Introduction

Stepping into leadership often means overseeing subjects you’ve never taught. When it comes to Modern Foreign Languages (MFL), this can create blind spots for many. Even the most supportive senior leaders in my experience sometimes misinterpret what effective practice looks like in our subject. It’s not surprising — many leaders’ own school memories of French or German lessons involve verb tables, copying exercises, writing essays and the dreaded “listen twice, answer the questions” routine. But these misconceptions matter. They shape decisions about timetabling, curriculum design, assessment, staffing, and resourcing — and those decisions have a direct impact on teacher morale, student learning, and long-term uptake. We have all been there.

This post draws on suggestions made by members of the Facebook group I co-founded, Global Innovative Language Teachers, in their comments on a recent thread on this very topic. Many thanks to them for sharing their insights and experiences, which inspired the points below. Many more useful suggestions were made, too many to include.

What follows are thirteen realities of language teaching that senior managers need to bear in mind, illustrated with common classroom scenarios a grounded in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) research.

1. Curriculum Time is Key

What leaders assume: “One long lesson a week is better than nothing.”

The reality: Language learning is uniquely dependent on frequency and regularity. Unlike subjects where knowledge can be crammed and retained for exams, languages rely on daily rehearsal to move words and structures from short-term to long-term memory and from awareness and understanding (declarative knowledge) to fluency (procedural knowledge)

Cognitive psychology has shown that forgetting begins almost immediately (Ebbinghaus, 1885), and SLA research confirms that distributed practice — shorter, more frequent sessions — is far more effective than a single long session (Lightbown & Spada, 2013).

In some schools in Australia, languages are timetabled as a single two-hour block per week. It may look efficient on paper, but in practice is counterproductive: students face a six-day gap between exposures, during which most of the learning has already faded. By the time the next class begins, teachers spend much of the lesson reteaching, and learners rarely achieve fluency.

Common Scenario: A school reduces Year 7 MFL to one hour a week. Pupils make negligible progress, disengage, and GCSE uptake declines. Teacher skill cannot compensate for insufficient time but the MFL team takes the blame.

Implication: Protect regular, frequent MFL slots in the timetable. Two or three shorter lessons a week are far more effective than one long block.

2. Assessment Data Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story and overdoing it hampers motivation and progresss

What leaders assume: Frequent tests are reliable indicators of learning.

The reality: Language acquisition is NOT linear. Students may “know” a structure one day and forget it the next, only to rediscover it later (Ellis, 2003). Formal assessments often capture surface-level memorisation, not automatised competence and only give us the ‘illusion’ that something has been learnt (I have written extensively about this over the years). Research stresses the importance of triangulation: combining test scores, classroom observation, and, above all, spoken performance. Over-reliance on numbers alone risks distorting teaching priorities. And frankly, many of the tests I review when I visit schools when I do consultancies, are flawed in terms of construct and internal validity

Another important issue related to assessment is overdoing it. This is a common scenario in many schools and is counterproductive, especially with younger and more vulnerable learners because it misunderstands how languages are acquired.

As already mentioned above, progress in second language learning is rarely linear: learners may seem to “get” a structure one week, forget it the next, and then rediscover it later as their interlanguage gradually stabilises. Testing this zig-zag development too frequently makes normal fluctuations appear as failure.

Moreover, every test consumes time that could be spent on rich input, practice, and interaction — the activities that actually drive acquisition forward.

Finally, when assessment dominates the experience, motivation suffers: pupils begin to see language study as endless mini-exams rather than a living skill to be rehearsed and enjoyed, which can discourage persistence and uptake in the long term.

Common Scenario: A school demands half-termly vocab tests. Pupils cram and achieve high marks, but forget the material within a week. When teachers slow down to rebuild secure knowledge, scores appear to dip, creating unnecessary pressure.

Implication: Treat assessment data as just one piece of evidence. Oral ability, listening skills, and long-term retention must also count in evaluating progress.

3. Written Evidence is Not Proof of Learning

What leaders assume: If it isn’t in pupils’ books, it hasn’t been taught.

The reality: Languages live in the ear and mouth as much as on the page. Research highlights that oral interaction and listening are central to acquisition (Swain, 1995; Field, 2008). Insisting on constant written outcomes risks skewing teaching towards copying and extended writing at the expense of fluency and spontaneity. What matters is not how much ink fills a book, but whether students can understand and produce the language independently.

Common Scenario: During a book scrutiny, a head of year complains that Year 8 books look sparse. In reality, pupils had spent lessons practising role-plays, songs, and spontaneous speaking. Their progress was real but invisible on paper.

Implication: Quality assurance should value what cannot be captured in exercise books. Oral performance, recordings, and observation are vital evidence.

4. Consolidation is Not Coasting

What leaders assume: “If a lesson looks easy, pupils aren’t being stretched.”

The reality: Language learning requires overlearning — lots of practice with familiar material until it becomes automatic. Research on fluency building (Nation, 2001; Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005) shows that fluency grows through repeated encounters with language, not by racing to new content. Consolidation lessons often look “low challenge” on paper, but in fact they demand intense cognitive effort, as pupils must produce language quickly and confidently without relying on written prompts. This is how students move from knowing a rule to actually using it in real time.

Common Scenario: A teacher deliberately plans a lesson with familiar verbs and sentence frames, focusing on speed drills and spontaneous speaking. An observer marks the lesson down, commenting that “there wasn’t enough challenge.” The result? The teacher feels pressured to skip vital consolidation, and students move on with shaky foundations that collapse later.

Implication: Leaders should understand that consolidation is a form of challenge. It is not a lack of ambition but a necessary stage for fluency and long-term retention.

5. Languages Are Learned More Like Sports Than History

What leaders assume: Languages are acquired by memorising facts, like history.

The reality: Language learning is skill-building. It requires proceduralisation (DeKeyser, 2007) — the ability to use structures automatically under pressure, much like practising a musical instrument or sport. Knowing the rules is not enough; students need repeated practice in authentic contexts.

Common Scenario: Pupils can chant verb endings but freeze when asked to speak spontaneously. Their knowledge remains theoretical rather than usable.

Implication: Support practice-heavy lessons that move learners from knowing to doing. Repetition and rehearsal are the bedrock of fluency.

6. Chasing Popular Languages Isn’t Always Wise

What leaders assume: Offering the “right” fashionable language will boost uptake.

The reality: While some languages may be in vogue, research shows that long-term success in MFL depends more on continuity and curriculum coherence than on chasing trends (Lanvers & Coleman, 2013). Constantly switching languages undermines staff morale, wastes resources, and disrupts learners’ progression.

Common Scenario: A school abandons its well-established German programme to introduce Mandarin. After three years, uptake hasn’t improved and pupils lack a clear progression route. Staff morale dips as expertise is sidelined.

Implication: Involve subject specialists before making language-offer changes. Prioritise stable, well-sequenced provision over short-term popularity.

7. Feedback Needs to be Targeted, Not Constant

What leaders assume: Every mistake should be corrected immediately.

The reality: Effective feedback is selective and encourages learner self-repair (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Overcorrection overwhelms students and discourages risk-taking, while under-correction fails to push them forward. Research shows that prompts — nudges that guide learners to notice and fix their own mistakes — are particularly effective (Ellis, 2009).

Common Scenario: An observer praises a teacher who interrupts pupils constantly to correct minor slips. In reality, the constant interruptions shut down learners’ willingness to speak, reducing opportunities for meaningful practice.

Implication: When observing lessons, look for how feedback is given, not simply whether errors are eradicated. Productive mistakes are essential to learning.

8. Metacognitive Skills Need to Be Taught, Not Assumed

What leaders assume: Learners naturally know how to study languages.

The reality: Many pupils don’t know how to listen effectively, organise vocabulary, or practise retrieval. Research (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012) shows that explicit strategy instruction — teaching learners how to predict, monitor, and evaluate their own listening — significantly improves outcomes. Helping pupils become reflective, self-regulated learners is crucial for long-term success.

Common Scenario: A student admits they revised for their French test by “reading the list once the night before.” Unsurprisingly, their scores collapse later, leaving them demoralised.

Implication: Encourage departments to integrate strategy instruction into their teaching. Leaders can also support parents to promote good study habits at home, even without knowing the language.

9. Oracy Is Central, Not Peripheral. Writing is…

What leaders assume: Writing tasks yields the main evidence of progress.

