This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 05 October 2014, At: 17:20

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Language Learning Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20

Teaching in the target language: a problem in the

current orthodoxy
a
David Atkinson
a
University of Sunderland
Published online: 02 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: David Atkinson (1993) Teaching in the target language: a problem in the current orthodoxy, The Language
Learning Journal, 8:1, 2-5, DOI: 10.1080/09571739385200261

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571739385200261

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Teaching in the target language: a problem in
the current orthodoxy
David Atkinson
University of Sunderland
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to suggest that there are good
reasons for questioning the currently widely held assumption
that teachers and learners can and should always use the target
language in the classroom. I suggest a rationale for a slightly, but
significantly, less radical perspective on the issue and make
a few suggestions as to how the area might be dealt with in
teacher training and development.
The nature of the current orthodoxy
The issue of teaching in the target language is once again
receiving considerable attention in the literature relating to
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:20 05 October 2014
language teaching and this can only be a good thing. However
venerable an issue it m a y be, it is clearly a highly significant and
topical one, especially in the light of the recent interest shown in
it by bodies such as the DES and the National Curriculum
Council (see below).
My particular concern in this area is that a certain perspective
on the issue, namely that virtual 100% target language is a desir-
able and achievable ideal in most circumstances, is often being
treated as if it were a proven axiom, albeit implicitly in some
cases. Franklin (1990 p. 20), for example, in an article which
reports the results of some very interesting research into teach-
ers' attitudes to the use of the target language, appears to accept
as irrefutable the notion that 'it is extremely important that the
m e d i u m of instruction in the language classroom be the target
language'. Chambers (1991 p. 27) quotes, with apparent uncon-
ditional approval, the recent DES statement that 'The natural use
of the target language for virtually all communication is a sure
sign of a good language course'. 1 Halliwell and Jones (1991), in
an excellent book of suggestions on how to use the target
language as much as possible, seem to imply that they too accept
the '100% ideal' view (there is very little discussion in their book
of when it might be appropriate to use English in the classroom).
A n d so on.
It is, presumably, self-evident to anyone involved in language
teaching that if learners are to become communicatively compe-
tent in the target language as a result of the approach used (as
opposed to in spite of it), the content which they are trying to
master must be the main m e d i u m of the process through which
they achieve such mastery. A n y approach which ignores this
fact, such as grammar-translation, cannot but be seriously
flawed (the reasons for this have often been summarised, e.g. in
Halliwell and Jones, op. cit.). However, the key w o r d here is
'main'. It is, to m y mind, far from self-evident that the target
language should be the exclusive (or virtually exclusive) medi-
u m of the learning process; yet this is precisely what so many
teachers are being asked to take on board and implement in their
classrooms at the moment. This seems to me in some ways a less
than entirely helpful state of affairs. My reasons for taking this
view can be conveniently divided into three areas: theoretical
rationale, feasibility and desirability.
Theoretical rationale
There appears to be a widespread assumption among teachers
and trainers that at the 'theory' end of things the case for 100%
target language is quite simply proven. Chambers' (op. cit.)
remark that 'the theoretical basis for this statement does not
seem to be controversial' (i.e. the DES statement cited above) is
not untypical. Nor is Franklin's comment (op. cit.) to the effect
that 'It is generally agreed by theoreticians and empiricists alike
(my italics) that irrespective of teaching methodology it is
2 Language Learning Journal No. 8, September 1993
extremely important that the m e d i u m of instruction in the lan-
guage classroom be the target language' (she goes on to cite sev-
eral sources).
This is unfortunate, since terms such as 'theoretical', 'empiri-
cist' and so on tend to evoke connotations of a 'hypothesis'
which has been in some sense scientifically verified (to para-
phrase Kneller 1971). While it is true that the principle of 'mono-
lingualism' (described by Howatt [1984, p. 289] in his history of
English language teaching as 'the unique contribution of the
twentieth century to classroom language teaching') clearly
enjoys widespread and sometimes uncritical acceptance, it needs
to be clearly stated that there is no solid theoretical evidence to
support any case for a methodology involving 100% target
language. I do not have enough space here to address individu-
ally each source quoted by Franklin 2 but interested readers will
find, I think, that close study of the literature bears out the view
that the prevalence of assumptions about the 'ideal' nature of
100% target language has much more to do with currently fash-
ionable notions and terminology in contemporary language
teaching than with hard fact. Some of these notions are as fol-
lows.
