reading

Why the input we give our learners must be 95-98% comprehensible in order to enhance language acquisition – the theory and the research evidence

Gianfranco Conti, Phd (Applied Linguistics), MA (TEFL), MA (English Lit.), PGCE (Modern Languages and P.E.) Uncategorized , , , ,

Introduction

Second language acquisition (SLA) research strongly indicates that learners need to understand the vast majority (around 90–98%) of the language input they receive for optimal learning. This high level of comprehensible input ensures that learners can focus on gradually absorbing new elements (the i+1 content) without being overwhelmed. Below, we explore key research-backed reasons why 90–98% comprehensible input is considered ideal, with supporting studies from prominent SLA scholars like Stephen Krashen, Paul Nation, Norbert Schmitt, Batia Laufer, and others.

The Research evidence

There is plenty of research evidence to support the notion that students need 95 to 98% comprehensible input in order to grow linguistically. Table 1 below summarizes ten key studies which put this assumption to the test.

Cognitive Load and Processing Capacity

Cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988) suggests that the brain has a limited capacity for processing new information at any given time. When learners are exposed to language that is too difficult (e.g., less than 90% comprehensible), the cognitive load becomes too high. This makes it difficult for learners to process and internalize new language structures and vocabulary because too much effort is spent trying to understand the meaning. On the other hand, when 90% to 98% of the input is comprehensible, learners can process new vocabulary and structures while still understanding the overall meaning, which facilitates automaticity—the ability to process language quickly and accurately.

Bill VanPatten (1990) demonstrated that second-language learners are limited-capacity processors who naturally pay attention to meaning before form; if they must struggle to decode too many unknown words or complex structures, their brains have little bandwidth left for learning new language features​. In other words, when input is 90–98% familiar, learners can devote cognitive resources to noticing and acquiring the small amount of new language (the remaining 2–10%) without being overwhelmed. VanPatten’s findings (Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1990) showed that splitting attention between understanding meaning and analyzing form led to lower comprehension when input was too difficult, underscoring the need for mostly comprehensible input to keep cognitive load manageable​.

This aligns with Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) in that excessive unfamiliar material in input imposes extraneous load, impeding efficient learning. Thus, a high percentage of known input ensures learners can process language meaningfully and transfer new items from working memory to long-term memory.

The Optimal Zone of Challenge (i+1)

Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) famously asserts that we acquire language by understanding input that contains a bit beyond our current level – he labeled this ideal input as “i+1”, meaning our current interlanguage state plus one level​. Crucially, Krashen emphasizes that input must be comprehensible for that one step beyond to be absorbed: “We acquire by understanding language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i+1). This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information.” (Krashen, 1985, The Input Hypothesis)​.

In practice, this means learners should already know 90%+ of the words and structures in a message so that the few new items (the +1) are supported by context and understood in meaning. If the input is too far beyond (i+2, i+3, etc.), it ceases to be comprehensible and acquisition stalls. Effective input, according to Krashen, “need not contain only i+1” as long as it is largely understood; when communication is successful, the necessary i+1 is provided automatically by context and negotiation of meaning​.

This concept mirrors Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development in that the ideal challenge level is just above the current ability. Paul Nation (2013) likewise notes that “quality input” for learning should be at a level where only a small percentage of vocabulary is unknown, ensuring the text or speech is in an optimal zone of difficulty that promotes growth without causing frustration. In sum, research supports that 90–98% known input hits the sweet spot: it contains enough familiar language to be understood and just enough new language to push development. This i+1 zone maximizes acquisition by providing a manageable challenge.

Vocabulary Acquisition

Perhaps the most compelling evidence for needing ~95–98% comprehensible input comes from vocabulary studies. In order for learners to acquire new words incidentally (through reading or listening) and understand the overall content, they must know the large majority of the words in the input.

