Language-learning Strategies: A Case for

Cross-curricuiar Coiiaboration
Vee Harris
Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK
Michael Grenfeii
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
modern language (ML) teachers are compared and contrasted in order to identify pedagogic 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
between 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
potential for collaboration in making explicit links between the two areas of language
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.
Keywords: language learning strategies, English, modern languages, grammar

Introduction
This paper draws together common themes linked to learning strategies, identified in research on the teaching and learning of languages. Such research itself
is often carried out in distinct contexts: for example, where the language is a
mother tongue (LI); or a second language (SL), where the learners are living in
the host country; or a foreign, or modern language (ML), where learners' exposure to the new language is in the classroom.^ The paper begins by considering an
integrated approach to language learning across LI and ML, set against the background of a central thrust of recent government initiatives for British secondary
schooling; namely, to raise pupil achievement by focusing on grammar teaching.
It goes on to explore other ways in which the two curriculum areas might collaborate around common practice in the light of research evidence. It is argued that
commonalities extend beyond knowledge of language structure to knowledge of
how to learn language. Memorisation and reading are taken as an exemplar to
illustrate how a shared approach to research might be developed with the aim of
impacting on teaching and learning.
The English Context: Re-evaluating Methodoiogies
Since the Labour Government came to office in 1997, a keystone to New
Labour education policy in Britain has been a determination to raise pupils'
0965-8416/04/02 116-15 $20.00/0
LANGUAGE AWARENESS

2004 V. Harris & M. Grenfeii

Vol. 13, No. 2, 2004

116

Language-learning Strategies: A Case for Cross-curricular Coliaboratian

117

academic achievement. The turn of the millennium saw no let-up in this preoccupation with standards. Within both the teaching of English and the teaching of
modern languages, explicit knowledge of grammar has been the lynchpin of this
drive. For some 30 years, the role of grammar knowledge in language learning
has been one of the most hotly contested debates in the teaching of English as a
mother tongue. Policy makers have consistently argued tbat, since good writing
is grammatically accurate and uses a rich variety of grammatical structures, it is
essential that grammar be taught. On the other hand, research reviews have
consistently failed to provide evidence that grammar teaching makes any difference to the quality of pupils' writing (see Beard, 2000:123; Wyse, 2001). Scepticism about the explicit role of grammar in language teaching has also come from
a sense on the part of some language professionals tbat these pedagogical
debates have been hijacked somewhat to support political concerns over decline
in moral standards and the need to promote a homogeneous British culture (see
Cameron, 1995). In this case, grammar becomes the touchstone of moral fibre and
national identity. The introduction of the National 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
achievement in national tests designed to assess literacy skills (see OISE, 2001), it
is recognised that this increase has been at a cost. Erater (2000), for example,
shows how the NLS has impacted negatively on teachers' sense of professional
knowledge, and has led to a fragmented rather tban a holistic view of language.
Teachers often feel obliged to 'teach to the tests', which skews pupils' integrated
knowledge about language. Nevertheless, tbere has been no let-up in the main
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 Language for
Learning in Key Stage 3 initiative (QCA, 2000a), designed to develop literacy skills
across the curriculum (DfES, 2001c). This strategy was designed in tbe belief that,
since the NLS had raised standards in primary 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 genuine improvement in writing skills has also been questioned. Nevertheless, the thrust to extend literacy across the curriculum goes on
unabated. Recently, as a central strand to the Key Stage 3 Strategy,^ the Framework
for Teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9 (DfEE, 2001a) is being implemented.
Concurrently, tbe teaching of modern languages is undergoing a shift in
approach. The drive to raise standards is linked again with explicit knowledge of
grammar. In recent decades, ML methodology has been characterised by a form
of communicative language teaching. Whilst guarding against over-simplifying,
this approach may be defined as stressing fluency over accuracy, and using stock
phrases to 'get by' in tbe language (see Mitchell, 1994), often at the expense of
teaching explicit grammar rules. Drawing on principles based on the work of
such linguists as Krashen (1982), widespread professional consensus in the
1980s and 1990s supported the view that explicit knowledge of grammar
cannot be readily operationalised in language performance. It was believed, as a

