esl lit reviw languages

7/23/2019 ESL Lit Reviw Languages

1/16

Language learning Strategies: A Case for

Cross curricuiar Coiiaboration

Vee arris

GoldsmithsCollege Universityof London UK

Michael renfeii

University

ot

Souttiampton UK

This paper addresses the case for collaboration between English and modern

languages teachers and researchers in teaching and learning languages. The British

context is set out against a background of government initiatives to raise secondary

pupils' literacy skills. Salient trends in the teaching approach of English (LI) and

m odern languag e (ML) teachers are compared a nd contrasted in orde r

to

identify peda-

gogic concerns. To date, these concerns tend to focus on the teaching of grammar.

Teachers' divergent views on the issue is one factor impeding greater collaboration

betw een them . The learning strategy research field

is

presented

as

an alternative area

of

commonality. This research stresses developing 'how to learn' skills with pupils.

Memorisation and reading strategies are compared across LI and ML to illustrate the

poten tial for collaboration in ma king explicit link s betwe en the two areas of lang uage

learning. A strategy research agenda is identified with a view to establishing how

recent policy changes offer the potential to explore more effective ways to impact on

language teaching and learning.

Ke yw ords : l anguage l ea rn ing st r at eg ies , Eng l ish , m ode rn l angu ages , g ram m ar

Introduction

This paper draw s together common themes linked to learning

strategies,

iden-

tified in research on the teaching and learn ing of language s. Such research itself

is often carried out in distinct contexts: for example, where the language is a

m other tongu e (LI); or a second langu age (SL), w here the learners are living in

the host country; ora foreign,or m odern language (ML), wh ere learners' expo-

sure to

the

new language

is

in the classroom.^ The pap er beg ins by con sidering an

integrated approac htolanguage learning acrossLIan d M L, set against the back-

gro und of a central thrust of recent gov ernm ent initiatives for British seco ndary

schooling; namely, to raise pupil achievemen t

by

focusing on gramm ar teaching.

It goes

on

to

explore other ways in which the two curricu lum areas might collabo-

rate aro und common practice in the light of research eviden ce. It is argue d that

comm onalities extend beyon d know ledge of language structure to knowledge

of

how to

learn

language. Memorisation and reading are taken as an exemplar to

illustrate how a shared appro ach to research m ight

be

develop ed with the aim

of

impacting on teaching and learning.

The English Context: Re evaluating Me thodoiogies


2/16

Language-learningStrategies A Case forCross curricularColiaboratian 117

academic achievement. The turn ofthemillennium sawnolet-up inthispreoccu-

pation with standards. Within both the teaching of English and the teaching of

m odern languages, explicit know ledge of gram mar has been the lynchpin of this

drive. For some 30 years, the role of gram mar know ledge in language learning

has been one of the most hotly con tested d ebates in the teaching of English as a

mother to ngu e. Policy makers have consistently argu ed tbat, since good writing

is gram matically accurate and uses a rich variety of gramm atical structures, it is

essential that grammar be taught. On the other hand, research reviews have

consistently failed to pro vide eviden ce that gram mar teaching m akes any differ-

ence to the quality of pupils' writing (see Beard, 2000:123; Wyse, 2001). Scepti-

cism abo ut the explicit role of gram m ar in langu age teaching has also come from

a sense on the part of some language professionals tbat these pedagogical

debates have been hijacked som ew hat to supp ort political concerns over decline

in moral stand ards and the need to prom ote a hom ogeneous British culture (see

Cam eron, 1995). In this case, gram m ar becom es the touchsto ne of m oral fibre an d

national id entity. The introd uction of the N ational Literacy Strategy in English

primary schools^ (NLS) (DfEE, 1998), witb its heavy emphasis on word-level

(phonics, spelling and vocabulary) and sentence-level work (grammar and

punctuation), and its prescribed 'Literacy Hour', has given rise to mixed

outcomes. Whilst the strategy has demonstrably resulted in sustained higher

achiev em ent in nation al tests des igned to assess literacy skills (see OISE, 2001), it

is recognised that this increase has been at a cost. Erater (2000), for example,

show s how the NLS has impac ted negatively o n teachers' sense of professional

kno wled ge, and h as led to a fragmented rather tba n a holistic view of langua ge.

Teachers often feel obliged to 'teach to the tests', which skews pu pils ' in tegrated

know ledge about langu age. Nevertheless, tbere has been no let-up in the m ain

thrust of the delivery on literacy, nor in its mode of implementation. Since the

beginning of the millennium, the NLS philosophy has been extended from

primary to secondary schools, with the implementation of the Languagefo r

Learning in Key Stage 3

initiative (QCA, 2000a), designed to deve lop literacy skills

across the curriculum(DfES, 2001c). This strategy was desig ned in tbe belief th at,

since the NLS had raised stan dard s in prima ry school

(5-11

years) in reading and

writing, such skills needed to be built on in the secondary age range (11-16

years). This assumption itself has been widely challenged (see e.g. Bousted,

2001). Evidence for a gen uine im prov em ent in writing skills has also been ques-

tioned. Nev ertheless, the thrust to extend literacy across the curriculum goes on

un aba ted. Recently, asacentral strand to theKeyStage3Strategy,^theFramework

fo rTeachingEnglish: Years7 8and 9(DfEE, 2001a) is bein g implem ented.

