Introduction

In schools across the UK, curriculum leads and heads of department often find themselves asking:

“Why is it so hard to get teachers to change how they teach languages—even when the evidence points clearly to better alternatives?”

It’s a question that cuts to the heart of language education reform. But the difficulty isn’t rooted in unwillingness or apathy. The real reasons are far more complex—bound up in workload, identity, habits, inspection culture, and the invisible weight of a system that too often values compliance over curiosity (see Ball, 2003; Priestley et al., 2015).

When we look more closely at language teachers’ lived reality, it becomes clear that most resistance isn’t about not wanting to improve—it’s about the conditions that make meaningful change feel impractical, unsafe, or even demoralising (Fullan, 2007).

1. Language teachers are overwhelmed

In MFL departments, the workload is intense and often undervalued. Teachers juggle planning across multiple year groups and exam tiers, manage classes with wildly mixed prior attainment, and teach students who may arrive with minimal motivation or literacy support. Add to that the constant churn of curriculum reform, pressure to use the target language, and the simultaneous teaching of multiple skills, and you have a role already stretched to breaking point.

In this environment, change—even positive, research-informed change—can feel like another burden. As Hargreaves (1994) argues, reform efforts often fail not because teachers are change-resistant, but because reforms ignore the real pressures of day-to-day teaching.

2. The emotional cost of change

MFL teachers often build their practice through years of trial and error. Many rely on routines—translation starters, textbook sequences, grammar gap-fills—because these help manage behaviour and keep lessons running in challenging conditions. Asking teachers to swap these for sentence builders, interactive listening games, retrieval tasks or more adventurous infomation-gap activities can feel like asking them to relinquish strategies that once secured order.

This emotional dimension of teaching is well documented. Kelchtermans (2005) notes that pedagogical change is not just a technical shift but a disruption to a teacher’s professional identity. What’s at stake isn’t just a method—it’s a sense of competence, control, and personal history.

3. Fear of failure in a live, complex classroom

Languages are live performance subjects. Teachers must model speech, correct pronunciation, manage spontaneous responses, and keep energy levels high. If a new method—say, shifting from grammar instruction to communicative modelling—fails, the lesson can collapse.

This fear is compounded by MFL’s marginalised status in many schools. As noted by Pachler & Redondo (2014), the subject often lacks cultural capital among students and leadership. In such a fragile ecology, teachers feel they can’t risk a flop. As Lortie (1975) famously observed, teaching is inherently conservative because the cost of experimentation is high.

4. Initiative fatigue and disillusionment

Language departments have lived through it all: compulsory TL use, CLIL, triple marking, VAK theory, knowledge organisers. Many teachers have survived five or six waves of reform. So when a colleague suggests abandoning the textbook for EPI or task-based learning, the knee-jerk response is often scepticism—less because of the idea’s merits, more because of past disappointments.

This phenomenon, described by Datnow & Castellano (2000) as “reform weariness,” reflects a professional culture bruised by waves of transient initiatives that lacked follow-through or meaningful support.

5. The CPD problem in MFL

Too much CPD for MFL teachers is generic and abstract. Whole-school sessions on growth mindset don’t translate into better Year 9 French. Even when CPD is subject-specific, it’s often overly theoretical—e.g., a session on cognitive load theory without time to apply it.

Research supports this frustration. Cordingley et al. (2015) found that CPD is only effective when it is sustained, subject-specific, and includes opportunities for collaborative planning and classroom experimentation. Language teachers need space to rehearse strategies, co-construct resources, and see each other teach—not just be told what works.

6. Cultural inertia and departmental conformity

In many MFL teams, especially under pressure, a culture of conformity takes root. Teachers follow the SoW, use the prescribed textbook, test regularly, and rarely deviate. Trying something new, especially alone, can feel isolating.

This type of ‘cultural script’ (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999) powerfully shapes behaviour: what the group does becomes what’s seen as normal, safe, and acceptable. Teachers may privately disagree with current practice, but fear inconsistency, scrutiny, or being seen as ‘difficult.’

7. Systemic pressures work against innovation

The system rewards the visible and quantifiable: neat books, finished knowledge organisers, progress in 20-minute learning walks, rising data points. But the best MFL pedagogy—dialogic modelling, scaffolded speaking, lexical recycling—often doesn’t show up clearly in these snapshots.

