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 301–400 of 816
Incidental vocabulary learning: A scientometric review
Shahiwala, S., Rahul, D. R., & Baker, J. R. (2024) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100160 · Cited by 12
Biseko, J. M. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2455047 · Cited by 20
“Research suggests that these two approaches complement each other, with incidental learning promoting long-term retention, while intentional learning leading to quicker and more robust vocabulary gains (Ahmad, 2012; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Kweon & Kim, 2008).”
The Impact of L1 Equivalents Versus Context on Vocabulary Recall of Pre-university EFL Students
Hayati, M., & Shahriari, A. (2012) · Journal of teaching language skills · doi:10.22099/jtls.2012.414 · Cited by 6
Geleneksel Kelime Alıştırmalarına Karşı Çevrim içi Kelime Aracının Kullanımı
Bakla, A., & Çekiç, A. (2017) · Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi · doi:10.16916/aded.339241 · Cited by 9
“Thus, in line with previous research (Tu & Su, 2004; Karalık & Merç, 2016) the significant finding of this study can be considered as a new support for the Task-induced Involvement Load Hypothesis.”
MethodThe Effect of Tarsia Puzzle on Vocabulary Learning in a Primary School Setting
Omar, W. S., & Said, N. E. M. (2019) · International Journal of New Technology and Research · doi:10.31871/ijntr.5.7.21 · Cited by 6
Video Cartoons and Task-Induced Involvement: Effects to Pupils’ L2 Incidental Literacy Acquisition
Arabiana, E. F. S., Malifer, D. A. E. A., & Betonio, H. R. (2020) · English Language Teaching Educational Journal · doi:10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2461 · Cited by 6
Motivational Strategies, Task Effectiveness and Incidental Acquisition of Second Language Vocabulary
Ajideh, P., Rahimpour, M., Amini, D., & Farrokhi, F. (2013) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.4.5.1044-1052 · Cited by 7
“They were the first people to put their hypothesis into empirical assessment (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundThe Effects of Task Type and Task Involvement Load on Vocabulary Learning
Hazrat, M. (2015) · Waikato journal of education · doi:10.15663/wje.v20i2.189 · Cited by 6
TECHNIQUES UTILIZED FOR VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
Mohseni-Far, M. (2006) · Cited by 6
The Effect of Learning-oriented Assessment on Learning Pronunciation among Iranian EFL Learners
Navaie, L. A. (2018) · International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies · doi:10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.2p.63 · Cited by 6
Pyo, H. (2020) · The Journal of AsiaTEFL · doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.2.17.580 · Cited by 6
“If the increased vocabulary knowledge is processed through a productive task such as writing, it could be retained in their long-term memory more easily (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundChapter 14: Specialized word lists
Nation, P., Coxhead, A., Chung, T. M., & Quero (2016) · John Benjamins Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1075/z.208.14ch14 · Cited by 6
Vocabulary Teaching Practices of L2 English in Upper Secondary Vocational Classrooms
Skarpaas, K., & Rødnes, K. A. (2022) · Languages · doi:10.3390/languages7010055 · Cited by 7
“…(Webb and Nation 2017): words have a greater likelihood of being learned after multiple encounters (Webb and Chang 2015)—preferably in a variety of contexts (Nation 2017)—and when students actively engage in accompanying learning activities (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001; Laufer and Hulstijn 2001).”