Concurrently, tbe teaching of modern languages is undergoing a shift in

approach. The drive to raise stand ards

is

linked again with explicit know ledge

of

gram m ar. In recent decades, ML methodology has been characterised by a form

of

communicative language

teaching.

Whilst guarding against over-simplifying,

this approach m ay

be

defined as stressing fluency over accuracy, and usin g stock


3/16

118 Language

Awareness

consequence, that grammar is best taught inductively, through experiential,

context-based learning. Explicit teaching of ML grammar rules was conse-

quen tly sidelined in the attem pt to 'get p upils talk ing'. Until its latest revision,

this style of teaching was en shrined in the British National Cu rriculum for ML

(see DFE, 1995) and the end-of-secondary school national ML examina-

tion, GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education). Results from this

approach, however, have not been promising.Asum mary of the OfSTED (Office

for S tanda rds in Education) Inspectorate (Dobson,

1998),

for exam ple, reports on

the lack of progress m ade by p upils after a promising b eginning in the first y ear

of modern language learning. It notes their inability to use the language inde-

pendently and accurately, whether in reading and writing extended texts, or

initiating conversation. Nor do attempts to create meaningful communicative

tasks appear to have been successful in mo tivating pu pils beyon d the early years

of learning .

A

large national survey of

ML

teaching in England, conduc ted by the

Nuffield Found ation (2000), notes that9ou t of10pupils drop modern languages

post-16, and motivation dwindles long before that. Such disappointments have

caused what Grenfell (2000) describes as the current crisisin ML teaching: the

'methodo logical do ub ts', 'curricu lum confusion' and 'loss of pu rp ose '. This situ-

ation has led some teachers and policy makers to launch a 'return to grammar'

movem ent. The trend wa s given official a ppro val w ith the latest version of the

National Curriculum for ML (DfEE, 1999) and Modern Foreign Languages: A

Schemeof Work for Key Stage3(QCA, 2000b), both of which emphasise explicit

grammar teaching.

Underlying these debates about gram mar within both English and ML teach-

ing are tensions between means and ends, between different orders of knowl-

edge and different levels of control. Grenfell and Harris (1999: 31), quoting

associative textual sources, summarise some of the dichotomies which have

existed in language learning research over the years. We might sum up these

dichotomies below as follows. On the left h and side are the means:the conscious,

controlled, explicit learning processes or procedures used in gaining linguistic

knowledge. On the right are notions connected with competence, fluent, auto-

matic use:

Conscious v. unconscious (Lantolf Frawley, 1983);

Controlled v. autom atic (Shiffrin Schneider, 1977);

Accuracy v. fluency (Brumfit, 1984);

Declarative v. procedural (Anderson, 1983);

Learn ing v. acquisition (Krashen, 1982);

Plann ed v. un pla nn ed (Ellis, 1990).

Of course, dichotomy

is a

problematic wo rd. We do mean

to

imply op position

or separate existence between the two. These pairings shou ld no t

be

und erstood

as poles at oppo site ends of a spectrum. T here is not a strong interface betwee n

them . Rather, any langu age user m ay be operating at any po int along the contin-


4/16

Language-learningStrategies A C ase torCross curricularCollaboration 119

ent perspectives on the potential of explicit kno wle dge a bou t

language.

Whereas

English teachers did n ot believe that it could imp act positively on p up ils' profi-

ciency in using the langu age, m ost of tbe

ML

teachers were com mitted to

a

strong

connection between competence and knowledge about grammar. Thus,

although both sets of teachers were dealing witb language, they seemed to be

holding, and thus transmitting in their classroom methodologies, divergent

messages and approaches.

Cross language Collaboration

Given such divergence of views betw een E nglish and

ML

teachers, it is essen-

tialtoexplore, highlight and d evelop fhose co mm onalities of view an d app roach

which do exist. It is a difficult un der takin g, since even within LI, ped agogical

appro aches are often div ergen t. Flower(1994),for exam ple, illustrates this diver-

gence wh en he anatom ises the problem of methodological fragmentation in the

field of LI literacy. If we look to research to give a lead, tbe difficulties are even

more ap parent wb en attem pting to relate findings betw een LI an d L2 studies,

particularly since contextual issues are impo rtant

in

extrapolating conclusions to

tbe UK, wh ere there is a distinction to be mad e betw een

L2

an d ML research. L2

research is a world-wide research field, often prioritising adult learners of

English. ML, on the other h an d, are often much more local, if not parochial, an d

thu s highly susceptible to local contextual factors. Furth erm ore, w here children

have been researched in L2 studies, it has often been in bilingual situations;

English as a second lan guag e

(ESL)

rather tban as a foreign lang uage . Ne verthe-

less, it is possible to delineate a distinctive area for our investigation as that

involving tbe overlap between first, mother-tongue and modern foreign

langua ges. There is a case, therefore, for deve loping a mo re con sensual view of

language and ho w it should be taught.

This link already exists in tbe research literature. Draw ing o n the study from

Mitchell

etal.

(1994), Pom phrey and M oger

(1999:

224) consider the co mm onali-

ties between teachers of English (LI) and teachers of modern languages. They

point out that, although both: 'are to a certain extent now addressing know l-

edge about language , any systematic planning of this process seems to occur

witbin rather than across subject boundaries'. Pomphrey further suggests that

one way of developing better com munication between tbe two curriculum areas

is to rethink the direction of language transfer. She reviews various studies

exploring transfer between LI andL2,concluding that: 'wh ile languag e transfer

from the LI to tbe L2 is more likely to be implicit, unconscious and difficult to

track, there is scope for the transfer of explicit knowledge about language from

L2/F L to tbe L I' (Pom phrey, 2000: 278). She argues that because the process of

learning a new language involves standing back from implicit language use, it

allows learners to look more objectively at tbe forms of their first language.

