The landscape of language education is currently undergoing an important shift, driven by the rapid evolution of digital technologies, the rise of artificial intelligence, and a fundamental reimagining of what it means to be a “literate” participant in a globalized world. This special issue serves as a critical intervention in this transformation, offering a multi-faceted exploration of how digital spaces, interactional competence, and social identity converge to redefine pedagogical practices. From the micro-analysis of “brave” conversations in virtual exchanges to the monetization of teaching, these chapters collectively argue that technology is not merely a tool for delivery, but a sociomaterial force that reshapes the very nature of language learning, assessment, and the negotiation of power.

At the heart of this issues is recognizing that language learning has moved decisively into the digital space. Whether it is a refugee student using generative AI (GenAI) to gather and imagine their life story, or a postgraduate student leveraging machine translation (MT) to navigate the linguistic challenges of English Medium Instruction (EMI), the digital is now an important space for learning. This commentary explores the core themes of the volume, synthesizing the innovative methodologies (from multimodal conversation analysis to a metanalysis) that the authors employ to map this new frontier.

The special issue explores technologies that have been found useful for the development of language acquisition, interactional skills, and the development of interculturality such as video-mediated Virtual Exchanges, Digital Multimodal Composing (DMC), and translation tools (e.g. Google, Baidu, Youdao), but it also ventures into recent technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR), Spoken Dialogue Systems, and Generative AI.

The volume begins with a deep dive into the interactional dynamics of digital spaces. In his chapter on virtual exchange, Balaman challenges the traditional preference for “safe” topics in cross-cultural encounters. Through the micro-analytic lens of multimodal Conversation Analysis (CA), Balaman demonstrates that virtual exchanges between transnational groups, such as pre-service teachers in Türkiye and Poland, can function as “safe” spaces for “brave” conversations. Balaman’s research highlights that interculturality is not an inherent trait but a dynamic social concept co-constructed through moment-by-moment orientations to culture-relevant topics (e.g., religion, history, war). His analysis reveals that when participants initiate potentially sensitive topics, they do not necessarily end up in conflict. Instead, learners deploy sophisticated interactional resources such as laughter, topic change, direct response avoidance, and extended responses, to manage these possibly difficult encounters. This finding is in line with previous research that suggests that the negotiation of controversial topics provides learners with intercultural communication opportunities and opportunities for language learning (Belz, 2005Belz, J. A. (2005) Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in internet-mediated language learning partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5 (1), 3–39. Belz, J. A. (2005) Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in internet-mediated language learning partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 3–39. ; Hauck, 2019Hauck, M. (2019) Virtual exchange for (critical) digital literacy skills development. European Journal of Language Policy, 11 (2), 187–210. Hauck, M. (2019) Virtual exchange for (critical) digital literacy skills development. European Journal of Language Policy, 11(2), 187–210. , 2023Hauck, M. (2023) From virtual exchange to critical virtual exchange and critical internationalization at home. The Global Impact Exchange, 2023 (Spring), 9–12. https://​diversityabroad​.org​/public​/DIVaPublic​/GIE​-Archives​/GIE​-2023​/GIE​-Sp2023​/GIE​-Sp23​-Article​-1​.aspxHauck, M. (2023) From virtual exchange to critical virtual exchange and critical internationalization at home. The Global Impact Exchange, 2023(Spring), 9–12. https://​diversityabroad​.org​/public​/DIVaPublic​/GIE​-Archives​/GIE​-2023​/GIE​-Sp2023​/GIE​-Sp23​-Article​-1​.aspx; Helm, 2013Helm, F. (2013) A dialogic model for telecollaboration. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6 (2), 28–48. Helm, F. (2013) A dialogic model for telecollaboration. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6(2), 28–48. , 2015Helm, F. (2015) Critical CALL. xiii–xiv. Helm, F. (2015) Critical CALL. xiii–xiv. ; Klimanova & Hellmich, 2021Klimanova, L., & Hellmich, E. A. (2021) Crossing transcultural liminalities with critical virtual exchange: A study of shifting border discourses. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18 (3), 273–304. Klimanova, L., & Hellmich, E. A. (2021) Crossing transcultural liminalities with critical virtual exchange: A study of shifting border discourses. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18(3), 273–304. ; Nicolaou, Sauro, Gudmundsdottir, & Sundqvist, 2025Nicolaou, A., Sauro, S., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Sundqvist, P. (2025) Critical Virtual Exchange to address teachers’ needs in times of conflict. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 8 , 54–66. Nicolaou, A., Sauro, S., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Sundqvist, P. (2025) Critical Virtual Exchange to address teachers’ needs in times of conflict. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 8, 54–66. ).

