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.