Insights gained from the study of a foreign language can therefore be used to


5/16

120 LanguageA wareness

(Burley & Pomphrey, 2002) and) knowledge about 'how to learn languages'

(Grenfell & Harris, 1999). The remainder of this paper deals with the latter of

these and w ill specifically focus on

learning strategies

as a possible area for collab-

orative

work.

It will explore how a nd wh ere these links can be ma de and indicate

the research questions that need to be addressed in order for English and ML

teacherstobe able to apply them in practice. The intentionisthat the ex ploration

of cross-disciplinary connections between English and ML can illuminate way s

in which secondary school learners inthe UKcontext might understand and then

take more effective control of their own language learning. Such a shared

approach to language and common learning strategies could help to improve

both p up ils' LI literacy and their second langu age com petence. Ho wev er, it will

not b e fromtheperspective of an 'either-o r' decision with reg ardtogrammar, but

throu gh a developing cognition of the way lan guag e works

perse ,

how language

can be expressed to make m eaning, and how to go abou t learning it.

Language learning Strategies

The last two decades have seen a considerable growth of interest into how

learners process the information and skills involved in learning lang uage. The

obv ious attraction of this line of researchisthat, if we can discover how languag e

learners are successful, we can design our methodological approaches to

develop these skills. Learning strategies are commonly defined as the skills,

tactics

and

approaches

which learners adop t in dealing w ith their language learn-

ing. This research has taken place into both LI and L2 learning.

For LI learn ing, the roo ts of strategy research lay in the 1960s and 1970s in the

develop ment of cognitive psychology thro ugh the work of Bruner (e.g. Bruner

et

ai,

1966),

Flavell

(1976)

and others. This perspective provok ed a num ber of stud-

ies contrasting the learning strategies used by 'expe rts' with those used b y 'nov -

ices'

(see, for ex amp le, Palinscar & B rown 's (1984) stud y on readin g). Research

into L2 learning has also used as its starting point the notion of the so-called

'Good Language Learner' (see Naiman et al, 1978; Stern, 1975) and listed the

strategies which successful learners adopt: for example, planning strategies,

empathetic strategies, experimental strategies, practice strategies, monitoring

strategies, etc. From the early 1990s, this research became increasingly embed-

ded within a cognitive theoretical app roach to learning a nd a range of different

taxonomies of strategies was d eveloped . Oxford(1990)for ex am ple, lists62strat-

egies divided into six main groups. Research (see, for example, O'Malley &

Chamot,1990)consistently found that successful language-learne rs haveawider

repertoire of language learning strategies and use them more frequently than

their less successful peers (see McDonough, 1999; Skehan, 1989 for overview).

Althou gh the focus of much of the earlyL2strategy research w as on adult learn-

ers of English, or those learning it as a second langu age, m ore recent stu dies by

Graham (1997), Grenfell an d H arris (1999), Har ris

et

al.(2001) and Macaro (2001)


6/16

Language-learningStrategies A C ase farCrass curricuiarCoiiabaratian 121

success of these expert learners app ears

to be

their ability to deploymetacognitive

strategies. Both

LI

and

L2

studies draw

a

distinction between direct processingof

the language - cognition- and thinkingaboutthese processes -

metacognition.

In

terms of learning strategies, cognition may include a wide range of language

processes, from techniques for mem orising vocabu lary or spellings to those used

to infer m eaning from texts. M etacognition, on the other h and , is concerned w ith

guid ing the learning process itself a nd so includes strategies for planning, m oni-

toring and evaluating language use. In L2 strategy research, Rubin (1990)

describes learners wh o have effective metacog nitive strategies as having 'execu-

tive control': they can not only select strategies that are ap prop riate to the task

but

also

monitor wh ether

the

strategy

is

effective or not and m odify their strategy

selection ifnecessary.T hus, a key aspect of me tacognitive strategies is their abil-

ity to facilitate transfer and p rom ote g reater learner autonom y. Studies in both

LI and L2 learning have consequently placed increasing emphasis on develop-

ing metacog nitive und ersta nd ing rathe r than simply teaching discrete cognitive

strategies. For example, Harrison (2002) summarises the research evidence

underpinning the Key Stage 3 Strategy, through which the National Literacy

Strategy has been extended to secondary schools.'* In relation to metacognition,

he suggests:

learners who have a conscious awareness of and conscious control over

their learning strategies can apply that know ledge in new learning contexts

and learn more than those who hav e not been taug ht any strategies, or have

simply been given new learning strategies without guidance in knowing

how to apply them. (H arrison, 2002: 28)

Whilst on some levels such learners may be aware of their own thought

processes, it would be dangerous to assume that they can articulate them.

Grenfell and Ha rris (1999), for ex ample, warn that the m ore com petent learners

are, the m ore likely they maybe tohave proceduralised the strategies to the point

that they are not be able to formulate them readily in wo rds . On the other h and ,

learning strategies can be declared by their teachers. Learners can not only be

offered explicit knowled ge of how the languag e w orks; they can also be given

explicit knowledg e of

howto

tackle learning

a

language.

It is

this view that unde r-

pins recent studies into

strategy

instruction.

