The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial
Abstract
This study tests the claim that word learning and retention in a second language are contingent upon a task's involvement load (i.e. the amount of need, search, and evaluation it imposes), as proposed by Laufer and Hulstijn (2001). Seventy-nine beginning learners of Spanish completed one of three vocabulary learning tasks that varied in the amount of involvement (i.e. mental effort) they induced: reading comprehension (no effort), reading comprehension plus target word suppliance (moderate effort), and sentence writing (strong effort). Passive and active knowledge of the target words was assessed immediately after treatment and two weeks later. In line with the predictions of the Involvement Load Hypothesis, retention was highest in the sentence writing task, lower in the reading plus fill-in task, and lowest in the reading comprehension task. However, when time on task was considered, the benefit associated with more involving tasks faded. The results are discussed in light of form-focused vocabulary instruction.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
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 Keating, 2008
In the citing paper
“관여 부담 가설의 이론적 측면에서 논의하는 과업의 수준이 실제에 있어서는 예측에서 벗어나는 사례들이 많았고(e.g., Choi, 2015;Folse, 2006;Keating, 2008;Kim, 2015;Marmol & Sanchez-Lafuente, 2013;Park, 2011;Soleimani & Rahmanian, 2014;Yang et al., 2017;Zou, 2017)”
From Effects of Task-Induced Involvement Load and Working Memory on Korean High School Students’ Second Language Vocabulary Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Keating, 2008
Citations
Cites
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
Learning Vocabulary in Another Language
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524759 · Cited by 6,608
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
(1998) · Cited by 2,572
Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 · Cited by 2,569 · cited 1×
“Focus on form refers to the position held by many instructed SLA researchers that overt attention to linguistic elements is beneficial, if not necessary, for learners to acquire native-like competence (e.g. Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2001; Long, 1991; Norris & Ortega, 2000).”
BackgroundFocus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology
Long, M. (1991) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon · Cited by 1,775 · cited 1×
“Focus on form refers to the position held by many instructed SLA researchers that overt attention to linguistic elements is beneficial, if not necessary, for learners to acquire native-like competence (e.g. Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 2001; Long, 1991; Norris & Ortega, 2000).”
BackgroundHow Large a Vocabulary is Needed For Reading and Listening?
Nation, I. (2006) · The Canadian Modern Language Review · doi:10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59 · Cited by 1,436
Language learning and technology
Healey, D. (2016) · doi:10.4324/9781315657899.ch1 · Cited by 1,420
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 9×
“…on trial Gregory D. Keating San Diego State University, USA This study tests the claim that word learning and retention in a second language are contingent upon a task’s involvement load (i.e. the amount of need, search, and evaluation it imposes), as proposed by Laufer and Hulstijn (2001).”
BackgroundInfluentialWe Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis
KRASHEN, S. (1989) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x · Cited by 1,274
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Barcroft, J., 2000, The effects of sentence writing as semantic elaboration on the allocation of processing resources and second language acquisition
- Cho, K.S., 1994, Journal of Reading, 37, 662
- de la Fuente, M.J., 2002, Acquisition, 24, 81
- Hu, M., 2000, Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 222
Effects of L1 and L2 word-level vs. L2 sentence-level glosses on vocabulary learning
Rassaei, E., & Folse, K. S. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103273 · Cited by 6
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
Comparing Input and Output Tasks in EFL Learners' Vocabulary Acquisition.
Bao, G. (2019) · TESOL journal (Laguna) · Cited by 5
The Effect of Equal Versus Expanding Spacing Practice on the Deliberate Learning of L2 Collocations
Sonbul, S., Macis, M., & Gyllstad, H. (2024) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.3364 · Cited by 5
Kang, H., Fedzechkina, M., & Nicol, J. L. (2023) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688231206905 · Cited by 5
“This finding corroborates previous studies that showed significantly better word-learning in learners who were required to engage with the novel items in an activity than in learners who did not (e.g. Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Joe, 1998; Keating, 2008; Laufer, 2003; Rassaei, 2017; Webb, 2005).”
Zou, D., Xie, H., Wang, F. L., Wong, T.-L., & Wu, Q. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20621-9_5 · Cited by 4
“However, contradicting this, Keating [13] observed that even though his subjects were informed of upcoming vocabulary posttests, they did not make a conscious effort to commit lexical information to memory.”
