From Core to Content:
Bridging the L2 Proficiency Gap in Late Immersion

Robert Keith Johnson and Merrill Swain
Language and Education, Vol. 8 (4), 1994

This article deals with the issue of proficiency gap and how it relates to the late immersion setting. One of the main tenants of the discussion presented in the article is that a difference exists between early and late immersion and that this difference needs to be acknowledged and articulated in order to make late immersion a more effective program. Their principle argument is that the proficiency gap accounts for many of the differences. A proficiency gap is created when students move from learning L2 as a subject to using L2 as a medium for learning content. The gap to be bridged is the difference between the level of L2 proficiency and the threshold level necessary to study a content area. The more demanding the curriculum the greater the gap to be bridged.

They maintain that one program is not necessarily better than the other but it is necessary to recognize the differences for both programs to be effective. It can be argued that early immersion presents more challenges because they have no L2 upon entry. They propose that the assumption that late immersion presents similar or fewer problems is false for two reasons: 1) the L2 proficiency gap is greater and 2) the resources are less adequate and less appropriate for late immersion. They also point out other differences that make it necessary to examine the approach used in French immersion. They note that between early and late immersion the focus changes from socialization to academic orientation and that techniques for supporting L2 development in the early years are not necessarily appropriate for the level of maturity of late immersion students (e.g., use of puppets). Late immersion students find the first few months extremely demanding because they are used to being able to read and write at an advanced level and they require a lot of motivation and self-confidence to bridge the gap. Early immersion students are not even aware that a gap exists.

The argument follows that the proficiency gap has a less significant impact in early immersion than it does in late immersion. In early immersion the assumption is that students have little or no language proficiency and little academic knowledge so the gap does not exist. In the late immersion program, however, this gap is much wider as students have a high degree of academic knowledge but very little L2 ability. Core French is useful for late immersion students but it sometimes disguises the gap. Core French aims at conversational proficiency, readings are usually descriptive not academic, and writing is usually on a personal level rather than on an academic one. Students therefore arrive in late immersion with some language but not necessarily the right kind of language to support their content learning. Because the impact of the proficiency gap is not fully recognized, teachers are not equipped to deal with it.

Late immersion teachers are expected to follow the same curriculum as their early immersion and L1 medium counterparts. Those teachers who cannot are seen as poor teachers so concerns are rarely voiced. Techniques and materials adapted for early immersion may not be appropriate for late immersion. It is commonly accepted that overuse of L1 inhibits L2 development. In late immersion, however, L1 may be a useful tool to avoid frustrations and misunderstandings. These authors state that there will always be some trade-offs in late immersion in terms of language and content but what they are are not always clear. Formal language teaching is necessary in both programs but the authors of this article argue that it needs to be suited to the different needs of early versus late immersion students.

Two examples are given to illustrate some of the issues that have been examined relating to proficiency gap and the late immersion. The first is set in Hong Kong and the second in the Canadian context.

The Hong Kong example:
A failed late English immersion program in Hong Kong resulted in the implementation of several modifications: (The failure was marked by overuse of L1 and low level of proficiency in the L2 by the end of the first year)

Although the international example does not necessarily apply to the Canadian context, it does bring some issues to the surface for consideration.

The Canadian example:
When examining a late immersion program in the Canadian context, the authors point to several characteristics of late immersion worth further consideration:

Some conclusions:
The authors of this article conclude that more examination of effective late immersion teachers is necessary- especially those teachers who are able to close the proficiency gap quickly and effectively. They also recommend more exploration of the following issues in order to provide a more effective late immersion program:

Homepage
Last Update: 2000/06/21
This page maintained by SLEC
Homepage