The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 20 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Own result · 14 Own method · 9 Own interpretation · 6 Sources not found · 4 No full text of the sources · 2 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported so far
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Levels of Processing and Elaboration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hulstijn, 1992 source
- Supportedcites Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996 source
In the Test 1 results (Dictionary Use, p. 8), the marginal-gloss group retained more target-word meanings than the control group, which read without glosses. The Test 3 results (p. 9) report the same pattern. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jacobs, Dufon, & Fong, 1994 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“F(1, 85) = 9.89; p < .01;η 2 = .10 in the delayed post-test].”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plainn = 53 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the ANOVA, a significant task effect [F(2,96) = 63.12;p < .001;η 2 = .57]was found”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of the Dutch-English experiment, a significant task effect [F(2, 84) = 11.50;p < .001;η 2 = .22]was obtained”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“F(1,66) = 14.55; p < .000;η 2 = .18 in the delayed post-test].”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a significant time effect [F(1, 96) = 80.85; p < .001;η 2 = .46]”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both analyses, there was a significant group difference, [F(1, 85) = 25.13;p < .001;η 2 = .23 in the immediate post-test”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plainn = 34 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as well as a significant task × time interaction [F(2, 96) = 3.36; p < .05;η 2 = .065].”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls test revealed that the mean scores of all three groups were significantly different from each other.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such preknowledge happened rarely, and most target words were unfamiliar to most students.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Procedure and Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first two tasks resulted in little retention; the composition task fared significantly better.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The instructors who introduced the tasks were blind to the purpose of the experiment.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Procedure and Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fewer students, however, were available for the delayed post-test: 87 in the Netherlands and 99 in Israel.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The Involvement Load Hypothesis assumes that word complexity factors are held constant.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > The Tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Laufer and Hulstijn (2001)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The Involvement Load Hypothesis assumes that word complexity factors are held constant.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nation and Wang (1999) source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The learners were unaware of the forthcoming vocabulary test, so any learning during the task was incidental.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In each experiment, the same time delay was introduced for the three tasks.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, even if the Dutch and the Israeli learners are not fully identical in their knowledge of English, this does not invalidate the comparison.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We consider them parallel because we used identical methodologies and comparable participants, as described below.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > The Involvement Load Hypothesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, research on task effectiveness would require the identification of criteria that could be observed, manipulated, and measured.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Levels of Processing and Elaboration
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hulstijn (forthcoming-a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The learners were unaware of the forthcoming vocabulary test, so any learning during the task was incidental.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the tasks was presented as a vocabulary learning task.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Procedure and Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Ellis (1995) argues that a simpler task may lead to more words acquired per minute of input.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis (1995)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The learners were unaware of the forthcoming vocabulary test, so any learning during the task was incidental.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of involvement load, Task 1 induced moderate need, but neither search nor evaluation.Its involvement index was 1.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > The Tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > The Tasks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Procedure and Tests
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Procedure and Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet the concepts of deep processing or elaboration are hard to formalize and operationalize.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Levels of Processing and Elaboration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“그러나 Hulstijn과 Laufer(2001)가 제시한 강한 정도의 평가(E2)는 학습자 스스로가 만들어낸 문장이나 지문에서 목표 어휘와 다 른 어휘들의 결합 방식이 어떠한지를 평가하는 것임에 주목해야 한다.그리고 이는 앞선 연구들에서 가정된 바와는 달리 어휘를 배열하여 문장을 만드는 과업의 경우 관여 부담 지수를 상대적으로 조금 더 낮은 수준의 것으로 이해해야 할 필요가 있음을 시사한다.”
From Effects of Task-Induced Involvement Load and Working Memory on Korean High School Students’ Second Language Vocabulary Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001
In the citing paper
“이론에 따르면 관여 부담 수준 은 필요(Need, 이하 N), 검색(Search, 이하 S), 평가(Evaluation, 이하 E)의 세 가지 요소에 의해 결정된다.”
From Effects of Task-Induced Involvement Load and Working Memory on Korean High School Students’ Second Language Vocabulary Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001
In the citing paper
“해당 가설은 과업을 수행하는 동안 새로운 어휘를 학습하는 정도가 과업을 수행하는데 필요한 인지적 처리 수준에 따라 달라진다는 가정 이다.”