BackgroundSarani, A., Negari, G. M., & Ghaviniat, M. (2013) · Acta Scientiarum Language and Culture · doi:10.4025/actascilangcult.v35i4.21135 · Cited by 5
“In general, the findings of this study clearly run counter to some of the previous studies (e.g., ELLIS, 1995; FOLSE, 2006; HULSTIJN; LAUFER, 2001; KEATING, 2008; WEBB, 2005) which claimed that controlling for time on task would diminish the effect of more involving tasks on vocabulary learning.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential김규리, & Min, C. K. (2014) · Journal of the Korea English Education Society · doi:10.18649/jkees.2014.13.4.123 · Cited by 4
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
Jie-hui, L. (2014) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.4304/tpls.4.7.1385-1394 · Cited by 4
“To recapitulate, the Involvement Load Hypothesis was basically verified in previous studies (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Keating 2008; Kim 2008), but it was only marginally supported in Huang (2003).”
MethodResultTeng, M. F. (2015) · doi:10.6294/eagle.2015.0102.03 · Cited by 4
“(Keating, 2008), a study involving learners of various proficiency levels, to the best of my knowledge, has not been conducted.”
BackgroundSandberg, C., Carpenter, E., Kerschen, K., Paolieri, D., & Jackson, C. N. (2019) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716419000262 · Cited by 4
“…knowledge typically lags behind receptive vocabulary knowledge (see Schmitt, 2014, for a review), and the instructional techniques targeting productive knowledge that have been studied to date have shown limited success (Keating, 2008; Pichette, De Serres, & Lafontaine, 2012; Webb, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodThe 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
Incidental L2 Vocabulary Acquisition and Reading: Concerns, Progresses and Future Directions
Wang, Q. (2020) · Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1515/cjal-2020-0031 · Cited by 6
“It has been variously tested in empirical research (e. g., Huang, Willson, & Eslami, 2012; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2011), and generated positive evidence on its applicability to learners with different L2 proficiency levels in incidental lexical learning.”
BackgroundMethodVocabulary learning through input and output tasks: Investigating the Involvement Load Hypothesis
Ghabanchi, Z., Davoudi, M., & Eskandari, Z. (2012) · Cited by 4
Mohammad, A. S., & Narjess, A. T. (2012) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 4
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
“Previous research disagrees on which of these activities is more effective in supporting vocabulary learning (Laufer, 2003; Folse, 2006; Keating, 2008).”
BackgroundPhadungsilp, P., & Supasiraprapa, S. (2023) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688231176331 · Cited by 3
Chríost, D. M. G., Carlin, P., Davies, S., Fitzpatrick, T., Jones, A., Heath-Davies, R., Marshall, J. J., Morris, S., Price, A., Vanderplank, R., et al. (2012) · Cited by 3
Cognitive 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
Huang, G., & Hew, K. F. (2023) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2023.2269410 · Cited by 4
“To the best of our knowledge, the multiple ILH studies (e.g., Jafari et al., 2018; Keating, 2008; Mármol & Sánchez-Lafuente, 2013; Soleimani & Rahmanian, 2014, 2015; Walsh, 2009) have only included fundamental knowledge in glosses, such as the form knowledge and meaning knowledge of words, which…”
Ramirez, H., & Jones, D. (2013) · Administrative Issues Journal Education Practice and Research · doi:10.5929/2013.3.1.7 · Cited by 5
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).”
MethodThe Impact of Skill Integration on Task Involvement Load
Amini, A., & Maftoon, P. (2017) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 3
The 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
“In order to better elaborate the role of the language of glossing, L1 or L2, in task-induced involvement load, few researches can be found in the literature (e.g., Keating, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialValdehíta, A. S. M., & Herrero, M. A. A. (2012) · Epos Revista de filología · doi:10.5944/epos.28.2012.12265 · Cited by 3
“- Keating (2008); Alemania - Agustín Llach (2009).”
BackgroundTask-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
Effects of recasts and form-focused instruction on the acquisition of novel vocabulary
Yang, Y., Zhang, L. J., & Chen, L. (2018) · Applied Linguistics Review · doi:10.1515/applirev-2017-0084 · Cited by 3
“As shown in the previous literature, the development of vocabulary is a complex process that may be mediated by the frequency and quality of input of the vocabulary items (Laufer 2009), the type of tasks (Keating 2008), the features of target lexical items, and learners’ metacognitive strategies (Ellis 2005; see also…”
BackgroundNanda, J. (2017) · Channels · doi:10.15385/jch.2017.2.1.3 · Cited by 3
“However, other studies have found that greater cognitive involvement may not necessarily produce higher retention when the amount of time given is considered (Keating, 2008; Webb, 2005).”
