Exploring Young Children’s Use of Language Learning Strategies: A Case of Early Exposure to Four Languages in a Multilingual Classroom

Abstract

This study aimed to identify young school students’ language learning strategies (LLSs) within their diverse socio-linguistic reality. The study was conducted in one elementary school in a peripheral city characterized by a heterogeneous population (Arabs and Jews) and immigrants from various countries who speak multiple languages. The principal of this school opted to introduce young children (Grades 1 and 2) to four languages: Hebrew, as a socially dominant language; Russian and Arabic, as the children’s home languages; and English, as a global language. We used photo elicitation and dialogical conversation to obtain reflections of 11 Arab and Jewish students (Grade 2). Each student was asked to describe the strategies they used to learn a novel language in the classroom and at home. Findings support the appropriateness of Oxford’s taxonomy to young language learners: all LLSs’ categories were reported. This study contributes to our understanding of children’s ability to use LLSs in early primary school. It highlights the leading role of language teachers who seem to mediate by modelling LLSs. Furthermore, it enriches the understanding of how 7–8-year-old learners can use diverse metacognitive LLSs and transfer them across languages. We also found one “child-specific” characteristics of the strategy related to parental involvement.

1. Introduction

At the macro level of state education policy, several Western countries, e.g., Sweden and Finland, have recently promoted the development and implementation of multilingual curricula. These curricula reflect the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of immigrant students, ensuring that all cultures and languages are equally valued and represented.

The current study was conducted in a peripheral city characterized by a diverse immigrant population from various countries, speaking multiple languages. Most of the town’s residents are immigrants speaking Russian, Amharic, Mizu, Spanish, and other languages at home. In addition, 32% of the residents are Arabs, who comprise the biggest ethno-linguistic minority group in Israel. Many of these residents enroll their children in mainstream Hebrew-speaking schools because Hebrew is the socially dominant language and parents seek better educational opportunities for their children (Shwed et al., 2014).

In the target city, school education faces challenges due to the lack of a clear language education policy, limited professional expertise, slow progress in the dominant language, Hebrew, and tensions among peers from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. In response to these challenges, the principal of one elementary school in the city initiated a modification to the school curriculum, including children’s exposure to four languages from Grade 1 to Grade 2. In addition to Hebrew, the additional chosen languages are the children’s environmental and home languages (Russian and Arabic) and a global language, English. Under the modified curriculum, all children study one hour of their home language (Russian or Arabic) and the language of their peers (Russian or Arabic, respectively) during the week, in addition to one lesson in English and six lessons in Hebrew. Linguistic Situation in Israel

The unique linguistic situation in Israel represents one of the more complex cases of a multilingual and multicultural society, which includes the coexistence of Hebrew, as an official language, and Arabic (the language of the most significant ethnic minority in Israel and a language with the special status), English as a semiofficial language that is widely used in numerous contexts (especially in “academia”, technology, economics and politics), and the native languages of large groups of immigrants (e.g., Russian, Amharic, Spanish, French and scores of others).

In the country, compulsory state education runs approximately from ages 6 to 18, including the following divisions: primary school (Grades 1–6); lower secondary (middle school) (Grades 7–9); and upper secondary (high school) (Grades 10–12). The Ministry of Education oversees the education system. There are separate educational sub-systems, for example, Jewish schools, where the medium of instruction is Hebrew, and Arabic is supposed to be mandatory in most cases from Grades 7 to 10 (i.e., lower secondary). There is a program called “Ya Salam,” which is implemented in some Jewish elementary schools, in which Arab teachers teach spoken Arabic (rather than literary Arabic) in Grades 5–6, including in the target city. English is also required, typically beginning in the early grades (in some curricula, from Grade 3 or earlier). In Arab schools, Hebrew is taught as a second language, and English (as a global/foreign language) is taught from primary school.

2. Theoretical Background

The theoretical concept underpinning this study was Oxford’s (1990) framework for using language-learning strategies (LLSs) in a novel language learning within an educational context. The researcher proposed a taxonomy of LLSs, including six categories, which will be presented in the theoretical background. In general, this classification of LLSs has been applied in research focusing on upper primary, secondary, high school, and university English language learners. The youngest age at which this taxonomy was used was Grades 3–5 (Gürsoy, 2010). In this case, the target study is the first to use the taxonomy to analyze Grade 2 children’s reflections on their LLSs.

More generally, we grounded our study in Flavell’s (1979) metacognitive model and in the concept of learning strategies as a component regulating the learning process. In addition, our enquiry was guided by sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), which emphasizes that participants’ sociolinguistic reality is a contextual factor that mediates their language learning. Given this situation, we approached novel language learning as an academic activity that is “publicly deployed, socio-interactionally configured, and contextually contingent” (Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004, p. 515).

2.1. Language Learning Strategies (LLSs)

Learning strategies can be defined as “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 1). LLSs are related to Flavell’s (1979) metacognitive model, which provides a foundational framework for understanding how learners regulate their thinking and learning. Flavell distinguished between metacognitive knowledge (what individuals know about their cognition and learning process) and metacognitive regulation (the monitoring and control of cognitive processes). In Flavell’s (1979) model, students’ learning strategies are primarily associated with metacognitive regulation—specifically, planning, monitoring, and evaluation—since these are tools that learners actively use to control and optimize their learning processes.

Regarding L2 learning, Oxford (1990) defines LLSs as:

“Operations employed by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information…; specific actions taken by the learners to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations”.

(p. 8)

The researcher claimed that when learners deliberately select strategies that align with their individual learning styles and the specific demands of the L2 task, these strategies serve as practical tools for intentional, aware, and goal-directed self-regulation in language learning. In general, learning strategies also foster learner autonomy and support the development of independent, lifelong learning skills. Moreover, among adult English language learners in Chilean universities, Montaño-González and Cancino (2020) found a significant positive relationship between students’ use of LLSs and self-efficacy beliefs. High-strategy users also reported greater confidence, which enabled them to address learning difficulties.

