In this article Marcin Lewandowski critically evaluates learning techniques such as repetition and rereading (i.e. maintenance rehearsal), which are common in language classrooms, and considers alternative techniques such as depth processing to promote long term vocabulary retention. Better to dig one deep well than ten shallow ones…
‘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 tedious affair
Sadly, learning vocabulary was always a somewhat tedious affair for me. It often meant that I had to learn lists of words by heart which involved rereading 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, e.g. through spaced practice will lead to long term retention. It’s just it’s not the most efficient of ways.
The shallow ones
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. Generally to commit a word to long term memory we need to perform a form of rehearsal. This rehearsal takes place in our working memory and can be performed at a shallow or deep level (maintenance or elaborative rehearsal).
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 (e.g. through spaced repetition) before it’s moved to long term memory.
So what’s the alternative? It seems that to be better, remembered words need to be processed at a deeper, semantic level (elaborative rehearsal). 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 looked at by answering one of three questions. Some questions required them to focus on the meaning (deep processing, e.g. does this word go in this sentence?), whereas others required them to process the words in a shallow way (e.g. is the word in capital letters? (visual processing) or does the word rhyme with…? (phonemic processing)).
When they 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 small 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 they would aid their survival on a desert island. The results of this experiment were consistent with those reported by Craik and Tulving. Learners were by far more likely to remember more words from the survival list irrespective of whether it was shown first or last.
Deciding whether words represent useful objects for your survival, not only captures the meaning of the words but it engages deep elaborative thinking by making you attend to possible uses for those objects. Tasks which require students to make decisions about words are stimulating and involving.
Examples of such activities might include (adapted from Conti):
- 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 they say, it’s better to dig one deep well…
See Martin’s last article on a tale of how two (virtual) heads are better than one.
References
Conti, F (2016). 10 commonly made mistakes in vocabulary instruction. Retrieved from https://gianfrancoconti.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/10-commonly-made-mistakes-in-vocabulary-instruction/
Craik, F.I.M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.
McLeod, S. A. (2007). Levels of Processing. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/levelsofprocessing.html
Wilkins, David A. (1972). Linguistics in Language Teaching. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.