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

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 access

Hulstijn, Jan H., Laufer, Batia·2001·Language Learning

DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00164

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open 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

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
- Supported
  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)
  cites Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jacobs, Dufon, & Fong, 1994 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes

Show all 27 claims

It may state two separate claims as one. 18
Probably not a substantial claim. 22
The quote only partly states this claim. 1

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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
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.
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 matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Laufer and Hulstijn (2001)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
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.
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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
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.
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 matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Hulstijn (forthcoming-a)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
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.
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 matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Ellis (1995)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
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.
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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
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.

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?

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

The Principles of Psychology
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-citation
Implicit 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
Incidental Vocabulary Learning by Advanced Foreign Language Students: The Influence of Marginal Glosses, Dictionary Use, and Reoccurrence of Unknown Words
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-citation
Effects 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 21 references

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.

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 816

Utilizing lexical data from a Web-derived corpus to expand productive collocation knowledge
Wu, S., Witten, I. H., & Franken, M. (2009) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344009990218 · Cited by 44
Task type effects on English as a Foreign Language learners' acquisition of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge
Bao, G. (2015) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.07.006 · Cited by 49
EFFECTS OF MEANING- AND FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION ON THE ACQUISITION OF VERB-NOUN COLLOCATIONS IN L2 ENGLISH
Szudarski, P. (2012) · Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research (University of Central Lancashire) · Cited by 44
The Effect of Multiplayer Video Games on Incidental and Intentional L2 Vocabulary Learning: The Case of Among Us
Calvo-Ferrer, J. R., & Belda-Medina, J. (2021) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti5120080 · Cited by 69
“According to Laufer [16], explicit vocabulary activities increase performance better than incidental learning both in the short and in the long run.”
Result
Revisiting the Involvement LoadHypothesis: Awareness, Type of Task and Type of Item
Martínez-Fernández, A. (2008) · Cited by 43
The role of vocabulary breadth and depth in predicting second language descriptive writing performance
Dabbagh, A., & Enayat, M. J. (2017) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2017.1335765 · Cited by 53
Learning collocations: Effects of online tools on teaching English adjective‐noun collocations
Başal, A. (2017) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12562 · Cited by 42
Improving Vocabulary Learning in Foreign Language Learning Through Reciprocal Teaching Strategy
Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N., & Kabilan, M. K. (2012) · International Journal of Learning and Development · doi:10.5296/ijld.v2i6.2882 · Cited by 42
“2012, Vol. 2, No. 6 www.macrothink.org/ijld 190 However, incidental vocabulary learning sometimes is not sufficient and may be useless in other conditions (Hulstijn, 2001).”
BackgroundInfluential
Effects of Mobile‐Mediated Dynamic and Nondynamic Glosses on L2 Vocabulary Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective
Rassaei, E. (2020) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12629 · Cited by 41
The effect of a digital game-based learning task on the acquisition of the English Article System
Kao, C.-W. (2020) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102373 · Cited by 52
An Evaluative Checklist for Computer Games Used for Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning and Practice VocaWord Sample
Uzun, L. (2009) · Bursa Uludag University - AVESIS · Cited by 41
Corrective Feedback and L2 Vocabulary Development: Prompts and Recasts in the Adult ESL Classroom
Dilāns, G. (2010) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.6.787 · Cited by 44
Personalized word learning for university students: a profile-based method for e-learning systems
