Introduction

What does effective language teaching look like? Decades of research in second language acquisition (SLA), cognitive science, and classroom pedagogy have given us clear answers. This guide brings together twelve essential principles for designing, sequencing, and delivering powerful MFL lessons that lead to real learning—not just short-term performance.

These strategies are not meant to be tick-boxes, but deeply interconnected elements that reinforce one another—from input to output, from decoding to motivation.

1. Phonics and Pronunciation Foundations

Explicit phonics instruction builds essential decoding and listening skills, especially in opaque orthographies like French. But on its own, it’s not enough. The most effective classrooms combine explicit phonics with implicit exposure in listening and reading.

Why the synergy matters:

• Explicit phonics teaches decoding rules (e.g. “in” sounds like /ɛ̃/).
• Implicit phonics builds fluency through pattern recognition in authentic input.
• The combination enables both conscious control and automaticity.

Why it matters:

• Improves listening comprehension and oral production
• Builds spelling and reading confidence
• Supports independence and reduces fear of unfamiliar words

Research:

Woore (2018); Saito (2014); Conti (2023)

Example:

Teach “in, on, an” sounds explicitly → play a short story with matin, champignon, enfant → follow up with dictation and discrimination tasks.

2. Comprehensible Input First

Before output, learners need abundant exposure to understandable language slightly above their current level (i+1). This is the foundation of acquisition.

Why it matters:

• Builds mental representations of grammar and lexis
• Prepares learners for later production and retrieval
• Supports subconscious pattern recognition

Research:

Krashen (1982); Ellis (2005); VanPatten (2002)

Figures:

• Most vocabulary needs 6–12 meaningful exposures (Webb, 2007)
• Listening becomes efficient at 95–98% known-word coverage (Nation, 2013)

Example:

Before using the passé composé, immerse learners in short texts, stories, and audio with rich repetition of that structure.

3. Teaching in Chunks and High-Frequency Language

Rather than isolated vocabulary or grammar points, learners benefit from high-frequency chunks that reflect how language is stored and retrieved.

Why it matters:

• Supports fluency and spontaneity
• Reduces cognitive load during processing
• Prepares for real-life communication

Research:

Wray (2002); Conklin & Schmitt (2008); Boers & Lindstromberg (2012)

Example:

Teach “il y a”, “je voudrais”, and “on peut” as formulaic expressions—not word by word.

4. Extensive and Varied Input

Structures and lexis must be encountered across different contexts, modalities, and registers to become embedded.

Why it matters:

• Deepens encoding and retention
• Provides multiple retrieval cues
• Reflects naturalistic acquisition

Research:

Nation (2013); Webb (2007)

Example:

Teach weather vocabulary through texts, audio reports, dialogues, games, and video captions across multiple lessons.

5. Careful Scaffolding of Tasks and Language

Students need support before being expected to produce independently. Scaffolds can include sentence builders, visuals, modelled responses, and rehearsed listening.

Why it matters:

• Reduces cognitive overload
• Improves success rate and motivation
• Encourages risk-taking in a safe context

Research:

Vygotsky (1978); Hammond & Gibbons (2005); Sweller (1998)

Example:

Use structured listening and sentence frame activities before students write about weekend routines.

6. Noticing through Explicit and Implicit Grammar Focus

Grammar instruction should balance implicit exposure with explicit explanation. Learners must notice patterns before producing them accurately.

Key strategies:

• Input flood: e.g. texts with multiple ils ont examples
• Input enhancement: bolding or stressing key forms
• Patterned input: narrow reading/listening with repeated structures
• Repeated processing: same structure used across tasks
• Structural priming: exposure to a syntactic frame primes production

Why it matters:

• Builds accurate and flexible internal grammar systems
• Facilitates transfer from recognition to production

Research:

Ellis (2002); VanPatten (2004); Conti (2021); Mackey & Goo (2007)

Example:

Expose students to multiple short bios with reflexive verbs → do a gap-fill → reorder jumbled sentences → write their own bio.

7. Retrieval Practice and Spaced Repetition

Retrieval is more effective than re-study. Spacing that retrieval over time leads to stronger, more durable learning.

Why it matters:

• Strengthens long-term memory
• Helps distinguish similar forms (e.g. est vs et)
• Builds fluency and accuracy

Research:

Roediger & Karpicke (2006); Kang (2016); Conti & Smith (2021)

Example:

Use regular low-stakes quizzes, sentence recall, and translation dictations—recycling language from weeks before.

8. Interleaving of Topics and Structures

Rather than teaching one grammar topic to mastery before moving on, interleaving means revisiting and mixing concepts over time.

Why it matters:

• Increases retention and application
• Enhances learners’ ability to choose between forms
• Reflects how language is used and remembered in real life

Research:

Pan (2015); Bjork & Bjork (2011); Cepeda et al. (2006)

Example:

Incorporate present, perfect, and future tenses in weekly review tasks—even if the current unit focuses on only one.

Diagram: Interleaving in MFL

(See earlier for visual: demonstrates cyclical revisiting of topics across lessons.)

9. Meaningful Communicative Practice

Communicative tasks require learners to use the target language to achieve real-world purposes—not just perform language for a teacher.

Why it matters:

• Develops fluency and confidence
• Supports meaningful use and interaction
• Encourages autonomy and negotiation of meaning

Research:

Long (1996); Willis & Willis (2007); Ellis (2003)

Clarified Task Taxonomy:

Task Type	Description	MFL Example
Information Gap	Each learner has different info required to complete the task	One describes a picture, the other draws it
Survey	Learners gather data using shared questions	Ask 5 classmates what they ate for breakfast
Opinion Exchange	Learners compare and justify views	Debate uniform or technology pros and cons
Problem-Solving	Learners collaborate to solve a challenge	Plan a holiday using TL websites on a budget
Roleplay	Simulated interaction using defined roles	Booking a room, making a complaint
Decision-Making	Choose best option based on multiple criteria	Select ideal flat based on listings

10. Corrective Feedback and Gentle Challenge

Feedback works best when it’s low-stakes, timely, and framed as support, not judgment.

Why it matters:

• Promotes metalinguistic awareness
• Builds confidence and resilience
• Prevents fossilisation

Research:

Lyster & Ranta (1997); Hattie & Timperley (2007); Mackey (2006)

Example:

Student: “il suis allé”

Teacher: “Ah, tu veux dire ‘il est allé’ — super.”

11. Output Opportunities—But at the Right Time

Output should come after rich input and structured rehearsal. Otherwise, learners will guess or rely on L1 transfer.

Why it matters:

• Consolidates form-function links
• Builds monitoring and self-correction capacity
• Encourages linguistic risk-taking

Research:

Swain (1995); Izumi (2002)

Example:

After a week of listening to examples of modal verbs (on peut / on doit), students write their own school rules.

12. Fostering Motivation and Self-Efficacy

Students who believe they can succeed and feel supported are more likely to persevere and participate meaningfully.

Why it matters:

• Enhances long-term language learning outcomes
• Increases engagement, resilience, and independence

Research:

Bandura (1997); Dörnyei (2001); Ushioda (2011)

Example:

Praise effort and strategies (not just results), offer task choice, show progress graphs, celebrate risk-taking.

No.	Principle	Core Purpose	Brief Example
1	Phonics & Pronunciation Foundations	Develop decoding and listening fluency via explicit + implicit input	Teach nasal sounds (“in/on/an”) with stories and dictation
2	Comprehensible Input First	Build understanding through rich, accessible exposure before output	Flood learners with past tense texts before production
3	Chunks & High-Frequency Language	Promote fluency by teaching ready-to-use expressions	Teach “il y a”, “je voudrais”, “on peut” as full chunks
4	Extensive & Varied Input	Deepen retention through repetition across modes and contexts	Weather vocab through texts, games, audio, and captions
5	Scaffolded Tasks & Language	Reduce overload and build confidence with structured support	Use sentence builders before writing about weekends
6	Noticing Grammar (Implicit + Explicit)	Help learners detect and internalise key patterns	Highlight forms in texts, reorder jumbled sentences, then produce
7	Retrieval Practice & Spaced Repetition	Strengthen long-term memory through recall over time	Weekly low-stakes quizzes and delayed dictations
8	Interleaving of Topics & Structures	Improve transfer by mixing topics instead of teaching in blocks	Include all three tenses in regular reviews
9	Meaningful Communicative Practice	Use language for real purposes to boost engagement and interaction	Roleplays, debates, information gaps, problem-solving
10	Corrective Feedback & Gentle Challenge	Support accuracy and confidence with timely, supportive feedback	“Tu veux dire ‘il e

Conclusion

Effective language teaching is not about chasing trends or ticking off isolated strategies. It is about orchestrating a coherent, research-informed system where each element—input, practice, motivation, feedback—supports the others.

The twelve principles outlined in this guide draw on decades of empirical research in second language acquisition, cognitive psychology, and classroom pedagogy. They remind us that:

• Comprehensible input is the bedrock of acquisition.
• Phonics, chunks, and scaffolds accelerate decoding and confidence.
• Practice, retrieval, and feedback consolidate learning and fuel fluency.
• Motivation and self-efficacy are not optional extras—they are essential drivers of long-term success.

Above all, these principles empower teachers to design sequences that are both rigorous and humane—challenging yet supportive, structured yet flexible.

There is no single “magic method.” But there is a growing consensus around what works. And when that knowledge is combined with professional judgment, creativity, and care, we get classrooms where all learners can thrive—and where language learning becomes a joy, not a grind.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–110.

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.

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

Conti, G. (2021). Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Learners How to Listen. Woodbridge: The Language Gym.

Conti, G. (2023). Fluency Matters: The Skills-First Approach to Language Teaching. Woodbridge: The Language Gym.

Conti, G., & Smith, S. (2021). Memory: What Every Language Teacher Should Know. Woodbridge: The Language Gym.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 20(1), 6–30.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–577.

Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Spaced repetition promotes efficient and effective learning. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 12–19.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford University Press.

Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pan, S. C. (2015). The effects of interleaved practice. The Learning Scientists. Retrieved from https://www.learningscientists.org

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.

Saito, K. (2014). Effects of explicit phonetic instruction on pronunciation development. Language Learning, 64(3), 660–703.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 8(4), 251–266.

Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating Learners to Speak as Themselves. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivating Learners in the Classroom (pp. 11–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Input Processing in Second Language Acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 46–65.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woore, R. (2018). Languages in the Curriculum: A Guide to Teaching MFL 11–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI) is a research-informed approach to language teaching that has gained significant traction in recent years. With its growing success in classrooms around the world, EPI continues to inspire educators who seek a more effective and inclusive way to build real language competence. However, as with any innovative pedagogical model, it has also become a target of misunderstanding—and, in some cases, of politically motivated misrepresentation. These misconceptions are sometimes spread deliberately by individuals or groups resistant to pedagogical change or who perceive EPI as a challenge to entrenched norms and commercial interests.

Even influential figures in the educational landscape have occasionally offered remarks that appear to misrepresent both the spirit and the substance of EPI. Such misunderstandings risk distorting the public discourse around effective language teaching, especially when they gain traction in professional networks or inspectorate frameworks.

This post aims to clarify thirteen of the most common myths surrounding EPI. It draws on extensive research evidence to highlight the approach’s effectiveness, flexibility, and strong theoretical foundation. In addition to scholarly perspectives, this post is grounded in the lived experiences of teachers across the globe. Testimonials shared recently in the Global Innovative Language Teachers Facebook group—by practitioners from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Middle East, South-East Asia, and the UK—offer compelling anecdotal evidence of EPI’s positive impact on student learning and teacher confidence.

Thirteen misconceptions about EPI

1. Misconception: EPI is just about repetition and drills
Reality: While EPI does rely on repetition, it is purposeful, structured, and embedded in meaningful contexts. The repetition is not mechanical but designed to promote fluency, automaticity, and a deeper understanding of grammatical structures and vocabulary chunks. Techniques like input flood and task repetition, as well as tasks like narrow listening, sentence puzzles, jigsaw reading, dictogloss, chunking aloud, oral retrieval practice and fluency games ensure the language is processed deeply and repeatedly, but in ways that keep learners engaged and focused on communication. Repetition is always tied to meaning, not just form.
Research Insight: Repeated exposure to meaningful language input enhances retention and fluency. Research by Barcroft (2007) and Nation (2013) supports the value of input-based learning, while studies on retrieval practice (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006) highlight its impact on long-term memory.

2. Misconception: EPI ignores grammar
Reality: EPI teaches grammar implicitly through repeated exposure to high-frequency structures in meaningful contexts. Learners internalize rules without overt instruction initially, and grammar points are often clarified after the chunks have been acquired, making the grammar more memorable and meaningful. EPI teaches grammar in a way that is cognizant of processability theory, learner readiness, and cognitive load theory. It introduces grammar at a more realistic pace, aiming to entrench a manageable set of non-negotiables each term. This approach facilitates routinisation in an inclusive manner, ensuring that all learners—regardless of background—can consolidate key structures. The process involves intensive and extensive teaching through spaced retrieval over a longer period of time than traditional textbooks usually allow, ensuring that grammatical knowledge is retained and applied fluently.
Research Insight: VanPatten (2002) emphasizes the importance of input in grammar acquisition, and Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (1982) supports the idea that comprehensible input is key to developing grammatical accuracy.

Figure 1 – EPI enhances students’ grammar competence but not at the cost of fluency and spontaneity

3. Misconception: EPI is only suitable for beginners
Reality: EPI can be scaled to all levels of proficiency. For beginners, it introduces foundational chunks and sentence structures. At intermediate and advanced levels, it incorporates more complex syntax, idiomatic expressions, and nuanced communicative tasks. Teachers can easily adapt the language and cognitive load of the tasks to match learner ability, making it an effective framework for all stages of language acquisition.
Research Insight: Ellis (1996) and Boers & Lindstromberg (2008) show that chunk-based and lexical approaches are beneficial across all stages of learning, not just at the beginner level.

Figure 2 – EPI makes grammar accessible and learnable through pop-up grammar, syntactic priming and full-blown grammar lessons. The difference: grammar is taught intensively after the taregt chunks have been routinised

4. Misconception: It neglects spontaneous speech
Reality: EPI explicitly develops spontaneous speech through careful scaffolding. Learners progress from controlled production to semi-controlled and finally to free output. Activities such as oral translation slaloms, communicative pair tasks, and rephrasing challenges foster fluency and flexibility. Because students are already familiar with the chunks and structures, they can speak more confidently and accurately when engaging in real-time communication.
Research Insight: Automatization theory (DeKeyser, 2001) and models of skill acquisition (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977) show that repeated practice with meaningful output leads to spontaneous language use.

5. Misconception: EPI doesn’t prepare students for exams
Reality: EPI builds the foundational skills—listening comprehension, vocabulary range, grammatical accuracy, and fluency—that are essential for exam success. In fact, many of the core EPI tasks, such as reading aloud, dictation, translation, picture-based speaking, semi-structured communicative tasks and guided speaking activities (e.g. role plays with English prompts), have long been a part of the EPI approach—well before the design of the most recent GCSE reforms. These tasks are closely aligned with the exact formats and skills now tested in the new exam specifications. Thus, rather than being exam-agnostic, EPI actually anticipated the current exam model and provides students with repeated, structured exposure to all its task types.
Research Insight: Laufer & Nation (1995) and Hulstijn (2001) show that vocabulary acquisition and automaticity are key predictors of exam success.

6. Misconception: Students memorize phrases without understanding
Reality: Understanding is central to EPI. Activities such as meaning-matching, sentence building, faulty translation correction, and gap-fills ensure learners comprehend what they are using. The chunks are not taught in isolation but in contexts that require students to process meaning, interpret nuance, and use them flexibly. This type of learning leads to deeper retention and transferability of language skills.
Research Insight: Deep processing theory (Craik & Tulving, 1975) shows that learners retain information better when they understand and manipulate meaning rather than memorizing form alone.

7. Misconception: EPI requires technology
Reality: EPI is fully adaptable to low-tech or no-tech classrooms. Although platforms like The Language Gym and sentencebuilders.com provide digital tools, all EPI tasks can be delivered using printed worksheets, whiteboards, and simple classroom routines. The power of EPI lies in the task design and sequencing, not the medium of delivery, making it accessible and sustainable in any educational setting.
Research Insight: Pashler et al. (2007) emphasize that instructional effectiveness is driven more by design principles than delivery platforms.

8. Misconception: EPI is rigid and prescriptive
Reality: EPI is a highly flexible and adaptable framework. Teachers can modify the order, pace, and nature of activities based on their students’ needs, curriculum demands, and teaching style. It provides a structured but open approach that encourages professional judgment and creativity, allowing for culturally responsive and differentiated instruction.
Research Insight: Tomlinson (2011) argues that effective language teaching must be adaptable and sensitive to context, which aligns well with EPI’s flexible structure.

9. Misconception: EPI ignores culture
Reality: EPI integrates cultural content naturally by embedding chunks and grammar within authentic, culturally rich contexts. Whether discussing festivals, daily routines, or social values, EPI promotes intercultural awareness through language. Tasks are designed to be both linguistically and culturally meaningful, helping students connect language learning to real-world understanding.
Research Insight: Byram (1997) and Kramsch (1993) underline the inseparability of language and culture in language learning.

10. Misconception: EPI is boring or mechanical
Reality: EPI lessons are dynamic, varied, and engaging. The repetition is disguised through games, puzzles, problem-solving, and communicative challenges that stimulate interest and participation. Because students experience frequent success and are actively involved in tasks, motivation remains high. EPI activities are designed to balance fun with serious language development.
Research Insight: Dörnyei & Ushioda (2011) demonstrate that motivation increases when learners experience success and engagement, both core features of EPI tasks.

Figures 3 and 4 – As this testimonials indicate, EPI favourably impacts motivation

11. Misconception: EPI can’t be used with textbooks
Reality: EPI complements textbooks by transforming textbook content into communicative chunks and processing-rich tasks. Teachers can lift vocabulary and grammar points from a textbook and restructure them into EPI-style lessons, enhancing both engagement and retention. This allows departments bound to textbook schemes of work to modernize their delivery while meeting institutional requirements.
Research Insight: Tomlinson (2003) supports the adaptation of textbook content to suit learners’ needs and increase task-based effectiveness.

12. Misconception: EPI isn’t research-based
Reality: EPI draws from robust research in second language acquisition, cognitive science, and memory studies. Principles like retrieval practice, input enhancement, spaced repetition, and chunking are core to EPI and supported by decades of empirical research. The method is a practitioner-led synthesis of evidence-informed strategies tailored to real classroom contexts.
Research Insight: Roediger & Karpicke (2006), Sharwood Smith (1993), and Schmidt (1990) provide the cognitive and SLA foundations that EPI builds upon, particularly in retrieval, input, and noticing theory.

13. Misconception: The MARSEARS cycle makes EPI too slow
Reality: While the MARSEARS cycle involves deliberate steps to guide processing, it does not slow down learning when planned and sequenced effectively. On the contrary, the cycle ensures repeated, varied processing of the same content across modalities and contexts, leading to stronger long-term retention. This depth of processing means that, by the time students reach Years 10 and 11, they do not need to relearn foundational content. Many traditional approaches waste valuable curriculum time reteaching grammar, vocabulary, and structures that were superficially taught and quickly forgotten. EPI front-loads robust learning that frees up time for deeper work later on.
Research Insight: Research on spaced repetition and memory consolidation (Cepeda et al., 2006) and long-term retention (Carpenter et al., 2012) confirms that distributed and repeated exposure is key to enduring mastery.

Summary Table
The following table provides a quick-reference summary of each misconception, the corresponding reality, and a key research insight:

No.	Misconception	Reality (Summary)	Research Insight (Summary)
1	EPI is just about repetition and drills	Repetition is meaningful, engaging, and tied to context.	Deep, meaningful repetition enhances long-term retention.
2	EPI ignores grammar	Grammar is taught through chunks, with attention to readiness, cognitive load, and long-term retrieval.	Input and timing matter more than isolated grammar drills.
3	Only for beginners	Tasks can be adapted for any proficiency level.	Lexical approaches benefit learners across stages.
4	Neglects spontaneous speech	Scaffolded tasks build confidence for fluent real-time speech.	Practice with input/output leads to automaticity.
5	Doesn’t prepare for exams	Longstanding tasks align closely with current GCSE requirements.	Vocabulary fluency supports exam success.
6	Students memorize without understanding	Tasks ensure deep processing of meaning.	Deeper semantic processing leads to stronger retention.
7	Requires technology	Fully adaptable to low/no-tech environments.	Instructional design trumps delivery format.
8	Rigid and prescriptive	EPI is flexible and teacher-adaptable.	Effective methods adapt to local context.
9	Ignores culture	Cultural content is naturally embedded in communicative tasks.	Culture and language are inseparable.
10	Boring or mechanical	Activities are engaging, interactive, and varied.	Success and variety increase motivation.
11	Can’t be used with textbooks	Textbook content can be reframed through EPI structures.	Adapting resources enhances learning outcomes.
12	Not research-based	Built on principles from SLA, memory science, and cognitive psychology.	Robust evidence supports EPI foundations.
13	The MARSEARS cycle is too slow	With planning, it boosts durable retention and avoids re-teaching.	Spaced, repeated exposure consolidates mastery and saves time long-term.

