Challenges Faced by Language Teachers in Second Language Instruction: A Critical Review

Rick Kern's (2024, this issue) critical engagement with the implications of technological advancements such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine translation in the postpandemic era should prompt many to reflect on the so-called "existential crisis" we face, both as language teachers and as human beings. Language teachers, like many other professionals (e.g., accountants and lawyers), may fear that they will be replaced by AI (e.g., Felix, 2020) while modern language education programs already face funding cuts in many contexts such as the United States and Australia (e.g., Gao & Zheng, 2019; Lanvers et al., 2018). For this reason, I completely agree with the premise that there is a need for language educators to identify the affordances and constraints presented by technological tools in language education. It is also critical to ascertain how we can draw on intellectual sources to help language teachers make informed use of technological tools to provide the best possible learning experience for language learners. At the same time, however, I wonder if the challenges that technological advancements present for language teachers may require more in-depth elaboration. Such an elaboration might help us better "articulate and communicate the value of language study" (Kern, 2024, this issue, p. XX) for the public and implement the pathways in language (teacher) education advanced by Kern. It should be noted that technological developments such as the rise of generative AI pose challenges for most professions. Generative AI tools have already been tested for their ability to replace humans in the fields of accountancy and law (e.g., Choi et al., 2021; Vasarhelyi et al., 2023), and language teachers may also feel their profession is at risk. A counterargument against "fearmongering" discourses about this technological development is the assertion that AI can replace human beings for the completion of individual tasks but cannot replace their jobs altogether. Indeed, professions such as teaching involve complex orchestration of multiple tasks (e.g., delivering content, facilitating thinking, and guiding and supporting learning), which is beyond the current capacity of generative AI tools. As an increasing number of tasks can be executed by these new technological means, however, the ways in which human beings are needed in these jobs are also likely to change. In the context of language learning and use, technologies such as machine translation may generate inaccurate texts, but they are sufficient for communication tasks that do not require high levels of precision. For instance, as a journal editor, I may need to look up a colleague in a Turkish university to find out whether their research background and expertise match a manuscript that needs to be reviewed. I would not be able to understand the content of this colleague's webpage on their university's staff directory, which would be in Turkish, if I did not use Google Translate in my Chrome browser. While it is possible that Google Translate would not accurately translate the entire website from Turkish into English, it would be adequate to help me to decide whether this colleague had sufficient expertise to review the manuscript. In a similar way, I imagine that hundreds of such day-to-day professional tasks do not require translations that are 100% accurate. For example, generative AI tools can help people to create texts such as letters of complaint or appreciation in different languages. Machine translation and generative AI tools can help people overcome language barriers without necessarily needing to learn new languages to complete these tasks. Most of these tasks involve the transactional use of language (i.e., the communication of information for exchange), a form of language use that has motivated many learners to learn languages in traditional classrooms. It should also be noted that machine translation and generative AI tools are undergoing further development and refinement. Kern's (2024, this issue, p. X) article suggests that generative AI tools such as ChatGPT are "harmful to a social understanding of knowledge and learning" because they do not make the sources of knowledge explicit, have "no notion of empirical truth," and "no conception of a theoretical frame" (Peters et al., 2023, pp. 14−15), and cannot apply ethical principles in the course of reasoning. Moreover, generative AI tools tend to appear to be "uncritically affirmative" (Peters et al., 2023, pp. 14−15). In my view, these issues cannot be fixed through continuous technological developments, but it is likely that generative AI tools will function as if they have appropriate understandings of empirical truth and use theoretical frameworks when presenting views on particular issues. They may also appear to have balanced views on different topics and to use ethical principles when elaborating upon these views. As an applied linguist, I cannot evaluate how well generative AI tools are "learning" and what they are capable of in terms of functionality in the future. However, it is very likely that the community of language teachers faces a crisis, as the rise of generative AI tools will lead to a worldwide diminishing of the scale of language education. Opportunities to learn languages will likely be reserved for those aiming for an expert level of proficiency and competence that enables them to outperform and manage machine translation and generative AI tools in language use; or those who are intrinsically motivated to learn languages. Will this create a world in which people are categorized into those who have the resources and expertise to manage technological tools, and those who depend on such tools? The growing inequity as a result of this knowledge gap is beyond the scope of this response, but the crisis engulfing language education has important ramifications for language teachers, which I shall now rely on Chinese cultural wisdom to discuss. The dialectical idea of "crisis" in the Chinese language "危机 wei ji" means both "danger [危 wei]" and "opportunity [机 ji]" (Wang, 2014). In the spirit of Kern's (2024, this issue) article, the crisis here presents an opportunity for language educators to rethink the values involved in the study of language and how these values can be articulated and realized. Such critical reflections and conversations will help reenergize language education with new understandings and commitments. It is my contention that the changes that must take place in language education have been well presented in Kern's (2024) article. For this reason, I will focus on the critical question of how we can "articulate and communicate the value of language study" to the public to develop a clear agenda for language teacher education moving forward. My first response regarding the value of language study against the backdrop of technological developments is that language learning needs to be promoted as a fundamentally humanistic endeavor. Many tasks involving the transactional use of language can be performed with improved functionality by rapidly evolving machine translation and generative AI tools. Although generative AI tools may appear to be increasingly humanlike when interacting with us, our deep, intrinsic needs—such as a sense of belonging, identity aspirations, and desirable attributes associated with speaking languages other than our own (such as "coolness," creativity, etc.)—cannot be satisfied by these tools. The value of language study lies in the human life journeys that language teachers undertake together with learners. I recall what my English language teacher used to say many years ago: You can live multiple lives if you learn to speak multiple languages. Nevertheless, I understand that we must develop a much more persuasive message if we are to persuade the public to value language studies. Let us shift our attention to other professions where automation can replace human beings, but human beings still play a critical role. For example, autopilot technology is already quite well developed in the aviation industry. We now have the technology to pilot a plane from takeoff to landing, yet we still rely on human pilots to operate planes. The obvious reason is that we do not want human beings to lose the essential skills and capacity required to operate increasingly sophisticated modern aircraft in complex situations. If we fully rely on automatic instruments to fly the plane, pilots may not have the opportunity to operate these planes themselves. Reliance on human pilots for the operation of aircraft helps ensure that the world still has reliable pilots if technology fails. We also want to remain the "masters" of technological tools. The same reasoning can be applied in defense of language study: It can be argued that language makes us human, and language use is an essential characteristic of our humanity. If we rely on technological tools for human interaction, we will have fewer opportunities to develop critical skills, competence, and practices for cross-cultural communication and mutual understanding. Which tasks can be replaced by technological tools that can perform them more efficiently than human beings? Which tasks can be replaced by technological tools but should be retained by human beings as essential skills? Which tasks cannot be performed entirely with technological tools but can be approached by using these tools to facilitate the growth of our skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions? A lack of rigorous answers to these questions will undermine the efforts of language educators to respond to the challenges posed by technological developments. Robust responses to these questions will help language teachers identify where they stand in relation to