For years I felt torn between 90% TL use and comprehensible input. Then I realized I was thinking about it all wrong.
So I’m standing in front of 30 students teaching a high school French 2 class.
A few barely passed French 1. Two have IEPs for auditory processing disorder. Eight have ADHD.
Several are totally disinterested and only want class credit to graduate. One is watching a movie on her laptop. Three ninth graders from an immersion school really should be in French 4, but it doesn’t fit into their schedules.
The bell rings, and my 47 minutes of instruction time begins. There are competing forces at play.
I know that ACTFL advises me to spend 90% of class time in the target language.
I know that my students need comprehensible input for language acquisition.
I’ve attended hours and hours of training, including TPRS workshops, OWL boot camps, and ACTFL mOPI and OPI training.
I’ve read foundational texts by famous Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers. I’ve written IPAs and bought into acquisition-driven instruction. I know how to teach French.
So why does it sometimes feel like an impossible task?
The juggling act of language teaching
The saying “jack of all trades, master of none” is pertinent here. All teachers have too much to successfully juggle and competing priorities to reconcile. But world language teachers face a unique set of pressures.
Every day, we hear about districts and universities cutting language programs. Every day, we read headlines about AI making our jobs obsolete. Something so fundamental to the human experience—language—is consistently relegated down the hierarchy of subject verticals.
And so we continually ask ourselves: how do we succeed? How can we teach language better and more successfully than apps, YouTube videos, and AI?
Researchers and professional organizations have offered guidance to help us answer these questions and meet the current challenges. That’s how we’ve arrived at the 90% rule and the general acceptance of comprehensible input theory.
Why is 90% target language use important?
World language teachers are encouraged to use the target language for 90% of their instructional time to maximize student exposure. In their rationale, ACTFL offers this observation: “For many learners, the precious minutes in our classrooms are the only opportunity in their day to experience the target language.” Therefore, aiming for (at least) 90% target language use ensures that students will receive the input needed to acquire the language.
This is a straightforward guideline, yet rather difficult to achieve. Of the 1,076 language teachers I polled in prominent world language educator Facebook groups, nearly 35% indicated that they “rarely” hit 90% TL use, followed by 30% who said they only “sometimes” do.
“While it totally makes sense, and I love the idea, I have not arrived at consistent use of the TL at this rate,” noted a French teacher in Missouri.
“Unless it’s an immersion setting, never. It all depends on the learning approach required by the educational institution,” said Elisa Vasquez, a Spanish teacher for an online language school in Taiwan.
Many of the polled educators echoed these sentiments. But then the CI teachers started weighing in.
What is comprehensible input?
Comprehensible input (CI) is language input that can be understood by a non-native speaker of a target language. Comprehensible input is a theory of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) that encompasses the level and quantity of a target language that students should receive to acquire language naturally.
The origins of CI are credited to SLA researcher Dr. Stephen Krashen. In 1982 he wrote: “Learners can only acquire (internalize) language when they hear large quantities of input that the teacher provides orally that is interesting, a little beyond students’ current level of competence, and not grammatically sequenced.” Dr. Krashen illustrates his input hypothesis in the following video:
“I'm not saying it's a magic bullet,” said Jennifer Pease, a French teacher from California, “but CI can turn students into great comprehenders, which is necessary for acquisition. When you can understand another language, you are ’passive’ bilingual/L3+. This is hugely overlooked.”
Andrea Caulfield, the World Language Coordinator for Denver Public Schools, added: “It’s so much easier to hit that 90% in a CI/ADI [acquisition-driven instruction] environment; when you are not explicitly teaching grammar and are focusing on high-frequency words to talk about topics that are of high interest to students, 90% is much, much easier to pull off. That doesn’t mean it’s easy. But when districts truly invest in supporting teachers to meet the standards, it is doable.”
Despite the challenges many teachers face in reaching the 90% target language goal, these CI advocates seemed to have found a way to make it work. Their experiences suggest that comprehensible input could be the key to consistently hitting that 90% mark.
But what exactly does CI look like in the classroom, and how can it help teachers overcome the barriers to maximizing target language use? As I delved deeper into the world of CI, I discovered a range of teaching methods that put this theory into practice.
Which teaching methods are based on comprehensible input?
Comprehensible input has provided the basis for several language teaching methods. Arguably, the most famous CI-based teaching method is Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling, or TPRS.
TPRS wasn’t the first method based on the CI theory, but it is the most enduring. Created in the late 1980s by Spanish teacher Blaine Ray, TPRS is widely known for its collaborative storytelling, which is used to elicit student language and lower students’ affective filters.
In a typical TPRS lesson, teachers first introduce target language vocabulary using gestures or translation. Then, teachers ask students to contribute to a story. After creating a story, the class transitions to receiving written input through various reading activities.
While widely known, TPRS is not the only means of achieving comprehensible input in the language classroom. Other methods based on CI instruction include:
Introduced in 1969 by Dr. James J. Asher, TPR had a tremendous influence on TPRS
Associates target language words and phrases with motor skills (gestures) to facilitate comprehension
Designed by Dr. Krashen and Dr. Tracey D. Terrell in the 1990s
Relies on visuals, props, vocal intonation and inflection, and background knowledge to drive acquisition
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
Credited to Indian teacher and researcher N. Prabhu, who introduced the method in 1987
Guides students through real-world tasks requiring use of the target language
Influenced the development of ACTFL's Integrated Performance Assessments
This is a non-exhaustive list, but it illustrates the general acceptance of CI principles in language education. Many teachers use one of these methods and consistently reach 90% target language use in their classrooms.