1. Acquisition is more important than learning.
Much 'traditional' language teaching has clearly overempha-
sised a 'cognitive', analytical approach to learning at the expense
of the creation in the classroom of opportunities for 'sub-con-
scious' acquisition 'by osmosis'. Obviously, the more the target
language is used as the m e d i u m of instruction, the more such
opportunities can arise (see Halliwell and Jones, op. cit., p. 2).
This useful insight can be taken too far, however, as indeed it has
been by its most eminent proponent, Stephen Krashen (1981,
1982 and passim). A m o n g others, Sharwood Smith (1981),
Brumfit (1984) and Gregg (1984) point out some of the theoreti-
cal and empirical weaknesses of a radical 'acquisition over learn-
ing' position.
One could perhaps argue that if the classroom focus were to
be entirely on acquisition, then 100% direct method w o u l d be
appropriate. This is a moot point, but not, presumably, one
which needs to be pursued as there is no real theoretical case (or,
indeed a practical one) for such a focus. 3
2. Use of the mother tongue is inappropriate in a communicative
approach to language teaching.
'Communicative' is a difficult term to define, but one of the
concepts at the heart of it is certainly that of 'authenticity'. In
practical terms, 'authenticity' is often used to mean that the lan-
guage which learners practise in the classroom should be as real-
istic as possible, that materials used should be 'authentic'
wherever possible and that learners should engage in activities
which mirror the things which people do with language outside
the classroom in 'real' situations (hence the development of
'information gap' activities etc.). In one sense, it is difficult to
exaggerate the importance of this concern with authenticity
which has developed over the past 20 years or so. It has helped
enormously in terms of both what students learn and how
they learn it and a switch towards more 'authentically' oriented
classes can work wonders from a motivational point of view.
As regards the issue of the target language, however, the argu-
ment is then often that use of the mother tongue runs counter to
the promotion of authenticity in the classroom because, by deft-
nition, only interaction in the target language can ever be auth-
entic: thus 'communicative' teachers should insist on 100%
target language. Whether or not interaction in the mother
tongue is necessarily devoid of 'authenticity' is another moot
point, but, again, not one which need concern us here (Breen
1985) discusses the issue of authenticity in some depth).
 Authenticity in the classroom is clearly a 'good thing', but
Swan (1985 p. 7), for example, issues a salutary warning against
what he describes as the 'new toy' effect in such matters. He
points out (1985b pp. 82-85) that too much emphasis on the
authentic will tend to drive out the use of, among other things,
certain perfectly valid pedagogical techniques (such as a mod-
icum of 'mechanical' practice), as well as appropriate scripted
materials and other 'unrealistic' elements of classroom method-
ology (he could equally well have cited appropriate mother
tongue use as an example). 4 There is, in effect, no more reason
w h y everything which takes place in the classroom should be
'authentic' than there is for saying that all activities should be
oriented towards 'acquisition'; thus a methodological perspec-
tive which supports a strong element of authenticity does not
in itself entail the adoption of a '100%' position on the target
language issue. 5
3. EFL classes, in which 100% target language is the only possible
option, represent an ideal state of affairs which teachers of modern
languages should aspire to recreate in their own classes, despite the
handicap of the common language (English) which they share with
their students.
Chambers (op. cit., p. 27) states that the fundamental differ-
ence between teaching foreign languages in schools and the EFL
context is that in the former case all participants have in common
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:20 05 October 2014
the English language, which is 'their natural means of commu-
nication as a mother tongue.' Where this is true, 6 it does indeed
a p p e a r to be one of the most important factors which differenti-
ate the two teaching and learning contexts. Chambers comments
that this difference should be 'acknowledged but not used as an
excuse' (i.e. presumably, for not using the target language) and
it is obviously true that in any 'common language' situation
overuse of the mother tongue is a real danger.
