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 401–500 of 816
Personalized Adaptive Language Learning in AI–Powered High-Immersion Virtual Reality
Cha, E. E., Ye, Y., Kaplan‐Rakowski, R., & Choubey, P. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-5477-3.ch005 · Cited by 3
Díaz, J. L. C. (2016) · Pensamiento Actual · doi:10.15517/pa.v16i26.25190 · Cited by 3
“The ILH has been tested in several published experiments (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001; Folse 2006; Kim 2008; Keating 2008; Webb 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAhmadi, S. R. M. (2017) · World Journal of English Language · doi:10.5430/wjel.v7n1p50 · Cited by 3
The Input‐Based Incremental Approach to German Vocabulary: A Sample Lesson Based on the Film Barbara
Fichtner, F., & Barcroft, J. (2019) · Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German · doi:10.1111/tger.12086 · Cited by 5
Coullie, J. L. (2020) · South African Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.20853/34-1-2924 · Cited by 7
Mármol, G. A. (2020) · Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada · Cited by 3
Glossing and L2 vocabulary learning through dynamic instruction in the context of Primary Education
Mármol, G. A. (2021) · Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas · doi:10.4995/rlyla.2021.14691 · Cited by 6
“Recent studies carried out by Lantolf and Poehner (2011), Herazo, Davin and Sagre (2019), and Rassaei (2020) examine the role of mediated interaction through dynamic techniques.”
BackgroundThe Role of Language Glossing in a Rooted Theory: The Involvement Load Hypothesis
Soleımanı, H., & Rahmanian, M. (2014) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature · doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.6 · Cited by 3
“The observed findings were in line with the findings of incidental vocabulary IJALEL 3(4):6-13, 2014 12 acquisition (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Watanabe, 1997 ; as cited in Hui-Fang Tu, 2003).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialValdehíta, A. S. M., & Herrero, M. A. A. (2012) · Epos Revista de filología · doi:10.5944/epos.28.2012.12265 · Cited by 3
Are You Memorizing Words Alphabetically?
이경랑 (2008) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.17936/pkelt.2008.20.3.004 · Cited by 3
Task-Induced Involvement Load in Korean EFL Incidental Vocabulary Learning
성현미 (2013) · The Journal of Studies in Language · doi:10.18627/jslg.29.2.201308.269 · Cited by 3
Teaching english for agriculture through proverbs in l1 and l2
Carreira, V. A., & Burgeile, O. (2017) · Revista do GEL · doi:10.21165/gel.v14i3.1876 · Cited by 3
“…used as a means to acquire vocabulary as well as a means to gain cultural knowledge, metaphorical understanding and communicative competence is also present in many influential studies such as Hanzén (2007); Hulstijn (1992); Joe (1995); Hulstijn and Laufer (2001); and Nuessel (2003), among others.”
BackgroundGallardo, M. H. (2020) · RILEX Revista sobre investigaciones léxicas · doi:10.17561/rilex.3.1.5377 · Cited by 4
The Effect of Lexical Glossing Types on Reading and Listening Skills of Iranian EFL Learners
Fahimipour, N., & Hashemian, M. (2013) · Journal of Language Teaching and Research · doi:10.4304/jltr.4.1.192-199 · Cited by 3
Warning Notes in a Learner’s Dictionary: A Study of the Effectiveness of Different Formats
Nural, Ş., Nesi, H., & Çakar, T. E. (2021) · International Journal of Lexicography · doi:10.1093/ijl/ecab033 · Cited by 3
Chapter 10: Corpus selection and design
Nation, P., & Sorell (2016) · John Benjamins Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1075/z.208.10ch10 · Cited by 3
Developing Academic Vocabulary Independently (DAVI): A usability study
Richards, M. (2009) · doi:10.31274/etd-180810-919 · Cited by 3
“…has undergone only limited testing, primarily the post-hoc analyses of previous studies done by Laufer and 13 Hulstijn in their presentation of the task-induced involvement construct (2001) and two empirical studies specifically designed to test the hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Kim, 2008).”
MethodCarrión-Tavárez, Á. (2015) · doi:10.18002/10612/4218 · Cited by 3
Sasao, Y. (2013) · Open Access Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka (Figshare) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17011511 · Cited by 15
“Subsequent studies (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Kim, 2011) generally support this hypothesis.”
