The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Effects of Task-Induced Involvement Load and Working Memory on Korean High School Students’ Second Language Vocabulary Learning
Open accessAbstract
This study investigated the effects of task-induced involvement load and working memory on Korean high school English learners' vocabulary acquisition and long-term retention.Sixty-six students were divided into three groups and experienced three different tasks that differed in terms of their involvement load: 1) gap-filling, 2) unscrambling sentences, and 3) writing original sentences.Each group took a post-vocabulary test comprising two subtests-form recognition and meaning recognition-immediately after the treatment and one week later.Results showed that the students who performed the task of writing original sentences, which was assumed to have the highest involvement load, gained the highest scores in the immediate meaning recognition test.Further, working memory of the students had a weak but statistically significant correlation with the short-term learning of both form and meaning and the long-term retention of meaning.More detailed findings are presented along with suggestions for pedagogy and future research.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In 66 Korean high school English learners, the task with the highest assumed involvement load (writing original sentences) produced the best immediate meaning-recognition vocabulary scores, while no task differences survived at the one-week delayed posttest. Working memory showed weak but significant correlations with short-term form and meaning learning and long-term meaning retention.
Key findings
- Immediate meaning-recognition scores differed significantly across tasks: sentence writing M = 32.91 vs. gap-filling M = 27.00 and unscrambling M = 26.17, F(2, 63) = 5.60, p < 0.01, η² = 0.15; Scheffé contrasts were significant for sentence writing vs. gap-filling (p < 0.05) and vs. unscrambling (p < 0.01), but not between the two lower-load groups (p = 0.93). Effect size for sentence writing against gap-filling was d = 0.82.
- Immediate form-recognition scores did not differ by task (7.90, 8.22, 8.64; F(2, 63) = 1.28, p = 0.29), and neither did the delayed posttests (form: 7.71, 7.09, 7.86, p = 0.45; meaning: 21.67, 22.26, 23.82, p = 0.35).
- Working memory correlated weakly but significantly with immediate form recognition (r = .25, p < 0.05), immediate meaning recognition (r = .27, p < 0.05), and delayed meaning recognition (r = .30, p < 0.01), but not with delayed form recognition (p = 0.09). The correlations were concentrated in the unscrambling group (r = 0.40–0.69; e.g., delayed meaning r = .69, p < 0.01).
- Confidence in form-inference answers dropped from M = 40.58 (SD = 6.10) immediately to M = 35.45 (SD = 9.35) one week later, t(65) = 6.40, p < 0.001; 73% reported being confident or very confident at the immediate test versus 57% at the delayed test.
Methods
- Quasi-experimental design: 87 second-year students from three classes at an autonomous public high school in Siheung were recruited; 66 (34 male, 32 female) with complete data were analyzed, assigned to three intact groups — gap-filling (n = 21), unscrambling sentences (n = 23), and original sentence writing (n = 22) — with assumed involvement indices of N1,S0,E1 = 2; N1,S1,E1 = 3; and N1,S1,E2 = 4 respectively.
- Materials and measures: a 516-word, 29-sentence reading passage ("The Definition and Characteristics of Grit," Flesch-Kincaid 9.4) with 10 target words; vocabulary knowledge measured by a VKS-based meaning-recognition test (10–60 points) plus a 10-item multiple-choice form-recognition test with a 5-point confidence rating; working memory measured by a group-administered reading span task (12 sets, 42 items, scored 0–42).
- Procedure and analysis: pretest and working memory test in session 1; treatment plus immediate posttest 3 weeks later; delayed posttest 1 week after treatment. Data analyzed in SPSS 22.0 with one-way ANOVA, Scheffé post hoc tests, paired t-tests, Pearson correlations, and Cohen's d, at α = 0.05.
Limitations
- Stated by the paper: the small number of participants and the short study duration mean results should be interpreted cautiously; the reading span task was administered in a group format because of school time and space constraints, whereas individual administration may be more valid for measuring working memory as an individual-difference variable.
