Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 15 (2024) Issue 2
Evolving Metacognitive Strategies in Hyperpolyglots:
A Longitudinal Study of Adaptive Language Learning
Ángel Osle (Colchester, United Kingdom)
Abstract
This study investigates the evolving metacognitive strategies employed by hyperpolyglots during a twelve-month language acquisition journey. Thirty participants, each proficient in at least six languages, were analysed through a mixed-methods approach. Key findings reveal significant shifts in strategy usage, notably a decline in structured goal-setting from 87% to 72%, juxtaposed with an increase in self-monitoring from 65% to 88% and reflection-based strategies from 47% to 81%. These results highlight a transition towards more adaptive learning approaches, emphasising real-time assessment and reflective practices as essential components of effective language learning. Furthermore, factors such as language similarity and cognitive load played crucial roles in shaping participants' strategy adaptations, with 76% employing goal rotation and 68% using cognitive cycling. These findings underscore the dynamic interplay between proficiency levels, cognitive management, and metacognitive awareness, contributing to a nuanced understanding of language acquisition among hyperpolyglots.
Keywords: Metacognitive strategies, Hyperpolyglots, Language acquisition, Self-monitoring, Adaptive learning.
1 Introduction
Metacognitive learning strategies – comprising planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s cognitive processes – are fundamental to successful language acquisition. These strategies empower learners to take control of their educational experiences, enabling them to optimise their approaches to language study. For hyperpolyglots – individuals with extraordinary abilities to learn and use multiple languages –, metacognitive strategies are central not only to their language mastery but also to effectively managing the complexities associated with learning and maintaining proficiency across diverse linguistic systems (Erard 2012). As the number of languages acquired increases, so does the cognitive load and potential for interference among languages, highlighting the necessity of effective metacognitive strategies for sustained success in multilingual environments.
While existing research (Cai & Kunnan 2020) has identified various metacognitive strategies employed by language learners, such as goal-setting, self-monitoring, self-assessment, and reflective practices, much of the literature tends to focus on these strategies in isolation (a notable exception can be found in Cai 2024). Our study aims to address this gap by exploring how hyperpolyglots adapt their metacognitive strategies as they acquire additional languages or deepen their proficiency in existing ones. Understanding this adaptive process is crucial, as it may illuminate the cognitive mechanisms that enable hyperpolyglots to manage their learning experiences effectively and efficiently.
In addition to examining the evolution of metacognitive strategies, this study seeks to explore the factors influencing their adaptation among hyperpolyglots. Elements such as language similarity, cognitive load, and individual differences significantly shape learners' approaches to language acquisition. Moreover, understanding hyperpolyglots' perceptions of the effectiveness of their evolving metacognitive strategies warrants further exploration. Investigating how these learners evaluate the success of their strategies over time can provide valuable insights into the self-regulatory processes underpinning effective language acquisition. By examining how hyperpolyglots navigate the challenges associated with managing multiple languages, this study aims to contribute to a nuanced understanding of the adaptive nature of metacognitive strategies and their implications for language education.
2 Review of the Literature
The study of metacognitive strategies in foreign language acquisition has gained significant traction in language research, especially as hyperpolyglots – those proficient in multiple languages – represent a unique model for understanding the application and evolution of these strategies. Metacognitive strategies, which focus on self-regulation, self-awareness and cognitive resource management, play a key role in supporting language proficiency and managing the cognitive challenges associated with multilingualism. (Vandergrift & Goh 2012). A growing body of literature (e.g. Cohen 2018, for review) outlines the diverse approaches language learners utilise to structure their learning, emphasising goal-setting, self-monitoring, self-assessment, reflective practices, and efficient management of cognitive resources.