Conclusion

Extensive Processing Instruction is not a trend—it is a principled, flexible, and evidence-informed framework for building real language competence. Far from being a rigid or narrow methodology, it is built on robust psycholinguistic and pedagogical foundations that adapt to learners’ needs and institutional constraints. When implemented with fidelity and creativity, EPI does not just meet curricular demands—it exceeds them, offering a path to deep, lasting, and confident language use. As a teacher put it in one of the testimonials above, it is not a silver bullet, but it appears to enhance both teacher and student’s self-efficacy and motivation.

References

Barcroft, J. (2007). Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 57(S1), 35–56.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Mouton de Gruyter.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Multilingual Matters.
Carpenter, S. K., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 369–378.
Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91–126.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., et al. (2007). Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning (NCER 2007-2004). U.S. Department of Education.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–179.
Tomlinson, B. (2003). Developing principled frameworks for materials development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. Continuum.
Tomlinson, B. (2011). Materials Development in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.

Introduction: A Fresh Start for Modern Languages

In the last ten years, I’ve been called into many schools to support the turnaround of struggling MFL departments—schools where behaviour is difficult, attendance is low, and both students and teachers are often disillusioned about the value of language learning. These experiences, combined with my ongoing research in the field of instructed second language acquisition, have given me a nuanced understanding of what works—and what doesn’t—when it comes to reviving a department in distress. In this post, I aim to share some of the most effective, research-informed strategies for supporting MFL departments that are trying to rebuild. These aren’t silver bullets, but they are rooted in evidence and shaped by the practical realities of life in challenging schools.

In many such schools—especially those grappling with entrenched social and economic disadvantage—the MFL department can find itself caught in a spiral of low uptake, poor outcomes, and dwindling morale. Classrooms are often marked by low-level disruption. Students arrive with gaps in prior learning, and some question why they’re learning a language at all. Staff, meanwhile, are tired. Resources are stretched thin. And the subject may be seen as peripheral by leadership.

But improvement is possible. I’ve seen it happen. With targeted interventions, realistic planning, and a focus on people—not just systems—departments can begin to thrive again. Teachers can rediscover belief in their professional impact. Students can experience success and enjoyment in language learning. And schools can begin to build a culture where MFL is seen not as an optional extra, but a valued part of a broad and rich curriculum.

First: Understanding the Struggle

Before change can happen, there needs to be clarity. Too often, well-meaning interventions misfire because they don’t address the real root causes of the department’s challenges. Effective diagnosis means not only looking at data, but also listening—to staff, students, and even parents. The picture that often emerges in struggling MFL departments includes a mix of structural, cultural, and emotional obstacles.

Diagnostic Focus	Key Insight
Real barriers to progress	Motivation and behaviour often intersect, amplifying disengagement (Muijs & Reynolds, 2017)
Student perception of MFL	Seen as culturally distant and irrelevant in low-SES contexts (Graham et al., 2020)
Staff confidence and morale	Teacher efficacy closely predicts persistence and innovation (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001)
Curriculum clarity	Overly thematic or fragmented curricula reduce long-term retention and transferability
Leadership signals	SLT messaging and timetabling determine perceived value of the subject
Enjoyment and motivation	Without positive emotion, uptake and retention are drastically reduced (Taylor & Marsden, 2014)

Department-Level Actions: Building a Collaborative Culture

1. Prioritise Curriculum Clarity and Simplicity

Simplify the curriculum down to what really matters: high-frequency chunks, core structures, and transferable functions. Remove “decorative” vocabulary that rarely recurs. Organise learning into tightly sequenced, high-utility units. This reduces cognitive load, supports retrieval, and boosts fluency. Avoid over-thematisation and map the curriculum backwards from core assessments.

2. Unify Lesson Structure and Pedagogy

Consistency builds clarity. Use a shared lesson sequence across classes—e.g. retrieval, input, modelling, practice, fluency. Align activities to a robust, tried and tested MFL framework (e.g. Extensive Processing Instruction). Shared routines build student confidence, and shared formats make planning and resourcing much more efficient.

3. Build Teacher Efficacy with Collaborative CPD

Teacher belief in their impact is a powerful predictor of student outcomes. Offer CPD focused on manageable, high-impact strategies like choral translation, sentence builders, listening mats, and writing scaffolds. Use video snippets for discussion. Invite peer drop-ins and promote a no-blame ethos. Equip teachers with what works, then empower them to adapt.

4. Create a Department Resource Ecosystem

Set up shared folders of editable PowerPoints, sentence builders, model texts, and retrieval starters. Unless you are able to create them as a team (sharing out the workload), save time by using trusted online platforms which provide high-quality instructional materials instead of ineffective legacy resources (e.g. http://www.language-gym.com or sentencebuilders.com). This reduces duplication and ensures that all classes benefit from consistent exposure and spaced practice.

5. Strengthen Teacher Self-Efficacy

Teacher self-efficacy grows from professional agency and visible success. Celebrate small wins and show impact through micro-data (e.g. retrieval starter progress). Provide coaching and trust-based observations. Allow autonomy within a clear framework, so teachers feel respected and empowered.

6. Enhance Student Self-Efficacy

For students, build belief through success-first tasks, scaffolds, and visible learning strategies. Start with achievable tasks to build early confidence. Use “I can” progression ladders to make learning visible and goal-driven. Model successful student work to offer vicarious experience. Provide daily retrieval starters and formative feedback. Track effort and celebrate improvement, shifting the focus from innate ability to controllable effort.

Strategies to Boost Student Self-Efficacy	Example
Success-first tasks	Begin units with tasks that all can succeed in easily to build momentum.
Progression ladders	Use “I can” checklists to make gains visible.
Daily retrieval starters	Use 5-minute quizzes or flashbacks to strengthen long-term memory.
Modelling successful responses	Showcase real student work to offer aspirational targets.
Vicarious experiences	Narrate stories of peers who improved over time.
Focused formative feedback	Provide timely, actionable feedback on performance.
Effort-based praise	Praise processes, strategies, and habits, not talent.

7. Enhance Enjoyment Systematically

Purposeful enjoyment matters. Use gamified routines like Faulty Echo, Spot the silent endings (in French), Retrieval starters, Sentence Stealer, Oral retrieval practice, Quizlet or Language Gym live games. Inject humour and drama into oral practice. Incorporate culturally rich mini-projects such as TL music, short films, or food tasting. Reward engagement and celebrate progress. Enjoyment doesn’t mean fluff—it’s a motivator and memory enhancer.

8. Promote Positive Cultural Perceptions

Combat the idea that languages are “boring” or “not for people like me.” Use inclusive media, TL TikToks, food tasting, and real interviews. Link language to identity, career, or activism. Position MFL as a gateway, not a wall.

9. Engage Parents and Carers

Especially in low-SES schools, parent involvement correlates with student persistence. Send positive texts. Invite parents to cultural tasters or MFL showcases. Translate communications and post home language versions on displays. Enlist community members to share their language stories.

Priority Area	Core Strategy
Curriculum Design	Strip curriculum to essential high-frequency chunks, core grammar, and transferable language functions.
Unified Pedagogy	Use a consistent, research-informed lesson structure across the department (e.g. EPI model).
Collaborative CPD	Build teacher efficacy with practical, non-judgmental CPD (e.g. sentence builders, retrieval starters).
Resource Ecosystem	Share editable, high-impact resources (ditch ineffective legacy platforms).
Teacher Self-Efficacy	Strengthen professional identity with coaching, micro-successes, and trusted autonomy.
Student Self-Efficacy	Use scaffolds, success-first tasks, and visible progress ladders to increase belief in ability.
Enjoyment & Motivation	Gamify learning, reward progress, and include rich cultural inputs (music, food, TL films).
Cultural Perception Shift	Use inclusive media and community voices to break stereotypes and increase relevance.
Parental Engagement	Use multilingual communication, cultural showcases, and positive contact to draw in families.

Classroom-Level Focus: Where It All Comes Together

The classroom is where change becomes visible. For struggling MFL departments, especially in schools with low SES intake and entrenched underachievement, the quality of day-to-day classroom experiences is the single most important driver of improvement. It’s here that beliefs can shift, confidence can grow, and a new narrative of success can emerge.

But to do that, we need more than a toolbox of activities. We need clear principles and smart pedagogy anchored in what the research says about effective language teaching—particularly in contexts of disadvantage. Below are the most powerful areas to focus on, with actionable examples and rationale for each.

1. Build Engagement Through Predictable Routines and Variety

Low-attaining students often struggle with unpredictability. Establishing a familiar rhythm to lessons (e.g. retrieval, input, practice, feedback, exit) reduces anxiety and frees up cognitive space for learning. Within that frame, vary the mode of engagement—visual, auditory, kinesthetic—to accommodate different preferences and sustain energy.

Example: Start every lesson with a retrieval starter (low-stakes quiz, pair Q&A), followed by clear input, a guided task (sentence builder or listening grid), and a reflective plenary. Make this rhythm habitual.

2. Prioritise Comprehension Before Production

Many students are expected to speak or write too soon. Build confidence through structured listening and reading first. Use rich input, repeated exposure, and supported interpretation before asking learners to output language.

Research insight: Nation & Newton (2009) emphasize that strong receptive foundations improve accuracy and fluency when learners eventually produce language.

Example: Use “Read, Cover, Translate” or “Narrow Listening” before any speaking task.

3. Reduce Cognitive Load With High-Frequency Chunks

Teaching students to memorise disconnected word lists or translate isolated sentences is cognitively overwhelming. Instead, use lexical chunks—e.g. “je voudrais + noun”, “il y a + place”—to build fluency and reduce load.

Example: Focus on sentence-level practice with structures like “je suis allé(e) à…” rather than separate verb, noun, and adjective drills.

4. Foster Fluency Through Repetition With Variation

Fluency develops when students can manipulate known language in meaningful, slightly varied contexts. Repetition is essential—but it should never feel boring. Use fun repetition: reordering, gapped texts, mini-dialogues, ‘mind reader’ guessing games.

Example: Ask students to re-tell a story with different characters or settings using the same core chunks.

5. Scaffold for Success and Build Up Complexity Slowly

Students with low self-belief must experience success quickly and regularly. Provide highly scaffolded tasks at first—gap-fills, matching, sentence stems—then gradually increase independence.

Example: Move from sentence-builder gap-fill ➝ scrambled sentence ➝ structured speaking ➝ open response.

Research insight: Cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et al., 1991) supports this gradual release of responsibility.

6. Make Learning Visible and Goal-Oriented

Show students exactly what progress looks like. Use “I can” statements, self-assessment ladders, or mini-checklists to make outcomes tangible. Share model responses and explain why they’re good.

Example: Have a visible “progress tracker” on the board where students can see which functions or tenses they’ve mastered.

7. Recast Errors Supportively and Publicly Celebrate Improvement

Low self-efficacy learners fear getting things wrong. Normalise error correction by treating it as learning. Use recasts (“You said ‘il suis’—great try! It’s ‘il est’”) and highlight student growth over perfection.

Example: Weekly “Growth Champion” award for effort, improvement, or helping others—celebrating what’s within students’ control.

8. Promote Language Ownership and Personal Relevance

Students engage more when they can relate the content to their lives. Include identity-linked tasks and personalisation from early on.

Example: After learning “je vais + place,” ask students to create a comic strip of their dream weekend and narrate it using target chunks.

9. Use Technology to Reduce Isolation and Boost Feedback

In low-resource contexts, technology can supplement stretched teacher capacity. Sites like Language Gym, SentenceBuilders.com, or voice-recording apps allow students to practise independently and receive immediate feedback.

Example: Flip oral practice for homework using tools like Vocaroo or Flipgrid, then play back selected responses in class.

10. Build Belonging and Collective Success

Create a classroom ethos where everyone feels part of something bigger. Use team points, collaborative challenges, or class targets. Emphasise that effort, not talent, drives success.

Example: Run a class-wide “language challenge week” with collective goals (e.g. 100 words mastered, 10 perfect scores) and a shared reward.

By focusing on these ten pillars—grounded in research and adapted for challenging school settings—teachers can not only improve student outcomes but reignite the belief that MFL can be for everyone. And that’s when departmental change becomes a lived reality, not just a strategic plan.

Strategy	Description
Reset Routines	Reinforce behaviour with visible structures and clear expectations.
Start with Strengths	Build momentum through diagnostic assessment and early wins.
Model Thinking Aloud	Make metacognition visible; model planning, checking, and revision.
Close the Feedback Loop	Use guided DIRT and live feedback rather than marking alone.
Make Learning Visible	Use anchor displays and cumulative review (e.g. flashbacks, quizzes).
Identity in the Subject	Celebrate subject identity; use praise that links to future roles and careers.
Oracy & Comprehensible Input	Prioritise teacher modelling, visuals, and repetition to aid access.
Systematic Retrieval	Build spaced practice into weekly routines using varied formats.
Scaffolded Autonomy	Use structured supports (e.g. sentence builders) then transition to freer production.
Develop Reflective Learners	Encourage regular reflection with prompts, exit tickets, and review routines.

Conclusion: A Blueprint for Hope and Progress

Reviving a struggling MFL department isn’t about grand gestures—it’s about sustained, strategic work grounded in evidence, empathy, and belief. Focused curriculum design, shared pedagogical vision, and a culture of trust and success can transform even the most disheartened of teams. For students to believe that languages matter, we must show that we believe it too—and equip our colleagues with the means to succeed. If we get this right, we won’t just improve outcomes. We’ll change lives.

References

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
• Conti, G. & Smith, S. (2019). Breaking the Sound Barrier. Woodbridge: John Catt.
• Graham, S., Macfadyen, T., & Tierney, D. (2020). Motivation, Attitudes and Language Learning in Disadvantaged Contexts. Language Learning Journal.
• Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2017). Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice. Sage.
• Nation, P. (2013). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press.
• Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
• Taylor, F., & Marsden, E. (2014). Perceptions, Attitudes, and Motivation of Learners of Languages. Language Teaching Research.
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an Elusive Construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7).
• Ushioda, E. (2011). Language Learning Motivation, Self and Identity: Current Theoretical Perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning.

Introduction: The Listening Paradox That Baffles Every Language Teacher

Have you ever played a listening track to your students, only for them to claim they “never learned” the very words you’ve drilled all year? They stare blankly at sounds that should be familiar. You sigh, replay it slower, and yet the problem persists. This disconnect isn’t laziness or inattentiveness—it’s a cognitive glitch.

Enter the Fuzzy Lexical Representation (FLR) Theory, a game-changing model developed by Kira Gor and colleagues. It explains, in chilling clarity, why learners fail to recognize the very words they’ve studied: their mental representations of those words are fuzzy, fragile, and phonologically flawed.

Understanding Fuzzy Lexical Representation Theory (FLR)

Fuzzy Lexical Representation (FLR) Theory, developed by Kira Gor and colleagues, is grounded in the field of psycholinguistics and focuses on how second language (L2) learners encode, store, and retrieve lexical items—particularly spoken words. FLR addresses a crucial disconnect: L2 learners may “know” a word in written or isolated spoken form but fail to recognize it in fluent speech. This failure stems from the fuzziness of the lexical representation they have constructed in their mental lexicon.

FLR theory builds on the following foundational insights:

1. Phonolexical Representations Are Fuzzy: When learners first acquire L2 words, they often encode them with imprecise phonological information—misplacing stress, mishearing vowels and consonants, or over-relying on their L1 phoneme inventory. These errors are not just superficial; they result in long-lasting distortions in the mental lexicon.
2. Fuzzy Forms Lead to Retrieval Failures: In real-time speech, native speakers compress sounds, elide syllables, and coarticulate. If a learner’s internal representation doesn’t match the native-like form closely enough, they fail to recognize even frequent or “known” words.
3. L1 Interference Is Persistent: Learners subconsciously map L2 sounds onto their existing L1 phonological categories. This leads to persistent confusion, such as Spanish learners hearing English “ship” and interpreting it as “sheep.” These mismatches create unstable or overlapping representations, which slow processing and reduce accuracy.
4. Lexical Competition and Misrecognition: The fuzzy nature of stored words increases lexical competition—multiple candidate words are activated inappropriately during listening. For example, the word “peur” in French may activate “peur,” “peut,” and “père” due to form similarity, delaying or derailing comprehension.
5. Automaticity Is Impaired: Unlike native speakers, who access word forms quickly and effortlessly, L2 learners with fuzzy representations require more cognitive effort and time to recognize speech, leading to fatigue and processing bottlenecks.
6. Context Can’t Always Compensate: While learners may rely on top-down strategies (predicting from context), these cannot fully compensate for bottom-up phonological mismatch. Without solid form representations, even context-rich listening becomes guesswork.

In sum, FLR theory shifts attention from “lack of vocabulary knowledge” to “low-resolution phonolexical encoding.” It provides a compelling, empirically backed explanation for why traditional listening practice often fails and why bottom-up listening skills must be taught explicitly.

The Fuzzy Facts: Main Claims of FLR Theory

Core Concept	Explanation
Imprecise phonolexical representations	Learners store inaccurate sound patterns of words (e.g., wrong stress or vowels)
Poor form-meaning mapping	Learners may recognize word meanings but can’t retrieve them from spoken input
Influence of L1 phonology	L1 sound categories distort how L2 words are perceived and stored
Slower and less automatic access	L2 listeners require more time and effort to match sound to lexical form
Confusability of similar-sounding words	Fuzzy storage increases lexical competition and misrecognition

How FLR Connects to Other Theories

FLR aligns and contrasts with several key theories:

• Native-Likeness Hypothesis (Weber & Cutler): FLR expands this by showing why L2 users fail to develop native-like word recognition: their phonolexical forms are structurally different.
• TRACE Model of Speech Perception: Supports FLR’s claim that poor bottom-up input leads to competition and misrecognition.
• Lexical Quality Hypothesis (Perfetti): Agrees with FLR that low-quality representations hinder fluent access.
• Usage-Based Theories (Bybee, Ellis): Complementary; FLR explains how input affects form representations; usage-based models stress frequency and entrenchment.
• Phonological Short-Term Memory Theories: FLR fits within the idea that weak phonological memory contributes to poor encoding of forms.

FLR doesn’t reject top-down processes or contextual support, but argues that unless bottom-up precision is addressed, higher-level strategies won’t compensate sufficiently.

Why It Matters in the MFL Classroom

Many listening difficulties stem not from lack of vocabulary knowledge, but from unclear mental representations of known words. Students:

• Misidentify words they “know”
• Fail to segment speech in real time
• Rely on guesswork or translation

This has implications for pedagogy:

• Listening should be treated as a trainable skill, not a passive one
• Input needs to be processed bottom-up (sound to meaning), not just top-down (context-driven)
• Phonological precision is foundational, not decorative

Eight Classroom Activities to Sharpen Lexical Representations

Here are ten activities

Activity	Description	What It Boosts	Example
Faulty Echo (from Conti and Smith, 2019)	The teacher says a sentence correctly, then repeats it with a subtle mispronunciation. Students must identify the mistake.	Segmental precision, phoneme awareness	Correct: J’ai une grande maison. Faulty: J’ai une gronde maison.
Write It As You Hear It (Nation)	Students listen to a short sentence or phrase and write it exactly as heard. Mistakes reveal fuzzy lexical storage.	Spelling-sound mapping, auditory decoding	Audio: Ich habe Hunger. Student writes: Ich haba Unger.
Minimal Pairs Duel	Students hear two similar-sounding words and choose the correct one based on context or transcription.	Phonemic discrimination	peur vs père, pero vs perro.
Spot the Fake	The teacher intentionally mispronounces a word in a sentence. Students must detect the anomaly and correct it.	Listening accuracy, error detection	Mi hermano se lama Paco → se llama.
Gapped Audio Cloze	Learners listen to a sentence with a missing word and fill in the gap.	Lexical retrieval, segmentation	Je vais ___ au supermarché.
Fast & Fuzzy Dictation	Sentences are dictated at natural speed. Students transcribe what they hear and then compare with the original.	Bottom-up decoding under pressure	Audio: Wir haben Tennis gespielt.
Chinese Whispers	A sentence is whispered from student to student in a line. The final version is compared to the original to reveal distortions.	Auditory memory, sound form clarity	Original: Nous allons au marché. Final: Nous avons une machine.
Reverse Transcription	Students transcribe a native-level audio passage and then attempt to translate it. Errors highlight fuzzy decoding.	Form-meaning mapping, listening precision	Audio: El profesor habla rápido. Student: El provisor hablo rabo.
Mumble Detectives	Sentences are mumbled or distorted. Students attempt to reconstruct the original.	Listening under degraded input conditions	Mumbled: J’…un..gr..ma…. Correct: J’ai une grande maison.
Phoneme Swap Challenge	Two nearly identical sentences are read aloud with a single phoneme changed. Students identify and explain the difference.	Segmental awareness, vocabulary precision	Il a peur. vs Il a père.
Shadowing with Visual Support	Students repeat after a recording while reading along with a transcript, attempting to match rhythm and intonation.	Real-time decoding, fluency	Audio & Text: Soyons honnêtes. C’est difficile.

