Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24, No. 0, pp.554-567
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
Received 18 Apr 2024 Revised 06 May 2024 Accepted 19 Jun 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202406.554

The Effects of Writing Tasks on Vocabulary Learning among Korean EFL Learners and Involvement Load Hypothesis

Chaehee Park
Associate Professor, Division of Foreign Languages Sunmoon University 70, Sunmoon-ro 221 Beon-gil, Tangjeong-myeon, Aasna-si Chungnam, Korea, 31460, South Korea, Tel: 041) 530-2423 chpark@sunmoon.ac.kr


© 2024 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to test whether the same amount of load of the two tasks contributes to the same amount of vocabulary learning among Korean EFL learners. Twenty nine Korea EFL university students participated in the task experiments (15 for sentence writing task, 14 for composition writing task). The participants’ performance was tested three times (pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test). It was found that both sentence writing and composition writing task were similarly effective for initial word-learning (short-term memory), whereas the latter group was stronger in word-retention (long-term memory) than the former group. The results indicated that the composition writing task requires learners to process target words in a deeper and meaningful way than the sentence writing task. It was suggested that the learners’ information process mechanism for unknown words is different in two tasks: somewhat different chunking in an associated context and hierarchical organization of information in two tasks also yielded different word learning (Zou 2017). Pedagogical implications for researchers and educators are discussed within the framework of involvement load hypothesis and information process mechanism.

Keywords:

involvement load hypothesis, L2 vocabulary learning, task load, second language learning

Acknowledgments

Partial data were presented at the conference of The Association of English Language and Literature in Korea in June 2021.

References

  • Anderson, R. 2010. Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. 7th edition. New York: Worth.
  • Chase, G. and A. Simon. 1973. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology 4, 55-81. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2]
  • Gobet, F., R. Lane and S. Croker. 2001. Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Science 5, 236-243. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01662-4]
  • Hamada, M. and C. Park. 2011. Word-meaning inference: A longitudinal investigation of inference accuracy and strategy use. Asian EFL Journal 13(4), 10-32.
  • Hamada, M. and C. Park. 2013. The role of think-aloud and metacognitive strategies in L2 meaning-inference during reading. JALT Journal 35(1), 101-125. [https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ35.1-6]
  • Hintzman, L. 1978. The Psychology of Learning and Memory. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
  • Hu, H.-C. and H. Nassaji. 2014. Lexical inferencing strategies: The case of successful versus less successful inferencers. System 45, 27-38. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.04.004]
  • Hulstijn, J. and B. Laufer. 2001. Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary learning acquisition. Language Learning 51(3), 539-558. [https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00164]
  • Kang, H. and Y. Shin. 2019. The involvement load hypothesis and vocabulary retention: The interplay of task types and involvement index on L2 vocabulary learning. Foreign Language Education 26(4), 89-111. [https://doi.org/10.15334/FLE.2019.26.4.89]
  • Keating, G. 2008. Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research 12(3), 365-386. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089922]
  • Kim, H. S. and Y. H. Na 2010. Vocabulary learning and task-induced involvement. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 26(4), 183-211.
  • Kim, Y. 2008. The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning 58(2) 285-325. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00442.x]
  • Laufer, B. and J. Hulstijn. 2001. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics 22(1), 1-26. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.1]
  • Lee, Y.-K. and J. Y.. Kim. 2015. Effects of task-induced involvement on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. The Journal of Linguistic Science 72, 297-318.
  • Nation, I. S. P. 2000. Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. TESL Journal 9(2), 6-10. [https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.2000.tb00239.x]
  • Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759]
  • Paribakht, S. and M. Wesche. 1993. Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal 11(1), 9-29. [https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v11i1.623]
  • Park, C. 2019. Effects of phonological decoding process on L2 vocabulary learning among Korean EFL learners. The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature 61(4), 263-283.
  • Park, C. 2020a. Vocabulary learning: two dimensions of involvement load and learners’ proficiency level. Studies in Linguistics 56, 217-237. [https://doi.org/10.17002/sil..56.202007.217]
  • Park, C. 2020b. Effects of phonological decoding process on L2 vocabulary learning among Korean EFL learners. The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature 61(4), 263-283.
  • Park, C., S. K. Yun and Y. Lee. 2019. Task involvement load and its effectiveness: Motivational vs. cognitive dimension. Studies in Linguistics 52, 305-322. [https://doi.org/10.17002/sil..52.201907.305]
  • Park, H. K. 2017. Effects of task-induced involvement on EFL adult learners’ vocabulary learning. English 21 (2), 203-226. [https://doi.org/10.35771/engdoi.2017.30.2.010]
  • Pulido, D. 2007. The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental vocabulary acquisition: A matter of topic familiarity? Language Learning 57, 155-199. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00415.x]
  • Pulido, D. 2009. Vocabulary processing and acquisition through reading: Evidence for the rich getting richer. In Z.-H. Han and N. Anderson (Eds.), Second Language Reading Research and Instruction: Crossing the Boundaries (pp. 65-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Schmidt, R. 1994. Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 165-209). London: Academic Press.
  • Schmidt. N. 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sung, H. 2013. Task-induced involvement load in Korean EFL incidental vocabulary learning. Journal of Studies in Language 29(2), 269-296. [https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.29.2.201308.269]
  • Sung, H. 2019. A Study on vocabulary learning through gap-filling tasks by low-proficiency learners. Journal of the Korean English Education Society 18(4), 1-25.
  • Teng, M. F. and D. Zhang. 2023. Vocabulary learning in a foreign language: Multimedia input, sentence-writing task, and their combination. Applied Linguistics Review, published online. [https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rmxba]
  • Zou, D. 2017. Vocabulary acquisition through close exercises, sentence-writing and composition-writing: Extending the evaluation component of the involvement load hypothesis. Language Teaching Research 21(1), 54-75. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816652418]