In the clarification stage of a vocabulary lesson, meaning, form and pronunciation all need to be clarified. This post will talk about clarifying meaning.
As I learned from an experienced CELTA trainer(*), there are several different ways of clarifying the meaning of vocabulary:
You can use gestures, pictures, realia, board drawings, examples, mime, context, translation, clines, opposites or synonyms, or definitions. All of these are valid ways of conveying the meaning of vocabulary, but you need to select the best method for the appropriate vocabulary.
For example:
Pictures work very well for concrete nouns that represent physical objects in the real world (e.g. lion, firetruck, etc) and some action verbs (e.g. jump, kick). Pictures work less well for abstract nouns (e.g. justice)
Board Drawing is great for any words that can be quickly sketched, especially if you haven't prepared a picture beforehand (e.g. ladder, snail)
Realia is great for any vocabulary words that can be located in the classroom (e.g. pencil, elbow) or can be easily brought into the classroom (e.g fruits or vegetables)
Translation works very well for technical words which have a very specific meaning in both languages (e.g hemoglobin **). Translation works less well for words that have vague or nuanced meanings, or words that have multiple meanings.
Examples work well for any words that are hyponyms (e.g. if you want to define cutlery, you can give examples like spoon, fork, knife, etc.)
Mime is great for when the vocabulary is representing a physical action (e.g. limp, lean)
Gesture can be used with phrases like a tiny bit, or over and under.
Clines are good for anytime you have a vocabulary set of words that differ from each other in degree (see examples here)
Opposites are often useful, but of course this relies on the student knowing the opposite. (e.g. you can define miserly as the opposite of generous, but only if your students first know generous).
Synonyms as well rely on the students already knowing the synonym. (e.g. baggy as the opposite of loose). Although you should always be cautious about using synonyms, because it's very rare that two words would exist in the same language that are exactly the same. There's usually some sort of difference in nuance or register or something.
But of all the available methods for clarifying vocabulary, the one most favored by textbook publishers, by far, is match the words to the definitions.
The activity works like this: the students are presented with a set of vocabulary words at the top of the page. They have to match these words to the definitions further down the page (***).
Of course, the obvious question is: if students don't yet know the meaning of the word, how can they match it to the definition?
The answer seems to be that they make their best guess, and then in the all class feedback, the teacher tells them whether or not they got it right. (i.e. the old test-teach-test).
Besides, in any given vocabulary set, students probably know a few of the words already. And if you do it as group work, students can pool their knowledge, and teach each other the words.
Nowadays many textbooks encourage students to check a dictionary to help them complete the activity for any words that they don't know. (The textbook publishers know that the students are always carrying smart phones with them, and so can access online dictionaries or Google Translate at anytime.)
Personally, I have also used "match the word to the definition" activity a lot over the years. (If you search my archives, you'll find this activity pops up many times.) It is, after all, the most obvious activity to use when you want to clarify the meaning of the words in the vocabulary set. It's also the easiest to create.
But over the years, I've been noticing that my students don't really absorb the meaning of a lot of the vocabulary that I teach them. And I think this is partly because it's hard to fully absorb a written definition, especially when it's in your second language.
So recently I've been making an effort to get away from "match the words to the definitions" and return to the old CELTA method of presenting the words in context (****), and then, using that same context, using concept checking questions to check the meaning of the words.
I've already written a whole blogpost on concept checking questions, so I won't repeat myself here. Check out my previous post on concept checking questions for more information.
...although actually, come to think of it, that previous post was mostly about using concept checking questions for grammar, not vocabulary. For an example of vocabulary, see this video by Jo Gakonga.
I may still have students match the words to the definitions as a follow-up activity, but now I try to make sure that I always check the words in their original context first (*****).
And, if you do decide to have students match the vocabulary to the definitions (after you've used concept checking questions) one way to make the activity slightly more fun and kinesthetic is to put the words and definitions on cards, and have the students match the cards to each other.
Another way to gamify matching the word to the definition is to use the quizlet live game function on quizlet.
* Actually this whole post is heavily influenced by two CELTA tutors that I once worked with. Many of the examples I use are also taken directly from them.
** The example of hemoglobin as a word that is best conveyed by translation comes from The Lexical Approach by Michael Lewis.
*** At one time, I would have imagined that "match the words to the definitions" was such an obvious and standard activity that it would be ridiculous to take the time to explain it. But now I'm not so sure. I remember going to a presentation once at CamTESOL in which an Irish guy (who was teaching at a University in Japan) did a presentation on how to teach vocabulary, and he presented matching the words to the definitions as if it was some new activity that he had thought of himself.
At times like these, I remind myself that a lot of the people teaching at universities in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc, have Masters degrees in applied linguistics, but no practical teaching qualifications--no CELTA, no Delta. So they know all about the theory of second language acquisition, but they don't know how to run activities in the classroom. (Having done a Master's Degree in applied linguistics myself, I know exactly what you learn on those courses, and what you don't learn.) I can imagine this Irish guy in the classroom at his university, trying to figure out how to best teach vocabulary, and stumbling upon the idea of having the words on one side of the pager, and the definitions on the other side of the paper, and thinking that he had just thought of something new.
In other words, I've learned over the years not to take it for granted that everyone knows about a certain technique or activity. People in this profession have all different backgrounds and training. Maybe there are still people out there who don't know about "match the word to the definition".
***** Of course, this assumes that you have the vocabulary in a context to begin with. If you don't have a context (i.e. if the textbook you are using just gives you a wordlist to teach, and doesn't put the words into any sort of context), then you'll have to first create some sort of model text to embed the vocabulary in. AI can be helpful with this.
***** Although, a small note of caution, if you clarify the meaning by using concept checking questions, and then you subsequently have students match the vocabulary to the definitions, you are technically clarifying the meaning twice. Which, as I wrote before, an experienced CELTA tutor once told me is a mistake.
But personally I don't think it's the end of the world if you clarify the meaning twice. Maybe clarifying it twice helps the meaning to sink in more? I don't know. But just be careful about this if you are ever doing a formally observed lesson.
No comments:
Post a Comment