Myth Busters Round 2 - Vocabulary Edition

Overview

Read this book!

In Vocabulary Myths-Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching, Keith Folse debunks a series of myths that many L2 teachers hold about vocabulary—myths he believes “can be detrimental to our teaching effectiveness, and all of them can certainly hinder our students’ second language vocabulary learning” (160).  These myths include the following eight ideas:

1. In learning another language, vocabulary is not as important as grammar or other areas.
2. Using word lists to learn second language vocabulary is unproductive.
3. Presenting new vocabulary in semantic sets facilitates learning.
4. The use of translations to learn new vocabulary should be discouraged.
5. Guessing words from context is an excellent strategy for learning second language vocabulary.
6. The best vocabulary learners make use of one or two really good specific vocabulary learning strategies.
7. The best dictionary for second language learners is a monolingual dictionary.
8. Teachers, textbooks, and curricula cover second language vocabulary adequately.

Folse focuses a chapter on each of these myths and structures his discussion somewhat similarly for each chapter.

He begins with a story from his experiences in the classroom or as a second language learner—a story that problematizes the idea in question.  For example, to emphasize how vocabulary knowledge can be vital (and in many cases trumps grammar), Folse tells a tortuous story about trying to buy flour in Japan.  In the grocery store, no amount of grammar knowledge could compensate for the fact that Folse didn’t know the word for flour, and even after eliciting help from a native speaker, he ends up with flowers not flour.

Then, Folse brings in existing research related to the myth—most of which either problematizes or actually contradicts the belief.  For example, many ESL textbooks organize vocabulary by semantic sets—colors, days of the week, items in the kitchen, types of emotions, etc.—in the belief that this helps students learn the words more effectively.  However, research studies have shown that this organizational principle doesn’t work well and actually impedes learning, especially when compared to other organizational methods-thematic groupings for instance or emphasizing words that are used more frequently.

Finally, Folse offers up some practical suggestions for how classroom teachers can use the existing research and avoid perpetuating the myth.  For example, Folse argues that contrary to many a language teacher’s edict, using translations of vocabulary into a learner’s first language is actually a good tool for language learning. Folse advises teachers to do three concrete things:  (1) do not stop a student who is jotting down a translation of a new English word, (2) let a more knowledgeable student help another student who speaks the same language, and (3) learn what you can about your students’ native language (69-70).

Folse concludes the book with a final chapter that briefly reviews an important idea raised in debunking each of these myths and ends with a call for classroom teachers to use this new knowledge to make vocabulary learning and teaching a bigger priority in their classroom.

Response

I found Folse’s book very interesting and a little unsettling because in the course of reading it, I realized that I was guilty of holding onto a number of these ideas.  I thought that my students, native and non-native English speakers alike, would learn vocabulary best the way I did, by immersion or simply by lots and lots of reading.  However, Folse reminds me that learning vocabulary in a L2 is different than in a L1 and that by ignoring the teaching of vocabulary in my own classes, I’ve missed a chance to help my students (all of my students) grow as readers, writers, and speakers of academic language.  As I’m fond of saying, Academic English is not anyone’s first language; it’s a second language (or at the very least) a second dialect for all students.  If that’s the case, then I can’t keep pushing vocabulary issues to the back burner.

Here are some other ideas that stood out to me after reading this book:

Vocabulary is far more important than I first thought.  This isn’t an idea that came from one specific chapter though Folse first introduces it while tackling Myth #1 – That learning vocabulary isn’t as important as learning grammar or other things related to a second language.  However, he does a good job, as a teacher, a researcher, and a language learner, of emphasizing the key role that vocabulary plays in all the skills related to using a second language—reading, writing, listening and speaking.

Vocabulary needs to be taught explicitly and consistently.  As Folse points out, grammar and other skills are typically worked into the curriculum but vocabulary often gets left behind.  In 2004, Folse studied two groups of upper intermediate students in an Intensive English program and this is what he learned—that there was “no overall plan of vocabulary instruction in the curriculum” (131) yet the most common questions from students were vocabulary related.  Also, the classes where vocabulary was taught most directly did not relate to the subject being taught but rather the instructor doing the teaching (133).  The research suggests that students learn new vocabulary best when it is directly taught in a structured way yet that isn’t how most programs are designed and I know that isn’t how it happens in my classes.

Bilingual dictionaries (and use of L1) are important to language learning.  I have always been a fan of “learner’s dictionaries” over regular monolingual dictionaries, whose definitions are often as confusing as the unknown word itself.  Yet, like many teachers, I’ve been nervous about bilingual dictionaries—especially the handheld computer variety.  I saw them as a crutch and worried that they would lead students astray.  However, Folse does a nice job of showing the value of bilingual dictionaries (and the weaknesses of monolingual ones), especially if teachers help students to use them effectively and he kindly points out that there is no research to back up teacher’s concerns about bilingual dictionary use. 

Using context clues may help students as readers but it doesn’t help them learn vocabulary. This was the biggest eye opener for me as a teacher.  Folse argues through several chapters (both in dealing with Myth #5 and #7) that though learning to use context clues is a solid strategy for readers to use, it does not help L2 students learn new vocabulary.  Folse discusses how context works differently for most L2 learners versus L1 learners.  For example, for L1 students, the context is typically clear but for L2 students, there may be more unknown words around the first unknown word; that is, Folse believes that guessing/learning words from context requires a large vocabulary to begin with (82).  Also, in using context clues, the L2 reader might skip the new word entirely or guess incorrectly about its meaning.  Later, Folse advises teachers directly to “teach context clues but not at the expense of explicit teaching of vocabulary” (122).

Activities that I considered “rote” or “skill & drill” may be more helpful than I thought. I am guilty as a teacher of considering exercises like matching and fill-in-the-blank activities as not “authentic.”  However, Folse makes a compelling argument using the existing research to suggest that what students do with new words may be less important than how consistently they do it.  Folse spends many pages discussing the research into specific exercise types including his own 1999 study and concludes that his research “supports the notion that an extremely important factor in L2 vocabulary acquisition is the number of retrievals that a learner makes of a given word” (156). Folse suggests that criticisms of certain activities as “rote” might miss their value:  “Their thinking is that practice such as this does not lead to deeper learning or production [of] the target vocabulary.  There is no research to back this up.  Who can say what goes on in the head of an individual learner as he or she interacts with a word in a practice activity?” (156).  Folse seems open to any vocabulary learning strategy as long as it is part of larger plan and implemented consistently.

If you want students to take vocabulary learning seriously, you need to fully integrate it into your course.  Again, this isn’t something that Folse says once but rather is an idea that he returns to again and again.  Vocabulary instruction shouldn’t be something just thrown in but rather should be planned as part of a course curriculum and it should be assessed like any other skill in the class. 

These ideas are all ones that I need to consider as I plan my developmental English classes for next year.  I’m left with many interesting questions to ponder.  How can I integrate vocabulary into my English 109 classes?  How might having a class with L1 and L2 learners complicate the issues that Folse raises?  How might I use the idea of a vocabulary notebook most effectively?  How will I assess the learning my students do? That said, the one question that this book has answered for me is this:  Should my courses include vocabulary instruction?  The answer is a resounding “Yes.”