East and Southeast Asia represents a linguistically and culturally diverse region. For example, more than 700 languages are spoken in Indonesia alone. It is against this backdrop of diversity that the ten countries that comprise Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have recently signed the ASEAN Charter which, while calling for respect for the region's languages, cultures and religions also officially nominates English as ASEAN's working language. In this article, we examine the language education policies of the region and consider the implications of these policies for the maintenance of linguistic and cultural diversity on the one hand and the promotion of English and the respective national languages on the other. As ASEAN is closely connected to the three major countries of China, Japan and South Korea, as indicated by the ‘ASEAN + 3’ forum, we also include these countries here. We stress that, as space forbids an in-depth treatment of the language education policies of each of the 13 countries, we have chosen to describe and discuss in some depth the policies of 5 countries (China, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam), as these provide a cross-section of language policy contexts and approaches in the region. We add brief notes on the policies of the remaining countries.

The construct ‘awareness’ is undoubtedly one of the more difficult constructs to operationalize and measure in both second language acquisition (SLA) and non-SLA fields of research. Indeed, the multi-faceted nature of awareness is clearly exemplified in concepts that include perception, detection, and noticing, and also in type of learning or learning conditions (implicit, explicit, incidental, subliminal), type of consciousness (autonoetic, noetic, anoetic), and type of awareness (language, phenomenal, meta-cognitive, situational). Given this broad perspective, this article provides, from a psycholinguistic perspective, a timeline on the research that addresses the role of awareness or lack thereof in second/foreign language (L2) learning.

There is current research consensus that second language (L2) learners are able to adequately comprehend general English written texts if they know 98% of the words that occur in the materials. This important finding prompts an important question: How much English vocabulary do English as a second language (ESL) learners need to know to achieve this crucial level of known-word coverage? A landmark paper by Nation (2006) provides a rather daunting answer. His exploration of the 98% figure through a variety of spoken and written corpora showed that knowledge of around 8,000–9,000 word families is needed for reading and 6,000–7,000 for listening. But is this the definitive picture? A recent study by van Zeeland & Schmitt (2012) suggests that 95% coverage may be sufficient for listening comprehension, and that this can be reached with 2,000–3,000 word families, which is much more manageable. Getting these figures right for a variety of text modalities, genres and conditions of reading and listening is essential. Teachers and learners need to be able to set goals, and as Cobb's study of learning opportunities (2007) has shown, coverage percentages and their associated vocabulary knowledge requirements have important implications for the acquisition of new word knowledge through exposure to comprehensible L2 input. This article proposes approximate replications of Nation (2006), van Zeeland & Schmitt (2012), and Cobb (2007), in order to clarify these key coverage and size figures.

That learners who want to develop good pragmatically-appropriate speaking skills in a language also need to develop good pronunciation is beyond dispute, and yet research continues to report that both areas still have low visibility in the curriculum and are often treated as poor relations in the classroom. Many teachers are still wary of what they see as specialist areas, a perspective that encourages their neglect in the curriculum, in assessment and in teacher training programmes. In this plenary I go back to basics and focus on what learners need to accomplish outside the classroom with the language they are learning. Drawing on studies that have explored the communicative needs of immigrants to Australia from language backgrounds other than English, I will illustrate the importance of both pronunciation and pragmatics in their lives. I will then consider the implications for how we can approach both skills proactively in the classroom in an integrated way that is capable of developing students’ repertoire of speaking skills for effective and appropriate use outside.

This article is a personal view of the application of results from three areas of research that I believe are relevant to developing second language speaking in the classroom: task repetition, pre-task planning and communication strategies. I will discuss these three areas in terms of level of research application – where research is not applied well (task repetition), where it is reasonably well applied (pre-task planning), and where it may have been over-applied (communication strategies). For each area I briefly review the relevant research to highlight how teachers can potentially apply the research findings to scaffold learning processes in speaking. I will also suggest how much of the research is getting through to teachers and being taken up in day-to-day teaching of English. I draw mainly on my own extensive experience as a teacher educator for over 20 years working with pre-service English teachers of bilingual students in Singapore schools and in-service teachers attending professional development courses or pursuing Master's degree studies, as well as college English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers from the People's Republic of China receiving postgraduate teaching certification in English language teaching (ELT) and higher degree qualifications in my university each year. I will also include some observations about classroom practice based on a survey of selected course books.

In 1998, Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki & Kim published a monograph describing measures used in assessing writing development. Despite more recent research on linguistic development (e.g., Bulté & Housen 2012; Verspoor, Schmid & Xu 2012; Connor-Linton & Polio 2014), the volume is still a valuable resource and good starting point for anyone wanting to select measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity for second language (L2) writing research. The volume, however, was limited to research on language development within the context of writing, and this is certainly one way to think about writing development. A recent edited volume by Manchón (2012), however, has greatly expanded conceptions of writing development showing that it involves much more that linguistic development, for example, genre knowledge (Tardy 2012) and goal setting (Cumming 2012) as well. Writing development can also focus on various aspects of the writing process and how writers’ change their approach to text production as they become more expert writers (e.g., Sasaki 2004; Nicolás-Conesa, Roca de Larios & Coyle 2014). This expansion of focus, of course, makes development more difficult to define.

I started out as a budding English as a second language (ESL) teacher in 1976 at UCLA where I went through the M.A. TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) and Applied Linguistics Ph.D. programs. Sadly, those two programs were ‘disestablished’ in 2014, which provides a stark lesson to any departments that think they are hot stuff that nothing lasts forever. Nonetheless, my training in those programs provided me with an excellent start down three professional paths: second language testing, curriculum development, and research methods.

Since 2008, the Swedish government has launched occasional offers of funding for graduate schools aimed at practising teachers. The fundamental purpose of this initiative is to enhance quality in the Swedish school system by implementing what is stated in the Education Act, namely that education at all levels should be based upon scientific knowledge and evidence-based experience.

This seminar was held at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, on 27 May 2016. It was jointly organised by BAAL members Nicola Bermingham (Heriot-Watt University) and Gwennan Higham (Swansea University) in collaboration with COST Action IS1306 New Speakers in a Multilingual Europe: Opportunities and Challenges, and supported by the Intercultural Research Centre and the Department of Languages and Intercultural Studies at Heriot-Watt University. Ten papers and two keynote speeches were given. The keynote speakers were Professor Alison Phipps (Glasgow University) and Professor Máiréad Nic Craith (Heriot-Watt University). A round-table discussion was also held, with invited speakers including Ms Mandy Watts from Education Scotland; Professor Bernadette O'Rourke, chair of COST Action IS1306; Dr Cassie Smith Christmas, University of the Highlands and Islands; and Dr Kathryn Jones, Director of Language Policy and Research at the Welsh Centre for Language Planning.

A dedicated teacher, keen to try out new methods of teaching English and French and different ways of getting learners to talk. The teacher knows it is important to motivate the learners by bringing the real world and the target culture into the classroom and uses authentic newspaper articles on current events and takes the class out of the classroom to observe and discuss a phenomenon of physical geography which was mentioned in one of the reading texts. For three years this teacher keeps a diary of ideas for individual lessons, questions about materials and procedures as well as learner reactions and their learning difficulties and successes. Their language work is documented and analysed. As a result of these analyses, the teacher selects different procedures for further lessons, which are likewise analysed. Finally, the teacher publishes his observations, reflections and analyses for the benefit of other language teachers as well as academic discussion on language teaching methodology.