However, what also has to be recognised is that as far as the
presence or absence of a common language is concerned, it is not
a question of an ideal (EFL) situation versus a second-best (mod-
ern languages) context. Two of the many widely cherished
myths in the EFL world itself are precisely the mutually com-
plementary notions which Phillipson (1992 p. 185) refers to as
'the monolingual fallacy' ('English, or by implication any other
language, should be taught entirely though the m e d i u m of the
target language and without reference to other languages') and
'the native speaker fallacy' ('English, or by implication, any other
language is best taught by native speakers'). The truth of the
matter is surely that each type of context has its own advantages
and disadvantages (I have attempted to summarise these in
Atkinson 1993 chapter 1) and any discussion of the suitability of
a particular approach or methodology needs to take into account
the relevant features of the context in question. Admittedly, EFL
of the 100% direct method variety tends to achieve an impressive
degree of success, but c o m m o n sense dictates that this has much
more to do with factors such as student motivation, class size,
institutional resources, opportunities to use the language outside
the classroom etc. than the fact that English is the only language
used during lessons. In a class where a native speaker is teaching
English to a group in which seven or eight different nationalities
are represented, the issue of use of or reference to 'the mother
tongue' hardly arises. For obvious reasons, 100% direct method
is the natural choice; not because it is in some absolute sense
'the best way' but simply by force of circumstances. In the 'com-
mon language' situation, however, the respective roles of the
mother tongue and the target language deserve much closer
scrutiny.
I could go on to describe a variety of other factors (inter-
language theory, publishers' priorities in the lucrative ELT
market, etc.) which have contributed to the development of the
myth that theoretical evidence proves the superiority of exclu-
sively 'direct method' teaching. But space is limited and I hope
a n y w a y that I have a d d u c e d sufficient examples by now to bear
out m y contention that w h a t we are dealing with in the area of
'theory' is not evidence of such a kind.
If, then, it is the case that 'theory' cannot provide us with
answers on this issue, then presumably we must arrive at a posi-
tion on it on the basis of factors such as teachers' experience and
informed common sense (as happens so often in language teach-
ing). In order to decide whether a particular approach should be
Language Learning Journal No. 8, September 1993
used in the classroom and advocated and promoted by teacher
trainers, ministries etc., we need to ask ourselves whether it is
practicable and desirable. I wish now to argue that both experi-
ence and common sense suggest that 100% direct method is
probably neither feasible nor particularly desirable in most 'com-
mon language' situations.
Feasibility
Can it be done? Two points need to be m a d e here.
1. Teachers don't believe it can be done
The very informative results of Franklin's research (op. cit.,
p. 21) suggest, among other things, that none of her respondents
felt that every type of classroom management task could be car-
ried out 'easily' in the target language, and only 11% felt that this
could be achieved 'with difficulties'. Moreover, she points out
that Mitchell (1988) reports broadly similar results. My own
experience of working with m a n y different types of teachers and
trainees leads me to suspect that most attitudinal research of this
kind is likely to yield similar findings.
One must be careful here. The fact that a teacher feels that
something cannot be done does not of course, of itself, mean that
it is impossible; Halliwell and Jones (op. cit., p. 21), for example,
cite the ultimately circular excuse of 'not with this class because
they are not used to it'. On the other hand, when a large majori-
ty of teachers seem to have sincere, consistent doubts about the
practicability of some methodological innovation or other, this
needs to be taken seriously. There are, in m y experience at least,
many graduates of teacher training courses who quickly reject
the '100%' position as hopelessly idealistic and lapse into a dis-
astrous s y n d r o m e whereby the mother tongue dominates the
entire proceedings. Slightly more modest aims in teacher train-
ing might, in this respect, produce better results. I have met
many teachers who have m a d e real efforts to make their teach-
ing more communicative, to perfect their own command of the
target language, to use more target language in the classroom
etc., but I cannot recollect a teacher (at least as regards non-
native speakers in 'common language' contexts) who has m a d e
a sustained, successful attempt to abolish entirely the use of the
mother tongue in their classes. 7
2. We must preach what we practise
One of the reasons why personally I stopped advocating (vir-
tual) 100% direct method some time ago was that I found
increasingly that I simply was not using it in my own teaching,
both of English as a foreign language to groups of Spanish learn-
ers and, more recently, of Spanish to British students. In addition
to this, I felt that I would not have used it in many of the situa-
tions in which I was observing trainee teachers (PGCE Modern
Languages practice teaching, for example). I use, rather, w h a t I
consider to be a reasonably principled balance of the two
languages. Perhaps my own practice is misguided, but even if it
is it w o u l d still be invidious for me to promote a methodology
which I do not implement myself. To the best of my knowledge,
most practising teachers involved in teacher training attempt to
keep a close eye on the relationship between what they do and
what they encourage others to do. A n d yet, if m y o w n
experience is representative, most of them do not use 100%
direct method themselves when teaching in 'common language'
situations. If m y impression is correct, then it is clearly time that
such trainers began to examine more closely their o w n
approaches to the target language and the mother tongue in
order to derive insights which can form the basis of detailed,
realistic guidance for their trainees. Teacher trainers who do not
teach, on the other hand, and who thus have no current practice
of their own to rely on, are, one hopes, highly circumspect about
adopting extreme, dogmatic positions on any aspect of method-
ology, particularly one as central and complex as the target
language.
