Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference,
University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
Strategy Use of Bilingual Learners: A Research Agenda
Michael Grenfell, University of Southampton
Vee Harris, Goldsmiths College, University of London
DRAFT ONLY: DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION
Introduction
This paper addresses the relationship between bilingual students and their use of
second language learning strategies (LLS). There is a long research tradition in
studying bilingual learners from a range of perspectives: social-psychological,
sociological, ethnographic, etc. Similarly, there is extensive research literature on
second language acquisition (SLA), which includes language learning strategies.
There is a moderate research field on learners of third languages (L3). However, there
is little literature which brings together these three components - bilingual students,
language learning strategies, and the L3 – and virtually no research that does this in
the context of UK primary and secondary students learning Modern Foreign
Languages (MFLs). We begin by sketching a background to these topics. Here, we
draw attention to a range of issues in defining bilingualism and its possible impact on
L3 acquisition. We then present a case study of a group of three bilingual learners.
We offer both quantitative and qualitative analysis as indicative of their strategy use
and performance in MFLs. We discuss the possible reasons for their strategy
deployment. Finally, we make comments on policy and practice with respect to
bilinguals and language learning strategies. We refer to recent government policy on
bilingual students and their achievement on language learning. We explore the way
that ‘strategy’ work has been incorporated into official documents to support teachers’
work with bilinguals. Many of these have not taken a sufficiently process-orientated
approach to the language learning strategies that bilinguals may posses and how these
may be operationalised in MFLs lessons. We offer the paper as an initial step in an
emerging research area which will develop the theoretical, practical and policy-related
issues of MFLs teaching and learning and bilingual students.
Background
Definition and Context
There is a large and extensive research literature on ‘bilingualism’ and ‘bilinguality’.
However, just what we mean by these two words is by no means without some degree
of ambiguity, if not confusion. For some, the term ‘bilingualism’ should be restricted
to a situation where an individual learns two or more languages simultaneously from
birth. This so-called ‘parallel bilinguality’ occurs when parents are from different
linguistic communities and/or where a child grows up in a country other than the
dominant home language. The traditional bilingual context is where there are more
than one national language; for example, in countries such as Belgium, Luxembourg,
and Canada. It might also occur where there are strong regional languages; for
1
example, Spain, the United Kingdom, and India; for example, Catalan, Welsh and
Punjabi. However, the strong version of bilinguality, which sees bilinguals as
possessing perfect competence in two or more languages, passes over a number of
fine distinctions. For example, does the bilingual really have equal competence in
both languages? Is this true across the four skills? Do they use both equally? Are they
bicultural and biliterate as well as bilingual? Are both languages equally valued – by
them and the community
Each of these questions pertains to the way in which context might impact on the
psychological aspects of bilinguality. However, they are balanced by the social
aspects of bilinguality, which are equally important. Bilinguals may not define
themselves as part of a national or regional linguistic context; nor as ‘stand-alone’
bilinguals arising as a result of an accident of birth. Where large scale immigration
takes place, bilingualism will naturally be the result. Most Western countries have a
range of experiences with regard to immigration, and policies which vary in response
to socio-political and economic exigencies. Often, where immigration takes place on a
large scale, it is not uncommon to have significant proportions of citizens living in
communities whose dominant language is other than that of the country in which they
reside. In these contexts, children play an important mediating role between home and
the school, and it is not unusual for students to speak different languages in the two
situations. The value of bilinguality also differs across communities, and indeed in
schools. For some, bilingualism is a positive attribute (additive), for others in it is
problematic (substractive).
At the time of writing, it is estimated that 21% of the students in maintained primary
schools and 17% in maintained secondary schools belong to a minority ethnic group
(DfES, 2006a). A majority of these will have some degree of bilinguality. There is
also considerable regional variation. For example, in Inner London over 50% of
students come from ethnic minority groups, whilst only 2.3% do in the South West. It
is further estimated that in London, over 300 languages are spoken; ranging from
English, Bengali, Panjabi, Gujerati, Hindi, Turkish, Arabic, Yoruba, Somali, Tamil,
Ga, Lingala, Pashto, Amharic, Sinhala, as well as major European languages (Literacy
Trust, 2006). Traditional demographic patterns of ethnicity have further been altered
with former Eastern block countries joining the European Union, and thus having the
right to work within the Community. Currently, large numbers of Polish workers are
moving to work in the UK.