Learning Strategy Instruction

A major outcome of the research into such a process has been the de bate over

wh ether learners should be explicitly taugh t 'how to learn'. Strategy instruction

is any process w hich seeks to develop intentionally the u se of learning strategies

on the pa rt of the learner.W ithin the LI context,

a

num ber of instructional materi-

als have been developed for strategy training of LI English students (see

Dansereau,1985;Jonesetah,1985). Subsequent studies hav e show n that strategy


7/16

122 LanguageAwareness

Stage3Strategy) or integrated into the usual langu age

lessons,

and should strate-

gies be made explicit or simply em bedd ed in teaching m aterials? In relation to

the first question, just as English teachers have argued for the importance of

contextualising explicit knowledge about grammar, they cite studies showing

tbat learning in context is more effective than learning separate skills, whose

immediate applicability may not be evident to the learner. In relation to the

second question, tbey note research which suggests tbat tbe emb edd ed appro ach

has sometimes found little transfer of training to new tasks. In contrast, more

recent approaches to strategy instruction have a dde dametacogn itive dim ension

by informing students about the purpose and importance of the strategies and

providing instruction on the regulation and monitoring of strategies. This

approach has been more successful in facilitating extended strategy use over

time,

and also tbe transfer of strategies to new tasks.

Draw ing on instructional frameworks used in botb LI andL2contexts,O Mal-

ley and Chamot established a common set of guidelines, arguing for an inte-

grated and direct model of strategy instruction. The model has been furtber

developed in the USA by W enden (1991) and Cbam ot

et

al.(1999) and in tbe UK

by Crenfell a nd Harris (1999). It is now possible to refer tocommonalities,if not

consen sus, on an agreed sequence of steps for strategy instruc tion (see Table 1).

Metacognitive strategies are developed in tbe initial 'awaren ess-raising' stage,

the 'action planning' step, and the final 'evaluation' stage.^ Table1sets out the

detail of such strategy instruction.

The focus in tbe L2/ML model of strategy instruction on explicit, conscious,

planned proceduresisalsoafeature of tbe Key Stage3Strategy. Here,theimpor-

tance is stressed of making the aims of lessons clear to pupils, of encouraging

them to 'activate their prior k now ledge' and to 'reflect' at the end of lessons on

what has been learned. Both the steps in the strategy instruction and the Key

Stage3Strategy also highlight the value of collaborative activities in develop ing

pup ils' unde rstanding of howtolearn. InLI ,H arrison(2002)argu es tbat collabo-

rative pair and group workisa valuable m iddle step in sbifting from the teacher

as 'expe rt' du ring tbe 'mod elling' p base to the point at which learners are able to

use the strategies indepe nden tly. He refers to tbe study by Palinscar and Brown

(1984) on 'reciprocal teaching', where pupils worked in pairs to coach one

another, ask questions, and 'thin k alo ud' ab out bow they w ere going abou t tack-

Table

1.

2.

3.

4.

1 A sequence of steps for strategy instruction

'Awareness raising' of

the

strategies the learners are already using.

'Modelling' of the new strategies by the teacher and 'persuasion' ofthevalueof

expanding one's repertoire of strategies.

'General practice' ofnewstrategies through wholeclass,pair and group work.

'Action planning': identifying personal difficulties or goals and the most useful

strategies to address them.


8/16

Language-learning

Strategies

A Case for

Cross curricular

Collaboratian 123

ling

a

readingtask.Subsequ ent research confirmed tbat tbe app roac b was partic-

ularly successful with less proficient readers, who learned much by observing

the strategies good readers automatically applied. The importance of a social

community, in which meanings are constructed together and approaches

shared, is also und erlined in L2 studies by Don ato and McCormick (1994) and

Lebtonen (2000). Moreover, collaboration is a key element in creating and

sustaining gro up mo tivation (see Dorny ei & Csizer, 1998).

If pupils are being invited to reflect on and share approaches to their

language learning in both their mother tongue and their foreign language

classes, then it wou ld be a wasted op por tunity not to facilitate the transference

of new unde rstandin gs between botb arenas by developing a comm on u nder-

standing and approach to teaching how to learn. In spite of these parallels,

existing government policies do little to create conditions in which ML and

English teachers can explore tog ether bo w to facilitate p up ils' ability to transfer

tbeir kno wled ge ab out languag e and lan guag e learning from the LI to the ML

and vice versa. Burley and Pompbrey (2002) and Turner and Turvey (2002)

report on tbe positive outcome of projects which have brou gb t together Englisb

and modern language teacher trainees to explore issues such as attitudes to

grammar and linguistic diversity. Tbere is clearly mucb potential to extend

such collaboration and 'inter-comprehension' to practising language teacbers

in scbools.

There is a further argu m ent for collaboration betw een English and ML teacb-

ers,

tbis time not so much in terms the explicit, conscious, planned processes

discussed earlier but more within the unconscious, implicit and automatic;

nam ely, tbe 'practice ' and scaffolded learning ad vocated in steps 3 and 5 of tbe

steps of strategy instru ction (Table

1).

