Introduction

When I first heard the phrase “You shall know a word by the company it keeps” by J.R. Firth during my MA in TEFL around 25 years ago, it reshaped how I thought about vocabulary teaching. Like many teachers, I had been presenting vocabulary in isolated lists, assuming learners simply needed to understand definitions. But Firth’s words revealed something far deeper: words acquire meaning, function, and use through the other words and structures they habitually appear with.

What became increasingly clear to me was that learners often make persistent errors not because they misunderstand meaning, but because they’ve never encountered words in natural, repeated combinations. Yet, many language classrooms continue to focus heavily on single-word vocabulary and grammar rules—leaving learners to try to construct fluent language from scratch, often under impossible cognitive constraints. They know what “temps” means, but say “il est soleil” instead of “il fait beau.” They know “regarder” and “télé,” but say “je regarde à la télé” instead of “je regarde la télé.” They say “je suis 14 ans” instead of “j’ai 14 ans.” These weren’t gaps in knowledge but in collocational awareness.

Collocations refer to words that habitually co-occur—word partnerships that sound natural to native speakers but often baffle learners. These include verb-noun combinations like faire une erreur or prendre une décision in French, or tener razón and cometer un error in Spanish. Learners often substitute literal equivalents like hacer un error or tomar una decisión without realising these combinations are unnatural or incorrect.

Colligations, on the other hand, refer to the grammatical patterns that typically occur with specific words. For instance, in Spanish, me gusta bailar is correct, but learners often say me gusta a bailar by wrongly inserting a preposition. Similarly, in French, learners might misuse structures such as je suis fini instead of j’ai fini, misapplying the auxiliary verb due to interference from English.

These patterns are central to Michael Hoey’s Lexical Priming Theory (2005), which argues that our brains store words not in isolation, but with the words and grammatical structures they frequently appear alongside. Levelt’s foundational model of speech production (1989) provides the framework for understanding how these patterns interact in real-time speech, while Hoey’s theory shows how these expectations are shaped by learners’ exposure to lexical environments over time. For example, in Spanish, repeated exposure to tener que + infinitive (e.g., tengo que estudiar) or acabar de + infinitive (e.g., acabo de llegar) primes learners to expect and produce those structures. In French, structures like être en train de + infinitive or avoir besoin de + noun become cognitively entrenched through repetition.

Hoey explains that each encounter with these chunks primes learners not only lexically, but grammatically and even stylistically. This means that repeated exposure not only strengthens associations between words, but also builds expectations around the grammatical patterns and the discourse contexts they typically appear in. For instance, in Spanish, a chunk like tener que + infinitive not only teaches a functional expression of obligation but also primes learners to use infinitive verb forms that follow it. Stylistically, a phrase like acabo de llegar is not only grammatically accurate but also carries informal, conversational resonance that learners internalise through frequency of exposure. In French, chunks like il faut que + subjunctive prime both the grammatical form and its frequent use in formal or instructional contexts. Hoey’s theory thus provides a powerful explanation for how fluent speakers seem to ‘just know’ what sounds natural—because their brains have been consistently primed through repeated exposure across registers and contexts.

Building on this, Michael Lewis’s Lexical Approach (1993, 1997) emphasises that language is not merely a system of rules to be applied but a repertoire of prefabricated chunks. Lewis encourages the teaching of high-frequency expressions and semi-fixed patterns such as ça me plaît, il faut que + subjunctive, or estar a punto de + infinitive. He suggests that learners gain fluency not by mastering abstract grammatical paradigms but by internalising and reproducing these lexicalised structures. His work positions collocations and colligations as the foundation for natural-sounding language.

This article draws on these frameworks to explore how collocations and colligations work, why they matter, and how to teach them effectively. It concludes with a practical toolkit of classroom activities designed to help learners internalise the natural patterns of language use—and ultimately, to sound more fluent, more accurate, and more confident.

Collocations, Colligations, and Chunk-Based Fluency

Understanding and teaching collocations and colligations is at the heart of effective chunk-based instruction. This is not just a matter of teaching learners to pair the right words or use correct structures—it is about making the act of speaking less cognitively demanding and more automatic.

Kormos’s (2006) adaptation of Levelt’s model of speech production to second language learners highlights where fluency often breaks down: in the formulation stage. Here, learners must retrieve lexis, apply grammar, sequence ideas, and prepare for articulation—all in real time. The time constraints are significant: research suggests that fluent speech requires lexical retrieval within 150–250 milliseconds per word (Indefrey & Levelt, 2004). Add to this the demands of working memory, limited automaticity, and interference from the L1, and it’s easy to see why formulation becomes a major bottleneck. Every second counts, and learners often don’t have enough of them to assemble well-formed utterances from scratch. For many, this bottleneck causes hesitation, slow speech, and error-prone output. This is why, as many studies suggest, between 50% and 80% of native speaker speech and writing consists of formulaic sequences such as collocations, chunks, and fixed expressions (Erman & Warren, 2000; Wray, 2002; Conklin & Schmitt, 2008).

Teaching prefabricated lexical chunks—particularly those that combine collocational and colligational knowledge—helps bypass this bottleneck. When learners internalise high-frequency phrases such as je voudrais réserver une table or tengo que estudiar esta noche, they do not need to construct these sentences from scratch. They retrieve them as whole units, reducing the burden on working memory and allowing attention to shift toward fluency, pronunciation, or interaction.

Formulaic language research (e.g., Wray, 2002; Wood, 2010) strongly supports this approach. It shows that fluent speakers rely heavily on chunks to maintain flow, and that repeated exposure to and retrieval of these structures builds automaticity over time. This is why instruction that integrates collocational and colligational awareness within chunk-based practice can dramatically boost real-time performance.

When learners are trained to recognise and produce these patterns early on, they experience more success in oral tasks, develop greater confidence, and are better prepared to manage spontaneous interactions.

Implications for the Classroom

The insights from lexical priming and the Lexical Approach have clear pedagogical consequences. First, vocabulary should not be taught as isolated items but through meaningful, repeated exposure in context. Language learners benefit from activities that help them notice and internalise recurring patterns of words and structures—especially those that reflect natural usage.

Teachers should encourage learners to attend to both collocations (common word pairings) and colligations (preferred grammatical structures). This means embedding lexis-rich input across all modalities and offering frequent opportunities for structured output. Lexical patterning should be integrated into listening and reading comprehension, as well as in writing and speaking production tasks.

Furthermore, instruction should reflect the priming nature of language exposure. Activities should include repeated encounters with lexical items, scaffolded across different tasks and modalities. Form-focused instruction that highlights typical collocational and colligational behaviour helps learners notice and internalise these patterns.

Techniques for Teaching Chunks Effectively

A number of well-established instructional techniques can significantly boost learners’ acquisition and internalisation of lexical chunks. Here are some of the key ones:

• Input Flood: Learners are exposed to high concentrations of target chunks in meaningful input, which increases the chances of noticing and retention.
• Input Enhancement: Target collocations are visually or aurally highlighted (e.g., bolded in a text or stressed in speech) to direct learners’ attention to them (Sharwood Smith, 1993).
• Repeatable input: if students hear collocations and colligations but are unable to repeat them because they are either pronounced in an unintelligible or overy rapid way, they will never be able to acquire them in their oral form!
• Repeated Processing: Learners revisit the same lexical chunks across different contexts and tasks, helping deepen mental encoding and strengthen retrieval paths.
• Thorough and Deep Processing: Learners engage with chunks through tasks that require analysis, manipulation, or evaluation—for example, comparing similar chunks, or identifying register differences.
• Task-Induced Involvement: According to Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), tasks that require learners to focus on form, meaning, and use (i.e., high-involvement tasks) lead to better retention of chunks.
• Pushed Output: Learners are required to produce language that includes the target chunks under communicative pressure. This encourages retrieval and consolidation.
• Spaced Retrieval Practice: Chunks are revisited across spaced intervals in time, improving long-term retention and automaticity (Nation, 2013; Barcroft, 2007).
• Task Repetition: Learners perform the same task multiple times with slight variations, allowing them to refine fluency and accuracy while embedding recurring chunks (Bygate, 2001).
• Retrieval-Based Interleaving: Previously learned chunks are mixed with newer ones in practice sessions, enhancing discrimination and long-term learning.
• Text Reconstruction: Activities such as dictogloss, sentence puzzles, and rebuilding gapped texts encourage learners to focus on both lexical accuracy and grammatical structure, reinforcing both collocations and colligations in context.

These techniques work best when integrated into a carefully sequenced curriculum that builds up from controlled exposure to semi-controlled use and, eventually, to fluent, spontaneous production.

Classroom Activities

What does it all look like in action? What follows is a curated set of classroom activities I’ve used (and refined) over the years, drawn from research but grounded in the practical reality of what works in the language classroom. These activities, some of which EPI users will be familiar with, are all about helping learners notice, process, and produce collocations and colligations in meaningful, engaging, and purposeful ways. Whether you’re working on reading, writing, listening, or speaking, there’s something here for every mode of communication—and every type of learner. 

Reading Activities

• Tarsia Puzzles: Learners match parts of collocations, definitions, or translations on puzzle pieces to form a complete shape. This promotes active recall and visual processing while reinforcing connections between collocates.
• Picture-Match Reading: Learners read sentences and match collocations (“fast food,” “strong coffee”) to pictures.
• Collocation Hunt: Provide a short, simplified text and ask learners to underline repeated word pairings (e.g., “good morning,” “take a break”).
• Break the Flow: Provide a text where all spaces between words are removed. Students listen to the teacher read and mark boundaries.
• Gapped Letters: Provide a text with target collocations where certain letters are omitted. Students fill in the gaps as they read.
• Collocation Cloze: Fill-in-the-blank exercises using collocations from an authentic article. Contextual clues help reinforce chunked meanings (Hill, 2000).
• Reading as Modelling (RAM): Use rich written texts and follow-up activities to help learners notice and internalise collocations.
• Sentence puzzles: Learners reorder mixed-up sentences that contain collocations, reinforcing structure and word order.
• Sentence Stealer: Present learners with sentences containing target collocations. In pairs, students take turns reading sentences aloud and attempting to “steal” them by recalling and reproducing them from memory.
• Narrow Reading: Offer a series of short, thematically related texts that contain repeated instances of target collocations.
• Genre Awareness: Compare how collocations differ in formal vs. informal texts (e.g., “conduct research” vs. “do some digging”).
• Corpus Exploration: Use learner-friendly corpora (e.g., CRFC for French, Corpus del Español for Spanish) to look up common collocates of academic words like “approach,” “issue,” or “evidence.”
• Genre Transformation: Rewrite a formal text in an informal style or vice versa, noticing collocational shifts.

Writing Activities

• Collocational Cohesion: Learners use collocational chains to create textual cohesion across a longer piece of writing.
• Collocation Essay Challenge: Assign thematic collocations (e.g., “raise awareness,” “take part in”) to be used in a short essay.
• Communicative Translation Drills: Short dialogues including L1 sentences with target collocations for 2 students  working in paris to translate into the target language whilst a third student monitor their output supported by the L2 version 
• Dictogloss: Read a short text containing target collocations. Students reconstruct the text together, encouraging attention to structure and collocational use.
• Error Correction: Provide texts with common miscollocations for learners to spot and correct (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008).
• Lexical Upgrading: Learners revise a basic paragraph by substituting simple combinations with richer collocations (e.g., “say sorry” → “offer an apology”).
• Matching Game: Match verbs and nouns (“make a cake,” “take a photo”) before writing short sentences.
• No Snakes No Ladders: A board game where students move forward by correctly using target collocations in full sentences.
• Oral Ping-Pong: In pairs, students take turns constructing sentences using given collocations, promoting active recall and use.
• Sentence puzzle: Provide jumbled sentences containing collocations for learners to unscramble, reinforcing grammar and chunking.
• Sentence Frames: Provide starters like “I have a ___” or “I like to ___” with a set of collocating nouns/verbs to choose from.

Listening

• Audio Sorting: Learners listen to collocations in context and sort them into categories (e.g., emotion, movement).
• Bingo with Collocations: Use audio tracks with high-frequency collocations; learners check off what they hear.
• Collocational Noticing: Play academic talks or news clips. Learners identify and note down recurring collocations.
• Dictogloss with Collocations: Read a short passage twice; learners reconstruct it with a focus on the target collocations.
• Track the Pattern: Learners listen to a passage multiple times and highlight recurring collocations or grammatical patterns, training their ear to notice structured repetition.
• Guess the Next Word: Learners listen to a sentence or short passage and pause before a target collocation or chunk. They predict what comes next, encouraging anticipation and awareness of typical lexical patterns.
• Listening as Modelling (LAM): Use rich audio texts and follow-up activities to help learners notice and internalise collocations.
• Listening Cloze: Provide a transcript with missing collocations. Learners fill in the blanks while listening.
• Minimal Pairs with Chunks: Focus on collocations that differ by a single word (“take a break” vs. “make a break”) to build discrimination.
• Narrow Listening: Provide several audio clips on the same topic, all containing key collocations, for focused exposure.
• Transcription and Chunking: Learners transcribe a short audio segment and highlight the collocations, then reflect on why they work together.

Speaking Activities

• Chain Reaction: Each learner adds a sentence using a new collocation that links logically to the previous one.
• Chain Storytelling: In groups, learners build a story sentence by sentence, each incorporating a given collocation.
• Debate with Collocations: Assign collocation banks for persuasive language (“weigh the evidence,” “draw a conclusion”).
• Drill Chains: Learners repeat and vary common collocations (“go shopping,” “go running,” “go swimming”).
• Find Someone Who: Mingling activity using collocational prompts to gather information from peers.
• Fluency Tasks with Constraints: Learners must use at least 5 academic or idiomatic collocations during a presentation.
• Mind Reading: Teacher thinks of a sentence with a collocation; students guess by asking yes/no questions.
• Oral Ping-Pong: Pairs engage in rapid exchanges using target collocations in fluent, spontaneous ways.
• Prompted Opinions: Learners respond to prompts using target collocations (“I believe strongly that…”, “I take the view that…”).
• Role Play with Prompts: Give situations (e.g., ordering food, meeting someone) and collocation prompts to use.
• Debate with Collocations: Assign collocation banks for persuasive language (“weigh the evidence,” “draw a conclusion”).
• Fluency Tasks with Constraints: Learners must use at least 5 academic or idiomatic collocations during a presentation.

Conclusion

If vocabulary is the building block of language, then collocations are the cement that binds those blocks together. Research consistently confirms that collocational competence is key to fluent, natural, and contextually appropriate language use. From Firth’s early insights to Hoey’s priming theory and contemporary SLA studies, the evidence is overwhelming: teaching words through their habitual contexts is not just beneficial—it’s essential.

Classroom activities across reading, writing, listening, and speaking should prioritise meaningful input and output that highlight and reinforce collocational patterns. With practice, learners can internalise not just what words mean, but how they live and behave—by the company they keep.

References

Barcroft, J. (2007). Effect of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 57(1), 35–56.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 23–48). Pearson.

Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.

Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92(1–2), 101–144.

Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Routledge.

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Language Teaching Publications.

Nation, P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–179.

Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. Bloomsbury.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.

Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89.

Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.

Introduction

As someone who has spent the last three decades immersed in language pedagogy, I often find myself asking: what actually works in the classroom? Not what sounds good. Not what’s fashionable. But what truly accelerates language learning, deepens retention, and empowers learners?

This article was born out of that question—and out of countless conversations with teachers struggling to cut through the noise of educational fads. I also wrote it because I’ve seen the impact that evidence-informed instruction can have, not just in research, but in real classrooms with real students.

What follows is a personal distillation of the ten most robust, research-backed techniques in second language instruction. My aim here is not to offer gimmicks, but to highlight the practices that the science supports—so that we can teach with both confidence and clarity.

The following instructional techniques, that I am sure you all know very well and may have used over the years, are grounded in decades of research in cognitive psychology, applied linguistics, and Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA). They work across proficiency levels and are adaptable to most classroom contexts.

Before we dive in, a quick caveat: this “top 10” list reflects my own reading and interpretation of the research literature. While I’ve grounded each choice in credible studies, it’s important to acknowledge that some techniques have been studied more extensively than others. That doesn’t necessarily mean the lesser-researched ones are less effective—only that they haven’t been scrutinised as deeply by the research community. In fact, with more empirical attention, some of the lower-ranked strategies in this article might well deserve a higher place. Ranking anything in education is always context-sensitive, and this list is no exception.

1. Spaced Retrieval Practice

The what: Spaced retrieval involves helping learners bring previously encountered language items back to mind at intervals spaced over time — rather than cramming or massed review. It’s not just about repetition, but about retrieving language from memory under slightly effortful conditions. This might take the form of a delayed translation quiz, a recall activity based on past readings, or a structured writing task recalling last week’s key structures. Crucially, this retrieval is spaced, meaning it recurs after learners have begun to forget, which strengthens the memory trace significantly.

The why: This is one current fad wich is actually endorsed by credible findings. Research in cognitive psychology and second language acquisition strongly supports the efficacy of retrieval practice. Roediger and Karpicke (2006) showed that retrieving information, rather than simply re-reading it, significantly improves long-term memory. Pavlik and Anderson (2005) demonstrated that spaced retrieval strengthens memory traces and supports consolidation. In the L2 context, Barcroft (2007) and Nakata (2011) confirmed that spaced recall enhances vocabulary retention and supports grammar acquisition. Retrieval also encourages deeper encoding and strengthens form-meaning connections, making it a vital technique for long-term learning.

The how: Use warm-up activities that revisit previous weeks’ content: sentence transformations, oral recall tasks, or closed-book dictations. Rotate vocabulary and grammar systematically across weeks. Create a retrieval practice schedule that ensures older vocabulary is revisited in tandem with more recent lexical sets—this not only promotes depth of processing, but also supports cross-category activation and retrieval flexibility. Research by Webb and Nation (2017) suggests that combining related and unrelated lexical fields enhances retention by fostering both differentiation and semantic linking. Digital flashcards with spaced algorithms (e.g., Anki) also support this process. Peer quizzing (e.g. Oral ping-pong, No snakes no ladders, Pyramid translation) is another powerful tool: when learners test one another, they benefit not only from retrieval but from the feedback and interaction involved in the process. Research by Karpicke and Blunt (2011) and Dobson (2011) shows that collaborative retrieval activities can enhance memory even more than solo retrieval, as explaining and negotiating language deepens processing. Furthermore, a growing body of research (e.g., Kang et al., 2019) supports the idea that repeated retrieval across increasing intervals—especially when content is revisited in varied social contexts—consolidates retention and transfer more effectively than solitary study.

2. Input Flood + Focus on Form

The what: Input flood is a technique in which learners are immersed in language input that contains an unusually high frequency of a specific target form—be it grammatical (like the past tense) or lexical (such as adjectives of opinion). Unlike mechanical drills, the input is meaning-focused and embedded within communicative or authentic texts (e.g., dialogues, articles, stories, videos). The goal is not to overtly teach the rule at first, but to increase the salience of the form through sheer repetition in context. To maximise effectiveness, input flood is often combined with a “focus on form”—a subtle pedagogical intervention (like underlining or enunciating with more enphasis, brief questioning, gapping the target items in the text for a dictation asking the students to track all the occurrences of the target structure, ) that draws learners’ attention to the target structure. This blend of frequent exposure and guided noticing makes the input both engaging and form-rich without being intrusive.

The why: Ellis (2002) notes that frequency effects play a vital role in language acquisition: the more often learners encounter a structure, the more likely it is to be processed and internalised. But frequency alone isn’t enough. Schmidt (2001) highlighted the role of noticing: learners need to consciously attend to linguistic features for intake to occur. Doughty and Williams (1998) demonstrated that focus-on-form strategies embedded in communicative tasks help bridge the gap between fluency and accuracy. Shintani (2015) and Spada and Tomita (2010) further confirm that learners benefit most when form-focused instruction is integrated within meaning-focused activities.

The how: Use texts, audio clips, or dialogues where the target form is used repeatedly but naturally. Follow this with guided noticing activities: underlining, reformulation, or transformation. For example, after listening to a dialogue full of past tenses, gap it, have students reconstruct it in the present or stage a listen-and-spot-the-error activity, drawing attention to verb forms. Learners can also sort sentences by structure or rewrite extracts using alternative forms.

3. Pushed Output Tasks

The what: Pushed output refers to tasks that compel learners to produce language that stretches them beyond memorised or habitual patterns. These tasks don’t just ask students to “say something”; they require precision, elaboration, or reformulation — all of which activate deeper processing. Think of a learner trying to explain a past holiday experience and realising they need the past perfect to clarify sequencing. Or one engaging in a debate who must reach for modal verbs to express nuance. That gap—the moment of linguistic struggle—is where the learning happens.

The why: Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1995, 2005) argues that producing language forces learners to process syntax, notice gaps in their interlanguage, and push toward more accurate forms. Izumi (2002) found that output combined with enhanced input led to greater grammatical gains than input alone. Please note that giving students planning time in preparation for pushed output tasks seems to enhance performance. Yuan and Ellis (2003) demonstrated that even limited planning time before output improves fluency and complexity. More recently, Suzuki and DeKeyser (2017) emphasised that the benefits of output are amplified when learners are required to reformulate or self-correct.

The how: Use tasks like structured dialogues, articles, role-plays, information-gap activities debates, opinion writing, or storytelling with constraints (e.g., “Tell the story using at least three conditional sentences”). Provide sentence builders or scaffolds, then slowly reduce support. Encourage learners to rephrase or retell ideas in different ways, noticing how expression changes with form. The above-mentioned peer-testing activities (e.g. Oral ping-pong) are effective ways to prep the students for pushed-output tasks.

4. Task Repetition with Variation

What it is: Rather than constantly introducing new tasks, this technique involves learners repeating the same task multiple times — but with changes to content, audience, or conditions. For example, a student might tell the same story to three different classmates, each time with new details or under time pressure. The task format remains stable, but the novelty in content keeps it engaging while allowing fluency and accuracy to develop in parallel.

Why it works: Task repetition allows for proceduralisation — the shift from controlled to automatic processing (DeKeyser, 2007). Bygate (2001) showed that repetition improves fluency and control over language structures. Lynch and Maclean (2001) found that learners become more syntactically accurate and lexically varied when repeating tasks. Ahmadian and Tavakoli (2011) reported that task repetition particularly benefits mid-level learners who are consolidating structural control. Ellis (2009) emphasised that repetition reduces cognitive load, freeing up attention for form.

How to use it: Use the same communicative task multiple times across lessons, each with a slight twist: change the interlocutor, time limits, or information. After initial output, include feedback and reformulation, then have learners redo the task. This allows learners to “upgrade” their language in meaningful contexts. In the MARSEARS framework, this technique is used extensively. A classic example of an activity involving task repetition are the 4,3,2 technique and Market place.

5. Interaction + Corrective Feedback

What it is: This technique focuses on engaging learners in meaningful communication while providing feedback—either implicit (like recasts) or explicit (like prompts). Interaction might be peer-to-peer or with the teacher, but it includes real-time negotiation of meaning. Errors are not ignored but are gently addressed within the flow of conversation.

Why it works: Interaction promotes both input and output, creating opportunities for noticing and repair. Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis argues that modified input during interaction facilitates acquisition. Lyster and Ranta (1997) distinguished feedback types and showed that prompts led to more learner self-repair than recasts. Mackey and Goo (2007) confirmed that interaction with feedback enhances grammatical development, especially when learners are developmentally ready. Gass and Mackey (2015) highlight that the feedback must be timely and context-sensitive to be effective.

How to use it: Use jigsaw tasks, role plays, or problem-solving activities that require real-time negotiation. When learners make errors, use clarification requests (“Sorry? Did you mean…?”), metalinguistic prompts (“What’s the correct verb form?”), or recasts (rephrasing the error correctly). Encourage peer correction using sentence starters or correction cards to keep feedback structured and supportive.

6. Text Reconstruction and Sentence Processing Tasks

What it is: Text reconstruction tasks involve learners working with fragmented or incomplete texts to rebuild coherent language structures. This includes techniques like jigsaw reading/listening, dictogloss (where students reconstruct a short text after listening), and sentence puzzles (where students reassemble jumbled sentences). These tasks engage learners in noticing, collaboration, and deep syntactic processing.

Why it works: These tasks have strong empirical support. Wajnryb (1990) introduced dictogloss as a task that promotes both meaning-focused listening and form-focused reconstruction. Swain (2005) noted its alignment with the Output Hypothesis, as learners negotiate meaning and form while reconstructing language. Studies by Kowal and Swain (1994) and Storch (2007) found that collaborative reconstruction fosters metatalk, scaffolding, and language-related episodes, all of which enhance acquisition. García Mayo (2017) and Shintani (2018) highlight that these tasks are especially effective in drawing learners’ attention to grammatical relationships in context.

How to use it: For dictogloss, use short, content-rich texts with multiple target forms. Read the text aloud or play a recording 2–3 times. Learners take notes, then work in pairs or groups to reconstruct the original version as closely as possible. Follow with feedback, comparison to the original, and reflection on language choices. Sentence puzzles can be used similarly at a micro level to focus on syntax, cohesion, or discourse markers. Note that with beginners to lower intermediate students (KS2 to KS4 UK) sentence puzzles are more conducive to noticing and learning when supported by the L1 translation (see http://www.language-gym.com for examples).

7. Lexical Chunks and Formulaic Sequences Practice

What it is: This technique involves explicit instruction and practice with high-frequency lexical bundles and formulaic expressions — sequences of words that native speakers use regularly and automatically. These might include collocations (e.g., “make a decision”), discourse markers (“on the other hand”), or sentence stems (“I think it’s important to…”). Such chunks help learners produce language more fluently and naturally by reducing cognitive load and supporting message construction.

Why it works: Research by Wray (2002), Nation (2013), and Boers and Lindstromberg (2008) underscores the centrality of formulaic language in fluent L2 use. Learners who master common chunks are better able to focus on meaning and interaction rather than grammar assembly in real time. Studies also show that teaching collocations explicitly improves retention, fluency, and idiomaticity (Webb, 2005; Peters, 2009). These chunks provide linguistic building blocks for both comprehension and output.

How to use it: Select thematic or functional chunks relevant to upcoming tasks. Model through, flashcards, knowledge organizers or sentence builders, provide copious highly patterned oral and written input flooded with the target chunks, then stage controlled practice tasks (e.g. word substitution activities, peer testing games, gap-fills, highly structured role plays ), followed by semi-guided production using those chunks (e.g., structured dialogues, paragraph building). Recycle frequently across contexts. Encourage learners to keep personal phrasebooks of useful expressions.

8. Editing Instruction and Guided Revision

What it is: Editing instruction focuses on helping learners identify, understand, and revise their own written errors—either independently, with peers, or through structured teacher feedback. This can include teaching error codes, using guided checklists, analysing model texts, and practicing revision strategies. Editing is not limited to grammar correction; it includes reorganising content, improving cohesion, and refining clarity.

Why it works: Research shows that when learners are explicitly taught how to edit and revise, their writing accuracy and complexity improve. Ferris (2006) and Bitchener & Knoch (2010) found that focused feedback combined with editing instruction yields better long-term improvement than feedback alone. Sachs & Polio (2007) demonstrated that revision activities help students process feedback more deeply. Storch (2004) and Manchón (2011) highlight how peer editing and reflective revision foster metalinguistic awareness, collaborative dialogue, and uptake of language forms. Editing instruction also supports autonomy and strategic thinking.

How to use it: Use a staged revision cycle: have learners write a draft, receive coded or guided feedback, and revise using checklists or peer comments. Teach error correction symbols and model the revision process on shared texts. Incorporate peer-editing with sentence stems like “I suggest changing…” or “This sentence could be clearer if…”. Revisions should be purposeful and tracked, allowing learners to see and reflect on their development. Please note: it is key to be as selective as possible in the choice of which errors to focus your students on, when it comes to editing instruction. Start with a few key problematic areas first and, as the students grow confident, gradually widen the scope.

9. Aural Structured Input Tasks

The what: Structured input tasks are comprehension-based activities that force learners to process the target form correctly to complete the task. They differ from traditional input in that learners cannot succeed without attending to the grammatical feature being taught. These tasks are often part of or inspired by Processing Instruction, but can be used independently.

The why: Studies by VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), Wong (2003), and Conti (2004) show that structured input tasks significantly improve learners’ ability to interpret and later produce target forms. They are particularly effective for morphosyntactic features (e.g., tense, number, gender) that are often overlooked in rapid input.

The how: Design tasks that require learners to match sentences to pictures, select true statements, or follow commands based on the correct processing of form (e.g., “Choose the picture that shows: The girl is being chased by the dog”). Emphasise comprehension, not output, until learners demonstrate consistent processing. Here’s an example**:** To help learners in Spanish notice gender agreement, present them with a series of images depicting male and female characters performing actions (e.g., el chico contento, la chica contenta). Then, provide written sentences such as “El chico está contento” and “La chica está contenta” with the endings underlined or colour-coded. Ask learners to match each sentence to the correct picture, paying attention to the adjective endings. Follow this with a structured input task where they must choose between options like “contento” or “contenta” based on image prompts. Reinforce noticing with follow-up questions: “Why did you choose ‘contenta’ here? What changed when the subject was ‘la chica’?” This combination of meaning-focused input and form-focused reflection helps solidify understanding of gender agreement patterns.

10. Metalinguistic Awareness Tasks

The what: Metalinguistic awareness tasks prompt learners to reflect on language form, structure, and function consciously. These tasks ask learners to compare, explain, or reformulate language, often encouraging them to notice patterns, articulate rules, or hypothesise about usage. This may take the form of grammar explanation discussions, sentence transformation challenges, or error analysis activities.

The why: Research in ISLA supports the role of metalinguistic awareness in promoting explicit knowledge that can later support implicit learning (Ellis, 2004; DeKeyser, 2003). L2 learners who engage in language-related episodes (LREs) while working collaboratively develop stronger form-function mappings (Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Storch, 2002). Tasks that develop metalinguistic thinking promote noticing (Schmidt, 2001) and help learners transition from declarative to procedural knowledge (DeKeyser, 2007). 

The how: Use contrastive grammar tasks (e.g., comparing two similar sentences and discussing which is correct and why or compare the L1 and L2 equivalent and guide the students to notice the differences), guided discovery activities, or collaborative error analysis. Encourage learners to explain their reasoning, reflect on grammar explanations, or reformulate incorrect utterances. These tasks can be integrated into pair work or as a reflective follow-up to productive tasks.

Please note: this technique is better suited for intermediate and advanced learners, as well as adolescents and adults who have the cognitive maturity to engage with grammar at an abstract level. It tends to be less suited to very young learners or beginners without adequate language foundation, though simplified versions can be adapted accordingly.

Ranked Summary by Research Support

The following table ranks the ten instructional techniques included in this article according to the strength of their research backing in peer-reviewed studies within the fields of ISLA and applied linguistics:

Rank	Technique	Research Support	Core Focus
1	Spaced Retrieval Practice	Very strong	Long-term memory, vocabulary, grammar
2	Interaction + Corrective Feedback	Very strong	Grammar, fluency, negotiation of meaning
3	Input Flood + Focus on Form	Strong	Grammar awareness, noticing
4	Pushed Output Tasks	Strong	Output accuracy, syntactic restructuring
5	Task Repetition with Variation	Strong	Fluency, proceduralisation
6	Structured Input Tasks	Moderate–strong	Form-meaning connections
7	Text Reconstruction and Sentence Processing	Moderate–strong	Syntax, collaboration, noticing
8	Lexical Chunks and Formulaic Sequences Practice	Moderate–strong	Fluency, idiomaticity
9	Editing Instruction and Guided Revision	Moderate	Writing accuracy, metalinguistic skills
10	Metalinguistic Awareness Tasks	Moderate	Grammar analysis, noticing, reflection

11. Conclusion

I wrote this piece not just as a teacher who cares deeply about the learner experience. If you’re like me, you’ve spent countless hours planning lessons, refining tasks, and wondering whether what you’re doing is actually making a difference. The techniques described here are my attempt to answer that question with a degree of certainty grounded in research—not just intuition.

They’re also the backbone of the pedagogical approach I have promoted for years: structured, principled, and focused on long-term gains rather than short-term performance. None of these techniques are magic bullets. But together, they form a toolkit that reflects what the best of second language acquisition research has to offer.

I hope this post helps you teach with more confidence and more impact—and that it saves you time, energy, and frustration in the long run.

These ten techniques represent some of the most thoroughly researched and consistently effective methods in second language instruction. From spaced retrieval to interaction with feedback, each of these approaches is grounded in decades of empirical evidence and aligns with our understanding of how languages are learned in classroom settings.

No single technique works in isolation, but together, they offer a robust foundation for principled and powerful language teaching. Effective instruction doesn’t require flashy innovation — it requires applying what works. And what works is clear when we follow the research.

These ten techniques — spaced retrieval, input flood with focus on form, pushed output, task repetition, and interaction with feedback — are not passing fads. They are evidence-based strategies with a strong theoretical and empirical foundation. More importantly, they are adaptable and classroom-ready.

Language learning is complex, but effective instruction doesn’t have to be complicated. When research meets principled pedagogy, learners thrive.

References

• Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35–59. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388693
• Conti, G. (2004). Metacognitive enhancement and error correction: An investigation in the impact of self monitoring strategies on L2 Italian student writing. PhD thesis, University of Reading. Available at: https://books.google.com.my/books/about/Metacognitive_Enhancement_and_Error_Corr.html?id=SIhayQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y 
• Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35–59.
• Barcroft, J. (2015). Lexical Input Processing and Vocabulary Learning. John Benjamins. Available at: https://benjamins.com/catalog/lllt.41
• Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 23–48). Longman. Available via publisher collections or academic databases.
• DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275
• Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524506
• Ellis, R. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024
• Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246.
• Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773202
• Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–577.
• Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.
• Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate et al. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Longman.
• Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford University Press.
• Nakata, T. (2011). Computer-assisted second language vocabulary learning in a paired-associate paradigm: Effects of spacing and delayed feedback. System, 39(1), 64–76.
• Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 559–586.
• Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
• Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
• Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of focus on form and focus on forms instruction in the acquisition of productive vocabulary knowledge. System, 52, 1–12.
• Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.
• Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences. Language Learning, 67(4), 747–790.
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.
• Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Routledge.
• Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How Vocabulary is Learned. Oxford University Press.
• Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27.

Introduction

Adolescence has always been a time of change—but never like this. Ten years ago, a typical teenager might have carried a flip phone, passed notes in class, and spent evenings watching TV with their family. Fast forward to today, and you’ll find adolescents curating their identities on TikTok, navigating complex social dynamics through Instagram, and digesting world news—often unfiltered—before bedtime. From Toronto to London to Berlin, teenagers are coming of age in a world that’s more connected, more demanding, and more confusing than ever before.

As a parent to a 13-year-old daughter, I’ve watched this evolution not just as an educator, but as someone deeply invested in a young person’s wellbeing. The rapid changes in how teens experience the world have raised many questions for me—not only about how they navigate their emotional, social, and academic lives, but also how prepared we are as adults to support them through this journey. My concern for my daughter’s future has motivated me to research these shifts more closely, hoping to understand the broader context in which she and her peers are growing up.

Equally, as teachers, it’s essential that we understand the mindset and reality of the adolescents we work with. Their behaviours, attitudes, and emotional states are not formed in isolation—they’re responses to a world that has changed rapidly and profoundly. If we want our teaching to be impactful, especially in the context of language education, we must begin by understanding who our learners are today. This article explores how adolescents have evolved over the past decade and what that means for the way we teach them languages now.

The issues reported by research and how they impact learning

1. Digital Hyperconnectivity and Social Media
Across the UK, North America, and Europe, teenagers are deeply immersed in digital life. In the UK, Ofcom (2023) reports that 97% of 12–15-year-olds own a smartphone. In the US, Pew Research Center (2022) finds that over 90% of teens use social media daily. Platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat dominate their routines. In Germany, too, social media use among teens has grown, with many spending several hours a day connected. While these platforms provide connection and creativity, they also contribute to distraction, social comparison, and sleep deprivation (Orben & Przybylski, 2019). It’s not uncommon for educators across these regions to report students arriving to class mentally fatigued, emotionally dysregulated, or preoccupied by online events.

A growing number of teenagers are struggling with emotional dysregulation—the difficulty in managing and responding appropriately to emotional experiences. This may manifest as mood swings, irritability, impulsivity, or sudden withdrawal, and is often exacerbated by hormonal changes, online stressors, and the fast-paced nature of digital life. Social media can amplify emotional triggers while offering few tools for resolution or support.

Impact on Learning: In the classroom, emotional dysregulation can lead to inconsistent engagement, conflicts with peers, avoidance of tasks, and challenges with concentration. It may also result in disproportionate reactions to negative feedback or stress. Language learning, which relies heavily on interaction, self-expression, and risk-taking, can be particularly affected. Learners may shut down during communicative tasks or feel overwhelmed by open-ended activities that require emotional regulation and sustained focus.

2. Mental Health Trends and Awareness
The rise in adolescent mental health issues is evident across both Europe and North America. NHS Digital (2022) found that nearly 1 in 5 children in the UK has a probable mental disorder, while the CDC (2023) reports similar trends in the US. Canada has seen a similar increase in teen anxiety, depression, and self-harming behaviours, with waiting lists for youth mental health services growing. Contributing factors include exam stress, body image concerns, online harassment, and exposure to global crises. Although stigma is decreasing, access to mental health support remains inconsistent and often inequitable.

Impact on Learning: Poor mental health undermines working memory, resilience, and classroom participation. Learners may struggle with engagement, attendance, and self-regulation. Teachers are increasingly called upon to provide emotional scaffolding alongside academic content, often without sufficient training or institutional support. A poor working memory, of course, impacts the learning of vocabulary and grammar, hence this can have a devastating effect on language learning.

3. Changing Educational Norms
Remote learning during the pandemic reshaped educational experiences globally. While digital fluency increased, many adolescents across the UK, Canada, and the US reported challenges with motivation, loneliness, and lack of structure (OECD, 2020). European schools experienced similar trends, particularly in low-income regions where access to technology was limited. The blended learning model has persisted, but it has also revealed digital divides and increased learner isolation, with teachers needing to adapt quickly to changing expectations.

Impact on Learning: Self-regulated learning skills have become essential—but not all students are equipped with them. Many find it difficult to manage deadlines, organise learning, or sustain independent study habits. Additionally, classroom norms have shifted, with some learners finding it harder to transition back into face-to-face collaboration and routines. For language learners, the shift to remote and blended learning has had mixed consequences. On one hand, digital platforms have increased access to audiovisual input and language-learning apps, encouraging independent study. However, the loss of in-person interaction has been particularly detrimental to language development, which thrives on real-time communication, immediate feedback, and emotional connection. Many learners became passive consumers of content, with limited opportunities for meaningful output, peer collaboration, or spontaneous use of language. Motivation suffered, especially among those who rely on the social dimension of the classroom to stay engaged. Teachers also faced the challenge of maintaining consistency in practice and recycling of key structures—fundamental elements of second language acquisition—without the natural rhythm of in-class routines.

4. Identity Formation and Social Awareness
Teenagers today are growing up with heightened awareness of social issues—climate change, racial justice, gender equality—and participate in these discussions from a young age. Movements like Black Lives Matter and Fridays for Future resonate across classrooms from London to Toronto to Berlin. In France, recent youth engagement in climate marches has shown how socially active this generation is. However, increased exposure to polarised viewpoints via algorithm-driven content on social media and other internet-based sources can also lead to confusion, frustration, or disengagement (Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2021).

Impact on Learning: Students often seek meaning and relevance in what they study. Language education disconnected from real-world topics can feel abstract or irrelevant, leading to disengagement. Moreover, materials that ignore or oversimplify social complexities may be perceived as out-of-touch, especially by teens keenly aware of injustice or bias. From an L2 learning perspective, teenagers’ heightened awareness of social and political issues offers both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, their engagement with real-world topics aligns well with the principle that meaningful, personally relevant input enhances processing and retention. Tasks that allow learners to explore ethical debates, cultural perspectives, or global concerns through the target language can lead to deeper engagement and more purposeful output. However, the emotionally charged and often polarising nature of these topics requires sensitive handling. Without proper scaffolding, learners may feel overwhelmed or anxious, which can inhibit participation and risk-taking—both essential to language development. Additionally, learners may bring preconceived views or misinformation into the classroom, so language tasks must strike a careful balance between open discussion and linguistic structure. When well designed, these tasks can promote both intercultural competence and linguistic development in line with ISLA principles.

5. Risk, Autonomy, and Safety
Teens are more digitally literate than ever but face increased digital surveillance by parents, schools, and online platforms. In both Europe and North America, academic pressure and standardised testing (e.g. GCSEs in the UK, SATs in the US) compound performance anxiety. In countries like the Netherlands and Sweden, while standardised testing is less central, teens still report feeling intense pressure to succeed. At the same time, young people are demanding more autonomy and voice—expressing themselves through content creation, political activism, and online communities.

Impact on Learning: Learners may resist overly rigid classroom control and seek opportunities for authentic communication, autonomy, and creative expression. A one-size-fits-all approach can alienate students who are navigating individual identities and values. In the context of L2 learning, the tension between increased academic pressure and the adolescent drive for autonomy has significant implications. Performance anxiety linked to high-stakes testing can lead learners to view language learning as a box-ticking exercise rather than a communicative skill, reducing intrinsic motivation and willingness to take risks—both key drivers of language acquisition. Moreover, surveillance-heavy digital environments may discourage authentic expression or experimentation with language, especially in speaking and creative writing tasks. However, teens’ desire for self-expression and agency presents a powerful opportunity for language educators. Activities that offer structured personalisation—such as adapting model texts, creating short digital content in the target language, or debating topics relevant to their world—can restore a sense of ownership. These approaches support ISLA by fostering meaningful output, emotional investment, and deeper processing of form and meaning.

6. Lifestyle and Physical Health

Sedentary behaviour continues to rise among adolescents in Europe and North America (WHO, 2022). Screen time, school-related stress, and limited access to green spaces in urban environments have all contributed to this trend. While public health campaigns promote movement and active lifestyles, many teens report spending most of their day sitting—whether in front of a screen at home, in the classroom, or on public transport.

At the same time, many adolescents are embracing wellness culture with increasing intensity. From mindfulness apps to plant-based diets, strength training, and yoga, wellbeing has become both a personal and social trend. Influencers on platforms like Instagram and TikTok often play a central role in promoting health-related content—though not always grounded in evidence. In countries like Spain and Italy, traditional meal practices centred around family gatherings and whole foods continue to provide some protective influence, though young people increasingly report skipping meals or obsessing over diet trends. However, pressures related to appearance and health misinformation also proliferate on social media.

