Cambridge Journal of Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ccje20

The impact of multilingualism and learning

patterns on student achievement in English and
other subjects in higher education

Raees Calafato & Kevin Simmonds

To cite this article: Raees Calafato & Kevin Simmonds (2023) The impact of multilingualism and
learning patterns on student achievement in English and other subjects in higher education,
Cambridge Journal of Education, 53:5, 705-724, DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2023.2206805

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2023.2206805

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 18 May 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3992

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccje20
CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 53, NO. 5, 705–724
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2023.2206805

The impact of multilingualism and learning patterns on

student achievement in English and other subjects in higher
education
a
Raees Calafato and Kevin Simmondsb
a
Department of Languages and Literature Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Sports, and Educational Science,
University of South-Eastern Norway, Drammen, Norway; bInstitut Universitaire de Technologie, Université de
Tours, Blois Campus, Blois, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Students’ mindsets, multilingualism, learning styles and self- Received 29 July 2022
regulation strategies, which represent parts of their learning pat­ Accepted 17 April 2023
terns, can affect their academic achievement in various ways. This KEYWORDS
article presents the results of a study that utilised a 185-item online English as a foreign
questionnaire to investigate the interplay among the mindsets, language; non-language
learning styles, self-regulation strategies, multilingualism and subjects; mindsets; self-
achievement of 191 undergraduate students in France who were regulation; multilingualism;
studying English as a foreign language (EFL) as part of their non- achievement
language degrees. The findings indicated that students who held
growth-oriented mindsets about EFL, used concrete experiences as
part of their learning style, and were proficient in multiple lan­
guages performed better in EFL. At the same time, there were no
statistically significant correlations between their mindsets, learn­
ing styles, self-regulation strategies or multilingualism and their
achievement in non-language subjects. Interestingly, the students
reported employing similar learning styles and self-regulation stra­
tegies for both EFL and non-language subjects.

1. Introduction
Improving learner achievement in both language and non-language subjects is an
important objective of educational research. To this end, researchers have shown interest
in exploring the relationship between learning outcomes and factors such as multi­
lingualism (Nayak et al., 1990; Stephens & Moxham, 2019), growth mindsets (Lou &
Noels, 2019; Yeager et al., 2019) and learning styles and self-regulation strategies (Loo,
2002; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009). These factors are part of learners’ learning
patterns, which comprise ‘a coherent whole of learning activities that learners typically
employ, their beliefs about learning and their learning motivation, a whole that is
characteristic of them at a particular time’ (Vermunt & Donche, 2017, p. 270).
Mindsets, as a learning pattern factor, are beliefs that guide people’s behaviour towards

CONTACT Raees Calafato [email protected] Department of Languages and Literature Studies Faculty of
Humanities, Sports, and Educational Science, University of South-Eastern Norway, Grønland 58, Drammen 3045, Norway
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article
has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
706 R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

achieving goals (Lou & Noels, 2019). They may be growth, fixed or mixed and object-
bound, meaning that mindsets may change based on the goal, for example, learning
a new language or achieving success in one’s chosen career. Growth mindsets are
associated with positive learning outcomes, while fixed mindsets can lead to maladaptive
behaviour and weak progress in learners (Degol et al., 2018). Previous studies have
primarily explored mindsets in isolation (see Cheng et al., 2021; Lou & Noels, 2019),
such as investigating learner mindsets about language learning or intelligence, and rarely
in relation to multiple disciplines in formal learning settings. Moreover, there is a dearth
of research on the interplay between mindsets and multilingualism, despite the increas­
ing significance of multilingualism in education internationally (Council of Europe,
2020; Gao & Zheng, 2019).
The present study defines multilingualism as an individual’s ability to use more than
one language, encompassing the cognitive, psychological and affective effects and experi­
ences that accompany this knowledge (Jessner, 2008). While some scholars differentiate
between the terms ‘multilingualism’ and ‘plurilingualism’, where the former refers to
societal multilingualism and the latter to individual multilingualism (see Beacco &
Byram, 2007; Marshall & Moore, 2018), we use the terms interchangeably in this study.
Bilingualism, trilingualism and other variations of multilingualism are also included
under this definition to avoid conceptual clutter, as they represent different degrees of
the same phenomenon. Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between
multilingualism and language learning (for a review, see Hirosh & Degani, 2018), though
much less is known about multilingualism’s effects on learning outcomes in both
language and non-language subjects or how it relates to mindsets, as already mentioned.
Then there are learning styles and self-regulation strategies, two other learning pattern
factors that are complementary (Weinstein et al., 2011) and which, alongside multi­
lingualism, can influence learning outcomes. Learning styles refer to individuals’ pre­
ferred ways of learning and responding to various stimuli (Loo, 2002), while self-
regulation strategies involve the active, conscious and informed monitoring and regula­
tion of cognitive strategies, behaviour, time and social and physical environments to
support specific goals throughout the learning process (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2014).
Neither learning styles nor self-regulation strategies have been extensively studied in
relation to multilingualism or mindsets (P. P. Sun & Zhang, 2020; Pearson, 2020; Psaltou-
Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009).
As for achievement, previous research has demonstrated a positive correlation
between it and self-regulation, with studies highlighting this relationship mostly among
young learners (Robson et al., 2020; Seker, 2016; Skibbe et al., 2019; Zimmerman &
Kitsantas, 2014). However, it remains unclear if these findings can be generalised to
secondary and tertiary education. Learning styles have also been linked to achievement in
both language and non-language subjects (Bailey et al., 2000; Feng et al., 2020; Komarraju
et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2006), although some studies have failed to reveal statistically
significant links (e.g. Harris et al., 2003). The study of learning is a complex and dynamic
field that involves the interaction of multiple variables to produce specific outcomes.
While investigating factors such as mindsets, learning styles, self-regulation strategies
and multilingualism in isolation may be valuable, it could prove more useful to adopt
a comprehensive approach that considers these elements together. At the same time, due
to the many variables involved in learning, it is impossible to account for all the factors
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 707

that may affect outcomes, and there will always be some degree of bias in research
findings (Davis & Sumara, 2014). The complexity of the learning process is further
compounded by the fact that students in schools and universities typically learn both
language and non-language subjects simultaneously. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate
how learning patterns vary across different subjects and whether they consistently relate
to achievement in every case. Collecting such data would provide educational institutions
and teachers with valuable insights to tailor their programmes and teaching methods,
leading to more effective learning outcomes.
Seeking to contribute to research on the links between learning patterns and achieve­
ment, this study investigated the relationship between students’ learning patterns and
their achievement in both English as a foreign language (EFL) and non-language subjects
in tertiary education in France. Specifically, the study examined the relationship between
their mindsets towards EFL and non-language subjects, intelligence, personality, learning
ability, multilingualism and success, as well as their learning styles, self-regulation
strategies and self-reported overall proficiency in multiple languages, and their achieve­
ment in EFL and non-language subjects, as measured by their exam performance.

