Applying TRIZ-Based Pedagogical Strategies to Enhance Vocabulary Acquisition in ESL Classrooms: A Conceptual Framework and Instructional Design

Vocabulary remains the strongest single constraint on second language communication, yet mainstream ESL vocabulary instruction continues to rely on list-based memorisation that separates words from the communicative problems they exist to solve. This article proposes a systematic alternative by adapting TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving developed in engineering, to tertiary ESL vocabulary pedagogy. Drawing on the structural parallels between inventive problem solving and strategic language use, the article develops a conceptual framework in which communication difficulties are reframed as contradictions between competing speaker goals, and vocabulary items are recast as functional tools selected to resolve those contradictions. Four TRIZ constructs are translated for the language classroom: contradiction analysis, the inventive principles, function analysis, and the multi-function component. These are operationalised in a five-step instructional cycle and demonstrated through a complete instructional design, a tertiary unit on first impressions in which personality adjectives are taught as functional components, collocations as stable assemblies, conversational phrases as feedback signals, and the polysemous word like as a multi-function module. The framework is grounded in vocabulary acquisition research, including the involvement load hypothesis and research on formulaic language, and its cognitive plausibility is examined against load and retrieval accounts of learning. A quasi-experimental evaluation protocol combining vocabulary pre-tests and post-tests, learner journals, and interviews is specified for implementation in Malaysian tertiary classrooms. The article contributes an interdisciplinary bridge between systematic innovation and language education and provides a replicable template for TRIZ-based unit design in ESL contexts.

Keywords

TRIZ; vocabulary acquisition; ESL; creative pedagogy; task-based language teaching; instructional design

Downloads

PDF JATS XML

References

1. Altshuller, G. (1999). The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity. Technical Innovation Center. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Browne, C. (2014). A new general service list: The better mousetrap we have been looking for? Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7820/vli.v03.2.browne [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J. (2013). The New General Service List. New General Service List Project. https://www.newgeneralservicelist.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chechurin, L., & Borgianni, Y. (2016). Understanding TRIZ through the review of top cited publications. Computers in Industry, 82, 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.06.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chong, P. L., Ismail, D., Ng, P. K., Kong, F. Y., Basir Khan, M. R., & Thirugnanam, S. (2024). A TRIZ approach for designing a smart lighting and control system for classrooms based on counter application with dual PIR sensors. Sensors, 24(4), Article 1177. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24041177 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. González-Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2020). Word knowledge: Exploring the relationships and order of acquisition of vocabulary knowledge components. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ilevbare, I. M., Probert, D., & Phaal, R. (2013). A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation, 33(2-3), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kremmel, B., Indrarathne, B., Kormos, J., & Suzuki, S. (2023). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension: Replicating Hu and Nation (2000). Language Learning, 73(4), 1127–1163. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12622 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners' vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. MalAllah, M. B., Alshirawi, M. I., & AL-Jasim, F. A. (2022). The effect of a program based on TRIZ theory to develop the creative thinking skills among male students with mild intellectual disability. International Journal of Systematic Innovation, 7(2), 1–21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Misbah, N. H., Mohamad, M., Yunus, M. M., & Ya'acob, A. (2017). Identifying the factors contributing to students' difficulties in the English language learning. Creative Education, 8(13), 1999–2008. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.813136 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Namaziandost, E., & Çakmak, F. (2025). Impact of AI-generated storytelling versus gamified learning on vocabulary retention and engagement in CALL environments. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, Article 100505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100505 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary learning: Does gradually increasing spacing increase vocabulary learning? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(4), 677–711. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000825 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Nation, I. S. P. (2017). The BNC/COCA word family lists. Victoria University of Wellington. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do Things Fall Apart? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 31–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Peters, E., & Webb, S. (2018). Incidental vocabulary acquisition through viewing L2 television and factors that affect learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 551–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Rahim, Z. A., & Iqbal, M. S. (2022). The introduction of TRIZ in the Malaysian education policy of learning curriculum syllabus in design and technology subject. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2433(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Reyes-Huerta, D., Mitre-Hernandez, H., & Jaramillo-Avila, U. (2023). Teaching and learning TRIZ as an innovative educational technology: A systematic literature review. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3691, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Saygı, N. D., & Şahin, F. (2023). The effects of a systematic approach to solve real-life inventive problems in the science classroom. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 20(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Spreafico, C., & Russo, D. (2016). TRIZ industrial case studies: A critical survey. Procedia CIRP, 39, 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Tan, A. W. L., & Goh, L. H. (2020). Comparing the effectiveness of direct vocabulary instruction and incidental vocabulary learning in improving the academic vocabulary of Malaysian tertiary students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 28(S2), 263–279. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Uchihara, T., Webb, S., & Yanagisawa, A. (2019). The effects of repetition on incidental vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. Language Learning, 69(3), 559–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12343 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml048 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Wong, A. S. C., Lee, J. Y. V., Fung, M. E., & Willibrord, O. (2019). Vocabulary size of Malaysian secondary school students. Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2021). To what extent does the involvement load hypothesis predict incidental L2 vocabulary learning? A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 71(2), 487–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12444 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Zhang, S., & Zhang, X. (2022). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 26(4), 696–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913998 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Applying TRIZ-Based Pedagogical Strategies to Enhance Vocabulary Acquisition in ESL Classrooms: A Conceptual Framework and Instructional Design

Authors

Article Information

Publication Timeline

Abstract

Keywords

Downloads

References

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles