Introduction

As I prepare a series of workshops for MFL teachers in Australia, I’ve taken the opportunity to delve deeply into some of the most recent and relevant research on vocabulary acquisition—specifically focusing on studies published over the last ten years. This review is not just academic: it’s been prompted by an increasing number of schools, teacher associations, and training providers asking me to share evidence-informed strategies for vocabulary instruction. The fact that so many are requesting input in this area speaks volumes about the growing awareness that vocabulary is not just one part of the curriculum—it is the foundation upon which comprehension, fluency, and spontaneous speech are built.

The findings presented below are not abstract or theoretical. They speak directly to the reality of MFL classrooms: mixed-ability learners, time constraints, and pressure to deliver measurable progress. What unites these ten insights is their practical value. They can be embedded in daily practice, whether we’re planning a Key Stage 3 scheme of work or reviewing how vocabulary is recycled and assessed at GCSE.

Most of the findings reinforce practices many experienced MFL teachers already use—structured input, chunking, sentence-level modelling. Others offer opportunities to tweak, challenge, or strengthen what we do. All are grounded in robust research and point toward the same goal: helping learners retain and use words more effectively, more confidently, and more independently.

1. Repetition Through Speaking and Listening Strengthens Memory

(Carter, 2017; Chien & Chen, 2020)

When vocabulary is encountered and reused through speaking and listening tasks, it is retained more effectively (50% better!) than vocabulary encountered only in written form. This is partly due to the way the brain encodes sound through the phonological loop—a system that favours oral and aural input for long-term memory formation.

In MFL classrooms, this has major implications. Learning vocabulary through listening activities (e.g. through circling, multiple-choice quizzes, ‘Listen and Draw, ‘Gapped translation’, ‘Faulty translation’) and speaking ones (paired speaking tasks, drills, speaking frames, and oral question-answer routines) don’t just build fluency—they deepen retention. Hearing and saying phrases like “je vais aller” repeatedly in context (e.g. during information-gap tasks or speed dating activities) anchors them in memory far more effectively than copying them into a book.

2. Timely Feedback on Word Use Makes a Difference

(Schmitt & McCarthy, 2019; Carrol, 2017)

Timely, specific feedback on vocabulary use—whether oral or written—can lead to a 20% increase in future accuracy. This is because feedback delivered close to the point of error helps learners notice and adjust their internal language models before misconceptions become entrenched.

In MFL lessons, this might involve live marking during extended writing, highlighting commonly misused words after a speaking assessment, or using peer correction with model answers. It also reinforces the importance of activities that make learner thinking visible—such as mini whiteboards or sentence-building tasks—so that misconceptions can be addressed immediately.

3. Digital Tools Can Help—If Used Consistently

(Godwin-Jones, 2017; Stockwell, 2020)

Digital platforms that use spaced repetition have been shown to improve vocabulary retention by up to 40%, especially when they are used regularly and linked to classroom learning. These tools support memory by prompting recall at increasingly spaced intervals, just as learners are about to forget.

For MFL departments, this suggests value in embedding digital vocabulary tools into weekly routines—not just recommending them for homework, but explicitly training pupils how to use them well. Creating class sets aligned with schemes of work or homework review quizzes on digital platforms can turn receptive vocabulary exposure into active recall practice. Make sure, however, that the exposure to the target vocabulary is as multimodal as possible (i.e. encompassing all four skills) as happens, for instance, on http://www.language-gym.com.

4. Motivation Significantly Boosts Vocabulary Retention

(Macaro et al., 2020; Dörnyei, 2019)

Motivated learners retain up to 50% more vocabulary than their less engaged peers. This is because motivation increases attention, effort, and willingness to review and reuse vocabulary over time. Crucially, it also increases the likelihood that learners will use words spontaneously.

In the MFL classroom, motivation can be nurtured through small but meaningful strategies: building in student choice, celebrating visible progress (e.g. class word count trackers) and linking vocabulary tasks to topics learners care about. For example, letting learners describe their own weekend plans rather than invented characters makes vocabulary personal, which in turn makes it stick. Engaging interactive vocabulary games involving mini whiteboard use and fun retrieval practice activities such as ‘Faster’, the ‘4,3,2 technique’ and digital games (e.g. the Language Gym’s ‘Boxing game’ and the ‘Vocab Trainer’) will help too, of course.

5. Receptive Vocabulary Develops 1.5 Times Faster than Productive Vocabulary

(Gyllstad, 2020; Nation, 2020)

It is entirely natural for learners to recognise and understand vocabulary long before they are able to use it themselves. Receptive vocabulary develops 1.5 times faster than productive vocabulary because it places less demand on syntax, spelling, pronunciation, and retrieval.

This finding validates the use of input-focused tasks—narrow reading, listening with targeted vocabulary, and teacher-led modelling—before expecting learners to write or speak. It also supports the use of structured scaffolds (sentence builders, gapped texts, writing frames) that help bridge the gap from passive recognition to active production over time.

6. Learners Need to Encounter a Word 15–20 Times Before It Sticks

(Webb, 2016; Elgort, 2018)

A few encounters with a new word are not enough. Learners typically need between 15 and 20 meaningful, spaced exposures before a word moves into long-term memory. These encounters must be varied and multimodal—reading, hearing, saying, and writing the word in different contexts.

This underscores the importance of recycling vocabulary not just across lessons, but across units and terms. A word like “parce que” should appear not just in Year 7 but in every subsequent year. Activities such as sentence transformation, low-stakes quizzes, retrieval grids, and structured translation can ensure repeated exposure over time.

7. Vocabulary in Context Is Remembered Better

(Hulstijn, 2018; Coxhead, 2018)

Words are learnt more effectively (30% better retention!) when they are taught in meaningful context rather than in isolation. Context helps learners understand usage, grammar, and connotation. It also provides semantic and syntactic cues that aid retention.

In practice, this means presenting vocabulary within phrases and full sentences—not just as English–French pairs. Model sentences, listening texts, and reading activities that repeat key phrases provide both form and function. Sentence builders, in particular, allow learners to see how vocabulary fits grammatically within familiar structures.

8. Collocations and Chunks Reduce Errors and Build Fluency

(Laufer & Goldstein, 2020; Schmitt, 2019)

Learners who are taught vocabulary in the form of collocations (e.g. “avoir faim”, “faire une promenade”) or multi-word chunks (e.g. “il y a”, “je suis en train de”) make fewer errors (30% accuracy improvement!) and produce more fluent speech. These combinations are stored and retrieved as whole units, reducing cognitive load during speaking and writing.

For MFL teachers, this supports focusing less on isolated nouns and more on useful chunks that include verbs, prepositions, and time expressions. Teaching “je vais + infinitive” or “normalement je + present tense” as building blocks helps learners speak more fluently and write more accurately.

9. Explicit Instruction Improves Accuracy by Around 25%

(Gass, 2019; Macaro, 2021)

When vocabulary is taught explicitly—rather than left to be inferred through exposure—learners show a 25% improvement in accuracy. This includes clear explanations of meaning, form, grammar, pronunciation, and common collocations.

In the MFL classroom, this reinforces the value of modelling pronunciation, pointing out tricky gender rules, and explicitly teaching the difference between similar words. Rather than relying solely on discovery learning, it encourages deliberate instruction through worked examples and teacher-led practice.

10. Vocabulary Size Drives Comprehension

(Meara, 2017; Nation, 2020)

Learners need to know approximately 2,000 to 3,000 word families to understand 85% of general texts. This is a threshold for independent comprehension. Below it, learners are likely to become discouraged due to too many unknowns.

For MFL teachers, this highlights the importance of focusing on high-frequency vocabulary across all key stages. It’s tempting to focus on topic-specific words, but the bulk of our time should be spent on the most common verbs, connectors, and adjectives. Structured vocabulary progression models and high-frequency word trackers can help ensure systematic exposure and development.

11. Summary of the findings

Conclusions

As I prepare to share these findings with colleagues during my workshops in Australia, I’m reminded that vocabulary learning is rarely immediate. It is a slow-building process that depends on repetition, motivation, context, and structure. Teaching vocabulary effectively means helping learners meet the same word multiple times, in meaningful ways, and with the support they need to process and retrieve it.

These ten findings, taken together, point us toward a vocabulary curriculum that is cumulative, focused, and deeply rooted in how memory works. They validate many of the techniques MFL teachers already use—retrieval practice, chunk teaching, sentence-level work—and offer encouragement that these approaches are not only intuitive, but research-backed.

Introduction

In the realm of second language acquisition, not all grammar structures are created equal—some present intricate challenges for learners, while others are picked up with relative ease. Knowing what makes a particular structure tough is crucial for effective grammar teaching. When curriculum designers and classroom teachers recognize these underlying complexities, they can tailor instructional strategies to prevent common errors and sequence grammar content in a logical, progressive way that fits learners’ needs. This awareness not only helps in error prevention but also streamlines the learning process by anchoring new information to a solid foundation, ultimately empowering learners to build their language skills with confidence and clarity.

1. Crosslinguistic Interference

Crosslinguistic interference refers to the influence of a learner’s first language (L1) on acquiring a second language (L2). When grammatical rules in the L2 differ significantly from those in the L1, learners might inadvertently transfer structures from their native language, which can result in errors or even avoidance of unfamiliar forms. This challenge has been extensively discussed by Odlin (1989) and Lado (1957), who argue that structural mismatches are a primary source of difficulty in L2 grammar acquisition.

For example, in French, the use of the subjunctive mood (e.g., Il faut que tu viennes) has no direct counterpart in English and can be confusing. In Spanish, object pronouns precede the verb (Lo vi), which is contrary to English word order. German employs case markings and flexible word order (e.g., Ich gebe dem Mann das Buch), while Italian permits clitic pronouns attached to infinitives (e.g., voglio vederlo), which may seem opaque to English speakers.

Solutions: Teachers should use contrastive analysis and metalinguistic explanations to highlight differences between the L1 and L2 (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). Translation tasks can reveal subtle distinctions, while bilingual glossaries with grammar notes can serve as ongoing reference tools. Corrective feedback focused on typical L1-based errors helps learners refine their usage. Teachers can also incorporate task-based learning activities that require students to actively compare and contrast grammatical structures between languages. Peer feedback sessions and guided discovery tasks enable learners to identify L1 interference patterns themselves, thereby deepening their metalinguistic awareness.

2.Low Saliency

Some grammatical elements are hard for learners to notice because they are either phonetically reduced or carry little semantic weight. These include structural words , gender markers, auxiliary verbs, and clitics. Schmidt (1990) emphasized the importance of noticing in second language acquisition, arguing that forms not salient in the input are often not acquired.

In French, articles such as le and la are often unstressed. Spanish pronouns like me and se can be hard to catch in rapid speech. German articles (der, die, das) indicate gender and case but are easily overlooked. In Italian, contractions such as al (from a + il) may be indistinct in conversation.

Solutions: Increase saliency through visual cues, color coding, and emphasis in speech (input enhancement). Slowed-down recordings, subtitled media, and grammar highlighting tools can help learners perceive and internalize these subtle forms (Schmidt, 1990). When working on a text, make sure you include one or more activities which elicit a focus on less salient items (e.g. Gapped dictations, Sentence puzzles, Tick or cross, Tangled translations)

3. Irregularity

Irregular grammatical patterns defy the logical systems learners rely on to deduce rules. This inconsistency often necessitates rote memorization and increases the likelihood of errors. Ellis (2006) notes that irregular forms resist rule generalization and demand increased memorization, making them particularly taxing for learners.

Examples include French verbs like avoir, être, and aller, which do not follow regular conjugation patterns. In Spanish, preterite forms such as tuve (from tener) and hice (from hacer) deviate significantly. German strong verbs and Italian verbs like essere and avere also exhibit irregularities across tenses.

In my experience, a motivated beginner learner might start to reliably use aller in the present tense, in context, after approximately 10 to 20 hours of practice spread over several weeks. This has to be factored in in your curriculum planning.

Solutions: Provide frequent, contextual exposure to irregular forms and distributed retrieval practice. Use songs, rhymes, and interactive games to boost engagement. Encourage learners to teach one another and use mnemonics to make irregular patterns more memorable (Ellis, 2006). Use online verb trainers, like the one on http://www.language-gym.com.

4. Challenging Processability
Grammatical structures that require a sequence of processing steps are harder for learners to produce accurately. These include multi-step verb constructions, reflexive forms, and subordinate clauses. According to Pienemann (1998), such structures exceed a learner’s current processing capacity until they have acquired the necessary grammatical procedures.
For instance, French compound tenses with reflexive verbs (Je me suis levé), Spanish compound tenses (He comido), German subordinate clause word order (weil er das Buch gelesen hat), and Italian modal constructions (Devo mangiarlo) are cognitively demanding.

Solutions: Scaffold learning by isolating each component of the structure. Visual aids, flowcharts, and sentence diagrams help learners conceptualize the construction. Role-playing and contextual practice solidify these forms in memory (Pienemann, 1998). Modeling, scaffolded peer interactions, and encouraging learners to create their own mind maps or flowcharts to break down complex sentences are effective. Additionally, reflective self-monitoring techniques can help students track their progress in mastering these multi-step constructions. The key thing is not to teach a complex structure when your students are not ready for, just because it is in the textbook or in the schemes of learning. You will just set up your students for failure !

5. High Element Interactivity
Some grammatical forms depend on the interaction of multiple features such as gender, number, case, and verb agreement. Learners must coordinate these elements, which increases the cognitive load. VanPatten (2007) suggests that learners struggle when multiple grammatical features require simultaneous attention, especially if they have not yet become automatized.

French past participle agreement (Elles sont parties), German adjective endings (dem kleinen Kind), Spanish reflexive sentences (Se lo di), and Italian relative clauses (Il libro che ho letto) all involve multi-layered agreement.

Solutions: Use color-coded sentence templates and scaffolded sentence-building activities. Group tasks and collaborative construction exercises reinforce understanding through guided repetition and peer feedback (VanPatten, 2007). Complement these strategies with technology-based interactive exercises that allow students to manipulate sentence components on digital platforms (e.g. The Language Gym Grammar workouts). Stage ‘Spot and correct the error’ activities quite frequently. When providing translation practice, ensure that the sentences containing such structures do not contain unfamiliar vocabulary in order to lessen the cognitive load.

6. Intralinguistic Interference
This occurs when learners confuse similar-looking or similar-sounding forms within the L2. Such interference arises not from the L1, but from the internal complexity of the target language. Lado (1957) and Wierzbicka (1988) highlight how internal grammatical ambiguity can confuse learners and hinder acquisition.

In French, verb endings like parle, parles, and parlent sound similar but differ in meaning. Spanish verbs can have similar endings (e.g., hablamos, hablan). German pronouns like sie can mean “she,” “they,” or “you” (formal). Italian prepositions like a and da are easily confused.

Solutions: Mitigate the issue by not introducing too many similar sounding words (e.g. full verb paradigms) simultaneously. Use minimal pair drills, cloze exercises, and spelling-focused tasks to distinguish similar forms. Mnemonics and dictation can further aid in consolidating these differences (Wierzbicka, 1988). Structured pair work and small-group discussions centered on error analysis can also help learners develop clearer distinctions.

7. Low Frequency of Exposure and Use
When learners rarely encounter certain grammatical forms, acquisition is delayed or incomplete. These forms may be limited to specific registers, such as literature or formal speech. Ellis & Larsen-Freeman (2006) emphasize that frequency of input is critical in usage-based models of acquisition.

Some French negatives (e.g. ni…ni…), the Spanish future perfect tense, the German subjunctive mood (Konjunktiv II), and the Italian passato remoto are examples of such low-frequency items.

Solutions: If you believe that such structures are must-learns, make sure you create frequent practice opportunities both receptively and productively. Integrate these forms into retrieval practice routines, classroom narratives, themed projects, and authentic texts as often as possible. Use spaced repetition flashcards and target listening/reading to boost exposure and retention (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006).

8. Optionality

Grammatical optionality allows for variability, which can lead to inconsistent usage. Learners may omit or misapply optional elements if their functional purpose is unclear. Sorace (2011) notes that optional forms are particularly difficult to master because their use often involves an interface between syntax and pragmatics.

In Spanish, subject pronouns are often dropped (e.g., Yo hablo → Hablo). In French, informal negation drops ne (e.g., Je sais pas). German and Italian also exhibit optional structures depending on formality and context.

Solutions: Explicitly teach when and why forms are optional. Contrast obligatory and optional uses through corpus-informed examples. Drills and feedback that focus on stylistic and pragmatic appropriateness are key (Sorace, 2011).

9. Functional/Semantic Unreliability

Grammatical forms that serve multiple functions across contexts can confuse learners. They may struggle to assign correct meanings without sufficient contextual cues. Wierzbicka (1988) argues that such multifunctional elements obscure clear mappings between form and meaning, hindering acquisition.

French en, Spanish se, German doch, and Italian ci each fulfill several roles, varying by sentence context and syntactic placement.

Solutions: Demonstrate each function with clear contextual examples. Use semantic maps to visualize relationships between meanings. Gradually expand the range of usage scenarios to build reliable application (Wierzbicka, 1988).

Conclusion

In light of the diverse challenges posed by grammar structures—from crosslinguistic interference to functional unreliability—it’s clear that both classroom teaching and curriculum design need to be flexible and responsive. For classroom teachers, this means mixing things up with targeted, varied strategies that directly address each structure’s challenges. Whether it’s using contrastive analysis, scaffolded exercises, or interactive, real-world practice, teachers can help students overcome common hurdles while making grammar feel more accessible and less intimidating.

