Abstract
1. Introduction
This special issue brings together 22 contributions that collectively advance our understanding of second and foreign language learning as a complex and dynamically mediated process. Spanning diverse contexts – from primary school classrooms to doctoral pre-sessional programs, and from face-to-face to fully online environments – the studies converge on a central concern: how learners engage with language, tasks, feedback, and other variables across evolving instructional ecologies. While the articles vary in theoretical orientation and methodological approach, a number of shared threads emerge. Most notably, the issue reflects a shift away from product-oriented and decontextualized views of learning toward process-oriented, interactionally grounded, and affectively rich perspectives.
From the vantage point of task-based language teaching (TBLT) (Ellis et al., 2020) and classroom interaction research (Mackey, 2020), the issue is particularly timely. It contributes to ongoing debates about the nature of learner engagement, the role of affect in task performance, and the extent to which classroom practices align with theoretically informed models of interaction and learning. At the same time, the collection exposes persistent tensions: between depth and breadth of processing, between observable behavior and underlying cognition, and between pedagogical ideals and classroom realities. This editorial synthesizes the contributions by organizing them into four interrelated strands: (1) engagement with feedback and writing processes, (2) motivation, emotion, and learner psychology, (3) input, exposure, and language development, and (4) learning contexts and pedagogical practices. It then draws out cross-cutting insights and implications for TBLT and classroom interaction research.
2. Engagement With Feedback and Writing Processes
A prominent strand in this issue revisits the role of feedback in second language (L2) writing (Hyland & Hyland, 2019), but does so through a decisive shift from effectiveness to engagement. Rather than asking whether feedback ‘works’, several studies interrogate how learners process, interpret, and act upon feedback under different conditions. This shift resonates strongly with TBLT’s emphasis on meaning-focused interaction and the co-construction of knowledge, while also raising questions about how feedback is embedded within task cycles.
Peng et al.’s contribution lies in the comparison between individual and collaborative feedback processing. The researchers considered how 81 Chinese lower-secondary school learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) (aged 13–14 years, A1–A2 English proficiency) cognitively and behaviorally engaged with teacher feedback in two conditions: individual written languaging and collaborative oral languaging. The findings suggest a productive tension: collaborative processing appears to promote deeper cognitive engagement and broader attention to content and organization, whereas individual written processing facilitates greater coverage and uptake of feedback points. From a TBLT perspective, this raises important questions about task design. If collaborative dialogue fosters depth but limits coverage, how should tasks be sequenced to balance these outcomes? The findings suggest that interactional engagement – long emphasized in TBLT – may not automatically translate into comprehensive learning, and that different modes of engagement afford different learning opportunities.
Equally significant is the challenge to traditional assumptions about behavioral engagement. Fu et al. study ‘invisible engagement’ and demonstrate that the absence of revision does not necessarily indicate disengagement. The researchers contextualized the study in a natural EFL writing class involving three Chinese students’ writing and revisions after peer review and automatic writing evaluation. They also used stimulated recalls and screen capturing to investigate students’ cognitive, affective and behavioral engagement with unactioned written feedback. The findings showed that 95.9% of the unactioned written feedback had been addressed. This has profound implications for classroom interaction research, which has often relied on observable behaviors (e.g. uptake, repair) as proxies for learning. The findings call for more nuanced methodological approaches capable of capturing covert cognitive and affective processes, particularly in task-based settings where not all learning is immediately visible.
Zhang, Zhu and Yu examine the relationship between L2 student writing feedback literacy and their writing performance in two independent samples of 600 and 727 Chinese EFL learners. The findings showed that there was a lack of a direct relationship between feedback literacy and writing performance, which complicates straightforward pedagogical interpretations. Rather than undermining the concept, though, this finding suggests that feedback literacy operates within a network of mediating variables – such as proficiency, task demands, and affective factors. From a TBLT perspective, this aligns with the view that task performance emerges from the interaction of multiple subsystems rather than isolated competencies.
Finally, extending the focus beyond feedback itself, Wang, Xu, Li and Qi highlight the mediating role of positive emotions in linking learners’ future L2 selves to self-regulated writing strategies, and Therova and McKay illustrate how data-driven learning can scaffold discipline-specific writing development through corpus-informed practices. The evidence that positive emotions mediate the relationship between future L2 selves and strategy use reinforces the idea that engagement is not purely cognitive but affectively charged. Similarly, the use of learner-constructed corpora illustrates how tasks can be designed to promote autonomy and discipline-specific awareness. Together, these studies suggest that writing development in TBLT contexts may benefit from integrating feedback, strategy use, and affective support within coherent task sequences.
