Introduction

Having delivered 150-200 professional development workshops a year for the past ten years, I’ve been afforded a unique window into the wonderfully varied and occasionally hilarious ecosystem of Modern Foreign Language (MFL) teachers. From the most ardent pedagogical missionaries to the CPD escape artists seeking only coffee and a break from cover duty, the MFL CPD room is a rich field of sociological study.

What follows is a semi-serious taxonomy — lovingly compiled, half-anthropological, half-therapeutic — of the MFL professionals you’re likely to encounter at your next training session. If you don’t see yourself in one of these types, look again… or ask your colleagues. They’ll know.

For those of you with a more serious disposition, I’ve also included a research-informed taxonomy that I’ve consistently found useful as a professional development provider — both in preparing for and delivering my workshops and keynotes.

A semi-serious Taxonomy

1. The Enthusiast

AKA: The Smiler, The “This Is Gold!” Type

• Behaviour: Front-row sitter, nods frequently, already tweeting out takeaways.
• Quote: “This is exactly what I needed!”
• Function: Injects energy and optimism into the room.

2. The Skeptical Veteran

AKA: The “Seen It All Before” Guardian

• Behaviour: Arms folded, occasional smirk, references ‘old-school’ methods with fondness.
• Quote: “We tried this in 2007. Didn’t work.”
• Function: Keeps the hype in check and brings a long-view perspective.

3. The CPD Collector

AKA: The training addict

• Behaviour: Mentions prior workshops with name-drops, quotes research unprompted.
• Quote: “At the workshop in Leeds last term, we discussed something similar.”
• Function: Brings depth and connects dots across sessions.

4. The Workload Drowner

AKA: The Overwhelmed One

• Behaviour: Slightly panicked expression, visibly thinking about their to-do list.
• Quote: “I like this, but when would I even have time to laminate it?”
• Function: Represents the reality of teacher burnout. Deserves biscuits.

5. The Evangelist

AKA: The CPD apostle

• Behaviour: Hails the CPD as a game changer. Already rewriting the schemes of learning in their heads.
• Quote: “This will change everything!”
• Function: The ultimate CPD cheerleader.

6. The Hostage

AKA: The Unwilling Participant

• Behaviour: Didn’t choose to attend. Checks phone constantly. Doesn’t speak.
• Quote: “I was told to come.”
• Function: Seat-filler. Sometimes surprisingly moved by Slide 46.

7. The Absorber

AKA: The Sponge, The Silent Strategist

• Behaviour: Quiet, focused, takes notes diligently. Rarely speaks, but often acts.
• Quote: “I just need to sit with this and process it a bit.”
• Function: CPD gold. Will quietly implement more than anyone.

8. The Contrarian

AKA: Devil’s Advocate, The Challenger

• Behaviour: Constantly questions assumptions. Engages in intense debate.
• Quote: “But where’s the empirical evidence that this actually works?”
• Function: Raises rigour. Also blood pressure.

9. The SLT Tourist

AKA: The Suit, The Surveillance Drone

• Behaviour: Makes strategic eye contact. Says very little. Evaluates silently.
• Quote: “Interesting… carry on.”
• Function: Keeps everyone a bit on edge. Might fund something.

10. The CPD Burnout

AKA: The Numb Veteran.

• Behaviour: Emotionally done. Can’t muster enthusiasm. Responds only to caffeine.
• Quote: “Another day, another acronym.”
• Function: A warning sign. Deserves both empathy and a nap.

Rare but Remarkable Species

The Pedagogical Magpie

• Behaviour: Hoards ideas, shiny strategies, and buzzwords like treasure.
• Quote: “Wait! I can blend retrieval with escape room mechanics!”
• Function: Creates Frankenstein-like lessons — occasionally brilliant.

The Innovator-in-Exile

• Behaviour: Genius ideas unrecognised by SLT. Whispers “just between us” before showing their best work.
• Quote: “We’re not officially allowed to do this… but look what happened!”
• Function: Underground educational revolutionary.

The Inner Rebel

• Behaviour: Smiles sweetly during plenaries but mutters anarchic thoughts under breath.
• Quote: “Let’s just say I don’t always follow the scheme.”
• Function: Keeps the spirit of autonomy alive.

The Transformer

• Behaviour: Arrives sceptical. Leaves radiant. Plans a revolution over lunch.
• Quote: “I’ve got a completely new vision now.”
• Function: The true CPD butterfly. Proof metamorphosis is possible.

Summary Table

Type	Nickname	Main Behaviour	Core Function
Enthusiast	The Smiler	Engaged, excited	Boosts atmosphere
Skeptical Veteran	Seen-It-All Guardian	Cautious, experienced	Offers historical context
CPD Collector	Workshop Nomad	Well-informed, hyperlinked mind	Connects disparate insights
Workload Drowner	The Overwhelmed One	Distracted, realistic	Brings urgency and honesty
Evangelist	CPD Apostle	Zealous, contagious optimism	Promotes rapid adoption
Hostage	The Unwilling One	Passive, uninterested	Adds statistical weight
Absorber	Silent Strategist	Thoughtful, measured	Quiet implementation star
Contrarian	Devil’s Advocate	Critical, data-driven	Provokes higher standards
SLT Tourist	The Suit	Polished, formal	Adds institutional accountability
CPD Burnout	The Shell	Weary, glazed	Signals system strain
Pedagogical Magpie	The Idea Collector	Method-blender, playful	Sparks creative chaos
Innovator-in-Exile	The Maverick	Rules-optional genius	Quietly disrupts the system
Inner Rebel	The Sweet Subversive	Smiling insurgent	Keeps it real
Transformer	The Late Bloomer	Awakens mid-session	Delivers CPD payoff

A research-informed taxonomy

Here is a more serious taxonomy, based on research. As you will notice, there are quite a few overlaps with the one I have provided above.

