The involvement load hypothesis (ILH), which predicts the lexical learning potential of tasks, assumes that writing sentences (SW) and compositions (CW) using novel target words (TWs) lead to similar lexical gains. However, research on the issue is scarce and contradictory. One possibility is that the higher cognitive load of CW hinders learning relative to SW. To verify the learning potential of SW and CW, we selected 20 English academic TWs and conducted a pretest–posttest quasi-experiment with Polish advanced learners of English. First, all participants wrote a control essay (without TWs), then SW participants wrote sentences and CW participants wrote two essays, each with 10 TWs. Generalized linear mixed models revealed higher gains in breadth and depth of knowledge for SW than for CW, which contradicts the predictions of the ILH. Furthermore, to detect signs of cognitive load, we derived three task-based performance measurements from the compositions: holistic scores, number of errors, and words per minute. The measurements found that the control essay and essays with TWs were of similar quality (holistic scores), but that the control essay was written faster and with fewer errors than the other two. Concluding, using TWs in essays probably increased learners’ cognitive load, slowing down their writing, generating more errors, and ultimately, decreasing learning of the TWs.
BauerL.NationP. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6, 253–279.
2.
BeglarD. (2010). A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test. Language Testing, 27, 101–118.
3.
BiberD.GrayB.PoonponK. (2013). Pay attention to the phrasal structures: Going beyond t-units: A response to WeiWei Yang. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 192–201.
4.
BiedrońA.SzczepaniakA. (2012). Working memory and short-term memory abilities in accomplished multilinguals. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 290–306.
5.
BrysbaertM.NewB. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.
6.
BrysbaertM.WarrinerA.B.KupermanV. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911.
7.
ByrdP.CoxheadA. (2010). On the other hand: Lexical bundles in academic writing and in the teaching of EAP. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 5, 31–64.
8.
ByrnesH.ManchónR.M. (2014). Task, task performance and writing development: Advancing the constructs and the research agenda. In ByrnesH.ManchónR.M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 267–299). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9.
Cambridge University Press. (2019). Cambridge Dictionary [online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ (accessed May 2021).
10.
CarsonR.J.BeesonC.M.L. (2013). Crossing language barriers: Using crossed random effects modelling in psycholinguistics research. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9, 25–41.
11.
CasanaveC.P. (2016). Qualitative inquiry in L2 writing. In ManchónR.M.MatsudaP.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 497–541). Berlin: de Gruyter.
12.
ChenC.TruscottJ. (2010). The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31, 693–713.
13.
CorsonD. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning, 47, 671–718.
14.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
CoxheadA. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
16.
CraikF.I.M.LockhartR.S. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–684.
17.
CraikF.I.M.TulvingE. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 263–294.
18.
CrossleyS.A.KyleK.McNamaraD.S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1227–1237.
19.
CrossleyS.A.SalsburyT.McNamaraD.S.JarvisS. (2011a). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing, 28, 561–580.
20.
CrossleyS.A.SalsburyT.McNamaraD.S. (2011b). Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29, 243–263.
21.
CummingA. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511.
22.
CunningsI.FinlaysonI. (2015). Mixed effects modelling and longitudinal data analysis. In PlonskyL. (Eds.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 159–181). New York: Routledge.
23.
DallerH.van HoutR.Treffers-DallerJ. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24, 197–222.
24.
DaviesM. (2012). Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2012) [online]. Available at: https://www.wordfrequency.info (accessed May 2021).
25.
De VosJ.FSchriefersH.LemhöferK. (2019). Noticing vocabulary holes aids incidental language word learning: An experimental study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 500–515.
26.
De VosJ.F.SchriefersH.NivardM.G.LemhöferK. (2018). A meta-analysis and meta-regression of incidental second language word learning from spoken input. Language Learning, 68, 906–941.
27.
ElgortI.CandryS.BoutorwickT.J.EyckmansJ.BrysbaertM. (2018). Contextual word learning with form-focused and meaning-focused elaboration. Applied Linguistics, 39, 646–667.
28.
ETS. (2019). TOEFL iBT [online]. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available at: http://www.ets.org/toefl (accessed May 2021).
29.
FlowerL.HayesJ.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.
30.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
31.
FriginalE.Weigle (2014). Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 80–95.
32.
Gánem-GutierrezG.A.GilmoreA. (2018). Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event: Second language writers at different proficiency levels. Language Learning, 68, 469–506.
33.
GoharM.J.RahmanianM.Soleimani (2018). Technique feature analysis or involvement load hypothesis: Estimating their predictive power in vocabulary learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 859–869.
