CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 819Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningReading and Literacy Development

Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition

Open access
Hulstijn, Jan H., Laufer, Batia·2001·Language Learning
DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00164
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

EFL learners in two countries participated in two parallel experiments testing whether retention of vocabulary acquired incidentally is contingent on amount of task‐induced involvement. Short‐ and long‐term retention of ten unfamiliar words was investigated in three learning tasks (reading comprehension, comprehension plus filling in target words, and composition‐writing with target words) with varying “involvement loads”—various combinations of need, search, and evaluation. Time‐on‐task, regarded as inherent to a task, differed among all three tasks. As predicted, amount of retention was related to amount of task‐induced involvement load: Retention was highest in the composition task, lower in reading plus fill‐in, and lowest in the reading. These results are discussed in light of the construct of task‐induced involvement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/0023-8333.00164

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 20 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    The presence of marginal glosses enhances vocabulary retention compared to the absence of marginal glosses.

    “However, the presence of marginal glosses was found to enhance vocabulary retention, when compared to the absence of marginal glosses (Hulstijn, 1992;Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996;Jacobs, Dufon, & Fong, 1994;Watanabe, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hulstijn, 1992 source
    • cites Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996 source
    • cites Jacobs, Dufon, & Fong, 1994 source
  • Findingown data

    In the Dutch-English experiment, when the reading and reading plus fill-in groups were combined, the writing group differed significantly from the combined reading (plus fill-in) group in the delayed post-test, F(1, 85) = 9.89, p < .01, η2 = .10.

    “F(1, 85) = 9.89; p < .01;η 2 = .10 in the delayed post-test].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the Hebrew-English experiment, when groups 1 and 2 were compared, there was a significant effect of condition in the immediate post-test, F(1, 56) = 13.01, p < .01, η2 = .20.

    “In both analyses there was a significant effect of condition [F(1, 56) = 13.01;p < .01;η 2 = .20 in the immediate post-test”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the Hebrew-English experiment, there was a significant effect of task on retention scores, F(2,96) = 63.12, p < .001, η2 = .57.

    “In the ANOVA, a significant task effect [F(2,96) = 63.12;p < .001;η 2 = .57]was found”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the Dutch-English experiment, there was a significant effect of task on retention scores, F(2, 84) = 11.50, p < .001, η2 = .22.

    “In the case of the Dutch-English experiment, a significant task effect [F(2, 84) = 11.50;p < .001;η 2 = .22]was obtained”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 18
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Retention of the ten target words was highest in Task 3 (composition with incorporated target words), lower in Task 2 (reading comprehension plus filling in target words), and lowest in Task 1 (reading comprehension with marginal glossing for target words).

    “As predicted, amount of retention was related to amount of task-induced involvement load: Retention was highest in the composition task, lower in reading plus fill-in, and lowest in the reading.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Preknowledge of the target words happened rarely, and most target words were unfamiliar to most students.

    “Such preknowledge happened rarely, and most target words were unfamiliar to most students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Dutch-English experiment, the first two tasks (reading and reading plus fill-in) resulted in little retention, while the composition task fared significantly better.

    “The first two tasks resulted in little retention; the composition task fared significantly better.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Dutch-English experiment, the Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test showed that the mean score of the writing group was significantly different from the mean scores of the reading and reading plus fill-in groups, but the means of the latter two groups did not significantly differ from each other.

    “The test revealed that the mean score of the writing group was significantly different from the mean scores of the reading and reading plus fill-in groups, but that the means of the latter two groups did not significantly differ from each other.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In both the Dutch-English and Hebrew-English experiments, retention performance was highest in the writing group, intermediate in the reading plus fill-in group, and lowest in the reading group.

    “The figures in Table 1 show that in both experiments, performance in the writing groups was higher than that in the reading plus fill-in groups, which, in turn, was higher than that in the reading groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The significant task × time interaction in the Hebrew-English experiment may have resulted from a floor effect in the delayed test for the reading group, but not in the reading plus fill-in and writing groups.

    “The significant interaction of task and time may have resulted from a floor effect in the delayed test for the reading group, but not in the reading plus fill-in and writing groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The instructors who introduced the tasks were blind to the purpose of the experiment.

    “The instructors who introduced the tasks were blind to the purpose of the experiment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Fewer students were available for the delayed post-test: 87 in the Netherlands and 99 in Israel.

    “Fewer students, however, were available for the delayed post-test: 87 in the Netherlands and 99 in Israel.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results in the Israeli (Hebrew-English) setting, but not the Dutch setting, provide support for the second part of the hypothesis, which stated that Task 2 (reading + fill-in) would be more effective than Task 1 (reading).

