A cross‐curricular approach to ‘learning to learn’ languages: government policy and school practice

Abstract

This article connects two fields of research: ‘learning to learn’ and school‐based teacher development. The context is a cross‐curricular project between English and modern languages teachers. Carried out in two London schools, the study aimed to encourage students to transfer common language learning strategies across the two subjects. Findings from interviews with teachers and students highlight the gap between the government's ‘learning to learn’ agenda and the realities of implementing it. A distinction is drawn between providing school‐based opportunities for teachers to share generic ‘good practice’ in relation to initiatives such as Assessment for Learning and those where the actual content of lessons crosses subject boundaries. Recent government guidelines appear to mask inherent tensions in the aims and pedagogical approaches of the two languages – tensions exacerbated by the current preoccupation with performance measures. It is suggested that the differences are unlikely to be resolved without a supportive school culture that provides adequate release time for teachers to engage in extensive cross‐curricular dialogue.

Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education: Models, benefits, and challenges

“…A theme-based course is structured around unrelated topics which provide the context for language instruction. This model bears some resemblances to cross-curricular projects (Harris, 2008;Savage, 2011, pp. 404-442) and also to English across the curriculum, where language teachers may work together with a content teacher on a particular topic.…”

Teaching for Transfer: Insights from theory and practices in primary-level French-second-language classrooms

“…For example, albeit more implicit, the Ontario CF curriculum also acknowledges that "knowledge of a second language strengthens first-language skills" and that CF activities should integrate learning from other subjects mediated in English (Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, 1998, p. 2; see Harris, 2008, for a British example). Such officially-sanctioned openness to teaching for transfer can help administrators and teachers create transfer-friendly approaches in schools.…”

“…Illustrations of teaching for transfer in the literature reflect two crucial dimensions: planning for transfer and providing opportunities for language transfer. Analyzing curriculum documents to find connections between expectations for L1 and L2 represents a starting point in planning for transfer (Harris, 2008). Secondary-level English and modern language teachers in England, for example, communicated enthusiasm for incorporating similar attention to learning strategies in their respective language classrooms (Harris, 2008) but identified lack of class time and common planning time as barriers to such planning.…”

“…Analyzing curriculum documents to find connections between expectations for L1 and L2 represents a starting point in planning for transfer (Harris, 2008). Secondary-level English and modern language teachers in England, for example, communicated enthusiasm for incorporating similar attention to learning strategies in their respective language classrooms (Harris, 2008) but identified lack of class time and common planning time as barriers to such planning. Similar obstacles to implementing collaborative planning for transfer have been found in the Canadian elementary-level immersion context (Lyster, Collins & Ballinger, 2009) where the participating teachers could not engage in systematic collaboration due to a lack of planning time which led to missed opportunities for transfer.…”

“…Second, at the school level, promoting teaching for transfer could include facilitating collaboration among teachers of different languages (Lucas & Katz, 1994;Lyster, Collins & Ballinger, 2009). Also, school administrators can play an important role in promoting transfer, for instance, by timetabling for collaboration among teachers teaching for transfer and also by allowing / promoting planning for transfer (Harris, 2008).…”