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
Items 201–300 of 816
Stories and scenarios: Lecturers’ use of fantastic hypothetical events
Nesi, H., & Alsop, S. (2021) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101022 · Cited by 14
Wang, Y.-H. (2014) · Mathematical Problems in Engineering · doi:10.1155/2014/972184 · Cited by 15
Interaction, modality, and word engagement as factors in lexical learning in a Chinese context
Niu, R., & Helms‐Park, R. (2013) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168813510383 · Cited by 15
“…true of some sentence or text gap-filling tasks; however, gap-filling writing has not been consistently superior to reading comprehension, especially when both receptive and productive lexical acquisition and retention have been examined (e.g. Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Laufer, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialChinese compound word inference through context and word-internal cues
Xu, Y., & Zhang, J. (2020) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168820905811 · Cited by 14
“In other words, significant retention in this study can be explained by learners’ higher level of mental involvement during contextbased inferencing (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundChoosing texts for today's students: Do they understand the language?
Kirkness, A., & Neill, L. (2009) · Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport & Tourism Education · doi:10.3794/johlste.82.213 · Cited by 14
“If we consider that words processed at a higher involvement load are retained better than words processed at a lower involvement load (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001), then it is logical that teachers can promote vocabulary development through interactive classes.”
BackgroundRetention in SLA Lexical Processing
Schuetze, U., & Weimer-Stuckmann, G. (2011) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.11139/cj.28.2.460-472 · Cited by 13
Kaivanpanah, S., & Miri, M. (2017) · TESOL Journal · doi:10.1002/tesj.311 · Cited by 16
Vandenberghe, B., Perez, M. M., Reynvoet, B., & Desmet, P. (2021) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263120000431 · Cited by 12
“ILH is rooted in Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) Depth of Processing Hypothesis (cited in, e.g., Schmitt, 2008) that rests on the idea that the more attention is allocated to processing new information, the better the opportunities for learning will be.”
BackgroundInfluentialInvestigating the Effects of an Adventure Video Game on Foreign Language Learning
Chen, H. H.-J., & Yang, C. T.-Y. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23456-9_31 · Cited by 14
“Some students even voluntarily consulted dictionaries for new words, showing their high involvement in self-learning while gaming; this agreed to Halstijnand Laufer’s [9] argument of “learner involvement” being the main factor influencing overall effectiveness in language learning.”
BackgroundPritchard, R. H., & O’Hara, S. (2009) · Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research · Cited by 13
Assessing Chinese Learners of English
Yu, G., & Jin, Y. (2016) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137449788 · Cited by 13
The effect of explicit and implicit teaching vocabulary on Iranian EFL learners vocabulary
Yaghoubi, S. T., & Seyyedi, F. (2017) · Studies in English Language and Education · doi:10.24815/siele.v4i1.7001 · Cited by 13
“Similarly, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) have demonstrated that EFL students who participated in a composition task could retain target words better than those engaged in a reading comprehension or fill-in task, which suggests that students who are involved in higher levels of vocabulary…”
BackgroundTask Types Effects and Task Involvement Load on Vocabulary Learning of EFL Learners
Alavinia, P., & Rahimi, H. (2018) · International Journal of Instruction · doi:10.29333/iji.2019.12196a · Cited by 13
“Trompetter (1998), Keating, G.D. (2008), Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), Williams’ (2012), McDonough & Fuentes (2015); Zou (2017).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialEnhancing the Involvement Load Hypothesis as a Tool for Classroom Vocabulary Research
Hazrat, M., & Read, J. (2021) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.3051 · Cited by 21
The Effect of Post-Teaching Activity Type on Vocabulary Learning of Elementary EFL Learners
Sadeghi, K., & Sharifi, F. (2013) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v6n11p65 · Cited by 13
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) found that learners writing compositions remembered a set of target words better than those who saw the words in a reading comprehension task, and learners who supplied missing target words in gaps in the reading text remembered more of those words than learners who read…”
BackgroundInfluentialLearners’ Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition: A Case on Narrative and Expository Texts
Shokouhi, H., & Maniati, M. (2009) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v2n1p13 · Cited by 13
“Central to this are factors such as the resources and procedures applied in meaning inference (Nassaji, 2003), the influence of reading task and learner factors (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001), the effect of dictionary or glossing support (Knight, 1994), or the types of texts (Gardner, 2004).”