118

Language Awareness

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

context-based learning. Explicit teaching of ML grammar rules was consequently sidelined in the attempt to 'get pupils talking'. Until its latest revision,
this style of teaching was enshrined in the British National Curriculum for ML
(see DFE, 1995) and the end-of-secondary school national ML examination, GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education). Results from this
approach, however, have not been promising. A summary of the OfSTED (Office
for Standards in Education) Inspectorate (Dobson, 1998), for example, reports on
the lack of progress made by pupils after a promising beginning in the first year
of modern language learning. It notes their inability to use the language independently 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 motivating pupils beyond the early years
of learning. A large national survey of ML teaching in England, conducted by the
Nuffield Foundation (2000), notes that 9 out of 10 pupils drop modern languages
post-16, and motivation dwindles long before that. Such disappointments have
caused what Grenfell (2000) describes as the current crisis in ML teaching: the
'methodological doubts', 'curriculum confusion' and 'loss of purpose'. This situation has led some teachers and policy makers to launch a 'return to grammar'
movement. The trend was given official approval with the latest version of the
National Curriculum for ML (DfEE, 1999) and Modern Foreign Languages: A
Scheme of Work for Key Stage 3 (QCA, 2000b), both of which emphasise explicit
grammar teaching.
Underlying these debates about grammar within both English and ML teaching are tensions between means and ends, between different orders of knowledge 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 hand 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, automatic use:
Conscious v. unconscious (Lantolf & Frawley, 1983);
Controlled v. automatic (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977);
Accuracy v. fluency (Brumfit, 1984);
Declarative v. procedural (Anderson, 1983);
Learning v. acquisition (Krashen, 1982);
Planned v. unplanned (Ellis, 1990).
Of course, dichotomy is a problematic word. We do mean to imply opposition
or separate existence between the two. These pairings should not be understood
as poles at opposite ends of a spectrum. There is not a strong interface between
them. Rather, any language user may be operating at any point along the continuum between the two at any one time and, indeed, for any particular language
processing task. For both English and ML teachers, the debate might be summed
up as the extent to which focusing on the knowledge and processes on the left hand
of the continua can impact positively on language use on the right. However, a
study by Mitchell et al. (1994) suggested that English and ML teachers hold differ-

Language-learning Strategies: A Case tor Cross-curricular Collaboration

119

ent perspectives on the potential of explicit knowledge about language. Whereas

English teachers did not believe that it could impact positively on pupils' proficiency in using the language, most of tbe ML teachers were committed 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 between English and ML teachers, it is essential to explore, highlight and develop fhose commonalities of view and approach
which do exist. It is a difficult undertaking, since even within LI, pedagogical
approaches are often divergent. Flower (1994), for example, illustrates this divergence when he anatomises 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 apparent wben attempting to relate findings between LI and L2 studies,
particularly since contextual issues are important in extrapolating conclusions to
tbe UK, where there is a distinction to be made between L2 and ML research. L2
research is a world-wide research field, often prioritising adult learners of
English. ML, on the other hand, are often much more local, if not parochial, and
thus highly susceptible to local contextual factors. Furthermore, where children
have been researched in L2 studies, it has often been in bilingual situations;
English as a second language (ESL) rather tban as a foreign language. Nevertheless, it is possible to delineate a distinctive area for our investigation as that
involving tbe overlap between first, mother-tongue and modern foreign
languages. There is a case, therefore, for developing a more consensual view of
language and how it should be taught.
This link already exists in tbe research literature. Drawing on the study from
Mitchell et al. (1994), Pomphrey and Moger (1999: 224) consider the commonalities between teachers of English (LI) and teachers of modern languages. They
point out that, although both: 'are to a certain extent now addressing "knowledge 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 communication between tbe two curriculum areas
is to rethink the direction of language transfer. She reviews various studies
exploring transfer between LI and L2, concluding that: 'while language 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/FL to tbe LI' (Pomphrey, 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
reflect on the structure of the mother tongue, and vice versa.
The teaching of grammar is clearly an area for fruitful collaboration between
English and ML teachers, but making explicit the connections between a first and
a foreign language extends beyond the need for knowledge about language to
encompass other dimensions of language learning; for example, diversity