- Stated by the paper: the delayed posttest was given only one week after treatment, and the authors call for follow-up research varying that interval.
- Evident from the text: the three groups were intact classes rather than randomly assigned, and the study used a single reading passage with only 10 target words, so generalization to other texts and word types is untested.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 30 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Immediate form recognition performance correlated significantly with confidence (r=.54, p<0.01).
“사후 검사 결과와 확신 정도는 r =.54, 지연 사후 검사 결과와 확신 정도는 r = .59로나타났으며, 두 수치 모두 통계적으로 유의미한 수준의 것이었다(p<0.01).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Confidence in form recognition answers was significantly lower on the delayed post-test than on the immediate post-test (t(65)=6.40, p<0.001).
“대응표본 t-검정 결과, 두 검사 단계에서의 확신 정도의 차이 가 통계적으로 유의미한 수준으로 드러났다, t(65)=6.40,p<0.001.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
On the delayed post-test meaning recognition assessment, there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups (F(2,63)=1.08, p=0.35).
“일원분산분석 결과, 세 집단 간에는 지연 사후 어휘 의미인식평가 점수에 있어 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 나타나지 않았다, F(2, 63)=1.08,p=0.35.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Working memory score was not significantly correlated with delayed form recognition (p=0.09).
“반면, 지연 사후 형태인식평가 결과와는 통계적으로 유의미한 관련성이 없는 것으로 드러났다(p=0.09).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Only the unscrambling-sentences group showed statistically significant correlations between working memory and vocabulary learning.
“이를 각 집단별로 살펴보면, 표 10에 제시된 바와 같이, 어휘 배열하여 문장 만들기를 수행한 집단 2의 경우에서만 통계적으로 유의미한 상관관계를 확인할 수 있었다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data
On the immediate post-test meaning recognition assessment, there was a statistically significant difference among the three groups (F(2,63)=5.60, p<0.01, Eta2=0.15).
“세 집단의 사후 어휘 의미인식평가 점수에서 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 드러났다”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The three groups did not differ significantly in pre-test vocabulary knowledge (F(2,63)=0.47, p=0.63).
“목표 어휘에 대한 사전 지식 측면에서의 집단 동질성을 추가적으로 검증한 결 과, 세 집단이 서로 간 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없었던 동질한 수준이었음이 드러났 다, F(2, 63)=0.47,p=0.63.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the immediate meaning recognition test, the sentence-writing group scored significantly higher than the unscrambling-sentences group (p<0.01, 95% CI: 1.27-12.20).
“집단 3과 집단 1, 집단 3과 집단 2 사이에서 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 나타났다 (집단 3 vs.집단 1: p<0.05, 95% CI: 0.32∼11.50;집단 3 vs.집단 2: p<0.01, 95% CI: 1.27∼12.20).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the unscrambling-sentences group, working memory correlated significantly with immediate form recognition (r=.58, p<0.01).
“작업 기억 검사 결과가 사후 어휘 형태인식평가 결과(r =.58, p<0.01) 및 지연 사후 어휘 형태인식평가 결과(r=.55,p<0.01), 그리고 지연 사후 의미인식평가 결과와 통계적으로 유의미한 상관관계를 보였다(r =.69, p<0.01).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Delayed form recognition performance correlated significantly with confidence (r=.59, p<0.01).
“사후 검사 결과와 확신 정도는 r =.54, 지연 사후 검사 결과와 확신 정도는 r = .59로나타났으며, 두 수치 모두 통계적으로 유의미한 수준의 것이었다(p<0.01).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Working memory score had a weak but statistically significant positive correlation with immediate meaning recognition (r=.27, p<0.05).
“작업 기억 점수는 사후 어휘 형태인식평가 결과(r =.25, p<0.05), 의미인식평가 결과(r =.27, p<0.05) 및 지연 사후 어휘 의미인식평가 결과(r =.30, p<0.01)와 약한 정도의, 그러나 통계적으로 유의미한 수준의 상관관계를 보였 다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Working memory score had a weak but statistically significant positive correlation with delayed meaning recognition (r=.30, p<0.01).