technological developments and the need for effective pedagogy. For example, generative AI tools may help us remove grammatical infelicities in our written language and improve the quality of our writing as users of English as an additional language. It is perfectly reasonable for us to use these tools to help us write texts in languages other than our own. However, this does not mean that learners should also give up learning the skills needed to notice and appropriate target language forms. Another example involves the use of technologies that may help learners to spend less time drilling and practicing their linguistic knowledge. This does not mean that learners do not need to develop the capacity and disposition needed to monitor and reflect upon their language development, either. In this way, language education researchers may now need to identify a repertoire of essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that human beings should retain as language users, regardless of whether technological tools can replace human beings in the completion of many tasks connected to language use. For instance, language learners want to be heard and listened to, while language teachers also want to promote language learners' acquisition of linguistic knowledge and skills, as well as fostering their personal growth in teaching. In order to achieve such aspirations, language teachers and learners need to work together to find the most effective ways to develop language learners into agentic and lifelong learners who are capable of creating learning opportunities for themselves—learners who are resilient, persevering, and highly motivated; who can regulate their learning processes, and believe in their own capacity to take control of language learning (Larsen-Freeman et al., 2021). Indeed, the use of technological tools such as generative AI can give language teachers the time and opportunity to focus on the development of the list of essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that may otherwise receive insufficient attention. The effort to identify this list of qualities addresses the critical question language educators must answer to the public regarding the value of language study. Further research is required to demonstrate the value of the essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions language learners can develop through their learning process. For instance, language learners' perception of self-efficacy, which relates to their beliefs about what they can learn and how they can manage their learning process, is essential for their development through learning both subject content and languages. While learners may develop a positive perception of self-efficacy through language learning, this can also be promoted in other arenas, such as learning mathematics or participating in sports. For this reason, I suggest that language teachers focus on the variety of skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that are unique to the learning of languages, rather than more generic counterparts. As an example, intercultural communicative competence is a highly desirable attribute that language learners can develop through learning languages. At this point, it is not clear whether future technological tools will be capable of detecting and appropriately responding to subtle cultural nuances in the context of intercultural communication, but this is a valuable, essential skill for human beings to retain (e.g., Gao & Yang, 2023). When language teachers possess a list of what can be best learned through language education, we can achieve a clear articulation of the value of language study for the public. Language teachers also need this list to clarify the roles that they must perform in this brave new world. In my perspective, the shifting responses to the roles of language teachers by generative AI tools presented in Kern's (2024, this issue) article are at once deeply comforting and concerning. The article indicates that generative AI tools are learning how to respond based on the available language data at their disposal, which suggests that we are still refining our thoughts on this critical question. I can imagine that their responses will become increasingly sophisticated as language educators' engagement with this critical question deepens. At present, these responses highlight the role that teachers have in providing emotional support to language learners in terms of motivation, confidence, and engagement. Additionally, human teachers are responsive to individual language learners' needs, preferences, and styles when monitoring, regulating, and facilitating language learners' learning processes. Human teachers promote language learners' critical reflections on values and norms to develop a better sense of self and belonging toward community building. Human teachers are also believed to facilitate language learners' development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for adaptive and creative responses in real-world environments. However, these represent patterns of responses that human beings have been producing to the question as captured and identified by the AI tools. As such, they likely reflect our limited understanding of what technological tools are capable of at present, and how they may evolve into in the future. While these responses are valuable, I also wonder if they partly reflect the wishful thinking of language educators. As generative AI tools are further refined in terms of their functionality, I imagine that these tools can perform the aforementioned tasks that have been ascribed to human teachers so far. These tools may appear to behave as if they were language teachers who attempt to provide emotional and human support to language learners; offer feedback responsive to language learners' needs, preferences, and styles; facilitate their critical skills of reflection and reflexion; and enable language learners with knowledge and skills to promote their adaptability and creativity. The fundamental difference between generative AI tools and human teachers is found at the fact that these are not essential qualities of AI tools but rather represent their behavioral functions. Importantly, these are qualities that human teachers cannot afford to lose. As a result, language teacher education programs should reorient themselves to focus on the development of these essential qualities that language teachers must offer as human teachers (Gao, 2019). While the changes induced by technological developments do not fundamentally change the roles that language teachers play in education, they do indicate that language teachers must prepare for the shifting priorities in their professional practice. Consequently, language teacher education programs must also adjust their pedagogical priorities so that they can better prepare language teachers for the need to adapt their teaching practice to the new world to come. Language teacher education programs help language teachers to develop a critical awareness of technological affordances and constraints so that they can be clear about the mission they undertake as human teachers: They need to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are essential for human beings to maintain. Without these essential attributes, humans may be unable to claim ourselves as human agents in control of our own life and existence. The humanistic aspects of language education should become more prominent as human language teachers focus on the satisfaction of language learners' intrinsic and integrative needs, while technological tools address the instrumental needs of language learners. Language teacher education programs may need to focus on developing language teachers' adequate understandings of technological tools so that they use these tools effectively in collaboration with language learners to facilitate their personal growth (Tao & Gao, 2022). Effective use of these tools will create time and space for the development of the skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that have not been well addressed in traditional language classrooms, in which the main tasks of learning and teaching relate to linguistic knowledge. Language teacher education programs prepare preservice language teachers who need to teach languages other than their own for using technological tools to help develop and refine their knowledge of these languages. Pedagogical priorities will shift toward the learning and teaching of language-related outcomes, including intercultural communication, as well as nonlinguistic outcomes such as perseverance, adaptability, and creativity. Teaching can also focus on the growth of inner resources such as agency, so that learners have opportunities to develop these crucial inner resources (Larsen-Freeman, 2019). For example, teachers might use learner-oriented feedback to allow language learners to choose the aspects of their learning that they would like to receive feedback on and how they would like feedback to be given to them. As technology increasingly replaces human beings in the performance of a variety of tasks, it is critical for language educators to reorient our focus toward developing the essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that make us human through learning languages. For me, the crisis brought about by technological developments presents an opportunity for language educators to revive the fundamentally humanistic cause of language education—that is, to promote critical cultural and human understandings and to bring people together so that we can respond to the existential crises facing the human race, such as climate change and war. Open access publishing facilitated by University of New South Wales, as part of the Wiley - University of New South Wales agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