BackgroundMizumoto, A. (2009) · Kansai University Institutional Repository (Kansai University) · doi:10.32286/00000057 · Cited by 13
Cancino, M. (2023) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2023.101920 · Cited by 17
Beyond Parroting: Using English Fun Dubbing to Improve English Oral Performance
Hui-qi, W., & Ekstam, J. M. (2021) · Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1515/cjal-2021-0012 · Cited by 15
Zhang, X., & Wang, M. (2022) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688221119077 · Cited by 13
“It has become well established that vocabulary learning constitutes an essential part of second language (L2) learning (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Kasahara, 2011; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Wilkins, 1972).”
Learning vocabulary through dual-subtitled viewing: the impact of different ILH-based interventions
Lo, S. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2022.2126497 · Cited by 15
“Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) is one of the few constructs in second/foreign language learning that is oper-ationalisable and precisely provides theoretical relevance for why certain L2 activities surpass others in fostering vocabulary learning.”
InfluentialTeng, M. F., & Zhang, D. (2023) · Applied Linguistics Review · doi:10.1515/applirev-2022-0160 · Cited by 21
Vocabulary materials and study strategies at advanced level
Pauwels, P. (2012) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2011.639899 · Cited by 12
“Recent years have seen an increase in experimental investigations into second language vocabulary acquisition, and recent surveys like Schmitt (2008), Laufer (2009) and Milton (2009) provide a clear picture of this development.”
BackgroundDoes Perceptual Learning Style Matching Affect L2 Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading?
Hatami, S. (2019) · Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.7202/1058463ar · Cited by 12
“The nature of the task has also been shown to affect L2 incidental word learning from reading (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMizumoto, Atsushi, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2010) · Cited by 12
A critical analysis of the vocabulary in L2 spanish textbooks
López-Jiménez, M. D. (2014) · Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras · doi:10.30827/digibug.30489 · Cited by 12
The impact of internal-generated contextual clues on EFL vocabulary learning: insights from EEG
Zhou, W., & Wu, X. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1332098 · Cited by 24
An Experimental Study on the Effects of Different Reading Tasks on L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Xu, J. (2009) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v2n3p69 · Cited by 11
Dai, Y., Wu, Z., & Xu, H. Y. (2019) · International Journal of Lexicography · doi:10.1093/ijl/ecz010 · Cited by 11
Yang, Y.-L., & Cao, X. (2020) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-020-00528-8 · Cited by 9
“According to Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), reading comprehension tasks with glossed words irrelevant to the questions indicates no need.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialKhonamri, F., & Roostaee, S. (2014) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.326 · Cited by 11
Vocabulary acquisition through reading, writing, and tasks : a comparison
Browne, C. M. (2003) · Cited by 11
Fernández, M., & María, A. (2010) · Georgetown University-Graduate School of Arts & Sciences · Cited by 11
Moonen, M., de Graaff, R., & Westhoff, G. J. (2006) · ITL Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.2143/itl.152.0.2017862 · Cited by 11
Jahangiri, K., & Abilipour, I. (2014) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.471 · Cited by 11
The effect of songs on vocabulary retention of preschool young English language learners
Madani, D., & Nasrabadi, M. M. (2016) · International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning · doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2016.1562 · Cited by 11
“We can apply the tenet of Involvement Load Hypothesis, which suggests that words are better learned when learners do more with them on both the cognitive and motivational levels (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
MethodPaiman, N., Yap, N. T., & Chan, M. Y. (2015) · 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies · doi:10.17576/3l-2015-2102-03 · Cited by 10
“The results of the study also provide further support for direct teaching of vocabulary for intentional learning over incidental learning as reported in other studies (e.g. Hulstijn & Laufer 2001, Wong & Anie Attan, 2014, Sonbul & Schmitt 2010).”
ResultTeng, M. F. (2022) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882221102228 · Cited by 10
“In addition, in an empirical study (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001), less-pro fi cient participants performed as well as more-pro fi cient participants under the same ILH-based learning condition.”