Batia Laufer (1989) found that learners generally need to understand at least 95% of the words in a text to adequately grasp its meaning​. At about 95% lexical coverage (i.e. only 1 unknown word in 20), readers could get “adequate” comprehension, whereas below that threshold comprehension dropped dramatically​. More recent research has pushed the target higher: Hu and Nation (2000) concluded that around 98% vocabulary coverage may be necessary for full, unassisted comprehension​. In a controlled study, Hu & Nation presented learners texts with varying percentages of known words; the learners generally needed to know 98–99% of the words to answer comprehension questions satisfactorily, whereas at 95% many struggled​. Norbert Schmitt et al. (2011) reinforced these findings in a large-scale experiment with 661 learners, noting a nearly linear relationship between vocabulary coverage and reading comprehension – as the percentage of known words rose, comprehension scores rose in tandem. They found no sudden “cliff” but did argue that 98% coverage is a more reasonable target for comfortable reading of academic texts​.

In practical terms, Paul Nation (2006) calculated that achieving 98% coverage in typical written texts requires a vocabulary size on the order of 8,000–9,000 word families (for reference, 95% coverage might require ~3,000 word families)​.Nation’s analysis (“How Large a Vocabulary Is Needed for Reading and Listening?”, CMLR, 2006) underscores that the last few percent of coverage (from 95% up to 98%) have a big impact on comprehension. If only 80–90% of words are known (so 10–20% unknown), comprehension plummets and guessing meaning becomes unreliable​.

Thus, vocabulary research supports providing learners with input (such as graded readers or leveled listening) where they know almost all the words, so that they can pick up the remaining few new words through context with relative ease. High coverage input not only aids immediate understanding but is also far more effective for incidental vocabulary acquisition. For example, Nagy, Herman, and Anderson (1985) found that each encounter with an unfamiliar word in a meaningful, comprehensible context can yield a small gain (5–10% of the word’s meaning on average)​. While 5–10% may seem minor, they noted that with enough comprehensible input, such incremental gains account for a large portion of vocabulary growth​

In sum, numerous studies (Laufer, 1989; Nation, 2006; Schmitt et al., 2011, among others) point to 95% as a minimal lexical coverage for basic comprehension and 98% as optimal for substantial comprehension and vocabulary learning​. This is why extensive reading and listening programs emphasize that texts should be 95–98% understandable to facilitate word learning.

Grammatical Structures and Syntax

Comprehensible input helps learners not only acquire vocabulary but also internalize grammatical structures. If too many grammatical structures are beyond their current understanding (less than 90% comprehensible), learners are likely to focus on trying to understand the meaning at the expense of learning the syntax (sentence structure) and morphology (word forms) of the language.

Input at the 90% to 98% level allows learners to make hypotheses about grammatical rules by encountering sentences that are just challenging enough for them to test their understanding. This kind of input supports both implicit learning (learning without conscious effort) and explicit learning (conscious awareness of language rules).

Contextual Clues and Inferencing

Comprehensible input provides the necessary backdrop for learners to make use of contextual clues and inference strategies to learn new language elements. If most of a sentence or discourse is understood, a learner can often guess the meaning of an unfamiliar word or deduce a grammatical function from context. However, this process only works when the proportion of unknown elements is low. Liu & Nation (1985) found that guessing unknown word meanings from context is rarely successful unless about 95% of the surrounding words are already familiar​.

.At lower levels of comprehension, learners’ inferencing often fails or leads to misunderstanding. For example, if a learner knows only 80% of the words in a text, the unknown 20% provide very little reliable clue to each other, akin to solving a puzzle with too many missing pieces. By contrast, at 95–98% known-word coverage, the context is rich enough to support educated guessing: the known parts of the sentence constrain the possible meanings of the unknown item. Nation (2001) notes that with high coverage, learners can use cues like redundancy, prior knowledge, and linguistic context to fill in gaps, gradually building their vocabulary through inference. Indeed, Nagy et al. (1985) estimated that when context is fully understood, learners gain a partial understanding of new words (a small percentage of meaning) with each encounters.