Bai, X., Reynolds, B. L., & Rusk, B. V. (2026) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688261416373 · Cited by 2
The Impact of Task-type Based Vocabulary Instruction on Incidental Word Retention
Touti, E., & Maleki, R. (2016) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.0606.15 · Cited by 2
“The findings of this study strongly support those of other studies conducted by Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), Webb (2005), and Mateo Valdehita (2004) sharing the common view of valuing the benefit of writing tasks and admiring the role of writing at the text level (i.e. WT).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialAhmadi, S. R. M. (2017) · The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics · doi:10.5750/bjll.v10i0.1270 · Cited by 3
Vocabulary Learning And Retention: Cognitive Load Framework On Trial
Zarifi, A., & Azizinezhad, Z. (2020) · Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras · doi:10.30827/portalin.vi33.26660 · Cited by 2
An Analysis of Japanese EFL Learners’ Lexical Network Changes
Aotani, N., & Takahashi, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.621437 · Cited by 2
“They proposed a motivational-cognitive construct of involvement, consisting of three basic components: need, search, and Frontiers in Education | www.frontiersin.org February 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 6214375 evaluation (also, Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001).”
BackgroundAprendizaje basado en datos y combinaciones léxicas: una propuesta didáctica con cuasisinónimos
Castelló, M. A., & Baz, A. Á. (2021) · MLS Educational Research · doi:10.29314/mlser.v5i2.562 · Cited by 2
Chang, L., & Ding, Y. (2021) · Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1515/cjal-2021-0032 · Cited by 2
Stone, M. (2022) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.1211.01 · Cited by 2
“Hulstijn and Laufer claim that the retention of unfamiliar (new) words is affected by the degree of involvement by the learner in the processing of those words (2001).”
BackgroundMethapisittikul, Y., & Sukying, A. (2023) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v16n5p95 · Cited by 2
“Mainly, how vocabulary is learned or what teaching methods are processed has been purposefully emphasized in theoretical discussion (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Nation & Webb, 2011).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialYuan, X., & Tang, J. (2023) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440231204599 · Cited by 4
“Another rationale for providing extra morphological intervention for narrow reading comes from the involvement load hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundSoleimani, M., Aghazadeh, Z., & Ministry of Education, S. (2024) · Mextesol journal. · doi:10.61871/mj.v48n2-1 · Cited by 2
English vocabulary development in the global south context
Dubravac, V., Brdarević‐Čeljo, A., & Bećirović, S. (2024) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688241273844 · Cited by 3
Learning vocabulary through listening
Graham, S. J., & Zhang, P. (2024) · AILA Review · doi:10.1075/aila.24019.gra · Cited by 2
L2 Lexical Alignment and Lexical Learning in Collaborative Continuation Writing
Niu, R., Luo, W., & You, X. (2025) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12710 · Cited by 3
Rizcallah, Y., & Parlak, Ö. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103722 · Cited by 13
Baleghizadeh, S., & Abbasi, M. (2013) · Journal of teaching language skills · doi:10.22099/jtls.2013.1521 · Cited by 2
“Kim (2011) carried out two experiments in order to examine the construct of the ILH.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMohebbi, Z., & Mohebbi, H. (2014) · Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal · doi:10.14738/assrj.15.241 · Cited by 3
EFL Teacher's and Learners' Perspectives Towards ATODJ
Moladoust, E. (2014) · International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2014040103 · Cited by 2
Mengesha, Y. (2011) · Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences · doi:10.4314/ejesc.v6i1.65377 · Cited by 2
“…students in extended communicative tasks, empirical research points out that “words that were used in productive tasks, were remembered better than words practiced in non productive tasks” (Ellis & He 1999; Hulstijn & Trompetter, 1998; Joe, 1995, 1998; cited in Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001: 542).”
