EN
Català Castellano English Français
Log in
Go PremiumPremium Start for free
Courses English Catalan Spanish How it works Guides for parents Pricing Go Premium

How children learn vocabulary

By Marina Mele · Reviewed on 1 November 2026

A girl walks down the street holding her father's hand and points at a passing dog; beside her is a speech bubble with a picture of the dog and two coloured lines, standing for the word written in two languages.

To write this guide, we at Parauling, a vocabulary app for children, looked into what scientific research says about memory and about how words in a new language are learned, and, in particular, what is known about children learning a language. How we did it →

In short

Two ways of learning words. The first is in passing: by reading, listening or watching videos in the language they're learning, children pick up words without trying to. They pick up only a few each time. That is well established, especially in adults and teenagers. The second is on purpose, with flashcards or word lists. That way they learn words too, and it seems they learn more than in passing. This comes from a single research team, based on reviews (articles that bring together all the studies done on the same question). So far, no other team has confirmed it.

How to teach them. There are three ideas, and each comes from a different source:

  • The picture and the translation, together. More is learned when a word is taught with the picture and the translation at the same time than with only one of the two. This comes from another review, which measures it just after the words are learned.
  • How it's written. Nobody has yet brought together the studies on whether it helps to see a word written down when it's being learned by ear. With children, there are few, and the two that test the words again a few days later suggest it helps.
  • Mixed, not by category. Teaching words in groups, for example all the fruit at once, doesn't help more than teaching them mixed up. This comes from a third review, which also only measures it just after.

With children there are few studies. Almost everything this guide says rests on some evidence, not certainty. The reviews include very few studies done in primary school. We have also read the studies done with children, and there are few: in each section we tell you how many. Almost all of them involve children aged 6 to 12 (one is with teenagers, and another starts at age 5) learning a language that isn't spoken around them, like English in Spain. None is about an app the child uses alone at home. The case of a child learning the language spoken around them, such as Catalan at school while speaking Spanish at home, or Spanish for a child who lives in Spain, is different, and we haven't reviewed it here.

What you can do at home. There are few studies, but they point this way:

  • teach each word with the picture and the translation at the same time;
  • let them see how it's written;
  • mix the words up, instead of teaching all the fruit at once.

The rest of the tips are in “How to apply it at home to learn words”.

What research says

Each section starts with a box saying how well established it is, according to the research:

  • well established: several independent reviews
  • some evidence: a single review, a single research team, or only reviews without a systematic method (the box says which of the three)
  • a single study
  • studies disagree
  • no review has looked at it, or none has brought together the studies that exist (this doesn't mean it doesn't work)

Note: the dots say how well established something is in general, with studies of all ages; what is known about children is in the text of the section and, where there is one, in the second part of the box.

A review is an article that brings together the studies done on the same question and compares their results; a review without a systematic method is one in which an expert summarises the studies they know, without a full search. That is why such reviews don't reach four dots, even when there are several. And a meta-analysis is a review that combines the figures from all the studies. Two confirmations from the same research team count for less in the dots, because they are not independent, and so does what is known just after learning, because it may not still be there a few days later. The “How we know” drop-down at the end of each section shows where each point comes from.

“Just after” means the test done at the end of learning, and “a few days later”, the one done afterwards, anywhere from the next day to a few weeks later. When we say a difference is “not significant”, we mean that, with the data available, it can't be told apart from chance; “borderline” means right on the line.

Reading, listening or watching, words are picked up, but only a few

well established, especially in adults and teenagers. With children learning a language, we haven't read any study that looks at it: only a few primary-school results within the reviews

It is well established, especially in adults and teenagers, that people pick up words by reading a story, or by listening to or watching videos in another language, even when nobody explains them. But only a few are learned each time. Just after, between one in ten and almost one in five of the new words that come up are known; a few days later, slightly fewer.

With children learning a language, we haven't read any study that looks at it. Within the reviews, there are a few results from primary-school children. They point the same way, with smaller effects, although the difference from older learners is not significant. For the test a few days later, there are only two results, and the outcome can't be told apart from learning none.

How we know

In research, picking up words in passing is called incidental learning, and working on them on purpose, intentional or deliberate learning.

