“An extremely timely, thoughtful, and well-informed discussion in applied linguistics and beyond concerning open science. The essay seeks to engage with a broad audience and to dispel some of the persisting myths around open science and would be read fruitfully by many in the field”.

This article offers insights into trends found in 74 empirical studies on teaching and learning a foreign language (FL) in pre-primary schools in 25 countries. The emerging picture is like that of primary-school programs: most are implemented in English, mostly owing to parents’ enthusiasm rather than evidence on long term FL benefits. Researchers focus on measurable outcomes in the FL rather than embedding studies in what early childhood education and language policies aim for: developing children not only in a FL, but also in their first language and emotional, cognitive, and social domains. A short literature review on how children learn languages and what necessary conditions include, is followed by the evidence empirical studies offer along themes found in them. Research has revealed encouraging results as well as weaknesses, whereas most authors frame their findings in positive terms. Overall, the younger the children the slower their rate of FL development. The field is dominated by FL experts; it would benefit from early childhood expertise to shift it towards the whole child. Although the increase in research is significant, more is necessary to build a model of pre-primary FL programs. A table available online complements the text.

For many researchers in the social sciences, including those in applied linguistics, the term ethics evokes the bureaucratic process of fulfilling the requirements of an ethics review board (e.g., in the US, an Institutional Review Board, or IRB) as a preliminary step in conducting human subjects research. The expansion of ethics review boards into the social sciences in the early 2000s has led applied linguistics as a field to experience what Haggerty (2004) termed ethics creep, a simultaneous expansion and intensification of external regulation of research activities. The aims of these ethical review boards are: (a) to evaluate the types and risk of harm to participants as a result of research activities, (b) ensure that participants can give informed consent to be part of the research activities, and (c) provide oversight on researcher procedures to maintain participant anonymity/confidentiality (Haggerty, 2004).

This systematic review of 170+ journal articles showcases the current trends and developments in Turkey-based applied linguistics and language education research between 2016–2022. The current review presents similarities to the previous reviews (Alptekin & Tatar, 2011; Aydınlı & Ortaçtepe, 2018) in terms of trends and practices that indicate a vibrant research scene and a community of practice in Turkey within language education and applied linguistics research. While certain research areas such as instructional technologies remain widely popular among Turkey-based scholars, there has been growing interest in multiculturalism, social justice language education, critical pedagogy, and culturally responsive teaching. It was also clear in our analysis that the demands by the Higher Education Council for academic promotion exacerbated some of the already-existing challenges also noted in the previous reviews. Some of the concerns include pre- and post-test study designs that focus on practical concerns and outcomes rather than on processes that would lead to conceptual or theoretical development; and lack of engagement with broader (inter)disciplinary debates. We hope that this review will help establish conversations among fellow scholars in terms of future directions that applied linguistics and language education research in Turkey can take in order to contribute to the larger discussions in the field.

In this paper, I first provide a brief review of how scholars have conceptualized, tested, and elaborated aptitude frameworks relevant to second language (L2) speech learning. Subsequently, I introduce an emerging paradigm that assigns a fundamental role to domain-general auditory processing (i.e., having a good ear) in L1 speech acquisition and proposes that the same faculty acts as a cornerstone of L2 speech learning (i.e., the Auditory Precision Hypothesis-L2). This hypothesis predicts that learners with more precise auditory processing ability will be able to make the most of every input opportunity, which will result in more advanced L2 speech proficiency. To close, I will provide suggestions on how scholars can assess L2 students’ auditory processing ability (e.g., our team's offline test deposited at L2 Speech Tools for Researchers & Teachers [http://sla-speech-tools.com/]) and discuss how the results can be used to maximize learners’ L2 speech learning opportunities via optimal, profile-matched training programs (e.g., explicit vs. incidental training; naturalistic vs. classroom learning; phonetic vs. auditory training).

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).