Teaching Grammar? Yes. Worshipping It? No.

11 hours ago
6 min read

A realistic look at Explicit Grammar Instruction in MFL

As part of my ongoing exploration of MFL learning methods, and after looking closely at both the Conti approach and the TPRS method, I’m now turning to something far more traditional but still central in many classrooms: Explicit Grammar Instruction.

Most of us use it. Many of us enjoy it. Some of us rely on it. But does it actually deliver what we think it does — especially now that the new GCSE demands more spontaneity, real‑time communication, and less scripted output?

Let’s take a clear, honest look.

1. What the method aims to do

Explicit Grammar Instruction is built on a simple promise: If students understand the rules, they can use the language more accurately and more confidently.

Its philosophy is clarity. Its aim is to give learners the tools to:

decode unfamiliar structures
manipulate language independently
build accurate sentences
avoid fossilising errors
understand why something works, not just what to say

It’s a method rooted in transparency and logic — the belief that knowledge leads to control.

2. What it gets right

When used well, Explicit Grammar Instruction offers real, practical wins:

Accuracy improves, especially in writing and translation.
Students gain clarity, reducing the “French is random” narrative.
High attainers thrive, because they enjoy patterns and structure.
It aligns with GCSE requirements, particularly for writing, translation, and dictation.
It supports long‑term retention, because students understand the mechanics.
It builds metalinguistic awareness, which helps across subjects.

Grammar, when broken down into small steps and modelled clearly, becomes a confidence‑builder rather than a barrier.

3. Where it falls short

Here’s where the method shows its limits — and where misconceptions creep in.

A. Grammar alone won’t create spontaneous speakers

One of the biggest misconceptions in MFL is the idea that knowing grammar rules automatically leads to fluent, spontaneous speech. It doesn’t — and the new GCSE makes this clearer than ever. Students are now expected to respond naturally, reformulate, react to follow‑up questions, and speak without pre‑planning. None of that comes from memorising endings.

Grammar knowledge is static whereas spontaneous speaking is dynamic. They are related, but they are not the same skill.

A student can memorise the perfect tense table, chant it confidently, and fill in every gap‑fill correctly… …and still freeze the moment you ask, “Qu’est‑ce que tu as fait le week‑end dernier ?”

Why? Because spontaneous speaking requires:

processing speed
automaticity
familiarity with high‑frequency chunks
comfort with unpredictability
the ability to retrieve language under pressure
the confidence to speak without mentally checking every rule

Grammar supports accuracy, but accuracy is not spontaneity. Spontaneity comes from input, modelling, repetition, chunks, and meaningful communication — not from rule recall.

This is why students often use structures they cannot explain. They’ve absorbed them through exposure, not analysis.

And that’s perfectly normal. It’s how humans acquire language.

Grammar has a place — a valuable one — but it cannot carry the speaking component on its own. It needs to sit alongside communicative approaches that build fluency, confidence, and real‑time retrieval.

B. It demands strong literacy

Explicit Grammar Instruction assumes a level of literacy that many students simply don’t yet have. To follow grammar explanations, learners need:

secure reading skills to decode examples and instructions
confidence with metalanguage (verb, auxiliary, infinitive, agreement…)
the ability to hold abstract concepts in working memory while applying them

The challenge is that many students don’t know this metalanguage in English, let alone in a foreign language. So before they can understand the grammar point, they first have to understand the language used to explain the grammar point. This is why the MFL teacher’s role in developing literacy is far bigger than people assume — we are often teaching grammatical concepts students have never encountered in their own language.

And here’s the key: Not understanding how to form the perfect tense doesn’t mean you can’t use it.

Students frequently use structures long before they can explain them. They absorb patterns through exposure, modelling, and high‑frequency chunks, not through metalanguage.

So while grammar can support accuracy, it must be introduced with a realistic understanding of students’ literacy levels — and never as a barrier that prevents them from communicating.

C. Cognitive overload is common

Explicit grammar teaching often asks students to juggle too many things at once: rules, endings, exceptions, tables, agreements… all while trying to produce accurate language. Without strong modelling and plenty of input, this quickly overwhelms working memory.

