Interaction is an indispensable component in second language acquisition (SLA). This review surveys the instructed SLA research, both classroom and laboratory-based, that has been conducted primarily within the interactionist approach, beginning with the core constructs of interaction, namely input, negotiation for meaning, and output. The review continues with an overview of specific areas of interaction research. The first investigates interlocutor characteristics, including (a) first language (L1) status, (b) peer interaction, (c) participation structure, (d) second language (L2) proficiency, and (e) individual differences. The second topic is task characteristics, such as task conditions (e.g. information distribution, task goals), task complexity (i.e. simple or complex), and task participation structure (i.e. whole class, small groups or dyads). Next, the review considers various linguistic features that have been researched in relation to interaction and L2 learning. The review then continues with interactional contexts, focusing especially on research into computer-mediated interaction. The review ends with a consideration of methodological issues in interaction research, such as the merits of classroom and lab-based studies, and the various methods for measuring the noticing of linguistic forms during interaction. In sum, research has found interaction to be effective in promoting L2 development; however, there are numerous factors that impact its efficacy.

An important issue in second language (L2) teaching is transfer of learning. Transfer occurs ‘when learning in one context or with one set of materials impacts on performance in another context or with another set of materials’ (Perkins & Salomon 1994: 6452). For example, knowing how to play guitar may help a person who is learning to play the piano, or experience playing team sports may help a person who has a job that involves teamwork, or having learned math in school may help a person who is shopping. Questions about whether and how learning is applied in different contexts are central to an understanding of human behavior, and answers to such questions are of practical value to educators. It is not surprising, then, that for over a century, transfer has been ‘among the most challenging, contentious, and important issues for both psychology and education’ (Day & Goldstone 2012: 153).

I respond to the conference theme ‘English across the Curriculum’ by suggesting that ‘Academic literacy’ should be taught across the curriculum. I first explain the concept of academic literacy, which describes the range of abilities that students have to acquire when starting out in a new academic discipline. I then discuss the dominant instructional provision at universities. As this provision fails to address students’ real learning needs, I argue for curriculum-integrated academic literacy instruction that is based on the collaboration between English for academic purposes (EAP) specialists and subject lecturers. I provide examples of collaborative, discipline-specific approaches to supporting student learning, and present some insights from an intervention study that I have carried out to explore feasible ways of teaching and collaboration. Finally, I discuss the need for lecturer training to achieve a curriculum-integrated approach, and report on my experience of running a professional development module which aimed to enable lecturers to embed academic literacy development into their teaching practice.

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.

The ability to communicate in English is now essential to academic success for many students and researchers. Not only has the language established a fairly firm grip in higher education, particularly in the lives of postgraduate students, but also in academic research, where careers are increasingly tied to an ability to publish in international journals in English. Countless students and academics around the world, therefore, must now gain fluency in the conventions of relatively ‘standardized’ versions of academic writing in English to understand their disciplines, to establish their careers or to successfully navigate their learning (e.g. Hyland 2009). English for Academic Purposes (EAP), and the teaching of academic writing in particular, has emerged to support this process (Hyland & Shaw 2016; Hyland 2017a). However, EAP, and its relationship to English language education more generally, is seen from a number of different perspectives, not all of which flatter the field. Among the more critical are that it is complicit in the relentless expansion of English which threatens indigenous academic registers (e.g. Phillipson 1992; Canagarajah 1999), that it is a remedial ‘service activity’ on the periphery of university life (Spack 1988), and that it imposes an imprisoning conformity to disciplinary values and native norms on second language writers (e.g. Benesch 2001).

Although English-medium instruction (EMI) courses are burgeoning at university level on a global scale, there is a scarcity of pedagogical guidelines about how to implement effective courses, while most higher education institutions rarely offer courses aimed at helping EMI teachers tackle this new teaching context. An additional concern has to do with the fact that content EMI lecturers tend to avoid language aspects, a weakness that could be overcome by boosting team teaching, that is, the collaboration between language and content teachers. Previous research reveals that team teaching improves undergraduates’ learning and can also be a gratifying experience for the teaching staff involved, who usually highlight the motivational boost it gives them because it stimulates reflection on their pedagogical knowledge and practices. In this paper I put forward research tasks with a view to enticing researchers to embark on projects focused on this uncharted territory, as team teaching is a research field in which much remains to be done.

This paper argues that key findings from computer-assisted language learning (CALL) research need to be replicated to permit the construction of a valid and reliable evidence-base which can inform the design of future CALL software and activities, together with language teachers’ decisions about their adoption. Through the critical examination of two key studies, the limitations of much current CALL research with respect to the construction of such an evidence-base are highlighted and approaches to replication which may overcome these limitations are discussed. Like much CALL research, both papers are experimental studies. Key issues raised by the two studies are the need to: (1) conduct replications focused on attributes and affordances which transcend multiple technologies which might be employed in CALL, (2) collect process data to increase the explanatory power of studies, and (3) link CALL research to relevant second language acquisition (SLA) theory and research to increase the explanatory power of studies and integrate the findings from individual studies into the CALL and SLA evidence-base more broadly. Emphasis is also placed on the need to conduct replications with different populations in different settings in order to demonstrate the validity and reliability of current findings.

The view that language should be divided into four skills – reading, writing, listening, speaking – has dominated second language (L2) teaching and learning for some time; perspectives have emerged that conceptualize language as holistic or skills as integrated. This construct of language is evident in language assessments, with an increase in ‘integrated skills’ tasks appearing in tests of writing or speaking. Integrated skills assessments have been defined in several ways (Knoch & Sitajalabhorn 2013) such as reading-into-writing performance with the reading content included in the writing or as tasks that use input, textual or visual, as stimulus for writing under the integrated umbrella (Plakans 2013). Even with these multiple interpretations questions arise: ‘Is that all?’ ‘Is there more to integration?’