Goal-setting is a foundational metacognitive strategy. For hyperpolyglots, setting precise, adaptable goals helps them organise their learning processes and manage the difficulty of acquiring multiple languages. (Dörnyei & Ushioda 2021). This involves establishing clear, measurable objectives that align with their proficiency and the complexity of each language. For instance, hyperpolyglots often set targeted goals in vocabulary acquisition, grammar practice, or language immersion, thereby maintaining motivation, and achieving incremental milestones (Erard 2012, 2019). Furthermore, as Griffiths (2013) shows, hyperpolyglots frequently calibrate these goals according to proficiency and skill area, making ongoing adjustments that contribute to sustained engagement and learning outcomes.
In addition to goal-setting, self-monitoring is crucial for language learners. This strategy, which involves continuous observation and real-time adjustments, enables learners to track their progress and tailor their approaches based on feedback and comprehension levels (Oxford 2017). Studies reveal that multilinguals make strategic adaptations to their learning activities, such as adjusting the pace and complexity of tasks to align with their understanding and to optimise cognitive load (Jessner 2008). Through such self-monitoring, hyperpolyglots refine their learning process dynamically, which helps them manage the challenges of acquiring and managing proficiency in multiple languages.
Closely related to self-monitoring, self-assessment allows hyperpolyglots to evaluate their development and identify specific areas for improvement. Tools such as journaling, quizzes, and structured speaking evaluations serve as self-assessment methods, which hyperpolyglots employ to track progress, particularly in language-specific domains like grammar and vocabulary. Moreover, a growth mindset perspective, where errors are seen as learning opportunities rather than failures, proves beneficial for maintaining motivation and resilience over time (Dweck 2006). This mindset helps hyperpolyglots reframe challenges as part of the natural progression in language mastery, contributing to a productive cycle of assessment and adaptation.
Another significant aspect of metacognitive strategy use in hyperpolyglots is reflective practice, which strengthens their metacognitive awareness. Reflection enables learners to analyse their learning strategies and make adjustments that improve learning efficiency across languages. For instance, reflective practices might involve analysing the effects of language transfer and adapting strategies to mitigate negative cross-linguistic influences (Vandergrift & Goh 2012). These reflective exercises not only enhance self-awareness but also contribute to the development of individualised frameworks that support sustained learning across languages.
Hyperpolyglots also face unique challenges, particularly in managing cognitive load and stress due to the demands of multiple languages. To address these challenges, they often employ resource management techniques to prevent cognitive burnout, such as creating structured study schedules and rotating focus among languages (Griffiths 2013). Additionally, hyperpolyglots regulate stress through strategies like planned breaks and language-switching, which enable them to maintain balanced learning habits and enhance overall cognitive endurance (Oxford 2017). Such strategies for resource management and stress regulation prove essential for hyperpolyglots as they strive for sustainable, long-term language acquisition.
Overall, these metacognitive strategies – including goal-setting, self-monitoring, self-assessment, reflection, and resource management – underscore the adaptability and strategic sophistication of hyperpolyglots. The diversity in their approaches highlights the importance of metacognitive awareness, promoting flexibility and sustained motivation, both critical for effective multilingual learning. While existing research has provided valuable insights into the metacognitive strategies hyperpolyglots employ, a gap remains in understanding how these strategies evolve as they expand their language repertoires and deepen their proficiency. Few studies explore the adaptive nature of these strategies over time, and factors such as language similarity, cognitive load, and individual learner profiles remain underexplored.
3 The Present Study
Previous research has not yet thoroughly explored the mechanisms by which hyperpolyglots adapt their metacognitive strategies over time. The present study addresses this gap by examining the longitudinal and adaptive dimensions of metacognitive strategy use among hyperpolyglots, seeking to clarify how these individuals flexibly manage cognitive resources and leverage their prior knowledge in multilingual language acquisition. Findings from this investigation could provide meaningful insights for the development of language learning techniques that support other multilingual learners.
The present study centres around the following research questions:
How do hyperpolyglots’ metacognitive strategies evolve as they acquire additional languages or increase proficiency in existing languages?
What factors, such as language similarity, cognitive load, and individual learner differences, influence the adaptation of metacognitive strategies in hyperpolyglots?