“작업 기억 점수는 사후 어휘 형태인식평가 결과(r =.25, p<0.05), 의미인식평가 결과(r =.27, p<0.05) 및 지연 사후 어휘 의미인식평가 결과(r =.30, p<0.01)와 약한 정도의, 그러나 통계적으로 유의미한 수준의 상관관계를 보였 다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the immediate meaning recognition test, the gap-filling and unscrambling-sentences groups did not differ significantly (p=0.93, 95% CI: -4.70-6.35).
“그에 비해 집단 1과 집단 2 간의 평균 점수 차이는 통계적으로 유의미 하지 못했다(p=0.93,95% CI: -4.70∼6.35).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
On the delayed post-test form recognition assessment, there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups (F(2,63)=0.80, p=0.45).
“그것이 통계적으로 유의미한 수준의 차이는 아니었다, F(2, 63)=0.80,p=0.45.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The three experimental groups did not differ significantly in English proficiency at baseline (F(2,63)=0.19, p=0.83).
“적으로 유의미한 차이가 없었음을 확인하였다, F(2, 63)=0.19,p=0.83.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the unscrambling-sentences group, working memory correlated significantly with delayed form recognition (r=.55, p<0.01).
“작업 기억 검사 결과가 사후 어휘 형태인식평가 결과(r =.58, p<0.01) 및 지연 사후 어휘 형태인식평가 결과(r=.55,p<0.01), 그리고 지연 사후 의미인식평가 결과와 통계적으로 유의미한 상관관계를 보였다(r =.69, p<0.01).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
On the immediate post-test form recognition assessment, there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups (F(2,63)=1.28, p=0.29).
“일원분산분석 결과, 세 집단의 평균 점수 사이에는 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없었다, F(2, 63)=1.28,p=0.29.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The three groups did not differ significantly in working memory (F(2,63)=1.07, p=0.35).
“일원분산분석 결과, 세 집단의 작업 기억력에는 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없었고, 이를 통해 작업 기억 측면에서 세 집단이 동질하였음을 확인할 수 있었다, F(2, 63)=1.07,p=0.35.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Working memory score had a weak but statistically significant positive correlation with immediate form recognition (r=.25, p<0.05).
“작업 기억 점수는 사후 어휘 형태인식평가 결과(r =.25, p<0.05), 의미인식평가 결과(r =.27, p<0.05) 및 지연 사후 어휘 의미인식평가 결과(r =.30, p<0.01)와 약한 정도의, 그러나 통계적으로 유의미한 수준의 상관관계를 보였 다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the unscrambling-sentences group, the correlation between working memory and immediate meaning recognition approached significance (r=.40, p=0.06).
“또한 사후 어휘 의미인식평가 결과와의 상관관계 역시 유의수준에 다가서고 있음을 확인할 수 있었다(r = .40,p=0.06).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
In the immediate meaning recognition test, the sentence-writing group scored significantly higher than the gap-filling group (p<0.05, 95% CI: 0.32-11.50).
“집단 3과 집단 1, 집단 3과 집단 2 사이에서 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 나타났다 (집단 3 vs.집단 1: p<0.05, 95% CI: 0.32∼11.50;집단 3 vs.집단 2: p<0.01, 95% CI: 1.27∼12.20).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the unscrambling-sentences group, working memory correlated significantly with delayed meaning recognition (r=.69, p<0.01).
“작업 기억 검사 결과가 사후 어휘 형태인식평가 결과(r =.58, p<0.01) 및 지연 사후 어휘 형태인식평가 결과(r=.55,p<0.01), 그리고 지연 사후 의미인식평가 결과와 통계적으로 유의미한 상관관계를 보였다(r =.69, p<0.01).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Unscrambling sentences has an involvement load comparable to gap-filling rather than to sentence writing.