Multiple encounters in varied contexts then refine and solidify the word’s meaning. This means that incremental vocabulary learning through context is feasible only when input is comprehensible enough to make those first guesses. Paul Nation (2013) has pointed out that to infer word meaning from context, learners not only need a high percentage of known words, but also familiarity with the subject matter and discourse pattern. For example, a student reading a simplified story (with 98% known words) can often infer the remaining 2% (say, a new adjective or an unknown idiom) because the storyline and surrounding text make the meaning clear. If that same student tried a text with only 80% known words, they would likely resort to dictionary look-ups or simply not understand enough to infer anything useful. Research has also shown that incorrect inferences are common when coverage is low, which can mislead learners. Thus, maintaining 90–98% comprehensibility is key to leveraging context: it allows learners to use the known language to learn the unknown. Over time, this process contributes significantly to vocabulary expansion and comprehension skills. In short, comprehensible input provides a supportive context that permits effective inference and hypothesis-testing by the learner, whereas input with too many unknowns offers a poor context that can lead to frustration or false guesses​. This is one reason extensive reading proponents like Nation and Norbert Schmitt advocate using reading materials at an appropriate level of difficulty (often defined by that 95–98% coverage ratio). With adequately comprehensible input, learners become adept at “learning to learn” from context, an essential skill for autonomous language growth.

Affective Considerations

Learners’ emotional and psychological states can influence how much they benefit from input. When input is too difficult (e.g., below the 90% comprehension threshold), learners may experience frustration, anxiety, and reduced motivation, leading to a high affective filter that blocks language acquisition. Evelyn Hurwitz and Dolly Young’s studies on foreign language anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986) showed that anxious students comprehend and retain less of the L2 input in classroom settings. They essentially have a “mental block” – Krashen’s metaphorical affective filter – that makes input go “in one ear and out the other.

Conversely, when input is mostly understandable (90-98%), learners are more likely to experience engagement and positive emotional responses, which lowers the affective filter and enhances learning.

Incremental Learning and Transfer (Transfer Appropriate Processing)

Language acquisition is a gradual, cumulative process, and the principle of incremental learning holds that learners build proficiency step by step through repeated exposure and practice. Comprehensible input at the right level facilitates this incremental learning by ensuring each new encounter reinforces existing knowledge and adds a small layer of new information. For example, a learner might first understand a sentence globally, then notice a new word in it, then later encounter that word in another sentence and refine their understanding, and so on. If input is too difficult, this incremental build-up cannot happen because the learner isn’t even sure what is being communicated.

The incremental nature of learning is supported by comprehensible input because it allows repeated exposures. A word or structure that is initially new (the +1) in one input will appear again in subsequent inputs, each time with the learner understanding more of it – this spaced, contextual repetition solidifies learning and aligns with principles of memory (e.g. spaced repetition, contextual encoding).

In sum, comprehensible input enables a cycle of incremental learning: each understandable encounter adds a bit to the learner’s competence, and because these encounters are in meaningful contexts, the learning is “tuned” to real communication (transfer-appropriate). As Lightbown (2008) notes, when instruction and practice mirror the desired use (e.g. understanding stories to improve listening comprehension skill), learners show better retention and ability to apply their knowledge beyond the classroom​.

This justifies methodologies like extensive reading, task-based learning, and story listening, which provide iterative, contextualized input at the right level. They ensure that knowledge is acquired in the same way it is needed for later use, making the transfer from learning to real-world communication as seamless as possible.

Conclusion

The research consistently underscores the critical importance of providing second language learners with comprehensible input that is 90–98% familiar in order to maximize their acquisition of both vocabulary and grammar. This input, which is just beyond their current level (i+1), allows learners to engage in meaningful, context-rich language use while still being challenged by a manageable amount of new material. Whether it’s through managing cognitive load, fostering incidental vocabulary acquisition, or supporting implicit grammar learning, comprehensible input lays the foundation for effective language development.

Moreover, the role of context and affective factors further emphasizes that language learning is not just a cognitive exercise but a holistic experience. The Affective Filter Hypothesis reminds us that learners must be in a supportive, low-anxiety environment for input to be absorbed efficiently. High levels of comprehension and emotional comfort together create the optimal conditions for second language acquisition.