As Biesta (2009) warns, an obsession with measurable outcomes risks sidelining what really matters: meaning-making, autonomy, and deep learning. Teachers thus face a painful trade-off: satisfy accountability or serve pedagogy.

8. Ofsted’s implicit syllabus rewards conformity

A serious block to innovation is Ofsted’s implicit preference for highly structured, linear, grammar-heavy curricula. Departments using alternative approaches—spiralled grammar, task-based learning, or lexicogrammatical recycling—risk being judged as lacking clear progression, even when learners demonstrate fluency, accuracy, and confidence.

This misalignment between what works and what’s rewarded has been criticised by scholars like Mitchell (2022) and highlighted in recent debates about the narrowing effect of inspection frameworks. As Sherrington (2020) notes, performative pressures can stifle innovation by rewarding surface-level compliance over substance.

What actually helps

Changing the status quo in an MFL department requires more than enthusiasm and evidence—it demands a carefully scaffolded, relational, and strategic approach. Below is a stepped, research-informed pathway for initiating and embedding sustainable change in a Modern Foreign Languages department:

1. Build Trust and Psychological Safety First

• Cultivate a department culture where experimentation is safe and mistakes are seen as part of growth.
• Avoid top-down imposition—change should feel collaborative, not mandated (Kelchtermans, 2005; Fullan, 2007).

2. Diagnose Before Prescribing

• Conduct low-stakes professional dialogue: “What’s working for us? What’s not?”
• Use teacher voice, student work, and classroom observations to understand current practice before proposing alternatives.
• Use student voice if you are sure that the students are not happy with the current way language are taught. In settings where I have worked, this has provided a strong and effective rationale for change.

3. Share the Why, Not Just the What

• Ground the change in clear, research-informed rationales (e.g., why retrieval beats re-teaching, why input matters more than output early on).
• Use real student data, quotes, or examples to bring the evidence alive and make it feel relevant (Cordingley et al., 2015).

4. Start Small, Prototype Publicly

• Pilot one change (e.g., sentence builders, oral fluency grids, or retrieval starters) with one year group or one class.
• Encourage teachers to share what worked and what didn’t in a non-judgemental forum.

5. Model, Don’t Just Explain

• Demonstrate the strategy live or through video: “Here’s how I do this retrieval routine.”
• Break it down with scripting or worked examples—not just theory (Sherrington, 2020).

6. Co-construct Resources Together

• Build materials as a team—sentence builders, speaking games, retrieval practice tasks, task sequences. Start by sharing your resources, especially the ones that have worked very well with your own students
• This fosters ownership and deepens professional understanding through the process of creation

7. Create Regular, Low-Stakes Reflection Loops

• Hold short, structured debriefs: “What did we try this week? What did we notice?”
• Use a reflective log, shared Padlet, or brief oral check-ins to keep momentum.

8. Leverage In-House Champions

• Identify early adopters or confident practitioners and let them lead mini-demonstrations or clinics.
• Peer-to-peer credibility often trumps external CPD in changing practice.

9. Celebrate Progress Publicly

• Showcase examples of success in departmental meetings, newsletters, or CPD slots.
• Acknowledge even small wins: “This tweak helped 8Y speak for longer!”

10. Align with Whole-School Structures Where Possible

• Tie in with curriculum intent statements, appraisal targets, or whole-school literacy to avoid friction.
• Show that innovation can coexist with compliance—not oppose it.

11. Offer Ongoing, Contextualised CPD

• Avoid one-off sessions. Provide sustained time for trial, feedback, and revision.
• Prioritise live coaching, team teaching, and joint planning over slide decks (Cordingley et al., 2015; Joyce & Showers, 2002).

12. Revisit and Recalibrate

• After a term or two, pause to ask: What’s embedding? What’s drifting? Why?
• Use this review to adjust and deepen the change, not abandon it

Conclusion

Changing language teaching practice isn’t just a matter of better training or clearer evidence. It means addressing the deep-rooted structural, emotional, cultural, and systemic barriers that make change feel risky or futile.

If we want teachers to embrace new, research-informed methods, we need to create conditions where risk-taking is safe, support is practical, identity is respected, and innovation is genuinely rewarded. That won’t come from one-off CPD sessions or top-down mandates. It will come from courageous leadership, patient iteration, and communities of practice that put professional growth above performative metrics.

References

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.
→ On how accountability cultures shape teachers’ behaviours and choices.

Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Isham, C., Evans, D., & Firth, A. (2015). Developing Great Teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust.
→ A key review highlighting that CPD must be subject-specific, sustained, and collaborative.

Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799.
→ On “reform fatigue” and why teachers resist new initiatives after repeated failures.

Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). Routledge.
→ Classic reference on how change depends on the interplay of systemic, personal, and cultural forces.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. Cassell.
→ Explores why teachers’ practices are shaped by deeply embedded professional and institutional norms.

Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 995–1006.
→ Explains how change can threaten a teacher’s sense of identity and competence.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. University of Chicago Press.
→ Seminal work explaining the conservative nature of teaching as a profession.

Mitchell, R. (2022). Grammar teaching in modern foreign languages: Back to the future? In Pachler, N. & Redondo, A. (Eds.), Teaching Modern Foreign Languages in Secondary Schools (2nd ed.). Routledge.
→ Addresses tensions in current UK curriculum frameworks and grammar-heavy approaches.

Pachler, N., & Redondo, A. (2014). A Practical Guide to Teaching Foreign Languages in the Secondary School. Routledge.
→ Discusses marginalisation of MFL in schools and challenges in classroom practice.

Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury.
→ Frames teacher resistance and change through the lens of professional autonomy and context.

Sherrington, T. (2020). The learning rainforest fieldbook. John Catt Educational.
→ Explores the dangers of performativity and the importance of pedagogical substance over style.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. Free Press.
→ Describes how implicit teaching cultures shape what teachers do and don’t do in classrooms.

Phonics instruction is a hotly debated topic in the realm of language education. While it is well-established in first language (L1) literacy programmes, its role in second language (L2) acquisition remains less clear. Yet recent policy developments are making this debate increasingly urgent: phonics teaching is mandated by the current National Curriculum in England, and from 2026, the new GCSE Modern Foreign Languages specification will include a reading aloud component. This new emphasis places decoding—and with it, phonics—at the heart of formal language assessment for the first time in decades.

Before diving into the research, it’s important to clarify a key distinction: phonics involves the explicit teaching of the relationships between graphemes (letters) and phonemes (sounds), often through systematic decoding instruction. Phonological awareness, on the other hand, refers to a broader, more implicit sensitivity to the sound structure of language, including the ability to segment and manipulate sounds in spoken words. While related, these are not interchangeable. A learner might have phonological awareness (e.g., being able to hear that “bat” and “cat” rhyme) without being able to decode those words in print—a gap that phonics instruction specifically addresses.

One study of particular interest is Erler’s (2014) research on adolescent MFL learners in the UK, which identified a high prevalence of phonological dyslexia-like symptoms. Her participants displayed poor grapheme-phoneme awareness, inaccurate decoding of unfamiliar words, and difficulty retaining new vocabulary encountered in print. Crucially, Erler found that many of these learners lacked the foundational phonological processing skills that underpin effective phonics application, leading to a cycle of reading avoidance and vocabulary stagnation. This is especially problematic in contexts where vocabulary is primarily acquired through reading.

Additionally, although many students appear to be reading silently, they are typically subvocalising—mentally ‘sounding out’ the words. Without secure decoding skills, this internal voicing can become distorted or erroneous, undermining both comprehension and vocabulary retention.

Moreover, reading aloud plays a pivotal role in second language acquisition. It reinforces grapheme-phoneme correspondence, strengthens pronunciation, and improves oral fluency. Research into oral passage fluency (e.g., Rasinski, 2004) has shown that repeated reading aloud enhances not only decoding accuracy and speed, but also prosody—intonation, rhythm, and phrasing—which are essential for natural and fluent language use. There is also evidence that oral fluency improvements feed back into silent reading fluency by automating decoding, which frees up cognitive resources for comprehension and inference-making. For many L2 learners, reading aloud thus offers a vital bridge between passive recognition and confident, fluent use.

In this post, I synthesise key findings from recent studies, highlight their outcomes, and propose a practical instructional framework grounded in the research.

What Does the Research Say About Explicit Phonics Instruction?