“주어진 어휘를 배열하여 문장을 완성시키는 활동이 학습자 스스로 맥락을 생산하는 문장 쓰기 활동과 과업의 관여 부담 수준 측면에서 동일하다고 볼 수 없으며, 오히려 빈칸 채우기에 상응하는 관여 부담 수준을 가지는 것으로 추론해 볼 수 있을 것이다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The three tasks have the assumed involvement load levels: gap-filling N1,S0,E1=2; unscrambling sentences N1,S1,E1=3; and sentence writing N1,S1,E2=4.
- Interpretationreasoning
The present results explain why Sung (2013) and Choi (2017) found no significant difference between unscrambling sentences and gap-filling in vocabulary learning.
“본 연구의 결과는 어휘 배열하여 문장 만들기를 문장 쓰기의 대체 과업으로 가정하고 실시한 Sung(2013)과 Choi(2017)의 연구에서 어휘 배열하여 문장 만들기가 빈칸 채우기에 비해 과업의 관여 부담 수준이 높다고 가정하였음에도 불구하고, 어휘 학습 효과 측면에서 통계적으로 유의미한 차이를 발견하지 못했던 이유에 대해 설명을 제공한다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Sung, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Choi, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The three tasks have the assumed involvement load levels: gap-filling N1,S0,E1=2; unscrambling sentences N1,S1,E1=3; and sentence writing N1,S1,E2=4.
- Interpretationown data
The results partially support the involvement load hypothesis.
“Hulstijn과 Laufer(2001)의 관여 부담 가설을 부분적으로 지지하는 것이라 볼 수 있다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001 source
- The authors state this as an assumption: The three tasks have the assumed involvement load levels: gap-filling N1,S0,E1=2; unscrambling sentences N1,S1,E1=3; and sentence writing N1,S1,E2=4.
- Interpretationown data
For short-term meaning recognition, differences in the evaluation component of involvement load produce larger learning differences than differences in the search component.
“적어도 단기적인 어휘 의미인식에 있어서는 검색 에 비해 평가의 차이가 학습에 더욱 큰 차이를 가져오게 됨을 알 수 있었다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The three tasks have the assumed involvement load levels: gap-filling N1,S0,E1=2; unscrambling sentences N1,S1,E1=3; and sentence writing N1,S1,E2=4.
- Interpretationown data
Working memory as an individual difference variable can meaningfully operate in remembering target vocabulary in incidental vocabulary learning through tasks.
“본 연구가 시사하는 바는 과업을 통한 우연적 어휘 학습 맥락에서 목표 어휘를 기억함에 있어 작업 기억이라는 개인차 변인이 유의미 하게 작동할 수 있다는 점이다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The group-administered reading span task validly measures working memory capacity relevant to vocabulary learning.
- Rests on an assumption: One week after treatment is a sufficient interval to assess long-term retention.
- Interpretationown data
The sentence-writing group, which had the highest assumed involvement load, performed significantly better than the other two groups on short-term meaning recognition.
“요컨대, 과업의 관여 부담 수준이 가장 높았던 문장 쓰기 집단이 다른 두 집단에 비해 단기적인 어휘 의미인식평가에서 통계적 으로 유의미한 수준에서 우수한 수행을 보였음을 확인할 수 있었다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The three tasks have the assumed involvement load levels: gap-filling N1,S0,E1=2; unscrambling sentences N1,S1,E1=3; and sentence writing N1,S1,E2=4.
- Interpretationcitation
The lack of significant delayed differences may be because repeated encounters and contextual evaluation in the gap-filling task helped long-term memory of target words.
“이처럼 빈칸 채우기 활동에서 목표 어휘를 반복적으로 마주치고 맥락에 대해 평가하게 한 것이 목표 어휘를 장기적으로 기억하는 데 도움을 주었고(cf.Yang et al., 2017), 이로 인해 결국 세 집단 간 장기 학습 효과에 있어 도드라진 차이가 목격되지 않았을 것이라 추론된다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Yang et al., 2017 source
- Rests on an assumption: One week after treatment is a sufficient interval to assess long-term retention.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
Probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationInvolvement load is determined by three components: need, search, and evaluation.
