Despite different epistemologies and assumptions, all theories in second language (L2) acquisition emphasize the centrality of context in understanding L2 acquisition. Under the assumption that language emerges from use in context, the cognitivist approach focuses on distributions and properties of input to infer both learning objects and process of acquisition. The interactionist approach views context more narrowly by analyzing how a particular linguistic item is attended and processed during a task-based interaction, and how it becomes intake as learning outcomes. For socially-oriented theories such as the sociocultural theory and language socialization, learning is fundamentally situated in context. Through mediated participation in learning as social practice, learners come to appropriate linguistic knowledge. Context is also fundamental in the complex, dynamic systems theory, which views learning as a non-linear, adaptive process emerging through an interaction of resources and individuals within a given context. All of these theories give the central power to context to describe and explain L2 learning. Context serves as the site where acquisition is examined. Context also helps explain the process and outcomes of acquisition.

Isabelli-García, Bown, Plew & Dewey (forthcoming) presented the ‘state of the art’ in research on language learning abroad. Beginning with Carroll's (1967) claim that ‘time spent abroad is one of the most potent variables’ predicting second language (L2) abilities (p. 137), the scope of study-abroad research has grown multifold in guiding theoretical frameworks, empirical methods, and objects of examination. A half-century of work surveyed in Isabelli-García et al.’s review reveals diverse goals of investigation, ranging from studies focusing on documenting learning outcomes, to studies aiming to unveil the process and nature of learning in a study-abroad context.

Using key constructs from sociocultural theory and activity theory, this paper outlines three broad areas of future research on written corrective feedback (WCF) that may be of interest to second language (L2) researchers and practitioners. The first area uses the constructs of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and scaffolding to assess the nature and appropriateness of the feedback provided. The second area uses the construct of tools and considers learners’ responses to the means used to provide WCF, including automated feedback. The third, and perhaps most important area, views WCF as an activity, and examines context-related and individual factors that impact on the provision and response to WCF. The paper provides concrete examples of small-scale longitudinal studies in each of these areas, including recommendations as to the kind of data and measures to employ.

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.

When I look back over my career as a teacher-trainer and researcher, I can see two themes that run through my work. The first theme is my concern for the practical issues of teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), with the strong proviso that practice must be based as far as possible in research. For me this represents the applied in applied linguistics. The second theme is a concern for seeing what the parts are that make up the whole. I think underlying this concern is the desire to see the principles governing the way the parts go together, and underlying this is a tendency to want to see what is simple and rule-based. Knowledge needs to be communicated to others and this is best done if we are aware of the important basic principles and components, and can present them as simply as possible.

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 Department of Linguistics at University of Victoria (UVic) in Canada has a long-standing tradition of empirical approaches to the study of theoretical and applied linguistics. As part of the Faculty of Humanities, the department caters to students with a wide range of backgrounds and interests, and provides crucial language teaching support in collaboration with other teaching units at UVic. Accordingly, some applied linguistics studies concern language teaching and learning, some of which are conducted in classroom settings. In this article, we provide a brief overview of recent corrective feedback research conducted by UVic Applied Linguistics Research Group.

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?’

The Editor, Publishers, and Board of Language Teaching would like to thank the following readers who have generously assisted with their time and expertise reviewing manuscripts in the preparation of volume 50. Reviewers are absolutely critical to the functioning of any peer reviewed journal, and we are very much in their debt.