BackgroundThe Effect of Textual Enhancement on Collocation Learning: The Case of Arab EFL Learners
El‐Dakhs, D. A. S., Ambreen, F., & Zaheer, M. (2019) · Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching · doi:10.56040/dnas1618 · Cited by 6
“Additionally, Majd (2017) showed that tasks including a minimal involvement load (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001) as represented by the recall task in his study proved more effective than other tasks with higher involvement loads; mainly, multiple choice and gap-filling tasks, although the task with the…”
Involvement Load Hypothesis: Recalling Unfamiliar Words Meaning by Adults across Genders
Sarbazi, M. R. (2014) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.594 · Cited by 6
Pourakbari, A. A., & Biria, R. (2015) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v8n5p122 · Cited by 7
A Revisit To Vocabulary Acquisition In Involvement Load Hypothesis
Soleımanı, H., Rahmanian, M., & Sajedi, K. (2015) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.055 · Cited by 6
“Although (Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001) task-induced involvement can be regarded as a comprehensive and original construct, its predictions may not be so much relied on and more complementary studies (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Xu, 2009; Walsh, 2009) are needed.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMohseni-Far, M. (2007) · Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras · doi:10.30827/digibug.31624 · Cited by 6
A Review on Recent Development of the Involvement Load Hypothesis
Xie, H., Zou, D., Wang, F. L., & Wong, T.-L. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59360-9_39 · Cited by 6
Effects of Task-Induced Involvement and Time on Task on Incidental L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Gao, M., Qian, J., & Rasool, U. (2024) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440241249340 · Cited by 7
“For example, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) did not analyze time on task as a separate variable, as they maintained that differences in time on task are inherent to each task, and retention is believed to be more closely connected to the depth of initial processing rather than the duration of…”
InfluentialSecond Language Cognitive Task Complexity
Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., & Norris, J. M. (2025) · Task-based language teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.18 · Cited by 7
Examining readers' use of machine translation through eye tracking
Prichard, C., & Atkins, A. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103415 · Cited by 7
Author Bios, Figures and Tables, Acronyms Used, References
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01148.x · Cited by 6
Kolaiti, P., & Raikou, P. (2017) · Studies in English Language Teaching · doi:10.22158/selt.v5n3p406 · Cited by 5
“Unlike Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) who examine productive vocabulary retention through tasks of different load and both the levels of input-based and output-based tasks, this paper focuses exclusively on receptive vocabulary development.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialKamali, M., Behjat, F., & Bagheri, M. S. (2020) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2020.1795966 · Cited by 6
“…have indicated that L2 learners should not only pay deliberate attention to target words but also deeply process their different aspects in order to learn them effectively (Hu & Nassaji, 2012; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer, 2005; Nassaji, 2003, 2004; Nassaji & Hu, 2012; Schmidt, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMohebbi, H. (2013) · Cited by 5
Motivational and Learning Effects of Computer-aided Procedures on Students' Reading Comprehension
Sadeghi, A. R., & Soltanian, N. (2012) · Journal of teaching language skills · doi:10.22099/jtls.2012.418 · Cited by 5
“During the past years, a considerable number of studies have investigated the effectiveness of marginal glosses under different premises (Bowles, 2004; Chun & Plass, 1996a; Jones, 2004; Jones & Plass, 2002) as well as the theoretical underpinnings supporting their use as a valid tool for second language acquisition (S…”
BackgroundTask-induced involvement in L2 vocabulary learning: A case for listening comprehension
Jahangard, A. (2014) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 5
Input outside the classroom and vocabulary development: A dynamic perspective
Chan, H., Lowie, W. M., & de Bot, K. (2016) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781614514190-010 · Cited by 5
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) investigated the incidental learning that results from reading.”
BackgroundKhodary, M. M. (2017) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v10n8p135 · Cited by 5
The effects of task-induced involvement load and input modality on incidental vocabulary learning
Kıvrak, C., & Gökmen, D. U. (2019) · Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies · doi:10.17263/jlls.668478 · Cited by 5
“With 79 undergraduate beginning learners of Spanish as L2, Keating (2008) replicated Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001) study to explore whether their predictions can be validated both in active and passive word knowledge for low-proficiency learners.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBehforouz, B., & Frumuselu, A. D. (2021) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v15i01.18309 · Cited by 7
Taheri, S., & Rezaie, G. (2021) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2021.1915226 · Cited by 5
“In this regard, the findings of a number of empirical studies have proven that reading comprehension accompanied by learners’ production is more effective than reading only in vocabulary learning (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer, 2003; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialEesti keele kui teise keele õppimine: kas raske töö või kerge lõbu?
Kitsnik, M. (2019) · Keel ja Kirjandus · doi:10.54013/kk735a4 · Cited by 27
The involvement load hypothesis: an inquiry into vocabulary learning
Tsubaki, M. (2007) · 文京学院大学外国語学部文京学院短期大学紀要 · Cited by 5
The Effects of Tasks on the Learning of Lexical Bundles by Chinese EFL Learners
Cao, Z. (2013) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.4304/tpls.3.6.957-962 · Cited by 5
“Evaluation is a comparison of a given word with other words, a specific meaning of a word with its other meanings, or combining the word with other words in order to assess whether a word does or does not fit its context” (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001, p.543-544).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEffects of Enhancement Techniques on L2 Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Duan, S. (2018) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n3p88 · Cited by 5
“…in cognitive psychology (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), suggests that levels of processing depth which occurred at the time of learning produce an important effect on the memory duration and strength or knowledge learned---the deeper the process, the better memory becomes (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundVocabulary Journaling To Improve Reading Comprehension
Nin, E. L. Q., & Dhamotharan, M. (2019) · Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal · doi:10.14738/assrj.65.6573 · Cited by 5
Nevisi, R. B., Hosseinpur, R. M., & Kolahkaj, R. (2019) · The Journal of AsiaTEFL · doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.7.1168 · Cited by 5
“…in various shapes, for example a synonym of a word or a simple definition (e.g., Guidi, 2009), a mixture of some definitions and their use in a sentence (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001), and a combination of a translation accompanied by a video clip or a relevant picture (e.g., Al-Seghayer, 2001).”