2. Learning patterns
2.1. Multilingualism and mindsets
Multilingualism may potentially affect various other learning pattern factors because it
involves the acquisition of diverse language and non-language skills and experiences and
leads to changes in an individual’s cognitive and affective states (Fielding, 2021; Jessner,
2008). The effects, however, may not always be positive. For instance, Folke et al. (2016,
p. 127), in their study of monolingual and bilingual adults, found that monolinguals
demonstrated ‘higher metacognitive abilities compared with the bilingual group’ and that
differences could not be explained based on variations in ‘non-verbal reasoning, working
memory or age’. In another study, Tang and Calafato (2021) discovered that school
language teachers who were more multilingual were less likely to promote self-regulation
among their students. Despite these findings, research on the effects of multilingualism
on other learning pattern factors remains limited and rarely includes achievement as
a variable (e.g. Rutgers et al., 2021). Moreover, since multilingualism has been theorised
to provide individuals with a range of language and non-language skills (Jessner, 2008), it
would be useful to examine its impact on achievement in diverse subjects within
a learning patterns framework. Studies on the relationship between multilingualism
and achievement have mostly focused on immigrant multilingualism and excluded
other learning pattern factors (e.g. Prediger et al., 2018), and few researchers have
compared multilingualism and achievement across both language and non-language
subjects. For example, Thomson (2010) found that multilingualism did not have
a significant effect on student achievement in reading and mathematics, at least when
compared to monolingualism.
As for mindsets, while some studies suggest that growth-oriented mindsets may
positivelyinfluence self-regulation (Bai et al., 2021; Heslin & Keating, 2016), research in
this area remains limited (Bai & Wang, 2023). Explaining the relationship, Heslin and
Keating (2016, p. 152) argue that ‘when poor performance is seen as reflecting limited
708 R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

innate ability, people sometimes wonder why they should bother generating strategies to
cultivate a talent that they inherently do not possess’. Apart from self-regulation, specific
mindsets (e.g. intelligence mindsets) have been studied alongside motivation, resilience
and achievement (Dweck & Yeager, 2019; Lou & Noels, 2019). Regarding achievement,
studies indicate a positive relationship with growth mindsets, albeit not always
a significant one (Lou et al., 2022; Yeager et al., 2019). At the same time, no studies
have examined mindsets in relation to multilingualism, as already mentioned, despite
many learners studying multiple languages in schools and even universities (Baïdak et al.,
2017; Calafato, 2021), which would make it valuable to investigate their mindsets about
acquiring multiple languages and how these mindsets relate to achievement. Nor is there
research that has compared multiple learner mindsets across different subjects and their
effects on achievement. Some studies suggest that mindsets do not affect achievement in
either language or non-language subjects (e.g. Glerum et al., 2020), though they are
limited in number and only considered individual mindsets without also including other
learning pattern factors.

2.2. Learning styles and self-regulation

Various models have been proposed to operationalise learning styles, with Kolb’s
Experiential Learning Model being one of the most well-documented (Cano-Garcia &
Hughes, 2000; Kolb & Kolb, 2009). The model is made up of four learning modes:
concrete experience (CE); abstract conceptualisation (AC); reflective observation (RO);
and active experimentation (AE). However, research has suggested that while CE and AC
are distinct factors, RO and AE can be combined into a single factor (Manolis et al.,
2013). Learners may prefer one or more modes over others, depending on their learning
style. For example, those with an assimilating learning style prioritise logic, analysis and
inductive reasoning, and rely on AC and RO, while individuals with an accommodating
learning style favour intuition over logic and use AE and CE (Manolis et al., 2013).
Studies on the impact of learning styles on language learning indicate that learners who
incorporate CE tend to be more successful than those who do not (Castro & Peck, 2005).
Some research (e.g. Vermetten et al., 1997) also suggests that learners may consistently
apply the same learning style to all subjects, but it is unclear whether this consistency
leads to similar outcomes in terms of achievement in each subject. Furthermore, few
studies have explored how learning styles interact with other learning pattern factors,
such as multilingualism (P. P. Sun & Zhang, 2020; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009),
mindsets (Pearson, 2020) or self-regulation (Ajisuksmo & Vermunt, 1999), and how
these factors collectively correlate with achievement in both language and non-language
subjects.
In their study, Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou (2009) found that among 1555 Greek
university students, higher levels of multilingualism, based on whether participants had
language proficiency certificates for two or three languages, were associated with less
reliance on linear, sequential thinking and structured environments when learning
foreign languages. These findings notwithstanding, the study did not examine whether
students applied their learning styles consistently across different subjects or whether
these styles had an impact on achievement. It is worth noting that learning styles may not
predict achievement in every subject, as students ‘develop learning strategies that allow
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 709

them to learn in environments that do not necessarily reflect their particular learning
style preferences’ over time so that ‘preferring one style may not mean that an individual
is “not good at” other styles’ (Harris et al., 2003, p. 25). Additionally, learning styles may
not always align with students’ beliefs, resulting in a state of ‘dissonance’, which can be
described as ‘the absence of linkages among learning conceptions, orientations, and
strategies that theoretically should be there, or as the presence of relationships among
these learning components that theoretically should not be there’ (Vermunt & Minnaert,
2003, p. 51). In terms of self-regulation, strategies can be directed not only at course
content (Calafato, 2020; Tang & Calafato, 2021), but also at peers and teachers to support
learning goals (Cho & Cho, 2017). However, research on self-regulation strategies in
language and non-language learning has tended to focus mostly on content-related
strategies and less on those directed at peers and teachers (Rose et al., 2018; Teng &
Zhang, 2022).

2.3. Research questions

The rationale behind our study was that since students’ learning patterns can have
a significant impact on their academic achievement, expanding the research focus to
examine how several learning pattern factors interacted and affected achievement could
better inform teaching practices and provide educators and researchers with deeper
insights into how students can be better equipped to succeed academically. As such,
our contribution to the existing research on the relationship between learning patterns
and achievement was in the form of an investigation of how learners’ mindsets about
studying EFL and non-language subjects, multilingualism, intelligence, personality,
learning ability, success and behaviour, as well as their learning styles and self-
regulation strategies, predicted their achievement in both EFL and non-language sub­
jects. Specifically, we explored the following research questions:

(1) How do participants’ mindsets related to EFL, non-language subjects and multi­
lingualism differ from one another?
(2) How do participants’ learning styles and self-regulation strategies when learning
EFL differ from those used in non-language subjects?
(3) Are participants’ learning styles and self-regulation strategies predictive of their
level of multilingualism?
(4) To what extent do participants’ mindsets, learning styles and self-regulation
strategies, together with socio-biographical variables, predict their achievement
in EFL and non-language subjects?

