Introduction

For a long time now, and certainly across many of the classrooms I have visited in recent years teachers have been working hard to improve GCSE writing outcomes while quietly sensing that something was not quite lining up. Pupils write more, practise more, produce longer pieces, and yet the grades often fail to match the effort, which understandably leads to frustration and, in some cases, resignation.

The arrival of the new GCSE writing paper has not been dramatic or loudly announced, but in my view represents a decisive shift in what is being assessed, and my prediction is that many departments will only fully realise this once mock results begin to expose patterns that feel unfamiliar.

For years, GCSE writing has been taught on the assumption that effort, creativity and risk-taking would somehow be rewarded, that “having a go” was a sensible strategy, and that ambitious language could compensate for shaky control. That assumption no longer holds – sadly.

The new GCSE writing paper rewards accuracy, control and task fulfilment, not linguistic risk-taking, and this, far from being a matter of preference or interpretation, is built directly into the mark schemes.

This article, written as I prep my upcoming workshop on this topic in a couple of weeks time, examines what the new writing paper actually assesses, how marks are generated, where the critical thresholds lie, and what this means for classroom practice.

Structure of the new GCSE writing paper

The writing paper now consists of a tightly constrained set of tasks designed to test retrieval and control under pressure rather than expressive freedom. A central feature is the inclusion of English into target language translation as a compulsory writing task.

In the translation mark scheme, marks are awarded for:

• accurate transfer of meaning
• correct vocabulary selection
• grammatical accuracy, including tense, agreement and word order

There are no marks for approximation. Responses either convey the intended meaning or they do not.

Translation removes choice, paraphrase and creativity, and forces precise retrieval under time pressure, hence it is structurally impossible to succeed by merely “having a go”. This task alone signals that the assessment is testing control, not effort or intention.

Stimulus coverage and task fulfilment

Across both the 90-word and 150-word writing tasks, candidates are required to respond directly to bullet-point prompts.

The paper explicitly states that to achieve the highest marks, candidates must write something about each bullet point. In the mark scheme, failure to address all bullet points caps access to the higher bands, regardless of linguistic ambition elsewhere.

As a result, a response that uses adventurous language but misses part of the stimulus will score lower than a response that uses simpler language but completes the task fully. This is a structural feature of the assessment which I personally don’t agree with but we have to live with.

Use of familiar language

Both exam boards assess writing through the use of:

a range of familiar vocabulary and structures.

This phrase is central to understanding the assessment construct.

The mark schemes do not reward originality or experimentation. They reward:

• accurate selection of known language
• consistent use
• successful manipulation

Lower bands are characterised by frequent errors and loss of control whilst higher bands are characterised by secure handling of familiar language. The construct being assessed becomes procedural control (!), not creative expression as in the past GCSE.

Accuracy and band progression

Nowhere in the mark schemes does “ambitious but inaccurate” outperform “simple but accurate”. This stifles the risk-taking attitude that you would want language pedagogy to encourage and reward. A huge mistake which is a legacy of the NCELP’s flawed pedagogy.

So, in the new GCSE, ambition that destabilizes accuracy typically pushes candidates down a band. Errors are tolerated only insofar as they do not impede communication, and that tolerance is limited. The mark scheme allows a small number of minor errors only if meaning remains clear and control is otherwise secure, but once errors become frequent, patterned, or start to affect clarity, the response is automatically pushed into a lower band. In other words, accuracy is not judged generously or holistically: there is a clear ceiling beyond which additional errors are no longer “overlooked”, even if the ideas are good or the language is ambitious.

This means that the long-standing advice to “take risks” in GCSE writing is no longer assessment-neutral Under the new mark schemes, risk-taking without control is actively disadvantageous.

Timeframes as a retrieval challenge

To access the higher bands, candidates must refer to more than one timeframe and do so accurately. A candidate who uses two time frames accurately will usually score higher than a candidate who attempts three timeframes inaccurately.

In other words, time frames function as a retrieval stress test, not as an opportunity to demonstrate grammatical ambition.

Cognitive pressure built into the assessment

The writing paper combines:

• multiple tasks
• strict time limits
• bullet-point constraints
• word limits
• no dictionary
• accuracy-focused marking

The mark schemes then reward consistency, reliability and control – deliberate cognitive load engineering. The assessment measures what candidates can retrieve and control when working memory is stretched.

What distinguishes Grades 7–9 from Grade 6

This is the threshold that is most often misunderstood by the teachers I have worked with recently

Characteristics of a secure Grade 6 response

A Grade 6 response typically:

• addresses the task adequately
• covers most or all bullet points
• uses familiar vocabulary correctly much of the time
• attempts more than one timeframe, but not always securely
• shows some inconsistency in accuracy
• may rely on memorised chunks or repetition

In mark-scheme terms, this represents competent communication, but not sustained control.

What changes at Grade 7

The move from Grade 6 to Grade 7 is not about writing more or using more complex grammar.

It is about stability under pressure.

A Grade 7 response:

• addresses all bullet points precisely and efficiently
• uses a range of familiar structures with consistent accuracy
• handles at least two timeframes securely
• maintains accuracy as sentence length increases
• shows conscious control rather than chance success

Errors are occasional rather than frequent, and accuracy does not deteriorate as the task progresses.

What characterises Grades 8–9

At Grades 8 and 9, nothing fundamentally new appears. What improves is:

• consistency
• reliability
• density of accurate language

Responses at this level sustain accuracy across the entire task, integrate timeframes naturally, and show minimal breakdown in meaning. This reflects automaticity, not flair.

The critical implication

The difference between a Grade 6 and a Grade 7 is not creativity or risk-taking, but the ability to retrieve and control familiar language reliably under exam conditions.

Comparison of AQA and Edexcel writing assessments

Despite differences in layout and wording, both boards assess writing in fundamentally the same way.

Feature	AQA	Edexcel	Assessment implication
Core construct	Control of familiar language	Control of familiar language	Identical construct
Translation	Integrated into writing paper	Integrated into writing paper	Retrieval over creativity
Stimulus coverage	Explicit bullet-point requirement	Task fulfilment weighted	Task control is essential
Accuracy weighting	Strong emphasis	Strong emphasis	Ambition without control is penalised
Timeframes	Multiple accurate timeframes required	Multiple accurate timeframes expected	Retrieval under pressure
Creativity	Rewarded only if accuracy is secure	Rewarded only if accuracy is secure	Creativity is conditional

Despite presentational differences, both boards reward the same thing: stable, accurate, task-focused writing under pressure.

Who is likely to struggle with the new format

The pupils who are most likely to struggle are not necessarily the weakest linguists, but those whose learning has been built on habits that the new assessment penalises.

These include:

• pupils reliant on memorised essays
• pupils encouraged to take grammatical risks they cannot control
• pupils with weak listening and reading foundations
• pupils trained to prioritise ideas over linguistic control

Departments that delay systematic work on accuracy, sentence-level control and retrieval until late in the course are also likely to face difficulties, as habits formed earlier are hard to reverse.

Why “having a go” no longer aligns with the assessment

Taken together, the mark schemes:

• penalise inaccuracy
• cap incomplete responses
• reward familiar language
• prioritise task fulfilment
• embed translation as a control task

As a result, the assessment rewards control under cognitive pressure, not effort or ambition.

Implications for teaching practice

Writing is no longer assessed as expressive output. It is assessed as accurate retrieval of automatised language under constraint.

Teaching writing primarily through early free production now conflicts with:

• the assessment objectives
• the band descriptors
• the cognitive design of the paper

This is not a matter of preference or ideology, but one of construct validity In my upcoming workshop on how to ace the GCSE writing paper in early February I will deal extensively with what teachers can do to prepare their students effectively for this tricky paper

Conclusion

The new GCSE writing paper has not made writing harsher. It has made misalignment between teaching and assessment visible.

If writing continues to be taught as though effort, creativity and risk can compensate for weak control, outcomes are unlikely to improve. If, however, teaching aligns with what the mark schemes actually reward — familiarity, retrieval and accuracy under pressure — then the path forward becomes clearer.

In my view, pupils become better writers not by writing earlier or more freely, but by writing later, with less choice, and with language they have processed deeply and repeatedly. Once this is understood, the logic of the new GCSE writing paper becomes difficult to argue with.

1. Introduction

After twenty-eight years in the classroom I feel reasonably confident saying that students are far more consistent in what they value in their language teachers than we, as a profession, often like to admit Perhaps because their priorities do not always sit comfortably alongside inspection frameworks, policy BS, or whatever pedagogical fashion happens to be doing the rounds this term…

In my experience, and I say this having taught across different countries, systems and policy cycles that arrived with great noise and left quietly through the back door, students are not primarily concerned with whether we are methodologically fashionable, digitally fluent, or capable of delivering a textbook-perfect observed lesson at 9am on a wet Monday morning. What they care about,often desperately, is whether learning in our classroom feels emotionally survivable, cognitively manageable, and worth the effort on days when motivation is fragile and confidence even more so. And those days, sadly, come around in my experience more often than we sometimes admit.

