Why I’m Not Going “Full Conti”: A Language Teacher’s Perspective

The Rise of the Conti Method

Gianfranco Conti has become a household name in MFL circles. His Sentence Builders, Listening as Modelling, and Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI) have reshaped how many teachers approach language learning. His method promises fluency, confidence, and structure—and for many, it delivers.

But when I hear teachers say they’re going ‘Full Conti,’ I pause—not out of criticism, but concern. No method, however effective, should become a monoculture.”

What Is the Conti Method?

At its core, Gianfranco Conti’s approach is a structured, input-heavy model designed to build fluency through repetition and pattern recognition. It’s built around three main pillars:

1. Sentence Builders

What they are: Sentence Builders are structured sets of high-frequency language chunks—typically grouped by subject, verb, and complement—that students can recombine to create a wide variety of sentences. They’re designed to reduce cognitive load and promote fluency through controlled production. Download this sentence builder

Example in practice: In a KS3 Spanish lesson, a teacher might introduce chunks like “yo como,” “tú bebes,” and “él quiere,” paired with vocabulary such as “pizza,” “agua,” and “helado.” Students then build sentences like:

·        “Yo como pizza.”

·        “Tú bebes agua.”

·        “Él quiere helado.”

The combinations are endless, but the structure remains predictable—making it easier for learners to internalise patterns.

Why it works: This approach supports pattern recognition, builds confidence, and allows for rapid sentence generation without overwhelming students with grammar rules or open-ended tasks.

But it’s not new: Language teachers have used substitution tables, sentence frames, and scaffolded writing strips for decades. What Conti has done is rebrand and systematise these tools—placing them at the heart of his method and offering a consistent framework for input and output activities.

2.  Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI)

What it is: A fluency-first model that emphasises:

• Repetition

• Retrieval practice (actively recalling information, e.g. 'Cover–Write–Check' )

• Narrow reading (repeated exposure to similar language)

• Structured input before output (modelled language before free production, e.g. 'Read–Reorder–Rewrite' )

  
  

Example in practice: After introducing a Sentence Builder on daily routines, students might:

• Read five short texts using the same chunks

• Complete gap-fill and matching tasks

• Do oral drills with increasing speed

• Write their own version using the same structure

The idea is to “overlearn” the chunks before moving to freer production.

Why it works: It builds automaticity and reduces the need for conscious decoding during communication.

The concern: It can feel mechanical. Without grammar explanation or creative variation, students may struggle to transfer knowledge beyond the scaffold.

3. Listening/Reading as Modelling

What it is: Rather than testing comprehension, input tasks are used to model correct language use. Students absorb patterns through exposure, not analysis.

Example in practice: Instead of asking “What did María do yesterday?” after a listening clip, students might:

• Hear the clip three times

• Highlight chunks they recognise

• Reorder sentences from the transcript

• Repeat phrases aloud

  
  

Why it works: It shifts focus from comprehension to acquisition—especially useful for beginners.

But again—not new: This echoes Krashen’s input hypothesis and classic audiolingual techniques (see my free training course on developing spontaneous speech). Conti’s twist is in combining it with Sentence Builders and EPI for a cohesive system.

✅ The Pros

Let’s be clear: the Conti method has real strengths.

• Clarity and consistency: Especially helpful for newer teachers or those in high-pressure settings.

• Confidence-building: Students feel successful quickly, which boosts motivation.

• Resource-rich: SentenceBuilders.com and CPD sessions offer plug-and-play solutions.

• Automated fluency: Great for retrieval practice and low-stakes repetition.

⚠️ The Pitfalls

But here’s where I take issue:

• Grammar-light: The method often sidelines explicit grammar instruction. For me, understanding how language works is non-negotiable.

• Parrot-style repetition: Students may repeat phrases without grasping meaning or structure.

• Teacher disempowerment: Going “Full Conti” can feel like outsourcing your professional judgment.

• Method evangelism: When one approach becomes dogma, we lose the richness of pedagogical diversity.

Impact on Learners: Ability, Longevity, and Exam Readiness

➡️Differentiation and ability levels 

The Conti method can be a lifeline for lower-attaining pupils. Its structured input, repetition, and chunk-based production reduce anxiety and cognitive overload. Students who struggle with grammar or open-ended tasks often thrive when given predictable scaffolds and clear models.

But for higher-attaining learners—or those with a natural curiosity about how language works—the method can feel restrictive. Without explicit grammar teaching or opportunities for creative manipulation, these students may plateau. They can produce fluent chunks, but struggle to transfer knowledge to unfamiliar contexts or express nuanced ideas.

➡️Long-term retention and linguistic flexibility 

In the short term, the method builds confidence and fluency. But long-term retention depends on depth—not just repetition. If students aren’t taught how language functions (e.g. verb endings, word order, agreement), they may struggle to decode new input or generate original output beyond the scaffold.

This becomes especially problematic when students move beyond the Sentence Builder phase. Without grammatical awareness, they’re less equipped to:

• Understand authentic texts

• Write extended responses

• Adapt to new topics or structures

➡️GCSE alignment: where it clashes 

The Conti method’s emphasis on fluency and scaffolded input doesn’t always align with GCSE requirements. Exams demand:

• Explicit grammar knowledge: Students must identify and manipulate tenses, moods, and structures.

• Unpredictable tasks: Writing and speaking prompts often require spontaneous generation, not recycled chunks.

• Translation skills: GCSE papers include English-to-target-language translation, which requires deep understanding—not just memorised phrases.

Teachers who go “Full Conti” may find their students fluent in rehearsed contexts but underprepared for the analytical and adaptive demands of GCSE assessments.

🧩 The Genius of the Method

Conti didn’t invent scaffolding, input-based learning, or chunking. What he did was:

• Package them into a coherent, repeatable system

• Brand them with memorable names

• Create a vast ecosystem of resources and CPD

• Offer teachers a ready-made structure in a time of curriculum chaos

That’s powerful. But it’s also why some teachers feel boxed in when they go “Full Conti.”

💬 My Position: Balance Over Branding

I respect Gianfranco Conti’s work. He’s a talented educator and entrepreneur who’s helped thousands of teachers. But I worry when his method is treated as gospel.

Language teachers are not technicians executing a script. We’re professionals with insight, creativity, and pedagogical range. “Going ‘Full Conti’ offers structure—but it may unintentionally narrow the scope of what teachers and learners can explore. There’s a whole world of language teaching approaches out there—Task-Based Learning, CLIL, the Lexical Approach, intercultural communicative competence, and, good old-fashioned grammar instruction. We owe our students a richer, more varied linguistic experience. One that includes grammar, creativity, intercultural learning, and yes—Sentence Builders too.

 Final Thoughts

Sentence Builders are a powerful tool. But they’re not the answer.

Let’s use them wisely—as part of a broader toolkit, not a singular solution.

Think I’ve missed the mark? Maybe you’re all-in on Conti and see only gains—or maybe you think I’ve gone too soft. Either way, I’d genuinely love to hear your take. Let’s have the conversation.