3. Method
3.1. Research context
We employed a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based quantitative research design in our
study that had both descriptive and correlational elements (Brown & Rodgers, 2002).
Such a design allowed us to describe the characteristics of the sample, for example their
multilingualism and EFL achievement, thereby helping to contextualise the findings and
710 R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

provide a better understanding of the population being studied, while also satisfying the
study’s aim to examine the relationships among learning pattern factors, such as stu­
dents’ mindsets, learning styles, self-regulation strategies and multilingualism, and their
academic achievement in EFL and non-language subjects. More broadly, we chose
a quantitative research design for two reasons. Firstly, such a design can help with
objectivity (Fryer et al., 2018). And, second, it can make a stronger impact on larger
institutions, for instance, universities and schools, since it can document effects ‘not just
with a handful of subjects anecdotally, but with a broader sample of the population’
(Fryer et al., 2018, p. 56).

3.2. Participants
The study recruited 191 undergraduate students at a public university in central France,
made up of 118 males (61.78%), 55 females (28.80%) and 18 (9.42%) participants who
selected ‘other’ when asked about their gender. The average age of the participants was
19.25 (Mdn = 19.00; SD = 2.50). They were pursuing undergraduate degrees in various
programmes, including Big Data Management and Analytics (BDMA) (n = 7; 3.67%),
Industrial Production Management (IPM) (n = 17; 8.90%), Information Technology (IT)
(n = 40; 20.94%), Law (n = 58; 30.37%) and Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) (n
= 77; 40.31%). None of the participants were pursuing a language degree. Regarding their
level of multilingualism, participants reported advanced proficiency in one language (n =
54; 28.27%), two languages (n = 84; 43.98%) or three or more languages (n = 44; 23.04%),
while nine participants reported not having advanced proficiency in any language. The
definition of the term ‘language’ used in this study and communicated to the participants
prior to their completing the questionnaire covered both standard varieties and dialects.
For example, a participant who reported advanced proficiency in Maghrebi and
Levantine Arabic was considered to have advanced proficiency in two languages. The
languages mentioned by participants included Arabic (Maghrebi, Levantine, and
Standard), Armenian, Breton, Dutch, English, French, Haitian Creole, Italian, Kabyle,
Kurdish, Malagasy, Occitan, Portuguese, Russian, Shimaore, Spanish, Swedish,
Tamazight and Turkish. Of the participants, 126 (65.97%) came from mono-ethnic
families, 58 (30.37%) came from multi-ethnic families, and seven declined to provide
any information about their backgrounds. The university where the study was conducted
has a student population of over 30,000 and mandates that all students, irrespective of
their degree programme, study EFL as part of the curriculum. This made the university
an appropriate setting for analysing the relationships between learning patterns and
academic achievement in both language and non-language subjects.

3.3. Measures
We utilised an online 185-item questionnaire that was available in both English and
French to gather data for the study. The questionnaire collected participants’ socio-
biographical data, including gender, age, level of multilingualism, family background and
degree programme. Additionally, data were collected on participants’ mindsets regarding
personality, intelligence, behaviour, learning ability and overall success, adapted from
Walker and Plomin’s (2005) study, as well as their mindsets about EFL and non-language
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 711

subjects, using the mindsets inventory from Lou and Noels (2019). We also investigated
participants’ mindsets regarding multilingualism to determine whether they viewed
multilingualism as a fixed trait and static resource, or a compounding, acquirable and
dynamic state that impacted individuals linguistically, psychologically, cognitively and
affectively. To gain a deeper understanding of how participants viewed the practical
applications of their studies, they were queried about their motivations for studying EFL
and their degree programmes, as well as the transdisciplinary value they saw in them. We
explored participants’ self-regulation strategies, using the self-regulation measure from
Cho and Cho (2017), and their learning styles in both EFL and non-language subjects,
utilising the shortened Kolb Learning Style Inventory from Manolis et al. (2013). To
measure achievement, we collected participants’ scores from the three most recent exams
they had taken in EFL and their non-language subjects, with scores being marked out of
20 and a composite score used for analysis. An overview of the questionnaire’s different
sections, including the number of items, item types, reliability, RMSEA (Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation), TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) scores and example items,
can be found in Table 1.
Reliability was calculated via McDonald’s omega (ω) using confirmatory factor ana­
lysis estimation, which is a more reliable indicator of internal consistency than
Cronbach’s alpha (α) (Dunn et al., 2014). The results indicated that each of the measures
and their subscales had satisfactory internal consistency.

3.4. Procedure
We obtained all necessary ethical clearances prior to administering the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was distributed to participants through EFL teaching staff at the
university, who shared it with their students via a link. Before commencing the ques­
tionnaire, participants were presented with an electronic consent form that informed
them that participation was voluntary, that they could withdraw from the study at any
time (via email), and that their data would be encrypted, password protected and securely
stored, with access limited to the authors of the study. Participants were asked to signal
their consent by selecting the appropriate checkbox at the end of the form (i.e. ‘I agree’ or
‘I do not agree’), after which they were taken to the questionnaire if they had provided
their consent. The data collection period lasted one month, after which access to the
questionnaire was disabled. Given the length of the questionnaire, participants were
allowed to complete it over multiple sessions: responses per participant were saved on the
online platform hosting the questionnaire and they were able to return to them later.

3.5. Data analysis

The data analysis was conducted using JASP and SPSS 28. To determine statistically
significant differences between participants’ mindsets regarding EFL and non-
language subjects, as well as their composite exam scores, Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-
Wallis and paired sample tests were performed. Results include effect size (Hedge’s g)
and achieved power (post-hoc power) for all statistically significant findings, with an
alpha level of .05 for all significance testing. Linear regression was conducted in two
instances. Firstly, it was performed to explore the relationship between participants’
 712

Table 1. Overview of the questionnaire.