How do hyperpolyglots perceive the effectiveness of their evolving metacognitive strategies over time, especially in relation to managing cognitive demands across multiple languages?
Through these inquiries, this study aims to shed light on the adaptive and dynamic nature of metacognitive strategy use in hyperpolyglots. By uncovering how hyperpolyglots systematically refine and adjust strategies to optimise cognitive efficiency, this research holds potential for guiding language educators and curriculum designers in creating instructional practices that support sustained language acquisition. Additionally, understanding how metacognitive strategies evolve in multilingual contexts can inform the development of learning tools that promote adaptive and flexible language learning pathways, ultimately benefiting diverse language learners.
4 Methodology
4.1 Participants
The study involved 30 hyperpolyglots, all of whom had achieved conversational proficiency (B1 or higher) in at least six languages. The participants displayed a diverse array of demographic characteristics, including a broad age range (from 18 to 60 years), a mix of nationalities, and varied educational backgrounds, with 40% holding advanced degrees in fields such as linguistics, education, and psychology. This diversity provided a multifaceted perspective on metacognitive strategies in language learning.
The participants’ language profiles were also varied. Among them, the most frequently reported languages included English, Spanish, French, Mandarin, Arabic, and Russian, with a significant number also possessing proficiency in lesser-studied languages such as Finnish and Swahili. Notably, 70% of participants indicated that they had learned languages from different linguistic families, enhancing their ability to transfer strategies across languages.
Recruitment occurred through online hyperpolyglot communities, social media platforms, and language forums, emphasising the study's inclusivity of various backgrounds and experiences. Participants committed to a twelve-month study period, during which they engaged in regular check-ins.
4.2 Methods of Data Collection
Data collection commenced with a baseline survey, distributed via Qualtrics, where participants completed a comprehensive online questionnaire detailing their language-learning backgrounds, current proficiency levels across all known languages, language-learning histories, and initial use of metacognitive strategies. The survey included Likert-scale items adapted from the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI), effectively measuring initial levels of metacognitive engagement in language learning (Appendix 1)
Throughout the twelve-month period, participants submitted monthly strategy logs (Appendix 2) documenting their evolving metacognitive strategies. These logs recorded specific strategies employed each month, such as goal-setting, self-monitoring, and reflection, while tracking changes in strategy application across different languages and learning contexts. Each log combined quantitative checklist responses with qualitative open-ended reflections, enabling participants to assess the perceived effectiveness of each strategy in real-time.
At the conclusion of the study, participants completed a final survey (Appendix 3) mirroring the baseline survey, allowing for direct comparison of strategy use and language proficiency levels. In this final survey, participants were given the chance to shared overall reflections, provided feedback on the study, and contributed insights into their experiences, enriching the study’s findings.
4.3 Procedures
The hyperpolyglot participants were recruited and screened through an initial questionnaire to ensure they met the study criteria (Appendix 4). Once selected, they were briefed on the study’s purpose, duration, and requirements. For baseline data collection, participants completed an initial online survey (Qualtrics) capturing their current language proficiency, backgrounds, and existing metacognitive strategy usage.
Each month, participants received reminders to submit their strategy logs on an online platform. The logs included both quantitative checklist responses for commonly used strategies and qualitative spaces for personal reflections.
After the twelve-month period, participants completed the final survey. In this survey, they shared overall reflections, provided feedback on the study, and contributed insights into their experiences, thus enriching the study’s findings.
4.4 Data Analysis
Data analysis encompassed both quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding of strategy use among hyperpolyglots and how their proficiency levels evolved over time. This mixed-methods approach triangulated findings, capturing generalisable trends alongside personal insights, thereby providing a richer picture of the evolution of strategies among hyperpolyglots
For the quantitative data analysis, descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to analyse survey responses, enabling the detection patterns in strategy use and changes in language proficiency. Specifically, regression analyses explored the relationships between language proficiency growth and adjustments in strategy adaptation.