Deconstructing the Concept of ‘Incidental’ L2 Vocabulary Learning
Sok, S. (2014) · Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL · doi:10.7916/d8j67gjp · Cited by 13
Glosses, Spatial Intelligence, and L2 Vocabulary Learning in Multimedia Context
Rouhi, A., & Mohebbi, H. (2013) · Cited by 10
Which type of instruction fosters chunk learning? Preliminary conclusions
Serrano, M. P. (2018) · Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas · doi:10.4995/rlyla.2018.7886 · Cited by 12
Post-Reading Question-Generation Activities and Cooperative Learning in EFL Reading
Han, S. Y., & Choi, Y. H. (2018) · English Teaching · doi:10.15858/engtea.73.2.201806.37 · Cited by 10
“It has been suggested that the tasks requiring greater processing time or processing capacity are found to produce better memory than less demanding tasks, as noted in Ellis, Thomas, and Rodrigues (1984), Lockhart and Craik (1990), and Hulstijn and Laufer (2001).”
MethodEvaluating Exercises for Learning Vocabulary
Laufer, B. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429291586-23 · Cited by 10
Self-citationJung, J. (2020) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168820911198 · Cited by 10
Alahmadi, A., & Foltz, A. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236798 · Cited by 10
“In terms of processing depth and elaboration, the Involvement Load Hypothesis [26] assigns a high score of 4 out of a possible 6 to lexical inferencing as it is implemented in the current study, where participants were asked to read a text and guess the underlined words from context.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialProspective and regular ELT teachers digital empowerment and self-efficacy
Sarýçoban, A. (2013) · Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras · doi:10.30827/digibug.29562 · Cited by 10
Does copying idioms promote their recall?
Stengers, H., Deconinck, J., Boers, F., & Eyckmans, J. (2014) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.937723 · Cited by 10
How advanced students approach intentional vocabulary study
Pauwels, P. (2015) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2015.1078398 · Cited by 13
“This makes sense in experimental studies with (usually) short exposure times (up to 1 hour) like Laufer (2005, 2006) and the studies reviewed in Laufer (2005), because it is clear that the acquisition of deeper knowledge (Nation 2013: 49) requires more time and more exposure.”
BackgroundTask type and incidental L2 vocabulary learning: Repetition versus task involvement load
Ansarin, A. A., & Bayazidi, A. (2016) · Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies · doi:10.2989/16073614.2016.1201774 · Cited by 11
“Her first experiment was similar in design to the one Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) conducted.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialFacilitating Lexical Acquisition in Beginner Learners of Italian through Popular Song
Rukholm, V. N. (2011) · TSpace (University of Toronto) · Cited by 10
Young beginning learners’ vocabulary learning via input and output tasks: The role of working memory
Teng, M. F. (2024) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.36123 · Cited by 14
EFL classrooms in the new millennium : selected papers from the 40th FAAPI conference
Anglada, L. B., Sapag, N., Banegas, D. L., & Soto, M. A. (2015) · Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) · Cited by 9
Reading comprehension intervention for high-functioning children with autism spectrum disorders
Woolley, G. (2016) · Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties · doi:10.1080/19404158.2016.1190770 · Cited by 9
“For example, it is assumed that processing of known word forms takes place at the surface level, whereas the processing of the meaning of a new vocabulary takes place at a much deeper level (laufer & Hulstijn, 2001a, 2001b).”
BackgroundFactors Influencing Uber Adoption In Bangladesh And Pakistan
Rahman, U. H. F. B., & Zafar, M. K. (2020) · Open Economics · doi:10.1515/openec-2020-0105 · Cited by 9
Vocabulary Acquisition and Task Effectiveness in Involvement Load Hypothesis: A case in Iran
Soleımanı, H., & Rahmanian, M. (2015) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature · doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.5p.198 · Cited by 9
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) claim that “[I]t is generally agreed that retention of new information depends on the amount and the quality of attention that individuals pay to various aspects of words” (p. 541).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKirschner, M., & Wexler, C. (2002) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/s1475-1585(02)00014-0 · Cited by 9
The bilingual dictionary and foreign language learning: facts and opinions
Mármol, G. A. (2013) · Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras · doi:10.30827/digibug.29563 · Cited by 9
Edmonds, L. A., & Donovan, N. J. (2013) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0381-7 · Cited by 9
The Impact of Glossed Texts on Reading Comprehension among Tertiary Saudi Students
Alharbi, B. Y. (2018) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n3p153 · Cited by 9
“…glosses also varies across the studies: a short definition or equivalent meaning of the word (e.g. Guidi, 2009), a blend of an interpretation and a relevant image or an illustrative video clip (e.g. Al-Seghayer, 2005), and a word definition and its use in a sentence (e.g. Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundValdehíta, A. S. M., & García, C. C. (2019) · Journal of Spanish Language Teaching · doi:10.1080/23247797.2019.1590001 · Cited by 9
The involvement load hipothesis: the effect on vocabulary learning in primary educaion
Mármol, G. A., & Almela, Á. (2013) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · Cited by 9
Schuetze, U., & Weimer-Stuckmann, G. (2010) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.11139/cj.27.3.517-528 · Cited by 9
“For this project ViVo investigated the ‘spacing effect’ described above (Baddeley, 2007; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundMethodVocabulary Recognition and Memorization: A Comparison of Two Methods
Liu, Y. (2011) · Högskolan Kristianstad Publikationer · Cited by 9
Mining for words: the effect of Minecraft on incidental vocabulary learning of young EFL learners
Weisi, H., & Hajizadeh, S. (2025) · Entertainment Computing · doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2024.100801 · Cited by 8
Zhao, J., & Lee, C. I. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.836013 · Cited by 19
“The well-established empirical evidence supports the correlation between higher depth of processing and the amount of L2 development (Leow, 1997; Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Rosa and Leow, 2004; Adrada-Rafael, 2017).”