As noted above, in this study, we used a taxonomy of LLSs, as elaborated by Oxford (1990), to classify behaviors and ideas reported by young language learners. Oxford (1990) distinguished between six categories of LLSs:

• Memory Strategies: Techniques to help learners store and retrieve new information, such as grouping, creating associations, using imagery, retrieving using sounds (rhyming), and using sounds and images (keywords), and total physical response, such as acting out words (Oxford, 1990; Vlčková et al., 2013).
• Cognitive Strategies are mental processes used for understanding and producing language, involving repetition, note-taking, analyzing, summarizing, and using formulas or patterns.
• Metacognitive strategies: drawing on Flavell’s model, these strategies are part of metacognitive regulation by learners of their language learning process, by recognizing individual learning style, preferences, and needs and challenges, preparing for a novel language task, organizing the study environment, and reviewing the effectiveness of chosen learning strategies.
• Compensatory strategies help learners to compensate for missing knowledge by utilizing guessing meaning from context, using synonyms, or employing gestures.
• Affective strategies manage emotions, motivation, and attitudes in language learning, such as using relaxation techniques, positive self-talk, and tracking emotional states. Affective strategies permit “students to control their emotions, attitudes, and motivations during the language learning processes” (Durán et al., 2022, p. 3).
• Social strategies such as seeking verification, requesting clarification of confusing points, asking for help with language tasks, conversing with native speakers, and exploring cultural and social norms—enable learners to collaborate effectively with others while deepening their understanding of both the target language and its culture.

Among studies focused on primary school children, Gürsoy (2010) used Oxford’s (1990) classification to analyze LLSs among the youngest children in a Turkish EFL context (Grades 3–5). The participants were involved in task-based interviews while reading and writing in English. Fifteen students were randomly selected (5 from each grade level). During a think-aloud process, participants were asked to verbalize their actions and reasoning as they performed a task. The researcher applied inductive coding, showing that most strategies cluster under Oxford’s existing classification, supporting the broad applicability of Oxford’s scheme to child data. At the same time, Gürsoy (2010) identified what he called “child-specific” strategies that expanded the classification (p. 170). Like Gürsoy, in our study, we sought to explore whether there would be reports of strategies that differed from those in Oxford’s and others’ studies.

Among upper primary English as L2 learners aged 11 and 12 years in Malaysia, Jirin et al. (2023) found that most participants preferred metacognitive strategies (e.g., goal setting, teacher-aided monitoring) over other strategies. In addition, many students reported using social (e.g., social communication with native speakers) and affective strategies (e.g., staying motivated and controlling worry and emotions). A preference for metacognitive strategies was also supported by a recent systematic review of LLS by Wong and Hashim (2023), which found that meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies were the most frequently reported strategies by students, supporting speaking skill development. In this review, the social and compensatory strategies also appeared frequently. The review included 30 studies focusing on diverse students’ learning of English as an L2 speaking skills in upper grades and universities. To recap, there are relatively many studies focusing on adult and adolescent LLSs that point to the application of metacognitive strategies. However, as discussed below, we still lack knowledge of LLSs’ use and preferences among young school language learners, as very few studies have examined these strategies in this population.

2.2. Investigating Language Learning Strategies Among Early Primary Language Learners

Research on the use of LLSs to support novel language learning has primarily focused on university and high school students. To the best of our knowledge, very few studies have provided a close examination of early primary students (ages 6–8) (Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Chesterfield & Chesterfield, 1985; Gu et al., 2005; Kirsch, 2012; Purdie & Oliver, 1999). Notably, these studies did not use Oxford’s (1990) classification to analyze the obtained data. Many of these studies addressed methodological challenges in working with young school-age language learners. For example, Gu et al. (2005) highlighted the challenges in examining the LLSs of students at the target school. The researchers highlighted that children’s self-reports about their LLSs as mental processes at these ages may be limited by their relatively low ability to verbalize, difficulty remembering these abstract activities, and struggle to understand the researcher’s questions. They claimed, “that children are not metacognitively developed enough to talk about their own learning processes” (p. 283).

Another issue related to the methodology of studying LLSs among young learners. Cooper and Corpus (2009) stressed that current approaches, which rely upon survey measures among high school and university students, are developmentally inappropriate for young children. Even the classical interview may be unsuitable for these language learners, as they often do not provide rich data when asked open-ended questions.

At the same time, elicitation tools such as think-aloud protocols were found to be appropriate for young learners. By using think-aloud protocols during literacy tasks in English (L1) among students in three immersion programs, French, Spanish, and Japanese, Chamot and El-Dinary (1999) found that some children as young as Grade 1 or even younger can describe their strategies in detail in L1 (English) or even in the target L2.

In addition, after a thorough analysis of the pitfalls of using elicitation strategies such as thinking-aloud protocols, Gu et al. (2005) presented data collected from 18, 9, and 7-year-old early primary students in Singapore who learned English as their main social language and the language of instruction. The researchers found that the existing traditional perception that young children can be “seen as incapable of performing think-aloud tasks adequately because the metacognitive, cognitive, social, affective, and linguistic capacity and skills” are just at an early stage of development is mistaken (p. 296). Their data revealed a significant difference in young schoolchildren’s ability to verbalize mental processes during language learning, with Grade 3 students performing better. The observed differences in LLSs’ verbalization were both qualitative and quantitative. This pattern of data aligns with the findings of Flavell et al. (1995) regarding differences in preschoolers’ (3–5-year-olds) and 7–8-year-olds’ ability to reflect on the mental strategies they use during simple tasks. Specifically, the preschoolers were “poor at determining when a person is and is not thinking,” while 7–8-year-olds showed “dramatic improvement in both recognizing when thinking occurs and in recalling or reporting its content” (p. 76). Our study can add a unique contribution to what was found by Gu et al. (2005) since it examines LLSs used by 7–8-year-old learners with very limited exposure to three novel languages after a relatively short period of experience.

Another study by Kirsch (2012) examined 6 English (L1)-speaking students who learned French, German, and Japanese at school and were aged 9–10. This ethnographic study focused on the development of LLSs among these students in school, collecting data through semi-structured interviews with them and classroom observations. The obtained data showed the diversity of cognitive and social LLSs reported by the children. Interestingly, the research found that children could report on the LLSs they plan to use further in the future, in secondary school. In addition, the research found that the LLSs “were similar across languages, although children reported that some languages were more difficult to learn than others” (p. 387). Although the children in Kirsch’s study were older than our participants, this finding is particularly relevant to the target study, as our focus was on young children who had exposure to three languages, one lesson per week, thereby presenting both linguistic and orthographic diversity.

In summary, the limited data on lower primary students’ LLSs indicate that this group of language learners does report on mental processes; however, their reflections and metacognitive awareness are more limited than those of older students. Given the limited number of studies examining children’s self-reports in this age group, this study may expand an understanding of how young children learn several novel languages simultaneously with limited exposure. Moreover, we can examine developmental trends in children’s self-reports about LLSs.

