Cognitive Benefits of Language Learning: Broadening ourperspectives
Final Report to the British Academy
February 2019
Bencie Woll FBA, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London
Li Wei, Institute of Education, University College London

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Although there has been a surge of interest in recent years on the specific cognitive benefits ofbilingualism, this has not been well integrated with research on the social and economic benefits oflanguage learning. As well as reviewing research on the relationship between bilingualism and executivefunction, literacy, and health, this project has included reviews of such areas as creativity, social andaffective cognition, and the learning of signed as well as spoken languages, linking bi/multilingualismwith a broader perspective on cognition including intercultural understanding. We have also included
public understanding of the cognitive benefits of multilingual skills. We have provided both an overview
of existing research and an identification of current practice and policy implications across a range of
topics, and including both signed and spoken languages.
The project comprises i) a literature review and meta-analysis, ii) an exploration of public attitudes, andiii) stakeholder interviews, leading to an action plan based on understanding of not only conventional
research evidence but also implications in relation to existing and future policy and practice, through astructured synthesis of the different information sources. Throughout the project, engagement with key
stakeholders, including teachers, learners, employers, and policy makers – and the general public – hasenabled an assessment and enhanced understanding of the research evidence and implications beyond
the research community. The review of the literature used a wide variety of resources, and was based indesign as far as possible on Cochrane systematic reviews: defining the review question(s) anddeveloping criteria for including studies; searching and selecting studies; assessing and addressing bias;
analysing data; presenting and interpreting results and drawing conclusions.
Research evidence has included peer-reviewed UK and international academic publications on cognitionand cognitive functioning in relation to language learners and bilingual and multilingual language users
across the lifespan. We have considered specific cognitive effects of different kinds of language learningand language use on different age, gender and socio-economic groups, taking a broad perspective on
bilingual language abilities to include different ages at which language learning has taken place, different
language experiences and functions, different levels of skills, and the best available evidence in terms ofstrength and consistency of research findings. Of particular importance, we have taken a broad
perspective on ‘cognitive benefits’, going beyond executive function, literacy, and health, to include
such areas as creativity, social and affective cognition. We have also included a section on cognitive
benefits associated with sign language learning.
To assess and ultimately enhance understanding of research evidence and the implications of researchfor policy and practice, our reviews also encompassed grey literature, such as social media andpractitioner-focussed publications. Priority was given to UK-based studies that have direct connections
with policies and practices but we have also reviewed the evidence from Europe and other parts of theworld with the goal of informing UK policy and practice.
We have collected stakeholder views on the current state of knowledge about language learning andcognition (broadly defined), and implications of such findings; central and local government
departments concerned with policy in relation to language learning and teaching in nurseries, schools
and adult education; and language teaching professionals. We intend our research findings to speak to a2

variety of audiences including academics, policy makers, employers and the general public, with impact
objectives that include a broader understanding of cognitive benefits of language learning, identifying
gaps in knowledge and research evidence and directions for future research, and potential intervention
strategies.
Key findings:


Existing research on cognitive benefits of bilingualism is limited in scope to executive functions,and tends not to include social cognitive capacity such as empathy and creativity. The
relationship between executive function skills and language learning success is complex andinconsistent.



There is a growing body of literature which suggests that the cognitive relationship between
language learning and age of exposure is dependent on a multitude of varying factors, and is not
as clear as initially predicted.

There is some evidence, and popular belief, that language learning can positively enhancecreativity.



There is evidence of cross-curricular benefits of language learning, but most of the studies are
conducted on speakers of other languages learning English. This is an issue that parents andpolicy makers are particularly interested in, therefore further research within the UK context
would be desirable.



There is also evidence that foreign language learning programmes aimed at older populations
may help to build cognitive reserve because language learning engages an extensive brain
network that is known to overlap with the regions negatively affected by the aging process.
Research should test this potentially fruitful hypothesis, including the provision of speciallydesigned English language programmes for elderly non-English speakers in the UK.

Both the educator and civil service interviews indicated the importance of demonstratingconcrete benefits of language learning. For educators, cross curricular benefits are seen as the
key to influencing families to have a positive view towards language learning; for policymakers,
broad cognitive benefits such as enhanced resourcefulness, and creative thinking are key.

3

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 6

2.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 8
2.1. Cognitive Functions ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.2. Social Cognition.................................................................................................................................. 92.3. Attitude and motivation .................................................................................................................. 10
2.4. Health ............................................................................................................................................... 10
2.5. Cross-curricular benefits .................................................................................................................. 10
2.6 Sign language .................................................................................................................................... 11
2.7. Language learning and the age of exposure .................................................................................... 12

3. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE CROSS-CURRICULAR BENEFITS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING ON
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.1. Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2. Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.3. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 15
3.4. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 21
4.

COGNITIVE BENEFITS RELATING TO CREATIVITY ................................................................................ 224.1. Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 224.2. Location and Selection of Studies .................................................................................................... 23
4.3. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 23
4.4. Demographic variables: gender and age ......................................................................................... 24
4.5. Discussion and conclusions .............................................................................................................. 25

5.

GREY LITERATURE ............................................................................................................................... 26
5.1. Database .......................................................................................................................................... 26
5.2. Categorisation .................................................................................................................................. 26
5.3. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 26

6.

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS .................................................................................................................. 27
6.1. Adult questionnaire ......................................................................................................................... 27
6.2. Youth questionnaire......................................................................................................................... 30

7.

FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS................................................................................................................ 32
7.1. Summary of focus group interviews/discussions with educators and trainee teachers ................. 32
7.2. Policy-maker interview .................................................................................................................... 34

4

8. SUMMARY AND ACTION POINTS ............................................................................................................ 35
References .................................................................................................................................................. 37
Appendix 1. Sources of studies in the meta-analysis of the Cross-Curricular Benefits of Language
Learning (2008-2017) .................................................................................................................................. 40
Appendix 2. Creativity - Methodological features of studies ..................................................................... 42
Appendix 3. Summary of sources used in the systematic review of the grey literature (2012-2017) ....... 43
Appendix 4. Varying grey literature perspectives on research topics x dominant cognitive benefits
measured* .................................................................................................................................................. 45
Appendix 5. On-line questionnaires (Adult and Youth) .............................................................................. 64
Appendix 6. Project Outputs ....................................................................................................................... 87

5

1. INTRODUCTION
Language learning touches on everyone’s lives. Yet the cognitive benefits of language learning seem tobe less well understood. The project Cognitive Benefits of Language Learning: Broadening ourperspectives was funded by the British Academy as part of a broader initiative related to language
teaching and learning. The project began in March 2016 and finished in January 2018.
It was designed to include a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, and collection of data on
stakeholder perspectives. In relation to the first of these, the review questions were defined at the startof the project, together with the development of criteria for including studies, methods for searchingand selecting studies, and analysis of data. The research evidence collected has included peer-reviewed
UK and international academic publications on cognition and cognitive functioning of bilingual andmultilingual language users across the lifespan, language teaching and learning, including informal aswell as formal language learning environments (home, nursery, school, supplementary school, on-line,
and other settings. We established an initial database of around 800 publications, developing a set of
keywords for categorisation.
With the review completed, it became clear that in contrast to the substantial literature on the cognitive
advantages (in particular executive function) of being bilingual, there has been far less concern with thecognitive benefits of language learning (whether in relation to end states of fluency, or to the process oflearning itself) and this finding shifted our focus more tightly to studies of language learning. In relation
to bilingualism and executive function, as well as a large literature, there have been a number ofsystematic reviews. For example, Lehtonen et al (2018) synthesised comparisons of bilinguals' andmonolinguals' performance in six executive domains using 891 effect sizes from 152 studies on adults
and found no evidence for a bilingual advantage, concluding that the available evidence does notprovide systematic support for the widely held notion that bilingualism is associated with benefits incognitive control functions in adults.
Because of the relatively small number of studies identified on the cognitive benefits of language
learning, and the spread of these across different domains of cognition as well as the diverse range oflearner types and learning environments, we have adopted a more narrative approach in presentation,highlighting those areas of particular interest and relevance. Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis werecarried out on two specific themes as the scope of the existing literature warranted such an endeavour.
In addition to the review, we have also collected stakeholder views through the creation of two on-line
questionnaires exploring attitudes to language learning and perceived cognitive benefits, one for adults,
and the other for children and youth. Over 740 responses were received to the adult questionnaire; only
40 young people responded to the child and youth questionnaire, but data on both of these will bepresented below. The questionnaire responses were analysed and perceived benefits reported byrespondents were compared with the studies in the review to explore gaps between beliefs andresearch findings. A series of interviews were held with individuals and groups, including educators andpolicy-makers.
The work of the project team was supported and guided by the project Advisory Committee, and by
British Academy staff. Project research findings were presented in workshops and seminars and at the6International Society for Bilingualism conference in Limerick in June 2017 (see Appendix 6 for list of
project outputs to date).
In the following sections we begin (Section 2) with a summary of the systematic review of the literatureon the cognitive benefits of bilingualism and the cognitive benefits of language learning, including asection on sign language learning. This is followed by two sections: Section 3, describing the literatureon cross-curricular benefits of language learning; and Section 4, describing the literature on cognitive
benefits relating to creativity. Section 5 is an analysis of grey literature, and Section 6 describes thefindings of two surveys (adult and youth) conducted by the project on attitudes to language learning. A
series of focus group interviews are described in Section 7: held with modern languages tutors, PGCE
languages students, and with a senior civil servant. The final section summarises the report and outlines
action points for future work.

72. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
We gathered a substantial amount of published research and undertook a systematic review of theliterature relating to the cognitive benefits of language learning, interpreting the term 'cognitive
benefits' broadly, beyond the most frequently described area of executive function. Below we describe
the main classifications we are using for this, followed by a brief description of key points identified todate under each heading. On the basis of the review, we selected two themes for meta-analysis where
there is a reasonable amount of literature to warrant such analyses. This will be reported in Sections 3
and 4.
We first look at cognitive functions, including cognitive flexibility and multi-tasking. Then we look atsocial cognition, including empathy and global mind-set followed by a brief review of attitude andmotivation. This is followed by discussions of health, curriculum benefits and attention. The section ends
with a summary of the issue of language learning and age of exposure.
2.1. Cognitive Functions
2.1.1. Cognitive Flexibility/Multi-Tasking
There is a substantial body of research literature supporting a link between cognitive flexibility andbilingualism, but most studies are not focussed on language learning but on individuals with end-state
fluency. These studies also include bimodal bilingualism (fluency in a signed and spoken language,
Giezen et al., 2015). Cognitive flexibility is referred to in a large number of studies relating tobilingualism (Prior & MacWhinney, 2010; Poarch & Bialystok, 2015; Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, &Ungerleider, 2010; Segalowitz & Frenkiel-Fishman, 2005). Prior and MacWhinney note that “lifelong
experience in switching between languages may contribute to increased efficiency in the ability to shift
flexibly between mental sets” and “bilingual advantages in executive function most likely extend beyond
inhibition of competing responses, and encompass flexible mental shifting as well” (2010). There issubstantial research in task-switching, and some studies show links between (linguistic) multi-tasking
and bilingualism (Poarch and Bialystok, 2015). However, studies suggesting a specific multi-tasking
improvement as a result of language learning are few.
Studies specifically of the process of language learning include Kroll and Bialystok (2013), who note“parallel activation of the two languages has been demonstrated for second language learners andappears to be present even when distinct properties of the languages themselves might be sufficient tobias attention towards the language in use.” Zavaleta (2014) states “Results show some group effects for
executive function and language learning tasks, but the results are not consistent with previous
research. Furthermore, the relationship between executive function skills and language learning successis complex and inconsistent, suggesting that further research is needed.”In the meantime, a number of studies dispute the cognitive benefits of bilingualism (e.g., Paap &Greenberg, 2013). A recent meta-analysis by Lehtonen et al. (2018) suggest that there was no evidence
for a bilingual switching or inhibition advantage, and language learning in older adults did not show
systematic advantage in task switching (Ramos et al., 2017).

8

2.1.2. Attention
There is evidence that studying a new language improves attention and mental alertness after only aweek of study, an improvement which is maintained with practice. These cognitive improvements were
only found in those learning a second language, not in those learning another subject, and were found in
all age groups (Bak et al., 2016). After one week of intensive study, improvements in attention were
found in groups participating in intensive courses, but only those learning a second language weresignificantly better than those not involved in any courses. This improvement was found for all ages,
from 18 to 78 years.
2.1.3. Perspective-Taking
A number of studies have explored the effects of bilingualism on perspective-taking in language
processing, a domain thought to place particular demands on the executive control system. Greenberg
et al. (2013) compared bilingual and monolingual children in a task involving calculating an observer’s
view from different positions. The bilingual children were more accurate, suggesting that bilingualism
might have implications for academic achievement in non-linguistic areas. In contrast, Ryskin et al.’s(2014) experiments on perspective-taking abilities in monolingual and bilingual adults did not support
the hypothesis that bilingualism improves the ability to appreciate the perspective of another person
during language comprehension, and indicated, in contrast that bilinguals seemed to have moredifficulty interpreting spatial language than monolinguals. In relation to both of these studies, see
Section 3.3.3 below on the cognitive benefits of learning a sign language for reviews of several studies
which indicate enhanced spatial processing abilities associated with sign language learning.
2.2. Social Cognition
2.2.1. Empathy
Guiora et al. (1972) is perhaps the most heavily-cited research when it comes to the relationshipbetween language learning and empathy; the study “confirms the original hypothesis that empathy … ispositively related to the ability to authentically pronounce a second language”. Mishan (2005) reported
that “The sensation felt by some people that they are ‘a different person’ when they speak the L2
supports the Guiora et al. (1972) analysis.” Other studies of that era and also more recently (Kleinmann,
1977; Mishan, 2005) show that empathy is a useful trait for successful language acquisition, though
there is limited research directly concerned with empathy as a direct outcome of language learning.
2.2.2 Global mind-set
Global mind-set refers to the consequences on global outlook of language learning, rather than being
motivation for language learners and students (i.e. those interested in enhancing employment andtravel opportunities). There is little research which looks at this specifically. Song (2011) looks attransnational learners who live abroad to learn a language, but wish to retain a strong affiliation with
their home country; the study calls on ESL and EFL teacher education programmes to help teachers“develop a broader, globalization-responsive perspective in their teaching practices as their local
language teaching and learning context becomes more global via this emerging population oftransnational learners” (p. 756).