Impact on Learning: Low physical activity levels can reduce energy and focus in class, while wellbeing interests offer an entry point for language lessons based on lifestyle, routines, and health-related themes. Moreover, conversations around health can open up vocabulary-rich contexts for meaningful discussions. The rise in sedentary behaviour and wellness culture among adolescents intersects with language learning in both direct and indirect ways. Physically inactive learners may struggle with reduced energy levels, lower concentration, and increased mental fatigue, which can limit their ability to stay engaged in cognitively demanding language tasks.

Implications for teaching

Drawing on principles from Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA), language teaching for adolescents must support emotional, cognitive, and social needs. The following implications respond directly to the challenges discussed above and are presented in a logical sequence—from input processing to output, engagement, and autonomy.

To begin, language input must be carefully designed to be both accessible and engaging. Since many teenagers struggle with fragmented attention spans due to constant digital exposure, introducing rich, comprehensible input that taps into their interests—such as video clips, music, or podcast snippets about school life, gaming, or social dilemmas—can help promote sustained focus and deeper processing. Activities might include matching spoken texts to images, reconstructing scripts from scrambled dialogues, or using narrow listening tasks based on recurring sentence patterns. These strategies reflect the importance of meaningful input and processing as emphasised by Loewen (2015).

In tandem with this, scaffolding language production is crucial. Sentence builders, narrow translation, and writing frames can ease the pressure on working memory while supporting fluency and accuracy. These tools are particularly beneficial for students experiencing academic stress, as they offer structured opportunities to succeed and gradually internalise key grammar and vocabulary patterns. This aligns with Doughty and Williams’ (1998) advocacy for focus on form in structured environments. Teachers might use a sentence builder to guide a scaffolded opinion paragraph or provide colour-coded prompts for oral responses in pairs.

Reinforcement is also key. Embedding low-stakes retrieval practice into daily routines—through whiteboard games, oral drills, or mini quizzes—helps strengthen long-term retention and combat the shallow learning habits often reinforced by digital multitasking. Research by Pavlik and Anderson (2005) supports the role of spaced retrieval in enhancing vocabulary acquisition. For example, teachers can revisit key phrases with timed recall games, or integrate oral gap-fill challenges into lesson starters.

Consistency across topics further boosts retention and fluency. Rather than introducing entirely new structures with each unit, recycling high-frequency constructions such as opinion or comparison phrases helps learners proceduralise grammar. This strategy is in line with DeKeyser’s (2007) work on the importance of proceduralisation in L2 development. This could involve revisiting the same scaffolded sentence frames across multiple units—e.g. comparing sports, foods, or school subjects using the same underlying language structures.

Beyond form-focused instruction, adolescents also benefit greatly from emotionally resonant tasks that reflect their lives and identities. When language learning connects to who they are and what they care about, motivation increases. For instance, asking students to write about someone they admire, describe a personal experience, or share their goals in the target language can give real meaning to the task. These activities support the psychological need for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which underpins intrinsic motivation. Tasks like “About Me” surveys or “script-and-adapt” dialogues allow learners to personalise language in low-pressure formats. Structured card-based dialogues or script-and-adapt pair tasks can be useful formats. When students see language as a tool for self-expression, rather than just something to be memorised, they are more likely to engage deeply. As Ushioda (2011) notes, motivation grows when learners perceive the language as relevant to their lives. Ellis (2005) further highlights how meaningful output promotes interlanguage development — especially when learners have the space to experiment and reflect on their use of language. Ellis (2005) underscores the value of meaningful output in driving interlanguage development.

Authentic communicative opportunities also play a vital role. Role-play scenarios, such as making plans, giving advice, or navigating a social situation, offer teens a safe yet relevant context in which to apply what they’ve learned. These simulations build confidence, particularly for students who crave real-world relevance in their learning. Structured card-based dialogues or script-and-adapt pair tasks can be useful formats. Ellis (2005) underscores the value of meaningful output in driving interlanguage development.

Collaboration, often limited in hybrid and remote learning environments, should be reintroduced through project-based work. Creating digital magazines, campaign posters, or travel guides in pairs or small groups combines interaction with tangible goals, enhancing motivation and reinforcing communicative competence. Students might use collaborative templates to design brochures or produce short video presentations in the target language. Swain’s (2005) Output Hypothesis highlights the importance of peer interaction for language development through co-construction of meaning.

Autonomy can be nurtured through structured personalisation. Offering students controlled choices—such as selecting vocabulary from a list or creating their own versions of model texts—provides a sense of ownership while keeping language output accurate and focused. Tasks like “write your own dialogue using these sentence stems” or “adapt this story to fit your interests” give learners a sense of voice within a safe framework. This supports Loewen’s (2015) assertion that autonomy, when scaffolded, promotes deeper engagement.

Clear progress tracking and timely, formative feedback can help manage performance anxiety. Visual tools like checklists, traffic light systems, or colour-coded corrections make success visible and build learners’ confidence. Teachers might use a “skills ladder” to show how students move from guided practice to greater independence, reinforcing their sense of growth. Research by Ushioda (2011) reinforces that visible progress enhances motivation and metacognitive awareness.

Finally, integrating global themes that matter to adolescents—such as sustainability, fairness, or identity—makes language learning more meaningful. Tasks that invite learners to express opinions, evaluate viewpoints, or explore ethical dilemmas through the target language allow them to connect personal and global issues while developing both linguistic and critical thinking skills. For example, students might compare environmentally friendly habits across cultures or debate school policies using structured sentence frames. García Mayo (2017) supports the integration of intercultural content to enhance both language competence and social awareness.ating an increasingly digital, socially complex, and emotionally demanding world—one that challenges traditional models of teaching and learning. For language educators, this changing landscape calls for responsive, research-informed pedagogy that goes beyond vocabulary lists and grammar drills. Instead, we need approaches that speak to the whole learner—cognitively, emotionally, and socially.

Conclusions

By aligning classroom practices with learners’ evolving needs and integrating ISLA-informed principles, teachers can foster both linguistic competence and personal growth. Language learning, after all, is not just about acquiring another code—it’s about finding your voice in another world. And in a time when teenagers are searching harder than ever for who they are, helping them do so in more than one language is an opportunity not to be missed.

References

• DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.
• García Mayo, M. del P. (2017). Learning Foreign Languages in Primary Education. John Benjamins.
• Livingstone, S., & Blum-Ross, A. (2021). Parenting for a Digital Future: How Hopes and Fears About Technology Shape Children’s Lives. Oxford University Press.
• Loewen, S. (2015). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.
• NHS Digital. (2022). Mental Health of Children and Young People in England 2022. Retrieved from https://digital.nhs.uk
• OECD. (2020). Education Responses to COVID-19: Embracing Digital Learning and Online Collaboration. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org
• Ofcom. (2023). Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.ofcom.org.uk
• Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The Association Between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 173–182.
• Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and Forgetting Effects on Vocabulary Memory: An Activation-Based Model of the Spacing Effect. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 559–586.
• Pew Research Center. (2022). Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org
• Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471–483). Routledge.
• Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Multilingual Matters.
• VanPatten, B., & Smith, M. (2015). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Routledge.
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2022). Adolescent Physical Activity Factsheet – Europe. Retrieved from https://www.who.int

0. Introduction

In the field of second language education, the question of what constitutes an outstanding language teacher has been widely investigated. In this article I synthesise findings from leading researchers, including Simon Borg, Diane Larsen-Freeman, Rod Ellis, Jim Scrivener, and several other renowned researchers in the field, to outline the key attributes that define excellence in language teaching.

1. Pedagogical Content Knowledge

According to research, outstanding language teachers demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the language they teach—including grammar, phonology, lexis, and discourse—and know how to break that knowledge down in ways that suit the needs of learners at different stages. Shulman’s (1987) foundational concept of “pedagogical content knowledge” underscores the importance of being able to transform content into forms that learners can grasp and internalise. In one of the best books I have read on L2 teacher cognition, Simon Borg (2006) applies this idea specifically to language educators, arguing that great teachers understand both what to teach and how to teach it so that learners can develop communicative competence. They use models, metaphors, real-life tasks, and context-sensitive strategies to promote deep learning.

Moreover, expert teachers are aware of how different language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) interact and can integrate them effectively in lessons. In nearly three decades of language teaching, I have seen quite a few teachers struggle with this. Yet, designing effective input-to-output sequences is key.

Expert teachers also know when and how to use explicit instruction, inductive approaches, and guided discovery, drawing from evidence-based methods aligned with SLA principles.

2. Reflective Practice and Teacher Cognition

An outstanding language teacher is a reflective practitioner. According to Borg (2003), what teachers think, know, and believe—their cognition—plays a central role in how they teach. Great teachers routinely reflect on their practice: they think critically about what worked, what didn’t, and why. They use learner feedback, self-evaluation, classroom observations, and even journals to analyse their methods and decisions. Farrell (2015) emphasizes that reflective practice isn’t just a skill but a habit that contributes to sustained professional growth.

Reflection also means adapting one’s teaching in response to the evolving dynamics of the classroom. For example, if a communicative activity repeatedly fails to engage learners, a reflective teacher will explore alternatives rather than persist for the sake of consistency. This level of awareness and responsiveness is a hallmark of expert teaching.

The best educators I have worked with were highly reflective and constantly evaluated their practice in order to improve their teaching. One of the most able language teachers I have ever worked with and watched in action, never stopped doing this until the day before they retired!

3. Language Awareness

An outstanding language teacher is highly language-aware. Andrews (2007) notes that language awareness goes beyond knowing grammar rules; it includes being attuned to how language is used, how meaning is conveyed, and how learners process language. A language-aware teacher can recognise learner errors not merely as mistakes, but as insights into learners’ developing interlanguage. They can offer clear explanations and feedback tailored to individual learner needs.

Ellis (2001, 2006) supports the use of form-focused instruction (FFI), particularly when it is meaningfully integrated into communicative practice. Great teachers know when to draw attention to form and when to prioritise fluency. For instance, they may introduce a structure explicitly, then provide ample practice through communicative tasks and scaffolded production. They create environments where learners notice and recycle language in context, which research shows promotes retention and automatization.

4. Interpersonal Skills and rapport with the learners

Beyond content and pedagogy, what often distinguishes an outstanding teacher is their ability to build trust and rapport. Mercer and Kostoulas (2018) argue that language teachers play an emotional as well as instructional role. Effective teachers foster psychological safety, where learners feel supported and are willing to take risks. They greet students warmly, show interest in their lives, and provide affirming, constructive feedback.

Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) highlight how social dynamics in the classroom influence motivation and participation. A teacher who knows how to manage group cohesion, reduce learner anxiety, and foster collaboration sets the stage for meaningful interaction and deeper learning. The interpersonal domain is often where teachers leave the most lasting impression on students.

5. Learning Management and Instructional Clarity

An organised, well-managed classroom allows learning to flourish. Scrivener (2005) defines classroom management as the invisible framework that supports learning: clear instructions, smooth transitions, and logical sequencing of tasks. Harmer (2015) adds that clarity and consistency in teacher behaviour reduce learner uncertainty and increase engagement.

Outstanding teachers also make excellent use of time and space. They anticipate potential disruptions, manage pair/group dynamics, and create a rhythm that balances activity and reflection. Instructional clarity is another cornerstone—successful teachers check comprehension of instructions, model tasks, and monitor learning without overwhelming learners.

6. Adaptability, Creativity, and Professional Development

Teaching is not static, and neither are outstanding teachers. Larsen-Freeman (2000) describes language teaching as a complex, adaptive system. Great teachers welcome feedback, stay curious, and continually update their knowledge base. They reflect on their own growth and are open to trying new approaches—from integrating technology to reshaping lesson structures.

Borg (2009) and Farrell (2015) both emphasize the importance of lifelong professional learning. This may include action research, peer collaboration, conferences, or engaging with practitioner literature. Creative teachers bring freshness into the classroom—not just through fun activities, but through thoughtful adaptations that make learning more meaningful and personalised.

7. Teacher Self-Efficacy

A crucial yet often underemphasized trait of outstanding language teachers is their sense of self-efficacy—the belief in their own ability to plan, execute, and assess successful teaching strategies. Drawing from the work of Bandura (1997), teacher self-efficacy has been linked to persistence, resilience, and a greater willingness to try innovative practices, especially in challenging classroom environments. Teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to set ambitious goals for their learners, maintain motivation when faced with setbacks, and adopt a solution-oriented mindset.

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) argue that teacher self-efficacy influences not only the effort teachers invest in planning and delivering lessons, but also their openness to collaboration and reflective practice. In the language classroom, this means that confident teachers are more likely to create communicative tasks, experiment with new methodologies, and maintain a positive classroom climate. They also tend to encourage learner autonomy and foster resilience among students, modeling the kind of attitudes that support long-term language acquisition.

Moreover, self-efficacy plays a mediating role in how teachers respond to institutional demands, curriculum changes, or diverse learner needs. A teacher who believes in their capacity to adapt is more likely to succeed in implementing inclusive and differentiated practices, reinforcing the interconnected nature of the attributes discussed throughout this article.

8. Charisma

While often overlooked in academic literature, teacher charisma—understood as a teacher’s personal presence, energy, and ability to emotionally connect with students—has emerged as a powerful factor in motivating and engaging language learners. Charismatic teachers are not necessarily extroverted or theatrical, but they exhibit passion, clarity, humour, and authenticity that make their classes memorable and emotionally engaging.

Research in educational psychology supports the influence of teacher charisma. Patrick, Turner, Meyer, and Midgley (2003) found that students respond more positively to instructors who are perceived as enthusiastic and expressive. In the language classroom, charisma can facilitate emotional connection, reduce learner anxiety, and increase participation. Dörnyei (2001) also acknowledges the motivational power of the teacher’s personality, suggesting that learners often attribute their success to teachers who create a dynamic and emotionally charged learning environment.

Moreover, charismatic teachers tend to project confidence, use varied vocal delivery, and maintain purposeful eye contact and body language—elements that contribute to perceived credibility and trustworthiness (Zhang, 2009). These qualities help create the kind of interpersonal energy that sustains learner attention and builds a positive group dynamic.

While charisma cannot be taught in the conventional sense, it can be nurtured through self-awareness, practice, and the development of authentic communication styles. The most effective teachers find a way to channel their natural personalities into a presence that resonates with learners.

9. Pronunciation, Accent, and Phonological Awareness

A commonly debated topic in language teaching is whether having a native-like accent or ‘good’ pronunciation is necessary for outstanding teaching. Research in Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA) suggests that while a perfect accent is not essential, strong phonological awareness and intelligible pronunciation are important traits for effective language models (Derwing & Munro, 2005). Learners benefit when teachers model clear, accurate speech, especially during early stages of language acquisition.