Xie, H., Zou, D., Zhang, R., Wang, M., & Kwan, R. (2019) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-019-09215-0 · Cited by 41
“English as a Second Language (ESL) learners and linguists have attempted to develop various learning theories and frameworks (Gu 2003; Hu and Nassaji 2016; Hulstijn and Laufer 2001; Keating 2008; Prince 1996; Schmitt 2008) to identify effective learning methods to promote word retention.”
Background
The Effects of Sentence Writing on Second Language French and Korean Lexical Retention
Wong, W., & Pyun, D. O. (2012) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.68.2.164 · Cited by 39
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) tested their Involvement Load Hypothesis in an experiment that compared three learning tasks with different involvement loads: a reading comprehension task (low involvement), © 2012 CMLR/RCLV, 68, 2, 164–189 doi:10.3138/cmlr.68.2.164 a comprehension plus filling in target words task (moderat…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Effects of interactive alignment on L2 vocabulary learning by Chinese EFL learners
Zhou, X., & Wang, C. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688211004629 · Cited by 41
“As suggested by Hulstijn & Laufer (2001), the time needed to complete a task is an inherent property of the task.”
Background
Generating Incidental Word-Learning Tasks via Topic-Based and Load-Based Profiles
Xie, H., Zou, D., Lau, R. Y. K., Wang, F. L., & Wong, T.-L. (2015) · IEEE Multimedia · doi:10.1109/mmul.2015.91 · Cited by 38
“The groundbreaking significance of the ILH hypothesis is that it differs from previous theories in its attempt to incorporate and operationalize the cognitive notions of depth of processing and elaboration in terms of secondlanguage word learning tasks.(1)”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
The Role of Morphological and Contextual Information in L2 Lexical Inference
Hamada, M. (2014) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12151 · Cited by 38
The effects of word form variation and frequency on second language incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading
Reynolds, B. L. (2015) · Applied Linguistics Review · doi:10.1515/applirev-2015-0021 · Cited by 38
“Although it has previously been shown that the more involvement a learner has with a previously unknown word, the more likely that word is to be acquired and retained over time (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001), there have been few studies looking at the effect that Focus on Form morphology instruction would have on vocabula…”
BackgroundInfluential
The effectiveness of post-reading word-focused activities and their associations with working memory
Yang, Y., Shintani, N., Li, S., & Zhang, Y. (2017) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.09.012 · Cited by 31
ONLINE LEARNING AND TIME-ON-TASK: IMPACT OF PROCTORED VS. UN-PROCTORED TESTING
Wellman, G. S., & Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (2004) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v8i4.1813 · Cited by 38
“This is supported by research showing time-on-task as a predictor of performance [3–9].”
Method
Processing the Spanish imperfect subjunctive: Depth of processing under different instructional conditions
Adrada-Rafael, S. (2016) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716416000308 · Cited by 38
Digital simulation games in CALL: a research review
Peterson, M. (2021) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1954954 · Cited by 53
“Cognitive SLA researchers claim that aspects of language acquisition such as vocabulary learning are facilitated when learners are engaged in tasks that elicit a high degree of involvement (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
Background
Repeated-reading-based instructional strategy and vocabulary acquisition: A case study of a heritage speaker of Chinese
Han, Z., & Chen, C.-L. A. (2010) · Reading in a Foreign Language · doi:10.64152/10125/66838 · Cited by 37
“It also lends further support to the by now widely accepted Involvement Load Hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001), according to which words are better retained if the task demands greater investment from the learner in terms of need, search, and evaluation, and, in turn, to depth of processing as a key variable in ret…”
Result
Six seconds to visualize the word: improving EFL learners' vocabulary through VVVs
Kurt, M., & Bostancı, H. B. (2017) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12182 · Cited by 37
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) stated that in incidental learning, students are not informed about an examination; they are given tasks to complete.”
Background
Learner perspectives regarding device type in technology-assisted language learning
Ko, M.-H. (2017) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1367310 · Cited by 44
Effects of content support on integrated reading-writing task performance and incidental vocabulary learning
Jung, J. (2020) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102288 · Cited by 39
Effects of glosses on learning of L2 grammar and vocabulary
Jung, J. (2015) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815571151 · Cited by 44
“…word meanings may have an insignificant, or even prohibitive, influence on L2 vocabulary learning, as L2 readers are not encouraged to make a mental effort to get the meanings of the words (Boers, 2000; Hulstijn, 1992; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Hulstijn et al., 1996).”
Background
The Impact of Text-Messaging on EFL Freshmen's Vocabulary Learning
