The above UK-based findings surrounding the different conceptualisations of language teaching among L1 and FL teachers are echoed in similar studies internationally. In the Norwegian context, for example, Haukås (2016) explored L3 teachers’ beliefs about language and multilingualism. Although this study did not incorporate a focus on L1 teachers, what is of particular interest is that the L3 teachers of French, German and Spanish perceived themselves as very different from L2 teachers of English. This was attributed to a range of factors that resonate with the points raised above; for example, they believed that students’ higher proficiency in and wider exposure to English led L2 teachers to take a more implicit approach to language instruction compared to L3 teachers. Evidence from Haukås’ study similarly indicated a lack of existing collaboration between L1, L2 and L3 language teachers. A lack of collaboration between L1 and L2 teachers has also been documented by Gunning et al. (2016) in the context of Francophone Canada. They found that opportunities were limited by the isolation of L1 and L2 teachers and their lack of knowledge of each other’s curriculum.
The aim of this section is by no means to insinuate that L1 and FL teachers should approach their teaching in the same way – obviously there are fundamental differences here in terms of students’ proficiency levels and general expectations. However, the aim is rather to suggest that, in spite of these differences, both groups of teachers are ultimately working towards some shared goals, i.e. to enable their students to be able to use language, both written and spoken, to express themselves effectively. They are both, after all, teachers of language, and perhaps if they can learn from each other’s’ expertise and align some of their practices in a more cross-curricular way, this may also help students to make connections and transfer skills between their different languages. As suggested by Pomphrey and Moger (1999: 224), ‘pupils’ perceptions about language are unlikely to be very coherent if the underlying attitudes and perceptions of their teachers of English and Modern Languages differ so widely and the teachers are not engaged in dialogue about the differences’.
Student Conceptualisations of and Approaches to L1 and FL Writing
Having briefly considered how languages are positioned within the curriculum and the way in which L1 and FL teachers conceptualise language teaching, we now turn crucially to how such contextual and social factors may be reflected in (or indeed, shape) students’ views. While there are a number of studies that explore students’ beliefs about and attitudes towards FL learning in schools, few consider these in relation to L1 lessons. To this end, the X-LiST study started by exploring students’ conceptualisations of writing through interviews and questionnaires (see Appendix A, and for more detail see Chapter 4). Given the difference between the core aims of English and FL curricula and those of the teachers, as noted above, it was important to begin by considering whether the students perceived the two language contexts as being similar or different. It was also hypothesised that such views may, in turn, influence their ability and willingness to make cross-curricular links and to transfer strategies from one context to another. This section will first draw on data from the initial interviews conducted with 12 Year 9 (aged 13–14) students to explore their perceptions of writing in the L1 and an FL. Secondly, consideration will be given to what they viewed as the most important features of writing in each subject. A brief overview will then be given of students’ general approaches to writing in each language at the beginning of the study.
The distinct nature of L1 and FL writing
What emerged from the interviews is that students, unsurprisingly, perceived the nature of language and, more specifically, writing to be very different in their L1 and an FL. The key explanations for this related to the relative ease of writing in the L1 (what is referred to here as the ‘native-speaker’ factor), the diversity of task types and expectations between the L1 and FL classrooms and, perhaps most interestingly, the way in which the language of writing influenced their (meta)cognitive engagement with the task.
The ‘native-speaker’ factor
The general impression given by the students interviewed was that, regardless of the language, the nature of writing in one’s native language(s), or most proficient language(s), is very different from writing in a more recently acquired FL. Such differing views seemed to be inherently linked to how they defined themselves as either an L1 or FL speaker/writer. Interestingly, one L1 English speaking student said he felt that writing in different languages would be the same: ‘if you can speak the language, if I could speak say, Chinese and English, they would both be the same, the writing tasks and the speaking tasks would be exactly the same … [but now] it’s not the same, it’s because we’re not as advanced as I am in English in French’ (Ben). The use of the ‘if’ clause here suggests that he did not yet view himself as being a legitimate ‘speaker’ (or indeed ‘writer’) of German or French and for him such tasks consequently remained distinct from English.
However, it is also worth noting that the advanced bilingual students who were interviewed similarly distinguished between writing in English (their L2, so to speak) and writing in German or French (as additional FLs), even though none of these constituted their L1. As Mei, an L1 Mandarin speaker, explained: ‘cause I’ve been here for a long time I’ve adapted to like, English … it’s just like, natural for me’. This was echoed by a Polish speaker in the same class who stated that writing in each of the subjects is ‘different, because obviously I’ve studied English for longer … it just kind of flows in your head now that I’ve done it for such a long time’. However, he added the caveat that ‘if I was meant to compare my Polish to English I’d say my Polish is a lot better, because I speak it at home’ (Kacper). It seems as though their acquired proficiency in English has allowed these bilingual students to adopt the perspective of an ‘L1 writer’. It therefore seems as if the ‘native-speaker’ factor (and by extension, level of proficiency) is key to determining students’ overall conceptualisation of the nature of writing tasks.
Task type and expectations
Students’ prevailing view of FL writing tasks was that they were much more rigid and confining than the English tasks. While English was considered to be ‘more creative, they expect like, they expect you to use your imagination more’ (Aleksandra), FL writing tasks were viewed as more restrictive. One boy commented that ‘there’s not much variety of tasks that we do in French and German, so it’s just, writing’ (Owen), a sentiment echoed by several of his peers who similarly suggested that ‘with German you have to do what you have to do, like in the subjects they set you’ (Zoe) and ‘you know what you have to do and you just have to put it into a sentence’ (Aleksandra). FL writing was also considered to be a means to an end rather than an expression of creativity, and while one of the higher achieving students recognised that this was ‘good for learning more vocab’ (Tom), on the whole, the view of FL writing tasks was that they were more restrictive and formulaic: ‘it’s like, you’re never asked to write a story in German are you? You’re always asked to write about yourself and what you’ve done and where you’ve been on holiday, past tense and stuff like that’ (Annie). The FL tasks were therefore perceived as being more about the correct construction of individual sentences, rather than composition of a narrative text. This is very much in line with the views expressed by teachers outlined in the previous section and echoed by Grenfell and Harris (2017) and Burley and Pomphrey (2015).
Students