Unfortunately, this is not always the order in which we are trained to think about teaching, is it…

2. What students value (ranked, explained, and grounded in research)

1. Empathy and emotional support — ranked as number one

In my opinion, and very much in line with what the research has been telling us for decades now, empathy sits firmly at the top because language learning without emotional safety simply does not function, however elegante our schemes of work may look on paper.

Students value teachers who are patient, non-judgemental, emotionally predictable, and who create classrooms where making mistakes does not feel like a personal failure played out in public, lesson after lesson. Research on affect in language learning, from Arnold’s early work through to Dewaele and Mercer’s studies on teacher empathy, shows that anxiety and fear of negative evaluation significantly reduce willingness to communicate, participation, and risk-taking – in other words the prerequisites for any significant language learning to happen! On the other hand, Rebecca Oxford’s work on learner well-being reinforces the idea that emotional variables are not decorative extras but structural foundations.

In my experience, when this emotional safety is missing, students rarely kick off or complain loudly; instead, they withdraw quietly, comply politely, and disappear cognitively,,, which is far easier to miss and far harder to reverse.

2. Ability to motivate and inspire — ranked as number two

Motivation comes a very close second because, sadly, language learning is a long game with few immediate rewards, and in my experience without sustained encouragement many learners simply decide that the effort required is not worth the emotional cost involved, especially in exam-driven contexts.

Research on L2 motivation, particularly by Dörnyei, shows that teacher behaviour — not just task design — plays a decisive role in sustaining learner effort over time. Guilloteaux and Dörnyei demonstrated that motivational teaching practices are linked to higher levels of engagement, while Lamb’s more recent work shows how teacher encouragement can keep learners going even when intrinsic interest is fragile and the syllabus feels relentless.

In my opinion, students are rarely demotivated by difficulty itself; they are demotivated by the creeping sense that effort leads nowhere,, and teachers who keep belief alive — often quietly, without fireworks — make an enormous difference here, even if nobody applauds them for it!!

3. Clarity of explanation and instructional clarity — ranked as number three

Clarity sits in the middle of the ranking because confusion is both cognitively and emotionally exhausting, and students place far more value than we sometimes realise on teachers who help them feel oriented rather than overwhelmed.

Hattie’s synthesis of classroom research consistently identifies teacher clarity as a strong predictor of achievement, while Borg and Macaro remind us that clarity in language teaching is not about dumbing things down but about sequencing, scaffolding, and making form–meaning relationships visible. Students want to know what they are learning, why they are learning it, and what success looks like today, not at some vague point in the future.

Personally, I have always been less impressed by how eloquently I explain something and far more interested in whether anyone can actually tell me what they are supposed to be learning and why, a shift that has saved me from many self-inflicted illusions,, and a few awkward lessons too.

4. Strong subject knowledge (language and pedagogy) — ranked as number four

Subject knowledge, while absolutely essential in my opinion, tends to be experienced indirectly by learners, which explains why students value it but rarely place it at the very top of their rankings.

Research on teacher language awareness, particularly by Andrews and Mullock, shows that deep subject knowledge improves modelling, explanations, and responsiveness to learner questions, while Borg’s work on teacher cognition reinforces the idea that what teachers know shapes what they notice and how they respond in real time.

In my experience, students assume competence as a baseline; they notice subject knowledge most when it is missing, when explanations wobbles, examples feel shaky, or questions are dodged a little too quickly… when expertise is strong, it quietly underpins clarity, confidence, and trust without demanding centre stage.

5. Adaptability and responsiveness to learner needs — ranked as number five

Adaptability appears last not because it is unimportant — tutt’altro! — but because students often experience it implicitly rather than as a named quality.

Research on differentiation and learner-centred instruction, from Tomlinson through to more recent work by Papi and Hiver, shows that responsiveness to learner needs supports motivation, autonomy, and sustained engagement. From a learner’s point of view, however, adaptability often blends into perceptions of fairness and care rather than being recognised as a technical skill.

In my experience, students simply say that a teacher “understands” or “explains again if we don’t get it”, without any awareness of the pedagogical decision-making involved,, and that very invisibility is precisely why adaptability, though crucial, tends to sit lower in student rankings.

3. Summary table: what students value most (research-informed)

Quality valued by students	What this looks like in practice (student perspective)	Key research sources
Empathy & emotional support	Feeling safe to speak, make mistakes, and participate without fear of ridicule or judgement.	Dewaele & Mercer (2018); Arnold (1999); Oxford (2016)
Ability to motivate and inspire	Belief in improvement, encouragement to persist, and teacher enthusiasm sustaining effort over time.	Dörnyei (2001); Guilloteaux & Dörnyei (2008); Lamb (2020)
Clarity of explanation & instruction	Clear explanations, structured lessons, transparent goals, and reduced confusion.	Hattie (2009); Borg (2006); Macaro (2008)
Strong subject knowledge	Accurate modelling, confident explanations, and meaningful responses to questions.	Andrews (2007); Borg (2015); Mullock (2006)
Adaptability to learner needs	Adjusting pace, difficulty, feedback, and support in response to learners.	Tomlinson (2014); Papi & Hiver (2020)

4. Why the ranking looks the way it does

I strongly believe that the ranking above reflects the sequence of emotional and cognitive thresholds learners must cross in order to remain engaged in language learning. If students do not feel emotionally safe, they disengage. If they do not feel encouraged, they stop trying. If they do not feel oriented, they become frustrated. Wherever I have taught, be it in challenging inner-city area schools or posh private schools in rich neighbourhoods, only once these conditions were met did subject expertise and adaptability become fully visible and impactful from the learner’s perspective… simple, really, though not always easy.

So this ranking is not a claim about what matters most in teaching in some abstract, absolute sense, but about what students experience first and depend on most in order to keep going,, which is a rather different question altogether.

5. Conclusion

After nearly three decades of teaching, observing, mentoring, and occasionally getting it wrong in public, I am increasingly convinced that what students value most in us aligns remarkably well with what research tells us facilitates language acquisition, even if this alignment is not always reflected in accountability systems or professional discourse.

Students are not asking us to be entertainers, influencers, or walking grammar encyclopaedias. In my experience, they are asking us — often quietly, often indirectly — to create conditions in which effort feels worthwhile, failure feels survivable, and progress feels possible….

Key references

Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge University Press.

Arnold, J. (Ed.). (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge University Press.

Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Bloomsbury.

Csizér, K., & Nagy, B. (2020). The dynamic interaction of motivation, self-regulation, and autonomous learning in second language acquisition. System, 92, 102249.

Dewaele, J.-M., & Mercer, S. (2018). Do ESL/EFL teachers’ emotional intelligence, empathy and self-efficacy predict learner-centredness? System, 79, 31–43.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 55–77.

Lamb, M., & Arisandy, F. E. (2020). The motivational dimension of language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 24(3), 1–24.

Macaro, E. (2008). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford University Press.

Mullock, B. (2006). The pedagogical knowledge base of four TESOL teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 48–66.

Oxford, R. L. (2016). Toward a psychology of well-being in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 3–29.

Papi, M., & Hiver, P. (2020). Language learning motivation as a complex dynamic system. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 209–229.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Every few months — sometimes more often than that — social media fills up with posts telling us that research proves a particular language-teaching method works best. You know the sort of thing. One week it is storytelling. The next week it is explicit grammar. The week after is EPI (Yes – guilty as charged!) Then it is “input only”, or “no output”, or whatever the label happens to be this time. The pattern never really changes.

And let me say this clearly before someone misreads what follows: the problem is rarely the research itself. The real problem is what happens after the research leaves the journal and enters the hands of people who are actively trying to justify selling their method, their training, their books, their conference slots, or their latest online course.

So, before we swallow yet another “research-backed” claim whole, it might be worth slowing down and asking a few boring but necessary questions… even if they spoil the excitement.

First of all: who were the learners in the study?
This sounds so obvious that it almost feels insulting to mention it, and yet it is ignored with remarkable consistency. Language learning looks very different depending on whether we are talking about preschool children, primary beginners, secondary pupils working towards exams, or university students who already have years of schooling behind them. Findings from one group do not automatically apply to another, no matter how confidently someone says they do. When studies involving very young learners, or learners with extremely limited language, are used to justify methods for GCSE or A-level classrooms, surely the correct response is not enthusiasm but caution… or at least a pause.