In addition to computer-mediated communication, Digital Multimodal Composing (DMC) is possibly the second most common technological practice in language learning courses. A practice that involves creating meaning through a combination of text, images, and sound, DMC has received a lot of attention for its potential for language and cultural learning (Kim, Kang, Nam, & Skalicky, 2022Kim, Y., Kang, S., Nam, Y., & Skalicky, S. (2022) Peer interaction, writing proficiency, and the quality of collaborative digital multimodal composing task: Comparing guided and unguided planning. System, 106 , 102722. Kim, Y., Kang, S., Nam, Y., & Skalicky, S. (2022) Peer interaction, writing proficiency, and the quality of collaborative digital multimodal composing task: Comparing guided and unguided planning. System, 106, 102722. ; Oskoz, 2022Oskoz, A. (2022) Composición multimodal en la clase de L2. In N. Sans & F. Herrera (Eds.), Innovación y creatividad en el aula de español. Nuevas formas de entender la enseñanza de una lengua. (pp. 35–43). Difusión.Oskoz, A. (2022) Composición multimodal en la clase de L2. In N. Sans & F. Herrera (Eds.), Innovación y creatividad en el aula de español. Nuevas formas de entender la enseñanza de una lengua. (pp. 35–43). Difusión.; Oskoz & Elola, 2020Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2020) Digital L2 writing literacies: Directions for classroom practice. Equinox Publishing Ltd.Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2020) Digital L2 writing literacies: Directions for classroom practice. Equinox Publishing Ltd.).

However, as Liu and Lim demonstrate in their metanalysis of DMC assessment in classrooms, there is a troubling disconnect between the creative potential of DMC and the rigid, language-dominant rubrics often used to grade it. In their chapter, the authors advocate for a shift toward adaptive, process-aware assessment that uses learning analytics to capture the non-linear signs of learning that occur throughout the composing process.

Moving beyond existing models of DMC, Michalovich and Darvin present a theoretical framework for DMC that is not just a language learning activity or technical act, but a social practice shaped by identity negotiation, capital and ideology. The authors illustrate their model by focusing on refugees and immigrants as learners who provide a clear context for examining how power, inequality, and digital equity operate within a composing process and propose a model with five interrelated practices of meaning-making: gathering, imagining, integrating, reflecting, and sharing.

Also, advocating a move from traditional forms of assessment to new ones that evaluate oral communication in digital spaces, Ockey and Aseeri provide a synthesis of how video-conferencing, Virtual Reality (VR), and Spoken Dialogue Systems (SDS) are being used to assess interactional competence (IC). Their findings show that although video-mediated assessment does not differ significantly from face-to-face, test takers in video-mediated interviews ask for clarification more often than in face-to-face. Although assessment through an avatar in VR offers some advantages (i.e. less rater variation and higher agreement, less anxiety), it often misses critical non-verbal cues like facial expressions which are essential for a full assessment of IC. Spoken Dialogues offer reliable scores and provide opportunities for self-correction and questioning of information (unlike human raters), and so do LLMs. However, LLMs offer too much support, which makes it difficult to assess the learner’s true independent ability. A particularly important discussion in this chapter is the emergence of rater bias in digital environments. Aseeri’s (2025) study found that while avatars can standardize the assessment partner, the physical appearance and perceived attractiveness of a test-taker significantly influence rater judgments, particularly regarding pronunciation scores. The authors argue that while technology allows for remote delivery and standardizes the partner in an evaluation, it may also fail to replicate the nuances of face-to-face interaction.

The role of AI is further scrutinized in the chapters by Chang and Heugh and Kessler, Kim, Akay, and Ferronato, which shift the focus to academic writing and teacher ethics. Chang and Heugh explore the linguistic and epistemic challenges faced by multilingual students in EMI settings, proposing that Neural Machine Translation (MT) and Post-Editing (PE) are not “silver bullets” but essential tools for “transknowledging” (i.e., the translation of knowledge across different language and knowledge systems). Their qualitative action research reveals a sophisticated six-step process used by students to maintain academic integrity while navigating complex texts: translating to the L1 to ensure comprehension, post-editing the L1 for meaning, and then back-translating to the L2. This recursive process demonstrates that students are not merely gaming the system but are engaging in complex metacognitive and metalinguistic activities that enhance their bilingual capabilities.

