Introduction: Echoes That Teach

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

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

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

What Is Shadowing?

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

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

Why Does Shadowing Work?

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

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

How Much Is Enough?

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

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

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

Foundations First: Scripted Listening and Phonics

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

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

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

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

Pitfalls of Shadowing (and How to Avoid Them)

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

Classroom Implementation Tips

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

How you can gamify Shadowing

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

Conclusion: Beyond Echoes

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

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

References

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

Introduction

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

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

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

1. Broca’s area

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

What it does:

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

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

2. Wernicke’s area

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

What it does:

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

The brain’s “understanding and decoding hub”.

3. Angular gyrus

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

What it does:

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

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

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

What it does:

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

The “information highway” between understanding and speaking.

5. Primary auditory cortex (Heschl’s gyrus)

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

What it does:

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

The “entry point for speech sounds”.

6. Other areas involved in language

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

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

Let’s imagine a learner hears the sentence:

“The cat is sleeping on the chair.”

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

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

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

2. Wernicke’s area: comprehension and decoding

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

3. Angular gyrus: multimodal integration

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

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

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

5. Arcuate fasciculus: connecting comprehension to production

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

6. Prefrontal cortex and right hemisphere: nuance and pragmatics

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

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

Implications for language teaching

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

1. Listening is essential

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

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

2. Grammar needs careful handling

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

Implication:

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

3. Use different modes together

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

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

4. Build automaticity

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

Implication:

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

5. Don’t forget tone and emotion

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

What research says

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

1. Online Disinhibition Effect

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

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

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

— Suler, 2004

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

2. Identity Threat and Insecurity

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

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

— Kelchtermans (2005), on teacher identity

For instance:

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

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

3. Social Comparison and Envy

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

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

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

— Vogel et al., 2014

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

4. Toxic In-Group Norms and Gatekeeping

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

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

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

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

— Carpenter & Krutka, 2015

5. Burnout and Emotional Spillover

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

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

— Chang, 2009

This means that behind a hostile reply might be:

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

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

What Can Be Done?

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

Conclusion

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

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

Key References

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Key Findings Across the Sectors

1. Primary Languages Provision

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

2. Transition from KS2 to KS3

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

3. Secondary Language Study and Inequality

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

4. Teacher Recruitment and Staffing

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

5. Home, Heritage and Community Languages (HHCL)

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

6. International Engagement and Exchange

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

7. Technology and Innovation

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

A Spotlight on Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI)

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

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

One head of department explained its use in practice:

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

1. Phonological Working Memory (PWM)

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

2. Grammatical Sensitivity

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

3. Processing Efficiency and Automatization

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

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

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

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

1. Limitations in Phonological Working Memory

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

Why PWM Matters in SLA

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

Classroom Activities to Support PWM

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

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

2. Grammatical Sensitivity Deficits

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

Why Grammatical Sensitivity Matters

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

Classroom Activities to Support Grammatical Sensitivity

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

3. Processing Efficiency Limitations

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

Why Processing Efficiency Matters

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

Classroom Activities to Support Processing Efficiency

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

4. Attentional Control Deficits

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

Why Attentional Control Matters

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

Classroom Activities to Support Attentional Control

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

5. Inhibitory Control Difficulties

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

Why Inhibitory Control Matters

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

Classroom Activities to Support Inhibitory Control

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

6. Anxiety

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

Why Anxiety Matters in SLA

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

Classroom Activities to Lower Anxiety

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

7. Low Self-Efficacy

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

Why Self-Efficacy Matters

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

Classroom Activities to Build Self-Efficacy

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

Introduction

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

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

1. Phonics and Pronunciation Foundations

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

Why the synergy matters:

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Example:

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

2. Comprehensible Input First

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Figures:

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

Example:

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

3. Teaching in Chunks and High-Frequency Language

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Example:

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

4. Extensive and Varied Input

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

Nation (2013); Webb (2007)

Example:

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

5. Careful Scaffolding of Tasks and Language

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Example:

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

6. Noticing through Explicit and Implicit Grammar Focus

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

Key strategies:

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Example:

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

7. Retrieval Practice and Spaced Repetition

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Example:

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

8. Interleaving of Topics and Structures

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Example:

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

Diagram: Interleaving in MFL

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

9. Meaningful Communicative Practice

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Clarified Task Taxonomy:

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

10. Corrective Feedback and Gentle Challenge

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Example:

Student: “il suis allé”

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

11. Output Opportunities—But at the Right Time

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

Swain (1995); Izumi (2002)

Example:

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

12. Fostering Motivation and Self-Efficacy

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

Why it matters:

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

Research:

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

Example:

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Thirteen misconceptions about EPI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

Introduction: A Fresh Start for Modern Languages

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

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

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

First: Understanding the Struggle

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

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

Department-Level Actions: Building a Collaborative Culture

1. Prioritise Curriculum Clarity and Simplicity

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

2. Unify Lesson Structure and Pedagogy

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

3. Build Teacher Efficacy with Collaborative CPD

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

4. Create a Department Resource Ecosystem

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

5. Strengthen Teacher Self-Efficacy

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

6. Enhance Student Self-Efficacy

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

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

7. Enhance Enjoyment Systematically

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

8. Promote Positive Cultural Perceptions

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

9. Engage Parents and Carers

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

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

Classroom-Level Focus: Where It All Comes Together

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

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

1. Build Engagement Through Predictable Routines and Variety

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

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

2. Prioritise Comprehension Before Production

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

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

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

3. Reduce Cognitive Load With High-Frequency Chunks

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

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

4. Foster Fluency Through Repetition With Variation

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

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

5. Scaffold for Success and Build Up Complexity Slowly

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

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

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

6. Make Learning Visible and Goal-Oriented

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

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

7. Recast Errors Supportively and Publicly Celebrate Improvement

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

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

8. Promote Language Ownership and Personal Relevance

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

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

9. Use Technology to Reduce Isolation and Boost Feedback

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

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

10. Build Belonging and Collective Success

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: A Blueprint for Hope and Progress

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

References

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

Introduction: The Listening Paradox That Baffles Every Language Teacher

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

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

Understanding Fuzzy Lexical Representation Theory (FLR)

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

FLR theory builds on the following foundational insights:

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

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

The Fuzzy Facts: Main Claims of FLR Theory

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

How FLR Connects to Other Theories

FLR aligns and contrasts with several key theories:

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

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

Why It Matters in the MFL Classroom

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

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

This has implications for pedagogy:

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

Eight Classroom Activities to Sharpen Lexical Representations

Here are ten activities

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

Conclusion: Fixing the Fuzz, One Sound at a Time

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

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

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

References

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

Introduction: Where These Tips Come From

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

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

Ten Evidence-Based Strategies That Work

1. Start with Strengths, Not Deficits

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

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

2. Clarify What Good MFL Teaching Looks Like

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

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

3. Focus on One Habit at a Time

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

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

4. Use Video for Joint Reflection

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

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

5. Share a Few Reliable Routines

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

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

6. Prioritise Comprehensible Input

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

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

7. Make Retrieval and Recycling Non-Negotiable

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

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

8. Rebuild Confidence Through Co-Teaching

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

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

9. Align Feedback with Cognitive Science

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

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

10. Coach the Person, Not Just the Pedagogy

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

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

Final Reflection

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

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

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