Derakhshan, A. (2011) · The EuroCALL Review · doi:10.4995/eurocall.2011.16271 · Cited by 36
“Also, studentinitiated use of language supported by teachers can foster vocabulary learning by increasing the 'Cognitive Involvement Load' (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001, p. 542) through the'Spacing Effect' (Greene, 1989; Dempster, 1996; Seabrook, Brown, & Solity, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluential
INVOLVEMENT LOAD HYPOTHESIS PLUS
Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2021) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263121000577 · Cited by 43
“…predictor variable (the sumof the scores of the three ILH components, a.k.a. task-induced IL index, Laufer &Hulstijn, 2001, p. 16; see also Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001, p. 544), (b) the ILH component model that includes categorical variables denoting each of the components (need, search,…”
BackgroundResultInfluential
The relationship between task-induced involvement load and learning new words from context
Nassaji, H., & Hu, H.-C. M. (2012) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2012-0003 · Cited by 34
The Effects of Glosses on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in Reading
Xiao-hui, X. (2010) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.1.2.117-120 · Cited by 34
EFL Students' Perceptions of Learning Vocabulary in a Computer-Supported Collaborative Environment.
Lin, C., Chan, H. J., & Hsiao, H. (2011) · The turkish online journal of educational technology · Cited by 34
Personal investment in L2 task design and learning: a case study of two Japanese learners of English
Lambert, C., & Minn, D. (2007) · Elia · Cited by 33
Neural machine translation in EFL classrooms: learners’ vocabulary improvement, immediate vocabulary retention and delayed vocabulary retention
Lo, S. (2023) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2023.2207603 · Cited by 40
“This scoring system was adopted from that used by Hulstijn and Laufer (2001).”
Focus on the forms
Harrington, M., & Jiang, W. (2013) · Australian Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/aral.36.2.01har · Cited by 32
Vocabulary acquisition and young learners: Different tasks, similar involvement loads
Silva, B. B., & Otwinowska, A. (2017) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2016-0097 · Cited by 34
“Put differently, the 206 Breno Silva and Agnieszka Otwinowska more richly encoded the lexical material is in terms of quality and quantity of processing, the more likely it is to be retained (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001).”
BackgroundInfluential
Improving English Learners’ Productive Collocation Knowledge: The Effects of Involvement Load, Spacing, and Intentionality
Snoder, P. (2018) · TESL Canada Journal · doi:10.18806/tesl.v34i3.1277 · Cited by 36
“Previous ILH studies have targeted single words and not FSs (not considering Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001), but there are several reasons for testing the ILH on FSs.”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Concordance-Based Glosses for Academic Vocabulary Acquisition
Poole, R. (2012) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.11139/cj.29.4.679-693 · Cited by 32
Why CALL Why Not MALL: An In-depth Review of Text-message Vocabulary Learning
Derakhshan, A., & Khodabakhshzadeh, H. (2011) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.4304/tpls.1.9.1150-1159 · Cited by 33
“© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER 1151 Vocabulary is one of the indispensable components of a language (Adolphs & Schmitt, 2003; Nation, 2001; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer & Goldstein, 2004; Laufer et al. 2004; Gu, 2003; Huang, 2007).”
Background
The Measurement of the Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency of Written Arabic.
Raish, M. (2017) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 32
Proficiency pairing and engagement with language in L2 peer interaction
Zabihi, R., & Ghahramanzadeh, B. (2022) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2022.102725 · Cited by 32
Learning grammatical gender: The use of rules by novice learners
Presson, N., MacWhinney, B., & Tokowicz, N. (2012) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716412000550 · Cited by 32
“To the degree that explicit instruction directs the learner’s attention to these simple, clear, and reliable cues, it benefits learning and performance (de Graaff, 1997; Hulstijn, 2001; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; MacWhinney, 1997; Pica, 1985; Robinson, 2005).”
Background
Mainstreaming Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition
Horst, M. (2013) · Cited by 30
Reading and learning from L2 text: Effects of reading goal, topic familiarity, and language proficiency
Horiba, Y., & Fukaya, K. (2015) · Reading in a Foreign Language · doi:10.64152/10125/66699 · Cited by 30
“…factors (e.g., frequency, salience of use) (e.g., Elgort & Warren, 2014; Hulstijn, Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996; Peters, Hulsijn, Sercu, & Lutjeharms, 2009; Pulido, 2007), as well as task-related factors including reading purpose (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Swanborn & de Glopper, 2002).”
El potencial de la enseñanza del vocabulario basada en corpus: optimismo con precaución
Asención‐Delaney, Y., Collentine, J., Collentine, K., Colmenares, J. J., & Plonsky, L. (2015) · Journal of Spanish Language Teaching · doi:10.1080/23247797.2015.1105516 · Cited by 29
Vocabulary Learning Assisted by Mobile Phones:Perceptions of Chinese Adult Learners