How well established, in general: well established, especially in adults and teenagers. Two reviews by different research groups, with studies of reading, listening and videos, find that words are learned. One of them is by the same team that wrote other reviews in this guide; without that team, only one systematic review would be left, and it only covers words heard. Compared with not seeing the words, the difference is large; but, of all the new words, only a few are learned: between 9% and 18% just after, depending on the study, and between 6% and 17% a few days later. According to a single review, in the test done just after, people learn more from reading than from watching videos; a few days later, with very few studies, the difference is not significant.

With children learning a language: no direct study that we have read. In one of the reviews, there are five primary-school results, positive and smaller than those of older learners, although the difference is not significant. The review only says they were from primary school: it doesn't give their age or what kind of language they were learning. For the test a few days later, the review has only two results, and the outcome can't be told apart from learning none. With children, the doubt is how many words they learn.

Sources: Webb, Uchihara and Yanagisawa (2023);1 de Vos et al. (2018).2

Working on them on purpose, words are learned too

that words are learned this way, a single review; that more are learned than in passing, a single research team. With children, few studies, and the ones that compare the two ways don't say the same thing

Words are also learned by working on them on purpose, with flashcards, word lists or sentences. According to a single review, just after, learners remember the meaning of six in ten of the words they worked on, and a few days later, about four.

Only one research team has found that people learn more by working on words on purpose than by coming across them in passing, and the authors themselves urge caution. These figures and those in the previous section come from different reviews, and putting them side by side is exactly the comparison that only this team has made.

The same review compares these activities, with few studies and none with children. It finds that the meaning is remembered better with flashcards and word lists than by filling gaps in sentences, and that writing the word in sentences comes in between. Just after, the difference is borderline, barely distinguishable from chance, and the way the test was done changed with the activity, so the effect of the activity can't be separated from that of the test.

With children learning a language, the studies that look at it find that children, even those aged 6 and 7, learn the words they work on. The ones that compare this with coming across words in passing don't say the same thing.

How we know

How well established, in general: some evidence from a single review of 22 studies with secondary-school and university students and written activities. It has no comparison group: the 60% just after and the 39% a few days later (4 to 14 days, in 15 of the studies) are the share of words remembered, not the difference from doing nothing. The finding that more words are learned on purpose than in passing comes from comparing two reviews by the same team, not from comparing the two ways within the same studies. And the review cites studies in which, a few days later, more words were retained in passing. Comparing the activities, just after: flashcards 77%, word lists 73%, sentences 55% and gap-filling 43%, with the difference borderline; a few days later, the difference is significant by a narrow margin, but only with two flashcard studies and two list studies, and the way the test was done changed with the activity, as the authors warn.

With children learning a language: few studies. Two, with 93 children about to start 1st grade (average age 6.8) and with 45 Japanese 6-year-olds, find that they learn the words they work on better than a group that doesn't see them; since the other group doesn't see the words, the difference only shows the effect of having seen them. Of the three that compare the two ways, one, with 44 Catalan children in 5th grade (ages 10-11), finds no difference; another, with 30 Japanese 6-year-olds, finds no difference in three of four tests, and in the fourth the comprehension tasks come out ahead; and a third, with 40 Finnish children aged 5 to 8, finds an advantage for working on purpose in only one of the tasks, and only in the test just after. In none of the three is “in passing” the same as in the reviews: they are classroom or laboratory tasks, or graded readers read and listened to in class. For children who can't read yet, it isn't known whether written activities work the same way. We haven't read any study with children that compares the activities with each other.

Sources: Webb, Yanagisawa and Uchihara (2020);3 Webb, Uchihara and Yanagisawa (2023);1 Teng (2024);4 Shintani (2011, 2013);56 Llanes and Tragant (2024);7 Junttila and Ylinen (2020).8

Picture, translation or both

a single review; with children, few studies, and they don't say the same thing

According to a single review of 32 studies, more is learned, just after, when a word is presented with the picture and the translation at the same time than with only one of the two. No difference is seen between the picture alone and the translation alone. A few days later, the two together still seem to give more than the translation alone, but the result isn't certain.

It's a drawing: the bars don't show actual amounts.

