In Part 1 of this two-part review article (Alderson & Banerjee, 2001), we first addressed issues of washback, ethics, politics and standards. After a discussion of trends in testing on a national level and in testing for specific purposes, we surveyed developments in computer-based testing and then finally examined self-assessment, alternative assessment and the assessment of young learners.

In this second part, we begin by discussing recent theories of construct validity and the theories of language use that help define the constructs that we wish to measure through language tests. The main sections of the second part concentrate on summarising recent research into the constructs themselves, in turn addressing reading, listening, grammatical and lexical abilities, speaking and writing. Finally we discuss a number of outstanding issues in the field.

In 1998, Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki & Kim published a monograph describing measures used in assessing writing development. Despite more recent research on linguistic development (e.g., Bulté & Housen 2012; Verspoor, Schmid & Xu 2012; Connor-Linton & Polio 2014), the volume is still a valuable resource and good starting point for anyone wanting to select measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity for second language (L2) writing research. The volume, however, was limited to research on language development within the context of writing, and this is certainly one way to think about writing development. A recent edited volume by Manchón (2012), however, has greatly expanded conceptions of writing development showing that it involves much more that linguistic development, for example, genre knowledge (Tardy 2012) and goal setting (Cumming 2012) as well. Writing development can also focus on various aspects of the writing process and how writers’ change their approach to text production as they become more expert writers (e.g., Sasaki 2004; Nicolás-Conesa, Roca de Larios & Coyle 2014). This expansion of focus, of course, makes development more difficult to define.

As applied linguists know very well, how we use language both constructs and reflects our understanding. It is therefore important that we use terms that do justice to our concerns. In this presentation, I suggest that a more apt designation than multilingual or second language acquisition (SLA) is multilingual or second language development (SLD). I give a number of reasons for why I think SLD is more appropriate. Some of the reasons that I point to are well known. Others are more current, resting on a view of language from a complex systems perspective. Such a perspective rejects the commodification of language implied by the term ‘acquisition’, instead imbuing language with a more dynamic quality, implied by the term ‘development’, because it sees language as an ever-developing resource. It also acknowledges the mutable and interdependent norms of bilinguals and multilinguals. In addition, this perspective respects the fact that from a target-language vantage point, regress in learner performance is as characteristic of development as progress. Finally, and most appropriately for AILA 2011, the term second language development fits well with the theme of the congress – harmony in diversity – because it recognizes that there is no common endpoint at which all learners arrive. For, after all, learners actively transform their linguistic world; they do not merely conform to it.

Written corrective feedback, referred to hereafter as ‘written CF’ and also known as ‘grammar correction’ or ‘error correction’, has been a controversial topic in second language studies over the past fifteen years. Inspired by John Truscott's thought-provoking 1996 essay in Language Learning, many different researchers have undertaken new programs of investigation, while others have engaged in scholarly synthesis and argumentation around the topic.

A feature of language assessment internationally is its role in the enforcement of language policies established by governments and other educational and cultural agencies. This trend has led to the near-universal adoption of curriculum and assessment frameworks, the clearest example of which is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). What does this movement represent? What is the source of the authority of frameworks such as the CEFR, and why are they so appealing to governments? The paper argues that the determination of test constructs within policy-related frameworks leads to inflexibility, and considers the case of the testing of competence in English as a lingua franca (ELF) communication, in the context of international civil aviation communication.

This presentation is situated within the general framework of Vygotsky's educational theory, which argues that development in formal educational activity is a fundamentally different process from development that occurs in the everyday world. A cornerstone of Vygotsky's theory is that to be successful education must be sensitive to learners' zone of proximal development. This requires the dialectical integration of instruction and assessment into a seamless and dynamic activity. The presentation includes a discussion of how the integration is systematically achieved in the process known as dynamic assessment and illustrates through analysis of data from advanced learners of French how this functions in second language education.

As more and more teachers become aware of corpus resources and their applications, questions arise as to how best to prepare teachers in training appropriately to access and interpret corpus information. This is important as an element of materials evaluation as more and more types of materials and resources become corpus-informed. To date, relatively little attention has been given in teacher education programmes to the growing influence of corpora and the skills of evaluating and using corpora, but such skills will become increasingly important as the influence of corpora becomes more dominant in our profession. In this talk I argue that a shift is needed in the relationship between teachers, academics and publishers, from the teacher seen as consumer to the teacher as participant in the corpus revolution. I then consider the questions which need to be asked in evaluating corpora and the pedagogical resources which are based upon them. I look at the strengths and weaknesses of available corpus resources, and how corpus statistical output can be interpreted. Finally, I touch on the issue of reflective practice corpora within teacher education.

This paper considers research and practice relating to listening in instructed classroom settings, limiting itself to what might be called unidirectional listening (Macaro, Graham & Vanderplank 2007) – in other words, where learners listen to a recording, a TV or radio clip or lecture, but where there is no communication back to the speaker(s). A review of the literature relating to such listening reveals a tendency for papers to highlight two features in their introductory lines: first, the acknowledged importance of listening as a skill underpinning second language (L2) acquisition more broadly, and second, the relative paucity of research into listening compared with the skills of speaking, reading or writing. In the last ten years or so, however, there has been a growth in the number of studies conducted in the field, as evidenced in Vandergrift's review in 2007 and Vanderplank's more recent overview (2013). Consequently, my view is that it is possible to identify from that research certain key principles in relation to listening within instructed settings, particularly regarding listening strategies.