From Effects of Task-Induced Involvement Load and Working Memory on Korean High School Students’ Second Language Vocabulary Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001
In the citing paper
“Hulstijn과 Laufer(2001)의 관여 부담 가설을 부분적으로 지지하는 것이라 볼 수 있다.”
From Effects of Task-Induced Involvement Load and Working Memory on Korean High School Students’ Second Language Vocabulary Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > The Involvement Load Hypothesis
“We consider them parallel because we used identical methodologies and comparable participants, as described below.”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Procedure and Tests
“One week later in the Netherlands and two weeks later in Israel, the students received the same test again.6”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Participants
“Most importantly, the target words were new to all the subjects.5”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Procedure and Tests
“Such preknowledge happened rarely, and most target words were unfamiliar to most students.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
“F(1, 56) = 19.35;p < .000;η 2 = 26 in the delayed post-test”
§ Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition > Results
“The measure of effect size is η 2 , expressing explained variance.7”
Citations
Cites
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x · Cited by 9,566
Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic Memory
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268 · Cited by 4,121
On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.
Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306 · Cited by 1,805
Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement
Laufer, B. (2001) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.1 · Cited by 1,334 · cited 3×
“The selection of the tasks was based on the notion of task-induced involvement and the Involvement Load Hypothesis of Laufer and Hulstijn (2001).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationImplicit memory: Retention without remembering.
Roediger, H. L., III (1990) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.45.9.1043 · Cited by 1,315
Implicit memory: Retention without remembering.
Roediger, H. L., III (1990) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.9.1043 · Cited by 891
Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., Weber, H., et al. (1986) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/003368828601700208 · Cited by 778
HULSTIJN, J. H., HOLLANDER, M., & GREIDANUS, T. (1996) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01614.x · Cited by 760
Self-citationEffects of Multimedia Annotations on Vocabulary Acquisition
CHUN, D. M., & PLASS, J. L. (1996) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01159.x · Cited by 759
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- [1]1. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: Freeman.
- [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.
- [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.
- [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.
- [21]21. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.
- [24]24. Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary: The tool of last resort in foreign language reading? A new perspective. Modern Language Journal, 78, 285-299.
- [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.
- [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.
- [37]37. Schmidt, R. (forthcoming). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- [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).
- [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.
- [42]42. Underwood, G. (Ed.). (1996). Implicit cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning
Schmitt, N. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089921 · Cited by 1,467
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) refined the notion further and suggested that involvement for vocabulary learning consists of three components: need, search, and evaluation.”
BackgroundVocabulary in Language Teaching
Meyer, L. L., & Schmitt, N. (2002) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3588334 · Cited by 1,449
Vocabulary in Language Teaching
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108569057 · Cited by 958
The Percentage of Words Known in a Text and Reading Comprehension
SCHMITT, N., JIANG, X., & GRABE, W. (2011) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x · Cited by 709
“This is not surprising, as degree of exposure (Brown, Waring, & Donkaewbua, 2008) and the need for specific vocabulary to discuss particular topics (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001) are important factors facilitating the acquisition of vocabulary.”
BackgroundSynthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching
Norris, J. M. (2006) · Language learning and language teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.13 · Cited by 615
Corpus Use in Language Learning: A Meta‐Analysis
Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12224 · Cited by 635
“…Ayers, & Kalyuga, 2011), freeing up resources for the still considerable effort of meaning construction required on the part of the learner—effort being the often missing component in instructed language learning and a reliable predictor of both depth and retention (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundRECEPTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE VOCABULARY LEARNING: The Effects of Reading and Writing on Word Knowledge
Webb, S. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263105050023 · Cited by 527
Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phone
Lü, M. (2008) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00289.x · Cited by 490
“This kind of studentinitiated use of language, supported by teachers, can foster vocabulary acquisition by increasing the ‘cognitive involvement load’ (Hulstijn & Laufer 2001).”
BackgroundVocabulary Learning Strategies
Gu, Y. (2019) · The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1329.pub2 · Cited by 446
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amn018 · Cited by 458
Self-citationMaking and Using Word Lists for Language Learning and Testing
Nation, P. (2016) · John Benjamins Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1075/z.208 · Cited by 393
The potential role(s) of writing in second language development
Williams, J. (2012) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 · Cited by 406
“Within vocabulary research, the Involvement Load Hypothesis suggests that certain task characteristics are more likely to promote lexical acquisition than others (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001).”
BackgroundTask‐Based Language Learning: A Review of Issues
Robinson, P. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x · Cited by 394
The Effect of Type of Written Exercise on L2 Vocabulary Retention
Folse, K. S. (2006) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/40264523 · Cited by 164
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) would say that fill-in-the-blank exercises induce less involvement than writing original sentences as measured table 4 analysis of Variance for effect of exercise type on retention (lenient Scoring) Contrast df Type III SS Mean Square F Value Effect Size Conditions 1 and…”
BackgroundThe Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition
Ellis, R. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315676968 · Cited by 357
“With regard to the involvement load hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008; Martínez-Fernández, 2008; Rott, 2005), several studies have provided empirical support, although Martínez-Fernández (2008) failed to do so after addressing several methodological limitations in the…”
BackgroundUchihara, T., Webb, S., & Yanagisawa, A. (2019) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12343 · Cited by 330
Abraham, L. B. (2008) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588220802090246 · Cited by 303
“Such studies could include the measurement of L2 proficiency, L1 and L2 reading abilities, the effects of reading task (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Peters, 2006, 2007), the effects of different types of multimedia glosses in relation to individual differences (Chun & Plass, 1997; Plass & Jones, 2005; Roby,…”
BackgroundLearning L2 Vocabulary through Extensive Reading: A Measurement Study
Horst, M. (2005) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.1353/cml.2005.0018 · Cited by 383
“Indeed, such activities consistently result in greater numbers of words learned and higher retention rates than simply encountering new words while reading for general comprehension (for an overview see Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundThe Contribution of Collaborative and Individual Tasks to the Acquisition of L2 Vocabulary
Kim, Y. J. (2008) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00690.x · Cited by 297
Learning English with The Sims: exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning
Ranalli, J. (2008) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588220802447859 · Cited by 269
“On the basis of this insight, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) introduced the concept of involvement load to connect the cognitive and motivational facets of vocabulary learning and to provide a construct researchers can use to measure acquisition through instructional tasks.”
BackgroundMobile-assisted ESL/EFL vocabulary learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Lin, J.-J., & Lin, H. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1541359 · Cited by 262
“Mobile technologies might be used to help learners digest the tremendous number of words they need to learn (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Nation, 2001).”
7. RESEARCH IN TEACHING VOCABULARY
Read, J. (2004) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190504000078 · Cited by 261
“Israeli students mostly chose the Hebrew translation, but there was no significant relationship between their choice of button and retention of the words.”
ResultInfluentialLearning L2 Vocabulary through Extensive Reading: A Measurement Study
Horst, M. (2005) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.61.3.355 · Cited by 254
The Role of Task‐Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Kim, Y. (2008) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00442.x · Cited by 256
Elgort, I., & Warren, P. (2014) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12052 · Cited by 240
Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: the involvement load hypothesis on trial
Keating, G. D. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089922 · Cited by 223
“The S-N-K is less conservative than the Tukey test and was chosen by Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) in their analyses.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialComparing Focus on Form and Focus on FormS in Second-Language Vocabulary Learning
Laufer, B. (2006) · The Canadian Modern Language Review · doi:10.3138/cmlr.63.1.149 · Cited by 212
Self-citationPulido, D. (2004) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00263.x · Cited by 208
Incidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task type, word occurrence and their combination
Laufer, B., & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2011) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168811412019 · Cited by 197
“Various productive tasks were usually more effective than comprehension tasks (Ellis & He, 1999; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer, 2003; Webb, 2005; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008) Evidence has been accumulating to show that FonFs tasks that require learners to practise words in non-communicative contexts…”
BackgroundSelf-citationRott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1191/1362168802lr108oa · Cited by 180
“Need, along with search and evaluation, is a central component in the construct involvement load, upon which, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) claim, lexical acquisition and retention may depend.”