With children learning a language, the only study that tests the two together, with 34 Catalan children in 5th grade (ages 10-11), finds that adding the translation to the picture helps them recognise more words a month later. But each method was tried in a different class. Also, the group with the translation had more exposure to the words, because they saw the translation as well. The studies that compare the picture alone with the translation alone don't say the same thing.

The pages that say children should learn words without translating, directly through the picture, don't cite any study that shows it. There isn't enough to say it's false, but it goes against what the research points to: between the picture alone and the translation alone, no difference is seen, and with both together, more is learned, at least just after.

Education bodies don't agree either, and none cites any studies: one recommends the translation for the first encounter with a word, for pupils aged 11 to 13; another, the picture or an action, with the translation only if needed, for children aged 6 to 11; and none recommends the two together.

How we know

How well established, in general: some evidence from a single review of 32 studies with 2,056 participants. Just after, the two together outperform the translation alone and the picture alone; between the picture alone and the translation alone there is no significant difference. A few days later, with few studies, the two together outperform the translation alone in the main analysis, but not when a few results very different from the rest are removed. The review doesn't find that it is different for under-16s, but it includes few children aged 6 to 12: 4 of the 20 studies that compare the picture alone with the translation alone, and only one in the comparisons of the two together.

With children learning a language: five studies, which don't agree. The only one on the two together: 34 Catalan children in 5th grade recognised, a month later, 17.8 words out of 20 with the picture and the translation, and 14.1 with the picture alone; just after, no difference. It was one class per method, and the group with the translation had more exposure to the words, because they saw the translation as well. The four that compare the picture alone with the translation alone: 40 French-speaking children in 3rd grade (ages 8 to 10) recognised more the next day with a photo (80% compared with 66%); 42 Portuguese children in 6th grade (average age 11) learning Basque made fewer errors with the translation, but only in one of the analyses; with 63 Taiwanese children in 4th grade (average age 9) there is no difference about two weeks later, although in one of the two stories the gain favours the translation; and with 47 Japanese children in 5th grade there is none either, just after, in a paper that doesn't say whether it has been reviewed by other scientists.

Education bodies: the NCELP, an English centre for language teaching funded by the government, recommends the translation for the first encounter with a word; ACTFL, the US association of language teachers, recommends teaching the class in the language, with gestures and visual support, but it is talking about the class in general; and the French education portal, Éduscol, recommends the picture or an action, with the translation only if needed. None of them cites any studies for this.

The belief: we traced it back to its source on app, language-school and teacher websites, and none of them cites any study that shows it (see “What people say that isn't quite right”).

Sources: Zhang, Sala and Gobet (2025);9 Codina Camó and Pladevall Ballester (2015);10 Boddaert, Casalis and Mahé (2021);11 Comesaña et al. (2012);12 Sieh (2008);13 Rachman (2026).14

Seeing the word written down while learning it

no review has brought together the studies that look at it with a new language, although there are studies with adults; with children, the two studies that test a few days later point in its favour

No review has brought together the studies on seeing the word written down while learning it by ear in a foreign language, although there are studies with adults. With children learning a language, on the other hand, the two studies that test the words again a few days later suggest it helps, although in one the difference doesn't reach significance. For example, French children in 3rd and 5th grade (average ages 9 and 11) learning German who saw the word written down recognised more words a week later. On a related question, a review of studies mostly with children and with words in their own language finds that seeing the word written down helps in most of the studies, almost always just after.

Some pages say that children should first learn the word by ear and only see it written down once they can say it. The ones we found don't cite any study that shows it. None of the studies with children that we have read has tried delaying the written word, but the idea doesn't fit with what they have found. A French education body recommends it without citing any study.

How we know

How well established, in general: no review has brought together the studies that look at it with a foreign language. There are studies with adults, with results that depend on whether the learner knows how the language is spelled. With children, mostly with words in their own language, a review of 23 studies finds that seeing the word written down helps them learn how it's spelled in 12 of 13 studies, how it sounds in all but one, and what it means in 8 of 11, almost always just after; since it is about a different question, it doesn't count when we say how well established this is with a new language.

