Innovation in English language education (ELE) has become a major ‘growth area’ in recent years. At the same time, an ELE innovation management literature has also developed, based on insights from innovation theory and their application, both from outside and within ELE, and concerned with attempting to critically evaluate and inform ELE innovation practice. Thus, using a well-established three-part framework for distinguishing the main stages involved in innovation project management, this review describes and discusses the main features of this body of work. After defining terms and clarifying its scope, it considers what is said about the innovation ‘initiation’ phase, in terms of innovation causes, characteristics and contexts. It then examines conceptualisations of the innovation ‘implementation’ stage, by distinguishing main overall approaches, frameworks for identifying and configuring roles, underlying psychological processes, and the use of evaluation techniques. Lastly, the literature relating to innovation ‘institutionalisation’ stage is analysed. The article concludes by identifying overall trends and areas for further development. In particular, it is argued that ELE innovation work needs to become more informed by many of the concepts and procedures which the ELE innovation management literature contains.

Language teaching and learning has many different cultural dimensions, and over the years more and more of these have been the subject of research. The first dimension to be explored was that of content: the images of target language countries and the world that were offered in textbooks and presented in class. The next dimension was that of the learner: the (inter)cultural learning, competence and identity of the learner or subject. The next dimension was context: the situation and role of language teaching and learning in society and in the world.

This article begins with an overview and problematization of the term community through a brief assessment of its history, diverse uses, core attributes, heterogeneous elements, and collocational companions. Following this, I describe demographics and processes associated with collective engagement in digitally mediated environments. Utilizing select alternatives to the term ‘community’ and incorporating the cultural-historical notions of mediation and activity, I then present research describing exogenous influences affecting educational uses of technology in L2 settings, the use of instant messaging and blogging for out-of-class FL interaction at the secondary school level, and a pedagogically focused example of a remixing text posted to an online fan fiction website. I conclude by proposing bridging activities as an approach for connecting the emergent logics of digital vernaculars with the analytics of formal schooling.

In the initial sociocultural theory (SCT) timeline, Lantolf and Beckett (2009) surveyed a broad spectrum of research informed by sociocultural psychology as it was extended into the field of second language acquisition and language teaching. Since that time, the amount of research that has been published within the SCT framework has grown exponentially. With regard to the educational setting, two major strands of research have emerged; one that addresses pedagogical practice and the other that deals with assessment. The assessment strand, Dynamic Assessment, adheres to principles that emerge from the SCT concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and is the topic of a separate timeline (see Poehner & Wang, forthcoming). The pedagogical strand, the topic of the present article, is generally referred to as Concept-based Language Instruction (C-BLI), although in some publications the rubric Concept-based Instruction (CBI) is used. Unfortunately, the abbreviation of the alternative rubric has on more than one occasion been confused with content-based instruction, also abbreviated as CBI. We would like to suggest here that it would be better if SCT researchers were to adopt C-BLI to avoid misinterpretations going forward.

For me, ‘language learner autonomy’ denotes a teaching/learning dynamic in which learners plan, implement, monitor and evaluate their own learning. From the beginning they do this as far as possible in the target language, which thus becomes a channel of their individual and collaborative agency. By exercising agency in the target language they gradually develop a proficiency that is reflective as well as communicative, and the target language becomes a fully integrated part of their plurilingual repertoire and identity.

English Medium Instruction (EMI) has been defined as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro, 2018, p. 19). This definition has proved to be controversial but has underpinned the work of our research group, from whose collective perspective this article is written. Debates have centred on the role that English language development plays in EMI contexts, and whether this current definitional scope is too narrow in its exclusion of English medium educational practices in Anglophone settings. Pecorari and Malmström (2018), for example, observe that some members of the EMI research community interpret EMI more broadly to include ‘contexts in which English is a dominant language and in which English language development is supported and actively worked for’ (p. 507). Similarly, Baker and Hüttner (2016, p. 502) state that excluding Anglophone contexts from EMI is ‘unhelpful’ by failing to include the experiences of multilingual students in Anglophone universities who learn through their second language (L2). A focus on multilingualism is also one of the driving forces behind the emergence of new terminology that seeks to shift focus towards the contexts of education, rather than instruction and pedagogy. Dafouz and Smit (2016), for example, prefer the term English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings (EMEMUS), because the ‘label is semantically wider, as it does not specify any particular pedagogical approach or research agenda’ (p. 399).