92.3. Attitude and motivation
Attitude can be sub-divided into attitudes towards the language itself, attitudes to speakers of alanguage, and to the target language culture. “Texts drawn from the culture of the target language tend
to be more involving to the learner and can thus be more emotionally demanding. This requirement for
involvement in a sense tests the learner's attitude towards the target culture. A positive socio-cultural
attitude is displayed by a willingness to become involved with the input, which helps promote language
learning” (Mishan, 2005). There are suggestions but little evidence that in the same way that success inacquisition of an L2 has been shown to breed positive attitudes towards the target culture (LarsenFreeman & Long 2014), involvement with the target culture through authentic texts might create apositive socio-cultural attitude and predispose the learner to language acquisition” (Mishan, 2005).
Macintyre, Baker, Clement, & Donovan (2002) found that students’ willingness to communicate,
perceived competence, and frequency of communication in French increased from grades 7 to 8 andwas maintained between grades 8 and 9, even in the context of a drop in motivation and a steady levelof anxiety across the three grades.
2.4. HealthAge-related cognitive decline is a major societal issue. Bilingualism appears to be a safeguard against
cognitive decline and pro-actively administered cognitive training regimens may provide effective
protection. Accordingly, Antoniou, Gunasekera, & Wong (2013) have suggested that synthesizing these
two lines of research may promote healthy cognitive ageing and that therefore foreign language
learning is likely to protect against decline. They propose that foreign language learning programmes
aimed at older populations are an optimal solution for building cognitive reserve because language
learning engages an extensive brain network that is known to overlap with the regions negatively
affected by the aging process. They recommend that future research test this potentially fruitfulhypothesis. We note, however, that a recent meta-analysis (Mukadan et al., 2017) disputes the strengthof the argument with regard to the effect of bilingualism on dementia prevention.
2.5. Cross-curricular benefits
A small amount of research has been conducted on what benefits language learning has on other areasof the curriculum, particularly with regard to different socio-economic or non-‘urban’ groups. Somestudies (Valentino and Reardon, 2015) examine academic achievements associated with language
learning, dual-language immersion (DLI), or bilingualism, but do not necessarily focus on socio-economic
factors. A study looking at the responses of British Bangladeshi children in two East London (Tower
Hamlets) primary schools (Kenner, Gregory, Ruby, and Al-Azami, 2008), using their language repertoirein the mainstream curriculum, found cultural and cognitive benefits, including: “conceptual transfer,enriched understanding through translation, metalinguistic awareness, bicultural knowledge andbuilding bilingual learner identities” (p. 120). Although specific mention of socio-economic factors is notmade in the study, Tower Hamlets has the highest rate of child poverty in the UK, with high levels of
unemployment and deprivation. Similar studies (Christian, 1996; Swain, 2010; Tuafuti and McCaffery,
2005; Potowski, 2007; Valentino and Reardon, 2015; Steele et al., 2015) which look at the academic
advantages of bilingual and DLI language learning, show analogous findings of above-average levels of

10

academic proficiency, indicating similar benefits of language learning across socio-economic staus
groups.
Although media and institutional reports advocating for improved language policy within schools often
mention the employability and fiscal advantages of language learning, the possibility of benefiting
academic or curriculum areas is seldom made, with focus more on general long-term, fiscal, andcognitive benefits instead. A noticeable trend in research in this area – where in the past there was noclear picture on the relationship between second language learning and academic achievement(Hawson, 1996) – now shows a loose positive correlation.
2.6 Sign language
Studying a sign language has become increasingly popular in recent years. American data indicate that
American Sign Language (ASL) is the language with the third most enrollments among higher education
students, behind only Spanish and French (Goldberg et al., 2015). Recent plans announced by the
Department for Education in the UK to introduce a GCSE in British Sign Language (BSL) will provide a
new context for exploring possible benefits of sign language learning.
Formally, research on the various cognitive benefits of sign language learning should be integrated withthe discussion of those benefits in relation to spoken language learning. For example, there are anumber of studies of whether cognitive benefits are associated with bimodal bilingualism (e.g.
bilingualism in a spoken language and in a signed language, cf. Giezen et al., 2015). However, they arepresented here in a separate section because they often have a different focus (for example, whether
learning to sign has benefits for acquisition of a first spoken language in infancy). In this section, thestudies reviewed are restricted to those related to sign language learning by hearing children and adults,
as the literature in relation to sign language learning by deaf children is much more concerned with sign
language as a first language.
In recent years, there has been an enormous expansion of “baby sign” programmes designed to teachsigns to hearing infants, based on claims that sign language can be acquired earlier than spoken
language, and that its use facilitates communication between adult and child, enhances cognitive
development (including claims for increase in IQ), and reduces frustration. However, there is very little
supporting research for these claims. Nelson et al., (2012) undertook a metanalysis of publishedresearch relating to the supposed benefits. They describe 5 studies in terms of age (8 months to prekindergarten), sample size (1-90), author conclusions and methodological quality. The studies for themost part are seriously methodologically flawed. Validity issues include non‐randomised participant
selection, absence of control groups, participants not blind as to study purpose, reliance on parental
reports of child progress, etc. Better controlled studies have for the most part failed to show benefits ofsuch programmes, other than general benefits relating to increased contexts and opportunities for earlyparent-child interaction.
In relation to social cognition, Brereton (2008) explored sign language learning in pre-school settings,
focussing on how the use of sign language in the classroom enhanced the learning community's
appreciation of diversity, including appreciation of diverse language and diverse ways of communicating
and appreciation of cultural diversity.

11There are a number of well-designed studies of the effects of learning sign language on (hearing) schoolage children and adults. Research has found that that hearing signers have enhanced face-processing
skills (Arnold & Murray, 1998). Keehner and Gathercole (2007) examined spatial cognition – specifically,
spatial transformation abilities in hearing people who acquired sign language in early adulthood. Theirperformance was compared with that of hearing people with no knowledge of sign language, matched
for age and gender. Using an adapted Corsi blocks paradigm, hearing signers performed significantly
better than non-signers on a task that entailed 180° rotation, which is the canonical spatial relationshipin sign language discourse. In a second experiment, they found that signers did not show the typicalcosts associated with processing rotated stimuli, concluding that sign language experience, even when
acquired in adulthood by hearing people, can give rise to adaptations in cognitive processes associatedwith the manipulation of visuospatial information.
Vercellotti (2008) reports the findings of four experiments, comparing students in students in second
semester American Sign Language (ASL2) classes, students in fourth semester ASL (ASL4) classes, andstudents learning Spanish, and as in the Keehner and Gathercole study, providing evidence that the
spatial-visual modality of ASL impacts the effects of language learning. Participants completed two faceprocessing tasks, the Benton Facial Recognition Test (BFRT) and the Mooney Faces Closure Test (MFCT),
and two spatial relations tasks, a Mirror Reversal/Mental Rotation test (MR) and the Differential
Aptitude Test-Space Relations (SR). Deaf late learners of ASL and hearing signers outperformed hearing
non-signers on the BFRT (Bettger et al., 1997), although, on the MFCT, signers showed a slight
disadvantage. The scores of the ASL learners on the MR task were significantly different from the
Spanish group.
2.7. Language learning and the age of exposure
A number of studies detail the relationship between language learning and age of exposure. Mostconsider the benefits on language learning of early exposure, rather than whether cognitive benefits
vary depending on age of exposure. Muñoz (2006) states “Exposure needs to be intense and to provide
an adequate model. Initial age of learning seems more relevant for skills that can be acquired implicitly,
whereas age at learning can be seen as a factor explaining the rate of learning of more skills. The factthat this distinction has not been sufficiently highlighted goes some way towards explaining thesomewhat confused ideas that have prevailed in relation to age effects in second language acquisition”(p. 33). There is a growing body of literature which suggests that the cognitive relationship between
language learning and age of exposure is dependent on a multitude of varying factors, and is not as clear
as initially predicted. More research in this field should look to determine and clarify variables.

12

3. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE CROSS-CURRICULAR BENEFITS OF LANGUAGE LEARNINGON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS
Little research has systematically examined the relationship between language learning and learners’
academic achievements. However, recently a growing number of studies have begun to acknowledge
that language skills can help improve speakers’ general academic performances in a variety of content
areas such as English language learning (e.g. Padilla et al., 2013), literacy (e.g. Lindholm-Leary, 2014),
and maths and science. (e.g. Steele et al, 2017).
Despite most recent studies demonstrating a positive effect of language learning, some studies havereported no effect or a negative impact. Additionally, the magnitude of effects in each study hasremained unclear. In this section we present the results of a meta-synthesis of the relevant literaturefrom 2008 to 2017, examining the relationship between learners’ academic achievements and language
learning. Specifically, this study focuses on investigating 1) what kinds of cross-curricular benefits can bebrought by learning multiple languages and 2) how the cross-curricular effects vary in terms of different
language learning mode, language combinations and socio-economic status. Similarities and differences
across different studies are analysed and synthesised in terms of methodology, measured outcomes andfactors that may influence the outcomes.
3.1. Methods
3.1.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
To include all relevant studies on cross-curricular benefit of language learning, specific inclusion andexclusion criteria were developed. All studies included learners of a second or additional language in
different educational systems. Studies meeting the following criteria were deemed eligible:
a. Studies published in peer-reviewed research papers such as journal articles, book chapters andacademic books between 2008 and 2017.
b. Studies closely related to the theme of “cross-curricular benefits of language learning” rather
than “the advantages of being bilingual”. Thus, studies with bilingual speakers who had alreadydeveloped equal proficiency in two languages were excluded.
c. Studies with a control group of monolingual speakers and an experimental group of speakers
with at least a second language.
d. Studies with clearly stated measured outcomes. These include cross-curricular benefits oflanguage learning in various content areas such as English learning, literacy, maths and science.
Studies examining the benefits of language learning on other domains were excluded (e.g.
executive function, metalinguistic awareness).
e. Studies including empirical evidence and sufficient data to report on the impact of language
learning on the measured outcomes. Studies with no information about how the research was
conducted were excluded.
3.1.2. Data Sources
A preliminary screening was conducted using primary and subordinate search terms. Primary searchterms included ‘cross-curricular benefits' and 'language learning’. Subordinate terms consisted of items

13

specific to the curriculum (e.g. Mathematics, Literacy and English language learning etc.), targeted
population (e.g. English learners, second language learners, dual language learners etc.) and different
modes of language learning (immersion, foreign language learning, bilingual education etc.). Based on
the key items, a systematic literature search was conducted in the following databases: Google Scholar,
ERIC, PsychInfo and Elsevier.
3.1.3. Data Extraction and Synthesis
A total of 52 studies were obtained through the key word search. The selection criteria described above
were applied. Articles that did not meet the selection criteria were excluded (Figure 1). Data from theselected articles were systematically extracted for presentation in a data chart which included
information on sources of the study, different content areas of the curriculum, language combinations,research methods, mode of language learning, and effect size (see Appendix 1).

Database Search

Initial screening of studies: potentially relevant articles
were identified (N=52)

Selection criteria applied & Duplicate removed

20 studies included

32 studies excluded

Academic achievement (n= 1)
Language learning (n=8)
Literacy (n=4)
Mathsand science (n=7)

Studies on bilingual speakers (n=21)
Relevant outcomes not described (n=7)
No data or evidence presented (n=4)

Figure 1. Flowchart of search process

3.2. Research Questions
1. What are the cross-curricular benefits associated with language learning?

14

2. What factors may influence the cross-curricular benefits of language learning? Factors under
examination are: language combinations, language learning mode, socio-economic status (SES),
different school settings and education levels.
3.3. Results
3.3.1. Description of the samples in the selected articles
Twenty studies reported in 16 papers were included for the final analysis. The sample in the selectedstudies differed in terms of language combinations, language learning mode and educational levels andsocio-economic status.
3.3.1.1. Language combinations
Eight types of language patterns were reported in the selected studies (Table 1), with the majority ofstudies focusing on learners with English as a second language (N=17, 85%). Spanish-English is the mostintensively investigated combination (N=10, 50%), followed by Chinese (N=4, 20%), while limited
research has been conducted with students of other languages.
Language combinations

N

Spanish-English

10

Mandarin-English

2

Cantonese-English

2

Polish-English

1

Italian-English

1

Mixed-English

1

English-mixed

1

Hebrew-Russian

2

Table 1. Language combinations in studies of cross-curricular benefits of language learning

3.3.1.2. Language learning mode
Participants involved in the selected studies came from relatively simple language learning backgroundswith limited modes of language learning. The majority of studies (N=18, 90%) recruited participants who
were enrolled in dual language or two-way immersion programmes where both the home language andEnglish are used as the instructional languages on a permanent basis. One study (5%) involved learners
from transitional bilingual education where the home language and English are used on a temporary
basis, with the goal of eliminating the use of the home language and establishing an English-only
learning environment. One study (5%) included language learners from a two-year foreign language
immersion programme.

153.3.1.3. Education levels of the participantsParticipants in the studies were of varying school ages and education levels. Six studies (30%) involvedpreschool children and kindergarteners. The majority of studies (N=13, 65%) recruited students acrossdifferent grade levels from the elementary school. One study (5%) included adult learners from the 2ndyear of university. In addition, while the majority of studies recruited typically developing language
learners, one study (5%) examined learners with reading disabilities or learning impairment.
3.3.1.4. Socio-economic status of the participants
The sample also varied in terms of the participants’ socio-economic status (SES). Seventeen studies(85%) provided clear information on the participants’ SES, which was usually indicated by parent
education or family income. Six studies (35%) involved participants from upper-middle income families
whereas the other eleven studies (65%) recruited participants with low SES and who spoke a minority
language.
3.3.1.5. Methodology used in the research design
The selected studies employed a wide range of research methods. Fourteen studies (70%) were crosssectional. Five studies (25%) were longitudinal, with the majority of data collected a at least three points
in time. One study (5%) was quasi-experimental. In terms of measurement used, the most frequentlyused measurement tools cover two broad types: curriculum-based assessment measures such as
standardised tests (e.g. GCSEs), GPA scores, and tasks specially designed for the intervention
programme.
3.3.2. Findings relating to cross-curricular benefits of language learning
Findings have been summarised and analysed for the following subject areas: general academic
achievement (N=1), English language learning (N=8), Literacy (N=4), and Mathematics and Science (N=7).
Studies with mixed results have been reviewed separately in relation to each subject.
3.3.2.1. Academic achievement
One study (Pope, 2008) measured the cross-curriculum effect of foreign language learning on overall
academic abilities for 2nd year university students training to be Mormon missionaries. The results
indicate no difference in GPA between students training to work in an English-speaking mission andthose being trained in a foreign language to serve as missionaries abroad.
3.3.2.2. English language
Eight studies investigated the cross-curricular benefits of language learning on English reading andEnglish language arts. Participants in all studies were enrolled either in a two-way or dual language
immersion programme with their achievements measured by a wide range of standardised tests such as
GCSEs, the California Standards Test (CST) and the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS).
Participants in the studies were of various education levels and socio-economic backgrounds. One study
examined the English language proficiency of higher SES students attending either an English
mainstream or a Mandarin two-way immersion programme (Padilla et al, 2013). In the immersion
programme, instruction was in Chinese for 50%-90% of the time, with the remaining teaching delivered16