It is clear that such a linguistic and cultural diversity is recognised in a range of
national policy documents. For example, the Languages Strategy – Languages for All:
Languages for Life (DfES, 2002a) states, ‘Native speakers and those within our
community and within business have a wide range of expertise that can contribute to a
diverse and engaging learning experience..’ (p.7). Nevertheless, it is acknowledged
that students from such backgrounds often have less developed English language
skills, and this may impede their achievement. There is some evidence that students
from ethnic minority backgrounds do indeed underachieve in a range of curriculum
subjects. For example, 2003 national data shows that at Key Stage 3 science (age 1113), 70% of students with English as their first language achieved the expected level,
compared to 55% of students with English as an Additional Language (EAL) (DfES,
2004a). Differences are present at Key Stage 1 and grow over the course of the next
three Key Stages. There is, however, considerable ethnic variation: 90% of Chinese
2
Key Stage 3 mathematics students achieved the expected level in 2003, compared
with 71% nationally; whilst 51% Black Carribbean students achieved this level. There
is recognition that more needs to be done to address this degree of perceived
underachievement: ‘our ‘Aiming High’ programme, focussed on stretching the
aspirations and achievement of black and minority ethnic groups, has begun to tackle
deep seated underachievement and introduced a range of support for teachers with
bilingual learners’ (DfES, 2005a). The Aiming High document (DfES 2004b) sets out
guidance to establish a ‘common national approach’ to supporting bilingual students.
This approach is a co-ordinated series of measures: financial support; specialist EAL
teachers; designated school managers for bilingual students; EAL training assistants;
whole school approach; a framework of monitoring and evaluating. There is also a
stress on ‘out-reach’ policies, where schools establish relationships with the local
ethnic communities. Such a policy can involve a plethora of activities: making the
premises available for community events, religious faith instruction, so-called
‘community’ language lessons. Out-of-school teaching also takes place, run by the
local communities as ‘complementary schools’. The extent of these context factors
suggests that bilingualism and bilinguality need to be grasped in terms of a wide range
of issues which pertain to the many dimensions of language learning: social and
personal, community and the individual, nurture and culture, etc. Before considering
how some of these are expressed in practice, we are next going to address
bilingualism in terms of language learning per se.
The Bilingual Language Learner
Common sense would seem to suggest that bilingual learners will also be successful
in learning a further language. Much of the research literature – in theory and practice
– supports this view. Bilinguals have a unique relationship to language.
Psychologically, those who learn two languages from birth seem to develop a mental
capacity to handle the two in a way which is both integrated and separate. Although
the two languages are distinct in outward production, the way they are stored in the
brain combines thinking, cognitive and linguistic systems in a way which is symbiotic
(see Baker, 2000). In other words, bilinguals are not parallel monolinguals: the two
languages existing side by side. Even bilinguals who acquire languages later in life do
so in an integrated fashion which feeds both languages. Language can be seen in
terms of two fundamental components: ‘schematic’ and ‘systemic knowledge’.
‘Schematic knowledge’ is what we know about the world: concepts, categories,
functions, notions, facts; ‘systemic knowledge’, on the other hand, is the systematised
language knowledge used to express schematic knowledge – syntax, morphology,
phonemes, etc. L1 and perfect bilingual learners acquire the two forms of knowledge
simultaneously. Late bilinguals do not do so. Nevertheless, they do not hold two
parallel systems for each knowledge form. Rather, the two develop in a way which
integrates knowledge of the world and the language (in this case two) used to express
it.
We might surmise, therefore, that bilinguals have a greater language awareness: knowledge,
- both conscious and unconscious - of the way different language systems work, and
sensitivity to distinct forms of expression. In theory at least, therefore, learning a third
language should be easier for a bilingual. There is some research to suggest that such is the
case. For example, Sanz (2000) studied the route, rate and final achievement in the
acquisition of English by Catalan/Spanish bilinguals compared to monolinguals. She noted
that although mono and bilingual learners follow the same acquisition route, bilinguals
3
acquire the language earlier. She concluded that this may be due to the automatisation of the
basic sub skills involved in input processing, relieving the burden on working memory.
If there is something particular about the brain development of bilinguals in terms of
language processing, this would seem to be a positive advantage for further language
learning. However, there are also social reasons. It is widely acknowledged that
psychological processes in language learning must also be viewed through a ‘social’ lens; in
other words, no matter what the psychological potential of language learners, this will only
be realised if they are socially engaged in linguistic discourses. Classic research by
Schumann (1978) sees language learning in terms of ‘acculturation’. It is posited that the
rate a learner acquires a language is a function of the rate of their acculturation. There is
then a ‘social distance’ which affects ‘psychological distance’. This perspective also links
with the classic ‘social psychological’ approach to language learning, which views it in
terms of the extent learners ‘converge’ with or ‘diverge’ from the language they are
learning (see for review Hamers and Blanc, 1989). This work further links with research on
motivation; for example, that learners are prone to either/or two forms of motivation –
integrative and instrumental (see Gardner, 1985). Integrative motivation refers to the desire
to become part of the target language group; instrumental motivation refers to the need to
acquire the language for some social and/ or economic reason. This early work on
motivation also connects with later approaches, which look at micro-climates of motivation,
willingness to speak, self-efficacy and ‘psychotypology’, as well as how all these factors
interact (see, for example, Dörnyei, 2001)) In an idealised world, bilinguals have the extra
brain capacity to acquire a third language, as well as the social conditions and personal
motivation to do so; although in reality, of course, not all these conditions may apply.