Profile	Core Characteristics	Research Roots	Implications for CPD
The Pragmatic Adapter	Interested in usable, classroom-ready strategies; ignores the theory.	Implementation science; Timperley (2011)	Needs practical modelling and follow-up support.
The Reflective Practitioner	Enjoys critical engagement; seeks to link CPD to beliefs and context.	Schön (1983); Boud & Walker (1990)	Benefits from dialogic spaces and collaborative inquiry.
The Compliant Attender	Attends because it’s required; passive engagement.	Kennedy (2014) – transmissive vs transformative models	Risk of low impact unless agency is built in.
The Change Agent	Applies and advocates for new practices; influences others.	Desimone (2009); Fullan (2001)	Ideal for peer coaching and leadership development.
The Skeptical Consumer	Questions efficacy and credibility of approaches.	Kennedy (2005); Coldwell (2017)	Needs evidence, rationale, time to experiment.
The Overloaded Practitioner	Mentally engaged but emotionally depleted.	Burnout literature; Day & Gu (2007)	CPD must consider workload and wellbeing.
The Strategic Collector	Gathers ideas for future use; delays application.	Situated learning; Eraut (2004)	Needs nudges, mentoring, or low-stakes trials.
The Novice Explorer	New to teaching; eager but overwhelmed.	Clarke & Hollingsworth (2002)	Needs scaffolding, mentoring, and simplified frameworks.
The In-School Influencer	High social capital; their CPD stance shapes others’.	Social learning theory; Bandura (1977)	Can amplify or undermine school-wide CPD impact.

Why These Taxonomies Matter

It’s easy to dismiss CPD humour as light relief — but understanding who’s in the room helps us design better, more inclusive, and more effective professional learning experiences. The first taxonomy isn’t just a tongue-in-cheek portrait of MFL teachers; it’s a mirror for schools and trainers alike.

Recognising these types allows:

• Facilitators to anticipate reactions, adapt tone, and avoid one-size-fits-all approaches.
• Colleagues to build empathy, recognising that scepticism or silence isn’t always resistance — it might be burnout, overwork, or deep reflection.
• Leaders to identify who might need more nurturing, who can be champions of change, and who could be gently nudged out of passive roles.

And for teachers? It’s an invitation to self-reflect. Are we always the same persona in every CPD? Or do we shift depending on context, energy, and topic? A strong CPD culture isn’t about converting everyone into an Evangelist — it’s about embracing the full cast, quirks and all, and ensuring each one leaves the room just a little more curious, hopeful, or empowered.

Conclusion

CPD isn’t just about content — it’s about community. These characters, in all their varied glory, are part of what makes MFL CPD vibrant, unpredictable, and oddly endearing. Whether you’re an Evangelist, an Escape Artist or somewhere in between, your presence shapes the room. And maybe, just maybe, you’re not just one type — but a bit of several, depending on the time of year, the topic, or how much coffee you’ve had.

So the next time you walk into a training room and scan the seating plan, look around: your tribe is there.

(Just don’t sit too close to the Contrarian. You’ve been warned.)

Introduction: Echoes That Teach

Imagine a classroom where learners speak not to produce, but to echo. They’re not asked to create original sentences, but to shadow a model voice—real time, word for word, tone for tone, breath for breath. To the untrained eye, it might look like mindless mimicry. But under the hood, shadowing is an advanced, cognitively rich technique, lauded for its potential to accelerate language acquisition, especially fluency and listening.

Long used in interpreter training and increasingly recommended in applied linguistics literature, shadowing is slowly making its way into communicative classroom settings. But for it to be effective—particularly with novice or intermediate learners—it must be carefully scaffolded, ideally following scripted listening activities (Conti & Smith, 2019) and explicit phonics instruction.

This post explores what shadowing is, how it works, why it works, what research says about it, how to avoid its pitfalls, and most importantly, how to implement it successfully in classrooms following the EPI model.

What Is Shadowing?

Shadowing is the technique of listening to a piece of spoken language and immediately repeating it aloud, trying to match the speaker’s intonation, pronunciation, stress, and rhythm. Unlike delayed imitation or choral repetition, shadowing is simultaneous, usually performed within milliseconds of the original input.

It was first formalised by Tamai (1992) in Japan and later refined by Kadota (2007, 2012) as a tool for training interpreters. The learner listens and speaks at the same time, forcing their phonological loop to operate at full capacity while building motor-auditory fluency.

Why Does Shadowing Work?

Shadowing is effective because it activates multiple learning mechanisms at once. Let’s break down the key benefits:

1. It Improves Auditory Discrimination and Working Memory
   According to Baddeley’s (2003) model of working memory, the phonological loop is responsible for storing and processing sounds. Shadowing keeps this loop constantly active, reinforcing sound recognition and mental rehearsal. Kadota (2012) found that shadowing boosts phonological encoding, leading to better short-term retention of language chunks.
2. It Develops Accurate Prosody and Pronunciation
   By synchronising with the speaker’s voice in real time, learners refine their intonation, pitch contours, and rhythm. Studies by Foote & McDonough (2017) and Mori (2011) show significant gains in pronunciation accuracy and prosodic fluency in ESL learners using shadowing with mobile tools.
3. It Proceduralises Grammar and Chunks
   Shadowing promotes implicit learning by encouraging learners to internalise grammatical structures and lexical chunks without conscious analysis. It facilitates proceduralisation—the transformation of declarative knowledge into fluent, automatic output (DeKeyser, 2007; Segalowitz, 2010).
4. It Sharpens Listening Skills
   Because it requires fine-grained attention to input, shadowing enhances decoding of connected speech, reductions, elisions, and weak forms, making learners more adept at parsing naturalistic input (Tamai, 1992; Hamada, 2016).
5. It Builds Cognitive Load Tolerance
   The simultaneous nature of shadowing trains learners to process input and output concurrently—developing mental agility and fluency under pressure (Kadota, 2012). This is especially valuable for interpreters and advanced communicators.