Hu, Z. (2013) · Apollo (University of Cambridge) · doi:10.17863/cam.1468 · Cited by 29
“According to Hulstijn & Laufer (2001), such repeated exposure to target vocabulary items “enhances the information processing activities, makes the activation and recognition automatic, and leads to greater retention”.”
Background
Language Learning and the Brain: Lexical Processing in Second Language Acquisition
Schütze, U. (2016) · Cited by 28
A comparative study on linguistic theories for modeling EFL learners: facilitating personalized vocabulary learning via task recommendations
Zou, D., Wang, M., Xie, H., et al. (2020) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1789178 · Cited by 28
“(ii) From the perspective of the linguistic theories, the ILH was developed to measure the motivational and cognitive factors for vocabulary learning (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001), whereas the measurement of SL only considers the retrieval factors.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Learning new vocabulary in German: the effects of inferring word meanings, type of feedback, and time of test
Carpenter, S. K., Sachs, R. E., Martin, B., Schmidt, K., & Looft, R. (2011) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0185-7 · Cited by 28
Vocabulary: Second Language
Nation, P. (2006) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b0-08-044854-2/00635-0 · Cited by 28
The effects of dictionary use on second language vocabulary acquisition: A meta-analysis
Zhang, S., Xu, H. Y., & Zhang, X. (2020) · International Journal of Lexicography · doi:10.1093/ijl/ecaa010 · Cited by 37
Calling Iranian learners of L2 English: effect of gloss type on lexical retention and reading performance under different learning conditions
Sadeghi, K., Khezrlou, S., & Modirkhameneh, S. (2016) · Journal of Research in Reading · doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12088 · Cited by 25
Depth of Processing in Private and Social Speech: Its Role in the Retention of Word Knowledge by Adult EAP Learners
Borer, L. (2007) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.64.2.269 · Cited by 28
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) found that word retention was best in a composition activity, lower in a reading-plus-fill-in-the-blank exercise, and lowest in a reading task.”
Background
Comparing vocabulary learning of EFL learners by using two different strategies (mobile learning vs. flashcards)
Saeidi, M., & Mozaheb, M. A. (2012) · International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation · doi:10.1504/ijmlo.2012.050050 · Cited by 25
Comparing core-image-based basic verb learning in an EFL junior high school: Learner-centered and teacher-centered approaches
Yamagata, S. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168816659784 · Cited by 25
“The scale is formulated through a notion known as ‘Involvement load hypothesis’ (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001).”
Method
Comparing Dictionary-induced Vocabulary Learning and Inferencing in the Context of Reading
Zou, D. (2016) · Lexikos · doi:10.5788/26-1-1345 · Cited by 25
Using vocabulary notebooks for vocabulary acquisition and teaching
Dubiner, D. (2017) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/ccx008 · Cited by 24
The Load-Based Learner Profile for Incidental Word Learning Task Generation
Zou, D., Xie, H., Li, Q., Wang, F. L., & Chen, W. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09635-3_21 · Cited by 24
Time Spent on Reading and Reading Comprehension in Second Language Learning
Pichette, F. (2005) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.62.2.243 · Cited by 24
“Both Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) and Laufer (2003) show that marginal glosses proved to be less effective for vocabulary learning than a writing task incorporating the target words.”
Background
Opinions of English Major Students about Their Departments' Websites
Zengin, B., Arıkan, A., & Doğan, D. (2011) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/6060 · Cited by 25
“However, the more involved a learner is, the better they will learn (involvement load hypothesis; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
Background
The Effects of Word Frequency and Contextual Types on Vocabulary Acquisition from Extensive Reading: A Case Study
Hu, H.-C. M. (2013) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.4.3.487-495 · Cited by 22
“…argued that the more attention being paid to different features of a word, the more associations are made between the existing and new informat ion and hence more retention and learn ing occurs (Fraser, 1999; Hulstijn & Laufer 2001; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Rott, 2005, 2007; Rott & Williams, 2003).”
Background
The Use of Electronic Dictionaries in EFL Classroom
Zheng, H., & Wang, X. (2016) · Studies in English Language Teaching · doi:10.22158/selt.v4n1p144 · Cited by 23
“In other words, the deeper and more elaborate the involvement load, the better result of retention (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001, p. 545).”
Background
Learning second language vocabulary
Tokowicz, N., & Degani, T. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107447257.009 · Cited by 23
Effects of the Continuation Task and the RCC Task on Japanese as a Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning
Zhang, X., Du, L., & Zhu, X. (2022) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amac006 · Cited by 23