The reality: Oral communication is the ultimate goal of most language learning. SLA research shows that meaningful interaction and pushed output are critical (Swain, 1995; Ellis, 2003). If leaders equate rigour with extended writing, teachers may feel obliged to neglect speaking practice. Yet the ability to hold a real conversation is often what students value most.

Common Scenario: A leader questions why a Year 9 lesson includes role-plays instead of long writing tasks. Pupils, however, leave buzzing with the confidence that they can actually chat in another language.

Implication: Value oracy as highly as literacy when evaluating MFL teaching. A class where students speak a lot is not “easy” — it is doing the core work of language learning.

10. Managing Teacher Workload Requires Subject-Specific Awareness

What leaders assume: Marking and planning in MFL is no different from other subjects.

The reality: MFL teachers face unique demands. Every written task involves checking both content and form; resources often need to be created or adapted because authentic, engaging input is not easily available “off the shelf.” Research on teacher workload (Borg, 2015) shows that generic marking policies can disproportionately burden language teachers.

Common Scenario: A school introduces a whole-school marking policy requiring a detailed written response to every error. An MFL teacher spends hours correcting every mistake in a Year 8 essay, leaving them demoralised and exhausted.

Implication: Work with MFL leaders to adapt feedback policies, ensuring they balance workload with pedagogical effectiveness. Provide access to high-quality resources to ease preparation demands.

11. Non-Specialists Struggle to Deliver Languages Effectively

What leaders assume: Any teacher can deliver an MFL lesson with a textbook.

The reality: Language teaching requires deep subject knowledge — in grammar, phonology, and acquisition processes. Even teachers of other languages are not easily interchangeable (a French teacher cannot simply switch to teaching German). Without training, non-specialists often default to superficial tasks such as vocabulary copying or translation (Borg, 2006; Graham, 2006).

Common Scenario: A PE teacher is assigned a Spanish class. Despite their best efforts, the lessons become word-list copying with minimal speaking. Pupils conclude that languages are boring and irrelevant.

Implication: Protect MFL staffing where possible. If non-specialists must teach, invest in training, mentoring, and clear guidance.

12. Mixing Heritage Speakers with Beginners Creates Inequalities

What leaders assume: Placing native or heritage speakers with beginners will raise everyone’s attainment.

The reality: Heritage speakers often have oral fluency but weaker literacy. Beginners need slow, structured input. Research (Carreira, 2016) shows that putting them together can frustrate both groups: heritage speakers feel unchallenged, while beginners feel overshadowed and lose confidence.

Common Scenario: In a Year 8 Spanish class, two native speakers dominate discussions. Other pupils stay silent, intimidated, while the heritage learners become bored with basic grammar.

Implication: Consider differentiated pathways or tasks for heritage learners. Equity and motivation should take priority over administrative convenience.

13. Culture is Not an Optional Extra

What leaders assume: Cultural topics are “nice-to-have add-ons.”

The reality: Culture is not decoration — it is central to MFL. Byram (1997) and Norton (2013) emphasise that intercultural learning fuels motivation, fosters empathy, and gives languages purpose. Reducing culture to trivia or dropping it entirely narrows students’ horizons.

Common Scenario: A department is told to cut cultural content to focus on “exam technique.” Students disengage, wondering why they are learning a language if it has no meaningful link to real people or contexts.

Implication: Encourage departments to integrate cultural knowledge throughout the curriculum. This isn’t an optional extra but a core entitlement.

Conclusions

MFL teaching is not just about grammar rules or test scores — it is about building a skill slowly, through constant exposure, practice, consolidation, and meaningful communication. Senior leaders who understand these realities are better placed to support their teams, defend curriculum time, and champion languages in their schools. Most importantly, they help create a culture where teachers can focus on what matters most: nurturing confident, motivated, and culturally curious young linguists.

For those who want to explore these challenges in more depth — and find practical strategies for addressing them in the classroom — I explore them with Steve Smith in Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Learners How to Listen (Conti & Smith, 2019) and in The target Language Toolkit (Smith and Conti, 2023)

Teachers often notice it: a student hears French and sighs that it sounds “beautiful,” while another finds Japanese “fascinating” or German “powerful.” These reactions are more than whims — they stem from a rich blend of brain wiring, personality, culture, and lived experience. Just as people develop strong preferences for certain kinds of music, they also form emotional bonds with particular languages. Let’s unpack the main factors at play.

1. The Sound and Rhythm of Language

One obvious reason lies in phonological aesthetics. Some languages are syllable-timed (like Italian, Spanish, Japanese), others stress-timed (like English, German). Research shows that listeners tend to find rhythmic familiarity appealing — the cadence that “fits” with their native speech patterns (Cutler & Mehler, 1993).

But there’s also novelty value. Languages perceived as smooth and melodic (French, Italian) often get rated as “romantic,” while harsher consonantal clusters (Czech, German) are described as strong or forceful. These perceptions, of course, are subjective — but they influence preference powerfully.

2. Personality and Identity

Studies in psychology suggest that personality traits predict music and language preference alike. Rentfrow & Gosling’s (2003) work on music taste shows that high “openness to experience” correlates with a love of complex, unfamiliar sounds. Greenberg et al. (2016) extended this by showing that openness also predicts preference for unfamiliar musical systems and foreign languages.

In other words, some learners are drawn to languages as a way of exploring new identities. French might feel elegant, German efficient, Korean cosmopolitan. A language can become a “second skin,” allowing people to inhabit a different cultural persona.

3. Cultural Associations and Symbolism

We never just hear a string of sounds; we also hear the culture they conjure. Italian carries associations of opera, art, food, and romance. French evokes fashion and philosophy. English brings with it Hollywood and pop music. Mandarin might signal economic power and global connectivity.

These cultural cues shape taste. Giles & Niedzielski (1998) found that attitudes towards a language’s speakers (prestige, status, warmth) heavily influence whether listeners judge the language itself as pleasant.

4. Early Exposure and Familiarity

Even passive contact matters. Studies with infants (Moon, Cooper, & Fifer, 1993) show that babies recognise and prefer the rhythm of the language spoken by their mother during pregnancy. Later in life, people often find languages they heard as children (through neighbours, relatives, TV) somehow “natural” or appealing, even if they never learned them.

5. Relationships and Emotional Connections

Languages carry emotional weight when tied to people we love or admire. If someone’s first crush spoke Spanish, or a favourite teacher used German, the language can acquire a lifelong glow. Conversely, negative associations (a harsh schooling experience, political conflict) can make a language feel unattractive. Social psychologists call this affective conditioning — when emotional experiences transfer to neutral stimuli (De Houwer et al., 2001).

6. Practicality vs. Romance

For some learners, attraction is about utility: English for global reach, Mandarin for career prospects, Spanish for travel. For others, the pull is more aesthetic or romantic: Icelandic for its mysterious isolation, Gaelic for cultural heritage, Tibetan for spiritual depth. Research in motivation theory (Dörnyei, 2005) shows that both instrumental motives (practical gains) and integrative motives (identity and belonging) drive language preference — and often in complex interplay.

Drawing the Parallel with Music

Like music, language preference arises from a mix of biology, psychology, culture, and memory. Some brains are wired to savour rhythmic or tonal novelty, others crave familiar cadences. Personality feeds into the search for identity, while cultural prestige and early exposure anchor taste. Above all, both music and language become powerful markers of who we are and who we want to be.

References

• Cutler, A., & Mehler, J. (1993). The periodicity bias. Journal of Phonetics.
• Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
• Greenberg, D. M. et al. (2016). Personality predicts musical sophistication. Journal of Research in Personality.
• Giles, H., & Niedzielski, N. (1998). Italian is beautiful, German is ugly. Language attitudes and ideology.
• Moon, C., Cooper, R. P., & Fifer, W. P. (1993). Two-day-olds prefer their native language. Infant Behavior and Development.
• De Houwer, J., Thomas, S., & Baeyens, F. (2001). Association learning of likes and dislikes: A review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychological Bulletin.

​Potential benefits

Having searched high and low and I couldn’t locate much credible research evidence on the benefits of choral repetition. Here is what I found:

1.1 Pronunciation Improvement:

Engaging in choral repetition has been shown to enhance learners’ pronunciation skills in a handful of studies. A study by Trofimovich and Gatbonton (2006) demonstrated that repetition can lead to improved pronunciation accuracy – this resonates with my experience. They found that learners became more sensitive to phonological information through repeated exposure to the target words, suggesting that repetition aids in pronunciation development. Furthermore, Shao, Saito, and Tierney (2022) found that robust auditory-motor integration plays a crucial role in acquiring advanced-level L2 pronunciation proficiency, suggesting that choral repetition can significantly improve pronunciation accuracy. Another study conducted by Poejilestari (2018) investigated the effectiveness of using choral drill techniques to improve students’ English pronunciation. The research, carried out at SMK Karya Bahana Mandiri Bekasi, Indonesia, found that the practice had a significant enhancing effect on pronunciation as well as on the students’ participation and motivation.