In practice, this means that language instructors should focus on providing students with abundant, comprehensible input, through activities such as extensive reading, conversation, and content-based learning. By ensuring that the majority of the input is understood while still introducing small challenges, teachers can help learners gradually expand their language abilities. As research suggests, comprehensible input not only promotes effective learning but also ensures that students are equipped to transfer their newly acquired knowledge to real-world language use.

References:

  • Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press. (See especially the Input Hypothesis and Affective Filter Hypothesis for the role of comprehensible input and emotional factors in SLA.)
  • Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman. (Introduces the i+1 concept, arguing that acquisition occurs with input just beyond the current level, in low-anxiety environments.)
  • Laufer, B. (1989). “What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension?” Ceben (In: Special Language: From Humans to Thinking Machines, ed. by C. Lauren & M. Nordman). (Pioneer study suggesting ~95% of words need to be known for adequate text comprehension​.)
  • Hu, M. & Nation, P. (2000). “Unknown Word Density and Reading Comprehension.” Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430. (Found learners needed 98% lexical coverage for satisfactory reading comprehension​
  • Nation, I.S.P. (2006). “How Large a Vocabulary Is Needed For Reading and Listening?” Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. (Vocabulary size estimates for 95% vs. 98% coverage; ~8,000–9,000 word families for 98% coverage​
  • Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). “The Percentage of Words Known in a Text and Reading Comprehension.” Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26–43. (Empirical study showing a near-linear increase of comprehension with higher known-word percentages; supports 98% coverage target​.)
  • Liu, N. & Nation, P. (1985). “Factors Affecting Guessing Vocabulary in Context.” RELC Journal, 16(1), 33–42. (Concluded learners need around 95% familiar words in a text to guess unknown words with reasonable success​.)
  • VanPatten, B. (1990). “Attending to Form and Content in the Input: An Experiment in Consciousness.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287–301. (Demonstrated that learners process input for meaning before form; too much new information can hinder form acquisition​.)
  • VanPatten, B., Keating, G., & Leeser, M. (2012). “The Eye-Tracking Study of Attention to Form in Spanish L2 Learners.” (As referenced in VanPatten’s work – showed that morphological details are acquired via input, not by isolated practice​.)
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning, and Use. Blackwell. (Provided evidence that learners acquire complex grammatical systems like tense/aspect gradually and in piecemeal fashion, often independent of explicit instruction.)
  • Lightbown, P. M. (2008). “Transfer Appropriate Processing as a Model for Classroom Second Language Acquisition.” In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding Second Language Process (pp. 27–44). Multilingual Matters. (Argues that practice/learning conditions should match target use conditions for best retention and transfer – supporting use of meaningful, contextualized input in class​.)
  • Nagy, W., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. (1985). “Learning Words from Context.” Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253. (Found that incidental exposure in context leads to small incremental gains in word knowledge, which accumulate given sufficient reading​.)
  • Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1977). “Remarks on Creativity in Language Acquisition.” In M. Burt, H. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language (pp. 95–126). Regents. (Originated the concept of the affective filter, later incorporated by Krashen, noting how negative emotion can impede language uptake.)
  • Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). “Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety.” Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. (Detailed how anxiety can negatively affect learners’ classroom performance and presumably their processing of input.)
  • Morris, C., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1977). “Levels of Processing versus Transfer Appropriate Processing.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533. (Classic psychology study proposing TAP: memory success depends on the match between learning and retrieval conditions, a concept applied to SLA by Lightbown 2008 and others.)

Ten tried-and-tested instructional strategies that WILL enhance your students’ listening skills and GCSE grades

Gianfranco Conti, Phd (Applied Linguistics), MA (TEFL), MA (English Lit.), PGCE (Modern Languages and P.E.) Uncategorized , , , ,

Introduction

Listening is widely recognized as one of the most challenging yet crucial skills in second language acquisition. Despite its importance, traditional listening instruction in many language classrooms remains product-oriented, focusing primarily on testing comprehension through questions and answers, rather than teaching students how to listen effectively. This approach often leaves learners feeling frustrated and demotivated, as they struggle to make sense of spoken language without the necessary strategies or skills to decode it. To address these challenges, a process-based approach to listening instruction has emerged, emphasizing the development of aural micro-skills, strategic listening, and metacognitive awareness.

In this context, effective listening instruction involves more than just exposing students to spoken language; it requires a systematic approach that empowers learners to actively engage in the listening process. This includes teaching vocabulary aurally in context, rather than through isolated word lists or digital flashcards, to enhance word recognition and retention. Furthermore, successful listening hinges on mastering a range of micro-skills, such as phoneme recognition, word segmentation, lexical retrieval, parsing, chunking, and meaning-building. These skills enable learners to process spoken input efficiently and accurately, paving the way for improved comprehension and fluency.

Moreover, motivating learners through engaging and interactive tasks is essential for sustained listening practice. Research consistently shows that motivation and self-efficacy are powerful predictors of success in listening. Therefore, this article advocates for a motivational framework that incorporates gamification, relevant input, and the PIRCO sequence—a structured approach that guides learners through pre-listening, while-listening, and post-listening phases to maximize comprehension and retention.

This article explores how a process-based approach, grounded in cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction, can transform listening instruction from a passive activity into an active, strategic, and enjoyable learning experience. By shifting the focus from merely testing comprehension to teaching the process of listening, educators can better equip students to navigate the complexities of spoken language, ultimately leading to greater language proficiency and confidence.

Ten tips that will enhance your listening outcomes

Here are ten key tried-and-tested instructional strategies that will definitely enhance your listening oucomes.

1. Teach vocabulary through listening in the context of highly comprehensible input– Success at listening hinges largely on word recognition (72 % !).  However, in order to be useful for listening tasks, words need to be acquired through listening. This often doesn’t happen in the typical MFL classroom, where words are typically learnr through worksheets or apps like Quizlet, which do not provide much listening practice.

Note that learning vocabulary aurally requires more exposures than learning it through reading, so you need to factor in 10 to 15 meaningful exposure in context, not in isolation, at least. Practising words aurally, in isolation, is not very useful and totally unauthentic. Teaching vocabulary aurally ought to involve an initial phase involving listening-while-reading (see my previous post on this) with or without pictures followed by listening without a script.

Highly comprehensible input is key, of course, due to the very high cognitive that listening poses on language learners and the anxiety that exposure to a lot of unknown vocabulary can cause. Listening-specific anxiety is a phenomenon that has been widely documented by researchers and one which significantly hinder performance.

2. Develop the micro-skills of listening using a process-based approach (Field, 2009) – Too much listening instruction has traditionally been about top-down processing, i.e. asking students to predict the content of an aural text, to guess intelligently using content and critical thinking and other higher order cognitive skills which, whilst useful, should not dominate listening instruction, especially not at the early stages of second language instruction and not with low-ability L2 learners. The Pearson textbooks are notoriously bad in this respect.

To understand how difficult listening is: in the space of 2 seconds, your students must decode every sentence they hear executing the following skills:

– phonemes recognition

– recognition of syllables and intonation patterns

– word segmentation (identification of words boundaries)

– lexical retrieval (recognition of content words and lexical phrases)

– parsing (grammar, syntax, function words, etc.)

– chunking (as they do the above, the learners need to keep each sentence they hear firmly and comfortably in their phonological memory for as long as it takes for them to decode it)

If the execution of the above skills is successful, they will likely understand the meaning of each sentence they hear (the meaning building phase). If they are listening to a text longer then a sentence, they will use the information gathered from the sentence just decoded and mix it with the information in every new incoming sentence to gather a global understanding of the whole text (discourse building).

