This overview delineates the direction of pedagogical developments since the 25th anniversary issue of TESOL Quarterly. Three tendencies characterize our professional practice: (a) a continuation along the earlier lines of progression (i.e., in opening up the classroom to learning opportunities, integrating skills, and teaching for specific purposes); (b) a radical reorientation along new paradigms (i.e., in understanding motivation and acquisition in terms of social participation and identity construction; in developing methods from the ground up, based on generative heuristics; in widening testing to include formative assessment; in accommodating subjective knowledge and experience in teacher expertise); (c) unresolved debates and questions about the direction in certain domains (i.e., when and how to teach grammar; whether to adopt cognitivist or social orientations in SLA, testing, and teacher education). Our professional knowledge gets further muddled by the new movements of globalization, digital communication, and World Englishes, which pose fresh questions that are yet to be addressed. However, grappling with these concerns has engendered realizations on the need for local situatedness, global inclusiveness, and disciplinary collaboration that are of more lasting value. W e live in an age when metanarratives or grand theories that attempt to provide unifying and totalizing explanations for social and intellectual developments are viewed with suspicion. In this context, publishing a state of the art issue on TESOL requires caution. Such an issue is not only about where we are now but how we got here. In other words, this issue is an attempt to understand the current state of the profession in the light of its history. However, histories are always partial and partisan because they involve the adoption of a particular narrative viewpoint. It is not just that any description of the state of the art is informed by the describer's perspective; many would go further to question the effects and intentions behind such descriptions. For the state of the art serves to define what is legitimate knowledge in the field. That is to say, the description will become the new orthodoxy. Therefore,