These social and psychological factors in language learning also relate to what we know
about successful language learners. ‘Good’ language learner research (see Stern 1975,
Naiman, 1975) identifies a series of ‘strategies’ adopted by successful learners: planning
strategy, active strategy, empathetic strategy, formal strategy, experimental strategy,
semantic strategy, practice strategy, communication strategy, monitoring strategy,
internalisation strategy. Without going into detail, we can see here a range of learning
approaches, a repertoire of which would be used by any successful learner. These so-called
strategies – tactics, skills, tricks, attitudes – cover a broad scope of language learning
practice. For example, Rubin (1975) sees strategies in terms of study skills and learning
techniques; whilst Wong Fillmore (1979) stresses the social aspects of language learning –
‘join a group’, ‘count on friends’, ‘act as if you understand’. Subsequent Language
Learning Strategy research has developed various taxonomies to account for this range of
strategies, as well as linking them to metacognitive, cognitive and social process (see
O’Malley and Chamot, 1990, and Grenfell and Harris, 1999).
During the 1990s, three strands of research developed with respect to Bilingualism and
Learning strategies. Firstly, the value of bilingual instruction was underlined by studies
which showed that bilingualism facilitated the acquisition of a third language (Swain and
Lapkin 1991, Cenoz and Valencia 1994, Sanz 2000). Sanz suggests that their greater
explicit knowledge about language leads to them ‘noticing’ and being more alert to features
of the new language. Variables such as motivation, IQ, age, exposure, gender, sociocultural
background have been considered in the light of bilingualism and learning. Secondly, the
issue of the advantages of bilingualism has also been evident from Language Learning
Strategy research itself; from a deficit model of bilinguals to investigating the ‘enabling,
rather than the disabling attributes of mainstream populations’ (Jiminez et al. 1995) Thirdly,
4
a number of studies have explored the cultural influences on the use of learning strategies
(Politzer and McGroarty 1985, Parry 1993, Oxford 1996). A working hypothesis is that L3
acquisition is easier because bilinguals have a greater developed use of strategies because of
the resources – both psychological and social – available to them as a result of their
bilingual status. However as Cenoz and Valencia (1995, p.205) conclude from their study:
It could be argued that positive transfer of Basque and Spanish skills to a 3rd
language (English) is more likely to occur in the case of bilingual subjects: the
knowledge of two languages provides them with more resources. More research in
this area is needed in order to examine the extent of these advantages as well as their
causes.
With these issues in mind, we now consider a case study of three bilingual learners of
MFLs.
Case Study
Background
These case studies are part of a larger project funded by the Society for Educational
Studies. The project set out to explore whether systematic learning strategy instruction
directed towards the transferability of learning strategies across English and MFL
results in improved MFL performance and motivation and for which groups of
students. The investigation was quasi-experimental in design using intact class
groups. Two schools were involved, referred to as school A and school B. School A is
a large, multi-ethnic, mixed, 11-18 comprehensive school in a working class area of
South East London. School B is a small, mixed, 11-16 school, serving a population of
mixed socio-economic status in a London suburb. Two parallel Year 8 classes of 30
students learning French (a control and an experimental class) were selected, yielding
a total sample of 120 students. Both the control and the experimental classes followed
the MFL scheme of work in each school but whereas the experimental class was
exposed to explicit Strategy Instruction (SI) during their French lessons, the control
class was not. A pilot study conducted during 03-04 (Harris 2004) finalised the choice
of reading and listening as the skill areas for the SI.
To address the project’s research questions, a range of both quantitative and
qualitative research measures were used (see Harris 2006a). Those relevant to this
paper are now described. Pre and post intervention reading and listening tests in
French were conducted to examine the impact of SI on MFL performance. The tests
were divided into two sections: section A and section B. Results were subjected to
statistical analysis using SPSS version 12XX. In order to examine whether there were
differences in the impact of the intervention according to attainment level and
students’ monolingual or bilingual status, Multiple Regression Analyses were run: 7
with test scores as the outcome variable. All the models were measuring progress and
included the following as predictor variables: autumn test scores, belonging to the
experimental classes, school attended, and bilingualism. Where the variables were not
significant in a model, they were still included as control variables so that their effect
could be taken into account.
