This state-of-the-art paper foregrounds mixed-methods research (MMR) in language teaching and learning by discussing and critically reviewing issues related to this newly developed research paradigm. The paper has six sections. The first provides a context for the discussion of MMR through an introductory review of quantitative and qualitative paradigms. In the second section we discuss the nature and scope of MMR, its underlying principles, and its techniques and procedures. In the third section we discuss trends in MMR in language teaching and learning, and review 40 published papers in 30 journals related to this field, covering one decade (2002–2011). Issues and challenges facing MMR and its researchers are discussed in the fourth section, while in the fifth we discuss the significance of replicating MMR studies in language teaching and learning. Finally, we conclude by presenting prospects and avenues for further developing mixed-methods research.

This article examines current research on the role and importance of lower-level processes in second language (L2) reading. The focus is on word recognition and its subcomponent processes, including various phonological and orthographic processes. Issues related to syntactic and semantic processes and their relationship with word recognition are also discussed. When examining the role of these processes, an important focus is also on cross-linguistic variables and the various ways in which they facilitate or impede the development of L2 reading skills. The review concludes with a discussion of the implications of the issues addressed for L2 reading instruction and directions for future research.

Plagiarism is a broad and multidisciplinary field of study, and within second-language (L2) writing, research on the topic goes back to the mid-1980s. In this review article we first discuss the received view of plagiarism as a transgressive act and alternative understandings which have been presented in the L1 and L2 writing literature. We then survey and identify salient themes in the growing body of work relating to plagiarism, primarily from an L2 writing/applied linguistic perspective. These themes include terminological distinctions; views of the role of textual plagiarism in language learning and a writer's development; a concern with students’ and teachers’ sometimes differing understanding of plagiarism; and disciplinary differences in perceptions of plagiarism. We review research into the role of the electronic media in changing orientations toward plagiarism, the potential role of culture as a cause of plagiarism in the work of L2 writers, and pedagogical approaches to guiding students away from plagiarism. Methodological issues in researching plagiarism are surveyed, and the article concludes by suggesting directions for future research.

The Editor and Board of Language Teaching are pleased to announce that the winner of the 2013 Christopher Brumfit thesis award is Dr. Ellen Johnson Serafini. The thesis was selected by an external panel of judges based on its significance to the field of second language acquisition, second or foreign language learning and teaching, originality and creativity and quality of presentation.

Research into dictionary use does not have a long history. Although publishers recognised in the 1960s that ‘dictionaries should be designed with a special set of users in mind’ (Householder 1967: 279) there were extremely few empirical user studies before the 1980s – Welker's most recent survey (2010) lists only six. The subsequent surge of interest in this field was fuelled by big changes to dictionary content and design in the 1980s and 1990s, changes that were particularly evident in dictionaries for learners of English as a foreign language, conventionally known as ‘learners’ dictionaries’. In the space of a few years the Oxford advanced learner's dictionary, generally considered to be the earliest advanced learners’ dictionary (first published under a different title in 1942, with subsequent editions in 1948, 1963, 1974 and 1989) was joined by two new competitors: the Longman dictionary of contemporary English (first edition 1978, second edition 1987) and the COBUILD English dictionary (1987). In 1995 all three of these advanced learners’ dictionaries brought out new editions, and a fourth, the Cambridge international dictionary of English, was launched. These dictionaries, sometimes referred to as ‘the big four’ (Bogaards 1996, De Schryver 2012 and others), drew on Eastern European traditions of lexical description, the illustrative practices of American children's dictionaries, and insights from English language teaching pedagogies. Each had its own distinctive layout and defining style, prompting a spate of comparative studies intended to help users make appropriate purchasing choices, and to help publishers improve their design still further, for example by changes to the entry microstructure. A fifth such dictionary, the Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners, appeared in 2002.

Working memory (WM) generally refers to the human ability to temporarily maintain and manipulate a limited amount of information in immediate consciousness when carrying out complex cognitive tasks such as problem-solving and language comprehension. Though much controversy has surrounded the WM concept since its inception by Baddeley & Hitch (1974), an increasing number of cognitive psychologists have accepted WM as a multi-component system comprising both domain-specific storage mechanisms and domain-general executive functions (Miyake & Shah 1999; Baddeley 2012; Williams 2012). Such a fractionated view of this cognitive construct manifests itself clearly in distinct strands of WM-language research, where two contrasting research paradigms have emerged (Wen 2012).

The term ‘genre’ first came into the field of second-language (L2) writing and, in turn, the field of English for specific purposes (ESP) in the 1980s, with the research of John Swales, first carried out in the UK, into the introduction section of research articles. Other important figures in this area are Tony Dudley-Evans, Ann Johns and Ken Hyland, who have argued for the value of genre in the teaching of L2 academic writing. ESP genre analysis is a development of text linguistics and the description of academic genres, moving from a focus on lexicogrammatical features to rhetorical moves and, later, to a focus on rhetorical context (see Swales 2001 for a review). Systemic functional genre analysis (typically called the ‘Sydney school’) is a development of research such as that of Longacre (1976) and Labov & Waletzky (1967) and their analyses of the discourse structures of texts. Jim Martin and Joan Rothery are two important figures in the early development of systemic functional genre analysis; their work became the basis for the Disadvantaged Schools Project in Sydney (see Rose & Martin 2012 for a history). As an approach to the teaching of writing, genre-based pedagogy came into prominence in the US, in part as a response to process writing, which, it was felt, did not realistically prepare students for the demands of writing in academic contexts (Horowitz 1986). Genre-based pedagogy in Australia has a similar history and was a reaction to whole language and process writing, which were dominant in the teaching of writing in Australian schools at the time.

