Language adaptation among linguistically diverse learners in monolingual schools

1 Introduction

Contemporary education systems are increasingly changing under the influence of linguistic diversity. Newcomers bring various linguistic repertoires and sociocultural experiences into classrooms. Appropriate support during integration and flexible educational approaches may contribute to the development of an individual’s academic trajectory (García and Wei, 2014; UNESCO, 2020b). The interrelationship of the learner with the new educational environment across different dimensions also acts as an important factor. Under these conditions, language functions not only as a means of communication but also as an opportunity for access to various practices (Kramsch, 1988; Norton, 2000). The acquisition of a new language remains a complex and lengthy process even today. It requires continuous participation, regular varied practice, and an active need for use (Ellis, 2002; Krashen and Terrell, 1983; Mercer, 2018).

Adaptation becomes more complex when the language used at school differs from the language used in everyday life (European Commission, 2022; UNESCO, 2020a). These features may be strongly expressed in monolingual education systems. In such an environment, one language is the principal means of participation in the educational process. The absence of proficiency or low proficiency in this language may restrict access to learning activities and the ability for self-expression (Alkateb-Chami, 2024; Grin, 2003; Heller, 2010). A monolingual environment organises participation through a shared language of instruction. However, learners retain different linguistic backgrounds, previous experiences, and educational needs.

Therefore, the growing diversity of the school population requires a broader understanding of language adaptation. A single approach may not equally meet the needs of all learners. Flexible forms of participation are particularly relevant in monolingual conditions, where established learning structures may not fully correspond to all needs (Barros et al., 2021; Hofer and Jessner, 2026; Zappa-Hollman and Duff, 2015). Language adaptation should therefore be considered across the conditions in which learners encounter, practise, and use the language.

Latvia is one of the countries where this issue is also relevant, mainly because of the considerable multicultural composition of its society. According to data from the Latvian Ministry of Education and Science, before 2022, 45.1% of schools provided opportunities for education within a bilingual system and minority education programmes (Izglītības un zinātnes ministrija, 2024). However, following the revision of language policy and the implementation of language reforms, Latvian became the principal language of instruction in state and municipal institutions (Saeima of the Republic of Latvia, 2022). This transition established a shared language-of-instruction model for learners with different linguistic experiences. It also increased the need to examine how learners perceive practices related to language adaptation.

From an ecological perspective, language development is shaped by the learner’s interaction with learning environments and opportunities to use the language under different conditions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Chong et al., 2023; van Lier, 2004). In the study, these environments are examined through instructional, social, and digital domains. The instructional domain provides structured learning and systematic engagement with academic language (Ellis, 2002; Krashen and Terrell, 1983). The social domain links language learning with everyday communication and real-life situations (Lave and Wenger, 1991; van Lier, 2004). The digital domain may expand opportunities for language practice through online learning and communication (Godwin-Jones, 2018; Li and Lan, 2022). Together, these domains broaden the scope for considering language adaptation. In this study, language adaptation is understood as learners’ engagement with the language of instruction across instructional, social, and digital contexts. The study focuses on students’ perceived effectiveness of selected practices rather than language adaptation as an achieved outcome. This study aligns with SDG 4, which promotes equitable access to education for vulnerable groups of learners, and with SDG 10, which promotes inclusion irrespective of individual background. In the present context, these goals relate to the participation of learners with different linguistic experiences and their access to appropriate practices related to language adaptation within a shared monolingual educational environment (UNESCO, 2025; United Nations, 2015).

Despite extensive research on monolingual educational environments, insufficient attention has been paid to how learners with different linguistic backgrounds evaluate such practices. It is also necessary to identify common and differing evaluation patterns across linguistic groups.

The aim of the study is to investigate how students with different linguistic experiences rate the perceived effectiveness of instructional, social, and digital practices related to language adaptation in a monolingual educational environment. The study considers the following questions: (1) How do linguistically diverse learners rate the perceived effectiveness of instructional, social, and digital practices related to language adaptation? (2) Which practices receive high ratings of perceived effectiveness across the three linguistic groups, and how do these ratings differ between the groups?

2 Literature review

2.1 Language adaptation in monolingual educational systems

Monolingual educational systems assume a unified educational structure in which the language of instruction, communication, and learner assessment occur within established coherent contexts for all (Blackledge, 2001; Duarte, 2011; Gogolin, 1994). Such systems are focused on common academic expectations and requirements (Duarte, 2011). Access to curricula and interactions with teachers and peers is mediated through linguistic norms (Cummins, 1979; Bourdieu, 1991). Moreover, language proficiency demonstrates the accumulation of knowledge and contributes to the achievement of academic success (Bourdieu, 1991; Cummins, 1979). However, differences in language proficiency can limit opportunities, even if conditions are equal for all (Cummins, 2000).

Thus, inclusive orientations are an integral part, since linguistic background may influence participation in educational processes and the expression of an individual’s active position (Conteh and Meier, 2014; UNESCO, 2020a). Linguistic differences should be evaluated not as a problem that must be overcome, but as an advantage for the creation of a multicultural society (Cook, 2007). Inclusive educational perspectives contribute to diverse pathways to participation and to the development of strong academic positions with consideration of flexible approaches and a focus on the needs of all learners (Cook, 1999; Conteh and Meier, 2014; García and Wei, 2014). Thus, this may contribute to language development without restrictive limitations, moving at one's own pace and taking an adaptive position without judgement from others.

