Introduction

The study of modern foreign languages in the UK has experienced a notable decline in recent decades, with German being particularly affected. Once a widely taught and respected subject, German has seen a sharp drop in student enrollment at both GCSE and A-level. Various interrelated factors contribute to this decline, including teacher shortages, policy changes, perceived difficulty, and limited opportunities for cultural immersion. This article explores the key reasons behind the decreasing popularity of German in UK high schools, drawing on research-backed evidence to highlight the challenges and potential solutions.

1. Significant Reduction in Student Enrollment

Over the past decade, there has been a notable decrease in students opting for German. For instance, A-level entries for German have almost halved, dropping from 3,999 in 2013 to 2,186 in recent years. Similarly, GCSE entries have declined from 36,933 in 2021 to 34,966 in 2023.
(Source: British Council, The Guardian)

2. Shortage of Qualified German Teachers

The diminishing number of students has led to a reduced demand for German teachers, resulting in a shortage of qualified educators. This scarcity is exacerbated by Brexit, which has led to many native German-speaking teachers leaving the UK.
(Source: The Guardian)

3. Policy Changes Impacting Language Learning

In 2004, the UK government removed the requirement for students to study a foreign language at GCSE level. This policy shift led to a significant decline in language learning, with German being particularly affected.
(Source: British Council, House of Commons Education Committee Report)

4. Perception of German as a Difficult Language

German is often perceived as more challenging compared to other languages like Spanish – the latter requires 600 hours of study to achieve fluency, whilst the former requires 750 (see note 1 below). This perception discourages students from choosing German, contributing to its decline.
(Source: Education Policy Institute)

5. Socioeconomic Disparities in Language Education

There is a growing social divide in language learning. While over half of private schools teach at least two languages in Key Stage 3, fewer than one in five state schools do the same. This disparity has disproportionately affected German, with state schools less likely to offer it compared to independent schools.
(Source: British Council, Language Trends Report 2024)

6. Limited Cultural and Educational Exchanges Post-Brexit

The UK’s withdrawal from the Erasmus+ program has reduced opportunities for cultural and educational exchanges with German-speaking countries, diminishing students’ exposure to the German language and culture.
(Source: The Guardian, British Council)

7. Overemphasis on Grammar in German Teaching

Research suggests that German teachers in the UK tend to prioritize grammar instruction over communicative skills, which can discourage students and make the language feel overly technical. A 2023 study found that many German teachers follow traditional grammar-focused methods, emphasizing rules and structure instead of real-world conversational skills. Similarly, L1 Research highlights that the study of grammar teaching methods in German is methodologically underdeveloped, leading to an excessive focus on grammar at the expense of communicative fluency. This approach can contribute to students perceiving German as too difficult and choosing other languages instead.

8. Perceived Lack of Practical Application

Students often question the real-world applicability of learning German, especially if they do not see immediate benefits or opportunities to use the language. This perceived lack of practicality can diminish motivation and interest in German lessons. Teachers can address this issue by integrating real-life scenarios such as role-playing activities in travel situations, or business settings. Encouraging interactions with German-speaking communities through virtual exchanges or guest speakers can enhance students’ exposure to authentic language use. Utilizing multimedia resources, including films, music, and podcasts, can make lessons more engaging and culturally relevant. Highlighting career opportunities and facilitating study abroad programs can also demonstrate the tangible benefits of learning German. By adopting a project-based learning approach and incorporating gamification elements, educators can create more interactive and meaningful learning experiences that emphasize practical language use. (Source: British Council, Education Endowment Foundation)

Conclusion

The decline of German as a foreign language in UK high schools is the result of multiple interwoven factors, including declining student enrollment, a shortage of qualified teachers, policy changes, and a perception of German as a difficult and impractical language. The lack of cultural exchange opportunities and an overemphasis on grammar-based instruction further contribute to student disengagement. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach, including curriculum reforms, enhanced teacher training, and initiatives to promote the cultural and practical benefits of learning German.

To make German more appealing, educators should prioritize gamification in lessons, incorporating interactive challenges, digital tools, and competitions that enhance engagement and motivation. Additionally, shifting the focus from rigid grammar accuracy to fluent communication through chunk-based learning—where students are taught phrases and expressions as functional units—can help develop confidence and spontaneity in speaking. By embedding these strategies into German language instruction, schools can foster a more dynamic and immersive learning environment that rekindles students’ interest in the language and ensures its continued presence in UK education.

Note 1: According to the US Foreign Service Institute, German takes about 750 hours due to cases, complex word order, and pronunciation.

References

• British Council. (2024). Language Trends England 2024 Report. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org
• The Guardian. (2023). German language learning in decline in UK schools. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com
• Education Policy Institute. (2023). The challenge of MFL education in UK schools. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org.uk
• Liviero (2023). Grammar-based teaching in MFL: The case of German in UK classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net
• L1 Research. (2023). Methodological challenges in grammar teaching for German learners. Retrieved from http://www.l1research.org
• Education Endowment Foundation. (2023). The impact of perceived usefulness on language learning motivation. Retrieved from http://www.educationendowmentfoundation.org
• House of Commons Education Committee. (2023). Modern foreign languages in secondary education. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.uk

Introduction

The retention crisis among Modern Foreign Language (MFL) teachers in the UK has become an increasingly pressing issue, with many educators leaving the profession due to a combination of systemic challenges. Research from 2023 and 2024 highlights multiple interrelated factors driving this exodus, ranging from recruitment shortages and high workload demands to the broader impact of Brexit on language education. Additionally, a decline in student engagement, limited professional development opportunities, and disparities in school resources further exacerbate the issue. Crucially, teacher self-efficacy—or a teacher’s confidence in their ability to deliver effective instruction—has also emerged as a significant factor influencing retention. Understanding these challenges in depth is essential for shaping policies that support MFL teachers and sustain language education in the UK.