For most teachers in most circumstances, teaching entirely in
the target language is simply too tall an order; they do not
consider it feasible and are not amenable to persuasion.
This leaves us, finally, with the question of whether such a
'monolingual' approach w o u l d in fact be ideal if it could be
realised.
3

Desirability
There appear to be two main arguments against the desirabil-
ity of 100% direct method in the teaching of modern languages
in our society; one sociocultural and one methodological.
The sociocultural point is to do with the perennial problems of
insularity, ethnocentricity and the extraordinarily small per-
centage of the population in this culture who have any knowl-
edge of more than one language. Phillipson (op. cit., p. 193) cites
research into the Goethe Institut's teaching of German which
appears to show that %vhen the mother tongue is banned from
the classroom, the teaching leads to the alienation of the learners,
deprives them of their cultural identity, and leads to accultura-
tion rather than increased intercultural communicative compe-
tence'. As Phillipson suggests, if this is a problem in the Goethe
Institut context of, on the whole, well-motivated, fee-paying
adult learners, then presumably it is likely to be even more of
one among the captive audiences of our schools. Radically
'monolingual' approaches in the classroom run the risk of being
misconstrued by British learners, particularly adolescents, as an
attempt to impose a form of cultural imperialism which threat-
ens their own cultural identity and thus, paradoxically, causes
them to retreat further into xenophobic monoculturalism rather
than broadening their horizons. A classic example in this respect
is the misguided practice of assigning target language names to
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:20 05 October 2014
students, a procedure which causes disorientation and resent-
ment among many otherwise potentially well-motivated learn-
ers. s Classroom methodology ought to allow learners to
maintain a firm sense of their own non-target language/culture
identity while developing knowledge of and empathy towards
the target culture itself. A careful, principled balance of the
two languages is, I would argue, one of the bases of such a
methodology.
The methodological argument is an extension of the point
made earlier that in 'common language' contexts the roles of the
mother tongue and the target language need to be defined in a
way which will best help to maximise the amount that the stu-
dents learn. Attention needs to be given to the sorts of variables
which will help to determine the most appropriate balance at a
given time (the level, the stage of the course, the particular activ-
ity being used and its aims, etc., etc.). These variables, of course,
constitute one of the reasons w h y it is impossible to suggest an
across the board, 'ideal' target language percentage to replace a
100% or grudging 98% figure. Franklin's research (op. cit.) sug-
gests that there is considerable agreement among teachers that
some types of activity are relatively easy to conduct in the target
language (e.g. 'organising the classroom'), whereas others are
nigh on impossible in many classes (e.g. 'discussing language
objectives'). What we need to be doing, in response to such
results, is not just acknowledging the perceived differences in
level of difficulty, but giving serious consideration to the issue of
under what circumstances use of the mother tongue might be
justifiable on methodological grounds (and, equally, at which
points it really should be banned from the classroom altogether).
There are no easy answers or prescriptions in this area--the vari-
ables are clearly complex.
Addressing the issues
If banning the mother tongue from the classroom is neither
justifiable on theoretical grounds, nor feasible or desirable, this
has important implications not only for teachers but for teacher
trainers, department heads, inspectors and policy makers. What
should be done? I would suggest three initial steps.
1. Maintain clear priorities
All of the above notwithstanding, it remains a fact that failure
to engender enough use of the target language in the classroom
is one of the major methodological reasons for poor achievement
levels in language learning. Those of us who do not support the
'100% target language' position have a clear responsibility to
reiterate loudly and clearly at every opportunity that in any cir-
cumstances the target language must be the main m e d i u m of
classroom interaction: this is the 'bottom line' and sinking below
it cannot be reconciled with commonsensical principles of good
practice.