Multilingual competence may be formed through different forms originating from the family, society, and contemporary external influences. However, this should not be manifested as a deviation from norms and certain artificially constructed standards. These learners use integrated linguistic repertoires both in the process of communication and in learning, without relying on separate isolated linguistic systems (García and Wei, 2014). Taking into account learner variability, all characteristics and nuances should be considered, as a properly structured environment contributes to the formation of linguistic competences among newcomers and reduces the gap with native speakers (Creese and Blackledge, 2010).

Each individual has their own specific language experience, need, and opportunity to use language both within the school environment and beyond it (Norton, 2000; Mougeon and Beniak, 1991). The creation of a unified curriculum does not necessarily lead to universal adaptation and satisfaction of needs (Gundarina and Simpson, 2022; Mougeon and Beniak, 1991; Papapavlou, 1999). Limitations in the variability of practices may contribute to personal insecurity, difficulties in the perception of information, and the manifestation of strong language connections. Moreover, for learners whose school language differs from their native language, the demonstration of both subject knowledge and language knowledge takes place through a limited linguistic framework (De Backer et al., 2017). Thereby creating artificial difficulties and a need to overcome them. Thus, academic achievement may not always be evaluated sufficiently if the demonstration of knowledge depends on language proficiency (Norton, 2000). Similarly, resource and inclusion limitations may lead to decreased active participation in educational processes (Gundarina and Simpson, 2022).

Learners follow different pathways of development even when they study within the same educational environment. The pace of adaptation, forms of participation, and individual needs may differ significantly from one another (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; van Lier, 2004). Thus, ecological perspectives emphasise the importance of considering multiple contexts that influence learner development rather than relying on isolated forms (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Chong et al., 2023; van Lier, 2004). Different contexts provide different opportunities. Academic adaptation involves participation in curriculum-related activities and active participation in collaborative practices (Bourdieu, 1986; Norton, 2000). Beyond the classroom, however, other conditions are created for more free social inclusion (Bourdieu, 1986; Norton, 2000). Contemporary digital environments expand the possibilities for the use of technology and online interactions (Adinolfi and Tagg, 2025; Kumi-Yeboah et al., 2020). Examining these domains together makes it possible to consider language adaptation through multiple forms of learner participation rather than through a single adaptation pathway.

2.2 Instructional, social, and digital approaches to language adaptation

Language adaptation in researchers’ interpretation, on the one hand, refers to the systematic modification of academic discourse by educators regarding its syntax, terminology, register, and medium. They are doing this for their diverse learners to make educational content available, accessible, actionable, and meaningful across various disciplines and social and cultural contexts. On the other hand, language adaptation conducted by learners themselves is a phenomenon that has not been thoroughly studied, though it embodies a crucial condition of effective teaching, learning, communicating, and other important forms of interaction in educational environments. Within these environments, linguistically diverse learners have to solve the complex task of language adaptation, a multifaceted process that encompasses cognitive skills, social interaction, emotional resilience, and identity construction. Understanding how learners adapt within systems that rarely accommodate their full linguistic repertoires is essential for re-evaluating pedagogical practices and institutional policies.

This task requires examining the mechanisms, challenges, and cognitive dynamics of language adaptation among linguistically diverse learners navigating monolingual educational contexts. Three primary thematic axes, including theoretical distinctions in language proficiency, sociolinguistic interventions through translanguaging, and the neuro-cognitive impacts of ambient linguistic diversity, should be considered within instructional, social, and digital approaches to language adaptation, the conceptual framework of which is represented in Figure 1.

Theoretical frameworks established by Cummins, 2000 clarify the distinct cognitive pathways required for school success, drawing a crucial distinction between Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). In monolingual classrooms, a frequent systemic failure occurs when educators mistake conversational fluency (BICS) for academic language mastery (CALP), leading to the premature withdrawal of necessary instructional scaffolding. This discrepancy highlights how monolingual schools may inadvertently hinder long-term academic growth by misjudging the timeline required for deep conceptual acquisition in a non-native language.

Pedagogical interventions aimed at strengthening learners’ language adaptation and removing systemic barriers to their equal participation in classroom interaction can be empowered through the lens of translanguaging. Linguistically diverse learners naturally deploy their complete linguistic repertoires as a cognitive and emotional resource if favourable conditions exist or are created. Finding the ways and developing strategies for advocating for linguistically diverse learners’ emotional wellbeing stays the relevant issue. Storheil and Iversen, 2024 observe that newly arrived multilingual learners spontaneously utilise internal translanguaging strategies to construct, revise, and comprehend academic texts, even when tasked with producing monolingual outputs. Furthermore Song et al., 2022, emphasize that validating these translanguaging practices serves a critical socio-emotional function: by lowering affective filters and reducing language anxiety, inclusive practices support students’ self-confidence, emotional well-being, and identity development in otherwise rigid instructional settings.

The impact of language adaptation extends beyond the linguistically diverse learners to reshape the broader classroom ecosystem. Recent neuro-cognitive investigations by Bice and Kroll, 2019 demonstrate that exposure to ambient linguistic diversity alters cognitive processing and neural adaptability not only in multilinguals but also in their monolingual peers. Passive and active exposure to diverse linguistic environments enhances language-learning mechanisms, suggesting that linguistic diversity serves as an enriching cognitive asset for the entire educational community rather than a systemic deficit to be remediated. The synthesis of cognitive, sociolinguistic and neuro-scientific perspectives is needed to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding how linguistically diverse learners adapt within monolingual schools.

