In the above referenced article, an end note is missing from the Methods section.The error is located on Page 445, Column 1, under the Materials and Procedures subsection, Line 7.After the sentence, "They were then administered a hearing screening, a listening test, a post-exposure questionnaire, and a test of L2 Spanish oral proficiency," the following end note should appear:This investigation is part of a larger study that also included measures of speech intelligibility (via orthographic transcription) and working memory.Within the study, the listening test was composed of two sequential assessments for each sentence: speech intelligibility followed by listening comprehension.

Abstract Engagement with research has long been recognized as a key driver of improved language teaching practices and teachers’ professional growth. Yet, language teaching practitioners often remain distanced from research activities, thus perpetuating a well‐documented gap between research and practice. While much of the existing scholarship has centered on English language teaching, this study shifts the focus on the rapidly growing field of Spanish language teaching (SLT). Drawing on data from 738 SLT professionals in Spain and the United States, we explore their research engagement and demographic profiles through the lens of communities of practice. Furthermore, we argue that combining these demographic insights with the concept of life capital—the accumulated wealth of one's personal and professional experiences—may uncover the human dimensions that shape a community of practice, thereby opening new avenues for promoting deeper research engagement. Finally, and equally important, by broadening the conversation to include languages other than English and adopting a comparative perspective, this study reveals overlooked factors that shape the research–practice divide, ultimately offering fresh insights and targeted initiatives to reconcile this longstanding research–practice gap.

Abstract Based on recent discussions on language and decoloniality and employing an ethnographic approach, this article examines a teacher education program in “primary intercultural education” at a public university in the Southern Peruvian Andes, in a context with a majority Quechua‐speaking population and youth with diverse bilingual trajectories. The goal of this article is to complexify the categories of coloniality and decoloniality of language by studying a reflection‐based action conducted by grassroots Quechua activists and teacher educators, which involves developing an academic Quechua register with the aim of empowering students as authors of their texts in the Indigenous language. These activists assume their intervention as a decolonial and critical strategy to neutralize hierarchies with respect to the oppression of the Spanish language, deracialize mother tongue education, and incorporate a social justice approach to counteract a depoliticized view of interculturalism. However, simultaneously, these activists promote a neat, autonomous, and disembodied Quechua; disfavor translanguaging practices; and erase the signifier of bilingualism, reproducing the coloniality of language and disempowering many of the students. These results confirm the need for further cycles of critical reflection when developing reflection‐based actions.

Abstract Languages shape worldviews, inform teacher values and behaviors, and are not disconnected from local political, sociocultural, and ecological contexts. For Indigenous peoples, language, land, and culture are inseparable. In contrast, English carries a human‐centered, colonial, imperialist, and assimilationist legacy that persists in language teacher education. With the unabated global spread of English, Indigenous and heritage languages—and their speakers—have been disenfranchised, minoritized, or subjected to genocide through cultural and linguistic imperialism and white epistemological supremacy. This article contends the human‐centered and imperialist worldview transmitted through English exemplifies colonialingualism. Colonialingualism upholds colonial legacies, imperial mindsets, and inequitable practices in both pre‐service and in‐service language teacher education. Examples include the dominance of Eurocentric or colonial languages, frameworks, methodologies, and approaches, as well as the marginalization of Indigenous epistemologies and pedagogies. Colonialingual classroom environments perpetuate narratives of epistemic and linguistic superiority, racism, assimilation, and further marginalize Indigenous, heritage, and minoritized language speakers. Moreover, language teacher education often neglects the relational connections between language and place‐based knowledges—crucial in confronting today's climate and humanitarian crises. To address this, I argue that an epistemic (un)learning of the “epistemological error” is required to enable critical reflection and equitable validation of all languages and knowledge systems, including those Indigenous and minoritized, in language teacher education. I illustrate how a biocultural heritage language pedagogy can support reflexivity and action‐oriented epistemic (un)learning, challenge colonialingualism, and foster place‐based transepistemic learning in the Canadian context. Transepistemic language education offers a complementary—not competing—framework to engage a contextual, decolonial, pluriversal sharing of languages and knowledges for more equitable language teacher education. As such, a colonialingual approach to language teacher education is offered to facilitate epistemic (un)learning processes.

Abstract In this article, we present our vision of a transformed second language acquisition and teaching (SLA/T) disciplinary community that approaches second language (L2) education through four pillars. The first pillar is praxeology (i.e., the study of human action) to highlight the sociocontextually emergent nature of L2 competence. It locates the emergence of L2 grammar and interactional competence in humans acting conjointly with others with and through their L2 across a large variety of social situations and transnational, transcultural, and translingual spaces. The second pillar, humanism, calls for a complex dynamic systems theory–informed understanding of individual differences, with learner agency as a central driving force. The third pillar is equity to confront the field with the recognition that language learning is profoundly inequitable and that most present forms of inequity and injustice, including language‐related inequities, are rooted in coloniality, a matrix of power invented in the late 15th century by European White settlers to ensure the success of colonial domination. Mixed methods research, the fourth pillar, emphasizing emic perspectives, can make findings generalizable and transferrable for practitioners and policymakers, while also revealing the nuanced voices of underrepresented language learner populations. We close by illustrating our vision with the vignette of a language learner and calling researchers to use these four pillars in collaborative pursuits of this SLA/T synergy.