Some traditions in language teaching are very hard to shift. Two key ones, as I see it, are teaching with a grammatical syllabus and setting vocabulary to learn. I want to look at the second and suggest five reasons why vocab learning (and tests) are a bad idea.
1. What does knowing a word mean?
Paul Nation has for many years reminded us that knowing a word is much more than about knowing what it means or how it translates. A bilingual translation of an isolated word is a starting point (and is of course useful), but there is much more to it than this. As well as meaning, we need to know about FORM and USE of words. Form refers to aspects such as spelling, morphological form (is it a noun, a conjugated verb, an adverb based on an adjective?), what it sounds like (phonology) and how its sound relates to its spelling (phonics). USE refers, for example, to other words which commonly go alongside a word, namely collocations (think of what appears when you start a Google search) and, at a more advanced level, when it is appropriate to use a word.
So learning the meaning of isolated words might add to superficial breadth of vocab knowledge, but not depth.
2. Transfer-Appropriate Processing (TAP)
Apologies for the jargon, but this is about how we better recall things when they are presented in the form or context we first encountered them. So if you set a list of words to learn and test them as isolated words you might get good results (assuming the student has done the leaning and has a good enough memory). But if you then put the same words in a different context, for example in a listening or reading pasage, students may recall the words less well. Just think about those times when students seem to do well on a grammar exercise but then totally fail to use the same language in an essay.
The TAP effect suggests therefore that if we are to assess a student's knowledge with comprehension tasks, it is better to teach via comprehension tasks, focusing on the meaning, form and use of those words when exploiting the text. Referring back to Point 1, this helps build depth of knowledge, not just breadth.
3. It's boring and students often don't do it
I'm not sure how many pupils actually enjoy learning words from list or apps, but I bet it's not many. Often, students just don't do it or do it so superficially they cannot remember the words after. This leads to a poor classroom experience for pupils and teachers. We end up with retests, wasted lunchtimes and frustration and a low semse of competence/self-efficacy all round. Anecdotally, the only groups with whom I found vocab learning useful were the most able classes who took unusual pride in getting high marks and were extremely diligent. But even with them, I questioned whether it was time well spent.
Apps and competition can sweeten the pill a bit, but not by much.
4. Vocab tests are a poor use of class time
It's reasonable to assume that if students think there will be no test they are way less likely to learn words on their own. This means that, say, 15 minutes need to be set aside for a classroom test. This may a significant chunk of the class's contact time. Would this time be better spent on other, more communicative, interesting and useful tasks which activate the same vocabulary? I think so.
5. We learn languages better through chunks, not word lists and grammar rules
I shall quote the pinned tweet of my friend Gianfranco Conti at this point. I can't express it much better.
Put sentence patterns first. Humans chunk everything into patterns. The larger the chunk, the lighter the load on working memory as we process language. However, if you put the teaching of single words and conjugations first you will raise a breed of slow and hesitant speakers.
In real classroom terms, all theory aside, I found that with my more average achievers, it was far more productive and motivating to keep recycling high-frequency chunks in listening, reading, speaking and writing, then trying to teach with word lists and grammar rules. For most students this works poorly.
Are there counter-arguments?
I sometimes read the objection that if you don't set vocab to learn, how will the class get through all the words on the syllabus? My response is that the word lists (for GCSE) are not that long and the words students need to recognise and use come up multiple times in more interesting and useful contexts than in a list. If there is a need to target specific words this can be done within connected language. I have previously suggested one way here. Words which are frequently re-encountered in context are remembered more robustly than when they are learned for a test.
A second objection (connected with the above) might be that learning words from lists is efficient and targets the words you need students to know. I would riposte that it is inefficient for the reasons given earlier - it develops superficial knowledge which students find hard to use when they encounter words in context. It's a bit like memoring verb conjugations (which students later fail to use correctly). It's a kind of illusion of mastery - you do well in a test, then cannot apply the knowledge.
Another pragmatic objection might be that "We have to do it." Frequently it is a departmental decision to set vocab learning once a week (and to test it). In response I can only suggest that, while vocab learning is not useless, it is 'sub-optimal' there are better things to do with the time.
In sum, at the very least it is worth questioning practice, however traditional it might seem. I'm happy to argue that vocab learning is a bad idea compared with the alternative activities on offer.
For a review of research into vocabulary learning, see this post.
For some detailed blog posts about vocabulary teaching by Gianfranco Conti, see here.
Comments
Post a Comment