Section Description Item(s) Type ω RMSEA TLI Example items
Sociobiographical Degree programme 1 Open - - - -
Gender 1 Open - - - -
Age 1 Open - - - -
Multilingualism 1 Open - - - -
Family background 1 Open - - - How would you describe your family? Is it multiethnic and/or multilingual? How?
Friends background 1 Open - - - What percentage of your friends are multiethnic and/or multilingual?
Motivation Open - - - Why are you studying English? Please give as many reasons as you have.
2
Mindsets English 18 Likert .89 .02 .97 I can always improve my English language ability.
NLS 18 Likert .86 .03 .98 In studying for my programme, if I work hard, I will get better.
R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

Multilingualism 22 Likert .71 .04 .90 Everybody can learn many languages well.
Personality 1 Likert - - - Is personality a product of genetics or the environment?
Intelligence 1 Likert - - - Is intelligence a product of genetics or the environment?
Behavior 1 Likert - - - Is behaviour a product of genetics or the environment?
Learning ability 1 Likert - - - Is learning ability a product of genetics or the environment?
Success 1 Likert - - - Is success a product of genetics or the environment?
Transdisciplinary value English 8 Likert .94 .05 .97 My knowledge of English benefits me in other areas of study
NLS 8 Likert .89 .06 .93 I use the knowledge gained from my programme in various aspects of my life.
Learning styles English (ROAE) 7 Likert .89 .07 .93 When I learn English, I like to think about ideas.
English (AC) 5 Likert .78 .02 .93 I learn English best when I trust my hunches and feelings.
English (CE) 5 Likert .85 .07 .98 When I learn English, I like to watch and listen.
NLS (ROAE) 7 Likert .89 .02 .97 “
NLS (AC) 5 Likert .80 .04 .96 “
NLS (CE) 5 Likert .85 .05 .99 “
Self-regulation English (Content) 11 Likert .93 .07 .93 Before starting an assignment, I plan out my work.
English (Teacher) 9 Likert .93 .05 .98 I do not hesitate to share concerns about my progress with the teacher.
English (Student) 9 Likert .90 .07 .94 I seek assistance from other students if I need it.
NLS (Content) 11 Likert .89 .06 .96 “
NLS (Teacher) 9 Likert .89 .06 .94 “
NLS (Student) 9 Likert .87 .05 .94 “
Achievement English 3 Open - - - -
NLS 3 Open - - - -
NLS = Non-language subjects; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CE = Concrete experience; AC = Abstract conceptualisation; ROAE = Reflective
observation and active experimentation.
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 713

exam scores for EFL and non-language subjects and their mindsets, gender, age, level
of multilingualism, degree programme, use of self-regulation strategies, learning styles
and beliefs about the transdisciplinary value of their studies. Secondly, we sought to
determine if participants’ level of multilingualism, as determined by their self-
reported advanced proficiency in one or more languages, was predicted by their
learning styles and use of self-regulation strategies in both EFL and non-language
subjects. The data were examined for outliers, score distribution, multicollinearity and
autocorrelation during statistical testing.

4. Findings
Figure 1 presents the descriptive statistics for participants’ EFL-, non-language subject-
and multilingualism-related mindsets. The data indicated that their mindsets were
mostly growth-oriented, though less so concerning multilingualism.
Paired sample t-test results revealed that participants’ non-language subject-related
mindsets were statistically significantly more growth-oriented than were either their
EFL- [t(189) = 3.15, p = .002, g = .23, 1-β = .93] or multilingualism-related mindsets [t
(190) = 18.66, p < .001, g = 1.35, 1-β = 1.00]. Their mindsets about EFL, meanwhile, were
statistically significantly more growth-oriented than their multilingualism-related mind­
set [t(189) = 16.76, p < .001, g = 1.21, 1-β = 1.00]. In other words, participants felt most
strongly that they could achieve success in non-language subjects through effort, whereas

Figure 1. Participants’ mindsets regarding their EFL, non-language subjects and multilingualism. Note.
Likert scale = 1 – Completely disagree; 5 – Completely agree
714 R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

they were least in agreement with effort helping to develop their multilingualism.
Kruskal-Wallis test results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences
in participants’ multilingualism- (H = 4.12, df = 4, p = .391), EFL- (H = 2.48, df = 4, p
= .651) or non-language subject-related (H = 4.03, df = 4, p = .402) mindsets based on
their degree programmes. Mann-Whitney U test results revealed that gender differences,
too, were not statistically significant concerning participants’ multilingualism- (U =
3013.50, p = .450), EFL- (U = 3125.50, p = .842) or non-language subject-related (U =
3474.50, p = .454) mindsets. According to the results of a one-way ANOVA, participants’
level of multilingualism did not lead to statistically significant differences in EFL- [F(2,
178) = 2.10, p = .125], non-language subject- [F(2, 179) = .86, p = .424] or multilingual­
ism-related [F(2, 179) = 1.32, p = .269] mindsets. Levene’s test showed that the variances
in this regard were roughly equal for EFL- [F(2, 178) = .47, p = .629], non-language
subject- [F(2, 179) = .28, p = .754] and multilingualism-related mindsets [F(2, 179) =
2.50, p = .085].
Figure 2 provides the descriptive statistics for participants’ responses regarding their
learning styles and use of self-regulation strategies in EFL and non-language subjects.
Generally, their learning styles and self-regulation strategies appeared to be quite similar
across subjects, although they seemed to engage less in abstract conceptualisation (AC)

Figure 2. Participants’ learning styles and self-regulation strategies for EFL and non-language subjects.
Note. Likert scale = 1 – Completely disagree; 5 – Completely agree; CE = Concrete experience; AC =
Abstract conceptualization; ROAE = Reflective observation and active experimentation; NLS = Non-
language subjects
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 715

overall than they did in concrete experiences (CE) and reflective observation and active
experimentation (ROAE).
Paired sample t-test results indicated that there were no statistically significant
differences in participants’ AC [t(166) = 1.51, p = .133, g = .12], CE [t(168) = .59, p
= .557, g = .05], or ROAE [t(167) = 1.32, p = .189, g = .10] based on whether they were
studying EFL or non-language subjects; nor were there any statistically significant
differences in their use of peer- [t(167) = .60, p = .547, g = .05], teacher- [t(167) = 1.41,
p = .160, g = .11] or content-focused [t(173) = 1.77, p = .079, g = .13] self-regulation stra­
tegies in this respect. A linear regression was performed to determine whether partici­
pants’ level of multilingualism was predicted by their learning styles and self-regulation
strategies for EFL and their non-language subjects. Participants who reported advanced
proficiency in three or more languages were selected as the reference category. The data
were checked for outliers and found to be acceptable (Std. Residual Min = −1.64, Std.
Residual Max = 1.89). The results indicated that there was a statistically significant
association between participants’ multilingualism, learning styles and self-regulation
strategies [x2(24) = 36.64, Nagelkerke ρ2 = .24, p = .048]. Individual predictors revealed
that possessing advanced proficiency in only one language versus three or more lan­
guages was linked to statistically significantly reduced learning via CE (i.e. less active
learning through tangible, concrete experiences) [B = −2.48, OR =.08, p = .005, 95% CI
(.01, .48)] and stronger use of content-focused self-regulation strategies [B = 1.43, OR =
4.16, p = .040, 95% CI (1.07, 16.19)] among participants.
Data regarding participants’ mindsets about personality, intelligence, general beha­
viour, learning ability and overall success in life indicated that they thought that person­
ality (M = 3.31, SD = .96), general behaviour (M = 3.64, SD = .99) and success (M = 3.59,
SD = 1.00) were mostly a result of environmental factors, whereas they were somewhat
less certain about learning ability (M = 2.97, SD = 1.00) and intelligence (M = 2.98, SD
= .88) being primarily a product of environmental factors. In terms of the transdisci­
plinary value of EFL (M = 3.99, SD = .82) and their non-language subjects (M = 4.04, SD
= .64), participants generally viewed both as having a high value. The exam scores for EFL
(M = 13.85, SD = 3.17) and their non-language subjects (M = 14.57, SD = 2.93) indicated
a slight variance. Paired sample t-test results revealed that participants scored statistically
significantly higher in exams for non-language subjects than those for EFL [t(115) =
−2.92, p = .004, g = .27]. Kruskal-Wallis test results indicated that there were no statisti­
cally significant differences between participants concerning their EFL exam scores (H =
5.38, p = .251) based on their degree programmes. Meanwhile, there were statistically
significant differences between participants regarding non-language subject exam scores
(H = 12.08, p = .017) based on their degree programmes, but only between the MSE (M =
13.85, SD = 2.86) and IPM (M = 17.88, SD = 2.85) groups (p = .013, g = 1.41, 1-β = .97).
Table 2 lists the results of a linear regression that was conducted to ascertain
the extent to which participants’ EFL exam scores were predicted by their EFL-
and multilingualism-related mindsets, as well as their mindsets about personality,
intelligence, behaviour, learning ability and success, use of self-regulation strate­
gies when studying EFL, learning styles concerning EFL, beliefs about the trans­
disciplinary value of EFL, their degree programme, gender, age and level of
multilingualism. The results indicated that the regression model statistically sig­
nificantly outperformed the null model [x2 (18) = 3.61, Nagelkerke ρ2 = .39, p
716 R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