With children learning a language: five studies. The two that test again a few days later suggest it helps: the French children learning German recognised more words a week later if they had seen them written down (in 3rd grade, 69% compared with 52%; in 5th grade, 81% compared with 73%), and with 84 Dutch children in 6th grade (ages 11 to 13) the difference points the same way without reaching significance. Of the other three, with Chinese children aged about 8 there is no difference half an hour later, and just after there is a slight advantage for not seeing it; a study of subtitles with children in Hong Kong points in its favour just after; and one with 14 Catalan children in 2nd grade (ages 7-8), which is not a clean comparison, gives a mixed result.

Education bodies: Éduscol recommends sound before spelling with older primary-school children too (the French “cycle 3”), and says, without citing any studies, that the written word, if it comes too early, makes it harder to understand the spoken language. The Catalan foreign-language curriculum includes the relationship between sounds and letters as early as 1st and 2nd grade (ages 6 to 8), but it says what is learned at each stage, not when a new word should be shown in writing.

The belief: wherever we found it, no page cites any study, and none of the studies with children compares seeing the word written down straight away with seeing it later.

Sources: Colenbrander, Ricketts and Miles (2019);15 Salomé, Commissaire and Casalis (2024);16 Krepel, de Bree and de Jong (2020);17 Zheng (2026);18 Teng (2018);19 Amores Sánchez and Pladevall Ballester (2014).20

How many times a word needs to come up

that the more times, the more is learned, a single research team; that there is no fixed number, a single review; with children, two studies pointing the same way, neither fully conclusive

According to a single research team, the more times a word comes up, the more it is learned. But there is no number of times after which a word is “known”: a review says it isn't worth looking for one, and what the studies have found varies a lot from one to another. When the word comes with a picture or a video, coming across it more times adds less than when it comes on its own.

With children learning a language, there are two studies, and neither is a clean test. For example, 257 children in 6th grade (average age almost 12) in Hong Kong who watched a video three times knew more words just after than those who watched it once. But each group was from a different school.

When to come back to each word, and how, is the topic of the other guide, “How to help children remember new words”.

How we know

How well established, in general: some evidence from a single research team. The review that looks at it is the only one devoted to how many times a word comes up, and it is by the same team as another review that points the same way. This review, of 26 studies of words learned in passing, finds a moderate relationship: the number of times explains 11% of why some learners know more than others. In the four primary-school results, the relationship is weaker, although the difference isn't significant, and, with so few, the authors urge caution. The same review calls for an end to the search for a number after which a word counts as learned; a review without a systematic method gives a range, from 5 to more than 20 times depending on the study. With a picture or a video, coming across the word more times adds less. When words are learned on purpose, a review of laboratory studies says that repeating the word many times in a row helps little, and that repetition helps a lot when it is spread out over time and the word has to be recalled.

With children learning a language: two studies, and neither is a clean test. With 257 children in 6th grade in Hong Kong, those who watch a video three times know more words than those who watch it once, but only in the test just after, and with one school per method; with 78 Korean children in 5th grade, coming across the word four times in a text gives more than once, 14 days later, but only in one of the combinations of activities, and with different words for each number of times.

Sources: Uchihara, Webb and Yanagisawa (2019);21 Schmitt (2008);22 Rice and Tokowicz (2019);23 Teng (2018);19 Shin and Kim (2023).24

How many new words at once

no review has been devoted to it; with children, no study that we have read

Nobody has directly studied how many new words can be learned in one session. The figures that some education bodies give, from 2 or 3 words a day to 10 per lesson, and the “10 new words a day” that circulates online don't come from any study.

How we know

How well established, in general: no review devoted to it. One review doesn't find that the number of words per set makes a difference, and another, on seeing the word written down, finds that it helps with lists of between 4 and 20 words; not finding a relationship doesn't mean there isn't one. The studies that exist don't find that, in large sets, each word is learned less well, but in these studies the size of the set is tied to how much time passes between one encounter and the next; when that is kept the same, studying them in small or large sets makes little difference. With children, no studies. Six education bodies give figures for new words, in units that can't be compared (per day, per lesson…), and no study has compared quantities.