Within the instructional approach, essay writing, project-based learning and text-based learning play an important role in scaffolding academic adaptation for linguistically diverse learners navigating through a monolingual educational environment. Engaging in essay and text production allows learners to leverage their full linguistic repertoire (translanguaging) during draft-writing stages scaffolds high-level literacy acquisition and socio-emotional adaptation (Kiramba, 2017). One of the most difficult activities for learners has a high potential to turn from a barrier to a tool for self-expression, identity negotiation and creativity development.

Beckett and Slater, 2005 suggest structural models for project-based learning in language acquisition environments and demonstrate how project work bridges communicative language functions with complex academic text preparation. The Project Framework allows learners to see the value of project-based instruction by making explicit the various components that work together to promote higher-level academic literacy: language, thinking skills, and content knowledge (Beckett and Slater, 2005). Project-based activities lower the affective filter, i.e., reduce the anxiety barrier, and build collaboration between learners, making their learning more interactive, engaging, and motivating.

Systemic functional linguistics and genre- or text-based activities also provide explicit instruction, especially in essay writing and academic register, enabling linguistically diverse learners to meet the linguistic demands of mainstream, monolingual curricula (Gebhard, 2019). It should be mentioned that instructional strategies must be adapted by educators in monolingual schools to support equity in education as well as academic and socio-cultural integration of linguistically diverse learners. Text-based learning deconstructs text structures, vocabulary, and grammar patterns for the development of academic literacy.

Under the social approach, language acquisition and adaptation are viewed as fundamentally relational and situated processes, rather than purely individual cognitive exercises (Cummins, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). In educational settings, learning originates on the social plane before being internalized on the individual plane. Central to this process is the Zone of Proximal Development, which describes the distance between a learner's independent problem-solving capability and their potential development through scaffolded guidance by More Knowledgeable Others (Vygotsky, 1978). For the learners navigating a mainstream target language, peer collaboration and guided instructional discourse act as essential mediational tools that transform external social interaction into internalized academic thought. Engagement in real-life use, daily language use, and cultural and social events may support socio-emotional and academic adaptation within a monolingual educational environment. According to Cummins (1984), learners develop Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills through daily, unscripted social interactions much faster than Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency. This fluency occurs because daily conversations provide immediate, natural practice with high contextual cues like mimics, gestures, and intonation, making communication different from abstract classroom discourse.

Stephen Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis (1988) notes that anxiety, low self-esteem, and lack of motivation act as mental blocks to language acquisition. Monolingual classrooms are potentially the space causing high anxiety and feelings of isolation. Vice versa, real-life interaction activities such as discussions or art clubs, collaborative sports, and intercultural events make learners feel engaged, socially and emotionally safe, and, as a result, more receptive to educational input. Moreover, in real-life communication, learners are effectively exposed to functional registers, idiomatic expressions, humour, politeness strategies, body language, social rules, and cultural nuances.

Pierre Bourdieu's concept of Social Capital (1986) highlights the resources gained through durable networks of mutual acquaintance. Monolingual peers gain cultural awareness, while multilingual learners build peer support networks. These peer connections translate back into the classroom, creating informal academic study groups and collaborative learning partners (Bourdieu, 1986). Within this framework, adaptation is not merely the accumulation of lexical items, but the negotiation of belonging and the gradual assumption of an empowered identity as a full member of the school community.

Nowadays, a digital approach is one of the most relevant approaches to language adaptation among linguistically diverse learners in monolingual schools. Digital tools allow students to fluidly toggle between languages to build meaning rather than forcing strict monolingual compliance (Le Pichon et al., 2024). Learners’ cultural identities can be emphasized through multimodal media, localised content adaptation, and flexible learning pathways. Taking into account Stephen Krashen's Affective Filter Hypothesis (1988) and the conditions for language acquisition, informal, asynchronous, or mediated digital spaces to be factors that lower the “affective filter” and make language adaptation more realistic and dynamic. Modern Learning Management Systems jointly with additional digital tools and resources serve as core supports for learners navigating monolingual educational environments. Specialized digital platforms allow students to access didactic materials in their native language alongside the language of instruction. This dual-language access helps bridge domain-specific knowledge without stalling academic growth while target-language proficiency develops (Le Pichon et al., 2024). Moreover, online learning platforms give students control over the pace of instruction. Linguistically diverse students rely heavily on embedded translation, screen-readers, and video pause/replay functions to process complex academic language without the immediate pressure of real-time classroom environments. Asynchronous Learning Management Systems features (such as discussion boards) or digital tools such as Kialo.edu provide linguistically diverse learners time to draft, refine, and edit their contributions using digital dictionaries or generative tools, leading to higher confidence and active knowledge construction (Kumi-Yeboah et al., 2020).

Modern quality education should be up-to-date with multiple digital solutions, among which is social media communication leading to informal social adaptation. Most modern school students actively participate in social media activities, which greatly contribute to the socio-emotional and informal linguistic adaptation of immigrant and multilingual students. Social media platforms provide a space where multilingual students can curate desired identities and freely express their native cultural identity, counterbalancing the isolation or insecurity experienced in monolingual classrooms. Text-based communication on messaging apps allows non-native speakers to utilise translation plugins, emojis, and visual media, easing the cognitive load associated with spontaneous oral communication (Zhang and Romero-Forteza, 2024).

Online meetings and synchronous web conferencing introduce mediated interactive spaces that change classroom dynamics and add more alternatives for linguistically diverse learners. Students hesitating to speak up orally have another opportunity to participate via text-chat functions. In some cases, automated captioning and transcription can be used. Nevertheless, teachers often treat digital tools (e.g., automatic translators) as remedial aids rather than tools for deeper cognitive engagement or linguistic enrichment (Le Pichon et al., 2024).