Table 2. Regression results for variables predicting participants’ EFL exam scores.
95%CI 95%CI
B β t p LB UB Tol. VIF
(Constant) 5.09 1.51 .135 −1.61 11.78
Degree programme .38 .13 1.33 .187 −.19 .95 .61 1.65
Transdisciplinary value of .82 .21 1.96 .052 −.01 1.65 .53 1.88
English
Mindsets English 1.46 .27 2.40 .018 .25 2.67 .48 2.08
Multilingualism .43 .07 .62 .538 −.95 1.80 .54 1.86
Personality .67 .21 2.15 .034 .05 1.28 .63 1.58
Intelligence −.22 −.06 −.69 .494 −.86 .42 .68 1.48
Behaviour −.10 −.03 −.33 .741 −.72 .51 .58 1.71
Learning ability .12 .04 .43 .669 −.44 .68 .63 1.60
Success −.15 −.05 −.48 .633 −.76 .47 .64 1.56
Self-regulation strategies for Content −.66 −.18 −1.61 .110 −1.48 .15 .50 1.99
English Teacher 1.36 .38 2.75 .007 .38 2.34 .30 3.28
Peers −1.12 −.29 −2.32 .023 −2.08 −.16 .38 2.62
Sociobiographical variables Gender .60 .09 .98 .331 −.62 1.81 .79 1.27
Age −.22 −.14 −1.38 .170 −.54 .10 .59 1.70
Multilingualism .79 .18 2.20 .030 .08 1.50 .86 1.16
Learning styles for English ROAE −1.62 −.35 −2.24 .027 −3.06 −.19 .25 4.08
CE 1.80 .38 2.31 .023 .26 3.35 .22 4.53
AC −.12 −.03 −.25 .805 −1.12 .87 .40 2.49
Dependent variable: English exam scores; CI = Confidence interval; LB = Lower bound; UB = Upper bound; VIF = Variance
Inflation Factor; CE = Concrete experience; AC = Abstract conceptualisation; ROAE = Reflective observation and active
experimentation; Tol. = Tolerance.

< .001], that there were no outliers (Std. Residual Min = −2.93, Std. Residual Max
= 2.28) and that the data were neither autocorrelated (Durban-Watson statistic; d
= 2.00) nor was multicollinearity an issue (see Table 2).
In terms of individual predictors, participants’ EFL exam scores were statistically
significantly and positively predicted by their EFL-related mindset, teacher-focused
self-regulation strategies, level of multilingualism, the belief that personality was
a result of the environment and not genetics, and emphasis on learning through
concrete experiences. Their scores were also statistically significantly and negatively
predicted by their use of peer-focused self-regulation strategies and emphasis on
learning EFL via reflective observation and active experimentation. Put another
way, 1) the more participants thought that they could improve their EFL through
effort, 2) the more they believed that personality was malleable, 3) the greater their
level of multilingualism, 4) the more they relied on concrete experiences rather than
reflective observation and active experimentation when learning, and 5) the stronger
their use of self-regulation strategies that drew on their teachers as a resource, the
higher their EFL exam scores were.
Table 3 contains the results of a linear regression that we performed to ascertain the
extent to which participants’ non-language subject exam scores were predicted by their
mindsets, learning styles, self-regulation strategies, beliefs about the transdisciplinary
value of non-language subjects, degree programmes and socio-biographical variables.
Here, the results revealed that the regression model did not statistically significantly
outperform the null model [x2 (18) = .84, Nagelkerke ρ2 = .17, p = .654] and none of the
variables statistically significantly predicted participants’ exam scores for non-language
subjects. There were no outliers (Std. Residual Min = −3.03, Std. Residual Max = 2.01)
nor were the data autocorrelated (Durban-Watson statistic; d = 2.02).
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 717

Table 3. Regression results for variables predicting participants’ non-language subject exam scores.
95% 95%
B β t p CI LB CI UB Tol. VIF
(Constant) 13.04 3.04 .003 4.50 21.59
Degree programme .61 .25 1.73 .087 −.09 1.31 .52 1.91
Transdisciplinary value of non- .27 .06 .50 .617 −.81 1.35 .67 1.50
language subjects
Mindsets Non-language subjects −1.20 −.22 −1.46 .148 −2.82 .43 .49 2.03
Multilingualism 1.06 .17 1.23 .221 −.65 2.78 .56 1.77
Personality −.12 −.04 −.32 .752 −.87 .63 .61 1.65
Intelligence .07 .02 .16 .876 −.80 .94 .57 1.76
Behaviour .09 .03 .23 .815 −.70 .89 .51 1.97
Learning ability .27 .10 .73 .469 −.47 1.02 .54 1.84
Success −.28 −.10 −.75 .453 −1.02 .46 .65 1.54
Self-regulation strategies Content .23 .06 .39 .699 −.95 1.41 .52 1.94
for programmes Teacher .53 .15 .93 .353 −.59 1.65 .44 2.30
Peers −.61 −.16 −.98 .328 −1.85 .63 .43 2.32
Sociobiographical variables Gender .76 .12 .94 .350 −.86 2.38 .71 1.40
Age −.15 −.10 −.75 .454 −.53 .24 .58 1.73
Multilingualism .33 .09 .75 .457 −.55 1.21 .81 1.24
Learning styles for ROAE .54 .13 .55 .585 −1.43 2.51 .19 5.16
programmes CE .18 .04 .21 .831 −1.52 1.89 .28 3.56
AC −.55 −.15 −.95 .344 −1.71 .60 .42 2.36
Dependent variable: non-language subject exam scores; CI = Confidence interval; LB = Lower bound; UB = Upper bound;
VIF = Variance Inflation Factor; CE = Concrete experience; AC = Abstract conceptualisation; ROAE = Reflective
observation and active experimentation; Tol. = Tolerance.