The Douglas Fir Group Framework as a Resource Map for Language Teacher Education

The study of language acquisition and instruction is not new to academics, but it never fails to excite linguists and teachers. The goal of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is to help students develop their communication skills so that they can effectively communicate in a target language. Since its start in the 1970s, when the need for language learners to improve their communication skills was rising, this approach has received worldwide reputation. But since many educators still reject this method, many worries remain. According to Chomsky (1957), the four main aspects of language acquisition lexis, syntax, phonology, and morphology are focused on linguistic competence. Hymes (1971) argues that pragmatic, sociolinguistic, semantic, and grammatical considerations are more important. When it comes to teaching second languages, the theories put forward by researchers, have been game-changers for communicative language instruction. The communicative language teaching (CLT) technique places an emphasis on students' active participation in second language classroom activities and provides more opportunities for students to improve their communication skills compared to the grammar-translation method. Other traditional methods of instruction do not typically use this component. In the context of ESL instruction, this article delves deeply into the ideas and methods of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In particular, it compares and contrasts conventional methods of instruction with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and gives a brief summary of its advantages and disadvantages. In addition, the article delves into the latest advancements in CLT and the difficulties encountered while applying CLT in an academic environment. After that, the post helps educators understand Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) better. Furthermore, it suggests possible outcomes, such as creating classroom activities and encouraging student motivation, of utilizing CLT to teach English in a university context. References Abahussain, M. O. (2016). Implementing Communicative Language Teaching Method in Saudi Arabia: Challenges Faced by Formative Year Teachers in State Schools. (PhD). University of Stirling, Scotland. Abrejo, B., Sartaj, S., & Memon, S. (2019). English Language Teaching through Communicative Approach: A Qualitative Study of Public Sector Colleges of Hyderabad, Sindh. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(5), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.5p.43 Ahn, S. Y., & Kang, H.-S. (2017). South Korean university students’ perceptions of different English varieties and their contribution to the learning of English as a foreign language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(8), 712-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1242595. Al-Nasser, A. S. (2015). Problems of English language acquisition in Saudi Arabia: An exploratory-cum-remedial study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1612- 1619. Alsalmi, A. A. (2014). Challenges confronting teachers of English language. (Master). Taif University, Taif. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Batawi, G. H. (2007). Exploring the use of CLT in Saudi Arabia. (Master). American University of Sharjah, Sharjah. Borg, S. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. In The Routledge handbook of language awareness, (pp. 93-109): Routledge. Brandl, K. (2019). Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting Principles to Work. Pearson Education, Inc. Brandl, K., & Bauer, G. (2002). Students’ Perceptions of Novice Teaching Assistants’ Use of the Target Language in Beginning Foreign Language Classes: Preliminary Investigation. In W. Davis, J. Smith, & R. Smith (Eds), Ready To Teach: Graduate Teaching Assistants Prepare for Today and for Tomorrow (pp.128-138). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (6th ed.). White Plains, NY Pearson Education. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistic, 1(1), 1-47. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton. Courtney, D. (2020). Activities to Activate and Maintain a Communicative Classroom. English Teaching Forum, 58(1), 10-21. Dey, M. (2021). Psychological processes in language learning and teaching: Scoping review and future research directions. Journal of Psychological Perspective, 3(2), 105-110. Dey, M. (2023). The primary characteristics of English pragmatics in Applied Linguistics: Exploring the Key Features of English Pragmatics in Applied Linguistics. Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1022/ijss.v2i2.25 Dey, M., Amelia, R., & Herawati, Y. W. (2023). Challenging the'Native Speaker'Ideal: The Impact of Native Speakerism on Language Education. Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa, 17(2), 232-245. Dos Santos, L. M. (2016). Foreign language teachers' professional development through peer observation programme. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 39-46. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n10p39. Dos Santos, L. M. (2017). How do teachers make sense of peer observation professional development in an Urban School. International Education Studies, 10(1), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n1p255. Dos Santos., L. M. (2019). Science lessons for non-science university undergraduate students: An application of visual-only video teaching strategy. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 14(1), 308–311. https://doi.org/10.36478/jeasci.2019.308.311. Dos Santos, L. M. (2020). The Discussion of Communicative Language Teaching Approach in Language Classrooms, Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 2020. Journal of Education and E-Learning, 7(2), 104-109. Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell Publishing. Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Huang, S.-H., & Yang, L.-C. (2018). Teachers’ Needs in the Advancement of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Taiwan. TESOL International Journal, 13(1), 100-117. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1971). Pidginization and creolization of languages. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. Iwashita, N., & Ngoc, K. M. (2012). A comparison of learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 7, 25-49. Jung, S. K., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: the new elementary English program. In Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 245-265). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Kachru, B. (1992). World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1–14. Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370210156745. Kiato, S. K., & Kiato, K. (1996). Testing Communicative Competence. The TESOL Internet Journal, 2(5). Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, J. S., & Lee, K. (2019). Perceptions of English as an international language by Korean English-major and non-English-major students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(1), 76-89. Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/19. 10.1017/S0272263197001034. Natividad, M. R. A., & Batang, B. L. (2018). Students’ Perceptual Learning Styles and Attitudes toward Communicative Language Teaching. TESOL International Journal, 13(4), 104-120. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 279–295. Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illiois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. Pham, H. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Riggenbach, H., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). Promoting Oral Communication Skills. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 125-136). Los Angeles: University of California. Richards, J. C. (2006), Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.). Sydney, NSW: McGraw-Hill. Saengboon, S. (2002). Beliefs of Thai EFL teachers about communicative language teaching. (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University Bloomington, USA. Schulz, R.A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Learners’ and teachers’ view on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 333-364. Sawalmeh, M. H., & Dey, M. (2023). Globalization and the increasing demand for spoken English teachers. Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 4(2). Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1989). Intensive ESL programs in Quebec primary schools. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 11-32. Souriyavongsa, T., Rany, S., Abidin, M. J. Z., & Mei, L. L. (2013). Factors causes students low English language learning: A case study in the National University of Laos. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 179-192. Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9–15. Tomlinson, B. (2001). Humanising the Coursebook. Humanising Language Teaching, 3(5). Walia, D. N. (2012). Traditional teaching methods vs. CLT: A study. Frontiers of language and teaching, 3(1), 125-131. Weiner, L. (2012). The future of our schools: Teachers unions and social justice. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books. Weiner, L., & Jerome, D. (2016). Urban teaching: The essentials (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. West, A. J. (2016). Adaptation of Communicative Language Teaching Methodology to an English Textbook for English Language Learning of NIDA Students. PASAA, 52, 25-52 Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zhang, J. L. (2006, November 11-13). The ecology of communicative language teaching: Reflecting on the Singapore experience [Paper presentation]. Annual CELEA International Conference: Innovating English Teaching: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Other Approaches, China English Language Education Association (CELEA) and Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China.

