the young field published between January 2021 and December 2024 inclusive in major academic journals and edited volumes. We ultimately selected 76 pieces for the review, categorizing them into five types or foci: reviews and meta-analyses, studies of game-enhanced L2 learning and L2 gaming, game-enhanced pedagogy, L2 learning game design and development, and teacher education. After synthesizing the pieces in each category, we offer concise take-aways and discussion, implicating gaps, needs, and future directions.

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 prominence and significance of research on specific learning differences (SpLDs) in language learning, teaching, assessment, and teacher education have substantially increased in the past ten years, which justifies the need to review the findings of studies conducted in recent years. The growth of the field also requires that the scope of the review is extended to research in the area of L2 assessment and teacher education. In our paper, we first offer a short discussion of different views of disability and inclusion and a succinct summary of the definitions of SpLDs. We then summarize recent research developments in five main areas: (1) the impact of SpLDs on L2 learning and achievement, (2) the identification of SpLDs in multilingual contexts, (3) teaching techniques and programmes in supporting language learners with SpLDs, (4) assessing the second language competence of test-takers with SpLDs, and (5) raising language teachers’ awareness and knowledge of SpLDs.

In our conclusion, we highlight the implications of recent scholarship in this field for language teaching and testing, teacher education, and suggest further research directions.

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.

With research showing the benefits of feedback, teachers have come under increasing pressure to provide more, including more personalised, and more detailed responses to students. This often places heavy demands on teachers and with ever-larger class sizes and heavier workloads, teacher fatigue and burn-out are common. Automation has the potential to change all this and new digital resources have already proven to be valuable in supporting L2 writing. In this paper I look at the contribution of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) programmes and Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) to feedback. The ability to provide instant local and global feedback across multiple drafts targeted to student needs and in greater quantities promises to increase learner motivation and autonomy while relieving teachers of hours of marking. But haven’t we heard this all before? Are these empty claims which raise our expectations of removing some of the drudgery of mundane grammar correction? Most importantly, what is the role of teachers in all this, and can AI really improve writers and not just texts?

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.

History is littered with unfulfilled promises that emerging technologies – from radios to televisions, and from computers to mobile phones – would completely transform teaching and learning. Now the same promises are being made of generative artificial intelligence (AI). This presentation argues that we should not be focusing on educational revolution, but instead on educational evolution. Education is a complex social, cultural, and political endeavour, serving multiple purposes and multiple stakeholders, and technology is just one of many elements in this large ecosystem.

Focusing on the context of language teaching and learning, this presentation discusses what has changed technologically, and suggests what could and should change educationally. It shows that ChatGPT and a range of other generative AI tools can contribute to language and literacy development in a number of ways, but that we need to be wary of their pedagogical, social, and environmental risks. Educators must develop the AI literacy necessary to take a more nuanced view of generative AI, and we must help our students to do the same.

This paper is based on a keynote presentation delivered at the English Australia Conference in Perth, Australia, on 12 September 2024, with some elaborations for the written version alongside minor updates to reflect more recent developments and publications.

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.

Students' learning transfer is a fundamental goal across contexts of second language (L2) teaching and is therefore a worthwhile topic for L2 teaching research. Building on trends in research on teaching for transfer in L2 education and in other education and training contexts, this article proposes an agenda for future research on teaching for transfer of L2 learning. This includes a description of six specific research tasks and research designs that could be used with these tasks. The six tasks are to investigate: (1) the relationship between L2 teaching and transfer distance, (2) the relationship between L2 learners' transfer motivation and learning transfer, (3) the impact of L2 teaching on learners' transfer motivation, (4) the relationship between transfer climate and L2 learning transfer, (5) the impact of L2 teaching on learners' ability to deal with unsupportive transfer climates, and (6) L2 learners' transfer preparedness and its relationship with learning transfer.

Digital multimodal composing (DMC) has been valued as an engaging pedagogy in language teaching and learning in recent decades. Although research on DMC is flourishing and evidences its benefits for students' development as second language (L2) users and writers, there are some missing links between research findings and classroom practices. In this article, we examine three kinds of relationships between research and practice with regard to DMC: areas in which research findings have not been well applied, areas in which research findings have been reasonably well applied, and areas in which research findings have been usefully applied. As recent research–practice frameworks in education research emphasize a collaborative relationship between researchers and practitioners, we argue that L2 writing researchers' and teacher educators' reflections and experiences are crucial to facilitate the dialogue between DMC research and practice in writing contexts. We suggest that DMC should be incorporated into L2 teacher education programs so that instructors are equipped with the necessary knowledge and competence to design, implement, and assess students' DMC productions.

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.

