Self-Regulation, Inclusion, and Intercultural Competence in Modern Language Education

Eirini Polychronaki is a doctoral researcher at the School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences at Trinity College Dublin. She holds a B.A. in English Language and Literature (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), Minor in Psychology (American College of Thessaloniki) and an M.Phil in English Language Teaching (distinction, Trinity College Dublin). Her research interests lie at the intersection of language learning, educational psychology and intercultural education, especially pertaining to learner self-efficacy, autonomy and inclusion in the classroom. She is currently working on research into self-regulated learning focusing on adult migrant students enrolled in self-funded English language programs in Dublin, Ireland. As an English language teacher and an Assistant Coordinator at conversation classes for asylum seekers in Ireland, her work is informed by a broader commitment in inclusive, socially responsive and psychologically informed language education.

Could you reflect on your academic journey from your B.A. in English Language and Literature at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki to your M.Phil (with distinction) and current doctoral studies at Trinity College Dublin?

I was raised in student-packed classrooms, amidst my mother’s lesson plans, Freirean books and unconditional belief in the transformative potential of language learners. Teaching became my second nature, not only as a professional inclination, but as an intellectual and emotional orientation towards the world. This early exposure to my family’s schools ‘GEN Education Centres’ in Crete, Greece, fostered my sensitivity towards the ethical and relational dimensions of language education.

My academic journey has been both intellectually grounding and creatively expansive. Studying English Language and Literature at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki gave me a strong foundation in literary history, pedagogy and linguistics. A central thread consistently running through my scholarly evolution has been intertextuality-not solely as a literary device, but as a linguistic and cultural phenomenon. My initial engagement with the relationality of meaning in readings across time and cultures evolved into a profound curiosity about the ways language learners construct meaning considering cognitive and affective factors, as well as socio-cultural positioning.

What initially drew you to research in language learning and educational psychology within applied linguistics?

As I became a practitioner during my undergraduate studies, I started developing an interest in the cognitive, affective and motivational dimensions of language learning. In my own classrooms, I observed how learners often experienced hesitation, self-doubt and anxiety in their learning. I also noticed how many learners associate language learning with wider personal goals, personal expression and self-confidence. At this early stage, my understanding of teaching was guided more by intuitive observation and reflective practice, which later became more systematically informed by research.

Pursuing my M.Phil. English Language Teaching was a turning point-the transition to a more research-intensive environment challenged me to refine my critical voice and engage more deeply with scholarship on concepts of applied linguistics and educational psychology, particularly on intercultural education, language anxiety and inclusive pedagogy. During this period, my experiential understanding through my practice on the one hand and theoretical grounding on the other hand, cultivated curiosity and inquiry in a mutually reinforcing relationship. Studying, teaching and conducting research in this context encouraged me to engage with language education as a site of intellectual inquiry where theory, pedagogy, and social reality intersect.

In addition, the mentorship of my master’s dissertation supervisor -and now PhD- Dr Bronagh Ćatibušić, was instrumental in sharpening my analytical framework and supporting my development as an independent researcher. As the organizer of the Trinity English Conversation Classes for refugees and asylum seekers in Ireland, part of the University of Sanctuary initiative,  Dr Ćatibušić demonstrated in a truly exemplary way how language education can transcend linguistic development and provide a space of inclusion, empowerment, and social justice. Being an Assistant Coordinator of this programme, this experience has reinforced my belief in the importance of language pedagogy being attentive to the lived realities and backgrounds of learners.

How has your experience at Trinity College Dublin shaped your scholarly perspective on contemporary language education?

Now, as a doctoral researcher at Trinity, my work feels like a natural continuation of this academic path. Doing a PhD demands resilience, independence and intellectual risk-taking. Undertaking a doctorate at a vibrant, interdisciplinary research environment and being part of this academic community has inspired me to interrogate my interpretations and regard research as a dynamic intellectual interdisciplinary dialogue-one that is constantly nourished through critical engagement. In addition to my research, academic citizenship is of major importance for me. Whether attending or participating in the organisation of either cross-disciplinary and dedicated to applied linguistics events, I view engaging in knowledge-sharing with diverse audiences as an integral part of responsible scholarship.

My journey is one driven by curiosity and continuous inquiry, as well as a firm commitment to empowering language learners across linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

Intercultural education is central to your research interests. How do you conceptualise intercultural competence within language learning environments?

