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,

Second language learning and acquisition

This is a long, referenced blog which combines all the posts in my earlier series entitled Conscious and Unconscious Language Learning. If you have already read those posts, you should look away now. Part 1 Throughout the history of the study of language learning and teaching reference has been made to two distinct types of language learning. The first could be characterised as "picking up" a language and normally involves the apparently unconscious acquisition of a language in an informal or natural setting. One thinks of the child who learns their native tongue, or the immigrant who learns the new language without recourse to formal study. The second type of language learning involves the practice of a language in a formal, systematic way, often in a classroom setting. This has frequently been termed conscious learning. Such a clear distinction may be controversial and you may already be thinking, quite reasonably, that both types of learning have a role. However, when

French cinema terminology

If you are teaching A-level film, you'll want your students to have some knowledge of key vocabulary. You'll want to learn it too, of course! Nathalie FLE produced this lovely video screencast about film vocabulary: Vocabulaire français : parler du cinéma ( + sous-titres en FR) - YouTube Here are some other handy links for film and film vocabulary in French: Exploiting film in A-level MFL lessons - from my own site from Exeter University. A basic list of terms. A more detailed, technical overview of film terminology by David F. Bell from Dyke University. A bilingual page from Lille University which goes into some detail on cinema terminology. Here is a useful list from ThoughtCo: French Terms Related to Movies and Film Festivals ( Another good list here with brief de

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

New MFL GCSE consultation

Updated on 7th April, with a few modifications to the original post written about a month earlier. ........................................................................... The DfE in England has recently published information about the proposed new GCSE exams, first teaching September 2023, first exams June 2025. There are two consultations going on, one regarding the subject content, and the other (much shorter) with respect to the assessment arrangements such as tiering.  The context is important here. DfE are worried about uptake in GCSE MFL, especially with their EBacc target of 90% uptake in mind. (This is highly unlikely to be achieved.) Therefore they would like an exam which makes the subject more attractive, both in terms of interesting content and accessibility (how easy it is thought to be). They are aware also of criticisms levelled at current papers that the exam is elitist, featuring too much subject matter which appeals to middle class students. Recall that MFL has be