Study & Authors	Key Findings	Outcomes	Strength	Weakness
Dennis Murphy Odo (2021)	Meta-analysis of 46 studies with 3,841 L2 learners found moderate effects on word reading (g = 0.53) and strong effects on pseudoword reading (g = 1.51).	Phonics significantly improves decoding, especially of novel words.	Comprehensive data set across contexts.	Heterogeneity in study designs and populations.
Yeh & Connell (2014) – Taiwanese EFL Learners	Phonics combined with decodable text outperformed phonics-alone instruction in long-term word reading retention.	Integrating phonics with reading contexts increases retention.	Good control group comparison.	Limited to young learners in Taiwan; generalisability is low.
Zhao et al. (2023) – Chinese Learners	Explicit phonics enhanced decoding of unfamiliar English graphemes not present in Pinyin.	Helpful for learners from non-alphabetic L1 backgrounds.	Valuable for addressing orthographic transfer.	Focused narrowly on specific grapheme types.
Wu (2010) – Adult ESL Learners (BYU)	Extended explicit phonics instruction did not significantly improve word recognition in adult learners.	Phonics alone may not be sufficient for adults.	Focuses on older learners, often understudied.	Suggests diminishing returns in adult populations.
Lervåg & Aukrust (2010) – Norwegian EFL Learners	Found a strong predictive relationship between early phonics skills and later reading comprehension in English.	Early phonics skills lead to better long-term reading comprehension.	Longitudinal study design adds robustness.	Limited to one L1 background.
Tsou et al. (2006) – Taiwanese Primary Learners	Phonics instruction improved learners’ spelling and reading accuracy in English.	Phonics boosts both decoding and encoding in L2.	Balanced design including control group.	Short intervention period.

What About Implicit Phonics Instruction?

Study & Authors	Key Findings	Outcomes	Strength	Weakness
Lee (2015) – Hong Kong ESL Learners	Implicit phonics instruction embedded in authentic reading improved reading confidence and proficiency among low-level learners.	Implicit methods support motivation and fluency in weaker learners.	Rich combination of qualitative and quantitative data.	Case study approach limits generalisation.
Cunningham (1990) – Phonemic Awareness Study	Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness was more effective than implicit exposure for beginning readers.	Metacognitive awareness improves early literacy outcomes.	Early evidence on importance of instruction clarity.	Older study; may not reflect current pedagogical realities.
Yildiz et al. (2013) – Turkish EFL Learners	Story-based implicit instruction improved students’ reading fluency over a phonics-only group.	Implicit input supports fluency and engagement.	Real-classroom setting improves ecological validity.	No follow-up to assess long-term retention.
Choi & Zhang (2018) – Chinese University Students	Extensive reading programmes with minimal phonics instruction boosted reading speed and comprehension.	Implicit exposure through volume of reading can foster reading efficiency.	Useful for higher proficiency learners.	May not apply to beginners or younger learners.

Limitations in Current Research

Despite some encouraging results, the evidence base for phonics in L2 learning is still remarkably limited. There are simply too few robust, large-scale studies to allow for sound generalisations across learner types, age groups, and instructional settings. Many of the available studies focus exclusively on young learners, leaving the needs of adolescent and adult L2 learners largely underexplored. There’s also considerable variability in learners’ L1 backgrounds, intervention duration, and instructional designs, all of which muddy the waters when trying to draw clear, transferable conclusions. Longitudinal studies that track sustained impact over time are scarce, and comparisons between implicit and explicit methods—especially within the same population—are almost non-existent. In short, we need more targeted, nuanced research before we can confidently declare what works best, for whom, and under what conditions.

Lessons Learned and a Proposed Framework

From the research reviewed, several insights stand out:

1. Explicit phonics instruction is most effective when systematic, contextualised, and paired with meaningful text.
2. Implicit instruction, particularly when delivered through authentic reading, can support reading fluency and learner motivation, especially in weaker learners.
3. The age, proficiency level, and L1 background of learners play a significant role in determining instructional effectiveness.

A Balanced Framework for L2 Phonics Instruction

Based on these insights, I propose the following phased framework:

• Phase 1: Implicit Exposure – Use rich, meaningful texts to generate natural phoneme-grapheme awareness.
• Phase 2: Explicit Instruction – Introduce phonics systematically, focusing on high-frequency and challenging correspondences.
• Phase 3: Integrated Practice – Reinforce phonics through structured reading and writing tasks that recycle forms.
• Phase 4: Monitoring and Feedback – Provide targeted support through ongoing assessment and error correction.