Second — and this is absolutely central — what level did the learners start from?
Baseline language ability is not a small technical detail tucked away in the methods section for researchers to worry about. In practice, it often explains more than anything else. When learners begin with almost no vocabulary, very little exposure to structured language, and limited experience of listening to or using language in organised ways, teaching does something very specific: it lays foundations. It does not suddenly accelerate learning in magical ways. So when an intervention produces gains in the exact words that were taught, but little beyond that, this is not surprising at all. It is exactly what we would expect. Using such findings to make claims about learners who already have years of exposure, larger vocabularies and basic narrative competence is not careful interpretation. It is misuse. Ignoring starting level is one of the easiest ways to turn sensible research into bad pedagogy.

Third: was the study actually about learning a second or foreign language?
This is where things often get very slippery. Research from first-language literacy or early childhood development is regularly brought into language-teaching debates as if the jump were obvious and unproblematic. Yes, storytelling helps children develop language in their first language. No, that does not automatically mean it drives grammatical development in a second language. The same mistake appears when research on first-language grammar is used to justify grammar-heavy second-language teaching. Different learning problems, different conditions, different outcomes… surely that matters?

Fourth: what did the researchers actually measure?
Did learners understand a story while it was being told? Did they recognise forms they had just seen? Did they do well on a test straight after instruction? Or did they show that they could use the language later, on their own, in new situations, without help? These are not minor distinctions. Much research reports short-term performance under controlled conditions, and that is fine. What is not fine is pretending that this is the same thing as long-term acquisition.

Fifth: was there a proper comparison group?
Without a meaningful comparison, improvement does not tell us very much. Learners usually improve over time anyway. Teachers get better. Familiarity with tasks increases. Comparing an intervention to “no instruction” might look impressive, but it tells us almost nothing about whether the approach is better than other plausible alternatives.

Sixth: did the gains last?
Were learners tested again weeks or months later, or was everything measured immediately, while the material was still fresh? Without delayed testing, claims about learning should be treated with extreme caution. Short-term gains are easy to produce. Long-term retention is much harder. We have known this for well over a century, and yet it is routinely ignored… why?

Seventh: was grammar actually tested in free use?
Doing well in gap-fills, multiple-choice tasks, or highly scaffolded activities is not the same as using language accurately when speaking or writing under pressure. Too often, grammar learning is assumed rather than demonstrated. We should be asking whether learners can actually use what they supposedly “acquired”, not whether they can recognise it when prompted.

Eighth: is one element being sold as the whole solution?
Input matters. So does practice. So does feedback. So does retrieval. So does time. When one of these is isolated and presented as the answer, something has gone wrong. No serious account of learning supports the idea that a single ingredient, however valuable, can replace everything else.

Ninth: what do the authors themselves say about limits?
Most researchers are careful. They talk about context. They talk about constraints. They warn against overgeneralisation. When these warnings quietly disappear in conference talks or social-media posts, that should worry us. If the caveats are gone, the research has already been bent out of shape.

Finally: who stands to gain from this interpretation?
This is uncomfortable, but unavoidable. When claims are tied to training packages, branded methods, books, or speaking circuits, there is an incentive to oversell. That does not automatically make the research wrong. But it should make us sceptical… very sceptical.

An example: recent social-media claims about TPRS

A example: recent claims made online by a TPRS advocate, suggesting that a randomised controlled study carried out with African preschool children somehow supports storytelling as an effective general language-teaching method.

It does not.

The study looked at a structured story-based intervention delivered to very young children from low-income backgrounds who started with extremely weak language. The children improved on the vocabulary that was explicitly taught to them. That is a sensible and useful finding. What it does not show is that storytelling leads to broad second-language acquisition, that it replaces explicit instruction, or that it applies to older learners in secondary schools. The learners were preschoolers. Their starting level was extremely low. The effects were narrow and closely tied to what was taught. The context was highly specific. And the authors themselves warned against overgeneralisation.

Turning that into an argument for TPRS as a general solution is not research-informed practice. It is spin. After all, TPRS has been around for ages, yet it is a very niche approach in secondary education. Even if we ignore the research misuse, there are practical reasons why TPRS has never really taken hold in mainstream state secondary education. It depends heavily on unusually skilled and confident teachers. It makes syllabus coverage difficult to guarantee. It works far better with beginners than with learners who need increasing accuracy. It does not align well with exam demands. And it takes time — time that most state schools simply do not have.

None of this means storytelling is useless. It means it is limited. And whilst it is one of many instructional strategies that can be used once or twice a term to add variety and spice up the curriculum, it cannot be the one and only method to use with students who will be sitting a high-stake national exam which does not involve storytelling. This is not because I don’t espouse or like this method; but, rather, because, as cognitive psychology teaches us, what one learns through storytelling doesn’t transfer to the tasks used to assess students in national examinations around the world!

Another example: The Finnish miracle… and the context everyone forgets

The same pattern shows up well beyond language teaching, and the way Finland has been held up for years – based on credible research studies – as proof that there is a single “better” way to teach is probably the clearest example of this problem. Finnish education has been praised, copied, packaged and exported as if it were a set of techniques rather than the product of a very particular country, culture and history. Although the research backing the effectiveness of Finnish education is absolutely credible, what tends to be ignored is that Finland is small, socially cohesive, linguistically homogeneous, and built on unusually high levels of trust in teachers, low child poverty, strong welfare support, and minimal inequality between schools. Teachers are highly selected, highly trained, and enjoy professional autonomy that would be politically impossible in many systems. Classrooms operate in a context where behaviour, attendance, parental support and social safety nets are not constant battles. To point at Finnish outcomes and say “do this and you will get the same results” is to ignore all of that… and yet this is exactly what happens. The method is praised, the context quietly disappears, and what was once careful comparative research turns into a convenient story that sounds great in conferences, policy documents and consultancy brochures, but tells us very little about what will actually work in crowded, exam-driven, high-stakes state school systems elsewhere.

Conclusions

Storytelling has value. Explicit grammar has value. Input has value. Practice has value. EPI has value. But when any of these is turned into the answer, backed by selective readings of research and pushed hard by snake-oil salesmen who have something to sell, teachers should stop, breathe, and ask the very dull questions in the table below.

Research does not give us silver bullets. It gives us boundaries. When those boundaries disappear, what we are left with is not innovation or evidence-based teaching, but marketing dressed up as science. And frankly, we should be tired of that by now…

Introduction

I still remember marking a set of Year 10 writing tasks years ago and thinking, not without a certain irritation tinged with professional unease, “They understand this… so why can’t they write it?” They could recognise the language with little difficulty in aural tasks, manipulate it orally when supported, and even demonstrate decent control in tightly scaffolded activities; and yet, the moment they were asked to write independently, the output collapsed into short, brittle sentences, missing endings, hesitant word order, and a palpable sense of effort that went far beyond what the task seemed to warrant. Why? Why here? Why now?

What teachers often interpret as a lack of effort, resilience, or ambition in L2 writing is, in my experience, more accurately understood as a mismatch between task demands and cognitive capacity For a long time, I nevertheless explained the problem away as a practice deficit, reassuring myself that what pupils needed was simply more writing, more exposure, more rehearsal.

The moment when that explanation began to feel intellectually untenable came when I started my PhD in the early 2000s and immersed myself in the L2 writing literature, particularly research examining the cognitive differences between writing in one’s first language and writing in an additional one. What became increasingly obvious to me was that L2 writing is not merely slower or less accurate L1 writing, but a qualitatively different cognitive activity, one that places radically different demands on working memory, attentional control, and linguistic retrieval, such that pedagogical approaches borrowed wholesale from L1 contexts are almost guaranteed to misfire.

In my opinion, unless pedagogy is designed with this difference explicitly in mind, persistent weakness in writing should surprise no one… and yet, how often do we still default to “just write more”? And why do we expect a different outcome?

1. Two languages are active simultaneously and compete for selection (Kroll, Bobb & Wodniecka, 2006)

When learners write in an L2, their L1 does not simply step aside and…wait its turn. Lexical, syntactic, and even pragmatic representations from both languages remain active and compete for selection, which means that hesitation, reformulation, and interference are not symptoms of poor learning or insufficient effort, but the predictable consequence of bilingual activation unfolding in real time. The brain, quite simply, is doing two things at once, juggling competing representations while attempting to maintain coherence. Should we really be surprised? Please note: this happens with more L2 proficient writers like myself too!

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Allow planned use of L1 at the planning stage (ideas, notes), because content generation does not need to drain scarce L2 resources that will be required later for accurate encoding.
Implication 2: Teach contrastive chunks explicitly (L1 ≠ L2 structures), so that interference is anticipated and managed rather than discovered painfully through error.
Implication 3: Avoid banning L1 outright; manage interference instead, because in my experience such bans tend to increase cognitive friction and anxiety rather than promote fluency.

