During the winter vacation, we asked our students to study English on their own, and so they ran across the street to China’s top English teaching company to take vocabulary classes. After school started back we noticed a sharp deterioration in our student’s English ability, so we looked into why. And when our students reported to us how they learned English vocabulary at the English school, we didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), a three-hour multiple-choice examination that Chinese students must take in order to apply to US colleges and universities, is essentially a vocabulary test, and that’s why Chinese students will spend three years memorizing English word lists. The school in question specializes in creating mnemonic systems to help Chinese students crack the SAT.
Many are well-known: identifying common suffixes and prefixes, locating Latin or Greek roots, employing rhyming schemes, and visualizing words. But some teachers there have created and are promoting a mnemonic system that shows what absurd lengths Chinese students will go to in order to avoid learning English to take English tests.
At this school, our students said they spent eight days learning to memorize English words using pinyin. For example, in the word ‘famine,’ there’s embedded in it the Chinese phrase ‘fa mi ne,’ which means ‘hand out rice.’ So a ‘famine’ is when people need to be handed out rice.
That’s so clever and disingenuous it’s almost a pity that it’s so silly and useless.
And here’s a trick for remembering the meaning of the words fawn, pawn, spawn, brawn, lawn, yawn, and dawn: Fei lai de xiao lu Pa dian dang, xiao She zai qian cai chan luan, Bu yao ji rou Lai cao ping, Da ge ha qi Dao li ming. (This translates as: “The fawn that is flying this way is afraid of pawn; Only when the snake is in front does it spawn; You don’t need brawn to come to the lawn; Yawn once, and it is dawn.’) The capitalized letter is that which should be combined with ‘-awn,’ and the adjacent italicized words are the Chinese meaning.
This is perhaps the world’s most convoluted way to learn seven simple English words, and you’ll notice that it’s not perfect because in the phrase ‘Da ge ha qi’ the letter D ought to be the letter Y.
There’s a fine line between what’s stupid and what’s dangerous. Entertaining students with these silly tricks is harmless, but the teachers also encourage gullible and impressionable students to create their own mnemonic systems based on pinyin.
First, if students just love memorization and are making the effort to create mnemonic systems based on pinyin, wouldn’t it be more effective to just remember well-written New York Times articles? Or how about taking the same amount of time, and reading Anna Karenina?
Second, this methodology treats English as basically an oversized periodic table of elements: meaningless words to memorize for tests. That’s a short-sighted and counter-productive attitude to take, and by encouraging students to snuggle inside their small comfort zone, these teachers are also making it harder for students to challenge themselves, and to learn real English.
In fact, the teachers at the school have told our students that they’ve developed techniques for beating the SAT reading section without needing to read the passages on which the questions are based.
Ten years ago, the school reportedly found itself in a copyright infringement battle with Education Testing Services (ETS), which writes and administers the SAT. Beijing Television (BTV) interviewed me, and asked me if I sided with the school or ETS. My thinking back then is the same as my thinking now: the problem is society’s blind faith and heavy reliance on national standardized multiple-choice examinations to determine its winners and losers. This school is a multi-billion dollar that has taken traditional Chinese test-taking strategies (identifying common answers to common questions, doing statistical analysis of the occurrence of certain questions, etc.) and applied them to the Scholastic Aptitude Test with remarkable success. It has actually done humanity a favour by proving that ETS tests (the SAT and Graduate Record Examination) are simply a test of vocabulary that can be beaten without knowing much English.
That’s why our school doesn’t teach the SAT, instead emphasizing an ability to think in English through reading and discussing English books.
At first, there was fierce parental criticism and resistance—until our students went to the language school and reported to their parents that their English vocabulary was increasing much faster in our programme. Having experienced both our English curriculum and this vocabulary cram school, our students now appreciate how they’re learning to understand and use English in context through intense reading. A month back into our programme, with newfound conviction and motivation, our students’ English ability has improved dramatically.
Maybe we should make it mandatory to try out this other place after all…








Michael
This author has posted several articles that I know of where he basically denounces the existing educational system in China for its shortcomings. They are obviously true, but practical difficulties exist for why the education system is what it is. The kind of idealized interpersonal Socratic education advocated by the author is prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, I’m not sure that China necessarily needs that type of education MORE than it needs competent, basic education which may involve standardized tests. While there always will be those who try to get ahead of the education bell-curve with weird tricks, the fact remains that China is still developing and in the process of extending decent pre-university education to all of its young people. I would rather China focus on providing adequate classroom resources and qualified, motivated teachers. If success is all about being able to adapt, it should not be necessary to create a model of education which adapts FOR the student.
Also you are supposed to learn Russian from reading Anna Karenina, as it is a Tolstoy book.