How Much Is Enough?

While there’s no magic number, research offers useful guidelines:

• Kadota (2007) recommends 3–5 hours per week for measurable gains in fluency.
• Tamai (1992) observed strong improvements with 15–20 minutes daily across several weeks.
• Hamada (2016) found that lower-intermediate learners benefited significantly from short sessions (10–15 minutes, 3–4x per week) over 6 weeks.

As with most language input, regularity and quality matter more than quantity.

Foundations First: Scripted Listening and Phonics

For shadowing to yield optimal results, it should not be introduced in a vacuum—especially not with novice learners. It must follow foundational work that:

1. Makes input fully comprehensible (Krashen, 1982);
2. Familiarises learners with key structures and lexis;
3. Helps them decode sounds explicitly.

This is where Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI) comes in. EPI advocates for Scripted Listening (Conti & Smith, 2019)—intensive listening activities based on rich, recycled input with built-in scaffolds (e.g., narrow listening, aural match-ups, listening pyramids). These prime the learner’s brain with high-frequency structures and help them notice collocations and patterns.

Before or alongside shadowing, it’s also vital to carry out explicit phonics work, especially for English learners grappling with inconsistent sound-letter correspondences. Addressing common mispronunciations reduces the risk of fossilising errors during shadowing.

Pitfalls of Shadowing (and How to Avoid Them)

Pitfall	Risk	Solution
Mindless parroting	Learners repeat without understanding	Combine shadowing with comprehension tasks (e.g. summarising, back translation)
Cognitive overload	Particularly for beginners	Use graded materials, slow speed, transcript support
Fossilisation of errors	Incorrect forms get automatised	Do phonics work beforehand; use native audio; record and review output
Demotivation	Learners may find it stressful or boring	Use engaging content and gamify (e.g. shadowing speed challenges)

Classroom Implementation Tips

1. Start with “Scripted Shadowing”
   Learners shadow while reading the transcript. This builds phonological confidence.
2. Move to Audio-Only
   Once comfortable, learners shadow without transcript, chunk by chunk.
3. Use High-Frequency Chunks
   Focus on sentence builders and recycled structures already taught (Conti, 2021).
4. Incorporate Output Tasks
   Follow shadowing with retrieval practice: e.g., write a summary, answer comprehension questions, rephrase key chunks.
5. Record and Compare
   Learners record their shadowing and compare it to the model—great for noticing gaps in pronunciation or rhythm.
6. Keep Sessions Short and Focused
   10–15 minutes of intensive shadowing is better than 40 minutes of fatigued mimicry.

How you can gamify Shadowing

Here are a few tried and tested Shadowing games that can be easily incorporated in your lessons.

Conclusion: Beyond Echoes

Shadowing may look like imitation, but it’s far more than echoing sounds—it’s a full-body rehearsal of fluency. When built upon a foundation of scripted listening, phonics, and lexical patterning, it can turbocharge learners’ listening comprehension, pronunciation, and spontaneous production.

For teachers working within an EPI framework, shadowing is not just an add-on. It’s the bridge between structured input and proceduralised output. Used judiciously.

References

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working Memory and Language. Psychology Press.
Conti, G., & Smith, S. (2019). Breaking the Sound Barrier. The Language Gym.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. CUP.
Foote, J. A., & McDonough, K. (2017). Using shadowing with mobile technology to improve ESL pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 3(1), 34–56.
Hamada, Y. (2016). Shadowing: Who benefits and how? Language Teaching Research, 20(1), 35–52.
Kadota, S. (2007). Shadowing as a Training Method for Improving EFL Learners’ Listening and Speaking Skills. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kadota, S. (2012). Shadowing: Let’s Speak English Like an Interpreter! Tokyo: Cosmopier.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon.
Mori, Y. (2011). The roles of phonological decoding and semantic access in L2 word recognition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(1), 1–30.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. Routledge.
Tamai, K. (1992). Shadouingu no Koka ni Tsuite no Kenkyuu [A Study on the Effects of Shadowing]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.

Introduction

We often talk about what makes great language teaching: clear explanations, rich input, meaningful practice. But how often do we stop to ask: how does the brain itself process language?

The answer matters more than we might think. Understanding the key areas of the brain involved in speaking, listening, reading and writing gives us powerful clues about how to teach more effectively. Why is listening so crucial early on? Why does grammar overload learners so easily? Why do some students struggle to connect speech and text?

In this article, we’ll take a simple tour of the brain’s main language hubs — what each does, how they work together — and explore what this means for everyday classroom practice. You don’t need to be a neuroscientist to teach with the brain in mind… but knowing a few key facts can help you make better choices for your learners.

1. Broca’s area

Where it is: In the lower part of the left frontal lobe.

What it does:

• Helps us plan and say words and sentences.
• Handles grammar: putting words together correctly.
• Deals with complex sentence structures.