BackgroundMin, H. (2008) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00435.x · Cited by 177
Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning
Yanguas, Í. (2009) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44180 · Cited by 176
“In addition, Plass and Jones (2005) discussed the applications that this theory has for SLA.”
InfluentialThe Key Is in the Keyword: L2 Vocabulary Learning Methods With Beginning Learners of Spanish
Sagarra, N., & Alba, M. C. (2006) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00394.x · Cited by 177
Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition
Hill, M., & Laufer, B. (2003) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral.2003.007 · Cited by 160
Self-citationDziemianko, A. (2010) · International Journal of Lexicography · doi:10.1093/ijl/ecp040 · Cited by 157
Research into practice: Vocabulary
Nation, P. (2011) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444811000267 · Cited by 182
“There is also evidence from research which tests the involvement load hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer 2001; Folse 2006; Webb 2007; Kim 2008; Keating 2008) that the amount of vocabulary learning from vocabulary-focused activities is only a small proportion of the words actually studied.”
BackgroundEckerth, J., & Tavakoli, P. (2012) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168811431377 · Cited by 149
“The two input tasks (Task 1 and 2) were identical with the task type in Hulstijn and Laufer (2001).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialLaufer, B. (2010) · International Journal of Lexicography · doi:10.1093/ijl/ecq039 · Cited by 148
“Laufer and Waldman (2009) found that productive knowledge of collocations lags behind the understanding of the collocations, and that the use of collocations in free writing lags behind elicited productive knowledge, which suggests that use develops more slowly across proficiency levels than the ability to translate a…”
BackgroundSelf-citationZou, D. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168816652418 · Cited by 132
“Laufer’s (2003) research revealed that the task of sentence completion and dictionary consultation (need +, search +, evaluation +) was more effective than sentence-writing (need +, search –, evaluation ++) in promoting the retention of target words, even though they induced the same sum of involvement load.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHow Effective Are Intentional Vocabulary‐Learning Activities? A Meta‐Analysis
Webb, S., Yanagisawa, A., & Uchihara, T. (2020) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12671 · Cited by 171
“Percent-age learning gains have tended to range between 10% and 40% (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keyvanfar & Badranghi, 2011; Tu, 2004).”
The impact of adventure video games on foreign language learning and the perceptions of learners
Chen, H. H.-J., & Yang, T.-Y. C. (2012) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.705851 · Cited by 138
“Does playing video games facilitate incidental second language vocabulary learning (Ellis, 1994; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000, 2010)?”
BackgroundBeyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in extensive reading
Kweon, S.-O., & Kim, H.-R. (2008) · Reading in a Foreign Language · doi:10.64152/10125/66819 · Cited by 127
“…vocabulary acquisition, literature-based approach The past two decades have seen a considerable amount of interest in the cognitive processing of vocabulary acquisition (Arnaud & Bejoint, 1992; Coady & Huckin, 1997; Haastrup, 1991; Hatch & Brown, 1995; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Meara, 1992).”
BackgroundPromoting learner autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional exchanges
Fuchs, C., Müller–Hartmann, A., & Hauck, M. (2012) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44301 · Cited by 115
Manipulating L2 learners' online dictionary use and its effect on L2 word retention
Peters, E. (2007) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44103 · Cited by 111
“However, the Involvement Load Hypothesis does not explain the full picture.”
InfluentialThe Effect of Content Retelling on Vocabulary Uptake From a TED Talk
Nguyen, C., & Boers, F. (2018) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.441 · Cited by 135
“Effective vocabulary learning tasks: Involvement Load Hypothesis versus Technique Feature Analysis.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe Effects of Task Involvement Load on L2 Incidental Vocabulary Learning: A Meta‐Analytic Study
HUANG, S., WILLSON, V., & ESLAMI, Z. (2012) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01394.x · Cited by 108
Reading, Word-Focused Activities and Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language.
Laufer, B. (2001) · Cited by 104
Self-citationRetention of new words: Quantity of encounters, quality of task, and degree of knowledge
Laufer, B., & Rozovski-Roitblat, B. (2014) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168814559797 · Cited by 122
“…studies on the effect of multiple encounters, see Nation & Wang, 1999; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Waring & Takaki, 2003; Webb, 2007, and for examples of the effect of vocabulary activities, see Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008; Peters, 2007; Pichette, De Serres, & Lafontaine, 2012.)”