“이론에 따르면 관여 부담 수준 은 필요(Need, 이하 N), 검색(Search, 이하 S), 평가(Evaluation, 이하 E)의 세 가지 요소에 의해 결정된다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001 source
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
Study design and conductown dataThe reading material was reviewed by a native English speaker and had a Flesch-Kincaid readability index of 9.4, which was judged appropriate for the participants' level.
“읽기 자료는 29개 문장, 516개의 단어로 이뤄져 있었고, Flesch Kincaid 이독성 지수가 9.4로 나타나 연구 참여 학생들의 수준에 비추어 적절한 것으로 판단하였다”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Study design and conductnone givenThe study adjusted the order of items and options in the delayed post-test to minimize practice effects.
“이때 문항과 선택지 순서를 조정하여 연습 효과를 최소화하고자 하였다.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Study design and conductreasoningThe reading span task was administered in groups because of school constraints, which may be less valid than individual administration for measuring working memory individual differences.
“본 연구에서 활용한 읽기 폭 과제의 경우, 학교 현장의 시 ․ 공간적 제약을 고려하여 집단으로 시행하였다.그러나 읽기 폭 과제가 작업 기억과 관련한 개인차 변인을 측정하고자 하는 목적을 가지게 됨을 고려할 때 개별적으로 자료를 수집하는 것이 보다 타당한 측면이 있을 수도 있겠다는 점에 유의 해야 할 것이다.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The group-administered reading span task validly measures working memory capacity relevant to vocabulary learning.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataThe finding that evaluation differences matter more than search differences for short-term meaning recognition is consistent with Park (2011) and contrasts with Laufer (2003).
“이는 평가에 비해 검색의 영향력이 보다 더 크다고 한 Laufer(2003)의 실험과는 대조적인 결과이며, 검색에 비해 평가의 차이가 어휘 학습에 더욱 큰 영향을 미친다고 해석한 Park(2011)의 연구와는 일치하는 결과로, 향후 검색 조건에 대한 더욱 세밀한 연구가 후속되어야 할 것으로 보인다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Laufer, 2003 source
- cites Park, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The three tasks have the assumed involvement load levels: gap-filling N1,S0,E1=2; unscrambling sentences N1,S1,E1=3; and sentence writing N1,S1,E2=4.
Probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductcitationThe study used the VKS 5-point scale proposed by Paribakht and Wesche (1993) to measure vocabulary knowledge.
“본 연구에서는 Paribakht와 Wesche(1993)가 제안한 VKS(vocabulary knowledge scale) 5점 척도를 활용한 의미인식평가로 연구 참여 학생들의 어휘력을 측정하였다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Paribakht & Wesche, 1993 source
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationThe involvement load hypothesis states that the degree of vocabulary learning during a task depends on the level of cognitive processing required, with higher involvement load promoting more vocabulary learning.
“해당 가설은 과업을 수행하는 동안 새로운 어휘를 학습하는 정도가 과업을 수행하는데 필요한 인지적 처리 수준에 따라 달라진다는 가정 이다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001 source
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationWorking memory is a cognitive system for temporarily storing and processing information, and it is related to vocabulary learning.
“특히 작업 기억(working memory)은 복잡한 인지 과제 수행을 위해 정보를 일시적으로 저장하고 처리하는 인지적 체계로서 (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974), 어휘 학습과의 연관성이 높은 것으로 알려져 왔다 (Atkins & Baddeley, 1998;Linck et al., 2014).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe study adjusted gloss provision, sentence length, and sentence structure to make the difficulty differences among tasks clearer.