2.3. Sociocultural Theory

In this study, we analyzed young learners’ reports of LLSs during minimal exposure to the environmental languages and a global language alongside the socially dominant language. This analysis considers the socio-linguistic reality of the target multilingual city and classroom, leading us to view this exposure through a sociocultural theoretical framework. As Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory posits, learning is social, interactional, and culturally mediated. In this study, our participants’ self-reports of their multiple language learning experiences cannot be discussed separately from children’s sociolinguistic reality. Thus, we viewed this experience not as an individual event, or merely as the acquisition of linguistic forms, but as participation in socially interactive, meaningful activities in the classroom and at home. In this respect, a novel language learning is viewed as a socially mediated process.

Mediation is a central concept in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which is relevant to our focus on LLSs in multilingual classrooms and multiple language learning (e.g., Donato & McCormick, 1994; Hughes, 2021). Regarding new language learning, the theory posits that human higher mental functions are mediated by interaction with more knowledgeable adults, peers, and material tools (such as computers and textbooks), as well as a system of symbols (language), which facilitates learning (e.g., Lantolf & Beckett, 2009; Schwartz, 2024). Sociocultural mediation is thus the tool for cognitive change. This change cannot occur without another fundamental process of sociocultural theory, internalization, which refers to the learning that is increasingly assimilated into the individual’s existing psychological system through mediation via social interactions, thereby facilitating internal mental development:

[A]ny function in the child’s cultural development appears on stage twice, that is, on two planes. It firstly appears on the social plane and then on a psychological plane. Firstly it appears among people as an interpsychological category, and then within the child as an intrapsychological category.

(Vygotsky, 1983, p. 145)

In summary, the target case study claims that understanding the nature of multiple language learning within a multilingual classroom context, and specifically LLSs, should be approached through the mediation of this process and its internalization by our young language learners. As proposed by Donato and McCormick (1994), LLSs cannot be viewed as individual psychological phenomena but rather as shaped in the classroom culture “with distinctive forms of practice, mediation, and social relations” (p. 454).

3. Research Questions

• What are the LLSs of children in Grade 2 with limited exposure to three novel languages within a diverse socio-linguistic reality?
• Are there additional novel strategies or/and/or categories of strategies beyond Oxford’s taxonomy?
• What are the specific characteristics of the reported LLSs?

4. Method

The methodological framework for the data analysis is qualitative. The study was a three-month ethnography conducted at a school. In this way, the study can be defined as a mini ethnography, as we observed the target classroom and communicated with the participants over a short period of time (Fusch et al., 2017).

During our classroom visits, we observed all four language lessons at least once. Specifically, we observed teachers’ instructional approaches, teacher-child and peer interactions, routines, and the affordances of language teaching (e.g., videos, images, worksheets, artworks). In addition, our classroom observations aimed to spend time with the children to get to know them and the classroom environment, as recommended by Barley and Bath (2014). As a result of these meetings, we noticed that the children became familiar with us and even remembered our names and the study’s target.

4.1. Ethics

The ethics committee of the Research and Evaluation Authority at the author’s academic institution, as well as the Israeli Ministry of Education, approved the study. Additionally, we obtained the teacher’s consent for the children to participate in the study, and the children’s parents provided their permission for video recordings to be made at the preschool. Moreover, verbal consent was obtained from the children before the recording period. Data analysis for research and its storage were conducted while maintaining complete anonymity and confidentiality regarding the child’s identity. The original names were replaced.

4.2. Participants

The participants were 11 Grade 2 children, aged 7 to 8. The children were selected from the classroom, which had 22 students. The participants were selected by their teacher, who was instructed to find children representative of diverse socio-linguistic and cultural backgrounds, as well as gender, who were willing to share their language-learning experiences. We collected information about the children’s biosocial, educational and linguistic backgrounds, as well as their language use at home, with peers, and in the classroom, through interviews with their teachers and parents (see

Table 1. Children’s L1, languages spoken at home, and the type of preschool education.

Name	Preschool Education Type	Comments
Alina	Hebrew-speaking	Mostly Russian at home
Tanya	Hebrew-speaking	Multilingual family environment, including Russian as one of the L1
Sarah	Hebrew-speaking	The conversation was in both Russian and Hebrew
Smadar	Hebrew-speaking	Mostly Russian at home
Olive	Hebrew-speaking	Mostly Russian at home
Tamara	Hebrew-speaking	The conversation was primarily in Russian
Tom	Hebrew-speaking	Mostly Russian at home
Daoud	Arabic-speaking	Mostly Arabic at home Daoud takes written Arabic lessons after school.
Samir	Arabic-speaking	Mostly Arabic at home Samir takes written Arabic lessons after school.
Nur	Hebrew-speaking	Mostly Hebrew at home
Zuhair	Arabic-speaking	Mostly Arabic at home Zuhair takes written Arabic lessons after school.

). The children’s linguistic histories reflected the target city’s diversity described above: four Arabic (L1)-speaking children from diverse cultural backgrounds (e.g., Muslims and Christians) and seven Russian (L1)-speaking children who were born in Israel, part of one of the immigrant families. In addition, some children had parents who spoke different languages at home, such as Spanish, Romanian, and, in some cases, applied a one-parent, one-language model of bilingual development. Moreover, in many cases, several languages were in use at the children’s home.

4.3. Data Collection and Analysis

This study employs deductive thematic analysis, a qualitative analytic approach that examines data through the lens of pre-existing theories or conceptual frameworks. In this approach, the researcher begins with predetermined codes or themes derived from prior literature or theoretical models, and the analysis focuses on identifying how the data fit within these categories (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012). We based our analysis on Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy, which delineates categories of LLSs.

Eliciting Data

Photo elicitation tool: Photography is viewed as an effective method for increasing children’s willingness to communicate with the researcher, and, consequently, to document their perceptions of their environment, lives, and experiences, providing the researcher with valuable insights (Friedman, 2016). Regarding this study’s research question, based on the photos taken, we converse with each child about the ways (strategies) they used to learn novel languages in the classroom and at home. In the first step, we asked students to take one or two photos of activities that interested them during their language class (Hebrew, Arabic, Russian, or English) over the course of one week. We were assisted by two research assistants, native Arabic speakers, who were present during both English and Arabic lessons to help students take photos. Several students produced short videos of their preferred activities. Each child used their cell phone. In the second step, the classroom teacher stored the photos of the activities and classified them by language lesson and student. In the third step, the following week, the researchers conducted photo-elicited dialogical conversations with the selected students to obtain their self-reports on the applied strategies.