Conclusion: Fixing the Fuzz, One Sound at a Time

Fuzzy lexical representations aren’t harmless imperfections—they are the silent saboteurs of L2 listening success. They trip up otherwise motivated learners, block fluent comprehension, and dull the impact of our best intentions as teachers.

But the solution isn’t mysterious. It lies in training the ear as methodically as we train grammar or vocabulary. With intentional, phonologically rich classroom tasks, we can help learners upgrade their fuzzy entries to crystal-clear sound maps.

Because when students finally recognize what they know, they start to believe they can understand anything.

References

• Gor, K. (2018). Phonological encoding and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners. In D. Ayoun & M. Salaberry (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
• Gor, K., Cook, S., & Jackson, S. (2010). Word recognition and lexical representation in L2 phonological processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(3), 387–414.
• Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 1–25.
• Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
• Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.
• Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
• McLoughlin, L. (2023). Hearing but not understanding: Revisiting bottom-up training in L2 listening. Modern Language Journal, 107(1), 1–19.
• Nation, P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. Routledge.
• Conti, G., & Smith, S. (2019). Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Learners How to Listen. Independently published

Introduction: Where These Tips Come From

Supporting a struggling MFL (Modern Foreign Languages) colleague requires more than goodwill and a few general observations. It demands a combination of research-informed strategies drawn from three overlapping fields: Second Language Acquisition (SLA), instructional coaching, and teacher learning. The tips in this article are grounded in seminal works such as Jim Knight’s Instructional Coaching (2007, 2017), Joyce & Showers’ research on peer coaching (2002), and Elena Aguilar’s The Art of Coaching (2013), alongside empirical findings from SLA experts like Stephen Krashen, Bill VanPatten, and myself. Cognitive science staples—particularly the work of Barak Rosenshine, John Hattie, and Robert Bjork—also play a foundational role.

These aren’t abstract theories—they are practical, adaptable approaches that have consistently improved classroom practice and teacher confidence across varied contexts. If your colleague is struggling, these ten evidence-backed strategies will help you support them with clarity, compassion, and credibility.

Ten Evidence-Based Strategies That Work

1. Start with Strengths, Not Deficits

Struggling teachers are often consumed by what is going wrong. They feel exposed, defensive, and at times even ashamed. Yet, coaching literature—particularly Jim Knight’s work on instructional partnerships—emphasises the importance of beginning with what the teacher is already doing well. Knight (2007) found that when teachers perceive coaching as empowering rather than evaluative, their engagement and openness to change increase significantly.

Start by co-watching a short segment of their lesson and ask: What do you think worked here? Follow up with two or three specific things they did well—whether it’s tone, warmth, classroom control, or a clever scaffold. This strengths-based approach mirrors Aguilar’s (2013) transformational coaching model, which helps build professional identity before introducing pedagogical change.

2. Clarify What Good MFL Teaching Looks Like

Many struggling colleagues simply don’t have a clear model of what excellence looks like in MFL. Without a mental blueprint, they resort to vague notions like “make it engaging” or “cover the textbook.” In reality, good MFL teaching is underpinned by structured, high-frequency routines that promote fluency, retrieval, and comprehensible input.

Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction (2012) highlight the power of modelling, scaffolding, and cumulative review—features at the heart of research-informed approaches like Extensive Processing Instruction. If a colleague doesn’t know what “effective” looks like, co-plan one lesson with clear phases: start with modelling, flood with TL (target language) input, stage retrieval activities, scaffold output. Walk through why each phase matters. You’re not prescribing a method—you’re clarifying a map.

3. Focus on One Habit at a Time

Change happens through focused, repeated practice—not wholesale overhauls. The work of Joyce and Showers (2002) shows that teachers are far more likely to adopt and sustain new habits when they practice one technique at a time, ideally with modelling and feedback. Similarly, Bambrick-Santoyo (2010) champions the “see it, name it, do it” cycle: pick one concrete change, model it, then rehearse it repeatedly.

Whether it’s using more TL in instructions or embedding a retrieval starter daily, choose just one micro-skill. Frame it as a weekly goal, practise it together, and revisit. Small wins build momentum. Trying to change everything at once leads to paralysis, not progress.

4. Use Video for Joint Reflection

One of the most powerful coaching tools is also the most underused: video. Sherin and van Es (2009) found that watching video together shifts professional dialogue from defensive posturing (“I didn’t do that!”) to constructive analysis (“That’s not how I thought it came across”). Video offers clarity and removes guesswork.

A five-minute clip is all you need. Watch together and pause at key moments: Notice your wait time here — did the students have enough thinking space? or What do you see in their body language? This helps the teacher develop metacognition about their practice. It also levels the power dynamic—you’re not judging, you’re reflecting together.

5. Share a Few Reliable Routines

Overwhelmed teachers need tools that simplify planning while improving outcomes. Conti and Smith (2019) demonstrated how sentence builders, retrieval grids, narrow reading tasks, and listening pyramids can dramatically boost learner performance while reducing teacher workload. Sherrington (2019) also highlights the value of embedding routines that become second nature.

Pick two or three adaptable routines—say, a retrieval starter, a sentence builder activity, and a micro-listening task—and build them together. These reusable frames reduce cognitive load for both teacher and students, creating space for more fluent classroom delivery. They also provide predictability, which increases learner confidence and reduces behavioural issues.

6. Prioritise Comprehensible Input

Many struggling MFL teachers rush to output activities too quickly, believing that getting students to speak early equals progress. Yet decades of SLA research—from Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (1985) to VanPatten’s Processing Instruction (2004)—emphasise that comprehension precedes production. Learners must first process structured, meaningful input to develop the mental representations needed for accurate output.

Instead of asking learners to produce full sentences cold, co-plan a lesson that uses input flooding (e.g. multiple short texts with the same structure), followed by controlled tasks like true/false, gap-fill, or narrow listening. Then layer up toward freer output. This builds confidence and ensures the language has been deeply processed before students are asked to use it.

7. Make Retrieval and Recycling Non-Negotiable

Struggling colleagues often teach something once, then move on. But learning doesn’t work that way. The forgetting curve (Ebbinghaus, 1885) shows that without systematic retrieval, most content is lost within days. Karpicke and Roediger (2008) proved that low-stakes retrieval dramatically increases retention—even more than re-teaching or re-reading.

Help your colleague embed simple retrieval routines into every lesson: flashback starters, sentence transformation races, one pen one dice tasks. Build a weekly revision cycle. If this sounds too daunting, prepare a retrieval box of printed slips and sentence starters they can draw from. Recycling isn’t extra—it’s essential.

8. Rebuild Confidence Through Co-Teaching

Confidence doesn’t return through talk—it returns through action. One of the most effective ways to help a colleague in difficulty is to step into the classroom with them. Co-teaching, as shown by Hattie (2009) and Joyce & Showers (2002), allows for real-time modelling, feedback, and co-regulation.

Offer to take over part of a lesson—perhaps modelling a listening scaffold or sentence builder routine—while they observe. Then switch roles the following week. This approach removes the performance pressure of formal observation and allows them to see effective practice in action. Confidence grows when people feel supported, not scrutinised.

9. Align Feedback with Cognitive Science

Vague feedback like “try to engage the students more” or “differentiate better” leaves struggling colleagues lost. Effective feedback, as described by Hattie and Timperley (2007), must be specific, actionable, and timely. It should tell the teacher where they are, where they need to go, and how to get there.

One useful format is tag-ask-suggest: Tag what worked (You gave students two good chances to retrieve last week’s verbs), ask a reflective question (Did you notice who struggled during the scaffolded output task?), then suggest a next step (Let’s co-plan a second scaffold for them tomorrow). This structure removes ambiguity and keeps the dialogue anchored in evidence.

10. Coach the Person, Not Just the Pedagogy

Finally, struggling colleagues don’t just need strategies—they need belief. Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (1985) reminds us that motivation is driven by autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Coaching should nurture all three.

Take time to understand why they became a teacher. What do they love about languages? When did they last feel successful? Reconnect them with their “why” and celebrate small wins weekly. Aguilar (2016) calls this the emotional work of coaching—it’s what turns strategies into sustainable transformation. Your job isn’t just to build pedagogy. It’s to restore identity.

Final Reflection

The most impactful coaching does not stem from imposing a rigid definition of best practice, but rather from co-constructing an improved and empowered version of the teacher that already exists. Effective support is not about fixing a deficit—it is about amplifying potential.

The ten strategies outlined in this article are not quick fixes. Instead, they are rooted in a robust evidence base across instructional coaching, second language acquisition, and cognitive science. They reflect what research consistently shows: sustainable change is driven by clarity, collaboration, trust, and the deliberate practice of well-chosen habits.

Above all, meaningful coaching is built on belief—in the teacher’s capacity, in the process of growth, and in the power of professional connection. With sustained care and purposeful guidance, you will not only help a struggling colleague regain their footing. You will help them reclaim their confidence, rediscover their purpose, and ultimately, thrive.

Introduction

Every language teacher brings something distinct to the classroom: a teaching persona, a philosophy, a set of gut instincts. Some prize grammatical precision, while others favour spontaneity, empathy, or tech-enhanced play. Beneath these visible choices lie deeper beliefs about what teaching is for, how languages are learned, and what students need most. These underlying assumptions are central to what researchers call teacher cognition (Borg, 2006), professional identity (Pennington & Richards, 2016), and instructional stance (Richards & Lockhart, 1994).

Understanding your teaching type isn’t about boxing yourself in. It’s about seeing yourself more clearly. As Freeman and Johnson (1998) note, what teachers believe is just as influential as what they know or do. The more aware we are of our default settings, the more intentional and adaptive we can be.

This article introduces a research-informed taxonomy of language teacher types to help you reflect on your dominant tendencies, consider your blind spots, and develop into a more versatile educator.