HayesJ.R. (2012). Modelling and remodelling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369–388.
36.
HayesJ.R.FlowerL.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In GreggL.W.SteinbergE.R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
HeckR.H.ThomasS.L.TabataL.N. (2012). Multilevel modelling of categorical outcomes using IBM SPSS. New York: Routledge.
HulstijnJ.H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In DoughtyC.LongM. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–381). Oxford: Blackwell.
40.
HulstijnJ.H.LauferB. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
41.
HylandK. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21.
42.
HylandK. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 150–169.
43.
HylandK. (2016). Teaching and researching writing. 3rd edition.New York: Routledge.
44.
HylandK.TseP. (2007). Is there an ‘academic vocabulary’?TESOL Quarterly, 41, 235–253.
JarvisS. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 57–84.
47.
JoeA. (1998). What effects to task-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition?Applied Linguistics, 19, 357–377.
48.
KeatingG.D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12, 365–385.
49.
KelloggR.T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. The American Journal of Psychology, 103, 327–342
50.
KelloggR.T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In LevyC.M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
KelloggR.T.OliveT.PiolatA. (2007). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory in written language production. Acta Psychologica, 124, 382–397.
52.
KelloggR.T.WhitefordA.P.TurnerC.E.CahilM.MertensA. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 159–190.
53.
KimY. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 285–325.
54.
KlepschM.SchmitzF.SeufertT. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–18.
55.
KnochU.RouhshadA.StorchN. (2014). Does the writing of undergraduate ESL students develop after one year of study in an English-medium university?Assessing Writing, 21, 1–17.
56.
KnochU.RouhshadA.OonS.P.StorchN. (2015). What happens to ESL students’ writing after three years of study at an English medium university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 39–52.
57.
KormosJ.TrebitsA. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472
LauferB. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 567–588.
60.
LauferB.HulstijnJ.H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
61.
LeeI. (2016). EFL writing in schools. In ManchónR.M.MatsudaP.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language writing (pp. 113–139). Berlin: de Gruyter.
62.
LeeJ. (2018). The effects of task complexity and L2 proficiency on L2 written performance. TheJournal of Asia TEFL, 15, 945–958.
63.
LeeJ. (2019). Time-on-task as a measure of cognitive load in TBLT. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 16, 958–969.
64.
LemhöferK.BroersmaM. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343.
65.
LiJ. (2014). Effect of task-induced online learning behaviour on incidental vocabulary acquisition by Chinese learners – revisiting the Involvement Load Hypothesis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4, 1385–1394.
66.
MalvernD.RichardsB. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104.
67.
ManchónR.M. (2014). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In ByrnesH.ManchónR.M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
68.
ManchónR.M. (2016). Quantitative enquiry in L2 writing. In ManchónR.M.MatsudaP.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language writing (pp. 519–540). Berlin: de Gruyter.
69.
ManchónR.M.Roca de LariosJ. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning, 57, 549–593.
70.
ManchónR.M.WilliamsJ. (2016) Introduction: SLA-L2 writing interfaces in historical perspective. In ManchónR.M.MatsudaP.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language writing (pp. 567–586). Berlin: de Gruyter.
71.
ManchónR.M.RocadeLariosJ.MurphyL. (2009). The temporal and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes: Implications for theory. In ManchónR.M. (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
72.
McCarthyP.M.JarvisS (2007). Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24, 459–488.
73.
McNamaraD.S.GraesserA.C.McCarthyP.M.CaiZ. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74.
MeteyardL.DaviesR.A.I. (2020). Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104092.
75.
NagyW.E.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108.
76.
NassajiH.HuH.M. (2012). The relationship between task-induced involvement load and learning new words from context. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 69–86.
77.
NationI.S.P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–81.
78.
NationI.S.P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. 2nd edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79.
NationI.S.P.BeglarD. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31, 9–13.
80.
NationI.S.P.WaringR. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In SchmittN.McCarthyM. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OliveT. (2004). Working memory in writing: Empirical evidence from the dual-ask technique. European Psychologist, 9, 32–42.
83.
OliveT. (2011). Working memory in writing. In BerningerV.W. (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 485–504). New York: Psychology Press.
84.
OliveT.PasseraultJ.M. (2012). The visuospatial dimension of writing. Written Communication, 29, 326–344.
85.
OliveT.KelloggR.T.PiolatA. (2008). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory demands during text composition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 669–687.
86.
OrtegaL. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing-SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.
87.
OtwinowskaA. (2015). Cognate vocabulary in language acquisition and use: Attitudes, awareness, activation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
88.