BackgroundSelf-citationThirty Years of Machine Translation in Language Teaching and Learning: A Review of the Literature
Jolley, J. R., & Maimone, L. (2022) · L2 Journal · doi:10.5070/l214151760 · Cited by 69
“These include focused attention (Tomlin & Villa, 1994), noticing and awareness (Leow, Johnson, & Zárate-Sández, 2011; Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990), input processing (McLaughlin, 1990; VanPatten, 2004), and depth of processing (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Leow, 2015; Leow & Mercer, 2014).”
Out-of-class language contact and vocabulary gain in a study abroad context
Briggs, J. G. (2015) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.07.007 · Cited by 102
(2013) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt · Cited by 102
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01136.x · Cited by 105
Nakata, T. (2016) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263116000280 · Cited by 111
“L2 vocabulary studies underscore the importance of considering time-on-task when comparing the effects of different treatments (Ellis, 1995; Folse, 2006; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Webb, 2005).”
BackgroundResultLexical Input Processing and Vocabulary Learning
Barcroft, J. (2015) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.43 · Cited by 95
Intentional vs. incidental vocabulary learning
Ahmad, J. (2011) · DergiPark (Istanbul University) · Cited by 97
Technology-Assisted Vocabulary Learning for EFL Learners: A Meta-Analysis
Hao, T., Wang, Z., & Ardasheva, Y. (2021) · Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness · doi:10.1080/19345747.2021.1917028 · Cited by 152
“In turn, vocabulary learning could be intentional or incidental (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Nation, 2001).”
BackgroundThe effect of keeping vocabulary notebooks on vocabulary acquisition
Walters, J., & Bozkurt, N. (2009) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168809341509 · Cited by 91
“In a study conducted to test the Involvement Load Hypothesis, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) compared the vocabulary retention of EFL learners exposed to tasks with different involvement loads; they found that the tasks for which the involvement load was higher resulted in better retention of vocabulary words encountered…”
BackgroundVocabulary Learning Strategies
Gu, Y. (2012) · The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1329 · Cited by 90
Translation and short-term L2 vocabulary retention: Hindrance or help?
Hummel, K. M. (2010) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168809346497 · Cited by 89
“In a similar view, researchers (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) found that retention for L2 vocabulary items was best in a condition requiring what they refer to as a ‘high involvement load’, in which learners were required to invest greater amounts of time and processing effort,…”
Acquisition of Japanese as a Foreign Language Through a Baseball Video Game
deHaan, J. W. (2005) · Foreign Language Annals · doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02492.x · Cited by 87
“may increase a language learner’s level of involvement, a factor that Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) emphasized as being important in language acquisition.”
BackgroundEffective vocabulary learning tasks: Involvement Load Hypothesis versus Technique Feature Analysis
Hu, H.-C. M., & Nassaji, H. (2015) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.11.001 · Cited by 86
“One of the initial studies is by Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), which examined the effects of involvement load on the retention of ten English words by young adult ESL learners.”
BackgroundInfluentialHow well does teacher talk support incidental vocabulary acquisition?
Horst, M. (2010) · Reading in a Foreign Language · doi:10.64152/10125/66646 · Cited by 79
“The hypothesis and the experimental studies that test it have focused on reading and writing tasks (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Kim, 2008) but the relevance to vocabulary episodes in teacher talk is clear.”