In fact, Munro and Derwing (1999) distinguish between accent and intelligibility, noting that even speakers with noticeable accents can be effective communicators as long as their speech is easily understood. This supports the idea that non-native teachers, who may not speak with native-like pronunciation, can still provide excellent input and serve as effective role models for learners.

Moreover, teachers with good pronunciation awareness can better help learners notice key phonological contrasts, develop listening skills, and gain confidence in their own speech. Teaching pronunciation explicitly—through stress, intonation, rhythm, and segmental features—is increasingly recognized as a vital part of communicative competence (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010).

Therefore, while an outstanding teacher does not need to sound like a native speaker, they should possess a solid understanding of pronunciation systems and be able to model intelligible, clear speech that supports learners’ development.

10. Cultural Competence and Inclusiveness

In today’s diverse classrooms, cultural sensitivity is essential. Effective teachers acknowledge learners’ cultural identities and foster an inclusive environment. They choose materials that reflect different perspectives, use culturally relevant examples, and respect linguistic diversity. Research in intercultural competence (Byram, 1997) supports the idea that understanding students’ backgrounds enhances engagement and reduces barriers to learning.

Teachers who value inclusivity also adapt their methods to accommodate neurodiverse learners and those with special educational needs. This includes differentiating instruction and being aware of how cultural and cognitive differences influence participation.

A Note on Gaps and Research Cautions

While the qualities outlined above are widely supported in the research literature, it’s worth noting that not all of them carry equal empirical weight. For instance, the concept of teacher charisma—though undeniably impactful from a learner perspective—remains underexplored in rigorous language education research. While studies in general education (e.g., Patrick et al., 2003; Zhang, 2009) suggest links between charismatic presence and student engagement, the evidence in second language acquisition contexts is less extensive and largely anecdotal. Similarly, the emphasis placed on pronunciation and accent, while supported by studies on intelligibility (Derwing & Munro, 2005), can sometimes overshadow the broader communicative competencies that learners need to develop.

This isn’t to say these traits aren’t valuable—on the contrary, they often distinguish memorable teachers. But it’s important to approach them with nuance and to be mindful that more robust, longitudinal studies are needed to fully understand their long-term impact on language acquisition outcomes. A balanced interpretation of research can help educators reflect not only on what to cultivate, but also on how to contextualise these traits within their own teaching realities.

What the Research Says About What Matters Most

While all of the attributes discussed contribute meaningfully to effective language teaching, several stand out as especially significant in the research literature. Pedagogical content knowledge, language awareness, and teacher cognition (including reflective practice) consistently emerge as strong predictors of teaching effectiveness (Borg, 2006; Ellis, 2006; Shulman, 1987). These elements influence how well teachers can deliver input, respond to learner needs, and make informed, adaptive choices in real time.

Interpersonal skills and classroom climate also play a crucial role. Studies by Mercer and Kostoulas (2018) and Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) highlight how learner motivation and engagement are often driven more by relational dynamics than by teaching methods alone. When learners feel safe, valued, and connected, their willingness to take risks—and therefore learn—significantly increases.

Teacher self-efficacy is another particularly influential attribute. High self-efficacy correlates with increased resilience, better classroom management, and a stronger orientation toward student success (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). These findings suggest that supporting teacher confidence and autonomy can have powerful ripple effects throughout the learning environment.

Conclusion

Outstanding language teachers bring together a powerful mix of knowledge, reflection, interpersonal sensitivity, and adaptive expertise. They are not defined by a single method or credential but by their commitment to student-centred, informed, and evolving practice. Through deep content knowledge, strong interpersonal skills, and a passion for professional development, these teachers transform classrooms into inclusive, engaging spaces where language learning thrives. By grounding our understanding of excellent teaching in empirical research, we can move beyond myths and surface impressions to build meaningful professional growth.

---

References

• Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge University Press.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman and Company.
• Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
• Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education. Continuum.
• Borg, S. (2009). The nature of teacher research. English Language Teaching Journal, 63(3), 169–176.
• Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Multilingual Matters.
• Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). Teaching Pronunciation: A Course Book and Reference Guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–397.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.
• Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.
• Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. Bloomsbury.
• Harmer, J. (2015). The Practice of English Language Teaching (5th ed.). Pearson.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Mercer, S., & Kostoulas, A. (Eds.). (2018). Language Teacher Psychology: Exploring the Complexities of Individual Differences. Multilingual Matters.
• Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 49(S1), 285–310.
• Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Midgley, C. (2003). How teachers establish psychological environments during the first days of school: Associations with avoidance in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1521–1558.
• Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching: A Guidebook for English Language Teachers. Macmillan.
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
• Zhang, Q. (2009). Delivery matters: The effects of instructor expressive nonverbal behavior and immediacy on student evaluations. Communication Education, 58(3), 335–352.

1. Introduction Let’s face it—language learning is a messy, multi-layered business. It’s not just about memorising vocabulary lists or drilling verb conjugations. Beneath the surface, there’s a tangle of mental gears whirring away: memory, attention, logic, emotion, and more. And while we’d love to think that anyone can master a new language through sheer willpower and good teaching, the reality is more complex.

One factor that consistently crops up in the research? Intelligence—or more specifically, IQ. In this post, I’ll explore the sometimes uncomfortable questions:

• Does having a high IQ really give you an edge in instructed second language acquisition?
• Does a low IQ prevent you from being successful?
• If so, what are the implications for the classroom?

Language learning being a complex, multifaceted cognitive process influenced by a combination of innate ability and environmental factors, the answer is not that simple. In the below, I will deep dive into the literature on the topic in search for a solid and research-based account of the way in which IQ impacts second language learning.

2. Language Aptitude, Attitude, and IQ

Before we zoom in on how IQ shapes specific language learning abilities, it’s worth stepping back and looking at two key concepts that often get tangled up: aptitude and attitude. They might sound similar, but they pull the learner in very different ways—and understanding how IQ relates to both helps set the stage for the rest of the discussion. They aren’t just academic terms—they’re at the heart of what makes learners tick. And for us language teachers, understanding how they relate to IQ can change the way we approach planning, feedback, and support in the classroom.

Language aptitude and attitude are distinct yet complementary constructs in second language learning. Language aptitude refers to a learner’s cognitive ability to acquire language, including phonemic coding, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning, and memory. In contrast, language attitude encompasses a learner’s emotional and motivational disposition toward the target language, its speakers, and the learning process (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Recent large-scale studies (e.g., Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003) have shown that aptitude encompasses a wide range of abilities including memory for language sounds, grammatical sensitivity, and the ability to infer language rules quickly. It’s not fixed in stone, but it tends to be relatively stable. Learners with high IQ tend to score better on aptitude tests, especially those involving reasoning and memory.

Figure 1 – Skehan’s (1998) model of language aptitude

While IQ is more closely related to aptitude—particularly the analytical and memory-based components—it plays little direct role in shaping attitude. Research by Skehan (1998) and Carroll (1990) has emphasized that aptitude is partly heritable and largely cognitive, aligning closely with IQ. Attitude, however, is more influenced by sociocultural context, personal experiences, and affective factors. Importantly, high aptitude may enhance performance in formal learning environments (especially where the curriculum is grammar-heavy), but positive attitude is often a stronger predictor of sustained effort and long-term success, especially in immersive and communicative settings.

Figure 2: A visual representation of the role of attitude in language learning and how it interacts with various factors. The diagram illustrates: Attitude influencing motivation, anxiety, and self-efficacy, which shape learning behaviors. Motivation leading to effort and engagement, essential for L2 exposure. Self-efficacy boosting confidence and enjoyment, which affect classroom interaction. Classroom environment, teacher influence, and L2 exposure contributing to L2 learning success. This aligns with Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Motivational Self System and Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Mode

Understanding the interplay between aptitude, attitude, and IQ is essential for educators designing second language instruction. It is also crucial in light of research connecting IQ with socio-economic status. Studies such as those by Nisbett et al. (2012) and Sirin (2005) indicate that learners from lower-SES backgrounds are statistically more likely to score lower on IQ and aptitude tests—not necessarily due to innate ability, but due to factors like reduced exposure to literacy, nutrition, and educational opportunities. This raises important questions about equity and access in language education. Learners with high IQ may benefit from structured grammar and vocabulary tasks, while those with high motivation and positive attitudes may excel in communicative tasks—even if their cognitive aptitude is average, as attitude drives engagement, effort, and resilience in the face of setbacks. Gardner (2010) and Masgoret & Gardner (2003) found that motivation and positive attitudes often predict long-term language achievement more strongly than aptitude—particularly in less structured, immersive learning environments. A balanced approach that nurtures both dimensions can therefore optimize outcomes across diverse learner profiles.

2. Cognitive Dimensions Influenced by High IQ

2.1 Pattern Recognition
High-IQ individuals tend to excel at identifying patterns, a skill that underlies grammatical inference and syntactic comprehension. Pattern recognition facilitates faster internalization of rules governing sentence structure and morphological changes. Studies have shown that individuals with higher IQs often demonstrate superior abilities in recognizing linguistic patterns and structures. For example, Rostami et al. (2013) found a significant positive correlation between general intelligence and success in acquiring vocabulary and grammar among EFL learners.

2.2 Working Memory
Working memory is the capacity to hold and manipulate information over short durations—a function vital to real-time language comprehension and use. High IQ is frequently associated with enhanced working memory capacity. In their seminal work, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) first conceptualized working memory as a core component of language processing, highlighting its role in temporarily storing and processing linguistic input. More recently, Miyake and Friedman (1998) demonstrated that working memory capacity strongly predicts success in second language acquisition, particularly in mastering syntax and vocabulary.

2.3 Processing Speed
Faster cognitive processing enables learners to decode and respond to linguistic input with greater efficiency. This is especially beneficial for tasks involving listening comprehension and conversational fluency. In a fascinating study, Sheppard and Vernon (2008) established a clear link between processing speed and intelligence, indicating that faster processors tend to achieve better outcomes in language learning. Similarly, Kail and Salthouse (1994) demonstrated that processing speed supports various cognitive functions that are essential in second language acquisition.

2.4 Metalinguistic Awareness
Metalinguistic awareness—the ability to reflect on and manipulate language as a system—is often more developed in individuals with high IQ. This skill facilitates the recognition and correction of errors and supports abstract rule learning. In a very insightful study, Bialystok and Ryan (1985) found that high-IQ children exhibited superior abilities in detecting and correcting grammatical errors. Gombert (1992) further emphasized that metalinguistic development plays a crucial role in formal language instruction, particularly in structured learning environments.

Figure 2 below provides a visual summary showing how high IQ influences key cognitive areas involved in language learning. Each bar represents the estimated strength of IQ’s influence in that domain on a scale from 1 to 10. Remember:

• Pattern Recognition: Helps identify grammar and structure.
• Working Memory: Supports holding and manipulating language input.
• Processing Speed: Aids quick comprehension and response.
• Metalinguistic Awareness: Enhances understanding of language as a system

Figure 3. Estimated Influence of IQ Across Language-Related Cognitive Domains

3. How Low IQ Interacts with Language Learning

These cognitive advantages for high-IQ learners, however, highlight a deeper concern: what happens when learners do not possess high IQ? Research shows that students with lower IQs may find it more difficult to infer grammar rules, retain complex sentence structures, or apply learned rules with consistency in productive skills like writing (Sparks, Patton, & Ganschow, 2012). For example, a student who struggles with working memory might be able to complete a gap-fill grammar task accurately when focused but fail to apply the same rule when writing a paragraph. This disconnect is not due to laziness or lack of motivation—it’s a cognitive bottleneck.

Learners with lower IQs may not simply be ‘slower’; their challenges often stem from genuine cognitive constraints that affect how they process, store, and retrieve language.

In grammar acquisition, for instance, low-IQ learners may struggle with rule abstraction and pattern generalisation. Hulstijn (2015) suggests that such learners often benefit more from implicit instruction and exposure than from formal grammar explanations. Rather than asking them to deduce when to use the past perfect, for example, it’s more effective to flood their input with natural, meaningful examples of that structures – preferably through listening and interaction. Routines are particularly effective as well as highly patterned texts such as narrow listening and narrow reading.

Writing is another area where difficulties become more visible. Studies such as Sparks et al. (2012) show that low-IQ learners often display persistent challenges with syntactic accuracy, organisation, and lexical variety. A practical classroom example: a learner may be able to write “I go school every day” with confidence but fail to incorporate a new structure like “I’ve been going to school since January” without significant, repeated modelling.

Importantly, success is still possible—just on different terms. Long-term studies (e.g., Ganschow & Sparks, 1995) demonstrate that with repetition, scaffolding, and high-frequency exposure, low-IQ learners can achieve communicative competence. To help such learners, teachers can draw on strategies from Ellis (2005) and VanPatten (2002). For instance, instead of lengthy explanations of grammar rules, input-based approaches such as ‘input flood‘ (where learners are exposed to many examples of a structure) or ‘input enhancement‘ (highlighting target forms in reading or emphasizing them vocally in listening activities) can offer repeated, low-stress exposure.

Careful and thorough modelling through Sentence builders, lots of repeated processing, masses of throughtfully scaffolded retrieval practice, sufficient planning time before challenging tasks, intensive vocabulary teaching before tacking challenging texts, etc, also allow learners with limited processing speed to build automaticity over time. Writing tasks should be scaffolded with models, checklists, and sentence stems. A lower-IQ learner, for instance, may benefit from a writing frame that structures a paragraph: “First, I usually ___. Then, I like to ___. Finally, I ___.” Over time, these supports can be gradually removed as learners gain confidence and fluency.

What often matters most is not cognitive firepower but consistency, clarity, and emotional support from teachers. Recasting errors positively, chunking input, and gradually increasing task complexity are all essential strategies.

This is not about lowering expectations—it’s about adjusting the path. When instruction meets learners where they are, the journey becomes not just possible, but rewarding.

4. Mixed-Ability Classrooms: Pros and Cons of Grouping Learners Across the IQ Spectrum

Bringing together learners with widely differing IQ levels into a single language classroom is increasingly common, especially in inclusive education settings. This approach carries both potential benefits and significant challenges.

On the positive side, mixed-ability classrooms can foster peer learning and collaborative growth. Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) supports the idea that less advanced learners can benefit from interacting with more capable peers. High-IQ students often provide linguistic models, expose others to more sophisticated structures, and, in doing so, reinforce their own knowledge through teaching. Meanwhile, learners with lower IQ may benefit from simplified explanations and indirect scaffolding via peer talk.

