Skip to main content

Five reasons not to set vocab learning

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 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

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

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,