In the following excerpt from our dialogical conversation with the child (see an explanation about this research tool below), we illustrate how we used the photo elicitation strategy during a dialogical conversation with the participants:

Researcher:

Why did you take a picture? What was happening here? What activity did you do in the lesson?

Tamara:

We were happy that we could take out our phones and record the movements and sounds during the lesson.

Researcher:

Can you tell us a little about your English class? What do you like about it?

Tamara:

Learning and watching movies. The teacher shows us movies about the letters.

Researcher:

And how does that help you learn English?

Tamara:

Nikkol (the English teacher) teaches us the letters, and that helps me learn. My mom also helps me a bit with reading in English, and I understand better.

Dialogical conversation with children: In addition to the photo-elicitation tool, we engaged children in individual talks using a dialogical conversation format as an ecologically valid research tool, aligning with developmental needs for investigating young children’s beliefs and ideas. This dialogical conversation with children as a means of data collection involves listening to and giving them time to be heard (Harris, 2017).

During the meeting with the children, we introduced ourselves as “lay people” seeking information from them, as they were experts with the rare experience of learning four languages. We explained to the children that their opinions and reflections on early exposure to and learning multiple languages would help researchers and teachers understand the challenges in learning multiple languages and enhance future language instruction.

All conversations with the children were conducted individually in familiar school settings, such as the library, to create a comfortable environment. Each encounter lasted approximately 45 min, which allowed for a “sustained dialogue” with “adequate time” (Harris, 2017, p. 27) for the child to respond and for the researchers to pose clarifying, open-ended questions. The children’s engagement in these dialogic exchanges was supported by drawing on their photos of preferred activities in the language lessons. These key principles helped sustain the children’s motivation and commitment to the study.

As Robinson-Pant (2017) noted concerning interviews with adults, the choice of interview language influences the research design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. This observation is even more pertinent in the case of children at an emergent stage of novel language learning, as with our participants (Mhic Mhathúna & Hayes, 2022). Accordingly, each child was asked to indicate a preferred language for the conversation: Hebrew, Arabic, or Russian. In most cases, Arabic (L1)—speaking children were interviewed in Arabic, and Russian (L1) and Hebrew (L1)—speaking children were interviewed in Hebrew. In one case, the Russian (L1) speaking girl, Tamara, was primarily interviewed in Russian, and Nur (a Hebrew-Arabic speaking girl) was mostly interviewed in Hebrew, as their dominant languages.

A consistent dialogic conversation format was used with all participants. Each conversation included the following core open-ended questions related to the students’ LLSs: (1) How do you learn a novel language (Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, or English)? Alternatively, what helps you learn a novel language? (2) How could you teach a novel language to your young sibling/parents/or peers who have trouble? The second question was a projective one that we used to broaden and enhance the credibility of the participants’ responses to the first question. Projective questions are a research methodology that facilitates the collection of rich, qualitative data (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). We use this type of question to allow participants to express themselves freely, providing deeper insight into their thoughts, feelings, experiences, and perceptions, which can be challenging to access through direct, structured interviewing/questioning.

The children’s elicited self-reports about LLSs were transcribed in the target languages—Hebrew, Arabic, and Russian—using the AI tool Gladia. The authors reviewed and edited the content as necessary, taking full responsibility for the accuracy of the transcribed data. The first author then coded and classified the data according to Oxford’s model. The main principle in deciding whether a child’s report could be identified and interpreted as a strategy was their report about the action(s) (active steps) they, as a learner, do or will take to make learning/teaching more effective.

To enhance the analysis’s credibility, the second author independently verified the selected parts of the analysis. After that, several classifications were clarified and resolved. Thus, we employed researcher triangulation to enhance the credibility of our data analysis and reduce researcher bias and subjectivity (Kian & Beach, 2019).

Finally, the identified strategies were analyzed for their frequency and illustrated in Table 2 (see Section 5). All English translations of the excerpts from the children’s reports were generated by AI (Chet GPT), maintaining their proximity to the participants’ original speech.

5. Results

In this section, we first present the identified strategies, their frequencies1, and examples of the children’s reports (see Table 2). This analysis addressed the first research question. We then analyze whether our children’s reports contained novel aspects and whether specific strategies and categories of LLSs could extend Oxford’s (1990) existing taxonomy. Finally, in response to the third research question, we will present three identified characteristics of the reported strategies: combinations of strategies as part of one category and across different categories; and the transfer of language-learning strategies from one language to another.

5.1. Language Learning Strategies, Their Frequencies, and Examples

To address our first research question regarding the types of strategies identified in the children’s self-reports, we present Table 2. The findings presented highlight young children’s ability to describe how they learn multiple languages and how they could teach them using diverse strategies. In many cases, participants reported on the transfer of LLSs from one language to another and on their simultaneous or sequential activation. These data will be presented further.

Table 2. Identified LLSs, their frequencies, and examples of children’s reports.