BackgroundChiu, H.-H., & Chen, C.-F. (2020) · Journal of language and Education · doi:10.17323/jle.2020.10082 · Cited by 5
“The Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) provides a motivational-cognitive construct framework to help us perceive and assess language learners’ engagement with texts (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHigher Task-induced Involvement Load Enhances Students' EFL Vocabulary Learning
Ghorbani, M. R., & Rahmandoost, M. (2012) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.3.6.1202-1207 · Cited by 5
“In the second condition [+N, +S, ++E], the subjects in the experimental group read the same text with marginal glosses in the target language relevant to © 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER the questions and answered the fill in the blanks items by choosing the words from a given list and wrote a sentence using the targeted word…”
BackgroundInfluentialShaw, P. M., Irvine, A., Malmström, H., & Pecorari, D. (2017) · HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business · doi:10.7146/hjlcb.v23i45.97352 · Cited by 5
Mohamad, A., & Zeynab, R. (2011) · The Journal of English Studies · Cited by 5
Incorporating Rich Vocabulary Instruction into a Language Classroom
Vasiljević, Z., & Gakuin, A. (2009) · Cited by 5
Comparing Input and Output Tasks in EFL Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition.
Bao, G. (2019) · TESOL journal (Laguna) · Cited by 5
The Role of Implicit Learning in Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition while Reading
Seipel, B. (2011) · University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota) · Cited by 5
The weight of involvement load in college level reading and vocabulary tasks
Beal, V. (2007) · Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · Cited by 5
Zhang, N. R., Liu, X., & Liu, Q. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-92836-0_7 · Cited by 4
Effects of Pre‐Reading Study and Reading Exposure on the Learning and Processing of Collocations
Altamimi, A., & Conklin, K. (2023) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.3268 · Cited by 4
Kang, H., Fedzechkina, M., & Nicol, J. L. (2023) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688231206905 · Cited by 5
“Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) hypothesize that retention of new vocabulary depends on task-induced involvement.”
InfluentialEnhancing Vocabulary Acquisition through Progressive Word Increments in English Language Learning
Tiansoodeenon, M., Meeporm, B., Kaewrattanapat, N., & Tarapond, S. (2023) · Journal of Liberal Arts RMUTT · doi:10.60101/jla.2023.4.2.3172 · Cited by 4
Liu, S., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2023-0193 · Cited by 4
Albaqami, S. E. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1392383 · Cited by 9
The multi-feature hypothesis: Connectionist guidelines for L2 task design
Moonen, M., de Graaff, R., Westhoff, G. J., & Brekelmans, M. (2014) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168813519881 · Cited by 4
“…of deeper, meaningful or elaborative processing is frequently applied in studies of L2 vocabulary acquisition (Brown & Perry, 1991; Hill & Laufer, 2003; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Kim, 2008; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Peters, Hulstijn, Sercu, & Lutjeharms, 2009; Webb, 2005).”
BackgroundSarani, A., Negari, G. M., & Ghaviniat, M. (2013) · Acta Scientiarum Language and Culture · doi:10.4025/actascilangcult.v35i4.21135 · Cited by 5
“Partially confirming the Involvement Load Hypothesis, the results of both immediate and delayed passive tests reported that Task 2 and 3 resulted in higher retention scores compared to Task 1.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Differential Effect of Attentional Condition on Subsequent Vocabulary Development
Mohammed, H. A., Majid, N. A., & Abdullah, T. B. (2015) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v9n1p88 · Cited by 4
“Consequently, theoretical framework of attention supports the significance role of using different type of attentional techniques as a valid condition for SLA (Schmidt, 1990; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Mayer, 2001).”
