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.