On the qualitative side, monthly logs underwent thematic analysis. This process focused on recurrent themes such as strategy adaptation, cross-language transfer, and cognitive resource management. Systematic coding identified emergent themes that elucidated how and why hyperpolyglots modified their strategies. To enhance reliability in theme identification, the data were reviewed by two independent coders, who achieved a strong inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s Kappa of 0.85), underscoring the consistency of the emergent themes.
5 Results
This section provides an in-depth analysis of the data collected from 30 hyperpolyglot participants over a twelve-month period, with a particular emphasis on their evolving metacognitive strategies and the factors that influenced these strategic adaptations.
Descriptive statistics first provided a foundational overview of participants’ demographics, initial language skills, and strategy preferences. As the analysis progressed, regression analysis revealed a significant relationship between self-monitoring and reflection-based strategies with language improvement, with these strategies accounting for around 37% of the variance in proficiency gains. This finding was further substantiated by correlation analysis, which demonstrated positive associations between the frequency of self-monitoring and language growth (r = .62) and between reflection-based strategies and proficiency advancement (r = .54). These insights suggest that participants who engaged more frequently in self-assessment and adaptive reflection saw greater improvements in their language abilities. A repeated-measures ANOVA also highlighted significant shifts in strategy use across the twelve-month period. Specifically, the ANOVA results revealed that as the study progressed, participants demonstrated notable changes in their metacognitive strategy usage. A significant aspect of these changes was observed in three primary strategies: goal-setting, self-monitoring, and reflection-based strategies. Such a transition indicates a growing adaptability in their approaches, allowing for more flexibility in learning.
In contrast to the decrease in goal-setting, self-monitoring exhibited a notable increase. The use of self-monitoring strategies rose from 65% at baseline to 88% by the end of the study. This upward trend highlights that participants increasingly relied on real-time assessments of their language abilities to inform their learning processes. This shift towards self-monitoring may reflect a deeper awareness of their own learning dynamics (This deeper awareness may have been a positive side effect of your study) and an ability to adjust strategies based on immediate needs and challenges.
Furthermore, reflection-based strategies (And these, too!) showed the most substantial growth, with their usage escalating from 47% at the outset to 81% by the study's conclusion. Participants articulated that engaging in reflective practices, such as journaling and self-assessment, enabled them to tailor their strategies to meet the specific demands of each language they were learning. This adaptive approach was particularly valuable in helping them avoid burnout, as participants noted that reflection allowed them to maintain motivation and clarity regarding their learning objectives. Figure 1 below illustrates the changing use of these three strategies over the study period:
Figure 1: Change in Metacognitive Strategies over Time
Qualitative data from monthly logs corroborated these quantitative findings, revealing a gradual transition from structured to more adaptive, situational strategies. One participant articulated this transformation succinctly, stating,
Initially, I had a set schedule for each language, but over time, I started planning less and adjusting based on how I felt that day.
This perspective underscores the participants’ growing inclination towards flexibility in their learning processes.
A notable adaptive strategy that emerged was goal rotation, which was adopted by 76% of the participants. This strategy allowed individuals to focus intensively on one or two languages each week while maintaining minimal exposure to others. By doing so, participants effectively managed their cognitive load and sustained high levels of engagement across their language portfolio.
The data further identified several key factors that influenced participants’ strategy adaptations: Language similarity emerged as a significant factor, with 73% of participants acknowledging its impact on their approach to learning. When confronted with languages within the same family – such as Spanish and Italian –, participants employed cross-linguistic monitoring strategies. These strategies were designed to mitigate the risks of false friends and minimize interference between languages. One participant elaborated on this practice, stating,
I created a dedicated log just for false cognates in similar languages to avoid mistakes.
Such proactive measures were reported as highly effective in preventing cross-language interference.