Categories of LLSs (Total Frequency in Brackets)	Strategies	Frequency of the Reports	Examples
Memory strategies (22)	Using a graphic/visual organizer (sun diagram or sunburst where the center has a target letter (“S”), and the rays are words beginning with that letter, like “sun”.	5	Researcher: What helps you remember words in English? Tamara: Because of the sound. Researcher: Could you explain to me how the sound helps you? Tamara: Like, when we write in the notebook, Nikkol (the English teacher) writes the sound and then also words with that sound. Then I remember. Tamara: We make arrows. We write the sound and its words (Tamara hears the sound and writes the corresponding letter, and the words starting from this letter, like the English letter “S” and such words as “snake”).
	Grouping strategy: Letter–phoneme-word grouping Semantical grouping	6	Alina: When we make a “sun” (sun diagram) and inside it we write the letter we’re learning. Let’s say “S”. For example, I’ll write “S” here, and around it—arrows with words that start or end with that letter (Using the “sun” diagram helps the girl to remember words). Researcher: Wow. But let’s say he (her brother) doesn’t know, and you want to teach him a novel language—Arabic, for example—what would you do? How would you start teaching? Tanya: I would start with a small word like that, and then I’d start climbing up with him. Then I’d start with a topic—like when we started learning the days of the week in class (Tanya transfers the teacher’s word-grouping strategy by topic).
	Watching movies about letters	1	Tamara: They (the language teachers) show us movies about the letters.
	Using imagery/visual reinforcement	3	Tanya: If I want to remember words, I can also take pictures of them. Then I understand it (the word). And then I can remember it, so next time I won’t need to look at the picture again. Then I understand that it will help me make progress, so I start taking pictures of different things in the language—and then I start making a small amount of progress (Tanya uses imagery and visualization to memorize words, and she transfers this strategy to memorization of other components of a novel language).
	Repeating handwriting to memorize (it can also be classified as a cognitive strategy)	5	Alina: See, you follow it until you remember it (handwriting of a novel letter), stick it in your notebook, and sometimes go over it at home.
	Using association	1	Tanya: I always imagine—if I don’t really understand the words, I use words I know in other languages, and then I can imagine what it’s similar to. If it’s not similar to Hebrew, I imagine it as something else. Example of Tanya’s imagining: If it’s bard (“cold” in Arabic), then I imagine it in Hebrew—it’s like barad (in Hebrew) (“hail” in English)—so I can know that it means “cold.” (She tries to understand novel words in Arabic through words she knows in Hebrew (L1)).
	Singing songs	1	Samir: In English (lessons) we learn songs that is fun! It helps to understand.
Cognitive strategies (18)	Analyzing and reasoning	3	Tamara: First, she (Tamara’s little sister) needs the sounds that she knows (in Russian), the sounds, and then already words (analyzing language into the units).
	Practicing	6	Daoud: I practice writing and reading (in Arabic); I want to know how to read and write.
	Sequencing learning from simple to complex (e.g., easy words before hard words)	2	Tamara: First, I would teach her (her younger sister) easy words. When she already knows how to speak, then I would teach her to write. And then we will start with hard words—that she should first know how to say them, and then write those hard words. Because if she cannot say the hard words, then how would she know how to write them?
	Gesing	1	Alina: I tried to understand an unfamiliar word in L2 on my own.
	Translating	2	Nur: I would buy him (her brother) things for learning, translate words for him, write for him, and if he already knows, then I would put it on the board for him to repeat it.
	Using prior knowledge	4	Tanya: So, I’ll find a language that he already knows better, and then I can tell him (to her little brother) … But he also knows from kindergarten, because there are many languages there—Russian, Arabic, and Hebrew.
Metacognitive strategies (17)	Planning the order of learning and organizing learning	9	Tanya: I started with the letters. As Olga (the teacher) does, then I connect the letters to words.
	Self-monitoring	6	Samir: When I write a word or a sentence, I check every word. If I’m not sure, I look and then write. Then I tell the teacher I’m done, and she checks.
	Self-directed learning	1	Alina: I tried to understand an unknown word in L2 by myself
	Critical thinking	1	Samir: I write in Arabic. But the Jewish children write in Hebrew. Researcher: Do you mean you write words in Arabic in Hebrew letters? Transliteration? Samir: Yes. It’s called transliteration—and it’s hard for me.
Compensatory strategies (2)	Borrowing words from another language to fill the gap. Using gestures to express word meaning.	2	Research assistant: And if there’s a child in the class who struggles with the language, —how would you help him? Samir: I would explain to him. If he knows Hebrew, I’ll tell him the word. If not I show it with my hands.
Affective strategies (3)	Making positive statements and showing agency	3	Zuhair: I am satisfied. I feel strong in Hebrew.
Social strategies (5)	Drawing on peer help or teacher mediation as a knowledgeable adult	5	Researcher: Do you ask the teacher for help? Daoud: No. I try to understand on my own. If I can’t, I ask my friends for help. Nur: I show Dina (teacher’s name), and if it’s not right, I erase and rewrite.

Table 2. Identified LLSs, their frequencies, and examples of children’s reports.

Categories of LLSs (Total Frequency in Brackets)	Strategies	Frequency of the Reports	Examples
Memory strategies (22)	Using a graphic/visual organizer (sun diagram or sunburst where the center has a target letter (“S”), and the rays are words beginning with that letter, like “sun”.	5	Researcher: What helps you remember words in English? Tamara: Because of the sound. Researcher: Could you explain to me how the sound helps you? Tamara: Like, when we write in the notebook, Nikkol (the English teacher) writes the sound and then also words with that sound. Then I remember. Tamara: We make arrows. We write the sound and its words (Tamara hears the sound and writes the corresponding letter, and the words starting from this letter, like the English letter “S” and such words as “snake”).
	Grouping strategy: Letter–phoneme-word grouping Semantical grouping	6	Alina: When we make a “sun” (sun diagram) and inside it we write the letter we’re learning. Let’s say “S”. For example, I’ll write “S” here, and around it—arrows with words that start or end with that letter (Using the “sun” diagram helps the girl to remember words). Researcher: Wow. But let’s say he (her brother) doesn’t know, and you want to teach him a novel language—Arabic, for example—what would you do? How would you start teaching? Tanya: I would start with a small word like that, and then I’d start climbing up with him. Then I’d start with a topic—like when we started learning the days of the week in class (Tanya transfers the teacher’s word-grouping strategy by topic).
	Watching movies about letters	1	Tamara: They (the language teachers) show us movies about the letters.
	Using imagery/visual reinforcement	3	Tanya: If I want to remember words, I can also take pictures of them. Then I understand it (the word). And then I can remember it, so next time I won’t need to look at the picture again. Then I understand that it will help me make progress, so I start taking pictures of different things in the language—and then I start making a small amount of progress (Tanya uses imagery and visualization to memorize words, and she transfers this strategy to memorization of other components of a novel language).
	Repeating handwriting to memorize (it can also be classified as a cognitive strategy)	5	Alina: See, you follow it until you remember it (handwriting of a novel letter), stick it in your notebook, and sometimes go over it at home.
	Using association	1	Tanya: I always imagine—if I don’t really understand the words, I use words I know in other languages, and then I can imagine what it’s similar to. If it’s not similar to Hebrew, I imagine it as something else. Example of Tanya’s imagining: If it’s bard (“cold” in Arabic), then I imagine it in Hebrew—it’s like barad (in Hebrew) (“hail” in English)—so I can know that it means “cold.” (She tries to understand novel words in Arabic through words she knows in Hebrew (L1)).
	Singing songs	1	Samir: In English (lessons) we learn songs that is fun! It helps to understand.
Cognitive strategies (18)	Analyzing and reasoning	3	Tamara: First, she (Tamara’s little sister) needs the sounds that she knows (in Russian), the sounds, and then already words (analyzing language into the units).
	Practicing	6	Daoud: I practice writing and reading (in Arabic); I want to know how to read and write.
	Sequencing learning from simple to complex (e.g., easy words before hard words)	2	Tamara: First, I would teach her (her younger sister) easy words. When she already knows how to speak, then I would teach her to write. And then we will start with hard words—that she should first know how to say them, and then write those hard words. Because if she cannot say the hard words, then how would she know how to write them?
	Gesing	1	Alina: I tried to understand an unfamiliar word in L2 on my own.
	Translating	2	Nur: I would buy him (her brother) things for learning, translate words for him, write for him, and if he already knows, then I would put it on the board for him to repeat it.
	Using prior knowledge	4	Tanya: So, I’ll find a language that he already knows better, and then I can tell him (to her little brother) … But he also knows from kindergarten, because there are many languages there—Russian, Arabic, and Hebrew.
Metacognitive strategies (17)	Planning the order of learning and organizing learning	9	Tanya: I started with the letters. As Olga (the teacher) does, then I connect the letters to words.
	Self-monitoring	6	Samir: When I write a word or a sentence, I check every word. If I’m not sure, I look and then write. Then I tell the teacher I’m done, and she checks.
	Self-directed learning	1	Alina: I tried to understand an unknown word in L2 by myself
	Critical thinking	1	Samir: I write in Arabic. But the Jewish children write in Hebrew. Researcher: Do you mean you write words in Arabic in Hebrew letters? Transliteration? Samir: Yes. It’s called transliteration—and it’s hard for me.
Compensatory strategies (2)	Borrowing words from another language to fill the gap. Using gestures to express word meaning.	2	Research assistant: And if there’s a child in the class who struggles with the language, —how would you help him? Samir: I would explain to him. If he knows Hebrew, I’ll tell him the word. If not I show it with my hands.
Affective strategies (3)	Making positive statements and showing agency	3	Zuhair: I am satisfied. I feel strong in Hebrew.
Social strategies (5)	Drawing on peer help or teacher mediation as a knowledgeable adult	5	Researcher: Do you ask the teacher for help? Daoud: No. I try to understand on my own. If I can’t, I ask my friends for help. Nur: I show Dina (teacher’s name), and if it’s not right, I erase and rewrite.