1. Recruitment Challenges and Teacher Shortages

The under-recruitment of MFL teachers remains a significant issue in the UK. In the 2023/24 academic year, only 33% of the target number of MFL trainee teachers were recruited, leading to a severe shortage of qualified language educators (thebritishacademy.ac.uk, tes.com, nfer.ac.uk). This ongoing recruitment gap means that schools often struggle to fill MFL teaching positions, creating instability within language departments and increasing pressure on existing staff.

Moreover, approximately 60% of schools reported challenges in hiring qualified language teachers, with 33% of state schools describing it as a “major issue” (thebritishacademy.ac.uk, britishcouncil.org). The limited availability of trained MFL teachers puts strain on the profession, making workloads heavier and reducing the overall quality of language instruction.

2. Increased Workload and Stress

One of the most commonly cited reasons for teacher attrition in the UK is workload. Full-time secondary teachers in England reported working an average of 49.3 hours per week, well above the OECD average of 41 hours (commonslibrary.parliament.uk). This excessive workload includes lesson planning, marking, administrative tasks, and extracurricular responsibilities, leaving teachers with little time for rest or professional development.

A significant proportion of teachers also feel that their workload is unmanageable, contributing to job dissatisfaction and burnout (commonslibrary.parliament.uk). The pressure to meet targets, combined with increased scrutiny from school inspections and performance measures, further compounds stress levels. For MFL teachers, the added challenge of preparing lessons in a second language can make the job even more demanding.

3. Impact of Brexit

Brexit has had profound consequences on the recruitment and retention of MFL teachers in the UK. One of the most notable impacts has been the reduction in the pool of native speakers available to teach in UK schools. With the end of free movement, fewer language specialists from the EU are choosing to work in the UK, leading to an increased reliance on non-native teachers (edgwareassociates.com).

Additionally, Brexit has made international recruitment more difficult due to new visa requirements and reduced EU funding for education programs (tes.com). These barriers have contributed to teacher shortages and increased workload for existing staff, further discouraging new recruits from entering the profession.

4. Decline in Student Interest and Perceived Subject Difficulty

Another significant factor affecting MFL teacher retention is the decline in student interest in language learning. Many schools have reported decreasing enrollment in MFL subjects, partly due to the perception that languages are more difficult than other subjects and offer fewer career benefits (edgwareassociates.com). This declining interest can make MFL teachers feel undervalued and disconnected from their role, leading to frustration and job dissatisfaction.

Additionally, MFL subjects have been graded more harshly compared to other disciplines, discouraging students from pursuing them further (tes.com, nfer.ac.uk). This grading disparity has a knock-on effect on teachers, who may feel disheartened when their students struggle to achieve high marks despite their efforts.

5. Limited Professional Development and Support

Professional development opportunities play a crucial role in teacher retention, yet many MFL teachers in the UK report insufficient access to continued professional development (CPD) (britishcouncil.org). Without adequate CPD, teachers may struggle to keep up with new pedagogical approaches, language proficiency, and curriculum changes, leading to frustration and decreased job satisfaction.

Disparities in funding and resources between independent and state schools further contribute to the issue. Independent schools often have more resources for international exchange programs, language assistants, and immersive learning opportunities, whereas many state schools lack such support (thebritishacademy.ac.uk). This imbalance can leave MFL teachers in under-resourced schools feeling isolated and unsupported.

6. Low Teacher Self-Efficacy and Confidence

Recent research highlights low self-efficacy as a significant reason why MFL teachers leave the profession in the UK. Many early-career MFL teachers experience a lack of confidence in their teaching ability, particularly in managing classroom challenges and delivering effective language instruction (onlinelibrary.wiley.com). If not addressed, these initial struggles can contribute to early career departures from the profession.

Although some teachers report an increase in self-efficacy as they gain experience, those who continue to feel ineffective in their roles are more likely to leave teaching (onlinelibrary.wiley.com). Furthermore, teachers who perceive their own language proficiency as inadequate may struggle with self-doubt, reducing their motivation to continue in the profession (jltr.academypublication.com). Addressing self-efficacy through mentorship programs and professional development is crucial for improving teacher retention.

Conclusion

The ongoing challenges facing MFL teachers in the UK highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to improve recruitment, retention, and overall job satisfaction. Addressing workforce shortages requires increased incentives for teacher training, while tackling excessive workload and grading disparities can improve working conditions. Moreover, providing structured professional development and mentorship opportunities can help boost teachers’ self-efficacy, ultimately reducing burnout and attrition. As Brexit continues to limit the availability of native speakers in the UK, language education policies must adapt to support non-native teachers effectively. Without meaningful action, the decline in MFL teaching staff will continue to impact language learning in schools, limiting students’ access to multilingual education. By acknowledging these challenges and implementing supportive measures, the UK can work toward a more stable and resilient MFL teaching workforce.