in English. Using the California Standardized Testing and Report (STAR) for English language arts,
students from the English mainstream programme initially achieved higher scores on English reading in
Grades 2 and 3. However, the Mandarin immersion students caught up and scored above the English
mainstream students in Grades 4 and 5.
Two of the studies examined low SES students who were minority language speakers. Lindholm-Leary
and Block (2010) assessed the English achievements of 659 low SES Hispanic students enrolled either inmainstream programmes using English, or in segregated dual language immersion programmes, in
Grades 4 to 6. In the segregated immersion programme, classroom instructions were initially given
predominantly in Spanish, moving to predominantly English. Students were classified as English
proficient learners (EP) or English Language learners (ELL) prior to the study. Results showed that on the
California Standards Test (CST) both EP and ELL students in dual language immersion outperformed theircomparable mainstream English speaking peers in English language arts. Students in the immersion
programme also made faster progress across grades than the monolingual counterparts in developing
their English proficiency. A similar study (Lindholm-Leary, 2014) involving 283 low SES Hispanic children
reported that although children enrolled in the English mainstream programme initially had a higher
level of English proficiency, this advantage gradually disappeared within one or two years, while children
in the immersion programme outperformed their English-only counterparts in English and Spanish
standardised tests. The results suggested that the significant loss of Spanish proficiency made theEnglish mainstream children less bilingual, which may have slowed their improvement in both English
and Spanish. The authors concluded that dual language learning could benefit low SES students and help
them to attain a higher level in their academic achievement.
The results of this study were confirmed by another study of 732 Grade 4 to 8 Latino low SES students
with varying levels of English proficiency, enrolled in a dual language immersion programme (LindholmLeary and Hernández, 2011). Students’ achievements in English reading and writing were examinedusing the CST. Results showed that the dual-language immersion group outperformed monolingual
Spanish-speaking and English-speaking peers in both English and Spanish. The study further suggested
that SES background and proficiency in the native language had significant effects on reading
achievement.
Two other studies further investigate the role of SES in language development, recruiting participants
with mixed SES backgrounds. The first study, involving 320 students from a Chinese two-way immersion
programme, demonstrated advantages in English learning compared with non-immersion peers(Lindholm-Leary, 2016). The other study compared the benefits of dual language learning with minoritylanguage (low SES) and majority-language (high SES) students (Marian et al, 2013). The minoritylanguage group comprised native speakers of Spanish who were taught in their second language –English, while the majority-language group were native speakers of English, enrolled in the Spanish
immersion programme. Participants’ English language proficiency was measured by means of two
standardised tests and the scores of each group were compared with their peers in mainstream
classrooms at Grades 3, 4 and 5. The overall results showed that while for both minority-and majoritylanguage students, English reading scores increased across grades, the benefits of language learning
manifested earlier in the majority-language group (Grade 3) than the minority-language group (Grade175). The authors interpret this as indicating that regardless of demographic location and SES, students canbenefit academically from dual language learning. However, the benefits for low SES learners may take alonger time to become apparent.
One study demonstrated the cross-curricular benefits of language learning without analysis ofparticipants’ SES. In this study, more than 1,600 students of English language learners as well as native
English speakers were randomly selected and enrolled in a dual language immersion programme (Steele
et al., 2015; 2017). This study found:•••Students randomly assigned to immersion outperformed their peers in English reading by about
7 months in grade 5, and about 9 months in grade 8.
No statistically significant benefit, but also no detriment, was found for maths and science
performance. There was suggestive, but not statistically significant evidence, that the immersion
benefit in reading was higher for students in Spanish immersion programmes, while maths
benefits were higher for students in the less-commonly-taught languages (Japanese, Mandarin,
and Russian). This may reflect increased phonological awareness (hence benefiting English
reading) when learning to read another language using the same orthography (Spanish), andincreased symbol decoding skills (benefiting mathematics) when learning to read a languagewith a different writing system.
On average, immersion students reach intermediate levels of partner-language proficiency by
Grade 8, with somewhat higher performance in Spanish and Chinese (intermediate mid-to-high)than in Japanese (intermediate low-to-mid).

This study does not differentiate between socio-economic groups, focusing instead on DLI learning
across the whole public school system of an urban area.
The last study in this group examined the benefit of language learning on pre-school students withlearning disabilities (Simon-Cereijido and Gutierrez-Clellen, 2014). Students with learning impairment
were randomly selected for enrolment in a dual-language intervention programme where classroom
instructions were given half of the time in the target language - English - and half in the partner
language - Spanish. Using elicited narratives to measure lexical density, the results demonstrated thatthe dual language learners made greater improvement in both English and Spanish than mainstream
peers. Moreover, the results also demonstrated that learning two languages can bring benefits tostudents with special learning needs.
In conclusion, there is evidence that dual language learning can exert positive influence on English
reading outcomes regardless of the participants’ SES.
3.3.2.3. Literacy
Four studies measured the impact of dual language learning on the literacy development of young
language learners.
Duran et al. (2013) conducted a three-year longitudinal study examining the literacy development of
Spanish-speaking pre-schoolers enrolled in a transitional bilingual education (TBE) programme. Using
various standardised tests to measure participants’ receptive vocabulary and literacy skills, the findings

18

showed that although in Year 1the TBE group had lower proficiency in English compared with the English
monolingual peers, they attained a higher level of proficiency in literacy in both English and Spanish
after three years’ language immersion.
Similar results were reported from three groups of Italy-English and Hebrew-English language learners of
mid-level SES. In the first of these, Montana (2013) conducted a small-scale longitudinal study examining
the literacy development of 60 students enrolled in a dual language immersion programme in Grades 13. Children developed strong literacy skills in both English and Italian compared with English
monolingual peers. A second pair of longitudinal studies investigated the literacy development of 4year-old Russian-Hebrew pre-schoolers living in Israel. Results suggested that children attending thebilingual programme developed the same-level of literacy (Schwartz and Shaul, 2013) and narrative skills(Schwartz, 2013) as their Hebrew-only peers, and also maintained a high level of Russian, which could inturn help boost development of Hebrew.
The overall results indicate that learning two languages at the same time does not have negative effects.
Rather, thinking in and using two linguistic systems appeared to be of benefit.
3.3.2.4. Maths and Science
The cross-curricular benefits of language learning are not confined to the improvement of learners’
language and literacy skills, but appear in other content areas as well. In this section, seven studies
reporting the effects of dual language learning on the academic achievement of Mathematics andScience are described. The studies reported mostly positive effects although there were some studies
which showed no differences.
Padilla et al. (2013) reported that elementary school students enrolled in either a Mandarin-English
immersion programme or an English-only mainstream programme performed equally on mathematics
standardised tests until Grade 3, with the immersion students outperforming their non-immersion peersin Maths in Grade 4. No differences in Science tests were found between the two groups in any of theGrades. Similar results were reported in another longitudinal study (Han, 2012) following children’s
academic development from kindergarten until Grade 5. Maths scores in standardised tests acrossgrades, showed that although students in the immersion programme had lower initial scores comparedwith the native English-speaking peers, the gap was fully closed by Grade 5. These results were
supported by another study indicating that dual language learners in two-way immersion programmeadvanced further in maths than non-immersion peers (Watzinger-Tharp, 2016), and that students’maths achievements were closely related to maintenance of proficiency in their home language anddegree of proficiency in their second language.
Much of the research on academic achievements in Mathematics has focused on students with low SES
backgrounds. Two studies reported that low SES Hispanic students achieved better scores inMathematics at upper Grades than monolingual peers (Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010; Choi et al., 2017).
The longitudinal study conducted by Choi et al. (2017) examined the effect of language learning by lowincome students on standardised measures of maths achievement. This study involved three groups of
low-income kindergarten children who varied in English proficiency: Spanish-English bilinguals, dual
language learners with limited English skills (DLLs) and English monolingual children. Results showed

19

that Spanish-English bilinguals with proficiency in both languages presented the most rapid
development of maths skills and achieved the highest scores on standardised assessments. Moreover,the DLLs group that began with limited English proficiency made greater improvements in maths
compared to English monolinguals.
Marian et al. (2013) examined whether results would be similar for Spanish-speaking children with low
SES and English-speaking peers with high SES enrolled in the same dual language programme. The
mathematics scores from the standardised tests at Grades 3-5 were compared. English-speaking
students outperformed their non-immersion peers in Grades 3-5, whereas Spanish-speaking students
from the immersion programme outperformed Spanish mainstream peers. This study indicates that
language learning can benefit academic achievement of students from different SES backgrounds butthat there may be a delay of effect for the low SES groups.
3.3.3. Discussion
Based on the data from these 20 studies, the possible cross-curricular effect of language learning has
been identified in four main content areas: general academic performances, English language learning,
Literacy, and Mathematics & Science. Of the 20 studies, 18 studies (90 %) reported a positive impact
while 2 studies (10%) reported no impact of language learning on academic achievements. The dual
language learners in these studies exhibited a great diversity of characteristics. Participants varied incountry of origin, languages spoken, exposure to different languages, SES and education of parents.
3.3.4. Factors that may influence the cross-curricular benefits of language learning
3.3.4.1. Length of immersion
Based on the review, the length of participation in a dual language programme has been found to havean impact on the measured outcomes. Several studies have reported that dual language learners in an
immersion programme often presented an initial lag in the academic performances within the first three
years compared with the monolingual peers. But they caught up and even surpassed their peers in theacademic performances (e.g. English reading or Mathematics) after several years’ immersion.
3.3.4.2. Learner type and different school settings
Results of several studies have demonstrated that dual language learners with proficiency in bothlanguages tend to benefit most across the curriculum from the experience of language learning. This isfurther supported by the fact that students from a minority-language background tend to have better
academic performances in English reading and Mathematics if they maintain a high level of proficiency
in their native language.
3.3.4.3. Socio-economic status
The overall findings from the review demonstrated a positive relationship between SES and themeasured outcomes. That is, dual language learning tends to benefit learners with both high SES and
low SES background compared with their monolingual peers. However, students with higher SES
background tend to achieve higher academic standards compared with those of lower SES background.
In addition, the benefits for low SES learners may take a longer time to manifest and the effect may belower compared with learners with high SES.

20

3.4. Conclusions
The overall analysis shows that there is a positive correlation between language learning and academic
achievements. It is suggested that the dual language learning is effective not only in promoting learners’
English language proficiency and literacy skills, but also brings about academic advantages in the core
subjects such as mathematics, and science. In addition, the cross-curricular benefits of language learning
are applicable for learners from different ethnic communities, with different education levels and socioeconomic backgrounds, and with different language combinations, even for typologically-different
language combinations (e.g. Chinese-English). However, most of the studies are American, and focusedon the two-way/dual-language immersion type with Spanish and English as the language combination.
Further research in the UK context is necessary.

21

4. COGNITIVE BENEFITS RELATING TO CREATIVITY
Many studies have indicated enhanced creativity levels in bilinguals. However, the cognitive benefits oflearning a foreign language have received far less attention. A meta-analysis was conducted following acomprehensive search for primary studies testing foreign language learning with measured outcomes ofcreativity. A systematic search of UCL Explore, Linguistic and Language Behaviour Abstracts and Google
Scholar databases for studies published between 1966 and 2016 identified 294 articles. Data from 6
studies (involving 502 participants) was extracted and analysed following established protocols andprocedures for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Standardised effect sizes varied fromlarge to medium according to verbal and figural measures of creativity and were strongest in sub-scalesof creative flexibility, followed by creative originality and lastly, creative fluency.
The following section discusses the potential relationship between language learning and creativity. A
review of research examining bilingualism and creativity reveals that most studies report thatbilingualism increases creativity on measures such as the Torrance Test of Creativity (TTCT) (Adescope etal, 2010; Gowan and Torrance, 1965; Konaka, 1997; Lasabagaster, 2000; Okoh, 1980). One of the mostheavily cited pieces of research on this topic is Ricciardelli’s (1992) review, which reported thatbilinguals were superior to monolinguals in measures of creativity for 20 out of 24 studies. Similarly,
Konaka (1997) found advantages for bilingual children aged 9-11 years (Japanese and English-speaking)when compared to monolingual counterparts on tasks requiring divergent thinking skills. In a more
recent study, Adescope et al. (2010) conducted a systematic review of cognitive correlates ofbilingualism and found that abstract and symbolic representation produced one of the strongest meaneffect sizes (0.57 across 8 studies).
To examine the direct relationship between foreign language learning and creativity, we exploredwhether there are significant differences between foreign language learners (FLLs) and monolingual
students in relation to creativity, and if there were interactions between level of proficiency, age group,
or gender in relation to creativity.
4.1. Methods
4.1.1. Selection Criteria
To capture all relevant studies on the effects of foreign language learning on creativity, specific criteria
for inclusion were developed. Studies were deemed eligible if:Foreign language learner participants (FLLs) were reported to be studying a language separate
to their native language in a classroom context. Thus, participants who presented a bilingual
background (acquiring a second language in a home environment or through social
interactions) were excluded from this meta-analysis.

They had an experimental group of FLLs and a control group of monolingual participants (whoonly spoke one language and were not involved in a FLL programme).

Measured outcomes of creative/divergent thinking were clearly reported.



They were publically available, either online or in library archives.

224.2. Location and Selection of Studies
Databases were searched for dates of publication from 1966 onwards. The primary search was
conducted using a series of Boolean AND/OR operators within each of the databases for the terms‘creativity ‘divergent thinking’ ‘innovation’ in addition to one of the following: ‘foreign language
learning’, ‘bilingualism’ or ‘second language’. This search yielded a total of 294 articles. Articles that did
not meet the criteria were excluded. A total of 24 studies were retained for secondary screening. The
next stage involved ancestry (searching the references of included articles) and descendency searches(searching articles citing included articles) to locate further primary articles of potential relevance. These
were then also screened using the inclusion criteria. However, after duplicate studies were excluded,
this process generated only 6 unique primary studies.
4.3. Results
4.3.1. Data Description
Table 2 displays a summary of the variables coded for the 6 individual studies. This includes the total
number of participants involved in each study, age group, correlates of creativity measured, languagecombinations used, and measure of creativity utilised. A more detailed summary of the research design
involved for each study is outlined in Appendix 2.
Study

Bamford &Mizokawa(1991)

Landry (1974)

Ghonsooly & Mendonça &Showqi (2012) Fleith (2005)

Rezaei &Almasian(2007)Showqi &Ghonsooly(2015)

Other
correlations

Gender, age

Gender, age

Age

Gender, age

Language
proficiency

Metacognitiveawareness

Measures ofcreativity

Raven’s
TTCT (1966)
Coloured
Progressive
Matrices
English-Spanish EnglishUnknown

TTCT (1966)

TTCT (1966)

Creative
TTCT (1974)
Personality
Measurement
Questionnaire
Persian-English Persian-English

38
Grade 2120
16-18

LanguagesN
Age group

80
Grades 4-6

Persian-English EnglishPortuguese
115
14-57

29
18-20

120
16-18

Table 2. Summary of coded studies in the current study.