BackgroundIncidental Vocabulary Learning
Webb, S. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429291586-15 · Cited by 133
Golonka, E., Bowles, A. R., Silbert, N. H., Kramasz, D., Blake, C., & Buckwalter, T. (2015) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12191 · Cited by 80
Lei, X., Fathi, J., Noorbakhsh, S., & Rahimi, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872922 · Cited by 137
Pulido, D. (2007) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00415.x · Cited by 75
Chapter 15: Making an essential word list for beginners
Dang, N. Y., & Webb, S. (2016) · John Benjamins Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1075/z.208.15ch15 · Cited by 88
Sentence Reading and Writing for Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition
Pichette, F., de Serres, L., & Lafontaine, M. (2011) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amr037 · Cited by 82
“…Load Hypothesis mentioned earlier proposes that the effectiveness of a language learning task rests on the learner’s level of cognitive involvement, which is operationalized by the combination of three components: need, search and evaluation (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001; Laufer and Hulstijn 2001).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialData-driven learning of collocations: Learner performance, proficiency, and perceptions
Vyatkina, N. (2016) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44487 · Cited by 72
“…collocations 1 (Appendix A) were selected for the study, all of them appearing in the text of the novel that students read and discussed as the main course text (Moers, 2002) in conformity with the principle of relevance shown to promote learning (Boulton, 2010; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundMethodYanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2021) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12444 · Cited by 95
On the benefits of multimodal annotations for vocabulary uptake from reading
Boers, F., Warren, P., Grimshaw, G. M., & Siyanova‐Chanturia, A. (2017) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1356335 · Cited by 80
“Put differently, the nature of the marginal gloss may arguably in fl uence the ‘ search ’ element put forward in Lau-fer and Hulstijn ’ s (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis.”
BackgroundPellicer‐Sánchez, A., Conklin, K., & Vilkaitė‐Lozdienė, L. (2020) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12430 · Cited by 74
“The pattern of vocabulary gains also lend support to the depth of processing hypothesis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) and the involvement load hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
MethodResultMemorization versus semantic mapping in L2 vocabulary acquisition
Khoii, R., & Sharififar, S. (2013) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/ccs101 · Cited by 75
Zhang, X. (2017) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.03.019 · Cited by 44
Students’ perception on immersive learning through 2D and 3D metaverse platforms
Hwang, Y., Shin, D., & Lee, H. (2023) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-023-10238-9 · Cited by 80
van den Broek, G. S. E., Takashima, A., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12285 · Cited by 67
“The way in which a word is processed during these repetitions predicts how well the word is remembered over time (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Nation, 2001).”
BackgroundAzabdaftari, B., & Mozaheb, M. A. (2012) · The EuroCALL Review · doi:10.4995/eurocall.2012.11377 · Cited by 69
The Role of Task‐Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Kim, Y. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00644.x · Cited by 68
Learning Vocabulary Through Listening: The Role of Vocabulary Knowledge and Listening Proficiency
Zhang, P., & Graham, S. (2020) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12411 · Cited by 64
“Different forms of input enhancement are likely to vary in the degrees of “involvement load” (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001, p. 539) they prompt, however, and hence potentially lead to different amounts of learning.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSpacing techniques in second language vocabulary acquisition: Short-term gains vs. long-term memory
Schuetze, U. (2015) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168814541726 · Cited by 63
“This feature was based on research by Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) as well as Webb (2005), who carried out many experiments on vocabulary learning arguing that words need to be actively practiced to get the attention they need.”
MethodOn the use(fulness) of paper and electronic dictionaries
Dziemianko, A. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654864.003.0015 · Cited by 62
“In other words, the retention of new words is contingent on the depth of processing: the deeper the processing is, the better the chances of remembering the new vocabulary are (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001: 545).”
BackgroundResultEffects of three forms of reading-based output activity on L2 vocabulary learning
Rassaei, E. (2015) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815606160 · Cited by 70
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) examined the rate of vocabulary learning in three experimental conditions: reading comprehension with marginal glosses (no involvement), reading comprehension plus gap filling activity using target words (moderate involvement), and composition writing using target words…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLambert, C., Gong, Q., & Zhang, G. Q. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168820981407 · Cited by 60
“Depth of processing theories (Craik & Tulving, 1975) have played an important role in theories of L2 vocabulary instruction (e.g. Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
MethodTeng, M. F., & Zhang, D. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688211008798 · Cited by 71
“Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) presented the ILH as a new formula for vocabulary instruction, wherein the effective acquisition of new words depends on the mental effort (involvement) learners devote to processing new words.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialHOW INVOLVED ARE AMERICAN L2 LEARNERS OF SPANISH IN LEXICAL INPUT PROCESSING TASKS DURING READING?