How This Taxonomy Was Compiled

The taxonomy below is not drawn from a single study, but synthesised from a range of influential sources in teacher development and applied linguistics. These include work on teacher beliefs and identity (Borg, 2006; Pennington & Richards, 2016), reflective teaching (Farrell, 2015), instructional stance (Richards & Lockhart, 1994), classroom practice typologies, and practitioner reflections.

Each type represents a recurring orientation observed in language classrooms around the world. They are generalisations, not rigid boxes, and most teachers exhibit a blend of several types depending on context, group, and topic.

Taxonomy of Language Teacher Types

Teacher Type	Core Belief	Typical Strength	Watch Out For	Classroom Behaviours
Grammar-First	Rules and accuracy lead to fluency	Clarifies tricky grammar well	May underuse the TL or limit fluency	Drills, grammar focus, structured practice
Communicative Enthusiast	Language is for real use	Builds speaking confidence	May gloss over grammar	Pair tasks, real-world scenarios
Coach	Motivation drives progress	Inspires confidence and persistence	May under-challenge academically	Praise, mindset language, goal-setting
Traditionalist	Structure supports learning	Brings consistency and clarity	May lack innovation	Routine-based, textbook-driven lessons
Innovator	Engagement fuels retention	Captivates with variety	May sacrifice depth for novelty	Tech, games, creative routines
Reflective Practitioner	No good teaching without reflection	Learner-responsive, thoughtful	Risk of overthinking or inconsistency	Tweaks, journaling, CPD engagement
Entertainer	Attention is the gateway to learning	Makes lessons enjoyable	Style can outweigh substance	Humour, stories, lively performance
Disciplinarian	Order is essential for learning	Maintains strong focus and structure	May inhibit student voice or creativity	Clear rules, assertive routines
Nurturer	Relationships build readiness to learn	Builds trust and emotional safety	May avoid rigorous challenge	Supportive tone, high encouragement
Language Model	Teachers must model language use	Provides rich input and authenticity	May overwhelm weaker students	TL immersion, gestures, rephrasing
Planner	Good learning needs good sequencing	Lessons build clearly and logically	Spontaneity may suffer	Detailed prep, linear slides, checklists

Understanding the Types in More Depth

Each teacher type reflects a dominant belief system, with both benefits and pitfalls. Let’s take a closer look at what each one brings to the classroom:

• The Grammar-First Teacher is rule-based and accuracy-focused. They excel at explaining difficult grammar and ensuring precise output, but may leave little space for creative use of language.
• The Communicative Enthusiast prioritises real-world use, encouraging students to speak early and often. They build confidence and fluency, though sometimes at the expense of structural accuracy.
• The Coach believes that motivation and mindset fuel achievement. They are great at building learner confidence, but may underplay academic rigour or curricular demands.
• The Traditionalist provides predictability through structure and routines. They offer consistency, yet may shy away from innovation or learner-led activities.
• The Innovator brings energy and freshness through varied tools and formats. Their challenge is ensuring cohesion and depth while embracing novelty.
• The Reflective Practitioner constantly fine-tunes their approach based on feedback, theory, or instinct. Highly adaptive, they can sometimes overthink or lack consistency.
• The Entertainer sees engagement as non-negotiable. With humour and flair, they energise their lessons but risk putting performance above pedagogy.
• The Disciplinarian ensures order and clarity. They protect learning time and focus, but must be careful not to stifle curiosity or voice.
• The Nurturer leads with empathy and connection. Their classrooms are safe and warm, though sometimes under-challenging.
• The Language Model immerses learners in the target language. They model real-world input, but may need to scaffold more for beginners.
• The Planner builds learning carefully and logically. They excel at coherence and progression, but can find improvisation stressful.

How to Use This Taxonomy

This isn’t a personality quiz; it’s a professional mirror. Use this taxonomy as a lens to better understand yourself, your strengths, and your growth areas. Ask yourself:

• Which types feel most like “me”?
• Which types do I resist or undervalue? Why?
• Are there types I could learn from to better meet my learners’ needs?
• How do my preferences align (or clash) with those of my colleagues?
• What happens to my style when I’m under stress or time pressure?

As Dörnyei (2001) and Farrell (2015) have argued, effective teaching is identity-aware, flexible, and responsive. The best teachers aren’t locked into one type. They shift stance and strategies as the classroom moment demands.

Final Thoughts: Know Your Type — Then Stretch It

Being a strong teacher doesn’t mean embodying just one profile. It means drawing on multiple aspects of yourself as your learners, your curriculum, and your context evolve.

Your type is your tendency — not your limit. Use this taxonomy not to label yourself, but to explore new strategies, understand your defaults, and grow your teaching range.

In teacher development, as in language learning, awareness precedes change. So…

What kind of language teacher are you?

Introduction

As the academic year draws to a close and reports are finalised, teachers often breathe a collective sigh of relief. It’s a natural moment of pause — but also an ideal opportunity to take stock of what truly made an impact in the classroom. Beyond assessments and exam results lies a deeper, more strategic task: conducting an end-of-year curriculum evaluation. Far from being a box-ticking exercise, this process can shape the quality of teaching and learning for the year ahead.

In Modern Foreign Languages (MFL), curriculum design plays a pivotal role in ensuring successful progression. Language acquisition is not linear — it’s gradual, cumulative, and hinges heavily on sequencing, recycling, and clarity of input. When the curriculum lacks coherence or overestimates what students can retain, even the best teaching practices struggle to deliver long-term gains.

That’s why stepping back at the end of the year to evaluate the curriculum isn’t just helpful — it’s essential. It gives departments the chance to analyse:

• Which topics or linguistic structures landed well, and which didn’t
• Whether students had sufficient exposure to high-frequency language
• If core knowledge was recycled often enough to secure retention
• Whether assessments truly aligned with what was taught

In this post, we’ll outline a clear, practical approach to end-of-year MFL curriculum evaluation — one that empowers departments to make evidence-informed decisions, refine sequencing, and ultimately build a stronger, more responsive curriculum for the year ahead.

1. Begin with Intent, Implementation, and Impact

A structured approach to curriculum evaluation should begin with three core questions:

Intent	Implementation	Impact
What did we plan to teach?	What was actually taught, and how?	What did students understand, retain, and apply?

Focus specifically on your department’s language functions, vocabulary domains, and grammar progression. Identify whether students have made measurable progress in their ability to understand, manipulate, and use language in increasingly independent ways.

2. Focus on Retention, Not Just Coverage

MFL learning depends on long-term memory more than simple exposure. Therefore, coverage alone is not a sufficient metric.

Consider:

• Can students recall and use vocabulary from earlier in the year?
• Have they progressed in fluency and grammatical range?
• Which areas of grammar or syntax require further consolidation?

You may wish to conduct a “What have you remembered?” recall task or an unprepared writing/speaking sample to assess spontaneous recall of previously taught material.

3. Use Evidence from Student Performance

Gather a range of data from across the year, such as:

• Assessment outcomes (including performance over time)
• Speaking and writing samples showing progression or gaps
• Patterns in errors that remain uncorrected or fossilised

This should be cross-referenced with your curriculum maps to determine whether your intended outcomes match what students can actually do.

4. Gather Targeted Student Feedback

Student voice can offer helpful insight — but it must be focused and structured. Ask students specific, curriculum-linked questions that can inform curriculum development, rather than general feedback on enjoyment or personality-driven responses.

Example: Year 7 End-of-Year MFL Questionnaire (Student Voice)

Question	Response Type
Which topic did you enjoy most this year?	Multiple choice + open text
Which topic did you find most difficult, and why?	Open text
What helped you remember new words best? (e.g., games, sentence builders, retrieval quizzes, speaking tasks)	Multiple choice
Which grammar point still feels difficult?	Open text
Did you feel confident speaking in class? Why or why not?	Likert scale + open text
What one change would help you learn better next year?	Open text

This kind of structured feedback allows the department to focus on what supports learning, what might need re-teaching, and how to refine delivery methods.

5. Hold a Department Debrief

Organise a collaborative session for teachers to reflect on the year’s teaching. Each team member should prepare:

• One success to share
• One persistent challenge
• One proposed change for next year

Use a shared document or whiteboard to collate insights. Patterns often emerge quickly, allowing the team to agree on shared priorities.

6. Evaluate Progression and Vocabulary Control

Review whether key vocabulary and structures were revisited across units in a coherent way. Consider whether the curriculum:

• Facilitated cumulative knowledge
• Supported structured and scaffolded output
• Controlled and recycled key lexical items

It may help to lay out your vocabulary lists, sentence builders, or grammar overviews by term to analyse progression across the year.

7. Ensure Assessment Matches Instruction

Evaluate the quality and alignment of assessment materials. Ask:

• Did assessments reflect what was actually taught?
• Were students over-assessed on unfamiliar language?
• Was there sufficient opportunity to demonstrate fluency, not just accuracy?

Review both formative and summative assessments to ensure they measured the intended learning, not simply task performance.

8. Prioritise Realistic Adjustments

Avoid attempting to rewrite the entire curriculum. Instead, identify 3–5 high-leverage adjustments for next year, for example:

• Reducing lexical overload in certain topics
• Increasing oral fluency practice
• Revisiting grammar points more systematically

Record these decisions in a format that is easily referenced when schemes of work are next updated.

9. Involve Receiving Teachers in the Evaluation

If different teachers take students at the next level, their input is critical. Ask them:

• What strengths do students bring from the current year?
• Are there common gaps that could have been addressed earlier?
• Does the curriculum sequencing make sense from their perspective?

This can be especially important at key transitions such as Year 6–7 or Year 9–10.

10. Write a Brief Evaluation Report

Conclude the process by drafting a short internal report. It should include:

• Key strengths of the curriculum this year
• Areas for improvement
• Priorities for next year
• Specific actions agreed upon

This record can inform departmental planning, CPD decisions, and future resource development.

Conclusion: Why This Process Matters

In a subject as interdependent and layered as MFL, an end-of-year curriculum evaluation is not optional — it is essential. Without it, departments risk repeating ineffective practices and overlooking successful ones.

Done well, curriculum review ensures the curriculum is a living document — responsive to evidence, informed by classroom experience, and driven by the goal of sustained language development. For both teachers and learners, this process is the bridge between one year’s efforts and the next year’s success.