Think of it as the “speech and grammar centre”.

2. Wernicke’s area

Where it is: In the upper part of the left temporal lobe.

What it does:

• Helps us understand spoken and written language.
• Links sounds to meanings.

The brain’s “understanding and decoding hub”.

3. Angular gyrus

Where it is: In the parietal lobe near Wernicke’s area.

What it does:

• Links what we hear, see, and know.
• Important for reading and writing.
• Helps connect written words with how they sound.

The “integration centre” — essential for reading and writing.

4. Arcuate fasciculus (not a hub but a key connection)

What it does:

• Connects Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas.
• Lets comprehension and speaking areas work together.
• If damaged, people can speak and understand well but struggle to repeat what they hear.

The “information highway” between understanding and speaking.

5. Primary auditory cortex (Heschl’s gyrus)

Where it is: In the upper part of the temporal lobe.

What it does:

• Handles first processing of sounds.
• Critical for hearing and recognising speech sounds.

The “entry point for speech sounds”.

6. Other areas involved in language

• Prefrontal cortex: Handles higher-level things like planning conversations and using language appropriately.
• Right hemisphere areas: Help with tone, emotion, humour, sarcasm, and rhythm in speech.

How a sentence is processed by the brain: hub by hub

Let’s imagine a learner hears the sentence:

“The cat is sleeping on the chair.”

Here’s what happens in their brain, step by step:

1. Primary auditory cortex (Heschl’s gyrus): first stop

• As soon as the sound reaches the ears, it’s sent to the primary auditory cortex, which begins decoding the raw sound: pitch, rhythm, volume.
• At this stage, the brain is simply recognising that “this is speech” and starts to break it into smaller units like phonemes.

2. Wernicke’s area: comprehension and decoding

• Next, Wernicke’s area gets involved to identify words and attach meaning to them: recognising “the”, “cat”, “is”, “sleeping”, etc.
• This is where the learner understands what each word means, tapping into their mental vocabulary.

3. Angular gyrus: multimodal integration

• The angular gyrus might also activate, especially if the learner is imagining the sentence’s meaning (“cat” → picture of a cat; “chair” → picture of a chair).
• If they’re reading the sentence instead of hearing it, the angular gyrus would link the written words to their sounds and meanings.

4. Broca’s area: preparing a response and analysing grammar

• Broca’s area now steps in to unpack the grammar: it identifies that “the cat” is the subject, “is sleeping” is the verb phrase, “on the chair” is a prepositional phrase showing location.
• If the learner is planning to repeat or comment on the sentence (e.g., saying “The cat is sleeping!”), Broca’s area also prepares the speech plan to produce that utterance.

5. Arcuate fasciculus: connecting comprehension to production

• If the learner needs to repeat the sentence aloud, the arcuate fasciculus carries the information from Wernicke’s area (understanding) to Broca’s area (speaking).

6. Prefrontal cortex and right hemisphere: nuance and pragmatics

The prefrontal cortex may also be engaged if the learner is thinking about how to respond, planning what to say next.

If there’s additional nuance (e.g., tone of voice suggests sarcasm or excitement), the right hemisphere areas help interpret this.

Implications for language teaching

Knowing what these areas do gives us useful ideas for how we should teach language.

1. Listening is essential

The auditory cortex and Wernicke’s area need lots of good-quality listening input to help learners distinguish and understand sounds.

Implication: Listening should be a central part of teaching, especially at the start. We should give plenty of listening practice with feedback on pronunciation.

2. Grammar needs careful handling

Broca’s area is sensitive to how much information it can handle at once.

Implication:

• Start with simple grammar before moving to more complex structures.
• Teach language in useful chunks and phrases to reduce overload. This is key, especially with beginners.
• Use repetition and scaffolding to help patterns stick before adding variation. The repetitions need to be many more than what typical textbooks afford (50+) and should cut across as many modalities as possible,

3. Use different modes together

The angular gyrus links visual, sound, and meaning information.

Implication: Combine speaking, listening, reading and writing activities (like dictations, reading while listening, shadowing) so learners use all senses.

4. Build automaticity

The arcuate fasciculus helps us speak and understand quickly and smoothly.

Implication:

• Do lots of retrieval practice and fluency work (like fast drills with feedback).
• Give learners practice speaking and listening at natural speeds early on.

5. Don’t forget tone and emotion

While grammar and vocabulary mainly use the left side of the brain, the right side deals with intonation, feelings, and meaning beyond words.

Implication: Teach not just correct grammar but also natural-sounding speech: tone, emphasis, humour, irony.

Conclusion

If we want our teaching to match how the brain works, we need to:

• Focus heavily on listening at first.
• Teach grammar carefully and gradually.
• Mix speaking, listening, reading and writing so they support each other.
• Give learners lots of chances for quick recall and practice.
• Include tone, emphasis and “how language sounds in real life”.

This is not about gimmicks or brain myths — it’s about respecting how the brain naturally learns language so we can teach in a way that really works.

Introduction

This post was prompted by a series of interactions I recently had in a Facebook group for language teachers—interactions that were, frankly, surprising and unsettling. The tone was unexpectedly hostile, the responses unreasonably oppositional, and the overall atmosphere more combative than collegial. What struck me most was that this behaviour came not from random internet trolls, but from fellow educators—professionals who, by the very nature of their vocation, are expected to model empathy, patience, and open-mindedness.

It led me to a simple but uncomfortable question: Why are teachers, of all people, sometimes so rude online? What happens when the professional ethos of mutual respect and thoughtful dialogue seems to dissolve the moment we step into virtual spaces? This post explores some of the psychological, social, and professional dynamics that may explain these lapses in civility—and what they might reveal about the pressures and pitfalls of teaching in the modern age.

