Читать книгу Cross-Linguistic Transfer of Writing Strategies - Karen Forbes - Страница 8
ОглавлениеWer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen.
Those who know nothing of foreign languages,
know nothing of their own.
Goethe
The above quote by Goethe is one that has resonated with me in various ways over the years, first as a language learner, then as a secondary school teacher and more recently as a researcher. It seems to encapsulate the essence of the various reflections and experiences, both personal and professional, that ultimately led to the research at the heart of this book. I remember ‘discovering’ language only when I started to learn French at age 11. That may sound strange given that I had been a reasonably fluent speaker of English for many of those 11 years, but I had never thought about ‘my’ language in such an explicit way before – I simply took it for granted. At age 18, I remember sitting in my first linguistics lecture at university when we were told that on Mondays the focus would be on English language and grammar. As one of the few native English speakers in the room I sat back smugly thinking this would be easy, but when the first question was asked and dozens of hands shot up around me, I slumped down in my seat and realised just how little I knew. Later, as a teacher of French and Spanish in a secondary school in England, I thought a lot about how we position ‘language’ in schools and the great chasm that seems to exist between how we engage with and teach the first language (L1) versus foreign languages (FL). I had many a heated debate with my English teacher friend who insisted that I was the language teacher whereas she identified herself primarily as a teacher of literature. Yet, I always instinctively felt that, for me, learning French, German and Spanish in school made me a better speaker, writer and user of English. As I moved into educational research I looked for evidence to support this; yet, while there is a substantial body of work on how the L1 can transfer to or interfere with learning additional languages, there are fewer empirical studies that explore the potential positive effects that learning a second language (L2) or FL in school may have on the first.
The above reflections are purely anecdotal; however, they have far wider implications in the current climate of FL education in England and beyond. While the learning of English as an L2/FL is booming in many countries around the world and represents around a $50 billion a year industry (Statista, 2019), FL learning in Anglophone countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand has been in steady decline in recent years. Languages are considered as ‘hard’ and sometimes ‘pointless’ in light of the global status of English. Debates around migration and the ‘nation’ fuelled by political developments such as the Trump presidency in the United States and the Brexit referendum in the UK have led some to be suspicious of anything that represents the ‘other’ or the ‘foreign’. Yet, it is vital to acknowledge that, even though English continues to be the lingua franca for much world trade and diplomacy, it alone is simply not enough (Commission on Language Learning, 2017). Teachers of FLs in these countries therefore often battle to justify the place of their subject in the curriculum. We highlight the social, cognitive and economic benefits of speaking another language; we emphasise the importance of developing communication skills and intercultural competence. However, what if we could provide further evidence to demonstrate that the benefits and value of FL learning in schools can extend beyond the subject to other areas of the curriculum? Indeed, the need for robust research evidence to answer such questions has recently been highlighted in a report by the British Academy (2019), which calls for more studies exploring the cross-curricular benefits of language learning.
In addition to reflecting on why we teach FLs, we also need to think about how we teach these languages. The reality is that some students do struggle, and we must therefore do what we can to make languages accessible and to help them to flourish. This led me to the field of language learning strategies, first as a teacher and later as a researcher. Language learning strategies will be discussed in depth in Chapter 3, but they are generally considered as a means of ensuring that language is stored, retained and able to be produced when necessary. Or, as Oxford (2017) effectively puts it:
L2 learning strategies are complex, dynamic thoughts and actions, selected and used by learners with some degree of consciousness in specific contexts in order to regulate multiple aspects of themselves (such as cognitive, emotional, and social) for the purpose of (a) accomplishing language tasks; (b) improving language performance; and/or (c) enhancing long-term proficiency. (Oxford, 2017: 48)
Even though the field has been around since the 1970s, it continues to evolve, to innovate and to attract the attention of scholars worldwide. While the focus of early studies in this area was largely on identifying and classifying the various strategies that ‘successful’ learners use, attention later shifted to how such strategies can be taught and the effectiveness of various programmes of language learning strategy instruction (LLSI). In recent decades a substantial body of evidence has been produced which largely suggests that: (a) there is a positive relationship between strategy use and attainment in language learning; and (b) such strategies are indeed both ‘teachable’ and ‘learnable’ (see, for example, recent meta-analyses by Ardasheva et al., 2017; Plonsky, 2019). There are, of course, a range of complex factors that will influence the extent to which individual students will develop and use language learning strategies, such as, for example, the educational context, their proficiency level in the language itself and their attitudes towards learning the language. However, there is a growing body of research that provides insights into what these factors may be and how teachers can account for them in the classroom.