2. Grammar competes directly with idea generation (Skehan, 1998)

In L1 writing, grammatical encoding is largely automatised and therefore cognitively ‘cheap’, allowing writers to focus almost entirely on meaning, organisation, and nuance. In L2 writing, it is not. Formulation draws on the same limited working-memory resources as idea generation, so when grammatical decisions require conscious attention, something else must give way — and it is almost always content, complexity, or risk-taking. How could it be otherwise?

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Separate content planning from language encoding in time and task design, so that pupils are not asked to generate ideas and encode unfamiliar language simultaneously.
Implication 2: Use sentence builders so grammar is effectively pre-loaded, reducing the processing burden at the point of writing.
Implication 3: Delay extended writing until forms are automatised, not merely “covered”, because exposure without control does not lead to fluency.

3. Working memory overloads quickly in L2 writing (Sweller, 1998)

As already implied above, one point that teachers consistently underestimate is how early working memory overload occurs in L2 writing. Add new vocabulary, unfamiliar grammar, new content, and time pressure, and the system saturates fast; performance does not decline gently but collapses, often in ways that look like carelessness yet are entirely predictable cognitive consequences.

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Reduce task length deliberately (quality > quantity), recognising that fewer sentences written with control are more developmentally valuable than longer texts produced under strain.
Implication 2: Limit the amount of new language per writing task, so that attention can settle on consolidation rather than constant retrieval.
Implication 3: Scaffold heavily at first, then fade support gradually, because, as often reiterated on this blog, overload is not challenge; it is interference.

4. Pauses happen at morphology and function words (Spelman Miller, 2006)

Keystroke-logging studies show that L2 writers pause most frequently around verb endings, agreement, prepositions, and connectors — not around ideas or content generation. This finding, while awkward for certain assumptions about creativity and spontaneity, is deeply revealing of where cognitive effort is actually being spent. During the think-aloud protocols I staged with my informants during my PhD study, this was one of my most interesting findings. When asked about it, every single one of my students replied that they needed to think about them harder, especially when it came to verb endings they had learnt by memorizing verb tables (due to the TAP phenomenon) and prepositions (due to the differences in L1 vs L2 usage).

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Over-teach verb endings, agreements, and connectors as chunks, treating them as high-frequency building blocks rather than incidental details.
Implication 2: Practise micro-writing (one or two sentences) so that attention can focus on these pressure points without overwhelming the system.
Implication 3: Recycle the same structures across many tasks, relentlessly, because, as often reiterated on this blog, working-memory overload — not lack of ambition — is the real enemy.

5. Accuracy is prioritised over fluency under pressure (Ellis, 2009)

Under time pressure, even advanced L2 writers protect accuracy first and sacrifice fluency shortening sentences, simplifying syntax, and avoiding risk. This is not a motivational issue, nor a lack of resilience; it is a rational response to finite cognitive resources. And yet… how often do we assess both as if they were the same thing?

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Don’t time extended writing too early, especially before core structures are stable.
Implication 2: Use untimed drafting before timed exam practice, allowing control to consolidate before speed is imposed.
Implication 3: Assess fluency and accuracy separately, at least diagnostically, so that pupils are not penalised for unavoidable cognitive trade-offs.

6. L2 writers plan less and monitor locally (Hayes & Chenoweth, 2006)

This was the most obvious phenomenon I observed during my PhD into L2 writers’ self-monitoring habits: unlike L1 writers, L2 writers often move sentence by sentence, monitoring locally rather than structuring ideas globally, because attentional resources are already stretched thin by encoding demands. Planning does not magically transfer… why would it, given the load?

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Teach explicit planning frames (who / when / where / why) so that organisation is not left to chance.
Implication 2: Model planning aloud before writing, making invisible cognitive processes visible.
Implication 3: Use paragraph-level sentence starters until patterns are internalised, rather than withdrawing support prematurely.

7. L2 writing relies on effortful executive control (Bialystok, 1990)

Early L2 writing is governed not by creativity, but by executive control: inhibition, selection, monitoring, and constant checking. There is simply no spare capacity for “free expression” at this stage, however desirable it may seem pedagogically. This is not an argument against creativity, but an argument about timing.

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Avoid “creative free writing” with novices, not because creativity is unimportant, but because the system is already overloaded.
Implication 2: Build automatisation through repetition of familiar language, recognising repetition as a cognitive necessity rather than a pedagogical failure.
Implication 3: Treat writing as skill-building, not self-expression (yet), postponing creativity until control is secure.

8. Under time pressure, learners regress (Robinson, 2001)

When under pressure – especially during high stakes tests – learners retreat to safer grammar and simpler syntax, relying on what is most reliable rather than what is most ambitious. This regression is by design, not by weakness.

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Train exam conditions gradually, rather than imposing them suddenly.
Implication 2: Practise speed on familiar language only, ensuring that pace does not come at the expense of accuracy.
Implication 3: Teach safe grammar strategies for exams, so pupils know what to fall back on when pressure rises.

9. Translation causes heavy cognitive interference (Kern, 1994)

Translating from L1 to L2 activates both systems simultaneously and forces alignment, creating interference that often makes the task cognitively heavier than composing directly in the L2. Counter-intuitive, perhaps, but well attested.

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Avoid L1→L2 translation as a main writing task, particularly for extended output.
Implication 2: Prefer guided L2 composition, supported by models and chunks.
Implication 3: Use translation sparingly and diagnostically, to reveal interference patterns rather than generate text.

10. Chunks dramatically reduce cognitive load (Wray, 2002)

Here we go again some of you will say! Conti’s obsession: chunks ! However, chunks are not just a methodological preference of mine; they are a cognitive solution. Sequences such as in my opinion, I think that, because I like, when I was younger, in the future I would like to, on the one hand… on the other hand, or it is important to are processed as single units, freeing working memory and allowing attention to be redirected toward meaning. Why would we deny learners that advantage? As I am writing this article, right now, I can feel myself retrieving one chunks after another, sequencing and moving them around inserting connectives, adverbs and adjectives here and there.

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Teach whole sentences, not isolated words, as the primary unit of instruction.
Implication 2: Recycle chunks across listening, reading, and writing until retrieval is fast and automatic.
Implication 3: Make chunk recall the core success criterion, as often reiterated on this blog, because availability rather than originality is what ultimately drives fluency.

11. Editing is not writing, and treating it as such is a mistake (Hayes, 1996)

One final cognitive distinction that is too often blurred in classroom practice is the difference between writing and editing. In L1 contexts, editing is often treated as a natural extension of composition: writers draft, reread, revise, and refine with relatively little additional cognitive cost. In L2 writing, however, editing constitutes a separate, highly demanding task, one that places additional strain on working memory. Why? Because it requires learners to reread text they have already struggled to produce while simultaneously evaluating form, meaning, and accuracy.

For many learners, this creates a perfect storm! By the time they reach the editing stage, cognitive resources are already depleted, which means that “editing” frequently degenerates into either superficial tinkering or indiscriminate rewriting, rather than targeted improvement. Errors that teachers expect pupils to notice remain invisible, not because pupils are careless, but because the act of noticing itself requires cognitive capacity that is no longer available.

Pedagogical implications.
Implication 1: Editing must be taught and sequenced as a distinct phase, not bolted on at the end of writing tasks, with clear limits on what pupils are expected to attend to (e.g. verb endings only, or agreement only).
Implication 2: Editing should be selective rather than comprehensive, focusing on a small number of high-frequency features, so that attention is not diffused across too many competing demands.
Implication 3: Editing routines should be highly scaffolded and repetitive, using checklists, models, and shared correction, until learners develop the procedural knowledge required to edit with some degree of independence.

Crucially, editing should not be treated as evidence of autonomy or maturity, but as another skill that needs to be explicitly taught, practised, and automatised. Without this, we risk mistaking cognitive overload for indifference, and missed errors for lack of effort.

Table 1: A Cognitive Taxonomy of Editing in L2 Writing

Editing type	What it targets	Cognitive load	When it is viable	Classroom example	Main pedagogical risk if misused
1. Surface accuracy editing	Verb endings, agreement, articles, high-frequency prepositions, spelling of familiar forms	Low–moderate (narrow attentional focus)	After highly scaffolded writing; with short texts; when target forms are already practised	“Check only past tense verb endings.”	Overload if combined with higher-level editing; pupils change nothing or everything
2. Lexical precision editing	Word choice, replacing vague words, retrieval of taught chunks	Moderate	Once a core lexical repertoire is secure; with models available; limited alternatives	“Replace ‘I like’ with one practised alternative chunk.”	Slips into creative rewriting rather than editing
3. Morphosyntactic restructuring	Sentence structure, word order, subordination already taught	High (partial re-encoding)	After sentence-level automatisation; with sentence builders; one sentence at a time	“Rewrite sentence 3 using ‘because’.”	Accuracy collapses; gains made earlier are lost
4. Discourse & organisation editing	Paragraph order, logical sequencing, basic connectors	Very high (global monitoring)	With very short texts; higher proficiency; explicit planning frames	“Check each paragraph answers one bullet from the plan.”	Form accuracy deteriorates rapidly
5. Stylistic editing	Register, tone, variety, expressiveness	Extremely high	Very late in development; with highly familiar language only	Rarely appropriate below advanced level	Competes with all other processes; derails learning focus

12. Conclusion

Across these strands of research, a pattern emerges with uncomfortable consistency: pupils struggle with L2 writing not because they lack ideas or resilience, but because the task routinely exceeds their cognitive capacity. Why would they keep taking risks in such conditions?