BackgroundBai, 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
“Following Keating (2008), Kim (2011) examined the Involvement Load Hypothesis in an ESL setting, across various exercise types and proficiency levels with a controlled time on task.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialVocabulary 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
“It is interesting to point out that the results of the present study are in good agreement with the findings of some other researchers following the involvement load hypothesis as their model of reference (e.g., Cho & Ma, 2013; Huang, Willson, & Eslami, 2012; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008; Nassaji & Hu, 2012; Teng, 2015; Z…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialChang, L., & Ding, Y. (2021) · Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1515/cjal-2021-0032 · Cited by 2
Huang, G. (2022) · International Symposium on Educational Technology · doi:10.1109/iset55194.2022.00055 · Cited by 2
Methapisittikul, Y., & Sukying, A. (2023) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v16n5p95 · Cited by 2
“Vocabulary learning and retention in a second language depend on the level of engagement in each task (Keating, 2008).”
BackgroundIncidental Vocabulary Learning and Retention in Education-oriented L2 Communicative Tasks
Garcés-Manzanera, A. (2023) · Miscelánea A Journal of English and American Studies · doi:10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20236858 · Cited by 5
Baleghizadeh, S., & Abbasi, M. (2013) · Journal of teaching language skills · doi:10.22099/jtls.2013.1521 · Cited by 2
“Similarly, the composition task has been perceived as important, due to the same properties of the SW with an extra The Journal of Teaching Language Skills / 5(2), Summer 2013, Ser. 71/4 22 benefit: creation of connected pieces of discourse (Keating, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialSánchez‐Gutiérrez, C., & Mella, M. S. (2017) · Journal of Spanish Language Teaching · doi:10.1080/23247797.2017.1315262 · Cited by 3
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
“Keating (2008) also criticized Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) for restricting their study to advanced learners, testing only passive vocabulary retention, and not controlling time on task.”
BackgroundInfluentialLee, O.-H., & Lee, S.-K. (2021) · Lanaguage Research · doi:10.30961/lr.2021.57.1.143 · Cited by 2
“예컨대, 관여 부담 가설의 이론적 측면에서 논의하는 과업의 수준이 실제에 있어서는 예측에서 벗어나는 사례들이 많았고(e.g., Choi, 2015; Folse, 2006; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2015; Marmol & Sanchez-Lafuente, 2013; Park, 2011; Soleimani & Rahmanian, 2014; Yang et al., 2017; Zou, 2017), 연구 결과의 외적 타당도를 확보하 는 과정에서 외국어로서 영어를 교수학습하는 국내 교실의 특성을 고려하여 우리나라 학생들에게 적용 가능성이 높은 과업들의 관여 부담…”
InfluentialNamaziandost, E., Sawalmeh, M. H. M., Tilwani, S. A., et al. (2021) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440211051723 · Cited by 2
“Keating (2008) showed that “word learning and retention in a second language are contingent upon a task’s IL (i.e., the amount of need, search, and evaluation it imposes),” (p. 17) as suggested by Laufer and Hulstijn (2001).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSauer, B. M. (2017) · Research Portal (King's College London) · Cited by 2
Demetriou, L. (2020) · Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) · Cited by 2
Research into practice: Vocabulary
Nation, P. (2020) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.12552143.v1 · Cited by 2
The 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
“Many of these have explored lexical acquisition and grammatical accuracy, with most studies of writing focused on the acquisition of discrete forms at the level of the clause or sentence (Barcroft, 2006; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008).”
BackgroundAlobaid, A. O. (2023) · Arab World English Journal · doi:10.24093/awej/th.288 · Cited by 2
“Examples would be Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), Laufer (2005) as well as Keating (2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKomissarenko, A., Stupina, E. A., & Александровна, М. С. (2025) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2025.2454001 · Cited by 1
“L2 acquisition studies (Keating, 2008; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Nassaji & Hu, 2012; Solei-mani & Rahmanian, 2015) showed that tasks involving semantic operations on novel words provide better retention of novel words and their meanings.”