For curriculum designers, the key takeaway is to build a program that gradually ramps up the complexity of grammar content. This means sequencing lessons in a way that respects the natural cognitive challenges learners face, offering regular and spaced practice, and ensuring that even those tricky, irregular forms get plenty of contextual exposure. By designing a curriculum that is both research-informed and flexible enough to adapt to students’ needs, educators can create a learning environment where error prevention and gradual skill development go hand in hand.

Overall, when both teachers and curriculum designers keep these implications in mind, they can build a more effective, learner-centered approach to second language acquisition—one that makes the journey through the complex world of grammar not only manageable but also engaging and enjoyable.

References

• Ellis, R. (2006). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, R., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section on usage-based models. Language Learning, 56(1), 1–36.
• Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.
• Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press.
• Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.
• Pienemann, M. (1998). Processability theory: A linguistic theory of second language acquisition. John Benjamins.
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
• Sorace, A. (2011). Optionality and learning in bilingual development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(2), 201–214.
• VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research [Note: Please verify the exact title and publication details based on the source you consulted].
• Wierzbicka, A. (1988). Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Alongside listening, speaking is the skill that scares learners the most—and rightly so. Unlike writing, where you can take your time and carefully polish your words, speaking happens on the fly. There’s no backspace key. No time to hesitate. Everything has to come together in real-time: the message you want to convey, the grammar to wrap it in, the vocabulary to fill it out, and the sounds to articulate it. And if you’re learning a second language, the load becomes even heavier. Each sub-process—planning, retrieving, encoding, monitoring—takes up your mental energy like separate strings pulling in different directions

In this article, I focus primarily on teaching speaking to lower-intermediate learners, corresponding roughly to the B1 level of the CEFR. At this level, learners can communicate in everyday situations, handle short social exchanges, and describe experiences or events in simple terms, but often struggle with fluidity, accuracy, and vocabulary depth. In the UK, many GCSE students—particularly in their final year—fall somewhere between A2 and low B1, depending on exposure, instruction quality, and individual aptitude. While GCSE specifications may claim alignment with B1 outcomes, most learners operate with far more limited productive fluency, especially in spontaneous speech.

For learners operating at lower-intermediate or intermediate level, this makes speaking a cognitively exhausting endeavour. Planning what to say in a foreign language under time pressure—while also keeping track of how you’re being understood—is no easy feat at this level of proficiency where vocabulary is limited and grammar and pronunciation are far for being proceduralised thereby requiring a lot of simultaneous juggling of challenging cognitive operations.

One of the most influential frameworks for understanding how speaking unfolds is Levelt’s (1989) model of speech production. Originally designed to describe L1 speaking processes, the model has been widely adopted and adapted within L2 acquisition research. It outlines four key stages: conceptualisation, formulation, articulation, and monitoring. In L2 contexts, scholars such as Kormos (2006) have extended the model to include the impact of limited attentional resources, slower lexical retrieval, and interference from the learner’s first language. These modifications are crucial, as they highlight that L2 speech is not simply “slower L1 speech,” but involves qualitatively different challenges, particularly in the coordination of sub-processes under pressure.

This article outlines the cognitive sub-processes involved in the act of speaking, referring to Levelt’s original model and L2-specific extensions. Each stage will be examined in detail, with a focus on the time it unfolds, its cognitive demands, and how it affects L2 speakers. Finally, we explore how a process-oriented approach to listening and speaking instruction—beginning with lexical chunks and culminating in fluency training—can mitigate these challenges.

How the speaking process unfolds in the brain

The flow chart below visually represents the key sub-processes involved in speaking, starting with conceptualisation, where the speaker decides what to say. It then moves to formulation, where vocabulary and sentence structure are selected. Phonological encoding follows, as the speaker prepares the sounds for articulation, including aspects like stress and intonation. The articulation step represents the physical production of speech. Finally, monitoring occurs, where the speaker checks for errors and makes corrections if needed. Each of these stages presents unique challenges for second language learners, such as difficulties in vocabulary recall, grammar application, pronunciation, and maintaining speech flow while self-monitoring.

Let’s zoom in

Conceptualisation: From Intention to Preverbal Message

According to Levelt’s (1989) influential speech production model, the first stage in speaking is conceptualisation—the process of formulating an intention and generating a ‘preverbal message’. This is where the speaker decides what they want to say based on their communicative goals, the context, and their interlocutor.

This stage is largely non-linguistic and draws heavily on working memory and attention (Baddeley, 2000). In L2 users, this phase is often slowed by limited automaticity in accessing ideas or by difficulties in filtering what is relevant for the context. Lower-intermediate learners in particular struggle with task schemata—knowing what content is expected in specific interactions (Bygate, 2001). The typical time window for this initial conceptual preparation is 200–400 milliseconds (Indefrey & Levelt, 2004).

Formulation: Lexical Selection and Grammatical Encoding

Sticking with our French weekend example, the learner now attempts to say something like “J’ai regardé un film avec mes amis.” To do this, they must retrieve verbs in the passé composé, choose the correct auxiliary, recall agreement rules, and access the noun and modifiers. For lower-intermediate learners, this is where it often falls apart. They might know the verb “regarder” but hesitate on the auxiliary—avoir or être? They might reach for “copains” instead of “amis,” or get stuck trying to recall the correct article.

Once the preverbal message is ready, the speaker moves into formulation, where the message is encoded linguistically. This involves:

• Lexical selection: choosing appropriate content and function words

• Grammatical encoding: applying morphological and syntactic rules to create well-formed utterances.

This phase is cognitively taxing, particularly for L2 learners. Vocabulary retrieval in an L2 is significantly slower (Segalowitz, 2010), and grammatical encoding is often interrupted by underdeveloped procedural knowledge (DeKeyser, 2007). Moreover, lexical access in L2 speakers is more susceptible to interference from the L1, which can cause lexical or structural errors.

The time estimates for lexical selection are roughly 150–250 milliseconds per word, depending on familiarity and fluency (Levelt et al., 1999; Indefrey & Levelt, 2004). Sentence-level formulation can take longer, especially in less automatized learners. In this very narrow time window the language learner needs to retrieve the correct vocabulary, apply any morphological rule and then sequence the words in the correct order. Unsuprisingly, many students who have not been taught vocabulary and grammar orally fail at this stage in the process. Imagine a year 8 or 9 students having to retrieve the words required to describe what they and their friends did last weekend whilst simultaneously having to apply the rules of the perfect tense of verbs requiring the auxiliary Etre in 250 milliseconds! No wonder they usually answer using prefabricated chunks !

Phonological Encoding and Articulation

Assuming the formulation phase is successful, the learner must now articulate: “J’ai regardé un film avec mes amis.” But here too, things get tricky. Mispronunciation of “regardé,” deaccentuation of “mes amis,” or poor rhythm can impair intelligibility. A frequent issue is the liaison in “mes amis”—if not made, the learner’s speech sounds choppy or unclear. Or the learner might struggle with the uvular [ʁ] in “regardé,” substituting a harder English-like ‘r’ that interferes with intelligibility. These phonological glitches are common even when vocabulary and syntax are intact.

In this stage, the speaker organises the phonological form of the utterance. This includes retrieving the correct pronunciation, applying prosodic features (intonation, rhythm), and preparing motor plans for articulation.

Fluent L1 speakers can initiate articulation within 600–750 milliseconds of conceptualisation (Meyer, 2000), but L2 learners may hesitate, pause, or mispronounce words due to weak phonological encoding. This is especially evident in learners with low exposure to authentic spoken input or limited phonological memory (Service, 1992).

Lower-intermediate learners often struggle with:

• Phoneme discrimination and recall
• Prosody (especially in stress-timed languages like English)
• Applying correct intonation in real-time

These issues compound when learners are under pressure to speak fluently, increasing their cognitive load and sometimes causing breakdowns in communication.

Monitoring: Self-Regulation and Repair

The final sub-process is monitoring, where the speaker evaluates their output for accuracy and appropriateness. Levelt (1989) conceptualised this as an internal speech comprehension loop: the speaker hears their own output and compares it with their intention.

Even if the learner says “J’ai regardé un film avec mes amis,” they might instantly second-guess themselves. Was it regardé or regardais? Should they have said copains instead of amis? This internal checking process can lead to unnecessary corrections or hesitations—”J’ai… euh… j’ai regardé… non, j’ai vu un film…” These repairs slow down speech and can reduce fluency, especially if the learner is preoccupied with form over communication. Encouraging learners to tolerate minor slips and correct after speaking can reduce this form-focused overload.

In L2 learners, the monitoring system is often overloaded. Lower-intermediate speakers may lack the fluency to detect errors in real-time, or they may be too focused on accuracy, causing frequent self-repairs, hesitations, and a loss of fluency (Kormos, 2006). The balance between fluency and accuracy in self-monitoring is often skewed towards caution, leading to reduced confidence and processing speed.

Cognitive Bottlenecks for L2 Speakers

For lower-intermediate to intermediate learners, the real-time nature of speaking creates several cognitive bottlenecks:
• Slow lexical retrieval: due to lack of automaticity and limited exposure
• Grammatical processing overload: conscious rule-application slows down encoding
• Phonological instability: weak sound representations affect fluency and intelligibility
• Overactive monitoring: learners focus too much on error-avoidance rather than message delivery
As a result, these learners often rely on formulaic expressions, pauses, fillers, and simplified syntax to manage cognitive load.

Implications for a Process-Based Approach: the FIVE PILLARS of speaking instruction

Understanding the cognitive complexity of speaking has major implications for classroom instruction—particularly if we truly want to go beyond ‘speaking practice’ and actually develop real-time speech competence. Rather than treating speaking as a single monolithic skill, we need to see it as a layered process. Each sub-skill—conceptualising, retrieving lexis, applying grammar, encoding phonology, articulating and monitoring—must be nurtured in its own right, and gradually automatized through carefully scaffolded instruction.

One key implication is this: if we’re serious about helping our learners speak fluently, we must abandon the traditional ‘accuracy-first’ model that floods learners with grammar rules, then expects them to string words together on the fly. It simply doesn’t work—not in real-time conditions where cognitive load is already through the roof. Instead, learners need repeated, structured exposure to lexis and grammar in context, followed by masses of retrieval and recycling across the modes. This includes input processing, controlled output, guided fluency training and carefully spaced retrieval. Each phase of this cycle must map clearly onto a specific stage of the speech production model. And, most importantly, it must feel safe and doable for the learner.

In my own practice, I’ve found that modelling language through high-frequency lexical chunks, sentence builders and communicative routines creates a reliable scaffold. When learners can plug content into predictable structures, they’re free to focus their cognitive energy on message construction and pronunciation. That’s when real fluency starts to emerge—not when they’re mentally conjugating verbs while trying to hold a conversation.

Monitoring, too, deserves special attention. Learners at this level often monitor too much—pausing, correcting, second-guessing. We need to re-train them to delay monitoring until after their message is out. Recording, re-listening, summarising, peer editing—all of these build confidence and reduce the urge to self-correct mid-sentence.

Finally, let’s not forget the bigger picture: speaking proficiency is deeply rooted in listening. You can’t produce what you haven’t processed. That’s why I always recommend beginning with listening-as-modelling—intensive, scaffolded, chunk-based listening input that feeds into structured oral output. Only when input is rich, patterned, and digestible can output become fluent.

In what follows, I outline five pillars of process-based instruction that address the major bottlenecks identified above. Rather than viewing speaking as a single monolithic skill, instruction should address each sub-process through targeted practice and gradual automatization.

1. Begin with Lexical Chunks

Let’s start with the basics. If we want to reduce the cognitive load associated with formulation, we must give learners language they can draw on quickly and easily. This is where teaching lexical chunks—pre-assembled word sequences—makes all the difference. Following Wray (2002) and Nation (2013), instruction should start with frequent, high-utility lexical chunks that serve communicative functions. These bypass the need to assemble utterances from scratch and give learners the scaffolding they need to speak more fluently from the start.

In my own approach, sentence builders and oral fluency routines built around these chunks are core. When learners can retrieve and manipulate these ready-made building blocks, they’re no longer paralysed by the need to “find the right word” or mentally conjugate verbs mid-sentence. The end result? Increased fluency, confidence, and willingness to engage.

Following Wray (2002) and Nation (2013), instruction should start with frequent, functional lexical chunks. These bypass the formulation phase by providing ready-made building blocks. In my approach, for instance, sentence builders, retrieval practice and oral fluency tasks built around these chunks are used in order to reduce planning time and boost fluency.

2. Support Grammar Proceduralisation

Grammar doesn’t just need to be learned—it needs to be automatised. Far too often, learners are expected to remember isolated rules and apply them in real time, under pressure. Unsurprisingly, they struggle. What we need instead is a gradual shift from declarative to procedural knowledge—what DeKeyser (2007) and Ellis (2002) have long advocated.

In practical terms, this means designing tasks where learners are repeatedly exposed to key structures in varied, meaningful contexts. One set of activities in this process is repetitive oral drills, or “chunking aloud,” where students repeatedly practise grammatical structures in varied contexts to reinforce their automatic recall. This may be followed by oral retrieval practice tasks where students tests one another on the target chunks of language (e.g. Oral ping-pong, Battleship, Snaked and Ladders or No snakes no ladders). This is complemented by controlled speaking practice, where learners engage in structured dialogues or speaking tasks that focus on a specific grammar point, providing the opportunity to use the form in context. Additionally, sentence expansion and transformation exercises encourage learners to manipulate sentences by changing components or structures, which helps them internalise grammar rules through active use. Communicative activities, such as information gaps and role-plays, further promote the use of grammar in real-life contexts, enhancing both fluency and accuracy. Feedback, both immediate and delayed, plays a key role in identifying errors and reinforcing correct grammatical usage, ensuring that learners are able to reflect on their mistakes and adjust their use of grammar in future speaking tasks. These activities work together to support grammar proceduralization, allowing learners to move from conscious rule application to the automatic use of grammatical structures in spontaneous communication.

In the above tasks the target grammar structures are made ‘task essential’, i.e. necessary for the completion of a task. For instance, you may design a Mind-reading and Sentence Stealer game followed by an ‘Oral Ping-Pong’ and a ‘No snake no ladder task’, and by a short dialogue (with L1 prompts) to be translated orally where the French verb Faire in the present features in every single sentence. This may be followed by a Spot the difference task where Partner 1 and 2 have to describe their respective pictures still using Faire in the present. Finally, you could stage a game of Faster recycling the same verb. You would hope, at the end of this sequence to have reached a degree of proceduralization of the target verb in the present, wouldn’t you?

In essence, grammar instruction should aim at proceduralisation—not just rule explanation. This can be achieved through repeated use in familiar contexts (Ellis, 2002), pattern drills, and structured input tasks where grammar is embedded in meaningful communication.

3. Enhance Phonological Awareness

Phonological encoding is the silent saboteur of L2 fluency. Learners might know what they want to say—but if they can’t retrieve the sounds or stress patterns of the words, their message stalls. This is especially true for learners from syllable-timed L1 backgrounds trying to speak stress-timed languages like English.

So what’s the fix? Learners need systematic training in phonological decoding and encoding. Activities like minimal pair discrimination, prosody shadowing, and rhythm tapping are not ‘nice extras’—they are essential. Listening-as-modelling, one of the key pillars of my instructional framework, plays a central role here. By repeatedly hearing and mimicking well-modelled input, learners internalise the rhythm and stress patterns that underpin fluent delivery. Chunking aloud and other reading-aloud techniques, too, of course, play a key role.

4. Train Strategic Monitoring

Learners often monitor their speech too much—and too early. The result? Frequent pauses, self-corrections, and disrupted communication. What they need is training in strategic monitoring: learning when and how to correct themselves in a way that supports fluency rather than undermines it.

One way to do this is by using recording and playback tasks, where learners speak first and evaluate later. Another is to apply fluency-then-accuracy sequences, where learners produce language freely before revisiting their output for improvement. As Kormos (2006) suggests, shifting monitoring to a post-production phase can free up working memory and reduce performance anxiety. Of course, not every learner will need this level of scaffolding, but it can be transformative for those at risk of fossilising or losing confidence.

Do we have the time to do the above with every student and class? Maybe not, maybe only with your exam classes, but it is well worth the time you are prepared to invest in these activities.

5. Prioritise Fluency Training

Fluency doesn’t just happen. It must be explicitly taught, nurtured, and rehearsed systematically. And no, fluency isn’t just about speaking fast—it’s about the seamless coordination of all sub-processes under time pressure. This is what makes it so cognitively demanding and what makes explicit fluency training such a pedagogical priority.

Drawing on the work of Nation (1989, 2013), we must treat fluency as a skill in its own right, with structured and repeated opportunities for learners to speak under progressively less scaffolded, more time-sensitive conditions. Time-limited speaking tasks, repeated performance activities (such as the 4-3-2 technique), and familiar-task recycling allow learners to gradually speed up the retrieval and formulation process.

In my own framework, fluency is the final stage of a cycle that begins with highly scaffolded input (listening as modelling), builds through structured output (with sentence builders and oral frames), and culminates in ‘pushed output’. Here, learners are encouraged to retrieve and manipulate language chunks quickly and spontaneously in a controlled environment. Activities such as ‘Messengers’, the ‘4,3,2 technique’, ‘Market place’, ‘Faster’ and ‘Fast and Furious’ are great ways to work on oral fluency. We gradually increase the demands—not just on speed, but also on accuracy and complexity—as learners’ confidence grows.