Additionally, the participants described the cognitive load associated with learning multiple languages as a pivotal consideration in their strategy selection. Approximately 68% implemented a strategy referred to as ‘cognitive cycling’ to optimise their mental resources. This approach involved rotating focus among different languages, dedicating lower-energy days to those languages with which they were more familiar and reserving mentally taxing or new languages for days when they felt more alert and capable. Figure 2 below shows the percentage of participants who reported using different adaptive strategies related to language similarity and cognitive load over time:
Figure 2: Use of Adaptive Strategies Influenced by Cognitive Load
and Language Similarity
Proficiency levels also played a critical role in shaping participants’ strategy choices. Beginners tended to rely on structured strategies, such as repetition and translation, while those at advanced levels favoured immersive techniques, including engaging with native content through reading and listening. As one participant noted,
For my beginner languages, I’m still using vocabulary drills. But for my more advanced ones, I rely mostly on media consumption and immersion. It’s a smoother way to keep up with multiple languages.
This distinction in strategy application highlights how participants adapted their methods according to their familiarity and comfort with each language.
In terms of the perceived effectiveness of these strategies, the participants rated various approaches based on their experiences. A significant majority, specifically 82%, identified self-monitoring as the most effective strategy overall, followed closely by reflection-based strategies, which were regarded as effective by 74% of participants. This evaluation underscores the importance of self-awareness and reflective practices in the language learning journey. Figure 3 shows the participants’ perceptions of effectiveness for the top strategies they used:
Figure 3: Participants’ Perceived Effectiveness of Metacognitive Strategies
In summary, the results reveal a dynamic spectrum of metacognitive strategies among hyperpolyglot participants, illustrating their capacity to adapt and refine their approaches to language learning over time.
6 Discussion
The findings from this study contribute to the existing literature on metacognitive strategies in language learning. The observed shifts in strategy use over the twelve-month period reflect a nuanced understanding of how learners adapt their approaches based on contextual factors, cognitive load, and proficiency levels. This discussion aims to contextualise these results within the broader framework of language acquisition theories and prior research.
The decline in structured goal-setting strategies, from 87% to 72%, contrasts with the increasing reliance on self-monitoring and reflection-based strategies. This phenomenon aligns with the theoretical framework proposed by Zimmerman & Schunk (2001), which emphasises the importance of self-regulation in learning. As learners progress, they often transition from more rigid, structured approaches to more fluid and adaptive strategies. This transition is indicative of an increasing metacognitive awareness that allows learners to evaluate their own needs and adjust their learning processes accordingly. Such adaptability has been supported by previous studies, such as those conducted by Dinsmore et al. (2008), which suggest that effective learners are those who can modify their strategies in response to changing circumstances.
The prominent role of self-monitoring in the participants' strategy repertoire is particularly noteworthy. With 88% of participants utilising self-monitoring by the end of the study, this finding echoes the work of Pintrich (2000), who posited that self-monitoring is a critical component of self-regulated learning. Participants reported that engaging in real-time assessments of their language abilities allowed them to make informed decisions about their learning trajectories. This real-time feedback mechanism not only enhances learning efficiency but also fosters a deeper understanding of language nuances, reinforcing the idea that self-monitoring is essential for successful language acquisition.
The significant increase in reflection-based strategies, from 47% to 81%, provides further insight into the adaptive processes of hyperpolyglots. Reflection is a cornerstone of experiential learning, as articulated by Kolb (1984), who argued that reflection allows learners to process their experiences and adjust their strategies accordingly. The participants’ emphasis on journaling and self-assessment suggests that reflective practices facilitate personalised learning pathways, enabling individuals to connect their experiences with their linguistic goals. This aligns with previous research that highlights the positive correlation between reflective practices and language learning success (Farrell 2018).
Moreover, the adoption of goal rotation as an adaptive strategy reflects an important cognitive management technique. The ability to prioritise and focus on one or two languages at a time not only alleviates cognitive overload but also enhances engagement – a notion supported by cognitive load theory (Sweller 1988). This finding underscores the importance of managing cognitive resources effectively, particularly in a multilingual context where the demands of learning multiple languages can be substantial. The participants’ strategy of cognitive cycling is particularly relevant, as it demonstrates an awareness of their cognitive limits and the need to distribute their mental resources wisely.