But I am not one of them.
My search for the “perfect” method
Despite my best efforts, I couldn’t make either TPRS or OWL work for me long-term. I went to multiple trainings for each and gave both a fair shot. I really wanted them to work because I saw how they worked for other teachers.
Watching Ben Slavic teach a French class with TPRS will make you want to stand up and cheer. Attending an OWL bootcamp will have you throwing out the desks in your classroom.
These methods work for many teachers, so why didn’t they work for me?
Maybe TPRS is simply mismatched with my personality (it relies heavily on high energy and deep silliness) and is simply inauthentic to who I am. Maybe I just never got the hang of OWL’s signature circle structure, and I actually like desks. Maybe I felt pressure to use the same worksheets and handouts my colleagues were using.
Maybe I lost the plot in my search for a silver bullet.
Navigating the realities of the classroom
I’m standing in front of 30 students teaching a high school French 2 class.
The first problem is that 30 individual students often represent 30 varying “current levels of competence” (in the words of Dr. Krashen). Achieving ideal comprehensible input 90% of the time for a highly varied group of people is more complicated than the hypothesis suggests.
Another issue? The students don’t want to be lectured for 42 minutes.
In fact, I don’t want to lecture for 42 minutes. If I had to lecture for 42 minutes, I would undoubtedly get into language that is much higher than “a little beyond students’ current level” which Krashen advises. This is because I would inevitably run out of things to talk about at an approximated “French 2 + 1 level.” As a result, I’d be ignoring the first caveat Krashen gives—my language input would stop being interesting.
There are two likely outcomes. The first is that I won't use enough French and won't reach the 90% target language use. The second is that I will use 90% French, but it may be incomprehensible.
Why we should start with CI
How do we get to 90%? The key is to start with comprehensible input.
When I focus on making the language accessible and understandable to my students, the 90% target language use naturally follows. It's not about hitting a specific percentage; it's about ensuring that my students can grasp the meaning behind the words. Let me illustrate this with an example using Russian.
Try reading this sentence: Yesli vy ne znayete ni slova po-russki, predlozheniye, consisting v osnovnom iz russkogo yazyka, ne pomozhet vam learn yazyk.
That sentence demonstrates a 90/10 split of transliterated Russian to English. Unless you read transliterated Russian, the small amount of English in the sentence is not enough to help you decipher its meaning.
But if we rewrite the sentence to provide you with comprehensible input (assuming you speak no Russian), it becomes easier:
If you don't understand any Russian, a sentence containing a few Russian words may pomoch' you learn and gradually increase your ponimaniye.
This example illustrates how using a student's first language can aid in understanding the target language. Using a student's native language can help them learn a new language, like using English to better understand Russian words. It's a strategic way to support language acquisition.
There are other uses for the first language, too. Using English (in this case) could be useful in helping students to set goals, reflect on outcomes, and engage in general metacognition (thinking about their thinking). This can help them think about how they are learning the target language and help boost self-efficacy.
Rather than using the 90% target language goal as the starting point, then, we should prioritize providing comprehensible input. This is true even if that means occasionally leveraging the first language. The 90% target language use should be a natural byproduct of effective comprehensible input, not the other way around.
And by “comprehensible input,” I mean comprehensible input through any instructional method.
Assembling my own CI method
In the dogma of language teaching methods, I’m a “cafeteria”-level observer; I take what I like and leave what I don’t.
I liked the idea Mona Mulhair shared at an AP Institute in 2013 about beginning classes with OPI-inspired “check-ins.” So that’s how I started my classes for a decade.
Blaine Ray had me speaking an unexpected level of German at a training in 2014. I don’t have the “x factor” required to be a TPRS teacher, though, so I integrated circle questioning, PQAs, and “volleyball reading” into my practice.
I attended OWL training with Darcy Rogers in 2013 and 2015. Though I couldn’t sustain the level of energy required for that method, I held onto what she taught me about the importance of student speaking and writing opportunities.
All of these methods derive from CI.
And all of these methods helped me get to 90% much more often than I otherwise would have.
I want to help you hit 90%, too
Join me at Language Is Limitless: The National Institute, a professional learning event designed just for world language educators. I'll be one of the experienced educators presenting sessions that speak authentically to you and your teaching practice.
Attend sessions on student self-assessments, contextualized grammar instruction, purposeful feedback, culturally responsive teaching practices, and more! Try out new techniques, find your favorites, and create a balanced approach of strategies to fuel your students' language acquisition.
And if you’re not sure what to add to your plate, I’ll be happy to share from mine.
Before joining Carnegie Learning in 2023, Kelly worked in education for ten years as a classroom teacher and an administrator. She holds both a Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree in French and began her career writing for the press office at the French Embassy in Washington, D.C. She is a certified ACTFL OPI rater, an AP French Exam reader, and taught out of Carnegie Learning's T'es Branché? curriculum for six years.
Explore more related to this authorRather than using the 90% target language goal as the starting point, we should prioritize providing comprehensible input. This is true even if that means occasionally leveraging the first language.
Kelly Denzler
