Introduction


        It is well-known that learning a modern foreign language requires an extensive input of the target language in all possible ways, obviously owing to the fact that the learner intends or is expected to acquire a particular linguistic code in a context where it is partially, or in most of the cases, utterly absent. If we look back in history and we observe how the teaching and learning of foreign languages have sparked numerous theories, methodologies and controversies, we can then realise that the matter is broad and yet to be solved. Nowadays, taking into account that linguistic immersion plans are out of the national curriculums in the mainstream public educational systems worldwide, teaching in the target language has become the milestone which is intended to overcome the deficit of linguistic input in the teaching of modern foreign languages, and therefore to raise the achievement among its students regardless of the language which is intended to be mastered, the resources available nor the time set for instruction.

        As a modern foreign language teacher, I consider teaching in a target language as something paramount and thus, I certainly admit the more consistent use of the target language during the lessons, the better it is for the students. However, it seems that the factual implementation of the target language all along MFL lessons supposes a conspicuous problem derived from several adverse factors, assumptions or even predispositions set up maybe unintentionally either by the student or the teacher body. Similarly, by observing and debating with more experienced teachers about it, I have come to the conclusion that the fact of teaching in the target language presumes complications to some extent. Keen to enlighten a possible solution to the ostensible aversion coming from teaching in the target language, that I have witnessed myself in my educational setting -the public secondary education in the United Kingdom-, the aim of this essay will then be; firstly to summarize what is linguistic immersion and what implies to teach in the target language, secondly to discern about its implications outlining and contrasting its assets and liabilities, and last but not least, to conclude with a proposal to tackle the issue and support the learning of modern foreign languages.

Linguistic immersion


        What is linguistic immersion? Lacking a universal definition, it is convenient to primarily look for its lexical strict meaning. As per linguistic, it is defined as “connected with language or the study of language (Cambridge, 2021)” and as per immersion the definition is “the fact of becoming completely involved in something (Cambridge, 2021)”, and having a fairly opportune adjoined definition as “the process of learning a language or skill by using nothing else but that language or skill (Cambridge, 2021)”. Briefing, we could presume linguistic immersion is then is a process of learning with the goal of acquire a language the learner doesn’t know yet, by using it in a broad and consistent way.

        The mentioned teaching and learning process of enormous linguistic captivation for its pupils is pursued in order to acquire a second (L2) or foreign language (L3), and normally takes place during primary and secondary education where the curriculum is moderately or integrally offered in a language different to the students’ mother tongue (L1); a language partially or totally absent to the region or country where the education takes place. By doing that it is possible to create in the classroom a context of language acquisition, the target language -whether is a L2 or L3- is used as language of communication in all academic interactions, in different subjects and topics, and also in a wide range of different communication purposes. The linguistic immersion aim is not only that students learn another language, but to make them bilingual (or multilingual) so they can use the L2 or L3 in a native-like way, with great diglossic (or multiglossic) skills and command. The aspiration of linguistic immersion is to turn a language which is not spoken or used normally into a language of communication by exhaustively expose pupils to it so they can learn better and considerably faster. In some cases, the target language is totally unfamiliar to the pupils too, that is why these programmes tent to focus first in the linguistic input and then in the linguistic output. That is why the target language is always presented in a context because natural human communication happens in a context, that enable the pupils to adapt and recycle the language they learn in different contexts and topics by using the linguistic resources they already have (Cervantes, 2021).

        Even though the teaching and learning of seconds and foreign languages is happening for several reasons since classical antiquity, the teaching and learning process on the point of linguistic immersion was originally created in Canada in the 60s. in 1965 a group of parents started delivering linguistic immersion experimental lessons to teach French (an unknown language between social classes in the anglophonic Canadian parts of the country). It was called the “St. Lambert Bilingual School Group”. The programme counted with the assistance of a few linguists and psychologists, including Dr. Wallace Lambert from McGill University, who years after published a detailed and comprehensive research about this particular experiment. Linguistic immersion then was born form popular initiative, probably to tackle an educational gap, but it counted with scientific and academic support from the very beginning (Wallace, 1972).