120

Language A 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 will specifically focus on learning strategies as a possible area for collaborative work. It will explore how and where these links can be made and indicate
the research questions that need to be addressed in order for English and ML
teachers to be able to apply them in practice. The intention is that the exploration
of cross-disciplinary connections between English and ML can illuminate ways
in which secondary school learners in the UK context 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 pupils' LI literacy and their second language competence. However, it will
not be from the perspective of an 'either-or' decision with regard to grammar, but
through a developing cognition of the way language works per se, how language
can be expressed to make meaning, and how to go about 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 language. The
obvious attraction of this line of research is that, if we can discover how language
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 adopt in dealing with their language learning. This research has taken place into both LI and L2 learning.
For LI learning, the roots of strategy research lay in the 1960s and 1970s in the
development of cognitive psychology through the work of Bruner (e.g. Bruner et
ai, 1966), Flavell (1976) and others. This perspective provoked a number of studies contrasting the learning strategies used by 'experts' with those used by 'novices' (see, for example, Palinscar & Brown's (1984) study on reading). 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 embedded within a cognitive theoretical approach to learning and a range of different
taxonomies of strategies was developed. Oxford (1990) for example, lists 62 strategies divided into six main groups. Research (see, for example, O'Malley &
Chamot, 1990) consistently found that successful language-learners have a wider
repertoire of language learning strategies and use them more frequently than
their less successful peers (see McDonough, 1999; Skehan, 1989 for overview).
Although the focus of much of the early L2 strategy research was on adult learners of English, or those learning it as a second language, more recent studies by
Graham (1997), Grenfell and Harris (1999), Harris et al. (2001) and Macaro (2001)
have explored the strategies used by UK secondary school pupils to learn a
modern language. In this context too, expert learners demonstrate deployment of
a wider range of strategies than their less successful peers, often using a number
of strategies in combination, rather than rigidly applying one isolated strategy.
In addition to having a wider range of strategies, a further key factor in the

Language-learning Strategies: A Case far Crass-curricuiar Coiiabaratian

121

success of these expert learners appears to be their ability to deploy metacognitive

strategies. Both LI and L2 studies draw a distinction between direct processing of
the language - cognition - and thinking about these processes - metacognition. In
terms of learning strategies, cognition may include a wide range of language
processes, from techniques for memorising vocabulary or spellings to those used
to infer meaning from texts. Metacognition, on the other hand, is concerned with
guiding the learning process itself and so includes strategies for planning, monitoring and evaluating language use. In L2 strategy research, Rubin (1990)
describes learners who have effective metacognitive strategies as having 'executive control': they can not only select strategies that are appropriate to the task
but also monitor whether the strategy is effective or not and modify their strategy
selection if necessary. Thus, a key aspect of metacognitive strategies is their ability to facilitate transfer and promote greater learner autonomy. Studies in both
LI and L2 learning have consequently placed increasing emphasis on developing metacognitive understanding rather 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 knowledge in new learning contexts
and learn more than those who have not been taught any strategies, or have
simply been given new learning strategies without guidance in knowing
how to apply them. (Harrison, 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 Harris (1999), for example, warn that the more competent learners
are, the more likely they may be to have proceduralised the strategies to the point
that they are not be able to formulate them readily in words. On the other hand,
learning strategies can be declared by their teachers. Learners can not only be
offered explicit knowledge of how the language works; they can also be given
explicit knowledge of how to tackle learning a language. It is this view that underpins recent studies into strategy instruction.
Learning Strategy Instruction
A major outcome of the research into such a process has been the debate over
whether learners should be explicitly taught 'how to learn'. Strategy instruction
is any process which seeks to develop intentionally the use of learning strategies
on the part of the learner. Within the LI context, a number of instructional materials have been developed for strategy training of LI English students (see
Dansereau, 1985; Jones et ah, 1985). Subsequent studies have shown that strategy
instruction results in more effective learning and school achievement (Adey &
Shayer, 1994; Pressley et al., 1995).
O'Malley and Chamot (1990) pose two principal questions concerning L2
strategy instruction: should strategy instruction be separate (like the 'study
skills' courses taught in UK secondary schools, or the 'thinking skills' in the Key