W itbin LI learning, Harrison (2002) warn s

against dismantling 'scaffolded pupil application of new learning' too early,

stressing tbat it should be withdrawn gradually, since it takes time, and much

practice, for the pu pil to apply new u nd ersta nd ing s to unfamiliar contexts inde-

pen den tly. Similarly, within

L2

learning, McD onou gb (1999) in reviewing stud-

ies into the imp act of strategy instruction, suggests tbat o ne of the reasons w by

initial studies m ay have yielded conflicting or uncon vincing evidence w as inade-

quate practice to operationalise the strategies. Tbis tbeme is recurrent in tbe case

studies reported by Harriset ah (2001) of learn ers' responses to strategy ins truc-

tion in a number of European countries. Tbus, alongside tbe need for explicit

kno wled ge about bo w to learn, there is the requirem ent for extensive practice in

order toproceduralise the new strategies. If it is essential to provide extensive

practice in the deplo ym ent of new app roach es to the learning task, it seems prob -

able that having two contexts rather than one in wbicb to use these approaches

can only be beneficial. How ever, for Englisb and ML teachers to maximise the

potential o ppo rtunities for transfer, a range of issues need

to be

addressed. Here,

research into learning strategies can facilitate sucb collaboration by develo ping

an agend a of concerns.


9/16

124 Language A wareness

science and other lessons, there was little recognition of the common ground

betwe en English andML

learning.

More recent docu me ntation suchas

Literacy

in

Modern Foreign Languages(DfES, 2002:1) does encourage ML teachers to 'make

constructive links to pu pils' literacy learning in English'. How ever, the focus is

mainly on the teaching of grammar or spelling. A subject specific Key Stage 3

Strategy in ML (2002) was piloted across 16 local education authorities and is

abou t to be implem ented at the time of writing. Like theNLSand the framework

for teaching English, the structure and content of this strategy are divided into

levels of progression between years 7-9 (first three years of secondary school)

across work at word level, sentence level and text level. Strands of progression

are tracked across years and within skill areas. Many ofthe advocated objectives

appear, however, to be devoted to grammar, or the relationship between the

written word and how it is pronounced .

The opportunity to link such structural knowledge with learning strategies

has no t been taken; nor, for that m atter, does the Key Stage 3 Strategy cross the

curriculum in subject content. It is in fact 'content free', ignoring the way that

language structure links with cognitive process in particular subject contexts.

The link betw een languag e structure and content may be developed further.

Grenfell (2002), for example, provides a rationale for the teaching of modern

languages through the medium of curriculum subjects such as mathematics,

science, history and art, showing how the cognitive skills developed in these

areas can complement those needed for successful lan guage learning. In many

cases,

content and languag e learning strategies are cong ruous with each other.

Even within learning strategies, how ever, there

is

often little connec tion m ade

betwe en LI and L2 uses. We shall take the cases of memo risation and reading

strategies by way of exemplification of issues and shared themes in building a

comm on research agenda be tween the two linguistic contexts.

M em orisation strategies

One of the factors impeding the sharing of insights into common mental

processes is that there is no read ily accessible com parison of LI an d L2 and ML

strategies, identifying tho se that appearto besimilar and those that are d ifferent.

Furtherm ore, the problemisexacerba ted by the fact that there is notacommonly

agreed taxonomy of L2 learning strategies (see Bialystok, 1990, for example).

Without English and ML teachers knowing what learning strategies are being

advocated in each of their respective lessons, it is ha rd to see ho w they can rein-

force explicit reflection on the language-learning process or provide the neces-

sary extensive practice in transference of strategies to new

tasks.

Thus, a first step

in establishing a comm on ag enda w ould be to carry out an initial audit compar-

ing strategies in L2 learning strategy taxonomies to those advocated for the

teaching of English (representing

LI). By

m eans of

a

brief illustration of the more

obvious connections at the basic level of memorisation strategies. Table 2


10/16

Language-iearningStrategies A Case forCross curricuiarCaiiabaratian 125

Table Com parison of memorisation strategies

Strategies advocated for LI

Use m nem onics (2001a: 23)

Use visu al skills (2001b: 33)

Recognise wo rds within w ords (2001b: 22)

Strate}^es identified in L2 research

Use acronyms (1990: 68)

Use photographic memory; (1990: 294)

Analyse w ords/expressions

(1990:

83)

Sources:

DfES, 2001a; 2001b; Oxford, 1990.

Table2illustrates wha tasystematic aud it of comm on strategies between first-

and second-language learning would look like. Such an audit facilitates the

second step in a comm on research agend a; namely, to explore whether learners

automatically make the links between the LI language learning strategies that

they have been tau ght and the ML tasks they are faced with and vice versa. At

this stage of their cognitive develo pm ent, itispossible that high attaining p upils,

with well-developed metacognitive strategies, may already be making the

connections. Grenfell and Harris (1999:125) describe a case study in which the

use of mind-m apping as aMLmemo risation strategy appea red m ore frequently

than other strategies. Not only were the pupils using mind-mapping high

attainers, but this strategy had also been promoted in the school's Humanities

Dep artme nt. Therefore, exploring which pu pils are able to make these connec-

tions wo uld prov ide useful evidence for the third step of the research agenda: a

focus on the potential of explicit instruction in both English and ML lessons to

facilitate transference.

As

noted above, Pom phrey (2000) ha s argued p recisely for

the poten tial value of reflecting on the struc ture of a second lan guage in illumi-

nating p up ils' un der stan din g of their first. It could be that such benefits migh t

extend to their heightene d awa reness of the learning processitself.For example,

a shared focus on key memorisation strategies, with opportunities to pro-

ceduralise theminboth English an dMLlessons, migh t enhance pupil s' mem ori-

sation skills in both lang uages and in other curriculum subjects.