InfluentialYuan, X., & Tang, X. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103641 · Cited by 2
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
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
Valdehíta, A. S. M. (2015) · Epos Revista de filología · doi:10.5944/epos.31.2015.17372 · Cited by 1
“…las tareas productivas destacan como las más útiles en muchos de estos trabajos: Agustín Llach (2009), Browne (2003), Hulstijn y Laufer (2001), Keating (2008), Kim (2008), Kondo (2007), Laufer (2001; 2003), Pichette, De Serres y Lafontaine (2012), San-Mateo-Valdehíta (2012) y Webb (2005;…”
BackgroundValdehíta, A. S. M. (2013) · Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada · Cited by 1
Teaching German Modal Verbs through Cognitive Linguistics Insights
Nikolova, M. (2018) · DigitalCommons at College of DuPage (College of DuPage) · Cited by 1
Valdehíta, A. S. M. (2013) · Revista Nebrija de Lingüística aplicada a la enseñanza de Lenguas · doi:10.26378/rnlael714201 · Cited by 2
Data-Driven Learning Tasks and Involvement Load Hypothesis
Alanazi, Z. (2023) · World Journal of English Language · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n2p23 · Cited by 1
Hughes, L. S. (2023) · Technology in Language Teaching & Learning · doi:10.29140/tltl.v5n1.1045 · Cited by 2
“…involving communication (Ellis & He, 1999; de la Fuente, 2002; Hughes, 2023; Keck et al., 2006; Tare et al, 2014) and non - communicative tasks (Hughes, 2023; Izumi, 2002; Joe, 1998; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008; Leeser, 2008; Nguyen & Boers, 2019; Rott, 2004; Tare et al., 2014; Zaki & Ellis, 1999).”
조영아, & 마지현 (2013) · Studies in English Language & Literature · doi:10.21559/aellk.2013.39.1.017 · Cited by 1
Herrero, M. A. A., & Valdehíta, A. S. M. (2018) · Calidoscópio · doi:10.4013/cld.2018.163.08 · Cited by 1
Ruegg, R., & Brown, C. (2019) · Lingua Pedagogia Journal of English Teaching Studies · doi:10.21831/lingped.v1i1.18481 · Cited by 1
“Similarly, Keating (2008) compared three vocabulary learning tasks and found that writing sentences using the target words was the most effective, followed by reading and completing a gap-fill and finally, reading alone.”
ResultValdehíta, A. S. M., & Herrero, M. A. A. (2019) · Verba Hispanica · doi:10.4312/vh.27.1.209-229 · Cited by 1
Malmir, A., & Parhizkari, N. (2021) · Journal of teaching language skills · doi:10.22099/jtls.2021.38861.2902 · Cited by 1
“One of the earlier findings which are consistent with the finding in this research was that of Keating (2008), who examined the effects of two exercises, i.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialJahangard, A. (2021) · International Journal of Learning & Teaching · doi:10.18844/ijlt.v13i2.5800 · Cited by 1
“There are few empirical studies which have directly investigated the adequacy of the involvement load hypothesis (e.g. Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Kim, 2008; Jahangard, 2013; Jahangard & Akbari, 2013; Jing & Jianbin, 2009; Yagubi, Rayati, & Gorgi, 2010).”
BackgroundKhodaparast, S. M., & Keshmirshekan, M. H. (2021) · International Journal of Linguistics Literature & Translation · doi:10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.11.23 · Cited by 1
“More precisely, Keating (2008) revealed that vocabulary acquisition and retention in a second language are dependants upon a task’s involvement load (i.e., the amount of demand, search, and assessment it imposes), as described by Laufer & Hulstijn (2001).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialHuang, G., & Hew, K. F. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08939-8_25 · Cited by 1
Effects of Sentence Output Tasks on EFL Vocabulary Learning from a Bayesian Perspective
Bao, G. (2022) · English Language Literature & Culture · doi:10.11648/j.ellc.20220701.14 · Cited by 1
Jun, S. W. (2012) · TSpace (University of Toronto) · Cited by 1
Alfotais, A. (2019) · Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) · Cited by 1
The Effect of Jigsaw Technique on Iranian Intermediate Learners’ Reading AnxietyPreprint
Bijani, H., & Hashempour, B. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-317385/v1 · Cited by 1
“…And Suggestions For Further Research Previous studies of cooperative learning provided evidence that activities that require learners to collaborate with one another in reading a text would enhance self-con dence and reduce reading anxiety (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Keating, 2008; Webb, 2005).”
BackgroundKeçik, İ., & Kalay, D. (2019) · Cited by 1
Incidental Collocation Learning from Different Modes of Input and Factors That Affect LearningPreprint
Vu, D. V. (2023) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/j5abz · Cited by 1
Akbulut, S., Şimşek, B., Direkci, B., Koparan, B., Gülmez, M., Şimşek, E. E., & Kayır, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1798613
“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).”