        The success of this prototypic linguistic immersion echoed between educators and the media, soon more parents started requesting and contributing to the implementation of similar programs for the students. Even an association was created at national level; “The Canadian Parents for French”. Another analogous initiative implemented the linguistic immersion in Florida, in Coral Way School (Miami-Dade county). The great results of all these programmes started the expansion of linguistic immersion worldwide, specially among private education. In recent times, linguistic immersion has been subjected to governmental policy and a clear example would be the Kingdom of Spain, where it is used as political weapon like in Catalonia to reinforce nationalisms and invigorate pre-existing identity issues from medieval times (Mirillas, 2020). Sometimes, linguistic immersion has put in place to preserve the language of a minority that was in serious risk of linguistic death like in Galicia, Asturias, Basque Country, Aragon, Valencia, Switzerland, Wales, Scotland, Normandy, Miranda do Douro, and so on.

Theoretical considerations


        Teaching in the target language (TL) means the way of supplying the necessary linguistic input for learning modern foreign languages (MFL) as it would maximize the acquisition of the linguistic code which is intended to be learned, in an environment that quantitatively lacks for spontaneous and consistent presence of it (Moeller and Roberts, 2013). Its practical application would be to use the TL as vehicular linguistic code to deliver the lessons and means the use of the specific language, if not in a comprehensive way, the majority of the time during lessons. Clear examples of it are primary, secondary and even higher education pupils in the United Kingdom, who are studying MFL such as French, German and Spanish most commonly, as stated by the Department for Education, the British Council. As Dickson (1996), many researchers have proven on several studies that using the TL (either as second [L2] or foreign language [L3]) promotes natural acquisition of the linguistic code, also he has noticed that the use of the mother tongue (L1) certainly undermines and deviates the attention of the pupils’ object of learning if used in excess. I personally could not agree more and in the same way other researchers like Krashen (2021) have appointed the same, by stating “acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language” seemingly in order to provoke natural human communication to occur. This idea is supported by experts like Roberts and Moeller (2013), among others.

        Far from conforming ourselves with high attainment among students in different tests and examinations, what we want as MFL teachers is that our pupils achieve the mastery of a language and become able to use it in the real life for several purposes such as; communicating with users of that language, access cultures expressed in that language, or even for standing in a every-time more complex and multicultural work market, as a result of the worldwide globalisation and economic growth driven by the boom of human technology development and the increased of highly qualified profiles in recent times. Bilingual and multilingual individuals contribute to solve some human communication problems in specific situations, and by doing that they commit with a fairer and more developed society, with never seen higher well-being quotas.

        The use of the TL invokes the exercise of the foreign language in all the linguistic skills for input and output; reading, writing, speaking and understanding spoken language. This is not only restricted to the users of the language, which in this case are the teacher and the students, but also the materials and resources used to facilitate the learning process in educational settings (Long, 1981). As a result of that, I wonder if the occasionally, somewhat limited or not absolute use of the TL in MFL lessons can be considered teaching in the target language. Some specialists’ authors have referred to this by attributing different amounts of input as optimal conducive to actually teaching in the TL; on one hand we have those who believe that the TL needs to be used at all times since the very beginning like Walkers (2019), others like Kovin (2021) think that a 90% of input in the TL and 10% in the L1 is totally fine, and in the other hand we have experienced teachers like Carter (2019), who advocates for a gradual increase of the TL during the lessons along the students’ language course. Even though, what they all agree about, despite their personal opinions, is in the need of using as much TL as possible in MFL lessons because it has been disregarded at least in the past few years, so the linguistic input is quantitatively adequate and convenient for the pupils.

        Looking at the research done in the field, it is a must to acknowledge the work done by Dickson (1996), as it is constantly referred by numerous authors to agree or build on top of his findings in an implicit or explicit way (Turnbull & Arnett 2002, Frohm 2009, etc.). What can be noted from the critical mass in their researches is that: it seems the use of the mother tongue (L1), even when it looks more convenient for being in the situation of explaining complex grammatical features of the foreign language (L3), for example, inherently contravenes because it is thereupon reducing the amount of TL input, and because of that, detouring the language acquisition progress. Again, keeping in mind that students of foreign languages can barely be exposed to the TL outside of the classroom for it being practically absent, depending on the students’ will either to continuous exposing themselves to the TL or not in their spare-time. If we leave it to the student’s whim to cover that depletion of TL input for the teacher’s usage of the L1 during the MFL lessons I presume without the shadow of a doubt that in the majority of cases the pupil will not cover that gap and the teaching would become poor, inadequate, insufficient. Although, we do not want that to happen so it is upon the teacher body to reverse that reduction of TL if any. Avoidance of the L1 will most likely promote development which is the goal MFL educators strive and fray for. If we analyse Dickson’s research done practically in schools that teach mostly in the TL, mostly in L1 or with both (cf. table figure below), which is indeed very thorough and factual of him, we can acutely pick up four key ideas that help us understand the dilemma of teaching in the target language:

  1. The use of the TL promotes development in spoken fluency and accuracy among other factors.
  2. The use of the TL facilitates listening and oral comprehension skills, as well as raising the amount of vocabulary knowledge.
  3. The moderate use of the L1 (English in this case) in combination with the TL can in some way promote some learner skills like confidence, cultural awareness and grammar knowledge.
  4. The exhaustive use of the L1 (English in this case) can sabotage the whole learning process of a given TL, for example impairing completely the pronunciation and spoken fluency at once.

Figure 1: Table 6.3 - Pattern of TL and English most likely to promote development (Dickson, 1996)


        On the whole, it is possible to interpret from this or more updated similar work field research that the only use of the TL in the classroom will harvest great results but not quite the best ones, as well as the disastrous consequences of teaching a TL in the L1. The fixing for this dilemma relies eventually upon the amount of input in the TL and the L1 during MFL lessons. Moeller and Roberts (2016), aware of these elucubrations, pull ahead the idea of maximizing the amount of TL, and I find this absolutely essential to solve the issue of teaching in the TL. They have precisely picked the term maximizing and not any synonym of hoard in the sense of considerably overlapping the MFL lesson with the mother tongue, and this is evident when they affirmed the following: “maximizing the TL in the classroom will ensure a lively and engaging language experience that can approximate authentic language use and make language learning meaningful to learners”.

Practical implementation


        My experience so far using the TL during MFL lessons in my education setting is limited to some routines like; greeting the students (-Bonjour la classe ! -Bonjour, monsieur Blasco !), giving basic instructions (-Abrid vuestros cuadernos y escribid la fecha de hoy y el título de la lección, por favor) or dismissing students (-Rangez vos affaires, vous pouvez partir. Merci ! À demain !). I also use the TL when reading and students must read texts out loud in the TL too, all the activities we do in the classroom are in the TL, all the materials I provide to the students are in the TL. We also do speaking in the TL in pairs, to the whole class, debates, we do listening activities in the TL, we listen to songs, play videos, etc. However, still half of the lesson is delivered in English because, first of all I do fear losing control of the situation if they are not understanding properly for long time. Some students tent to disconnect and start procrastinating if they are not well supported in their TL comprehension. Also, all the explanations of grammar, cultural aspects and strategies to tackle different tasks are done in English as I want to make sure they get a clear picture of what they need to do or what they need to learn. This obviously depends, because I use little TL with year 7 and 8 students, but for example I use a lot of TL with year 10, 11 and 12. It seems that I tent to feel more comfortable teaching in the TL if students have higher level in the language, the same happens with fellow teachers.

        The fulfilment of teaching in the TL brings snags with it, for sure. Spectator of my own lessons and the amount of TL that I use, also having observed the same with experienced colleagues it is certain that the matter is problematic in the UK at the moment. The worry of not using enough TL in MFL lessons has been pointed out as a major issue by a large number of teachers in practice (Smith, 2015). Even Ofsted -an official governmental body that works in the UK to assess the quality of the teaching in schools, and has an enormous database of observations- keeps warning that the use of target language in MFL lessons remains a concern, hence most of teachers fail to increase the amount of TL to an appropriate level: “…important weaknesses and the barriers preventing good language learning, including insufficient use of the target language in secondary schools (Ofsted, 2020)”.