5
To explore whether the SI had any effect on students’ perceptions of the
transferability of strategies, pre and post intervention, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with 24 monolingual students of varying attainment levels from the
experimental and control classes. Time constraints limited the collection of qualitative
data from bilingual students but three were selected from School A, since it had a
much higher number of bilingual students than School B. All three were from the
experimental class, as a further aim was to explore their response to the SI. Discussion
was prompted by a game devised in the pilot study (see Harris 2004). Students were
presented with 16 cards, each of which had a learning strategy written on it and a
picture indicating the skill area. They had to assign each card to one of four brightly
coloured plastic containers labelled:




I only use it for learning English;
I only use it for learning MFL;
I use it for learning any language (whether English or MFL);
I do not use it.
In the case of the bilingual students, there was an additional container labelled ‘I use it
for my Home Language’. The strategies covered all skill areas since the aim was to
see whether the experimental classes were able to transfer insights gained from the
listening and reading SI to their perceptions of writing and speaking skills. A final
question was designed to explore their attitude to helping their monolingual peers by
sharing with them how they approach the language learning task.
The designation of the students as ‘bilingual’ was mainly determined by the school’s
EAL list. In addition, one question in a pre and post attitude questionnaire asked
students if they had a Home language. Where a student indicated that they had, but
they had not been identified on the EAL list, their teacher checked with them the
extent to which they used that language on a daily basis within the home. Although
the majority Home Language in the school was Vietnamese, it was decided to include
a range of languages in order to gain a snapshot of similarities and differences across
the cultural backgrounds. Cuong is a Vietnamese speaker, Martelle a Jamaican Patois
speaker and Kevin a Spanish speaker from Columbia. Cuong and Martelle were born
in England, Kevin has been living here since he was four years old. All three have
similar CATS verbal scores at around the class mean of 103. School A’s EAL list
indicated that Kevin and Martelle were at stage 5 in English, whereas Cuong was at
stage 4.
The semi-structured interviews and the think-aloud tests were firstly recorded.
Subsequently, recordings were audited and transcribed. Analysis employed a
‘grounded theory’ approach: extensive re-reading of the transcripts of both
monolingual and bilingual students; categorisation; identification of significant
similarities or differences; comparative analysis.
6
Findings
Although the numbers of bilingual students in the study were small (21 out of a total
of 120), Multiple Regression Analysis suggests that all the bilingual students, whether
in control or experimental classes, made significantly more progress in section B of
the listening test than their monolingual peers. Being bilingual and in the
experimental classes made a significant difference to test scores in section A of the
listening test, the total listening score and section B of the reading test. Further
analysis is necessary to explore the differences between the sections of the test, but
the interviews provide some insight into the strategies they use that enable them to be
successful listeners and to benefit from the SI.
Extensive exposure to the spoken form of two languages appears to foster the
development of key language learning strategies. Cuong for example refers to his
acquisition of English at nursery school: ‘I just sit and listen to the teachers. Erm, use,
try, use English and just try, just listen to your teachers, how they speak’. Possibly as
a result, his preferred memorisation strategy appears to be ‘saying the words out loud’
and he is able to transfer this strategy to checking his written work: ‘I read it out loud,
and then see if there’s mistakes’. Similarly Kevin explains how he picks up difficult
words used in the Saturday school: ‘keep saying it lots of times.’
The focus on oral/ aural strategies is also evident when Kevin discusses his successful
translation of the pre intervention reading test text. He describes how he compares
unfamiliar words to existing stores of knowledge in a constant, rapid search for
cognates.
I read it, and I heard the sounds to see if it sounds like English and Spanish,
and I just thought what it was, and see if it sounded like any of the languages I
know, and then I just wrote it down.
A further well-developed strategy, common to all three students, is ‘substitution’,
which they seem to be able to transfer from listening to reading. Martelle explains:
I use the words that I do know, and the words that I don’t, I put the
“something” there instead of it. Think of what might go there in the space.
Like if I know the first part of the sentence, like if they were saying “I work
in”, I would think of what sort of person they are, what their job could be, or I
close my eyes, and sort of bring my spirit out, and get myself into that word,
what it can mean.
The interviews suggest a number of possible reasons for the development of this
strategy; again linked to their exposure to two languages in the spoken form. First,
unlike their monolingual peers where the gap between their level of language and
their parents’ has dwindled by Year 8 (Harris 2006b), these students are regularly
exposed to unfamiliar words. They are thus faced both with further input and further
exposure to working out meanings. Asked how she learned to use the strategy of
‘substitution’, Martelle refers to what her mother said to her if she did not understand
what she was saying in Patois:
Well I just picked it up, cos my mum always said to me, if you just think of all
the different possibilities it could be, jumble them up, and that’s what I done.
7
A further advantage of exposure to two languages is in sensitizing them to the sociolinguistic subtleties of language both in L1 and L2. The interviews highlight how
rather than fixed and separate identities, these students shift between and ‘syncretise’
linguistic and cultural realities (Rampton 1995). Kevin relates the difference between
Standard and familiar forms of English to the difference between the Standard
Spanish of Spain and Columbian Spanish. He explains that:
I don’t talk like Standard English and I don’t talk Spain Spanish, cos Spain is
like Standard Spanish but in my country they don’t talk like that.