Table 1 presents the consolidated peculiarities of applying instructional, social, and digital approaches to language adaptation of linguistically diverse learners in monolingual schools, taking into account their primary focuses, educational environments, possible ways of giving feedback, and learners’ roles through the lens of researchers.

Table 1. Key characteristics of instructional, social, and digital approaches to language adaptation.

Ultimately, the most effective ways of language adaptation cannot be constructed within one separate approach. Linguistically diverse learners use digital tools and resources to build their daily vocabulary habits, they rely on instructional settings to grasp complex grammatical structures, and seek out social environments to turn that theoretical knowledge into real-life communication. Their language adaptation in monolingual school environments involves navigating the monolingual institutional setup where instruction, curriculum, and assessment default to a single mainstream language. Effective language adaptation is a crucial factor in quality education as it is a dynamic process encompassing cognitive development, socio-emotional well-being, and academic identity.

2.3 Ecological integration of language adaptation approaches

Language is a dynamic, context-bound, and emergent process if considered through the lens of ecological understanding of language adaptation. According to this concept, language is seen not as a rule-governed system, but as a form of patterned behaviour that arises from the needs of human sociality: communication, culture, and community. The true environment of a language is the society that uses it as one of its codes (Garner, 2017; Hult, 2012; van Lier, 2004). Due to achievements in ecological psychology and sociolinguistics, the ecological linguistics perspective allows communication to be treated as an open, adaptive system co-evolving with its environment.

Haugen, 1972 introduced the concept of language ecology as the study of interactions between a given language and its psychological (mind of the speaker) and sociological (community) environments. To make language adaptation possible, language environments must provide affordances, i.e., opportunities for action, meaning-making, and interaction. According to the Dynamic Systems Theory, adaptation is not a linear process, where small environmental changes can lead to emergent communicative behaviours over time. Rather than processing static, pre-packaged linguistic “input”, language learners perceive and act upon emerging opportunities for interaction and meaning-making inherent within their immediate environments (De Bot et al., 2007; Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2008; van Lier, 2004).

Teaching a language, especially a non-native one, cannot be based on simple knowledge transfer from a teacher to a learner. Unlike teaching other subjects, where language is used as a way to share information, in language teaching it is both a way and a subject. Language capability emerges through real-time interaction between learners and teachers and their social, physical, and technological surroundings. Broader communicative opportunities may support language adaptation. At the same time, numerous factors and context influence this process. Language users adapt their communicative practices depending on social constraints, historical trajectories, and cultural norms, balancing personal autonomy with community expectations (Steffensen and Kramsch, 2023). Thus, rather than focusing on text manipulations, ecological adaptation encompasses bodily movement, physical tools, spatial emplacement, and collaborative interaction. Language adaptation through the lens of ecological linguistics can be interpreted across four interconnected domains, presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Theoretical dimensions of language adaptation from an ecological perspective.

Recent systematic reviews highlight the growing adoption of ecological principles in second language acquisition and applied linguistics (Syarofah et al., 2024). Integrating ecological frameworks in language teaching makes it more student-centred, contextually responsive, and interactive. Modernising the learning environment by means of digital media and online networks strengthens classroom interactions and collaboration. Ecological principles influenced second language acquisition, aligning it with second language socialization, treating language adaptation as an active process of entering and navigating complex social communities (Steffensen and Kramsch, 2023).

Navigating complex social communities for learners comprises their interaction with various language environments. Each learner has his or her own social background, individual physical, psychological, cognitive, metacognitive, etc. features that should be taken into account in educational institutions. Moreover, the rapid increase in global migration has transformed contemporary classrooms into highly diverse linguistic hubs. However, educational infrastructures frequently remain anchored in monolingual paradigms, operating under what Gogolin, 1994 famously termed the “monolingual mindset”, which represents serious challenges for linguistically diverse learners such as immigrants, refugees, national minorities representatives, or regional language speakers, and later on, the psychological, social, and academic consequences. Instead, modern socio-constructivist and socio-cultural frameworks view adaptation as a dynamic negotiation occurring across multiple intersecting language spheres (Cummins, 2000; Garcı´a and Wei, 2014), transforming the issues learners face into new opportunities and follow-up learning achievements.

To analyse diverse learners’ language adaptation, the distinctions among the school, home, peer, and digital environments should be taken into consideration. In the standardised, formal and monolingual school environment, the mainstream language serves both as the medium of instruction and as the primary benchmark for academic intelligence and social integration. The institutional expectation of monolingual schools often frames linguistic diversity through a deficit lens (Solano-Campos, 2014). Learners entering monolingual environments face a dual burden: acquiring complex academic content while simultaneously mastering the target language. Cummins, 2000 differentiated between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency, noting that the latter can take 5–7 years to develop. When schools enforce strict monolingual policies, learners are often unable to leverage their existing linguistic assets to bridge this gap. Furthermore, strict target-language enforcement often triggers identity threat and anxiety. Studies on linguistic minoritization (De Fina, 2019) demonstrate that students who are discouraged from using their native languages in school report higher levels of foreign language anxiety, reduced willingness to communicate, and feelings of marginalization. Monolingual schools typically use submersion models or short-term “pull-out” language instruction with learners’ temporary removal from the mainstream classroom. This so-called “sink-or-swim” submersion frequently leads to subtractive bilingualism, where the acquisition of the mainstream language comes at the expense of learner's native language loss (Wright et al., 2015). Thus, in monolingual schools, holistic pedagogies that accommodate cross-linguistic connections can significantly improve learners’ confidence and comprehension.