BackgroundChapter 10: Corpus selection and design
Nation, P., & Sorell (2016) · John Benjamins Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1075/z.208.c10 · Cited by 8
An Alternative Method for Vocabulary Learning Using Quizlet
Cha, Y. J., & 김혜숙 (2016) · STEM Journal · doi:10.16875/stem.2016.17.1.117 · Cited by 4
Lexical development in the writing of intensive English program students1
Juffs, A. (2019) · Language learning and language teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.52.09juf · Cited by 5
Intentional vs. Incidental vocabulary learning & Iranian EFL Learners’ Retention
shahpari, N., Shamshiri, H. R., & Rashidi, N. (2014) · Cited by 4
Khonamri, F., & Roostaee, S. (2014) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.4304/tpls.4.5.1038-1044 · Cited by 4
Jie-hui, L. (2014) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.4304/tpls.4.7.1385-1394 · Cited by 4
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) conducted two parallel experiments testing whether retention of vocabulary acquired incidentally is contingent on amount of task-induced involvement.”
BackgroundTeng, M. F. (2015) · doi:10.6294/eagle.2015.0102.03 · Cited by 4
The Effects of Input and Output Tasks on the Learning and Retention of EAP Vocabulary
Shirzad, M., Rasekh, A. E., & Dabaghi, A. (2017) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.0702.09 · Cited by 3
To halve a fraction: An issue for second language learners
Petersson, J., & Norén, E. (2017) · Education Inquiry · doi:10.1080/20004508.2016.1275187 · Cited by 4
“The irregular declension might be a challenge for second language learners (Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundVocabulary and English for specific purposes: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives
Miller, D. (2018) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2018.04.002 · Cited by 4
The Effects of Task Orientation and Involvement Load on Learning Collocations
Naserpour, A., Zarei, A. A., & Esfandiari, R. (2020) · doi:10.22099/jtls.2020.37032.2809 · Cited by 4
The Effect of Task-Based Reading on Fl Vocabulary Learning
Mesa, R. E., Bruton, A., & Ridgway, T. (2007) · ITL Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.2143/itl.153.0.2022819 · Cited by 4
The Effect of Task Type on Iranian Advanced EFL Learners' Vocabulary Learning
Ahour, T., & Dogolsara, S. A. (2015) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.0503.29 · Cited by 4
“On the importance of production-based task on vocabulary retention, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) assert that production task promote target words retention longer and better than reading comprehension or fill-in-the-blank task which is a sample of recognition task.”
BackgroundVocabulary learning from reading: examining interactions between task and learner related variables
Wu, X., Lowyck, J., Sercu, L., & Elen, J. (2012) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-012-0113-x · Cited by 4
“Several researchers have also made the argument that inferred meanings are more likely to be retained than meanings provided by glosses (Hulstijn 1992; Hulstijn and Laufer 2001; Nation and Coady 1988).”
BackgroundApplying Second Language Research Results in the Design of More Effective ESL Discussion Activities
Folse, K. S. (2003) · The CATESOL journal. · doi:10.5070/b5.36394 · Cited by 3
“Teachers should encourage students to incorporate recently studied vocabulary and grammar constructions in their output since research on second language vocabulary, for example, shows the value of repetition and recycling of vocabulary to acquisition (Elley, 1989; Folse, 1999; Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996; H…”
BackgroundVocabulary learning through input and output tasks: Investigating the Involvement Load Hypothesis
Ghabanchi, Z., Davoudi, M., & Eskandari, Z. (2012) · Cited by 4
A Study of Word Meaning Acquisition of Polysemous Words for English Majors
Wei, X., & Lou, Y. (2015) · Creative Education · doi:10.4236/ce.2015.618204 · Cited by 4
“In addition, even the advanced learners seldom knew all the meanings of a polysemous word and that learning them was a slow and patchy process (Hulstijn, 1998, 2001).”
BackgroundMultiple-Choice Glosses and Incidental Vocabulary Learning: A Case of an EFL Context.
Ghahari, S., & Heidarolad, M. (2015) · Cited by 4
The Effects of Glossing on Incidental Vocabulary Learning Through Reading-Based Oral Tasks
Liu, J. (2011) · Cited by 4
The Effect of Group Work on English Vocabulary Learning
Lin, S.-F. (2018) · Journal of Education and Learning · doi:10.5539/jel.v7n4p163 · Cited by 15
“Although some research has been done which supports the involvement load hypothesis (e.g. Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001; Hulstijn and Laufer, 2008; Kim, 2011), as far as we are aware the potential role in it of the mode of working on a task, by IW or GW, has not been considered.”