What research says

Here are some of the causes of online ‘lapses in civility’ according to researchers.

1. Online Disinhibition Effect

Psychologist John Suler (2004) coined the term “online disinhibition effect” to describe the way people behave more aggressively or inappropriately online than they would face-to-face. Factors include:

• Anonymity or reduced accountability: Even in named accounts, there’s a psychological distancing effect.
• Lack of social cues: Without facial expressions or vocal tone, intent is easily misread.
• Asynchronous communication: People post impulsively, then log off without processing consequences.

“People say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn’t ordinarily say and do in the face-to-face world.”

— Suler, 2004

This means even well-intentioned sharing (e.g. “Here’s a new sentence builder resource I tried”) can be met with undue scepticism or sarcasm—especially if the reader interprets it as self-promotion, virtue-signalling, or a veiled critique of others’ practice.

2. Identity Threat and Insecurity

When someone shares a pedagogical approach or resource that contradicts another teacher’s methods, it can trigger a form of professional identity threat—even unintentionally.

“When core professional beliefs are challenged, individuals may respond with defensiveness or hostility to protect their self-concept.”

— Kelchtermans (2005), on teacher identity

For instance:

• A teacher who uses traditional PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production) sees a post advocating for EPI or TL-only instruction.
• Rather than engaging with the content, they lash out—because the post feels like a criticism of their competence.

This is worsened by a perception of status threat, especially in online spaces where some individuals (rightly or wrongly) are seen as “influencers.”

3. Social Comparison and Envy

Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory (1954) suggests people constantly evaluate their own abilities and value by comparing themselves to others. In professional social media groups:

• Posts about student success, innovative strategies, or high engagement can stir envy, particularly among teachers struggling with motivation, behaviour, or leadership.
• Rather than expressing insecurity, some respond with passive-aggression, sarcasm, or dismissal.

“Exposure to curated success narratives can increase feelings of inadequacy and antagonism in viewers.”

— Vogel et al., 2014

This is particularly common in subjects like MFL, where teachers often feel isolated or under-valued in their institutions.

4. Toxic In-Group Norms and Gatekeeping

Specialist teacher groups sometimes develop insular cultures—marked by unspoken norms, hierarchies, or cliques. Newcomers or those who don’t conform (e.g. by promoting new pedagogies or asking basic questions) may be:

• Mocked for being “naïve”
• Dismissed as “selling something” or “jumping on the latest bandwagon”
• Criticised for promoting “fads” or “non-evidence-based fluff”

This reflects a form of gatekeeping, where dominant voices enforce norms and defend territory. It’s also linked to status preservation, where attacking others is a way to assert authority.

“Groupthink and gatekeeping are common in professional online spaces, limiting innovation and diversity of thought.”

— Carpenter & Krutka, 2015

5. Burnout and Emotional Spillover

Many rude online interactions aren’t truly about the article, method, or resource being shared. They’re emotional spillovers from frustration, burnout, or low self-efficacy.

“Teachers under high stress and emotional strain are more likely to externalise negativity, especially in anonymous or low-consequence environments.”

— Chang, 2009

This means that behind a hostile reply might be:

• An overworked teacher marking at 11pm.
• Someone who just had a lesson observation go poorly.
• A teacher who’s been repeatedly unsupported by their leadership team.

Social media becomes an outlet—unfortunately, often at the expense of a well-meaning peer.

What Can Be Done?

1. Normalise Professional Vulnerability
   Encourage communities where people can say:
   “I don’t understand this method” or “This isn’t working for me” without shame.
   (See Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, on collaborative professionalism.)
2. Model Generous Interpretation
   Assume that most people are sharing in good faith—not to boast or belittle. Leaders and moderators should publicly reward constructive tone.
3. Encourage Reflective Practice, Not Comparison
   Posts that reflect on “what didn’t work” or “how I improved this” create safer climates than curated perfection.
4. Design Safer Group Structures
   Moderation policies, norms for feedback, and opt-in “critique zones” can help maintain civility and psychological safety. That’s what we strive to achieve in the Global Innovative Language Teachers group.

Conclusion

When teachers are rude in specialist social media groups, it’s rarely about the content shared. It’s about identity, threat, status, insecurity, or accumulated frustration.

The research shows clearly: online spaces are emotionally charged, performative, and fragile. But with the right culture of empathy, transparency, and reflection, they can also become powerful ecosystems of mutual growth.

Key References

• Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.
• Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 995–1006.
• Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222.
• Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engaged learning through social media: How teachers use Twitter to support professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 9–23.
• Chang, M. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193–218.
• Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. Routledge.

Introduction

A huge thank you to the authors of the Language Trends Engand 2025 report, Dr Ian Collen and Jayne Duff, whose work continues to provide vital insights and guidance for language education in England.

Every year, the Language Trends England report offers crucial insights into the health of language learning across English schools. Commissioned by the British Council and conducted by Queen’s University Belfast, the 2025 edition draws on a broad dataset from primary, secondary, and independent schools across the country. The survey includes over 1,500 responses, providing one of the most reliable barometers of Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) provision in England.

Its aim is simple yet vital: to track trends in uptake, identify inequalities, explore teacher experiences, and assess the impact of policy, curriculum reform, and innovation. In the current post-Brexit, post-pandemic context—and amid significant GCSE and A-level reforms—this year’s report paints a picture of cautious optimism, persistent inequality, and emerging shifts in classroom practice.