This article discusses the phenomenon of task-based language teaching (TBLT) in instructed additional language settings. It begins from the premise that, despite considerable theoretical and empirical support, TBLT remains a contested endeavour. Critics of TBLT argue that, particularly with regard to time-limited foreign language instructional contexts, TBLT's learner-centred and experiential approach to second language acquisition fails to provide an adequately structured environment that allows for sufficient exposure to frequent language, and processing and practising of grammatical form. At the same time, differences emerge between how TBLT is conceptualised in theory and how TBLT is operationalised practically in many additional language classrooms. These realities signal the need to look at the interface between theory, research and practice. The article considers what current research into TBLT has not succeeded in getting through to classrooms, what has succeeded in getting through reasonably well, and what has been over-applied. It is concluded that the under- and over-application of theory and research in practice highlight the difficulty in identifying exactly what TBLT is or should be in instructed contexts. The article proposes a way forward to strengthen the effectiveness of the TBLT endeavour.

The growing concern for ethics in applied linguistics may be attributed to attempts to stem the rising incidence of ethical lapses in order to ensure that the core ethical principles of (1) respect for persons, (2) yielding optimal benefits while minimizing harm, and (3) justice are preserved. Following a brief historical review of this topic, and building on the growing commitment to carry out ethical applied linguistic research, we map out seven research tasks that will enhance our understanding of how to extend this expanding research agenda. By inviting applied linguists to evaluate their methodological practices and those of their peers, we also argue for the need to develop the ethical dispositions of emerging applied linguists, with a view to create a more robust field.

A decade ago, Hornberger & Johnson proposed that the ethnography of language planning and policy (ELPP) offers a useful way to understand how people create, interpret, and at times resist language policy and planning (LPP). They envisioned ethnographic investigation of layered LPP ideological and implementational spaces, taking up Hornberger's plea five years earlier for language users, educators, and researchers to fill up and wedge open ideological and implementational spaces for multiple languages, literacies, identities, and practices to flourish and grow rather than dwindle and disappear. With roots going back to the 1980s and 1990s, ethnographic research in LPP had been gathering momentum since the turn of the millennium. This review encompasses selected ethnographic LPP research since 2000, exploring affordances and constraints of this research in yielding comparative and cumulative findings on how people interpret and engage with LPP initiatives. We highlight how common-sense wisdom about the perennial gap between policy and practice is given nuance through ethnographic research that identifies and explores intertwining dynamics of top-down and bottom-up LPP activities and processes, monoglossic and heteroglossic language ideologies and practices, potential equality and actual inequality of languages, and critical and transformative LPP research paradigms.

The paper reviews eight topics in the area of second language critical pedagogy: (i) historical inheritances and lines of development associated with critical pedagogies; (ii) advocacy (and the need for critical language teachers to engage in it); (iii) the diverse institutional contexts that could be explored for critical language pedagogy; (iv) the range of languages within which critical approaches have been explored; (v) EFL critical pedagogy; (vi) the broad range of categories of oppression addressed by critical language pedagogy; (vii) materials for critical language pedagogy, and (viii) the role of the ‘imaginary’ in encouraging critical language pedagogy. I suggest that these constitute matters which, if given attention by critical language pedagogy specialists, could enhance the perceived practicality and/or relevance of the area.

Many adolescent and adult L2 learners in language classrooms, both in the US and other countries, have little or no alphabetic print literacy. Language teachers may turn to SLA research for assistance, yet almost all research on oral SLA has focused on educated, highly-literate learners (Bigelow & Tarone 2004; Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen 2009). The assumption seems to have been that the findings of this research hold for ALL learners, including learners with little to no literacy. However, research in cognitive and experimental psychology shows that the acquisition of grapheme–phoneme correspondence – the ability to associate a phoneme and a visual symbol – changes the way oral language is processed. The present paper shows the relevance of these findings for SLA. It summarizes a three-part study on oral L2 processing, a partial replication of previous SLA research, carried out in a population of low-literate adolescent Somali learners of L2 English. The findings confirm that alphabetic print literacy level had a significant impact on oral L2 processing. The paper concludes with a call to replicate current SLA studies and findings with populations of learners who have little or no alphabetic literacy.