Complementing this, Kessler et al. survey the perceptions of instructors of Languages Other Than English (LOTEs) regarding GenAI. Their findings show a remarkable consensus: while 92.1% of teachers believe GenAI is ethical for specific uses, they draw a hard line between AI as a “scaffold”(e.g., seeking feedback, brainstorming) and AI as a tool for production (e.g., writing paragraphs). These results are complementary to a previous study by Kessler et al. (2025)Kessler, M., Rostrán Valle, J. M., Çekmegeli, K., & Farrell, S. (2025) Generative AI for learning languages other than English: L2 writers’ current uses and perceptions of ethics. Foreign Language Annals, 58 , 508–531. Kessler, M., Rostrán Valle, J. M., Çekmegeli, K., & Farrell, S. (2025) Generative AI for learning languages other than English: L2 writers’ current uses and perceptions of ethics. Foreign Language Annals, 58, 508–531. who found that language learners also perceive the use of GenAI as ethical but are concerned that the tools might negatively impact their cognitive development and their language learning. This article underscores the tension between GenAI’s undeniable utility and the ethical concerns of plagiarism and student over-reliance, calling for clear pedagogical practices to guide student use.

Through the book (including Kessler et al.’s chapter), it is clear that language teachers (including pre-service teachers) view technology as a space where identity is actively performed, branded, or negotiated. They also believe that technology can create low-anxiety environments that provide unprecedented access to language practice outside traditional classroom constraints. However, recurring ethical and pedagogical concerns (shared by language instructors all over the globe) are the degree to which technology should assist and not replace human effort, the amount of over-reliance and possible dependance on technology, and the ways it may constrain the learner’s own voice.

The special issue concludes by examining the blurring lines between education and a globalized market. Wang and Curran explore how language teachers monetize their content on Douyin (the Chinese version of TikTok). Through their analysis of two self-styled teachers, they reveal how the teacher identity is being commodified and transformed into symbolic capital. This chapter raises important questions about the pedagogical value of content designed to satisfy the attention economy and the “feigned immediacy” of livestreams used to sell courses. It suggests that the professional category of language teacher is becoming increasingly porous, as for-profit platforms prioritize engagement over sound pedagogy.

As we look toward the future of applied linguistics and language education, the articles in this special issue offer a roadmap for researchers and practitioners. The authors consistently point toward several key areas that will define the next decade in our field:

1. Longitudinal perspectives on interaction and AI

   The research suggests a move away from “snapshot” studies toward longitudinal inquiries. Balaman highlights the need for a longitudinal look at “group harmony” to see how interculturality develops over time. Similarly, Kessler et al. emphasize that because GenAI tools are rapidly evolving, we must monitor how teacher beliefs and institutional policies adapt as these tools become more integrated into the daily fabric of education.

2. The integration of learning analytics and AI in assessment

   The future of assessment lies in harnessing the very tools that currently pose challenges. Liu and Lim suggest the use of learning analytics (the systematic measurement and analysis of digital traces) to move assessment from the final product to the composing process. This could lead to AI-assisted feedback systems that provide real-time scaffolding, helping students reflect on their language choices as they make them. Similarly, Ockey and Aseeri suggest that LLMs could be used to create diverse speech varieties with varying accents allowing us to measure learners’ ability to accommodate to unknown varieties (something that in practical terms is difficult to do with human raters).

3. Addressing the still-existing digital divide

   Future research must confront the digital divide and the “surveillance logics” of platforms. Michalovich and Darvin urge researchers to examine how technologies like Google Image algorithms steer student narratives. The future should see a push for critical digital literacies that empower learners to understand and challenge existing systems and actively redefine their identities in the classroom.

4. The professional identity of the digital teacher

   The rise of the “teacherpreneur” suggests a future where the definition of a “language teacher” is continuously contested. As the lines between instruction, advertising, and entertainment continue to blur, the future will bring a rethinking of how language teachers are educated to navigate these complex, algorithmically-driven landscapes.

5. Human-AI collaboration and “transknowledging”

   Finally, the volume suggests a move toward a “two-way” exchange of knowledge. Chang and Heugh argue that while AI offers access to translation, it can never replace the human “metacognitive and metalinguistic activity” required for deep learning. The future of EMI and multilingual education should involve a deliberative pedagogy where AI tools, human translation, and post-editing are brought together to ensure equality of access and outcomes for all students.

In summary, this issue is more than a collection of articles; it is a collective call for critical reflexivity. It demands that we ask: Whose perspectives are being legitimized in these digital spaces? How do sociotechnical structures constrain participation? And how can we empower learners to use these tools not just for consumption, but for the production of knowledge and power? By bridging the gap between theory and practice, and between the human and the digital, these authors provide the essential tools for navigating the world of 21st-century language education.