122

Language Awareness

Stage 3 Strategy) or integrated into the usual language lessons, and should strategies be made explicit or simply embedded in teaching materials? 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 embedded approach
has sometimes found little transfer of training to new tasks. In contrast, more
recent approaches to strategy instruction have added a metacognitive dimension
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.
Drawing on instructional frameworks used in botb LI and L2 contexts, O'Malley and Chamot established a common set of guidelines, arguing for an integrated and direct model of strategy instruction. The model has been furtber
developed in the USA by Wenden (1991) and Cbamot et al. (1999) and in tbe UK
by Crenfell and Harris (1999). It is now possible to refer to commonalities, if not
consensus, on an agreed sequence of steps for strategy instruction (see Table 1).
Metacognitive strategies are developed in tbe initial 'awareness-raising' stage,
the 'action planning' step, and the final 'evaluation' stage.^ Table 1 sets out the
detail of such strategy instruction.
The focus in tbe L2/ML model of strategy instruction on explicit, conscious,
planned procedures is also a feature of tbe Key Stage 3 Strategy. Here, the importance is stressed of making the aims of lessons clear to pupils, of encouraging
them to 'activate their prior knowledge' and to 'reflect' at the end of lessons on
what has been learned. Both the steps in the strategy instruction and the Key
Stage 3 Strategy also highlight the value of collaborative activities in developing
pupils' understanding of how to learn. In LI, Harrison (2002) argues tbat collaborative pair and group work is a valuable middle step in sbifting from the teacher
as 'expert' during tbe 'modelling' pbase to the point at which learners are able to
use the strategies independently. 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 'think aloud' about bow they were going about tackTable 1 A sequence of steps for strategy instruction
1. 'Awareness raising' of the strategies the learners are already using.
'Modelling' of the new strategies by the teacher and 'persuasion' of the value of
2.
expanding one's repertoire of strategies.
'General practice' of new strategies through whole class, pair and group work.
3.
4.
'Action planning': identifying personal difficulties or goals and the most useful
strategies to address them.
'Focused practice' and fading out of reminders: gradual withdrawal of the
5.
scaffolding to the point that learners are able to select and operationalise
appropriate strategies for themselves.
Evaluating strategy acquisition and learning: reviewing progress and
6.
identifying new goals.

Language-learning Strategies: A Case for Cross-curricular Collaboratian

123

ling a reading task. Subsequent research confirmed tbat tbe approacb was particularly 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 underlined in L2 studies by Donato and McCormick (1994) and
Lebtonen (2000). Moreover, collaboration is a key element in creating and
sustaining group motivation (see Dornyei & 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 would be a wasted opportunity not to facilitate the transference
of new understandings between botb arenas by developing a common understanding 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 together bow to facilitate pupils' ability to transfer
tbeir knowledge about language and language 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 brougbt 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 argument for collaboration between English and ML teacbers, tbis time not so much in terms the explicit, conscious, planned processes
discussed earlier but more within the unconscious, implicit and automatic;
namely, tbe 'practice' and scaffolded learning advocated in steps 3 and 5 of tbe
steps of strategy instruction (Table 1). Witbin LI learning, Harrison (2002) warns
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 pupil to apply new understandings to unfamiliar contexts independently. Similarly, within L2 learning, McDonougb (1999) in reviewing studies into the impact of strategy instruction, suggests tbat one of the reasons wby
initial studies may have yielded conflicting or unconvincing evidence was inadequate practice to operationalise the strategies. Tbis tbeme is recurrent in tbe case
studies reported by Harris et ah (2001) of learners' responses to strategy instruction in a number of European countries. Tbus, alongside tbe need for explicit
knowledge about bow to learn, there is the requirement for extensive practice in
order to proceduralise the new strategies. If it is essential to provide extensive
practice in the deployment of new approaches to the learning task, it seems probable that having two contexts rather than one in wbicb to use these approaches
can only be beneficial. However, for Englisb and ML teachers to maximise the
potential opportunities for transfer, a range of issues need to be addressed. Here,
research into learning strategies can facilitate sucb collaboration by developing
an agenda of concerns.
An Agenda for a Cross-curricular Approach: Research Questions
Whilst Literacy Across the Curriculum documentation (DfES, 2001c) provided
extensive examples of bow pupils' literacy skills could be developed in history.