PaasF.van MerriënboerJ.J.G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.
89.
PaasF.TuovinenJ.E.TabbersH.Van GervenP.W.M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.
90.
Pearson. (2019). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [online]. Available at: https://www.ldoceonline.com (accessed May 2021).
91.
Pellicer-SánchezA.SchmittN. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do things fall apart?Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 31–55.
92.
PichetteF.de SerresL.LafontaineM. (2012). Sentence reading and sentence writing for second language vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33, 66–82.
93.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
94.
QinC.TengF. (2017). Assessing the correlation between task-induced involvement load, word learning, and learners’ regulatory ability. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 40, 261–280.
95.
ReadJ. (2004). Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 146–161.
96.
RiceC.A.TokowiczN. (2019). State of the scholarship: A review of laboratory studies of adult second language vocabulary training. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 439–470.
97.
RocadeLariosJ.Nicolás-ConesaF.CoyleY. (2016). Focus on writers: Processes and strategies. In ManchónR.M.MatsudaP.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language writing (pp. 267–286). Berlin: de Gruyter.
98.
Ruiz-FunesM. (2014). Task complexity and linguistic performance in advanced college-level foreign language writing. In ByrnesH.ManchónR.M. (Eds), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 163–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
99.
Ruiz-FunesM. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1–19.
100.
SaraniA.NegariG.M.GhaviniatM. (2013). The role of task type in L2 vocabulary acquisition: a case of involvement load hypothesis. Maringá, 35, 377–386.
101.
SchmidtR.W.FrotaS.N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In DayR.R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley: Newbury House.
102.
SchmittN. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
103.
SchmittN. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows?Language Learning, 64, 913–951.
104.
SchoonenR.SnellingsP.StevensonM.van GelderenA. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In ManchónR.M. (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77–101). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
105.
ShawP.LiuE.T.-K. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing?Applied Linguistics, 19, 225–254.
106.
SilvaB.OtwinowskaA. (2018). Vocabulary acquisition and young learners: Different tasks, similar involvement loads. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 56, 205–229.
107.
SilvaB.OtwinowskaA. (2019). VST as a reliable academic placement tool despite cognate inflation effects. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 35–49.
108.
SilvaB.KutyłowskaK.OtwinowskaA. (2021). Data for paper entitled ‘Learning academic words through writing sentences and compositions: Any signs of an increase in cognitive load?’Figshare. Available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12706265.v2 (accessed May 2021).
109.
Simpson-VlachR.EllisN.C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512.
110.
SkehanP. (2003). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
111.
SkehanP. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
112.
SkehanP. (2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance and task-based pedagogy. In PeterS. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
113.
SlameckaN.J.GrafP. (1978). The generation effect: delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604.
114.
StevensonM.SchoonenR.de GlopperK. (2006). Revising in two languages: A multidimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 201–233.
115.
SwainM. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In GassS.M.MaddenC.G. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
116.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
117.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
118.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
119.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2002). Talking it through: two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
120.
TahmasbiM.FarvardinM.T. (2017). Probing the effects of task types on EFL learners’ receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge: The case of involvement load hypothesis. SAGE Open, 7(3).
121.
TengF. (2015). Involvement load in translation tasks and EFL vocabulary learning. The New English Teacher, 9, 83–101.
122.
VermeerA. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17, 65–83.
123.
VidalK. (2011). A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61, 219–258.
124.
WebbS. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
125.
WebbS.ParibakhtT.S. (2015). What is the relationship between the lexical profile of test items and performance on a standardized English proficiency test. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 34–43.
126.
WescheM.ParibakhtT.M. (1996). Assessing vocabulary knowledge: Depth vs breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–40.
127.
WickensC.D. (1981). Processing resources in attention, dual task performance, and workload assessment. Technical report. Champaign, IL: Engineering-psychology Research Laboratory. University of Illinois.
128.
WickensC.D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 449–455.
129.
WittrockM.C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87–95.
130.
YuG. (2009). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31, 236–259.
131.
ZarevaA.SchwanenflugelP.NikolovaY. (2005). Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 567–592.
132.
ZhangD.KodaK. (2017). Assessing L2 vocabulary depth with word associates format tests: issues, findings and suggestions. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2, 1–30.
133.
ZhangX.LuX. (2014). A longitudinal study of receptive vocabulary breadth knowledge growth and vocabulary fluency development. Applied Linguistics, 35, 283–304.
134.
ZouD. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition through cloze exercises, sentence-writing and composition-writing: Extending the evaluation component of the involvement load hypothesis. Language Teaching Research, 21, 54–75.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