Key Findings Across the Sectors

1. Primary Languages Provision

• French remains the dominant language, taught in 70% of primary schools, followed by Spanish (26%) and German (6%). However, uptake varies regionally and demographically.
• A significant barrier in primary remains teacher confidence and subject knowledge, with 63.6% of languages being taught by generalist primary teachers.
• Only 25.6% of primary schools report having access to a language specialist, making curriculum depth and progression more difficult to achieve.
• Time constraints continue to impact delivery. Around 18.9% of schools say they’ve reduced time for languages due to pressures from English and Maths.
• Multilingual awareness initiatives (e.g., celebrating home languages, multilingual displays) are more common in urban and multicultural schools. About 47.8% of schools promote linguistic diversity actively.
• AI use is minimal in primary: over 75% of schools never use AI for language teaching.

2. Transition from KS2 to KS3

• Only 50% of primary schools have any contact with local secondary MFL departments, despite KS2–KS3 transition being a long-standing issue.
• Just 2% of secondary schools report that all of their Year 7 students continue with the same language studied in primary school.
• Information-sharing is weak: only 27.5% of secondary schools receive any detail on pupils’ prior language knowledge or attainment.
• Schools involved in NCLE Language Hubs report slightly improved transition communication but acknowledge that transition remains disjointed in most areas.

3. Secondary Language Study and Inequality

• Spanish continues to grow, particularly in inner-city schools, while German is now taught in fewer than 1 in 10 schools. When taught, German tends to be concentrated in more affluent areas. French continues to be the most offered language at KS3, while Spanish retains more pupils at the age 14 and age 16 transition points;
• There is a stark social divide: students in more affluent areas are much more likely to take a language GCSE. In Quintile 1 schools (least deprived), 69% of students study a language at GCSE; in Quintile 5 schools (most deprived), the figure drops to 47%.
• On average, responding secondary school teachers estimate 53 per cent of their Year 11 pupils are currently learning a language for GCSE;
• GCSE reforms introduced in 2024 have been broadly welcomed, with 34.2% of teachers saying they expect increased uptake as a result.
• Curriculum time for MFL is under pressure in lower-attaining schools, where leaders report competing priorities (e.g. English, Maths catch-up).

4. Teacher Recruitment and Staffing

• Recruitment challenges are widespread. 63% of state secondary schools report difficulties in hiring MFL teachers, and retention is particularly poor in areas with high deprivation.
• Some schools rely heavily on non-specialists or teachers with limited training, particularly in Spanish.
• Independent schools face fewer staffing issues, reflecting broader inequalities in resourcing and training provision.

5. Home, Heritage and Community Languages (HHCL)

• While 78% of secondary schools cover the cost of GCSE or A-level exam entries for HHCLs, these are often treated as extracurricular or parental responsibilities.
• Very few schools formally integrate HHCLs into their curriculum or timetabled lessons.
• Access to community-based provision remains uneven, with many students reliant on weekend schools or religious organisations.
• Some students are dissuaded from sitting exams due to concerns over complexity, unfamiliar question types, or lack of academic support.

6. International Engagement and Exchange

• 74% of secondary schools now offer international visits or exchanges again, marking a recovery from pandemic-era cancellations.
• Independent schools are more likely to offer multiple trips and longer exchanges, while state schools report increasing costs and parental affordability as barriers.
• The Turing Scheme is still underutilised: 49% of teachers say they’re not familiar with it, and many cite bureaucratic obstacles or lack of administrative support.

7. Technology and Innovation

• AI tools are beginning to appear in some secondary classrooms, although only 12% of schools report regular use.
• Teachers express interest in using AI for grammar practice, sentence generation, and differentiation, but cite time, training, and trust as barriers to full adoption.
• Primary schools show very low levels of AI engagement, with most citing lack of access to appropriate devices or software.

A Spotlight on Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI)

The 2025 report highlights a notable trend in language pedagogy: the increasing adoption of Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI) in secondary schools. According to the findings, one-third of secondary schools explicitly mentioned EPI as their preferred approach for teaching modern foreign languages.

Schools describe EPI as being used consistently from Year 7 to Year 11, with teachers characterising the approach as structured and systematic. It is commonly integrated across six thematic units per year and is valued for helping teachers deliver grammar, vocabulary, and phonics in a cohesive and coordinated manner.

One head of department explained its use in practice:

“Extensive Processing Instruction is now fully embedded from Y7 to Y11 in French and Spanish. Use of sentence builders and parallel texts to deliver 7 codified Key Skills per year group, focusing on opinions in Y7, present and near future in Y8 and past, present and future in Y9. Skills run through 6 topics, one per term, and are layered vertically (by target level) and horizontally (to build year on year).”

Many teachers also describe mixing EPI with other techniques, adapting it flexibly within their departmental context. As one head of languages reported:

“We use a mixture of styles. We do use explicit instruction rather than an investigation style approach. We do include the 3 pillars: phonics, vocabulary and grammar. We find there is not much room in the curriculum for the creative and fun things. Any that we do have are planned in! We do use sentence builders and some aspects of EPI approach. But we agree that we have a variety of learners and a one style approach does not suit all.”

Conclusion

The Language Trends England 2025 report offers a detailed and timely snapshot of the challenges and opportunities facing MFL education. While barriers persist—particularly around staffing, primary–secondary transition, and socioeconomic inequalities—there are clear signs of progress and innovation.