Introduction

Modern language teachers are increasingly contending with a new kind of learner—one shaped not primarily by the classroom, but by a digital media ecosystem designed to prioritise immediacy, emotion, and extremes. In this attention economy, algorithms favour what is provocative over what is nuanced, what is fast over what is thoughtful, and what entertains over what educates. The result is a generation of young people growing up in highly personalised media echo chambers, where content is curated to reinforce existing preferences, reduce exposure to unfamiliar viewpoints, and reward engagement with performative rather than substantive ideas.

This shift is not just cultural—it is cognitive. Research shows that sustained exposure to short-form, emotionally charged content weakens executive control (Ophir et al., 2009), increases impulsivity (Turel et al., 2016), and reduces tolerance for ambiguity (Kardefelt-Winther, 2017). These developments are particularly consequential in the MFL classroom, where ambiguity, delayed gratification, deep focus, and intercultural curiosity are not optional—they are foundational.

The modern foreign languages curriculum relies on exactly the kinds of cognitive and emotional habits that the current media landscape corrodes: stamina, memory, openness to difference, and the willingness to sound imperfect in pursuit of communication. MFL teachers now find themselves working against a tide of cultural conditioning that devalues the slow, uncertain, effortful nature of learning a new language.

What follows is a breakdown of ten key ways the digital media ecosystem is reshaping students’ dispositions, expectations, and behaviours—and how these changes are making MFL teaching and learning more difficult, more fragile, and more urgent than ever. Crucially, each point is paired with clear, classroom-ready strategies teachers can use to push back against these forces and reclaim the classroom as a space for thoughtful, inclusive, and linguistically rich learning.

1. Impatience with Gradual Progress

The problem:

Social media platforms train users to expect instant feedback—likes, comments, notifications. Progress is measured in real-time. In contrast, language acquisition is slow, recursive, and largely invisible for long stretches. MFL students increasingly struggle to stay motivated when progress feels intangible. They may disengage when they can’t “see” improvement within a single lesson or week. This mismatch in timescale breeds frustration and demotivation, especially among lower-achieving or younger learners.

What teachers can do:

• Use visible tracking tools and verbal reinforcement to highlight improvement.
• Celebrate micro-wins through cumulative and scaffolded practice.

Examples:

1. Create a “chunk mastery wall” where students add a card each time they can say/write a full sentence without support (e.g., “Je vais au cinéma le samedi”).
2. Run “retrieval relay” starter tasks: teams recall phrases from last week, last month, and last term—with visible reward for improvement.

2.Low Tolerance for Ambiguity

The problem:

Online platforms are designed to eliminate ambiguity—autoplay, autocorrect, summarised captions, instant translations. Learners have fewer experiences navigating uncertainty. Yet in MFL, comprehension often means living with the unknown—making inferences, tolerating partial understanding, and relying on context. For many students, this is disorienting. They want binary answers: “Is this right or wrong?” “What does this word mean?” When no clear answer is given, they lose confidence or disengage.

What teachers can do:

• Train learners to infer, guess, and tolerate partial comprehension.
• Reward resilience in uncertain situations.

Examples:

1. Use gap-fill listening where some words are deliberately left unknown—students guess meaning based on tone, context, or visuals.
2. Give two “plausible” translations for a sentence; students choose and justify the most likely, even if they don’t know every word.

3. Fear of Making Mistakes Publicly

The problem:

Social media rewards curated perfection. Mistakes, when shared online, are mocked or punished with ridicule. This cultural backdrop makes learners highly self-conscious. In the MFL classroom, where error-making is essential to progress—especially in speaking—this mindset becomes paralysing. Students may avoid volunteering answers, switch off during speaking tasks, or default to silence when asked to perform in front of peers.

What teachers can do:

• Lower the stakes of speaking and writing.
• Make errors normal and collective.

Examples:

1. Do “silly translation relays”: one student mistranslates a phrase on purpose, the next corrects it. It generates laughter and removes fear.
2. Set up “mistake of the week” wall where anonymous, real student errors are celebrated and analysed together—constructively.

4. Reduced Attention Span and Stamina

The problem:

The average TikTok video lasts 20–60 seconds. The average MFL task—listening, reading, writing—requires sustained mental effort across minutes, not seconds. Students conditioned by high-frequency novelty may find sustained processing boring or mentally exhausting. They often reach cognitive overload faster and need re-training in stamina and focus just to complete core classroom activities.

What teachers can do:

• Build longer attention gradually with structured depth tasks.
• Reduce visual and cognitive distractions.

Examples:

1. Use “intensive reading zones”: 5-minute silent reading of short TL texts, followed by timed sentence reordering or gist statements.
2. Do “listening pyramids”: students listen once and answer easy questions, then again for medium ones, then again for harder ones—extending focus time per round.

5. Declining Interest in Cultural Authenticity

The problem:

Many students view culture through an Anglocentric lens: their “world” is Spotify, Netflix, YouTube, and gaming—all in English. Other cultures are either exoticised (as strange) or dismissed (as irrelevant). This makes it harder for MFL teachers to promote cultural exploration, empathy, and curiosity—the very heart of why we teach languages in the first place.

What teachers can do:

• Bring in real, contemporary voices and perspectives.
• Make cultural relevance clear and relatable.

Examples:

1. Use a French teen’s social media profile (anonymised screenshot or recreated) and ask students to infer interests, routines, or values using TL chunks.
2. Set up “cultural menu choice” tasks—students pick one of three authentic TL clips or articles and write a summary using provided sentence starters.

6. Increased Preference for Passive Consumption

The problem:

Today’s adolescents are passive content consumers. They watch, scroll, and react far more than they produce. This directly contradicts the central aims of MFL: spontaneous speech, active listening, and creative output. Students may resist productive tasks as “too hard” or “embarrassing”—not because of ability, but because they’re unaccustomed to generating anything unrehearsed.

What teachers can do:

• Make students language producers, not just consumers.
• Use accessible, visual production formats.

Examples:

1. Students design a target-language playlist using song titles and genre tags in TL, then justify their “Top 3” using scaffolded speaking.
2. Do “caption battles”: show a funny picture and students write their own TL captions—vote for the most accurate, funniest, or creative.

7. Distorted Views of Progress and Proficiency

The problem:

Influencer culture often showcases overnight success stories—“I learned Spanish in 3 months!” or “Polyglot secrets revealed!” This creates distorted expectations. Students may feel they’re failing if they’re not fluent by the end of Year 8. They expect fluency to be fast, easy, and gamified—when in reality, it’s slow, repetitive, and often invisible in the short term.

What teachers can do:

• Regularly show progress across time.
• Break fluency down into visible components.

Examples:

1. Do “translation timelines”: students translate the same sentence at three different points in the year and compare growth.
2. Create “Can-do chains”: every time a student achieves a new skill (e.g., describing weather + activities), they link it to their prior skill in a chain on the wall or folder.

8. Erosion of Nuance and Cultural Subtlety

The problem:

Extreme content thrives online. Binary opinions, sarcasm, outrage, and absolutes dominate discourse. But languages—and cultures—are full of nuance, irony, idioms, and double meanings. MFL students who lack experience with subtlety may take idioms literally, miss humour cues, or fail to appreciate layered meanings in authentic texts.

What teachers can do:

• Teach idiomatic expressions and multiple meanings.
• Highlight when literal translation doesn’t work.

Examples:

1. Introduce idiom match-ups: TL idioms on one side, plausible English equivalents on the other. Students match and explain nuance.
2. Present two TL phrases that look similar but mean different things (e.g., “avoir chaud” vs. “être chaud”)—students create correct and incorrect dialogues to explore the contrast.

9. Weak Metacognitive Skills

The problem:

Fast media trains students to react, not reflect. Many don’t know how to revise, retrieve, or self-correct. In MFL, this shows up in repeated vocabulary forgetting, poor learning strategy use, and lack of self-awareness in writing/speaking tasks.

What teachers can do:

• Build reflection and self-monitoring into routines.
• Train learners in retrieval strategies.

Examples:

1. At the end of each week, students complete a “language log” with: “One thing I remembered easily,” “One thing I struggled with,” and “How I fixed it.”
2. During vocab retrieval, ask students to label their recall attempts with a colour: green = automatic, yellow = slow, red = couldn’t remember. Use this to guide revision.

10. Reliance on English as a Cultural Default

The problem:

Many students believe English is enough. Social media reinforces this: English dominates global entertainment and online communication. As a result, some students view MFL as a ‘school-only’ subject, not a life skill—undermining motivation and relevance.

What teachers can do:

• Challenge English-centric worldviews through visibility of multilingualism.
• Make other languages feel real and useful.

Examples:

1. Ask students to spot how many non-English languages they encounter in one day (on labels, songs, signs, football kits), then present findings.
2. Create a “Languages in the Wild” wall—real photos students take of TL in their environment or online (e.g., product names, subtitles, menus).

Conclusion

In a world shaped by algorithms that reward spectacle, speed, and certainty, the MFL classroom must offer something radically different: slowness, subtlety, struggle, and shared meaning. Teachers cannot singlehandedly reverse the effects of the digital attention economy—but we can build micro-environments of resistance. We can model curiosity. We can train focus. We can protect ambiguity. And above all, we can help students rediscover the deep joy of language as human connection—not just content.

Face-to-Face sessions (July 2025)

Here are the CPD sessions I’ll be delivering across England this July. Each event focuses on different aspects of the EPI approach and evidence-based MFL instruction. I hope to see you at one of them! Please note that I have cancelled all my speaking events scheduled for June in England, Northern Ireland and Ireland due to family issues.