Sources: Nakata and Webb (2016);25 Li, Uchihara, Nakata and Murphy (2026);26 Colenbrander, Ricketts and Miles (2019).15

Which words are easier

reviews without a systematic method, based on studies from the same laboratory, and another that hasn't yet been reviewed by other scientists; with children, few studies, pointing the same way

According to reviews without a systematic method, which are based on studies from the same laboratory, words that look like those in the language the learner already speaks (elefante and elephant, tomate and tomato) are learned more easily, and words that can be pictured, like a dog or an apple, are also learned more easily than abstract ones. How common a word is in the language being learned makes little difference.

With children learning a language, the few studies that exist find the same: for example, German children in 3rd grade (around age 8) remembered words that can be pictured better than abstract ones, up to six months later.

How we know

How well established, in general: some evidence from reviews without a systematic method, which are based on the same studies from a laboratory in Amsterdam; there is no meta-analysis. Words that look alike, which in research are called cognates, are remembered 15-19% more, and up to half as much again when the learner knows little and has to come up with the word themselves; those that can be pictured, 11-27% more; and frequency, 3-7%. A systematic review of 36 studies with school-age pupils, an article that hasn't yet been reviewed by other scientists, finds that words that look alike help in most of them.

With children learning a language: for words that look alike, two studies from the same team, pointing the same way: 42 Portuguese children in 6th grade (average age 11) learning Basque made far fewer errors with these words a week later, and in a study with children and adults together, which included 40 children in 5th grade (ages 10-11) learning Catalan, the same was found just after. For words that can be pictured, one study with German children in 3rd grade (around age 8), who remembered them better than abstract ones in 8 of 9 tests, up to six months later.

Sources: de Groot and van Hell (2005);27 Rice and Tokowicz (2019);23 Zhou, Jaekel and Olkoniemi (2025);28 Comesaña et al. (2012);12 Valente et al. (2018);29 Andrä et al. (2020).30

By topic or mixed

a single review, which only looks at the test just after learning; with children, two studies pointing the same way, but not enough on their own

Learning words grouped by category, for example ten fruits at once, doesn't lead to more learning than learning them mixed up, and it slows down the start: in some studies, mostly with made-up words, it takes more rounds of practice to get to know them. This comes from a single review of 30 studies, which only looks at what is known just after learning.

Learning words of the same kind all at once compared with learning them mixed.

With children learning a language, the two studies that look at it point the same way: for example, in the test just after learning, 174 Korean children in 3rd grade knew more when the words were mixed. But they only test just after. Also, the journals they were published in had no quality indicator, that year, on the lists of journals we use. Two studies like these aren't enough on their own to say which way it goes.

What has been studied is teaching words of the same kind all at once, like ten fruits. Grouping them by a situation (at the beach: sand, wave, towel), which mixes kinds of words, isn't quite the same thing.

How we know

How well established, in general: some evidence from a single review of 30 studies, all on a foreign language. Just after, no difference between grouped and mixed; in 6 studies (4 with made-up words), grouped words take more rounds of practice to get to know. It only looks at what is known just after and at the attempts, and only one of the studies is in primary school. A review of laboratory studies that points the same way shares studies with this one, and a single study cited in another review points the opposite way. The studies group words from the same category, like fruit or animals; grouping them by topics or situations is a different question.

With children learning a language: two studies, pointing the same way, and neither tests later than just after. The 174 Korean children in 3rd grade got 22.9 out of 36 words right when mixed and 14.5 when grouped; and a single group of 25 Turkish children in 6th grade (ages 11-12), who tried both ways, got slightly more right when mixed, without any statistical test. We found no sign of quality for either journal, in the year of the article, on the lists of scientific journals we use, and two studies like these aren't enough on their own to say which way it goes. Separately, with Greek pupils aged 11 to 16, mixing didn't give more than grouping two weeks later.

Education bodies: the Catalan curriculum organises vocabulary by topic, and Éduscol suggests word fields linked to a project; neither cites any study for this, and the review, from 2026, came out after both. Other bodies have reservations: Ofsted, the schools inspectorate in England, considers topics useful, but not as the only way of organising vocabulary; the NCELP says that topic lists of a single word class (for example, only nouns) are not optimal; and the English Vocabulary Profile criticises the emphasis textbooks put on topics.

