This paper focuses on a classroom-based action research project that examines the role of planned scaffolding in fostering metacognitive strategies of EMI (English-Medium Instruction) students. EMI has expanded dramatically in Europe and internationally because of globalisation, the internationalisation of education, and increased student mobility (Dearden, 2015; Macaro et al., 2018). While EMI has conventionally been associated with tertiary education, analogous processes are increasingly documented in secondary education, where students are required to access integrated disciplinary knowledge through a foreign language. These circumstances prompt vital questions about justice, epistemic access, and learner empowerment, particularly in multilingual contexts.

In modern educational settings characterised by digitalisation, increased external control, and epistemic uncertainty, learners are expected not only to gain subject-specific knowledge but also to monitor, regulate, and evaluate their own learning processes (Zimmerman, 2002). In line with the ECER 2026 conference theme Knowing and Acting, this paper understands metacognition as the bridge between knowing what one knows and knowing what to do with that knowledge. The study thus contributes to European and international discussions on how education research can respond to changing conditions of knowledge production and use, particularly in multilingual and high-stakes educational contexts.

The research context is situated in a secondary school EMI classroom that mirrors broader European challenges related to multilingualism, inclusion, and educational quality. Similar contexts can be identified across many European education systems where English functions as a lingua franca of instruction, often intersecting with national language policies, curriculum development, and international benchmarking practices (European Commission, 2020). Although the research is conducted at the classroom level, this micro-level focus enables the generation of transferable insights applicable to a wide range of European and international contexts.

The central research question guiding the study is:

How does intentional instructional scaffolding impact the development of students’ metacognitive awareness and self-regulatory actions in English-medium instruction classrooms?

This overarching research question is underpinned by the following sub-questions:

1. How do students signal understanding, uncertainty, and the need for clarification when metacognitive scaffolding is made explicit in an EMI context?
2. How does metacognitive scaffolding enable students to act upon their awareness of learning difficulties in subject learning through English?
3. How does engagement in classroom-based action research influence the teacher’s professional learning and understanding of knowledge production in multilingual education?

The theoretical framework of the study draws on metacognition theory as articulated by Flavell (1979), particularly the distinction between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. In addition, the study is informed by sociocultural perspectives on learning, which conceptualise cognition as socially mediated through language, tools, and interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). From this perspective, instructional scaffolding is understood as a means of externalising cognition, supporting participation, and fostering learner autonomy—key priorities in European policy discussions on inclusive and future-oriented education.

The study is further grounded in traditions of action research and practitioner inquiry, which position teachers as reflective professionals and legitimate producers of educational knowledge (Elliott, 1991; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). This orientation resonates with ECER’s emphasis on recognising diverse forms of knowledge production beyond large-scale data and standardised indicators.

By foregrounding qualitative, process-oriented forms of evidence—such as students’ annotations, teacher observations, and learning artefacts—the study challenges dominant performative logics that prioritise measurement over meaning (Biesta, 2010). In doing so, it contributes to a more pluralistic understanding of what counts as evidence in education research. Overall, the paper argues that fostering metacognitive awareness through intentional scaffolding enables learners to navigate uncertainty, exercise epistemic responsibility, and move from knowing to acting, while simultaneously supporting teachers’ professional learning and reinforcing the public value of education research in Europe and beyond.

Methodology / Methods This study employs a qualitative action research methodology, positioning the teacher as a reflective practitioner and knowledge producer within an authentic classroom context (Elliott, 1991). Action research was selected as it enables systematic inquiry into teaching and learning practices while simultaneously supporting professional learning and pedagogical improvement (Burns, 2010). The research followed iterative cycles of planning, action, observation, and reflection, allowing for continuous adjustment of instructional strategies in response to students’ learning needs. The study was conducted in a secondary school English-medium instruction (EMI) classroom, where subject content is taught through English as an additional language. Participants included one intact class of students and the classroom teacher-researcher. Ethical considerations were addressed in accordance with institutional guidelines, including informed consent, voluntary participation, anonymity, and the use of data solely for research purposes. The intervention focused on the implementation of intentional instructional scaffolding tools designed to foster metacognitive awareness and self-regulation (Flavell, 1979; Zimmerman, 2002). These tools were embedded within regular classroom practice and included: 1. a brief planning organiser completed before tasks to support goal setting; 2. teacher think-aloud modelling to externalise cognitive and metacognitive processes; 3. a reduced annotation system using agreed symbols to enable students to signal understanding, uncertainty, and the need for clarification during learning; and 4. structured exit tickets to prompt post-task reflection. Data were collected from multiple sources to ensure methodological triangulation (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Primary data sources included student learning artefacts, teacher observation notes guided by a structured checklist, and the teacher’s reflective journal documenting pedagogical decisions and emerging insights across action research cycles. Data analysis was conducted through thematic analysis, focusing on patterns related to students’ metacognitive monitoring, regulation, and evaluative actions. Rather than aiming for generalisation, the study prioritises contextual validity and transferability, offering practice-based insights relevant to EMI classrooms across diverse European and international settings.

The findings of this study indicate that deliberate instructional scaffolding holds significant potential for supporting students in translating metacognitive awareness into strategic learning actions in English-medium instruction contexts. By making metacognition visible through tools such as planning organisers, annotation symbols, and reflective exit tickets, learners demonstrated increased capacity to recognise understanding, identify uncertainty, and respond to learning difficulties in real time (Flavell, 1979; Zimmerman, 2002). These findings suggest a shift from passive engagement towards greater epistemic agency. In EMI classrooms, where linguistic demands may constrain verbal participation, the use of low-threshold, non-verbal scaffolding tools enabled students to communicate learning needs without stigma. This aligns with sociocultural perspectives that emphasise participation and mediation as central to learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Mercer & Littleton, 2007) and suggests that metacognitive scaffolding can contribute to more inclusive and equitable learning environments. At the professional level, the action research process supported the teacher’s reflective practice and strengthened their role as a producer of situated educational knowledge (Elliott, 1991; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Through iterative cycles of inquiry, the teacher developed a more nuanced understanding of how instructional decisions shape students’ ways of knowing and acting. In relation to the ECER 2026 theme Knowing and Acting, the study demonstrates how classroom-based, practitioner-led research can meaningfully address epistemic uncertainty and complexity in contemporary education systems. By prioritising process-oriented evidence and contextual validity, the paper contributes to broader European and international debates on how education research can remain ethically grounded, socially responsive, and publicly valuable in changing conditions of knowledge production and use (Biesta, 2010; Morin & Kern, 1999).

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 Hattie, J., & Donoghue, G. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), Article 16013. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13 Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge. Nilsson, P. (2014). When teaching makes a difference: Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through action research. Educational Action Research, 22(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.854175 Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. Routledge. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press. Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. British Council. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350 Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Paradigm Publishers. Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Open University Press. European Commission. (2020). Achieving the European Education Area by 2025. Publications Office of the European Union. https://education.ec.europa.eu Morin, E., & Kern, A. B. (1999). Homeland Earth: A manifesto for the new millennium. Hampton Press.