The home environment of learners is their basic linguistic ecosystem, being affectively supportive, at the same time, quite different from educational requirements. Extensive research confirms that strong literacy and proficiency in the home language provide a solid conceptual foundation for acquiring academic proficiency in the school language (Cummins, 2000). Active maintenance of the home language correlates positively with cognitive flexibility, family cohesion, and socio-emotional stability (Kaveh, 2018). Nevertheless, the interaction between home and monolingual school environments is often marked by tension. On the one hand, for linguistically diverse learners, help and support are needed regarding their learning; on the other hand, their non-native-speaking parents feel helpless against monolingual schools’ requirements. Communication gaps regarding homework, assessment, and behavioural expectations can leave learners navigating conflicting sociocultural rules on their own. Consequently, many linguistically diverse learners act as language brokers, i.e., they are translating school communications, administrative forms, and parent-teacher conferences for their families (Morales and Hanson, 2005). Such language brokering can foster learners’ autonomy to some extent; at the same time, it can impose emotional stress and cause other negative consequences.

The most responsive and favourable environments for diverse learners can be peer and digital environments, characterized by informal and translanguaging practices. In non-formal school spaces, linguistically diverse peers naturally engage in the flexible deployment of an individual's full linguistic repertoire without regard for rigid named-language boundaries (García and Wei, 2014). Interaction in these peer environments provides emotional solidarity and a safe space for language experimentation. However, research by Blommaert, 2010 highlights that peer groups can also reproduce social hierarchies, where alignment with mainstream or majority-language peer groups is policed as a condition for social acceptance.

Digital environment, represented with social media, online gamified resources, and multilingual content platforms, can become a learner-friendly and motivating factor for linguistically diverse learners in monolingual schools. The interaction in the digital environment can be easily organized with simultaneous engagement of native-language connections and practising informal mainstream language communication (Konovalenko, 2024). Both peer and digital environments’ most significant features are low-anxiety settings for language practice, stimulating modes of interaction, and interest-based content, contributing positively to learners’ communicative confidence. Digital and interactive technologies significantly contribute to creating gamified and interactive learning spaces with immediate feedback and adaptive scaffolding, allowing linguistically diverse learners to access complex didactic materials in their native language while learning the mainstream target language concurrently and to feel included and a sense of belonging. This is a complex process requiring inclusive state and school policy; technological solutions; teacher professional development in inclusive, interactive strategies; family and peer support; and teaching learners to use metacognitive strategies. Inclusive quality education is a priority on a global scale; it is also an essential part of sustainable human development, as it is the most effective way to give all children a fair chance to go to school, learn, and develop the skills they need to thrive. Inclusive education means all children in the same classrooms, in the same schools. It means real learning opportunities for groups who have traditionally been excluded—not only children with disabilities, but speakers of minority languages too. Inclusive systems value the unique contributions students of all backgrounds bring to the classroom and allow diverse groups to grow side by side, to the benefit of all (UNICEF, 2025).

In a world facing challenges like the pandemic and geopolitical tensions, adapting education swiftly to technological advancements is not just a necessity, but a means of resilience. With the proactive integration of digital tools into education, it stands poised to overcome difficulties, foster inclusivity, and empower learners in an increasingly digitized world (Shkola and Saliuk, 2024). Inclusivity is one of the most crucial educational values, which extend beyond the mere transmission of knowledge; they encompass broader developmental goals such as personal growth, social responsibility, and the cultivation of cultural awareness. These dimensions underscore the dual impact of values—shaping not only learners’ individual development but also contributing to the broader advancement of society and national identity (Ročāne et al., 2026).

When analysed through Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory, an interactive inclusive language environment aligns naturally with the human development framework. To foster effective language adaptation, recent scholarship calls for a shift from monolingual submersion to linguistically responsive instruction (Lucas and Villegas, 2013). Recommended strategies include integrating translanguaging pedagogies, reframing multilingualism as an asset, and building bridges between school, home, peers, and digital facilities. Monolingual schools that enforce rigid language boundaries create barriers to learning and learners’ personality development instead of making a positive impact and promoting sustainability. Successful language adaptation occurs when school is a space where learner-friendly diverse linguistic ecosystems are acknowledged, validated, and integrated.

3 Methodology

3.1 Research methodology and conceptual framework

This study used a quantitative cross-sectional design to examine students’ perceptions of practices related to language adaptation in a monolingual educational environment. The analysis focused on three domains: instructional, social, and digital. Language adaptation was viewed as a context-dependent process shaped by learners’ engagement with linguistic practices across different environments (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Chong et al., 2023; van Lier, 2004). These domains were integrated into an analytical framework for examining students’ perceptions of practices related to language adaptation (Hult, 2012).