Furthermore, the failure of initiatives such as the National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy (NCELP) and the National Consortium for Languages Education (NCLE) has made matters worse. These initiatives aimed to improve MFL teaching through evidence-based strategies and curriculum reform but have struggled to gain widespread implementation in schools. Many teachers have found NCELP’s approach restrictive, overly focused on grammar and translation at the expense of communicative fluency, making lessons less engaging for students. Similarly, the NCLE has failed to provide the necessary systemic support for language teachers, leaving many feeling unsupported and without adequate resources. The lack of tangible improvements from these initiatives has further exacerbated the retention crisis, contributing to teacher frustration and attrition.

Without meaningful action, the decline in MFL teaching staff will continue to impact language learning in schools, limiting students’ access to multilingual education. By acknowledging these challenges and implementing supportive measures, the UK can work toward a more stable and resilient MFL teaching workforce.

References

• The British Academy. (2023). Language Learning in Schools: Recruitment and Retention. Retrieved from thebritishacademy.ac.uk
• TES. (2023). Why MFL Teacher Shortages Are Increasing. Retrieved from tes.com
• NFER. (2024). Teacher Labour Market in England Annual Report. Retrieved from nfer.ac.uk
• British Council. (2023). The State of Language Education in the UK. Retrieved from britishcouncil.org
• House of Commons Library. (2023). Teachers’ Workload and Retention. Retrieved from commonslibrary.parliament.uk
• Edgware Associates. (2023). The Impact of Brexit on MFL Teaching. Retrieved from edgwareassociates.com
• Wiley Online Library. (2023). Self-Efficacy in MFL Teachers. Retrieved from onlinelibrary.wiley.com
• Journal of Language Teaching Research. (2024). The Role of Self-Efficacy in Teacher Retention. Retrieved from jltr.academypublication.com

Introduction

Teaching chunks in Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) has been extensively supported by research as more effective for developing fluency than traditional, isolated word-based methods. Learners consistently indicate that their primary goal in language learning is to communicate naturally and fluently (Chambers, 2007; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Given this priority, teaching lexical chunks—ready-made phrases, collocations, and sentence stems—is logical and pedagogically sound. Research by Pawley & Syder (1983) demonstrates clearly that fluent language users rely heavily on prefabricated chunks. Consequently, this article synthesizes robust research evidence highlighting why prioritizing chunks significantly enhances fluency.

---

Research Evidence Supporting Chunk-Based Learning

Below are eight key research studies highlighting the effectiveness of chunk-based teaching and their implications for teaching. The studies are summarised in Table 1, below.

1. Pawley & Syder (1983) – The Role of Formulaic Language in Fluency

Key Findings:

• Native speakers rely heavily on prefabricated lexical chunks instead of constructing sentences from scratch.
• The ability to retrieve ready-made expressions is a key factor in fluency and natural-sounding speech.
• Learners who focus on chunks reduce hesitation and improve their speaking speed.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Prioritizing frequently used phrases allows learners to develop more natural and confident speech.

2. Lewis (1993) – The Lexical Approach

Key Argument:

• Fluency is lexically driven, meaning that learners need multi-word chunks rather than isolated words.
• Instead of teaching grammar explicitly, learners should absorb grammatical structures through chunk exposure.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Teachers should focus on common phrases and collocations (e.g., “Je voudrais…” in French or “Me parece que…” in Spanish) rather than isolated words and grammar drills.

3. Nation (2001) – The Relationship Between Chunks and Comprehension

Key Evidence:

Learners who are familiar with frequent lexical chunks process spoken and written language more efficiently.

Using pre-learned phrases improves both listening and reading comprehension by reducing the need for word-by-word decoding.

 Implication for MFL Teaching: Teaching high-frequency expressions enhances both receptive (listening/reading) and productive (speaking/writing) skills.

4. Ellis (2002) – Implicit Learning and Statistical Learning

Key Findings:

• Learners pick up grammatical patterns naturally by repeatedly encountering chunks in context.
• The brain detects frequent structures in language, making chunk-based learning more effective than explicit grammar instruction.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Exposure to language input (e.g., conversations, texts, media) flooded with the same chunks helps learners internalize grammar implicitly.

5. Boers et al. (2006) – Comparing Chunk-Based Learning and Traditional Word Learning

Study Results:

Learners who were taught chunks rather than isolated words showed greater fluency and recall.

Those using chunks spoke more smoothly and accurately, while those who learned words individually struggled to construct sentences in real time.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Focusing on common phrases and set expressions accelerates fluency development.

6. Erman & Warren (2000) – The Role of Formulaic Language in Speech Efficiency

Key Findings:

• Between 50% and 80% of natural speech consists of formulaic chunks.
• Learners who use chunks are more fluent and efficient than those who rely on word-by-word sentence formation.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Teaching high-frequency expressions provides learners with a shortcut to fluency.