BackgroundKhabiri, M. (2012) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature · doi:10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.1p.113 · Cited by 2
Sotoudehnama, E., & Soleimanifard, F. (2013) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 2
Using hypermedia annotations to teach vocabulary on the Web
Gorjian, B. (2011) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.3402/rlt.v19i3.7799 · Cited by 2
“According to Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), ‘‘if learners pay careful attention to the words’ pronunciation, orthography, grammatical category, meaning and semantic relations to other words, they are more likely to retain the word than if they pay attention to only one or two of the above word…”
BackgroundMorán, A. R., & Ferreira, R. A. (2015) · Revista signos · doi:10.4067/s0718-09342015000300005 · Cited by 3
Douglas, V. (2016) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.0612.01 · Cited by 2
Fox, J. (2017) · ProQuest LLC eBooks · Cited by 2
The Effects of Text Type, Text Length and Text Difficulty on Vocabulary Retention through Glossing
Far, M. T. (2019) · Journal of Language Teaching and Learning · doi:10.66887/jltl.v6i1.24 · Cited by 2
Sinyashina, E. (2019) · ESP Today · doi:10.18485/esptoday.2019.7.1.3 · Cited by 2
“Stephen Krashen (1982; 1989), who can be considered the main supporter of incidental acquisition of a target language and vocabulary, defines incidental acquisition as the process that occurs subconsciously when learners do not know they are acquiring a language because their “conscious focus is on the message, not fo…”
BackgroundThe interplay of glossing with text difficulty and comprehension levels
Alast, S. F. H., & Baleghizadeh, S. (2021) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688211020423 · Cited by 3
“…Martínez-Fernández, 2008, 2010; Nagata, 1999), single textual and multimedia glosses (e.g. Chun & Plass, 1996; Davis & Lyman-Hager, 1997) and glosses in different degrees of explicit-ness (e.g. Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001), to name a few, for different linguistic elements (e.g. vocabulary and grammar).”
BackgroundO semantyczny wymiar słowotwórstwa w glottodydaktyce
Seretny, A. (2021) · Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Kształcenie Polonistyczne Cudzoziemców · doi:10.18778/0860-6587.28.15 · Cited by 2
Nation, P., Shin, & Grant, L. (2016) · John Benjamins Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1075/z.208.06ch6 · Cited by 2
Using hypermedia annotations to teach vocabulary on the Web
Gorjian, B. (2011) · Research in Learning Technology · doi:10.3402/rlt.v19s1/7799 · Cited by 2
Azizi, M., Hadipourfard, E., & Bavali, M. (2022) · Journal for Educators Teachers and Trainers · doi:10.47750/jett.2022.13.02.028 · Cited by 2
Elmasry, H. I. I. (2023) · Arab World English Journal · doi:10.24093/awej/th.301 · Cited by 2
Hernández-Pérez, Y. A., Alaniz-Alvarez, S. A., Martínez-Troncoso, J. C., et al. (2023) · Enseñanza y Comunicación de las Geociencias · doi:10.22201/cgeo.29928087e.2023.2.1.6 · Cited by 2
Miti o učenju drugega/tujega jezika
Nagode, G. P., & Pižorn, K. (2016) · Journal for Foreign Languages · doi:10.4312/vestnik.8.203-215 · Cited by 2
Inspecting Task-Induced Involvement from the Perspective of Sociocultural Theory
Kaivanpanah, S., & Miri, M. (2018) · Journal of teaching language skills · doi:10.22099/jtls.2019.30652.2569 · Cited by 2
“The first experiment was a partial replication of Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), while the second experiment examined their claim that writing new sentences and composing sentences with target words would induce the same involvement load.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialHow Much Vocabulary is Necessary for the English Section of the College Scholastic Ability Test?