NB: N=number of participantsa. Age groups (displayed in years/grade level): grade levels refer to American school grading
systems (for example 7th grade refers to the 7th school year after kindergarten).

b. Language combinations depict native-foreign language (e.g. English-Spanish means thatthe participants were native English speakers who learnt Spanish in a foreign language
programme.
The first of the studies listed in Table 2 is a longitudinal experiment conducted by Bamford andMizokawa (1991). Results showed a significant group-by-time interaction in favour of the Spanishimmersion group, demonstrating a superior growth in non-verbal problem solving abilities over thecourse of the school year. Landry (1974) found that fourth and sixth graders who had learned a second

23language at school performed better on measures of creativity than their monolingual counterparts. The
Hoffman Bilingual Schedule (Hoffman, 1934) was used to eliminate any possible influences of a second
language learnt in the home on performance of creativity measures.
Ghonsooly & Showqi (2012) compared creativity levels between a group of advanced English learners(who had studied English for at least 6 years) to 60 monolinguals and found that advanced FLLs
significantly outperformed monolinguals in all four measures of the TTCT. Similar results were found by
Mendonça & Fleith (2005).
A meta-analysis was conducted to formally answer the question of whether there are significant
differences between foreign language learners (FLLs) and monolingual students in relation to creativity.
Table 3 displays standardised mean differences between language groups (foreign language learners
and monolingual students) and calculated standard errors on three studies conducted across different
time periods and which all utilised the same measure of creativity (TTCT).
Study

Statistics for each study

1.Landry (1974)

2.Mendonca &Fleith (2005)

3.Ghonsooly &Showqi (2012)N

Age group

Measure ofcreativity

Difference inmeans
Verbal flexibility
Verbal originality
Verbal flulency
Figural flexibility
Figural originality
Figural fluency
Verbal flexibility(SE)

P value

3.60 (0.91)
5.45 (1.22)
5.65 (2.32)
1.55 (0.79)
3.65 (1.36)
3.18 (1.32)
3.2 (0.64)

<0.05

80

Grade 6

TTCT (1966)

<0.01

115

14-57 years

TTCT (1966)

Verbal originality
Verbal fluency
Figural flexibility
Figural originality
Figural fluency
Flexibility

1.8 (0.49)
6.3 (1.32)
3.4 (0.76)
2.6 (0.71)
3.9 (1.11)
1.92 (o.32)<0.001120

16-18 years

TTCT (1974)

Originality
Fluency
Elaboration

4.08 (o.55)
3.94 (0.69)
2.19 (0.43)

Table 3. Differences between FLLs and monolinguals across measures of creativity

4.4. Demographic variables: gender and age
Landry (1974) found no significant gender differences. Bamford and Mizokawa (1991) also found no
gender or age differences between FLLs and monolinguals. Mendonça and Fleith (2005), on the other
hand, found some significant differences between male and female students in relation to verbal
creativity (F[1,113] = 4.515, p<0.05, F>M). Across the various studies, strong effect sizes were found for
language learning and creativity across a range of age groups (7-57 years old), suggesting that foreign
language learning has a beneficial effect on creativity across the lifespan.

24

4.5. Discussion and conclusions
Overall, analyses indicate strong positive correlates between creative flexibility, fluency, originality andforeign language learning. The strongest effect sizes across the various studies were for measures ofcreative flexibility. Effect sizes were largest next for creative originality, and smallest for creative fluency,
though this was still moderately large at 0.51. Effect sizes varied depending on verbal versus figural
measures of creativity; generally, larger effect sizes were found for verbal measures (such as verbal
flexibility and verbal originality).
The remarkable superiority found for FLLs may have several explanations. Students may be affected by
the cognitive practices involved in learning a new language. Landry (1974) attributed his findings to “thewillingness and adoptability to change” in FLLs facilitating creative development. The findings presented
here highlight creativity as a positive outcome of language learning and the value of foreign language
learning programmes.
In conclusion, the significant associations found between language learning and creativity parallel
previous findings in bilingualism research. However the underlying mechanisms behind theenhancement of this cognitive function are still unclear. Cognitive benefits in this area may be attributed
to processes of language switching (as in bilingualism) or the rigorous practice and study involved inlanguage learning. Further research is needed to assess creative thinking across genders, age andlearning strategies in order to gain a better understanding of how creativity is fostered in bilinguals andforeign language learners.

25

5. GREY LITERATURE
Because one of the aims of this project was to explore the relationships between public policy, public
attitudes and research relating to the cognitive benefits of language learning, materials reviewed
included not only academic publications in the field, but also grey literature. Grey literature is broadly
defined as: non-formally published scholarly or substantive information (often found on the internet
and in specialised resources) and often not formally peer-reviewed. Although most of grey literature isless prestigious, reliable, and "official" than publication in a peer-reviewed journal, the topics covered
and content are highly relevant to this project. 5.1. Database
A search was conducted for on-line material on the topic of cognitive benefits of language learning. The
search included on-line press coverage, newspapers, magazines, newsletters and social media but not
personal blogs. A total of 179 items were identified that appeared between 2012 and 2017 (seeAppendix 3).
5.2. Categorisation
The 179 items fell under 17 headings, which can be subdivided into 6 categories. In the majority ofcases, the grey literature supported the view that language learning had cognitive benefits, although it
should be noted that recent reviews in the academic literature such as Lehtonen et al. (2018) whichsuggest a re-evaluation of the benefits of bilingualism on executive function appeared after thecompletion of the grey literature review. Category 1 (cross-curricular benefits) include items about
academic achievements and literacy; Category 2 (acquired neurological impairments) covers articles on
dementia and recovery from stroke. The third category (the brain) falls outside the main focus of thisstudy, but grey literature items relating to brain size, brain structure, and ageing of the brain have been
included here as these are often linked in content with statements about cognitive function. Category 4
covers the various areas of cognitive function, considered broadly. As well as executive function, theseinclude items about metalinguistic awareness, memory, problem-solving, mental agility and decisionmaking, as well as auditory perception. Empathy and global identity are covered under Category 5, and agroup of items dealing with multiple benefits of language learning are grouped together under Category
6 (see Appendix 4).
5.3. Conclusions
The grey literature review indicates substantial public interest in and recognition of the cognitive
benefits of language learning, with most items based on findings from academic research. One striking
exception was the Opinion piece by Simon Jenkins, published in the Guardian on 25 August, 2017. TitledIgnore the panic. There’s little point learning languages at school , it argued that the only reason for
promoting the study of modern languages was that it was easy to score performance.
This opinion piece elicited a number of angry responses which drew on relevant research studies toargue against Jenkins’ view, but it is clear that the case to the public and policymakers has clearly not
been made strongly enough. In the following section we describe the results of two surveys which
explored public attitudes to language learning.

26

6. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS
In order to assess the match or mismatch between what people perceive as the benefits of language
learning and what has been evidenced in the published studies, we specifically designed a pair ofquestionnaire surveys (Adult and Youth) for the project.
Ethics approval was obtained from the UCL Graduate School Ethics Committee. The questionnaire wascompleted on-line, using SurveyMonkey; all responses were anonymous. Information about the survey
was circulated via posters in schools, organisations of language teachers, university students, etc. A listof the questions for the adult and youth questionnaires are in Appendix 5.
Each questionnaire had 50 items, divided into 3 sections: cognitive benefits of language learning;
personal experiences of language learning; and personal data. The first section, on cognitive benefits oflanguage learning, asked participants to indicate their agreement or disagreement with a number ofstatements about language learning on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly
disagree’ – for example, in the adult questionnaire, Learning a new language helps to develop
thinking/analytical skills; and in the youth questionnaire, Language learning is fun. The second section
asked about personal experiences of language learning, including questions about which languages theyknew and used, and also provided opportunities for adding detailed comments in response to questions
such as What aspects of language learning do you least enjoy? and Does learning new languages when
you are older have any particular benefits? The third section included questions about gender, age,background, etc.
6.1. Adult questionnaire
There were 741 respondents to the adult questionnaire. 77% were female. The median age of
respondents was between 40 and 49 (Figure 3)1.

Figure 3. Age distribution of respondents

Sixty-three percent of respondents were working in education, with a variety of other occupations
reported (Table 1). Answers were analysed separately for those working in education and the other
respondents, but the only significant differences between responses of the two groups were in 4 items:
1

Total numbers on each question may be less than 741, as some participants did not answer all questions.

27

Q4: Learning a new language helps to focus your attention; Q5: Learning a new language helps toprevent memory loss and loss of concentration in older age; and Q17: Learning a new language canaffect your first language, which all received stronger agreement ratings from educators; and Q18:
Learning a new language that is very different from your first language has more benefits than learninga language that is similar to your first language, which received higher agreement ratings from noneducators.
Accounting
2
Automotive
1
Banking3
Carpenter/Electrician
2
Chemicals/Plastics/Rubber 1
Construction
1
Consumer electronics
1
Education
436
Engineering
3
Environmental services
3
Fashion1
Film/TV/Advertising1
Public sector
23
Healthcare
14
Hospitality/Tourism
6
Human Resources3
IT
13
Insurance
2
Law
4
Market research3Marketing/sales
2
Media/entertainment6Non-profit/social services
4
Property
1
Retail2
Not working
57
Other
97
Table 4. Occupations of respondents

As well as the Likert scale questions, there were open-ended questions about respondents’ experiences.
These will be reported in detail in a separate publication, but a few examples are given here to illustrate
the complexities and individual qualities of responses. For example, in response to the request to List all
the languages you know in order from most to least fluent, one respondent wrote:
English, German, French, Italian, Greek... and I have studied at least 7 others: some I read quite
well, some I once spoke (broken), some I still want to get fluent in! 2 of these 12 are nonEuropean, the other 10 are related (Indo-European, of 4 families); it's those 2 others that I
found really hard. My languages are in 4 scripts.

28

and in response to What is your preferred language, another respondent wrote:
For what? My main working/professional language is Scottish Gaelic, with my partner I speak
English, German with my family except for my mother with whom I speak German &Cantonese. I have no preferred language. If you ask me to which language I have the strongest
emotional attachment (of those I speak), that would be Basque.
Respondents had positive views about the cognitive benefits of language learning. The percentage of
responses indicating agreement or strong agreement with the various statements in the questionnaire
are given in Table 5 below.
No.

Statement

1
2
3
4
5

Learning a new language helps to develop thinking/analytical skills
Learning a new language helps to develop multi-tasking skills
Learning a new language helps to improve your memory
Learning a new language helps to focus your attention
Learning a new language helps to prevent memory loss and loss ofconcentration in older age
Learning a new language has positive benefits for your health
Learning a new language makes you more creative
Learning a new language helps to make you more expressive
Learning a new language helps you to understand other people’s emotions
Learning a new language helps to keep your emotions stable
Learning a new language helps you to make more friends
Learning a new language helps with understanding other cultures
Learning a new language gives you better employment opportunities
Learning a new language helps to improve your school/academic
achievements
Learning a new language helps with learning other things
Learning a new language can change your identity
Learning a new language can affect your first language
Learning a new language that is very different from your first language has
more benefits than learning a language that is similar to your first language
Learning a new language that has a different writing system to your first
language has more benefits than learning a language that has a similar
writing system
Learning a new language is only suitable for academically successful
children
Learning a new language is not suitable for children with special
educational needs
Learning a new language is useful
Learning a new language has no particular benefit
Learning a new language can have negative effects
Learning a new language takes a lot of time and effort

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25

% agreeing/strongly agreeing
90
70
84
77
71
57
67
75
63
18
77
95
86
81
88
58
61
30
20

3
3
96
1
3
71

Table 5. Percentage of agreement/strong agreement responses

29

In general, respondents were largely in agreement with the statements and with each other, with the
exception of Statements 6, 10, 16-21, and 23-24. Strong disagreement was expressed in relation to onlya small number of the statements. It was clear that respondents felt that language learning
opportunities should be made available to all children regardless of their academic ability or presence ofspecial needs. In most cases responses were aligned with research studies in these areas, although there
were some differences, which will be discussed in the Research Review section of the report.
A number of yes/no questions with opportunities to add comments were asked about respondents’ own
language use and experiences (Table 6).
No.
27
28
30
32
37
39
40
42

Question
Do you mix languages in the same conversation
Are you fluent in other languages
Are there any languages you can speak/listen to and understand,but not write or read
Are there any languages you can read or write but not
speak/listen to and understandDid or do you have any anxieties about learning languages
Would you encourage your own children to learn new languages
Do you think it is better to learn new languages when you areyounger
Does learning new languages when you are older have any
particular benefits% yes responses
69
75
30
32
39
99
86
86

Table 6. Respondents’ language experiences

6.2. Youth questionnaire
The youth questionnaire received only 40 usable responses, as a number of questionnaires werecompleted by individuals aged over 17, or living outside the UK, and their responses had to be excluded.
The gender distribution was very similar to the adult questionnaire (78% female). The mean age ofparticipants was 14; 82% had been born in the UK.
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13

Statement
Learning a new language is fun
Learning a new language helps me to improve my thinking
Learning a new language helps me to remember things better
Learning a new language helps me to focus better.
Learning a new language makes me smarter.
Learning a new language makes me more creative
Learning a new language makes me express things better
Learning a new language helps me to understand other people’s feelings better
Learning a new language helps me to make more friends
Learning a new language helps when I go on holidays
Learning a new language will help me get a good job
Learning a new language helps me with my school work
Learning a new language helps with learning other things

%*
75
67
53
44
75
67
67
50
61
75
81
78
61

30

Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18

Learning a new language changes my first language
Learning a new language requires a lot of time and effort
Learning a new language makes me anxious
I particularly like learning languages that are very different from my first language
I particularly like learning languages with a different writing system from that of
my first language
Q19 Learning a sign language would be fun
Q20 Learning a sign language would be useful*Percent agreeing or strongly agreeing.

36
81
8
47
22
61
61

Table 7. Responses to Youth Questionnaire

The responses to the youth questionnaire generally mirror those of the adult questionnaire, withpositive or strongly positive responses to most of the statements, including the positive benefits on
schoolwork and learning more generally.
As well as classroom learning, around half of the respondents reported that they make use of on-line
language resources, with a large number listed. As well as on-line language learning resources, such as
Duolingo, Babbel, Verb2Verbe, Linguascope, Memrise, Quizlet, Languages Online, and Aprender, several
mentioned using other web resources such as Google Translate, on-line dictionaries, and foreign
language websites (for news and hobbies/interests).