        Moreover, teaching completely in the TL brings disadvantages. These drawbacks could be for example; students learning misconceptions if they are not identified and addressed by the teacher, explanations in the TL are normally less details as we want to use language that they will know (students aren’t linguists so it is vital to use linguistically accessible lexicon), students can feel overwhelmed or uncomfortable resulting in their disengagement, etc. Whereas the advantages of using mostly TL could be; providing the necessary linguistic input for them to learn the TL, provide adequate modelling of real language in action, boost the linguistic skills (reading, writing, listening and understanding), etc. When using TL and L1, it is important to consider all of the above so we can address all those difficulties, scaffold, provide the exposure to the TL pupils need, and ultimately raise the achievement and attainment in MFL (Littlewood, 2011).

Conclusions


        Natural languages are used in real human communication situations, that is why they must be presented and practised in those authentic interchanges of human linguistic interactions (Brown, 2000). Inevitably, it will be a little bit difficult specially in the first steps of language acquisition, but will surely make MFL students eventually learn the language and master it to the point of becoming proficient if they persist, and do not give up with the extensive use of it whenever teaching in the target language is in place during the learning process. Ultimately, I would say that teaching in the target language is not the minefield conceived by some teachers in practice or some specialists as referred by Smith (2015), but the learning pit itself (cf. figure below): it supposes a challenge, but if the student is capable to go through it without skipping it learning will happen, and it would definitely raise the student’s achievement and attainment. Therefore, I advocate for the use of the target language in modern foreign language lessons at all levels of instruction of instruction. Furthermore, I must say I do agree somehow with Carter (2019), because I think in the first or two firsts years of the teaching and learning of a given language, in my personal opinion, it would be better to start introducing gradually the TL before reaching a greater use of its input; to not overwhelmed the students in the proceeding, also to have the chance to suggest a few classroom routines, and cognitive as well as linguistic strategies, along with setting up the high expectations we teachers must always have and keep in relation to our students and their performance. Finally, when it comes to the amount TL and L1, I estimate the best balance between them would definitely be 90% TL and 10% L1, consequently with the fact research has proven that a slight or minimum amount of mother tongue enhances confidence, motivation, cultural awareness and grammar knowledge. Personally and by the assumptions I got doing this inquiry, I decided to foster a comprehensive use of the TL in my French and Spanish lessons, so my students can duly learn those languages with all the implications this would promptly sustain, and rarely use the L1 to boost that confidence, cultural awareness and grammar acquisition whenever I see it convenient and useful.


Figure 2: The Learning Pit (Mind Movers Psychology, 2020)