5.2. Comparison with Oxford’s Taxonomy

In response to the second research question, in line with Gürsoy’s (2010) data, we identified all categories of Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy, with the most frequent strategies being memory and metacognition. In addition, there were just a few examples of compensation and affective strategies. Furthermore, we identified the following aspects and strategies that were not reflected in the taxonomy.

5.2.1. Translanguaging

Oxford’s taxonomy did not include a critical strategy such as translanguaging, which has recently been widely studied as a classroom and home communication phenomenon from linguistic and pedagogical perspectives (Cortina-Pérez et al., 2025). In our study, there was only one report on a clear use of translanguaging within family language practice:

Tanya:

When he (Tanya’s brother) was little, he was in bed with me, and he always talked, but then he did not understand how to say something. So, I told him he could say it in Romanian or in Russian (Tanya uses her and her brother’s vast linguistic repertoire).

In this report, Tanya shares how she negotiates meaning for her young brother by applying a translanguaging strategy. This reflection can be classified both as a cognitive strategy, as the girl encourages her brother to use his broad linguistic knowledge, and as a metacognitive strategy, since she monitors her brother’s language knowledge. In addition, this report points out an example of a social strategy: Tanya helps her brother communicate fluently.

In general, when treated as a concept and a set of classroom practices, multilinguals’ repertoires are creative and flexible resources used for meaning-making, negotiation, learning, and shaping learners’ identities (García & Li, 2014). In addition, recent research within the family language policy domain shows that “translanguaging practices can be used in family conversational contexts and contribute to the creation of a rich and positive family repertoire” (Karpava et al., 2021; p. 931). Oxford’s (1990) classification of LLSs, published 35 years ago, did not.

5.2.2. Parental Mediation

Oxford’s (1990) classification did not address the role of parents or other family members in mediating the language-learning process. This mediation is natural in this age because, in general, parents are more involved in their children’s learning process and homework in early primary school (Arcidiacono & González Martínez, 2020). Several participants reported on parental involvement in learning written Arabic, as children who spoke Arabic as L1 did not have a fully developed school-based curriculum for literacy acquisition in this language. In addition, several children reported that their parents practice English as a global language with them at home. For example, Samir shared:

Samir:

My dad also gives me, like, tests (in English) every day. Every day, ten words that I must remember all of, and I have to write them down.

This testimony highlights a family language policy2 aimed at promoting Samir’s English competence through systematic daily practice of new words. The reported strategies are not novel within the existing taxonomy; however, their use is triggered by the father’s mediation, which reflects “child-specific” (Gürsoy, 2010) characteristics of the strategy in the target young age.

5.2.3. Additional Cases That Raised Questions Regarding the Taxonomy

First, Table 2 does not include multiple reports of participants’ knowledge of the learning process or awareness of difficulties in language learning; rather, it reflects their actual actions. For example, when Olive reported, “Yes, I remember (how to write a word), we do it many times”. Another example reflects Samir’s reflection on difficulties in understanding dialects in spoken Arabic:

Samir:

It is challenging to understand dialects. In every country, people speak differently. For example, in Egypt, Arabic is different.

These illustrations can be interpreted as instances of metacognitive awareness: in the first case, Olive realized that repetition aids memory retention, and in the second, Samir recognized a difficulty with understanding the diverse dialects of Spoken Arabic. However, it cannot be classified as a metacognitive strategy, as, according to Oxford’s (1990) definition of strategy, our participants did not actively regulate their learning process or difficulties. Moreover, Oxford’s taxonomy did not explicitly distinguish between students’ metacognitive awareness and strategy.

In addition, Table 2 does not include three reports of technology use, such as cell phones, as reported by Tom: “Every time I play with my cell, I speak English.” That is because this report can be interpreted more as a tool for implementing cognitive strategies, such as speaking practice, rather than clear reflection on strategy in such way as “Every time I play with my cell to practice how to speak English” Notably, Oxford (2017, p. 53) referred to the use of technology as a help for “strategic learners” in general, not specifically for language learning.

5.3. Specific Characteristics of the Reported Language Learning Strategies (LLSs)

To respond to the third research question, in the following, we will present characteristics of the identified strategies: 1. combination of strategies as part of one category; 2. combination of strategies of different categories; and 3. transfer of language-learning strategies from one language to another.

5.3.1. Combination of Strategies as Part of One Category

In many cases, the participants’ descriptions clearly referred to more than one strategy within the same category. For example, Olive reported on English language learning:

Olive:

We make arrows, and we write words that begin with the sound /M/. For example, “Monster.”