5. Discussion
The present study investigated the mindsets of university students in France concerning
EFL, their non-language subjects and multilingualism, as well as their learning styles and
use of self-regulation strategies. In addition, we examined how these factors, along with
socio-biographical variables, related to their achievement in both EFL and non-language
subjects.

5.1. Mindsets related to EFL, non-language subjects and multilingualism

Regarding the first research question, the study found that participants exhibited
predominantly growth mindsets towards studying English and non-language sub­
jects, meaning that they strongly believed that they could make good progress in
English and non-language subjects if they put in the effort. This aligns with recent
research indicating that participants generally possess growth mindsets about study­
ing languages and non-language subjects, even prior to researchers implementing
interventions (Lanvers, 2020; X. Sun et al., 2021). Some studies (e.g. Horwitz, 1988)
show that essentialist views about language learning have been prevalent among
students in some countries, such as the United States, though this was not the case
here. What distinguishes this study from previous research is that participants’
mindsets towards studying English and non-language subjects were more growth-
oriented than their mindsets towards acquiring multilingualism, which has not been
explored before. In other words, participants believed that while their progress in
English and non-language subjects could be enhanced through effort, multilingual­
ism, which involves learning and using multiple languages, as well as acquiring
non-language skills and various psychological, affective and cognitive changes in the
718 R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

individual (Jessner, 2008), was more challenging to attain through investment.

Participants’ responses suggest that they would be less receptive to investing in
multilingualism and all that it entails, with implications for language education in
countries in Europe and elsewhere, where language education is linked to develop­
ing multilingual and multiculturally competent citizens (see ; Baïdak et al., 2017;
Council of Europe, 2020).

5.2. Learning styles and self-regulation strategies for EFL and non-language
subjects
Regarding the second research question, which concerned differences between partici­
pants’ learning styles and self-regulation strategies for EFL and non-language subjects,
the findings indicated that participants utilised similar approaches irrespective of subject.
These results are consistent with Vermetten et al.’s (1997) longitudinal study, which
found that university students remained consistent in their behaviour across
programmes. The results are also surprising given the dissimilar qualities of the degree
programmes pursued by the participants in this study. For example, information tech­
nology, which some of the participants were studying, may require learning styles that
involve more visual and spatial learning strategies, while materials science might need
more experiential learning strategies (e.g. laboratory experiments). Law, on the other
hand, can entail more analytical and critical thinking skills, such as interpreting legal
texts and applying them to real-world scenarios. Similarly, different self-regulation
strategies might be required depending on the subject area. For instance, a student
studying law may need to spend more time on content, that is, reading and research,
while a student studying foreign languages would benefit from spending more time
practising them with their peers. In this study, participants generally preferred a mix of
CE and ROAE (reflective, observational and affective engagement) over AC, indicating
that they were primarily accommodators or divergers (Manolis et al., 2013), relying on
intuition and creativity to consider a situation from multiple perspectives. These learning
styles have been found to be effective for language learning (Castro & Peck, 2005), but not
necessarily for non-language subjects, as demonstrated in this study. Furthermore,
participants’ self-regulation strategies were evenly distributed across the content, teacher
and peer domains, indicating that they utilised each of these domains equally.

5.3. The relationship between multilingualism, learning styles and self-regulation

strategies
The study found that participants’ level of multilingualism was significantly predicted by
their learning styles and self-regulation strategies. Specifically, individuals who were
more multilingual tended to employ concrete experience (CE) as a learning mode and
relied less on content-focused self-regulation strategies. This finding aligns with previous
research by Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou (2009), who discovered that multilingualism
positively correlated with a preference for real-world experiences over structured learn­
ing environments and that proficiency affected how frequently multilingual learners used
learning strategies. The researchers found that trilingual learners with advanced profi­
ciency in their languages used such strategies more frequently than trilingual learners
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 719

who were less proficient and were, moreover, less dependent on a structured learning
format when compared to bilinguals. Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou observed that the
more proficient participants were in their languages, the more they practised the FL
effectively ‘by speaking to native speakers, watching foreign programmes, reading foreign
texts and writing in the FL’ and tried ‘consciously to develop all four language skills in
naturalistic contexts which require authentic use of the target language’ (p. 469). Linked
to this, our study’s findings also indicated that greater multilingualism was associated
with less dependence on content-focused self-regulation strategies, which are often
emphasised in formal, structured learning settings like schools and universities, where
textbooks can play a central role across subjects. Regarding the positive correlations
observed between multilingualism and CE in this study, one can refer to Castro and Peck
(2005), who noted that learners who incorporate CE into their learning styles have more
successful language learning outcomes, implying that participants who were more multi­
lingual would have better learning outcomes in EFL.

5.4. Learning patterns and achievement in EFL and non-language subjects

Concerning the fourth research question, the study found that participants’ EFL achievement
was positively predicted by their growth-oriented mindsets towards studying EFL, the belief
that personality is a product of the environment, use of teacher-focused self-regulation
strategies, and level of multilingualism (but not their mindsets about multilingualism). The
findings concerning growth-oriented mindsets towards studying EFL having a positive rela­
tionship with EFL achievement align with previous research where a similarly strong relation­
ship between growth-oriented mindsets and language learning achievement was
demonstrated (e.g. Eren & Rakıcıoğlu-Söylemez, 2020). As for multilingualism’s positive
links with achievement, one could claim that participants with advanced proficiency in
multiple languages had developed effective language learning strategies that they applied to
learning EFL, which then translated into better exam performance. This finds support in the
study by Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou (2009), where trilinguals with advanced proficiency
used learning strategies more frequently and effectively than those with less proficiency.
Proficiency in multiple languages also meant that participants were likely exposed to different
language structures and patterns (Jessner, 2008), which provided them with a deeper under­
standing of how languages work and ultimately led to better exam results. The study also
found that participants’ use of peer-focused self-regulation negatively predicted their English
exam scores, similar to the RO and AE learning modes. In terms of learning styles, only the
participants’ use of CE positively predicted their exam scores. This finding is consistent with
the observations made by Castro and Peck (2005), who noted that learning styles that
incorporate CE, such as accommodating and diverging styles, lead to more successful
language learning outcomes.
At the same time, the study found that participants’ mindsets, learning styles, self-
regulation strategies and socio-biographical variables like age and level of multilingual­
ism did not predict their non-language subject-related achievement. This may be because
mindsets do not always correlate with achievement, as X. Sun et al. (2021) found in their
study of Chinese and US students. Similarly, studies on learning styles have yielded
mixed results regarding their link to achievement (An & Carr, 2017), possibly due to
students not always employing their preferred learning styles (Harris et al., 2003) or
720 R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

