Skip to main content

Semantic versus thematic clustering of vocabulary

This is a snippet from our forthcoming book about memory. This is from a chapter about remembering vocabulary.

 

Researchers have sought more efficient ways of learning vocabulary from lists. One popular comparison has been made between semantic and thematic vocabulary clustering types. Semantic clusters provide students with groups of words that are related by their meanings. For example, parts of the body, such as eye, head, ear and mouth. The argument for semantic clusters is appealing. Firstly, the similarity between the words should ease the learning task and secondly, the student should become aware of slight distinctions between the related words. In addition, most of us have been used to learning and teaching words in this way.

Nation (2001) argues that:

1.      - It requires less effort to learn words in a set.

2.      - It is easier to retrieve related words from memory.

3.      - It helps learners see how knowledge can be organised.

4.      - It reflects the way such information is stored in the brain (so-called semantic fields).

5.   - It makes the meaning of words clearer by helping students to see how they relate to and may be differentiated from other words in the set.

But the downside of teaching words in this way is that words of similar meaning may cause interference effects in memory. The closer two words are in meaning or association (including synonyms and antonyms), the greater the risk of interference and forgetting.

On the other hand, thematic clusters refer to the arrangement of a group of words that belong to a specific knowledge schema. The advantage is thought to be that memory is activated more powerfully when words are related to lived experience or episodes (knowledge schemas). So if you teach a group of words in the context of a lived experience the words should be easier to recall later. Tinkham (1997) suggested that arranging words by general theme in this way can limit the effects of interference between similar words. An example of a thematic cluster would be sweat-shirt, changing room, tries on, wool and salesperson.

So what is the evidence? On the whole, researchers now favour thematic word sets to semantic. Some studies report that semantic grouping is actually worse than presenting lists of totally unrelated words. So if your textbook presents words as semantic clusters you should at least question the validity of this approach, which may just stem from tradition. As Dronjic (2019) points out, thematic clustering is better on the whole than semantic clustering and better also than just listing words randomly.

Does this mean you should stop playing Simon Says to teach parts of the body? Not at all. Don’t forget the importance of motivation, distinctiveness and gesture in forming memories! In any case, all researchers agree that learning from lists, although apparently efficient, is a very small part of what learning vocabulary is all about.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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).

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics

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,