1.2 Enhanced Phonological Memory:

​While direct research on choral repetition specifically strengthening phonological working memory is limited, several studies suggest that vocal practice and repetition can positively influence this cognitive function. For instance, a longitudinal study investigated the effects of vocal practice on phonological working memory in children. The findings indicated that engaging in vocal exercises improved the children’s ability to retain and manipulate speech sounds, suggesting a positive impact on their phonological working memory (Portnoy et al, 2010)

Morevore, choral repetition encourages students to vocalize words, facilitating their entry into the phonological loop—a component of working memory responsible for storing and rehearsing verbal information. This process aids in the retention and recall of new vocabulary. ​

Finally, an fMRI study examines the influence of verbal repetition and imitation on network configuration during second language word learning. The results indicate that repetition and imitation can enhance neural integration within language networks (through Phonological Memory), suggesting that these techniques may improve language learning efficiency and learner motivation.

1.3 Increased Learner Engagement:

Incorporating choral repetition through into lessons may elevate student participation and motivation according to handful of studies. The collective nature of the activity may foster a sense of community and encourages learners to actively engage with the material. Schnabel et al (2024) found increased engagement by involving learners in choir practice in the target language. This finding echoes similar findings by Cardoso et Li (2023) who found that singing in a language-responsive choir can encourage productive second language use and enhance listening skills. These two studies’ findings suggest that integrating language learning with choir practice not only improves pronunciation but also increases student engagement and motivation.

Caveat: choral repetition, like anything else, can be made into a fun activity, but it can also be boring (see point 2.4 below).

1.4 Development of Auditory Discrimination Skills:

Choral repetition aids in refining learners’ ability to distinguish subtle differences in sounds, which is essential for accurate pronunciation and listening comprehension. This practice enhances their overall auditory discrimination capabilities. ​The same study quoted above by Schnabel et al (2024) evidences marked improvements in their subjects in this crucial area of L2 acquisition.

1.5 Facilitation of Automaticity:

Regular practice through choral repetition can lead to automaticity in language production, allowing learners to use common phrases and structures more fluently without conscious effort. This automaticity is vital for achieving conversational fluency. ​Big caveat, however: it can also lead to automatizing errors!

2. Potential drawbacks

While choral repetition may potentially offer the above benefits, language educators should be mindful of its potential drawbacks, which I have observed in my own teaching practice and in numerous lessons observations:

2.1 Passive Participation:

Students may appear engaged during choral repetition but might not be actively participating. This passive involvement can limit individual learning outcomes.

2.2 Fossilization of error and limited Individual Corrective Feedback:

The collective nature of choral repetition makes it challenging for instructors to identify and correct individual errors. If the same error goes unheeded and untreated several times over, this is likely to lead to its fossilization (irremediable entrenchment). Hence, the practice of repeating a new lexical item containing challenging sounds, that have not yet been acquired immediately, after a teacher can have harmful consequences.

Errors are not uncommon as some of your students will not hear the sound as you

2.3 Lack of Authentic Communication:

Choral repetition focuses on mimicking language patterns rather than promoting spontaneous language use, which may not effectively prepare learners for communication under real operating conditions (e.g. in a spontaneous conversation or an oral assessment).

2.4 Potential for Boredom:

Repetitive choral activities can lead to student disengagement if not varied or contextualized, reducing their effectiveness. ​Unless gamified, choral repetition can quite boring. Activities like ‘Ghost reading’, ‘Orchestra Director’ or ‘Disappearing text’ can be a fun way to make choral repetition more fun.

2.5 Overemphasis on Accuracy:

Focusing heavily on precise repetition can create anxiety among learners, potentially hindering fluency development.​

Conclusion

Choral repetition remains a double-edged pedagogical tool.
Used imaginatively and alongside opportunities for spontaneous communication, it can sharpen pronunciation, strengthen phonological memory, and build classroom cohesion.
Used mechanically, it risks boredom, fossilised errors and a narrow focus on accuracy at the expense of fluency.
As always in language teaching, the difference lies less in the method itself than in the quality of its design and the skill of the teacher who employs it.

Introduction

When beginner and intermediate students tell us that listening in the target language feels like “a blur of sound,” they are not exaggerating. Research has long shown that one of the biggest hurdles for developing listeners is simply recognising where one word ends and the next begins. In written text, boundaries are clear: spaces mark word separation. In speech, however, the listener must rely on phonological, prosodic, and contextual cues. For second language learners, this is a minefield.

The Illusion of “No Gaps”

Native speakers perceive words effortlessly, but not because speech offers obvious gaps. In fact, continuous speech is acoustically seamless. Cutler and Butterfield (1992) demonstrated that in English, there are almost no reliable pauses between words. Learners must infer boundaries based on cues such as stress, rhythm, and coarticulation patterns.

For beginners, these cues are unfamiliar. Goh (2000) found that novice learners often described speech as “one long word,” unable to separate even familiar lexical items. This is not a vocabulary issue per se; it is a segmentation problem. Even when students “know” the word, they cannot recognise it in connected speech.

Why Beginners Struggle More

Several factors converge to make word-boundary recognition especially difficult for beginner-to-intermediate learners:

1. Coarticulation and Reduction – fluent speech erases clear markers through assimilation and weak forms (going to → gonna). (Field, 2008)
2. Different Prosodic Systems – segmentation cues differ across languages; L1 prosody often misleads learners (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012).
3. Cognitive Overload – beginners’ working memory collapses under the strain of decoding + boundary detection simultaneously.
4. Lexical Knowledge Thresholds – below ~95% coverage, learners cannot use top-down knowledge to assist segmentation (Stæhr, 2009).
5. Lack of Strategy Awareness – learners often listen passively, without techniques to catch boundaries (Graham, 2006).

What This Means for Teachers

Segmentation must be taught explicitly. Below are eight activities (from the many included in our 2019 book, Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching learners how to listen) that target boundary recognition directly, each with a pedagogical rationale grounded in research.

1. Word Count Listening (Field, 2008)

Learners hear a short sentence (4–8 words). Their task is to guess how many words they heard.

Rationale: Trains attention to prosodic cues (stress, pauses, rhythm) rather than meaning. Field (2008) notes that even when learners cannot recognise words, they can begin to “hear” boundaries as units of rhythm, building sensitivity to segmentation patterns.

2. Chunk Dictation (Micro-Dictogloss) (Field, 2008)

Learners transcribe only short bursts (3–5 words), not whole passages.

Rationale: By focusing on micro-chunks, learners sharpen their bottom-up decoding skills. Goh (2000) showed that reconstructing short phrases helps learners perceive coarticulated forms and trains the phonological loop of working memory without overwhelming it.

3. Spot the Intruder (Conti and Smith, 2019)

Learners see a transcript with an extra word not in the recording. They must detect and cross out the “intruder.”

Rationale: Forces learners to synchronise sound with text, noticing what is not there. This builds precision and discourages over-reliance on top-down guessing. It cultivates a match-mismatch awareness central to Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis.

4. Spot the Missing Word (Conti and Smith, 2019)

The transcript omits a word that is in the recording. Learners listen and fill in the blank.

Rationale: Trains learners to notice weak and unstressed words (e.g. at, of, to) that often vanish in connected speech. Research shows that learners tend to skip function words (Field, 2008). This task makes those invisible boundaries audible.

5. Break the Flow (Conti and Smith, 2019)

Learners are given transcripts where common reductions (gonna, wanna, lemme) appear. They listen and identify them in fluent speech.

Rationale: Cauldwell (2013) calls this exposing learners to the “messy” reality of authentic input. Learners realise that “known” words do not always sound like their dictionary form. This training helps them map phonological variants to mental lexicon entries and forces them to track segmentation in speech that does not align with orthographic expectations.

6. Formulaic Sequence Training (Wray, 2002)

Learners practise listening for and repeating chunks such as at the end of the, il y a, ¿qué tal?.

Rationale: Wray (2002) shows that processing formulaic sequences as units reduces cognitive load and supports segmentation. Learners “hear” a whole chunk rather than trying to cut it into individual words, which is how natives process speech fluently.