Pulido, D. (2009) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109090020 · Cited by 47
“…more familiar vs. less familiar), this study sheds new light on theories of learner involvement in L2 lexical input processing during reading (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001 ; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001 ; Mondria, 2003 ; Mondria & Wit-de Boer, 1991 ; Pulido, 2000 , 2003 , 2004a , 2004b , 2007 ; Rott,…”
Does adding pictures to glosses enhance vocabulary uptake from reading?
Boers, F., Warren, P., He, L., & Deconinck, J. (2017) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.03.017 · Cited by 64
“For example, output activities that incorporate the target words which the learner encountered in an input text have been shown to be beneficial (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer & Roitblat-Rozovski, 2015).”
BackgroundChatGPT: Friend or foe (to corpus linguists)?
Lin, P. (2023) · Applied Corpus Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100065 · Cited by 59
The Use of Computer-Based Simulation to Aid Comprehension and Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Ali Mohsen, M. (2016) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633116639954 · Cited by 56
“To operationalize such hypothesis, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) proposed the involvement load hypothesis, which comprises three major components, namely, need, search, and evaluation.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLeow, R. P. (2018) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818776674 · Cited by 65
The challenges of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test for second language students
Cheng, L., Klinger, D. A., & Zheng, Y. (2007) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/0265532207076363 · Cited by 66
“Again these results are supported by many research studies conducted in second/foreign language research (e.g. Qian and Schedl, 2004; Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Read, 2000; 2004).”
ResultSMS: Tool for L2 Vocabulary Retention and Reading Comprehension Ability
Motallebzadeh, K., & Ganjali, R. (2011) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.2.5.1111-1115 · Cited by 57
“According to the results of this study, participants in SMS group could significantly outperform the ones in conventional/paper group, confirming the results found by Lu (2008) and Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) stating mobile phones can be an effective medium for self-learning L2 vocabulary.”
ResultEnglish for Academic Purposes at Swedish universities: Teachers' objectives and practices
Pecorari, D., Shaw, P. M., Irvine, A., & Malmström, H. (2011) · DiVA (Stockholm University) · Cited by 56
9. L1 Attrition and the Mental Lexicon
Schmid, M. S., & Köpke, B. (2009) · Multilingual Matters eBooks · doi:10.21832/9781847691262-011 · Cited by 79
Making form-meaning connections while reading: A qualitative analysis of word processing
Rott, S., & Williams, J. (2003) · Reading in a Foreign Language · doi:10.64152/10125/66591 · Cited by 53
“Need, along with search and evaluation, is a central component in the construct involvement load, upon which, Laufer and Hulstijn (2001; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001) claim lexical acquisition and retention may depend.”
BackgroundExtramural English and academic vocabulary
Olsson, E., & Sylvén, L. K. (2015) · Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies · doi:10.17011/apples/urn.201512234129 · Cited by 68
Maskor, Z. M., & Baharudin, H. (2016) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v6-i11/2395 · Cited by 50
Linking Research and Practice: Effective Strategies for Teaching Vocabulary in the ESL Classroom
Nam, J. (2010) · TESL Canada Journal · doi:10.18806/tesl.v28i1.1064 · Cited by 47
“Post-Reading Composition Task Based on research findings (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Lee & Muncie, 2006) that underscore the significant effects of students’ productive use of unknown words and their involvement in high vocabulary production processing, a composition task can be designed as follows.”
BackgroundMethodWords for what? Contrasting university students' receptive and productive academic vocabulary needs
Malmström, H., Pecorari, D., & Shaw, P. M. (2017) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.002 · Cited by 56
Vitta, J. P., Nicklin, C., & McLean, S. (2021) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263121000541 · Cited by 46
“For example, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) investigated reading, reading þ fill-in, and writing interventions with Dutch and Hebrew L1 learners of English.”
Hu, H.-C. M., & Nassaji, H. (2012) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.68.1.054 · Cited by 47
“…aspects of a word, doing so might create a stronger word-association network in their memory, which would then consolidate the retention of word knowledge (de Bot et al., 1997; Haastrup, 1989; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Lawson & Hogben, 1996; Nation, 2001; Pulido, 2009).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- University of Haifa (IL)
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 539-558
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