Research questions with re ad ing

The similarity of memorisation strategies in LI and ML might seem

self-evident. Making the links explicit across other skill areas such as reading

involves more complex issues. The problem arises from the mismatch between

the learner's proficiency levels in English and in theML,raising the issue of 'pro -

gression' within strategy dev elopm ent. Whereas Year8(12-year-old) pup ils are

expected to 'recognise bias and objectivity' in E nglish texts (DfES, 2001a:28),this

would be much harder for beginners in a foreign language, where they may

simply be grap pling with basic comprehension problem s. Clarke (1980), investi-

gating ESL learners, concluded that until a certain 'threshold' of linguistic

competence is acquired, learners are so concerned w ith decoding the languag e

they do not have the m ental space need ed to operationalise strategies. Alderson


11/16

126

ble 3

Com parison of read ing strategies

Language

Awareness

Reading strategies in the NLS

Use titles, cover pages, pic tures (DfES

2001b: 25)

Predict words from preceding words

(DfES 2001b: 22)

Reading strategies to extract particular

information (DfES

2001a:

24)

Reading strategies in L2

language-learning

strategies

research

Read headings and look at pictures

(Young, 1993)

Predicting (Janzen Stoller, 1998)

Identify key information (Sarig, 1987)

because they have a more extensive vocabulary, and because they automatically

compare LI, including learning strategies, to the new language and know the

value, for exam ple, of 'looking for cogna tes'. Low -attaining p upils , on the other

han d, m ay not d o this. To resolve the misma tch of levels, it seems tha t the m ost

useful s tarting point m ight be an aud it of LI read ing strategies based ori those

listed in the

NLS

Gu idance for

Key Stage 1

and

2

(DfES, 2001b). The aim w ou ld be

to identify which strategies were taught when learning to read LI during the

early stages of primary school and compare them to those in L2/ML studies.

Examples of this comparison are set out in Table 3.

Researching imp ac t on learning

The Key Stage 3 Strategy offers a relevant framework not only for exploring

whethe r pupils are already making links betw een their English and their foreign

languag e learning, but also wheth er m aking such links explicit will impact posi-

tively on their perform ance .

As

has been noted for m em orisation strategies, such

a study could ascertain whether benefits are limited to the ML or whether LI

development

is

also affected. It m igh t

be

suppose d that any positive benefits are

onlyone

way;

in other words, that it might improve their foreign language b ut no t

their English reading. However, the National Reading Panel (2000, Chapter 2)

conc luded that, in the case of phonics, while instruction w as effective in the early

years of learning to read, reading difficulties in older children were pe rhaps not

best treated by phonics programmes. A fourth question might therefore be to

explore whether explicit strategy instruction in modern languages lessons

prov ided such pupils w ith a fresh, alternative

way

in to reading English.

To

sum up, there

is a

need for solid research evidence to establish for each skill

area:

(1) the most app ropria te common strategies to draw p up ils' attention to at any

particular stage in their learning (and presumably also those that apply

uniquely to L2 learning; for example, memorising the gender of new

words);

(2) wh ich, if any, pupil s benefit from m aking the links explicit;


12/16

Language-learningStrategies A Case torCross curricuiarColiaboration 127

knowledge about language, Pomphrey and Moger (1999) found that one of the

factors im ped ing cross-subject dialogu e wa s the high level of anxiety am ong the

stud ent teachers of English concerning their ow n explicit kno wled ge oflanguage

structure.

T urning to the argum ent presented here for explicit knowledge about

languagelearning

a possible area of tension (difficulty) for modern languages

teachers is the lang uage in which suc h reflection migh t take place. It ma y app ear

obvious to state that LI instruction takes place in the

LI.

How ever, the context

of

ML is different, since there is the question of w hethe r the declarative kn ow ledge

involved in strategy instruction shou ld be filtered thro ugh the mediu m of

the

LI .

It is not appropriate here to rehearse the arguments for the use of the

target

language,so strongly argued by the comm unicative approach

to

second langua ge

teaching. The requirem ent to speak in the second languag e

is

now being increas-

ingly tem pered b y a recognition that for beginner an d interm ediate learners this

may severely restrict their capacity to engage in meaningful discussion about

their learning (see H arris

etal

2001).Thisrecognitionissuppo rted in the ML Key

Stage 3 Strategy, which p rescribes 'plena ries' at the end of lessons, w here wh at

has been learnt is a source of explicit reflection that can be con duc ted in English.

There is still a need, how ever, to establish at w hat p oint in p up ils' learning the

instruction can shift into the target language. ML teachers may be more

convinced of the justification for using English if there was research indicating

the value of cross-curricular strategy instruction in enabling learners to transfer

knowledge about their LI to the ML and vice versa.

Conclusion

A num ber of the studies described in this pap er co nclude by stressing tha t if

learners are to develop into skilled, confident, adaptable and independent

langua ge u sers, then their teachers need the freedom to take risks, to investigate

their own classroom practice,

to

be 'agen ts rather tha n objects within the sy stem '

(Harrison, 2002:34).

We

prop ose that sharin g insights ab out effective strategies is

one way in which Eng lish an d ML teachers could m ove beyon d the confines of

delivering a nationally defined program me tow ards a richer understand ing of

the process of learning how to learn language. In this context, research and

language researchers have a crucial role to play in developing an agenda of

concerns informed by empirical studies, past and present. The area therefore

offers rich potential for developing collaboration between teachers from differ-

ent language backgrounds and researchers in the field. Such collaboration can

only enhance research activity which impacts on practice, with the resultant

methodological advances for language teaching and learning.

