This article offers a critical review of research on the use of glossing and its contribution to second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition. Discussion topics include the complexity of estimating the effectiveness of glossing relative to reading non-glossed texts, the quest for optimal implementations of glossing, issues of ecological validity, and ambiguity around the nature of vocabulary learning from glosses. The general conclusion is that, despite the substantial number of research studies on this subject, many questions remain to which only tentative and provisional answers are currently available. This is partly owing to the wide diversity in research designs across studies and the lack of transparency of many research reports. Suggestions are made for further research on glossing with a view to enabling future systematic reviews to produce more nuanced answers and more informed recommendations for the design of L2 reading materials.

This article presents research on teaching English in Israel, a vibrant multilingual country, in the period between 2014 and 2020. After a brief introduction to the current approach to English language teaching around the world, it outlines the studies investigating: (a) learners of English, (b) English teachers, and (c) methods that are used in the country for teaching English. We explore how various student populations, Arabs, Bedouins, Circassians, Druze, Charedi (ultra-orthodox Jews), Jews, and foreign students, are taught English as well as their attitudes to this language. Then, we discuss research investigating different categories of English teachers in Israel, including teachers in Arab and Jewish sectors, the teachers labeled as ‘native speakers’, and also teacher trainers and teacher-training principles. We look at secondary and high school students, including those in special education, as well as those who take English courses in tertiary educational institutions. Finally, we are interested in whether innovative teaching methods compete with the conventional ones and which groups of learners have access to the former. Throughout the article, we aim to show to what extent practitioners and researchers are aware of the present-day realities of the interconnectedness of ‘teacher, student, and method’ elements and the impact of multilingualism on English teaching in Israel. This Country in Focus report also considers the current holistic perspective on English language teaching. This language should not be taught in isolation but work in concert with other contact languages.

There are long and diverse strands of thinking about how schools and schooling, teaching, curriculum, and learning could be conceptualized and developed so as to foster what is often loosely called social justice. Many of these strands go back (in Europe) at least to the French Revolution. The original term that encompasses this area is ‘radical pedagogy’ (that is to say, a pedagogy suitable for radicals or radical purposes; cf. Crookes, 2009). Emerging out of this area in the post-World War Two era, one version of this thought and practice that has become somewhat influential in language teaching is ‘critical pedagogy’, and ‘critical language pedagogy’ (CLP) is a key term used to refer to applications of the concepts of critical pedagogy to second language (L2) contexts.

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.

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) and instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) have much in common in terms of theory, research, and educational relevance. The distinguishing characteristic between the two is that TBLT adopts communicative tasks as the central unit for instruction and assessment, whereas ISLA comprises a broader range of instructional activities and assessment practices. In this presentation, I focus on two of the conference themes: Instruction and Outcomes. With respect to Instruction, I draw attention to the pedagogical timing of form-focused instruction (FFI) and corrective feedback. I discuss relevant studies within ISLA and TBLT and argue that TBLT is particularly well-suited to investigating questions about the timing of FFI. In discussing Outcomes, I consider differences in how outcomes are measured in TBLT (i.e. performance) and ISLA (i.e. development) and the different aspects of language examined within each, for example, accuracy, implicit/explicit knowledge in ISLA and complexity, accuracy and fluency in TBLT. I discuss underlying similarities between fluency and implicit knowledge, how they are measured, and propose research to investigate the pedagogical timing of FFI in relation to fluency development. I conclude with a brief discussion of the need for a balance between theoretically and pedagogically motivated research within ISLA and TBLT.

This paper considers the issue of the norm in the context of learner corpus research and its implications for foreign language teaching. It seeks to answer three main questions: Does learner corpus research require a native norm? What corpus-derived norms are available and how do we choose? What do we do with these norms in the classroom? The first two questions are more research-oriented, reviewing the types of reference corpora that can be used in the analysis of learner corpora, whereas the third one looks into the pedagogical use of corpus-derived norms. It is shown that, while studies in learner corpus research can dispense with a native norm, they usually rely on one, and that a wide range of native and non-native norms are available, from which choosing the most appropriate one(s) is of crucial importance. This large repertoire of corpus-derived norms is then reconsidered in view of the reality of the foreign language classroom.

A great deal of research on second language (L2) input has provided useful linguistic evidence for the development of generalizations about and hypotheses on the usage-based nature of L2 knowledge. However, despite the fact that classrooms are one of the most ubiquitous sites of L2 learning, we still know very little about the linguistic quality of naturally-occurring classroom interactions and their consequential role in shaping learners’ linguistic repertoires (Ellis, 2016). These data are needed in order to understand how differences in L2 classroom interactional activities affect L2 learner language. This is the focus of the set of research tasks I lay out in this paper. After a brief overview of usage-based research on language and a summary of the methodological contributions of conversational analysis (CA) and interactional linguistics (IL) to such research, I will explicate a research agenda comprising five tasks for investigating the links between L2 classroom interaction and L2 learners’ developing linguistic repertoires. By making clear the interrelationships between teaching and learning, findings from the studies will offer new insights into L2 pedagogy and the key role that L2 teachers play in designing the linguistic environments of their learning contexts and shaping learners' linguistic repertoires.

We closely replicated Wu and Ortega (2013), who found that an elicited imitation test (EIT) reliably distinguished low-level from high-level language abilities among instructed second language (L2) learners of Mandarin Chinese. The original study sampled learners (1) from second-level courses to represent low-level language abilities and (2) from third-, fourth- and graduate-level courses to represent high-level language abilities. Results showed high-level learners outperformed low-level learners on the Mandarin EIT. Our close replication used Wu and Ortega's (2013) materials and procedures in order to understand (1) the extent to which this EIT can additionally distinguish between finer-grained language abilities and (2) the ways in which the broad grouping of language abilities in the high group may have contributed to the findings. Sixty-five instructed L2 learners from four instructional levels were assigned to one of three groups: Beginner (first-level courses), Low (second-level courses), High (third- and fourth-level courses). Consistent with the original study, our results showed clear between-group differences, indicating that the EIT can distinguish between both broad (beginner vs high) and finer-grained (beginner vs low, low vs high) language abilities. These results are discussed in light of the original study's findings with implications for proficiency assessment in second language acquisition (SLA) research.

In his 2016 articles (Hyland, 2016a, 2016b), Ken Hyland makes a case for what he terms the ‘myth of linguistic injustice’, calling into question the assumption that ‘non-native’ users of English are at a linguistic disadvantage compared with their ‘native’ counterparts when writing for publication. In response, Flowerdew (2019) argues that Hyland is mistaken in categorically dismissing the extra challenges inherent in academic writing in an additional language, suggesting that while all academic writers may face a common set of challenges, ‘EAL [English as additional language] writers have an additional set of linguistic challenges, which do not apply (to such an extent) to L1 writers’ (p. 257). Here, we aim primarily to respond to Flowerdew yet, as his ideas are intrinsically intertwined with Hyland's initial claims, our article is unavoidably and necessarily a response to both writers and an attempt to contribute to the ongoing and wider discussion of native-speakerism and notions of speakerhood based on our own professional and personal experiences.