While studies on LLSI have addressed a range of different skill areas such as speaking, listening, reading and vocabulary learning, the particular focus of this book is on writing. Developing the ability to communicate effectively in writing is a skill that permeates the entire school curriculum and one that is vitally important for future success in the workplace. Indeed, it is also frequently the medium used to assess learners in all subjects. However, within the context of secondary school classrooms, developing competence in writing represents a notable challenge for many learners. This is particularly true in an FL where it is ‘arguably the most difficult of the modalities in which to achieve communicative competence’ (Chamot, 2005: 121), but is often also the case in their L1 where it is equally recognised as ‘an extremely complex skill that is not easily mastered’ (Graham, 2015: 767). In addition, unlike speaking, which can be acquired naturally provided there is a sufficient level of input and exposure, writing is a skill that requires more conscious development. As such, it lends itself well to explicit strategy instruction in a range of language contexts.
However, while there is certainly evidence in the literature to suggest that effective strategy use can be of benefit to language learners across a range of skill areas (Ardasheva et al., 2017; Cohen, 2011; Oxford, 2017; Plonsky, 2011), the majority of this research has taken place within a single context of either L1 or FL education and, as such, there has been less focus on the potential interactions between the two. In addition, it is often the case within the literature that any reference to transfer between these two contexts implies the one-way transfer of pre-existing skills and strategies from the L1 to the FL. However, the study at the heart of this book emerged from a hypothesis that the reverse may be equally valid; if the use of writing strategies is explicitly developed within the FL classroom (where students are arguably more explicitly aware of themselves as language learners), then it seems logical that this knowledge could not only benefit FL writing tasks, but might also positively affect L1 writing. Guo and Huang (2018: 3) similarly highlight the need for studies that examine ‘the actual transferability of writing strategies from one language to another’. Yet, it is also important to explore the potential of cross-curricular collaboration between L1 and FL teachers through, for example, parallel LLSI – an area in which, to date, there is a paucity of research (Gunning et al., 2016). As suggested by Grenfell and Harris (2017):
If students 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 seems to us to be a wasted opportunity not to facilitate the transference of new understandings between both arenas by developing a common understanding and approach to teaching how to learn. (Grenfell & Harris, 2017: 217)
Such a focus on exploring interactions between different languages is also in line with more recent developments in the field of translanguaging. While this does not constitute the framework in which the current book is situated, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the potential intersections here at a theoretical level. At its core, translanguaging is a practice that involves the ‘dynamic and functionally integrated use of different languages and language varieties’ (Li, 2018: 15), for example, when learners switch between languages or draw on their full linguistic repertoire to convey meaning. This could include both spontaneous translanguaging (i.e. the fluid use of languages both in and out of school) and pedagogical translanguaging (i.e. designed instructional strategies that integrate two or more languages) (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017). Such practices are underpinned by the idea that multilinguals (or those in the process of learning another language) ‘do not think unilingually in a politically named linguistic entity, even when they are in a “monolingual mode” and producing one nameable language only for a specific stretch of speech or text’ (Li, 2018: 18). The underlying implication, therefore, is that having knowledge of additional languages may influence the way in which someone uses or thinks about language more broadly, including their L1. While translanguaging studies to date do not necessarily focus on such fluidity and interactions at the strategic level, what such a perspective shares with the focus of the current book is an interest in exploring interactions between the different languages in a learner’s repertoire.
In light of both the personal experiences and the empirical evidence considered above, a number of questions therefore emerged which became the drivers for the study at the heart of this book. These include:
•How are L1 and FL learning positioned in schools?
•To what extent do the existing writing strategies used by students in L1 and FL classrooms differ?
•What happens when L1 and FL teachers collaborate to develop parallel LLSI? What are the stages in developing such an intervention?
•How does an intervention of LLSI in an FL classroom influence performance in writing and strategy development in the FL, and do any such effects transfer to writing tasks in another FL or the L1?
•What are the key factors relating to individual differences that influence students’ development and transfer of language learning strategies?
By no means can I claim that this book will provide definitive answers to each of these questions. However, it is hoped that the results and insights provided will shed light on our understanding of 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.
Chapter 3 brings together a review of the literature relating to strategy research in both FL and L1 contexts (i.e. within the fields of L2 acquisition and composition research, respectively); even though these two streams of research have undoubtedly influenced one another over the years, to date they have largely remained separate. The chapter begins by considering ongoing debates surrounding the definition of the term ‘strategy’ and then traces the evolution of research into language learning strategies from its origins in the 1970s to the present day. Key theoretical perspectives are identified which have influenced research in both L1 and L2/FL writing strategies. The focus then shifts to exploring the extent to which these strategies can be taught and learned in a classroom context. To this end, a series of empirical studies are reviewed and evaluated which consider the effect of an intervention of LLSI on performance in writing in L1 and FL contexts, respectively.