Sources: Li, Uchihara, Nakata and Murphy (2026);26 Rice and Tokowicz (2019);23 Jang (2014);31 Aitkuzhinova-Arslan, Gün and Üstünel (2016);32 Papathanasiou (2006).33

What people say that isn't quite right

We traced the most widespread claims about how to learn vocabulary (on app, language-school and teacher websites, and in the press) back to their source. None of them is backed by a study that shows what it says, and some cite one that says something else. Some have a grain of truth; others go against what the research points to.

  • “Don't translate: children should link the word directly to the picture.” According to a single review, just after, the picture alone and the translation alone can't be told apart, and with the two together more is learned: the idea is the wrong way round.
  • “Grouping words by topic helps children learn them.” When the topic is a group of things of the same kind, like fruit or animals, it goes against what a review has found. Grouping them by a situation, like at the beach, is a different question.
  • “First the spoken word, and once they can say it, the written one.” The pages that say this don't cite any study that shows it, and it doesn't fit with what the few studies with children have found, although none has tried delaying the written word.
  • “A word has to come up between 7 and 15 times to be learned.” Half true. It has to come up several times, but not a fixed number of times. The study usually cited was done with 20 university students.
  • “The ideal is about 10 new words a day.” The pages that say this don't cite any study that shows it.
  • “Pictures make you remember up to 65% more, because they're stored in two ways.” Half true. Pictures help, but no more than the translation; what helps more is putting the picture and the translation together. The 65% doesn't come from any source.
  • “30-40% of words are similar to those in our own language.” Half true. Words that look alike are learned more easily, but these proportions don't come from any source.
  • “Children are sponges and learn words faster than adults.” For vocabulary, the reviews don't support it, but they don't disprove it either, because none of them looks at age year by year. And the study one of the pages relies on (an article from 2018, if it's the one we identified) is about grammar, not words.
  • “Children learn a new language the way they learned their home language, just by hearing it.” Half true. They learn words, but only a few each time.
  • “Watching cartoons in another language leads to learning 40% more vocabulary.” Half true. Some words are learned this way, but only a few. The 40% doesn't come from any source.

  • “Children learn best with all their senses”, or according to their learning style. The pages that say this don't cite any study that shows it.

  • “Concrete words first, and pictures only work for those.” Half true. Concrete words are learned more easily, but no study shows that they should be taught first, or that pictures don't work for the others.

How we know

We found 19, on app, language-school and teacher websites and in the press; here are the 12 related to this guide. The ones about practice are in “How to help children remember new words”, and we will explain the ones about saying the word out loud, which aren't in this list, in another guide. Every figure that keeps being repeated either leads back to a page that cites nothing or isn't in the source given, except the ones about saying the word out loud, which do come from a study with university students.

And on four pages, the study cited, or the one we were able to identify when none is cited specifically, doesn't say what it is claimed to say: one is about grammar, not words; another leaves out the subtitled videos attributed to it; another is about adults learning the letters of the Arabic alphabet; and another, about nonsense syllables.

Sources: Zhang, Sala and Gobet (2025);9 Li, Uchihara, Nakata and Murphy (2026);26 Uchihara, Webb and Yanagisawa (2019);21 de Groot and van Hell (2005);27 Webb, Uchihara and Yanagisawa (2023);1 Hartshorne, Tenenbaum and Pinker (2018).34

What we don't know

  • None of the studies we have read is about an app the child uses alone at home. They were done in schools or language schools.

  • Many studies with children only test just after learning, and then it isn't known whether what is learned is still there the next day.

  • For sixteen of the questions we asked, we haven't read any study with children, including what share of the words practised on purpose is still remembered a few days later, whether there is a number of times after which a word is known, and how many new words at once. Not having been studied with children doesn't mean it doesn't work with children.
  • No meta-analysis we have read looks at age year by year, and the only review devoted to primary-school children learning English describes activities without measuring their effect.

  • For children who can't read yet, like many 6- and 7-year-olds, it isn't known whether written activities work the same way.