This editorial sketches the conceptual foundations for this special issue on media literacy in language (teacher) education. It contextualises this special issue’s focus on language (teacher) education with critical media literacy theory, highlighting the special role of language education in media literacy development both in terms of the subject’s methodology and goals. With its inherent focus on texts and media, language education pursues the goal of empowering learners to become active participants in global – oftentimes digital – discourses. Providing a frame for the contributions to this special issue, this introduction echoes calls for an already observable shift in language (teacher) education, moving beyond technologically-enhanced or computerassisted language learning and towards critical approaches to media literacy in the language classroom. Increasingly, scholars and practitioners are exploring ways to conceptualize and practice (foreign) language learning within digitality rather than about or with digital media, including the contributions to this special issue.

by Wolfgang Butzkamm and John A W Caldwell narr studienbucher 2009 978-3-8233-6492-4 The question of whether the mother tongue (MT) should be allowed in foreign language (FL) teaching has a long history in methodology debates. It has often been argued that the MT should definitely be avoided as it has a detrimental effect on learning a foreign language. Wolfgang Butzkamm and John Caldwell, however, claim not only that the monolingual approach has a weak basis in theory (even though they consider it a comprehensible reaction to the outcomes of the grammar-translation method), but also that it is better to work with the MT as a ‘natural tendency’ in FL teaching. To support their inclination towards a more relaxed approach to MT use, they scrutinise the reality of what they call the ‘MT taboo’, formulate a theory of MT use in the FL classroom and exemplify their insights through practical teaching techniques. It is the combination of theory and practice that makes the book much more than a ‘how to use the MT in FL teaching’ guide. The book discusses the importance of ‘immersion’ for MT acquisition, which means that a child is exposed to a huge amount of language, first learning chunks of language for communicative purposes and much later learning to break them down into parts. Since it is impractical to reproduce this natural process of acquiring a language in the FL classroom because of restrictions on the time available and, therefore, the exposure to the target language, FL teaching has to provide a focus on both meaning and structure. A prudent use of MT here helps make life easier for teachers and learners: ‘sandwiching’, mirroring and contrasting or literal translation, as the authors show, can be embedded in pattern drills in grammar teaching, dialogue work and drama. Moreover, it can increase the input of authentic material in the form of, for example, bilingual readers or DVDs with subtitles. A controlled use of the MT in the FL classroom also allows access to the understanding of language concepts that each learner has, even if those concepts are different in the MT and the FL. For example, when a teacher wants to show how continuous tenses are formed to learners whose own language has no continuous tenses, translation is a better way to express finer shades of meaning than an explanation or paraphrase in the target language. When the FL can be integrated into existing knowledge (ie the MT), the FL is ‘deforeignised’ and confidence is built up in the learner. In other words, the MT can be useful in promoting understanding of both form and meaning (which use of the FL alone often fails to do). Real understanding and control are key words in this book, and it is argued that fashionable methods of communicative language teaching which strictly exclude the MT often cause a learning situation in which students do not really understand what they are saying (but merely parrot phrases for no communicative reason) and, as a result, skills learning is impeded. The authors put their case convincingly, supporting their arguments with insights into the mechanisms used by children growing up bilingually: mixing their languages is a tactic that helps them learn. A separate chapter discusses ‘translation as a fifth skill’ with the help of some intellectually demanding (and therefore enjoyable) classroom activities, which, not least, help develop MT competence. The authors do admit that there are many situations where monolingualism is preferable, especially for classroom management, and claim that a controlled use of the MT should actually increase the time available for using the FL. The book is aimed particularly at student teachers, having study questions and tasks at the end of each chapter as well as many practical ideas, but I am sure that experienced teachers will also benefit from it. A benchmark in its field, the book is a must for all those who want to contribute to the debate over the pros and cons of using the MT in FL teaching.

Quality of Language and Literacy Instruction in Preschool Classrooms Serving At-Risk Pupils.