The participant’s description clearly refers to more than one strategy within the memory category, specifically, using of a graphic/visual organizer and letter-phoneme-word grouping. These overlapping learning practices reflect how memory strategies may operate simultaneously through visual organization and phonological association.

5.3.2. Combination of Strategies

Our participants practiced a combination of strategies in their classroom and home exposure to multiple languages. Specifically, in the above illustration (see Section 5.2.2), with his father’s mediation, Samir applied the following LLSs: memory—remembering word lists and word rehearsal; cognitive—daily practice through handwriting; and metacognitive—planning the daily routine with monitoring through tests. Like Samit, many participants reported how they learn a novel language or how they might teach it to their younger siblings, parents, or peers by intertwining two or three categories of LLSs identified by Oxford (1990). The following excerpt from the conversation with Daoud illustrates these data.

• Excerpt 1: An illustration of the combination of strategies used by the child to help his peer in learning a novel language.

• Participants: an Arabic (L1)-speaking boy, Daoud, and an Arabic (L1)-speaking research assistant (the conversation was conducted in Arabic and translated into English).

Participant	Utterance	Strategy
Research assistant:	If a child in class is having difficulty with a novel language, how will you help him?
Daoud:	I explain each letter in Arabic to him. Every two weeks or a month, I remind him. Then I add a new letter. And so, on until he remembers.	Cognitive strategy: practicing, analyzing (explaining each letter) Memory strategy: reviewing, spaced repetition (reminding every two weeks/month) Metacognitive strategy: planning and sequencing (adding a new letter step by step) monitoring (continuing until he remembers)
Research assistant:	And if he knows Hebrew and wants to learn Arabic?
Daoud:	Also in the same way (as the Arabic language teaching).
Research assistant:	And in Russian?
Daoud:	Every day I talk with him about a letter until he remembers.	Metacognitive strategies: planning and organizing (making the activity regular, daily). monitoring (checking progress, “until he remembers”). Cognitive strategies: practicing (focusing on one letter at a time). analyzing (breaking language into small written units, letters). Memory strategy: repeating letters until remembered.

It can be seen that Daoud combined cognitive, memory, and metacognitive strategies in his plan to teach languages. The child validated his suggested methodology for teaching different languages. Daoud highlighted that he would use the same deliberate stages to teach his classmate Hebrew and Russian, as he did with Arabic. In this way, he demonstrated a transfer of LLSs from one language to another, which will be detailed in the following sub-section.

5.3.3. Transfer of Language-Learning Strategies from One Language to Another

Notably, as with Daoud, several other children reported transferring LLSs from one language to another. To illustrate, in one report, Samir stated that he would like to learn new Russian vocabulary by singing songs in Russian, as he used to do in English lessons. In another example, in Excerpt 2, Tamara explained that she would teach her younger sister Hebrew and English in the same way she taught Russian: “easy words first, then hard.” (See details of Tamara’s reflection on how she would teach her sister in Table 2):

• Excerpt 2: An illustration of the transfer of strategies used by the child in learning one language to another language.

• Participants: Russian (L1)-speaking girl, Tamara, and Russian (L1)-speaking researcher (The conversation was conducted in Russian). After explaining how she would teach her little sister Russian, Tamara was asked how she would teach Hebrew.

Participant	Utterance	Strategy
Researcher:	If you had to teach her Hebrew, how would you do that?
Tamara:	The same (like Russian). Easy words, then hard ones. But first she needs the sounds—that she knows the sounds, and then already words.	Starting with easy words (oral first) → then harder words (oral first); Starting from phonemes → then words Cognitive strategies: practicing and sequencing learning from simple to complex. Metacognitive strategies: planning the order of learning from the smallest unit (“sound”) to the largest unit, a whole word.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

The target study aimed to identify LLSs that children can apply in contexts of high classroom linguistic diversity and minimal exposure to four languages. The starting point of our exploratory study was that, in general, the use of LLSs may help students become more efficient in mastering the target language (Oxford, 2017). Oxford’s (2017) model defined these strategies as “complex, dynamic thoughts and actions, selected and used by learners with some degree of consciousness in specific contexts in order to regulate multiple aspects of themselves (such as cognitive, emotional, and social) for (a) accomplishing language tasks; (b) improving language performance or use; and/or (c) enhancing long-term proficiency” (p. 45). Previous research has yielded inconclusive results regarding whether young schoolchildren can apply for LLSs. This ethnographic case study significantly contributed to our understanding of children’s ability to use LLSs in early primary school.

The significance of the study will be discussed in light of five teams: (1) an extension of Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy; (2) findings indicate young children’s metacognitive approach to language learning, cognitive and memory processes; (3) young children’s ways of learning language; (4) teachers and parents as mediators, and (5) the important role of students’ peer collaboration.

6.1. An Extension of Oxford’s Taxonomy

The present study expands Oxford’s taxonomy by examining technological advancement: some young students reported using cell phones to improve their language learning. The use of this tool can be considered a strategy with several targets, including memory and cognitive enhancement, practice and translation, and metacognitive support for organizing the learning process. At the same time, without a clear focus on behavior aimed at facilitating students’ language learning, these reports can be considered as a use of physical objects in language learning rather than a full-fledged LLS.

In addition, the study reinforces the claim that young children have unique language-learning needs, including the need for parental involvement. These “child-specific” (Gürsoy, 2010) behavior in early language learning is triggered by parents’ mediation, which will be discussed further in Section 6.4.

Finally, there was one report on translanguaging in sibling communication, where the family has a rich linguistic repertoire. Since this study did not focus on extensive classroom observations or on exploring children’s behavioral patterns during target language lessons, we could not conclude about the use of translanguaging in formal learning context. In our informal communication, the language teachers reported that they used to rely on students’ rich linguistic repertoires for diverse targets. This was also evident in our classroom observations of the language lessons as well. However, these data are insufficient to address this phenomenon in language learning from pedagogical or social perspectives. Future research is needed to clarify whether young children use translanguaging as a distinct category of strategies or as a cognitive, metacognitive, or social-strategy category.

6.2. Young Children’s Metacognitive Approach to Language Learning, Cognitive, and Memory Processes

Analyses revealed that children could report on memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies. Specifically, we found that children as young as 7–8 years old can describe diverse cognitive processes involved in novel language learning, such as analyzing, practicing, and translating. Furthermore, they describe different memory strategies relatively frequently (e.g., repetition until remembering, semantic grouping, and imagery).