experiencing dissonance between their learning styles and beliefs (Vermunt & Minnaert,
2003). The technical nature of many of the degree programmes in which participants
were enrolled may have also influenced the findings. For example, the emphasis on
acquiring technical knowledge may have required participants to engage in memorising
substantial amounts of information, which was not explored as a variable in this study,
but which might have proved more predictive of their exam performance in their non-
language subjects than learning styles or self-regulation. Previous studies (e.g. Burke &
Gandolfi, 2014) on educational practices in technical disciplines report a strong emphasis
on rote memorisation, with less attention accorded to other learning strategies. As for
participants’ level of multilingualism not statistically significantly predicting their
achievement in non-language subjects, it bears mentioning that the benefits of multi­
lingualism have primarily been documented in relation to learning languages (Hirosh &
Degani, 2018), making it difficult to draw strong conclusions. One reason for the lack of
correlation could be the highly technical language and terminology and complex con­
cepts that participants encountered in their non-language subjects, which limited the
cross-linguistic benefits that multilingualism provided to them.

6. Implications, recommendations and limitations

There are several conclusions that one can draw from the study’s findings. First, they reveal
that students do not see multilingualism as being fully obtainable through effort, which
underscores the need for teachers and researchers to engage more deeply with them about
language learning being a component of something much larger and attainable (i.e. multi­
lingualism). This engagement may take the form of short discussions between teachers and
students where they talk about multilingualism or visits by researchers to classrooms where
they present and discuss their project’s findings, among other activities. Ultimately, should
students continue to feel that acquiring multilingualism is challenging to obtain through
effort, they may not invest the resources needed to learn multiple languages effectively. This
would, in turn, have negative consequences for the education policies implemented by
a growing number of countries around the world, including France, that seek to develop
citizens who are proficient in more than one foreign language and can use these in diverse
contexts. Second, the findings suggest that language teachers should help their students
develop growth-oriented mindsets vis-à-vis the target language and place greater emphasis
on the use of teacher-oriented self-regulation strategies if they want to boost their learning
outcomes. Indeed, self-regulation strategies that focus on content or peers may not be able to
provide the same level of expert knowledge, customised feedback, motivation and real-time
language practice that teachers offer, despite still being beneficial to the extent that they can
promote learner autonomy. Third, teachers should strive to identify the learning styles
employed by their students to determine the extent to which these styles incorporate CE
elements and so that they can develop personalised approaches to teaching that nurture those
learning modes that are most conducive to learning languages.
The abovementioned implications notwithstanding, our study is not without its limitations
in that it relied exclusively on a questionnaire to gather data from participants, whereas the
addition of interviews would have shed more light on their mindsets, especially regarding
multilingualism. The data were also cross-sectional in nature, meaning that students’ mind­
sets, learning styles and self-regulation strategies may change in the future. Moreover, our
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 721

participant sample came from one university in France, and students at other universities in
the country may have mindsets, learning styles and self-regulation strategies that differ
considerably from those reported here.
In terms of recommendations for future research, then, additional studies on
the relationships between multiple mindsets, learning styles, multilingualism and
self-regulation strategies and learning outcomes in language and non-language
subjects are needed. These studies could target languages other than English and
take place in contexts outside of Europe, such as in the Middle East, Central Asia
or China, where little research has been done in this respect. Moreover, while this
study’s participants were only learning one foreign language, students frequently
study two or more foreign languages concurrently in schools and universities
internationally, often alongside a national language that can differ from their
first language. As such, it would provide us with deeper insights if we expanded
the study of the interplay between learning patterns and outcomes to encompass
the learning of multiple languages simultaneously.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding
author. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could
compromise the privacy of research participants.

ORCID
Raees Calafato http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8222-6772

References
Ajisuksmo, C. R., & Vermunt, J.(1999). Learning styles and self‐regulation of learning at uni­
versity: An Indonesian study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 19(2), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.
1080/0218879990190205
An, D., & Carr, M. (2017). Learning styles theory fails to explain learning and achievement:
Recommendations for alternative approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 116,
410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.050
Baïdak, N., Balcon, M. P., & Motiejunaite, A. (2017). Key data on teaching languages at school in
Europe (2017 ed.). Eurydice (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency).
Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Using learning style to predict foreign
language achievement at the college level. System, 28(1), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0346-251X(99)00064-0
Bai, B., & Wang, J. (2023). The role of growth mindset, self-efficacy and intrinsic value in
self-regulated learning and English language learning achievements. Language Teaching
Research, 27(1), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820933190
Bai, B., Wang, J., & Nie, Y. (2021). Self-efficacy, task values and growth mindset: What has the
most predictive power for primary school students’ self-regulated learning in English writing
722 R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

and writing competence in an Asian Confucian cultural context? Cambridge Journal of

Education, 51(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1778639
Beacco, J. C., & Byram, M. (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the
development of language education policies in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing.
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford University Press.
Burke, M. M., & Gandolfi, W. R. (2014). US accounting education: Misalignment with the needs of
small and medium companies. American Journal of Business Education, 7(4), 339–348. https://
doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v7i4.8813
Calafato, R. (2020). Learning Arabic in Scandinavia: Motivation, metacognition, and autonomy.
Lingua, 246, 102943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102943
Calafato, R. (2021). “I'm a salesman and my client is China”: Language learning motivation,
multicultural attitudes, and multilingualism among university students in Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan. System, 103, 102645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102645
Cano-Garcia, F., & Hughes, E. H. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: An analysis of their
interrelationship and influence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 20(4),
413–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663755
Castro, O., & Peck, V. (2005). Learning styles and foreign language learning difficulties. Foreign
Language Annals, 38(3), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02226.x
Cheng, M. W., Leung, M. L., & Lau, J. C. (2021). A review of growth mindset intervention in higher
education: The case for infographics in cultivating mindset behaviors. Social Psychology of
Education, 24(5), 1335–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09660-9
Cho, M. H., & Cho, Y. (2017). Self-regulation in three types of online interaction: A scale
development. Distance Education, 38(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.
1299563
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment - Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/
common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2014). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and
research. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Degol, J. L., Wang, M. T., Zhang, Y., & Allerton, J. (2018). Do growth mindsets in math benefit
females? Identifying pathways between gender, mindset, and motivation. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 47(5), 976–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0739-8
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the
pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3),
399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 14(3), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166
Eren, A., & Rakıcıoğlu-Söylemez, A. (2020). Language mindsets, perceived instrumentality,
engagement and graded performance in English as a foreign language students. Language
Teaching Research, 27(3), 1362168820958400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820958400
Feng, Y., Iriarte, F., & Valencia, J. (2020). Relationship between learning styles, learning strategies
and academic performance of Chinese students who learn Spanish as a foreign language. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(5), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00496-8
Fielding, R. (2021). A multilingual identity approach to intercultural stance in language learning. The
Language Learning Journal, 49(4), 466–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1912154
Folke, T., Ouzia, J., Bright, P., De Martino, B., & Filippi, R. (2016). A bilingual disadvantage in
metacognitive processing. Cognition, 150, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.008
Fryer, L., Larson-Hall, J., & Stewart, J. (2018). Quantitative methodology. In A. Phakiti,
P. D. Costa, L. Plonsky, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of applied linguistics
research methodology (pp. 55–77). https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_3
Gao, X., & Zheng, Y. (2019). Multilingualism and higher education in Greater China. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(7), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.
2019.1571073
 CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 723