31

7. FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS
Two focus group interviews were conducted by Li Wei with 3 teacher-trainers on the UCL IOE Modern
Foreign Languages (MFL) Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) on 13 March 2017, and with the
PGCE MFL students on 27 November 2017. The latter was a very large group of over 60 trainee teachers.
Li Wei gave a presentation on the project and the literature review and the questionnaire survey andthen conducted a discussion with the group. The questions asked by Li Wei were the same for bothgroups.
A further meeting was conducted on 7 March 2018 with Heads of Schools participating in the Mandarin
Excellence Programme at the IOE Confucius Institutes for Schools. Li Wei gave a presentation to thegroup and invited them to participate in a study that will focus on cross-curriculum benefits of learning
Mandarin. A questionnaire has been specially designed for this study, as a follow-up from the BA
project. Schools were asked to provide school test results data in all subjects for the children who take
Mandarin as part of the MEP. It is hoped that the participating schools will begin to gather these datafrom Autumn 2018. A blog from Melbourn Village College in Cambridgeshire on how the introduction of
Mandarin helped to improve the school’s Ofsted results can be found athttps://ciforschools.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/melbourn-village-college-report3.pdf.
7.1. Summary of focus group interviews/discussions with educators and trainee teachers
1. Are schools, teachers and parents generally aware of the messages about the various
advantages of bilingualism as often presented by the press? And have they had any effect on the
MFL teaching and learning in schools?
Tutors: Yes, the messages are out there and people have heard about all the good things ofbeing bilingual. But it is not something that schools and teachers can use to promote more
uptake of MFLs at GCSE level. There are many different factors. Many families face challenges intheir everyday lives, e.g. financial, health, employment, parental literacy, and they find it hard toaccept that learning a foreign language can help to improve their situations. For some parents,
the message that foreign language may help their kids to get better jobs in the future is
attractive. But if they are struggling with other school subjects already, especially English, maths
and science, then they probably wouldn’t want to give more time to foreign languages. That’s
why it would be really useful if your research can demonstrate concrete benefits of language
learning for other school subjects.
PGCE: The messages get across differently to different groups of parents. Often families fromeither minority backgrounds are already bilingual or even multilingual in their home/community
languages, and they are very happy with the idea that being bilingual is good for you. But theirattention may be on something else, maybe English, or other subjects, not necessarily French or
German or some other school language. For the English-speaking kids, they may think thatlearning languages is for others, those of ethnic minority backgrounds.
2. What kinds of messages do you think may be (more) useful to encourage more students to do
MFLs?

32

Tutors: It really depends on the local situation. It there is evidence that language learning could
benefit the pupils’ school work generally, then that’ll be very useful. Other messages may
depend on the community’s priorities.
PGCE: Benefits for their other school subjects – overall improvement. And better employment
prospects. Not health (preventing dimension) – can’t imagine that works, especially for families
in hardship.
3. Is the global status of English an issue here?
Tutors: To some extent yes.
PGCE: Definitely yes. Lots of people think there is no point in learning foreign languages because
the rest of the world is learning English.
4. What can help to improve MFL teaching and encourage more MFL uptake in schools?
Tutors: Inspirational teachers and inspirational teaching. It’s not the policies or messages thatcan change the situation. When you go to schools and talk to the kids, they will tell you that they
like a subject and they do well in a subject because they have a good inspirational teacher who
can inspire them in the class. That’s what makes a real difference.
PGCE: More time in the curriculum. Good and interesting material. Good teaching. Brexit –when people realise actually you need other languages to communicate with the rest of theworld, they may change their mind and think learning languages are useful. Cross-curriculum
benefits again.
5. What do you think the benefits of language learning are, cognitive or otherwise?
Tutors: If the research is to be believed, then there are all the health benefits. Employment
definitely. Cultural awareness. Maybe thinking skills, but then again other subject teachers
might want to argue that too – every subject thinks theirs is the most important and useful. If
there is evidence that language learning can improve the pupils’ core subjects, English, maths
and science, then it’ll be really helpful.
PGCE: all that’s been talked about in research. Maybe flexible thinking and analytical skills. Not
sure if the health benefits are true because if you look at the communities in Africa, they are allbilingual and multilingual, and many are really poor and have serious health issues.
6. What kinds of research may be needed on this topic?
Tutors: Cross-curriculum benefit research would be really helpful.
PGCE: benefits of language learning for other school subjects.
7. Is there any way to improve the messages to schools, families and children?
Tutors: It’s a complex one. Language learning is hard. It takes time and hard work. So we can’tsell it for fun, because it is not really fun. You need to be fairly resilient to do it well. And you
can’t say that only the clever ones should do language either. So it is hard. But schools definitely

33

need more time for teaching languages. Maybe technology will help. But nothing can change it
fundamentally on its own.
PGCE: Language is a good subject for the kids and it can help their other subjects.
8. Any other issues/points?
Tutors: The Mandarin Excellence Programme is great. But schools do get incentives toparticipate and a lot more time (8 hours a week). If the same applied to all languages, then wemight well have a different result. Schools certainly need more time and resources for language
teaching.
They should stop promoting ‘strategically important’ languages. Mandarin is important andArabic is important. But all languages are important. They did invest in Japanese and thought twould ibring in lots of jobs. But it wasn’t the case. Priorities change. They should promote
languages in general, not specific languages at certain languages and keep changing them.
7.2. Policy-maker interview
A further interview was held with a senior civil servant in the Foreign Office who is also the Whitehall
foreign languages champion. Questions focused on what sort of information about cognitive benefits oflanguage learning would influence a change in policy, in particular the sort of evidence that would be
most likely to be taken up by the government in relation to policy-making about language learning
across the lifespan. It was recognised that researchers often felt that their research had produced
substantial evidence but policymakers felt was not the sort of evidence that would support a change inpolicy .
The interviewee noted that the government’s industrial strategy does not mainstream languages as
being across Whitehall. Within the Foreign Office, there is a very local and functional approach tolanguages, with no awareness of possible cognitive enhancements associated with language learning,
and with a focus only on the end state of language skills and their relevance for specific jobs. She
suggested that instead, interest in language learning might be used to recruit people for posts which did
not require language skills. The Foreign Office hasn’t thought about recruiting people who havelanguage skills as being better thinkers, with cognitive underpinnings for a sense of different identities.
From her own experience, for example, she felt that it would be useful if there were evidence available
on how learning a language might improve agreement-reaching skills, as part of the flexibility in thinking
associated with language learning. She also felt that there should be consideration of the impact of notunderstanding other languages on confidence, resourcefulness etc.
The points raised in this interview provide insights into how work might be developed further which
could be directed at providing the sorts of information about language learning which would be relevant
to policy-makers and employers.

34

8. SUMMARY AND ACTION POINTSThe translation of the findings of this project into changes in policy and practice remains a challenge, but
one which is likely to be of substantial benefit to the UK in the future.
Action Point 1. Development by the British Academy of a programme of dissemination activities on
the cognitive benefits of language learningThis project has taken a broad perspective on language learning and cognition, through reviewsof such areas as the relationship between bilingualism and executive function, literacy, health,creativity, social and affective cognition, and the learning of signed as well as spoken languages.
We have provided both an overview of existing research and an identification of current practiceand policy implications across a range of topics.
We intend our research findings to speak to a variety of audiences including academics, policy
makers, employers and the general public, with impact objectives that have identified gaps inknowledge and research evidence and directions for future research, and potential intervention
strategies. Both the educator and civil service interviews indicated the importance of
demonstrating concrete benefits of language learning. For educators, cross curricular benefits
are seen as the key to influencing families to have a positive view towards language learning; forpolicymakers, broad cognitive benefits such as enhanced resourcefulness, and creative thinking
are key.
Action Point 2. Support for development of an intervention and research programme on the cognitive
benefits of language learning, with emphasis on two key areas: 1) language learning for older
populations; 2) cross-curricular benefits of language learning in the school years
It is clear that the relationship between executive function skills and language learning iscomplex and inconsistent. For example, there is a growing body of literature which suggests thatthe cognitive relationship between language learning and age of exposure is dependent on amultitude of varying factors, and is not as clear as initially predicted. More research in this fieldshould look to determine and clarify variables.
The implications of enhanced creativity, empathy, problem-solving skills, confidence andresourcefulness as outcomes of language learning should be further explored. Foreign language
learning programmes aimed at older populations may help to build cognitive reserve because
language learning engages an extensive brain network that is known to overlap with the regions
negatively affected by the aging process. Research should test this potentially fruitfulhypothesis, including the provision of specially designed English language programmes for
elderly non-English speakers in the UK.
There is evidence of cross-curricular benefits of language learning, but these studies are notdirectly comparable with the UK language learning environment. This British Academy project
has already served as a catalyst for a study of the cross curriculum benefits of learning
Mandarin, specifically the Mandarin Excellence Programme led by the UCL Institute of
Education. The design of that project is very much informed by the findings of this project, and35

the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb MP, is keenly monitoring the project. The UCL Centre for
Behaviour Change has supported a post-graduate project exploring how to best convey
messages about the cognitive benefits of language learning to parents and schools.
Well-designed UK studies are in demand from schools, parents, health services andpolicymakers. The outcomes of such studies will impact strongly on messaging about language
learning, and in turn to ensuring the place of language learning across the lifespan.

36References
Antoniou M, Gunasekera GM, & Wong PC (2013). Foreign language training as cognitive therapy for agerelated cognitive decline: A hypothesis for future research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,
37(10), 2689-2698.
Arnold P & Murray C (1998). Memory for faces and objects by deaf and hearing signers and hearing
nonsigners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 481-497.
Bak TH, Long MR, Vega-Mendoza M, & Sorace A (2016). Novelty, challenge, and practice: the impact ofintensive language learning on attentional functions. PLoS One, 11(4), e0153485.
Bamford KW & Mizokawa DT (1991). Additive-bilingual (immersion) education: Cognitive and language
development. Language Learning, 41(3), 413-429. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-770.1991.tb00612.x
Bettger JG, Emmorey K, McCullough SH, & Bellugi U (1997). Enhanced facial discrimination: Effects ofexperience with American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 223-233.
Brereton, A. (2008). Sign language use and the appreciation of diversity in hearing classrooms. Early
Years, 28(3), 311-324.
Christian D (1996). Two‐way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. The
Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66-76.
Ghonsooly B & Showqi S (2012). The effects of foreign language learning on creativity. English Language
Teaching, 5(4),161. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n4p161
Giezen MR, Blumenfeld HK, Shook A, Marian V, & Emmorey K (2015). Parallel language activation andinhibitory control in bimodal bilinguals. Cognition, 141, 9-25.
Goldberg D, Looney D, & Lusin N (2015). Enrollments in Languages other than English in United States
Institutions of Higher Education. Modern Languages Association
https://apps.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf
Gowan JC & Torrance EP (1965) An intercultural study of non-verbal ideational fluency. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 9(1), 13-15.
Greenberg A, Bellana B, & Bialystok E (2013). Perspective-taking ability in bilingual children: Extending
advantages in executive control to spatial reasoning. Cognitive development, 28(1), 41-50.
Guiora AZ, Brannon RC, & Dull CY (1972). Empathy and second language learning. Language learning,22(1), 111-130.
Hawson A (1996). A neuroscientific perspective on second-language learning and academic
achievement. Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingüe, 101-122.
Jenkins S (2017) Ignore the panic. There’s little point learning languages at school.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/25/languages-exams-test-league-tablesschools-fall-pupils
Keehner, M., & Gathercole, S. E. (2007). Cognitive adaptations arising from non-native experience ofsign language in hearing adults. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 752-761
Kenner C, Gregory E, Ruby M, & Al-Azami S (1998). Bilingual learning for second and third generation
children. Language, Culture and Curriculum 21 (2), 120-137.

37

Kleinmann HH 1977. Avoidance Behavior in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning27(1): 93-97.
Konaka K (1997). The relationship between degree of bilingualism and gender to divergent thinking
ability among native Japanese-speaking children in the New York area. Dissertation Abstracts
International.
Kroll JF & Bialystok E (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing
and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 497-514.
Landry RJ (1974). A comparison of second language learners and monolinguals on divergent thinking
tasks at the elementary school level. The modern language journal, 58(1), 10-15.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1973.tb00073.x
Larsen-Freeman D & Long MH (2014). An introduction to second language acquisition research.
Routledge.
Lasabagaster D (2001). The effect of knowledge about the L1 on foreign language skills and grammar.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4:310-331.
Lehtonen M, Soveri A, Laine A, Järvenpää J, de Bruin A, & Antfolk J (2018). Is bilingualism associated withenhanced executive functioning in adults? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 144(4): 394425. http://doi.org/10.1037/bul000014
Lindholm-Leary K (2014). Bilingual and biliteracy skills in young Spanish-speaking low-SES children:
Impact of instructional language and primary language proficiency. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 17(2), 144-159.
MacIntyre PD, Baker SC, Clément R, & Donovan LA (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness tocommunicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French
immersion students. Language learning, 52(3), 537-564.
Mendonça P & Fleith DDS (2005). Relação entre criatividade, inteligência e autoconceito em alunos
monolíngues e bilíngües. Psicologia escolar e educacional, 9(1), 37-46.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-85572005000100006
Mishan F (2005). Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Intellect Books.
Mukadam N, Sommerlad A, & Livingston G (2017). The relationship of bilingualism compared tomonolingualism to the risk of cognitive decline or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 58(1), 45-54.
Muñoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning (Vol. 19). Multilingual Matters.
Nelson LH, White KR, & Grewe J (2012). Evidence for website claims about the benefits of teaching sign
language to infants and toddlers with normal hearing. Infant and Child Development, 21(5), 474-502.
Okoh N (1980). Bilingualism and divergent thinking among Nigerian and Welsh school children. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 110(2), 163-170.
Paap KR & Greenberg ZI (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive
processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 232-258.
Padilla AM, Fan L, Xu X, & Silva D (2013). A Mandarin/English two‐way immersion program: Language
proficiency and academic achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 661-679.

38

Poarch GJ & Bialystok E (2015). Bilingualism as a model for multitasking. Developmental Review, 35, 113124.
Potowski K (2007). Language and identity in a dual immersion school (Vol. 63). Multilingual Matters.
Prior A & MacWhinney B (2010). A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism: Language andcognition, 13(02), 253-262.
Ramos, S., García, Y. F., Antón, E., Casaponsa, A., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2017). Does learning a language inthe elderly enhance switching ability?. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43, 39-48.
Ricciardelli LA (1992). Creativity and bilingualism. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 242-254.
http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1992.tb01183.x
Ryskin RA, Brown-Schmidt, S, Canseco-Gonzalez E, Yiu LK, & Nguyen ET (2014). Visuospatial perspectivetaking in conversation and the role of bilingual experience. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 46-76.
Adesope OO, Lavin T, Thompson T, & Ungerleider C (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of thecognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207-245.
Segalowitz N & Frenkiel-Fishman S (2005). Attention control and ability level in a complex cognitive skill:
Attention shifting and second-language proficiency. Memory & Cognition, 33(4), 644-653.
Showqi S & Ghonsooly B (2015). The Nature of Metacognitive Awareness in Foreign Language Learners
and Its Interaction with Creativity. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(5), 1051-1057.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0605.18
Song J (2011). Globalization, children's study abroad, and transnationalism as an emerging context for
language learning: A new task for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 749-758.
Steele JL, Slater RO, Zamarro G, Miller T, Li J, Burkhauser S, & Bacon M (2017). Effects of dual-language
immersion programs on student achievement: Evidence from lottery data. American Educational
Research Journal, 54(1 suppl), 282S-306S.
Steele JL, Slater RO, Zamarro G, Miller T, Li J, Burkhauser S, & Bacon M (2015). Effects of dual-language
immersion on students’ academic performance. Institute of Education Sciences, United States
Department of Education.
Swain M (2010). Talking-it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In Batstone R (Ed) Sociocognitive
perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 112-130.
Tuafuti P, & McCaffery J (2005). Family and community empowerment through bilingual education.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 480-503.
Valentino RA & Reardon SF (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve
English learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 37(4), 612-637.
Vercellotti M. L. (2008). Non-Linguistic Cognitive Effects of Learning American Sign Language as a Second
Language (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh)
Zavaleta, KL (2014). The role of executive control in language learning. Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Arizona.

