Skip to main content

The curse of single word vocab learning

I’m not generally one to go around criticising what teachers do. If you read my blogs you’ll know that I believe many things work if they’re done well. Success is often in the quality of delivery. But one thing which gives me repeated cause for concern is the time pupils spend on learning individual words. This can be in the form of traditional printed book lists or by the slightly snazzier means of apps such as Memrise, Vocab Express or Quizlet.

You see, the research on vocabulary acquisition suggests to us that, while explicitly learning islated words can be useful, it’s not the MOST useful thing to be doing with limited time. If you read the scholars Paul Nation or Joe Barcroft on vocabulary acquisition, they will tell you that “knowing” a word is complex. It’s not just about recognising and being able to say and recall that word, it’s about, among other things, picking it out in a stream of sound, knowing the company that word keeps and the various morphological forms the word appears in. They’ll also tell you that we acquire second language vocabulary (both words and chunks) incidentally through listening and reading, so providing plenty of comprehensible input builds vocab knowledge.

Cognitive science also tells us that memorising chunks of language is more efficient than doing so through isolated words. We can hold a handful of items in working memory; that handful could be in the form of four single words or four longer phrases. Put crudely, you get more bang for your buck with phrases.

My conclusion has always been that the best way to help students acquire vocabulary is to present and practise it in meaningful contexts. How many people particularly enjoy trying to memorise lists of words? Would they prefer reading interesting texts containing the same vocab? Would they favour using new vocab in meaningful classroom exchanges? Would they derive more enjoyment from constructing their own sentences and short spoken or written texts for homework?

Now, vocab learning from lists has long been a staple of MFL homework. Learn and test. Learn and test. I sometimes used the approach myself, all the while suspecting it was dull and lazy teaching. I repeat: it’s not useless, just not the most fruitful way to proceed.

I believe vocab learning is to some extent what’s sometimes called a “proxy for learning”, i.e. it looks like effective learning but isn’t. Some satisfaction is gained by knowing pupils got 10/10, but how far does this then transfer into general comprehension or productive use thereafter?

My strong impression is that apps have reinforced the practice of learning isolated words. The digital tool may make the practice more palatable, but still doesn’t justify it. In addition, the abuse of Google Translate by pupils when doing homework, has meant that a significant minority of teachers have abandoned setting written homework at all. For many teachers homework = vocab learning.

There are ways to overcome the Google Translate issue, by the way, for example by using parallel gapped translations, or, more effectively, by establishing a culture where cheating is not acceptable. Many schools achieve this.

So my message is unusually clear on this: spend less time setting word learning and get pupils to do the many more productive tasks that will foster acquisition and spontaneous language use. Try to make all work at chunk, sentence and paragraph level. Try to make it about using language communicatively.

There! I said it.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad


  1. Agree, in part. However, to build a phrase and then, a sentence, there must be a cognitive recognition of the "word" in the first place. Isolated vocabulary is boring, I agree, not only for the teacher, but for the students, as well. Foreign language instruction has to be flexible, not strictly memorization, but implemented in such a way that total comprehension is achieved.

    1. I agree the single word is important too, but inthis case also I favour their acquisition through other means than memorising from lists. Thank you for commenting.


Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

Delayed dictation

Image: What is “delayed dictation”? Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music. It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too. Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating. In our language teaching case, though, the

Using sentence builder frames for GCSE speaking and writing preparation

Some teachers have cottoned on to the fact that sentence builders (aka substitution tables) are a very useful tool for helping students prepare for their GCSE speaking and writing tests. My own hunch is that would help for students of all levels of proficiency, but may be particularly helpful for those likely to get lower grades, say between 3-6. Much depends, of course, on how complex you make the table. To remind you, here is a typical sentence builder, as found on the frenchteacher site. The topic is talking about where you live. A word of warning - formatting blogs in Blogger is a nightmare when you start with Word documents, so apologies for any issues. It might have taken me another 30 minutes just to sort out the html code underlying the original document. Dans ma ville (in my town) Dans ma région (In my area) il y a (there is/are) des banques (banks) des cafés (cafes) des

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can