124

Language A wareness

science and other lessons, there was little recognition of the common ground
between English and ML learning. More recent documentation such as Literacy in
Modern Foreign Languages (DfES, 2002:1) does encourage ML teachers to 'make
constructive links to pupils' literacy learning in English'. However, 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
about to be implemented at the time of writing. Like the NLS and 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 of the 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 not been taken; nor, for that matter, 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 between language 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 language learning. In many
cases, content and language learning strategies are congruous with each other.
Even within learning strategies, however, there is often little connection made
between LI and L2 uses. We shall take the cases of memorisation and reading
strategies by way of exemplification of issues and shared themes in building a
common research agenda between the two linguistic contexts.
Memorisation strategies
One of the factors impeding the sharing of insights into common mental
processes is that there is no readily accessible comparison of LI and L2 and ML
strategies, identifying those that appear to be similar and those that are different.
Furthermore, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is not a commonly
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 hard to see how they can reinforce explicit reflection on the language-learning process or provide the necessary extensive practice in transference of strategies to new tasks. Thus, a first step
in establishing a common agenda would be to carry out an initial audit comparing strategies in L2 learning strategy taxonomies to those advocated for the
teaching of English (representing LI). By means of a brief illustration of the more
obvious connections at the basic level of memorisation strategies. Table 2
compares a small sample of the strategies teachers are encouraged to teach,
particularly for spelling, to those advocated in the L2 literature. The LI strategies
are taken from the Framework for Teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9 (DfEE, 2001a)

and the NLS Guidance for Key Stage 1 and 2 (DfES, 2001b), and the L2 strategies
are drawn from Oxford (1990).

Language-iearning Strategies: A Case for Cross-curricuiar Caiiabaratian

125

Table 2 Comparison of memorisation strategies

Strate}^es identified in L2 research
Strategies advocated for LI
Use mnemonics (2001a: 23)
Use acronyms (1990: 68)
Use photographic memory; (1990: 294)
Use visual skills (2001b: 33)
Recognise words within words (2001b: 22) Analyse words/expressions (1990: 83)
Sources: DfES, 2001a; 2001b; Oxford, 1990.

Table 2 illustrates what a systematic audit of common strategies between firstand second-language learning would look like. Such an audit facilitates the
second step in a common research agenda; namely, to explore whether learners
automatically make the links between the LI language learning strategies that
they have been taught and the ML tasks they are faced with and vice versa. At
this stage of their cognitive development, it is possible that high attaining pupils,
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-mapping as a ML memorisation strategy appeared more 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
Department. Therefore, exploring which pupils are able to make these connections would provide 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, Pomphrey (2000) has argued precisely for
the potential value of reflecting on the structure of a second language in illuminating pupils' understanding of their first. It could be that such benefits might
extend to their heightened awareness of the learning process itself. For example,
a shared focus on key memorisation strategies, with opportunities to proceduralise them in both English and ML lessons, might enhance pupils' memorisation skills in both languages and in other curriculum subjects.
Research questions with reading

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 the ML, raising the issue of 'progression' within strategy development. Whereas Year 8 (12-year-old) pupils are
expected to 'recognise bias and objectivity' in English texts (DfES, 2001a: 28), this
would be much harder for beginners in a foreign language, where they may
simply be grappling with basic comprehension problems. Clarke (1980), investigating ESL learners, concluded that until a certain 'threshold' of linguistic
competence is acquired, learners are so concerned with decoding the language
they do not have the mental space needed to operationalise strategies. Alderson
(1984) has also argued that poor second language reading is due to reading strategies in the first language not being deployed in the L2 context. Bernhardt and
Kamil (1995) suggest that the issue should be reformulated not as an either/or
dichotomy but as a question of the interaction between the two knowledge
sources. It seems likely that high attainers will find ML reading tasks easier, both

Language Awareness

126

Table 3 Comparison of reading strategies

Reading strategies in the NLS
Use titles, cover pages, pictures (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 example, of 'looking for cognates'. Low-attaining pupils, on the other
hand, may not do this. To resolve the mismatch of levels, it seems that the most
useful starting point might be an audit of LI reading strategies based ori those
listed in the NLS Guidance for Key Stage 1 and 2 (DfES, 2001b). The aim would 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 impact on learning
The Key Stage 3 Strategy offers a relevant framework not only for exploring
whether pupils are already making links between their English and their foreign
language learning, but also whether making such links explicit will impact positively on their performance. As has been noted for memorisation strategies, such
a study could ascertain whether benefits are limited to the ML or whether LI
development is also affected. It might be supposed that any positive benefits are
only one way; in other words, that it might improve their foreign language but not
their English reading. However, the National Reading Panel (2000, Chapter 2)
concluded that, in the case of phonics, while instruction was effective in the early
years of learning to read, reading difficulties in older children were perhaps not
best treated by phonics programmes. A fourth question might therefore be to
explore whether explicit strategy instruction in modern languages lessons
provided such pupils with 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 appropriate common strategies to draw pupils' 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) which, if any, pupils benefit from making the links explicit;
(3) whether linking cloes impact on LI, ML or both.
Researching teaching
The final question concerns not so much the learners as their teachers. In their
study of English and ML student teachers' attitudes and perceptions about

