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.