BackgroundWu, H., Zhu, H., & Yang, X. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1059555 · Cited by 13
“This involvement as a motivational-cognitive construct, according to Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), is contingent upon three components: need, search, and evaluate.”
BackgroundInfluentialLi, C.-X. (2024) · Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1515/jccall-2023-0026 · Cited by 9
The acquisition of formulaic sequences in EFL email writing
Fritz, E. M., Dormer, R., Sumi, S., & Kudo, T. (2021) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2021.08.003 · Cited by 8
Rassaei, E. (2023) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2023.2213247 · Cited by 8
“…of target words in a text, they may not induce optimal cognitive involvement with the new vocabulary, which is arguably required for L2 development and vocabulary learning © 2023 Association for Language Learning CONTACT Ehsan Rassaei ehsan.rassaei@majancollege.edu.om (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundAl-Hadlaq, M. S. (2003) · Cardinal Scholar (Ball State University) · Cited by 8
Ghabanchi, Z., & Ayoubi, E. S. (2012) · Journal of International Education Research (JIER) · doi:10.19030/jier.v8i2.6828 · Cited by 8
Talebzadeh, Z., & Bagheri, M. S. (2012) · International Journal of English Linguistics · doi:10.5539/ijel.v2n1p257 · Cited by 8
“As we have seen, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) compared the two types of activities at the text level, while in Folse (2000) the two activities were studied at the sentence level.”
BackgroundResultMaftoon, P., & Haratmeh, M. S. (2013) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 8
The Impact of Tasks on Male Iranian Elementary EFL Learnersʼ Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Javanbakht, Z. O. (2011) · Language Education in Asia · doi:10.5746/leia/11/v2/i1/a03/javanbakht · Cited by 8
“As a first attempt, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) designed two reading-based tasks and one composition writing task to test their Involvement Load Hypothesis on EFL university-level students; the results confirmed their hypothesis. Kim (2008) measured the same tasks on matriculated undergraduate students versus students…”
BackgroundMethodUsing Internet Video Clips for University Students’Vocabulary Development in Blended Learning
정로사, & Lee, C.-H. (2013) · Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.15702/mall.2013.16.4.67 · Cited by 8
The emergence of a first paradigm in vocabulary research: The bibliometrics of system
Meara, P. M. (2020) · Vocabulary Learning and Instruction · doi:10.7820/vli.v09.1.meara · Cited by 8
Li, J., & Wang, C. (2024) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12706 · Cited by 7
Huang, W.-C. (2014) · The reading matrix · Cited by 7
Kaivanpanah, S., Akbarian, I., & Salimi, H. (2021) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.30466/ijltr.2021.121049 · Cited by 10
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) proposed a hypothesis relating to the effective teaching of vocabulary; they argued that learning vocabulary is affected by learners’ involvement in processing unfamiliar words.”
BackgroundLu, H., Ma, X., & Huang, F. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15119129 · Cited by 7
“Hulstijn and Laufer [75] indicated that word processing with a higher involvement load is more easily memorized than processing with a lower involvement load.”