“먼저, 어휘 주석 제공 방식, 문장길이 및 구조 등을 조정하여 각 과업들 간의 난이도 차이가 더욱 분명할 수 있도록 하였다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
Study design and conductcitationThe study used the reading span task from Conway et al. (2005), modified for high school second-year students, to measure working memory.
“연구 참여 학생들의 작업 기억을 측정하기 위하여 본 연구에서는 Conway 외 5인 (2005)에서 활용한 읽기 폭 과제를 선택하였고, 이를 예비 검사를 통해 고등학교 2학년 학생들의 수준에 맞추어 수정하였다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Conway et al., 2005 source
- Rests on an assumption: The group-administered reading span task validly measures working memory capacity relevant to vocabulary learning.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Study design and conductreasoningThe study's results should be interpreted cautiously because of limitations in participant size and study duration.
“본 연구의 결과는 연구 참여자의 규모나 연구 기간 등 여러 측면에서의 제한적 상황을 고려하여 조심스럽게 해석되어야 옳다.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationcitationThe E2 evaluation component requires evaluating how target words combine with other words in learner-generated sentences or texts, so unscrambling sentences may have a lower involvement load than previously assumed.
“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.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001 source
- The authors state this as an assumption: The three tasks have the assumed involvement load levels: gap-filling N1,S0,E1=2; unscrambling sentences N1,S1,E1=3; and sentence writing N1,S1,E2=4.
Probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationWords directly looked up in a dictionary during a reading task are remembered better than words not looked up and words provided with glosses.
“읽기 과업을 수행하는 동안 직접 사전을 찾아본 어휘들이 그렇지 않은 어휘들에 비해, 또한 주석이 제공된 단어들에 비해 더욱 잘 기억된다는 연구 결과(e.g., Laufer, 2000; Watanabe, 1997)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Laufer, 2000
- cites Watanabe, 1997 source
It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationLearners with higher working memory show better performance in both first-language and second-language vocabulary learning.
“작업 기억 능력이 뛰어난 학습자일수록 모국어와 L2 어휘 학습 모두에서 더 우수한 수행을 보이고 있음이 여러 연구를 통해 입증되어 온 바 있다(e.g., Atkins & Baddeley, 1998;Chun & Payne, 2004;Linck et al., 2014).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationPrevious studies have often found results deviating from involvement load predictions, and there is a need to examine task involvement levels applicable to Korean students.
“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)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationReaders need to know 95% of text vocabulary to infer unfamiliar words (Laufer, 1989), while Nation (2001) holds that at least 98% comprehension is needed for accurate inference.
“Laufer(1989)는 독자들이 지문의 전체 어휘 중 95%에 대한 지식을 가지고 있을 때 익숙하지 않은 어휘의 의미를 추론할 수 있다고 한 반면, Nation(2001)은 모르는 어휘의 의미를 정확히 추론하기 위해서는 적어도 지문의 98%를 이해할 수 있어야 한다고 보았 다.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Laufer, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Nation, 2001 source
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
PremisecitationLanguage learning aptitude is one of the individual difference factors with the greatest explanatory power.
“언어 학습 적성은 가장 큰 설명력을 가지는 것 중의 하나로 논의되어 왔다 (Lee, 2014;Masgoret & Gardener, 2003;Ortega, 2009).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Lee, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Masgoret & Gardener, 2003 source
- cites Ortega, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationProviding vocabulary glosses in gap-filling activities facilitates vocabulary memory compared with no gloss.
“빈칸 채우기 활동에서 어휘 주석을 제공하는 것이 그렇지 않은 경우 에 비해 어휘 기억을 촉진시킨다는 기존의 연구들 (Hulstijn, 1992;Hulstijn et al., 1996;Watanabe, 1997)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
The authors state this as an assumption.
The three tasks have the assumed involvement load levels: gap-filling N1,S0,E1=2; unscrambling sentences N1,S1,E1=3; and sentence writing N1,S1,E2=4.