This study investigates the development of teacher identity in a transnational context through an analysis of the voices of sixteen preservice teachers from Hong Kong who engage in interaction with primary students in an Australian classroom. The context for this research is the school-based experience undertaken by these preservice English as a second language teachers as part of their short language immersion (SLIM) program in Brisbane, Australia. Such SLIM programs are a genre of study abroad programs which have been gaining in popularity within teacher education in Australia, attended by preservice and inservice teachers from China, Hong Kong, Korea, and other Asian countries. This research is conducted at a time when the imperative to globalise higher education provision is a strategic factor in the educational policies of both Australia and Hong Kong. In Australia, international educational services now constitute the country’s third largest export with more than 400,000 students coming to Australia to study annually. In order to maintain Australia’s current global position as the third most popular Englishspeaking study destination, the government is now focusing on sustainability and the quality of the study experience being offered to international students (Bradley Review, 2008). In Hong Kong, the government sponsors both preservice and inservice English as a second language (ESL) teachers to undertake SLIM programs in Australia and other English-speaking countries, as part of their policy of promoting high levels of English proficiency in Hong Kong classrooms. Transnational teacher education is an important issue to which this study contributes insights into the affordances and constraints of a school-based experience in the transnational context. Second language teacher education has been defined as interventions designed to develop participants’ professional knowledge. In this study, it is argued that participation in a different community of practice helps to foreground tacit theories of second language pedagogy, making them visible and open to review. Questions of pedagogy are also seen as questions of teacher identity, constituting the way that one is in the classroom. I take up a sociocultural and poststructural framework, drawing on the work of James Gee and Mikhail Bakhtin, to theorise the construction of teacher identity as emerging through dialogic relations and socially situated discursive practices. From this perspective, this study investigates whether these teachers engage with different ways of representing themselves through appropriating, adapting or rejecting Discourses prevailing in the Australian classroom. Research suggests that reflecting on dilemmas encountered as lived experiences can extend professional understandings. In this study, the participants engage in a process of dialogic reflection on their intercultural classroom interactions, examining with their peers and their lecturer/researcher selected moments of dissonance that they have faced in the unfamiliar context of an Australian primary classroom. It is argued that the recursive and multivoiced nature of this process of reflection on practice allows participants opportunities to negotiate new understandings of second language teacher identity. Dialogic learning, based on the theories of Bakhtin and Vygotsky, provides the theoretic framing not only for the process of reflection instantiated in this study, but also features in the analysis of the participants’ second language classroom practices. The research design uses a combined discourse analytic and ethnographic approach as a logic-of-inquiry to explore the dialogic relationships which these second language teachers negotiate with their students and their peers in the transnational context. In this way, through discourse analysis of their classroom talk and reflective dialogues, assisted by the analytic tools of speech genres and discourse formats, I explore the participants’ ways of doing and being second language teachers. Thus, this analysis traces the process of ideological becoming of these beginner teachers as shifts in their understandings of teacher and student identities. This study also demonstrates the potential for a nontraditional stimulated recall interview to provide dialogic scaffolding for beginner teachers to reflect productively on their practice.

Reviewed by: Between Two Grammars, Research and Practice for Language Learning and Teaching in a Creole-speaking Environment by Beverley Bryan Don E. Walicek Beverley Bryan. 2010. Between Two Grammars, Research and Practice for Language Learning and Teaching in a Creole-speaking Environment. Kingston: Ian Randle. 194pp. ISBN: 978-976-637-352-8. This book—which consists of an introduction, eight chapters, and a detailed index—offers a multidisciplinary perspective on language learning and teaching, in particular the teaching of English in Jamaica. Its author, Beverley Bryan, indicates that the work has five main aims: (i) to present an enriched view of the multiple meanings of language and English in teaching in the Caribbean; (ii) to provide tools necessary to navigate the language arena, allowing teachers to interrogate their responses to language; (iii) to generate a set of principles appropriate for teaching English in Creole-speaking environments; (iv) to review specific language teaching methodologies; and (v) to empower teachers to develop a critical perspective on their practice. The author makes a direct appeal to those who work in education, but the volume will certainly be appreciated a variety of readers, including those with interests in sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and pedagogy. Chapter 1, ‘Characterising the Language Situation in Jamaica,’ engages literature from Caribbean linguistics, citing the work of influential researchers in the field, including Mervyn Alleyne, Derek Bickerton, and Hubert Devonish. It includes an informative overview of the grammatical features of the island’s Creole (hereafter referred to as Jamaican) and discusses shifts in public discourse about the status of the language. Exploring the latter, Bryan examines discourse about Jamaican that have appeared in letters to the editor and notes a diachronic shift in these newspaper debates. She points out that while language issues remain contentious, today such letters tend to assume that the Creole is a full-fledged language. While the chapter does provide details about Jamaican, it does not squarely address questions how to define and distinguish the languages spoken on the island. Of course some readers are likely to already be knowledgeable of Jamaica’s linguistic history and sociolinguistic dynamics. The second chapter, which begins with an interesting section on the emergence of formal education in Jamaica, deals with the school environment. The author indicates that language teaching on the island [End Page 236] began with the establishment of a system of elementary education “under the aegis of the abolition arm of the church” and with the aid of the Negro Education Grant 1835–1845 (p. 24). Tensions exist between Bryan’s account of the establishment of an educational system and assertions made by Dunkley (2012). Dunkley views the Negro Educational Grant as an “additional enhancement” to a venture already in place; furthermore, he charges that to conclude that no real system was in place prior to abolition undermines the agency of the enslaved and forfeits the opportunity to “analyze one of the most important ways in which enslaved people demonstrated slave freedom” (p. 70). Readers unfamiliar with the history of the system may be surprised to learn that “payment by results,” an arrangement by which student achievement translated into money for schools, dates back to the first half of the nineteenth century. Keeping this in mind, Bryan describes competency in English during this period as a commodity, reminding us, “each mark gained was a pound for the school” (pp. 24–25). Chapter 2’s discussion extends into the twentieth century, addressing curriculum development, access to education, and patterns of classroom interaction. In a section highlighting recent research, Bryan underscores the existence of varying degrees of bilingualism, analyzes several examples of classroom discourse, and emphasizes the importance of the teacher as a bridge between languages. The next chapter considers how English is taught in secondary schools. It begins with an overview of relevant theories of English as an international language and a survey of scholarship on “the New Englishes.” Bryan also addresses the debate about the use of Jamaican as a language of classroom instruction. She makes a distinction between efforts to promote Jamaican as an official language and language of instruction (research by H. Devonish and projects at UWI’s Jamaican Language Unit) and opposition to such...

South African National Language Education policy (South Africa, DoE 2002) enshrines multilingualism (ML) as one of its major goals. The implementation of such a policy is a slow process, however, particularly in the educational domain, where parents, teachers and students favour the dominant, ex-colonial language (English) for both historic and instrumental reasons (Dalvit & de Klerk 2005). However, results of the National Benchmarking Test (NBMT Report 2009) conducted at selected South African universities show that most non-English speaking students in higher education have underdeveloped language and numeracy skills for study at this level, one of the main barriers to access being that of language (Council on Higher Education 2007: 2). Efforts have thus intensified in South African institutions to introduce the home languages of learners into the educational domain, either as learning support alongside the main medium of instruction or as alternative languages of instruction, working towards the development of a bilingual education model. This report documents developments in research in the promotion and use of the African languages in education in South Africa in recent years, particularly since the publication of the previous report (Wildsmith-Cromarty 2009), which discussed various initiatives in the teaching, development and use of the African languages in South African education during the period 2005–2008. This report considers further developments in the use of the African languages for academic purposes in the following areas: the learning and teaching of these languages as additional languages and for professional purposes in selected disciplines for specialist programmes, and their intellectualization, which includes their use as languages of instruction, in the translation of materials and other learning resources, and development of terminology.

