In this article Marcin Lewandowski evaluates the vocabulary learning techniques that are common in language classrooms and suggests alternative techniques to promote long-term vocabulary retention.
‘Without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed’ (Wilkins)
It’s probably fair to say that vocabulary is one of the most essential aspects of language competency. You need to know words of a language in order to communicate in it. Which is why it’s no surprise that we devote a large amount of time to learning new words.
A difficult task
For me, learning vocabulary was a difficult task. It often meant that I had to learn lists of words by heart which involved re-reading or repeating the words quietly and out loud to myself, trying to recall the meaning, spelling and pronunciation. I used lists, flashcards, learned alone or involved a friend to test me. It often involved ‘cramming’ the night before the test (by far the least recommended way of revision). My experience is by no means unique. Thousands of learners around the world are learning new words by rote as I write.
Now to clarify, there’s nothing wrong with learning vocabulary by learning words by heart in this way. Done correctly, through spaced practice, it will lead to long term retention. However, this may not be the most efficient of way.
Shallow processing
One reason why learning by rote is not a particularly efficient way to remember words is because it often involves so called ‘shallow processing’. Shallow processing involves focussing on superficial aspects of a word such as sound or spelling. Shallow processing (or maintenance rehearsal) is like trying to keep a telephone number in our memory long enough to write it down or dial it. To do this we repeat the numbers to ourselves until we find a pen. We also forget the number almost immediately after we’ve written it down. This is because we don’t make any meaningful connection with the numbers.
It’s the same with vocabulary. When we try to remember words by simply repeating or re-writing them we focus only on their artificial aspects without making deeper, more meaningful associations. This is likely to result in a short lived retention and we may have to return to the material several times before it’s moved to long term memory.
So, what’s the alternative? To be better remembered words need to be processed at a deeper, semantic level. Attending to the word’s meaning and perhaps more importantly making it ‘meaningful’ leads to a better recall.
Desert island thinking
In a frequently quoted study, researchers Craik and Tulving presented participants with a set of 60 words which they analysed by answering one of three questions. Some questions required them to focus on the meaning e.g. does this word go in this sentence? (processed semantically) Whereas others required them to process the words in a shallow way e.g. is the word in capital letters? (processed visually) Or, does the word rhyme with…? (processed phonemically).
When participants were later asked to pick the words they’d seen from a list of 180 words they recalled more words that were semantically processed compared to visually or phonemically processed words.
In my own mini-test version of the experiment I showed learners two sets of 12 words. With the first set I asked them to count the syllables in each word. When I showed them the second list I asked them to decide which of these items would aid their survival on a desert island. The results showed that learners were by far more likely to remember more words from the survival list irrespective of whether it was shown first or last.
Examples of such other activities you could try with learners includes:
- Relating a word (e.g. adjective) to a familiar person, place or item.
- Thinking of synonyms or antonyms
- Providing own definition of a word
- Thinking of situations where given words might be useful or not useful with justifications (as in my experiment above).
- Odd one out with justification
- Sorting words into semantic categories
Such activities are no doubt more cognitively demanding but this is precisely the reason why they’re also more effective. As the saying goes: it’s better to dig one deep well…