3. Motivation, Emotion, and Learner Psychology
A second major strand foregrounds the centrality of affective and motivational variables in L2 learning. While the role of motivation has long been acknowledged (Dörnyei, 2020), the studies in this issue move beyond static and decontextualized models toward dynamic, relational, and context-sensitive accounts. This shift aligns with recent developments in TBLT that emphasize task engagement as a multidimensional construct encompassing cognitive, behavioral, social, and emotional dimensions (Sato, 2026).
Guan et al. considered the relationship between 235 Chinese English major students’ L2 writing performance, motivation, and emotions (enjoyment and anxiety) from a longitudinal perspective (one academic year). The findings showed that the ideal L2 writing self remained stable over time and the ideal writing self at time 1 positively predicted the ideal writing self at time 2, although the latter displayed varied influence on L2 writing enjoyment and anxiety among the three groups (high-, middle- and low-level proficiency). For TBLT, this raises the question of how tasks can be designed to accommodate such variability, particularly in mixed-ability classrooms.
Zhang et al. explored the evolution and regulation of group-level enjoyment of online collaborative language learning by three Chinese EFL learners whose data were collected in three sessions over a single semester. The findings showed that group-level enjoyment fluctuated and was actively regulated through self-, co-, and socially shared strategies. Notably, socially shared regulation became more prominent over time, highlighting the fundamentally interactional nature of affective processes. This resonates with classroom interaction research that views learning as co-constructed through participation. However, it also challenges TBLT practitioners to consider how tasks can scaffold not only linguistic interaction but also emotional regulation. Similarly, Zhang and Huang explored the effect of online environment factors such as teachers’ enthusiasm and group interaction on 471 adult Chinese as a second language learners’ willingness to communicate. The findings showed that both perceived group interaction and online learning enjoyment fully mediated the relationship between perceived teachers’ enthusiasm and willingness to communicate in the L2, with perceived group interaction being a more vital mediator than learning enjoyment.
The social embeddedness of emotions is underscored by findings on socioeconomic status (SES) and teacher–student relationships (TSR) in the contribution by Ma et al. The research involved 4,155 eighth-grade students from China who completed scales reporting SES, foreign language (FL) enjoyment, FL anxiety, and FL burnout. The findings demonstrated that TSR played a moderating role in the relationship between SES and negative emotions in FL learning, suggesting that interactional quality – often discussed in terms of negotiation of meaning or feedback – also plays a crucial role in shaping learners’ emotional experiences. This points to a broader conception of classroom interaction that includes relational and affective dimensions, not merely linguistic exchanges. Tutton and Cohen likewise highlight the interplay between FL anxiety and self -disclosure (i.e. a learner’s willingness to share personal information, feelings, opinions, or experiences while using the target language) in shaping learners’ participation. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 Australian learners of French enrolled in a synchronous online course. The findings revealed that students overwhelmingly preferred the physical classroom to the online environment, largely due to increased possibilities for easier interaction with fellow students.
Complementing these perspectives are studies by Luo and Gan on motivational regulation strategies, by Li et al. on motivational profiles, and by Lin et al. on ambiguity tolerance as a psychological factor influencing language learning. The identification of distinct learner profiles, as well as the differential predictors associated with them, reinforces the need for more differentiated pedagogical approaches. In TBLT contexts, this may involve offering varied task options or scaffolds to accommodate different motivational orientations. At the same time, the prevalence of performance-oriented strategies raises questions about the extent to which current instructional practices genuinely promote intrinsic engagement.
4. Input, Exposure, and Language Development
A third strand revisits the role of input, extending it beyond the confines of the classroom and exploring its interaction with learner factors and instructional design. The findings collectively challenge simplistic assumptions about input quantity and highlight the importance of input type, modality, and context.