When learners know the lexis, the grammar is proceduralised, the pronunciation is modelled, and the task is clear, they can focus on flow. That is the true goal of fluency training—not speed for its own sake, but smooth, confident, and intelligible communication.

Conclusion

Speaking is not a single act but a series of fast-paced, overlapping cognitive operations. Each sub-process—conceptualisation, formulation, phonological encoding, articulation, and monitoring—presents unique challenges for L2 learners, particularly at the lower-intermediate and intermediate levels. By recognising these challenges and targeting instruction accordingly, we can build learners’ capacity to speak fluently, accurately, and confidently.

Whwther you embrace EPI or not, a process-based approach, beginning with chunks and leading toward fluent, spontaneous production, provides a roadmap for overcoming cognitive bottlenecks and enabling real communicative competence.

Introduction

Assessment is the area of language teaching where theory and classroom practice often collide. We all want to assess fairly, meaningfully, and efficiently—but tight timetables, systemic pressures, and time constraints frequently pull us in other directions. For many of us, assessment becomes a stressful afterthought—rushed, inconsistent, and often disconnected from the learning we so carefully plan.

This article offers a set of ten key principles to guide classroom-based assessment in a way that both supports learning and aligns with research. The aim is not to provide a rigid checklist, but a set of flexible reminders: principles we can strive for when designing, adapting, or reflecting on assessment practices.

Importantly, these principles are aspirational. Many teachers, including myself, often lack the time and resources to implement them all fully. But knowing what “better” looks like can help us make informed trade-offs, tweak existing practices, and build assessment routines that actually support learning.

If I’ve learned anything about language testing, it’s thanks to the late Professor Cyril Weir, whose clarity of thought and deep understanding of assessment shaped my thinking when I studied under him over 30 years ago.

1. Validity – Test What You Actually Taught

What it means

Validity means your assessment measures what it claims to. If you say you’re testing listening skills, but the real challenge lies in understanding unfamiliar vocabulary, cultural references, or decoding poor-quality audio, the task is not valid.

In language classrooms, invalid assessments happen all the time:

• A listening task in the textbook asks learners to infer whether a character is happy or sad—but students struggle because the audio includes many unfamiliar structures (e.g., passé composé forms not yet taught
• A writing task asks students to “describe a past holiday” before they’ve learned the passé composé with être or irregular verbs like faire. Most learners will either write in the present or produce error-ridden texts.
• You mark “grammar accuracy” but test includes structures never modelled in class.

According to Messick (1989), a valid assessment must measure the intended construct without interference from unrelated skills or knowledge. In L2 contexts, Fulcher and Davidson (2007) also warn against “construct-irrelevant variance”—where results are skewed by factors that shouldn’t matter (e.g., background knowledge, decoding ability, handwriting).

Possible solution

Make sure assessment tasks reflect what learners have actually practised. Recycle taught language, limit new vocabulary, and avoid assessing grammar that hasn’t been modelled repeatedly. Use familiar task formats to reduce cognitive load. When teaching using sentence builders or substitution tables (as in the EPI approach), assess those same patterns—not “creative writing” from scratch.

2. Reliability – Be Consistent and Fair

What it means

Reliability refers to how consistent assessment results are across time, teachers, or contexts. If the same piece of work would earn different marks from different teachers—or from you on different days—your system isn’t reliable.

This is a well-documented problem. Research by Alderson et al. (2000) and Barkaoui (2007) shows that in language assessments, scoring variation is high, especially in writing and speaking.

In practice, we see this in:

• Teachers applying mark schemes inconsistently in GCSE-style writing tasks.
• Oral assessments where confidence or accent sways scores more than structure use.
• Comments like “Nice effort” for one learner and “Needs more complexity” for another—despite similar output.

Inconsistency undermines trust in assessment. Learners can’t improve if they don’t know what counts as “good” and why.

Possible solution

Use transparent success criteria (e.g., “Includes at least three time phrases,” “Connects ideas using et, mais, parce que”) instead of vague rubrics. Moderate samples with colleagues, or cross-check with exemplar responses (e.g., AQA/Edexcel sample responses for the GCSE). Use whole-class marking codes to streamline and reduce subjectivity.

3. Authenticity – Make Tasks Feel Real

What it means

Authentic tasks mirror real-life language use. They feel purposeful, relevant, and engaging. When assessments are too artificial or contrived, learners don’t see the point—and often perform poorly because the situation feels unfamiliar.

Examples of poor authenticity:

• Writing a postcard from a theme park—when learners have never seen or written a postcard.
• Listening to a contrived conversation between “two cousins visiting the Eiffel Tower” in exaggerated accents and stilted dialogue.
• Reading an article about “Why children should avoid too much screen time” in formal register—impossible to relate to for Year 8 students.

Gilmore (2007) highlights that authentic tasks increase motivation and better reflect communicative competence. When learners can imagine themselves using the language, their engagement and performance improve.

Possible solution

Use purpose-driven tasks that reflect real communication: voice messages, roleplays for booking or complaining, WhatsApp-style exchanges, social media posts. Avoid tasks that only serve the test. Adapt textbook prompts if needed (e.g., turn “write about your school” into “write a review for an exchange partner”).

4. Washback – Make Assessment Drive Good Learning

What it means

Washback refers to the impact assessment has on teaching and learning. Hughes (2003) and Bailey (1996) show that learners focus on what they think will be tested. So if your assessments reward memorisation and neatness over fluency and risk-taking, that’s what students will prioritise.

Negative washback examples:

• Marking only grammatical accuracy in writing—but encouraging creative use of chunks in lessons.
• Testing only reading and writing—so students disengage from speaking tasks.
• Giving “fill-the-gap” tests every term—so learners memorise phrases rather than learn how to manipulate language.

Possible solution

Design assessments that reflect and reward the habits you value: recall, improvisation, clarity, range. If you’re using retrieval practice in lessons, assess it. If fluency-building is a goal, include spontaneous speaking. Use assessment as a continuation of teaching, not a switch in focus.

5. Transparency – Be Clear About What Counts

What it means

Transparency means that learners understand what they’re being assessed on, and what success looks like. Without this clarity, they can’t prepare effectively or act on feedback.

Research by Sadler (1989) and Black & Wiliam (1998) shows that learner understanding of criteria is essential for progress.

Lack of transparency often looks like:

• Ambiguous phrases in rubrics: “some complex language,” “generally accurate,” “shows understanding.”
• No explanation of how tasks are graded—learners focus only on the number.
• Tasks set without clear models, so students are shooting in the dark.

Possible solution

Before assessments, show worked examples at different levels and ask students to annotate what works and why. Use visual rubrics or traffic-light criteria (“must include a time phrase, an opinion, a justified reason”). After assessments, give feedback aligned to the criteria—not just a number.

6. Practicality – Keep It Manageable

What it means

Practicality is about whether your assessment system is sustainable. If you’re drowning in marking, or learners are overwhelmed, something’s got to give.

Poor practicality examples:

• Termly assessments that take weeks to mark but give little insight.
• Tasks that require long periods to explain or complete—leaving little teaching time.
• A speaking test where only one pair speaks while the rest of the class waits.

Research by Brindley (2001) and Green (2014) confirms that assessments must fit operationally into teaching. Otherwise, they’ll be done infrequently—or poorly.

Possible solution

Assess little and often. Use mini-tasks (e.g., one-minute oral summaries, sentence corrections, 40-word writing bursts). Use retrieval-based assessment (e.g., do-now tasks, hinge questions) for a snapshot of learning. Share the load with peer- or self-assessment.

Also, avoid high-stakes “mega-tests.” Use a portfolio of smaller, focused assessments over time. That’s how real learning is best captured.

7. Inclusivity – Remove Unnecessary Barriers

What it means

Inclusivity means all learners—regardless of SEN, EAL background, or cognitive processing style—can access and succeed in assessments if they know the material.

In practice, exclusion often comes from:

• Listening once at full speed with no visual support.
• Writing prompts that require imaginative thinking but don’t scaffold basic sentence formation.
• Tasks that rely on background knowledge learners may not have.

Research by Kormos & Smith (2012) and Mitchell (2014) stresses that inclusive assessment isn’t about lowering expectations—it’s about designing assessments that test the language, not processing speed or inferencing.

Possible solution

• Slow down audio or allow two listens.
• Use images or brief context to support listening/reading.
• Provide writing scaffolds (sentence starters, vocabulary boxes).
• Offer tiered task options (e.g., basic/extended) to allow learners to challenge themselves.

8. Formative Usefulness – Make Assessment Feed Learning

What it means

Formative assessment is assessment for learning, not just of learning. If the feedback you give never gets used, it’s wasted effort. One common piftall of feedback on assessment is that the students are not actively engaged in it.

Sadler (1989) and Wiliam (2011) show that feedback only works when learners are trained to understand and respond to it.

Common classroom fails:

• Red-pen marking with no time to respond.
• “You’re working at a 6” comments—without next steps.
• Feedback that’s generic (“use more detail”) or unclear.

Possible solution

Build in DIRT time (Dedicated Improvement and Reflection Time) in the feedback-handling phase of the assessment process with a very narrow focus (focus on 2 or 3 key issues only). Ask students to act on feedback immediately:

• “Fix these 3 sentences.”
• “Add a second reason to this opinion.”
• “Re-record your oral answer including a time phrase.”

Also, teach students how to interpret and use feedback. Otherwise, we’re just commenting into the void.

9. Constructive Alignment – Match Teaching and Testing

What it means

Constructive alignment means your assessments reflect how and what you’ve taught. If students prepare for tasks one way, and the test demands another, that’s not fair.

Examples of misalignment:

• Teaching sentence builders, then removing them completely in writing assessments.
• Practising oral fluency, but testing only reading comprehension.
• Focusing on vocabulary sets, then testing unseen grammar.

Biggs (2003) emphasises that aligned assessment helps learners transfer classroom knowledge into successful performance.

Possible solution

Assess the language routines learners have been taught: sentence frames, structures, collocations. If you’ve used retrieval activities and repetition in class, design your tests accordingly.

Include familiar scaffolds in assessments and gradually remove them as learners grow in confidence—not all at once.

10. Balanced Assessment – Don’t Let One Skill Dominate

What it means

Assessment should reflect the full skillset of language learning—not just writing or grammar.

In many English MFL classrooms, speaking and listening are neglected in favour of writing. This creates a distorted view of progress.

Examples:

• Only written work is formally assessed each term.
• Speaking is practised but never assessed.
• Listening is sidelined because “they find it too hard.”

As noted by Macaro (2003) and Turnbull & Arnett (2002), unbalanced assessment demotivates students and provides an incomplete picture of what they can do.

Possible solution

Track which skills you assess. Aim for at least one task per skill each half-term, even informally. Record speaking via Flip, use live listening tasks, and mark comprehension through gist or detail tasks.

Summary Table: Ten Key Principles

Principle	What it means (in plain English)
Validity	Test what you taught—don’t sneak in surprises
Reliability	Mark consistently and fairly, not on gut instinct
Authenticity	Use tasks that feel real, not made-up or schooly
Washback	Make sure tests encourage the habits you want
Transparency	Tell students what counts and what to expect
Practicality	Don’t overcomplicate—make it doable for all
Inclusivity	Give everyone a fair shot at showing what they know
Formative Usefulness	Make sure feedback leads to change, not just a tick
Constructive Alignment	Match what you test to how you’ve taught it
Balanced Assessment	Assess all four skills—don’t let writing rule the roost

Conclusion

Assessment, when done right, drives learning, improves motivation, and gives you an accurate picture of what your students can do. Done wrong, it frustrates, confuses, and demoralises.

These ten principles don’t require perfect conditions. Just better thinking, smarter choices, and small tweaks over time. Even adjusting one of them in your next assessment can make a meaningful difference.

We owe it to our learners to make assessment not just something that happens to them—but something that happens for them.

References

• Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (2000). Language Test Construction and Evaluation. Cambridge University Press.
• Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept. Language Testing, 13(3), 257–279.
• Barkaoui, K. (2007). Rating scale impact on ESL essay scores. Language Testing, 24(1), 51–72.
• Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Open University Press.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
• Brindley, G. (2001). Language assessment and professional development. Cambridge.
• Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language Testing and Assessment. Routledge.
• Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–118.
• Green, A. (2014). Exploring language assessment and testing. Routledge.
• Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge.
• Kormos, J., & Smith, A. M. (2012). Teaching languages to students with specific learning differences. Multilingual Matters.
• Macaro, E. (2003). Teaching and Learning a Second Language. Continuum.
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement.
• Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.
• Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204–218.
• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment. Solution Tree Press.

Introduction

In this article, I aim to provide practical, research-informed guidance on how written corrective feedback (WCF) in second language (L2) classrooms can be implemented more effectively and meaningfully—particularly under real-world teaching constraints.

This is a topic I’ve been personally invested in for over two decades. More than 20 years ago, I conducted my PhD research on the role of metacognitive strategies in error correction and the impact of self-monitoring on L2 writing.

My review of the specialised literature during the first year of my study made it all too clear to me that WCF is a far more complex issue than it appears on the surface. It is much more than simply marking errors, it must empower learners to become active, intentional, self-monitoring agents. Easier said than done!, you may think to yourself as you read this. Can’t blame you. Yet, the success of WCF is all about student intentionality. 

My PhD study also taught me a very hard lesson: doing WCF well requires a lot of time, the one commodity busy teachers in secondary schools around the world are very poor in! It also requires training that many teachers may not be able to access.

Given these practical realities, one cannot expect that language educators implement every ideal practice suggested by research!  Hence, the guidelines below are intended as a roadmap for gradual improvement rather than as a strict checklist or a criticism of current practice. 

Here are twelve common shortcomings of WCF practice, many of which I have been guilty of myself. 

11 common pitfalls evidenced by research into WCF

1. Reduced Learner Intentionality

When learners receive a barrage of corrections without clear guidance on which errors are most significant, they tend to become passive recipients of feedback. Swain (1995) argues that for effective error correction, learners must actively notice the gap between their interlanguage and the target language. Intentional engagement—where students compare their output with the correct form—builds metacognitive skills and reinforces self-correction. Ellis (2006) confirms that intentional self-correction promotes deeper processing and helps prevent fossilisation (Ferris, 2018).

Research by Lalande, Ferris, and Conti (2004) demonstrates that explicit instruction in self-monitoring strategies significantly improves learners’ error awareness and independence. Multiple classroom studies (e.g., Hyland & Hyland, 2006) have reported that students often feel overwhelmed by unstructured corrections, reducing their willingness to engage in self-initiated revision.

Figure 1 – WCF practices which foste rintentionality according to research

2. Insufficient Promotion of Self-Monitoring Strategies

Feedback that merely supplies the correct answer without prompting reflective comparison limits the development of metacognitive skills. Swain (1995) emphasizes that self-monitoring is critical; learners must be encouraged to actively compare their output with target forms. Studies by Vandergrift (2007) and Lalande, Ferris, and Conti (2004) indicate that learners trained in self-monitoring strategies become better at detecting and addressing recurring errors independently.

Empirical classroom research (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) documents that many teachers continue to provide corrections without engaging students in the reflective process. This omission prevents the development of independent editing skills, underscoring the need for explicit self-monitoring prompts in corrective feedback.

Figure 2 – Self-Monitoring Strategy Training in WCF

3. Overcorrection Leading to Cognitive Overload

Correcting every minor error can overwhelm learners’ limited working memory. Research consistently shows that correcting too many errors at once can lead to cognitive overload and reduced learning gains (Miller, 1965; Baddeley, 2003). Learners, especially those at lower proficiency levels, often struggle to process an excessive amount of feedback simultaneously. Bitchener (2008) and Ferris (2018) argue that focusing on high-priority or recurring errors—such as those that impede communication or reflect underlying gaps in knowledge—is more beneficial than marking every minor slip. Ellis (2006) supports this by advocating for focused feedback, which has been shown to result in greater long-term accuracy than unfocused correction. In short, quality over quantity is essential: teachers must strategically choose which errors to address in order to support deeper processing and reduce learner frustration.

Hyland and Hyland (2006) found that many teachers tend to mark nearly every error without filtering for significance. This unselective approach, documented in studies such as Bitchener (2008), increases cognitive demands and hinders the internalisation of corrections.

4. Differentiating Error Sources: Treating Errors Based on Their Origin

Errors in L2 writing often stem from different underlying issues. Some mistakes occur due to a lack of correct declarative knowledge—for instance, when a learner has not fully internalised an explicit grammar rule (Ellis, 2006). Other errors arise from insufficient procedural knowledge, where the learner knows the rule in theory but cannot consistently apply it automatically under real-time conditions (Swain, 1995; Norris & Ortega, 2000). Research indicates that these error types require different remedial approaches: explicit instruction and explanation are most effective for declarative knowledge gaps, while extensive practice and recycling promote the proceduralisation of rules. This differentiation is crucial; by tailoring feedback to the source of the error, teachers can provide more targeted and effective corrective strategies, as supported by Lalande, Ferris, and Conti (2004).

5. Lack of Clarity and Intelligibility

Ambiguous correction symbols or overly technical language in feedback can leave students confused about what is wrong and why. Ferris (2018) notes that clear, accessible feedback is essential for helping learners understand the nature of their errors, while Lee (2008) found that when corrections are explained in straightforward terms, students are more likely to grasp the intended meaning and apply the changes successfully.

Research by Hyland and Hyland (2006) consistently shows that many teachers use unclear or inconsistent symbols and comments, which undermines the corrective process and reduces the likelihood that learners will internalise the correct forms.