An approach such as Extensive Processing Instruction, with its emphasis on rich input, structured processing, chunking, and delayed output, aligns naturally with what cognitive research tells us about how writing develops. In practical terms, this means a curriculum in which rich input, repeated processing, and controlled output precede extended writing, rather than the other way around. In my experience, writing improves not because pupils are pushed harder, but because the task is redesigned to fit how cognition actually works… and once you see that, it is very hard to unsee.

Table 2: A Cognitive Taxonomy of Editing in L2 WritingSummary table

What the brain does in L2 writing	Pedagogical implication 1	Pedagogical implication 2	Pedagogical implication 3
1. L1 and L2 are both active during L2 writing	Allow planned use of L1 at the planning stage (ideas, notes)	Teach contrastive chunks (L1 ≠ L2 structures) explicitly	Avoid banning L1: manage interference instead
2. Grammar competes with idea generation	Separate content planning from language encoding	Use sentence builders so grammar is pre-loaded	Delay extended writing until forms are automatised
3. Working memory overloads quickly in L2	Reduce task length (quality > quantity)	Limit new language per writing task	Scaffold heavily, then fade support gradually
4. Pauses happen at morphology and function words	Over-teach verb endings, agreements, connectors as chunks	Practise micro-writing (1–2 sentences)	Recycle the same structures across many tasks
5. Accuracy is prioritised over fluency under pressure	Don’t time extended writing too early	Use untimed drafting before timed exam practice	Assess fluency and accuracy separately
6. L2 writers plan less and monitor locally	Teach explicit planning frames (who / when / where / why)	Model planning aloud before writing	Use paragraph-level sentence starters
7. L2 writing relies on effortful executive control	Avoid “creative free writing” with novices	Build automatisation through repetition	Treat writing as skill-building, not self-expression
8. Under time pressure, learners regress	Train exam conditions gradually	Practise speed on familiar language only	Teach “safe grammar” strategies for exams
9. Translation causes heavy cognitive interference	Avoid L1→L2 translation as a main writing task	Prefer guided L2 composition	Use translation sparingly and diagnostically
10. Chunks dramatically reduce cognitive load	Teach whole sentences, not isolated words	Recycle chunks across listening, reading, writing	Make chunk recall the core success criterion

References

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of task planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2006). Is working memory involved in the transcribing and editing of texts? Written Communication, 23(2), 135–149.

Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(4), 441–461.

Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(2), 119–135.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Manchón, R. M. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity and language production. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.

Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., & Murphy, L. (2008). Strategic behaviour in L2 writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30–47.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spelman Miller, K. (2006). The pause phenomenon in second language writing. In K. P. H. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer keystroke logging and writing (pp. 11–30). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

After nearly three decades of teaching, examining, observing lessons, reading scripts, delivering CPD, and, perhaps most importantly, sitting next to pupils as they struggled to produce writing under exam conditions or as part of research projects, I have come to a fairly consistent conclusion: GCSE MFL writing underperformance is rarely about motivation or even knowledge.

In my experience, it is about poorly trained processes.

What follows is not a critique of effort but a set of practical failure points, each paired with specific, teachable solutions that I have used myself or seen work repeatedly in real classrooms and if some of this feels uncomfortably familiar, that is precisely the point, quid est enim veritas?

1. Inadequate attention to bullet-point coverage (sine qua non)

The single most common reason students fail to access higher content bands is simple: they do not fully address the bullet points! In my observation, students often believe that if they write enough, or sound fluent enough, the examiner will infer that they have “covered” the task. But since when has implication ever been rewarded in a mark scheme? It hasn’t — and it won’t! This aligns closely with what examiner reports repeatedly flag and with assessment research showing that explicit task fulfilment is a primary determinant of score outcomes (e.g. Shaw & Weir, 2007).

Bullet points are marking hooks, not suggestions, sine qua non.

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Teach a mandatory bullet routine: underline, micro-plan, tick off.
• Build bullet audits into marking.
• Run bullet-only drills with no extended writing.

Is it glamorous No. Is it transformative? Absolutely.

2. Writing practice that does not transfer across prompts (mutatis mutandis)

Many students perform quite well on familiar task types but falter when the exam changes the angle slightly.Why does this happen, despite “lots of practice”? In my experience because students practise topic content, not transferable structures. This is a textbook example of poor transfer, a phenomenon long documented in educational psychology (Perkins & Salomon, 1988) which I have written extensively about on this blog (see my posts on TAP). Students know what to say, but not how to adapt it — mutatis mutandis.

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Recycle key structures across topics.
• Vary prompts relentlessly while holding form constant.
• Rewrite answers to new questions using the same frames.

After all, if the exam changes the rules slightly shouldn’t our preparation anticipate that?

3. Insufficient automatisation of core grammar (festina lente)

In my opinion, grammar remains the main bottleneck in GCSE writing — not because students have never been taught it, but because it has not been automatised.

Under exam pressure, grammar that is not routinised collapses — and collapses fast the lesson here is old but enduring: festina lente. This mirrors findings from skill acquisition theory, which consistently show that declarative knowledge does not reliably convert into performance without extensive procedural practice (DeKeyser, 2007).

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Define a high-frequency grammar core.
• Practise it daily through retrieval.
• Mark it selectively.
• Enforce grammar self-check routines.

Slow, secure mastery beats rushed coverage every time does it not?

4. Excessive linguistic ambition without sufficient control (primum non nocere)

Students are often encouraged to “include complex language” without really being taught how to control it. This well-intentioned advice does more harm than good. Cognitive Load Theory explains why: adding complexity before automatisation overwhelms working memory and degrades performance (Sweller, Ayres & Kalyuga, 2011). Why reward risk when risk predictably lowers accuracy?

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Teach tiered ambition explicitly: a secure core plus one controlled stretch.
• Require students to choose their stretch in advance (e.g. tense shift or subordinate clause, not both).
• Judge success by execution, not aspiration: inaccurate complexity scores lower than accurate simplicity.
• Build stretch rehearsal into lessons: practise the same upgrade repeatedly across different topics until it becomes automatic.
• Use post-task self-evaluation: students identify whether their chosen stretch was accurate and, if not, rewrite only that sentence.

Complexity is not bravery. It is control.

5. Reliance on word-for-word translation during writing (cui bono?)

One of the most damaging habits students develop is writing in English first and translating as they go.

It feels logical — but cui bono? Who actually benefits from this cognitively punishing process? Certainly not the student under exam pressure! Research on L2 writing repeatedly shows that heavy reliance on L1 translation increases cognitive load and error rates, particularly for less proficient writers (Kormos, 2012). So, whilst translation is an effective way to scaffold more creative writing in that it promotes retrieval practice and preps the students for the translation tasks in the GCSE exams, it shouldn’t be considered as the main way to build writing proficiency.

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Ban sentence-level English planning.
• Plan in bullet notes or L2 cues.
• Model assembly writing.
• Restrict dictionary use.
• Reward simplification.

When students stop translating accuracy rises — almost embarrassingly quickly.

6. Limited development of sentence complexity (gradatim)

Many students produce grammatically correct but simplistic writing because they have never been taught how to combine sentences.

Why would complexity appear spontaneously, without instruction it doesn’t — gradatim. Writing research shows that sentence-combining instruction is one of the most effective ways to improve syntactic maturity and control (Graham & Perin, 2007). Over the years I have published quite a few free resources on the TES platform which involves sentence recombining.

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Teach sentence combining explicitly.
• Practise orally before writing.
• Limit complexity focus per task.

Step by step beats leap and collapse.

7. Insufficient practice under timed conditions (tempus fugit)

Students often practise writing slowly and then panic in the exam.

Is this surprising? Not at all — tempus fugit and writing is a speeded performance. Research on writing fluency and assessment performance shows that time pressure fundamentally alters output quality unless fluency has been trained (Hayes & Flower, 1980; revisited in Hayes, 2012).

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Weekly micro-timed writes.
• Minimal success criteria.
• Untimed vs timed comparisons.

Confidence comes from familiarity not reassurance.

8. Writing practice without explicit strategy instruction (ars docendi)

Writing is often treated as an output activity rather than a taught process.

But teaching is an art — ars docendi and processes must be made visible. Decades of research on writing instruction confirm that explicit modelling and strategy instruction outperform unguided practice (Graham, Harris & Santangelo, 2015).