This framework aligns with the principles of Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI) by cycling input and output and supporting the proceduralisation of decoding skills through meaningful use (see picture below)

Figure 1 – Implicit and Explicit SSC (Sound-to-Spelling Correspondence) instruction as embedded in the MARSEARS sequence)

Conclusion

The question is not whether phonics instruction should be used in L2 classrooms, but how and when. Evidence suggests that both explicit and implicit approaches have merit, depending on the learner profile and instructional goals. Rather than treating phonics as a one-size-fits-all toolkit, we should see it as a flexible component of a broader, integrated literacy approach. And in light of the new GCSE reading aloud requirement, this isn’t just a pedagogical issue—it’s a matter of curriculum alignment and equity.

When learners can confidently sound out a new word, they own it. And when reading aloud becomes less of a performance and more of a practice, that’s when real fluency begins to form. We owe it to our learners to give them both the tools and the time to get there.

PLEASE NOTE: I am delivering a workshop on Phonics Instruction on 11th June 2025

Introduction

When we think of grammar instruction in language teaching, we often picture uninspiring g explanations of often complex rules, rule charts, conjugation drills, and learners furrowing their brows over verb endings. But what if the brain had a more natural, less painful way to absorb grammar—one that mirrors how we acquire our first language? Welcome to the world of syntactic priming, a subtle yet powerful phenomenon backed by psycholinguistic research and woven into the very fabric of my methodology: Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI).

In this article, I explore what syntactic priming is, how it works in the brain, and why it plays such a pivotal role in EPI. Most importantly, I make a case for delaying explicit grammar instruction until learners have deeply engaged with structures through listening, reading, speaking, and writing.

What Is Syntactic Priming?

Syntactic priming is the tendency to repeat a grammatical structure after being exposed to it. Imagine hearing someone say, “If I had time, I would go to the gym,” and then, without thinking, producing a similar sentence later: “If I had more money, I would travel more.” That’s syntactic priming in action. It happens subconsciously, but it significantly shapes how we process and produce language.

Researchers have shown that this effect is not just a linguistic quirk. It’s a cognitive mechanism that enhances fluency, encourages implicit learning, and lowers the cognitive cost of grammar production.

Key Studies in Syntactic Priming

Study	Findings
Bock (1986)	Native speakers unconsciously repeat sentence structures (e.g., passives, datives) after exposure.
Pickering & Ferreira (2008)	Syntactic priming is long-lasting and affects both comprehension and production.
McDonough & Mackey (2008)	L2 learners mirror structures in interactive tasks, leading to more complex output.
Shin & Christianson (2009)	Reading activities induce syntactic priming, supporting input-based teaching.
Jackson & Ruf (2017)	Syntactic priming helps learners map form to function, aiding long-term acquisition.

How Syntactic Priming Works in the Brain

Our brains are hardwired to detect patterns. When learners hear or read a sentence with a certain structure, it creates a neural trace—a kind of mental echo. If they encounter the same structure repeatedly, it becomes easier to access and use. This explains why repeated exposure across different modalities (listening, reading, speaking, and writing) makes grammar feel “natural” even before it’s formally taught. If the repetition is gamified and interactive, the impact is of course likely to be even stronger.

This is not just theory. It’s grounded in decades of cognitive science suggesting that procedural memory (doing something) precedes declarative memory (knowing about something). In other words, we often use grammar before we can explain it.

How I Use Syntactic Priming in EPI

My EPI model is designed around the principle that structured input and output come first—and grammar comes later. Rather than frontloading grammar rules, I prime learners through a carefully sequenced series of tasks that cycle the same structure in multiple forms.

The activities I use across the four core skills—listening, reading, speaking, and writing—are specifically designed to expose learners repeatedly to the same grammatical structures in meaningful contexts. These activities not only scaffold language acquisition but also exploit the full potential of syntactic priming.

How EPI Leverages Syntactic Priming

Phase	EPI Activities (Examples)	What It Does
Listening	– Narrow listening (same structure, different contexts) – Spot the intruder (identify the sentence that doesn’t fit syntactically) – Sentence bingo (identify structures aurally) – Jigsaw listening (reconstruct texts from segments)	Builds subconscious familiarity with grammatical forms; facilitates form-function mapping
Reading	– Narrow reading (parallel texts using same structure) – Jigsaw reading (reordering text blocks) – Spot the nonsense (identify syntactically flawed sentences) – Odd one out (identify structural intruders)	Deepens structural recognition and primes specific grammar through repetition and contrast
Speaking	– Sentence stealer (reusing peers’ syntactic patterns) – Pyramid translation (gradual collaborative translation) – Structured role play (scripted exchanges using target grammar) – Speed chat (short bursts using recycled syntax)	Encourages output using primed structures; reinforces fluency and accuracy through repetition
Writing	– Gapped translation (fill in missing grammar in L1-to-L2 translation) – Narrow translation (convert L1 to structurally similar L2 texts) – Scaffolded writing (sentence builders and writing frames) – Dictogloss (rebuild a heard/read text)	Encourages structured output; consolidates primed forms through controlled and creative writing

Each of these activities ensures that learners are repeatedly exposed to and actively reusing the same grammatical structure, across modalities. This sequencing primes the syntax implicitly, creating a strong procedural foundation before grammar is ever introduced explicitly.