Language similarity emerged as a key factor influencing strategy adaptation, with 73% of participants recognising its impact. This finding corroborates the predictions of the interlanguage hypothesis (Selinker 1972), which posits that learners draw upon their existing language knowledge when acquiring new languages. The proactive measures participants employed, such as cross-linguistic monitoring to avoid false friends, highlight the practical implications of language similarity in strategic adaptations. These insights contribute to our understanding of how learners cope with the complexity of language acquisition in related linguistic environments.
Additionally, the influence of proficiency level on strategy choice reflects the findings of previous research that indicates varying learning strategies based on linguistic competence (Cohen 1998). The distinction between the structured strategies utilised by beginners and the immersive techniques favoured by advanced learners highlights the evolving nature of metacognitive strategies throughout the language learning process. This progression suggests a developmental trajectory in which learners move from foundational skills to more sophisticated, contextualised learning practices, echoing the stages of language development outlined by VanPatten & Benati (2010).
The participants’ perceptions of strategy effectiveness further illuminate the language learning context among hyperpolyglots. The high regard for self-monitoring and reflection as effective strategies reinforces the notion that metacognitive awareness is crucial in facilitating successful language acquisition. These findings align with research conducted by Baker & Brown (1984), which emphasizes the importance of learners’ beliefs about their strategies and the impact of these beliefs on their learning outcomes.
In conclusion, this study not only affirms existing theories of metacognitive strategies in language learning but also provides new insights into the dynamic and adaptive nature of these strategies among hyperpolyglots. The interplay of cognitive load, language similarity, and proficiency level in shaping strategic choices offers a comprehensive understanding of how language learners manage the complexities of multilingualism.
7 Conclusion
This study provides significant (This is true but doesn’t it sound a little bit like self-praise?) insights into the evolving metacognitive strategies employed by hyperpolyglots as they engage in the complex process of learning multiple languages over a twelve-month period. The results indicate a marked transition in strategy use, revealing a shift from structured, rigid approaches – such as strict goal-setting – to more adaptive and reflective practices.
The insights garnered from this study carry several important implications for language educators and curriculum developers. Firstly, the findings underscore the necessity of integrating metacognitive strategy training into language learning programs. Educators should create environments that promote reflective practices, self-assessment, and goal-setting, as these strategies have been shown to enhance learner autonomy and lead to improved outcomes (Baker & Brown 1984, Farrell 2018). By equipping learners with the skills to evaluate their progress and adapt their approaches, educators can foster a more engaging and effective language learning experience.
Furthermore, recognising the influence of language similarity on strategy adaptation could inform the development of targeted instructional methods. Language instructors might consider incorporating cross-linguistic comparisons and contrastive analysis into the curriculum, which can assist learners in navigating the complexities of related languages while minimizing the potential for interference. This approach can enhance learners' understanding of the linguistic features shared among languages and promote more effective learning strategies (Cohen 1998).
Despite the valuable insights offered by this study, it is not without limitations. The sample size, consisting of 30 hyperpolyglot participants, may not fully capture the diversity of experiences across all language learners. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported data could introduce bias, as participants may have a tendency to portray their strategies in a favourable light. While the longitudinal design allowed for observation of changes over time, challenges in maintaining participant engagement and consistency in data collection may have impacted the richness of the data.
Moreover, focusing exclusively on hyperpolyglots may limit the generalisability of the findings to other groups of language learners. The unique characteristics of hyperpolyglots, including their heightened motivation and cognitive capabilities, may not reflect the experiences of the broader language-learning population. As a result, caution should be exercised when extrapolating these findings to other learner profiles.