    “The results in the Israeli, but not the Dutch, setting provide support for the second part of our hypothesis, which stated that Task 2 (reading + fill-in) will be more effective than Task 1 (reading).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The Involvement Load Hypothesis assumes that word complexity factors are held constant.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results of the Dutch-English experiment partially support the involvement hypothesis, in that Task 3 yielded higher retention than Tasks 1 and 2 but Task 2 did not produce retention significantly higher than Task 1.

    “The results of the Dutch-English experiment partially support the involvement hypothesis, in that Task 3 yielded higher retention than Tasks 1 and 2 but that Task 2 did not produce retention significantly higher than Task 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The Involvement Load Hypothesis assumes that word complexity factors are held constant.
    • Rests on an assumption: The learners were unaware of the forthcoming vocabulary test, so any learning during the task was incidental.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The different time gaps between the immediate and delayed tests had to do with administrative matters in each university and were irrelevant to the research objective of comparing word retention in three tasks.

    “The different time gaps had to do with administrative matters in each university and were irrelevant to our research objective, which was to compare word retention in three tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Task 3 (composition writing with target words) induced moderate need, no search, and strong evaluation, giving an involvement index of 3.

    “In terms of involvement load, Task 3 induces a moderate need, no search, and a strong evaluation, because words had to be used in an original context.Its involvement index was 3.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Involvement Load Hypothesis does not predict that any output task will lead to better results than any input task; it predicts that higher involvement in a word induced by the task will result in better retention, regardless of whether it is an input or an output task.

    “However, the Involvement Load Hypothesis does not predict that any output task will lead to better results than any input task.It predicts that higher involvement in a word induced by the task will result in better retention, regardless of whether it is an input or an output task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Laufer and Hulstijn (2001)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The Involvement Load Hypothesis assumes that word complexity factors are held constant.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Less proficient learners can perform an involving task, which requires search and evaluation in contexts provided by the teacher.

    “While learners in our study were advanced enough to write a composition, less proficient learners can perform an involving task, which requires search and evaluation in contexts provided by the teacher.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    According to Nation and Wang (1999), at least ten exposures are necessary for a word to be a good candidate for acquisition, and even then acquisition cannot be guaranteed.

    “According to Nation and Wang (1999), at least ten exposures are necessary for a word to be a good candidate for acquisition, and even then acquisition cannot be guaranteed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nation and Wang (1999) source
    • Rests on an assumption: The learners were unaware of the forthcoming vocabulary test, so any learning during the task was incidental.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In each experiment, the same time delay was introduced for the three tasks.

    “In each experiment, the same time delay was introduced for the three tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Even if the Dutch and Israeli learners are not fully identical in their knowledge of English, this does not invalidate the comparison of the three tasks.

    “Hence, even if the Dutch and the Israeli learners are not fully identical in their knowledge of English, this does not invalidate the comparison.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The two experiments were parallel because identical methodologies and comparable participants were used.

    “We consider them parallel because we used identical methodologies and comparable participants, as described below.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    Research on task effectiveness requires the identification of criteria that can be observed, manipulated, and measured.

    “However, research on task effectiveness would require the identification of criteria that could be observed, manipulated, and measured.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Hulstijn (forthcoming-a) argues that low retention rates in the empirical literature on incidental vocabulary learning indicate that only seldom will a single exposure lead to a sufficiently deep imprint in memory such that, without further reinforcement, the word remains available for retrieval in the long term.

    “Hulstijn (forthcoming-a) argues that the low retention rates in the empirical literature on incidental vocabulary learning indicate that only seldom will a single exposure lead to a sufficiently deep imprint in memory such that, without further reinforcement, the word remains available for retrieval in the long term.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hulstijn (forthcoming-a)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: The learners were unaware of the forthcoming vocabulary test, so any learning during the task was incidental.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    None of the tasks was presented as a vocabulary learning task.

    “None of the tasks was presented as a vocabulary learning task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Ellis (1995) argues that a simpler task may lead to more words acquired per minute of input.

    “Ellis (1995) argues that a simpler task may lead to more words acquired per minute of input.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ellis (1995)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: The learners were unaware of the forthcoming vocabulary test, so any learning during the task was incidental.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Task 1 (reading comprehension with marginal glosses) induced moderate need but neither search nor evaluation, giving an involvement index of 1.

    “In terms of involvement load, Task 1 induced moderate need, but neither search nor evaluation.Its involvement index was 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The groups in both countries were competent in performing the experimental tasks.

    “Even if the precise level of English may not have been identical between students in the two countries, the groups in both countries were competent in performing the experimental tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Task 2 (reading comprehension plus fill-in) induced moderate need, no search, and moderate evaluation, giving an involvement index of 2.

    “In terms of involvement load, Task 2 induced moderate need, no search, and moderate evaluation, because the context was provided.Its involvement index was 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The significant task × time interaction in the Dutch-English experiment may have resulted from floor effects in the delayed test for the reading and reading plus fill-in groups, but not in the writing group.