Young learners' attitudes and motivation are important indicators of foreign language learning success and have thus attracted increasing attention over the last decades. As a large country where English is taught as a foreign language (EFL) and children generally start learning English at an early age, China provides an ideal context to study the attitudes and motivation of young EFL learners. Drawing upon the socio-educational model, this study surveyed 521 Chinese parents using an online questionnaire and interviewed eight of them to examine their perspectives on their children's attitudes and motivation towards EFL learning. The findings suggest that parental factors – socioeconomic status and parental involvement – influence young learners' EFL attitudes and motivation, as perceived by their parents. Parental factors, age at the onset of English language learning and intensity of exposure explained a significant amount of the variation in parents’ reports on the attitudes and motivation of young learners. Furthermore, the parents reported that their children's EFL attitudes and motivation were constantly changing, and that family, school and extracurricular training appeared to play different roles in this process of change.

The present contribution proposes a low-threshold action plan for research into what we consider critical areas in multilingualism where we see an urgent need for more empirical studies and research-based classroom interventions and a stronger commitment to multilingual standards both in research and teaching. Reaching out to a wide audience of researchers, educationalists and decision makers, we first stake out the conceptual frame for our discussion and delineate the theoretical base that informs our thinking. This is followed by a perforce perfunctory overview of the current state of things. Next, we outline three research tasks with concrete practical suggestions and guidance on how to operationalise and implement the respective projects. Each task is contextualised in terms of its broader socio-educational embedding and prospective practical-theoretical relevance. The overall aim is to challenge traditional monolingual-grounded notions of language development, promote a dynamic and inclusive multilingual perspective in language learning, teaching and assessment, and contribute to a more informed understanding of multilingualism.

Recent research has shown that music interventions involving body movements are beneficial for reinforcing music learning. Given the reported positive transfer between music training and phonological skills, we investigated, for the first time, the value of an embodied music training program for improving pronunciation skills. In a classroom experiment, 48 Chinese adolescent learners of English participated in three 40-minute sessions of either Dalcroze-inspired embodied music training or treatment-as-usual non-embodied music training. Participants in the embodied music group were involved in a series of activities designed to develop their rhythmic and melodic skills through bodily experiences. Participants in the non-embodied music group followed music lessons designed by their music teacher, appreciating music pieces and receiving music knowledge. Before and after training, participants were tested with a language imitation task using six unfamiliar languages and an oral reading task in second language English. Results show that the embodied music group significantly outperformed the non-embodied music group in both tasks. Overall, our findings suggest that an embodied music training program has beneficial effects on pronunciation skills, supporting an embodied-based language teaching approach.

Previous research has investigated the effect of planning time (PT) on L2 learners’ production regarding fluency, complexity, and accuracy, but its influence at the discourse level has been overlooked. Thus, this study explores the influence of PT on learners’ written performance regarding anaphora resolution (AR) and their pragmatically (in)felicitous choices of referring expressions (REs) in discourse since PT may reduce learners’ cognitive load and facilitate the production of pragmatically felicitous REs.

Two film-retelling tasks were completed by intermediate L1 Spanish–L2 English learners and English natives, further divided into a planning and a non-planning subgroup. Their compositions were analysed focusing on the REs produced, taking into consideration the pragmatic context. Results showed a PT effect on learners’ RE choices, although not all pragmatic contexts were equally affected. Planning time exerted a positive influence on topic continuity contexts, where learners produced more economical forms, but no effect was observed in topic shift scenarios.

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.

John Flowerdew is a Visiting Chair at the University of Lancaster and a Visiting Research Fellow at Birkbeck, University of London. He was previously a Professor at City University of Hong Kong and at the University of Leeds, UK. His research is in the fields of Applied Linguistics and Discourse Analysis. His books include Academic listening: Research perspectives (CUP); Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (with M. Peacock) (CUP); Second language listening: Theory and practice (with L. Miller) (CUP); Academic discourse (Longman); Discourse in English language education (Routledge); Signalling nouns in discourse: A corpus-based discourse approach (with R. W. Forest) (CUP); Discourse in context (Bloomsbury); The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (with J. Richardson); Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice (with T. Costley) (Routledge), and Introducing English for research publication purposes (with P. Habibie (Routledge).

Based on the rigorous systematicity assumed in systematic review methodology, it is no surprise that a prominent review such as Macaro et al.'s (2018) on English medium instruction (EMI) has been used as a basis for subsequent EMI research. However, in this article, we explore the ways in which the focus of systematic reviews can be necessarily narrowed and how this poses a risk to research when readers perceive them as offering definitive conclusions on all aspects of a subject. This article addresses two significant trends in applied linguistics. First, systematic review – that is, the use of formalised systems when reviewing literature – has become far more prominent and therefore more impactful than traditional reviews as a methodology (Chong & Plonsky, 2023). Second, there has been an explosive growth in interest in EMI research (Curle et al., 2024). There are further parallels between the two trends, given that both systematic review and EMI are umbrella terms that cover a wide range of research types. As we will see, there is perhaps more disagreement over how to conduct a systematic review than lay readers would suspect. Similarly, EMI is a broader field of research than appears in its most prominent systematic review article. Studies into EMI have explored policy, language learning, the effect on subject knowledge, attitudes towards EMI, ownership of English, and so on. Thus, while EMI is a growingly recognised field of study, it is not always clear what it means to ‘study EMI’.