I'm testing out a new vocab memorization method atm.
I haven't used it enough yet to know for certain how effective it is but it seems promising.
I'll let you know when I've come up with more substantial data.

its based on the assumption that the most well known words have been reinforced 10-12 times and the idea that 7 is the optimal number for memory.

basically you take the core whatever k your on and read through the words and seperate them into groups of 7. then put the definitions in random order accross those 7

utsukushii -always
itsumo -foot
ashi -wake(someone)
okosu -beauitful
miseru -show
musume -fun
tanoshi -daughter

use your eyes to match up the words to the definition
then you write the next group of words. after you finish writing the second group
review the first group and the second group
and so on till you get to group 10. after group 10 you no longer need to review group 1
so after you write group 10 you review 2-10 then 3-11 etc.
at the end of the week review all words learned in the past week using your papers.

I can do about 30-50 an hour with this method. after I finish reviewing a list of 7 10 times I haven't forgotten any of the words.

semperanimus Wrote:...basically you take the core whatever k your on and read through the words and seperate them into groups of 7. then put the definitions in random order accross those 7...use your eyes to match up the words to the definition...

This is basically the "Iversen method"* but instead of recalling the other column in order you're doing matching. Since it's a derivative of a well known, good method, I'm sure it probably works well for you and it'd be wrong to say it's ineffective. In fact, when I was first experimenting with vocab learning techniques, this is the first method I came to that had a reasonable learned vocab/hr rate.


That said, my problem with these methods is that fundamentally they are just manual SRS (you're just doing repetitions of active recalls at increasing intervals**) and thus can be improved on with a more refined SRS. Having words share intervals, having intervals set in stone rather than based on difficulty, etc are simply tradeoffs of less bookkeeping in return for less optimal learning, which is no longer necessary in an age where everyone has a computer.

So again, such methods have well proven efficacy, I'd just like to point out they lose on efficiency (although thanks to diminishing returns, not massively). If you have time for more experimentation, I'd highly recommend using Anki with micro-intervals or Anki2 and it's new customizable learning system. I know I personally did even better when I switched to these and reaped the benefits that come with them (like subs2srs for audio+video clips and the very memorable context and delivery these provide).


* I know some people dislike associating his name with such an old/intuitive/basic method, but it's better to give it a name than refer to it as some vague "word list" / "column method".

** The intervals between your groups of 7 increase linearly as you do more groups, you review at the end of the week, etc

thanks. now that I think of it it is basically the iverson method. while computer programs can make reviewing more efficient I find it easier to review from paper for some reason.
thanks for your input.