39

Appendix 1. Sources of studies in the meta-analysis of the Cross-Curricular Benefits of Language Learning (2008-2017)
Study
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Grade range

Benefits of bilingualism: Evidence from Mormon missionaries
University(2008)
students
A Mandarin/English Two‐Way Immersion Program: Language
Proficiency and Academic Achievement (2013)
G1-G5
Padilla et al., 2013
Student Outcomes in Chinese Two-Way Immersion Programs:
Grade 4-8
Language Proficiency, Academic Achievement and Student
Attitudes (2016) Lindholm-Leary, 2016
Bilingual Two-Way Immersion Programs Benefit Academic
G 3-5
Achievement (2013)
Marian et al, 2013
Achievement in predominantly low SES/Hispanic dual language
G 4-6
schools (2010)
Lindholm-Leary and Block, 2010
Effects of Dual-Language Immersion Programs on Student
Pre K- Grade 8
Achievement: Evidence From Lottery Data (2017)
Steele et al, 2017
Achievement and language proficiency of Latino students in
G 4-8
dual language programmes: native English speakers, fluent
English/previous ELLs, and current ELLs (2011)
Lindholm-Leary and Hernández, 2011
Bilingual education for all: Latino dual language learners with
Pre-schoolers
language disabilities (2013)

Bilingual and Biliteracy Skills in Young Spanish-speaking LowSES Children: Impact of Instructional Language and Primary
Language Proficiency
Lindholm-Leary, 2014
10. A Mandarin/English Two‐Way Immersion Program: Language
Proficiency and Academic Achievement (2013)

K1-G2

N
1,700
40

320

2,009

659

ChineseEnglish

Two-way immersion

SpanishTwo-way immersion
English;English-Spanish
Spanish-English Dual language
immersion

1,625

Polish-English Dual Language
immersion

732

Spanish-English Dual language
immersion

74

Spanish-English Dual language
learners with immersion
language
impairment
Spanish-English Dual language
immersion

254

40
G1-G5

Language
Mode of language
patterns
learning
English-mixed Foreign language
learning
Mandarin- Two-way immersion
EnglishMandarinEnglish

Two-way immersion

Subject
Measurement
measured
Academic
GPA scores
achievement Cross-sectional
EnglishStandardised
languagetests;
learning
Cross-sectional
EnglishStandardised
languagetests;
learning
Cross-sectional
EnglishStandardised
languagetests;
learning
Cross-sectional
EnglishStandardised
languagetests(CST); crosslearning
sectional
EnglishStandardised test
language(OAKS)
learning
EnglishStandardised test
languagelearning
EnglishLanguagelearning

quasiexperimental

Englishlanguagelearning

Standardised
tests;
Cross-sectional

Maths

Standardised
tests;
Cross-sectional40

11. Bilingual Two-Way Immersion Programs Benefit Academic
Achievement (2013)

G 3-5

2,009

12. Achievement in predominantly low SES/Hispanic dual language
schools (2010)

G 4-6

659

13. Effects of Dual-Language Immersion Programs on Student
Achievement: Evidence From Lottery Data (2017)

3-9

3,457

Mixed

Dual language
immersion

Maths and
Science

14. Academic achievement of students in dual language immersion(2016) (Watzinger-Tharp, 2016)

3-4

4,811

SpanishDual language
immersion

Maths

15. Dual language learning, inhibitory control, and mathachievement in Head Start and kindergarten (2018)
16. Han, W. J. 2012. “Bilingualism and Academic Achievement.”

Kindergarten 3,349
K1-G5

16000

17. Montanari, S. 2013. “A Case Study of Bi-literacy Development
G1-G3
60
among Children Enrolled in an Italian–English Dual Language
Program in Southern California.”
18. Spanish-Speaking Pre-schoolers' Early Literacy Development: A Pre-schoolers 31
Longitudinal Experimental Comparison of Predominantly(38-48 months)
English and Transitional Bilingual Education (2013)19. Schwartz, M., and Y. Shaul. 2013. “Narrative Development
among Language-minority Children: The Role of Bilingual
Versus Monolingual Preschool Education.”
20. Schwartz, M. 2013. “The Impact of the First Language First
Model on Vocabulary Development among Preschool Bilingual
Children.”

SpanishTwo-way immersion
English;English-Spanish
Spanish-English Dual language
immersion

Maths

Maths

Spanish-English Dual language learning Maths

Standardised
tests;
Cross-sectional
Standardised
tests;
Cross-sectional
Standardised
tests;
Cross-sectional
Standardised
tests;
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal

Mixed-English Dual language
immersion
Italian-English Dual language
immersion

Maths

Longitudinal

Literacy

Spanish-English Transitional bilingual
education

Literacy

Case study
Standardised
tests
Longitudinal

Pre-schoolers 46

HebrewRussian

Dual language
immersion

Literacy

Longitudinal

Pre-schoolers 32

HebrewRussian

Dual language
immersion

Literacy

Longitudinal

41

Appendix 2. Creativity - Methodological features of studies
Paper

Sample characteristics

Measured outcomes

Bamford & Within-subjects design with a sample of 19
Non-verbal problem solving abilities
Mizokawa students from a Spanish immersion programme using the Raven’s (1977) Coloured
and a comparison group of 19 monolingual
Progressive Matrices (CPM).
(1991)
students from a different school in the samecommunity with similar socio- economic (SES)
status.
Ghonsooly & Matched pairs design with a sample of 60
Divergent thinking ability using theadvanced English learners compared to 60
ShowqiTorrance Test of Creativity (1966).
monolinguals in the same age range. All(2012)
participants were female, and mean age was
16.4 years old (SD=1.04). Variables such as IQ
was controlled (range of 122-127).
LandryMatched pairs design with samples recruited
Divergent thinking ability using thefrom elementary schools (one which had a(1974)
Torrance Test of Creativity (1966).
foreign language programme (FLLP) and one
where FLLP was absent. Students from first,
fourth and sixth grade were examined. Social
factors such as SES was controlled.
Mendonça Independent groups design including 115
Divergent thinking ability using the& Fleith
students recruited from an English-Portuguese Torrance Test of Creativity (1966).
Binational Centre which provides tutoring(2005)
services for English in Brazil. Mean age was
22.31, ranging from 14-57 years.
Rezaei &Correlational study with a sample of 29 students Creativity measured using the Creative
Almasian who are studying English Language andPersonality Measurement Questionnaire
Literature at the University of Tehran (22(from the American Association for(2007)
Personality Assessment). Language
females, 7 males).
proficiency assessed using the Nelson
Quick Check test.
Showqi & Matched pairs design with a sample of 60
Divergent thinking ability measured using
Ghonsooly advanced English learners (Mean age=17,
the Torrance Test of Creativity (1966).
S.D.=1.04)
pairedwithbeginnerlevel
Metacognitive awareness measured(2015)
counterparts (M=16.4, S.D.=0.6). All participants using the Schraw and Dennison
were female and recruited in Iran.
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory(Schraw and Dennison, 1994).

42

Appendix 3. Summary of sources used in the systematic review of the grey literature (2012-2017)
No. ofarticlesavailable
Professional magazines
Psychology Today (online)

The ASHA Leader(American SpeechLanguage-Hearing
Association)
Magazines for teachers
Babel (the language
magazine)
The Psychologist
Modern Language
Association
Newsletters
Medical News today
Language Map Login
National Institutes of
Health (NIH)
Press Coverage
BBC News

Examples of articles

27 Multilingual Environments Enrich Our Understanding of Others: Exposure to multiple languages
improves the ability to see another perspective. (Posted May 13, 2015)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201505/multilingual-environmentsenrich-our-understanding-others
19 Language Switching May Give Bilingual Children Problem-Solving Boost
http://leader.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=2527041

4 Issue 12-2016
3 Bringing Up Bilingual Children - Annika Bourgogne explains the advantages of growing up withmore than one language. Babel No 6 (February 2014)
No article is closely related.
Newsletter: No article is closely related.
Bulletin: No article is closely related.
5 Language learning boosts brain plasticity and ability to code new information
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312708.php
4 People Who Learn Foreign Languages Have Bigger Brains, Here’s Why:
https://www.lingholic.com/people-learn-foreign-languages-bigger-brains/
4 Bilingual Effects in the Brain https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/bilingualeffects-brain
10 The amazing benefits of being bilingual http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160811-theamazing-benefits-of-being-bilingual
43

The New York TimesSunday Review
UChicago News

6 Why Bilinguals Are Smarter http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/thebenefits-of-bilingualism.html?_r=3&src=me&ref=general
5 Children exposed to multiple languages may be better natural communicators
https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2015/05/11/children-exposed-multiple-languages-may-bebetter-natural-communicators
25 Study shows cognitive benefit of lifelong bilingualism https://medicalxpress.com/news/201301-cognitive-benefit-lifelong-bilingualism.html
5 It's never too early for children to learn a second language, say experts
http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/family-education/article/1499201/its-never-too-early-childrenlearn-second-language-say
5 Johnson: What is a foreign language worth?
http://www.economist.com/node/21598844?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/languagestudywhatisaforeig
nlanguageworth
14 Students should learn second language to prevent dementia in later life
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12156709/Students-should-learnsecond-language-to-prevent-dementia-in-later-life.html
9 For a Better Brain, Learn Another Language The cognitive benefits of multilingualism
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/more-languages-better-brain/381193/
4 Language learning makes the brain grow, Swedish study suggests
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121008082953.htm

Medical Press
South China Morning Post

The Economist

The Telegraph

The Atlantic
Science Daily
Social Media Websites
Facebook
Twitter
Language Map Login

Usually linked to the source website.
Usually linked to the source website.
5 People Who Learn Foreign Languages Have Bigger Brains, Here’s Why.
https://www.lingholic.com/people-learn-foreign-languages-bigger-brains/
8 Speaking More Than One Language Eases Stroke Recovery https://www.livescience.com/52860bilingual-language-stroke-recovery.html
17 Bilinguals Can “See” Into Others’ Minds http://blog.rosettastone.com/bilinguals-can-see-intoothers-minds/

Live Science
Rosetta Stone-language
learning blog
Total

179

44

Appendix 4. Varying grey literature perspectives on research topics x dominant cognitive benefits measured**Where methodology, mode of learning, etc. are left blank for an entry, the item relates to the information in the preceding entry

1. CROSS-CURRICULAR BENEFITS: a. Academic Achievements
Reference
1.

Dual-language Programmes Improve Reading Skills Language Magazine(2016)
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2016/05/dual-language-programsimprove-reading-skills/

Methodology(Sample + tasks)

Mode of language
learning

Languages

CitationChildren from
Portland publicschools

Dual language
immersioneducation

Spanish,Japanese,
Mandarin,
Chinese, andRussian as
an L2

peerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media

The Oregon
Assessment ofKnowledge andSkills in reading
2.

Dual-language Programmes Improve Reading Skills Language Magazine(2016)
3. Portland Dual-Language-Immersion Students Outperform Peers in Reading
The language magazine (2015)
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2015/11/duallanguage_immersion_studen.html
4. Study: Students in dual-language programs outperform peers in reading
The Seattle times (2015)
http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/in-portland-dual-languagestudents-outperform-peers-in-reading/

Middle school
students of L2
English learners

Dual language
immersioneducation

peerreviewed
journalarticleLongitudinalStandardized
Academicachievement tests
5.

Dual-language Programmes Improve Reading Skills Language Magazine(2016)
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2016/05/dual-language-programsimprove-reading-skills/
6. Dual-language Programmes Improve Reading Skills Language Magazine(2016)
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2016/05/dual-language-programsimprove-reading-skills/

45

7. Portland Dual-Language-Immersion Students Outperform Peers in Reading
The language magazine (2015)
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2015/11/duallanguage_immersion_studen.html
8. Study: Students in dual-language programs outperform peers in reading
The Seattle times (2015)
http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/in-portland-dual-languagestudents-outperform-peers-in-reading/
9. Dual-language Programmes Improve Reading Skills Language Magazine(2016)
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2016/05/dual-language-programsimprove-reading-skills/

12-year-old
bilingual students
Test: language
proficiency tests
Schoolpupils/children
Test: GCSEs
Pupils (primary andsecondary school
students) withminority andimmigration
background

Dual language
immersioneducation

Second language
learning at school

Minority/heritage
language speaking
in schools andcommunities

No
reference

English as asecond/an
additional
language
Urdu,
Somali,
Arabic,Bengali,
Panjabi andRomaniNo
reference

Peerreviewed
journalarticlesTask: language
proficiency tests inhome language andEnglish as an L2

1. CROSS-CURRICULAR BENEFITS: b. Literacy
10. Portland Dual-Language-Immersion Students Outperform Peers in Reading
The language magazine (2015)
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2015/11/duallanguage_immersion_student.html

Children starting tolearn a second
language at school

Early second
language learning at
schoolpeerreviewed
journalarticles11. Study: Students in dual-language programs outperform peers in reading
The Seattle times (2015)
http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/in-portland-dual-languagestudents-outperform-peers-in-reading/Children with two
languages

Early second
language learning at
schoolpeerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media

46

2. ACQUIRED NEUROLOGICAL IMPAIRMENTS: a. Dementia
12. Dual-language Programmes Improve Reading Skills Language Magazine(2016)
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2016/05/dual-language-programsimprove-reading-skills/

bilingual speakers
diagnosed with
Alzheimers

Not mentioned

GermanItalian

1 peerreviewed
journalarticleSecond language
learning program

Not
mentioned

Test: Attentionswitching task

1 peerreviewed
journalarticleAdult participants
diagnosed withprobable Alzheimer
disease1 article
from social
media
peerreviewed
journalarticlesTask: Brain scan andshort-term/longterm memory tasks

13. Dual-language Programmes Improve Reading Skills Language Magazine(2016)
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2016/05/dual-language-programsimprove-reading-skills/

14. Dual-language Programmes Improve Reading Skills Language Magazine(2016)
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2016/05/dual-language-programsimprove-reading-skills/