A notable limitation of this study lies in the interpretation of the decline in participants consistently employing structured goal-setting strategies. While this trend might suggest a shift away from rigid planning frameworks as participants progressed in their multilingual studies, it is important to exercise caution in drawing definitive conclusions. Some participants may have been lifelong language learners, whose pre-existing strategies or experiences might have influenced their approach over time. Furthermore, the study's relatively short duration of twelve months may not fully capture long-term patterns or fluctuations in goal-setting behaviours.
Acknowledging these factors, future research could benefit from extended observation periods and deeper exploration of participants’ prior language-learning histories to provide a more comprehensive understanding of these trends. Moreover, future studies should aim to broaden the understanding of metacognitive strategies across diverse populations of language learners. Investigating the metacognitive processes utilised by beginners, intermediate learners, and those studying less commonly taught languages could provide a more comprehensive view of how various learner profiles adapt their strategies. This study could enhance our understanding of the developmental trajectories of metacognitive awareness throughout the language learning process.
Longitudinal studies that examine the long-term impacts of metacognitive strategy training on language acquisition would further validate the findings of this study. By investigating how metacognitive awareness evolves with experience and proficiency, researchers can provide valuable information for optimising language learning approaches and enhancing pedagogical practices.
Finally, interdisciplinary research that integrates insights from cognitive psychology, educational theory, and applied linguistics could yield a more comprehensive understanding of metacognitive strategies in language learning. By bridging these fields, researchers can develop robust frameworks that inform effective language education practices and support successful language acquisition among a diverse array of learners. Through such efforts, the field can continue to advance in understanding the complex interplay between metacognition and language learning, ultimately contributing to improved educational outcomes.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Baseline Survey
Section A: Language Background
Native Language
What is your native language? (Text box)
Do you have more than one native language? (Yes/No)
If yes, please specify. (Text box)
Other Known Languages
List each additional language you know or are learning. (Text box)
For each language listed above, please answer the following questions:
Years studied: ___
Primary learning method: (Dropdown options: Formal instruction, Self-study, Immersion, Online courses, Other [please specify])
Age when you started learning this language: ___
Section B: Proficiency Levels
Please rate your current proficiency in each language (1 = Beginner, 6 = Advanced):
Language |
Speaking |
Reading |
Writing |
Listening |
Language 1 |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
Language 2 |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
(Add as needed) |
|
|
|
|
Section C: Language Learning History
Motivation for Learning
What was your primary motivation for learning each language?
(Options: Personal interest, Academic requirement, Professional requirement, Cultural engagement, Travel, Other [please specify])
Learning Methods
Which methods have you used to learn each language?
(Checkboxes: Classroom instruction, Private tutoring, Self-study, Mobile apps, Online platforms, Language exchange, Study abroad, Other [please specify])
Section D: Metacognitive Awareness (Adapted from the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory)
On a scale from 1 to 5, rate your agreement with each statement:
Statement |
Rating (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) |
I set specific goals for each language-learning session. |
______________________________ |
Before I start studying, I think about what I need to accomplish. |
______________________________ |
I check to make sure I understand the material while studying. |
______________________________ |
I reflect on how well I learned after studying. |
______________________________ |
I adjust my study methods if I am not making progress. |
______________________________ |
I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses in each language. |
______________________________ |
I identify areas where I need improvement in each language. |
______________________________ |
Appendix 2: Monthly Strategy Logs
Monthly Log Form
Section A: Strategy Checklist Select each strategy you used during this month:
Goal-Setting:
I set specific language-learning goals for each session.
I created a study schedule or plan.
Self-Monitoring:
I checked my understanding during each study session.
I kept track of my progress in each language.
Reflection and Adjustment:
I reviewed my progress at the end of each session.
I modified my learning strategies if something wasn’t working.
Section B: Open-Ended Reflections
Strategy Use Description
Briefly describe the strategies you used this month and in what contexts (e.g., formal classes, self-study, immersion). (Text box)
Perceived Effectiveness
How effective were the strategies you used? Note any successes or challenges. (Text box)
Adjustments or Changes
Did you introduce any new strategies or make adjustments this month? (Yes/No)
If yes, please describe these changes. (Text box)
Appendix 3: Final Survey
The final survey mirrors the baseline survey to track changes in proficiency levels and metacognitive strategy use. It also includes questions for overall reflections and study feedback.
