What do you think are the merits/demerits between the two methods?

1.　語彙->読み方・例文・説明
2.　例文->読み方・説明

Almost all AJATT followers are doing 2., I think.

I am currently doing 1. because I want to know the meaning of vocabulary, even out of context. But I like to see the context to understand more deeply the meaning of a word. I also think I can study more cards per day using 1. rather than 2.

What am I missing out on, by not doing 2.?

The main problem I think is that you're not really given the opportunity to understand it in context before assuming the meaning. Some words could be vague unless given in context, and structuring your SRS entries around a single vocabulary would allow for only one example sentence for each entry. It's helpful to see how vocab should be used in many different situations. So I don't think that the first method is very effective.

In 1., I check the meaning in context when I look at the backside.
If I am wrong, I fail the card.

The thing is, I want to know one meaning of the word, even without seeing it in context. When I see it in a sentence in front of the card, I sometimes "cheat" and can guess the meaning/reading through context, so I want to avoid that.

But I think your point that I will be focused only one one meaning for a word is a drawback of 1.

Maybe in Anki, there is someway I can cheat and turn my 1. cards later into 2. cards.

kfmfe04 Wrote:Maybe in Anki, there is someway I can cheat and turn my 1. cards later into 2. cards.

I'm pretty sure you could do it, if you go to Model settings/Display settings I think you can switch the order around.

kfmfe04 Wrote:What do you think are the merits/demerits between the two methods?

1.　語彙->読み方・例文・説明
2.　例文->読み方・説明

What am I missing out on, by not doing 2.?

I tend to look at it this way: Being a native English speaker if someone gave me the word "matter", what would I think of? Nothing, because it's a meaningless word without context. It could mean any number of things, even dictionary.com gives over 20 definitions. But put it in a sentence like "It matters a lot" or "All things are made of matter" and it suddenly has meaning.

alyks Wrote:I tend to look at it this way: Being a native English speaker if someone gave me the word "matter", what would I think of? Nothing, because it's a meaningless word without context.

I would say one definition is from physics: "something that has mass".
The problem is, I don't want to rely on context (unless necessary) to give meaning to "matter".

If someone says define "cat", I don't need a context to define that word.

While I am learning, it's fine to have to context as an example (that's why its on the back of my card). When I am being tested,
A. I should be able to define the word by itself
B. Give the context and definition as an example.

Clearly, B. is more rigorous and better, but even testing for A., I would want my cards to show:
1.　語彙->読み方・例文・説明
--------------------------
I'm all for learning vocabulary in context, but I want to TEST without the context.

It is often too easy to guess the meaning of a word and even the reading in context - it is much harder to define a word without context.

I am just curious to see what I would give up by doing so.

I understand that you want to test to see if you can remember the word without context, but I can't see why. Is there a problem with relying on context? If you're worried about remembering outside of testing, I wouldn't worry too much. Seeing a word a in a lot of different contexts gives you stronger memories than memorizing a meaning.

If you still don't believe me, then test B for a while then test A. See of being able to define a word (J-J, J-E, whatever) is worth losing the context to serve your memory. You have to remember that it's context that teaches us the language, not definitions.

I actually agree with you that context helps me memorize.

Actually, as I do more and more testing, for the ones which I do >not< remember, repeating the context 5-10 times certainly helps to nail the meaning. It's funny, because for the easy ones, A. turns out to be sufficient. It's for the hard ones that B. really helps out.

The reason I want to test to see if I can remember a word without context is, I feel like I am cheating when I test WITH the context.

For example, I was entering this sentence about an hour ago:

X) この石けんはよく泡が立つ。

Now, I know I have seen 石けん before, and I want to know the reading and the meaning. 「いしけん」sounds weird so I guess 「せっけん」- lucky me. Now, I've completely forgotten its meaning, but staring at this sentence for a few moments, I am able to make an educated guess that 石けん probably means soap. Lucky again!

It's nice to guess right, but I want to be able to answer:

Y)「石けん」と言うものは何でしょうか。

which I would not have been able to do before seeing X), but now, I can answer with:

「石けん」は清掃をするために使われるものです。

Of course, looking at X) will help me remember how to answer Y) but seeing X) for testing purposes feels like cheating - too much hanky-panky.

-------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps the solution is to create a "training deck" (2.) and a "testing deck" (1.) separately.

Can I do this in Anki? Given one database, create two sets of decks?

It is not only that context helps memorize. It is that you have to memorize within context. If you don't do it from the beginning, you'll have to do it somehow later, be it with more sentences, listening, etc.

mentat_kgs Wrote:It is not only that context helps memorize. It is that you have to memorize within context. If you don't do it from the beginning, you'll have to do it somehow later, be it with more sentences, listening, etc.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how hard/abstract the vocabulary is.
When they are simple nouns, context is often helpful, but not necessary.
When they are abstract adverbs, I can't do without context (at first).

The same applies to using J->E or J->J. For really simple vocabulary, sometimes, it is much easier/faster to just use J->E (one word mapping). For harder vocabulary or ones that don't map cleanly, I need many examples in context and even J->J to give me a better grasp of what the word really means.

Like many things, the correct answer is: it depends.

BTW, on EVERY SINGLE card, I have an example of context on the back of the card, so it's not like I have no context at all...

--------------------------------------

In testing, I may not have a context to work with.

1. Which one means "obligation" and how do you read it?
義務　義理　意義　講義　主義

or even harder (without seeing the previous question):
2. Write "obligation" in Japanese, along with its pronunciation.

This last example is actually perfect because to LEARN it, I use the contextual phrase 義理チョコ. However, in TESTING, I am able to do 1. or 2. above, without the context.

I will repeat again: I have nothing against LEARNING in context - if fact, that's what I do.

It's TESTING in context that is "insufficient".
I think for most people, they don't care about this distinction, but it's important to me.

I'm not much of a studier in general. For me, I like whatever takes the least amount of time. So I'm a word->word kind of studier. Context is great, but it takes extra time. I find that if I hear a word that I "know" in context, it clicks as to how I should use it. And if I try to use a word I don't really know well, the person I'm talking to either directly or indirectly straightens me out.