Why Grammar Works Better After Priming

So why wait to teach grammar? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to explain the rule first and then apply it? Surprisingly, the research—and my classroom experience—suggest otherwise.

Here’s why teaching grammar after syntactic priming works better:

The Case for Delayed Grammar Instruction

Reason	Explanation
Cognitive Readiness	Learners are more likely to absorb grammar when they’ve already encountered and used it subconsciously.
Boosts Noticing	Exposure helps students ‘notice the gap’, making grammar rules meaningful rather than abstract (Schmidt, 1990).
Reduces Cognitive Load	Delaying grammar prevents overwhelming working memory at early stages (Sweller, 1988).
Improves Output Accuracy	Learners use structures more fluently after implicit exposure, even before they know the rules.
Reduces Anxiety	Grammar becomes a friendly confirmation of success—not an intimidating hurdle.

This sequencing transforms grammar instruction from a battle of rules into an “aha!” moment of discovery.

Final Thoughts: Teaching with the Brain in Mind

Syntactic priming isn’t just a curiosity—it’s a classroom ally. It reminds us that language is first and foremost a habit, not a theory. My EPI approach embraces this, guiding learners through rich, meaningful exposure before naming the grammar they’ve absorbed.

Teaching grammar after priming doesn’t mean abandoning rules. It means timing them better—so they click, not clash. It’s a shift from “Let me explain this structure” to “Let’s see what you’ve already figured out.” And when we get the sequence right, grammar stops being a burden and starts becoming what it should be: a gateway to clarity, creativity, and confidence in another language.

I hope this dispels the myth that in EPI grammar is not taught. If anything, if the MARSEARS sequence is executed correctly, it is taught better. For more on teaching Grammar the EPI way, you may want to read this post.

In a country facing a rising language skills deficit, the dramatic drop in the number of students taking modern foreign languages at GCSE and A-level has become a matter of serious concern. Despite efforts like the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) to incentivise uptake, MFL remains one of the most frequently dropped subjects in the UK curriculum. But why?

Research spanning over a decade reveals that the problem is not unidimensional. It’s systemic, rooted in curriculum design, assessment practices, social factors as well as pedagogical traditions. Below are ten of the most widely evidenced reasons, followed by a research-informed summary table.

1. Perceived Difficulty

Students routinely identify languages as one of the hardest subjects, especially when compared to other GCSE or A-level options. The unfamiliar vocabulary, grammar rules, and listening/speaking components contribute to this perception. Many students feel overwhelmed and opt for subjects in which success appears more attainable. In many of my previous blogs and in my workshops I have tried to show that traditional teaching practices often contribute to this, especially the excessive reliance on explicit grammar instruction and overcharged curricula.

2. Lower Predicted Grades and Grading Severity

MFL subjects are among those with the harshest grade distributions. Students often achieve lower predicted or actual grades in languages than in other subjects. This discourages them from continuing with the subject, especially when university admissions and sixth-form entry hinge on strong academic performance.

3. Lack of Immediate Relevance

Many students fail to see the practical application of learning a foreign language. In a predominantly English-speaking society, languages are viewed as less relevant to daily life or future career plans, particularly when compared to STEM subjects or vocational courses that have clearer job pathways.

4. Limited Curriculum Time and Specialist Support

In many schools, particularly non-selective state schools, MFL has a reduced presence on the timetable. Cuts in lesson time, lack of qualified language teachers, and underfunding result in poor continuity, patchy provision, and limited support — all of which negatively affect motivation and attainment.

5. Peer Influence and Social Stigma

Peer pressure plays a major role in subject choices. MFL is sometimes seen as a “geeky” or “uncool” subject, and boys in particular may feel socially discouraged from taking it up. The perception that “nobody else is doing it” leads many to opt out regardless of personal interest or aptitude.