Rushden – The EPI Curriculum and the New GCSE
📅 Monday 7th July 2025, 9AM–4PM
📍 Rushden Academy, NN10 6AG
🧠 Designing input-to-output sequences, listening, reading, phonics, grammar

2. Maidstone – Becoming an EPI Teacher
📅 Tuesday 8th July 2025, 8:30AM–4PM
📍 Oakwood Park Grammar School, ME16 8AH
🧠 Core EPI principles: modelling, language processing, fluency tasks

3. Coventry – Evidence-Based MFL Teaching: What Really Works
📅 Wednesday 9th July 2025, 8:30AM–3PM
📍 President Kennedy School, CV6 4GL
🧠 Effective, inclusive MFL instruction grounded in cognitive science

4. Tamworth – Becoming an EPI Teacher
📅 Friday 11th July 2025, 8:30AM–4PM
📍 Landau Forte Amington, B77 4FF
🧠 Why EPI works, listening as modelling, output tasks, fluency building

Online sessions (June-July 2025)

June 2025 Speaking & Training Events with Network for Learning

1. **Evidence‑Based Strategies for Effective and Enjoyable Grammar Instruction**
   📅 10 June 2025, 16:00–18:30 (online)
   A webinar on research-grounded grammar teaching strategies to enhance engagement and accuracy.
   🔗 View & book the course networkforlearning.org.uk+9networkforlearning.org.uk+9networkforlearning.org.uk+9networkforlearning.org.uk+1networkforlearning.org.uk+1
2. **Phonics in MFL – Workshop 1**
   📅 11 June 2025, 16:00–18:30 (online)
   An interactive session on systematic phonics integration in Modern Foreign Language instruction.
   🔗 View & book the course (Phonics in MFL – 11 June) networkforlearning.org.uk+4networkforlearning.org.uk+4networkforlearning.org.uk+4
3. **Phonics in MFL – Workshop 2**
   📅 12 June 2025, 08:00–10:30 (online)
   The second session, focusing on phoneme-grapheme mapping and code-up techniques for language learners.
   🔗 View & book the course (Phonics in MFL – 12 June) networkforlearning.org.uk+9networkforlearning.org.uk+9networkforlearning.org.uk+9networkforlearning.org.uk+2networkforlearning.org.uk+2networkforlearning.org.uk+2en.wikipedia.org+3networkforlearning.org.uk+3en.wikipedia.org+3
4. **Becoming an EPI Teacher: A Deep Dive into Extensive Processing Instruction**
   📅 16 & 19 June 2025, 16:00–19:00 (online)
   A two-part workshop exploring the MARS–EARS cycle, instructional sequencing, and fluency building.
   🔗 View & book the course (Becoming an EPI Teacher – 16 & 19 June) en.wikipedia.org+9networkforlearning.org.uk+9networkforlearning.org.uk+9
5. **Curriculum Design and Lesson Planning in MFL**
   📅 23 & 30 June 2025, 16:00–18:30 (online)
   A research-informed course on medium- and long-term lesson frameworks, integral to accreditation.
   🔗 View & book the course (Curriculum Design – 23 & 30 June) en.wikipedia.org+10networkforlearning.org.uk+10networkforlearning.org.uk+10
6. **Implementing EPI for Learners in High School**
   📅 24 June 2025, 08:00–10:30 (UK time, online)
   A practical seminar applying the P.I.R.C.O. sequence in secondary contexts with exam focus.
   🔗 View & book the course (Implementing EPI – 24 June) en.wikipedia.org+9networkforlearning.org.uk+9networkforlearning.org.uk+9en.wikipedia.org

July 2025 Speaking Events with Network for Learning

1. Memory: What Every Language Teacher Should Know
   • 📅 1 July 2025, 16:00–18:30 (online)
   • A half-day webinar on cognitive science strategies—spaced practice, dual coding, retrieval—applied to MFL learning.
2. Implementing EPI at Key Stage 4 & the New MFL GCSEs
   • 📅 2 July 2025, 16:00–19:00 (online)
   • Practical applications of the EPI model to the revised GCSE curriculum, focusing on input-to-output instructional sequences.
3. Becoming an Accredited EPI Teacher – Final Assessment Tutorial
   • 📅 8 July 2025, time TBC (online)
   • A tutorial supporting candidates preparing for the final module of the Accredited EPI Teacher Programme, with live guidance and feedback.
4. Impactful Evidence-Based Vocabulary Instruction
   • 📅 9 July 2025, time TBC (online)
   • A deep dive into research-driven techniques for teaching vocabulary under the new GCSE framework.

Introduction

Teaching modern foreign languages (MFL) to learners with special educational needs (SEN) remains one of the most complex and under-researched challenges in the secondary curriculum. SEN encompasses a wide spectrum of difficulties, but a significant proportion of students in MFL classrooms struggle specifically with Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLDs) — a category that includes dyslexia, ADHD, working memory impairments, and slower processing speeds. These learners often face disproportionately high barriers to success in languages due to the heavy cognitive demands of decoding new phonologies, processing unfamiliar syntax, and memorising vocabulary and verb paradigms.

Despite national calls for inclusion and a more equitable MFL curriculum, too many pupils with SpLDs are still withdrawn from language study or pushed through a watered-down version of the curriculum. This is often because many mainstream teachers, through no fault of their own, lack specialist training and rely on traditional instructional approaches that simply don’t work for this group. Unsurprisingly, this exclusionary dynamic feeds into the broader problem of declining motivation, poor self-efficacy, and reduced uptake at KS4.

Against this backdrop, Selina Marshall’s 2022 study, carried out at Hull University, makes a timely and much-needed contribution to our understanding of how inclusive MFL pedagogy might evolve. Her study investigates teacher perceptions of the lexicogrammar approach, a model increasingly adopted across UK classrooms and rooted in Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction and the MARS EARS framework. Crucially, Marshall’s study focuses specifically on its impact on learners with SpLDs.

The findings are striking: teachers consistently report that the lexicogrammar approach enhances motivation, independence, self-efficacy, and attainment among SpLD learners. Sentence builders, peer retrieval activities, and scaffolded practice emerged as key tools in reducing cognitive load and building confidence. By chunking grammar and vocabulary into meaningful units, the approach not only aligns with cognitive science but also levels the playing field — giving SpLD learners a chance to experience genuine success in MFL.

Yet the study is not without limitations. The sample size is modest, based on a small cohort of teachers and schools, and relies on self-reported perceptions rather than longitudinal attainment data. Moreover, concerns were raised around potential over-scaffolding and the need for more structured CPD. Still, the implications are far-reaching — pointing toward a future in which inclusive language instruction isn’t an afterthought, but the starting point of curriculum design.

Summary of Selina Marshall’s Dissertation

Title: The Lexicogrammar Approach and Supporting Students with SpLDs in Secondary Modern Foreign Languages

Author: Selina Marshall

Type: MA Dissertation

Institution: University of Hull

Context and Rationale

This dissertation addresses the under-researched area of how modern foreign language (MFL) teaching in secondary schools can better support learners with specific learning difficulties (SpLDs), such as dyslexia, ADHD, or working memory impairments. Given the decline in MFL uptake in the UK and the additional challenges faced by SpLD learners, the study explores how a lexicogrammar approach — which integrates vocabulary and grammar instruction — can benefit both the inclusion and attainment of these students.

The research was prompted by three key concerns:

1. MFL departments often lack adequate knowledge of SpLDs.
2. SpLD learners typically find language learning disproportionately difficult.
3. Lexicogrammar may offer a more structured, cognitively manageable framework than traditional MFL instruction.

Methodology

The study adopts a qualitative case study approach within a UK state secondary school. Data were gathered through:

• Semi-structured interviews with five MFL teachers and two SENDCOs.
• Lesson observations focusing on SpLD learners in Year 8 and Year 10 French classes.
• Document analysis of lesson materials and policies.

The researcher triangulated these sources to investigate both teacher perceptions and classroom practices related to the lexicogrammar approach.

Theoretical Framework

The lexicogrammar approach is grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday), which views grammar and lexis as inseparable. This contrasts with traditional MFL pedagogies that treat vocabulary and grammar as discrete entities.

The approach aligns with Rosenshine’s principles of instruction and the MARS EARS framework (Conti, 2021), focusing on high-frequency structures, spaced retrieval, and sentence builders that lower cognitive load — strategies particularly suitable for SpLD learners.

Key Findings

1. Perceived Benefits for SpLD Learners

• Teachers observed improvements in motivation, confidence, independence, and self-efficacy among SpLD students using sentence builders.
• The chunking of language into meaningful, reusable segments facilitated better retention and reduced anxiety.
• Lexicogrammar tasks supported scaffolding, allowing gradual release of responsibility in line with Vygotsky’s ZPD.

2. Reduced Cognitive Load

• Sentence builders helped SpLD learners by minimising the demand on working memory.
• The predictable structure allowed students to focus on meaning-making rather than decoding individual elements.

3. Enhanced Teacher Understanding

• The lexicogrammar approach inadvertently led to greater teacher awareness of SpLD-friendly strategies, even among staff without specialist SEND training.
• Staff felt more confident differentiating for SpLDs and saw this approach as more inclusive than conventional grammar-heavy or textbook-driven methods.

4. Tensions and Limitations

• Some concern emerged that over-scaffolding could limit creativity or mask deficits.
• A few teachers initially struggled with transitioning from a more traditional curriculum model to one driven by sentence builders.
• There was a lack of formal training in either the lexicogrammar model or SpLD pedagogy, and more CPD was requested.

Conclusions

Marshall concludes that the lexicogrammar approach is highly effective in supporting SpLD learners in MFL classrooms by:

• Lowering the cognitive barriers to language learning.
• Enhancing student motivation, independence, and confidence.
• Increasing teacher capacity to meet the needs of diverse learners without relying on individualised, labour-intensive differentiation.

The research calls for greater integration of SpLD training in ITT and CPD, and recommends wider adoption of lexicogrammar across MFL departments.

Recommendations

1. Curriculum Design: Schools should restructure MFL curricula around lexicogrammar principles to foster inclusion.
2. Teacher Training: Include SpLD-specific strategies and lexicogrammar in initial and ongoing MFL teacher development.
3. Resource Development: Invest in lexicogrammar-based materials, including sentence builders and retrieval grids.
4. Research Expansion: Further longitudinal and quantitative studies are needed to measure long-term outcomes for SpLD learners.

Implications

Marshall’s findings make a compelling case for rethinking how language is taught in UK schools — not just to include SpLD learners, but to improve outcomes for all. The lexicogrammar approach provides a principled, research-aligned method of reducing barriers to success in MFL and should be considered not just as a SEND strategy, but as best practice for universal design in language education.

Final thoughts

What makes this research so powerful is that it doesn’t just echo abstract claims about inclusive education — it grounds them in a coherent and evidence-aligned framework. In fact, one could argue that Marshall’s findings implicitly validate the core tenets of Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI). The EPI model, like the lexicogrammar approach it inspired, is built on principles of high-frequency input, scaffolded production, delayed error correction, and long-term proceduralisation — all of which are deeply aligned with what we know works for SpLD learners.

Research in cognitive psychology and SEN pedagogy has long shown that these students benefit from explicit modelling, repetition with variation, low-stakes retrieval, and gradual release of responsibility. EPI does precisely that. It provides a structured pathway through which all learners — not just the most able — can experience success and build fluency. For learners with SpLDs, this isn’t just beneficial; it’s essential.

If inclusion in MFL is to be more than a slogan, approaches like EPI and lexicogrammar must become the norm rather than the exception. And studies like this remind us that when we teach in ways that benefit the most vulnerable, we improve learning for everyone.