4 language L,,arning ]ourna~ No 8, September 1993
One of the priorities of anyone involved in teacher training
should therefore be to ensure that teachers are e q u i p p e d with
the complex managerial and communication skills required in
an approach which involves a high proportion of direct method
(Halliwell and Jones, op. cit., is an excellent starting point).
Furthermore, teachers should be encouraged to acquire a sound
knowledge of the highly specific target language items related to
the minutiae of (communicative) language teaching. Many
trainee teachers, however good their c o m m a n d of the language,
are not confident of how to say, for instance, 'pair work' or
'whiteboard marker' in the language which they are teaching. I
have seen and used excellent lists of such items b u t I am
unaware of any published sources. Similarly, teachers should be
encouraged to consider how they can ensure that low level
learners master what Halliwell and Jones (op. cir., p. 28) call a
'simple core of words" as quickly as possible, in order that the
basic business of the classroom can be conducted in the target
language.
2. The question of the relationship between the target lan-
guage and the mother tongue should become a much more cen-
tral focus in teacher training, both pre- and in-service.
Workshops and seminars should be encouraged in which teach-
ers are able to reflect on and discuss their own teaching from this
point of view and it should be allocated a higher profile in teach-
ing practice supervision. Numerous topics suggest themselves:
C a n / s h o u l d the mother tongue play a role in presentation of
new language, in pair and group work, in listening or reading
tasks, etc.? What might the role of translation be in a commu-
nicative classroom? What are the respective advantages and dis-
advantages of 'bilingual' and 'monolingual' dictionaries? A n d so
on. ~
3. Further research, both 'traditional' and 'action' or class-
room based, needs to be done in this area in order that we m a y
develop a clearer idea of how to approach the issue in a princi-
pled way.
Conclusion
Some readers of this article m a y feel that I am splitting hairs.
Surely, they may protest, the fundamental need is simply for
more teachers to teach in the target language. I w o u l d argue,
however, that only by recognising more explicitly that 100% tar-
get language is neither feasible nor necessarily desirable in most
classrooms and by making the respective roles of the foreign
language and English a central methodological focus in teacher
training, can the goal be achieved of ensuring that as m a n y
teachers and learners as possible use as much of the target lan-
guage as possible.
The 1990 DES report on foreign languages states (p. 59) that 'It
is important that every m o d e r n languages department estab-
lishes a clear policy for the use of the target language in the class-
room.' It strikes me as simplistic to say that the target language
should be what teachers always aspire to and 'the use of the
mother tongue accidental in comparison' (Chambers, op. cit.,
p. 31). The issue is not as straightforward as that, and depart-
ments wishing to develop a principled policy will need to come
to grips with its considerable complexities, some of which I have
tried to outline in this article.
Howatt (op. cit., p. 173) points out that the late nineteenth-cen-
tury Reform Movement 'consisted of non-native teachers w h o
accepted the basic sense of the monolingual principle, but did
not see any advantage in an extremist view'. If, as I have argued,
such a position is still appropriate one h u n d r e d years later, then
its implications for classroom practice need to be explored in
greater depth.
Notes
1. Like most writers on the subject, Chambers stops short of insisting
on absolute prohibition of the mother tongue and accepts that it
might have a role to play in, for example, cases of extreme indisci-
pline. This '99.9%' point of view appears to be very common;
although advocacy of target language teaching is often qualified by
terms such as 'the normal means of communication', "virtually all the
time', etc. there is rarely any discussion of the points at which class-
room procedures might legitimately take place in English or the
sort of variables which might affect the target language/English
 ratio at a given time. It is difficult for teachers not to infer, therefore,
that anything less than 100% target language in some sense falls
short of an ideal.
2. I would point out, however, that five of the six sources are from the
1970s and a lot has happened in applied linguistics.since then. In
any event, such a collection of sources certainly fails to provide the
'empirical' evidence to which Franklin appeals. It should also be
mentioned that the separation of 'methodology' from the 'medium
of instruction' which Franklin implies is a false one. The medium of
instruction is one of the most fundamental methodological issues
facing any teacher.
3. See, for example, Littlewood's (1984) review which examines
Krashen's own practical proposals.
4. Newcomers to Swan's two articles should, in fairness, read them in
conjunction with Widdowson's (1985) reply.