    “The significant interaction of task and time may have resulted from floor effects in the delayed test for the reading and reading plus fill-in groups, but not in the writing group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study made no attempt to control for time on task, accepting the likelihood that time on targets would covary with time on task.

    “Since our study aimed to investigate retention effects of tasks, we made no attempt to control for time on task, thereby accepting the likelihood that time on targets would covary with time on task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Time on task is an inherent property of a task, not a separate variable.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Time on targets would covary with time on task.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    As the target words are of low frequency and English is a foreign language in the authors' countries, it is highly unlikely that learners were exposed to the words between the immediate and the delayed tests.

    “As the target words are of low frequency and English is a foreign language in our countries, it is highly unlikely that learners were exposed to the words between the immediate and the delayed tests.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Time on task differed among all three tasks; Tasks 1, 2, and 3 took about 40-45, 50-55, and 70-80 minutes, respectively.

    “Time on task was different for all three tasks.Tasks 1, 2, and 3 took about 40-45, 50-55, and 70-80 minutes, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The concepts of deep processing or elaboration are hard to formalize and operationalize.

    “Yet the concepts of deep processing or elaboration are hard to formalize and operationalize.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
30 of 30

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Most target words would be unfamiliar to the experimental groups.

    “As the students in the experimental groups were of similar or lower language proficiency, we assumed that most of the target words would indeed be unfamiliar to them.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Time on task is an inherent property of a task, not a separate variable.

    “Yet we regard time on task as an inherent property of a task, not as a separate variable.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Time on targets would covary with time on task.

    “Since our study aimed to investigate retention effects of tasks, we made no attempt to control for time on task, thereby accepting the likelihood that time on targets would covary with time on task.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Involvement Load Hypothesis assumes that word complexity factors are held constant.

    “The Involvement Load Hypothesis assumes that word complexity factors are held constant.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The learners were unaware of the forthcoming vocabulary test, so any learning during the task was incidental.

    “Because the learners are unaware of the forthcoming vocabulary test, any learning that might occur during the task is considered to be incidental.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Interactive tasks in games can promote deeper levels of processing, increasing the retention of vocabulary knowledge.

    “Third, interactive tasks in games can promote deeper levels of processing, increasing the retention of vocabulary knowledge (Craik and Lockhart, 1972; Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001).”

    From Incidental vocabulary learning from digital games: the predictive role of game playing time, foreign language motivation, and anxiety (2026) · cites this paper as Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001

    The Involvement Load Hypothesis section says that greater task-induced involvement improves retention of unfamiliar words, and the Discussion reports experimental support for that relationship. The paper does not examine games or establish that interactive tasks in games induce deeper processing; no page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Post-test timing differs despite a claim of identical methods

    Minor

    The experiments are described as using identical methodologies, but their delayed post-tests occurred after different intervals.

  • Some participants knew target words beforehand

    Minor

    The paper says the target words were new to every participant, but later says that some participants reported knowing a target word before the experiment.

  • One reported η2 exceeds its possible range

    Minor

    The delayed-test η2 is printed as 26. An η2 expressing the proportion of variance explained cannot exceed 1; the paper reports its other η2 values as fractions.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [1]1. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: Freeman.
  2. [14]14. Hulstijn, J. H. (forthcoming-a). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automat- icity. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. [15]15. Hulstijn, J. H. (forthcoming-b). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  4. [17]17. Hulstijn, J. H., & Trompetter, P. (1998). Incidental learning of second language vocabulary in computer-assisted reading and writing tasks. In D. Al- brechtsen, B. Henriksen, I. M. Mees, & E. Poulsen (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign and second language pedagogy (pp. 191-200). Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press.
  5. [21]21. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.
  6. [24]24. Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary: The tool of last resort in foreign language reading? A new perspective. Modern Language Journal, 78, 285-299.
  7. [26]26. Laufer, B. (1997). What's in a word that makes it hard or easy? Intralexical factors affecting the difficulty of vocabulary acquisition. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. [36]36. Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165-210). London: Academic Press.
  9. [37]37. Schmidt, R. (forthcoming). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. [39]39. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Mad- den (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235-253).
  11. [41]41. Swain M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhover (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. [42]42. Underwood, G. (Ed.). (1996). Implicit cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Haifa (IL)
ORCID
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-09
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
539-558
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
DOI
10.1111/0023-8333.00164
OpenAlex
W2063765880
Cited by
819
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 71 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 47
FWCI
8.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 472 d)
Locations
  • Language Learning (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
involvement load hypothesis, incidental vocabulary learning, vocabulary retention, EFL learners, reading comprehension, composition writing, fill-in-the-blank task, time on task

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review