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Model thinking aloud.
• Use joint construction.
• Build reflection into every task.

Students cannot imitate what they have never seen.

9. Overly detailed or unfocused feedback (multum non multa)

Teachers often mark too much and students fix too little.

In my experience less is more — multum non multa. Feedback research consistently shows that focused, actionable feedback has greater impact than extensive commentary (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Two targets only.
• Mandatory short rewrite.
• Whole-class feedback for patterns.

Feedback should move learning forward not exhaust goodwill.

10. Lack of an explicit proofreading routine (ultima ratio)

Many marks are lost to errors students could correct themselves. Proofreading is the last line of defence — ultima ratio yet it is rarely trained! Research on self-regulation in writing shows that explicit editing routines significantly improve accuracy when automatised (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). I have written extensively about how to foster self-monitoring in the MFL classroom based on my PhD research and classroom practice.

Concrete classroom fixes:

• Error-hunt classroom routines focusing on common errors.
• Fixed checking order.
• Guided proofreading on models.
• Visible evidence of checking.
• Explicit training in self-monitoring strategies (see my dedicated post on this)

If it matters in the mark scheme it deserves rehearsal.

Conclusion (ex usu)

In my opinion, GCSE MFL writing improves not through more content, but through better processes.

Everything outlined here comes directly from classroom experience — mine and others’ — and reflects the principles underpinning the EPI approach and much of what I share in CPD sessions. None of it is theoretical. All of it is teachable. And all of it works — ex usu.

When we stop hoping students will “just get better” and instead train the processes that writing actually requires outcomes improve — quietly, steadily, and predictably.

And really what more could we reasonably ask for?

Introduction

In my experience, one of the most persistent myths in language education is that vocabulary growth comes from introducing lots of new words quickly. Research, however, tells a very different story. Vocabulary learning is slow, cumulative, and constrained by cognitive limits, especially when it comes to working memory and processing speed. These limits differ markedly between primary and secondary learners, which means the “right” number of words per lesson is not the same across phases.

What often goes missing from this discussion, however, is how vocabulary is taught. Muche research suggests that teaching words in isolation and teaching them as chunks or multi-word units place very different demands on the brain — and this has important implications for how much learners can realistically handle.

A necessary caution: what does it mean to “learn” a word?

Before addressing how many words can be taught in a lesson, I believe it is important to clarify what learning a word actually entails. Vocabulary knowledge is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Research consistently shows that knowing a word involves multiple dimensions: recognising its spoken and written form, understanding its meaning, knowing how it behaves grammatically, and being able to retrieve and use it appropriately (Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2008). In classroom terms, this means that many words students encounter in a lesson may be noticed or partially understood without being fully learned or retained. The figures discussed in this chapter therefore refer to words or chunks that can realistically be taught for durable learning, not merely encountered or temporarily recognised.

Table 0. The dimensions of word knowledge

Dimension	What it involves	Classroom implications
Spoken form (phonological)	Recognising and producing the word’s sounds accurately	Learners may know a word in writing but fail to recognise it in listening
Written form (orthographic)	Recognising and spelling the word correctly	Spelling knowledge can support memory, especially at secondary level
Meaning (semantic)	Understanding what the word refers to	Meaning is often partial at first and becomes more precise over time
Form–meaning connection	Linking the sound/spelling to the correct meaning	This link is fragile in early learning and easily breaks under time pressure
Conceptual knowledge	Understanding the concept behind the word	Abstract or culturally unfamiliar concepts are harder to learn
Grammatical behaviour	Knowing the word’s part of speech and how it behaves grammatically	Includes gender, agreement, verb patterns, count/uncount status
Collocations	Knowing which words typically occur with it	Crucial for fluency and naturalness (e.g. make a mistake, not do)
Formulaic use / chunks	Knowing how the word functions inside common phrases	Supports faster processing and listening comprehension
Register	Knowing whether the word is formal, informal, slang, etc.	Prevents inappropriate usage in speaking and writing
Frequency	Knowing how common the word is	High-frequency words deserve more classroom time
Associations	Knowing related words (synonyms, antonyms, semantic fields)	Supports lexical networks and faster retrieval
Pragmatic use	Knowing when and why the word is used	Includes politeness, social norms, and discourse function
Receptive knowledge	Understanding the word when heard or read	Usually develops before productive knowledge
Productive knowledge	Being able to use the word accurately	Requires more practice and stronger memory traces
Automaticity	Retrieving the word quickly under pressure	Essential for fluent listening and speaking

L2 primary learners (approx. ages 5–11)

I have taught primary learners between the ages of 7 and 10 for 18 years and one thing that never ceased to surprise me was how fast their forgetting rate without constant revision was! This is because young learners face particularly strong cognitive constraints when learning vocabulary in an additional language. Working memory capacity is limited, attentional control is still developing, and phonological representations in the L2 are fragile and slow to stabilise. In addition, primary learners often have limited literacy skills in both their first language and the target language, which reduces their ability to use orthography as a support. As a result, vocabulary learning at this stage is highly incremental and depends heavily on repetition, salience, and recycling across time.

Table 1. Research findings: vocabulary learning in L2 primary learners

Research	Key findings relevant to “words per lesson”
Cameron (2001)	Vocabulary learning in young learners is gradual and fragile; introducing too many new words at once leads to shallow learning and rapid forgetting
Nation (2001)	Small numbers of new words should be taught explicitly, with repeated encounters over time; depth of processing matters more than quantity
Gathercole & Alloway (2008)	Children’s working memory capacity is very limited, strongly constraining how many unfamiliar items can be processed simultaneously
Pinter (2017)	Young learners benefit most when new vocabulary is embedded in familiar routines and recycled frequently
Kersten et al. (2010)	Vocabulary uptake improves when lexical load is low and exposure is distributed over time

Table 2. Studies informing how many words can be taught per lesson (Primary)

Study	Learners	Implication for words per lesson
Nation (2001)	Primary & early L2 learners	Around 3–5 new items can be taught effectively when recycling is built in
Cameron (2001)	Primary L2 learners	Fewer than 5 items per lesson supports retention
Gathercole & Alloway (2008)	Children	Working memory limits suggest very small lexical loads
Kersten et al. (2010)	Young L2 learners	Learning improves when lessons focus on few items, frequently recycled
Pinter (2017)	Primary learners	Depth over breadth; typically 3–4 items per lesson

What changes when words are taught in chunks?

In my experience, when vocabulary is taught as formulaic chunks (e.g. I like football, on the table, there is a dog) words are retained better by younger learners. One can also teach them more words, as the brain does not treat each word as a separate unit. Instead, the entire sequence can be processed as a single cognitive chunk.

Psycholinguistic research shows that:

• working memory operates on chunks rather than individual words (Miller, 1956; Cowan, 2001)
• frequently occurring multi-word sequences are stored and retrieved holistically (Wray, 2002; Ellis, 2003)
• chunking reduces the need for online grammatical computation, freeing cognitive resources for meaning (Ellis, 1996; Nation, 2013)

For primary learners, this is particularly important. Because attentional resources are limited and processing is slow, treating a phrase as one unit allows learners to engage with meaningful language without having to assemble it word by word.

In sum, while primary learners can typically only learn around 3–5 new items per lesson, those items can be multi-word expressions rather than isolated words. Chunking does not increase memory capacity, but it significantly increases the amount of functional language that can be processed and retained.

How this translates into KS2 practice (Years 3–6)

Based on the research above, and taking into account developmental changes in working memory, phonological automatisation, and classroom listening demands, the following ranges are realistic teaching targets, not exposure limits.

Table 3. Recommended teachable vocabulary load per lesson (KS2)

Year group	New items per lesson (taught for retention)	Notes
Year 3	2–3 items	Strong reliance on chunks; heavy recycling essential; listening load must be very light
Year 4	3–4 items	Chunks preferred; begin gentle variation within familiar frames
Year 5	4–5 items	Mix of chunks and high-frequency single words; listening tasks still limit capacity
Year 6	5 items (occasionally 6)	Greater tolerance for analysis, but chunking remains more efficient than isolation

These figures assume that items are recycled across lessons and revisited in multiple modalities. Teaching more items in a single lesson does not increase long-term retention.

L2 secondary learners (approx. ages 11–16)

Secondary learners obviously benefit from several cognitive and experiential advantages as compared to their primary counterparts. First off, working memory capacity is greater, especially at 16 where it reaches the adult-like levels. Secondly, attentional control is more stable and learners are better able to analyse language explicitly. They also tend to have more developed literacy skills, allowing them to use spelling and morphology to support retention. As a result, vocabulary learning becomes more efficient, although it remains constrained by time pressure and real-time processing demands, particularly in listening.

