Insegnamento a studenti di età diverse

Strategy 1: Harmonising post-primary MFL classes in line with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) through cross-age teaching.

The first proposed strategy to realise the plurilingual vision of the Barcelona Summit Agreement (mother tongue plus two) is that of harmonising post-primary MFL classes in line with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) through cross-age teaching. In this scenario, students of different school years would be grouped together for modern foreign language (MFL) classes based on their MFL level according to the CEFR. As such, students would no longer be grouped by their school year; rather, they would be in classes with students from different year groups who are at the same CEFR level.

How second-level students are currently grouped in the Irish education system

The post-primary education system in Ireland is divided into two cycles: the Junior Cycle, comprising First Year, Second Year, and Third Year; and the Senior Cycle, which generally commences with an optional Fourth Year (Transition Year), followed by Fifth Year and Sixth Year. The current second-level education system in Ireland groups students by school year. Students generally only attend classes with other students of their same year. When they complete their school year, they progress to the next year. This practice is largely international.

In the Junior Cycle (First Year to Third Year), students generally attend mixed-ability MFL classes with students of their same year group in preparation for the Junior Cycle MFL common level examinations which take place at the end of Third Year. Mixed-ability classes are those composed of learners of different abilities. At Senior Cycle, in particular, Fifth Year and Sixth Year, as the Leaving Certificate MFL examinations have to be taken at either Higher level or Ordinary level (reflecting the two separate performance targets students are expected to achieve, with the Higher level exam being of a considerably greater standard (DoE, 1995a: 23)), schools may group students in mixed-ability classes or alternatively into separate Ordinary Level and Higher Level classes. Even in these Ordinary level and Higher level classes, there can be a considerable range of ability. As such, these classes are often still mixed ability, although to a lesser extent.

The question rarely arises as to whether the current system of grouping students together based on their year group is the most beneficial way to group students on an academic level, on a social level, or otherwise. The reality is that mixed-ability classes generally do not optimally meet the needs of large numbers of students learning an additional language.

How the strategy would work in practice

The proposed strategy makes two fundamental changes to how students would be grouped for their MFL classes, namely:

1) they would be divided into separate MFL classes based on their current CEFR sublevel (e.g., A2.1); and

2) they would be taught with students from different year groups.

By way of an example, second year, third year and fifth year students, with the same CEFR sublevel (e.g., A2.1), could be assigned to the same class for their MFL. When the students successfully complete the sublevel, they would then proceed to the next sublevel (e.g., A2.1 to A2.2).

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) delineates six common reference levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2). Levels A1 and A2 are the levels for basic users, B1 and B2 are the levels for independent users, while C1 and C2 are the levels for proficient users. By way of its descriptors, the CEFR specifies what a learner should know and be able to do in order to progress from complete beginner to proficient user in an additional language (COE, 2001: 5).

Each CEFR level can be subdivided to measure incremental progress within the corresponding level. For example, level A1 can be broken down into sublevels A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, while level A2 could be subdivided into sublevels A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, and so forth. 

Expected proficiency standards for students to achieve

In the new Junior Cycle programme (First Year to Third Year at second level), the total number of MFL class-contact hours over the three-year period is a minimum of 200 hours (DES, 2015b). This works out at approximately 2 hours per school week. In the Leaving Certificate programme (Fifth Year and Sixth Year), the total number of MFL class-contact hours is a minimum of 180 hours over the two years (DoE, 1995a; DoE, 1995b; DoE, 1995c; DoE, 1995d) or approximately 2.7 hours per school week. As such, students receive a minimum of 380 hours of MFL tuition over the course of their second-level studies. It is important to note that French, German, Italian, and Spanish are the only curricular MFLs available to students throughout all years of the second-level education system in Ireland.

Table 3.1 details the recommended number of tuition hours students should receive in order to successfully achieve each CEFR level. Given that students receive at least 200 hours of MFL tuition from First Year to Third Year, in line with the suggested number of class-contact hours, they should be in a position to complete two full CEFR levels (i.e., A1 and A2). In order to complete both A1 and A2 levels, French recommends 160 – 200 hours of MFL tuition, German advises 150 to 263 hours, Italian encourages 100 to 120 hours, while Spanish advocates 180 hours.

At Senior Cycle, students receive a minimum of an additional 180 hours of MFL tuition. Students therefore receive a minimum of 380 hours of MFL tuition over the course of their second-level studies (200 at Junior Cycle and 180 hours at Senior Cycle). Given this number of hours, students should be in a position to complete the full B1 level. In order to complete B1 level, French proposes 360 – 400 hours of MFL tuition, German prescribes 260 to 490 hours, Italian stipulates 240 to 300 hours, while Spanish requires 300 hours. Evidently, these are recommended hours; some students will require more tuition hours to achieve the various CEFR levels, while others will need less.

Timeline for students to achieve a B1 level

Based on the recommended CEFR hours of tuition at each level, Table 3.2 illustrates a realistic timeline of MFL student progression until they achieve a B1 level. At B1 level, users should be able to do the following:

Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans (Council of Europe, 2001: 24).

Subdividing levels (e.g., A1 into sublevels A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, etc.) would likely complement the academic year given that the school year is divided into three terms in Ireland. Term 1 is the longest term from late August to the Christmas holidays / winter break (December). Terms 2 and 3 combined (January to May) are generally just a few weeks longer than term 1. As such, one sublevel (e.g., A1.1) could be completed in term 1 and another sublevel (e.g., A1.2) could be done in terms 2 and 3.

As per the schedule outlined in Table 3.2, MFL teachers would have approximately 1.5 years to complete level A1 (three sublevels), 1.5 years to complete level A2 (three sublevels), and two years to complete level B1 (four sublevels). In an ideal scenario, and provided that students pass each sublevel (e.g., A1.1, A1.2, and A1.3), students would remain with the same MFL teacher until they complete their full CEFR level (e.g., A1). If the same MFL teachers take their group (or most of their group as some students may not pass their sublevel exams), it would mean that teachers would have time to get to know their groups, and they would know exactly what has been covered at the corresponding CEFR level. Students moving teachers each term for a new sublevel would not be advisable. There would simply be too many changes for students and teachers; it would also create unnecessary timetabling complexities for school management.

Students would be assessed by way of in-school CEFR sublevel exams (e.g. A1.1, A1.2, A2.1, etc.) during the standard examination periods in each school year (generally December and May). Students should be tested in the four language competences – reading, writing (including grammar), listening, and speaking. If students successfully pass their sublevel exams, they would progress to their next CEFR sublevel (e.g., A1.1 to A1.2). Where students fail a sublevel and have to retake the sublevel course, this could be very positive. Instead of simply progressing to the next sublevel where they may well fall further behind and potentially become demotivated, these students would have the opportunity to go back over the material, obtain clarifications around areas they are experiencing difficulty with, and thus build stronger foundations. Students would also sit official whole-level CEFR examinations (e.g., A1, A2, and B1). For further information on the proposed examination model, please see strategy 2.

The Goldilocks Rule

The Goldilocks Rule exemplifies why the proposed model of grouping students in line with the CEFR through cross-age teaching is very important. The rule states that human beings experience peak motivation when working on a challenge that is within an optimal level of difficulty. The Goldilocks Rule is named after the fairy tale Goldilocks and the Three Bears. In the story, the main character, Goldilocks, enters the home of three bears and tastes three different bowls of porridge (three different temperatures), sits in three different chairs (three different heights), and lies on three different beds (three different levels of comfort), and chooses the porridge, chair and bed that are just right for her.

Similar to the Goldilocks fairy tale, the Goldilocks Rule operates on the principle that human beings generally reject extremes in favour of a middle-ground. Essentially, peak motivation occurs at the level where the learner is right on the edge of their current abilities. The task should not be too easy, it should not be too hard, but it should be just right with a manageable level of difficulty so that the learner can progress to the next stage.

The Goldilocks Rule applied to additional language learning would imply that in order to foster peak motivation, students should be grouped in classes that are not so easy that they find them boring, and the learners barely improve; and not so challenging that they find the classes discouraging, and want to give up. Instead, students should be placed at a level that is just right with an optimal level of stimulation and difficulty so that they can advance to the next rung of the CEFR ladder. By breaking down CEFR levels into ‘bite-size’ pieces (sublevels), students would always be within reach of achieving their next sublevel.

Benefits of the strategy

The proposed model of harmonising MFL classes in line with the CEFR through cross-age teaching offers several benefits.

• It details a clear ladder of progression from sublevel A1.1 to completion of B1 level and higher.
• It provides transparency of process; it is very clear to learners what sublevel they are at, and what they have to do to proceed to the next sublevel.
• If a student already has good prior knowledge of the MFL (e.g. A1.2 and above) when they enter second-level education, it would not be necessary to commence as a total beginner (i.e., A1.1).
• As students would be set at their correct language sublevel, they would be able to make progress at a more appropriate pace to their needs.
• All students would have the opportunity to advance to the following sublevel twice per year through exams at the end of terms 1 (December) and 3 (May).
• Grouping students of different ages is arguably more natural than grouping them in line with their school year / grade. 
• The current Junior Cycle and Leaving Certificate MFL specifications, syllabi, and examinations are unclear in terms of their corresponding MFL levels. The proposed model offers greater transparency for students, teachers, parents, other school stakeholders, third-level providers, and employers regarding the standards learners achieve.
• In the current MFL model, students generally progress to the following year’s MFL programme even when they have failed the previous year’s course. By students automatically progressing in this manner, students can feel more and more out of their depth and fall further and further behind. With the proposed strategy, students could stay at a certain CEFR sublevel for an extended period of time (if required) and really learn the foundations of the language and cement their knowledge before progressing to the next sublevel.
• If a student is absent for an extended period of time (e.g. due to illness), they could repeat the sublevel so that they do not lose out on the material.
• The model provides students with the flexibility to correct a perceived wrong MFL choice. Students could start second-level schooling, try out a language, and then decide – in consultation with their MFL teacher and parent(s) – that it is not a good fit for them. They could then take another MFL the following term and start from sublevel A1.1.
• The model should motivate students to progress, in particular, by awarding them a certificate to recognise their success when they pass each sublevel milestone (e.g., A1.1).
• If a student moves school, it will be clear what MFL sublevel class (e.g., B1.2) they should join in their new school.
• When a new student starts in a school in a later school year (i.e., not First Year) and has insufficient or no prior knowledge of the MFL they would study, they could be more appropriately set at their right MFL level. For example, a sixteen-year-old student from abroad attends Fifth Year in a second-level school in Ireland. They have never studied and/or have little or no competence in one of the MFLs the school offers. At present, if that student wishes to do an MFL, they would attend a standard fifth year MFL class where the level would be too high. With the proposed strategy, this student would be appropriately placed at A1.1 level.
• The proposed model reduces heterogeneity within classes, enabling teachers to tailor instruction more effectively to students' linguistic levels. With students of a similar level grouped together, teachers could adjust the pace of lessons. Teachers could therefore work at a speedier pace, or indeed at a slower pace, with their group of students (compared to the mixed-ability classroom where teachers may have to do a considerable amount of differentiation (adapting instruction to different student levels and needs in the same classroom)).
• In the current grouping model in second-level schools in Ireland, students tend to stay with the same class and the same MFL teacher for several years at a time. Under the proposed grouping model, should the teacher-student professional relationship truly not be a good fit, if stakeholders agree, it is possible for students to move more easily to a new MFL teacher.
• This grouping system may also be beneficial for students with special education needs (SEN) as the strategy facilitates student progression based on their level and needs.
• Students can feel intimidated in MFL classes where other students have a significantly higher level. By grouping students of similar CEFR levels, it may encourage greater student participation and lead to a more positive experience of additional language learning.
• Many second-level schools restrict students to doing only one MFL. In this strategy, given that MFL classes would be timetabled across years, there could be greater timetabling flexibility which could make it easier for students to do two MFLs.
• The strategy is relatively cost neutral. Students would receive the same number of tuition hours they currently do. As such, it would simply be a matter of refining the timetabling model across year groups as opposed to needing to provide extra MFL tuition hours and employ more MFL teachers.
• Cross-age teaching would empower students more: they would be able to decide for themselves what level they would like to achieve in their MFL. Students could decide to finish learning an MFL at a certain level (e.g. B1) in a year of their choice (e.g. early in Sixth Year). In this scenario, they could spend the remainder of the year focusing on other subjects for their Leaving Certificate examinations. In another scenario, when a student successfully achieves their desired CEFR level (e.g. B1 in term 1 of Sixth Year), they could then proceed to learn another MFL in the next term (e.g. at A1.1). This could be done for pleasure, as opposed to just studying a language for additional points as part of the matriculation process for third-level institutions. The proposed examination model is discussed in detail in Chapter Four. Even developing some fluency in another MFL will yield (meta)linguistic benefits as well as intercultural competences.
• The strategy would support lifelong learning. When students complete their second-level studies, they would know their exact level of proficiency in their MFL, and if they wish, they could proceed to the next sublevel by way of an online course, a part-time in-person course, a third-level course, and so on. They may also wish to take a break from their MFL studies for some time after completing their second-level schooling. If they do decide to recommence their MFL studies at a later date, they would know their previous CEFR level and thus could take a refresher course at that level.
• Given the transparency of level (students would know their exact CEFR level), in terms of mobility for learners, the proposed model would be very beneficial if students wish to study or work abroad.
• Veenman’s research highlights additional benefits (discussed in Dr Edward Flynn’s book).

This is a preprint of the following work: Edward P. Flynn, Cross-age Teaching and Plurilingualism: Realising the Barcelona Summit Agreement, 2026, Palgrave Macmillan, reproduced with permission of Springer Nature. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-96656-9.