Year, J. (2018) · Journal of the Korea English Education Society · doi:10.18649/jkees.2018.17.4.47 · Cited by 2
Developing Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge in Content Subjects: A Computational Linguistic Approach
Dowswell, K. L. B. (2017) · Cited by 2
Lee, O.-H., & Lee, S.-K. (2021) · Lanaguage Research · doi:10.30961/lr.2021.57.1.143 · Cited by 2
“이를 관여 부담 가설(involvement load hypothesis)이라고 이른다(Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
The Role of Glossing and Working Memory Capacity in Second Language Reading Comprehension
Jung, J. (2021) · The Journal of AsiaTEFL · doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.2.4.438 · Cited by 2
Makhlouf, A., & Boulenouar, M. Y. (2017) · Traduction et Langues · doi:10.52919/translang.v16i2.597 · Cited by 2
Incidental Phrasal Verb Acquisition through Second Language Reading
Hare, A. J. (2010) · Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · Cited by 2
Exploring word and strategy knowledge of high school students in a German classroom
Kuchenbecker, K. (2013) · doi:10.17077/etd.sigfp4e8 · Cited by 2
On the Scope of Digital Vocabulary Trainers for Learning in Distance Education
Winchester, S. (2015) · Open Research Online (The Open University) · doi:10.21954/ou.ro.0000b0fa · Cited by 2
Learner Modelling for Individualised Reading in a Second Language
Walmsley, M. (2015) · Research Commons (University of Waikato) · Cited by 2
Fostering incidental vocabulary uptake from audio-visual materials: The role of text comprehension
Nguyễn, C. Đ. (2017) · Open Access Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka (Figshare) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17060288 · Cited by 2
“…Output Hypothesis (1985, 1995, 2005) Empirical ground de la Fuente (2002), R. Ellis et al. (1994), R. Ellis & He (1999), R. Ellis & Heimbach (1997); Hulstijn & Laufer (2001); Kim (2008); Joe (1998); Loschky (1994); Lu (2013); Rassaei (2015); Yi & Sun (2013) As all interventions in this…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSauer, B. M. (2017) · Research Portal (King's College London) · Cited by 2
Encouraging and Motivating Vocabulary Development
Grogan, M., Lucas, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0728 · Cited by 2
Lexical Coverage in Bangladeshi EFL Textbooks: A Corpus-Based Study
Ahmed, M. O. (2021) · Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14594 · Cited by 2
Research into practice: Vocabulary
Nation, P. (2020) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.12552143.v1 · Cited by 2
On the benefits of multimodal annotations for vocabulary uptake from reading
Boers, F., Warren, P., Grimshaw, G., & Siyanova‐Chanturia, A. (2021) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.13670623 · Cited by 2
The Effects of Text Type, Text Length and Text Difficulty on Vocabulary Retention through Glossing
Tadayonifar, M. (2021) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.15001062.v1 · Cited by 2
Lag Effects for Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning Through QuizletPreprint
Serfaty, J., & Serrano, R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/yhrvx · Cited by 2
Min, L. S. (2012) · Journal of the Korea English Education Society · doi:10.18649/jkees.2012.11.3.65 · Cited by 1
Çekiç, A. (2022) · Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education · doi:10.14686/buefad.1045468 · Cited by 1
“…as online corpus and Google search, which entail inductive learning with deeper processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) and greater learner involvement (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001) in the construction (Cobb, 1999) of collocational knowledge and in converting input into intake through noticing of…”
BackgroundThe Second-Language Essay as Cognitive Task: Complexity, Subjectivity and Emotion
DeCoursey, C. (2022) · International Journal of English Linguistics · doi:10.5539/ijel.v13n1p43 · Cited by 1
Alobaid, A. O. (2023) · Arab World English Journal · doi:10.24093/awej/th.288 · Cited by 2
“First of all, his study along with that of Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) are limited to one particular aspect of vocabulary learning, i.e., learning word meaning.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialEffects of mobile-assisted reading materials on children’s L1 lexical development
Liu, X., Ni, C., & Liu, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1144427 · Cited by 2
“…Xodabande and Atai, 2020), but most scolars in mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) insisted that the implementations can generate positive results and facilitate learners’ language learning (e.g., Hulstijn and Laufer, 2001; Burston, 2014; Sung et al., 2015; Mahdi, 2017; Lin and Lin, 2019).”
BackgroundMai, S., Ma, X., & Pei, H. (2023) · International Symposium on Educational Technology · doi:10.1109/iset58841.2023.00055 · Cited by 1
VOCABULARY SIZE, LEXICAL DIVERSITY, LEXICAL DENSITY, AND EFL WRITING SCORES: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Tömen, M., & Köse, G. D. (2023) · Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi · doi:10.30783/nevsosbilen.1376253 · Cited by 1
Aladelah, A. A. H. (2024) · Mağallaẗ Al-Qirā'aẗ wa Al-Maʿrifaẗ/Mağallaẗ Al-Qirā'aẗ wa Al-Maʿrifaẗ · doi:10.21608/mrk.2024.348329 · Cited by 2
“This can include activities such as reading, listening, speaking, and writing, as well as the use of a range of teaching techniques, such as vocabulary drills, context-based activities, and word-learning strategies (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundMultimedia and paper annotations in students’ vocabulary acquisition
Ruiz, A. S., & Alcantara, J. M. (2024) · International Journal of Research Studies in Education · doi:10.5861/ijrse.2024.24103 · Cited by 1
The role of training and exposure to print for the mastery of connectives in French
Tskhovrebova, E., Wetzel, M., Gygax, P. M., et al. (2025) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716424000481 · Cited by 1
“According to the Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) introduced by Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), learning new lexicon depends on the degree of involvement in its processing.”