Table 4. Research findings: vocabulary learning in L2 secondary learners

Research	Key findings relevant to “words per lesson”
Nation (2001)	Vocabulary acquisition is cumulative; teaching too many items at once reduces retention
Hulstijn (2001)	Intentional vocabulary learning is effective only when cognitive load is manageable
Schmitt (2008)	Knowing a word involves multiple dimensions, requiring repeated encounters
Field (2008)	Lexical overload impairs listening comprehension; fewer new items improve decoding
Vandergrift & Goh (2012)	Lexical familiarity is a strong predictor of listening success

Table 5. Studies informing how many words can be taught per lesson (Secondary)

Study	Learners	Implication for words per lesson
Nation (2001)	Adolescent L2 learners	Typically 6–10 new items per lesson with recycling
Hulstijn (2001)	Secondary learners	More than 10 items overloads processing
Schmitt (2008)	Secondary & adult learners	Learning requires multiple encounters; limits effective intake
Field (2008)	Secondary L2 listeners	Listening lessons should stay toward lower end (6–8 items)
Vandergrift & Goh (2012)	Secondary learners	Lexical familiarity constrains how many items can be processed

What changes when words are taught in chunks?

At secondary level, chunking supports processing efficiency and fluency rather than basic capacity expansion. Research shows that formulaic sequences are retrieved faster than novel combinations (Pawley & Syder, 1983; Conklin & Schmitt, 2008) and reduce the cognitive cost of real-time comprehension.

To sum up, while secondary learners can typically learn 6–10 new items per lesson, teaching these items as chunks allows teachers to expose learners to a far greater volume of language without increasing cognitive overload.

Teaching vs exposure: revisited through chunking

The distinction between teaching and exposure becomes clearer when chunking is considered.

• Teaching isolated words often leads to fragmented knowledge
• Teaching chunks supports immediate comprehension and production
• Exposure to many words inside a small number of chunks is cognitively efficient

Chunking therefore allows teachers to teach fewer items while delivering richer input.

Pros and cons of teaching words in isolation

Teaching vocabulary in isolation is not inherently wrong, but it has specific strengths and limitations.

Advantages

• supports semantic precision
• useful for low-frequency or content-specific nouns
• facilitates dictionary skills and explicit form–meaning mapping
• easier to assess in short written tasks

Limitations

• high cognitive load during listening
• weak support for fluency and real-time processing
• encourages word-by-word decoding
• delays access to functional language use

Isolated-word teaching is most effective when it is limited in quantity and quickly integrated into phrases or chunks.

When the words are cognates

Cognates occupy a special position in vocabulary learning. Because they share form and meaning with words in the learner’s first language, they place a much lighter burden on working memory and phonological decoding.

When teaching cognates:

• learners can often process more items per lesson
• sound–meaning mapping is faster
• retention is generally higher

In practical terms, lessons focusing on transparent cognates may safely exceed the usual word-count limits, provided pronunciation differences are explicitly addressed to avoid fossilisation.

Factors affecting the learnability of words

Before considering how many words to introduce in a lesson, it is essential to recognise that not all words are equally learnable. Learnability refers to the extent to which a lexical item can be easily noticed, processed, stored, and retrieved by learners. Cognitive factors such as phonological complexity and length interact with experiential factors like frequency, transparency, and conceptual familiarity. Pedagogically, this means that raw word counts are misleading unless we also consider what kinds of words are being taught.

Table 6. Factors influencing how easily words are learned

Factor	Effect on learnability
Frequency	High-frequency words are learned faster
Phonological simplicity	Simple, familiar sound patterns are easier to retain
Transparency / cognacy	Cognates reduce cognitive load
Imageability	Concrete words are easier than abstract ones
Morphological regularity	Regular forms are easier to generalise
Length	Shorter words and chunks are easier to process
Contextual support	Rich context aids retention
Prior knowledge	Familiar concepts are learned more easily

Learnability directly affects how many words can be taught in a lesson. Highly learnable items allow for slightly higher word counts; low-learnability items sharply reduce capacity. Effective planning therefore requires managing both quantity and quality of vocabulary.

Why listening lowers the threshold (even with chunks)

Listening remains demanding because learners must decode sounds, segment speech, and hold information in working memory under time pressure. Chunking, of course, reduces these demands but does not remove them, which is why listening-heavy lessons should operate at the lower end of recommended word counts.

Conclusion

Vocabulary learning is governed not by ambition but by cognition. Across both primary and secondary phases, learners can only process and retain a limited number of new items in a single lesson. Teaching vocabulary in chunks does not change these limits, but it allows each item to carry more meaning, structure, and communicative value. Effective curricula therefore prioritise fewer items, taught more deeply, recycled more often, and embedded in meaningful input over time.

Chunking does not allow us to teach more words — it allows us to teach language more effectively.

Introduction

If I have learnt one thing throughout 28 years of teaching, is that there is no such thing as “teaching SEN pupils” in the abstract. SEN profiles are so diverse, messy, and contradictory! However, research from cognitive psychology, SLA, and special education converges on a clear set of principles that consistently make MFL more accessible to learners with additional needs.

What follows are ten key things to bear in mind when teaching languages to SEN students, grounded in research and translated into classroom practice and materials design. Rest assured that none of these are gimmicks. Most are uncomfortable because they require us to slow down, simplify, and rethink what we mean by “progress”.

Finally, do note that I have included in this post a section dedicated solely to teaching dyslexic children, as research indicates that up to around 10 % of the UK population are estimated to have dyslexia — meaning a significant proportion of MFL learners may struggle with reading, processing and recall in ways that traditional materials and assessments do not adequately support

1. SEN pupils struggle more with retrieval than understanding

One of the most persistent myths in MFL – one that I always try to debunk in my posts – is that if a pupil cannot produce language, they do not “know” it. Research on working memory and retrieval (Gathercole & Alloway; Hulstijn) shows that recognition and recall are different cognitive processes.

Classroom implication

A pupil who can match la piscine to a picture but cannot spell or say it is not failing ! — they are operating at a different stage of acquisition.

Materials implication

Design tasks that separate recognition from production:

• matching before recall
• word banks before blank pages
• partial dictation before full dictation

If your material jumps straight from exposure to free writing, SEN pupils fall off a cliff. In my approach (EPI) this translates into having a robust Receptive Processing phase (the first ‘R’ in the MARSEARS framework).

2. Cognitive load kills learning faster than lack of ability

Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller) is, of course, brutally relevant to SEN learners. Overloaded working memory doesn’t result in slower learning — it results in no learning at all.

Classroom implication

If a task requires pupils to simultaneously:

• read instructions
• decode new vocabulary
• apply grammar rules consciously step by step
• and write accurately

…you are not teaching language; you are testing executive function.

Materials implication

Reduce load by design:

• one linguistic focus per task
• minimal text per page
• predictable task formats (this is key! Don’t be afraid to be repetitive)
• visual consistency
• 98% comprehensible input (note: 98% comprehensible input does not mean simplified content, but content made accessible through scaffolding, repetition, and chunking)

A “busy” worksheet is often inaccessible before the pupil even starts!

3. Listening must be the engine, not the afterthought

Many SEN pupils (especially dyslexic learners) process language far more effectively through sound than print. SLA research consistently supports the primacy of input — yet textbooks still privilege reading and writing – and not the accessible sort either!

Classroom implication

Listening should dominate early sequences:

• teacher modelling
• choral repetition
• narrow listening
• listening with purpose, not just “play and answer”

Materials implication

Design materials where:

• listening precedes reading
• texts are short, repeated, and recycled (e.g. the EPI’s narrow listening)
• audio is exploited multiple times in different ways (e.g. the EPI’s thorough processing techniques)

If listening is just “activity 3”, SEN pupils are already excluded.

4. Patterns must be made visible

SEN pupils are less likely to infer grammatical patterns implicitly. This is not laziness; it’s a cognitive difference. Research on explicit instruction (Norris & Ortega; Spada & Tomita) shows that guided noticing matters. However, research also shows that complicated grammatical explanations are less accessible by students with a lower IQ or less developed executive function.

Classroom implication

Do not assume pupils will “pick it up”. Show them:

• colour-coded structures
• sentence frames (e.g. EPI’s sentence builders)
• chunked patterns

Materials implication

Avoid presenting:

• vocabulary lists without structure
• grammar rules without exemplars

Instead, design lexico-grammatical chunks:

voy a + infinitive
me gusta + noun

Patterns first. Labels later. The greatest applied linguists on the planet agree that teaching chunks should come first and explicit grammar explanation should come later – Ellis & Shintani (2014), N. Ellis (2015), Nation (2013), VanPatten (2015), Webb & Nation (2017), etc. In EPI, this is reflected by having a short and snappy Awareness-raising phase (the first A in MARSEARS) immediately after the initial modelling through sentence builders and visual aids and a more robust explicit grammar teaching phase (the E in MARSEARS) after three or for lessons of receptive and productive retrieval of the target chunks.

