Cross-Linguistic Transfer of Writing Strategies. Karen Forbes
the nature of and potential for the cross-linguistic transfer of language learning strategies which, to date, is a relatively unexplored area.
An Introduction to the Research Context
This book is based largely on data that emerged as part of the Cross-Linguistic Strategy Transfer study (hereafter referred to as the X-LiST study), a longitudinal, quasi-experimental study conducted in a secondary school in England. The key aim of this study was to explore how an explicit focus on strategy instruction in the FL German classroom influenced students’ strategy development and performance in writing in German, and whether any such effects transferred to another FL (French) and/or to the L1 (English). The study involved FL teachers of German and French, L1 teachers of English and two intact classes of Year 9 students (age 13–14). This year group was chosen specifically because the students had completed at least two years of FL learning at secondary school; therefore, they were at a point where they were beginning to write longer pieces of text in the target language, an important practical consideration for this study. Crucially, this was also the final year of compulsory FL learning in school and therefore the students represented a wider range of ability levels and attitudes towards the subject than those who would self-select to continue the subject in Year 10 and beyond. It is also important to note that the school was situated in a semi-rural area in the East of England. Students who spoke a language other than English in the home represented only around 10% of the student population (which is around 4% below the national average for secondary schools at the time). As such, the main focus of the X-LiST study was on L1 English speaking students learning FLs in school. However, there were two bilingual students in the intervention group – one who spoke Mandarin at home and another who spoke Polish at home. There is a particular focus on these students in Chapters 8 and 9.
The majority of Year 9 students in the school studied both French and German as FLs. While they were all in their third year of learning both of these languages at secondary school level, some had also received an additional one or two years of French at primary school. However, it is important to note that any such input was minimal and did not have a notable impact on their level of proficiency. At the time, therefore, the secondary school curriculum did not assume any prior knowledge of the language. As such, it is fair to say that all of the participants were at a relatively similar stage of learning in both French and German. Two parallel mixed-ability classes were selected from the year group: one was designated as the intervention group which received an intervention of LLSI initially in the German classroom and later also in the English classroom, and the other as a comparison group which continued with the normal scheme of work in each subject. There were 22 participating students in the intervention group and 23 in the comparison group and both classes were comparable in terms of variables such as the spread of gender and academic performance.
A mixed-methods approach was adopted and data were collected from all students at various points over the course of the year through writing tasks (completed on task sheets to capture strategy use), assessment data and questionnaires. In addition to gathering data at a whole-class level, 12 students were also selected to participate in additional stimulated recall interviews and general interviews to allow for a more in-depth exploration of the role of individual differences in the development and transfer of students’ strategy use between the different language contexts. These students were chosen to represent a range of gender, academic performance, attitudes towards the subjects and L1 background.
Within the fields of both language learning strategies and research on writing more generally, the terms ‘L1’ and ‘L2’ are commonly used, yet it is important to recognise that such terms are highly context dependent and may prove problematic. The term L1 is typically used to refer to an individual’s mother tongue; however, bilingual children may have more than one language as their ‘first’ language. Similarly, if children move to a different country during their schooling, their dominant or primary language may eventually shift from their mother tongue to the language of the country in which they are living and attending school.
The term L2 is equally complex. This is often used as an umbrella term for any languages learned after the L1 (Hammarberg, 2001), yet distinctions can also be made between a learner’s L2 and third language (L3) according to the chronological order in which each language was encountered (Bardel, 2015). Such a distinction is considered important by some, as the L2 is typically learned by monolinguals, whereas the L3 or LX is learned by bi- or multilinguals who will therefore have already developed certain cognitive qualities that will differentiate them from the former group (Bardel & Falk, 2012). However, while this may have implications for languages learned at different stages, in the case of the X-LiST study the students started learning German and French at around the same age and were considered to be at a similar level of proficiency in both (as noted above). As a result of such parallel experiences, it would not make sense to impose a hierarchical distinction by referring to one as an L2 and another as an L3.
The term ‘L2 learning’ can also be used to refer to learners who are living and/or working in the target language environment, as distinct from ‘FL learning’ where learners receive a limited amount of exposure to the FL in an instructed, classroom environment, as is the case in the current study. Such a difference in sociocultural environments necessitates that L2 and FL development should be considered as different entities (Kecskes & Papp, 2000). Therefore, for the purpose of this book the term ‘first language’ or L1 will be used to refer to English, which is the native language and/or primary language of the vast majority of the participants (any exceptions to this will be clearly stated throughout), while German and French will be referred to as ‘foreign languages’ (FL). Reference to the L2 (or L3) will only be made when referring to other studies where these terms have been used by the authors.
The overarching aim of this book is primarily to provide insights into the phenomenon of cross-linguistic transfer of writing strategies (in particular, transfer from the FL to the L1) and, as such, to further highlight the potential contribution of FL teaching to the development of writing skills more generally. It is hoped that this may encourage more joined-up, cross-curricular, cross-linguistic thinking in relation to language in schools. The book is structured as follows.
Chapter 2 sets out important contextual information for the subsequent study by reviewing the position of L1 and FL learning in schools from a range of perspectives. First, key trends are explored at the national level such as provision for and uptake of FL learning. The relative positioning of both the L1 and FLs within the curriculum is then examined, with a particular focus on the perceived ‘status’ of each language and also the presence (or absence) of any explicit cross-curricular links made between different languages. While the main focus of this book is on the UK context, comparisons will also be made here to a range of other (predominantly) Anglophone countries, namely the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As stated earlier in this chapter, having English as the dominant official language in these countries means that, on the one hand, they may be seen to share a linguistically privileged position but, on the other hand, they also share similar struggles when it comes to the promotion and positioning of other languages in the curriculum. The focus then shifts to the individual level and, more specifically, to the perspectives of teachers and students which are explored by drawing on data from the X-LiST study. The aim here is to examine the various approaches and priorities of L1 and FL teachers when it comes to the teaching of writing and to consider the extent to which these views and practices are reflected in students’ conceptualisations of writing and strategy use. Based on the evidence presented in this chapter, a case is made for the FL classroom as a key context for developing strategies which may also benefit the L1.