Yuan, X., & Tang, X. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103641 · Cited by 2
Li, N., & Wang, Y. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103747 · Cited by 2
Attainment Pairing Effects on Cognitive Conflict in Technology‐enhanced EFL Cooperative Tasks
Liu, Y., & Thurston, A. (2025) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70015 · Cited by 1
Best Model to Predict Vocabulary Learning Gains: ILH , ILH Plus, or TFA ?
Nguyen, C. (2025) · TESOL Journal · doi:10.1002/tesj.70081 · Cited by 1
Papi, M., Suzuki, Y., Kim, C. J., & Kim, M. (2026) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2026.104147 · Cited by 1
How do L1 and L2 players read subtitles in video games? An exploratory eye-movement study
Lan, H., Kruger, J., & Richardson, M. J. (2026) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716426100940 · Cited by 1
“The deeper engagement can lead to better content comprehension for L2 readers (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Mayer, 2005; Robinson, 1995, 2001; Sweller, 1988, 2011).”
The impact of televised and non-televised instruction on achievement tests
Mengesha, Y. (2011) · Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences · Cited by 1
Intermediate Level Learners’ Vocabulary Guessing and Recognizing through Sound Symbolism
Zohrabi, M., Sabouri, H., & Peimanfar, S. (2014) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature · doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.6p.42 · Cited by 1
“Virtually all second language learners and their teachers are well aware of the fact that learning a second language (L2) involves the learning of a large number of words (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
BackgroundComparing Intentional Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Rote-Copying versus Read-Plus
Attan, A., & Sze, W. W. (2014) · 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies · doi:10.17576/3l-2014-2002-06 · Cited by 5
“Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) suggest that retention of words is parallel to the amount of task-induced involvement.”
BackgroundTefera, Y. (2009) · Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences · doi:10.4314/ejesc.v4i1.42993 · Cited by 1
“Nation and Wang (1999) also suggest that “at least ten exposures are necessary for a word to be a good candidate for acquisition” (cited in Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001:553).”
BackgroundInfluentialShabanpour, M., & Marzban, A. (2015) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.0503.19 · Cited by 1
“To do so, many researchers (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Bygate, 2001; laufer, 2003; Rahimpour, 2007; Guara-Tavares, 2008; Sharifi Haratmeh, 2012) are seeking a way to remove this problem by using tasks.”
BackgroundThe effect of constructed-responses and multiple-choice tests on students’ course content mastery
Karimi, L. (2014) · Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies · doi:10.2989/16073614.2014.997067 · Cited by 1
“The result of this study is consistent with the findings of Walstad and Becker (1994), Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) and Palmer and Devitt (2007).”
ResultAn Investigation of Teacher-provided versus Student-made Vocabulary Notebooks
Baleghizadeh, S., & Moladoust, E. (2012) · 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature® · Cited by 1
Comparative Study on Heterogeneous Profiling Sources for Second Language Learners
Zou, D., Xie, H., Wang, F. L., et al. (2015) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-48978-9_20 · Cited by 1
How do female and male students work with an online vocabulary program
Schuetze, U. (2010) · Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference · Cited by 1
The effects of synonym generation and oral output on incidental and intentional vocabulary learning
Rassaei, E. (2012) · ITL Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/itl.164.01ras · Cited by 2
High vs. Low Load Vocabulary Learning Tasks: A Case for Intentional Learning
Jahangard, A., & Movassagh, H. (2011) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 1
Valdehíta, A. S. M. (2015) · Epos Revista de filología · doi:10.5944/epos.31.2015.17372 · Cited by 1
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