7. Conklin & Schmitt (2012) – The Cognitive Load Advantage of Chunks

Study Results:

• Learners recognize and process formulaic expressions faster than individual words.
• Using chunks reduces cognitive load, allowing for more natural speech production.

This finding aligns with Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988), which states that learners have limited working memory capacity. When learners are forced to construct sentences word by word, they overload their cognitive resources, leading to slower processing and less fluent speech. However, retrieving ready-made chunks bypasses this overload, enabling smoother and more efficient communication.

Implication for MFL Teaching: Teaching sentence stems, collocations, and fixed phrases reduces cognitive effort, freeing up mental capacity for higher-level language functions such as pronunciation, intonation, and spontaneity in conversation.

Table 1 – Summary of the above study findings and implications for teaching

Research Study	Main Findings	Implication for Chunk-Based Teaching
Pawley & Syder (1983)	Native speakers heavily use lexical chunks to speak fluently.	Prioritizing lexical chunks enhances speaking speed and reduces hesitation.
Lewis (1993)	Grammar is absorbed naturally through repeated chunk exposure.	Focus lessons on common phrases to intuitively develop grammatical accuracy.
Nation (2001)	Chunk familiarity greatly improves listening and reading efficiency.	Regular chunk teaching strengthens comprehension, facilitating communication.
Ellis (2002)	Grammatical structures can be implicitly acquired through chunk exposure.	Input ‘flooded’ with the target chunks supports implicit grammar learning.
Boers et al. (2006)	Chunk-based learners show greater fluency compared to word-by-word learners.	Teaching chunks enhances smooth speech and recall.
Erman & Warren (2000)	50–80% of spoken language consists of formulaic lexical chunks.	Teaching chunks provides practical shortcuts to fluent speech.
Conklin & Schmitt (2012)	Lexical chunks reduce cognitive load, boosting spontaneous fluency.	Chunks simplify processing, allowing learners to focus on pronunciation, intonation, and interaction.
Wray (2002)	Learners who use chunks produce language more efficiently, enhancing communicative success.	Chunk-based instruction significantly accelerates fluency acquisition.

Syntactic Priming: A Cognitive Explanation of Chunk Effectiveness

A key cognitive explanation supporting chunk-based instruction comes from research into syntactic priming. This phenomenon, identified in cognitive psychology by Bock (1986) and extensively studied by Pickering & Ferreira (2008), explains how exposure to certain sentence structures significantly increases the likelihood that learners will naturally reuse these structures in subsequent speech and writing. Thus, repeated exposure to chunks not only aids vocabulary retention but also actively primes learners to use the same grammatical patterns, effortlessly enhancing fluency and implicit grammar learning.

Additional Evidence: Peer-Testing

The effectiveness of chunk-based learning is further enhanced when combined with strategies like peer-testing, leveraging the protégé effect (Fiorella & Mayer, 2013). When learners teach chunks to their peers and carry out retrieval practice in pairs (testing each other), they consolidate their own understanding, improving retention and reinforcing fluency through active recall and explanation.

In EPI, gamified ‘Peer testing’ through oral retrieval practice activities features prominently in the pre-communicative phase of the Structured Production phase. In this post I suggest some of the many peer-testing activities you can stage.

Implications for teaching

Regularly providing students with language chunks primes them for fluent, accurate, and spontaneous language production. Flooding the input with the target chunks and providing tons of retrieval and communicative practice as we do in EPI, in order to obtain a lot of repeated processing (first through massed and subsequently through distributed practice), are two key instructional strategies to achieve fluency.

Teaching chunks should not exclude the explicit teaching of grammar. However, due to the above-described syntactic priming phenomenon, a lot of it will occur subsconsciously. This means that when you teach grammar after a series of chunk-teaching lessons involving modelling, receptive (listening and reading) and productive practice (speaking and writing), many of your students will have already noticed the most obvious structural patterns. And even if they haven’t, your explanation of the grammar underpinning the chunks (in lesson 5) will exact a much smaller cognitive load, as you will be reverse-engineering what they already know. For instance, after four Spanish lessons involving repeated processing – across all four language skills – of sentences where the adjective follows the noun (e.g. ‘Llevo una camiseta blanca’), it will be easier for your L1-English students to learn the underlying grammar rule.

Conclusion

Scientific research overwhelmingly confirms the superiority of chunk-based learning in developing fluency in Modern Foreign Languages. Evidence demonstrates that learners who prioritize lexical chunks:

• Speak more fluently with reduced hesitations.
• Rapidly comprehend spoken and written language.
• Acquire grammatical structures intuitively without excessive explicit grammar instruction.
• Benefit cognitively by experiencing lower mental effort, facilitating fluent, natural communication.

However, emphasizing chunk-based teaching does not imply writing off explicit grammar instruction. On the contrary, explicit grammar teaching remains a valuable component of language learning. While chunks naturally facilitate implicit grammar acquisition through repeated exposure, explicit grammar instruction can reinforce understanding, accuracy, and conscious language use. Thus, teaching chunks complements rather than replaces grammar teaching, offering learners a comprehensive and balanced learning experience. Those of you who may be concerned with whether prioritising fluency over grammar can significantly affect your students’ chances of obtaining a high grade at the new GCSE can rest assured that it is not necessarily going to be the case (read this post on the issue) – but remember: I am not suggesting you shouldn’t teach grammar!

