See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337732026

Immersion Learning: What, How, and for what purposes?

Article · December 2019

CITATION READS

1 14,531

1 author:

Ansam Alhalawachy
University of Mosul
6 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ansam Alhalawachy on 04 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Immersion Learning: What, How, and for What Purposes?
Dr. Ansam A. Al-Halawachy
College of Basic Education/Department of English/Mosul University
ABSTRACT
Among the most interesting and effective innovations in second
language education during the last three decades have been the immersion
programs developed in Canada. The rationale of such programs is based
upon the belief that one learns a second language by actually
communicating through it. Immersion learning is a method of second
language instruction in which the second language is the major vehicle
for integrating language instruction, content instruction, and
communication. It can be brought about by developing a variable
repertoire of instructional approaches, techniques, strategies, and
activities via which teachers can help students understand both the second
language and its content. The main purpose of immersion learning is to
develop students' second language acquisition and the learning of
academic content and cultural situations. Hence, students should be able
to communicate and interact competently with more people in more
places in an increasingly independent world community.
‫ وأىدافو‬،‫ طريقة إجراؤه‬،‫ ماىيتو‬:‫التعمم أالنغماسي‬
‫أندام عمي الحالوجي‬.‫د‬
‫قدم المغة األنكميزية‬/‫كمية التربية االساسية‬
‫الممخص‬

‫من بين أكثر اإلبداعات أىسية وفاعمية في ثقافة تعمم المغة الثانية خالل العقالها الثلثالة السشرالرمة‬
‫ تدتشد ىذه البرامج عمى االعتقاا القائل بأن السرء‬.‫ىي البرامج أالنغساسية التي استحدثت في كشدا‬
‫ نقرالالد بالالالتعمم أالنغساسالالي اسالالتخدا‬.‫يالالتعمم المغالالة الثانيالالة باسالالتخداميا مالالن خالالل التهانالالل الحتيقالالي‬
‫يسكن تحقيق ىذا الشاله مالن‬.‫المغة الثانية كأااة رئيدة لدمج تعمم المغة بتعميسات السحتهى والتهانل‬
‫الالالتعمم مالالن خالالل تزالالهمر خالزمن متغيالالر مالالن ااسالالاليتر التقشيالالاتر اإلسالالتراتيجياتر والشذالالاتات التالالي‬
‫ يتسثالالل اليالالد‬.‫بهاسالالزتيا يالالتسكن السالالدرس مالالن مدالالاعدة السالالتعمم عمالالى فيالالم المغالالة الثانيالالة ومحتهاىالالا‬
‫الرئيس من التعمم االنغساسي في تزهمر اكتداب الستعمسين لمغة الثانية وتعمالم السحتالهى ااكالاايسي‬
‫ وعميالالو يالالتسكن الستعمسالهن مالالن التهانالالل والت اعالالل بك الالاءة مال‬.‫باإلضالالافة ىلالالى السزالالامين الحزالالارمة‬
.‫أناس أكثر في أماكن أكثر ضسن مجتس ذي استقللية متزايدة في ىذا العالم‬

0
1. Introduction:
Learning is a basic function of human beings. We are designed to
learn. It is, as Willis (2006: 1) defines in a broad sense, a process in
which "… an organism is said to have learnt when it has increased its
options for applying, to a specific set of circumstances, new or different
behaviour which the organism believes will be to its benefit".
Norwell (2006) points out that the learning process can be broken
into two basic parts: modalities, i.e. means of learning, and sources of
learning. The former includes: 1- heart (feelings), 2-mind (thinking), and
3- body (acting or experiencing). These modalities form a complex, and
interrelated learning system within us. The latter is divided into: 1- self,
2- others, and 3- nature or the universe. Accordingly, a powerful learning
system takes place when the learner is totally immersed in a context
including all the three above-mentioned modalities in addition to the three
sources of information (ibid.: 2). Such learning system is called
immersion learning (henceforth IL).
IL is a language education program used for different purposes and
across different social, cultural, and political contexts. It has been called
differently by different scholars. Cazabon et al. (1993) call it two-way
bilingual education; Snow (1993) describes it as content-based
instruction; and Swain and Johnson (1997) name it immersion learning.
Whatever the name is, the most important aspect of these programs is the
emphasis on how to make meaning and content of the second language
comprehensible to the students through a multicultural approach to
education. Moreover, such programs are said to be enormously effective
in developing students' need to be proficient in foreign languages for
personal, educational, and economic reasons.