Chapter 4 explores issues related to the complex task of researching strategy use. The key aims are, on the one hand, to fully describe the research design of the X-LiST study and, on the other hand, to more broadly reflect on some of the key methodological issues inherent in strategy research. These include, for example, considerations of research design and reflections on the affordances and limitations of a range of methods that aim to capture data about learners’ strategy use. Consideration is also given to the practicalities and ethics of designing and researching LLSI interventions in schools, in order to provide food for thought for other researchers in the field.
Chapter 5 focuses on the role of L1 and FL teachers in facilitating strategy development and transfer within and between different language contexts. While most existing studies on LLSI focus predominantly on the outcomes of such interventions, the aim here is to consider the process of developing the cross-linguistic, pedagogical intervention at the heart of the X-LiST study. While Phase A of the study involved strategy instruction in the German FL classroom only, Phase B involved parallel instruction in both German FL and English L1 lessons in order to encourage students to reflect on, develop and transfer their language learning strategies across contexts. The chapter begins by acknowledging some of the challenges inherent in setting up such collaborations and then explores how these challenges might be overcome. The key considerations and steps in the design and implementation of a cross-linguistic programme of LLSI are described and exemplified with reference to activities developed as part of the X-LiST study. The chapter ultimately calls for a more collaborative and multilingual approach to writing pedagogy where FL and L1 teachers are both recognised as teachers of language and, as such, work together to encourage and facilitate connection making.
Chapter 6 begins by presenting performance data from the X-LiST study which suggests the potential positive effects of LLSI on both L1 and FL writing. The focus then shifts to looking behind this performance data to provide an in-depth exploration of the patterns of strategy development in FL and L1 writing which emerged in the X-LiST study. Whole-class trends are explored over time to determine if and how the strategic writing approaches of students in the intervention group changed in German, French and English from Point 1 (before any intervention took place), to Point 2 (following a period of explicit LLSI in the German classroom only), to Point 3 (after parallel programmes of LLSI were implemented and mutually reinforced in both German and English). Strategy development is considered here largely in terms of planning strategies used before writing, problem-solving strategies used while writing and evaluation strategies employed after writing. As a more objective measure of the effectiveness of strategy use, instances of errors and error correction are also examined. The data presented in this chapter not only illustrate the strategic approaches used by students in both L1 and FL writing, but also provide an insight into the ways in which LLSI shapes their strategy development across different languages.
Chapter 7 aims to shed light on our understanding of the nature of bi-directional transfer between a learners’ L1 and FL strategy use. The chapter first examines key literature related to the phenomenon of transfer. This begins with an overview of early conceptualisations of language transfer from the L1 to the FL, and then discusses more recent developments relating to multicompetence which have led to an increasing interest in reverse transfer from the FL to the L1. Multiple directionalities of transfer in relation to students’ strategy development and use are then explored in more depth, drawing on data from the X-LiST study. At the beginning, students took different approaches to writing in English and the FLs and, as such, there was limited evidence of transfer of pre-existing strategies from the L1 to the FL. What did emerge throughout, however, were similar patterns of strategy development for both German and French, suggesting a high level of transfer between the two FLs. There were also instances of reverse transfer from the FL to the L1 which suggests that even beginner or low-proficiency FL learners can develop effective strategies in the FL classroom that can transfer to their L1 writing.
Chapters 8 and 9 shift the focus from more general trends in terms of performance and strategy development to the individual. The aim here is to identify and reflect on some of the complex and dynamic factors that influence the way in which individual learners develop and transfer writing strategies. To this end, Chapter 8 draws on qualitative data from the X-LiST study to provide an in-depth exploration of the way in which four students negotiated their way through the intervention of LLSI and the extent to which they developed and transferred strategies between their FLs and L1. The four students were selected to represent a range of distinct writer ‘profiles’ that emerged from the data; these are referred to as ‘the strategic writer’, ‘the experimenter’, ‘the struggling writer’ and ‘the multilingual writer’. Drawing on these case studies, Chapter 9 then explores the key factors related to individual differences that emerged, namely, students’ level of proficiency in both the L1 and FLs, their metacognitive engagement with the task, their attitude towards writing and their strategic use of other languages.
Finally, Chapter 10 concludes the book by revisiting and reflecting on the key questions presented above in light of the data generated from the X-LiST study. Limitations of the study are considered and a range of implications relating to theory, methodology and pedagogy are suggested.
This chapter began with reference to the ubiquitous quote from Goethe that ‘those who know nothing of foreign languages, know nothing of their own’. Even though this claim dates back to the early 19th century, the underlying sentiment continues to appeal to language learners, teachers and researchers alike. Nonetheless, there are still questions that remain unanswered about precisely how FL learning can influence the L1 at the level of strategy use. This is precisely what this book seeks to address. There is a growing need for such evidence not only to support the position of FL learning in the curriculum, but also to highlight the potential for cross-curricular collaboration between L1 and FL teachers.