Dai Shu
Michael, I’ve got to respectfully disagree. What you are calling an ‘idealized interpersonal Socratic education’ is nothing of the sort – it simply means learning via more engaging methods rather than rote memorization.
The author essentially mentions using readings rather than vocabulary lists. From a language learning standpoint, this allows students to see the word used in context, which can be crucial particularly when they need to know what kinds of prepositions are appropriate to be used with the word. It also allows them to exercise their brain by attempting to guess its meaning rather than having the meaning fed to them, which will result in them remembering more words, and will probably mean those words have a more practical application.
Having spent some time working in and around the education system in China, I’ve been consistently shocked and appalled by the sheer amount of study that the children there are forced to do, especially given that the rewards for such hard work are destroyed by the rote, repetitive nature of the education style.
You speak of a prohibitively expensive system – I don’t see why it has to be more expensive, especially given that many parents around Beijing routinely invest additional money in furthering their children’s education through even more classes – on top of their already unreasonable study load. It just means that instead of loading children with excessive amounts of study, (which also robs them of time to develop social skills and their own interests) they ought to be given more engaging, less monotonous, more practical lessons and be given some time to pursue their own interests.
Grihfen
I love reading your articles, Mr. Jiang. I can understand your points in your articles. I myself am teaching primary school students in a private weekend school.
I am currently studying the GMAT test;there are lots of “famous” chinese schools offering training this course. However, I have never had any faith in their teaching (maybe just my ignorance on my side) – the point about learning words in this article is great.Very sadly, that is the reality in learning English – Chinese style – which is almost laughable.
All of whatsoever, no matter how successful the English training schools are, I see they care more about making more money than they do about students English learning (again, this is might be just my prejudice and I am not an expert on this).
Any comments would be appreciated; I can be reached at grihfen@yahoo.com
Emily
Anna Karenina… Seriously.
ksou
This is a very interesting article . I’ve had a great time meeting students from China at my college( I even almost moved in with a few but I decided against it at the last moment for personal reasons).
The problem with learning English words to beat some SAT test is the students will be completely lost when they get to an American school and EVERYTHINGS in English . It would be wise to take as many conversational English classes in China as possible , and have fun with it. English is a pretty lax language when it comes to pronunciation, compared to French or German . This has to do with America itself, since the English I speak sounds very different then the English spoken in New York or England .
I have alot of respect for international students though . I have one French class thats stressing me out . For about 3 hours a week I’m more or less lost . This is a language I hand picked due to its proximity to English. I couldn’t imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and I had to learn a new writing system, and a language completely different from my own .
And the author is a little condensing , lets create a little scenario . What if their was some Dutch school you needed to get into since it had an awesome job program for you profession ? And theirs some test with 400 Dutch words, you need to pass this test to get in. Wouldn’t you try anything possible to learn what you needed to pass that test ?
Santos
I don’t object to Anna Karenina’s being originally Russian (Re: Michael’s comment— the English translation is widely considered a classic)… but really? Shouldn’t we start with ‘Cat in the Hat’ before tackling Tolstoy?
N
Commenters: The point is not reading Karenina. I think the author picked that example because it illustrates how far these students could’ve taken their English reading fluency, given that they used appropriate methods of self-studying.
The point here is that one must use many different types of texts (not just written), in order to learn vocabulary. There must also be a creative element to further internalize these words into the student’s thinking.
It’s a very reasonable demand on any teacher, in any country (developing or not), that the teacher provides texts and informs their students on how study by themselves. It’s not a money issue.
I don’t know how to solve this problem. The cram school i used to work for did it the right way (yes, we were right). Our students did very well, but the rest of Chinese education seems to look elsewhere.
TEFL101
Mnemonics are actually a good way to learn lots of things, including Chinese characters. But overall and communicatively of course you are right. If the target structures are not English, then it has limited purpose beyond internalising the most basic vocabulary. At least I suppose, they are using a quasi lexical approach.
I think it’s a bit bit of a myth that rote learning is inherently bad. The problem is that although rote a necessary part of formal learning, such behaviorist methods have major shortcomings when you progress beyond a beginner level in any discipline.
Chinese culture sometimes encourages shortcut-taking because people tend to see the result as being more important than the process. A positive side-effect is that this focus inculcates herculean levels of persistence in people. Ultimately though, if you couple such tunnel vision with over-sized classes, and traditionalist / conservative attitudes, you see the entrenchment of old-fashioned habits and unsound methods.
red74999
What a load of nonsense that school fed you. Its techniques can’t possible, and don’t, work for the SAT or any other standardized tests. They may be still cheating but those techniques don’t work at all. I can’t believe you could possibly fall for that ridiculous explanaiton.