BackgroundOverspecified references: An experiment on lexical acquisition in a virtual environment
Luccioni, A. S., Benotti, L., & Landragin, F. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.036 · Cited by 7
“In terms of vocabulary acquisition, the quantity of new lexemes to be provided at once during the language acquisition process is the subject of much debate (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Sagarra & Alba, 2006).”
BackgroundTeacher Cognition vis-à-vis Vocabulary Teaching
Rahimi, S. (2014) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.4304/tpls.4.3.652-660 · Cited by 7
“…1997), The vocabulary levels test (Nation, 1990), Vocabulary notebooks (Schmitt & Schmitt, 1995), A multiple choice exercise and a gapped text (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001), Consulting a dictionary, teacher‟s intervention, and using graphic devices e.g. pictures and different fonts and…”
MethodMoslehi, M., & Rahimi, R. (2018) · International Journal of Research in English Education · doi:10.29252/ijree.3.1.59 · Cited by 7
“The results of the study further challenge Waring (1997), Nation (1994), and Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), who have tried to cast doubt on the effectiveness of contextualized methods of vocabulary and idioms learning for all learners and believe that learning words ‘out of context’ and in a…”
Kida, S. (2020) · Second language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658320931919 · Cited by 9
“For example, Folse (2006) used the involvement load hypothesis (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001) to examine the effectiveness of vocabulary learning tasks and compared the effects of (1) a sentence writing task using target words and (2) a reading plus fill-in-cloze with a…”
MethodValdehíta, A. S. M., & de Diego, C. C. (2021) · ONOMAZEIN · doi:10.7764/onomazein.51.05 · Cited by 7
Mohseni-Far, M. (2008) · Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras · doi:10.30827/digibug.31744 · Cited by 7
Fragmentation and consolidation: recent articles on vocabulary acquisition
Broady, E. (2008) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571730802390833 · Cited by 7
“But just how can ‘depth of processing’ be measured or predicted accurately? Hulstijn and Laufer ( 2001 ) set out to address this through their ‘involvement load hypothesis’, and the recent paper by Kim ( 2008a ) provides further research evidence to support it.”
BackgroundThe Impact of Subtitled Online Video Clips on Incidental Vocabulary Learning
안미리 (2013) · STEM Journal · doi:10.16875/stem.2013.14.2.135 · Cited by 7
Kargozari, H. R., & Ghaemı, H. (2011) · Cited by 7
The PRO-VOC method: Combining pronunciation and vocabulary teaching
Nicolaidis, K., & Mattheoudakis, M. (2012) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2012-0012 · Cited by 7
Tang, C., & Treffers‐Daller, J. (2016) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137449788_7 · Cited by 7
“As in Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), the current study focused on learning and retention of word meanings only.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMaftoun, P., & Haratmeh, M. S. (2012) · Journal of teaching language skills · doi:10.22099/jtls.2012.497 · Cited by 7
“The vocabulary tests used in this study were also developed by the researcher based on the measurements available in the relevant literature (e.g., Fuente, 2006; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Webb, 2002).”
MethodResultInfluentialGruber, A., & Tonkyn, A. (2013) · Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2013.856456 · Cited by 12
“…acquisition involves attention to both form and meaning, with the degree of a learner’s cognitive/motivational ‘involvement’ a determinant of success (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001), along with frequency of encounter and subsequent practice (Horst, Cobb and Meara 1998; Waring and Takaki 2003).”
BackgroundPartial Lexical Knowledge in Tests of Incidental Vocabulary Learning from L2 Reading
Bruton, A. (2007) · Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · doi:10.3138/cmlr.64.1.163 · Cited by 7
“…Hollander, & 2007 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 64, 1 (September/septembre), 163–180 Greidanus, 1996; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Knight, 1994; Kost et al., 1999; Rott, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003; Watanabe, 1997).6 Blanks and wrong responses were in…”
BackgroundTsubaki, M. (2012) · TUScholarShare (Temple University) · Cited by 7
CALL: Using, Learning, Knowing
Bradley, L., & Thouësny, S. (2012) · Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) · Cited by 7
Journal, A. W. E., Ishtiaq, M., Ali, Z. B., & Salem, M. (2017) · SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/cya9b · Cited by 7
Prichard, C., & Atkins, A. (2023) · International Journal of Lexicography · doi:10.1093/ijl/ecad003 · Cited by 6
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