A heightened awareness that a number of words can be used to express the same
meaning enables them to make rapid, sensible guesses as to the meaning of new
words in L3.
The pilot study (see Harris 2004) also indicated a third feature in their environment
that fosters the development of ‘substitution’. Yetunde is bilingual in English and
Yoruba. When asked how she developed the strategy, she explains her mother
frequently code switches between Yoruba and English within one sentence. Because
Yetunde understands English better than Yoruba, she knows to wait until her mother
reverts to English and then uses the context to work out the meaning of the Yoruba
words.
Whilst the development and transfer of individual strategies may be facilitated by
linguistic features in the bilingual students’ environment, transfer may also be
dependent on social factors. The question is whether their attitude towards their Home
Language and culture is convergent or divergent. Kevin appears to have a strong
sense of identity with his language: ‘I learnt Spanish in my country’. Unlike Kevin
and Cuong who have to use their Home Language to communicate with their mothers,
Martelle’s sense of identity with Patois is somewhat different: ‘I have English, and I
have a back up language as well’. However she welcomes opportunities to use it with
her grandparents: ‘cos I have a close bond with them and I use the Patois to enhance
the bond’. In contrast, Cuong did not during the interviews seem to reveal a strong
sense of pride in his background. Asked which language he thinks he is best at, he
replies: ‘I think English. Cos I was born here, I had more time to like read and stuff
like that. And I didn’t learn that much Vietnamese, I didn’t understand that much’.
Cuong’s less positive attitude may explain why he was the least forthcoming during
the interviews, seeming almost embarrassed to explore the links between the
languages.
A further factor impeding transfer may be its interaction with the psychotypology:
the ‘distance’ between Vietnamese and French and English being greater than Spanish
and Patois. The lack of cognates and the fact that he has not been sensitized to certain
phonemes may explain why Cuong finds listening difficult, commenting that: ‘there’s
not that much strategies that I can use for listening’.
Finally, bilingual students’ ability to transfer strategies across the languages is
dependent in part on the context in which they are learning them. In spite of the fact
that during the post intervention interview, Kevin makes connections across his
8
languages when presented with individual strategies, in answer to a general question
asked at the end about if the SI had helped him to see the links, he replies:
I don’t use the same strategies for French and English. English and Spanish
yeah but not French. I don’t use the same things. I don’t know why.
The obstacles appear similar to those of the monolingual students (Harris 2006); both
Kevin and Cuong perceiving themselves as ‘knowing’ both English and Vietnamese/
Spanish. Thus, the ability to perceive potential transferability may be dependent on
whether the languages are learned in a ‘natural’ context or through formal instruction;
on the distance between the learning situations as well as between the languages.
We now explore the extent to which the complex range of factors related to bilinguals and
language learning are recognised in government policy and practice.
Discussion
It has been clear for some time, that a straight transfer between L1, L2 and L3 is
rarely the case, and that large numbers of bilingual students do experience language
problems. For example, Cameron and Besser (2004c) concluded that at Key stage 2,
the best writers – whether using English as a mother tongue (EMT), or English as an
additional language (EAL) – were found to employ grammar, vocabulary, direct
speech, punctuation, and rhetorical features with flexibility and adaptability. They
also created strong story lines in English, with strong characters and plots. However:


Many EAL learners, even high achieving students, handle
adaptation to a variety of genres less confidently than their EMT
peers;
Certain features of language are handled less confidently by lower
achieving EAL writers; in particular, use of adverbials, modal verbs,
subject-verb agreement, verb tenses and endings, and subordinators
to link clauses.
(p.1)
If this is the case at Key Stage 2, we can only surmise on the available evidence that
differences will widen as students progress across the next two Key Stages. As we
note above, bilinguals are recognized as requiring special attention. This is evident in
a number of government agency web sites. For example, the QCA lists the ‘pathways
to learning’ of new arrivals (from abroad) as, ‘setting suitable learning challenges,
responding to students’ diverse needs, and overcoming potential barriers to learning
and assessment for individuals and groups of students’ (QCA 2006). ‘Resources for
teachers’ include definitions, ‘questions and answers’ (DfES, 2006b) and guidance
(Teachernet 2006a). When listing ‘points to remember’ for teachers supporting
students with EAL, Teachernet (2006b) divides advice into various contextual
features: ‘School/class ethos, Identifying students’ strengths, Expectation, Teaching
and Learning strategies, and Assessment’. This advice is almost uniform in taking a
position that what needs to be addressed are the ‘problems’ of EAL learners. The
advantages – whether psychological or social – are addressed; for example, ‘students’
strengths’ are listed in terms of ‘cultural, linguistic and educational experiences’.