5. One might add, as I have argued elsewhere (Atkinson 1987), that in
discussion of this issue a spurious dichotomy between commu-
nicative language teaching and grammar translation tends to arise:
either you have 100% 'communicative' direct method or you're
back to the retrograde horrors of grammar translation. This is illu-
s o r y - t h e r e is no reason why the mother tongue should not play a
modest, useful role in a communicative approach. Indeed, as
Butzkamm (1989, p. 282) points out, there is a sense in which
'Translating and interpreting are in fact communicative activities
par excellence' (my translation).
6. It is worth pointing out that in fact, on a global scale, most teaching
of EFL takes place in very similar circumstances to those of modern
languages teaching in Britain, i.e. in schools and in situations where
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:20 05 October 2014
the teachers and students share a common language. The relative-
ly unusual type of context which Chambers alludes to (principally
the private sector in countries such as Britain, Australia and the
USA) has gained a disproportionate degree of influence for a
variety of reasons, an issue which is discussed by Phillipson (1992,
op. cit.).
7. I should perhaps mention that until recently most of my own ex-
perience was in EFL. However, I have worked extensively with
teachers who face a "common language' context; this has included
supervising teaching practice on a British P.G.C.E. modern lan-
guages course.
8. The situation may be different in the context of primary education,
which I am not qualified to comment on. The position adopted in
this article refers exclusively to the teaching of adolescents and
adults.
9. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, a huge amount of litera-
ture available which offers advice on practical issues of this kind.
Readers of German will find in Butzkamm (1989, op. cit.) a full
description of 'bilingual' approach developed over a long period.
Atkinson (1993) contains a relatively detailed treatment of the
respective roles of the target language and the mother tongue from
an EFL perspective. Carl Dodson's work (e.g. Dodson 1986) is also
of relevance.
LanguageLearningJournalNo.8, September1993
ReFeren ces
Atkinson, D. (1987). 'The Mother Tongue in the Classroom: a Neglected
Resource?' English Language Teaching Journal 1987 41/4: 241-247.
Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching Monolingual Classes. Longman.
Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching.
Cambridge.
Butzkamm, W. (1989). Psycholinguistik des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. UTB
Francke Verlag Ttibingen.
Chambers, F. (1991). 'Promoting Use of the Target Language in the
Classroom.' Language Learning Journal September 1991 No. 4: 27-31.
Department of Education and Science. (1990). Modern Foreign Languages
for Ages 11 to 16. DES and The Welsh Office.
Dodson, C. J. (1986). 'Language-learning strategies of monolinguals and
bilinguals. In Oksaar E. (ed.) Sociocultural Perspectives of
Multilingualism and Language Acquisition. Tfibingen: Narr.
Franklin, C. E. M. (1990). 'Teaching in the Target Language: Problems
and Prospects.' Language Learning Journal September 1990: 20-24.
Gregg, K. (1984). 'Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor.' Applied
Linguistics 1984 5/2: 79-100.
Halliwell, S. and B. Jones (1991). On Target: Teaching in the Target
Language Centre for Information on Language Teaching; Pathfinder
series no. 5.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford.
Kneller, G. F. (1971). Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. Second
Edition. New York: Wiley quoted in Stern 1984.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Learning. Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
Pergamon.
Littlewood, W. Review of The Natural Approach. English Language
Teaching Journal 1984 38/3.
Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative Language Teaching in Practice. London:
CILT quoted in Franklin 1990.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). 'Consciousness-raising and the Second
Language Learner.' Applied Linguistics 1981 2/2.
Stern, H. H. (1983), Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford.
Swan, M. (1984). 'A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach (1).'
English Language Teaching Journal 1984 39/1: 2-12.
Swan, M. (1984). 'A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach (2).'
English Language Teaching Journal 1984 39/2: 76-87.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). 'Against Dogma: a Reply to Michael Swan.'
English Language Teaching Journal 1984 39/3: 158-161.
English, Dutch, French, German,
Italian, Japanese, Russian,
Spanish, Welsh . . . . . . . . . .
Whatever the modern language, the unique features of
the Language Master System make learning more
individualised, more effective and more enjoyable.
• can be used with any language
• highly motivating
• supports autonomous learning
• encourages differentiated approach
• develops good pronunciation and intonation
• extends vocabulary and structure
• instructions in target language
For further information contact
~ Educational
Associates
St. FagansRoad,Fairwater,Cardiff OF53AE Telephone(0222)560333
5