Session 1A

Laufer and Hulstijn's (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) predicts the lexical learning potential of tasks. According to the ILH, writing sentences (SW) with target words (TWs) and writing compositions (CW) with TWs should yield similar incidental vocabulary acquisition. Only four studies compared the role of SW and CW in incidental learning. Among them, Kim (2008) confirmed the ILH while Zou (2017) found higher lexical gains with CW. Zou claimed that processing in CW tasks was higher compared to SW tasks. However, her participants, who worked under time pressure, necessarily sacrificed text quality to focus on the TWs. This enhanced lexical learning, but the time pressure increased cognitive load (Kellogg, 1990), hence decreasing text quality. We thus hypothesize that lexical learning following CW tasks is affected by learners’ cognitive load, and that time pressure may increase the load and affect lexical learning and task performance. To verify this, we involved 123 Polish advanced-level (above B2) English majors in a pretest-posttest quasi-experiment investigating incidental acquisition of academic vocabulary through writing. Nevertheless, a questionnaire at the end of the experiment showed that some participants guessed the true aim of the study and/or studied the TWs post-treatment. They were excluded from the analysis, and thus only 90 participants remained. First, all participants wrote a timed (60-minute) Control essay without TWs. We then selected 2 sets of 10 TWs matched for part of speech, length, frequency and concreteness. Using the two sets of glossed TWs (counterbalanced), participants produced Timed (60-minute) essays (n=33), Untimed essays (n=24), or Sentences (n=33). We measured lexical learning via (1) an adapted Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS; Wesche & Paribakht, 1996) and (2) a free association test. Cognitive load was measured via (1) a self-rating scale assessing task difficulty and mental effort, (2) the number of errors (controlled for text length) in the three essays (control, timed and untimed), and (3) essay scores (also for the three essays). The errors were counted, and the essays were marked by two raters (using the TOEFL criteria). ANCOVAs (pretest as covariate) run on the VKS scores revealed that SW, Timed, and Untimed essays yielded similar gains, thus supporting the ILH. Nevertheless, ANCOVAs run on the free association test scores showed that Untimed essays yielded higher lexical learning than Timed essays (p=0.005) and SW (p=0.041). No difference in learning was found between Timed essays and SW. Regarding the cognitive load, Timed essays had worse quality (i.e., lower TOEFL scores) than Untimed essays (p=0.02), and more errors than Control (p=0.01) and Untimed essays (p=0.035). The self-rating scale showed that Timed (but not Untimed) essays were more cognitively demanding than SW (p=0.029). Also, the need to use the TWs made both essays more cognitively demanding than the Control essay (p< 0.001). Based on the above, we conclude that incorporating pre-specified TWs in compositions increases the cognitive load, particularly when these essays are timed, and that higher cognitive load in essays leads to lower writing quality and lower lexical learning. Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 327-342. Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58(2), 285-325. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. M. (1996). Assessing vocabulary knowledge: Depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–40. Zou, D. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition through cloze exercises, sentence-writing and composition-writing: Extending the evaluation component of the involvement load hypothesis. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 54-75.

Within the current context of the Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe (see Dafouz & Smit, 2020), learning outcomes need to be considered in light of the skills necessary for success in today’s globalised world. These include the ability to communicate with people worldwide, not only at the oral but also at the written level. To address this concern, SLA scholars have recently started to highlight the need to investigate second language (L2) writing competence from a functional perspective (e.g. Pallotti, 2009). This implies moving beyond the traditional exploration of writing based on measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF), to also focus on its functional adequacy (FA) (Kuiken & Vedder, 2017, 2018), that is, to what extent a text fulfils the communicative function intended (e.g. informing, requesting, convincing, etc.). Since this is an emerging line of research, empirical studies on written FA are still scarce, and very little is known about how different variables may affect FA. To address this research gap, the present study explores the FA of English texts produced by EFL learners in a higher education context. In particular, it investigates whether there is a relationship between L2 proficiency level and the FA found in the participants' texts. The participants in the study were 66 Catalan-Spanish bilingual EFL learners in their second year of the degrees of Translation and Interpreting and Applied Languages. They were divided into two groups according to their L2 proficiency level, as measured by a standardized in-house test: the first group (N=32) had a B2 level, while the second group (N=34) had a C1 level. Both groups completed a writing task that was designed to ensure that it reflected a real-life purpose: it asked participants to write a 250-word essay to present their candidacy to a selection process for a three-month internship, offered by their university career services. Their essays were assessed using the FA scale designed by Kuiken and Vedder (2017), which includes four components (Task Requirements, Content, Readability, and Coherence and Cohesion), rated from 1 to 6. Our analysis indicated that, irrespective of their proficiency level, the FA dimension that represented the most difficulty for our participants was Content, while they obtained the highest scores in Task Requirements. In addition, our data revealed significant differences between the two groups only in terms of Content: Participants in the higher proficiency group were able to produce a larger amount of ideas that were also more relevant than those generated by their lower-proficiency counterparts. Therefore, according to our findings, having an overall higher proficiency level did not translate into a better performance in terms of written functional adequacy. Our results will be discussed in relation to their impact within the fields of L2 acquisition and assessment. The study is considered a novel contribution to the investigation of functional adequacy in an L2, providing relevant data for researchers interested in the exploration of the intersections between L2 proficiency and L2 writing. REFERENCES Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English Medium Education in the Internationalised University. Palgrave-McMillan Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321– 336. Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2018). Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (eds.). Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 266-285). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.