1
2. Statement of the Problem
Students who have passed four years of education learning English
as a foreign language (henceforth EFL) face much difficulty to talk to
native speakers or even to their peers. This inability to speak the foreign
language (henceforth FL) is somewhat understandable; most language
teachers focus in their teaching on the traditional methods like teaching
grammar and having students do translations in their mother tongue.
Although some teachers use the communicative methods in their
teaching, students still fossilize various pronunciation and grammar
errors. In addition, it is important to mention that the instructions students
receive in language classes are provided by the teacher and are academic
in nature. We find students good in communicating the FL in relation to
academic purposes, but are poor in social interactions.
3. Aims of the Study
The main aim of the current research is to present clear-cut answers
to some fundamental questions:
1- What is IL?
2- How does it operate?
3- What are the purposes behind IL programs?
By so doing, the researcher is specifically interested in providing an up-
to-date information about this topic. This would hopefully make teachers
knowledgeable of what is unique about IL and of the factors that
contribute to its success or prevent successful outcomes.
Moreover, this work tries to investigate the extent to which
immersion procedures are used by teachers of EFL at the university level.
And if there are any statistically significant differences in the use of these
procedures by teachers of literature and teachers of language and
linguistics.

2
4. Nature of Immersion Learning
IL is one of the basic methods that emphasize the use of language for
meaningful communication or what we call communicative language
teaching. It is the most effective way of acquiring a second language
(henceforth L2) through which students are immersed in L2 throughout
the teaching day. The most central characteristic of such a method is the
teaching of L2 content, and culture in combination without the use of the
student's first language (henceforth L1). Fortune and Tedick (2003: 1)
state that the main goal behind conducting IL programs is for students to
become proficient in L2 and develop increased cultural awareness while
reaching a high level of academic achievement. Taken further, students
could be taught some non-language materials, like history or politics in
the L2. By so doing, students use the L2 to learn the subject matter
content in different forms of IL programs without the L2 being the focus
of explicit instruction.

4.1 Features of IL programs:

According to Swain and Johnson (1997), the nature of IL programs
must be explored by identifying some core features that would be
essential to distinguish these programs from other types of L2 programs.
These features include the following:
1- The L2 is the medium of instruction,
2- The immersion curriculum parallels the L1 curriculum,
3- The IL program aims for additive bilingualism,
4- Exposure to L2 is largely confined to the classroom,
5- Students enter these programs with similar and limited levels of L2
proficiency,
6- The teachers are bilingual, and

3
 7- The classroom culture is that of the community from which the
students are drawn.
With these features in mind, Johnstone (2002) adds three more
features that, in his view, account for much of the success of these
educational programs. These features are:
1- The time feature which is concerned with the overall time given in
these programs compared to that offered in ordinary schools.
2- The intensity feature which has to do with the use of language
outside the language itself, i.e. using L2 in learning other subject
matters.
3- The exposure feature which means giving students a great deal of
exposure to L2 from a native or highly fluent speaker of L2.
It is evident from what has been stated so far that for an IL
program to be unique and successful, these features must be put on a
continuum and that each one of them must be present to some degree.
Moreover, these programs underlie powerful cultural rationale that gives
it its force and creates the commitment to it, without which it is unlikely
to succeed.

4.2 Types and Levels of IL programs:

IL programs vary in intensity and structure according to the model
implemented. There are two main types of IL programs presented by
Lenker & Rhodes (2007):
1- Partial Immersion Programs: in which all students are taught in the
L2 at least a half-day. In other words, 50% of instruction is
provided in the target language. In these programs, students can
alternate languages, i.e. L1 and L2 from one day to the next or one
week to the next. If students do one language in the morning and

4
 the other in the afternoon, it is better to put L2 in the morning,
because students tend to be more alert and learn better at this time.
2- Total Immersion Programs where students receive full-day
instruction in initial literacy which is provided in L2. Fortune &
Tedick (2003: 1) remark that many cognitive processes that
underlie the ability to read, such as understanding the relationship
between the spoken language and the written form, transfer from
one language to another.
In addition to these types, Johnstone (2002: 1) introduces other
types of programs that are prominent in Canada . Examples of these
programs are: 'early total', 'early partial', 'delayed total', ' delayed partial',
late total', 'late partial'. The difference between early programs on the one
hand and delayed or late on the other hand is that the former are most
common where students start learning L2 in pre-school and kindergarten
while the latter begin at the middle or high school levels.
Johnstone continues to discuss some basic issues regarding the
levels of IL programs. He remarks that "higher levels of immersion result
generally in higher levels of language proficiency in the target language,
particularly if the target language is an L2 for students" (ibid.: 127).
These levels may vary but the most effective additive
bilingual/immersion programs in the literature range from 50% to 90%
immersion in the target language, and they are:
Level 1: 81-100%
Level 2: 51-80%
Level 3: 30-50%
Level 4: 12-30%
These levels are correlated with types of IL programs. Level 1 programs
are related with total immersion, level 2 with partial programs, level 3

5
with ineffective partial immersion programs (less than 50%), and level 4
with FL teaching programs (ibid.: 128).

5. Procedures of IL Programs
In this section, focus will be on finding a suitable answer for the
pivot question, viz. How are students immersed in a learning
environment that promotes maximum use of L2? Fortune (1997) remarks
that by developing a variable repertoire of instructional approaches,
techniques, strategies, and activities, teachers can help students
understand both L2 and content. To this end, it would be important to
explore the most common and specific instructional means that has been
identified by research as being helpful to immersion teachers.

5.1 Approaches to IL
There are two major approaches to IL. They are:
5.1.1 Total Physical Response (TPR)
This approach was popularized by Asher in the 1970s. Asher
(2000) states that this approach is built upon two phases. The first phase
is formed out of a silent period where learners respond physically to
simple requests by the teacher who uses only gestures to communicate
what s/he wants them to do. Through the second phase, students ask their
peers to perform actions, like recombining vocabulary that the teacher has
been using and making new requests that they have never heard before.

5.1.2 The Natural Approach

This approach is based on the fact that "the best way to acquire a
second language is the same way children acquire a first language:
Immerse students in a second language rich environment rather than the

6
traditional teaching-learning situation" (Reyhner, 2003: 4). It is originally
proposed by Krashen & Terrell (1983) and is based on four basic
principles:
1- Comprehension Precedes Production. This principle includes:
a- the teacher always uses the language s/he is teaching;
b- the lesson is focused on a topic that the students are interested in;
and
c- the teacher works continuously to help students understand using
gestures, visuals, and real objects.
2- Students learn new languages in stages, beginning with a “silent
period” where they just listen and then by starting to speak single
words, then a few words, then phrases, and finally moving to
sentences and complex discourse. Errors in grammar and
pronunciation that do not interfere with understanding should not
be corrected.
3- The objective of learning a language is to be able to carry out a
conversation in that language. Lessons should center on an activity
rather than a grammatical structure.
4- Classroom activities need to lessen students' anxiety. They need to
focus on topics of interest and relevancy to the students and
“encourage them to express their ideas, opinions, desires,
emotions, and feelings.” The teacher needs to create a warm,
friendly, welcoming classroom to insure language learning.

5.2 Techniques of IL
Since the main reason behind conducting IL programs is to
improve and increase the amount of outcomes in FL classrooms which is
the natural consequence of increasing L2 input substantively, Mangubhai

7
(2005: 203-210) presents some useful procedures that can help EFL
teachers increase L2 input in their classes.

5.2.1 Questioning Downwards

What is meant by questioning downwards is that if students find
difficulties in getting the implicit message of a certain question raised in
the classroom, the teacher down-shifts to an easier form of this question.
This technique focuses on meaning which might be the cause of lack of
understanding the message by L2 learners. It helps students use their
background knowledge to understand a certain text. The following
example adapted from Mangubhai (2005: 205) clarifies what is meant by
questioning downwards:
Teacher: what advice does the writer give a cook who is not used to
cooking with herbs and spice?[ no response from the students.]
Teacher: if someone was not experienced at cooking using ginger what
advice would you give him/her about using this spice?[ if there is still no
response from the students, then an easier form of the question might be
required, i.e. down-shift further.]
Teacher: if you are cooking and you did not know how much spice to put
into the food, what would be a good strategy for you to follow: put only a
little bit of the spice into the food, or put quite a bit into the food? [ at this
stage, one presumes there will be an answer.]

5.2.2 Rephrasing
This technique is different from the previous one in that it focuses
on vocabulary or particular structures that might cause the lack of
understanding on the part of the students learning their L2. Therefore, it is
the teacher's task to decide what linguistic items in his/her message that

8
should be rephrased in order to further students' understanding of the
topic of the lesson. Mangubhai et al. (1999) give examples on rephrasing.
Let's consider the following:
[the teacher has just written down on the blackboard: 4² = =4
X4- gap between the two equal signs.]
Teacher: can you tell me another name for it? (i.e. what goes in the
gap)[no response]
Teacher: or another way you could say it? [no response]
Teacher: if you didn't want to write 4 times 4 and you didn't want to write
4 squared, how else could you write it?
Student1: 4 times squared
Teacher: no, not 4 times squared…. But if you wanted to write a shorter
way… what does 4 times 4 equal?
Student2: 16
Teacher 16 right, so here I want you to write 16.

5.2.3 Recasts
Contrary to the first two techniques which are teacher-driven
behaviour, this one is based on students' language behaviour. De Carrico
& Larsen-Freeman (2002: 31) define recast as the procedure "…in which
the teacher formulates correctly what the learner has just said
erroneously…". This formulation can be done in one of two forms that
lead to some learning but with a slightly different function. In this first
form, teachers recast the student's utterance keeping meaning intact but
giving it under a slightly different form as in Mangubhai's (2005: 207)
example:
Student: it is better to put in only a little ginger.
Teacher: yes, it is better to under season the food.

9
In the second form, recast is carried out when teachers repeat the learner's
utterance and implicitly correct the errors. This may be done as in the
example below:
Student: the boys goes to the town.
Teacher: yes, the boys go to the town.
This form of recast requires some emphasis on the incorrect item to
increase the potential for change in the learner's L2, otherwise all of this
is in vain.

5.2.4 Use of Audiovisuals or Objects

Audiovisuals are usually associated with conveying meaning to
students in an effective and more interesting manner by bringing to the
classroom real-life situations. They are used to help students understand
new words and store them both as linguistic items and visual
representation of them (Mangubhai, 2005: 209). Moreover, these aids
save both time and effort on the teacher's part. The teacher, for example,
can use the student's body to teach him/her the four directions: the head,
the feet, the arms wide open representing the north, south, east, and west
respectively. The following example shows the use of the students' bodies
as physical objects: the teacher has got students to take the name of each
of the planets in the Solar System. They then introduce themselves as "I
am Saturn" and so on.
So far, some of the techniques used by immersion teachers have
been presented. What is unique about these techniques is that they help
teachers use the language in such a way that facilitate students
understanding of it. Furthermore, these techniques pave the way for
teachers to increase the amount of input they provide in L2 to their
students. Despite this fact, it is to be mentioned that these techniques are

10
not an end in themselves. They are only aids that can never replace the
successful teacher who predicts instructional strategies for his/her
immersion classroom.
5.3 IL Programs Strategies
There are a number of strategies that immersion teachers can use to
increase the use of the target language in the classroom. In the following
section, we are going to present such strategies that are recommended by
different researches in this field, and that can be easily adopted by
teachers of EFL to foster their classes.

5.3.1 Independent Reading

It is a daily activity in any classroom. Students' independent
reading can be brought about by literature circles and reading conferences
where teachers place students in groups and assign them a book to read
independently. Students, then, discuss what they read either as they read
or wait until they finish the assignment (MacGillivary et al., 1995: 39).
The advantage of this strategy, according to Krashen (1985: 59), is that it
increases the amount of comprehensible input which leads to an increase
in reading comprehension, vocabulary development, grammatical
development, and writing style.

5.3.2 Teacher/Student Dialogue Journal

This strategy is used to promote language acquisition in immersion
classrooms. It works, as Fitzgerald(1993: 643) says, in the following
manner:
First, the student makes an entry into a spiral notebook. If
at all possible, the entry should be initiated by the student
so that the student has responsibility for controlling and

11
 directing the conversation. The teacher might prompt
entries by suggesting an array of events that happened
during the day…Partners can question, react challenge,
or otherwise express themselves as freely as possible.
After students have been introduced to basic grammar and pronunciation,
they could use their journals to practice editing and proofreading.

5.3.3 Dramatic Performance

Dramatic performance involves using language not as an end in
itself, but as a means of communicating a message, viz. telling a story to an
audience.
Drama serves more than one purpose in an immersion classroom:
1- drama's greatest strength is that it harnesses effective development; and
2- It will also foster an emotional attachment between the students and
language. Once this attachment is achieved, students begin to enjoy the
learning process (Wilburn, 1992: 67). Added to that, versions of drama
activities like role playing, and mimicry can be used by the teacher to
focus on the message rather than the process of language acquisition.

