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