7. Write It As You Hear It (Vandergrift, 2007)

Learners write down a sentence exactly as they perceive it on first hearing, even if spelling or segmentation is wrong. Then they compare their version to the correct transcript.

Rationale: This activity externalises the learner’s perceptual errors — they see where they failed to hear a boundary (e.g. writing “Idontknow” instead of “I don’t know”). Vandergrift (2007) argues that reflecting on listening processes is as important as practice itself; here, the mismatch fosters awareness of weak points in segmentation.

8. Guess what comes next (Conti & Smith, 2019)

The teacher pauses the recording just before a likely word boundary. Learners predict the next word or phrase, then listen to confirm.

Rationale: This combines bottom-up segmentation with anticipatory processing. Learners practise recognising where one unit ends while also engaging top-down knowledge to guess what might follow. Vandergrift & Goh (2012) highlight this as a way to integrate segmentation skills with prediction, two core processes of fluent listening.

9. Using Sentence Builders Orally

Sentence builders, when used orally rather than purely visually, offer an additional route into segmentation training. Typically, teachers use them to scaffold speaking and writing, but they can be equally effective in developing listening, especially at the beginner and intermediate stages.

Why it helps:

1. Controlled, high-frequency input – Sentence builders recycle a limited set of words and structures. Hearing these in oral practice exposes learners repeatedly to the same lexical items in connected speech, helping them recognise recurring word boundaries more reliably.
2. Clear-to-blurred progression – In the early stages, teachers articulate model sentences slowly and clearly from the builder. Gradually, speed and natural reductions can be introduced, mirroring how authentic listening becomes less “coursebook-like” over time.
3. Form-meaning mapping in context – Because sentence builders generate meaningful sentences, learners don’t just hear isolated words but see how boundaries work within authentic syntax.
4. Dual coding of visual and aural channels – When sentence builders are projected while the teacher models orally, learners receive visual segmentation cues (the spaces and blocks on the builder) aligned with the aural stream.
5. From scaffold to autonomy – Oral sentence builder work eventually transitions into learners generating their own sentences at speed, but only once perception has stabilised.

Example classroom flow (beginner-safe):

1. The teacher models 5–6 sentences (one at a time, slowly) from the sentence builder while the students write their meanings on their mini whiteboards.
2. Then, the teacher rereads each sentence omitting a word each time (Spot the Missing Detail).
3. Next, the teacher starts each sentence but pauses halfway through to play Pause and Predict.
4. Now, the sentence builder is removed and a Break the Flow activity is played, forcing learners to catch boundaries without visual scaffolding.
5. Finally, a delayed dictation can be staged, consolidating perception and reinforcing segmentation.

This flow avoids pushing learners into premature choral repetition. Instead, it treats the sentence builder primarily as a listening scaffold, gradually training learners to segment and notice before any attempt at oral production.

Table 1 – Suggested Segmentation-focused activities

Activity	Targeted Skill	Why It Works (Pedagogical Rationale)
1. Word Count Listening	Sensitivity to prosodic boundaries	Forces learners to attend to rhythm, stress, and segmentation cues instead of meaning.
2. Chunk Dictation (Micro-Dictogloss)	Short-span segmentation	Focuses on short bursts, helping learners process coarticulation without overload.
3. Spot the Intruder	Sound–text synchronisation	Noticing mismatches sharpens segmentation and discourages top-down guessing.
4. Spot the Missing Word	Detecting weak/unstressed words	Trains learners to notice reduced function words that often disappear in connected speech.
5. Break the Flow	Recognition of reduced forms	Confronts learners with “messy” authentic reductions and builds tolerance for non-dictionary pronunciations.
6. Formulaic Sequence Training	Chunk-based processing	Reduces cognitive load: learners hear multi-word units rather than isolated words.
7. Write It As You Hear It	Awareness of segmentation errors	Makes learners’ misperceptions visible, supporting reflection and correction.
8. Pause and Predict	Anticipatory segmentation	Combines bottom-up boundary recognition with top-down prediction.
9. Oral Sentence Builder Work	Scaffolded segmentation in context	Provides high-frequency, visually scaffolded input before free listening; aligns visual and aural cues.

Conclusion

For beginner-to-intermediate learners, listening is not only about vocabulary or grammar. It is also about learning to hear the spaces that aren’t really there. The difficulty of word-boundary recognition lies at the intersection of phonology, prosody, and cognitive load.

If teachers systematically target this skill — through word-count listening, micro-dictogloss, intruder/missing word spotting, Break the Flow training, formulaic chunk practice, write-it-as-you-hear-it diagnostics, pause-and-predict drills, and oral sentence builder work — learners begin to perceive the rhythm and segmentation cues that natives take for granted.

As Field (2008) reminds us, listening should be taught, not tested. And for many learners, that teaching begins not with comprehension questions, but with training the ear to hear where one word ends and the next begins.

References

• Cauldwell, R. (2013). Phonology for Listening: Teaching the Stream of Speech. Birmingham: Speech in Action.
• Conti, G., & Smith, S. (2019). Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Learners How to Listen. London: Independently Published.
• Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(2), 218–236.
• Field, J. (2008). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55–75.
• Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34(2), 165–182.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
• Stæhr, L. S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 577–607.
• Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40(3), 191–210.
• Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening: Metacognition in Action. New York: Routledge.
• Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

If there is one mantra I always repeat in every single CPD session of mine, it is that listening is the neglected skill. Many students find it opaque, many teachers often dread teaching it, and too many GCSE classes still treat it as a “test of memory under duress.” For several decades, strategy instruction has been hailed as the silver bullet—but is it?

Whilst research is now fairly consistent in evudencing that teaching learners how to plan, monitor, infer, and evaluate (PME) during listening tasks does improve comprehension, there’s an important catch—it only works if it is sustained over a long period of time), carefully structured, and balanced with language growth (i.e. the students have accrued a sizeable L2 vocabulary and substantive mastery of the L2 grammar). Below, I unpack what that actually means in practice.

Duration: the Long Game, Not the Quick Fix

One of the most common mistakes I have observed over the years in KS3 and KS4 classrooms is treating training in listening strategies as a one-off lesson or a half-term experiment. We know from studies such as Graham & Macaro (2008) that significant gains only show after a 10–12 week well-structured programme. By the same token, Liu, Zhang & Vandergrift’s (2024) meta-analysis showed that longer interventions inequivocably outperformed shorter ones – the effect sizes moving from “small” to “moderate-to-large” when the programme ran for a full term or more.

It is a bit like going to the gym: a few session won’t build much muscle. To embed metacognitive listening habits in the students’ modus operandi, students require repeated and sustained practice in the planning–monitoring–inferencing–evaluation ( PME) cycle until it becomes second nature.

Consistency: From Occasional Tips to Embedded Routines

Another common trap I have observed over the year is the “strategy tip of the week” approach—helpful reminders like “listen for cognates”, “skip what you don’t understand”, “search for key words”, etc. These are surface-level hints which may yield short-term gains, but not deep training which brings about durable change. What works is consistency: every listening lesson should include the same reflective prompts, nudging students through the process of predicting, checking, and evaluating. In my experience, this is rarely done. This consistency builds long-lasting metacognitive muscle. When students can anticipate the teacher asking “What did you predict you’d hear?” or “How did you verify that answer?”, then you know that they are beginning to internalise the target strategy sequence rather than seeing it as a bolt-on exercise of little consequence.

Structure: Scaffolding, Gradual Release, Feedback

In my experience, the most effective strategy training occurs when it is carefully thought out in terms of scaffolding. In the above-mentioned Graham & Macaro’s study, for instance, high-scaffold classes initially made greater progress: (1) first, the teachers modelled the steps ; (2) they then prompted the learners to articulate what they were doing; (3) they provided practice with the support of strategy lists; (4) finally, they provided feedback on both process and outcome. Later, a “low-scaffold” group which had not been initially supported and was consequently doing less well, caught up precisely because they were evebtually pushed to regulate themselves.

This suggests that effective instruction must start with heavy scaffolding but must gradually release responsibility in order to result in autonomous use. Without structure, weaker listeners flounder; without release, stronger listeners stagnate. The art is in balancing both.

The Graham & Macaro (2008) Programme: What It Was, and Where It Came From

This study is often cited by strategy training advocates but is less frequently explained. Hence, it may be worth pausing on the details of what it involved. Conducted with 107 lower-intermediate learners of French in English secondary schools, the programme lasted 10 weeks and involved a highly structured cycle of planning, monitoring, inferencing, verification, and evaluation.

• Foundation: the programme was based on work of Larry Vandergrift (1997, 2003), who developed the metacognitive sequence model for listening underlying the intervention, and on O’Malley & Chamot’s (1990) research into learning strategies.
• Two versions: One group received high-scaffold training, with the teachers explicitly modelling and guiding student reflection. Another group received low-scaffold training, with prompts but less teacher input.
• Findings: Both groups outperformed the control group, with statistically significant effects on listening comprehension at both immediate post-test and six months later. It is notable that self-efficacy in listening improved, and the delayed post-test showed that the “low-scaffold” group actually surpassed the high-scaffold group—suggesting that initial support followed by learner independence is key.

This study is one of the most credible classroom-based demonstrations that listening strategy training can work in real secondary school conditions, not just in small-scale experimental set-ups.

Vocabulary and Grammar: The Hidden Bottleneck

What the advocates of strategy training often neglect to point out is that it cannot compensate for students who simply do not recognise enough words, collocations, or grammatical cues. John Field (2008) and Vandergrift & Goh (2012) both emphasise that listening success is severely constrained by bottom-up decoding. At KS3 and KS4, this means that vocabulary teaching, phonics, and grammatical automatisation are not “add-ons” but essential prerequisites without which listening comprehension fails. Learners need sufficient lexical coverage (at least 95%) and enough grammatical familiarity to parse clause boundaries and verb endings in real time (2 seconds per sentence!). Otherwise, strategies risk becoming merely elaborate ways of guessing.

How Many Words Are Enough?

A key question is: how many words does a learner need to know before listening strategies can genuinely help?

Much research in L2 vocabulary suggests that 95% lexical coverage of a text is the minimum required for reasonable comprehension, with 98% coverage allowing for comfortable, confident understanding (Nation, 2006; Stæhr, 2009).

In practice, this means that learners need at least 2,000–3,000 high-frequency word families in the target language for strategy training to be truly beneficial. Below that threshold, the sheer density of unknown words makes it very arduous if not impossible to apply planning, monitoring and inferencing effectively—because there is simply too little known language to work with.

For KS3 and KS4 learners, this has two implications:

• Vocabulary building isn’t optional – it’s a must. Without it, strategy training collapses under the weight of unknown lexis.
• Strategy gains are enhanced by lexical development. The more words one knows, the more powerful strategies like inferencing or verification become.

In short: listening strategy training is no substitute for vocabulary knowledge; it is a way to leverage that knowledge more effectively.

So, When Does It Work?

Pulling the threads together, listening strategy instruction works best when:

• It lasts long enough (a term or more) to form habits.
• It is consistent across lessons, not sporadic.
• It is scaffolded, modelled, and then gradually released.
• It runs in tandem with vocabulary, phonics, and grammar growth.
• It is introduced once learners have a critical mass of high-frequency words.

In other words, strategy training is not a magic fix for listening difficulties; it is a multiplier. It amplifies what students can already do with their lexicon and grammar. It also builds confidence: learners report feeling less like “victims of the tape” and more like active problem-solvers.

Conclusion

As teachers, we owe it to our students to move listening beyond “press play and pray.” Strategy instruction is powerful, but only when is is carried out as part of interventions which are well-planned and highly scaffoled, not merely one-off sessions or sporadic reminders or tips . If we commit to that, we turn listening from the most feared skill into one of the most empowering.

References

• Graham, S. & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58(4), 747–783.
• Liu, Y., Zhang, J. & Vandergrift, L. (2024). A meta-analysis of listening strategy instruction effects. Language Teaching Research, advance online publication.
• O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.
• Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387–409.
• Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463–496.
• Vandergrift, L. & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening: Metacognition in Action. New York: Routledge.
• Field, J. (2008). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82.
• Stæhr, L. S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 577–607.

Introduction

Listening is often rated by learners as the most difficult of the four language skills. Unlike reading, where the text remains on the page, listening is fast, transient, and offers no rewind button in real time. John Field (Listening in the Language Classroom, 2008) stresses that the fleeting nature of spoken input places unusual demands on the learner’s short-term and working memory. Research into learner perceptions (e.g. Goh, 2000; Graham, 2006; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012) consistently identifies clusters of recurring problems. Below, I detail ten of the most significant, with expanded commentary.

1. Speed of Delivery

A recurrent complaint in learner diaries (Goh, 2000) is that speech simply comes “too fast.” The problem is not only raw speed but the processing gap: learners are unable to decode sounds, map them onto lexical items, and integrate them into meaning quickly enough. Field (2008) distinguishes between decoding speed (turning sound into words) and integration speed (slotting words into syntactic and semantic frames). Advanced learners can automatise both processes; beginners cannot. Crucially, research on speech rate adjustment (Griffiths, 1992) suggests that moderately slowed speech benefits beginners, but artificially slow speech (common in coursebook recordings) creates a false sense of security. Learners need carefully scaffolded exposure that moves gradually toward natural pace — not an abrupt jump into “real-world” speed at A1.

2. Lack of Contextual Knowledge

Listening comprehension is not purely bottom-up; it is deeply dependent on top-down processing. Anderson and Lynch (Listening, 1988) showed that listeners draw heavily on schema knowledge (topic familiarity, cultural frames) to predict and interpret input. When students lack this background, comprehension deteriorates sharply. Goh (2000) reported learners describing listening as “guessing in the dark” when the topic was unfamiliar. Vandergrift & Goh (2012) argue that activating prior knowledge reduces processing load, freeing working memory to focus on decoding. Research on content schemata (Chiang & Dunkel, 1992) confirms that students score higher on listening tasks when the topic is culturally or contextually familiar.

3. Limited Vocabulary Knowledge

Vocabulary size is one of the strongest predictors of listening success. Nation (2001) suggests that learners need at least 95% lexical coverage for reasonable comprehension, while more recent work by van Zeeland & Schmitt (2013) puts the threshold closer to 98% for listening. Learners often fail not only because they lack the words but because they fail to recognise them in their spoken forms — reduced, stressed, or blended with neighbours. Graham (2006) highlights how many learners complain that “I knew the word on paper but didn’t catch it in listening.” Research on phonological mapping (Field, 2008) reinforces this: lexical knowledge must be linked to phonological forms, not just orthographic ones.

4. Parsing Long or Complex Sentences

Spoken language is not always broken into short, textbook-friendly clauses. Real input often contains multiple subordinate clauses, embedded structures, and left-branching sentences. This creates what Field (2008) calls a parsing problem: learners hold onto incomplete fragments in working memory, waiting for resolution, but lose the thread when the sentence extends too long. Gilmore (2007), in his work on authentic listening, found that learners often stumble not on single words but on sentence organisation — especially when discourse markers are absent. This highlights the importance of syntactic awareness and real input beyond the simplified scripts of pedagogical listening texts.

5. Recognising Word Boundaries

Unlike written language, speech lacks neat gaps between words. Learners must rely on phonotactic cues, stress patterns, and intonation to segment the stream. Vandergrift & Goh (2012) stress that this is one of the earliest hurdles in listening development: without segmentation, even known words go unrecognised. Goh (2000) reports that learners often describe listening as “a blur of sound” rather than distinct words. Field (2008) underlines that segmentation is language-specific: French listeners, for instance, often fail to hear English stressed syllables as cues to boundaries. Research into “listening training” (Cutler & Norris, 1988) suggests that explicit practice in identifying segmentation cues can improve perception, but this is rarely built into curricula.

6. Memory Overload

The ephemeral nature of speech places unusual strain on working memory. Listeners must retain earlier words, decode new ones, and integrate meaning almost simultaneously. Field (2008) explains that this explains why learners often catch the beginning of a sentence but “blank out” on the rest. Baddeley’s (2000) model of working memory is highly relevant here: the phonological loop can only hold about two seconds of speech, which means that if decoding is slow, earlier items decay before integration. Vandergrift (2007) found that successful listeners employ strategies to “chunk” meaning and reduce overload, whereas less successful ones try to hang onto words verbatim, quickly exceeding capacity.

7. Unfamiliar Discourse Markers

Discourse markers (well, you know, actually, on the other hand) play a vital role in signalling structure and speaker intention. Yet learners often fail to notice or interpret them. Field (2008) points out that these items are usually de-emphasised in teaching but are critical to discourse organisation. Vandergrift & Goh (2012) argue that missing discourse markers leads to comprehension that feels fragmented: students fail to track contrasts, digressions, or emphases. Tyler & Bro (1992) found that learners’ listening improved when they were explicitly taught to recognise markers as “signposts.” This highlights the pragmatic dimension of listening, often underrepresented in curricula.