“본 연구에서 적용한 세 가지의 과업 및 각 과업에 대해 가정된 관여 부담 수준은 표 1에 제시된 바와 같았다.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The three tasks are frequently used in Korean high school English classrooms.
“세 가지의 과업 모두 외국어 로서 영어를 학습하는 국내 고등학교 교실에서 실제 빈번히 활용되는 것들임을 고려할 때”
The paper relies on this without support.
The group-administered reading span task validly measures working memory capacity relevant to vocabulary learning.
“본 연구에서 활용한 읽기 폭 과제의 경우, 학교 현장의 시 ․ 공간적 제약을 고려하여 집단으로 시행하였다.”
The paper relies on this without support.
One week after treatment is a sufficient interval to assess long-term retention.
“마지막 세 번째 차시는 일주일 후에 진행되었다.이때 형태인식평가와 의미인식평가로 구성된 지 연 사후 어휘 평가를 실시하여 학습한 바의 지속 가능성 여부를 살펴보았다.”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(2, 63) = 0.19reported p = .83 · recomputed p = .827
“F(2, 63)=0.19,p = .83”
- ConsistentF(2, 63) = 0.47reported p = .63 · recomputed p = .627
“F(2, 63)=0.47,p = .63”
- ConsistentF(2, 63) = 1.28reported p = .29 · recomputed p = .285
“F(2, 63)=1.28,p = .29”
- ConsistentF(2, 63) = 5.6reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .006
“F(2, 63) =5.60, p < .01”
- ConsistentF(2, 63) = 0.8reported p = .45 · recomputed p = .454
“F(2, 63)=0.80,p = .45”
- ConsistentF(2, 63) = 1.08reported p = .35 · recomputed p = .346
“F(2, 63)=1.08,p = .35”
- Consistentt(65) = 6.4reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(65)=6.40,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 63) = 1.07reported p = .35 · recomputed p = .349
“F(2, 63)=1.07,p = .35”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,415
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1 · Cited by 9,860
Learning Vocabulary in Another Language
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524759 · Cited by 6,608
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196772 · Cited by 2,882
Understanding Second Language Acquisition
Ortega, L. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203777282 · Cited by 1,634
Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning
Schmitt, N. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089921 · Cited by 1,467
Informal and incidental learning in the workplace
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990) · HAL · Cited by 1,424
Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00164 · Cited by 819 · cited 2×
“이를 관여 부담 가설(involvement load hypothesis)이라고 이른다(Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).”
HULSTIJN, J. H., HOLLANDER, M., & GREIDANUS, T. (1996) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01614.x · Cited by 760
Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2 · Cited by 693
Retention of Inferred and Given Word Meanings: Experiments in Incidental Vocabulary Learning
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992) · Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4_11 · Cited by 497
THE ROLES OF MODIFIED INPUT AND OUTPUT IN THE INCIDENTAL ACQUISITION OF WORD MEANINGS
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263199002077 · Cited by 449
Masgoret, A. –., & Gardner, R. C. (2003) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00212 · Cited by 337
Watanabe, Y. (1997) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226319700301x · Cited by 281
(1994) · The Journal of Reading · Cited by 260
The Role of Task‐Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Kim, Y. (2008) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00442.x · Cited by 253
Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: the involvement load hypothesis on trial
Keating, G. D. (2008) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168808089922 · Cited by 223 · cited 7×
“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…”
InfluentialLaufer, B. (2003) · The Canadian Modern Language Review · doi:10.3138/cmlr.59.4.567 · Cited by 217
Reading Comprehension and Second Language Development in a Comprehension-Based ESL Program
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1993) · TESL Canada Journal · doi:10.18806/tesl.v11i1.623 · Cited by 168
The Effect of Type of Written Exercise on L2 Vocabulary Retention
Folse, K. S. (2006) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/40264523 · Cited by 164
(1993) · Applied language learning · Cited by 160
Eckerth, J., & Tavakoli, P. (2012) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168811431377 · Cited by 149
Zou, D. (2016) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168816652418 · Cited by 132
Working memory and distributed vocabulary learning
Atkins, P. W. B., & Baddeley, A. D. (1998) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716400010353 · Cited by 129
The Effects of Task Involvement Load on L2 Incidental Vocabulary Learning: A Meta‐Analytic Study