As internationalization efforts intensify, institutions of higher education (HE) across the globe are increasing participation rates in study abroad programs. In this paper I argue that international experience alone is often not enough to propel students to higher levels of second language (L2) proficiency, global-mindedness, and intercultural sensitivity. Challenging the ‘immersion assumption’, contemporary study abroad research findings point to the need for interventions to deepen and extend the language and intercultural learning of student sojourners. To optimize the potential of study abroad, it is imperative that more efforts be made to bridge the research–teaching nexus. To underscore this point, I offer examples of two courses for student sojourners that have been inspired by my own research. While both interventions were developed in an Asian context, the approach and methodology may resonate with educators and students in other regions.

Narrative research in language teaching and learning (LTL) is concerned with the stories teachers and learners tell about their lived and imagined experiences. Teachers typically tell about their professional development and their practices, and learners about their experiences of learning and using languages. What stories are, and indeed what narrative research is, however, remains far from agreed upon in LTL research. There is no single, all-encompassing definition of narrative (research), probably because the same situation exists in other disciplines from which empirical work in LTL draws its theoretical and methodological assumptions and approaches. Stanley & Temple (2008: 276), for example, say that generally there is ‘little shared sense of core concerns, of approach, and even of what narrative is seen as’. In LTL, narrative, whether as text/artefact, method of analysis, or both, has become a popular catchall term for much activity in qualitative, interpretive research which focuses on the experiences of research participants. In other words, it has been appropriated by researchers who exhibit varying degrees of epistemological commitment to narrative, and this is evident in the design and reporting of their research.

Standards of English for English language teacher education need to consider political as well as linguistic factors. Any definition of such standards on the basis of speakerhood would immediately fall into the trap of native-speakerist discrimination, which is intensified by unspoken associations with ‘ethnicity’. Who can be recognized as ‘native speaker’ or ‘near-native speaker’ is not simply a matter of language. Any definition of English standards must therefore acknowledge an alternative established belief that all users of English can claim ownership of the language. This factor is, however, complicated by the recent suggestions that there can be a non-aligned, international English lingua franca, themselves being perceived as Centre-driven. Standards must therefore be convincingly de-Centred, and must allow those who consider themselves Periphery to take Centre-stage. They must be cosmopolitan, non-centred, professional, earned, prestigious and cultured.

In virtually every research paper on this topic we come across we read that, in the particular context that the writer is operating, English as a medium of instruction (EMI) is on the increase. But what exactly is EMI? If we consider every classroom around the world in which learners are exposed to English language as their second language (L2) we are faced with a huge variety: English as a foreign language (EFL); Immersion, English for academic purposes; English for specific purposes, English for examination purposes, Content and language integrated learning (CLIL); content-based teaching; content-based language teaching, and so on. And then we have EMI. Here at the EMI Oxford Centre we define EMI as:

This definition was first used in Dearden (2015).

This article analyzes research in second/foreign language teaching and learning conducted in Taiwan over the period 2004–2009. Representative articles published in local refereed journals and conference proceedings – not readily accessible outside Taiwan – are reviewed to reflect current trends in English teaching and learning. The main themes discussed include English-in-education policy and curriculum, research on English-skills development, and assessment.

The analysis presented here highlights the fact that research in Taiwan not only follows international trends but also satisfies specific needs in local sociolinguistic contexts. Additionally, this paper sheds light on why the international readership of this locally conducted research remains very limited, and concludes by outlining the challenges that researchers face and the gradually shifting status of English in Taiwan in this increasingly globalized world.

The idea of translanguaging has disrupted much of the thinking in bilingual education. A common misunderstanding, however, is that translanguaging was intended to be a language teaching strategy. This article seeks to explore what a translanguaging approach to language teaching entails, with specific reference to the education of minoritized and racialized bilingual and multilingual learners in the school systems in English-dominant countries such as the UK. In particular, I highlight the connections with and contributions to the inclusion and social justice agenda that the translanguaging project aims to make. Translanguaging takes one step further from multilingualism in challenging the raciolinguistic ideologies that view bilingual learners as having separate languages and languaging lives. It instead views their racial/ethnic identities and linguistic practices together, that is, their translanguaging being. My main argument here is that to use translanguaging as a pedagogy for inclusion and social justice requires a change of mindset, not just practice – that is, translanguaging pedagogy rather than pedagogical translanguaging – which can be achieved through processes of ‘co-learning’ and ‘transpositioning’.

This paper starts by giving a rationale for why there is value in explicitly teaching second-language (L2) learners pragmatics in the target language. The importance of a research basis for choosing pragmatic materials to teach is underscored, and the focus is put on sources for materials on pragmatics and the means of data collection. Issues in the teaching of pragmatics are considered, including determining which material to teach, how to prepare teachers to teach it, and the role of teachers in facilitating the learning of pragmatics. Next, L2 pragmatics is viewed from the learners' perspective, in terms of the learning and performance of pragmatics, as well as approaches to assessing what it is that learners are able to do in a pragmatically appropriate way. Finally, consideration is given to the role of technology in making pragmatics accessible to learners, with reference to a website for teachers and curriculum writers and to websites designed for learners of specific languages such as Japanese and Spanish. Recent work on virtual environments for practicing Spanish pragmatics is discussed and preliminary findings from a small-scale study of this effort are reported.