  • Whether saying the word out loud or writing it helps: no review has looked at it with a foreign language; we will explain the little there is with children in another guide we haven't published yet, “They understand it but don't speak it”.

  • Learning the language spoken around them (for example, Catalan for a child who speaks Spanish at home, or Spanish for a child who lives in Spain) is a different case, because it isn't a foreign language, and we haven't reviewed it here: what we say comes from research in general and from studies with children learning a language that isn't spoken around them.
How we know

We have read 29 studies with children learning a foreign language (two only in part, and some share the same sample), one of them with teenagers; quite a few don't cleanly test any of the questions.

Sources: Liu and Reynolds (2024).35

How to apply it at home to learn words

You can do everything this guide describes with a sheet of paper, a few cards or a conversation.

  • The picture and the translation, together: a card with the picture and the word in the language they're learning and in English, so they see it all at once (if the card has two sides, the first time show both sides together, as in “How to help children remember new words”). According to a single review, together they give more, at least just after (why).

  • Let them see the word written down: of the few studies with children, the two that test the words again a few days later suggest it helps. In one, the difference isn't significant. None of these studies has tried waiting until the child can say it (why). The studies with children are from 2nd to 6th grade of primary school (roughly ages 7 to 13); if your child can't read yet, it isn't known whether it helps in the same way (see “What we don't know”).

  • Mix the words up: don't teach them ten fruits in a row; mix them with words of other kinds. According to a single review, which only looks at the test just after learning, teaching them by category doesn't help and makes the start slower (why). If they later enjoy collecting the words they already know by topic, that's a different matter: what has been studied is how new words are taught.

  • Know which ones are easy: the ones that look like English words and the ones that can be drawn; it's normal for the others to be harder (why). However, no study has shown that they should be taught first.

  • Explaining what the word means in English isn't cheating (why).

  • Stories and cartoons in the language they're learning, yes, as long as you know what to expect from them: some words, but only a few. For the words you want them to really learn, work on them on purpose (why).

  • No magic numbers: neither for how many times, nor for how many words a day. According to a single review, there is no number of times after which a word is known; and no review has been devoted to how many new words to teach at once, nor have we read any study with children on it (why).

  • For coming back to the words on different days and asking for them, see “How to help children remember new words”.

And if you want to do it with Parauling

Parauling teaches each word with its picture and its voice: the child hears the word and has to find its picture. When they find it, they see the word written down and, if the app is in a different language from the one they're learning (for example, the app in English and the Spanish course), the translation too. In other words, in this first game they see the written word and the translation just after answering, not at the same time as the picture, which is how the studies in this guide compare them.

It starts with words that can be drawn, which are learned more easily, although, as we said, no study has tested starting with them. New words arrive mixed, not by topic; the words the child already knows are collected by topic in an album of cards. If your child already plays Parauling, you can still follow the tips above: the app has no stories or cartoons, and at home you can explain the words to them in English.

Parauling has not been studied with children using it on their own at home, and none of the studies we have read is about an app like that: what we know is what this guide says.

How Parauling works →

See also

Sources

  1. Webb, Uchihara and Yanagisawa (2023). How effective is second language incidental vocabulary learning? A meta-analysis. Language Teaching, 56(2), 161-180. 

  2. de Vos, Schriefers, Nivard and Lemhöfer (2018). A meta-analysis and meta-regression of incidental second language word learning from spoken input. Language Learning, 68(4), 906-941. 

  3. Webb, Yanagisawa and Uchihara (2020). How effective are intentional vocabulary-learning activities? A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 104(4), 715-738. 

  4. Teng (2024). Young beginning learners' vocabulary learning via input and output tasks: The role of working memory. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 14(4), 731-767. 

  5. Shintani (2011). A comparison of the effects of comprehension-based and production-based instruction on the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar by young Japanese learners of English. PhD thesis, The University of Auckland. 

  6. Shintani (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36-62. 

  7. Llanes and Tragant (2024). Measuring the effects of repeated exposure to children's graded readers. Language Teaching Research, 28(5), 1842-1868. 

  8. Junttila and Ylinen (2020). Intentional training with speech production supports children's learning the meanings of foreign words: A comparison of four learning tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1108. 