5. SEN pupils need overlearning, not coverage

Forgetting curves are much steeper for many SEN learners. What looks like “they’ve done this already” is often they’ve seen it once.

Classroom implication

Hence, Recycling is not revision — it is core instruction. If the average child requires

Materials implication

Good SEN-friendly materials:

• reuse the same language across lessons
• vary tasks, not language
• return to the same chunks in different contexts

If your scheme introduces new language every lesson without revisiting old material, SEN pupils are permanently behind. This is one of the biggest shortcoming of the textbooks currently in use in most UK schools, e.g. Stimmt, Viva, Mira,, Dynamo, Tricolore, Studio. Possibly the worst ones are the recently published textbooks based on the new GCSE – often by no fault of the authors, in my opinion, who are constrained by the number of pages set by the publishers and by the ridiculous high volume of content they need to cover.

Table 1 –Encounters with a lexical item required by learners of different abilities (from the average ability ones to those with severe SEN) to develop a BASIC knowledge of it

Key clarification (important)

• These encounters must be meaningful, not just visual exposure
• Repetitions work best when they are:
  • spaced (not crammed)
  • multimodal (listening, reading, speaking, matching)
  • embedded in chunks, not isolated words

6. Independence must be earned, not demanded

Textbooks often assume pupils can work independently after one model despite decades of research suggesting otherwise! Sociocultural theory argues that learning happens most reliably in the Zone of Proximal Development—i.e., when pupils can succeed with structured guidance that is then gradually withdrawn (Vygotsky, 1978). Reviews of scaffolding research emphasise that effective support is not “help for the weak”, but a deliberate design feature that enables learners to process language they only partially control and to internalise procedures over time (Malik, 2017; Ertugruloglu, 2023). In the UK MFL context, the Teaching Schools Council’s MFL Pedagogy Review also warns—implicitly for exactly this reason—that textbooks should be chosen for how well they support planned teaching of vocabulary/grammar/phonics and should often be supplemented rather than relied on as the sole engine of learning, because many published materials don’t provide enough structured practice and guided attention to detail for all learners to access them independently. Read this article if you want to know more on this topic: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1331533

Classroom implication

Remove scaffolds gradually, not suddenly as we do in EPI, where students arrive at production only after a highly structured journey from input to output which gradually moves from receptive retrieval at sentence-level to more challenging work with connected text in the Receptive phase and then scaffolds the progression from easier productive retrieval at sentence level (e.g. Oral Ping-pong) to harder information-gap tasks (e.g. ‘Back-to-back’ or ‘Ask the experts’) in the Structured Production phase.

Materials implication

Build tasks that move from:

• full support → partial support → no support

Not:

• support → (nearly) nothing

For SEN learners, the “blank page” is often the point of collapse. This is another major pitfalls of currently available textbooks, even when a lower-ability specific version of the textbooks does exist. The scaffolding is so bad, that the Listening and Reading activities are not logically linked with the ensuing Speaking and Writing activities! Bizarre, of course, as the former are meant to scaffold the latter. Hence, do ensure that, as we do in EPI, the receptive activities are carefully designed and implemented in a bid to ensure that speaking and writing skills emerge seamlessly and organically from the listening and reading activities staged at the beginning of your instructional sequences.

7. Writing is the hardest output — treat it as such

Writing combines:

• recall
• spelling
• grammar
• motor skills
• working memory

For SEN pupils, this is the highest-load skill. Even higher than speaking! The typical textbook expects students to read one or two texts, do a reading comprehension tasks or two on each and then write something similar. This is not going to help the average learner, let alone an SEN child!

Classroom implication

Do not use writing as your default proof of learning. This is the most commonly made mistakes with SEN pupils. Do plenty of scaffolding (see the previous point) ! Give them highly structured 100% feasible output.

Materials implication

Before extended writing, include:

• sentence completion
• sentence manipulation
• ordering tasks
• easy sentence-puzzle games
• copying with attention

If the first time pupils write independently is for assessment, you’ve set them up to fail. Delay writing assessment with SEN pupils as much as humanly possible

8. Pace matters more than enthusiasm

Fast-paced lessons are often praised — but for SEN pupils, speed frequently equals panic.

Classroom implication

Calm, predictable pacing reduces anxiety and improves retention.

Materials implication

Design sequences with:

• repeated task types
• familiar routines
• clear expectations

Surprise is motivating for some pupils; it is destabilising for others.

9. Differentiation should be built in, not bolted on

SEN pupils should not always be working on “the easier sheet”. Research on inclusive design stresses universal design for learning.

Classroom implication

Design tasks with multiple entry points, not multiple worksheets.

Materials implication

A good task allows:

• all pupils to start
• some to go further
• no one to be exposed as “different”

Ramped difficulty beats personalised worksheets every time.

10. Progress for SEN pupils is often invisible unless you know where to look

Traditional assessments privilege speed, accuracy, and written output. SEN progress often shows up first in:

• faster recognition
• reduced hesitation
• improved pronunciation
• willingness to attempt

Classroom implication

If you only value what you can mark, you will miss most progress.

Materials implication

Include low-stakes checks:

• oral responses
• mini whiteboards
• matching and sorting tasks
• listening discrimination

These reveal learning long before writing does.

Specific advice for teaching MFL to dyslexic children

Table 2 – Teaching strategies specifically aimed at dyslexic children

Teacher Strategy	Why this Matters Specifically for Dyslexic Learners	Research Basis
Explicit teaching of sound–spelling correspondences (as we do in EPI)	Dyslexia is strongly associated with phonological processing difficulties; learners do not reliably infer grapheme–phoneme links implicitly	Snowling (2000); Hulme & Snowling (2016)
Overt phoneme segmentation and blending in the target language (as we do in EPI)	Dyslexic learners struggle to segment spoken words into phonemes, which directly affects spelling, decoding and pronunciation	Goswami (2008); Ziegler & Goswami (2005)
Slow, exaggerated modelling of pronunciation (as we do in EPI)	Reduced phonological sensitivity means fast or “natural” speech often collapses into noise	Szenkovits & Ramus (2005)
Consistent font, spacing and visual layout across materials (as we do in EPI)	Visual stress and reduced visual tracking make dense or changing layouts disproportionately difficult	British Dyslexia Association (2018)
Avoidance of copying from the board as a learning activity (in EPI this is done sparingly after much modelling)	Copying overloads visual processing and working memory without strengthening language representations	Elliott & Grigorenko (2014)
Teaching spelling as pattern-based, not word-by-word (as we do in EPI)	Dyslexic learners do not retain arbitrary orthographic forms well but benefit from rule-based generalisations	Seymour (2014)

Why EPI is particularly suitable for SEN learners

Many of the principles outlined above are not incidental features of Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI); they are foundational to its design. EPI is particularly well suited to SEN learners because it systematically removes the very barriers that traditional MFL materials create.

First, EPI places input before output. SEN learners are not rushed into premature production; instead, they are given repeated, highly comprehensible exposure to language through listening and reading before being expected to retrieve it independently. This aligns closely with what we know about the recognition–recall gap in SEN profiles.

Second, EPI actively controls cognitive load. Sentence builders, chunked input, and tightly staged activities mean that learners are rarely asked to process multiple new elements simultaneously. The linguistic focus is narrow, explicit, and sustained over time, which allows SEN pupils to build secure mental representations without overload.

Third, EPI makes patterns visible and reusable. Grammar and vocabulary are not treated as separate pillars but as interlocking parts of lexico-grammatical chunks. For SEN learners who struggle with abstraction, this concreteness is critical: they are not asked to infer rules from sparse examples but are immersed in recurring, meaningful structures.

Fourth, EPI is built around recycling and overlearning. The same language appears again and again across different tasks and modalities, reducing forgetting and increasing automaticity. This is precisely what SEN learners need, yet what textbooks rarely provide.

Finally, EPI embeds scaffolding as a progression, not a crutch. Sentence builders, guided tasks, and structured production phases allow learners to move gradually towards independence. Support is not removed abruptly; it fades as confidence and competence grow.

In short, EPI does not “adapt” to SEN learners after the fact. It is inherently inclusive by design, and what makes it effective for SEN pupils is exactly what makes it effective for everyone else.

Conclusion

Teaching MFL to SEN pupils is not about lowering expectations. It is about changing the route.

When we slow input, reduce cognitive load, foreground patterns, recycle relentlessly, and scaffold intelligently, SEN pupils do not merely cope — they often outperform our expectations. The uncomfortable truth is that many of the practices we label as “SEN strategies” are, in fact, good language teaching full stop.

If SEN pupils struggle in our classrooms, the question is not whether they are capable of learning a language, but whether our materials and sequences are capable of teaching one.

Design for the margins, and the centre takes care of itself.