The revival of international exchanges, a growing interest in structured methodologies like EPI, and a steady increase in Spanish uptake show that MFL teaching in England is adapting to a changing educational and political landscape. To build on this momentum, greater investment in training, policy coherence between phases, and inclusive curriculum design will be essential. Above all, the report calls for sustained, system-wide support to ensure that all learners, regardless of background, can access the benefits of language learning.

Introduction

Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA) is shaped by a range of learner characteristics, among which cognitive abilities—such as working memory, grammatical sensitivity, and processing efficiency—play a central role in developing language proficiency. Alongside these cognitive factors, affective variables such as motivation, anxiety, and self-efficacy significantly influence learners’ success in acquiring a second language (L2). In this context, Wen and Skehan’s (2011) model of language aptitude offers a valuable framework for understanding the complex interplay between cognitive and affective factors in second language development. This article explores their model, focusing on its three key components, and suggests classroom strategies to mitigate common barriers faced by beginner learners. The article also integrates additional cognitive and affective challenges such as attentional control, inhibitory control, anxiety, and self-efficacy, offering practical classroom responses to each.

Wen and Skehan’s (2011) Model of Language Aptitude

Wen and Skehan’s (2011) model builds on earlier conceptualisations of language aptitude (e.g., Carroll, 1962; Skehan, 1998), incorporating findings from cognitive psychology and working memory research. Rather than viewing aptitude as a fixed trait, their model conceptualises it as comprising three interrelated components:

1. Phonological Working Memory (PWM)

PWM refers to the capacity to temporarily store and manipulate auditory information. It is essential for processing phonological forms, acquiring vocabulary, and maintaining syntactic sequences in short-term memory. PWM enables learners to recognise and recall sound patterns, thereby facilitating both comprehension and production.

2. Grammatical Sensitivity

Grammatical sensitivity is the ability to perceive and internalise morphosyntactic patterns in input. It supports learners in recognising, generalising, and applying grammatical rules—even when they are not taught explicitly. This sensitivity is fundamental for inductive grammar learning and for mapping form to function in the target language.

3. Processing Efficiency and Automatization

This component refers to the speed and ease with which a learner can process language in real time. As learners move from controlled to automatic processing, they can produce language more fluently and spontaneously. High processing efficiency enables rapid, accurate communication in both spoken and written modalities.

Each component contributes uniquely to language acquisition, and difficulties in any of these areas can hinder learners—particularly at the beginner level. In addition to these three core aptitude components, other cognitive and affective barriers also play a significant role in shaping learners’ classroom experiences and outcomes. This article therefore addresses the following key barriers:

• Phonological Working Memory limitations – difficulty retaining and manipulating sound-based information.
• Grammatical Sensitivity deficits – difficulty detecting and internalising grammatical patterns.
• Processing Efficiency limitations – difficulty processing language quickly and automatically.
• Attentional Control difficulties – inability to sustain focus on relevant input or task demands.
• Inhibitory Control weaknesses – difficulty suppressing L1 interference or incorrect linguistic forms.
• Anxiety – emotional responses such as fear of failure or embarrassment that interfere with performance.
• Low Self-Efficacy – a lack of belief in one’s own ability to succeed in language learning tasks.

The following sections examine each of these barriers in detail and offer practical, classroom-based strategies to support learners who may be affected by them.

1. Limitations in Phonological Working Memory

PWM is central to retaining and manipulating sound-based information long enough to process it. Learners with low PWM may struggle to remember new words, distinguish between similar sounds, or follow longer utterances, thereby affecting both comprehension and production.

Why PWM Matters in SLA

PWM underpins both receptive and productive skills. Comprehension requires learners to retain words and their meanings long enough to construct meaning, while production involves recalling vocabulary and grammar in real time. Limited PWM may result in slower language development, especially in early stages.

Classroom Activities to Support PWM

To support learners with limited PWM, teachers can use the following strategies:

• Sound discrimination activities – Faulty Echo, Minimal pairs, Write it as you hear it, etc.
• Flashcard Activities: Students review vocabulary or short phrases using flashcards, promoting recall and rehearsal of phonological forms.
• Phonemic Drills: Students practise difficult or unfamiliar sounds through repetition and articulation exercises.
• Chunking aloud games: Mind reader, Sentence Stealer, Lie detector, etc.
• Shadowing: Students repeat what they hear immediately, mimicking pronunciation and rhythm, often using audio recordings.
• Delayed repetition
• Choral Repetition: The teacher says a sentence aloud and the whole class repeats it together, reinforcing sound patterns and memory.

2. Grammatical Sensitivity Deficits

Learners with low grammatical sensitivity often struggle to detect or generalise grammatical rules, even after repeated exposure. This can result in difficulties with word order, verb conjugation, and tense/aspect distinctions.

Why Grammatical Sensitivity Matters

Grammatical sensitivity enables learners to decode structural regularities in input and construct grammatically accurate output. It is especially important for inductive learning, which is common in communicative and implicit instruction contexts.

Classroom Activities to Support Grammatical Sensitivity

• Sentence Builders: Learners arrange jumbled words or chunks into grammatically correct sentences.
• Error-Spotting Tasks: Students identify and correct errors in model sentences, developing grammatical awareness.
• Pattern-Contrast Activities: Learners compare two or more sentence patterns to notice grammatical contrasts (e.g., tense or word order).
• Parallel Texts: Bilingual texts are used side by side so learners can compare grammatical structure across languages.
• Structured Dialogues: Pre-written conversations highlighting specific grammar points that learners practise aloud in pairs.
• Transformational Exercises: Learners change sentence features, such as tense, voice, or speech type (e.g., direct → indirect speech).