6. Delayed Feedback

When corrections are provided long after the writing task, the link between the error and its correction can weaken considerably. Long (2015) emphasizes that timely feedback is critical so that learners can immediately rehearse the correct forms while the context is still fresh in memory. Bitchener and Knipe (2008) support this view by demonstrating that prompt feedback is significantly more effective for error correction than delayed responses.

Classroom studies (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) indicate that many teachers delay feedback due to workload constraints or scheduling issues, thereby diminishing the impact of corrective information.

7. Inconsistency in Correction Methods

Using varied correction styles within or across texts can confuse students about which errors to address. Lyster and Ranta (1997) recommend that consistent correction techniques help establish stable error patterns, making it easier for learners to recognise and correct recurring mistakes. Inconsistent feedback dilutes the corrective message and leaves students uncertain about the relative importance of different errors.

Research by Bitchener (2008) documents that many teachers employ multiple correction systems simultaneously, and classroom observations (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) indicate that such inconsistency is a common issue that hinders students’ ability to develop a systematic approach to self-correction.

8. Missed Opportunities for Reprocessing and Revision

Without structured revision tasks or follow-up activities, students do not have sufficient opportunities to reprocess and internalise corrective feedback. Ferris (2018) and Swain (1995) note that learning from corrective feedback is not an instantaneous “aha” moment but a gradual process that benefits from deliberate re-engagement with the material. Follow-up revision tasks—such as re-writing exercises or peer review sessions—allow students to revisit corrections and strengthen the connection between error and resolution.

Studies by Lee (2008) consistently find that many teachers neglect to incorporate systematic revision activities after providing feedback, limiting the potential for long-term improvement.

9. Failure to Tailor Feedback to Individual Needs

Uniform feedback that does not account for differences in proficiency or individual learning strategies is less effective. Ellis (2006) has shown that customised feedback—addressed to a learner’s specific error patterns—supports better self-regulated learning and targeted improvement. Tailored feedback ensures that students receive the most relevant information for their own language development, thereby supporting more effective error correction.

Surveys and interviews by Norris and Ortega (2000) reveal that many teachers still adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, ignoring individual differences. This common shortcoming is linked to lower overall improvement rates among diverse learners.

10. Neglecting the Prevention of Fossilisation

When feedback is not clear, timely, or consistently managed, persistent errors can become fossilised in the learner’s interlanguage. Selinker’s (1972) seminal work, along with subsequent studies (Norris & Ortega, 2000), demonstrates that without strategic and ongoing corrective feedback, errors tend to become entrenched and resistant to change. Fossilised errors hinder long-term language development and are particularly difficult to eradicate once established.

Multiple studies (Ferris, 2018; Swain, 1995) document that many teachers fail to provide the continuous, focused feedback necessary to prevent fossilisation, underscoring the need for systematic, sustained error correction strategies.

11. Overemphasis on Remediation Instead of Prevention

A common pitfall in L2 writing instruction is focusing too much on remedial correction—reacting to errors after they occur—instead of preventing errors through careful instructional design and curriculum planning. While remedial feedback is necessary, a heavy reliance on it can result in reactive teaching that fails to address the root causes of errors. Research by VanPatten (2004) and Ellis (2006) suggests that integrating prevention strategies—such as designing scaffolded tasks, providing ample practice with target forms, and ensuring consistent recycling of language elements—can significantly reduce the overall error incidence. Norris and Ortega (2000) have shown that a curriculum focused on prevention leads to fewer errors and a smoother learning process. By shifting the focus from remediation to prevention, teachers create a learning environment where correct language forms are reinforced before errors become ingrained, thereby reducing the need for later correction and supporting long-term language development.

Implications for L2 pedagogy: I.M.P.A.C.T.E.D.

I.M.P.A.C.T.E.D. (see figure 1 below) is an acronym I have come up with which encapsules the main recommendations by researchers. 

Figure 2 – the IMPACTED framework for WCF

Informed feedback must respond to the learner’s needs and the specific context of the task. Research underscores the importance of tailoring feedback to learner proficiency and developmental readiness (Ellis, 2006; Ferris, 2018). Generic correction is rarely as effective as feedback based on diagnostic insight into the learner’s interlanguage and common error patterns (Lalande, Ferris & Conti, 2004).

Manageable feedback recognises the reality of teacher workload and the cognitive limits of learners. Overloading either party compromises learning. Miller’s (1965) classic findings on working memory capacity (7 ± 2 items) and Baddeley’s (2003) work on cognitive load stress the need for focus. Bitchener (2008) also highlights that teachers must be selective, correcting only what is most useful for long-term development.

Planned feedback aligns with long-term instructional goals rather than being merely reactive. VanPatten (2004) and Swain (1995) stress the need for integrating feedback within structured learning cycles. When feedback is anticipated and followed up by recycling and revision tasks, learners process it more deeply (Ferris, 2018).

Accessible feedback should be clear and learnable. Studies by Lee (2008) and Hyland & Hyland (2006) demonstrate that learners benefit most from feedback that uses student-friendly language and models corrections clearly. Ambiguity reduces the effectiveness of even well-intended feedback.

Constant feedback must be part of a continuous loop. Research supports the idea that revision and reprocessing are essential for internalisation (Swain, 1995; Ferris, 2018). Lalande, Ferris & Conti (2004) found that sustained engagement with feedback over time enhances self-monitoring and long-term gains.

Timely feedback helps prevent fossilisation of errors (Long, 2015; Bitchener & Knipe, 2008). When feedback is delivered while the task is still cognitively present, learners are more likely to reflect and revise meaningfully. Delayed correction often loses its pedagogical power.

Evidence-based feedback is grounded in a substantial body of SLA research. Focused feedback (Ellis, 2006), metalinguistic correction (Lyster & Ranta, 1997), and self-monitoring routines (Lalande, Ferris & Conti, 2004) have all been shown to support learner development. Using research-backed strategies ensures that feedback efforts are not wasted.

Deeply processed feedback demands active engagement. Wray (2002), Schmidt (1990), and Swain (1995) argue that noticing and reflection are prerequisites for acquisition. Simply reading corrections is not enough—learners must cognitively work through them, revise, and apply corrections in new contexts for lasting learning to occur.

Conclusion

Effective L2 written corrective feedback must do more than simply correct errors; it must foster intentional engagement that transforms feedback into an active learning process. When learners actively notice discrepancies between their writing and the target language, they build the metacognitive skills necessary for self-monitoring and independent improvement. Clear, timely, and prioritised feedback—combined with structured revision tasks—reduces cognitive overload and helps ensure that corrections are gradually internalised, preventing error fossilisation (Ferris, 2018; Swain, 1995).

It is also important to recognise that teachers face significant time constraints and heavy workloads. Research by Lalande, Ferris, and Conti (2004) underscores that while promoting self-monitoring and strategic feedback is highly beneficial, not every ideal practice can be implemented in every classroom. Teachers should not feel guilty or as if they are being criticised for not doing everything perfectly—there is only so much that can be accomplished given practical realities. Instead, these guidelines offer a roadmap for gradual, intentional improvement in feedback practices, including an emphasis on preventing errors through proactive instructional design.

In essence, intentional engagement in the feedback process is the foundation of long-term success. As students learn to understand and work through their mistakes with clear, structured, and manageable feedback, they develop greater autonomy and become more effective communicators. This holistic approach not only improves written proficiency but also contributes to a sustainable, self-regulated language learning process.

References

• Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839.

• Bitchener, J. (2008). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Language Teaching, 41(2), 159–182.

• Ellis, R. (2006). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

• Ferris, D. R. (2018). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Learners. Routledge.

• Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.

• Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and language proficiency. Language Learning, 64(2), 285–310.

• Lalande, D., Ferris, D. R., & Conti, G. (2004). Promoting self-monitoring in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 123–139.

• Lee, I. (2008). Effects of corrective feedback on second language writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.

• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.

• Long, M. H. (2015). How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press.

• Miller, G. A. (1965). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 72(2), 343–352.

• Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.

• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

• Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3–4), 209–232.

• 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 University Press.

• VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction and grammar teaching: A case for explicit training. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Key Issues in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 157–176). Routledge.

• Vandergrift, L. (2007). Extensive listening practice: An experimental study. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 605–621.

Introduction

When I first heard the phrase “You shall know a word by the company it keeps” by J.R. Firth during my MA in TEFL around 25 years ago, it reshaped how I thought about vocabulary teaching. Like many teachers, I had been presenting vocabulary in isolated lists, assuming learners simply needed to understand definitions. But Firth’s words revealed something far deeper: words acquire meaning, function, and use through the other words and structures they habitually appear with.

What became increasingly clear to me was that learners often make persistent errors not because they misunderstand meaning, but because they’ve never encountered words in natural, repeated combinations. Yet, many language classrooms continue to focus heavily on single-word vocabulary and grammar rules—leaving learners to try to construct fluent language from scratch, often under impossible cognitive constraints. They know what “temps” means, but say “il est soleil” instead of “il fait beau.” They know “regarder” and “télé,” but say “je regarde à la télé” instead of “je regarde la télé.” They say “je suis 14 ans” instead of “j’ai 14 ans.” These weren’t gaps in knowledge but in collocational awareness.

Collocations refer to words that habitually co-occur—word partnerships that sound natural to native speakers but often baffle learners. These include verb-noun combinations like faire une erreur or prendre une décision in French, or tener razón and cometer un error in Spanish. Learners often substitute literal equivalents like hacer un error or tomar una decisión without realising these combinations are unnatural or incorrect.

Colligations, on the other hand, refer to the grammatical patterns that typically occur with specific words. For instance, in Spanish, me gusta bailar is correct, but learners often say me gusta a bailar by wrongly inserting a preposition. Similarly, in French, learners might misuse structures such as je suis fini instead of j’ai fini, misapplying the auxiliary verb due to interference from English.

These patterns are central to Michael Hoey’s Lexical Priming Theory (2005), which argues that our brains store words not in isolation, but with the words and grammatical structures they frequently appear alongside. Levelt’s foundational model of speech production (1989) provides the framework for understanding how these patterns interact in real-time speech, while Hoey’s theory shows how these expectations are shaped by learners’ exposure to lexical environments over time. For example, in Spanish, repeated exposure to tener que + infinitive (e.g., tengo que estudiar) or acabar de + infinitive (e.g., acabo de llegar) primes learners to expect and produce those structures. In French, structures like être en train de + infinitive or avoir besoin de + noun become cognitively entrenched through repetition.

Hoey explains that each encounter with these chunks primes learners not only lexically, but grammatically and even stylistically. This means that repeated exposure not only strengthens associations between words, but also builds expectations around the grammatical patterns and the discourse contexts they typically appear in. For instance, in Spanish, a chunk like tener que + infinitive not only teaches a functional expression of obligation but also primes learners to use infinitive verb forms that follow it. Stylistically, a phrase like acabo de llegar is not only grammatically accurate but also carries informal, conversational resonance that learners internalise through frequency of exposure. In French, chunks like il faut que + subjunctive prime both the grammatical form and its frequent use in formal or instructional contexts. Hoey’s theory thus provides a powerful explanation for how fluent speakers seem to ‘just know’ what sounds natural—because their brains have been consistently primed through repeated exposure across registers and contexts.

Building on this, Michael Lewis’s Lexical Approach (1993, 1997) emphasises that language is not merely a system of rules to be applied but a repertoire of prefabricated chunks. Lewis encourages the teaching of high-frequency expressions and semi-fixed patterns such as ça me plaît, il faut que + subjunctive, or estar a punto de + infinitive. He suggests that learners gain fluency not by mastering abstract grammatical paradigms but by internalising and reproducing these lexicalised structures. His work positions collocations and colligations as the foundation for natural-sounding language.

This article draws on these frameworks to explore how collocations and colligations work, why they matter, and how to teach them effectively. It concludes with a practical toolkit of classroom activities designed to help learners internalise the natural patterns of language use—and ultimately, to sound more fluent, more accurate, and more confident.

Collocations, Colligations, and Chunk-Based Fluency

Understanding and teaching collocations and colligations is at the heart of effective chunk-based instruction. This is not just a matter of teaching learners to pair the right words or use correct structures—it is about making the act of speaking less cognitively demanding and more automatic.

Kormos’s (2006) adaptation of Levelt’s model of speech production to second language learners highlights where fluency often breaks down: in the formulation stage. Here, learners must retrieve lexis, apply grammar, sequence ideas, and prepare for articulation—all in real time. The time constraints are significant: research suggests that fluent speech requires lexical retrieval within 150–250 milliseconds per word (Indefrey & Levelt, 2004). Add to this the demands of working memory, limited automaticity, and interference from the L1, and it’s easy to see why formulation becomes a major bottleneck. Every second counts, and learners often don’t have enough of them to assemble well-formed utterances from scratch. For many, this bottleneck causes hesitation, slow speech, and error-prone output. This is why, as many studies suggest, between 50% and 80% of native speaker speech and writing consists of formulaic sequences such as collocations, chunks, and fixed expressions (Erman & Warren, 2000; Wray, 2002; Conklin & Schmitt, 2008).

Teaching prefabricated lexical chunks—particularly those that combine collocational and colligational knowledge—helps bypass this bottleneck. When learners internalise high-frequency phrases such as je voudrais réserver une table or tengo que estudiar esta noche, they do not need to construct these sentences from scratch. They retrieve them as whole units, reducing the burden on working memory and allowing attention to shift toward fluency, pronunciation, or interaction.

Formulaic language research (e.g., Wray, 2002; Wood, 2010) strongly supports this approach. It shows that fluent speakers rely heavily on chunks to maintain flow, and that repeated exposure to and retrieval of these structures builds automaticity over time. This is why instruction that integrates collocational and colligational awareness within chunk-based practice can dramatically boost real-time performance.

When learners are trained to recognise and produce these patterns early on, they experience more success in oral tasks, develop greater confidence, and are better prepared to manage spontaneous interactions.

Implications for the Classroom

The insights from lexical priming and the Lexical Approach have clear pedagogical consequences. First, vocabulary should not be taught as isolated items but through meaningful, repeated exposure in context. Language learners benefit from activities that help them notice and internalise recurring patterns of words and structures—especially those that reflect natural usage.

Teachers should encourage learners to attend to both collocations (common word pairings) and colligations (preferred grammatical structures). This means embedding lexis-rich input across all modalities and offering frequent opportunities for structured output. Lexical patterning should be integrated into listening and reading comprehension, as well as in writing and speaking production tasks.

Furthermore, instruction should reflect the priming nature of language exposure. Activities should include repeated encounters with lexical items, scaffolded across different tasks and modalities. Form-focused instruction that highlights typical collocational and colligational behaviour helps learners notice and internalise these patterns.

Techniques for Teaching Chunks Effectively

A number of well-established instructional techniques can significantly boost learners’ acquisition and internalisation of lexical chunks. Here are some of the key ones:

• Input Flood: Learners are exposed to high concentrations of target chunks in meaningful input, which increases the chances of noticing and retention.
• Input Enhancement: Target collocations are visually or aurally highlighted (e.g., bolded in a text or stressed in speech) to direct learners’ attention to them (Sharwood Smith, 1993).
• Repeatable input: if students hear collocations and colligations but are unable to repeat them because they are either pronounced in an unintelligible or overy rapid way, they will never be able to acquire them in their oral form!
• Repeated Processing: Learners revisit the same lexical chunks across different contexts and tasks, helping deepen mental encoding and strengthen retrieval paths.
• Thorough and Deep Processing: Learners engage with chunks through tasks that require analysis, manipulation, or evaluation—for example, comparing similar chunks, or identifying register differences.
• Task-Induced Involvement: According to Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), tasks that require learners to focus on form, meaning, and use (i.e., high-involvement tasks) lead to better retention of chunks.
• Pushed Output: Learners are required to produce language that includes the target chunks under communicative pressure. This encourages retrieval and consolidation.
• Spaced Retrieval Practice: Chunks are revisited across spaced intervals in time, improving long-term retention and automaticity (Nation, 2013; Barcroft, 2007).
• Task Repetition: Learners perform the same task multiple times with slight variations, allowing them to refine fluency and accuracy while embedding recurring chunks (Bygate, 2001).
• Retrieval-Based Interleaving: Previously learned chunks are mixed with newer ones in practice sessions, enhancing discrimination and long-term learning.
• Text Reconstruction: Activities such as dictogloss, sentence puzzles, and rebuilding gapped texts encourage learners to focus on both lexical accuracy and grammatical structure, reinforcing both collocations and colligations in context.

These techniques work best when integrated into a carefully sequenced curriculum that builds up from controlled exposure to semi-controlled use and, eventually, to fluent, spontaneous production.

Classroom Activities

What does it all look like in action? What follows is a curated set of classroom activities I’ve used (and refined) over the years, drawn from research but grounded in the practical reality of what works in the language classroom. These activities, some of which EPI users will be familiar with, are all about helping learners notice, process, and produce collocations and colligations in meaningful, engaging, and purposeful ways. Whether you’re working on reading, writing, listening, or speaking, there’s something here for every mode of communication—and every type of learner. 