THE EFFECT OF READING ONLY, READING AND COMPREHENSION, AND SENTENCE WRITING IN LEXICAL LEARNING IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: SOME PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Llach, M. D. P. A. (2009) · RIUR (Universidad de La Rioja) · Cited by 23
From Single Words to Passages: Contextual Effects on Predictive Power of Vocabulary Measures for Assessing Reading Performance
Qian, D. D. (2008) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15434300701776138 · Cited by 25
“Based on an involvement load hypothesis for second-language vocabulary learning, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) expressly pointed out that three factors—need, search, and evaluation—are important for learning and retaining new words and the greater the load of the involvement the better the learning and retention outcome.”
Background
Exercises on collocations: a comparison of trial-and-error and exemplar-guided procedures
Stengers, H., & Boers, F. (2015) · Journal of Spanish Language Teaching · doi:10.1080/23247797.2015.1104030 · Cited by 24
Using an Online Dictionary for Identifying the Meanings of Verb Phrases by Chinese EFL Learners
Li, L., & Xu, H. Y. (2015) · Lexikos · doi:10.5788/25-1-1295 · Cited by 22
The quality and frequency of encounters with vocabulary in an English for Academic Purposes programme
Joe, A. (2010) · Reading in a Foreign Language · doi:10.64152/10125/66647 · Cited by 22
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) applied their construct to two groups of advanced university students in Israel and the Netherlands who were studying English as a foreign language (EFL).”
Background
Incidental and Intentional Learning of Vocabulary among Young ESL Learners
Meganathan, P. M., Yap, N. T., Paramasivam, S., & Jalaluddin, I. B. (2019) · 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies · doi:10.17576/3l-2019-2504-04 · Cited by 27
“A wide range of literature (e.g. Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Kweon & Kim, 2008; Ahmad, 2012) suggests that incidental vocabulary learning endorses deeper mental processing and better recall.”
Background
The Impact of Supplemental Reading on Vocabulary Acquisition and Retention with EFL Learners in Taiwan
Min, H., & Hsu, W.-S. (2008) · doi:10.6210/jntnull.2008.53(1).05 · Cited by 21
The differential effects of two vocabulary instruction methods on EFL word learning: A study into task effectiveness
Peters, E. (2012) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2012-0009 · Cited by 21
Learning English Vocabulary Collaboratively in a Technology-Supported Classroom.
Lin, C., Hsiao, H., Tseng, S. P., & Chan, H. J. (2014) · The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology · Cited by 20
Evaluating the Vocabulary Coping Strategies of L2 Readers: An Eye Tracking Study
Prichard, C., & Atkins, A. (2020) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.3005 · Cited by 19
Empirical Support for the Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH): A Systematic Review
Liu, S., & Reynolds, B. L. (2022) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs12100354 · Cited by 25
“The greater the involvement load, the better the retention [9], p.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Sociocultural influences on the use of a web-based tool for learning English vocabulary
Juffs, A., & Friedline, B. E. (2013) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.10.015 · Cited by 19
The Impact of Blended Learning on Speaking Ability and Engagement
Ehsanifard, E., Ghapanchi, Z., & Afsharrad, M. (2020) · The Journal of AsiaTEFL · doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.1.17.253 · Cited by 24
Engaging with Terminology in the Multilingual Classroom: Teachers’ Practices for Bridging the Gap Between L1 Lectures and English Reading
Malmström, H., Mežek, Š., Pecorari, D., Shaw, P. M., & Irvine, A. (2016) · Classroom Discourse · doi:10.1080/19463014.2016.1224723 · Cited by 21
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001, p. 541) explain it thus: ‘In practice, this means that if learners pay careful attention to the word’s pronunciation, orthography, grammatical category, meaning and semantic relations to other words, they are more likely to retain the word …’.”
Background
Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition
Rott, S. (2012) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0531 · Cited by 19
Gamification in a News English Course
Wang, Y.-C. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13010090 · Cited by 18
The Interplay of Game Design and Pedagogical Mediation in Game-Mediated Japanese Learning
Shintaku, K. (2016) · International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2016100103 · Cited by 18
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) assert that in addition to multiple exposures to new words, accompanied tasks are essential for vocabulary learning.”
Background
A study of L2 vocabulary acquisition under incidental and intentional conditions
Sok, S., & Han, Z. (2020) · Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.35869/vial.v0i17.1467 · Cited by 23
Assessing the effect of giving and receiving written corrective feedback on improving L2 writing accuracy: does giving and receiving feedback have fair mutual benefit?
Rouhi, A., Dibah, M., & Mohebbi, H. (2020) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-020-00093-z · Cited by 18
Task-related focus-on-forms foreign language vocabulary development: Focus on spoken form and word parts
Afshar, H. S. (2020) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102406 · Cited by 22
‘Does the form of this word fit its meaning?’ The effect of learner-generated mapping elaborations on L2 word recall