This study intends to add to the renewed interest on pausing behavior in research on L2 writing processes (cf. Barkaoui, 2019; Révész, Michel & Lee, 2019; Xu & Ding, 2014). Pauses represent a substantial part of the composition process (up to three quarters, according to Alamargot, Dansac, Chesnet & Fayol, 2007), hence the scholarly interest on this element of writing. Scholarly work in the domain has been conducted in digital environments using methodological approaches such as keystroke logging software to collect the data in a non-obtrusive way (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013). One area of disciplinary debate refers to pause thresholds (Wengelin, 2007).There have been several attempts to establish a clearly defined pause threshold (for instance, at 2000 milliseconds; cf. Tiryakioglu, Peters & Verschaffel, 2019; Van Waes & Leijten, 2015), although controversy about the adequacy of such pause threshold still exists (Sullivan & Lindgren, 2006; Chenu, Pellegrino, Jisa & Fayol, 2014). Our research intends to contribute to the body of work on pausing behavior with a study of young EFL learners, a population almost absent in pausing studies. Our main aim was to ascertain potential differences in the modulation of pause behavior (pause duration and pause location) during the writing process. Using Inputlog 7.0., 16 children wrote a picture-based story on the computer for which 30 minutes were provided. On the basis of previous studies (Medimorec & Risko, 2017), we analyzed the relationship between pauses within three time intervals (300-999, 1000-1999, and >2000 ms) across different pause locations, so as to reveal whether any variation occurs as a function of the L2 proficiency level and whether pause rate is linked to transcription fluency. Preliminary results indicate clear differences in the children’s pausing behavior, as well as the notable influence of pause threshold over pause locations. Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Chesnet, D., & Fayol, M. (2007). Parallel processing before and after pauses: A combined analysis of graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text production. Studies in Writing, 20, pp 13-29. Barkaoui, K. (2019). What can L2 writers’ pausing behavior tell us about their L2 writing processes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 529-554. Chenu, F., Pellegrino, F., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2014). Interword and intraword pause threshold in the writing of texts by children and adolescents: a methodological approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 182. Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358-392. Medimorec, S., &Risko, E. F. (2017). Pauses in written composition: on the importance of where writers pause. Reading and Writing, 30(6), 1267-1285. Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2019). Exploring second language writer’s pausing and revision behaviors: a mixed-methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 605-631. Sullivan, K. P., & Lindgren, E. (2006). Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications. Oxford: Elsevier. Tiryakioglu, G., Peters, E., &Verschaffel, L. (2019). The effect of L2 proficiency level on composing processes of EFL learners: Data from keystroke loggings, think alouds and questionnaires. In Observing Writing (pp. 212-235). BRILL. Van Waes, L., &Leijten, M. (2015). Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers and Composition, 38, 79-95. Xu, C., & Ding, Y. (2014). An exploratory study of pauses in computer-assisted EFL writing. Language Learning& Technology, 18(3), 80-96.

In the last two decades a considerable body of research has been dedicated to the study of written corrective feedback (CF). While a meta-analysis of these studies by Kang and Han (2015) showed that written CF has positive effects on learners’ written accuracy, it did not find an advantage of one type of written CF over another. Most studies have compared direct CF, in which the correct version is provided to learners, to indirect CF, which encourages learners to self-correct. Both direct and indirect written CF focus learners’ attention on individual, often grammatical errors. Recently, however, a different approach to written feedback has been proposed: the use of model texts. According to Hanaoka and Izumi (2012), providing learners with a model to which they can compare their own writing has the potential to promote noticing and to focus learners on textual features, as well as grammatical or lexical features. To date, the few studies which have investigated the use of models have yielded promising results. Models are texts tailored to students’ needs and when adults (Hanaoka, 2007) and children (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014) compare their drafts to them they are able to notice and incorporate linguistic features into their subsequent writings. However, very few studies have compared the use of models to other feedback techniques, such as direct written CF. Few studies have also compared the first draft to a second draft to analyse possible changes in learners’ complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF). To fill this gap, the present study compares the effects of using model texts and direct written CF for a group of 77 EFL children, aged 9-11. They were divided into a model group (n=24), a direct CF group (n=30) and a control group who did not receive any CF (n=23). As a pre-test, all three groups wrote a story based on a picture prompt. A week later the children in the model group were asked to compare their stories to two model texts and to write down what they noticed, while the children in the direct CF group were given a corrected version of their text. The control group was simply asked to write the same story a second time. Finally, in the third week all three groups were asked to write the same story as on the pre-test. The initial and final drafts were compared quantitatively (CAF) and qualitatively (holistic scale). The only group which showed some improvement on the CAF measures was the direct CF group, whose second draft was significantly more accurate in terms of errors per total number of words and error-free clauses per clause. While the model group did not improve on any of the CAF measures, it was the only group which showed a significant increase on the holistic scale. Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 451-485. Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459-479. Hanaoka, O., & Uzimi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332-347. Kang, E. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.