How useful is it to give students vocab lists?

Introduction

This post was prompted by a post on a Facebook group. A teacher was seeking a vocabulary list for an A-level French topic. This is not an uncommon request and my initial reaction was "Why"? I have to say from the outset that, while I did not systematically use vocabulary lists with most students in my classes, the textbooks we used did include them up to GCSE and I was in the habit of setting vocab tests for my high-aptitude classes - they seemed to like the challenge, did their learning well, and scored highly in the tests I gave. More on that later.

But was I right to set vocab to learn in this way? Are vocab lists a useful tool?

We know about vocab lists. The rationale is pretty clear. Vocabulary knowledge is hugely important. In language learning terms, vocab is more important than grammar and research shows a strong correlation between vocab knowledge and proficiency. So vocab lists aim is to provide students with the lexical items they need to understand and communicate. But are vocab lists effective for language acquisition, or do they represent an oversimplified view of learning? Drawing on my own experience and a few research sources, let's have a look at this topic.

What does it mean to "learn vocabulary"?

The basics. According to Nation (2001), knowing a word involves mastery of multiple aspects: form (pronunciation, spelling), meaning (concept, associations), and use (collocations - the company a word keeps - and relationships with grammar). Furthermore, this knowledge must be both receptive (for understanding in listening and reading) and productive (for speaking and writing). A simple word list typically provides only the form and L1 translation, neglecting these deeper dimensions. 

Nation also emphasises that vocabulary learning occurs along a continuum of mastery. This means that students may “know” a word to varying degrees, depending on context and familiarity, and that true mastery requires repeated, meaningful encounters across different contexts (Nation, 2001). Written vocabulary lists really only show the meaning and spelling of words. 

Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge

Another way to look at this is through the ideas of breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary learning involves both breadth (how many words a learner knows) and depth (how well each word is known, bearing in mind the dimension of "knowing a word" mentioned above). Lists may help with breadth, especially if they target the most useful high-frequency words. But as we've seen, they fail to foster depth.

Schmitt (2010) reminds us that depth of vocabulary knowledge is critical for fluent and flexible language use. For instance, knowing the word “interest” means more than recognising its definition; it also involves understanding its use in collocations like “express interest” or “compound interest.” Vocabulary lists do not provide context. It's true that this is more important for more advanced students, but novices too need to hear and see words in multiple contexts to understand and use vocabulary fluently.

Transfer-Appropriate Processing (TAP)

At this juncture it's worth referencing TAP. It's a technical, jargon term from cognitive science, but refers to something pretty simple. When we learn something in one way, it is much easier to recall and use the information in the same context again. Items can be transferred easily to a similar context, but not so much to new contexts. An example I sometimes give is novices who can recite the alphabet to a tune, but cannot use the letters to spell out words.

So, even if a student can memorise the meaning and spelling of a word from a list, this does not mean (as any teacher knows) that the word will be recalled or used appropriately in a more natural context, for example when speaking spontaneously or listening t an aural text. Listening in particular presents a problem since words come thick and fast in a stream, are often hard to separtae out and may sound different to the way they are spelt (in French, for instance).

The obvious takeway here is that, if we want students to use vocabulary fluently we need to practise it in the way it will be used - through connected language and communication, not lists of isolated words.

The importance of deep processing

We can approach this from another angle too. Research consistently shows that deep cognitive processing leads to better long-term vocabulary retention (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Schmitt, 2000). This involves engaging with words meaningfully, for instance through reading texts, listening to speech, sentence creation, rather than rote memorisation. While lists may support initial exposure, they are not sufficient unless accompanied by deeper engagement and frequent spaced retrieval. How many times we need to see words is debated, abdwill clearly vary according to the individual student and memorability of each encounter. In general, though, at least several encounters are usually need for words to stick.

So, as Schmitt (2008) points out, vocabulary development is incremental and benefits from repeated exposure in varied contexts. Tasks that encourage learners to use vocabulary meaningfully are more effective than somewhat passively reading a list.

The role of listening in vocabulary learning

A sometimes overlooked aspect of vocabulary acquisition is the phonological form of vocabulary (how words sound). Learning vocabulary through listening helps form accurate phonological representations in memory, which are vital for both comprehension and pronunciation. Not only do we need to hear what isolated words sound like, we need (as mentioned above) to be able to pick out words in the sound stream.

Nation (2001) talsk about the importance of input-based learning, especially listening, for developing accurate and fluent use. Vocabulary lists that do not include auditory exposure leave learners at risk of mispronunciation or failure to recognise words in spoken form. Once again, we tend to get good at what we practise, so if we want students to recognise words and phrases in the sound stream, we should get students to do this as much as possible.

Motivation

Is there a motivational case to be made from word lists? Schmitt (2008) noted that some students appreciate the transparency and predictability of vocabulary lists as a self-study tool, especially when paired with goal-setting. According to the Expectancy-Value Theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), learners are more motivated to engage in tasks they believe are useful. Some learners may perceive vocabulary knowledge as central to communication, so mastering word lists may feel worthwhile. There is a sense of mastery (even if this mastery, as explained above, is somewhat illusory).

In my introduction I mentioned that my high-achieving claasses seemed to be motivated by vocab learning and test-taking. In general, however, I would suggest that learning from lists is not enjoyable for most students and students often avoid doing it. Study not fone, low test score, lunchtime retest. This is no good for anyone. Dörnyei (2001), a leading scholar in language learning motivation research, argued that repetitive, low-engagement tasks (like rote memorisation of words) may lead to learner fatigue and reduced motivation over time. That fits with my own classroom experience with most classes.

Conclusion: Making the most of the time available

Time is a scarce resource in any language learning environment. It makes sense to prioritise activities that yield the most learning per minute. While vocabulary lists might seem efficient, for the reasons given above, they are unlikely to be the best way for students to get to understand and use vocabulary fluently and in a motivational way.

Apps can sweeten the pill, of course, but the arguments above still hold sway.

Does this mean that learning from lists is useless? Almost certainly not, but is it the best way to spend time when learning a language? When choosing activities we often need to choose what is "optimal" - the best, most efficient, most motivating activity to achieve the goal. I would argue strongly that using vocab lists is not the best use of valuable time for all learners.

Note: I used Chat GPT to produce an initial draft of this post and get the citations, before basically rewriting it!

For much more on language teaching issues such as this see The Language Teacher Toolkit (2nd edition) (Smith and Conti, 2023). 

For a summary of research into vocabulary acquisition see this post.

References

• Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.

• Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education.

• Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363.

• Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.