In my methodology, Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI), chunk-based instruction provides the foundation for language acquisition, while explicit grammar teaching is seamlessly integrated throughout. EPI employs the comprehensive MARSEARS model (Modelling, Awareness-raising, Receptive processing, Structured production, Expansion, Autonomy, Routinely revisiting, Spontaneity), where grammar instruction can potentially permeate every stage both implicitly and explicitly. This approach is particularly beneficial for learners who enjoy explicit grammar instruction or exhibit aptitude in linguistic analysis. Thus, EPI allows educators to tailor instruction effectively, offering both implicit grammar exposure through chunks and explicit grammar teaching to meet diverse learner preferences.

Ultimately, chunk-based teaching—supported cognitively by the principles of syntactic priming and practically by peer-testing—provides an evidence-based foundation for achieving fluency. EPI and MARSEARS further offer a balanced framework, integrating implicit and explicit grammar instruction effectively, ensuring learners develop fluency, accuracy, and confidence simultaneously for sustained and meaningful language proficiency.

References

• Agarwal, P. K., Bain, P. M., & Chamberlain, R. W. (2012).
  The value of applied research: Retrieval practice improves classroom learning and recommendations from a teacher, a principal, and a scientist. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 437–448.
• Bock, K. (1986).
  Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.
• Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006).
  Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a Lexical Approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261.
• Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012).
  Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–110.
• Chambers, G. N. (2007).
  Motivating language learners. Multilingual Matters.
• Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012).
  The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011).
  Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• 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.
• Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000).
  The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text & Talk, 20(1), 29–62.
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013).
  The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281–288.
• Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008).
  The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968.
• Lewis, M. (1993).
  The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Language Teaching Publications.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2001).
  Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2013).
  Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983).
  Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). Longman.
• Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008).
  Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459.
• Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006).
  Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
• Schmitt, N. (2008).
  Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363.
• Sweller, J. (1988).
  Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
• Wray, A. (2002).
  Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Designing a Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) curriculum is a complex process that requires careful planning and consideration. However, many curriculum designers fall into common pitfalls that hinder effective language learning.

Below are some of the most frequent errors I have identified over the last ten years of curriculum consultancy, during which I helped over 700 schools enhance their curriculum provision.

For those of you who would like to further their knowledge and understanding of the issues below by consulting the relevant literature, I have added references at the bottom of this article. You may, of course also attend my workshops, which you can find here: www.networkforlearning.org.uk in which I address every single one of the problem areas below.

Key shortcomings in Curriculum Design

1. Lack of Consideration of the Specific Lacks, Wants, and Necessities of Learners

This is one of the most common mistakes and a very serious one. We know that the more aligned a curriculum is with the lacks, wants and necessities of our students, the more likely it is to succeed (Nation and Macalister, 2010). Relevance to the learners is one of the key predictors of a language curriculum’s success (Taylor and Marsden, 2012).

Sadly, in my experience, curriculum design often fails to account for the diverse needs of learners, resulting in a one-size-fits-all approach that does not address their specific linguistic goals. Language learners come with varying levels of prior knowledge, different motivations, and unique learning preferences. When these factors are ignored, the curriculum may be either too advanced or too simplistic, leading to disengagement and frustration (Brown, 2009).

This is very common in many schools I visit, especially those which:

(1) base their curriculum on a textbook. Textbooks are not designed with the specific needs of your learners in mind, especially if your children are from a lower socio-economic stature and/or a diverse religious and ethnic background

(2) belong to a government, trust (e.g. UK) or other organization where there is a centralised curriculum

Example: within the same U.K. academies trust, the latter bases its centralised curriculum on the schemes of learning of a school in a predominantly ‘white’, fairly affluent area, even though many schools are located in very diverse, underprivileged areas.

Solution: Conduct a needs analysis through surveys, interviews, and proficiency tests to determine learners’ goals and requirements (Graves, 2000). If you are in secondary, liaise with the primary feeder schools in your area to find out as much as possible about your future year 7 students. Try to make the content of your curriculum as relevant to the students as possible based on your findings. In schools I worked at, we would ask the students through a Google form or classroom discussions, ahead of teaching a unit, what words they were interested in learning on a given topic or what scenario they would like to learn the new topic in (e.g. in the topic of talking about the recent past, my students on one occasion chose ‘An outing to a cinema’ and ‘A birthday party I went to’ over other options). If your students are from a lower socio-economic status and/or have low literacy levels, teaching a grammar-rich curriculum may not be a good idea. If your students’ levels of motivation to learn languages are historically low, what can you do to ignite their motivation? You may need to include more gamification; scaffold instruction more carefully and prioritize oracy. If they come from an area where xenophobic attitudes are rife, you may need to dispel negative stereotypes about the target-language country through a number of curricular and extracurricular initiatives. If your students are not generally good at retaining information how can your address that through your short-, medium- and long-term planning? You may have to strip down your curriculum of the superfluous and multiply the recycling opportunities. If you have the stomach, do create your own booklet tailor-made for your student population, rather than work from a textbook. Many schools in the UK are doing this very successfully.