3.2 Participants and context

The study included 403 students enrolled in Grades 4–12 at seven public schools in Riga and the Latvian regions of Latgale and Kurzeme. An approximate age range of 10–19 years. Purposive sampling targeted large, linguistically diverse schools in different regions. Seven schools agreed to participate. The survey link was distributed by the participating school administrations. Student participation was voluntary. All participants studied in schools where Latvian was the principal language of instruction. The exact response rate could not be calculated because the number of students who received the survey link was not recorded centrally. No a priori sample-size calculation was conducted. The analytical sample included Latvian-speaking students (N = 257), Russian-speaking students (N = 78), and Ukrainian-speaking students (N = 68). Linguistic groups were defined according to the native language selected by each respondent. Grade-level distributions differed across the three linguistic groups. Latvian-speaking students were represented mainly in (Grades 4–9); Russian-speaking students across (Grades 4–12); Ukrainian-speaking students mainly in (Grades 10–12). The largest grade subgroups were Grade 5 among Latvian-speaking students (n = 64, 25%), Grade 11 among Russian-speaking students (n = 15, 19%), and Grade 10 among Ukrainian-speaking students (n = 28, 41%). The complete distribution is presented in Supplementary Table S1.

3.3 Data collection procedure and ethical considerations

Data were collected through a structured anonymous questionnaire administered via Google Forms in cooperation with the participating schools. Prior to administration, the instrument underwent ethical review and was presented to participating schools and parents or legal guardians of underage students. Participation was voluntary, and respondents could discontinue the survey at any time before submission without consequences. Parental or guardian consent was obtained for students under the age of 18, whereas those aged 18 or older provided informed consent independently. No directly identifying information was requested, and the responses were stored in accordance with institutional data-protection requirements.

3.4 Measurement and operationalization

In this study, language adaptation is conceptualised as learners’ engagement with the language of instruction across three domains: instructional, social, and digital (Cummins, 2000; Li and Lan, 2022; van Lier, 2004). During the survey, students rated the perceived effectiveness of nine practices related to language adaptation. Language adaptation itself was not assessed as an achieved outcome. The questionnaire was developed by the authors specifically for this study. Its content reflected the study focus shared by the authors across the instructional, social, and digital domains. However, no separate formal content-validation procedure was conducted. The questionnaire was not pilot-tested. Respondents were asked to evaluate the nine selected practices using a five-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated “not effective” and 5 indicated “very effective”. The practices were grouped into three analytical domains: Instructional (project-based learning, essay writing, and text-based learning); Social (language use in real-life situations, daily communication, and participation in cultural and social events); Digital (online learning platforms, social media communication, and online meetings). The three domains were conceptually defined on the basis of the theoretical framework. They were not derived from factor analysis or interpreted as validated psychometric scales. Individual practice ratings were used for intergroup comparisons. Aggregated domain means were used for descriptive analysis only. Internal consistency was assessed separately for the three conceptually defined domains. Exploratory Cronbach's alpha estimates were α = .716 for the instructional domain, α = .784 for the social domain, and α = .757 for the digital domain.

3.5 Data processing and analytical strategy

Data were processed using IBM SPSS Statistics and R statistical software. Before analysis, the dataset was screened for completeness and consistency. All variables were coded in the same direction, with higher scores indicating higher perceived effectiveness of the selected practices. The analytical strategy is summarised in Table 3.

Table 3. Overview of the analytical strategy used in the study.

The nine individual practices were described using means and Mdn [Q1, Q3] and compared across the three linguistic groups using the Kruskal–Wallis H test. Holm correction was applied across the nine omnibus tests. Practices with Holm-adjusted omnibus p < .05 were selected for further analysis. Dunn's pairwise comparisons with Holm adjustment were then conducted. Epsilon-squared (ε²) and rank-biserial correlation (rrb) were reported as omnibus and pairwise effect-size measures, respectively.

4 Results

The results present students’ ratings of the perceived effectiveness of instructional, social, and digital practices related to language adaptation. The findings are organised across the three corresponding domains. This structure reflects an ecological perspective that considers learners’ engagement across different environments (Barros et al., 2021; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; van Lier, 2004).

4.1 Domain-level profile of perceived effectiveness

The first descriptive stage examined the domain-level profiles across the three linguistic groups. Each domain score was calculated from the three corresponding practices. Weighted total means were used to account for unequal group sizes. Table 4 presents the mean ratings for the instructional, social, and digital domains.

Table 4. Domain-level profile of perceived effectiveness across linguistic groups.

M, mean score on a five-point Likert scale. Domain scores were calculated as the mean of three practices within each domain. Weighted total M accounts for unequal group sizes.

As shown in Table 4, the social domain received the highest weighted total mean rating (M = 3.63). The digital domain followed (M = 3.34), while the instructional domain received the lowest weighted total mean rating (M = 3.09). Ukrainian-speaking students reported the highest mean rating within each domain. These descriptive results provide the basis for the analysis of the nine individual practices.

4.2 Descriptive profile of practices across linguistic groups

The second stage aimed to identify rating patterns for the nine practices across the three linguistic groups. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted using means, medians, and first and third quartiles. Table 5 presents the results across the instructional, social, and digital domains.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the nine practices across linguistic groups.

M, mean; Mdn, median; Q1, 25th percentile; Q3, 75th percentile. All practices were evaluated on a five-point scale. Higher values indicate higher perceived effectiveness.

Table 5 shows that the social practices received the highest descriptive ratings. Real-life language use had a median of 4 [3, 5] in the Latvian- and Russian-speaking groups and 5 [4, 5] in the Ukrainian-speaking group. Daily language use had the same median across all three groups, Mdn = 4 [3, 5], while the mean ratings ranged from (3.67–4.00). The instructional practices generally received lower ratings. The lowest mean was observed for essay writing among Latvian-speaking students (M = 2.69). The ratings of the instructional and digital practices showed greater descriptive variation across the groups.