Correspondence

An y correspon dence shou ld be directed to Dr Michael Grenfell, Research and

G radu ate School of Education, University of Sou tham pton, S outham pton, SO17

1 BJ, UK ([email protected]).


13/16


languages'.

We

acknowledge the richness of

this

linguistic

plurality.

How ever, for the

purp oses of this paper, w e are here add ressing the teaching and learning of English as

a native language and m odern Europ ean langua ges (in this case, French, German and

Spanish) as a 'foreign' language.

2. In Britain, compulsory schooling is comm only referred to as being divided up

between Primary (ages 5-11) and Secondary (ages 11-16) phases. This age range is

further divided into four Key Stages: 1 (5-7); 2

(7-11;

3 (11-14); 4 (14-16).

Post-compulsory education then continues from 16 to 19+ leading to Higher Educa-

tion and other vocational and professional training.

3.

The Key Stage 3 Strategy was launched in 2002 with the aim of building on the NLS

and addressing the dip in pupils' attainment once they move to secondary school. It

seeks to ensure tha t by the age of

14,

pup ils have learned how to think logically and

creatively, hav e beg untowork independen tly and are learning howto

learn.

It aimsto

highlight key features of what is seen as good teaching; for example, high expecta-

tions,

clear objectives, and interactive teaching. It consists of a number of strands:

frameworks for teach ing core subjects such as English, Maths , and Science, and liter-

acy across the curriculum , so that teachers can

see

how they are able to suppo rt pupils

literacy skills. Most recently, guidance for teaching other subjects - history and

m odern langu ages - h as been piloted with a view to full implem entation.

4.

The National Literacy Strategy is a Key Stage 1/2 developm ent, wh ich has been

extended to into Key Stage

3 .

This continuation has been implemented through the

Key Stage 3 English framework and the

Literacy Across the Curriculum

(DfES, 2001c)

initiative.

5.

Foramore detailed illustration ofthecomm on steps in strategy instruction see Har ris

(2003).

References

Adey, P . and S hayer, M. (1994)

Really RaisingStandards.

London: Routledge.

Alderson, J. (1984) Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language

problem? In J. Alderson and A.H. Urquhart (eds)

Reading in a Foreign Language.

London: Longman.

Anderson, J. (1983)

The Architecture

of Cogn ition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Beard, R. (2000)

Developing Writing3-13.

London: Hod der and Stoughton.

Bernhardt, E.B. and Kamil, M.L. (1995) Interpreting relationships between LI and L2

reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence

hypotheses.

Applied Linguistics

16 (1), 15-34.

Bialystok

(1990)CommunicationStrategies: A Psychological Analysisof Second Language Us

Oxford: Blackwell.

Bousted, M. (2001) Editorial: O Brave New World . . .

English in Education

35 ( 3), 1-3.

Brumfit, C.J. (1984)

Communicative Methodology

in

LanguageTeaching.

Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Bruner,J.S.,

Olver,

R.R.

and G reenfield,

P.M.(1966)Studies in CognitiveGrowth.

N ew York:

Wiley.

Burley, S. and Pom phrey, C. (2002) Intercom prehension: A m ove towards a new type of

language teacher.

Language Learning Journal25, 46-51.

Cameron, D. (1995)

VerbalHygiene.

L ondon: Routledge.

Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary,

P.B.

and R obbins,

J.

(1999)

The Learning Strategies

Handbook.

New York State: Longman.

Clarke, M. A.

(1980)

The short circuit hypothesis of

ESL

reading - or when language com-


14/16

Language-learningStrategies A Case forCross curricuiarCoiiaboration 129

Departm ent for Education and E mployment(1998)

Tiie National Literacy

Strategy.London:

HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment (1999) Modern

Foreign Languages

in the

National

Curriculum.London: HMSO .

Department for Education and Skills (2001a)

Key Stage 3 National Strategy.Framework for

TeachingEnglish: Years

7

8and9.

London: HMSO .

Departm ent for E ducation an d Skills (2001b)

The National LiteracyStrategy. Framework for

Teaching.

KSl

and KS2 Headteachers and

Teachers.London: HMSO .

Department for Education and Skills (2001c)

Literacy Acrossthe

Curriculum. London:

HMSO.

De partm ent for Education and Skills

(2002)Literacy in Modern ForeignLanguages.

London:

HMSO.

Dobson, A. (1998)

MFLinspected.Reflections on Inspection Findings1996/7.

London: CILT.

Donato, R. and McCormick (1994) A socio-cultural perspective on language learning

strategies: The role of m ediation.

Modern Language Journal

78 (4), 453-64.

Dornyei, Z. and C sizer, K. (1998) Ten com m andm ents for mo tivating language learners:

Results of an emp irical study.

Language Teaching Research2(3),

203-29.

Ellis,

R. (1990)

Instructed Second LanguageAcquisition.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Flavell, J.H. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Resnich (ed.)

The

Natureof Intelligence(pp. 231-5). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Flower, L. (1994) The

Construction

of

NegotiatedMeaning;

A

Social Cognitive Theory

of

Writing.

C arbondale, IL: Southe rn Illinois University Press.

Frater, G. (2000) Observed in practice. English in the National Literacy Strategy: Some

reflections.

Reading

(N ov), 107-112.