Language-learning Strategies: A Case tor Cross-curricuiar Coliaboration

127

knowledge about language, Pomphrey and Moger (1999) found that one of the
factors impeding cross-subject dialogue was the high level of anxiety among the
student teachers of English concerning their own explicit knowledge of language
structure. Turning to the argument presented here for explicit knowledge about
language learning, a possible area of tension (difficulty) for modern languages
teachers is the language in which such reflection might take place. It may appear
obvious to state that LI instruction takes place in the LI. However, the context of
ML is different, since there is the question of whether the declarative knowledge
involved in strategy instruction should be filtered through the medium of the LI.
It is not appropriate here to rehearse the arguments for the use of the target
language, so strongly argued by the communicative approach to second language
teaching. The requirement to speak in the second language is now being increasingly tempered by a recognition that for beginner and intermediate learners this
may severely restrict their capacity to engage in meaningful discussion about
their learning (see Harris etal, 2001). This recognition is supported in the ML Key
Stage 3 Strategy, which prescribes 'plenaries' at the end of lessons, where what
has been learnt is a source of explicit reflection that can be conducted in English.
There is still a need, however, to establish at what point in pupils' 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 number of the studies described in this paper conclude by stressing that if
learners are to develop into skilled, confident, adaptable and independent
language users, then their teachers need the freedom to take risks, to investigate
their own classroom practice, to be 'agents rather than objects within the system'
(Harrison, 2002:34). We propose that sharing insights about effective strategies is
one way in which English and ML teachers could move beyond the confines of
delivering a nationally defined programme towards a richer understanding 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 different 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
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Michael Grenfell, Research and
Graduate School of Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17
1 BJ, UK (m.grenfell@soton.ac.uk).
Notes
1. Language teaching and learning in Britain covers a range of linguistic contexts: for
example, native English; English as foreign and second languages; bilingual; modern
European languages as second and foreign language; and so-called 'community

128

2.

3.

4.

5.

Language A wareness

languages'. We acknowledge the richness of this linguistic plurality. However, for the
purposes of this paper, we are here addressing the teaching and learning of English as
a native language and modern European languages (in this case, French, German and
Spanish) as a 'foreign' language.
In Britain, compulsory schooling is commonly 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 Education and other vocational and professional training.
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 that by the age of 14, pupils have learned how to think logically and
creatively, have begun to work independently and are learning how to learn. It aims to
highlight key features of what is seen as good teaching; for example, high expectations, clear objectives, and interactive teaching. It consists of a number of strands:
frameworks for teaching core subjects such as English, Maths, and Science, and literacy across the curriculum, so that teachers can see how they are able to support pupils
literacy skills. Most recently, guidance for teaching other subjects - history and
modern languages - has been piloted with a view to full implementation.
The National Literacy Strategy is a Key Stage 1/2 development, which 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.
For a more detailed illustration of the common steps in strategy instruction see Harris
(2003).

References
Adey, P. and Shayer, M. (1994) Really Raising Standards. 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 Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Beard, R. (2000) Developing Writing 3-13. London: Hodder 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) Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second Language Use.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Bousted, M. (2001) Editorial: O Brave New World . . . English in Education 35 ( 3), 1-3.
Brumfit, C.J. (1984) Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J.S., Olver, R.R. and Greenfield, P.M. (1966) Studies in Cognitive Growth. New York:
Wiley.
Burley, S. and Pomphrey, C. (2002) Intercomprehension: A move towards a new type of
language teacher. Language Learning Journal 25, 46-51.
Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.
Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.B. and Robbins, J. (1999) The Learning Strategies
Handbook. New York State: Longman.
Clarke, M. A. (1980) The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading - or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal 64, 203-9.
Dansereau, D.F. (1985) Learning strategy research. In }. W. Segal, S.F. Chipman and
R.Glaser R. (eds) Thinking and Learning Skills (vol. 1) (pp. 259-97). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Department for Education (1995) Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum.
London: HMSO.