8. Background Noise and Overlapping Speech

Unlike the classroom, real-world listening rarely occurs in silence. Graham (2006) reported that learners frequently “gave up” on listening tasks when background noise or poor sound quality interfered. Research in applied psycholinguistics shows that L2 listeners are more vulnerable to noise than native speakers because their processing demands are already heavier (Rost, 2011). Authentic settings — restaurants, stations, group conversations — often involve overlapping talk, and students unaccustomed to this struggle even more. Field (2008) stresses the importance of exposing learners to a range of listening environments rather than the pristine clarity of coursebook audio.

9. Concentration and Anxiety

Listening is cognitively demanding, but affective factors amplify the difficulty. Graham (2006) documented that test anxiety made students hyper-focused on “not missing words,” which paradoxically caused them to lose the overall thread. Goh (2000) notes that once students feel they have lost the meaning, panic sets in, leading to a downward spiral of attention loss. Vandergrift (2007) found that more successful listeners tolerate ambiguity and recover focus, whereas weaker listeners allow anxiety to dominate. This highlights the need to address listening not only as a cognitive skill but as an emotional one — requiring training in resilience and ambiguity tolerance.

10. Lack of Strategic Knowledge

Perhaps the most preventable problem is the absence of listening strategy awareness. Vandergrift & Goh (2012) emphasise that without strategies like predicting content, listening for gist, or selectively focusing, learners approach listening as passive reception. Goh (2008) showed that strategy instruction can significantly improve learner outcomes, particularly when combined with metacognitive reflection. Field (2008) warns that without this, learners fall into bottom-up traps, trying to decode word by word — a recipe for overload and frustration.

Table 1 – Summary table

Difficulty	Description	Research References
1. Speed of Delivery	Learners cannot keep up with the rapid pace of natural speech, losing meaning before processing is complete.	Goh (2000); Field (2008)
2. Lack of Contextual Knowledge	When learners lack background knowledge of the topic, situation, or culture, they cannot make inferences or fill gaps in understanding.	Vandergrift & Goh (2012); Goh (2000)
3. Limited Vocabulary Knowledge	Unfamiliar words and failure to recognise known words in spoken form block comprehension.	Graham (2006); Goh (2000)
4. Parsing Long/Complex Sentences	Learners lose track in long utterances with subordination or embedded clauses.	Field (2008)
5. Recognising Word Boundaries	Continuous speech lacks clear separation; learners struggle to segment into words.	Goh (2000); Vandergrift & Goh (2012)
6. Memory Overload	Transient nature of speech strains working memory; earlier chunks are forgotten while processing new input.	Field (2008)
7. Unfamiliar Discourse Markers	Learners fail to notice or understand discourse markers (e.g., well, you know, actually), missing cues about structure, contrast, or emphasis.	Field (2008); Vandergrift & Goh (2012)
8. Background Noise & Overlapping Speech	Noise, poor audio, or multiple speakers reduce clarity and processing ability.	Graham (2006)
9. Concentration & Anxiety	Learners lose focus easily; stress and test anxiety make listening harder.	Graham (2006); Goh (2000)
10. Lack of Strategic Knowledge	Learners often lack strategies (e.g., predicting, gist listening, tolerating ambiguity), focusing on detail instead of meaning.	Vandergrift & Goh (2012)

Implications for Teaching: Research-Informed Strategies

1. Speed of Delivery

• Beginners benefit from graded adjustments of speed — not artificially slow “robotic” speech, but natural recordings replayed with scaffolds (Griffiths, 1992).
• Use listening cycles (Field, 2008): first for gist, second for detail, third with transcript support. This reduces the shock of pace.
• Teachers can model “shadowing” and “choral repetition” to train learners’ processing speed, gradually aligning their output tempo with input.

2. Lack of Contextual Knowledge

• Pre-listening schema activation is not fluff. Studies (Chiang & Dunkel, 1992) show that even short topic previews raise comprehension.
• Build cultural literacy into lessons: for example, before listening to a train announcement, learners explore how such announcements are structured in the target culture.
• Task design: compare “cold” listening (no prep) to “scaffolded” listening (schema activated) so learners themselves see the difference.

3. Limited Vocabulary Knowledge

This is the biggest bottleneck for listening comprehension.

• Nation (2001) argues that 95–98% lexical coverage is needed for effective listening. This means vocabulary learning must be integrated into listening practice rather than left to reading.
• Lexical segmentation tasks: learners highlight unknown words in transcripts after listening and then re-listen focusing only on those words.
• Noticing reduced forms: E.g., training learners to recognise gonna, wanna, didja. Field (2008) stresses that without phonological mapping, vocabulary remains inert.
• Recycling through narrow listening: several recordings on the same topic re-expose learners to a cluster of words in varied contexts (Chang, 2011).
• Post-listening lexis work: learners categorise new words by collocations, affixes, or semantic fields, and then re-listen to deepen form-meaning mapping.

4. Parsing Long or Complex Sentences

• Use text reconstruction tasks: learners reorder jumbled clauses after hearing the sentence.
• Chunking practice: learners listen for pauses and mark intonation breaks, training awareness of clause boundaries.
• Focused listening on sentence stress and intonation helps learners follow main clauses and subordinate structures (Gilmore, 2007).

5. Recognising Word Boundaries

• Explicitly train segmentation. For example:
  • Play short stretches and ask learners to identify word counts.
  • Use minimal pairs to highlight likely mis-segmentation (an aim / a name).
• Practice dictation and partial dictation: not for testing but for training learners to catch boundaries.
• Use shadowing to force continuous tracking of boundaries.

6. Memory Overload

• Adopt multi-pass listening: gist → detail → transcript (Field, 2008). This reduces strain on working memory.
• Encourage note-taking strategies: symbols, arrows, diagrams rather than verbatim transcription. Vandergrift (2007) showed that effective listeners chunk and annotate rather than record everything.
• Use pause-and-predict tasks: stop audio midstream, learners anticipate next phrase. This lightens memory load by promoting forward processing.

7. Unfamiliar Discourse Markers

• Explicitly teach markers as “traffic signs” for listening. Tyler & Bro (1992) found instruction improved coherence perception.
• Build noticing tasks: learners listen to a text, highlight discourse markers in transcript, then discuss their functions.
• Contrastive tasks: learners compare versions of texts with vs. without markers to see the difference in coherence.

8. Background Noise and Overlapping Speech

• Start with “clean” recordings, then gradually add noise (Field, 2008 calls this “noise inoculation”).
• Use split listening tasks: one group listens to Speaker A, another to Speaker B in overlapping dialogues.
• Classroom simulation: play background café noise under a recording and train learners to extract gist.

9. Concentration and Anxiety

• Teach ambiguity tolerance: structured reflection on what can be ignored without losing the main message (Vandergrift, 2007).
• Use confidence rating scales after tasks (Graham, 2006), letting learners reflect on their comprehension beliefs versus actual performance.
• Lower affective filter: pre-task reassurance (“you won’t understand every word”) reduces panic-driven breakdowns (Krashen, 1982; still supported in anxiety studies).

10. Lack of Strategic Knowledge

• Integrate metacognitive cycles (Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010): predict → listen → verify → reflect. Learners explicitly discuss what strategies they used and how effective they were.
• Train selective listening: focusing only on one category (dates, numbers, adjectives) in a text, to break the “everything at once” trap.
• Promote self-regulation: learners set listening goals (e.g., “I will focus on noticing verbs today”) and reflect post-task.

Why Vocabulary Deserves Centre Stage

Let me emphasise this again: vocabulary is not a side issue but the linchpin of listening comprehension. Van Zeeland & Schmitt (2013) show that learners need recognition of 98% of tokens for confident understanding, but most classroom listening input gives them far less. Therefore:

• Vocabulary must be taught through listening, not just for listening.
• Listening tasks should feed into vocabulary recycling (word cards, retrieval practice, oral drills).
• Phonological forms and collocations must be emphasised: learners need to hear, repeat, and notice words across contexts, not just read them on lists.

Conclusion

The difficulties learners face in listening are not random frustrations but predictable, research-documented problem areas. Studies from Goh (2000), Graham (2006), and Field (2008) to Vandergrift & Goh (2012) have shown that these challenges cluster around recurring themes: speed of delivery, limited vocabulary and segmentation skills, sentence parsing, working memory overload, lack of contextual and discourse awareness, vulnerability to noise, and the affective burden of anxiety. Each of these difficulties is compounded when learners lack strategic knowledge of how to listen effectively.

For teachers, the implication is clear: listening cannot remain the “poor cousin” of the skills, assessed through comprehension questions but not systematically taught. As Field (2008) argues, listening pedagogy must shift from a testing paradigm to a training paradigm, where learners are equipped with the tools to overcome these obstacles step by step. This requires structured interventions at multiple levels: vocabulary development through listening, segmentation and decoding practice, explicit attention to discourse markers, scaffolded exposure to authentic speed and noise, and above all, metacognitive training that helps learners become strategic, resilient listeners.

If we treat listening as an active, learnable skill — rather than a passive act of catching meaning — we empower our students to engage more confidently with the target language in real time. And in doing so, we align our pedagogy with what research has consistently told us: that listening is both the most fragile and the most essential skill for language acquisition.

We’re thrilled to announce that the Sentence Builders Trilogy Part I — in French, German, and Spanish — has swept the Amazon UK Best Sellers list for Languages (KS1–4), proudly occupying the #1, #2, and #3 spots.

This recognition is more than a ranking. It reflects the trust that thousands of teachers and learners are placing in a new way of teaching and learning languages — one rooted in research, practical classroom needs, and student-friendly design.

Why Our Sentence Builders Trilogy Matters

So, what makes these books stand out from the crowd?

1. A Research-Based Approach

Every page is informed by second language acquisition research. High-frequency vocabulary, structured input, and systematic recycling underpin the design, ensuring that language doesn’t just get “covered” but actually sticks.

2. Practical for the Classroom

Teachers consistently tell us that the books save hours of planning. The ready-to-use sentence builders provide instant scaffolding, make differentiation straightforward, and slot seamlessly into real classroom routines.

3. Student-Friendly Design

Instead of memorising endless word lists or drilling decontextualised grammar, learners work with meaningful, communicative chunks of language they can use immediately in both speaking and writing.

4. A Strong Listening Focus

Listening is too often neglected in textbooks. In the Trilogy, every unit comes with dedicated listening activities designed around comprehensible input. Students are trained to notice, decode, and process spoken language in real time — turning what is usually the hardest skill into one of the most rewarding.

5. Dedicated Recycling Units

True acquisition comes from revisiting, not racing ahead. That’s why the Trilogy includes recycling units that deliberately return to earlier content in new contexts. This prevents the “learn and forget” cycle and helps learners consolidate their knowledge step by step.

6. Rich Supporting Resources

The Trilogy doesn’t stand alone. It’s backed up by:

• A Grammar Book and a Speaking Activities Booklet.
• The Language Gym, which offers:
  • Hundreds of interactive games tied directly to the books.
  • PowerPoints with lesson plans to save teachers time and provide ready-made sequences for classroom delivery.

7. Sustainable Progress

The three volumes together support progression across Key Stages 1–4. Instead of starting from scratch each year, learners build confidence and fluency step by step, with continuity that strengthens long-term outcomes.

Bridging Research and Real Classrooms

What unites the Trilogy is a simple but powerful principle: bridging the gap between research and classroom practice. These books take what we know about how languages are acquired and put it directly into the hands of teachers and students in a way that is accessible, engaging, and effective.

That’s why they are not just bestsellers — they are part of a growing movement to transform language learning into something sustainable, motivating, and truly effective.

Introduction

Starting out as a Modern Foreign Languages teacher is exciting — but it can also feel overwhelming. Research in second language acquisition (SLA) and classroom pedagogy consistently highlights a number of traps that early-career teachers are especially prone to. I know this from experience: as a trainee in Hull back in 1992, I fell into many of these very pitfalls. Later, as a PGCE mentor, I saw novice teachers repeat them time and again.

This is hardly surprising. Research shows unequivocally that the way we teach is strongly shaped by our own experiences as language learners, as well as by the textbooks and materials we use in our schools. Habits and assumptions are inherited as much as they are chosen.

Of course, many of these pitfalls aren’t unique to beginners — even experienced colleagues slip into them occasionally. But novices often feel their impact more acutely, since they are juggling the simultaneous demands of behaviour management, heavy workload, and the pressure to “do it all.”

What follows are twelve of the most common and serious mistakes new MFL teachers make, along with reflections on why they matter — and how they can be avoided.

1. Teaching Too Much Grammar Too Soon

In the early years, many teachers feel they must “cover everything quickly.” This often leads to introducing multiple tenses or whole verb tables before learners have automatised the basics. Research shows that novice teachers often adopt a coverage model because they equate thoroughness with effectiveness (Borg, 2006; Farrell, 2012). SLA research (VanPatten, 1996, 2003; DeKeyser, 2005) shows that learners need sustained, meaningful practice with core structures before new ones can stick.

How textbooks contribute: While most modern textbooks no longer follow the old “one tense per unit” pattern, they often still present full paradigms or new structures in large chunks. Without careful pacing, teachers can end up introducing too much too soon.

2. Focusing on Accuracy Over Communication

Novices often correct every error out of fear that mistakes will fossilise. This “error-avoidance mindset” is well documented in teacher cognition studies (Borg, 2006; Copland, Garton & Burns, 2014). Yet Swain (1985, 1995) and Long (1996) show that negotiation of meaning and communicative risk-taking drive acquisition more than constant form-policing.

How textbooks contribute: Many textbook tasks are accuracy-driven (gap-fills, matching, drills) with fewer opportunities for authentic message-focused talk, which reinforces an “accuracy first” mindset.

3. Vocabulary Selection Without Sufficient Recycling

New teachers often follow the unit-by-unit pace of the book, which leads to one-off exposure to new words rather than long-term recycling (Borg, 2015; Newton, 2001). While recent reforms have improved textbooks by embedding frequency-based lists, research (Nation, 2001; Ebbinghaus, 1885) stresses that repeated encounters are essential for retention.

How textbooks contribute: Word lists are often thematically organised, and recycling across units is limited. Unless teachers deliberately revisit high-frequency items, words can disappear once a topic ends.

4. Making Lessons Too Dense and Hard to Process

Early-career teachers often “overteach” by cramming explanations or designing tasks with too many steps. This behaviour has been linked to the apprenticeship of observation effect — teachers reproduce the dense, teacher-fronted lessons they experienced themselves (Lortie, 1975; Borg, 2006). SLA research (Mayer, 2009; VanPatten, 2015) confirms that learners learn more when input is broken into smaller steps and scaffolded.

How textbooks contribute: Explanations are often presented as full-page tables or lengthy model texts, which can tempt teachers into overwhelming students with too much at once.

5. Limited Input and Reading Opportunities (receptive skills)

When it comes to the L2 input given to the students novices often prioritise the textbook’s comprehension activites, grammar drills and worksheets because they feel safer and more controllable than open-ended input tasks. Teacher education research shows that early-career teachers lean on form-focused, tightly structured activities to maintain classroom control (Farrell, 2009; Tsui, 2003). Yet acquisition depends on sustained exposure (Krashen, 1985; Lightbown & Spada, 2013).

How textbooks contribute: Reading and listening passages are typically short, exam-style texts written to practise specific vocabulary, rather than rich, extended input. This leaves little room for immersion.

6. Task Design That Stops at Controlled Practice (productive skills)

Novices often stop lessons at controlled speaking and writing drills because these feel safe and predictable, and they reduce behavioural risks (Borg, 2006; Johnson, 1996). However, SLA research (e.g. (Ellis, 2003; Willis, 1996) emphasises that controlled practice (e.g. ‘Oral ping-pong’ or highly structured role plays with prompts) must be a scaffold for freer tasks (e.g. ‘Market place’ or the ‘4,3,2 technique’).

How textbooks contribute: Many activities stop at substitution dialogues or controlled exchanges without providing natural follow-ups where learners need to adapt and improvise.

7. Ineffective Feedback Practices

Research shows that novice teachers frequently struggle with feedback — some over-correct to assert authority, others under-correct to avoid discouraging learners (Borg, 2015; Copland & Mann, 2010). SLA studies (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Ellis, 2009) demonstrate that selective, targeted feedback works best, especially prompts that encourage learner repair.

How textbooks contribute: Textbook activities rarely anticipate errors or suggest feedback techniques. Their built-in “answer keys” encourage a right/wrong approach rather than nuanced correction.