3. Processing Efficiency Limitations

Learners with low processing efficiency often struggle with fast speech, slow production, and keeping pace with conversation. These difficulties can result in hesitation, fragmented sentences, and communication breakdowns.

Why Processing Efficiency Matters

Fluency in an L2 depends on the ability to process input and produce output quickly and automatically. With practice, learners can move from conscious rule application to intuitive language use.

Classroom Activities to Support Processing Efficiency

• 4-3-2 Technique: Learners speak about the same topic three times, in decreasing time frames (4, 3, then 2 minutes), increasing fluency.
• Market Place Activity: Learners interact with peers in a role-play “market,” quickly exchanging information to complete a task.
• Fast and Furious: Timed oral questions with rapid-fire answers to train quick thinking and reduce hesitation.
• Timed Dictation: Short passages are dictated within a time limit to improve listening, decoding, and writing speed.
• Sentence Relays: Students take turns quickly completing sentence stems in a group relay format.
• Speed Races: A competition to complete cloze tasks or grammatical transformations as fast as possible.

4. Attentional Control Deficits

Attentional control refers to a learner’s ability to focus on relevant linguistic input while ignoring distractions. Learners with weak attentional control—often those with ADHD or high distractibility—may struggle to maintain focus during input-rich tasks, leading to missed cues and incomplete intake.

Why Attentional Control Matters

Attention is a gateway to learning. Without focused attention, learners may not process grammatical or lexical input sufficiently for it to be retained or internalised.

Classroom Activities to Support Attentional Control

• Chunked Listening: Listening tasks are broken into short segments, each followed by comprehension or focus questions.
• Notice-the-Form Tasks: Learners highlight or underline target grammar forms during reading or listening tasks.
• Classroom Signals: Teachers use visual or auditory cues (e.g., bells, lights, hand signals) to re-direct attention.
• Time on Task Challenges: Short, timed tasks that challenge learners to stay focused (e.g., “spot 5 verbs in 90 seconds”).

5. Inhibitory Control Difficulties

Inhibitory control is the ability to suppress irrelevant or competing information—such as L1 interference or incorrect hypotheses. Learners with poor inhibitory control may perseverate with incorrect forms despite corrective feedback.

Why Inhibitory Control Matters

Inhibitory control allows learners to suppress overlearned or default responses in favour of new, target-like forms. It is essential for restructuring interlanguage and learning from feedback.

Classroom Activities to Support Inhibitory Control

• Contrastive Analysis Tasks: Learners explicitly compare L1 and L2 structures to notice differences and avoid negative transfer.
• Error Inhibition Routines: Learners practise pausing before speaking or writing to self-monitor for common errors.
• Delayed Repetition Tasks: Students hear a sentence and must repeat it after a short delay, which inhibits automatic (often incorrect) responses.
• Focused Correction Activities: Learners track personal error patterns using logs or correction slips, then practise suppressing these errors.

6. Anxiety

Language anxiety, whether trait-based or situation-specific, can significantly impair performance, especially in speaking and listening. Learners experiencing high anxiety may avoid participation, disengage from risk-taking, or freeze during interaction.

Why Anxiety Matters in SLA

Anxiety affects the affective filter (Krashen, 1982), reducing the efficiency of input processing and impeding working memory. It can disrupt speech planning and lead to underperformance despite high aptitude.

Classroom Activities to Lower Anxiety

• Think-Pair-Share: Learners think individually, then discuss in pairs before sharing with the class, reducing pressure.
• Error-Tolerant Environment: Teachers model how to respond positively to mistakes, encouraging risk-taking and learning from errors.
• Choice Boards: Students select how they demonstrate learning (e.g., orally, visually, in writing), increasing control and comfort.
• Role Play in Pairs: Learners practise dialogues in pairs before performing in larger groups, easing them into public speaking.

7. Low Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capacity to succeed in specific tasks. Learners with low self-efficacy often avoid challenges, give up quickly, and underestimate their capabilities, even when aptitude is sufficient.

Why Self-Efficacy Matters

High self-efficacy leads to greater persistence, willingness to take risks, and resilience after failure—critical attributes for mastering a language.

Classroom Activities to Build Self-Efficacy

• Success Journals: Students record and reflect on small wins and progress to boost confidence.
• Mastery Experience Design: Teachers scaffold tasks to start with easy wins and gradually increase complexity.
• Peer Modelling: Learners observe peers of similar ability succeed, which helps them believe they can do the same.
• Feedback Focused on Growth: Teachers provide feedback that highlights improvement and effort rather than just correctness.

Conclusion

Overcoming cognitive and affective barriers in second language acquisition requires a comprehensive approach targeting learners’ limitations in working memory, grammatical sensitivity, processing efficiency, attentional control, inhibitory control, anxiety regulation, and self-belief. Research-informed strategies—such as the 4-3-2 technique, market-place tasks, think-pair-share, and delayed repetition—can accelerate language development by enhancing both automaticity and emotional engagement. These techniques not only develop specific cognitive skills but also foster the motivation, confidence, and resilience learners need to persist. By addressing these barriers explicitly in the classroom, educators can create more inclusive, effective, and enjoyable language learning experiences for all students—especially those just beginning their language journey.

References

• Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education (pp. 87–136). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press.
• Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press.
• Wen, Z., & Skehan, P. (2011). A new perspective on language aptitude: Introducing the Working Memory Language Aptitude Model. In Z. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working Memory and Second Language Learning: Towards an Integrated Approach (pp. 15–34). Multilingual Matters.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.
• Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. Routledge.
• MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Language anxiety: Its relationship to other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning, 41(4), 513–534.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.