Reading Activities

• Tarsia Puzzles: Learners match parts of collocations, definitions, or translations on puzzle pieces to form a complete shape. This promotes active recall and visual processing while reinforcing connections between collocates.
• Picture-Match Reading: Learners read sentences and match collocations (“fast food,” “strong coffee”) to pictures.
• Collocation Hunt: Provide a short, simplified text and ask learners to underline repeated word pairings (e.g., “good morning,” “take a break”).
• Break the Flow: Provide a text where all spaces between words are removed. Students listen to the teacher read and mark boundaries.
• Gapped Letters: Provide a text with target collocations where certain letters are omitted. Students fill in the gaps as they read.
• Collocation Cloze: Fill-in-the-blank exercises using collocations from an authentic article. Contextual clues help reinforce chunked meanings (Hill, 2000).
• Reading as Modelling (RAM): Use rich written texts and follow-up activities to help learners notice and internalise collocations.
• Sentence puzzles: Learners reorder mixed-up sentences that contain collocations, reinforcing structure and word order.
• Sentence Stealer: Present learners with sentences containing target collocations. In pairs, students take turns reading sentences aloud and attempting to “steal” them by recalling and reproducing them from memory.
• Narrow Reading: Offer a series of short, thematically related texts that contain repeated instances of target collocations.
• Genre Awareness: Compare how collocations differ in formal vs. informal texts (e.g., “conduct research” vs. “do some digging”).
• Corpus Exploration: Use learner-friendly corpora (e.g., CRFC for French, Corpus del Español for Spanish) to look up common collocates of academic words like “approach,” “issue,” or “evidence.”
• Genre Transformation: Rewrite a formal text in an informal style or vice versa, noticing collocational shifts.

Writing Activities

• Collocational Cohesion: Learners use collocational chains to create textual cohesion across a longer piece of writing.
• Collocation Essay Challenge: Assign thematic collocations (e.g., “raise awareness,” “take part in”) to be used in a short essay.
• Communicative Translation Drills: Short dialogues including L1 sentences with target collocations for 2 students  working in paris to translate into the target language whilst a third student monitor their output supported by the L2 version 
• Dictogloss: Read a short text containing target collocations. Students reconstruct the text together, encouraging attention to structure and collocational use.
• Error Correction: Provide texts with common miscollocations for learners to spot and correct (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008).
• Lexical Upgrading: Learners revise a basic paragraph by substituting simple combinations with richer collocations (e.g., “say sorry” → “offer an apology”).
• Matching Game: Match verbs and nouns (“make a cake,” “take a photo”) before writing short sentences.
• No Snakes No Ladders: A board game where students move forward by correctly using target collocations in full sentences.
• Oral Ping-Pong: In pairs, students take turns constructing sentences using given collocations, promoting active recall and use.
• Sentence puzzle: Provide jumbled sentences containing collocations for learners to unscramble, reinforcing grammar and chunking.
• Sentence Frames: Provide starters like “I have a ___” or “I like to ___” with a set of collocating nouns/verbs to choose from.

Listening

• Audio Sorting: Learners listen to collocations in context and sort them into categories (e.g., emotion, movement).
• Bingo with Collocations: Use audio tracks with high-frequency collocations; learners check off what they hear.
• Collocational Noticing: Play academic talks or news clips. Learners identify and note down recurring collocations.
• Dictogloss with Collocations: Read a short passage twice; learners reconstruct it with a focus on the target collocations.
• Track the Pattern: Learners listen to a passage multiple times and highlight recurring collocations or grammatical patterns, training their ear to notice structured repetition.
• Guess the Next Word: Learners listen to a sentence or short passage and pause before a target collocation or chunk. They predict what comes next, encouraging anticipation and awareness of typical lexical patterns.
• Listening as Modelling (LAM): Use rich audio texts and follow-up activities to help learners notice and internalise collocations.
• Listening Cloze: Provide a transcript with missing collocations. Learners fill in the blanks while listening.
• Minimal Pairs with Chunks: Focus on collocations that differ by a single word (“take a break” vs. “make a break”) to build discrimination.
• Narrow Listening: Provide several audio clips on the same topic, all containing key collocations, for focused exposure.
• Transcription and Chunking: Learners transcribe a short audio segment and highlight the collocations, then reflect on why they work together.

Speaking Activities

• Chain Reaction: Each learner adds a sentence using a new collocation that links logically to the previous one.
• Chain Storytelling: In groups, learners build a story sentence by sentence, each incorporating a given collocation.
• Debate with Collocations: Assign collocation banks for persuasive language (“weigh the evidence,” “draw a conclusion”).
• Drill Chains: Learners repeat and vary common collocations (“go shopping,” “go running,” “go swimming”).
• Find Someone Who: Mingling activity using collocational prompts to gather information from peers.
• Fluency Tasks with Constraints: Learners must use at least 5 academic or idiomatic collocations during a presentation.
• Mind Reading: Teacher thinks of a sentence with a collocation; students guess by asking yes/no questions.
• Oral Ping-Pong: Pairs engage in rapid exchanges using target collocations in fluent, spontaneous ways.
• Prompted Opinions: Learners respond to prompts using target collocations (“I believe strongly that…”, “I take the view that…”).
• Role Play with Prompts: Give situations (e.g., ordering food, meeting someone) and collocation prompts to use.
• Debate with Collocations: Assign collocation banks for persuasive language (“weigh the evidence,” “draw a conclusion”).
• Fluency Tasks with Constraints: Learners must use at least 5 academic or idiomatic collocations during a presentation.

Conclusion

If vocabulary is the building block of language, then collocations are the cement that binds those blocks together. Research consistently confirms that collocational competence is key to fluent, natural, and contextually appropriate language use. From Firth’s early insights to Hoey’s priming theory and contemporary SLA studies, the evidence is overwhelming: teaching words through their habitual contexts is not just beneficial—it’s essential.

Classroom activities across reading, writing, listening, and speaking should prioritise meaningful input and output that highlight and reinforce collocational patterns. With practice, learners can internalise not just what words mean, but how they live and behave—by the company they keep.

References

Barcroft, J. (2007). Effect of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 57(1), 35–56.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 23–48). Pearson.

Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.

Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92(1–2), 101–144.

Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Routledge.

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Language Teaching Publications.

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

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–179.

Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. Bloomsbury.

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

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.

Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.

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

Introduction

As someone who has spent the last three decades immersed in language pedagogy, I often find myself asking: what actually works in the classroom? Not what sounds good. Not what’s fashionable. But what truly accelerates language learning, deepens retention, and empowers learners?

This article was born out of that question—and out of countless conversations with teachers struggling to cut through the noise of educational fads. I also wrote it because I’ve seen the impact that evidence-informed instruction can have, not just in research, but in real classrooms with real students.

What follows is a personal distillation of the ten most robust, research-backed techniques in second language instruction. My aim here is not to offer gimmicks, but to highlight the practices that the science supports—so that we can teach with both confidence and clarity.

The following instructional techniques, that I am sure you all know very well and may have used over the years, are grounded in decades of research in cognitive psychology, applied linguistics, and Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA). They work across proficiency levels and are adaptable to most classroom contexts.

Before we dive in, a quick caveat: this “top 10” list reflects my own reading and interpretation of the research literature. While I’ve grounded each choice in credible studies, it’s important to acknowledge that some techniques have been studied more extensively than others. That doesn’t necessarily mean the lesser-researched ones are less effective—only that they haven’t been scrutinised as deeply by the research community. In fact, with more empirical attention, some of the lower-ranked strategies in this article might well deserve a higher place. Ranking anything in education is always context-sensitive, and this list is no exception.

1. Spaced Retrieval Practice

The what: Spaced retrieval involves helping learners bring previously encountered language items back to mind at intervals spaced over time — rather than cramming or massed review. It’s not just about repetition, but about retrieving language from memory under slightly effortful conditions. This might take the form of a delayed translation quiz, a recall activity based on past readings, or a structured writing task recalling last week’s key structures. Crucially, this retrieval is spaced, meaning it recurs after learners have begun to forget, which strengthens the memory trace significantly.

The why: This is one current fad wich is actually endorsed by credible findings. Research in cognitive psychology and second language acquisition strongly supports the efficacy of retrieval practice. Roediger and Karpicke (2006) showed that retrieving information, rather than simply re-reading it, significantly improves long-term memory. Pavlik and Anderson (2005) demonstrated that spaced retrieval strengthens memory traces and supports consolidation. In the L2 context, Barcroft (2007) and Nakata (2011) confirmed that spaced recall enhances vocabulary retention and supports grammar acquisition. Retrieval also encourages deeper encoding and strengthens form-meaning connections, making it a vital technique for long-term learning.

The how: Use warm-up activities that revisit previous weeks’ content: sentence transformations, oral recall tasks, or closed-book dictations. Rotate vocabulary and grammar systematically across weeks. Create a retrieval practice schedule that ensures older vocabulary is revisited in tandem with more recent lexical sets—this not only promotes depth of processing, but also supports cross-category activation and retrieval flexibility. Research by Webb and Nation (2017) suggests that combining related and unrelated lexical fields enhances retention by fostering both differentiation and semantic linking. Digital flashcards with spaced algorithms (e.g., Anki) also support this process. Peer quizzing (e.g. Oral ping-pong, No snakes no ladders, Pyramid translation) is another powerful tool: when learners test one another, they benefit not only from retrieval but from the feedback and interaction involved in the process. Research by Karpicke and Blunt (2011) and Dobson (2011) shows that collaborative retrieval activities can enhance memory even more than solo retrieval, as explaining and negotiating language deepens processing. Furthermore, a growing body of research (e.g., Kang et al., 2019) supports the idea that repeated retrieval across increasing intervals—especially when content is revisited in varied social contexts—consolidates retention and transfer more effectively than solitary study.

2. Input Flood + Focus on Form

The what: Input flood is a technique in which learners are immersed in language input that contains an unusually high frequency of a specific target form—be it grammatical (like the past tense) or lexical (such as adjectives of opinion). Unlike mechanical drills, the input is meaning-focused and embedded within communicative or authentic texts (e.g., dialogues, articles, stories, videos). The goal is not to overtly teach the rule at first, but to increase the salience of the form through sheer repetition in context. To maximise effectiveness, input flood is often combined with a “focus on form”—a subtle pedagogical intervention (like underlining or enunciating with more enphasis, brief questioning, gapping the target items in the text for a dictation asking the students to track all the occurrences of the target structure, ) that draws learners’ attention to the target structure. This blend of frequent exposure and guided noticing makes the input both engaging and form-rich without being intrusive.

The why: Ellis (2002) notes that frequency effects play a vital role in language acquisition: the more often learners encounter a structure, the more likely it is to be processed and internalised. But frequency alone isn’t enough. Schmidt (2001) highlighted the role of noticing: learners need to consciously attend to linguistic features for intake to occur. Doughty and Williams (1998) demonstrated that focus-on-form strategies embedded in communicative tasks help bridge the gap between fluency and accuracy. Shintani (2015) and Spada and Tomita (2010) further confirm that learners benefit most when form-focused instruction is integrated within meaning-focused activities.

The how: Use texts, audio clips, or dialogues where the target form is used repeatedly but naturally. Follow this with guided noticing activities: underlining, reformulation, or transformation. For example, after listening to a dialogue full of past tenses, gap it, have students reconstruct it in the present or stage a listen-and-spot-the-error activity, drawing attention to verb forms. Learners can also sort sentences by structure or rewrite extracts using alternative forms.

3. Pushed Output Tasks

The what: Pushed output refers to tasks that compel learners to produce language that stretches them beyond memorised or habitual patterns. These tasks don’t just ask students to “say something”; they require precision, elaboration, or reformulation — all of which activate deeper processing. Think of a learner trying to explain a past holiday experience and realising they need the past perfect to clarify sequencing. Or one engaging in a debate who must reach for modal verbs to express nuance. That gap—the moment of linguistic struggle—is where the learning happens.

The why: Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1995, 2005) argues that producing language forces learners to process syntax, notice gaps in their interlanguage, and push toward more accurate forms. Izumi (2002) found that output combined with enhanced input led to greater grammatical gains than input alone. Please note that giving students planning time in preparation for pushed output tasks seems to enhance performance. Yuan and Ellis (2003) demonstrated that even limited planning time before output improves fluency and complexity. More recently, Suzuki and DeKeyser (2017) emphasised that the benefits of output are amplified when learners are required to reformulate or self-correct.

The how: Use tasks like structured dialogues, articles, role-plays, information-gap activities debates, opinion writing, or storytelling with constraints (e.g., “Tell the story using at least three conditional sentences”). Provide sentence builders or scaffolds, then slowly reduce support. Encourage learners to rephrase or retell ideas in different ways, noticing how expression changes with form. The above-mentioned peer-testing activities (e.g. Oral ping-pong) are effective ways to prep the students for pushed-output tasks.

4. Task Repetition with Variation

What it is: Rather than constantly introducing new tasks, this technique involves learners repeating the same task multiple times — but with changes to content, audience, or conditions. For example, a student might tell the same story to three different classmates, each time with new details or under time pressure. The task format remains stable, but the novelty in content keeps it engaging while allowing fluency and accuracy to develop in parallel.

Why it works: Task repetition allows for proceduralisation — the shift from controlled to automatic processing (DeKeyser, 2007). Bygate (2001) showed that repetition improves fluency and control over language structures. Lynch and Maclean (2001) found that learners become more syntactically accurate and lexically varied when repeating tasks. Ahmadian and Tavakoli (2011) reported that task repetition particularly benefits mid-level learners who are consolidating structural control. Ellis (2009) emphasised that repetition reduces cognitive load, freeing up attention for form.

How to use it: Use the same communicative task multiple times across lessons, each with a slight twist: change the interlocutor, time limits, or information. After initial output, include feedback and reformulation, then have learners redo the task. This allows learners to “upgrade” their language in meaningful contexts. In the MARSEARS framework, this technique is used extensively. A classic example of an activity involving task repetition are the 4,3,2 technique and Market place.

5. Interaction + Corrective Feedback

What it is: This technique focuses on engaging learners in meaningful communication while providing feedback—either implicit (like recasts) or explicit (like prompts). Interaction might be peer-to-peer or with the teacher, but it includes real-time negotiation of meaning. Errors are not ignored but are gently addressed within the flow of conversation.

Why it works: Interaction promotes both input and output, creating opportunities for noticing and repair. Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis argues that modified input during interaction facilitates acquisition. Lyster and Ranta (1997) distinguished feedback types and showed that prompts led to more learner self-repair than recasts. Mackey and Goo (2007) confirmed that interaction with feedback enhances grammatical development, especially when learners are developmentally ready. Gass and Mackey (2015) highlight that the feedback must be timely and context-sensitive to be effective.

How to use it: Use jigsaw tasks, role plays, or problem-solving activities that require real-time negotiation. When learners make errors, use clarification requests (“Sorry? Did you mean…?”), metalinguistic prompts (“What’s the correct verb form?”), or recasts (rephrasing the error correctly). Encourage peer correction using sentence starters or correction cards to keep feedback structured and supportive.

6. Text Reconstruction and Sentence Processing Tasks

What it is: Text reconstruction tasks involve learners working with fragmented or incomplete texts to rebuild coherent language structures. This includes techniques like jigsaw reading/listening, dictogloss (where students reconstruct a short text after listening), and sentence puzzles (where students reassemble jumbled sentences). These tasks engage learners in noticing, collaboration, and deep syntactic processing.

Why it works: These tasks have strong empirical support. Wajnryb (1990) introduced dictogloss as a task that promotes both meaning-focused listening and form-focused reconstruction. Swain (2005) noted its alignment with the Output Hypothesis, as learners negotiate meaning and form while reconstructing language. Studies by Kowal and Swain (1994) and Storch (2007) found that collaborative reconstruction fosters metatalk, scaffolding, and language-related episodes, all of which enhance acquisition. García Mayo (2017) and Shintani (2018) highlight that these tasks are especially effective in drawing learners’ attention to grammatical relationships in context.

How to use it: For dictogloss, use short, content-rich texts with multiple target forms. Read the text aloud or play a recording 2–3 times. Learners take notes, then work in pairs or groups to reconstruct the original version as closely as possible. Follow with feedback, comparison to the original, and reflection on language choices. Sentence puzzles can be used similarly at a micro level to focus on syntax, cohesion, or discourse markers. Note that with beginners to lower intermediate students (KS2 to KS4 UK) sentence puzzles are more conducive to noticing and learning when supported by the L1 translation (see http://www.language-gym.com for examples).

7. Lexical Chunks and Formulaic Sequences Practice

What it is: This technique involves explicit instruction and practice with high-frequency lexical bundles and formulaic expressions — sequences of words that native speakers use regularly and automatically. These might include collocations (e.g., “make a decision”), discourse markers (“on the other hand”), or sentence stems (“I think it’s important to…”). Such chunks help learners produce language more fluently and naturally by reducing cognitive load and supporting message construction.

Why it works: Research by Wray (2002), Nation (2013), and Boers and Lindstromberg (2008) underscores the centrality of formulaic language in fluent L2 use. Learners who master common chunks are better able to focus on meaning and interaction rather than grammar assembly in real time. Studies also show that teaching collocations explicitly improves retention, fluency, and idiomaticity (Webb, 2005; Peters, 2009). These chunks provide linguistic building blocks for both comprehension and output.

How to use it: Select thematic or functional chunks relevant to upcoming tasks. Model through, flashcards, knowledge organizers or sentence builders, provide copious highly patterned oral and written input flooded with the target chunks, then stage controlled practice tasks (e.g. word substitution activities, peer testing games, gap-fills, highly structured role plays ), followed by semi-guided production using those chunks (e.g., structured dialogues, paragraph building). Recycle frequently across contexts. Encourage learners to keep personal phrasebooks of useful expressions.

8. Editing Instruction and Guided Revision

What it is: Editing instruction focuses on helping learners identify, understand, and revise their own written errors—either independently, with peers, or through structured teacher feedback. This can include teaching error codes, using guided checklists, analysing model texts, and practicing revision strategies. Editing is not limited to grammar correction; it includes reorganising content, improving cohesion, and refining clarity.