Outcome: bilinguals
have better
functional
connectivity infrontal brain
regions thanmonolinguals
Bilinguals

Not mentioned

Notmentioned

Outcome: AD
manifestation formonolingual: 71.5
For bilingual: 76.1
AD diagnosis: 72.5
77.3
15. Bilingualism delays Alzheimer manifestation by more than four years
Medical Newsletter (2014)47

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/286270.php
16. Bilingualism delays Alzheimer manifestation by more than four years
Medical X press (2014)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-12-bilingualism-alzheimermanifestation-years.html
17. Learning another language may help delay dementia
CBS NEWS (2013)https://www.cbsnews.com/news/learning-another-language-may-help-delaydementia/

Indian patients(average age 66)
suffering fromdementia and
Alzheimer disease
Outcome: patients
speaking more than
one language
develop thesymptoms 4.5 years
later thanmonolinguals

Not mentioned

Notmentioned

9 articles
from social
media
peerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media

18. Worried About Alzheimer’s? Learn a Second Language
Rosetta stone blog (2013)
http://blog.rosettastone.com/worried-about-alzheimers-learn-a-secondlanguage/
19. Speaking a Second Language May Delay Different Dementias
AAN News (2013)https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/1219
20. Study: Speaking a second language may delay onset of three types ofdementias
News Medical (2013)https://www.news-medical.net/news/20131107/Study-Speaking-a-secondlanguage-may-delay-onset-of-three-types-ofdementias.aspx?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=AZ
oNetwork_TrendMD_1
21. Speaking a second language may delay dementia, study shows
Medical X Press (2013)https://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-11-language-dementia.html#nRlv
22. Dementia delayed by speaking a second language

Medical Newsletter (2013)48

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/268416.php?utm_source=T
rendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Medical_News_Today_Tre
ndMD_023. New Study Shows Brain Benefits Of Bilingualism
NPR (2013)
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/11/14/244813470/new-study-showsbrain-benefits-of-bilingualism
24. Students should learn second language to prevent dementia in later life
The telegraph (2016)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12156709/Studentsshould-learn-second-language-to-prevent-dementia-in-later-life.html
25. Learning another language could protect against dementia

The Telegraph (2012)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9173552/Learning-anotherlanguage-could-protect-against-dementia.html

Retired people (agerange: 60-70)

One-week intensive
language course (5hours/day)

Gaelic2 articles
from social
media

Adult participants
diagnosed withdementia

Not mentioned

Notmentioned

peerreviewed
journalarticles

MRI scanOutcome:monolingual:75.4
Bilingual: 78.6
4 peerreviewed
journalarticles26. Dementia, Later-Life Cognition and Bilingualism: what is the impact ofbilingualism on dementia and cognition in the early stage?
Psychology today (2015)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201508/dementia-laterlife-cognition-and-bilingualism
27. Flapping Tongues and Brawny Brains: Does learning a second language
prevent dementia?
Psychology Today (2015)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-apes/201502/flapping-tonguesand-brawny-brains
28. Being bilingual wards off symptoms of dementia
Medical X press (2012)https://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-03-bilingual-wards-symptomsdementia.html#nRlv

Patients diagnosed
with dementia(mean age 66)

Not mentioned

Exposure to two
languages after
birth

Not
mentioned

peerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media
peerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media

49

29. Speaking Multiple Languages May Help Delay Dementia Symptoms
NPR (2012)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/04/04/149995850/speaking-multiplelanguages-may-help-delay-dementia-symptoms
30. Bilingual people twice as likely to recover from a stroke (second study in thispaper reported the cognitive benefits of language)
The Telegraph (2015)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12005837/Bilingualpeople-twice-as-likely-to-recover-from-a-stroke.html
31. Learning another language 'could protect against dementia'
The Telegraph (2012)

participants aged
over 50peerreviewed
journalarticlePatients diagnosed
with dementia

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9173552/Learninganother-language-could-protect-against-dementia.html

2. ACQUIRED NEUROLOGICAL IMPAIRMENTS: b. Recovery from Stroke
32. Speaking multiple languages linked to better cognitive functions after stroke
Science Daily (2015)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151119211415.htm?utm_med
ium=cpc&utm_campaign=ScienceDaily_TMD_1&utm_source=TMD

33. Bilingual people twice as likely to recover from a stroke
The Telegraph (2015)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12005837/Bilingualpeople-twice-as-likely-to-recover-from-a-stroke.html
34. Bilingualism helps aphasia sufferers relearn primary language
Medical Newsletter (2013)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/266743.php?sr

608 patients in the
NIMS stroke
registry

Not mentioned

peerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media

No
reference

35. Bilingualism may protect cognitive function following stroke (second half ofthe study)
Medical Newsletter (2015)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/302787.php?utm_source=TrendM
D&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Medical_News_Today_TrendMD_0

50

3. THE BRAIN: a. Size
36. People Who Learn Foreign Languages Have Bigger Brains, Here’s Why:
Language Map Login (2012)https://www.lingholic.com/people-learn-foreign-languages-bigger-brains/

Young students
MRI scan13-month intensive
language training
programpeerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media

37. Language learning makes the brain grow, Swedish study suggests
Science Daily (2012)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121008082953.htm
38. Language learning makes the brain grow
Medical X Express (2012)https://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-10-language-brain.html
39. Bilinguals of two spoken languages have more gray matter thanmonolinguals
Medical X Express (2015)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-07-bilinguals-spoken-languages-graymonolinguals.html

SpanishEnglish
bilinguals
ASL-English
bilinguals

peerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media

40. Bilingual brains have higher volume of grey matter, study suggests
Science Alert (2015)
https://www.sciencealert.com/bilingual-brains-have-higher-volume-of-greymatter-study-suggests
41. Bilinguals of two spoken languages have more gray matter thanmonolinguals
Science Daily (2015)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716135054.htm

3. THE BRAIN: b. Structure
42. Learning languages is a workout for brains, both young and oldPenn State News (2014)
http://news.psu.edu/story/334349/2014/11/12/research/learning-languagesworkout-brains-both-young-and-old

Adult English native
speakers
two fMRI scans

Second language
learning

EnglishChinese

peerreviewed
journalarticles5143. Learning a second language remodels our brains

Adult language
learners

Second language
learning

peerreviewed
journalarticlesand othersocialmedia

MRI

Intensive language
immersion program

Bilingual children

Exposure to two
languages in infancy

2 peerreviewed
journalarticles
1 peerreviewed
journalarticle14 peerreviewed
journalarticles

https://npjscilearncommunity.nature.com/users/33701-ping-li/posts/15138learning-a-second-language-remodels-our-brains

44. Language juggling rewires bilingual brains
Penn State News (2016)
http://news.psu.edu/story/392426/2016/02/13/research/language-jugglingrewires-bilingual-brains
45. Bilingualism Can Change Brain in Positive Ways
Psych Central (2015)
https://psychcentral.com/news/2016/02/15/bilingualism-can-change-brain-inpositive-ways/99143.html
46. Being bilingual changes the architecture of your brain.
Wired
https://www.wired.com/2016/02/being-bilingual-changes-the-architecture-ofyour-brain/?mbid=social_fb
47. What happens in the brain when you learn a language?
The Guardian (2014)
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/04/what-happens-to-thebrain-language-learning
48. Brain development altered by learning a new language
Medical Newsletter (2013)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/265502.php
49. Keeping actively bilingual makes our brains more efficient at relaying
information (+brain structure)
The Conversation (2015)
https://theconversation.com/keeping-actively-bilingual-makes-our-brains-moreefficient-at-relaying-information-36045

52

3. THE BRAIN: c. Ageing
50. Bilingualism may help brain conserve resources and resist decline
Medical Newsletter (2017)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/315260.php?utm_source=TrendM
D&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Medical_News_Today_TrendMD_0

51. Bilingual Brains May Be More Efficient, Less Prone to Dementia
Psych Central (2017)https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/01/10/bilingual-brains-may-be-moreefficient-less-vulnerable-to-dementia/114921.html
52. Learning a second language in adulthood can slow brain ageing
The Telegraph (2014)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10869619/Learning-a-secondlanguage-in-adulthood-can-slow-brain-ageing.html

Adult learners aging
from 63-84 years
Functional MRI isused to scan theparticipants’ brain
activity.

participants in theirearly 70s
Task: intelligence
test

Second language
learning

Second language
learning

3 peerreviewed
journalarticlesLanguages
other thanEnglish1 peerreviewed
journalarticlePeerreviewedjournalarticles+socialmedia

53. Speaking two languages benefits the aging brain
Medical X press (2014)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-06-languages-benefits-aging-brain.html
54. Adult-Acquired Bilingualism Benefits the Aging Brain
The language magazine (2014)
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2014/06/adult-acquired-bilingualismbenefits-the-aging-brain/
55. Speaking two languages slows brain ageing
The Independent (2014)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/speaking-two-languages-slowsbrain-ageing-9479423.html
56. Speaking two languages benefits the aging brain
Science daily (2014)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602101204.htm
57. Speaking a second language could prevent later-life cognitive decline
Medical Newsletter (2014)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/277575.php?sr

Second language
learning at schoolNoreference5358. Learning second language can delay ageing of the brain, say scientists
INDEPENDENT (2016)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/learning-second-language-candelay-ageing-of-the-brain-say-scientists-a6873796.html
59. Bilingualism may save brain resources as you age
Medical X Press (2017)https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-bilingualism-brain-resourcesage.html#nRlv

4. COGNITION: a. Executive Function
60. Better attention and cognition in children who grow up in bilingual settings
Psychology Today (2012)https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/radical-teaching/201211/bilingualbrains-smarter-faster61. Study examines role of bilingualism in children's development
Medical X press (2012)https://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-02-role-bilingualism-children.html

Exposure to two
languages afterbirth
104 6-year-old
children

Exposure to two
languages afterbirthChineseEnglish
bilinguals,
FrenchEnglish
bilinguals,
and SpanishEnglish
bilinguals

6-month-oldbilingual infants

Exposure to two
language after birthNotlanguagespecificsocialmedia

11-month-oldbabies
MEG while listening
to an 18-minutestream of speech

Exposure to two
languages after
birth

SpanishEnglish

1 peerreviewed
journaland 6
articlesverbal and nonverbal tests

62. Bilinguals switch tasks faster than monolinguals, NIH funded study shows
NIH (2012)https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bilinguals-switch-tasks-fastermonolinguals-nih-funded-study-shows
63. Singaporean birth cohort study finds benefits for babies exposed to two
languages
Medical X press (2014)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-09-singaporean-birth-cohort-benefitsbabies.html
64. Bilingual baby brains show increased activity in executive function regions
Medical X press (2016)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-04-bilingual-baby-brains-functionregions.html

3 peerreviewed
journalarticles
1 peerreviewed
journalarticle54

sounds

65. It's never too early for infants to begin learning a second language as it cangreatly improve cognitive skills later in life, visiting experts tellSouth Morning Post (2014)
http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/family-education/article/1499201/its-nevertoo-early-children-learn-second-language-say
66. Babies of Bilingual Parents Have High Functioning Brains
Psych Central (2015)
https://psychcentral.com/news/2016/04/05/babies-of-bilingual-parents-havehigh-functioning-brains/101356.html
67. Can being bilingual make you smarter?
The Telegraph (2013)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/expateducation/9267252/Can-beingbilingual-make-you-smarter.html
68. Bilingual Effects in the Brain
NIH News (2012)https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2012/06/bilingual-effects-brain
69. Speaking two languages also benefits low-income children
Medical X press (2012)https://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-languages-benefits-low-incomechildren.html

70. Researcher studies how language shapes our ability to process information
Medical X press (2015)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-language-ability.html

from social
media

Bilingual infants

Exposure to two
languages afterbirth

Bilingual infants

Exposure to two
languages after
birth

Citationsfrom peerreviewed
journalarticlesCitationsfrom peerreviewed
journalarticlesExposure to two
languages after
birthHigh school
students
Task: babble testnd

2 grade children
from low-income
families
Task: vocabulary
test
Infants

Second language
learning at schoolNotmentionedNo
reference

Second language
learning at school

sourcesfrom social
media

Second language
learning

sourcesfrom social
media

71. Bilingualism fine-tunes hearing, enhances attention
Science daily (2012)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430152033.htm

Teenagers

Early second
language learning

EnglishSpanish

72. Bilingual children 'show advantage' in noisy classrooms
BBC News (14 October 2014)
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-29599177

Primary children
aged from 7-10
Task: computer-

Early Second
language learning at
schoolEnglishItalian/Spanish/Dutch/Ar

1 peerreviewed
journalarticlepeerreviewed
journal55

based reading
game+ noise
distractor

73. Bilingual pupils 'outperform their peers in noisy lessons
The Telegraph (2014)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11159037/Bilingualpupils-outperform-their-peers-in-noisy-lessons.html
74. Language learning boosts brain plasticity and ability to code new
information
Medical Newsletter (2016)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312708.php?sr

75. Cognitive advantages of second language immersion education (second
study)
Psychology today (2014)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201401/cognitiveadvantages-second-language-immersion-education
76. Why being bilingual works wonders for your brain
The Guardian (2016)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/07/being-bilingual-good-forbrain-mental-health

77. Bilingual brains better equipped to process information
Medical X press (2014)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-11-bilingual-brains-equipped.html

Native Finnish
speakers withnormal hearing
Listening test with
EEG
Bilingual children
Task:
grammaticality
judgments andverbal fluency task
Flanker task
together withimaging

fMRI to test coactivation andinhibition inbilinguals
languagecomprehension task

menian,Bengali,
Polish,Russian andPortuguese

Second language
learning at school

peerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media
3 peerreviewed
journalarticlesLanguage
immersioneducation

Not mentioned

articlesNotmentioned

peerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media
1 peerreviewed
journalarticle andothersourcesfrom social
media

56

78. Study shows cognitive benefit of lifelong bilingualism
Medical X press (2013)https://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-cognitive-benefit-lifelongbilingualism.html

Healthy bilingual
seniors (60-68) withlanguage learning
experience fromchildhood

Not mentioned

peerreviewed
journalarticlesfMRI
79. Bringing Up Bilingual Children - Annika Bourgogne explains the advantagesof growing up with more than one language
Babel No 6 (February 2014)

peerreviewed
journalarticles80. There are also drawbacks to being bilingual
The Conversation (2016)
https://theconversation.com/there-are-also-drawbacks-to-being-bilingual-56726
81. When Does Bilingualism Help or Hurt? The effects of bilingualism onchildren’s cognition
Psychology Today (2014)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/developing-minds/201404/when-doesbilingualism-help-or-hurt

4. COGNITION: b. Metalinguistic Awareness82. Cognitive advantages of second language immersion education (Study 1)
Psychology today (2014)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201401/cognitiveadvantages-second-language-immersion-education