Emotions play a pivotal role in shaping the processes and outcomes of second and foreign language (L2) education. While positive emotions have been widely recognized for their facilitative effects, negative emotional experiences, such as anxiety, boredom, frustration, and burnout, continue to pose significant challenges for both language learners and teachers. Despite growing scholarly interest, research on the dynamics and trajectories of negative emotions in language classrooms has often relied on conventional methodological approaches that may not fully capture their complexity and situated nature. Addressing this gap, the present special issue brings together 19 empirical studies that employ innovative research methods to investigate the causes, determinants, and implications of negative emotional experiences in L2 contexts. Organized into two broad strands, the contributions examine (a) language learners’ emotional states and (b) language teachers’ emotional experiences, drawing on a wide range of advanced methodologies, including idiodynamic analysis, latent growth and profile modeling, ecological and time-series approaches, phenomenological inquiry, and narrative frameworks. Collectively, these studies highlight the dynamic, context-sensitive, and multifaceted nature of classroom emotions, offering nuanced insights into how negative affect emerges and evolves over time. The special issue underscores the importance of methodological innovation in advancing the field and calls for more process-oriented, contextually grounded, and practitioner-informed research to better understand and address the emotional complexities of contemporary language education.

ABSTRACTIn April 2011, the Ministry of Education in Japan formally introduced Primary School English (PSE) language teaching in Japanese elementary schools. The PSE policy made it mandatory for fourth- and fifth-graders to attend English lessons once a week. Using the theoretical framework on why educational language plans fail [Kaplan, R. B., Baldauf, R. B. Jr., & Kamwangamalu, N. (2011). Why educational plans sometimes fail. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 105–124], language planning and its problems [Baldauf, R. B. Jr., Kaplan, R. B., & Kamwangamalu, N. (2010). Language planning and its problems. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 430–438] and micro language planning [Chua, C. S. K., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 936–951). New York, NY: Routledge], this article critically examines the 2011 PSE curricular policy in Japanese elementary schools. Data collection was derived from books, journals, press materials on PSE in Japan and interviews with key stakeholders. The results of the study show that several factors impede the implementation of PSE programme in Japan: lack of curriculum time in learning English, inadequate teaching materials, lack of confidence of teachers to teach English, lack of training and support given to teachers, lack of uniformity in the implementation of PSE programme and an inadequate sociolinguistic environment to sustain the learning of English. This article suggests the need for official language-in-educational planners to adopt a “micro” approach [Chua, C. S. K., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 936–951). New York, NY: Routledge] and consider the various challenges faced by the local government, school, and teachers before “rushing” to implement PSE programmes.

This volume brings together work by renowned scholars in the field of foreign/second/heritage languages and literatures who employ a variety of scholarly tools to examine opportunities associated with literature as a force for rehumanizing and invigorating target language (TL) education in the 21st century. Offering viable avenues for reconciling historic differences between language pedagogues and literature educators, their work demonstrates that language pedagogy and literary studies are not divergent or competing disciplines separated by firm barriers, but rather convergent, interdependent, mutually beneficial, and genuinely complementary areas of inquiry. Each chapter foregrounds the multilayered value of target language literary education, aligning it with competencies that reside at the core of broader contemporary educational and societal priorities and aspirations. The contributors connect literature education to a wide array of goals, including not only literacy, communicative competencies, critical reading, and critical thinking, but also social engagement, global citizenship, intercultural sensitivity, and symbolic competence. Without minimizing the significant challenges facing language educators today, Rehumanizing the Language Curriculum argues in various ways for rehumanizing language education as the most effective means for overcoming pressing challenges, for addressing urgent priorities, and for approaching our full potential within the diversity of this vibrant community of scholarship and practice. "Rehumanizing the Language Curriculum should be compulsory reading for educators wishing to integrate language and literature teaching. This is a welcome and much needed contribution to rehumanizing language education in the 21st century." —Werner Delanoy, University of Klagenfurt "Featuring an international cast of contributors, this volume provides new insights into the role of literature in 21st century language education. Through various theoretical, ideological, and pedagogical lenses, the chapters present innovative and thought-provoking ways to reconcile the language-content divide and teach language and literature as interdependent parts of a whole. The result is a volume that encourages readers to value and embrace the range of disciplinary content and scholarly perspectives comprising language programs." —Kate Paesani, University of Minnesota "This wide-ranging collection highlights the importance of literature education in the language classroom, critiquing reductionist views of language education and making insightful connections between areas such as literary reading, deep reading, language education and general educational competencies. A thoughtful and often provocative collection, it provides a variety of lenses for understanding the ways in which second language learners can engage with literature, and a clear illustration of the immense world of new possibilities that is opened up when using literature." —Amos Paran, University College London "Rehumanizing the Language Curriculum is an ambitious, wide-ranging, yet readable collection of chapters which makes us rediscover the role of literature in language education. Addressing current issues such as intercultural communication, ecology, and diversity, this book proves the practicality and versatility of literature. In the gloomy educational environment in which pedagogical effects are mistakenly visualized statistically, uniformly, or even financially, the multifaceted approaches illustrated in this volume are a must for language teachers and scholars in any context." —Masayuki Teranishi, University of Hyogo, Japan