5.3.4 Develop Non-Academic Vocabulary

For students to be proficient in L2, it is important to expand their
vocabulary beyond the academic subject matter. Immersion teachers
should teach the vocabulary of everyday topics, like: clothing, food, toys,
greetings, sports, family, shopping, travel…etc. (LaVan, 2001).
Moreover, the teacher may plan activities done by the students involving
these topics giving them the opportunity to use the L2 in informal
discourse with the teacher or other students.

12
5.3.5 Plan for Creative Language Activities
LaVan (2001) presents a list of creative language activities that
encourage students to use L2 throughout the learning day. These
activities include:
1- Songs (culture, grammar, vernacular use, artistic styles).
2- Dance (culture, movement).
3- Puppet plays (students can be given a topic or theme, then write and
perform a play; an excellent area for incorporating specific language
objectives).
4- Linguistic games (bingo, jeopardy, etc.).
5- Dialogues (again, easy to incorporate language objectives).
6- Role plays (can be designed around daily activities and vocabulary).
7- Simulations.
8- Picture dictionaries (create a list of vernacular terms the students
would like to learn, or synonyms that portray different meanings in
different countries).
9- Video performances (news reports, weather reports, current issues).
10- How-to presentations (write instructions for performing a task and
present to class; a great way to incorporate the imperative tense)

6. Purposes Behind IL Programs

May et al. (2004: 88) state that this approach serves the following
four main purposes:
1- providing the participating students with functional competence in
both written and spoken aspects of the English language;
2- promoting and maintaining normal levels of English language
development;
3- ensuring achievement in academic subjects commensurate with
students' academic ability and grade level;

13
 4- instilling in the students an understanding and appreciation of the
FL and its culture.
Fortune and Tedick (2003: 1) point out that IL programs help
students achieve their social and cognitive advantages. Socially,
immersion learners are provided with skills that enable them to
communicate and interact competently with more people in more places
in an increasingly independent world community. Cognitively, these
learners acquire non verbal problem-solving abilities and more flexible
thinking that enable them to make sense of the teacher's meaning, paying
closer attention and think harder.
Similarly, Gaffney (1999: 3) notes that immersion learners benefit
from these programs in that
"…their general language skills are enhanced, general
cognitive development and academic achievement are
enriched, and appreciation of the culture and the people
represented by the target language is strengthened and
broadened".
Gaffeny adds that students enrolled in these programs acquire the second
language skills, learn the academic subject matter and concepts, and most
importantly maintain a level of English language development
comparable to that of their non-immersion peers.
In the same vein, May et al. (2004: 90) mention that immersion
learners make mistakes in their productive L2 skills, especially writing
and speaking, and are not as fluent as native speakers. However, learners'
abilities in these specific skills are much better than what their peers
achieve via other FL teaching programs.
Johnstone (2002: 2-4) claims that students as well as teachers can
benefit from IL programs. On the students' part, they develop a high-level
psycholinguistic functioning in respect of :

14
 1- richness of vocabulary;
2-sensitivity to multiple meanings;
3-tolerance of non-standard structures; and
4-abstract concepts.
In addition, they also make substantial gains in their self confidence and
longer-term aspiration. These gains are due to the fact that they have
more opportunities to use L2 in real-life situations. As for teachers,
Johnstone states that, by such learning programs, they will be able to:
1- find satisfaction in the progress their students achieve;
2- discern needs for their own professional developments regarding
methods, strategies, materials, and information.

7. Explorations through Questionnaires

After discussing the most common and used procedures in an IL
program, we direct our attention, in this section, to investigate the actual
use of such procedures by teachers of EFL at university level.
This investigation was carried out by the use of a detailed written
questionnaire based on Fortune's (2000) observation checklist, but with
some modifications to serve the aims of the current research. It was
divided into seven category labels. Each category label identifies a basic
pedagogical goal in the IL classroom. These goals are achieved, in turn,
by the use of the procedures discussed in the previous section together
with those presented by Fortune (2000).
The questionnaire aims at eliciting as much information as possible
about which of the approaches, techniques, and strategies , mentioned in
it, are used by the subjects by asking them to tick off their answers on a
scale of five choices. It also aims at clarifying the reasons behind the
abandonment of such activities by making the test-subjects comment on,
or justify their choices (see the Appendix).

15
 The questionnaire is presented to (22) subjects recruited from the
three departments specialized in teaching EFL at the Colleges of Arts,
Education, and Basic Education/ Mosul University. They are divided into
two groups and each group consists of (11) subjects. The first group was
majoring in English Literature, while the second group was majoring in
English Language and Linguistics. The subjects shared the following
common characteristics:
- All of the subjects volunteered to participate in filling in the
questionnaire.
- None of the them has received any training in immersion
education programs.
- All of the subjects are bilingual. We are following here Swain
and Cummins' (1979: 4) definition of bilinguals as those who
possess at least one of the language skills even to a minimal degree
in their second language.
- All of the subjects share the same cultural background ( they were
all Arabs).

8. Results and Discussion

To examine whether the aim of the research which reads: " the
extent to which immersion learning procedures are used by teachers of
EFL at university level" is achieved or not, the researcher used the
percentage as a statistical means. Moreover, to provide more evidence to
consolidate the findings of the questionnaire, the researcher opted for a
discussion of the procedures which were scored as having the higher and
lower percentages in each one of the seven category labels of the
questionnaire. Table (1) below summarizes these percentages.

16
 Table (1): The High and Low Percentage Procedures in each
Category Label of the Questionnaire
Category Label Procedure Used Percentage
1-Contextualizes and organizes curriculum around content- 54.54
based thematic concept.
A 2-Uses authentic songs, poems, rhymes, artifacts to teach 4.54
language and culture.
1- Attends to errors in both oral and written language. 68.18
2- Elicits and holds all students accountable for self and peer 4.54
B repair

1- Establishes routines to build familiarity and allow for 50

repetition.
C 2- Uses body language, total physical response, audio visuals, 22.72
realia, manipulatives to communicate meaning.

1- Displays a variety of words, phrases, and written text 59.09

throughout classroom and hallways.
D 2- Invites native speakers to participate in the classroom 22.72
1- Limits amount of teacher talk. 59.09

E 2- Articulates and enunciates clearly. 9.09

1-Plans for and employs questioning techniques that 50
encourage extended discourse and foster higher-order
F thinking like questioning downwards.
2- Uses output-oriented activities such as songs, linguistic 18.18
games, role plays, simulations, drama performances, debates,
presentations, etc.
1- Uses cooperative group learning. 59.09

G 2- Includes a range of language abilities in student groups. 18.18

As it is evident from table (1), the procedure of " Contextualizes

and organizes curriculum around content-based thematic concept" has
got a percentage of 54.54 in the first category label. This indicates the
necessity of organizing the syllabus depending on its content which is
reflected, in turn, on students' achievements. However, the results
revealed that some teachers devalue the use of this procedure by claiming
that the curriculum is structurally oriented. In the same category label, the
procedure of "Uses authentic songs, poems, rhymes, artifacts to teach

17
language and culture" has got a low percentage of 4.54. Most teachers
have agreed on the fact that the materials used in teaching EFL are non-
authentic and don't reflect the culture of the FL. Moreover, they think that
this procedure is more suitable for learners younger than university
students.
Turning to the second category label, it has been found that the
procedure of " Attends to errors in both oral and written language" has got
a percentage of 68.18. This is because the subjects commented on the use
of this procedure as being widely deployed in teaching languages
generally and teaching of EFL specifically and in different levels of
language learning. In relation to " Elicits and holds all students
accountable for self and peer repair" in the same category label, the
statistical results indicate that this procedure has got only 4.54.
Depending on subjects' comments on why not to use this procedure, they
claim that the nature of this procedure is rather difficult to be applied in
the context of foreign language learning. With regard to the third category
label, the procedure of " Establishes routines to build familiarity and
allow for repetition" has got a percentage of 50; while the procedure of "
Uses body language, total physical response, audio visuals, realia,
manipulatives to communicate meaning" has got a percentage of 22.72.
Subjects heavily rely on the former procedure, because, in their view,
both familiarity and repetition are important in teaching languages. The
latter procedure is not used in a great extent because of the unavailability
of such important techniques at the educational institutions.
With respect to the fourth category label, it has been found that the
procedure of " Displays a variety of words, phrases, and written text
throughout classroom and hallways" has got a percentage of 59.09; while
the procedure of " Invites native speakers to participate in the classroom"
has got a percentage of 22.72. The diversity of use included within the

18
former procedure leads, according to the subjects' point of view, to the
kind of motivation required for learning foreign languages. Such diversity
makes learners get indulged and immersed in the process of learning by
their own will to get as much information as possible. Turning to the
latter procedure, most subjects' comments have been centered around the
unavailability of such native speakers to be invited to their classes.
Regarding the fifth category label, the procedure of " Limits amount of
teacher talk" has got a percentage of 59.09. This clarifies the necessity of
this procedure in giving the learner the chance to talk and participate in
the lesson more, to commit mistakes, and to get benefit out of the
correction of these mistakes by the teacher. Furthermore, within this
category label, the procedure of " Articulates and enunciates clearly" has
got a percentage of 9.09, because of the negative effect of the teachers'
native language on their pronunciation of the R.P. model of English.
The sixth category label includes the procedure of " Plans for and
employs questioning techniques that encourage extended discourse and
foster higher-order thinking like questioning downwards" which has got a
percentage of 50. This procedure paves the way for helping learners to be
creative thinkers in the foreign language. This is on the one hand. On the
other hand, the technique of questioning downwards, for example, helps
teachers to communicate meaning by asking learners different questions
to simplify the foreign language content instead of relying on their native
language which must be avoided as much as possible in immersion
education programs. The procedure of " Uses output-oriented activities
such as songs, linguistic games, role plays, simulations, drama
performances, debates, presentations, etc." has got a low percentage, viz.
18.18. Although subjects claim that the time allotted for their classes is
not enough to perform such activities, the researcher thinks that these
activities are the backbone of some classes and they are greatly successful

19
 like in conversation and literature classes. Moreover, such activities break
the monotony of classes and motivate learners to a great extent.
While the procedure of " Uses cooperative group learning" has got
a percentage of 59.09, the procedure of " Includes a range of language
abilities in student groups" has got a percentage of 18.18. The importance
of the former procedure lies in that cooperative learning, according to
Pang's (2008:1) point of view, helps in increasing learners' achievements,
the mutual concern among learners, and learners' self-esteem. Moreover,
this integrated approach is used to facilitate all areas of development:
physical, emotional, social, and cognitive . The percentage of the latter
procedure confirms the subjects' comments on why not to use it. They
remark that no such centers are available in our country to be employed
in enriching learner's capacities of the FL.
In order to determine the significance of the research aim
concerned with the statistical differences of using immersion procedures
by the two groups of teachers, viz. literature teachers and language
teachers, a T-test of two independent samples has been computed. Table
(2) explains these results.

Table (2): T-test Results between Literature and Language Groups in

Using Immersion Procedures
Test Subjects Calculated Standard Freedom Calculated- T Tabulated-T Sig.
Group no. Mean Deviation Degree
Literature
Group 11 170 23.08
20 1.09 2.086 0.05
Language
Group 11 158 30.54

20
The results in the above table indicate that there are no statistically
significant differences between these two groups. The calculated T-value
is less than the tabulated T-value which is 2.086 at 0.05 level of
significance, and 20 degrees of freedom. This means that both groups are
equal in using immersion procedures in their classes, because of their
awareness of the importance and efficiency of these procedures in
teaching EFL.

9.Conclusions and Recommendations

As explained in this research, IL programs have proven as
effective methods for students to learn English , or any other FL, in a way
that enables them to carry on a conversation with the native speakers of
that language. Through such educational programs, students learn the FL
best, because the emphasis is not on language itself, but on relevant
meaningful content and cultural situations. Moreover, learning in these
programs offer a golden chance for students to achieve high levels of
academic achievements as well as to acquire proficiency in English or
another language.
The questionnaire adopted in this research yielded data which
support the aim that questions the use of immersion education procedures
by teachers of EFL at university level. Although the results clarify that
these procedures are used by teachers in their classes, it seems that some
of these procedures are used more than the other ones. That is, EFL
teachers find some procedures more reliable and suitable for their lessons
in one way or another. In other words, the teacher uses the procedure
which s/he finds more functional and more advantageous for her/his class
in developing learners' proficiency in the FL. Moreover, teachers
sometimes deliberately neglect or leave some procedures because of their
unavailability between their hands. In addition, and with the data

21
presently available, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are no
statistical significant differences in the use of immersion education
procedures by teachers who are specialized in teaching literature and
those who are specialized in teaching language and linguistics. This
amounts to saying that teachers' specialization appears to have almost no
effect on the use of these procedures.
Using the insights gained from this research, we strongly
recommend establishing a number of IL programs throughout the
country. It is better for these programs to span from elementary stages
through college years so that students can develop high levels of
proficiency in the FL. Furthermore, there is a strong need for more
qualified teachers who have advanced language skills and are
knowledgeable about how to teach the FL, its academic content, and
culture in combination. More precisely, it would be better for FL teachers
to get indulged in immersion education training sessions to be able to
mirror the culture of the FL they are teaching.