8. Neglecting Listening Skills

Listening is often treated as “play once, answer questions.” Novice teachers tend to test comprehension rather than teach listening, partly due to limited training in listening pedagogy (Graham, 2006; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Yet listening development requires explicit strategy and decoding work (Field, 2008; Vandergrift, 2007).

How textbooks contribute: Recordings are short and often paired with multiple-choice or true/false questions, encouraging a “test what you caught” approach rather than systematic listening instruction.

9. Neglecting Phonics and Pronunciation Beyond the Introductory Stage

While newer textbooks include phonics, novice teachers often treat it as a one-off starter topic. Teacher training research shows pronunciation is often underemphasised in initial teacher education, leading to a lack of confidence and follow-through (Baker, 2014). Yet Woore (2018) and other studies show systematic phonics teaching boosts decoding, fluency, and listening comprehension.

How textbooks contribute: Phonics is now included in starter units, but it is rarely revisited consistently in later chapters. Without teacher intervention, it fades from the curriculum.

10. Ignoring Motivation and Affective Factors

Novice teachers often focus so heavily on curriculum delivery that they underplay motivation. Research on teacher beliefs (Borg, 2015; Williams & Burden, 1997) shows that early-career teachers tend to prioritise knowledge transmission over motivational strategies. Yet Dörnyei (2001, 2014) and Deci & Ryan (1985) demonstrate that motivation, autonomy, and enjoyment are central to persistence.

How textbooks contribute: Topics and tasks are often generic and exam-driven, with limited scope for personalisation. This can make lessons feel distant from learners’ interests.

11. Treating Cultural Content as an “Optional Extra”

Culture is often treated as peripheral. Studies in teacher practice (Byram, 1997; Sercu, 2005) show that many teachers lack confidence in teaching culture, reducing it to trivia or avoiding it altogether. Yet intercultural learning is a key motivator and gives authentic reasons to learn (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013; Norton, 2013).

How textbooks contribute: Cultural inserts are usually confined to sidebars or one-off pages, which are easy to skip. They rarely integrate with the language focus of the unit.

12. Relying on Teacher Talk at the Expense of Student Talk

Novice teachers often fall into over-explaining and translating because it feels safer than handing control to students. Research (Tsui, 2003; Copland et al., 2014) shows that early-career teachers typically dominate talk time as a classroom management strategy. Yet Swain (1995) and Walsh (2011) stress that output and interaction are essential for learning.

How textbooks contribute: Textbook instructions and activities often assume a teacher-led delivery model, which can encourage too much teacher talk if not adapted into interactive formats.

Conclusions

Beginning a career as a Modern Foreign Languages teacher is a journey filled with both excitement and challenge. The pitfalls outlined here are not signs of weakness or failure but natural stages of professional growth. Every novice teacher has to grapple with the tension between coverage and depth, between control and freedom, between accuracy and communication. The key is not to avoid mistakes entirely — that’s impossible — but to learn to spot them early, reflect on their impact, and adjust.

If you recognise yourself in some of these tendencies, don’t despair: you are not alone. Many of us, myself included, made the very same missteps in our early years. What matters is cultivating the habit of reflection, drawing on SLA research as a compass, and remembering that good teaching grows slowly, like language learning itself. With time, you will find the balance that allows both you and your students to thrive.

Implications for Mentors and Supervisors

For those in supervisory roles, these pitfalls provide a useful diagnostic lens. Mentors, ITT tutors, and Heads of Department can help novices not by prescribing “quick fixes,” but by:

• Framing mistakes as learning opportunities rather than deficiencies, reducing anxiety and building reflective capacity.
• Making implicit beliefs explicit: encouraging trainees to articulate how their own learning experiences and textbooks shape their practice.
• Slowing the pace: reassuring novices that less is often more, and that depth and recycling trump rapid coverage.
• Modelling alternatives: showing how to adapt textbook tasks into richer communicative opportunities, or how to scaffold listening and pronunciation work more systematically.
• Prioritising sustainability: helping early-career teachers manage workload, focus on high-impact routines, and resist the pressure to “do it all.”

In short, supervisors should see these pitfalls not as faults to correct, but as predictable hurdles that can be turned into stepping stones. The role of the mentor is to normalise these challenges, to connect novices with the research evidence that reframes them, and to model strategies that ease the path toward confident, reflective practice.

Introduction

For a Head of MFL, results day is more than opening an envelope or checking a spreadsheet. It’s the pivot point between one academic cycle and the next — a chance to celebrate successes, spot red flags, and shape the year ahead. The key? A calm, structured process that moves from rapid triage to long-term strategy.

Below is a tried-and-tested, step-by-step guide for managing results day and the critical weeks that follow.

1. Get the Fast Headline Picture

Before the corridor chatter begins, run the numbers. Calculate pass rates (e.g. 9–4/9–5) and compare them to last year, the three-year average, and your centre’s targets. Flag extreme outliers — papers or classes that are unexpectedly high or low. This gives you a quick, factual overview before emotions take over.

Tip: Have last year’s spreadsheet open in parallel to speed up comparisons.

2. Congratulate and Steady the Team

Results day can be emotionally charged — elation for some, disappointment for others. Share a short, factual headline with your staff, alongside key wins and priorities. Thank them for their work and set the tone for calm, measured action.

Tip: Draft this message the day before so you’re not scrambling under pressure.

3. Borderline & Anomaly Triage

Scan for students sitting within one to three raw marks of a grade boundary in any component. These are your candidates for a Review of Marking (RoR). If the risk is purely clerical, request a Clerical Check instead. If a script could yield teaching insights, request a copy via Access to Script (ATS).

Tip: Prioritise any scripts with university decision deadlines.

4. Component Deep-Dive

Build a table for each class showing results by skill: Reading, Listening, Writing, Speaking (or Papers 1–3). Compare to the cohort mean and national mean (if available). This reveals patterns — maybe Listening Paper Q4–Q6 consistently drags down performance, or Writing tasks aren’t hitting the mark.

5. Equality & Cohort Checks

Equity matters as much as averages. Slice your data by gender, Ever6, SEND, EAL, and prior attainment bands. Look for gaps greater than 5 percentage points and pinpoint where the biggest variations lie — by paper or by class. This helps ensure interventions are targeted and fair.

6. Report to SLT

Prepare a one-page summary for senior leaders: headline figures, how they compare to targets, key strengths, issues, post-results actions, and any early curriculum implications. Keep it tight, factual, and aligned to your school’s reporting format.

7. Targeted Parent Communication

Make proactive calls or send emails to high achievers, borderline candidates, and anyone with post-16 decisions to make. Be ready to explain the next steps and timelines clearly. Avoid sharing any other student’s data in these conversations.

8. Submit Post-Results Services

Finalise all RoR and ATS requests with your Exams Officer. Ensure you meet board deadlines and gain the necessary consent from students and parents. Every awarding body has its own forms, fees, and cut-off dates — know them in advance.

9. Curriculum Quick Wins

Use the results to make immediate teaching tweaks. If Listening scores dipped, embed extra listening strategy work; if translation was weak, increase micro-drill practice. Share a simple “What Changes Monday” sheet with your team so adjustments are immediate and consistent.

10. CPD & Moderation

Moderate a few ATS scripts as a team, blind-marking them before comparing to the board’s marks. This sharpens marking alignment and uncovers valuable teaching points. Capture three practical takeaways per paper to feed back into lesson design.

11. Student Intervention Setup

From your component analysis, form small, focused groups — perhaps a Listening Clinic, a Writing Accuracy club, or a Reading Inference group. Keep the cycles short (6–8 weeks) and attach measurable goals. This ensures progress is trackable and interventions stay tight.

12. Strategic Review

Produce a detailed departmental report (3–4 pages) mapping trends, gaps, and resource needs. This is where you make the case for investment — whether in listening hardware, speaking exam packs, or cultural enrichment activities.

13. Celebrate & Recruit

Finally, celebrate the wins. Share success stories (with permission), display outstanding work, invite alumni to speak, and use case studies at options evenings. It’s both a morale boost and a recruitment tool for the subject.

14. Summary table

Conclusion

Results day isn’t just a reaction moment — it’s a launchpad for the year ahead. A structured, data-informed approach allows MFL leaders to move from the rush of initial numbers to thoughtful, long-term improvement.

Here is a list of my upcoming webinars organised by the University of Bath Spa (UK). Please note that they count towards the EPI accreditation certification. If you are keen to enrol, you can do so at this link: http://www.networkforlearning.org.uk