I regard intercultural competence as a dynamic and developmental ability, instead of a static repository of cultural knowledge or fixed behavioural norms. As corroborated by theory, it is a process of cultivating curiosity and openness, interpretive flexibility and critical cultural awareness, which can facilitate learners’ navigation of meaning through a linguistic, social and cultural lens. Finding meaningful connections focusing on a contextual, rather than linguistic, interpretation in communicative contexts is the essence of my thinking, along with critical reflection on intercultural interactions from all stakeholders to learning (e.g.: teachers, learners). The realities of highly interconnected 21st century classrooms, as influenced by global mobility, create a burgeoning need for third space methodologies due to their challenging essentialist cultural binaries and reframing of intercultural encounters as fluid meaning-making processes involving identity negotiation and dialogic understanding. In diverse classrooms, cultural barriers, linguistic isolation and structural inequalities can be present and therefore necessitate approaches that emphasise social justice, power awareness and view learning spaces as conducive to critical consciousness and social transformation. Overall, I conceptualise intercultural competence as a socially responsive learning process that fosters empathy, critical reflection and communicative agency while tackling cultural diversity in ethically grounded ways.

In increasingly diverse classrooms, what pedagogical practices best support inclusion while maintaining academic rigour?

In the context of diverse classrooms, from both an applied linguistics researcher and a practitioner’s pragmatic perspective, I believe that pedagogical practices should be deliberate, evidence-based and proactive. However, in my experience, ad-hoc adaptations of teaching guided on intuition rather than academic foundation are a reality, which implies inconsistency in practice.

It is of major importance to stress that scholarship challenges practitioners to reframe their perception of access to content by anticipating learner differences, rather than reacting to them. Scholars emphasise that inclusion is not about lowering expectations, but about tailoring pedagogical design to ensure meaningful engagement. Catering to the evolving needs of diverse classrooms calls for differentiated instructional approaches that focus on accessibility and scaffolding, which necessitate flexibility and awareness of learners’ backgrounds. Validating and even leveraging learners’ identities, experiences and cultural knowledge and perspectives can foster equity and promote 21st-century skills such as cross-cultural comparisons and co-construction of knowledge across cultural frames.

From a purely linguistic lens,linguistic inclusion involves employing linguistic diversity as an asset. Approaches such as translanguaging, which strategically include multiple languages in the classroom have been academically acknowledged as enhancing comprehension, self-efficacy and peer collaboration. Such practices not only foster metalinguistic awareness, but also legitimise learners’ linguistic repertoires.

Antiracist pedagogies are also central to meaningful inclusion due to their moving beyond a perfunctory celebration of diversity to promoting interrogation of racialised hierarchies that influence learning spaces. Drawing on scholarship associated with Paulo Freire and expanded in applied linguistics by scholars such as Ryuko Kubota, antiracist pedagogy acknowledges that language education is never neutral; English itself is embedded in global power relations, along with accents, varieties and identities, some of which are viewed as more illegitimate than others. From an antiracist perspective, inclusion is supported by creating structured opportunities for learners to analyse representation, discuss experiences of discrimination and challenge linguistic hierarchies and native speaker norms. This approach maximises academic rigour by fostering higher-order thinking and sustained engagement with multifaceted social and linguistic realities.

How can teacher education programmes better prepare educators to foster intercultural awareness and inclusive learning spaces?

Teacher education programs can better prepare educators to foster intercultural awareness and inclusive learning spaces by actively embedding it in curricula as a fundamental theoretical, pedagogical and reflective part, while encouraging curiosity and personal initiative in teachers’ familiarisation with linguistic, cultural and social knowledge. Integrating intercultural communicative competence frameworks, culturally sustaining pedagogies and translanguaging, I believe that programmes should focus on training teachers who can systematically and strategically implement dialogic pedagogies, differentiated instruction and structured approaches to addressing bias and exclusion. An essential component of responsible and inclusive practice that should not be limited to trainee teachers is sustained reflection. Acknowledging that many programmes already encourage teachers to reflect and document their thoughts, I believe that this reflection should include self-examination of teachers’ positionalities, assumptions and implicit biases. I realise that in short-term teacher education courses, it might not be realistic to foster profound engagement with all components of inclusive, intercultural or antiracist pedagogy. However, cultivating a spirit of inclusion by fostering awareness of diversity, equity and linguistic plurality as foundational parts of trainees’ evolving teaching philosophy should be prioritised. Short-term programmes can meaningfully prepare trainees by sensitising them to issues of power, bias and representation, providing them with practical strategies and directing them toward high-quality resources for professional growth. That way, inclusive practice can be positioned as an ongoing and dynamic commitment that needs to be developed throughout their careers.

Through a combination of theoretical grounding, supervised teaching practice in diverse classrooms and systematic professional development, intercultural awareness and inclusion can be addressed holistically with academic rigour.

Self-efficacy plays a critical role in language development. How does it interact with learner autonomy and long-term motivation?

I believe that self-efficacy is deeply intertwined with learner autonomy. When learners feel capable, they are more inclined to take ownership of their learning, whether that means setting learning goals, selecting resources or practicing outside structured courses. Effective language development necessitates consistent exposure and practice, ipso facto self-regulation becomes essential.

Based on my research and professional practice, language development is anything but a linear progression to proficiency. In language learning, progress can be gradual, non-linear and may be preceded by periods with less visible improvement with cycles of trial and error-that is when self-efficacy is the most crucial, as it helps sustain engagement by supporting resilience and coping with anxiety. In my opinion, self-efficacy supports autonomous behaviours, as it encourages learners to deal with uncertainty; when learners believe in eventual success, they are more willing to experiment with language, even if there is no immediate accuracy. As a result, meaningful development is fostered through sustained interaction over time, which relies on the reciprocal relationship of motivation and self-efficacy; the latter is essential for investing effort particularly during plateaus or setbacks, while motivation can strengthen it through positive learning experiences, meaningful interactions and supportive feedback.

What distinguishes self-regulated learning from more traditional models of learner independence?

Self-regulated learning differs from more traditional models of learner independence in that it moves beyond merely learning without teacher guidance into being aware and exercising cognitive, metacognitive and motivational control. In contrast to more traditional models of independence,SRL involves learners actively managing their learning process, by planning, monitoring progress and evaluating outcomes, as demonstrated in Zimmerman’s model. Through real-time self-monitoring and adjustment, learners are strategic and reflective. While more traditional ideas of learner independence simply focus on task completion without teacher intervention, SRL focuses on how learners regulate their thinking, motivation and behaviour during the learning process. It is also essential to stress that SRL is dynamic and varies across tasks, contexts and learners; it focuses on long-term goal-oriented processes, instead of a one-off choice to work without supervision. Overall, previous concepts on independence may focus on choice and autonomy, while SRL is centered on regulatory goal-oriented processes.

In your view, how can language programmes meaningfully cultivate learner autonomy without transferring excessive responsibility to students?

A few weeks back, I was teaching a lecture on motivation in language learning and teaching at Trinity and I explicitly advised students to exercise caution when fostering learner autonomy in the classroom-it cannot be taken for granted that learners know how to set realistic or internally endorsed goals, as well as that they are equipped with the self-regulatory strategies to achieve them. I defined autonomy as giving choice within an appropriate framework and advised them to gradually strengthen self-determined motivation in either their current or future practice through reflection journals, learning logs, self-assessment checklists and goal-review sessions. My ultimate conclusion was that when fostering autonomy, the goal is not immediate, but scaffolded independence, where responsibility is gradually shared between teacher and learners in structured environments that encourage learners to develop the skills and confidence to manage their own learning.

Learner autonomy can be meaningfully cultivated by being integrated within learning design, rather than being treated as an add-on. When it comes to my area of expertise, self-regulated learning, research indicates that autonomy develops not through a sudden transfer of responsibility, but through supported regulation. Clear structure and informational feedback should be the cornerstone of language programmes, while also allowing meaningful choice within that structure. For instance, offering different options in activities, materials and formats give guided pathways to learners to exercise agency without feeling overwhelmed. All things considered, meaningful learner autonomy can be fostered through gradual learner empowerment with explicit strategy instruction and sustained teacher support.

Your current research focuses on adult learners enrolled in self-funded English language programmes. What motivated you to focus specifically on this learner population?

The reasons for focusing on adult learners enrolled in self-funded English language programmes were both personal and academic.  It is essential to emphasise that the private ESL education sector is well-established and highly influential in Greece and Ireland. Therefore, SRL research in these contexts is highly relevant and practically valuable, due to the fact that these institutions educate a substantial number of adults whose L2 success relies not only on the instructional quality, but also on their ability to regulate their own learning outside the classroom.

My personal, professional and academic background gave me insights to the unique and often under-researched cohort that this group represents in language education. From a research perspective, this cohort is particularly conducive for researching self-regulated learning. As opposed to state-funded or university-based learners, self-funded adult students make a consequential personal and financial investment in their English language learning-their strong intentionality and personal investment can be catalytic for SRL. As these learners have consciously chosen and funded their education, their learning is often characterised by persistence, reflection and motivation. Their backgrounds and lived experiences can also foster resilience, receptiveness to feedback, metacognitive support and strategic planning. Nevertheless, while this intentionality often reflects strong instrumental objectives such as employment, academic progression, social integration or personal development, it can cause pressure, expectations, fear of failure and emotional vulnerability.

Adult learners often present diverse educational histories, miscellaneous levels of prior autonomy and complex life responsibilities, such as balancing learning with work commitments, family obligations and migration-related challenges. As a result, self-regulation becomes essential, but also challenging to sustain through different processes, such as goal setting, strategic planning, time management, emotion regulation, and help-seeking. These self-regulatory processes can become demanding and done inconsistently due to emotional fluctuations, fatigue and competing priorities.

Overall, I chose this population due to the fact that their learning journeys are deeply intentional and high-stakes. In a self-funded population, questions of investment, persistence, and perceived progress become particularly meaningful. By a longitudinal examination of how they strategically regulate their learning over a sustained period, my aim is to theoretically contribute to a more nuanced understanding of SRL in adult language learning, but also to pedagogical approaches that better support autonomy, sustainability and long-term engagement.

What challenges and opportunities characterise self-regulated learning among adult students who invest personally in their language education? How might your findings inform institutional policies or programme design in private and higher education contexts?

The institutional implications of this project are significant; if my findings demonstrate that strategic self-regulation, including emotion regulation, within structured self-funded learning programmes enhance learners’ metacognitive awareness and persistence, as well as facilitate goal attainment, this could inform programme design in many ways. For instance, short SRL development modules could be included into induction programmes, SRL toolkits could be used within structured courses, assessment practices could integrate reflective components and teacher training could be developed on fostering meaningful learner autonomy and explicit strategy instruction-these are just some of the myriads of possibilities. Findings pertaining to the emotional and motivation dimensions could inform academic policies on communicating feedback and progress, as well as incorporating goal-setting to enhance learner engagement. When it comes to higher education context, these insights could potentially contribute to transition programmes targeted to everyone, but especially international or mature students, to develop SRL skills in preparation for the independent learning demands of the courses.

How do you envision the future of learner-centred research in applied linguistics?

I believe that the future of learner-centred research will become increasingly critical, AI-mediated and socially uncountable. Recent scholarship challenges us to interrogate the concepts of autonomy, agency and participation with more caution-for instance, autonomy is not reliant on pure individual responsibility; it is influenced by institutional constraints, assessment frameworks, financial pressures and wider ideological discourse. Moving beyond uncritically promoting agency, I envision learner-centred research examining the structural conditions that enable or restrict it.

Moreover, in my opinion, technology will be instrumental in this shift: AI tools, digital learning platforms, learner analytics and online learning communities will bring forward unprecedented insights on learner behaviour, strategy use and engagement. While this creates new methodological opportunities for longitudinal tracing of learning across contexts, it raises important ethical questions pertaining to pedagogy: who owns this data? In what ways are algorithms influencing feedback and opportunity? Is it genuine empowerment or surveillance that these tools are offering? And what do neoliberal celebrations of self-optimisation imply for learners, on whom significant responsibility is placed to manage, monitor and improve themselves without considering whether what is perceived as ‘successful learning’ is orchestrated by digital infrastructures in the first place?

Nevertheless, the aforementioned questions do not erase the powerful potential of technological tools, but stress the importance of their thoughtful integration. These can promote learner voice, while scaffolding systematic reflection, meaningful metacognition and self-directed learning in ways that would have otherwise been challenging to sustain, along with supporting multilingual identities and transcending geographical borders. Therefore, it is my belief that the future rests on examining learners as situated within digital, institutional and socio-political ecosystems so as to make learning more equitable and responsive to their realities.

What emerging research areas in language education do you find particularly promising or underexplored?

In my opinion, there are quite a few exciting but still underexplored emerging directions in language education research. First and foremost, the growing interest in translanguaging and multilingual pedagogies, especially pertaining to how they can interact with institutional language policies and support equitable learning environments, is particularly promising. However, more empirical research across diverse educational levels, contexts and modalities is crucial, as well as their potential intersection with arts-based and multimodal pedagogies to foster linguistic inclusion. At the same time, research on critical language awareness and antiracist approaches in practice is growing but is still insufficient in investigating the ways inclusive principles can be operationalised across diverse practice and policy contexts. These areas are of major importance as they examine how power, identity and social justice are embedded in language education.

Lastly, I am also very interested in research on language teacher motivation and non-native teacher identities. This is particularly meaningful for me, as scholarship  has indicated the importance of contextual influences in teachers’ experiences, investment and identity. In the case of non-native teachers, I see research as moving toward framing nativeness as a social construct, which is intertwined with issues of power, equity and identity.

What advice would you offer to early-career researchers seeking to build a research profile that integrates theory, empirical inquiry, and pedagogical impact?

I believe it is of major importance to develop a coherent research agenda, where theoretical grounding, empirical work and teaching practice intersect. I would recommend situating one’s work within a clear theoretical framework and emphasise the value of keeping a strong connection between research and teaching practice. Teaching experience is fundamentally important because of its capacity to demonstrate to researchers how theoretical concepts realistically manifest across learning contexts, contributing to forming both academically rigorous and pedagogically relevant research questions. In addition, one’s teaching experience can help generate research questions of personal relevance, which can help sustain resilience and motivation throughout their doctoral research.

I would also recommend developing a consistent line of inquiry throughout one’s PhD and early career to build a research profile with clear focus and contribution. This can be facilitated through collaboration, peer support and active contribution in the research community, all of which can strengthen one’s scholarly development. All things considered, I would suggest that early-career researchers be intellectually curious, consider the practical applications of their work and allow their teaching background enrich their development.