This study examined how creative strategies such as artificial intelligence (AI) tools, collaborative writing, and digital storytelling activities impacted the enhancement of academic writing skills of English learners at the university level. The research sought to understand the writing problems that were most common, evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the measures, and monitor the students' reception to the measures being implemented. A quantitative approach using surveys was used with a sample of 346 students from different fields of study. Structured questionnaires which had been tested in a pilot study (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.792) were used to gather data and were then processed in SPSS (Version 28). Descriptive statistics and cross tabulation were used to analyse the data and find the patterns pertaining to difficulties in writing, use of tools, and outcomes. The most critical findings were the remaining issues: grammar was a problem for 62.5%, coherence for 55.2%, and vocabulary for 49.4% of the students. In spite of this, self-reported use of innovative strategies was still high such as: AI tools usage (69.7%) and peer collaboration (65.4%) as well as engaging interactive methods (82.6%). Additionally, there was strong support for institutional adoption, with 87% of participants in favour; however, there was less support for advanced digital storytelling techniques (39.3% engagement). The ethical considerations such as anonymity and voluntary participation were followed. Testing in the pilot phase reduced bias and no personal information was stored. This study addresses the gap in the integration of technology and collaborative teaching processes in the teaching of academic writing. It provides empirical data on the effectiveness of modern approaches while also revealing gaps in adoption across levels of proficiency and disciplines. The results make it possible for curriculum developers and decision makers to take tangible steps toward solving the discrepancies between offer and demand in the context of use. References Abahussain, M. O. (2020). Investigating EFL learners’ perceptions of collaborative writing. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(3), 32–47. Alawaji, N. N. M. (2020). Students' perceptions of collaborative summary writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(6), 700–707. Belyaeva, E. G. (2022). Methodological model of teaching academic writing to undergraduate students. Focus on Language Education and Research, 3(1), 36–51. Butt, S. (2023). Employees’ perception regarding in-house training programs in Pakistani organizations. Journal of Workplace Behavior, 4(1), 35–50. Butt, S., & Yazdani, N. (2023). Implementation of quality management practices and firm’s innovation performance: Mediation of knowledge creation processes and moderating role of digital transformation. Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(4), 3881–3902. Butt, S., Umair, T., & Tajammal, R. (2024). Nexus between key determinants of service quality and students’ satisfaction in higher education institutions (HEIs). Annals of Human and Social Sciences, 5(2), 659–671. Chiew, M. T. L., & Ismail, H. H. (2021). Exploring vocabulary learning strategies in a second language setting: A review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(12), 1298–1309. Chubko, N., Morris, J. E., McKinnon, D. H., Slater, E. V., & Lummis, G. W. (2020). Digital storytelling as a disciplinary literacy enhancement tool for EFL students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 3587–3604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09833-x Davoodifard, M. (2022). An overview of writing process research: Using innovative tasks and techniques for a better understanding of L2 writing processes in assessment contexts. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 21(2). Dodigovic, M., & Jeaco, S. (2021). Technology in applied linguistics. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 3(2), 1–5. Ferris, D. R. (2023). What error correction can (not) accomplish for second language writers: Dispelling myths, discussing options. University of Michigan Press. Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2023). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice (4th ed.). Routledge. Flowerdew, L. (2021). Learner corpora for disciplinary writing. In Research questions in language education and applied linguistics: A reference guide (pp. 475–479). Springer. Flowerdew, L., & Petrić, B. (2024). A critical review of corpus-based pedagogic perspectives on thesis writing: Specificity revisited. English for Specific Purposes, 76, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2024.01.001 Hinkel, E. (2022). Teaching academic L2 writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar (2nd ed.). Routledge. Hyland, K. (2024). Ken Hyland's essential bookshelf: Academic writing. Language Teaching, 57(3), 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444824000109 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Kang, E. Y., & Han, Z. (2021). Written corrective feedback. In The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. [page range]). Routledge. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The effects of written corrective feedback. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28–52. Kessler, G. (2020). Professionalizing your use of technology in English language teaching. In Professionalizing your English language teaching (pp. 163–173). Springer. Kessler, M. (2023). Written corrective feedback in an online community: A typology of English language learners’ requests and interlocutors’ responses. Computers and Composition, 67, 102752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102752 Kim, N. J., & Kim, M. K. (2022). Teacher’s perceptions of using an artificial intelligence-based educational tool for scientific writing. Frontiers in Education, 7, 755914. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.755914 Li, J. (2017). Automated writing evaluation: A pedagogical tool. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 427–432. Li, M. (2021). Researching and teaching second language writing in the digital age. Palgrave Macmillan. Li, M., & Zhang, M. (2023). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 56(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000318 Mihaylova, M., Gorin, S., Reber, T. P., & Rothen, N. (2022). A meta-analysis on mobile-assisted language learning applications: Benefits and risks. Psychologica Belgica, 62(1), 252–267. Mulyono, H., & Saskia, R. (2021). Affective variables contributing to Indonesian EFL students’ willingness to communicate within face-to-face and digital environments. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1911282. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1911282 Poole, R. (2022). “Corpus can be tricky”: Revisiting teacher attitudes towards corpus-aided language learning and teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(7), 1620–1641. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1868533 Reagan, D., Fell, E., & Mackey, A. (2023). Applied linguistics in the age of anxiety. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–6. Reppen, R. (2022). Building a corpus: What are key considerations? In The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 13–20). Routledge. Storch, N. (2021). Theoretical perspectives on L2 writing and language learning in collaborative writing and the collaborative processing of written corrective feedback. In The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 22–34). Routledge. Ullah, A., & Usman, M. (2023). Role of libraries in ensuring quality education at higher education institutions: A perspective of Pakistan. Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4), 13–22. Ullah, A. (2024). Analyzing the students’ attitudes and behavior towards traditional classes and technology-enhanced online learning. International Journal of Social Science Archives. https://www.ijssa.com/index.php/ijssa/article/view/498 Usman, M., Asif, M., Ullah, A., & Ullah, W. (2024). User’s habits and attitudes towards Chinese books reading in Pakistan. Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 11–28. Wei, W., Cheong, C. M., Zhu, X., & Lu, Q. (2024). Comparing self-reflection and peer feedback practices in an academic writing task: A student self-efficacy perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(4), 896–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2316724 Wiboolyasarin, W., Wiboolyasarin, K., Suwanwihok, K., Jinowat, N., & Muenjanchoey, R. (2024). Synergizing collaborative writing and AI feedback: An investigation into enhancing L2 writing proficiency in wiki-based environments. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100228 Woodrow, L. (2022). Introducing researching English for specific purposes. Routledge. Xu, L., Naserpour, A., Rezai, A., Namaziandost, E., & Azizi, Z. (2022). Exploring EFL learners’ metaphorical conceptions of language learning: A multimodal analysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(2), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09842-2 YALA, A. (2022). The use of mobile-assisted language learning to foster students’ self-editing in sentence writing: Case of 1st year EFL students at Setif 2 University [Doctoral dissertation, Université de Batna 2]. Zhang, Y. O., & Hyland, K. (2021). Elements of doctoral apprenticeship: Community feedback and the acquisition of writing expertise. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53, 100835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100835