However, research also highlights several limitations. Sweller’s (1988) cognitive load theory warns that low-IQ learners may experience overload when required to process input at the level of their more advanced peers, especially without sufficient differentiation. This can lead to frustration, disengagement, or fossilisation of errors. High-IQ learners, on the other hand, may feel held back or insufficiently challenged, particularly if tasks are overly simplified to accommodate others. Additionally, the classroom dynamics can suffer when learners perceive inequity—either in terms of pace or teacher attention. Research by Kulik and Kulik (1992) on ability grouping suggests that high-achieving students in mixed-ability settings may show diminished gains compared to those in homogeneous groups. Simultaneously, low-IQ learners may develop learned helplessness if they are frequently exposed to performance gaps that feel insurmountable (Dweck, 2006). Teachers might inadvertently lower expectations for some students, which can reduce both challenge and opportunity for growth across the class.

The key to successful mixed-ability teaching lies in targeted differentiation, flexible grouping, and scaffolded instruction. As Tomlinson (2014) argues, differentiation isn’t about creating separate curricula but about adjusting inputs, tasks, and supports so that each learner can access the same core content meaningfully. In practice, this might mean giving high-IQ learners more open-ended writing prompts or inductive grammar puzzles, while offering lower-IQ students structured sentence frames and more guided input tasks. When planned thoughtfully, mixed-ability classes can be inclusive, empowering, and pedagogically sound.

However, the promise of differentiation in mixed-ability classrooms often falls short in real-world language teaching contexts. Several studies have raised doubts about the practical effectiveness of differentiation, particularly in language education. For example, Westwood (2013) and Hattie (2009) argue that while differentiation sounds ideal in theory, it is difficult to implement with sufficient depth and consistency in classrooms with large student numbers, time constraints, and curriculum demands. Language teachers, in particular, report struggling to create tiered tasks that are cognitively appropriate, linguistically accessible, and pedagogically sound for all learners simultaneously (Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004).

Furthermore, research from the OECD (2012) suggests that attempts at differentiation often result in ‘teaching to the middle’—whereby high-achieving learners are insufficiently stretched and lower-achieving learners remain unsupported. In language classrooms, where progression is cumulative and requires automatization through repetition, the attempt to customise content for every ability level can dilute the intensity of exposure and reduce opportunities for recycling key structures—an essential condition for acquisition (VanPatten, 2002). In practice, this means that the intended support mechanisms may not reach the learners who need them most, and that instruction can become fragmented and less impactful overall. Even when differentiation is attempted, it is often superficial—focused more on varying task difficulty than on tailoring learning trajectories in a way that is both linguistically meaningful and cognitively appropriate. Tatzl (2013) found that teachers frequently rely on the same materials for all learners, with only minor adjustments, due to time, training, and resource constraints. This often leaves both ends of the learner spectrum underserved.

Moreover, differentiation can inadvertently create a “labelling effect,” reinforcing perceptions of fixed ability among learners (Boaler, 2013). When students are consistently grouped or given tasks based on perceived aptitude, it can shape their self-concept and influence motivation. For language learners, where confidence and willingness to communicate are critical, this can have lasting implications.

Ultimately, while differentiation remains a well-intentioned strategy, the evidence suggests that without sustained support, ongoing professional development, and appropriate structural conditions – which schools more than often do not get! – it is often more aspirational than effective in the reality of language classrooms.

Based on my 28 years of teaching languages in a wide range of contexts—from top-performing schools to mixed-ability state settings—I can confidently say that differentiation, while noble in intent, often collapses under the weight of classroom reality. In practice, differentiation is frequently superficial and reactive rather than embedded and strategic. It tends to favour the middle ability range, leaving the most and least cognitively able learners underserved. Teachers are often not given the training, planning time, or resources to differentiate meaningfully, and the result is either watered-down content or overly complex tasks repackaged with minor tweaks. That said, in my experience, mixed-ability teaching can work reasonably well when the spread of ability in the classroom is not too wide. When learners fall within a manageable cognitive range, differentiation becomes more feasible, peer support is more balanced, and instructional planning remains realistic. It’s when the gap becomes extreme that the cracks begin to show—making approaches like EPI, which naturally embed scaffolding for all, a far more sustainable solution.

All considered, though, I firmly believe that what truly makes a difference is not splitting learners into tiers, but giving everyone access to high-quality input, extensive modelling, and tasks that build up from controlled to freer practice over time—principles that approaches like EPI embody far more effectively than ad-hoc differentiation ever could.

5. Concluding remarks
This article has explored the complex interplay between IQ and second language acquisition. The evidence suggests that high IQ can support language learning in several key areas—pattern recognition, working memory, processing speed, and metalinguistic awareness—often leading to quicker uptake of grammar and vocabulary, better processing of input, and more efficient use of explicit instruction. However, IQ is not destiny. Learners with lower IQ may struggle more with rule abstraction and memory-heavy tasks, particularly in grammar and writing, but they can still succeed through well-designed instruction, repetition, and emotional support.

One framework that accommodates both ends of the cognitive spectrum is Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI). Grounded in ISLA principles, EPI provides structured input, controlled output, and scaffolded repetition. It plays to the strengths of high-IQ learners through inductive reasoning and pattern recycling, while supporting lower-IQ learners with sentence builders, input flood, and low-stakes, repeated practice. Rather than dumbing down the content, EPI simplifies the processing—making language acquisition accessible, meaningful, and rewarding for everyone.

High IQ can provide significant cognitive advantages in language learning, particularly in areas like pattern recognition, working memory, processing speed, and metalinguistic awareness. However, intelligence is not the sole determinant of language learning success. Motivation, exposure, resilience, and cultural immersion are equally, if not more, influential in many contexts. For learners with lower IQs, adaptive instruction and supportive learning environments play a critical role in promoting success.

References

• Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and Mathematics: The Mindset Revolution That Is Reshaping Education. Forum, 55(1), 143–152.
• Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the Reading Wars: Exploring the Effect of Child-Instruction Interactions on Growth in Early Reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(4), 305–336.
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.
• Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.
• Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1995). Effects of Direct Instruction in Spanish Phonology on the Native-Language Skills and Foreign-Language Aptitude of At-Risk Foreign-Language Learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 107–120.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.
• Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77.
• OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. OECD Publishing.
• Sparks, R., Patton, J., & Ganschow, L. (2012). Profiles of More and Less Successful L2 Learners: A Cluster Analysis Study. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4), 463–472.
• Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97–114.
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
• Tatzl, D. (2013). Engineering students’ beliefs about language learning and their proficiency in English for specific purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 32(1), 1–11.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
• VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
• Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation.
• Bialystok, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. Applied Psycholinguistics.
• Carroll, J. B. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. Language Aptitude Research.
• Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning. Newbury House Publishers.
• Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic Development. University of Chicago Press.
• Kail, R., & Salthouse, T. A. (1994). Processing speed as a mental capacity. Acta Psychologica.
• Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. Psychological Science.
• Rostami, M., Rezaabadi, O. T., & Gholami, J. (2013). On the relationship between intelligence and English language learning. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation.
• Sheppard, L. D., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). Intelligence and speed of information-processing: A review of 50 years of research. Personality and Individual Differences.
• Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press.

If you do want to find out more on the topic and on my approach to instructed second language acquisition, do get hold of my books (here). I would especially recommend the following tomes, co-authored with Steve Smiths: ‘Breaking the sound barrier: teaching language learners how to listen, ‘The language teacher toolkit’ and ‘Memory: what every language learner should know’.

Introduction

Effective listening is a cornerstone of language learning, yet it is often overlooked or taught superficially. In this post I will summarise the content of a chapter in the Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Learning authored by John Field, a leading researcher in the field in 2019.

John Field’s insights into second language listening instruction offer powerful guidance for educators aiming to deepen learners’ comprehension skills. By emphasizing cognitive processes, vocabulary acquisition, strategic interventions, and targeted practice, Field provides a clear roadmap for transforming listening instruction from passive comprehension checks into active, skill-building opportunities.

The process-based approach to aural instruction adopted in the Receptive Phase in EPI’s MARSEARS (KS3) and PIRCO (KS4/5) pedagogical cycles, is largely based on John Field’s work.

Going Beyond Correct Answers—Focusing on the Process

Traditionally, second language listening lessons have revolved around students’ ability to produce correct answers to comprehension questions. Yet, John Field encourages teachers to rethink this model. He introduces a comprehensive cognitive model of listening, breaking down the listening process into distinct stages:

• Sound recognition: Identifying and distinguishing individual sounds.
• Input decoding: Recognizing individual sounds (phonemes).
• Segmentation: Identifying the boundaries of words within continuous speech.
• Lexical search: Matching sounds to known words in memory.
• Parsing: Constructing grammatical meaning from groups of words.
• Meaning construction: Interpreting the immediate contextual meaning of utterances.
• Discourse construction: Understanding the overall coherence and intention of the entire conversation or text.

Field emphasizes the importance of bottom-up processing skills (accurate decoding, rapid lexical recognition, syntactic parsing) as essential foundations for higher-level comprehension. He advocates specific micro-skill activities tailored for each listening phase, such as phoneme discrimination, vocabulary recognition tasks, syntactic exercises, contextual inference tasks, and discourse-level summarization activities.

What stands out here is that traditional listening tasks excessively emphasize outcomes rather than the actual listening process.

Figure 1 – John’Field’s account of the listening process. In his process-based approach, the instructor will include in their instructional sequences tasks deliberately targeting the sub-processes in the model

Vocabulary—Why It Matters More Than You Think

Field strongly emphasizes that the vocabulary students need for effective listening is often underestimated. Success depends largely (>70%) on vocabulary recognition! Learners typically find spoken vocabulary more challenging than written vocabulary, as they encounter words in variable spoken forms. Field highlights the necessity of explicitly teaching vocabulary through listening activities, emphasizing phonological familiarity and recognition in authentic speech. Activities such as listening cloze exercises or focused listening for lexical recognition are recommended.

What stands out is Field’s assertion that vocabulary knowledge acquired through listening is essential for successful comprehension.

Cracking the Code of Connected Speech

One of the major hurdles learners face is connected speech, the fluid nature of spoken language where words blend, sounds disappear, and pronunciation shifts drastically from textbook forms. Field identifies several issues here, including unclear word boundaries, elision (omission of sounds), assimilation (sounds adapting to adjacent sounds), and variability in pronunciation.

Field advocates using targeted transcription exercises highlighting natural speech patterns, enabling learners to decode authentic spoken language effectively. Exercises might include transcribing short extracts featuring challenging pronunciation phenomena.

The standout insight is that connected speech variability presents significant comprehension challenges for learners.

The Challenge of Speed—A Race Against Time

Another significant issue highlighted by Field is the speed of spoken input. Unlike reading, listeners cannot control the pace at which information arrives, resulting in potential overload and anxiety. Field stresses that teachers need to help students practice managing real-time processing through tasks that gradually increase speed and complexity, thereby building learners’ automaticity and processing efficiency.

What stands out here is the need for practice activities designed specifically to help students cope with the demands of real-time listening.

Visual Aids—Are They Helpful or Distracting?

Field discusses the mixed effectiveness of visual aids like videos or PowerPoint slides. While visuals provide context and clarity for advanced listeners, they might overwhelm beginners already struggling with perceptual demands. Teachers should carefully select visuals directly supporting the spoken input, initially introducing simple visuals (as we do in EPI) and gradually progressing to more complex multimodal inputs.

Thus, a key insight here is that visuals must be integrated thoughtfully, matching the learners’ proficiency level to avoid cognitive overload.

Empowering Learners—Autonomous Listening Practice

Field strongly advocates promoting autonomy in listening practice. Recognizing the diversity in individual learner challenges, he suggests personalized, self-access listening resources. This approach encourages learners to independently identify difficult segments, replay them, and practice until comprehension improves. Digital self-access resources enable learners to pinpoint difficult sections and replay them as often as necessary.

Notably, Field emphasizes personalized listening practice through self-access tasks, empowering learners to address their specific comprehension challenges.

Strategic Listening—Equipping Students for Real-life Communication

Field underscores the importance of explicitly teaching listening strategies, distinguishing clearly between fundamental listening skills and compensatory strategies. He advocates direct instruction of strategies such as metacognitive strategies (planning, monitoring, evaluating), cognitive strategies (inferring meanings, guessing from context), and social-affective strategies (managing anxiety, collaborative listening). Specifically, for teaching metacognitive strategies, Field suggests combining direct teaching (explicitly naming and demonstrating strategies) with indirect teaching (discussing strategies after task completion).

The notable takeaway is the clear role strategy instruction plays in managing comprehension gaps, thus improving overall listening proficiency.

Common Obstacles in Listening Comprehension

Field clearly outlines several common obstacles L2 listeners face:

• Difficulty recognizing phonemes due to variability in pronunciation.
• Unclear word boundaries in continuous speech.
• Challenges in decoding connected speech (elision, assimilation).
• Limited automaticity in spoken vocabulary recognition.
• Cognitive overload from rapid speech input.
• Additional cognitive load from visual inputs.
• Anxiety related to real-time processing without replay opportunities.

Implications for Pedagogy

Drawing from Field’s insights, several key pedagogical implications emerge:

• Teachers should move away from comprehension checks towards diagnostic listening instruction, aimed at identifying the obstacles in comprehension
• Practice tasks should include activities targeting the micro-skills of listening, with a strong emphasis on decoding skills (phonemes, syllables and word-boundaries recognition), especially, but not exclusively, at lower levels of proficiency
• Listening instruction should explicitly teach and reinforce vocabulary through listening-specific tasks. This is KEY
• Incorporating transcription tasks highlighting features of connected speech
• Provide explicit strategy training, focusing on both direct and indirect instruction of metacognitive strategies like planning, monitoring, and evaluating aimed at enabling students to be more invested in the listening process and understand which strategies works best for them. Note: effective strategy training takes months of systematic practice of the target strategies
• Practice tasks should systematically develop learners’ ability to cope with authentic speech speeds by gradually increasing speed and complexity. ‘Gradually’ is the key word here!
• Use visual aids judiciously, matching the complexity to learners’ proficiency.
• Strategically allow replaying audio, particularly at early proficiency levels, to reduce anxiety. Note: replaying audio is likely to be more effective when you pause at the end of problematic sentences, as any new incoming speech signal will erase the previous one; hence, pausing will lessen the cognitive load. Also, it is likely to be more effective when the students are directed to listen selectively, i.e. for specific details which you have found to be more challenging to comprehend. Gapped translation tasks can be good in this respect.

Towards the Future—Personalized Listening Instruction

Looking forward, Field predicts a shift in listening instruction towards personalized and autonomous learning environments, largely driven by digital technologies. These tools will allow students to tailor their listening practice according to their individual needs. Teachers will increasingly facilitate personalized listening experiences, thus enhancing real-world communicative competence.

Concluding remarks

John Field’s approach to second language listening challenges traditional methods by advocating a shift from testing comprehension to actively teaching listening. His recommendations cover detailed cognitive processes, strategic instruction, authentic exposure, and careful scaffolding.

Notably, the Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI) framework naturally embodies these recommendations, focusing deeply on bottom-up skills, extensive vocabulary practice through listening, meaningful repetition with careful segmentation and strategic management of cognitive load and anxiety. EPI integrates the essence of Field’s findings into practical classroom strategies, ensuring learners develop robust, transferable listening skills for effective real-world communication.

If you want to know more on the listening process, do get hold of my book with Steve Smith, ‘Breaking the sound barrier: teaching learners how to listen’ or attend one my workshops on listening instruction on http://www.networkforlearning.org.uk

Introduction

Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI) approach has gained recognition in the field of Modern Foreign Language (MFL) teaching as an innovative methodology that promotes long-term retention, fluency, and communicative competence.

However, less informed language educators equates EPI with the use of sentence builders, some of them even calling EPI the ‘sentence builders method’. While Sentence Builders are a well-known component of EPI, the approach extends far beyond structured input activities. It encompasses a wide range of principles and strategies that facilitate deep processing, automatization, and meaningful interaction in language learning.

PLEASE NOTE: one could teach EPI even without using sentence builders! The only reason why their use is recommended is because they constitute a very effective way to present the target language chunks and one that, according to a recent study (Trafford, 2023), students aged 11 to 16 find very helpful.

A key aspect often overlooked in discussions about EPI is the role of grammar within the MARSEARS framework. While grammar is not the primary focus at the initial stages, it does play a crucial supporting role. Grammar in EPI is not frontloaded, but rather introduced after intensive receptive and productive practice, ensuring that learners have first internalized the target lexical chunks. In this way, grammar enhances the generative power of these chunks, allowing students to manipulate and extend their language more flexibly.

I have written this post for two main reasons. Firstly, a colleague and friend of mine, having just attended a big language conference, relayed to me how many teachers she met keep misunderstanding what EPI is about. Secondly, many colleagues have asked me over the years to provide them with the research which underpins the EPI principles and pedagogical framework. Hopefully, this post will address both issues.

In the below I outline the core components of the EPI approach, demonstrating that it is a holistic, research-driven methodology that goes beyond sentence builders and significantly enhances second-language acquisition. I also cite the key research that underpins the MARSEARS pedagogical framework.

1. Lexicogrammar and Extensive Processing

EPI integrates lexis (vocabulary) and grammar rather than treating them as separate domains. The approach encourages learners to process target structures multiple times in different contexts, ensuring deep learning and retention (Ellis, 2002; Nation, 2007). Unlike traditional grammar drills, EPI contextualizes grammatical structures within meaningful lexical chunks, fostering implicit acquisition over time (Lyster & Sato, 2013).

Grammar plays a supporting role by enabling learners to manipulate and extend these chunks once they are well embedded. In the MARSEARS sequence, grammar instruction comes after learners have had ample exposure to structured input and controlled output, allowing them to internalize patterns before explicit grammar explanations are introduced.

2. Meaningful and Repeated Input

The EPI approach relies on high-frequency, structured exposure to language through listening and reading activities. This aligns with research on the importance of comprehensible input in second-language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). Repetition is embedded within varied tasks and interactions, ensuring that learners encounter and process structures in different contexts (VanPatten, 2015). By the time grammar is explicitly addressed, students have already subconsciously acquired key structures, making grammatical explanations more meaningful and intuitive.

Repetition is obtained by applying a process-based approach, whereby the tasks within the Receptive Phase (the first R in MARSEARS) deliberately target all or most of the micro-skills of listening and reading in order to achieve two objectives. One is, of course, better retention through multimodality. The other one is enhanced reading and aural fluency.

3.Process-Based Instruction Across the Four Language Skills

One of the core principles underpinning EPI is process-based instruction, which focuses on developing learners’ ability to handle real-world communication through structured and scaffolded skill development. Instead of treating language learning as the mere accumulation of knowledge, process-based instruction emphasizes the progressive mastery of language skills through guided stages of cognitive and communicative processing. EPI applies this approach across listening, speaking, reading, and writing, ensuring that learners engage with each skill in a way that mirrors authentic language use.

4. The Role of Listening as a Foundational Skill

EPI emphasizes the importance of listening as an essential component of language processing. The methodology incorporates activities that train learners to process spoken language efficiently, reducing cognitive overload. Research suggests that listening comprehension precedes and supports language production, making it a vital step in fluency development (Field, 2008; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). The extensive listening practice in EPI further strengthens subconscious grammar acquisition, allowing learners to absorb correct structures before grammar is formally introduced.

EPI’s approach to listening is heavily influenced by the work of John Field (2008), who critiques traditional listening instruction for treating comprehension as a passive skill rather than an active process. Instead of simply exposing students to audio and testing their comprehension, EPI adopts a process-based listening model that focuses on training learners to process spoken language efficiently and overcome decoding difficulties.

Following Field’s model, EPI listening instruction includes:

• Lexical segmentation training: Helping students recognize word boundaries in continuous speech, a skill that is particularly difficult in foreign languages.
• Lexical retrieval training: Engaging students in word-meaning recognition through listening (which is key (72%) to success at listening tasks.
• Bottom-up processing exercises: Training learners to recognize phonemes, syllables, and prosodic patterns to improve speech decoding.
• Progressive reduction of support: EPI gradually removes scaffolding, shifting learners from highly controlled, structured input to more authentic, unmodified listening materials, ensuring they become autonomous listeners.
• Top-down processing strategies: Encouraging students to use contextual clues and background knowledge to infer meaning rather than relying solely on word-for-word comprehension.

Through structured and repetitive exposure to varied listening tasks, EPI ensures that learners develop better comprehension accuracy, faster lexical retrieval, and improved phonological awareness,ultimately strengthening overall fluency in spoken interaction.

5. Fluency Development through Controlled Output

Fluency-building is a core tenet of EPI, moving learners from structured activities toward spontaneous communication. The approach follows a carefully sequenced transition from highly scaffolded tasks to freer, communicative activities (DeKeyser, 2007). Controlled output tasks, such as reconstruction exercises, oral drills and highly structured role plays and communicative tasks, help automatize language structures before learners engage in less structured speaking and writing tasks (Swain, 1995; Ortega, 2019).

Once fluency is well developed, grammar is introduced not as a set of rigid rules, but as a tool to refine and expand existing language structures. This sequence ensures that grammar instruction is not an obstacle but rather a reinforcement mechanism that enhances communicative competence.

6. Phonics and Pronunciation Training

EPI integrates phonics instruction and pronunciation training to develop phonological awareness and decoding skills in second-language learners. Phonological fluency helps students recognize patterns in spoken language, improving their reading and listening comprehension (Munro & Derwing, 1999; Kormos, 2006). By incorporating systematic phonics instruction, EPI addresses one of the most neglected areas in traditional MFL instruction.

7. Task-Based Learning and Communicative Practice

A significant aspect of EPI is Task-Based Learning (TBL), which provides learners with authentic communicative opportunities to use language in realistic situations. TBL is implemented at the end of the Structured-Production phase and/or during the final segment of the MARSEARS sequence, i.e. the Routinization and Spontaneity phases. Research shows that task-based instruction enhances fluency and interactional competence (Skehan, 1998; Long, 2015).

EPI sequences tasks in a way that gradually reduces scaffolding, ensuring that learners develop spontaneous, meaningful communication skills over time. Grammar instruction, when it appears, serves to strengthen and refine this communicative ability rather than precede it.

Conclusion

While Sentence Builders are a highly effective tool within EPI, they represent only one component of a much broader methodology. My approach integrates input processing, fluency-building, listening, pronunciation training, implicit grammar learning, metacognitive strategies, and communicative practice, making it a comprehensive, research-informed framework for language acquisition.

Crucially, grammar does have an important role within the MARSEARS framework, but it is introduced after extensive receptive and productive practice. This ensures that grammar is not a barrier to fluency but rather a supporting mechanism that enhances the generative power of lexical chunks. By balancing structured input with extensive fluency practice, EPI offers a more effective alternative to traditional grammar-heavy approaches, ensuring that learners retain, retrieve, and use language fluently in real-life contexts.

References

• Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2009). Optimizing a lexical approach to instructed second language acquisition. Palgrave Macmillan.
• DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2002). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
• Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
• Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 2-13.
• Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. Oxford University Press.
• VanPatten, B. (2015). Foundations of processing instruction. Routledge.
• Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.

Introduction

The debate over whether grammar or fluency should take precedence in second language acquisition (SLA) is long-standing. While grammatical accuracy is crucial for clarity and precision in communication, fluency—the ability to communicate ideas smoothly and naturally—arguably plays a more significant role in real-world language use.

Given the limited instructional time available for Modern Foreign Language (MFL) teaching—often only one or two hours per week—educators must make strategic choices about which aspects of language learning to prioritize. I will never forget my mentor and PhD supervisor, Oxford Uni Professor Macaro, saying to me once: ‘When you only see students once or twice a week, what do you want to teach them: how grammar works or how to listen and speak? The latter, of course!’. Researchers by and large, agree, suggesting that prioritizing oral fluency enhances motivation, aligns with students’ wants, lacks, and necessities, and fosters greater long-term retention. Furthermore, recent changes to the UK GCSE MFL curriculum allow students to achieve high grades with good fluency, even if they do not excel in grammatical accuracy. This, of course, does not entail not teaching grammar. Grammar can have an important role in supporting and expanding the development of fluency.

Additionally, research highlights that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and those with poor literacy skills struggle significantly with grammar acquisition. DeKeyser (2005) argues that teaching grammar to such students constitutes a form of social injustice, as traditional grammar-focused methods disadvantage those without strong foundational literacy skills. Given this, a fluency-first approach may be a more equitable and effective strategy for ensuring all students can achieve communicative competence.

This article explores research-based arguments favoring fluency over grammar in language education and highlights best practices for achieving balanced language proficiency.

The Role of Fluency in Communicative Competence

Fluency is central to communicative competence, a concept introduced by Canale and Swain (1980), which defines effective language use as the ability to convey meaning efficiently and appropriately in real-life contexts. According to Nation (2007), fluency encompasses speed, automaticity, and ease of expression, all of which facilitate meaningful interactions. Research suggests that focusing too heavily on grammatical correctness can hinder fluency by causing learners to hesitate and overanalyze their speech, disrupting the natural flow of conversation (DeKeyser, 2018).

Studies on Second Language (L2) Communication Strategies have shown that learners who prioritize fluency are more likely to develop functional communication skills. For example, Ortega (2019) found that L2 learners who engaged in spontaneous speech activities without excessive grammatical correction demonstrated greater long-term retention and confidence in their speaking abilities. Given the time constraints of MFL instruction, it is imperative to focus on what will best prepare learners for real-world communication rather than perfecting grammatical accuracy at the cost of communicative competence.

The updated UK GCSE MFL curriculum supports this emphasis on fluency. The new framework prioritizes spontaneous conversation and communicative effectiveness, meaning that students who develop strong speaking and listening skills can achieve high grades even if their grammatical accuracy is not perfect. This further underscores the importance of prioritizing fluency over rigid grammatical structures.

Fluency Enhances Motivation and Aligns with Learner Needs

One of the major challenges in language learning is maintaining student motivation. Research by Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) on Foreign Language Anxiety found that learners who feel pressured to produce grammatically perfect speech often develop communication apprehension, leading to reluctance in speaking. Conversely, a focus on fluency—allowing for minor grammatical mistakes—reduces anxiety and fosters a more positive learning environment (Dörnyei, 2009).

Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System (2009) highlights that motivation is strongest when students see immediate, practical benefits from language learning. Learners are more likely to persist in their studies when they feel they are making progress in using the language rather than merely learning about its structure. With one or two hours per week, teachers must prioritize approaches that keep learners engaged and willing to participate actively in the learning process.

Furthermore, Needs Analysis Theory (Richards, 2001) suggests that language instruction should be aligned with students’ wants, lacks, and necessities. In many educational settings, learners express a greater desire for speaking and listening skills rather than a deep understanding of grammatical rules. Prioritizing fluency ensures that language learning remains relevant to their practical needs and enhances their perception of progress, which is crucial for sustained motivation.

Fluency Improves Long-Term Retention and Processing

Cognitive research suggests that fluency-focused approaches enhance automaticity, which is essential for long-term language retention. The Declarative-Procedural Model (Ullman, 2016) explains that grammatical rules are first learned explicitly but must become proceduralized through practice to be used effectively in real-time communication. Studies indicate that excessive emphasis on grammar instruction without fluency practice leads to a lack of automaticity, making spontaneous communication difficult (VanPatten, 2015).

Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1995) supports this perspective, arguing that learners must engage in meaningful, communicative output to internalize grammatical structures naturally. This is evident in immersion-based learning, where learners who prioritize conversation and interaction achieve higher fluency and natural grammatical acquisition over time compared to those who focus on rule memorization (Lyster & Sato, 2013).

A strong emphasis on grammar instruction may result in an instance of ‘social injustice’

Robert DeKeyser, one of the STRONGEST advocates of explicit grammar instruction, in his 2005 paper What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues, explores the cognitive and socio-educational factors that impact L2 grammar acquisition. He argues that explicit grammar instruction—where students consciously learn and apply grammatical rules—is more accessible to learners with strong first-language literacy and well-developed metalinguistic awareness. However, for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds who may have weaker L1 literacy skills, this approach presents significant challenges. These learners often lack the academic language skills, working memory capacity, and formal education background that facilitate grammar rule processing, making them more reliant on implicit learning mechanisms.

DeKeyser suggests that traditional grammar-focused instruction can be an instance of social injustice when applied universally, as it places already disadvantaged learners at a further disadvantage by emphasizing methods that do not align with their cognitive and educational profiles. He advocates for more communicative, immersive, and fluency-based approaches for these students, which allow them to develop grammatical competence naturally through usage rather than through rule memorization. In this view, an overemphasis on explicit grammar instruction risks reinforcing educational inequalities rather than bridging the gap in language acquisition opportunities.