2. Lack of Consideration of the Learning Context

A curriculum that does not align with the learning environment often fails to be effective. The resources available, the frequency of instruction, the socio-economic status of your students, the mission and core values of your school, the national curriculum, the classroom space available, the cultural background of the learners, the colleagues you work with, the language you are teaching etc. all influence how well your students can acquire a new language. A curriculum designed for an immersive setting may not work well in a setting with limited exposure to the target language, leading to unrealistic expectations (Nation & Macalister, 2010).

Example: A curriculum based on grammar-translation designed for an expensive private school in Switzerland with highly motivated and well-behaved upper middle-class children, may not work as well in a deprived inner-city area school in London with serious behavioural challenges.

Solution: conduct a thorough SWOT analysis of the hurdles to successful learning in your environment. Consider the top five factors that work against you and ask yourself: does your curriculum actually tackle those issues? E.g: if, historically, motivation is low, has your curriculum been designed with an eye to be as engaging, relevant and self-efficacy building as possible? If your students only see you one hour a week, are you sure that you can sustain the pace dictated by the textbook? If not, what are you going to prioritise? How are you going to recycle it? With what frequency ? As far as the language being taught is concerned, let me point out another very common mistake: the ‘translation’ of a curriculum from one language into another with identical or near-identical objectives, outcomes and pace. This is not a massive mistake when one is adapting a Spanish curriculum to Italian. It is, however, a serious mistake when one demands that L2 learners of Mandarin or Russian achieve in one term what learners of French or Spanish do. Sadly, I have seen this play out quite a few times in Academy Trusts around the UK.

3. Too Many Objectives

This is another very common and serious issue which I observe in nearly every single school I visit. As Confucious one said, if one runs after too many chickens, one will catch none. With only a couple of hours’ contact time a week, one needs to be realistic and prioritize what is more and less important for the learners.

Overburdening a curriculum with too many learning objectives can result in rushing through content which in turn will likely cause cognitive overload, where learners struggle to retain and apply new information. A curriculum that attempts to cover too much within a short time often sacrifices depth for breadth, leaving students with fragmented knowledge that lacks real-world applicability (Richards, 2001).

Example: A course that tries to cover all the grammar content in a typical Pearson or OUP textbook in one year may lead to students memorizing rules but failing to apply them in spontaneous conversation or writing.

Solution: Prioritize key competencies and distribute learning objectives across different stages of the course. Focus on high-frequency structures first and reinforce them before moving on to more complex grammar. Implement mastery-based progression, ensuring students have grasped a concept before moving on. Use spaced repetition techniques to reinforce previously learned concepts.

4. Fuzzy Goals

This is the most serious error of all. As Nation and Macalister’s (2010) model below (Figure 0) shows, goals sit right at the heart of the curriculum design process. Hence, they need to be as laser-focused as possible, as unclear learning objectives make it difficult for students and teachers to track progress effectively. Goals that lack specificity often lead to instructional inconsistencies, where teachers may interpret and teach content differently. This can result in learners missing critical skills necessary for their language development (Dörnyei, 2005).

Figure 0 – Nation and Macalister’s (2010) model of curriculum design. The curriculum goals sit at the centre of the curriculum design process and are informed by principals, learner needs and the learning environment.

Look at the learning objective and outcomes you currently set in your department for each of the four skills for each and every term: are they detailed enough for anyone reading them to have a very clear and thorough understanding of what a child is expected to know and do, from the vocabulary, grammar, phonics, intercultural skills and learning strategies they need to master, to the tasks in which they are expected to use them? Is it explicitly stated whether the learning of a specific grammar point will reach the level of awareness, intermediate mastery, deep mastery or automaticity? If not, how will Ms Roberts know to what extent Mr Jones’ students now in her year 10 class have acquired the core grammar taught from year 7 to 9?

Example: ‘By the end of year seven, an average student at XXX School is expected to be able to understand the gist of AURAL and WRITTEN texts, containing familiar and unfamiliar language’ is a vague outcome. Compare it with the statement in Figure 1 below

Figure 1: Example of a well-articulated learning outcome

Solution: Use SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) objectives. Ensure that the way your articulate your objectives and outcomes is as laser-focused, detailed and clear as humanly possible.

5. Imbalance of the Four Strands

A well-balanced MFL curriculum should equally address understanding meaning, communicating meaning, focus on form (grammar and phonics), and fluency. Many curricula have the following deficits in this area:

(1) they disproportionately focus on grammar drills or rote vocabulary memorization while neglecting communicative competence, resulting in learners who can understand written text but struggle to speak or listen effectively (Nation, 2007).

(2) they do not include a solid fluency strand, which means that the core vocabulary and grammar is not learnt to a level of automaticity which makes its retention durable and its availability in the aural/oral skills possible.

(3) listening, the most challenging skill, especial in the GCSE and A-Level exams, is not practised sufficiently

Example: Students who can conjugate verbs in writing but hesitate to form basic spoken sentences.

Solution: Ensure lessons integrate listening, speaking, reading, and writing while maintaining an equal focus on meaning, form, and fluency. Design activities such as role-plays, interactive listening tasks, and communicative writing exercises to promote holistic language development. Use task-based learning to encourage real-world language use.