Deconinck, J., Boers, F., & Eyckmans, J. (2015) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168815614048 · Cited by 19
“…profusion of previous research on the mnemonic benefits of elaboration in both cognitive psychology and SLA (e.g. Barcroft, 2002; Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008; Cohen & Aphek, 1980, 1981; Hulstijn, 1997, 2001; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Paivio & Desrochers, 1981; Schmitt, 2008, 2010; Vasiljevic, 2010).”
Background
The use of Crossword Puzzles as a Vocabulary Learning Strategy: A Case of English as a Second Language in Kenyan Secondary Schools
Njoroge, M. C., Ndung’u, R. W., & Gathigia, M. G. (2013) · Kenyatta University Institutional Repository (Kenyatta University) · Cited by 18
Investigating the Effects of Learning Tasks on Vocabulary Knowledge
Webb, S. A. (2021) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.16945963 · Cited by 18
Effects of tasks and multimedia annotations on vocabulary learning
Zou, D., & Teng, M. F. (2023) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103050 · Cited by 18
Evaluation of an explicit vocabulary teaching intervention for children learning English as an additional language in primary school
Dixon, C., Thomson, J., & Fricke, S. (2020) · Child Language Teaching and Therapy · doi:10.1177/0265659020925875 · Cited by 17
“There is evidence for the facilitative role of active or deep processing in word learning, broadly defined as the amount and quality of attention paid towards target words (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001).”
Background
Does project-based learning enhance Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary recall and retention?
Shafaei, A., & Rahim, H. A. (2015) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 16
Expert knowledge, distinctiveness, and levels of processing in language learning
Bird, S. (2011) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s014271641100052x · Cited by 16
THE INVOLVEMENT LOAD HYPOTHESIS AND VOCABULARY LEARNING: THE EFFECT OF TASK TYPES AND INVOLVEMENT INDEX ON L2 VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
Yaqubi, B., Rayati, R. A., & Gorgi, N. A. (2010) · Journal of teaching language skills · doi:10.22099/jtls.2012.404 · Cited by 19
“According to Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), all of the three components may not be present simultaneously during a reading-based task.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Moving from primary to secondary education : an investigation into the effect of primary to secondary transition on motivation for language learning and foreign language proficiency
Courtney, L. (2014) · ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · Cited by 16
Exploring self-regulated vocabulary learning strategies, proficiency, working memory and vocabulary learning through word-focused exercises
Teng, M. F. (2023) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2023.2267575 · Cited by 19
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) tested the ILH model empirically by comparing vocabulary learning following on from three different word-focused tasks: Task 1, reading with marginal glosses (involvement score of 1, moderate need, no search and no evaluation = total 1); Task 2, reading with gap-fill…”
Meaning-Inferred Gloss and Meaning-Given Gloss on Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Lin, C., & Huang, H. (2008) · doi:10.6210/jntnull.2008.53(2).05 · Cited by 15
Towards an instructional programme for L2 vocabulary: Can a story help?
Prince, P. (2012) · Language learning & technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44302 · Cited by 15
“In a further development, the involvement load hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer, 2001), proposes that one component of a learner‘s involvement in processing words is evaluation, in which the word is compared or combined with other words.”
Method
Learning academic words through writing sentences and compositions: Any signs of an increase in cognitive load?
Silva, B. B., Kutyłowska, K., & Otwinowska, A. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688211020421 · Cited by 12
“It identifies task-specific criteria that can be ‘observed, manipulated and measured’ and that can be used to systematically predict lexical learning and retention (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, p. 13).”
BackgroundInfluential
Using authentic picture books and illustrated books to improve L2 writing among 11-year-olds
Birketveit, A., & Rimmereide, H. E. (2013) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2013.833280 · Cited by 15
The Impact of Memory Strategy Instruction on Learners' EFL Vocabulary Retention
Ghorbani, M. R., & Riabi, N. K. (2011) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.4304/tpls.1.9.1222-1226 · Cited by 15
“Vocabulary learning is a memory problem (Yongqi, 2003) and one of the major ways of researching vocabulary teaching techniques is doing experimental comparisons of vocabulary learning activities (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001).”
Background
Vocabulary and Writing
Laufer, B. (2013) · The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1432 · Cited by 19
Self-citation

Authors: Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B.
Affiliations: University of Amsterdam (NL)
University of Haifa (IL)
ORCID: Hulstijn, Jan H.
Laufer, Batia
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: bronze
doi.org
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.

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

Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks