Cognitive Processing and Flexibility Across Bilingual Development Stages in EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to examine cognitive process profiles among EFL learners at different stages of bilingual development, exploring how advancement toward bilingualism may be associated with cognitive enhancement, particularly cognitive flexibility and processing patterns. This study also investigated learners' metacognitive evaluations of their performance on an unfamiliar cognitive assessment. The sample consisted of 60 adult EFL learners (30 advanced bilinguals and 30 long-term emerging bilinguals), with equal gender distribution. The data were analyzed using Chi-square and Gamma correlation. Overall, advanced bilinguals demonstrated significantly greater cognitive flexibility and showed preference for analytical, logical reasoning, and reflective problem-solving approaches. Emerging bilinguals demonstrated distinct cognitive flexibility profiles and showed preference for intuitive, exploratory problem-solving approaches. With respect to gender differences, females among advanced bilinguals showed particularly strong inclination toward reflective and logical reasoning styles, while emerging bilingual females demonstrated preference for exploratory approaches. No significant relationship was found between proficiency level and metacognitive evaluation of the assessment. The findings suggest that bilingual development in EFL contexts may be associated with enhanced cognitive flexibility and systematic problem-solving preferences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".