This review of recent scholarship (RRS) paper is a follow-up of the first, published in this journal in 2014. For this RRS paper, we identified and included 304 mixed-methods research (MMR) papers published in 20 top-tier applied linguistics (AL) journals. We used a six-pronged quality and transparency framework to review and analyze the MMR studies, drawing on six quality frameworks and transparency discussions in the MMR literature. Using the quality and transparency framework, we report on: (1) which sources AL MMR researchers use to frame their studies, (2) how explicitly they explain the purpose and design structure of the MMR studies, (3) how transparently they describe method features (sampling procedures, data sources, and data analysis), and (4) how they integrate quantitative and qualitative data and analyses and construct meta-inferences. The results of the analyses will be reported and will show how MMR has developed and is represented in the published articles in the second decade of the twenty-first century. The discussion of the results will also highlight the areas future AL MMR researchers need to consider to make their studies and reports more rigorous and transparent.

Multimodal composing, which has sometimes been referred to synonymously as multimodal composition or multimodal writing, is the use of different semiotic resources (e.g., audio, visual, gestural, and/or spatial resources) in addition to linguistic text for making meaning. Notably, multimodal composing is neither a new type of writing nor a new area of research, with studies dating back to the early 2000s. In the domain of second language (L2) research, Tardy's (2005*) study on multimodal composition in academia was one of the earliest to bring attention to the nonlinguistic features of L2 written output. Even after this pioneering study, in the few years that followed, only a handful of studies further explored aspects of L2 learners’ multimodal compositions. However, over the past decade, the fields of applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA) have witnessed an explosion of interest in both its study and classroom applications, with teachers’ adoption of multiple modes becoming an indispensable part of their pedagogical toolkits (e.g., Kessler, 2022; Li, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021).

The idea of translanguaging has disrupted much of the thinking in bilingual education. A common misunderstanding, however, is that translanguaging was intended to be a language teaching strategy. This article seeks to explore what a translanguaging approach to language teaching entails, with specific reference to the education of minoritized and racialized bilingual and multilingual learners in the school systems in English-dominant countries such as the UK. In particular, I highlight the connections with and contributions to the inclusion and social justice agenda that the translanguaging project aims to make. Translanguaging takes one step further from multilingualism in challenging the raciolinguistic ideologies that view bilingual learners as having separate languages and languaging lives. It instead views their racial/ethnic identities and linguistic practices together, that is, their translanguaging being. My main argument here is that to use translanguaging as a pedagogy for inclusion and social justice requires a change of mindset, not just practice – that is, translanguaging pedagogy rather than pedagogical translanguaging – which can be achieved through processes of ‘co-learning’ and ‘transpositioning’.

What's the relevance of ‘Linguistic Citizenship' (LC), a concept developed in southern Africa, to language education in England? LC is committed to democratic participation and voice, to linguistic diversity and the value of sociolinguistic understanding (Stroud 2001), and it provides a framework for contesting linguistic conditions in England, where vernacular multilingualism faces monolingual language education policies and an officially ‘hostile environment for migrants'. In fact, LC lines up with four sources of opposition to this: civil society and small-scale community organisations cultivating heritage language multilingualism; experience of system-wide ‘hospitality to diversity' in education in England in the 1970s & 1980s; c.50 years of linguistics research in Britain; and universities themselves. Drawing on LC's pedigree in sociolinguistics, we then turn to the Hub for Education & Language Diversity, a collaboration between King's and non-profit language organisations which approaches LC as a multi-dimensional programme of language development. This includes BA & MA classes; teacher training (with resonant concepts like ‘diasporic local'); and efforts to broaden ideas about university ‘impact’. Overall, Linguistic Citizenship invites us to reassess the lie of the land in language education, and suggests an array of practical but principled initiatives at different points of the language teaching/university interface.

A lot of attention has been devoted in the last 30 years to understanding nativeness and what has traditionally been called non-nativeness. While many studies have attempted to problematize the dichotomic division between so-called native speakers and non-native speakers, several others have specifically focussed on the language teaching profession in order to understand aspects related to identity and performance of teachers who align with either one of those two categories. In this paper, we provide a brief overview of relevant literature published after Moussu and Llurda's (2008) state-of-the-art article and set out a series of tasks that we deem important in order to expand the field of research and cover areas that have not yet been sufficiently investigated. Those tasks are grouped into three sections that cover the main aspects that we perceive to be in need of attention: (1) debunking native-speakerism; (2) differences between native teachers and non-native teachers; and (3) languages other than English.

Rod Ellis is a Distinguished Research Professor at Curtin University (Perth, Australia) and also, an Emeritus Distinguished Professor at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). He has also worked in universities in UK, Japan, and the USA and is a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand. He has published widely in the related fields of second language acquisition research and task-based language teaching. He has won the British Association of Applied Linguists prize (1985), the Mildenberger prize (1987), The Duke of Edinburgh prize (1994), and the International Association of Task-based Teaching prize (2021). His current H-index on Google Scholar is 109.

Both of us were drawn into the writing assessment field initially through our lived experiences as schoolteachers. We worked in radically different contexts – Martin was head of a languages department and teacher of French and German in the late 1990s in the UK, and David was a Grade 12 teacher of Academic English in Alberta, Canada, at the turn of the twenty-first century. In both these contexts, the traditional direct test of writing – referred to, for example, as the ‘timed impromptu writing test’ (Weigle, 2002, p. 59) or the ‘snapshot approach’ (Hamp-Lyons & Kroll, 1997, p. 18) – featured significantly in our practices, albeit in very different ways. This form of writing assessment still holds considerable sway across the globe. For us, however, it provoked early questions and concerns around the consequential and ethical aspects of writing assessment.

This study is a conceptual replication of Teimouri et al.'s (2022) investigation into the validity of the second language (L2) grit scale (the L2-Grit scale). There are several concerns about the generalizability of the findings of Teimouri et al. (2022), especially regarding the discriminant validity of the scale and the relation of L2 grit with language achievements. A conceptual replication study was conducted because these concerns could be addressed by using a different methodology. The main findings include: (a) the factor structure of L2 grit was supported in the replication sample (106 English majors at a Japanese university), (b) the results support the discriminant validity of L2 grit, but in a different way from the initial study, and (c) L2 grit was a consistent predictor of L2-specific Grade Point Average and standardized test score. The results obtained lend further support for the validity of the L2-Grit scale.