4.3 Statistical variation in practice ratings across linguistic groups

This stage determined whether the descriptive patterns reflected statistically significant differences across the three linguistic groups. Ratings for each of the nine practices were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis H test. Holm correction was applied across the nine tests, while epsilon-squared (ε²) was used to estimate the magnitude of the differences. Table 6 presents the omnibus results.

Table 6. Overall between-group differences in perceived effectiveness across the nine practices.

H, Kruskal–Wallis statistic; p, unadjusted omnibus p-value; Holm-adjusted p, p-value adjusted across the nine Kruskal–Wallis tests; ε², epsilon-squared effect size. All tests had 2 degrees of freedom.

Table 6 shows that the between-group differences varied across the nine practices in terms of statistical significance and effect size. After Holm correction, significant differences remained for six practices. These included essay writing, text-based learning, real-life use, and cultural and social events. Significant results were also found for social media communication and online meetings. The effect sizes were predominantly small. Essay writing showed the largest effect size (H = 41.75, Holm-adjusted p < .001, ε² = .099). Online meetings showed the next largest effect size (H = 22.10, Holm-adjusted p < .001, ε² = .050).

4.4 Pairwise patterns across linguistic groups

The post hoc stage specified which linguistic groups differed across the six practices with significant omnibus results. Dunn's pairwise comparisons were conducted for each practice. Holm correction was applied across the three comparisons, while rank-biserial correlation (rrb) was used to estimate pairwise effect sizes. Table 7 presents the results.

Table 7. Pairwise differences in perceived effectiveness across linguistic groups.

Dunn's pairwise comparisons are reported for practices with significant Holm-adjusted omnibus results. z, Dunn test statistic; p, unadjusted pairwise p-value; Holm-adjusted p, pairwise p-value adjusted across the three comparisons; rrb, rank-biserial correlation.

Table 7 presents 18 comparisons across the six practices. Twelve comparisons reached the adjusted significance level. The results differed according to the groups being compared. For the Latvian- and Russian-speaking groups, Holm-corrected p-values ranged from (.090 to.986), while effect sizes ranged from |rrb| = .001 to.127. The largest value was observed for essay writing.

The Ukrainian-speaking group reported higher descriptive ratings than both other groups for all six practices. These differences remained statistically significant after Holm adjustment. The largest effect was found for essay writing in the Latvian-Ukrainian comparison (z = −6.456, Holm-adjusted p < .001, rrb = .490). The Russian-Ukrainian comparisons showed the largest effects for social media communication (rrb = .388) and essay writing (rrb = .387). The remaining statistically significant effect sizes ranged from (.230 to .355).

4.5 Ecological framework of language adaptation in a monolingual educational environment

The findings informed a theory-based ecological framework of language adaptation in a monolingual educational environment. The framework integrates the instructional, social, and digital domains. It also distinguishes between the highest-rated practice and the practice with the largest between-group effect within each domain. The framework was not empirically tested as a causal model. Figure 2 presents its conceptual structure.

Figure 2 presents two complementary levels of the findings. The first level includes the highest-rated practice within each domain: project-based learning, real-life language use, and social media communication. The second level includes the practice with the largest between-group effect within each domain: essay writing, cultural and social events, and online meetings.

These practices may provide instructional, social, and digital opportunities for language engagement. They may support language adaptation through language use, communication, and participation. Language adaptation may also contribute to language acquisition. These links are conceptual.

The framework draws on ecological perspectives on language learning and adaptation (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Gibson, 1979; van Lier, 2004). It is also informed by research conducted in Latvian educational contexts (Vasylieva et al., 2026) and by theoretical perspectives on participation, identity, and multilingual practices (García and Wei, 2014; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Norton, 2000).

The framework combines descriptive ratings and between-group differences across the three domains. Highly rated practices did not always show the largest between-group effects. This distinction may indicate which practices received high ratings and which showed greater variation across groups.

5 Discussion

The study focused on learners’ perceptions of instructional, social and digital approaches to language adaptation within a monolingual educational environment. The findings suggest that students’ ratings cannot be fully represented by a single domain or practice. A broader range of opportunities may support language use across different contexts (Chong et al., 2023). From this perspective, the instructional, social, and digital domains represent interconnected components containing a number of practices directed towards a wider audience. Such an approach is particularly important in conditions of linguistic diversity and inclusion, where learners’ needs for language use may differ significantly (Conteh and Meier, 2014; UNESCO, 2020b).

Among the three presented domains, the highest indicators were recorded in the social domain. Real-life and daily language use received high descriptive ratings across the three groups. Cultural and social events showed the largest between-group effect within this domain. These ratings may reflect the value students place on informal language use and communication beyond formal assessment. Such conditions may contribute to a freer use of language without a pronounced fear of mistakes and external criticism. The oftener language serves as a means of solving everyday tasks and establishing contacts, the higher its subjective value becomes within the learning process (Lave and Wenger, 1991; van Lier, 2004).

Within the instructional domain, project-based learning received the highest overall descriptive rating. Essay writing showed the largest between-group effect. This difference illustrates that a highly rated practice did not necessarily show the largest variation across groups. The instructional environment may provide structured opportunities for academic language use and participation (Cummins, 2000; De Backer et al., 2017). Project work may provide opportunities for collaboration, interaction, and task-based language use. Under such conditions, language performs not only an instructional function but also acts as a tool for accomplishing specific tasks, problem-solving, and team-building (Ellis, 2002; Krashen and Terrell, 1983). Essay writing may provide opportunities for reflection, structured expression, and academic language use.