Bilingual children

Language
immersioneducation

3 peerreviewed
journalarticlesBilingual infants

Exposure to two
languages after
birthTrilingual infants

Exposure to morethan two languages
after birth

1 peerreviewed
journalarticle1 peerreviewed
journalarticleTask:
grammaticality
judgments andverbal fluency task

4. COGNITION: c. Memory
83. Do Bilingual Infants Have Better Memory?
Psychology Today (2015)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201511/do-bilingualinfants-have-better-memory
84. Do Bilingual Infants Have Better Memory? (Study 2
Psychology Today (2015)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201511/do-bilingualinfants-have-better-memory57

85. Why learn a foreign language? Benefits of bilingualism
The Telegraph (2013)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10126883/Why-learna-foreign-language-Benefits-of-bilingualism.html
86. Forgotten? Try Your Other Language
Psychology today (2013)https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201307/forgotten-tryyour-other-language

peerreviewed
journalarticles

4. COGNITION: d. Problem-Solving Skills
87. Practice makes perfect: switching between languages pays off
Medical Newsletter (2016)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/306061.php

Bilingual toddlers(24/31 month old)
Task: vocabularyassessment, tests ofcognitive flexibility
and memory skills

Exposure to two
languages after
birth

Not
mentioned

1 peerreviewed
journalarticle9-year old children
Task: reproductionof colored blocks
and oral repetitionof numbers
College students

Second language
learning at school

Gaelic,Italian orSardinianNo
reference

88. Language Switching May Give Bilingual Children Problem-Solving Boost
ASHA Leader (2016)
http://leader.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=2527041
89. Bilingual children 'better at problem-solving skills
BBC News (2012)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19109883

90. What Languages Do Bilinguals count In? New insights into the relationshipbetween bilingualism and numerical cognition
Psychology Today (2015)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201504/what-languagesdo-bilinguals-count-in

Tasks to solve thecomplexmathematicalproblems

Second language
learning at latechildhood or
adulthood

3 peerreviewed
journalarticle58

4. COGNITION: e. Auditory Perception
91. Bilingual Children May Recognize Voices Better
Penn News (2017)https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/06/15/bilingual-children-better-atrecognizing-voices/121971.html

Children below 9
and above 10 years

Second language
learning

EnglishGerman

Peerreviewed
journalarticleExposure to two
languages from
infancyNotmentionedfrom peerreviewed
journalarticles

1 peerreviewed
journalarticlepeerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media
Peerreviewed
journalarticleTask: a series oftasks of listening toand identify
different voices

92. Bilingual children are better at recognizing voices
Medical X press (2017)https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-06-bilingual-children-voices.html
93. Bilingual Children Can Distinguish Voices in Languages They Don't Know
Education Week (2017)
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-thelanguage/2017/07/bilingual_children_excel_at_voice_recognition.html?qs=bene
fits+of+language+learning
94. Bilingual babies are better at detecting musical sounds, research shows
Medical X press (2016)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-11-bilingual-babies-musical.html

Bilingual infants

4. COGNITION: f. Mental Agility
95. Short-term language learning aids mental agility, study suggests
Medical Newsletter (2016)
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/309596.php

University students
aged 18-78
Task: listening tests

1-week intensive
language course

Scottish
Gaelic96. Learning languages improves mental agility at any age, study suggests
Medical newsletter (2015)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/288209.php

University students

Second language
learning at school

unknown

97. Bilingualism can increase mental agility'
Medical X press (2012)https://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-bilingualism-mental-agility.html#nRlv

9-year-old primaryschool children

Second language
learning at school

Gaelic(widelytaught at
school)59

Sardinian(no written
form)
98. Bilingual Speakers Develop Mental Flexibility
Psych News (2013)https://psychcentral.com/news/2013/09/11/bilingual-speakers-develop-mentalflexibility/59404.html

SpanishEnglish

Noreference

EnglishJapaneseEnglishFrench
EnglishKorean

peerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media

4. COGNITION: g. Decision-Making
99. Thinking in a foreign language helps economic decision-making
U Chicago News (2012)https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2012/04/25/thinking-foreign-language-helpseconomic-decision-making

100. Here's Why Bilingual People Make Better Financial Choices
Business insider (2012)
http://www.businessinsider.com/bilingual-people-make-better-financialchoices-2012-4
101. We think more rationally in a foreign language
The Psychologists (2012)https://digest.bps.org.uk/2012/06/25/we-think-more-rationally-in-a-foreignlanguage/
102. How thinking in a foreign language makes you more rational in some ways
but not others
The Psychologists (2014)
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/03/18/how-thinking-in-a-foreign-languagemakes-you-more-rational-in-some-ways-but-not-others/

University students

Second language
learning startingfrom junior or highschoolUniversity students

Second language
learning at school

University students

Second language
learning at school

Several tests ofcognitive reflection

103. Communicating in a foreign language takes emotion out of decision-making
Science Daily (2017)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170817141717.htm
104. Speaking just one language may improve insight and judgement
The Telegraph (2016)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12177769/Speakingjust-one-language-may-improve-insight-and-judgement.html

Foreign language
learning at school

Rapid decisionmaking task
Outcome:Not mentionedNoreference

SpanishEnglish
EnglishHebrew
EnglishSpanish

peerreviewed
journalarticlespeerreviewed
journalarticlespeerreviewed
journalarticles60monolinguals
outperformbilinguals in theaccuracy ofevaluating one’s
performance after
each decisionand social
media

5. SOCIAL COGNITION: a. Empathy/Social Skills
105. Multilingual Exposure Improves Children’s Social Skills
The language magazine (2015)
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2015/05/multilingual-exposure-improveschildrens-social-skills/

106. Multilingual Environments Enrich Our Understanding of Others: Exposure to
multiple languages improves the ability to see another perspective.
Psychology today (2015)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201505/multilingualenvironments-enrich-our-understanding-others
107. The Superior Social Skills of Bilinguals
The New York Times (2016)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/the-superior-socialskills-of-bilinguals.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fgraymatter&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=strea
m_unit&version=search&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
108. Babies' brains show that social skills linked to second language learning
Medical X Press (2015)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-07-babies-brains-social-skills-linked.html

Children aged from
4-6

Exposure to
multiple languages
after birthNotmentioned

peerreviewed
journalarticlesBabies aged from
14-16 months

Exposure to two
languages after
birth

Not
mentioned

peerreviewed
journalarticles10-month-olds

Foreign language
tutorial session

EnglishSpanish

peerreviewed
journalarticlesSocialcommunication
tasks: the criticaltest

EEG while listening
to English andSpanish109. Studies Suggest Multilingual Exposure Boosts Children's Communication
SkillsNational Public Radio
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/21/471316384/studies-suggest-multilingualexposure-boosts-childrens-communication-skills

61110. Teaching Your Baby Sign Language Can Benefit Both of You
Psych Central News (2016)
https://psychcentral.com/lib/teaching-your-baby-sign-language-can-benefitboth-of-you/

Preverbal infants
and toddlers

Sign
languagelearningsocialmedia (7)5. SOCIAL COGNITION: b. Global Identity
111. Language learning opens new horizons
The Telegraph (2014)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11241713/Learninglanguages-opens-up-new-horizons.html
112. Think your world view is fixed? Learn another language and you’ll think
differently
The Guardian (2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/27/world-view-learnanother-language

No
referencepeerreviewed
journalarticles

6. MULTIPLE OUTCOMES
113. The Bilingual Advantage: Where Do We Go From Here? What future for an
area of research that has become so controversial
Psychology Today (2016)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201601/the-bilingualadvantage-where-do-we-go-here
114. Should parents raise kids bilingually?
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-parents-kids-bilingually.html#nRlv

115. The benefits of being bilingual
Wiredhttps://www.wired.com/2012/05/the-benefits-of-being-bilingual
116. 6 potential brain benefits of bilingual education
http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/11/29/66617/6-potential-brain-benefits-ofbilingual-education/

peerreviewed
journalarticlespeerreviewed
journalarticlespeerreviewed
journalarticlespeerreviewed
journalarticlesand social
media

62

117. Why being bilingual helps keep your brain fit
Medical X press (2016)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-08-bilingual-brain.html

sourcesfrom social
media

118. Why bilinguals are smarter
The New York Times (2012)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-ofbilingualism.html?_r=3&src=me&ref=general63Appendix 5. On-line questionnaires (Adult and Youth)

Views on Language Learning
Questionnaire Welcome

Thank you for choosing to participate in this online questionnaire. Your feedback is important.

We are interested in learning about your language learning experiences, and your thoughts
and attitudes towards language learning. It doesn't matter if you can speak only one
language or many.

Please answer all of the questions as fully as possible. There are 50 questions in total, andthis will take not more than 15 minutes to complete. Try to put the appropriate timeaside to get through these questions fully.

This project is funded by the British Academy, and is researched at University College
London (UCL). The Principal Investigators are Professor Bencie Woll (UCL DCAL) andProfessor Li Wei (UCL IoE). See the project website for more information.

Data will be held under the guidelines of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the UCL Records Retention Schedule. Research datafrom this project may be re-used for other research in accordance with the UCL Research Data Policy and UCL Staff IPR Policy.
Please contact dcal@ucl.ac.uk for more information.

Views on Language Learning
General Questions

Below is a list of statements about learning a new language. Please indicate how muchyou agree or disagree with each.

* 1. Learning a new language helps to develop thinking/ analytical skills

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree64* 2. Learning a new language helps to develop multi-tasking skills

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 3. Learning a new language helps to improve your memory

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree

4. Learning a new language helps to focus your attention

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 5. Learning a new language helps to prevent memory loss and loss of concentration inolder age

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree65* 6. Learning a new language has positive benefits for your healthStrongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 7. Learning a new language makes you more creative

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 8. Learning a new language helps to make you more expressive

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 9. Learning a new language helps you to understand other people's emotions

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 10. Learning a new language helps to keep your emotions stable

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree66

* 11. Learning a new language helps you to make more friends

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 12. Learning a new language helps with understanding other cultures

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 13. Learning a new language gives you better employment opportunities

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 14. Learning a new language helps to improve your school/ academic achievements

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 15. Learning a new language helps with learning other things
Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree67

* 16. Learning a new language can change your identity
Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 17. Learning a new language can affect your first language
Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 18. Learning a new language that is very different from your first language has more
benefits than learning a language that is similar to your first language

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 19. Learning a new language that has a different writing system to your first language has
more benefits than learning a language that has a similar writing system
Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 20. Learning a new language is only suitable for academically successful children
Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 21. Learning a new language is not suitable for children with special educational needs

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 22. Learning a new language is usefulStrongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little68

* 23. Learning a new language has no particular benefit
Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 24. Learning a new language can have negative effects
Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree* 25. Learning a new language takes a lot of time and effort
Strongly agree

Agree

Agree a little

Disagree a little

DisagreeStrongly disagree

Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience* 26. Which is your preferred language?

Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience* 27. Do you mix languages in the same conversation?
Yes

No

N/A (monolingual speaker)

69Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience

28. Are you fluent in other languages?
Yes

No

Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience

29. Please list all the languages you know in order from most to least fluent.

Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience* 30. Are there any languages you can speak/ listen to and understand, but not write or read?
Yes

No

31. If you answered 'Yes' to the previous question, please explain.

* 32. Are there any languages you can read or write, but not speak/ listen to and understand?
Yes

No

33. If you answered 'Yes' to the previous question, please explain.

70

* 34. What language(s) did you acquire or learn...
At home:At school:

At work:

By yourself:

Online:Other (please explain):

Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience* 35. What aspects of language learning do you least enjoy?

71

* 36. What aspects of language learning do you most enjoy?

Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience* 37. Did or do you have any anxieties about learning languages?
Yes

No

38. If you answered 'Yes' to the previous question, please explain what anxieties you had.

72

Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience* 39. Would you encourage your own children to learn new languages?

Yes

No

Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience

40. Do you think it is better to learn new languages when you are younger?
Yes

No

41. If you answered 'Yes' to the previous question, please explain why

Views on Language Learning
Questions About Your Language Learning Experience* 42. Does learning new languages when you are older have any particular benefits?
YesNo

43. If you answered 'Yes' to the previous question, please explain what you think thebenefits are73

Views on Language Learning
Background Questions

Finally, please complete these background questions.
44. Are you male or female?
Male

FemaleOther

45. What is your age?
17 or younger
18-20
21-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or older
Views on Language Learning
Background Questions

46. What is your postcode?

74Views on Language Learning
Background Questions

47. Which of the following categories best describes your employment status?
Employed, working full-time
Employed, working part-timeStudent
Not employed, looking for work
Not employed, NOT looking for work
RetiredDisabled, not able to work

Views on Language Learning
Background Questions

48. Which of the following best describes your current occupation?
Accounting
Advertising
Agriculture/ FishingArchitecture
Automotive
Banking/ Financial
Carpentry/ Electrical Installations/ VVS
Chemicals/ Plastics/ Rubber
Construction
Consumer Electronics
75

Consumer Packaged Goods
Education
Energy/ Utilities/ Oil and Gas
Engineering
Environmental Services
Fashion/ ApparelFilm/ TV Research PR or Advertising
Government/ Public Sector
Healthcare
Hospitality/ Tourism
Human Resources
Information Technology/ IT
Insurance
Legal/ Law
Manufacturing
Market ResearchMarketing/ SalesMedia/ Entertainment
Military
Non Profit/ Social Services Real Estate/ Property
Retail/ Wholesale Trade
Transportation
I don't work
Other (please specify)

Views on Language Learning
Background Questions* 49. What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree76you have received?
Less than high school
GCSEs
A Levels
Undergraduate degree
Postgraduate degree
PhD
Other (please specify)

Views on Language Learning

Background Questions* 50. What is your country of birth?
Background Questions

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.
If you are willing to be contacted to discuss your language learning experiences,
please let us have your email address. You can contact us at dcal@ucl.ac.uk,
and can learn more about the project on our website.

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

Appendix 6. Project Outputs
Li Wei, Yogeswaran C, & Woll B (2016) Cognitive Benefits of Language Learning. Poster presented at
British Academy Soiree, June.
Li Wei & Woll B (2016) Presentation of the project at Special Workshop on Strategically Important
Languages. Paris, November
Li Wei & Woll B (2017) Presentation of the project to the AHRC OWRI programme teams. Edinburgh,
April.
Li Wei & Woll B (2017) Presentation of the project to the Institute of Modern Languages Research,
School of Advanced Studies, Senate House, University of London, June.
Li Wei, Yogeswaran C, & Woll B (2017) Reviewing research on the cognitive benefits of language
learning. Poster presented at ISB11 conference, Limerick June.
Woll B & Li Wei (2017) Interrogating the evidence on the benefits of multilingual learning. Paper
presented at ISB11 conference, Limerick June.
Woll B & Li Wei (2018) Presentation to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages,
January.
Woll B & Li Wei (in preparation) Cognitive benefits of language learning. Languages, Society and Policy
Journal.

87