Why it works: Research shows that when learners are explicitly taught how to edit and revise, their writing accuracy and complexity improve. Ferris (2006) and Bitchener & Knoch (2010) found that focused feedback combined with editing instruction yields better long-term improvement than feedback alone. Sachs & Polio (2007) demonstrated that revision activities help students process feedback more deeply. Storch (2004) and Manchón (2011) highlight how peer editing and reflective revision foster metalinguistic awareness, collaborative dialogue, and uptake of language forms. Editing instruction also supports autonomy and strategic thinking.

How to use it: Use a staged revision cycle: have learners write a draft, receive coded or guided feedback, and revise using checklists or peer comments. Teach error correction symbols and model the revision process on shared texts. Incorporate peer-editing with sentence stems like “I suggest changing…” or “This sentence could be clearer if…”. Revisions should be purposeful and tracked, allowing learners to see and reflect on their development. Please note: it is key to be as selective as possible in the choice of which errors to focus your students on, when it comes to editing instruction. Start with a few key problematic areas first and, as the students grow confident, gradually widen the scope.

9. Aural Structured Input Tasks

The what: Structured input tasks are comprehension-based activities that force learners to process the target form correctly to complete the task. They differ from traditional input in that learners cannot succeed without attending to the grammatical feature being taught. These tasks are often part of or inspired by Processing Instruction, but can be used independently.

The why: Studies by VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), Wong (2003), and Conti (2004) show that structured input tasks significantly improve learners’ ability to interpret and later produce target forms. They are particularly effective for morphosyntactic features (e.g., tense, number, gender) that are often overlooked in rapid input.

The how: Design tasks that require learners to match sentences to pictures, select true statements, or follow commands based on the correct processing of form (e.g., “Choose the picture that shows: The girl is being chased by the dog”). Emphasise comprehension, not output, until learners demonstrate consistent processing. Here’s an example**:** To help learners in Spanish notice gender agreement, present them with a series of images depicting male and female characters performing actions (e.g., el chico contento, la chica contenta). Then, provide written sentences such as “El chico está contento” and “La chica está contenta” with the endings underlined or colour-coded. Ask learners to match each sentence to the correct picture, paying attention to the adjective endings. Follow this with a structured input task where they must choose between options like “contento” or “contenta” based on image prompts. Reinforce noticing with follow-up questions: “Why did you choose ‘contenta’ here? What changed when the subject was ‘la chica’?” This combination of meaning-focused input and form-focused reflection helps solidify understanding of gender agreement patterns.

10. Metalinguistic Awareness Tasks

The what: Metalinguistic awareness tasks prompt learners to reflect on language form, structure, and function consciously. These tasks ask learners to compare, explain, or reformulate language, often encouraging them to notice patterns, articulate rules, or hypothesise about usage. This may take the form of grammar explanation discussions, sentence transformation challenges, or error analysis activities.

The why: Research in ISLA supports the role of metalinguistic awareness in promoting explicit knowledge that can later support implicit learning (Ellis, 2004; DeKeyser, 2003). L2 learners who engage in language-related episodes (LREs) while working collaboratively develop stronger form-function mappings (Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Storch, 2002). Tasks that develop metalinguistic thinking promote noticing (Schmidt, 2001) and help learners transition from declarative to procedural knowledge (DeKeyser, 2007). 

The how: Use contrastive grammar tasks (e.g., comparing two similar sentences and discussing which is correct and why or compare the L1 and L2 equivalent and guide the students to notice the differences), guided discovery activities, or collaborative error analysis. Encourage learners to explain their reasoning, reflect on grammar explanations, or reformulate incorrect utterances. These tasks can be integrated into pair work or as a reflective follow-up to productive tasks.

Please note: this technique is better suited for intermediate and advanced learners, as well as adolescents and adults who have the cognitive maturity to engage with grammar at an abstract level. It tends to be less suited to very young learners or beginners without adequate language foundation, though simplified versions can be adapted accordingly.

Ranked Summary by Research Support

The following table ranks the ten instructional techniques included in this article according to the strength of their research backing in peer-reviewed studies within the fields of ISLA and applied linguistics:

Rank	Technique	Research Support	Core Focus
1	Spaced Retrieval Practice	Very strong	Long-term memory, vocabulary, grammar
2	Interaction + Corrective Feedback	Very strong	Grammar, fluency, negotiation of meaning
3	Input Flood + Focus on Form	Strong	Grammar awareness, noticing
4	Pushed Output Tasks	Strong	Output accuracy, syntactic restructuring
5	Task Repetition with Variation	Strong	Fluency, proceduralisation
6	Structured Input Tasks	Moderate–strong	Form-meaning connections
7	Text Reconstruction and Sentence Processing	Moderate–strong	Syntax, collaboration, noticing
8	Lexical Chunks and Formulaic Sequences Practice	Moderate–strong	Fluency, idiomaticity
9	Editing Instruction and Guided Revision	Moderate	Writing accuracy, metalinguistic skills
10	Metalinguistic Awareness Tasks	Moderate	Grammar analysis, noticing, reflection

11. Conclusion

I wrote this piece not just as a teacher who cares deeply about the learner experience. If you’re like me, you’ve spent countless hours planning lessons, refining tasks, and wondering whether what you’re doing is actually making a difference. The techniques described here are my attempt to answer that question with a degree of certainty grounded in research—not just intuition.

They’re also the backbone of the pedagogical approach I have promoted for years: structured, principled, and focused on long-term gains rather than short-term performance. None of these techniques are magic bullets. But together, they form a toolkit that reflects what the best of second language acquisition research has to offer.

I hope this post helps you teach with more confidence and more impact—and that it saves you time, energy, and frustration in the long run.

These ten techniques represent some of the most thoroughly researched and consistently effective methods in second language instruction. From spaced retrieval to interaction with feedback, each of these approaches is grounded in decades of empirical evidence and aligns with our understanding of how languages are learned in classroom settings.

No single technique works in isolation, but together, they offer a robust foundation for principled and powerful language teaching. Effective instruction doesn’t require flashy innovation — it requires applying what works. And what works is clear when we follow the research.

These ten techniques — spaced retrieval, input flood with focus on form, pushed output, task repetition, and interaction with feedback — are not passing fads. They are evidence-based strategies with a strong theoretical and empirical foundation. More importantly, they are adaptable and classroom-ready.

Language learning is complex, but effective instruction doesn’t have to be complicated. When research meets principled pedagogy, learners thrive.

References

• Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35–59. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388693
• Conti, G. (2004). Metacognitive enhancement and error correction: An investigation in the impact of self monitoring strategies on L2 Italian student writing. PhD thesis, University of Reading. Available at: https://books.google.com.my/books/about/Metacognitive_Enhancement_and_Error_Corr.html?id=SIhayQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y 
• Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35–59.
• Barcroft, J. (2015). Lexical Input Processing and Vocabulary Learning. John Benjamins. Available at: https://benjamins.com/catalog/lllt.41
• Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 23–48). Longman. Available via publisher collections or academic databases.
• DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275
• Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524506
• Ellis, R. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024
• Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246.
• Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773202
• Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–577.
• Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.
• Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate et al. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Longman.
• 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.
• Nakata, T. (2011). Computer-assisted second language vocabulary learning in a paired-associate paradigm: Effects of spacing and delayed feedback. System, 39(1), 64–76.
• Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 559–586.
• Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
• Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
• Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of focus on form and focus on forms instruction in the acquisition of productive vocabulary knowledge. System, 52, 1–12.
• Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.
• Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences. Language Learning, 67(4), 747–790.
• 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 University Press.
• Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Routledge.
• Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How Vocabulary is Learned. Oxford University Press.
• Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27.

Introduction

Adolescence has always been a time of change—but never like this. Ten years ago, a typical teenager might have carried a flip phone, passed notes in class, and spent evenings watching TV with their family. Fast forward to today, and you’ll find adolescents curating their identities on TikTok, navigating complex social dynamics through Instagram, and digesting world news—often unfiltered—before bedtime. From Toronto to London to Berlin, teenagers are coming of age in a world that’s more connected, more demanding, and more confusing than ever before.

As a parent to a 13-year-old daughter, I’ve watched this evolution not just as an educator, but as someone deeply invested in a young person’s wellbeing. The rapid changes in how teens experience the world have raised many questions for me—not only about how they navigate their emotional, social, and academic lives, but also how prepared we are as adults to support them through this journey. My concern for my daughter’s future has motivated me to research these shifts more closely, hoping to understand the broader context in which she and her peers are growing up.

Equally, as teachers, it’s essential that we understand the mindset and reality of the adolescents we work with. Their behaviours, attitudes, and emotional states are not formed in isolation—they’re responses to a world that has changed rapidly and profoundly. If we want our teaching to be impactful, especially in the context of language education, we must begin by understanding who our learners are today. This article explores how adolescents have evolved over the past decade and what that means for the way we teach them languages now.

The issues reported by research and how they impact learning

1. Digital Hyperconnectivity and Social Media
Across the UK, North America, and Europe, teenagers are deeply immersed in digital life. In the UK, Ofcom (2023) reports that 97% of 12–15-year-olds own a smartphone. In the US, Pew Research Center (2022) finds that over 90% of teens use social media daily. Platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat dominate their routines. In Germany, too, social media use among teens has grown, with many spending several hours a day connected. While these platforms provide connection and creativity, they also contribute to distraction, social comparison, and sleep deprivation (Orben & Przybylski, 2019). It’s not uncommon for educators across these regions to report students arriving to class mentally fatigued, emotionally dysregulated, or preoccupied by online events.

A growing number of teenagers are struggling with emotional dysregulation—the difficulty in managing and responding appropriately to emotional experiences. This may manifest as mood swings, irritability, impulsivity, or sudden withdrawal, and is often exacerbated by hormonal changes, online stressors, and the fast-paced nature of digital life. Social media can amplify emotional triggers while offering few tools for resolution or support.

Impact on Learning: In the classroom, emotional dysregulation can lead to inconsistent engagement, conflicts with peers, avoidance of tasks, and challenges with concentration. It may also result in disproportionate reactions to negative feedback or stress. Language learning, which relies heavily on interaction, self-expression, and risk-taking, can be particularly affected. Learners may shut down during communicative tasks or feel overwhelmed by open-ended activities that require emotional regulation and sustained focus.

2. Mental Health Trends and Awareness
The rise in adolescent mental health issues is evident across both Europe and North America. NHS Digital (2022) found that nearly 1 in 5 children in the UK has a probable mental disorder, while the CDC (2023) reports similar trends in the US. Canada has seen a similar increase in teen anxiety, depression, and self-harming behaviours, with waiting lists for youth mental health services growing. Contributing factors include exam stress, body image concerns, online harassment, and exposure to global crises. Although stigma is decreasing, access to mental health support remains inconsistent and often inequitable.

Impact on Learning: Poor mental health undermines working memory, resilience, and classroom participation. Learners may struggle with engagement, attendance, and self-regulation. Teachers are increasingly called upon to provide emotional scaffolding alongside academic content, often without sufficient training or institutional support. A poor working memory, of course, impacts the learning of vocabulary and grammar, hence this can have a devastating effect on language learning.

3. Changing Educational Norms
Remote learning during the pandemic reshaped educational experiences globally. While digital fluency increased, many adolescents across the UK, Canada, and the US reported challenges with motivation, loneliness, and lack of structure (OECD, 2020). European schools experienced similar trends, particularly in low-income regions where access to technology was limited. The blended learning model has persisted, but it has also revealed digital divides and increased learner isolation, with teachers needing to adapt quickly to changing expectations.

Impact on Learning: Self-regulated learning skills have become essential—but not all students are equipped with them. Many find it difficult to manage deadlines, organise learning, or sustain independent study habits. Additionally, classroom norms have shifted, with some learners finding it harder to transition back into face-to-face collaboration and routines. For language learners, the shift to remote and blended learning has had mixed consequences. On one hand, digital platforms have increased access to audiovisual input and language-learning apps, encouraging independent study. However, the loss of in-person interaction has been particularly detrimental to language development, which thrives on real-time communication, immediate feedback, and emotional connection. Many learners became passive consumers of content, with limited opportunities for meaningful output, peer collaboration, or spontaneous use of language. Motivation suffered, especially among those who rely on the social dimension of the classroom to stay engaged. Teachers also faced the challenge of maintaining consistency in practice and recycling of key structures—fundamental elements of second language acquisition—without the natural rhythm of in-class routines.

4. Identity Formation and Social Awareness
Teenagers today are growing up with heightened awareness of social issues—climate change, racial justice, gender equality—and participate in these discussions from a young age. Movements like Black Lives Matter and Fridays for Future resonate across classrooms from London to Toronto to Berlin. In France, recent youth engagement in climate marches has shown how socially active this generation is. However, increased exposure to polarised viewpoints via algorithm-driven content on social media and other internet-based sources can also lead to confusion, frustration, or disengagement (Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2021).

Impact on Learning: Students often seek meaning and relevance in what they study. Language education disconnected from real-world topics can feel abstract or irrelevant, leading to disengagement. Moreover, materials that ignore or oversimplify social complexities may be perceived as out-of-touch, especially by teens keenly aware of injustice or bias. From an L2 learning perspective, teenagers’ heightened awareness of social and political issues offers both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, their engagement with real-world topics aligns well with the principle that meaningful, personally relevant input enhances processing and retention. Tasks that allow learners to explore ethical debates, cultural perspectives, or global concerns through the target language can lead to deeper engagement and more purposeful output. However, the emotionally charged and often polarising nature of these topics requires sensitive handling. Without proper scaffolding, learners may feel overwhelmed or anxious, which can inhibit participation and risk-taking—both essential to language development. Additionally, learners may bring preconceived views or misinformation into the classroom, so language tasks must strike a careful balance between open discussion and linguistic structure. When well designed, these tasks can promote both intercultural competence and linguistic development in line with ISLA principles.

5. Risk, Autonomy, and Safety
Teens are more digitally literate than ever but face increased digital surveillance by parents, schools, and online platforms. In both Europe and North America, academic pressure and standardised testing (e.g. GCSEs in the UK, SATs in the US) compound performance anxiety. In countries like the Netherlands and Sweden, while standardised testing is less central, teens still report feeling intense pressure to succeed. At the same time, young people are demanding more autonomy and voice—expressing themselves through content creation, political activism, and online communities.

Impact on Learning: Learners may resist overly rigid classroom control and seek opportunities for authentic communication, autonomy, and creative expression. A one-size-fits-all approach can alienate students who are navigating individual identities and values. In the context of L2 learning, the tension between increased academic pressure and the adolescent drive for autonomy has significant implications. Performance anxiety linked to high-stakes testing can lead learners to view language learning as a box-ticking exercise rather than a communicative skill, reducing intrinsic motivation and willingness to take risks—both key drivers of language acquisition. Moreover, surveillance-heavy digital environments may discourage authentic expression or experimentation with language, especially in speaking and creative writing tasks. However, teens’ desire for self-expression and agency presents a powerful opportunity for language educators. Activities that offer structured personalisation—such as adapting model texts, creating short digital content in the target language, or debating topics relevant to their world—can restore a sense of ownership. These approaches support ISLA by fostering meaningful output, emotional investment, and deeper processing of form and meaning.

6. Lifestyle and Physical Health

Sedentary behaviour continues to rise among adolescents in Europe and North America (WHO, 2022). Screen time, school-related stress, and limited access to green spaces in urban environments have all contributed to this trend. While public health campaigns promote movement and active lifestyles, many teens report spending most of their day sitting—whether in front of a screen at home, in the classroom, or on public transport.

At the same time, many adolescents are embracing wellness culture with increasing intensity. From mindfulness apps to plant-based diets, strength training, and yoga, wellbeing has become both a personal and social trend. Influencers on platforms like Instagram and TikTok often play a central role in promoting health-related content—though not always grounded in evidence. In countries like Spain and Italy, traditional meal practices centred around family gatherings and whole foods continue to provide some protective influence, though young people increasingly report skipping meals or obsessing over diet trends. However, pressures related to appearance and health misinformation also proliferate on social media.

Impact on Learning: Low physical activity levels can reduce energy and focus in class, while wellbeing interests offer an entry point for language lessons based on lifestyle, routines, and health-related themes. Moreover, conversations around health can open up vocabulary-rich contexts for meaningful discussions. The rise in sedentary behaviour and wellness culture among adolescents intersects with language learning in both direct and indirect ways. Physically inactive learners may struggle with reduced energy levels, lower concentration, and increased mental fatigue, which can limit their ability to stay engaged in cognitively demanding language tasks.

Implications for teaching

Drawing on principles from Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA), language teaching for adolescents must support emotional, cognitive, and social needs. The following implications respond directly to the challenges discussed above and are presented in a logical sequence—from input processing to output, engagement, and autonomy.

To begin, language input must be carefully designed to be both accessible and engaging. Since many teenagers struggle with fragmented attention spans due to constant digital exposure, introducing rich, comprehensible input that taps into their interests—such as video clips, music, or podcast snippets about school life, gaming, or social dilemmas—can help promote sustained focus and deeper processing. Activities might include matching spoken texts to images, reconstructing scripts from scrambled dialogues, or using narrow listening tasks based on recurring sentence patterns. These strategies reflect the importance of meaningful input and processing as emphasised by Loewen (2015).