Figure 2 – Paul Nation’s four strands

6. Inadequate Integration of vocabulary, grammar and phonics

When vocabulary, grammar, and phonics are taught in isolation rather than in context, learners struggle to apply their knowledge not only in real-world scenarios but also in exams where they are required to perform under great pressure (especially in listening and speaking). For instance, students may learn a set of vocabulary but fail to use them in grammatically correct sentences, leading to poor practical language use (Ellis, 2008) or they may learner grammar rules without using them with a substantive range of vocabulary.

Quite a few schools I have collaborated with recently were making the mistakes of teaching towards the new GCSE treating Vocabulary, Grammar and Phonics as three self-standing entities. This is becoming quite common due to the new English GCSE, where teachers feel their students need to memorize the mandated word lists in order to pass the exam. However, such words must be learned in context and across all four language skills in order to be useful on the day of the exam!

Figure 3: Integration of Vocabulary, Grammar and SSC (phonics) within the MARS EARS sequence

Example: A student learns vocabulary in a list but cannot use them correctly when forming sentences in conversation.

Solution: The best way to integrate Vocabulary, Grammar and Phonics is by designing input-to-output sequences in which these three ‘pillars of progression’ are modelled and practised in context across all four language skills in a scaffolded fashion (e.g. the MARSEARS and the PIRCO sequences)

Figure 4 – The PIRCO sequence is the input-to-output sequence adopted in EPI at KS4 (14 to 16 year olds).

7. Random Selection of Grammar and Vocabulary

The selection of grammar and vocabulary should not be random as it might

(1) fail to generate motivation to learn (relevance being key in this regard)

(2) dent learner self-efficacy (by being beyond the current grasp of the learners)

(3) have little surrender value

Solution: select language items which are likely to generate interest on the learners’ part (the principle of relevance); also select high-frequency items (remember that the top 2,000 words in a language give access to 85% of any generic text); finally, consider learnability issues (see point 8 below).

8. Selection of Grammar Without Considering Developmental Readiness

Selecting grammatical structures and vocabulary without a logical sequence can hinder students’ ability to build upon previously learned content. If learners encounter advanced structures before they have mastered basic ones, they may become confused and demotivated (Pienemann, 1998). This point refer to the issue of learnability (see this post), e.g.: are my L2-French learners ready in year 8 to learn the full conjugation of the perfect tense in ETRE or Reflexive verbs? Most likely no because they often cannot even conjugate the present tense of ETRE and have not mastered the basic rules of agreement (in spontaneous production at least).

Example: Teaching conditional sentences before students have fully grasped past and present tenses.

Solution: Follow a logical sequence based on frequency of use and communicative necessity. Implement structured syllabus planning where new grammar and vocabulary items build progressively upon previously learned concepts. Consider the factors (e.g. cognitive load, L1 negative transfer, element interactivity) which make the learning of a grammar structure challenging.

9. Insufficient Scaffolding

This is the second most serious mistake of all: without adequate scaffolding, students become overwhelmed and lack the confidence to engage with the language meaningfully. Effective scaffolding gradually reduces support as learners gain proficiency (Vygotsky, 1978). This means that every phase in an instructional sequence that moves from modelling to receptive practice and from the latter to production, needs to build on the previous one following the formula: ‘what the learners know + 1‘.

Sadly, most textbooks do not do this; in a two-page sub-unit, they cover the same vocabulary across all four language skills with zero scaffolding! Since many MFL departments base their schemes of learning on textbooks operating this way, it is not surprising that many language learners lose motivation by the end of the first year of language learning.

Solution: Make sure that you design instructional sequences with an intensive modelling and receptive phase first. With beginners, you should devote one or more lessons entirely to listening and reading in order to first establish solid receptive knowledge. Go to production only when you feel the students are ready, scaffolding speaking and writing adequately starting with highly structured tasks and gradually moving to freer ones. You do not have to cover all four language skills; in many cases such practice does more harm than good.

10. Content Overload and Inadequate Recycling

This is possibly the third most serious mistake I encounter in my curriculum consultancy work. When too much content is covered we create at best surface-level learning rather than deep mastery. Vocabulary requires masses of recycling in order to be acquired and most information we learn (around 67%) is lost after one day from initial learning. Also, since memory is context-specific (the TAP phenomenon), vocabulary needs to be recycled across as many contexts as possible in order to be truly useful and as multimodally as possible.

There are serious misconceptions about the amount of recycling required in order to learn a word amongst many language educators in the UK. Not long ago I watched a video-recorded session of a CPD session on curriculum design at a Teacher Talk Radio event in Manchester delivered by a seasoned MFL consultant, in which she asserted that learning a word requires six repetitions/encounters. Truth is: students may need 40 meaningful encounters at least across all four language skills, at least 7 to 10 through reading, 10 to 16 through listening, about 20 to 40 through the oral and written media. If a veteran consultant – who incidentally also happens to be a school inspector and a former principal – believes that all you need in order to learn a word is six repetitions…

Figure 5: the Ebbinghaus curve illustrates how fast the brain forgets newly-learnt information. The rate is likely to be higher when it comes to more complex grammar structures

Example: the books Vivo, Studio and Dynamo cover way too much grammar for students at that level of proficiency to master deeply enough for them to retain it durably and provide insufficient recycling, especially through listening and speaking, where 10-15 and 20-40 encounters are required, respectively for learning.

Solution: Plan for at least 40 encounters across all four language skills in the first instructional sequence devoted to a set of new language items, then revisit and review said items following a well-planned schedule over the weeks and months to come, gradually spacing out retrieval episodes.

11. Assessment Overload and Overreliance on Summative Assessment

Too many assessments can lead to test fatigue and stress while taking away valuable instructional time. Over-assessment often results in a focus on test performance rather than meaningful learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

When assessment is focused primarily on summative tests, students miss opportunities for ongoing feedback that supports learning. Summative assessment alone does not provide insights into students’ progress throughout the course (Harlen, 2007). Summative assessments, especially high-stake ones at the end of term, can be particulalry harmful with less able and motivated younger learners, who are the ones we want to include and win over!

Example: A curriculum that requires students to take weekly grammar tests, oral exams, and written essays, leaving little time for communicative practice.

Solution: Reduce summative assessment to the minimum and increase the amount of regular low-stake formative checks using mini whiteboards (e.g. quickfire translations or Q &As); through observations of student pairwork; surveys; self-reflection journals and peer assessments. Reduce high-stakes exams and incorporate more diverse and meaningful forms of assessment that measure language use in real-life situations.

13. Lack of Systematic Curriculum Evaluation

A curriculum that is not periodically reviewed and updated may become ineffective over time. Without evaluation, instructional gaps may persist, and best practices may not be incorporated (Richards, 2017). The data obtained through regular summative and formative assessment are useful but not sufficient.

Example: A common phenomenon I observe in the schools I work with is the fact that the students need to be re-taught in year 10 (4th year of secondary education in the UK) many of the fundamental grammar structures already taught in the previous years. It is obvious that if that is the case for several years running, that there is something majorly wrong with the curriculum that needs to be addressed.

Solution: Conduct regular feedback sessions with teachers and students, analyze performance data, and update the curriculum accordingly. Ensure that curriculum changes reflect new research findings and evolving language learning needs. You should ideally do a formal curriculum evaluation at the end of each term if you are introducing a new curriculum plan, where you triangulate various sources of data, e.g. student voices; test results; teacher feedback; students’ output in books and portfolios.

14. Lack of Intentional Design for Learner Self-Efficacy

Learner self-efficacy or can-do attitude plays a crucial role in motivation and language acquisition. In fact, according to Oxford Univeristy’s professor Macaro, it is the strongest predictor of language learning success (Macaro, 2007). If a curriculum does not build self-efficacy, the learners will disengage from the learning process (Bandura, 1997).

Many of the issues I have pointed out so far, especially inadequate scaffolding, content overload, poor recycling, selecting content the students are not developmentaly ready for and over-assessment undermine student self-efficacy.

Example: engaging your students with an aural text which is well below the 95% comprehensibility threshold without a substantive pre-listening phase familiarising it with the unknown vocabulary

Solution: since self-efficacy is the strongest predictor of language learning success, try to design a curriculum which puts the development of learner self-efficacy first. Imagine a curriculum where your main preoccupation is ensuring that the vast majority of your students develop a strong belief that they can indeed master the target language. Would such a curriculum look different from the one you are currently teaching? At the end of each term, administer a survey to find out how self-efficacious your students feel.

Figure 6 – in 2015 The Guardian reported the results of a survey as to why language learners drop languages at GCSE. The data clearly point to a self-efficacy deficit

15. The MFL team does not share a common set of pedagogical principles

Very rarely have I come across an MFL department where the team shared a common set of non-negotiables pedagogical principles. How can teaching be consistent across a Dept without a common set of principles?

Solution: adopt a set of evidence-based principles which, whilst being non-negotiables, do not stifle teacher creativity. See the ones in the table below, from Smith and Conti (2023)

Figure 7

Principles of effective curriculum design

Figure 8 below, lists 15 evidence-based principles for effective curriculum design, based on my review of the relevant literature. With your current language curriculum in mind, which areas do you believe you need to address? Which ones are the top 3 that you may need to prioritize?

Figure 8 – Curriculum Design principles

Conclusions

Designing an effective MFL curriculum requires careful planning, evidence-based approaches, and continuous evaluation. The pitfalls outlined above can significantly impact language acquisition and student engagement, leading to frustration and poor retention of material. By addressing these common errors, educators can create a curriculum that fosters meaningful communication, encourages engagement, and ensures long-term retention of language skills.

A well-designed curriculum should balance linguistic skills, integrate key learning strands, scaffold learning effectively, and focus on the needs of the learners. In addition, formative assessments and continuous reflection should be embedded into the learning process to support student progress.

Ultimately, a successful MFL curriculum is one that prioritizes accessibility, motivation, and real-world applicability. By systematically addressing these common issues, educators can ensure that students not only learn a language but also develop the confidence and fluency necessary for real-world communication.

By addressing these common errors, MFL curriculum designers can create more effective, engaging, and supportive language-learning experiences that lead to real proficiency and long-term retention.

References

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
• Brown, H. D. (2009). Principles of language learning and teaching. Pearson Education.
• Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge University Press.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
• Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Heinle & Heinle.
• Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of learning. Sage.
• Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1-12.
• Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. John Benjamins.
• Richards, J. C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.