Language-learning Strategies: A Case for Cross-curricuiar Coiiaboration

129

Department for Education and Employment (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
Teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9. London: HMSO.
Department for Education and Skills (2001b) The National Literacy Strategy. Framework for
Teaching. KSl and KS2 Headteachers and Teachers. London: HMSO.
Department for Education and Skills (2001c) Literacy Across the Curriculum. London:
HMSO.
Department for Education and Skills (2002) Literacy in Modern Foreign Languages. London:
HMSO.
Dobson, A. (1998) MFL inspected. Reflections on Inspection Findings 1996/7. London: CILT.
Donato, R. and McCormick (1994) A socio-cultural perspective on language learning
strategies: The role of mediation. Modern Language Journal 78 (4), 453-64.
Dornyei, Z. and Csizer, K. (1998) Ten commandments for motivating language learners:
Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research 2 (3), 203-29.
Ellis, R. (1990) Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Flavell, J.H. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Resnich (ed.) The
Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231-5). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flower, L. (1994) The Construction of Negotiated Meaning; A Social Cognitive Theory of
Writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Frater, G. (2000) Observed in practice. English in the National Literacy Strategy: Some
reflections. Reading (Nov), 107-112.
Graham, S. (1997) Effective Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Grenfell, M. (2000) Beyond Nuffield and into the 21st century. Language Learning Journal
22, 23-30.
Grenfell, M. (ed.) (2002) Modern Languages Across the Curriculum. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Grenfell, M. and Harris, V. (1999) Modern Languages and Learning Strategies: In Theory and
Practice. London: Routledge.
Harris, V., with Gaspar, A., Jones, B., Ingvadottir, H., Palos, 1., Neuburg, 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 Strategy for English at Key Stage 3: Roots and Research.
Department for Education and Skills. London: HMSO.
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., Amiran, M. and Katims, M. (1985) Teaching cognitive strategies and text structure within language arts programs. 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. LACUS Forum.
Lehtonen, T. (2000) Awareness of strategies is not enough: How learners can give each
other the confidence to use them? Language Awareness 9, 64-76.
Macaro, E. (2001) Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms: Learning to Learn.
London: Cassell.
McDonough, S.H. (1999) Learner strategies: State of the art article. Language Teaching 32,
1-18.
Mitchell, R. (1994) The communicative approach to language teaching: An introduction.
In A. Swarbrick (ed.) Teaching Modern Languages. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, R., Hooper, J. and Brumfit, C.J. (1994) Final Report: 'Knowledge About Language'

130

Language A wareness

Language Learning and the National Curriculum. Occasional Papers 19. University of
Southampton.
Naiman, 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 of
the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction.
Washington, DC: National Institute for Child Health and Human Development,
Nuffield Foundation (2000) The Nuffield Languages Inquiry. Languages: The Next Generation.
London: Nuffield Foundation,
OISE (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education) (2001) Watching Learning 2: Evaluation of
the Implementation of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. OISE, University of
Toronto,
O'Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A,U, (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Oxford, R, (1990) Language Learning Strategies; What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston,
MA: Heinle and Heinle,
Palinscar, A,S, and Brown, A,L, (1984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering
and comprehension monitoring activity. Cognition and Instruction 1,117-75,
Pomphrey, C, and Moger, R, (1999) Cross-subject dialogue about language: Attitudes and
perceptions of PGCE students on English and modern languages. Language Awareness
8, 223-36,
Pomphrey, C, (2000) Language transfer and the modern 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 edn), Cambridge, MA: Brookline,
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000a) Language for Learning in Key Stage 3.
London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority,
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000b) Modern Foreign Languages. A Scheme of
Work for Key Stage 3. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority,
Rubin, J, (1990) How learner strategies can inform language teaching. In V, Bickley (ed,)
Language Use, Language Teaching and the Curriculum. Hong Kong: Institute of Language
in Education,
Sarig, G, (1987) High level reading in the first and the foreign language: Some comparative
process data. In J, Devine, 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 automatic information processing:
Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general 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 understandings of the teaching of grammar in English and French year 7 learners: Student teachers working collaboratively. Language Awareness 11,100-13,
Wenden, A, (1991) Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice
Hall,
Wyse, D (2001) Grammar for writing? A critical review of empirical evidence, British
Journal of Educational Studies 49 (4), 411-27,
Young, D.J, (1993) Processing strategies of foreign language readers: Authentic and
edited input. Foreign Language Annals 26 (4), 451-68,