In tandem with this, scaffolding language production is crucial. Sentence builders, narrow translation, and writing frames can ease the pressure on working memory while supporting fluency and accuracy. These tools are particularly beneficial for students experiencing academic stress, as they offer structured opportunities to succeed and gradually internalise key grammar and vocabulary patterns. This aligns with Doughty and Williams’ (1998) advocacy for focus on form in structured environments. Teachers might use a sentence builder to guide a scaffolded opinion paragraph or provide colour-coded prompts for oral responses in pairs.

Reinforcement is also key. Embedding low-stakes retrieval practice into daily routines—through whiteboard games, oral drills, or mini quizzes—helps strengthen long-term retention and combat the shallow learning habits often reinforced by digital multitasking. Research by Pavlik and Anderson (2005) supports the role of spaced retrieval in enhancing vocabulary acquisition. For example, teachers can revisit key phrases with timed recall games, or integrate oral gap-fill challenges into lesson starters.

Consistency across topics further boosts retention and fluency. Rather than introducing entirely new structures with each unit, recycling high-frequency constructions such as opinion or comparison phrases helps learners proceduralise grammar. This strategy is in line with DeKeyser’s (2007) work on the importance of proceduralisation in L2 development. This could involve revisiting the same scaffolded sentence frames across multiple units—e.g. comparing sports, foods, or school subjects using the same underlying language structures.

Beyond form-focused instruction, adolescents also benefit greatly from emotionally resonant tasks that reflect their lives and identities. When language learning connects to who they are and what they care about, motivation increases. For instance, asking students to write about someone they admire, describe a personal experience, or share their goals in the target language can give real meaning to the task. These activities support the psychological need for relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which underpins intrinsic motivation. Tasks like “About Me” surveys or “script-and-adapt” dialogues allow learners to personalise language in low-pressure formats. Structured card-based dialogues or script-and-adapt pair tasks can be useful formats. When students see language as a tool for self-expression, rather than just something to be memorised, they are more likely to engage deeply. As Ushioda (2011) notes, motivation grows when learners perceive the language as relevant to their lives. Ellis (2005) further highlights how meaningful output promotes interlanguage development — especially when learners have the space to experiment and reflect on their use of language. Ellis (2005) underscores the value of meaningful output in driving interlanguage development.

Authentic communicative opportunities also play a vital role. Role-play scenarios, such as making plans, giving advice, or navigating a social situation, offer teens a safe yet relevant context in which to apply what they’ve learned. These simulations build confidence, particularly for students who crave real-world relevance in their learning. Structured card-based dialogues or script-and-adapt pair tasks can be useful formats. Ellis (2005) underscores the value of meaningful output in driving interlanguage development.

Collaboration, often limited in hybrid and remote learning environments, should be reintroduced through project-based work. Creating digital magazines, campaign posters, or travel guides in pairs or small groups combines interaction with tangible goals, enhancing motivation and reinforcing communicative competence. Students might use collaborative templates to design brochures or produce short video presentations in the target language. Swain’s (2005) Output Hypothesis highlights the importance of peer interaction for language development through co-construction of meaning.

Autonomy can be nurtured through structured personalisation. Offering students controlled choices—such as selecting vocabulary from a list or creating their own versions of model texts—provides a sense of ownership while keeping language output accurate and focused. Tasks like “write your own dialogue using these sentence stems” or “adapt this story to fit your interests” give learners a sense of voice within a safe framework. This supports Loewen’s (2015) assertion that autonomy, when scaffolded, promotes deeper engagement.

Clear progress tracking and timely, formative feedback can help manage performance anxiety. Visual tools like checklists, traffic light systems, or colour-coded corrections make success visible and build learners’ confidence. Teachers might use a “skills ladder” to show how students move from guided practice to greater independence, reinforcing their sense of growth. Research by Ushioda (2011) reinforces that visible progress enhances motivation and metacognitive awareness.

Finally, integrating global themes that matter to adolescents—such as sustainability, fairness, or identity—makes language learning more meaningful. Tasks that invite learners to express opinions, evaluate viewpoints, or explore ethical dilemmas through the target language allow them to connect personal and global issues while developing both linguistic and critical thinking skills. For example, students might compare environmentally friendly habits across cultures or debate school policies using structured sentence frames. García Mayo (2017) supports the integration of intercultural content to enhance both language competence and social awareness.ating an increasingly digital, socially complex, and emotionally demanding world—one that challenges traditional models of teaching and learning. For language educators, this changing landscape calls for responsive, research-informed pedagogy that goes beyond vocabulary lists and grammar drills. Instead, we need approaches that speak to the whole learner—cognitively, emotionally, and socially.

Conclusions

By aligning classroom practices with learners’ evolving needs and integrating ISLA-informed principles, teachers can foster both linguistic competence and personal growth. Language learning, after all, is not just about acquiring another code—it’s about finding your voice in another world. And in a time when teenagers are searching harder than ever for who they are, helping them do so in more than one language is an opportunity not to be missed.

References

• DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.
• García Mayo, M. del P. (2017). Learning Foreign Languages in Primary Education. John Benjamins.
• Livingstone, S., & Blum-Ross, A. (2021). Parenting for a Digital Future: How Hopes and Fears About Technology Shape Children’s Lives. Oxford University Press.
• Loewen, S. (2015). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.
• NHS Digital. (2022). Mental Health of Children and Young People in England 2022. Retrieved from https://digital.nhs.uk
• OECD. (2020). Education Responses to COVID-19: Embracing Digital Learning and Online Collaboration. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org
• Ofcom. (2023). Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.ofcom.org.uk
• Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The Association Between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 173–182.
• Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and Forgetting Effects on Vocabulary Memory: An Activation-Based Model of the Spacing Effect. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 559–586.
• Pew Research Center. (2022). Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org
• Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471–483). Routledge.
• Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Multilingual Matters.
• VanPatten, B., & Smith, M. (2015). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Routledge.
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2022). Adolescent Physical Activity Factsheet – Europe. Retrieved from https://www.who.int

0. Introduction

In the field of second language education, the question of what constitutes an outstanding language teacher has been widely investigated. In this article I synthesise findings from leading researchers, including Simon Borg, Diane Larsen-Freeman, Rod Ellis, Jim Scrivener, and several other renowned researchers in the field, to outline the key attributes that define excellence in language teaching.

1. Pedagogical Content Knowledge

According to research, outstanding language teachers demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the language they teach—including grammar, phonology, lexis, and discourse—and know how to break that knowledge down in ways that suit the needs of learners at different stages. Shulman’s (1987) foundational concept of “pedagogical content knowledge” underscores the importance of being able to transform content into forms that learners can grasp and internalise. In one of the best books I have read on L2 teacher cognition, Simon Borg (2006) applies this idea specifically to language educators, arguing that great teachers understand both what to teach and how to teach it so that learners can develop communicative competence. They use models, metaphors, real-life tasks, and context-sensitive strategies to promote deep learning.

Moreover, expert teachers are aware of how different language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) interact and can integrate them effectively in lessons. In nearly three decades of language teaching, I have seen quite a few teachers struggle with this. Yet, designing effective input-to-output sequences is key.

Expert teachers also know when and how to use explicit instruction, inductive approaches, and guided discovery, drawing from evidence-based methods aligned with SLA principles.

2. Reflective Practice and Teacher Cognition

An outstanding language teacher is a reflective practitioner. According to Borg (2003), what teachers think, know, and believe—their cognition—plays a central role in how they teach. Great teachers routinely reflect on their practice: they think critically about what worked, what didn’t, and why. They use learner feedback, self-evaluation, classroom observations, and even journals to analyse their methods and decisions. Farrell (2015) emphasizes that reflective practice isn’t just a skill but a habit that contributes to sustained professional growth.

Reflection also means adapting one’s teaching in response to the evolving dynamics of the classroom. For example, if a communicative activity repeatedly fails to engage learners, a reflective teacher will explore alternatives rather than persist for the sake of consistency. This level of awareness and responsiveness is a hallmark of expert teaching.

The best educators I have worked with were highly reflective and constantly evaluated their practice in order to improve their teaching. One of the most able language teachers I have ever worked with and watched in action, never stopped doing this until the day before they retired!

3. Language Awareness

An outstanding language teacher is highly language-aware. Andrews (2007) notes that language awareness goes beyond knowing grammar rules; it includes being attuned to how language is used, how meaning is conveyed, and how learners process language. A language-aware teacher can recognise learner errors not merely as mistakes, but as insights into learners’ developing interlanguage. They can offer clear explanations and feedback tailored to individual learner needs.

Ellis (2001, 2006) supports the use of form-focused instruction (FFI), particularly when it is meaningfully integrated into communicative practice. Great teachers know when to draw attention to form and when to prioritise fluency. For instance, they may introduce a structure explicitly, then provide ample practice through communicative tasks and scaffolded production. They create environments where learners notice and recycle language in context, which research shows promotes retention and automatization.

4. Interpersonal Skills and rapport with the learners

Beyond content and pedagogy, what often distinguishes an outstanding teacher is their ability to build trust and rapport. Mercer and Kostoulas (2018) argue that language teachers play an emotional as well as instructional role. Effective teachers foster psychological safety, where learners feel supported and are willing to take risks. They greet students warmly, show interest in their lives, and provide affirming, constructive feedback.

Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) highlight how social dynamics in the classroom influence motivation and participation. A teacher who knows how to manage group cohesion, reduce learner anxiety, and foster collaboration sets the stage for meaningful interaction and deeper learning. The interpersonal domain is often where teachers leave the most lasting impression on students.

5. Learning Management and Instructional Clarity

An organised, well-managed classroom allows learning to flourish. Scrivener (2005) defines classroom management as the invisible framework that supports learning: clear instructions, smooth transitions, and logical sequencing of tasks. Harmer (2015) adds that clarity and consistency in teacher behaviour reduce learner uncertainty and increase engagement.

Outstanding teachers also make excellent use of time and space. They anticipate potential disruptions, manage pair/group dynamics, and create a rhythm that balances activity and reflection. Instructional clarity is another cornerstone—successful teachers check comprehension of instructions, model tasks, and monitor learning without overwhelming learners.

6. Adaptability, Creativity, and Professional Development

Teaching is not static, and neither are outstanding teachers. Larsen-Freeman (2000) describes language teaching as a complex, adaptive system. Great teachers welcome feedback, stay curious, and continually update their knowledge base. They reflect on their own growth and are open to trying new approaches—from integrating technology to reshaping lesson structures.

Borg (2009) and Farrell (2015) both emphasize the importance of lifelong professional learning. This may include action research, peer collaboration, conferences, or engaging with practitioner literature. Creative teachers bring freshness into the classroom—not just through fun activities, but through thoughtful adaptations that make learning more meaningful and personalised.

7. Teacher Self-Efficacy

A crucial yet often underemphasized trait of outstanding language teachers is their sense of self-efficacy—the belief in their own ability to plan, execute, and assess successful teaching strategies. Drawing from the work of Bandura (1997), teacher self-efficacy has been linked to persistence, resilience, and a greater willingness to try innovative practices, especially in challenging classroom environments. Teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to set ambitious goals for their learners, maintain motivation when faced with setbacks, and adopt a solution-oriented mindset.

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) argue that teacher self-efficacy influences not only the effort teachers invest in planning and delivering lessons, but also their openness to collaboration and reflective practice. In the language classroom, this means that confident teachers are more likely to create communicative tasks, experiment with new methodologies, and maintain a positive classroom climate. They also tend to encourage learner autonomy and foster resilience among students, modeling the kind of attitudes that support long-term language acquisition.

Moreover, self-efficacy plays a mediating role in how teachers respond to institutional demands, curriculum changes, or diverse learner needs. A teacher who believes in their capacity to adapt is more likely to succeed in implementing inclusive and differentiated practices, reinforcing the interconnected nature of the attributes discussed throughout this article.

8. Charisma

While often overlooked in academic literature, teacher charisma—understood as a teacher’s personal presence, energy, and ability to emotionally connect with students—has emerged as a powerful factor in motivating and engaging language learners. Charismatic teachers are not necessarily extroverted or theatrical, but they exhibit passion, clarity, humour, and authenticity that make their classes memorable and emotionally engaging.

Research in educational psychology supports the influence of teacher charisma. Patrick, Turner, Meyer, and Midgley (2003) found that students respond more positively to instructors who are perceived as enthusiastic and expressive. In the language classroom, charisma can facilitate emotional connection, reduce learner anxiety, and increase participation. Dörnyei (2001) also acknowledges the motivational power of the teacher’s personality, suggesting that learners often attribute their success to teachers who create a dynamic and emotionally charged learning environment.

Moreover, charismatic teachers tend to project confidence, use varied vocal delivery, and maintain purposeful eye contact and body language—elements that contribute to perceived credibility and trustworthiness (Zhang, 2009). These qualities help create the kind of interpersonal energy that sustains learner attention and builds a positive group dynamic.

While charisma cannot be taught in the conventional sense, it can be nurtured through self-awareness, practice, and the development of authentic communication styles. The most effective teachers find a way to channel their natural personalities into a presence that resonates with learners.

9. Pronunciation, Accent, and Phonological Awareness

A commonly debated topic in language teaching is whether having a native-like accent or ‘good’ pronunciation is necessary for outstanding teaching. Research in Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA) suggests that while a perfect accent is not essential, strong phonological awareness and intelligible pronunciation are important traits for effective language models (Derwing & Munro, 2005). Learners benefit when teachers model clear, accurate speech, especially during early stages of language acquisition.

In fact, Munro and Derwing (1999) distinguish between accent and intelligibility, noting that even speakers with noticeable accents can be effective communicators as long as their speech is easily understood. This supports the idea that non-native teachers, who may not speak with native-like pronunciation, can still provide excellent input and serve as effective role models for learners.

Moreover, teachers with good pronunciation awareness can better help learners notice key phonological contrasts, develop listening skills, and gain confidence in their own speech. Teaching pronunciation explicitly—through stress, intonation, rhythm, and segmental features—is increasingly recognized as a vital part of communicative competence (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010).

Therefore, while an outstanding teacher does not need to sound like a native speaker, they should possess a solid understanding of pronunciation systems and be able to model intelligible, clear speech that supports learners’ development.

10. Cultural Competence and Inclusiveness

In today’s diverse classrooms, cultural sensitivity is essential. Effective teachers acknowledge learners’ cultural identities and foster an inclusive environment. They choose materials that reflect different perspectives, use culturally relevant examples, and respect linguistic diversity. Research in intercultural competence (Byram, 1997) supports the idea that understanding students’ backgrounds enhances engagement and reduces barriers to learning.

Teachers who value inclusivity also adapt their methods to accommodate neurodiverse learners and those with special educational needs. This includes differentiating instruction and being aware of how cultural and cognitive differences influence participation.

A Note on Gaps and Research Cautions

While the qualities outlined above are widely supported in the research literature, it’s worth noting that not all of them carry equal empirical weight. For instance, the concept of teacher charisma—though undeniably impactful from a learner perspective—remains underexplored in rigorous language education research. While studies in general education (e.g., Patrick et al., 2003; Zhang, 2009) suggest links between charismatic presence and student engagement, the evidence in second language acquisition contexts is less extensive and largely anecdotal. Similarly, the emphasis placed on pronunciation and accent, while supported by studies on intelligibility (Derwing & Munro, 2005), can sometimes overshadow the broader communicative competencies that learners need to develop.

This isn’t to say these traits aren’t valuable—on the contrary, they often distinguish memorable teachers. But it’s important to approach them with nuance and to be mindful that more robust, longitudinal studies are needed to fully understand their long-term impact on language acquisition outcomes. A balanced interpretation of research can help educators reflect not only on what to cultivate, but also on how to contextualise these traits within their own teaching realities.

What the Research Says About What Matters Most

While all of the attributes discussed contribute meaningfully to effective language teaching, several stand out as especially significant in the research literature. Pedagogical content knowledge, language awareness, and teacher cognition (including reflective practice) consistently emerge as strong predictors of teaching effectiveness (Borg, 2006; Ellis, 2006; Shulman, 1987). These elements influence how well teachers can deliver input, respond to learner needs, and make informed, adaptive choices in real time.

Interpersonal skills and classroom climate also play a crucial role. Studies by Mercer and Kostoulas (2018) and Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) highlight how learner motivation and engagement are often driven more by relational dynamics than by teaching methods alone. When learners feel safe, valued, and connected, their willingness to take risks—and therefore learn—significantly increases.

Teacher self-efficacy is another particularly influential attribute. High self-efficacy correlates with increased resilience, better classroom management, and a stronger orientation toward student success (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). These findings suggest that supporting teacher confidence and autonomy can have powerful ripple effects throughout the learning environment.

Conclusion

Outstanding language teachers bring together a powerful mix of knowledge, reflection, interpersonal sensitivity, and adaptive expertise. They are not defined by a single method or credential but by their commitment to student-centred, informed, and evolving practice. Through deep content knowledge, strong interpersonal skills, and a passion for professional development, these teachers transform classrooms into inclusive, engaging spaces where language learning thrives. By grounding our understanding of excellent teaching in empirical research, we can move beyond myths and surface impressions to build meaningful professional growth.

---

References

• Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge University Press.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman and Company.
• Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
• Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education. Continuum.
• Borg, S. (2009). The nature of teacher research. English Language Teaching Journal, 63(3), 169–176.
• Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Multilingual Matters.
• Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). Teaching Pronunciation: A Course Book and Reference Guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–397.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.
• Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.
• Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. Bloomsbury.
• Harmer, J. (2015). The Practice of English Language Teaching (5th ed.). Pearson.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Mercer, S., & Kostoulas, A. (Eds.). (2018). Language Teacher Psychology: Exploring the Complexities of Individual Differences. Multilingual Matters.
• Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 49(S1), 285–310.
• Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Midgley, C. (2003). How teachers establish psychological environments during the first days of school: Associations with avoidance in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1521–1558.
• Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching: A Guidebook for English Language Teachers. Macmillan.
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
• Zhang, Q. (2009). Delivery matters: The effects of instructor expressive nonverbal behavior and immediacy on student evaluations. Communication Education, 58(3), 335–352.