Graham , S. (1997)

Effective LanguageLearning.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Grenfell, M . (2000) Beyond N uffield and into the 21st century.

Language Learning Journal

22,23-30.

Grenfell , M. (ed.) (2002) Modern Languages Across the Curriculum. L o n d o n :

RoutledgeFalmer.

Grenfell, M. and H arris,V.(1999)

Modern Languages and Learning

Strategies:

In Theory and

Practice.London: Routledge.

Harris,

V.,

w ith Gaspar,

A.,

Jones,

B.,

Ingv adottir, H., Palos, 1., N eub urg,

R.

and Schindler,

L (2001)

Helping Learners Learn: Exploring Strategy Instruction in Language Classrooms

across

Europe.Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages.

Harris, V. (2003) Adapting classroom-based strategy instruction to a distance learning

context.

TESL-EJ.

Harrison, C. (2002)

The National Strategyfor English at Key Stage

3:

Roots and Research.

De partm ent for Education and Skills. Londo n: HM SO.

Janzen,

J.

and Stoller, F.L

(1998)

Integrating strategic reading

in L2

instruction.

Reading in a

Foreign Language

12 (1), 251-69.

Jones, B.F.,

A miran,

M.

and

Katims,M.(1985)

Teaching cognitive strategies and text struc-

ture w ithin langu age arts progra m s. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman and R. Glaser (eds)

Thinking and Learning Skills

(vol. 1) (pp . 259-97). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .

Krashen, S.D. (1982)

Principles

and

Practice

in

Second Language

Acquisition. New York:

Pergamon.

Lantolf,

J. and Frawley, W. (1983) Second language performance and Vygotskyan

psycholinguistics.

LACUSForum.

Lehtonen, T. (2000) Aw areness of strategies is not enou gh: How learners can g ive each

other the confidence to use them?

Language Awareness

9

64-76.

Macaro, E. (2001)

Strategies in Foreign and Second LanguageClassrooms: Learning to Learn


15/16


Language Learningand the National Curriculum. Occasional Papers 19. University of

Southampton.

Na iman, N ,, Frohlich, M,, Stern, H,H , and Todesco, A, (1978)The Good Language

Learner.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,

National Reading Panel (2000)

Teaching Children to

Read:

An

Evidence-Based Assessment o

the Scientific Research Literature on Reading andits Implicationsfor ReadingInstructio

Washington, DC: National Institute for Child Health and Human Development,

Nuffield Fou ndation

(2000)

The Nuffield Languages

Inquiry. Langu ages:

The Next

G eneration

London: Nuffield Found ation,

OISE (O ntario Institute for S tudies in E ducation) (2001)Watching Learning2: Evaluation of

the Implementation

o f

the National Literacy and Numeracy

Strategies.

OISE, Un iversity o

Toronto,

O Malley, J.M.

and C hamot, A,U,(1990)Learning Strategies in Second Language Acqu isition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Oxford, R, (1990)Language Learning

Strategies; What

Every Teacher Should

Know.

Bosto

MA: Heinle and Heinle,

Palinscar, A,S, and Brown, A,L, (1984) Reciprocal teaching of com prehension-fostering

and comprehension monitoring activity.Cognition and Instruction

1,117-75,

Pomphrey,

C,

and M oger,

R,(1999)

Cross-subject dialogue abou t language: A ttitudes and

perceptions of PGCE studen ts on English and m odern languages. Language Awareness

8, 223-36,

Pomphrey, C,(2000)Language transfer and the mode rn foreign languages curriculum . In

K, Field (ed.)Issues in Modern Foreign Languages

Teaching.

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Pressley, M,, Woloshyn, V, and Associates (1995)Cognitive Strategy Instruction that Really

Improves Children s Academic Performance(2nd e dn), Cam bridge, M A: Brookline,

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000a)Languagefor Learning in Key Stage 3.

London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority,

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000b)

Modern Foreign

Languages. A

Scheme of

Work forKey Stage3.London: Qualifications a nd C urriculum Authority,

Rubin,

J,

(1990) Ho w learner s trategies can inform langu age teaching . In V, Bickley (ed,)

Language

Use,

Language Teaching and the

C urriculum.

H ong Kong: Institute of Languag

in Education,

Sarig,

G,

(1987)High level reading in the first and the foreign language : Some com parative

process data. In

J,

D evine, P.L, Carrell and D,E, Eskey (eds)Research in Reading English

as a Second Language(pp, 107-20), Washington,

DC:

TESOL,

Shiffrin,

R,M,

and Schneider,W,(1977)Controlled and autom atic information processing:

Perceptual learning, automatic attending an dageneral theory.Psychological Review

84,

127-90,

Skehan, P. (1989)

Individual differences

in

Second Language

Learning.

London: Edward

Arnold,

Stern, H,H, (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner?Canadian Modern

Language Review

31,304-18,

Turner,

K,

and Turvey, A.

(2002)

The space between shared und erstanding s of the teach-

ing of gram m ar in English and French year 7 learners: Studen t teachers w orking col-

laboratively.Language Awareness11,100-13,

Wenden, A, (1991)Learner Strategies

for

LearnerAutonomy. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice

Hall,

Wyse, D (2001) Grammar for writing? A critical review of empirical evidence, British

Journal

o f

Educational Studies49 (4), 411-27,

Young, D.J, (1993) Processing strategies of foreign language readers: Authentic and

edited input.Foreign Language Annals26 (4),

451-68,


16/16

esl lit reviw languages

Documents