ResultThe Benefits of Explicit Vocabulary Teaching in the EFL Classroom
Longhurst, M. F. (2013) · Malmö University Publications (Malmö University) · Cited by 4
Leung, J. (2012) · The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0516 · Cited by 4
Lévesque, M. (2013) · Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · Cited by 4
Teaching and learning vocabulary: putting The Four Strands to the test
O'Hógain, B. (2012) · Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) · Cited by 4
Language and the lexicon in SLA
Verspoor, M. H., Schmitt, N., & Robinson, P. (2012) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 6
Nation, P., & Yamamoto, A. (2020) · Open Access Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka (Figshare) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.12552020.v1 · Cited by 6
The effect of type of task on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning
Eskandari, Z., Khatin‐Zadeh, O., Farsani, D., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1306306 · Cited by 3
“Repeated exposure to novel words can consolidate the form-meaning connection of words (Hulstijn, 2001; Nation, 2001; Laufer, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialTertiary Students’ Usage of Vocabulary Learning Strategies: A case study
Sidhu, G. K., & Nor, N. K. M. (2020) · Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal · doi:10.21834/ebpj.v5isi1.2318 · Cited by 3
Polysemy-related problems in ESP students: A case study
Mićović, D., & Beko, L. V. (2022) · Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Pristini · doi:10.5937/zrffp52-32382 · Cited by 3
“As Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) notice, even the advanced learners rarely knew all the meanings of a polysemous word.”
BackgroundPhadungsilp, P., & Supasiraprapa, S. (2023) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688231176331 · Cited by 3
“Moreover, several previous studies on the ILH, conducted with more proficient English L2 learners, used the same number of target words (e.g. Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer, 2003; Kim, 2011).”
InfluentialEffects of integrated form-focused instruction on vocabulary learning for Chinese English learners
Wei, R., & Yu, L. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2266478 · Cited by 3
“With regard to the involvement load hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001), the retention of words is best accomplished through tasks with a high involvement load.”
Lexical integration of novel words learned through natural reading
Smejkalova, A., & Chetail, F. (2024) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-024-02626-w · Cited by 3
“Indeed, using mnemonic strategies could result in more in-depth processing of the to-be-learned words, leading to a more precise encoding (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
A Critical Review of Common Vocabulary Learning Strategies in Iranian EFL Classrooms
Jahromi, L. K., & Marzban, A. (2015) · Cited by 3
After the First 2,000: A Response to Horst’s “Mainstreaming Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition”
Douglas, S. R. (2014) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 3
Chapter 5: Hyphenated words and transparent compounds
(2016) · John Benjamins Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1075/z.208.c5 · Cited by 3
Personalized Word Learning for ESL Students via Integration of Implicit and Explicit Profiles
Wang, F. L., Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94505-7_24 · Cited by 3
SOHBATİ, A. H., Boroumand, M., & Esfahlan, F. K. (2021) · International e-Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.31458/iejes.757203 · Cited by 3
“The findings of the present research can also be corroborated through Involvement Load Hypothesis proposed by Hulstijn and Laufer (2001).”
BackgroundMiguel, N. M. (2021) · Classroom Discourse · doi:10.1080/19463014.2020.1867592 · Cited by 3
“Including opportunities for noticing, retrieving, and elaborating words is fundamental when designing and selecting activities and materials for learning vocabulary (see Hulstijn and Laufer 2001; Nation 2003; Nation and Webb 2011).”
BackgroundCognitive Load Framework: An Alternative to The Involvement Load Hypothesis
Zarifi, A., Mukundan, J., & O’Dowd, E. M. (2021) · Khazar journal of humanities and social sciences · doi:10.5782/2223-2621.2021.24.3.17 · Cited by 3
EFL Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading Courses during Covid-19
(2022) · Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literature · doi:10.47012/jjmll.14.4.15 · Cited by 3
Involvement Load and Vocabulary Acquisition in Digital Game-Based Tasks
Rasti-Behbahani, A. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-1490-6_6 · Cited by 5
Wang, Z. (2023) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.1308.12 · Cited by 4
Huang, G., & Hew, K. F. (2023) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2023.2269410 · Cited by 4
“According to Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), time should not be considered as a separate variable but rather as an inherent property of a task.”
Wang, Y., Gao, X., & Gui, M. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103596 · Cited by 5
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