HUANG, S., WILLSON, V., & ESLAMI, Z. (2012) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01394.x · Cited by 108
Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace (Routledge Revivals)
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2015) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315715926 · Cited by 107
INCIDENTAL VOCABULARY LEARNING IN SLA: EFFECTS OF FREQUENCY, AURAL ENHANCEMENT, AND WORKING MEMORY
Malone, J. (2018) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263117000341 · Cited by 100
What makes students click: working memory and look-up behavior
Chun, D. M., & Scott Payne, J. (2004) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.008 · Cited by 77
The Role of Task‐Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Kim, Y. (2011) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00644.x · Cited by 67
Incidental learning of second language vocabulary in computer-assisted reading and writing tasks
Hulstijn, J. H., & Trompetter, P. (1998) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 40
Effects of Four Vocabulary Exercises on Facilitating Learning Vocabulary Meaning, Form, and Use
Lu, M. M. (2013) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.79 · Cited by 36
The relationship between task-induced involvement load and learning new words from context
Nassaji, H., & Hu, H.-C. M. (2012) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2012-0003 · Cited by 34
The effectiveness of post-reading word-focused activities and their associations with working memory
Yang, Y., Shintani, N., Li, S., & Zhang, Y. (2017) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.09.012 · Cited by 31
The involvement load hipothesis: the effect on vocabulary learning in primary educaion
Mármol, G. A., & Almela, Á. (2013) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · Cited by 9
Instructed Second Language Learning
Gass, S. M. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203137093-21 · Cited by 9
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
Gloss, Working Memory Capacity, and L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Choi, S. (2016) · 현대영미어문학 · doi:10.21084/jmball.2016.08.34.3.247 · Cited by 2
(2000)
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Choi, H. K. (2015). The impacts of task-induced involvement load on vocabulary acquisition and affective domain of Korean high school students (Master's thesis) (in Korean). Ewha Womans University, Seoul
- Choi, M. A. (2017). The impacts of task-induced involvement load and English proficiency on vocabulary acquisition of Korean high school students (Master's thesis) (in Korean). Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul
- Kim, J. Y. (2015). The effects of task-induced involvement and learner's English proficiency on English vocabulary learning (in Korean). English Language Teaching, 27(3), 125-149
- Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp. 316-323). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters
- Lim, S. M. (2017). Effects of text type, vocabulary knowledge, language learning aptitude on incidental vocabulary learning (Master's thesis) (in Korean). Yonsei University, Seoul
- Park, J. H. (2011). The role of task-induced involvement load in vocabulary acquisition of Korean college students (Master's thesis). Ewha Womans University, Seoul
- Sung, H. M. (2013). The effects of task-induced involvement load on EFL high school learners' vocabulary learning (Doctoral dissertation). Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul
Cited by
Sorted by citations
García-Castro, V. (2022) · Actualidades Investigativas en Educación · doi:10.15517/aie.v22i2.48887 · Cited by 2
Bibi, N., Yusof, M. A. M., Thai, Y. N., & Darmi, R. H. (2023) · International Journal of Linguistics · doi:10.5296/ijl.v15i6.21435
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, O.-H., & Lee, S.-K.
- Affiliations
- Korea National University of Education (KR)
- Venue
- Lanaguage Research
- Published
- 2021-04-30
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 143-165
- ISSN
- 0254-4474 (ISSN-L)
- 2586-7113
- OpenAlex
- W3159360061
- Semantic Scholar
- 46a3d11712d2e461a9c8e9e2c3de86388cad496e
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- 어학연구 (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- 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
- working memory, second language vocabulary acquisition, English as a foreign language, Korean high school students, long-term retention, shape recognition, meaning recognition, gap filling, sentence writing
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 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