Effect of Fine-Grained Lexical Rating on L2 Learners’ Lexical Learning Gain
Niu, R. (2015) · Open Journal of Modern Linguistics · doi:10.4236/ojml.2015.55038
“Barcroft, 2009; Barcroft & Sommers, 2005), or 5-point scoring (e.g. Barcroft, 2003; Barcroft, 2007; Keating, 2008; Smith, 2004).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialShahbazy, G., & Oghli, H. S. (2015) · Studies in English Language Teaching · doi:10.22158/selt.v3n2p153
“the language a learner produces) must be considered not just a sign of acquired knowledge (Krashen, 1994), but also a sign of learning at work (Swain, 2000). Based on the output hypothesis, learners used vocabulary in output form at the tasks. Swain (2000), in particular, argues that the output “forces” learners to mo…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialInvestigating Unknown Words On-line
Dilenschneider, R. (2009)
Ramalingam, S. R. K. (2013)
Schroeder, C. (2010) · Utah State University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctt4cgrmt
Mármol, G. A., & Arnao, M. D. M. J.-C. (2015) · UNED repository
The Influences of Task Type and Repetition on L2 Vocabulary Learning
조영아, & 마지현 (2014) · Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics · doi:10.15738/kjell.14.2.201406.349
The Effect of Multiple Encounters in Contextualized Learning
Sánchez, M. J. (2016) · Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras · doi:10.30827/digibug.53888
Task Effectiveness and Word Learning in a Second Language Acquisition
조영아, & 마지현 (2015) · Studies in English Language & Literature · doi:10.21559/aellk.2015.41.1.015
A Language Learning and Teaching Journey: Practicalities and Possibilities
Abell, E. I. (2021) · Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · doi:10.26076/5f2f-6d98
Focus Framework: A New Guideline for Presenting and Evaluating Lexical Contents in ELT Materials.
Zarifi, A. (2015) · The reading matrix
Investigating the Task Involvement Load Hypothesis in EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Learning
현주은, & JieYoungKim (2016) · Journal of the Korea English Education Society · doi:10.18649/jkees.2016.15.1.1
Production: Three Levels of Textbook Research
Harwood, N. (2014)
Liedtke, J. (2017) · Germanica Wratislaviensia · doi:10.19195/0435-5865.141.29
Students' Perspectives on Implementing Pedagogical Tasks in English Classroom
Pohan, E. (2018) · Indonesian Communication Forum of Teacher Training and Education Faculty Leaders International Conference on Education (ICE) · doi:10.2991/ice-17.2018.4
The Effects of Reading-based Output Tasks on L2 Vocabulary Acquisition and Learning Strategies
조영아 (2018) · Studies in English Language & Literature · doi:10.21559/aellk.2018.44.3.014
The Role of Task Types and Prior Word Knowledge in Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Sung, H. (2018) · Journal of the Korea English Education Society · doi:10.18649/jkees.2018.17.4.19
김보람 (2018) · The Journal of Foreign Studies · doi:10.15755/jfs.2018..43.33
Lee, J. H. (2018) · STEM Journal · doi:10.16875/stem.2018.19.4.71
Computer-supported collaborative word acquisition for language learners
Xie, H., Zou, D., Wang, F. L., et al. (2015) · Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
Involvement Load Hypothesis and the Retention of Word Meaning Among Saudi EFL Learners
Alarjani, F. A. (2020) · Asiatic IIUM Journal of English Language and Literature · doi:10.31436/asiatic.v14i1.1842
Sasi, A. S. (2020) · Studies in English Language Teaching · doi:10.22158/selt.v8n4p73
“Additionally, many studies have shown that new words in EFL/ESL setting can be stored and retrieved more efficiently by stronger association load (Chen & Chung, 2008; Hulstijin, 2001; Keating, 2008; Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009; Schmitt, 2008).”
BackgroundResultVexique: Vocabulary enhancement software for French immersion students
Woloshen, S. (2021) · Summit (Simon Fraser University)
Dodson, E. (2000) · doi:10.15760/etd.1638
“Keating (2008) provides further confirmation for this task involvement model.”
BackgroundResearch into practice: Vocabulary
Nation, P. (2020) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.12552143
Strong, B. (2017) · Open Access Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka (Figshare) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17065166
Metadata
- Authors
- Keating, G. D.
- Affiliations
- San Diego State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Keating, Gregory D.
- ORCID
- Keating, Gregory D.
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 365-386
- ISSN
- 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0954
- OpenAlex
- W2012822164
- Cited by
- 223
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 9.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Teaching Research (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Illinois at Chicago
- 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, second language vocabulary acquisition, vocabulary retention, task effort, Spanish as a second language, sentence writing, reading comprehension, form-focused instruction, beginning learners, 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.
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