1. Introduction Let’s face it—language learning is a messy, multi-layered business. It’s not just about memorising vocabulary lists or drilling verb conjugations. Beneath the surface, there’s a tangle of mental gears whirring away: memory, attention, logic, emotion, and more. And while we’d love to think that anyone can master a new language through sheer willpower and good teaching, the reality is more complex.

One factor that consistently crops up in the research? Intelligence—or more specifically, IQ. In this post, I’ll explore the sometimes uncomfortable questions:

• Does having a high IQ really give you an edge in instructed second language acquisition?
• Does a low IQ prevent you from being successful?
• If so, what are the implications for the classroom?

Language learning being a complex, multifaceted cognitive process influenced by a combination of innate ability and environmental factors, the answer is not that simple. In the below, I will deep dive into the literature on the topic in search for a solid and research-based account of the way in which IQ impacts second language learning.

2. Language Aptitude, Attitude, and IQ

Before we zoom in on how IQ shapes specific language learning abilities, it’s worth stepping back and looking at two key concepts that often get tangled up: aptitude and attitude. They might sound similar, but they pull the learner in very different ways—and understanding how IQ relates to both helps set the stage for the rest of the discussion. They aren’t just academic terms—they’re at the heart of what makes learners tick. And for us language teachers, understanding how they relate to IQ can change the way we approach planning, feedback, and support in the classroom.

Language aptitude and attitude are distinct yet complementary constructs in second language learning. Language aptitude refers to a learner’s cognitive ability to acquire language, including phonemic coding, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning, and memory. In contrast, language attitude encompasses a learner’s emotional and motivational disposition toward the target language, its speakers, and the learning process (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Recent large-scale studies (e.g., Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003) have shown that aptitude encompasses a wide range of abilities including memory for language sounds, grammatical sensitivity, and the ability to infer language rules quickly. It’s not fixed in stone, but it tends to be relatively stable. Learners with high IQ tend to score better on aptitude tests, especially those involving reasoning and memory.

Figure 1 – Skehan’s (1998) model of language aptitude

While IQ is more closely related to aptitude—particularly the analytical and memory-based components—it plays little direct role in shaping attitude. Research by Skehan (1998) and Carroll (1990) has emphasized that aptitude is partly heritable and largely cognitive, aligning closely with IQ. Attitude, however, is more influenced by sociocultural context, personal experiences, and affective factors. Importantly, high aptitude may enhance performance in formal learning environments (especially where the curriculum is grammar-heavy), but positive attitude is often a stronger predictor of sustained effort and long-term success, especially in immersive and communicative settings.

Figure 2: A visual representation of the role of attitude in language learning and how it interacts with various factors. The diagram illustrates: Attitude influencing motivation, anxiety, and self-efficacy, which shape learning behaviors. Motivation leading to effort and engagement, essential for L2 exposure. Self-efficacy boosting confidence and enjoyment, which affect classroom interaction. Classroom environment, teacher influence, and L2 exposure contributing to L2 learning success. This aligns with Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Motivational Self System and Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Mode

Understanding the interplay between aptitude, attitude, and IQ is essential for educators designing second language instruction. It is also crucial in light of research connecting IQ with socio-economic status. Studies such as those by Nisbett et al. (2012) and Sirin (2005) indicate that learners from lower-SES backgrounds are statistically more likely to score lower on IQ and aptitude tests—not necessarily due to innate ability, but due to factors like reduced exposure to literacy, nutrition, and educational opportunities. This raises important questions about equity and access in language education. Learners with high IQ may benefit from structured grammar and vocabulary tasks, while those with high motivation and positive attitudes may excel in communicative tasks—even if their cognitive aptitude is average, as attitude drives engagement, effort, and resilience in the face of setbacks. Gardner (2010) and Masgoret & Gardner (2003) found that motivation and positive attitudes often predict long-term language achievement more strongly than aptitude—particularly in less structured, immersive learning environments. A balanced approach that nurtures both dimensions can therefore optimize outcomes across diverse learner profiles.

2. Cognitive Dimensions Influenced by High IQ

2.1 Pattern Recognition
High-IQ individuals tend to excel at identifying patterns, a skill that underlies grammatical inference and syntactic comprehension. Pattern recognition facilitates faster internalization of rules governing sentence structure and morphological changes. Studies have shown that individuals with higher IQs often demonstrate superior abilities in recognizing linguistic patterns and structures. For example, Rostami et al. (2013) found a significant positive correlation between general intelligence and success in acquiring vocabulary and grammar among EFL learners.

2.2 Working Memory
Working memory is the capacity to hold and manipulate information over short durations—a function vital to real-time language comprehension and use. High IQ is frequently associated with enhanced working memory capacity. In their seminal work, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) first conceptualized working memory as a core component of language processing, highlighting its role in temporarily storing and processing linguistic input. More recently, Miyake and Friedman (1998) demonstrated that working memory capacity strongly predicts success in second language acquisition, particularly in mastering syntax and vocabulary.

2.3 Processing Speed
Faster cognitive processing enables learners to decode and respond to linguistic input with greater efficiency. This is especially beneficial for tasks involving listening comprehension and conversational fluency. In a fascinating study, Sheppard and Vernon (2008) established a clear link between processing speed and intelligence, indicating that faster processors tend to achieve better outcomes in language learning. Similarly, Kail and Salthouse (1994) demonstrated that processing speed supports various cognitive functions that are essential in second language acquisition.

2.4 Metalinguistic Awareness
Metalinguistic awareness—the ability to reflect on and manipulate language as a system—is often more developed in individuals with high IQ. This skill facilitates the recognition and correction of errors and supports abstract rule learning. In a very insightful study, Bialystok and Ryan (1985) found that high-IQ children exhibited superior abilities in detecting and correcting grammatical errors. Gombert (1992) further emphasized that metalinguistic development plays a crucial role in formal language instruction, particularly in structured learning environments.

Figure 2 below provides a visual summary showing how high IQ influences key cognitive areas involved in language learning. Each bar represents the estimated strength of IQ’s influence in that domain on a scale from 1 to 10. Remember:

• Pattern Recognition: Helps identify grammar and structure.
• Working Memory: Supports holding and manipulating language input.
• Processing Speed: Aids quick comprehension and response.
• Metalinguistic Awareness: Enhances understanding of language as a system

Figure 3. Estimated Influence of IQ Across Language-Related Cognitive Domains

3. How Low IQ Interacts with Language Learning

These cognitive advantages for high-IQ learners, however, highlight a deeper concern: what happens when learners do not possess high IQ? Research shows that students with lower IQs may find it more difficult to infer grammar rules, retain complex sentence structures, or apply learned rules with consistency in productive skills like writing (Sparks, Patton, & Ganschow, 2012). For example, a student who struggles with working memory might be able to complete a gap-fill grammar task accurately when focused but fail to apply the same rule when writing a paragraph. This disconnect is not due to laziness or lack of motivation—it’s a cognitive bottleneck.

Learners with lower IQs may not simply be ‘slower’; their challenges often stem from genuine cognitive constraints that affect how they process, store, and retrieve language.

In grammar acquisition, for instance, low-IQ learners may struggle with rule abstraction and pattern generalisation. Hulstijn (2015) suggests that such learners often benefit more from implicit instruction and exposure than from formal grammar explanations. Rather than asking them to deduce when to use the past perfect, for example, it’s more effective to flood their input with natural, meaningful examples of that structures – preferably through listening and interaction. Routines are particularly effective as well as highly patterned texts such as narrow listening and narrow reading.

Writing is another area where difficulties become more visible. Studies such as Sparks et al. (2012) show that low-IQ learners often display persistent challenges with syntactic accuracy, organisation, and lexical variety. A practical classroom example: a learner may be able to write “I go school every day” with confidence but fail to incorporate a new structure like “I’ve been going to school since January” without significant, repeated modelling.

Importantly, success is still possible—just on different terms. Long-term studies (e.g., Ganschow & Sparks, 1995) demonstrate that with repetition, scaffolding, and high-frequency exposure, low-IQ learners can achieve communicative competence. To help such learners, teachers can draw on strategies from Ellis (2005) and VanPatten (2002). For instance, instead of lengthy explanations of grammar rules, input-based approaches such as ‘input flood‘ (where learners are exposed to many examples of a structure) or ‘input enhancement‘ (highlighting target forms in reading or emphasizing them vocally in listening activities) can offer repeated, low-stress exposure.

Careful and thorough modelling through Sentence builders, lots of repeated processing, masses of throughtfully scaffolded retrieval practice, sufficient planning time before challenging tasks, intensive vocabulary teaching before tacking challenging texts, etc, also allow learners with limited processing speed to build automaticity over time. Writing tasks should be scaffolded with models, checklists, and sentence stems. A lower-IQ learner, for instance, may benefit from a writing frame that structures a paragraph: “First, I usually ___. Then, I like to ___. Finally, I ___.” Over time, these supports can be gradually removed as learners gain confidence and fluency.

What often matters most is not cognitive firepower but consistency, clarity, and emotional support from teachers. Recasting errors positively, chunking input, and gradually increasing task complexity are all essential strategies.

This is not about lowering expectations—it’s about adjusting the path. When instruction meets learners where they are, the journey becomes not just possible, but rewarding.

4. Mixed-Ability Classrooms: Pros and Cons of Grouping Learners Across the IQ Spectrum

Bringing together learners with widely differing IQ levels into a single language classroom is increasingly common, especially in inclusive education settings. This approach carries both potential benefits and significant challenges.

On the positive side, mixed-ability classrooms can foster peer learning and collaborative growth. Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) supports the idea that less advanced learners can benefit from interacting with more capable peers. High-IQ students often provide linguistic models, expose others to more sophisticated structures, and, in doing so, reinforce their own knowledge through teaching. Meanwhile, learners with lower IQ may benefit from simplified explanations and indirect scaffolding via peer talk.

However, research also highlights several limitations. Sweller’s (1988) cognitive load theory warns that low-IQ learners may experience overload when required to process input at the level of their more advanced peers, especially without sufficient differentiation. This can lead to frustration, disengagement, or fossilisation of errors. High-IQ learners, on the other hand, may feel held back or insufficiently challenged, particularly if tasks are overly simplified to accommodate others. Additionally, the classroom dynamics can suffer when learners perceive inequity—either in terms of pace or teacher attention. Research by Kulik and Kulik (1992) on ability grouping suggests that high-achieving students in mixed-ability settings may show diminished gains compared to those in homogeneous groups. Simultaneously, low-IQ learners may develop learned helplessness if they are frequently exposed to performance gaps that feel insurmountable (Dweck, 2006). Teachers might inadvertently lower expectations for some students, which can reduce both challenge and opportunity for growth across the class.

The key to successful mixed-ability teaching lies in targeted differentiation, flexible grouping, and scaffolded instruction. As Tomlinson (2014) argues, differentiation isn’t about creating separate curricula but about adjusting inputs, tasks, and supports so that each learner can access the same core content meaningfully. In practice, this might mean giving high-IQ learners more open-ended writing prompts or inductive grammar puzzles, while offering lower-IQ students structured sentence frames and more guided input tasks. When planned thoughtfully, mixed-ability classes can be inclusive, empowering, and pedagogically sound.

However, the promise of differentiation in mixed-ability classrooms often falls short in real-world language teaching contexts. Several studies have raised doubts about the practical effectiveness of differentiation, particularly in language education. For example, Westwood (2013) and Hattie (2009) argue that while differentiation sounds ideal in theory, it is difficult to implement with sufficient depth and consistency in classrooms with large student numbers, time constraints, and curriculum demands. Language teachers, in particular, report struggling to create tiered tasks that are cognitively appropriate, linguistically accessible, and pedagogically sound for all learners simultaneously (Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004).

Furthermore, research from the OECD (2012) suggests that attempts at differentiation often result in ‘teaching to the middle’—whereby high-achieving learners are insufficiently stretched and lower-achieving learners remain unsupported. In language classrooms, where progression is cumulative and requires automatization through repetition, the attempt to customise content for every ability level can dilute the intensity of exposure and reduce opportunities for recycling key structures—an essential condition for acquisition (VanPatten, 2002). In practice, this means that the intended support mechanisms may not reach the learners who need them most, and that instruction can become fragmented and less impactful overall. Even when differentiation is attempted, it is often superficial—focused more on varying task difficulty than on tailoring learning trajectories in a way that is both linguistically meaningful and cognitively appropriate. Tatzl (2013) found that teachers frequently rely on the same materials for all learners, with only minor adjustments, due to time, training, and resource constraints. This often leaves both ends of the learner spectrum underserved.

Moreover, differentiation can inadvertently create a “labelling effect,” reinforcing perceptions of fixed ability among learners (Boaler, 2013). When students are consistently grouped or given tasks based on perceived aptitude, it can shape their self-concept and influence motivation. For language learners, where confidence and willingness to communicate are critical, this can have lasting implications.

Ultimately, while differentiation remains a well-intentioned strategy, the evidence suggests that without sustained support, ongoing professional development, and appropriate structural conditions – which schools more than often do not get! – it is often more aspirational than effective in the reality of language classrooms.

Based on my 28 years of teaching languages in a wide range of contexts—from top-performing schools to mixed-ability state settings—I can confidently say that differentiation, while noble in intent, often collapses under the weight of classroom reality. In practice, differentiation is frequently superficial and reactive rather than embedded and strategic. It tends to favour the middle ability range, leaving the most and least cognitively able learners underserved. Teachers are often not given the training, planning time, or resources to differentiate meaningfully, and the result is either watered-down content or overly complex tasks repackaged with minor tweaks. That said, in my experience, mixed-ability teaching can work reasonably well when the spread of ability in the classroom is not too wide. When learners fall within a manageable cognitive range, differentiation becomes more feasible, peer support is more balanced, and instructional planning remains realistic. It’s when the gap becomes extreme that the cracks begin to show—making approaches like EPI, which naturally embed scaffolding for all, a far more sustainable solution.

All considered, though, I firmly believe that what truly makes a difference is not splitting learners into tiers, but giving everyone access to high-quality input, extensive modelling, and tasks that build up from controlled to freer practice over time—principles that approaches like EPI embody far more effectively than ad-hoc differentiation ever could.

5. Concluding remarks
This article has explored the complex interplay between IQ and second language acquisition. The evidence suggests that high IQ can support language learning in several key areas—pattern recognition, working memory, processing speed, and metalinguistic awareness—often leading to quicker uptake of grammar and vocabulary, better processing of input, and more efficient use of explicit instruction. However, IQ is not destiny. Learners with lower IQ may struggle more with rule abstraction and memory-heavy tasks, particularly in grammar and writing, but they can still succeed through well-designed instruction, repetition, and emotional support.

One framework that accommodates both ends of the cognitive spectrum is Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI). Grounded in ISLA principles, EPI provides structured input, controlled output, and scaffolded repetition. It plays to the strengths of high-IQ learners through inductive reasoning and pattern recycling, while supporting lower-IQ learners with sentence builders, input flood, and low-stakes, repeated practice. Rather than dumbing down the content, EPI simplifies the processing—making language acquisition accessible, meaningful, and rewarding for everyone.

High IQ can provide significant cognitive advantages in language learning, particularly in areas like pattern recognition, working memory, processing speed, and metalinguistic awareness. However, intelligence is not the sole determinant of language learning success. Motivation, exposure, resilience, and cultural immersion are equally, if not more, influential in many contexts. For learners with lower IQs, adaptive instruction and supportive learning environments play a critical role in promoting success.

References

• Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and Mathematics: The Mindset Revolution That Is Reshaping Education. Forum, 55(1), 143–152.
• Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the Reading Wars: Exploring the Effect of Child-Instruction Interactions on Growth in Early Reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(4), 305–336.
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.
• Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.
• Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1995). Effects of Direct Instruction in Spanish Phonology on the Native-Language Skills and Foreign-Language Aptitude of At-Risk Foreign-Language Learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 107–120.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.
• Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77.
• OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. OECD Publishing.
• Sparks, R., Patton, J., & Ganschow, L. (2012). Profiles of More and Less Successful L2 Learners: A Cluster Analysis Study. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4), 463–472.
• Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97–114.
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
• Tatzl, D. (2013). Engineering students’ beliefs about language learning and their proficiency in English for specific purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 32(1), 1–11.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
• VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
• Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation.
• Bialystok, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. Applied Psycholinguistics.
• Carroll, J. B. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. Language Aptitude Research.
• Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning. Newbury House Publishers.
• Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic Development. University of Chicago Press.
• Kail, R., & Salthouse, T. A. (1994). Processing speed as a mental capacity. Acta Psychologica.
• Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. Psychological Science.
• Rostami, M., Rezaabadi, O. T., & Gholami, J. (2013). On the relationship between intelligence and English language learning. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation.
• Sheppard, L. D., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). Intelligence and speed of information-processing: A review of 50 years of research. Personality and Individual Differences.
• Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press.

If you do want to find out more on the topic and on my approach to instructed second language acquisition, do get hold of my books (here). I would especially recommend the following tomes, co-authored with Steve Smiths: ‘Breaking the sound barrier: teaching language learners how to listen, ‘The language teacher toolkit’ and ‘Memory: what every language learner should know’.