This article reviews a selective corpus of empirical and theoretical texts on foreign language pedagogy and teacher education, produced in Portugal between 2006 and 2011. A descriptive and interpretative approach is adopted to inquire into the transformative potential of research, with a focus on its scope, purposes, conceptual and methodological frameworks, outcomes and implications. Four major themes were identified, primarily related to current language policies and theoretical developments in language didactics: intercomprehension and plurilingualism, teacher and learner autonomy, Portuguese as a non-native language, and technology-based learning and teaching. The transformative potential of the studies reviewed is enhanced by their intention to question and reshape dominant practices on the basis of democratic values; an empowering view of language, pedagogy and teacher education; a close relation between pedagogy and teacher education; participatory research methodologies; and the identification of constraints on, and conditions for, change. However, there is a need for strategies that remain somewhat marginal but may enhance that potential: expanding university–school partnerships, professional learning communities and school-based inquiry; strengthening the political dimension of research outcomes; finding strategies to counteract limitations on the scope and impact of naturalistic inquiry; and fostering scholarship in teacher education.

Because certain home language and literacy practices have been found to be beneficial to monolingual children's literacy development, we examine immigrant children's home language and literacy practices in different countries. Presenting findings from 92 post-2000 articles, we examine research into these practices, what factors influence their occurrence, how they influence immigrant children's development of literacy in the societal language, and what factors seem to moderate or mediate the effects of home literacy activities on societal-language literacy. We found that immigrant families engage in a wide variety of oral language and literacy activities at home, but that most of these practices have not been investigated in relation to immigrant children's literacy development. Book reading, the most-studied practice, seems to promote such development. Additional research is needed into the many factors that influence children's literacy development, including government policies and community context. In addition, researchers need to build on existing descriptive and correlational studies to design and implement innovative school curricula and family literacy programs that connect home and school practices and encourage parental involvement in the school.

In this review, we highlight 60 articles from 1,120 empirical studies in leading language learning and teaching journals published on the Chinese mainland during the years 2008–2011. In preparing the review, we have found Chinese researchers addressing a wide range of topics including language learners’ cognitive processes, their language performance, and language teachers’ professional development. The selected studies document a variety of approaches to improving the teaching of the English language and meeting the demand for proficient English graduates in China. In addition, we have observed that leading Chinese journals have become more receptive to empirical studies and have published an increasing number of qualitative and mixed method studies. However, we also note that research scholarship in those journals is still beset with problems and there is a pressing need for our Chinese colleagues to become ‘discerning’ producers of scholarship. For this reason, we conclude this review with recommendations to Chinese journals, to help them play an even more significant role in promoting high quality empirical research in the future.

This paper explores three research projects conducted by the writer and others with a view to demonstrating the importance of effective theory and methodology in the analysis of teaching situations where Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), teacher practice and teacher education meet. It argues that there is a tendency in the field of teacher education for CALL to make use of what might be considered quite traditional research methodology, often drawing on research traditions not connected to teacher education. In teacher education and CALL, research theory is quite often drawn from the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), which despite its connection with CALL, is less relevant to the specific combined demands of researching teacher education for CALL. At the same time we are seeing some moves in recent publications and conference presentations towards the use of sociocultural theories as part of an analysis of CALL teacher practices and teacher education for CALL. In this paper, I argue that this is a positive step in the direction of establishing teacher education for CALL as a more mature field of enquiry. In order to avoid the pitfalls of inappropriate research methodology, the paper then presents an argument for a range of methodologies, chosen on the basis of a fashioning of research instruments (Czarniawska 1998), or a ‘bricolage’ (Levi-Strauss 1962/1966) that enables us – in conjunction with the theory – to explore different teaching situations in an informed and effective way.

While approaching second language acquisition from a complex dynamic systems perspective makes a lot of intuitive sense, it is difficult for a number of reasons to operationalise such a dynamic approach in research terms. For example, the most common research paradigms in the social sciences tend to examine variables in relative isolation rather than as part of a system or network, and most established quantitative data analytical procedures (e.g. correlation analysis or structural equation modelling) are based on linear rather than nonlinear relationships. In this paper I will first summarise some of the main challenges of dynamic systems research in general and then present a concrete research template that can be applied to investigate instructed second language acquisition. This approach involves a special type of qualitative system modelling – ‘retrodictive qualitative modelling’ – that reverses the usual research direction by starting at the end – the system outcomes – and then tracing back to see why certain components of the system ended up with one outcome option and not another. By way of illustration I will provide examples from two classroom-oriented research projects in which the language classroom was taken to be the dynamic system, and the system outcome options were the various learner prototypes (e.g. motivated, laid back, passive) observed in the classroom.