  9. Zhang, Sala and Gobet (2025). Effectiveness of L1 and pictures in multimedia conditions on learning second-language vocabulary: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 47, 100681. 

  10. Codina Camó and Pladevall Ballester (2015). The effects of using L1 translation on young learners' foreign language vocabulary learning. Elia, 15, 109-134. 

  11. Boddaert, Casalis and Mahé (2021). Photograph method fosters direct access to second-language word meaning: Direct evidence from a word-picture matching task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 407-423. 

  12. Comesaña, Soares, Sánchez-Casas and Lima (2012). Lexical and semantic representations in the acquisition of L2 cognate and non-cognate words: Evidence from two learning methods in children. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 378-392. 

  13. Sieh (2008). A possible role for the first language in young learners' processing and storage of foreign language vocabulary. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, 5, 136-160. 

  14. Rachman (2026). Orthographic vs. picture flashcard inputs. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 40, 78-105. 

  15. Colenbrander, Ricketts and Miles (2019). To see or not to see: How does seeing spellings support vocabulary learning? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 

  16. Salomé, Commissaire and Casalis (2024). Contribution of orthography to vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Evidence of an early word-learning advantage in elementary-school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 246, 105978. 

  17. Krepel, de Bree and de Jong (2020). Does the availability of orthography support L2 word learning? Reading and Writing, 34, 467-496. 

  18. Zheng (2026). The role of oral form, written form, and meaning in Chinese children's learning of English vocabulary. PhD thesis, University of Oxford. 

  19. Teng (2018). Incidental vocabulary learning for primary school students: The effects of L2 caption type and word exposure frequency. The Australian Educational Researcher. 

  20. Amores Sánchez and Pladevall Ballester (2014). The effects of written input on young EFL learners' oral output. Journal of English Studies, 12, 7-33. 

  21. Uchihara, Webb and Yanagisawa (2019). The effects of repetition on incidental vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. Language Learning, 69(3), 559-599. 

  22. Schmitt (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363. 

  23. Rice and Tokowicz (2019). A review of laboratory studies of adult second language vocabulary training. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(2), 439-470. 

  24. Shin and Kim (2023). Effects of exposure frequency, depth of processing, and activity repetition types on vocabulary learning. English Teaching, 78(4), 293-322. 

  25. Nakata and Webb (2016). Does studying vocabulary in smaller sets increase learning? The effects of part and whole learning on second language vocabulary acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 

  26. Li, Uchihara, Nakata and Murphy (2026). The effectiveness of semantic clustering on vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. System, 142, 104141. 

  27. de Groot and van Hell (2005). The learning of foreign language vocabulary. In J. F. Kroll and A. M. B. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism. Oxford University Press. 

  28. Zhou, Jaekel and Olkoniemi (2025). Cognate facilitation effect in school-aged second language learners: A systematic review. PsyArXiv (article not yet reviewed by other scientists). 

  29. Valente, Ferré, Soares, Rato and Comesaña (2018). Does phonological overlap of cognate words modulate cognate acquisition and processing in developing and skilled readers? Language Acquisition, 25(4), 438-453. 

  30. Andrä, Mathias, Schwager, Macedonia and von Kriegstein (2020). Learning foreign language vocabulary with gestures and pictures enhances vocabulary memory for several months post-learning in eight-year-old school children. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 815-850. 

  31. Jang (2014). The effects of semantic clustering on EFL young learners' vocabulary learning. English Teaching, 69(3), 25-47. 

  32. Aitkuzhinova-Arslan, Gün and Üstünel (2016). Teaching vocabulary to Turkish young learners in semantically related and semantically unrelated sets by using digital storytelling. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(1), 42-54. 

  33. Papathanasiou (2006). The effects of semantic clustering in L2 word learning: Evidence from an action research study. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield. 

  34. Hartshorne, Tenenbaum and Pinker (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263-277. 

  35. Liu and Reynolds (2024). A systematic review of English-as-a-foreign-language vocabulary learning activities for primary school students. IRAL, 63(3), 2123-2167. 

Published on 1 November 2026. Changes: 1 November 2026: in five sections, what we say about the studies with children now carries the same caveats as the “How we know” drop-down. · How we know