However, there is no specificity as to how these factors might be exploited to enhance
teaching and learning. Furthermore, in terms of ‘teaching and learning strategies’
9
themselves, these are defined with reference to what can go wrong rather than what
the students may already know: for example, give EAL students more time, talk about
literacy, do not allow racist comments, group children so that EAL learners get good
models of English, use bilingual support staff, and allow EAL learners to work
together so that they can use their mother tongue to solve problems.
Specific curriculum subject advice for EAL learners is also available from the DfES
in their ‘Access and Engagement’ series; for example, in Art (2002a). These
documents share a common structure, defining: ‘the role of the subject leader’
(judging standards; evaluating teaching and learning; leading sustainable
improvements), and, ‘a supportive learning environment (structured lessons; active
tasks; planning; subject specific language skills; group work, etc.). In terms of MFLs
(2004d), strategies are given for each of the four skills areas: Speaking and Listening
(make oral language explicit, model, use drama, active listening, support, listening
frames); Reading (sequencing, prioritizing, matching, filling gaps, use true/false,
sorting, group); and Writing (scaffold, paragraph headings, structured questions,
modeled writing, shared writing, diagnostic marking).
Clearly, governmental policy planners have been sold on the idea that teaching should
include a large component of learning skills; for example, McGuiness’ lists of
thinking skills: sequencing, sorting, grouping comparing, hypothesising, recognising,
predicting, testing, concluding, classifying, etc. (McGuinness, 2000). Many of these
skill overlap, or indeed, would appear as being synonymous with the sorts of
strategies listed in language learning strategy research itself. However, ‘strategy’
work has often been adopted simply for its utilitarian potential; helping students with
tips for learning. The approach to ‘language learning strategies’ for bilinguals seems
to takes a similar line. The MFLs KS3 Strategy itself is conceptualised in terms of the
skills and techniques, which may in some ways be understood as ‘strategic’; for
example, how to check written work, how to memorise, how to select, plan and
monitor. These skills and techniques are spread out over one hundred items listed for
development over the first three years of secondary language learning. ‘Strategies’ are
then conceptualised within an existing dominant curriculum model of language: ‘word
level’, ‘sentence level’ and ‘text level’. This model is extended to the ‘Access and
Engagement’ guidance for MFLs teachers:



Word level: ‘EAL learners should be supported with the literacy terminology
necessary to access these words and also be given opportunities to draw upon
their knowledge of their first language to further strengthen their
understanding’.
Sentence level: ‘Knowledge and understanding of terminology such as syntax,
verb inflections and gender agreements in both English and target language
are essential in comprehending solid sentence structures. Any reference to
English grammar systems should be fully supported for the EAL learner and
their personal experience drawn upon’.
Text level: ‘Across the MFL curriculum students will be presented with a
variety of texts. These may include authentic magazines, leaflets, recipes and
websites. Within these texts there could be potential barriers to learning for
EAL learners because of cultural references which are unfamiliar to them,
such as food, customs, geographical knowledge’.
(DfES 2004d: 17)
10
From such statements, we can see that some the advantages of bilingualism are
recognised, even though there is little specificity in terms of how to exploit them or
recognition of the sensitive issues this may rise. In our case study, the bilingual
students’ responses to sharing their successful strategies with their peers varied. They
were asked if, given advance warning, they would be willing to come to the front of
the class and ‘think aloud’ the strategies they were using to make sense of a text in
French on the board. All felt nervous about being ‘put on the spot’, especially Cuong.
Martelle’s concern was that: ‘I’d feel a bit upset because just because I’m bi-lingual,
it doesn’t mean that I don’t need help’. However apprehensive they might feel, all
three felt confident that they could do it and had something to offer their monolingual
peers.
In fact, however, the ‘Access and Engagement’ guidance for teachers mostly refers to
bilingualism to in terms of problems and the consequent support needed to operational
the dominant curriculum model. What is required is a less instrumental view of
language learning strategies and the bilingual learner, and a greater focus on a more
process-orientated approach; one which connects with the underlying social and
psychological operations of language learning itself. Furthermore, very little of the
MFLs learning strategy research is referred to at all in statements on the rationale for
the guidance..
There is a range of issues relating to both learning and teaching which might be
addressed. For example, we noted above that in a study (Sanz, 2000) of the route, rate
and final achievement in the acquisition of English by Catalan/Spanish bilinguals
compared to monolinguals, bilinguals acquire the language earlier; although mono
and bilingual learners follow the same acquisition route. The conclusion that this may
be due to the automatisation of the basic sub skills involved in input processing could
be one reason why the students in our case study seem less anxious and frustrated
than some of their monolingual peers when faced with input that they do not
understand and more confident and proficient at making sense of it. We noted that
Sanz suggested that the greater explicit knowledge of students about language led to
them to ‘notice’ and be more alert to features of new language. It is possible that this
is why the bilinguals in our case study appear to distinguish between different
varieties of language use.