This paper recapitulates the aims of the CEFR and highlights three aspects of good practice in exploiting it: firstly, taking as a starting point the real-world language ability that is the aim of all modern language learners; secondly, the exploitation of good descriptors as transparent learning objectives in order to involve and empower the learners; and thirdly, engaging with the communality of the CEFR Common Reference Levels in relating assessments to it. The second part of the paper focuses on good practice in such linking of assessments to the CEFR. It outlines the recommended procedures published by the Council of Europe for linking language examinations to the CEFR and the adaptation of those procedures for teacher assessment in language schools that has recently been undertaken by EAQUALS. The paper concludes by discussing certain aspects of criterion-referenced assessment (CR) and standard setting that are relevant to the linking process.

The social and cultural ‘turn’ in language education of recent years has helped move language teaching and curriculum design away from many of the more rigid dogmas of earlier generations, but the issue of the roles of the learners’ first language (L1) in language pedagogy and classroom interaction is far from settled. Some follow a strict ‘exclusive target language’ pedagogy, while others ‘resort to’ the use of the L1 for a variety of purposes (see ACTFL 2008). Underlying these competing views is the perspective of the L1 as an impediment to second language learning. Following sociocultural theory and ecological perspectives of language and learning and based on the findings of research on classroom code-switching and code choice, this paper lays out an approach to the language classroom as a multilingual social space in which learners and teacher study, negotiate, and co-construct code choice norms toward the dynamic, creative, and pedagogically effective use of both the target language and the learners’ L1(s). Learner use of the L1 for the purpose of grammatical or lexical learning is also considered, and some examples for instruction are offered.

Narrative research in language teaching and learning (LTL) is concerned with the stories teachers and learners tell about their lived and imagined experiences. Teachers typically tell about their professional development and their practices, and learners about their experiences of learning and using languages. What stories are, and indeed what narrative research is, however, remains far from agreed upon in LTL research. There is no single, all-encompassing definition of narrative (research), probably because the same situation exists in other disciplines from which empirical work in LTL draws its theoretical and methodological assumptions and approaches. Stanley & Temple (2008: 276), for example, say that generally there is ‘little shared sense of core concerns, of approach, and even of what narrative is seen as’. In LTL, narrative, whether as text/artefact, method of analysis, or both, has become a popular catchall term for much activity in qualitative, interpretive research which focuses on the experiences of research participants. In other words, it has been appropriated by researchers who exhibit varying degrees of epistemological commitment to narrative, and this is evident in the design and reporting of their research.

Based on recent research in cognitive science, interaction, and second language acquisition (SLA), I describe a sociocognitive approach to SLA. This approach adopts a non-cognitivist view of cognition: Instead of an isolated computational process in which input is extracted from the environment and used to build elaborate internal knowledge representations, cognition is seen as adaptive intelligence, enabling our close and sensitive alignment to our ecosocial environment in order to survive in it. Mind, body, and world are thus functionally integrated from a sociocognitive perspective instead of radically separated.

Learning plays a major part in this scenario: If environments are ever-changing, then adaptation to them is continuous. Learning is part of our natural ability to so adapt, while retaining traces of that adaptation in the integrated mind-body-world system. Viewed in this way, SLA is adaptation to/engagement with L2 environments.

Interaction also plays a central role in sociocognitive SLA: We learn L2s through interacting with/in L2 environments. Founded on innate, universal skills which evolutionarily preceded language and make it possible, interaction supports SLA at every turn. Having presented this argument, I illustrate it by analyzing a video clip of an EFL tutoring session, indicating various ‘sociocognitive tools’ for interactive alignment which undergird L2 development.

In its early days, CLT was widely promoted as suitable for all contexts, but many questions have since been raised about what it really means and what versions of it (if any) are suited to specific learning situations. Experiences in Asia, where educational traditions and current realities often contrast strongly with those where CLT originated, have provided a major impetus for this questioning and the process has been reinforced by developments in the wider context, such as the postmethod perspective in language teaching and the decline of centre-to-periphery conceptions of modernization. CLT now serves not so much as a label for a specific approach as an umbrella term to describe all approaches that aim to develop communicative competence in personally meaningful ways. It also provides a framework for defining issues that research and exploratory practice need to address in the years ahead.

While writing for scholarly publications is considered a crucial dimension of academic work, the ‘publish-or-perish’ system in our field has increasingly caused anxiety and induced stress among not only young academics but also more established scholars. Using my own publishing experience as a point of departure, I challenge the assumption that knowledge contribution should be solely or mainly gauged on the basis of the venue of publications. By comparing the perspectives of twelve Asia-based scholars based on data collected from email interviews, I propose that ‘scholarliness’ should be defined by knowledge dissemination and advancement in our field, rather than indexes or journal impact factors. Using the game metaphor, I conclude by offering some tips to survive ‘publish or perish’.