The book is an excellent source to all who are involved in foreign language education, from the novice to the experienced teacher. In a reader-friendly style, it presents and discusses important foundations on communicative language teaching (CLT). The language instructor who is familiar with Brown's Teaching Principles will find them rearranged in this edition. In previous editions, Brown presented 12 principles divided into three categories: cognitive, affective, and linguistic. Now this list has been revised: eight principles are presented, instead of 12. The number has been reduced, not because some principles have been discarded, but reconceptualized. Also, the authors do not classify the principles under a category, but still order them from the more individual cognitive psychological ones to principles that emphasize social interactions and the language learner as an agent in a cultural environment. The eight revised principles are: automaticity; transfer; reward; self-regulation; identity and investment; interaction; languaculture; and agency. These principles are taken as foundations for classroom practice and are at the base of every part of the book.In this edition, special attention should be given to four aspects that are new or have been restructured: agency; the importance of sociopolitical contexts; technology; and social responsibility. The notion of “agency,” borrowed from social sciences, as the “ability to act with intention,” is new in second language acquisition. The authors introduce this approach in the book as they connect agency to self-efficacy, motivation, cognition, emotion, and other human capacities that allow the language learner, the “agent,” to act socially in the linguistic and political framework related to the foreign language. Culture and sociopolitical contexts grew in importance in this new edition. It now reflects the significance of current research on ethnicity, politics, and educational philosophy to language teaching and learning. Another chapter to be read with attention is the chapter on technology. Since it plays an important role in people's daily lives today, technology is regarded not only as a sophisticated form for information processing, but as an opportunity for cross-cultural learning through different media and in many situations. While the authors present numerous advantages, they also mention the challenges that technology imposes to the language teacher. Finally, the book concludes with a reflection on the social responsibility of the foreign language teacher, who plays an important role as an agent for making the world a better place, through language and communication. Below, we offer an overview of the six parts of the book.The first part, “Foundations for Classroom Practice,” opens with background information on terms, concepts, and issues in the field of second language education. After giving a scene of a typical language lesson along with questions to investigate the planned events, the authors delineate a historical survey of language teaching trends and methods in the twentieth century. It describes and discusses current approaches in the perspective of eight principles for CLT. By expanding the essence of language teaching, the last chapter of this part illustrates the complexity of the principles and their implications to the language classroom, under the perspective of “agency.”The second part, “Contexts of Learning and Teaching,” explores the environment of learners' needs and appropriate methods. After providing guidelines for two salient variables of age and proficiency level, the last chapter of this part examines various far-reaching issues of culture, ethnicity, identity, and situational politics.In the third part, “Practical Classroom Considerations,” the authors focus on the implementation of new techniques, materials, and modern technology to facilitate interaction in the language classroom. It presents a scheme of courses, programs, and curricula that will provide strong guidelines for lesson planning. Further, the authors redefine techniques and suggest important insights into the application of technology. Interaction in the communicative L2 classroom is widely discussed. The last chapter of this part addresses the dynamics of the classroom: from the physical aspects of the environment to the creation of a positive social climate by the L2 teacher.The fourth part, “Teaching Language Skills,” brings up pedagogical approaches for the four skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The authors highlight the importance of integrating these skills into L2 teaching. Based on current research, each chapter discusses different principles and teaching strategies to each skill. It provides practical techniques and assessment guidelines. The last chapter revises the teaching of grammar and vocabulary. It is updated with recent findings on form-focused instruction.The fifth part, “Assessing Language Skills,” provides concepts, issues, and practicalities of assessment in the classroom. Assessment is seen as an integral aspect of the pedagogical process: it guides lesson design, its implementation, and achievement of goals. After reviewing principles and basic concepts in language assessment, the authors offer the reader practical steps to test construction and alternatives to formal evaluation.In the sixth and last part of the book, “Lifelong Learning,” the authors call on teachers' attention to sharpen their senses and to improve teaching skills. This part includes many creative suggestions for effective language teachers' development, and stresses the importance of teacher collaboration. By opening the opportunity to consider social responsibility and critical pedagogy as intrinsic aspects of language teaching, the book urges teachers to be sensitive and responsive to this changing world. After all, language teaching needs to promote communication, understanding, and peace.In conclusion, this book is a great pedagogical resource for educators, linguists, and researchers involved in second language teaching/learning. It gives the most important foundations for teaching a foreign language in the classroom in today's world. It is mainly written for teachers of English as a second language, but foreign language teachers as well as Korean teachers will find it useful and inspiring. It will enable them to apply the results of new linguistic studies to their pedagogical practice. It will help them focus on the motivation to transform their students into social agents who can participate in their environment through the new language they learn.

The idea of teaching a target language via a monolingual medium of instruction in the classroom has long predominated in the pedagogical context. In Saudi Arabia, excluding the students’ mother tongue (Arabic) in the foreign language classroom has been seen as a tool that accelerates the acquisition of the target language (English). This is widely viewed as the most practical and effective method of language learning, especially in the Gulf region, where English is a foreign language employed in the fields of economics and business. The recent academic argument that exploiting the students’ linguistic repertoire, including the mother tongue, in the target language classroom boosts and fosters the students’ learning cycle is still encountering huge resistance, especially among second/foreign language teachers. To explore this dispute from the perspective of English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers in intermediate and secondary schools, a case study was conducted with 34 teachers in the Qassim region, Saudi Arabia, through questionnaires and a focus group interview. The study found that most teachers believe that the policy of using the target language (English) only is the most effective method of language learning. They employed the students’ mother tongue (Arabic) on an ad hoc basis to ensure complete comprehension, organize classroom tasks or convey personal remarks. In addition, the study revealed that teachers’ understanding of plurilingualism was unclear and limited to the verbal use of two languages, and that EFL teachers need more clarification on its application in the classroom.