Due to the severe demands of the listening process, it is key that the students become fluent in the execution of the above micro-skills. Hence, in each listening lessons, you will stage tasks which engage the students in practice with above micro-skills. Here are some examples of mostly SCRIPTED LISTENING activities which practise the micro-skills of listening:

Aural micro-skills  Aural activities
Phoneme recognitionFaulty echo, Write it as you hear it, Spot the silent letters, Track the sound, Listen and correct, Musical chairs
Syllable and intonation patterns recognitionSyllable building blocks, Syllable bingo, Spot the stressed syllable, Cross out the intruder
Word segmentationBreak the flow, Spot the intruder, Spot the liaison, Faulty transcript, Word grab
Lexical retrievalSentence bingo, Faulty translation, Spot the nonsense, Tangled translation, Tick or cross
ParsingSentence puzzle, Fixy echo, Track the structure, Faulty echo, Rhyming pairs, Sorting tasks, Guess the next word
ChunkingDelayed repetition, Delayed dictation
Meaning buildingSpot the nonsense, Sentence translation,
Discourse building  True, false not mentioned, Comprehension questions, Content reordering, Jigsaw listening, Vandergrift pedagogical cycle

You will start using this approach from the early stages of secondary, gradually transitioning to more challenging texts, where you may implement the above activities as part of the PIRCO sequence (see below) both in the Pre-listening and in the Consolidation phases. This approach has been laid out in my best-selling book with Steve Smith, Breaking the sound barrier, teaching language learners how to listen.

3. Make it motivational by building self-efficacy, making it enjoyable and choosing interesting input – Motivation and Self-efficacy (one of the most important catalysts of motivation) are the strongest predictors of success at listening (Macaro, 2001).

Here are some important tips if you want to generate and maintain the motivation to listen:

– Make it as interactive as possible using mini-whiteboards. Most of the activities in the table above are interactive or can be made interactive with the use of mini-whiteboards. The teacher reads aloud a sentence with an intruder, for example, and the students need to spot it and write it on her miniwhiteboard

– Gamify it whilst keeping it meaningful and evidence-based (See activities in the the table above)

– Make it accessible to most of your learners (a meaty pre-listening vocab teaching phase is key with mixed ability classes)

– Make sure your students arrive at a text prepared and leave with the feeling that they have learnt something. Never let the students leave the task with very little learning and a meaningless grade (the ‘Empty hands’ + ‘I can’t do listening’ effect) as too often happens! To prevent this, you should embed listening within a carefully designed Input-to-Output sequence (see Rost, 2002; Conti and Smith, 2019) which aims at recycling the target vocabulary around 40 times across all four skills (that’s the minimal amount of exposure we need to commit a word to long-term memory across all four skills). Please note that for the vocabulary you will want your students to learn only receptively, you will need 6-10 exposures through reading and 10-15 through listening. Here’s an example of my favourite input-to-output sequence:

(1) a very substantive pre-listening phase where you teach key vocabulary, grammar and sound patterns. This should be longer than the one or two vocab-building activities usually done, and should include a mix of listening (including Scripted Listening ones) and reading activities.

(2) a while-listening phase in which the students gradually move to listening comprehension tasks – These should include very simple tasks allowing most students to succeed, e.g. word grab, and/or a set of very simple comprehension questions that most children can answer and then move to more challenging activities.

(3) a review phase where the transcripts are examined and the obstacles to comprehension are identified;

(4) a consolidation phase where (a) the reading-whilst-listening tasks are performed on the transcript (this should be as gamified as possible and target the key linguistic features in the text) and (b) the vocabulary in the text is solidified;  

(5) a pushed-output phase where the key linguistic items are used by the students to translate and to communicate more creatively (role plays, interviews, monologues). This sequence, that I call PIRCO (see figure 1 below), is the most powerful I have ever implemented with my GCSE classes.

Do note that the post-listening phases, i.e. (3), (4) and (5) are key. As professor Rost, in his seminal 2002 article states: the “post-listening” stage of listening occurs in the few minutes following the actual attending to the text. This is probably the most important part of listening instruction because it allows the learner to build mental representations and develop short-term L2 memory, and increase motivation for listening a second time.

MPORTANT – When you stage the pre-listening phase, make sure that you do not give away the answers to the questions in the subsequent aural comprehension phase.

Figure 1: the PIRCO sequence

– Avoid ‘death by past-paper’ practice until you get closer to the exam, and even then, bearing in mind that cognitive fatigue sets in when we listen after barely 90 seconds of continuous listening, stage only specific tasks in the exam papers that you deem more useful.