A student might follow the explanation, complete a guided task correctly, and then lose everything the moment the scaffolding disappears. That’s not laziness — it’s cognitive overload.

Grammar sticks when it’s introduced in small, manageable steps, anchored in meaningful examples, and revisited often. Without that, the learning evaporates as fast as it arrives.

D. Engagement can drop

For some students, grammar feels disconnected from real communication unless it’s anchored in meaningful input. Rules on their own can seem dry, abstract, or “school‑like”, especially for learners who need context, stories, visuals, or interaction to stay motivated.

When grammar is taught in isolation — tables, endings, exceptions — students may switch off because they can’t see the point. They don’t yet feel how the rule helps them say something. Engagement rises sharply when grammar is linked to purpose, meaning, and real language use: hearing it, seeing it, using it in chunks, and applying it in tasks that actually matter.

Grammar isn’t boring — but grammar without context can be.

4. Who it works best for

✅Strong fit

KS4 students — essential for accuracy and exam success.
High attainers — they enjoy logic and structure.
KS3 students with strong literacy — grammar gives them a framework.
Learners who like rules and patterns — it gives them control.

😕Less effective on its own

Low prior attainers — rules without context feel abstract.
Students with weak literacy — metalanguage becomes a barrier.
Early KS3 — they need input and modelling before rules.

Explicit grammar works best when it’s timed right, pitched right, and supported by meaningful input.

5. Making it work in practice

I’ll say it clearly: I genuinely love teaching grammar. There’s something deeply satisfying about helping students unlock a structure that suddenly makes the language feel less chaotic. But grammar only works when it’s broken down into tiny, manageable steps. Each step must be secure before you move on — a bit like building a wall. If one brick is loose, everything you add on top becomes shaky.

That’s why grammar needs:

strong, precise scaffolding
clear modelling
micro‑steps
lots of examples
opportunities to practise each layer before adding the next

And yes — sometimes this means teaching grammatical ideas that students don’t even know in English. That’s not a flaw. It’s simply the nature of abstract concepts.

But here’s the key: Grammar should support communication, not replace it. It’s a tool — not the whole method.

6. What to combine it with

Explicit Grammar Instruction becomes far more powerful when paired with:

Comprehensible Input (CI) — students see grammar in meaningful contexts.
Sentence Builders — structured practice before free production.
EPI / Conti‑style routines — high-frequency exposure and fluency-building tasks.
Retrieval Practice — keeps forms alive over time.
Dictation and translation routines — accuracy meets real language use.
Task-based learning — grammar applied in purposeful communication.

This leads naturally to the next method in the series: Sentence Builders — the perfect bridge between explicit rules and communicative fluency.

7. What this means for a Head of Department

For HoDs, the grammar debate isn’t theoretical — it affects curriculum design, consistency, and how confident staff feel teaching grammar.

1. A clear grammar progression matters

Students need a logical sequence, shared terminology, and regular revisiting. A mapped progression avoids gaps and keeps KS3 aligned with KS4 expectations.

2. Staff confidence with metalanguage varies

Not everyone is equally comfortable explaining grammar, especially when students don’t know the terms in English. A HoD can help by agreeing on simple explanations and shared classroom language.

3. Grammar needs balancing with input‑rich teaching

Departments that rely only on grammar struggle with spontaneity. Pairing grammar with chunks, modelling, and fluency‑building routines creates a more rounded curriculum.

4. The department shapes how students perceive grammar

If grammar is presented as a tool that helps students say more, engagement rises. If it feels like a hurdle, motivation drops. The HoD sets that tone.

5. MFL contributes directly to whole‑school literacy

Because students often learn grammatical concepts with us before they meet them in English, MFL plays a bigger literacy role than people realise. A HoD who recognises this strengthens both language learning and wider literacy.

📣 Want more grammar support?

I’ve built plenty of ready‑to‑use grammar lessons and classroom resources on my website — perfect if you’d like to see how these ideas translate into practice.

If you’d like to keep in the loop as I explore more MFL teaching methods and share new materials, you can subscribe to get future posts straight to your inbox.

Subscribe