Within the digital domain, social media communication received the highest overall descriptive rating. Online meetings showed the largest between-group effect. The modern digital environment provides access to various interactive applications, virtual platforms, and communication channels, contributing to engagement in the language-learning process. Such a format allows learners to track progress, monitor activity dynamics, maintain regular contact with the language, and expand independence in practice (Godwin-Jones, 2018). These practices may provide different opportunities for communication and language use beyond the classroom. However, the presented indicators did not point to a dominant role of digital tools in the process of language adaptation. In the context of this study, these practices are reflected as supplementary tools. The digital domain may therefore provide an additional context for language practice (Li and Lan, 2022).

The selected practices may be interpreted as ecological affordances. On the one hand, real-life language use and participation in cultural and social events may provide opportunities for communication and participation. On the other hand, social media communication and online meetings may extend opportunities for language use beyond formal classroom settings. Finally, project-based learning may provide collaborative opportunities, while essay writing may support structured individual expression. Their possible contribution to language adaptation and acquisition remains conceptual.

Six practices retained statistically significant between-group differences after Holm correction. This pattern indicates that linguistic-group membership accounted for only limited differences in students’ ratings. Essay writing showed the largest omnibus effect, while the remaining effects were more limited. These results suggest that statistical significance should not be interpreted as evidence of a strong practical difference.

The findings suggest that students did not evaluate all practices in the same way. Staying in a monolingual educational environment, learners with different linguistic backgrounds evaluate the presented opportunities for language immersion differently. Thus, the necessity for variability in the actions undertaken by educational institutions when working with multilingual and monolingual children within the same space is emphasised. The observed variation may support the use of different opportunities for language engagement. The ratings may also have been influenced by grade level, language proficiency, migration history, length of residence, or other unmeasured factors. Such modification of educational environment corresponds to the ecological approach, which views language development as the result of interaction between the individual and various available opportunities and contextual conditions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; van Lier, 2004). Moreover, it is necessary to create conditions that contribute to reducing language barriers, as these limitations may affect both the development of linguistic competence and future educational prospects (Vasylieva et al., 2026). It is also worth noting that the ecological focus is directed towards the quality of the experience gained during the process of language acquisition (van Lier, 2010; Sadownik, 2023). Thus, inclusivity in this context naturally extends the ecological approach by reducing anxiety, providing opportunities to express personal viewpoints, and supporting participation in more flexible formats. Well-designed approaches with a focus on different learners contribute to strengthening trusting relationships and establishing interactions, which are particularly necessary under changing conditions (Hult, 2012; Minhas et al., 2017). Today, linguistic diversity in modern classrooms is not a difficulty but rather as a new tendency and a task to create more favourable and inclusive conditions oriented towards all learners. This opens opportunities for a broader understanding of language learning in the context of the modern school (Barros et al., 2021; Hofer and Jessner, 2026).

For newcomers and learners who have changed their linguistic environment, the effective development of language skills appears to depend on access to diverse practices, modes of interaction and resources. Educational institutions may support such opportunities through classroom learning and participation in wider school and community contexts.

5.1 Limitations

The results are based on students’ self-assessments and reflect the perceived effectiveness of the selected practices rather than objectively measured outcomes. The questionnaire was not pilot-tested or subjected to formal psychometric validation. Language groups varied in size, which may have affected the stability of intergroup comparisons. Moreover, the purposive sampling procedure, voluntary participation, and inability to calculate the response rate may limit the generalisability of the findings. Language proficiency, migration history, and length of residence were not assessed. Differences in grade-level composition may also have influenced the observed rating patterns. School-level clustering could not be examined because the anonymous questionnaire did not include a school identifier. The survey was administered once and reflects student assessments at the time of data collection. Also, the cross-sectional design does not show whether these perceptions remain stable over time.

5.2 Future research

Further research could compare perceptions of language-related practices across grade levels and stages of education. Future studies may examine whether these pairwise patterns remain stable across larger and more balanced linguistic groups. Research on language adaptation among learners with special educational needs would also be particularly valuable. Future studies should include language proficiency, migration history, length of residence, and school-level characteristics. Further research may also consider students’ social and emotional experiences. School practices and support structures could be examined separately.

6 Conclusion

This study contributes to understanding learners’ perceptions of instructional, social, and digital approaches within a monolingual educational environment. The findings show that students assigned different ratings to the nine practices across the three domains. The study revealed that the highest-rated practices did not always correspond to those with the largest between-group effects. The selected practices may be interpreted as ecological affordances that provide opportunities for participation and language use across different contexts.

Six practices retained statistically significant between-group differences after Holm correction, although the effect sizes were predominantly small. The social domain received the highest descriptive rating. Real-life language use was the highest-rated social practice, while cultural and social events showed the largest between-group effect within this domain.

The highest-rated practices by domain were project-based learning, real-life language use, and social media communication. The largest between-group effects were found for essay writing, cultural and social events, and online meetings. The conceptual ecological framework integrates these descriptive and comparative patterns. It suggests possible links between the selected practices, language adaptation, and language acquisition. These outcomes were not assessed within the present study. The findings also highlight the need for a broader understanding of the language-learning process, adaptation and acquisition within and beyond the formal educational environment.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI tools were used in the editorial preparation of this manuscript, specifically to improve transitions, enhance linguistic clarity, and align formatting with journal requirements. All scientific interpretations, theoretical justifications, and data analysis are the authors’ own work.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1979334/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Sharif Alghazo, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Reviewed by: Kemal Sinan Ozmen, Gazi University, Türkiye

Desti Nur Aini, State University of Malang, Indonesia