Setting myself free from the pressure of 90% target language use
My kids are learning. They speak more and more French every day. They leave my class with love for the language and culture. So why do I still feel like a failure? (Me, 5 years ago).
The American Council of Teachers of Foreign Language (ACTFL) “recommends that language educators and their students use the target language as exclusively as possible (90% plus) at all levels of instruction during instructional time and, when feasible, beyond the classroom.” (source)
There are many reasons for this recommendation, including:
Learners need multiple exposures to vocabulary and language structures to acquire language
Class time is students’ only chance to hear the target language, so using L1 in class is a waste of those precious minutes.
Resorting to L1 use reinforces the erroneous idea that language learning is about translation.
Learning language components in isolation (through memorizing lists, for example) hinders meaningful communication.
Children learn language through 100% immersion; therefore it’s a more natural way to learn.
We don’t want kids to learn about the language, we want them to learn the language itself.
I agree with all of this rationale! Furthermore, a quick Google search shows ubiquitous adherence to this principle. Here are a few article and video titles:
“Why 90% target language use is 100% possible in your classroom”
“Why 90% target language should be your #1 priority”
“In Spanish class we speak Spanish (90% TL Use)”
“Why I teach 100% in the TL and Why You Should Too”
And so, I’ve tried.
Believe me. I’ve attended trainings and read all the books. I’ve developed visuals and planned my lessons with sheltered language, scaffolding, dramatic delivery, and props. I’ve approached experts after professional development with my honest questions, and - quite frankly - I’ve often felt either dismissed or shamed for not being a good enough teacher.
And so, I’m opening the cage and setting myself free of this expectation which doesn’t work for me and doesn’t work for my students.
Concerns about the 90% target language standard
It’s teacher driven.
For large segments of time, the students are sitting listening while the teacher talks. Students may respond with gestures and simple phrases, but in general the teacher is working a lot harder than the kids are.
The content is repetitive (and quickly becomes boring).
I’ve sat in workshops run by teachers who do a great job with a fully target-language approach. While their stories and repetitive sentence-frame based questions hold the attention of the career teachers who have paid to be there, I teach 90 minute classes with 11 year olds. They’re not going to be with me for 90 minutes of “J’aime le ___”, no matter how animated I am. (When I demonstrated for my own children, my 13 year old daughter was brutally honest. “Mom, that’s really cringey”.) Also, this repetitive speech doesn’t really mirror real world communication.
It makes it hard to establish relationships.
It will take months of investment before my novice learners are able to express any kind of nuanced idea, or even tell what they did last weekend. This makes it very difficult to develop the teacher-student relationships which are important for every student, but critically so in my Title 1 school. Insisting on 90% target language throws up a barrier that many of my students will never get past.
It makes classroom management difficult.
This might be less true with generally compliant students, but with tougher kids establishing and firmly enforcing basic classroom norms is a tremendous challenge. When maintaining an orderly classroom environment takes all my expertise and emotional energy, I can’t even begin to think about doing it in French. (Read what to do when your class is awful!)
It doesn’t work for students with poor academic strategies.
90% target language use seems to be predicated on the assumption that students are curious, see themselves as learners, are able to tolerate ambiguity and can work through academic challenges. But what about those students who have experienced academic failure, can’t read, have learned helplessness, inadequate academic stamina, and low tolerance for ambiguity? If that student is confused, they don’t have the tools to push through the challenge, so they either shut down or lash out. Helping them become aware of and use good learning strategies is a huge part of teaching them successfully, and this requires some metacognition that is impossible to conduct at novice proficiency levels.
It doesn’t work for some students with learning differences.
“My 13 year old daughter was brutally honest: Mom, that’s really cringey.”
Kids with dyslexia, auditory processing challenges, or other learning differences may need more varied support than this approach used in isolation provides.
It leaves students confused or ignorant of language structures
Of course we don’t want our classes to be a series of grammar drills, but having some understanding of how the language works and how it is different from English is one of the benefits of language study. Avoiding explicit grammar instruction is an overreaction.
It often lacks rigor
This varies by teacher, so there are exceptions. But in many classrooms where teachers adhere strictly to the 90% rule, students aren’t held accountable for mastering language features. The aversion to any explicit grammar instruction or vocabulary memorization exacerbates this tendency. I’m not advocating for the other extreme (heavy emphasis on memorization), but I don’t see this as a binary choice. A proficiency-based classroom where students are also accountable for their learning is possible, but it must be intentionally addressed through thoughtful assessment design. I’ve written more about this here.
Is it research based?
I can’t find ANY educational research to support the 90% number. I’m not alone. In 2018, the great Stephen Krashen wrote, “Language teachers are told that they should make sure they use the target language in class 90% of the time or more. I have no idea who came up with this number, but there is no solid research I know of that supports it.” (Source)
In fact, there is some research to support a different point of view: that use of L1 can be worthwhile, especially with novice learners (see here and here, for example).
Why, then, is this belief so widely held?
I have to conclude that at best, 90% target language use is extremely difficult, and at worst…
At worst it discourages our students, weakens our programs, and creates an expectation that almost no one lives up to. It’s a huge cause of guilt, insecurity, and doubt among dedicated language teachers.
For those of you who are able to build strong programs and meet your students’ needs while maintaining 90% target language instruction, I admire you. You have achieved something I wish I could do. It doesn’t work for me and my students, and I’m giving myself permission to stop.
In my next post, I’ll explain what I do instead.