Section A: Language Proficiency Re-assessment
Please rate your current proficiency in each language (1 = Beginner, 6 = Advanced):
Language |
Speaking |
Reading |
Writing |
Listening |
Language 1 |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
Language 2 |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
(Add as needed) |
|
|
|
|
Section B: Metacognitive Awareness (MAI Items)
Rate your agreement with each statement as you did in the baseline survey:
Statement |
Rating (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) |
I set specific goals for each language-learning session. |
______________________________ |
Before I start studying, I think about what I need to accomplish. |
______________________________ |
I check to make sure I understand the material while studying. |
______________________________ |
I reflect on how well I learned after studying. |
______________________________ |
I adjust my study methods if I am not making progress. |
______________________________ |
I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses in each language. |
______________________________ |
I identify areas where I need improvement in each language. |
______________________________ |
Section C: Final Reflections and Study Feedback
Overall Reflections on Language Learning
Please summarise your experiences with language learning over the past twelve months.
Perceived Changes in Language Skills
Describe any changes you have noticed in your language skills and your approach to language learning.
Feedback on the Study
Do you have any feedback on the study structure, frequency of logs, or barriers to participation?
Personal Growth and Insights
Any additional insights into your personal growth or observations from this study?
Appendix 4: Screening Questionnaire
Section 1: Background Information
Age:
18–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55+
Gender:
Male
Female
Non-binary / Prefer not to say
Level of Education:
High school or equivalent
College / university
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctorate
Other (please specify): ______
Primary Occupation:
Student
Employed (specify field: ______)
Self-employed
Unemployed
Retired
Other (please specify): ______
Section 2: Language Proficiency and Background
How many languages are you currently fluent in? (Do not include languages at beginner or basic levels)
3
4-5
6-7
8+
Please list the languages you know and indicate your proficiency level in each, as well as the primary context in which you learned them.
For each language, specify:
Language name
Proficiency level (e.g., Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Near-native)
Primary learning context (e.g., Formal education, Self-study, Immersive experience, Language exchange, etc.)
How long have you been studying languages beyond your native language(s)?
1 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 20 years
21+ years
References
Baker, L., and Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In: Pearson, P.D. (ed.) (1984). Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman, 353394.
Cai, Y. (2024). Metacognitive strategy use in L2 learning fluctuates from both ends towards the middle: Longitudinal evidence for the Island Ridge curve. In: System, 123, 103324.
Cai, Y. & Kunnan, A. J. (2020). Mapping the fluctuating effect of strategy use ability on English reading performance for nursing students: A multi-layered moderation analysis approach. In: Language Testing 37 (2), 280-304.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow, England: Longman.
Dinsmore, D. L. Alexander, P .A. & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. In: Educational Psychology Review 20 (4), 391-409.
Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (2021). Teaching and researching motivation. Routledge.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Erard, M. (2012). Babel no more: The search for the world’s most extraordinary language learners. New York: Free Press.
Erard, M. (2019). Language aptitude: Insights from hyperpolyglots. In: Wen, Z. et al. (Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis, 153-167.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Reflective practice in ESL teacher development groups: From practices to principles. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Jessner, U. (2008). A DST model of multilingualism and the role of metalinguistic awareness. In: The Modern Language Journal 92 (2), 270-283.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context. Routledge.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: Boekaerts, M. et al. (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 451-502.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10 (1-4), 209-231.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognitive Science 12 (2), 257-285.
VanPatten, B. & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Continuum.
Vandergrift, L. & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.
Zimmerman, B. J. and Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Author:
Dr Ángel Osle
Senior Lecturer
Languages for All, Director
Department of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex
Colchester, United Kingdom
Email: a.osle@essex.ac.uk
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7589-4358