Glerum, J., Loyens, S. M., & Rikers, R. M. (2020). Mind your mindset: An empirical study of
mindset in secondary vocational education and training. Educational Studies, 46(3), 273–281.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1573658
Harris, R. N., Dwyer, W. O., & Leeming, F. C. (2003). Are learning styles relevant in web-based
instruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.2190/
YHL4-UP7P-K0GD-N5LJ
Heslin, P. A., & Keating, L. A. (2016). Stuck in the muck? The role of mindsets in self‐regulation
when stymied during the job search. Journal of Employment Counseling, 53(4), 146–161. https://
doi.org/10.1002/joec.12040
Hirosh, Z., & Degani, T. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of multilingualism on novel language
learning: An integrative review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 892–916. https://doi.org/
10.3758/s13423-017-1315-7
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1540-4781.1988.tb04190.x
Jessner, U. (2008). A DST model of multilingualism and the role of metalinguistic awareness. The
Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00718.x
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to
management learning, education and development. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.),
The sage handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 42–68). Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021038.n3
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The big five personality traits,
learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4),
472–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019
Lanvers, U. (2020). Changing language mindsets about modern languages: A school intervention.
The Language Learning Journal, 48(5), 571–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.
1802771
Loo, R. (2002). A meta-analytic examination of Kolb’s learning style preferences among business
majors. Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08832320209599673
Lou, N. M., Chaffee, K. E., & Noels, K. A. (2022). Growth, fixed, and mixed mindsets: Mindset
system profiles in foreign language learners and their role in engagement and achievement.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(3), 607–632. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263121000401
Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2019). Promoting growth in foreign and second language education:
A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and teaching. System, 86, 102126. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102126
Manolis, C., Burns, D. J., Assudani, R., & Chinta, R. (2013). Assessing experiential learning styles:
A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb learning style inventory. Learning
and Individual Differences, 23, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.009
Marshall, S., & Moore, D. (2018). Plurilingualism amid the panoply of lingualisms: Addressing
critiques and misconceptions in education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(1),
19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1253699
Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N., & McLaughlin, B. (1990). Language‐learning strategies in
monolingual and multilingual adults. Language Learning, 40(2), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb01334.x
Pearson, J. (2020). Engaging a belief in learning styles to encourage a growth mindset. Performance
Improvement, 59(7), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21927
Prediger, S., Wilhelm, N., Büchter, A., Gürsoy, E., & Benholz, C. (2018). Language proficiency and
mathematics achievement. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 39(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13138-018-0126-3
Psaltou-Joycey, A., & Kantaridou, Z. (2009). Plurilingualism, language learning strategy use and
learning style preferences. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(4), 460–474. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14790710903254620
724 R. CALAFATO AND K. SIMMONDS

Robson, D. A., Allen, M. S., & Howard, S. J. (2020). Self-regulation in childhood as a predictor of
future outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 324–354. https://doi.
org/10.1037/bul0000227
Rose, H., Briggs, J. G., Boggs, J. A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A systematic
review of language learner strategy research in the face of self-regulation. System, 72, 151–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.12.002
Rutgers, D., Evans, M., Fisher, L., Forbes, K., Gayton, A., & Liu, Y. (2021). Multilingualism, multilingual
identity and academic attainment: Evidence from secondary schools in England. Journal of Language,
Identity & Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.1986397
Seker, M. (2016). The use of self-regulation strategies by foreign language learners and its role in
language achievement. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 600–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1362168815578550
Skibbe, L. E., Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., & Morrison, F. J. (2019). Self-regulation and the
development of literacy and language achievement from preschool through second grade. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.005
Stephens, S., & Moxham, B. J. (2019). Do medical students who are multilingual have higher
spatial and verbal intelligence and do they perform better in anatomy examinations? Clinical
Anatomy, 32(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23280
Sun, X., Nancekivell, S., Gelman, S. A., & Shah, P. (2021). Growth mindset and academic out­
comes: A comparison of US and Chinese students. Npj Science of Learning, 6(1), 21. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41539-021-00100-z
Sun, P. P., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). A multidimensional perspective on individual differences in
multilingual learners’ L2 Chinese speech production. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 59. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00059
Tang, F., & Calafato, R. (2021). Multilingual, bilingual, and monolingual Arabic teachers’ devel­
opment of learner self‐regulation and language awareness in the Emirates. Foreign Language
Annals, 54(1), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12515
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Can self-regulation be transferred to second/foreign language
learning and teaching? Current status, controversies, and future directions. Applied Linguistics,
43(3), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab032
Thomson, J. (2010).The relationship between student achievement and multilingualism:
A quantitative causal-comparative study. Lulu. com.
Vermetten, Y., Lodewijks, H., & Vermunt, J. (1997). Change and stability in learning strategies
during the first two years at the university. American Educational Research Association.
Vermunt, J., & Donche, V. (2017). A learning patterns perspective on student learning in higher
education: State of the art. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10648-017-9414-6
Vermunt, J., & Minnaert, A. (2003). Dissonance in student learning patterns: When to revise
theory? Studies in Higher Education, 28(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309301
Walker, S. O., & Plomin, R. (2005). The nature-nurture question: Teachers’ perceptions of how
genes and the environment influence educationally relevant behaviour. Educational Psychology,
25(5), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500046697
Wang, K. H., Wang, T. H., Wang, W. L., & Huang, S. C. (2006). Learning styles and formative
assessment strategy: Enhancing student achievement in web‐based learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00166.x
Weinstein, C. E., Acee, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self‐regulation and learning strategies. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.443
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Paunesku, D.,
Paunesku, D. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement.
Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Comparing students’ self-discipline and self-regulation
measures and their prediction of academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
39(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.004