Tsang demonstrates the significant contribution of extramural input – particularly spoken exposure – to young EFL learners’ proficiency. This reinforces long-standing claims about meaningful exposure and highlights the value of integrating extramural experience into the language classroom. The role of multimodal input further expands this discussion. From a pedagogical perspective, Cárdenas-Claros et al. explore how teachers conceptualize and implement multimodal input, highlighting both an awareness of its potential benefits and the curricular and contextual constraints that shape classroom practice.
Experimental studies provide more fine-grained insights into input processing. Hashizaki presents evidence from Japanese adult EFL learners that vocalization enhances the learning of formulaic sequences, thus supporting the relevance of production-based mechanisms. Along similar lines, Li demonstrates that audio-visual phonetic training can enhance certain pronunciation features (English interdental sounds /θ, ð/ and vowel /ɪ/) among a group of Chinese EFL learners. Similarly, research by Milliner et al. on the learning of derivational forms by Japanese EFL learners suggests that frequency plays a more significant role than contextual support, challenging assumptions about the benefits of contextualized input. Together, these studies underscore that not all input enhancements are equally effective, and that their impact may depend on the linguistic domain and learner characteristics.
5. Learning Contexts and Pedagogical Practices
The final strand situates learning within broader instructional and institutional contexts, highlighting both opportunities and constraints. From a TBLT perspective, these studies are particularly valuable in revealing how pedagogical practices are shaped – and sometimes limited – by contextual factors. Research by Kim and Moodie examines the approaches to co-teaching and the degree of collaboration among 14 pairs of co-teachers across different school levels in South Korea. Their findings show a clear mismatch between the potential of collaborative teaching models and their actual implementation. The predominance of limited collaboration suggests that interactional opportunities for learners may be constrained not only by task design but also by teacher practices and institutional norms. Sulis proposes the concept of engagement with multiple languages (LX), capturing learners’ interactions with languages across contexts. This reconceptualization aligns with calls in TBLT to move beyond narrowly defined tasks and to consider learners’ full linguistic repertoires. It also highlights the potential for tasks to draw on learners’ multilingual resources, rather than treating languages as separate systems.
At the curricular level, evidence of a threshold effect in reading ability underscores the importance of aligning task demands with learner capacities. Wang, You and Lou report that only learners above a certain threshold can effectively leverage strategies and knowledge, suggesting that task complexity must be carefully calibrated. This resonates with TBLT frameworks that emphasize task difficulty and sequencing, but also points to the need for more empirical work on threshold effects. Finally, Luo et al. present the design of a technical communication module and illustrate how expert consensus can inform curriculum development. While not explicitly framed within TBLT, the emphasis on authentic tasks and real-world communication aligns with its core principles. At the same time, the study highlights the challenges of translating theoretical insights into concrete curricular designs.
6. Conclusions
Across these strands, several key insights emerge. First, engagement is increasingly conceptualized as a multidimensional and partially unobservable construct. Studies on feedback and emotion demonstrate that what learners do – or do not do – cannot be taken at face value. For classroom interaction research, this calls for more sophisticated methodologies that capture both observable interaction and underlying processes. Second, learning is distributed across contexts and mediated by social relationships. The boundaries between classroom and beyond-classroom learning are porous, and affective as well as cognitive processes are shaped by interaction with others. For TBLT, this suggests a need to design tasks that connect with learners’ broader experiences and that foster meaningful social interaction. Third, affective variables are not peripheral but central to learning. Motivation, enjoyment, anxiety, and related constructs influence not only whether learners engage with tasks but also how they do so. Finally, instructional effectiveness is contingent and context-dependent. Whether in feedback, input, or curriculum design, no single approach emerges as universally effective. Instead, outcomes depend on the interaction of multiple factors, including learner characteristics, task design, and contextual constraints.
Taken together, the contributions in this issue offer a compelling picture of L2 learning as a complex, dynamic, and contextually embedded process. They reinforce the relevance of TBLT and classroom interaction research, while also challenging some of their assumptions. In particular, they call for a broader conception of engagement, a greater integration of affective and social dimensions, and a more ecological view of learning that extends beyond the classroom.
Future research would benefit from longitudinal, process-oriented designs that capture learning as it unfolds across tasks and contexts. At the same time, there is a need for closer dialogue between theory and practice, ensuring that pedagogical innovations are both theoretically grounded and contextually feasible. By bringing together diverse perspectives and approaches, this issue makes a valuable contribution to this ongoing endeavor.