Conclusion

I love grammar. It suits the way I learn. But I am a highly-motivated and academically strong learner with a very inquisitive nature. I have a compulsive need to know how everything works. And, as many other individuals passionate about language learning, I seek as many opportunities for practising any newly-learnt grammar structures and vocabulary as possible, using any resources available to me. I am sure many other language educators feel and do the same.

However, given the limited time allocated to MFL instruction, teachers must make a strategic choice about what is most beneficial for student engagement and long-term progress. Research consistently supports the prioritization of fluency over explicit grammar instruction, as fluency fosters motivation, confidence, and communicative competence—all of which align with students’ wants, lacks, and necessities.

Furthermore, the recent changes to the UK GCSE MFL curriculum reinforce this perspective, as students can achieve high grades through strong fluency and communicative skills, even if they do not excel in grammatical accuracy. This policy shift supports a more realistic, communicative approach to language learning, emphasizing practical usage over rigid grammatical correctness.

Additionally, research highlights that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and those with poor literacy skills struggle significantly with grammar acquisition. DeKeyser (2005) argues that teaching grammar to such students constitutes a form of social injustice, as it disadvantages those without strong foundational literacy skills. Given this, a fluency-first approach is not only more effective but also a more equitable strategy to ensure all students have the opportunity to achieve communicative competence.

With only one or two hours per week, language learning should focus on practical communication skills that provide immediate, tangible benefits for students. By aligning instruction with real-world communication needs, educators can ensure that students stay motivated, engaged, and better prepared to use the language in meaningful ways.

The failure of the NCELP initiative, which was mainly a grammar-centred approach, has taught us that students are not cognitive nor affectively aroused by an excessive focus on structural knowledge. As language teachers, whose duty is to put our students’ interests and weel-being first, we need to treasure that lesson.

Reference

• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
• DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(4), 529-570.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters.
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
• Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 2-13.
• Ortega, L. (2019). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge.
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. Oxford University Press.
• Ullman, M. T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological perspective on second language acquisition. Elsevier.
• VanPatten, B. (2015). Foundations of processing instruction. Routledge.

Introduction

Despite increasing recognition of the cognitive and cultural benefits of early language learning, primary Modern Foreign Language (MFL) education in the UK continues to face significant challenges. The National Curriculum mandates language learning at Key Stage 2 (ages 7-11); however, the quality and consistency of MFL provision vary significantly across schools (Long & Danechi, 2024).

Recent research, including Language Trends 2023 (Collen, 2023), highlights key concerns, such as inconsistent curriculum implementation, a shortage of specialist teachers, and insufficient instructional time. While public support for early language learning remains high, competing curricular priorities and resource limitations hinder effective language instruction.

This article examines the current state of primary MFL education, outlining key challenges and recent developments in curriculum delivery, instructional time, specialist teacher availability, and policy interventions in light of the available research evidence. It also reports the key recommendations made by OFSTED (2021) on how primary MFL provision can be improved based on good practice observed in outstanding schools.

Curriculum Requirements and Implementation

The UK National Curriculum requires local authority-maintained primary schools to teach one modern or ancient foreign language at Key Stage 2 (Department for Education, 2023). The curriculum aims to ensure substantial progress in one language, balancing spoken and written competencies. However, the flexibility in language choice and delivery has led to significant inconsistencies across schools.

According to Collen (2023), many schools struggle to allocate adequate instructional time for MFL due to an overcrowded curriculum, where core subjects such as English and Mathematics often take precedence. Research indicates that a lack of standardized enforcement mechanisms exacerbates disparities in provision, with some schools offering structured, well-planned language programs while others provide sporadic or tokenistic instruction.

Public Support for Language Learning

Recent surveys indicate strong public support for compulsory language education in primary schools. A 2023 YouGov poll commissioned by the British Academy found that 64% of UK adults support mandatory language learning in primary education (British Academy, 2023). This endorsement reflects growing recognition of the importance of multilingualism in an increasingly globalized world.

However, despite this public backing, investment in primary language education remains inadequate (Long & Danechi, 2024). Many schools face budget constraints that limit professional development opportunities, access to language resources, and extracurricular language exposure.

Teaching Approaches and Instruction Time

A study funded by the Nuffield Foundation found that students who received at least 60 minutes of foreign language instruction per week showed greater progress in grammar and vocabulary acquisition than those receiving only 30-40 minutes (Collen, 2023). However, most primary schools fail to meet this recommended threshold due to limited curricular time and teacher shortages.

Additionally, the quality of instruction is often compromised by a lack of interactive teaching approaches. Studies suggest that primary MFL lessons rely heavily on rote learning and vocabulary memorization, with limited opportunities for speaking and interactive practice (British Council, 2024). Schools with access to specialist teachers tend to implement more engaging, multimodal teaching methods, leading to improved student outcomes.

Challenges in Consistent Language Instruction

Despite curriculum requirements, many primary schools struggle to provide consistent MFL instruction. The Language Trends 2023 report found that 40% of primary schools fail to deliver the full allocated language teaching time throughout the academic year (Collen, 2023). Schools often adjust or reduce MFL lessons due to:

• scheduling conflicts with core subjects (English, Mathematics, Science)
• limited staff expertise in language teaching
• a lack of accountability and monitoring frameworks

Without clear assessment frameworks and government-led monitoring, primary language teaching is likely to remain inconsistent across different schools and regions (Ofsted, 2021).

The Prevalence of Non-Specialist Teachers in Primary MFL

A major barrier to high-quality MFL instruction is the widespread reliance on non-specialist teachers. Research indicates that nearly a quarter of primary schools do not have a teacher with more than a GCSE qualification in the language they teach (Collen, 2023). Moreover, almost half of primary schools receive no specialist support from secondary school language teachers (British Council, 2024).

Without formal training in language pedagogy, non-specialist teachers often lack confidence in delivering effective lessons, leading to:

• Reduced teaching quality (Murphy & Evangelou, 2023)
• Curriculum delivery challenges (British Council, 2024)
• Limited pronunciation and fluency modeling

Programs such as the UK Government’s Language Hubs initiative (2023) aim to address these challenges by improving access to specialist training and peer collaboration. However, the long-term impact of these interventions remains uncertain (Department for Education, 2023).

Cognitive Challenges of Learning MFL at Primary Level

Learning a modern foreign language at a young age presents several cognitive challenges for primary-aged children. Unlike older learners, young students must simultaneously develop vocabulary, understand grammatical structures different from their native language, and build pronunciation skills—all while their cognitive functions, such as working memory and executive processing, are still developing. The abstract nature of language learning, including mastering syntax and verb conjugations, can be particularly demanding. Additionally, language interference, where students mix elements of their first and second language, can create confusion. Effective teaching strategies, such as multimodal learning and contextual repetition, are essential to supporting children’s cognitive development in MFL learning (Murphy & Evangelou, 2023). To learn more about the cognitive challenges younger learners face, read this and this.

Key Findings from Outstanding Primary Schools

Research into high-performing MFL programs in outstanding primary schools (Ofsted, 2021) highlights several success factors:

• Structured Curriculum: Schools with well-sequenced language curricula showed higher student engagement and progress.
• Cross-Curricular Integration: Embedding language instruction in other subjects (e.g., Geography, Music) enhanced language retention.
• Cultural Learning Emphasis: Incorporating cultural elements improved student motivation and linguistic understanding.
• Strong Leadership Support: Schools where headteachers prioritized MFL education ensured consistent delivery and adequate resource allocation.
• Ongoing Professional Development: Teachers with access to continuous training demonstrated higher confidence and effectiveness in language teaching.

Recommendations for Improvement

To enhance primary MFL education, experts recommend the following policy and instructional changes:

• Specialist Teacher Training: Increased professional development opportunities for non-specialist teachers (British Council, 2024). A possible way forward, in this respect, could be an approach as the one pioneered by the MACS (Melbourne Archdiocese of Catholic Schools) in Victoria, Australia (here)
• Collaborative Practices: Encouraging cross-school partnerships to improve teaching strategies and resource sharing (Collen, 2023).
• Increased Instruction Time: Ensuring primary MFL instruction meets the 60-minute per week minimum for improved language retention (Nuffield Foundation).
• Improved Transition from Primary to Secondary: Strengthening curriculum continuity to prevent language skill regression.
• Parental Engagement: Providing parents with resources to support language learning at home (Murphy & Evangelou, 2023).

Conclusion

While primary MFL education in the UK has gained policy recognition, it remains hindered by inconsistent implementation, teacher shortages, and insufficient instructional time. Addressing these issues requires policy reforms, specialist teacher training, and better resource allocation. By implementing the recommended strategies, the UK can develop a stronger, more effective primary language learning framework, equipping students with multilingual skills essential for global communication and career opportunities.

References

• British Academy. (2023). New poll reveals overwhelming UK public support for compulsory language learning in schools.
• British Council. (2024). British Council Parent Survey Results 2024.
• Collen, I. (2023). Language Trends England 2023: Language teaching in primary and secondary schools in England.
• Department for Education. (2023). More pupils of all ages to study languages.
• Long, R., & Danechi, S. (2024). Language teaching in schools (England). House of Commons Library.
• Murphy, V. A., & Evangelou, M. (Eds.). (2023). Early Childhood Education in English for Speakers of Other Languages.
• Ofsted. (2021). Research review series: languages.

Introduction

For years, modern foreign language (MFL) teaching in the UK has struggled with student disengagement, declining uptake at GCSE level, and frustration with traditional, grammar-heavy instruction. Many students find learning a foreign language overwhelming, particularly when faced with rote vocabulary lists and abstract grammar rules. But what if there was a better way—one that makes language learning feel natural, engaging, and accessible?

Enter Extensive Processing Instruction (E.P.I), an approach designed to streamline language acquisition by focusing on structured input, meaningful repetition, and fluency-first approaches. As part of her Master’s research at King’s College London, Kate Trafford conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of E.P.I in boosting student motivation and linguistic outcomes at the secondary level.

Her research findings confirm what many progressive language teachers have already discovered: E.P.I, has the potential to enhance MFL students’ motivation to learn languages. This blog post breaks down her key findings and explores why E.P.I has the potential to be successful.

Summary of Kate Trafford’s Research on Extensive Processing Instruction (E.P.I)

Here is a concise summary of Kate Trafford’s dissertation, highlighting the key findings and reasons why EPI was successful in secondary language teaching.

Title: An exploration of the potential of the pedagogical framework Extensive Processing Instruction (E.P.I) in secondary language teaching and learning to increase motivation and outcomes at GCSE level in England.
Institution: King’s College London
Author: Kate Trafford
Year: 2023

Background & Research Aim

Kate Trafford’s dissertation explores the Extensive Processing Instruction (E.P.I) framework, developed by Gianfranco Conti, as a solution to declining student engagement and performance in Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) at GCSE level in England. The study aims to assess the effectiveness of E.P.I in increasing motivation and linguistic outcomes. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research evaluates student motivation, language acquisition, and the overall impact of E.P.I compared to traditional grammar-translation methods.

Methodology

• Participants: 70 secondary school students (ages 11-16) from an independent school.
• Data Collection:
  • Online surveys to assess student attitudes towards E.P.I.
  • Focus groups to capture qualitative insights into learning experiences.
  • Analysis of student performance in a GCSE-style written assessment.

---

Key Findings

1. E.P.I Increases Motivation & Engagement

• Students found language learning more accessible and enjoyable under E.P.I than with traditional methods.
• Sentence Builders (SBs) played a significant role in reducing cognitive load, helping students engage with content in an organized and structured way.
• Gamification in the M.A.R.S E.A.R.S sequence (e.g., listening games, role-plays) increased participation and reduced learning anxiety.
• The use of English alongside target language helped students feel more confident, reducing fear of making mistakes.

2. E.P.I Improves Language Retention & Fluency

• Students retained vocabulary and grammar structures more effectively when learning through structured chunks rather than isolated words.
• Repetitive exposure through different modalities (listening, speaking, writing, reading) led to deeper language acquisition.
• Implicit grammar teaching—where students deduced patterns from chunks—led to better retention than explicit grammar drills.

3. Structured Approach Enhances Progression

• The step-by-step sequencing of E.P.I (M.A.R.S E.A.R.S) helped scaffold learning from comprehension to independent use.
• By focusing first on comprehensible input (listening & reading) before moving to structured output (writing & speaking), students developed greater fluency.
• Students reported higher confidence in spontaneous speaking compared to their experience with traditional grammar-focused methods.

4. Students Prefer Sentence Builders Over Vocab Lists

• SBs provided context, making it easier for students to understand sentence structure.
• The color-coding and categorization of words helped students grasp grammatical patterns without explicit rule memorization.
• Students trusted SBs as reliable tools, reducing dependence on translation apps.

---

Why E.P.I Was Successful

1. Cognitive Load Reduction

• Chunks of language, rather than isolated words, made learning more efficient.
• Listening-first approach gave students exposure before production, ensuring they had strong mental representations of language before using it.

2. Gamification & Low-Stakes Practice

• Interactive activities like bingo, sentence-building games, and scaffolded speaking tasks created a low-pressure environment where students felt comfortable experimenting with language.
• High repetition in different formats reinforced learning without monotony.

3. Prioritizing Communication Over Grammar

• Unlike traditional methods that overemphasize explicit grammar instruction, E.P.I gradually introduced grammar in context through structured input.
• Students became fluent first and then refined accuracy, making language use feel more natural.

4. Positive Student Perceptions

• The majority of students reported enjoying lessons more under E.P.I, with motivation increasing as they felt more successful in producing language.
• Self-efficacy played a key role—students who believed they could succeed were more willing to engage in speaking and writing tasks.

---

Conclusion

Kate Trafford’s research demonstrates that Extensive Processing Instruction (E.P.I) is a highly effective pedagogical approach for increasing motivation, engagement, and linguistic success in MFL classrooms. The structured yet flexible nature of E.P.I, which prioritizes fluency over isolated grammar accuracy, fosters a more inclusive and accessible language-learning experience.

The findings suggest that E.P.I should be considered as a viable alternative to traditional grammar-heavy instruction, particularly in the context of reversing the decline in MFL uptake at GCSE level. The study highlights the need for curriculum reform that integrates sentence builders, gamification, and communicative fluency-focused instruction into mainstream secondary school language teaching.