References
Asher, J.J. (2000). Learning another language actions (6 th ed.). Los
Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks productions.
Cazabon, M.; Lambert, W.E.; and Hall, G. (1993). Two-way bilingual
education: A progress report on the Amigos program. Santa
Cruz: National center for research on cultural diversity and second
language learning.
De Carrico, J. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). "Grammar.". in N.
Schmitt (ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics, (pp.19-34).
New York: Oxford university press.
Fitzgerald, J. (1993). "Literacy and students who are learning English as
a second language". Reading teacher, vol.(8),pp.638-647.

22
Fortune, T.W. (1997). "Effective teaching strategies for immersion
teachers". ACIE (American council for immersion education)
Newsletter, vol.1(1). Retrieved from:
http//:www.cal.org/resources/digest/0304fortune.html
Fortune, T.W. and Tedick, D.J. (2003). "What parents want to know
about foreign language immersion programs". ERIC Digest.
Retrieved from:
http//:www.cal.org/resources/digest/0304fortune.html
Gaffney, K. (1999). "Is immersion education appropriate for all
students?". ACIE Newsletter, vol.2(2),pp.1-5.
Johnstone, R. (2002). Immersion in a second or additional language at
school: A review of the international research. Retrieved from:
http//:www.scilt.stir.ac.uk.
Krashen, S. (1985). Inquiries and insights: second language teaching,
immersion, and bilingual education. Hayward, CA: Almany
press.
Krashen, S.D. and Terrel, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: language
acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany press.
LaVan, C. (2001). "Help! They're using too much English! The problem
of L1 vs. L2 in the immersion classroom". The ACIE
Newsletter,vol.4(2),pp.1-4.
Lenker, A. and Rhodes, N. (2007). Foreign language immersion
programs: Features and trends over 35 years. Retrieved from:
http//:www. cal.org/resources/immersion.
MacGillivary, L.; Lucy, T.; and McQuillan, J. (1999)." Second language
and literacy teachers considering literature circles: A play".
Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, vol.(39),pp.36-44.

23
Mangubhai, F. (2005). "What can EFL teachers learn from immersion
language teaching?". CD Rom. Toowoomba: University of
Southern Queensland.
Mangubhai, F.; Ross, D.; and Albion, P. (1999)."Teaching ESL students
in Australia". CD Rom. Toowoomba: University of Southern
Queensland.
May, S.; Hill, R.; and Tiakiwai, S. (2004). Bilingual/Immersion
education: indicators of good practice. New Zealand: Ministry of
education.
Norwell, H. (2006). "An introduction to immersion learning". Retrieved
from http//:www.norwellcounsulting.com
Pang, M. (2008). "Developing EFL/ESL young learners' reading thinking
abilities using cooperative learning". English for young learners:
putting theory into effective, dynamic practice. Abstracts.
Retrieved from http//:www. chinabfle.org
Reyhner, J. (2003). "Native language immersion". In J. Reyhner; O.
Trujillo; R.L. Carrasco; and L. Lockard (eds.), Nurturing native
languages (pp.1-6). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.
Snow, M.A. (1998). "Trends and issues in content-based instructions".
Annual review of applied linguistics, vol.(18), pp.242-267.
Swain, M. and Cummins, J. (1979). " Bilingualism, cognitive
functioning, and education". Language teaching and linguistic
abstracts, 12:1, 4-18.
Swain, M. and Johnson, R.K. (1997). "Immersion education: A category
with bilingual education". In R. K. Johnson and M. Swain (eds.),
Immersion education: integrating perspectives, (pp.1-16). NY:
Cambridge university press.

24
 Wilburn, D. (1992). "Learning through drama in the immersion
classroom". In E. Bernhardt (ed.), Life in language immersion
classrooms. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Wills, M. (2006). " Definition of learning". Retrieved from:
http//:www.mwls.co.uk

25

View publication stats