Bibliography


  • APPEL, R y Muysken, P. (1996). Bilingüismo y contacto de lenguas. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística.
  • ATKINSON, David. Teaching Monolingual Classes. In Longman Keys to Language Teaching (Grey literature). Pearson Education Limited: 1993. 112 Pgs.
  • BROOKS-LEWIS, Kimberly. Adult Learners’ Perceptions of the Incorporation of their L1 in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. In Applied Linguistics (Volume 30). Oxford Academic, Oxford: 2009. 216–235 Pgs.
  • BROWN, Douglas. Principles of language learning and teaching. Addison New York, Wesley Longman Inc: 2000. 410 Pgs.
  • BUTZKAMM, Wolfgang. We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma. In Language Learning Journal (Grey literature). LLJ: 2003. 11 Pgs.
  • CAMERON, Lynne. Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2001. 274 Pgs.
  • CARTER, Kate. How to effectively incorporate your target language into your teaching. Teachwire (Grey literature): 2019. Checked on the 30th December 2021. Online, available here: https://www.teachwire.net/news/how-to-effectively-incorporate-your-target-language-into-your-teaching.
  • Chow, P. and J. Cummins (2003) ‘Valuing multilingual and multicultural approaches to learning’. In S.R. Schecter and J. Cummins (Eds.), Multilingual education in practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • COOK, Vivian. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review (Grey literature). Canada: 2001. Checked on the 14th December 2021. Online, available here: http://www.viviancook.uk/Writings/Papers/L1inClass.htm
  • CRICHTON, Hazel. ‘Value added’ modern languages teaching in the classroom: An investigation into how teachers’ use of classroom target language can aid pupils’ communication skills. Language Learning Journal (Grey literature). 2009.
  • DAGENAIS, D. (2008) ‘Developing a critical awareness of language diversity in immersion’, in T. W. Fortune and D. J. Tedick (Eds), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Buffalo.
  • DAY, E. and Shapson, S. Studies in Immersion Education. Clevedon, PA: Multlingual Matters. 1996.
  • DfEE (1998) The National Literacy Strategy: framework for teaching.
  • DfEE (1999) Modern Foreign Languages: The National Curriculum for England.
  • DfES (2002) Key Stage 3 National Literacy Strategy in Modern Foreign Languages.
  • DICKSON, Peter. Using the target language: a view from the classroom. National Foundation for Educational Research, Berkshire: 1996. 38 Pgs.
  • FROHM, Therése. Does more target language use by the teacher encourage more target language use by the students? Estetisk-Filosofiska Fakulteten, Engelska: 2009. 29 Pgs.
  • GALLEGO, Jun Carlon. La inmersión lingüística en Canadá: El estado de la cuestión. California State University, Fullerton. Resla 13, 1998-99. 345-367.
  • GORTER, D. und Cenoz, J. “Regional minorities, education and language revitalization”. In Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A. and Creese, A., (Eds.). Handbook of Multilingualism Routledge, London, New York.
  • INSTITUTO CERVANTES, Diccionario de términos clave de ELE. Inmersión Lingüística. Consultado el 19/11/2021. Disponible en: https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/diccio_ele/diccionario/inmersionlinguistica.htm
  • KOVIN, Vladimir. Teaching in the target language 90% of the time! Grey literature, Overcome the Barrier: 2021. Checked on the 3rd January 2022. Online, available here: https://www.octb.us/blog/post/staying-in-the-target-language-90-of-the-time.
  • KRASHEN, Stephen. Language acquisition: why don't educators, scholars, and the media pay attention to the research? Comments on Lichtman and VanPatten. Foreign Language Annals, in press: 2021. 6 Pgs.
  • LITTLEWOOD, William. First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. In Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2011. Pgs 64 - 77.
  • LONG, Michael. Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. In Annals. New York Academy of Sciences, New York: 1981. 379 Pgs.
  • MCFARLANEe, A. and Wesche, M. Immersion outcomes: Beyond language proficiency. 1995.
  • MIRILLA SALVADOR, María Jesús. Impacto de la Inmersión lingüística en español en el proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje de la lengua en alumnos de habla inglesa en casa de niños en una escuela Montessori en chicago. Trabajo de Fin de Máster. Dirección: Ana Vallbona. Facultad de Educación, traducción y ciencias humanas. Universidad de Vic-Universidad central de Cataluña. Mayo 2020.
  • MOELLER, Aleidine & ROBERTS, Amy. Keep it in the target language. University of Nebraska, Lincoln: 2013. 19 Pgs.
  • PASTOR CESTEROS, S. (2004). Aprendizaje de segundas lenguas. Lingüística aplicada a la enseñanza de idiomas. Alicante: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.
  • SIGUÁN, M. y Mackey, W. F. (1986). Educación y bilingüismo. Madrid: Santillana/UNESCO.
  • SMITH, Steve & CONTI, Gianfranco. The Language Teacher Toolkit. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, London: 2016. 360 Pgs.
  • SMITH, Steve. Becoming an Outstanding Languages Teacher. Routledge, London: 2017. 214 Pgs.
  • SWAIN, M. and Johnson, R. K. (1997) ‘Immersion education: A category within bilingual education’, in M. Swain and R. K. Johnson (Eds), Immersion education: International perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • TURNBULL, M & Arnett, K. Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual review of applied linguistics. Cambridge Press, Cambridge: 2002. Pgs 204 - 218.
  • VILA, I. (1998). «Educación y bilingüismo en el Estado español». En Textos de didáctica de la lengua y la literatura, 18.
  • VILA, I. (2004). «Diversidad, escuela e inmigración». En Aula de innovación educativa, 131.
  • WALKERS, Steven. How to Teach 100% in the Target Language at the Beginner Level. Grey literature: 2019. Checked on the 30th December 2021. Online, available here: https://dev.to/stevenwalkers/how-to-teach-100-in-the-target-language-at-the-beginner-level-183n.
  • WORDEN, William. Stayin in the target language while teaching middle school and high school. University of Alabama, Alabama: 2013. 12 Pgs.