There has been considerable debate about the relevance and applicability of SLA theory and research for L2 pedagogy. There are those who maintain that SLA must be applicable to L2 pedagogy: a view based on the argument that because SLA is a subfield of applied linguistics, it should have direct relevance to L2 teaching. Others take the view that not all areas of SLA research need to be relevant to L2 pedagogy – only the more ‘applied’ areas. While I would agree that much of the work in SLA should be applicable to L2 pedagogy, particularly research on instructed SLA, my presentation takes a different perspective on the SLA/L2 pedagogy interface. It focuses on misapplications of SLA theory and research to L2 pedagogy. I argue that the applicability of SLA research for L2 instruction requires a careful consideration of context and that specific SLA constructs – even those considered to be important within instructed SLA – may not have direct relevance to L2 pedagogy. Three areas of SLA research that I will discuss with respect to misapplication and relevance are: the role of instruction in SLA, the role of age in SLA, and the nature of and distinction between implicit and explicit L2 knowledge.

English Medium Instruction (EMI), as a phenomenon occurring in the non-Anglophone world, has been matched by a growth in research output on the topic and is now an important and established field of study. A great deal of research attention has been devoted to attitudes held by the key stakeholders in this form of education: teachers, students, and policy makers. Yet, there are many other important questions that remain unanswered, the most important of which are: What are the outcomes of this form of instruction? What is the social and economic impact of EMI? How can EMI teachers improve their teaching? And how can learners help themselves to improve their learning?

Because certain home language and literacy practices have been found to be beneficial to monolingual children's literacy development, we examine immigrant children's home language and literacy practices in different countries. Presenting findings from 92 post-2000 articles, we examine research into these practices, what factors influence their occurrence, how they influence immigrant children's development of literacy in the societal language, and what factors seem to moderate or mediate the effects of home literacy activities on societal-language literacy. We found that immigrant families engage in a wide variety of oral language and literacy activities at home, but that most of these practices have not been investigated in relation to immigrant children's literacy development. Book reading, the most-studied practice, seems to promote such development. Additional research is needed into the many factors that influence children's literacy development, including government policies and community context. In addition, researchers need to build on existing descriptive and correlational studies to design and implement innovative school curricula and family literacy programs that connect home and school practices and encourage parental involvement in the school.

This plenary paper showcases current corpus-based research on written academic English, illustrating the tight links that exist between corpus research and pedagogic applications. I first explicate Sinclair's concept of the ‘lexical approach’, which underpins much corpus research and pedagogy. I then discuss studies which focus on individual lexical items, phraseology (including lexical bundles) and rhetorical functions. Finally, I examine studies that combine Swalesian move structure analysis with corpus analysis. Throughout the paper, I highlight the importance attached to lexis in both corpus research and pedagogic applications of corpus findings in the realm of written discourse in English for Academic Purposes (EAP), covering both general and more specific purposes.

This article is organised in five parts. The introduction defines the area covered and gives the rationale for a focus on FL writing research particularly in classroom contexts. The second section gives an overview of cognitive and social theoretical frameworks, noting that these have mainly been developed for L1 writing, and drawing attention to recent attempts to build models for FL writing. The third part covers research on process-based instruction, on teacher and peer feedback and on grammar correction. Part four deals with the growing use of computers in the teaching and learning of FL writing, looking particularly at work on word processing, software for teaching and research, at the relationships between network-based language teaching and process-oriented pedagogy and between writing and the development of oral communicative competence. The final part comments on research approaches, on FL writing and second language acquisition, and on post-process theory, concluding with a set of pedagogically-oriented research questions for the future.

Interest in L2 vocabulary learning and teaching started long before the nineteen-eighties (for references to earlier studies, see Rob Waring's database http://www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/vocab/vocrefs/vocref.html) but it declined with the advent of generative linguistics to the point of discrimination and neglect (Meara 1980). In 1986, I argued that vocabulary was about to acquire a legitimate and prominent place within applied linguistics (Laufer 1986), but I did not envisage the vast quantities of lexical research that would have been produced in the following two decades. One of the central concerns of vocabulary researchers is the source of L2 vocabulary learning. Is it L2 input, enhanced input, interaction, communicative tasks, non-communicative ‘artificial’ exercises, list learning, or repetition? A similar question is addressed by SLA researchers in general. This similarity of interests, which demonstrates the integration of vocabulary into mainstream SLA, prompted me to define the topic of this timeline as I did. And since the field of SLA developed in the 1980s, this timeline starts in the nineteen-eighties. I focus here on the external sources of learning, i.e. language input and instructional techniques, and not on learner-related variables, like motivation, L1, age, or strategies of learning. Nor do I focus on any other areas of lexical research, important as they may be, such as the construct of vocabulary knowledge, lexical development, testing, bilingual mental lexicon, or corpora analyses.