The most impressive finding was the relatively high frequency of metacognitive strategies (e.g., setting goals, sequential learning from simple to complex, evaluating, and planning language learning). This recurrent finding can be explained by Flavell et al. (1990), who claim that 7–8-year-olds exhibit growing “metacognitive acquisitions,” such as self-awareness, the ability to reflect on their thinking (namely, introspective abilities), and “knowledge about memory and memory strategies” (p. 3).

Moreover, our participants reflected not only on their thinking but also on their feelings when recognizing challenges and difficulties in a novel language-learning context (metacognitive awareness), which may point to the emergence of self and personality (Harter, 1983). Previous research has found that metacognitive strategies, such as planning and monitoring, may also be related to children’s vocabulary development in the target language (Adam, 2016). In addition, these strategies may be positively correlated with learners’ confidence and motivation (Al-Ghazo, 2016). However, because aspects such as vocabulary and motivation in novel language learning were outside the scope of this study, the correlation between these and the metacognitive strategies warrants further investigation.

Regarding memory strategies, children’s reports about memorization revealed that many relied on handwriting and repeated writing as both an academic and physical means to consolidate their memory of new words. Practicing is often associated with an intentional mental strategy, as found in several studies conducted with children in primary school (e.g., Mohd Salim et al., 2025).

6.3. Young Children’s Ways of Learning Languages

Our data about children’s relatively frequent reports on the use of combined strategies in line with Oxford’s (2017) taxonomy claim about adult L2 learners who “often use strategies flexibly and creatively; combine them in various ways, such as strategy clusters or strategy chains; and orchestrate them to meet learning needs” (p. 45).

Several children reported repeatedly using the same strategies for learning different languages. This data pattern may be interpreted as their early emerging awareness that LLSs are not specific to language or language-dependent, but rather as generic. Therefore, it means that memory (e.g., using semantic grouping), cognitive (e.g., practicing), and metacognitive (e.g., planning the order of learning and organizing learning from small units, such as phonemes and graphemes, to larger units, words) processes can be applied in one language learning and transferred to another. It accords with Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy characterization of LLSs as “operations…transferable to new situations” (p. 8). In addition, one may suggest that, since our participants were exposed to different languages at various points in their lives rather than simultaneously upon entering school, they may reflect on their previous language-learning experiences and transfer these experiences to a novel language-learning context, as Oxford (1990) defined.

Finally, a few compensation and affective strategies were identified. Concerning compensation strategies, such as gesturing, young language learners may use them naturally without being aware of their use. Regarding affective strategies, there was only one. Children under 8 years old have a limited repertoire of emotion labels. Even 11-year-olds are unable to produce vocabulary that expresses emotion concepts described by adults (Aldridge & Wood, 1997). It may be that our young learners were not yet sufficiently verbal to express “anxiety” or “self-encouragement” as distinct emotional processes. In this case, the students expressed hardship rather than identifying these emotions, saying, “It is hard.” Another possible complementary explanation is that teachers often serve as external regulators of children’s emotions in the early school years through praise and encouragement, whereas during this period of life, children’s internal self-regulation, such as self-rewarding, is still developing (e.g., Thompson, 1994).

6.4. Teachers and Parents as Mediators

Sociocultural theory suggests that learning arises from social interaction and cultural practices. More knowledgeable others mediate learning—typically teachers—who scaffold the use of strategies within the learner’s Zone of Proximal Development3. This process involves transforming external socio-interactive activity produced by language teachers into an internal activity in language learning, which is then internalized and even transferred to other languages.

More specifically, although the four language teachers did not collaborate on language-teaching strategies or lesson planning, they seemed to share several similarities in their approaches. As a result, aligned with sociocultural theory, we found that the memory strategies reported by our participants were related to how language teachers teach. Particularly, our classroom observations and the children’s reports indicated that the teachers used memory strategies such as graphic organizers and different grouping types. In this way, teachers appeared to mediate the language-learning process by modelling some LLSs.

In addition, several children reported that their parents served as mediators in learning novel languages, such as English or Hebrew, or in acquiring written Arabic as an L1. The parents supported the language-learning process by practicing literacy skills with the children daily and assigning them repetitive tasks. To recap, the reported and observed mediating role of the teachers and parents accords with Vygotsky’s claim that “every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological)” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57).

6.5. The Important Role of Students’ Peer Collaboration

Finally, the findings highlighted the role of peer collaboration. In light of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, a relatively frequently reported social strategy aligns with the fundamental concept of social mediation. In this context, it was claimed that “enhancing peer collaboration is a powerful pedagogical tool that promotes communication among peers and mutual support, thus positively affecting learners’ performance during classroom work” (Kos, 2025, p. 541). Peers can scaffold vocabulary learning in a novel language by providing direct translations or clarifying meanings. What is important in our case is that the peers were not collaborative because they were more knowledgeable and capable of scaffolding their classmates’ progress, but because they were native speakers of the target languages (Russian and Arabic). Thus, our study provides additional evidence of the critical role of the social environment of the multilingual classroom in shaping the context for language learning (Kirsch, 2006).

7. Practical Implications

Our findings enrich both theoretical contributions and practical implications. The study highlights the significant roles that language teachers can support learners by collaboratively setting realistic learning targets, anticipating potential challenges, and designing activities that foster metacognitive skills. More specifically, our data emphasize the importance of literacy acquisition, particularly writing, in consolidating the memorization of new words in the target language. Additionally, the study highlights that teachers should intentionally design peer collaboration through play-based language activities and shared storytelling to achieve academic and affective benefits in early language learning. Finally, students live in two environments: home and school. The students in the present study sought guidance and instruction from their parents for language learning. Given that, teacher-parent collaboration in language learning is crucial for supporting learning processes (Lei & Vibulphol, 2024).

8. Limitations

As in other studies on LLSs, we used self-reports as data and analyzed them. However, as Chamot and El-Dinary (1999) noted, because the mental process cannot be directly observed, we cannot determine the accuracy of children’s self-reports. Thus, we suggest that future research use repeated dialogic conversations as a valuable strategy for validating children’s self-reports. Furthermore, our participants differed considerably in their ability to report how they learn a novel language in school. This can be attributed to general differences in how young children verbalize thoughts, which characterize their cognitive development. It may also be that some of them experience shyness, which can make them uneasy when communicating with researchers. Finally, there was no way to compare the frequencies of the reported strategies with those reported in previous quantitative studies. In general, inconsistency in results across early studies may be due to differences in data collection approaches, children’s ages, and language backgrounds (Doró & Habók, 2013).