In terms of MFLs policy and bilinguals, it is pertinent to raise the question as to
whether schools keep accurate record of bilingual students; in the case study project,
teachers were not always aware of the bilingual students. This phenomenon in turn
raises whole questions of lack of validation by schools (Cummins 1996). The fact that
the teachers were unaware that some of the students they selected had a language
other than English raises important issues for further investigation: for example, the
basis on which English schools gather data on bilingual students and inform the
teachers Furthermore, it is clear that a much more detailed profile of bilinguals is
needed: for example, the bilingual students’ L1 and L2 literacy levels, their length of
residence in the UK, social and economic backgrounds and the support for the
maintenance of their L1 both within the community and the school. Cummins (1996)
described how bilingual students go through a process of defining their identities in
interaction with their teachers, peers and parents. He argues that:
11
…schools that have brought issues relating to cultural and linguistic diversity from
the periphery to the center of their mission are more likely to prepare students to
thrive in the interdependent global society in which they will live.
(1996: 236)
Conclusion – A Research Agenda
In conclusion, we would like to make comments towards a Research Agenda for
Strategy Use of Bilingual Learners under three main headings: the bilingual learners;
language learning strategies themselves; and methodology.
Bilingual Learners
It is clear that ‘bilingual learners’ do not exist as a homogenous group; in fact, the
term is ‘more real’ than the phenomenon it seeks to represent. In actuality, what we
have is a vast diversity of experience within bilingual learners; in terms of language,
culture, attitudes and background. Each learner is in fact a complex web of
psychological and social factors, and it is the sum total of each of these for each
individual which will determine success of otherwise of their subsequent language
learning. These factors include: the L1 including written script; their psychotypology;
salient cultural features; home background (including academic capital), proficiency
in English, previous attainment levels; attitudes and motivation to learning languages;
cognitive personality.
Language Learning Strategies
More needs to be known about the patterns of language learning strategy deployment
and the bilingual learner. How do they differ from normal second language learners?
Do they have a wider range of cognitive strategies than monolingual students across
all skill areas? What differences are their across these skills? Do they transfer some
strategies like ‘substitution’ - acquired through extensive exposure to the language from listening to other skills? Do they perhaps have more advanced metacognitive
strategies? If they are indeed more ‘language aware’, it might be expected that they
have greater knowledge, but do they use it? What features of their environment
contribute to the development of these strategies? For example, the work of Norton
Toohey (2001) suggests that the whole ‘Good Language Learner’ research agenda
itself has given insufficient attention to the relationship between the individual and the
social aspects of access into classroom discourses. So, for example, bilinguals may
indeed be ‘good language learners’, and have a developed repertoire of ‘learner
strategies’. However, do the classroom conditions allow them to use them? Do
strategies facilitate the connections between the ‘natural’ learning context and formal
instruction in schools? How can this best be achieved? It could be that cultural and
linguistic features of the classroom do not permit them to partake of the pedagogic
discourses in a way which allows them to use such learner attributes and strategies.
The cultural background and psychotypology of individual learners’ might also
interact with their ability to transfer strategies from one language and another. The
same could be true for their English proficiency, attainment levels, attitudes to
language learning, self-efficacy and personality. Finally, it might be that traditional
approaches to ‘Strategy Instruction’ do not tap into what bilingual learners already
know; in other words, they are simply not processing language in this way, or indeed,
operationalizing strategies like that. There is a further need to investigate just how
bilingual students are using strategies and probe the extent to which their strategy use
is indeed similar to monolinguals; and, how there may be variation across particular
12
strategies. A much broader ‘strategic classroom’ approach might also be more
facilitative.
Methodology.
Finally, we should state that in order to answer these many questions, further research
needs to be undertaken. We need to explore the interaction of all these variables on
bilinguals and their modern foreign language learning. This agenda will need a large
number of bilingual students with varying attitudes, L1/L2 proficiency, length of
residence, personality, cultural and home background, etc. We have seen the value of
developing individual case studies; in particular, in comparing monolingual and
bilingual learners. However, such a research agenda will itself require us to overcome
the reluctance of some students, and their parents, to discuss their home languages.
This final point underlies the way, both in the research topic and in process of
conducting it, that the psychological and social in language learning are always
inextricably linked.
Address for Correspondence:
Prof. Michael Grenfell
School of Education
University of Southampton
Highfiled
Southampton SO43 7AN
UK
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 34 72
E-mail: m.grenfell@soton.soton.ac.uk
Vee Harris
Department of Education
Goldsmiths College
Lewisham Way
New Cross
London
SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7171
E-mail: harrisvee@hotmail.com
13
References
Baker, C (2000) A Parents’ and Teachers’ Gude to Bilingualism (2nd edn). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
Cenoz, J. and Valencia, J.F.(1994) Additive trilingualism: evidence from the Basque country.