6. Teaching Approach and Curriculum Design

Traditional MFL instruction in the UK has long been criticised for its overemphasis on grammar, memorisation, and rote learning, rather than meaningful communication. When lessons are dominated by worksheets, verb tables, and repetitive drills, many students disengage — particularly lower-attaining learners.

7. Perceived Elitism and Lack of Inclusion

Languages are often associated with grammar schools, private schools, and higher-income families. Students in comprehensive schools — particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds — are statistically less likely to continue with MFL, reinforcing the idea that languages are “not for people like me.”

8. Lack of Parental Encouragement and Role Models

In homes where parents don’t speak or value additional languages, learners are less likely to view language learning as important. The absence of visible multilingual role models in the community or media further contributes to low motivation and cultural disconnect.

9. Post-16 Curriculum Narrowing

The narrowing of subject options after age 16 means that students often prioritise core academic subjects or those with perceived higher value. Even when students enjoy MFL, the pressure to choose three A-levels typically leads them to drop languages in favour of subjects that better align with university or career ambitions.

10. Poor Transition from KS2 to KS3

The lack of consistency and continuity between primary and secondary language instruction is a major stumbling block. Students often restart from scratch in Year 7 regardless of prior learning, leading to frustration and the sense that their earlier efforts were pointless.

Summary Table: Why Students Drop Languages in the UK

Reason	Explanation	Key Research / Source
1. Perceived Difficulty	Languages are seen as harder than other subjects.	DfE (2019); Tinsley & Board (2017); Taylor & Marsden (2014)
2. Lower Predicted Grades / Grading Severity	Languages yield lower grades, deterring students.	Ofqual (2016); Routledge & Searle (2019)
3. Lack of Immediate Relevance	Learners struggle to see real-life applications.	Tinsley & Doležal (2018); British Council (2022)
4. Limited Curriculum Time / Support	Reduced lesson time and lack of specialist staff affect learning.	ALL (2021); Ofsted (2016)
5. Peer Influence and Social Stigma	Seen as “uncool,” particularly by boys.	Courtney (2017); British Council (2020)
6. Teaching Approach / Curriculum Design	Rote grammar learning over communicative use.	Graham et al. (2016)
7. Perceived Elitism / Lack of Inclusion	MFL is skewed toward selective schools.	Strand (2015); Hodgen et al. (2018)
8. Lack of Parental Encouragement / Role Models	Fewer multilingual influences at home.	Murphy & Unwin (2019); Tinsley & Doležal (2018)
9. Post-16 Curriculum Narrowing	Fewer subject slots at A-level lead to early dropout.	DfE (2017); Hodgen et al. (2018)
10. Poor Transition from KS2–KS3	Gaps between primary and secondary learning disrupt continuity.	Graham et al. (2021); Ofsted (2021)

What Now?

Reversing the trend will require more than just policy mandates. Schools need intelligent curriculum redesign, pedagogical innovation, and greater systemic support — especially in state schools serving disadvantaged communities. Unless these barriers are tackled head-on, the UK risks falling further behind in global language competence, limiting both individual opportunity and national competitiveness.

The decline is not inevitable. But the solution demands more than rhetoric — it demands reform.

Why Some MFL Students Are Better at Monitoring Their Writing: A Research-Informed Guide for Teachers

In 2004 I completed my PhD investigation of L2 students Self-monitoring habits as essay writers. One of the most striking differences I observed during my study was that while some learners instinctively spot and fix their errors as they write, others barely notice a mistake even when it stares them in the face. Why is that? Why do some learners consistently revise, self-correct, and refine, while others either can’t or won’t? In this article, I explore what the research says about the cognitive and affective factors that affect learners’ ability to monitor their own output during writing. In a follow-up post I will explore the implications for teaching self-monitoring skills with specific reference to A2-B1 L2 learners (GCSE level in England).

What Makes Some Learners Better Self-Monitors? Key Research Insights

Working Memory Capacity Learners with greater working memory can retain and manipulate multiple elements at once — such as subject-verb agreement, spelling accuracy, and word order. This supports real-time monitoring. Studies by Miyake & Friedman (1998) and Robinson (2002) show that working memory correlates strongly with writing fluency and grammatical accuracy in L2 learners.

Metalinguistic Awareness Metalinguistic awareness refers to a learner’s ability to reflect on and manipulate the structural features of language. Roehr-Brackin (2018) found that learners with high metalinguistic ability are significantly better at identifying and correcting errors. Ellis (2004) also links it to increased success in rule-based tasks.