– Make the input relevant. Students are keener to listen to something they are interested in. Before playing a text about a celebrity, play a song, video or film trailer to enhance their interest and curiosity

– Avoid grading every task – which brings me to the next point

(4)  Delay awarding grades until is truly necessary. Focus on improving listening skills (listening to learn) not grades (listening to test), until you are close to the exams – Prioritizing a focus on the process of listening over a focus on the product of listening is essential in listening instruction, especially when transitioning from lower to upper school. Listening being the most challenging of the four skills and the one that causes the most anxiety amongst children, it is key to refrain from grading the students’ work every time you stage a listening activity. Remember the ‘empty hands’ effect, so common after a listening activity; do you really want to compound its negative effect on self-efficacy and motivation with a poor grade? Why would that student ever want to listen to another aural text again? By investing your efforts, instead, into working on improving student self-efficacy and listening skills you are more likely to forge more motivated and competent listeners who are not afraid to listen.

How about the exams? Remember the PIRCO sequence above? You will gradually phase it out as you draw close to the exam and move to PIR (pre-listening, in-listening and review) where the pre-listening phase will be mostly about imparting listening strategies. Bear in mind that according to research listening strategies need to taught regularly for a period of over three months. So, starting with PIR one term before the listening exams would work. Remember that teaching listening strategies when the students have a modest vocabulary repertoire can be counterproductive, according to some researchers (e.g. Renandya, 2022). Strategies cannot be a substitute for vocabulary and syntactic knowledge.

(5) Stage a Needs’ analysis when you first meet the students – At the beginning of year 10, I recommend a quick survey carried out using google forms aimed at finding out what the students experiences with listening were at KS3, what their attitude to listening is, as well as other data to do with their self-efficacy and self-confidence as listeners. This is imperative in departments where learner motivation to listen is low, the team have heterogenous/inconsistent approaches to listening instruction and/or use the listening materials and tasks in textbooks (which are horrendously designed and sequenced) and/or where listening is the ‘cinderella’ skill.

(6) Use Narrow Listening (possibly in combination with Narrow Reading) – Narrow listening, where two or three near-identical aural texts are used in an instructional sequence involving connected texts, is a powerful way to practise and reinforce vocabulary. With ChatGpT or other AI powered tools, this is very easy to accomplish in a matter of seconds; just ask the software to produce an identical text by changing an X number of words. Then copy and paste in a text-to-speech online tool and the job is done! Staging narrow reading prior to narrow listening with very similar texts to the ones that they will be listening to will, of course, be a great way to prime the students for the subsequent aural tasks.

(7) Before your students do any silent reading comprehension work, stage some Scripted Listening (aka reading-whilst-listening) activities – Activities such as Spot the intruder, Spot the missing detail, Faulty transcript, Spot the pronunciation mistakes, Add the missing endings, Track the sound, Spot the wrong word order, Disappearing text, etc. can easily be staged prior to reading tasks injecting some fun in what are often pretty dry tasks. The pedagogical rationale for this approach is two-fold: firstly, when students read silently they subvocalize automatically converting every written symbol they process into their dominant language – so you may want to prevent that; secondly, you have an extra chance to practise listening!

(8) Teach listening strategies when the students are ready – Listening strategies (see table below) can be useful, but are no substitute for vocabulary, grammar and phonological competence. Hence, teaching your students listening strategies ought to be done in the later stages of KS4, when the students have accrued a substantive vocabulary (between 1,000 and 2,000 high-frequency words) . The training should involve regular practice with the strategies, at least 15 minutes per week for 3 months, according to some research. Do remember that the research evidence on the effectiveness of listening strategy instruction is very scant and inconclusive and most studies have been carried out with older students, most at university or pre-university level.

(9) Develop their metacognition – Make them aware of the listening process since the very early stages of their language learning journey. Show they how we listen, what skills are involved in the process. Starting in year 7 do reading whilst listening games with the transcript of the aural texts they have just listened to, to inject some fun in the process and to make them aware of the obstacles they encountered whilst listening. In pre-examination times, make them aware of their most common affective and cognitive problems as they listen and provide them with tips on how to overcome or mitigate them.

(10) Do regular surveys of student self-efficacy – If in your Department there is a history of poor achievement in listening, do carry out regular surveys to find out whether the students (1) are enjoying listening; (2) feel they are learning from it (self-efficacy) ; (3) what concerns them the most; (4) what they suggest you could do to help them and (5) make it more fun.  Do them every half-term with ‘at risk’ classes and use a 1(lowest) to 4 (highest) scale for them to rate each item, so that nobody sits on the fence. If you see lots of 1s and 2s very early on in the process, then you know it-s time to intervene drastically.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, effective listening instruction hinges on a  process-based approach that goes beyond mere comprehension checks and emphasizes the development of essential aural micro-skills, vocabulary acquisition, and metacognitive awareness. This article underscores the necessity of teaching vocabulary aurally in context, recognizing that listening is primarily about word recognition and requires multiple exposures within meaningful contexts to ensure retention and application. By integrating vocabulary teaching with listening tasks, learners will be better equipped not only to handle GCSE exam tasks but also authentic listening scenarios, thereby enhancing their overall comprehension and confidence.

Furthermore, the process-based approach advocated here emphasizes the importance of developing the micro-skills of listening, including phoneme recognition, word segmentation, lexical retrieval, parsing, chunking, and meaning-building. These foundational skills are crucial for accurate decoding and meaning-making, ensuring that learners can efficiently process spoken language. This structured practice, combined with scripted listening activities tailored to each micro-skill, provides the necessary scaffolding for learners to build fluency and accuracy in real-time listening.

Additionally, this posts emphasizes the need to build motivation and self-efficacy by creating enjoyable and meaningful listening experiences. By using interactive tasks, gamification, relevant input, and the PIRCO sequence, teachers can foster a positive learning environment that encourages persistence and reduces anxiety associated with listening tasks. This motivational approach not only sustains learners’ interest but also cultivates a sense of achievement and progress, essential for long-term language acquisition.

Finally, this article emphasizes the key role of listening-to-learn, a methodology laid out in Conti and Smith (2019), where it is called LAM (or Listening As Modelling), whose key staples are summarised below:

PrincipleDescription
Prioritize Listening in Language InstructionListening is fundamental to language learning and should be emphasized in teaching.
Integrate Listening with Other Language SkillsListening should be combined with speaking, reading, and writing to create a holistic learning experience.
Provide Comprehensible and Patterned InputUse input that is understandable and follows predictable patterns to aid learning.
Focus on Process-Oriented Listening InstructionTeach students how to listen effectively, rather than just testing their comprehension.
Develop Micro-Skills of ListeningTrain students in specific listening skills, such as phonemic processing and segmenting.
Reduce Listening Anxiety and Build Self-EfficacyCreate a supportive environment to lower anxiety and boost students’ confidence in listening.
Use Teacher-Led ModelingTeachers should actively model listening skills, rather than relying solely on audio recordings.
Implement Structured and Scaffolded Listening ActivitiesDesign activities that gradually increase in complexity, providing appropriate support at each stage.
Encourage Active and Reflective Listening PracticesPromote strategies that engage students actively and encourage reflection on their listening processes.
Input FloodExpose learners to a high frequency of target language forms (e.g., specific grammatical structures or vocabulary) within meaningful contexts to increase familiarity and recognition.
Input EnhancementMake specific language features more noticeable through visual or auditory cues (e.g., highlighting, repetition, or changes in tone) to draw learners’ attention to them.
Repeated ProcessingEncourage multiple exposures to the same input material through varied activities (e.g., listening for gist, detailed comprehension, or inferring meaning) to deepen understanding and retention.
Thorough ProcessingConsists of techniques that force students to process the texts in detail, ensuring a deeper understanding of language structures, vocabulary, and meanings.

Please note that a new Language Gym GCSE workbook based on these and other effective instructional strategies will be out in March. It will implement the PIRCO sequence as applied to the new GCSE word lists. In addition to listening-to-learn tasks, it will also include listenint-to-test tasks based on the new GCSE exam papers.