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 skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,