L2 Proficiency Level Beginners often struggle with output monitoring simply because their cognitive resources are consumed by word retrieval and syntactic construction. Ortega (2009) and Kormos (2012) argue that fluency allows learners to ‘free up’ mental space for revision.

Motivation and Attitude Learners who are more motivated to improve often engage more deeply in self-regulation, including self-monitoring. Dörnyei (2001) and Ushioda (2011) highlight the strong link between motivation and strategy use, especially in revision. Learners with a growth mindset are more likely to see error correction as a path to mastery rather than failure.

Strategy Use and Training Proficient self-monitors employ specific strategies: rereading, pausing to plan, and rephrasing. Research by Graham & Harris (2005) and Oxford (1990) confirms that explicit strategy instruction significantly improves writing outcomes

Can self-monitoring be taught?: What the Research Says About Monitoring Strategy Training

Over the past two decades, a growing body of research has highlighted the potential of explicit strategy training to improve learners’ ability to monitor their output in second language writing. While early SLA research focused largely on input, more recent studies have turned their attention to metacognition — particularly the kinds of strategies learners can be taught to deploy during written production.

One of the earliest and most cited contributions comes from Graham and Harris (2005), who developed a Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model for writing. Their research, primarily with L1 learners but extended to L2 contexts, showed that when students were taught to plan, monitor, evaluate, and revise their writing using checklists and self-talk routines, their writing quality significantly improved.

In L2-specific contexts, Manchón and Roca de Larios (2007) investigated how learners approach self-monitoring during composition and found that students often do not spontaneously engage in rereading or revision unless explicitly taught to do so. Their study called for more structured integration of strategy instruction in writing curricula.

Schoonen et al. (2003) conducted research on L1 and L2 writers and found that cognitive fluency (speed and ease of lexical and syntactic retrieval) is a predictor of successful monitoring behaviour. Their findings imply that strategy instruction needs to be paired with fluency-building activities.

Sasaki (2000) carried out a longitudinal study of Japanese EFL learners and demonstrated that explicit instruction in writing strategies, including self-monitoring and planning, had a long-term positive impact on both writing fluency and grammatical accuracy.

More recently, Fernandez Dobao (2012) examined peer feedback as a scaffold for self-monitoring and found that learners who engaged in structured peer-review tasks were better able to internalise error detection strategies and apply them independently.

Lastly, Conti (2001) proposed a principled framework for teaching self-monitoring in L2 classrooms which included the following features:

(a) Enhancement of learner error-related metacognition

(b) A long-term process of self-monitoring

(c) Modelling of and extensive practice in the use of effective self-correction / editing strategies

(d) Personalisaton of error treatment

(e) Focus on the process rather than the product of writing and learning in general

(f) Synergistic use of various forms of EC

Like many other Explicit Strategy Training programmes his training consisted of the following phases (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Cohen, 1998; Macaro, 2001):

(1) Pre-test needs assessment: The learners’ needs are assessed, usually through a combination of different instruments (e.g. questionnaires, interviews, think-aloud protocols and other forms of self-reports) in order to strengthen the validity of the data.

(2) Introductory phase: The rationale for the training is given and the target strategies are presented and modelled.

(3) Scaffolding phase: The learners receive extensive practice in the target strategies with the help of “scaffolding”, i.e., activities and materials which remind and encourage the learners to apply the target strategies.

(4) Autonomous phase: The learners are left to their own devices without any intervention on the part of the teacher.

(5) Evaluative phase: The learners’ use of the target strategies and their impact on their performance are verified. Normally the same diagnostic instruments used at pre-test are re-deployed here.

Conclusion: Monitoring Is Learnable

Self-monitoring isn’t a fixed trait. It emerges from a complex interplay of cognitive factors (like working memory), affective factors (like motivation), and educational experiences (like strategy training and task design). Every learner can get better at it, but only if we teach it. Our job as MFL teachers is not to expect self-monitoring as a by-product of instruction, but to teach it as a skill in its own right. With time, modelling, and structured reflection — much like the strategies outlined in Conti (2001) — we can nurture that quiet, internal editor that turns output into real learning.

References

• Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Ellis, R. (2004). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fernandez Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58.
• Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: The Self-Regulated Strategy Development model. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 19–27.
• Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9–24.
• Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403.
• Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 225–250.
• Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne Jr. (Eds.), Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
• Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House.
• Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259–291.
• Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165–202.