Applied Psycholinguistics 15: 195-207
Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a diverse
Society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education. (First Edition).
Department for Education and Skills (2002a) Languages for All: Languages for Life.
Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Department for Education and Skills (2002b) Access and Engagement in Art:
Teaching Students for whom English is an Additional Language. Nottingham: DfES
Publications.
Department for Education and Skills (2004a) National Curriculum Assessment and
GCSE/GNVQ Attainment by Pupil Characteristics, in England, 2002 (Final) and
2003 (Provisional). London: DfES.
Department for Education and Skills (2004b) Aiming High: Supporting Effective Use
of EMAG. Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Department for Education and Skills (2004c) Writing in English as an Additional
Language at Key Stage 2. Research Brief 586.
Department for Education and Skills (2004d) Access and Engagagment in Modern
Foreign Languages: Teaching Students for whom English is an Additional Language.
Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Department for Education and Skills (2005) Higher Standards, Better Schools for All.
Norwich: TSO.
Department for Education and Science (2005b) Ethnicity and Education: The
Evidence on Minority Ethnic Students. Research Topic Papers RTP01-05.
Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Department for Education and Skills (2006a) Raising Expectations for Ethnic
Minority Students. (http://findoutmore.dfes.gov.uk/2006/07/ethnic_minority.html).
Accessed 25/07/2006.
Department for Education and Skills (2006b) English as an Additional Language.
The Standards Site (www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/faqs.primary/1092431)
Accessed 25/07/2006
Dörnyei, Z (2001) Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Gardner, R (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of
Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Grenfell, M and Harris, V (1999) Modern Languages and Learning Strategies.
London: Routledge.
Harris, V (1997) Teaching Learners How to Learn; StrategyTraining in the ML
Classroom. London: CILT.
Harris, V. (2004) ‘Language Learning Strategies: a case for cross-curricular
collaboration’. A paper presented in the symposium on ‘Research in Second
Language Learning Strategies in Academic Settings’ at the conference of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California. April 12-16.
Harris, V. (2006a) ‘Language Learning Strategies across the Curriculum’, Society for
Educational Studies. Unpublished report.
Harris, V. (2006b) Language learning strategies across the curriculum: government
policy and school practice. Paper given at the conference of the British Educational
Research Association SIG: Language and Literacy, University of Warwick Sept 6-9.
14
Hamers, J and Blanc, M (1989) Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jiminez, R.T., Garcia, G.E. and Pearson, P.D. (1995) ‘Three children, two languages and
strategic reading; case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading’, American Educational
Research Journal, 32, 1: 67-97
Literacy Trust (2006) Mother Tongue – What Languages are Spoken in the UK?.
(http://literacytrust.org/Research/lostop3.htm). Accessed 25/07/2006.
Macaro, E (2001) Learning Strategies: In Foreign and Second Language Classrooms.
London: Continuum.
McGuiness, C (2000) ‘ACTS: a methodology for enhancing thinking skills across the
curriculum’, a paper given at the conference ESRC Teaching and Learning Research
Programme, University of Leicester, November 2000.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H. and Todesco, A (1978/1996) The Good
Language Learner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Norton, B and Toohey, K (2001) ‘Changing Perspectives on Good Language
Learners’, TESOL Quarterly, 35, 2, 307-322.
O’Malley, M and Chamot, A (1990) Language Learning Strategies in Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. (1996) Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-cultural
Perspectives. University of Hawaii Press
Parry, K. (1993) The social construction of reading strategies: new directions for research.
Journal for Research in Reading 16 (2):148-56
Politzer and McGroarty 1985,
QCA (2006) Pathways to Learning for New Arrivals. www.qca.org.uk/8476.html
Accessed 25/07/06
Rampton, B. (1995) Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London:
Longman
Rubin, J (1975) ‘What the “good language learner” can teach us’, TESOL Quarterly,
9, 41-51.
Schumann, J (1978) ‘Social and psychological factors in second language
acquisition’. In, J. Richards (ed.) Understanding Second and Foreign Language
Learning: Issues and Approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Stern, H.H. (1975) ‘What can we learn from the Good language Learner?’, Canadian
Modern Language Review, 31: 304-18.
Swain and Lapkin 1991
Teachernet (25/07/2006a) Teaching English as an Additional Language: The
Challenges for Classroom Teachers.
(www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/library/EALteaching/)
Teachernet (25/07/2006b) Points to Remember when supporting students with EAL.
(www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachinginengland/detail.cfm?id=409)
Wong Fillmore, L (1979) ‘Individual differences in second language acquisition’. In
C.J. Fillmore, W.S.Y. Wang and D. Kempler (eds.) Individual Differences in
Language Ability and Behaviour. New York: Academic Press.
15