Involvement Load Hypothesis
Review of the Related Literature
1.1 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching
Vocabulary is one of the essential components of a language mastery
(Schmitt 2008). It is an element linking the four skills of speaking, listening,
reading and writing all together. In order to communicate well in a foreign
language, students should acquire a great number of words and should know
how to use them and where to use them accurately. L2 learners are well
aware of the fact that limitations in vocabulary knowledge will seriously
affect their communication skills because lexis items carry the basic
information they wish to comprehend and express (Nation, 2001). Although
teachers and teaching professionals alike are well aware of this critical fact
and would like to find ways to increase vocabulary knowledge efficiently,
they might not know how best to support their learners in this endeavor. In
recent years, many studies have been carried out by researchers and teaching
professionals to find ways instructional programs might foster the
acquisition of so many words which led to the development of some
hypotheses. One such example is the involvement load hypothesis (Hulstijn
& Laufer, 2001), which claims that learning new words during vocabulary-
focused tasks is dependent on the degree of cognitive processing required of
an L2 learner by a given task.
1
Involvement Load Hypothesis
1.1.1 Structure Words versus Content Words
According to Bowen, Madsen, and Hilferty (1985) words are of two
kinds: structure and content. Structure words also called "function words"
are often included as part of the grammar of the language. They are limited
in number and are often understood through the relational features they
express, e.g. pronouns, prepositions, modals, and articles. Structure words
are closed classes, simply because it is very rare for a new class of words to
be added to the language. Structure words are learned early because they
recur frequently. On the other hand, there are the content words, those that
carry a high information load. Content words are usually nouns, verbs,
adjectives and adverbs. Content words are an open set and hence there is no
limit to the number of content words that can be added to the language
(Thornbury, 2002).
1.1.2 Incidental versus Intentional Learning
The term incidental learning is used, in applied linguistics, to refer to the
acquisition of a word or expression without the conscious intention to
commit the element to memory, such as “picking up” an unknown word
from listening to someone or from reading a text. Incidental learning stands
in contrast to intentional learning, which refers to a deliberate attempt to
2
Involvement Load Hypothesis
commit factual information to memory, often including the use of rehearsal
techniques, like preparing for a test in school or learning a song by heart
(Hulstijn, in press). Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) points out that the conditions
in incidental learning allow researchers to investigate the effect of the
particular kind of information processing they are interested in. For
example, one method is to expose subjects to the relevant material without
instruction to learn. This generally means that subjects must perform some
sort of orienting task that leads them to experience the materials to be tested
but does not lead them to expect a later retention test. Another technique of
investigating incidental learning is to ask subjects to learn something, but
not the information targeted for subsequent testing. For example, we give
subjects a text to read and tell them they will be tested afterwards on their
recall of certain words. However, what the subjects are not told in advance is
that the text contains some unfamiliar words and that they will be tested
afterwards on their recall of those words. Eysenk (1982, as cited in Hulstijn,
2001) believes that in operational terms, incidental and intentional can be
distinguished simply in terms of pre-learning instructions that either do, or
do not, forewarn subjects about the existence of a subsequent retention test.
3
Involvement Load Hypothesis
1.1.3 Ways and Means of Vocabulary Learning
De Carrico (2001) presented her view on effective vocabulary learning
through focus on explicit and implicit learning. Explicit learning is a well
structured vocabulary program and should contain activities that focus
attention on vocabulary. Implicit learning, however, takes place incidentally
while the learners are involved in some kind of communicative act; she sets
forth a series of strategies for an easier path to learning vocabulary:
One strategy is to guess the meaning from the context. This is
especially helpful to students carrying out reading comprehension.
The key word method or mnemonic device is another way of
apprehension by linking a word form and its meaning and
consolidating this linkage in the memory.
Some people find it is easier to keep vocabulary notebooks for quick
visual back up. Words can be grouped in these notebooks and referred
to on demand.
Collocations play an important role in vocabulary retention. They can
be either lexical or syntactical.
Semantic associations or groupings are often a systematic function in
teaching vocabulary.
4
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Idioms not only play a major role in language comprehension but also
play a major role in the memorization of new words.
According to Michael Graves (2000), there are four components of an
effective vocabulary program:
Wide or extensive independent reading to expand word knowledge
Instruction in specific words to enhance comprehension of texts
containing those words
Instruction in independent word-learning strategies, and
Word consciousness and word-play activities to motivate and enhance
learning
However, much of the vocabulary apprehension and retention by novel or
progressing students is picked up through teaching activities presented in
language course books.
According to Rivers (1981), learning new vocabulary appears to get
easier as one gets older. This is rooted in the fact that we can associate a new
word with more references in the real world and in our mother tongue.
However, she believes that vocabulary cannot be taught. It can be presented,
explained, and included in all kinds of activities, but it must be learned by
5
Involvement Load Hypothesis
individuals. She expresses that words do not label things but classify
concepts. In order to learn vocabulary, individuals need to learn how to
commit vocabulary to long term memory. This does not mean that learners
have to memorize a word. Rather they should find the ways of constantly
using the items of vocabulary.
It is also believed that games have some roles in vocabulary learning and
teaching. Learning vocabulary through games is one effective and
interesting way that can be applied in any classrooms. According to Nguyen
and Khuat games have been shown to have advantages and effectiveness in
learning vocabulary in various ways. First, games bring in relaxation and fun
for students, thus help them learn and retain new words more easily. Second,
games usually involve friendly competition and they keep learners
interested. These create the motivation for learners of English to get
involved and participate actively in the learning activities. Third, vocabulary
games bring real world context into the classroom, and enhance students' use
of English in a flexible, communicative way.
1.1.4 Approaches and Methods of Vocabulary Teaching
Ur (1996) broke down the process of vocabulary teaching into six steps.
She mentioned that teachers need to teach the form, pronunciation and
6
Involvement Load Hypothesis
spelling with the grammatical point behind the word. Knowing the
grammatical function will aid the learner to adjust the word in the
appropriate place in a sentence. There are other aspects of meaning
associated with a word. Words can have several connotations. Knowing the
appropriateness or register of a word and whether it is considered taboo or
not is an essential fact in vocabulary teaching. Learning the culture and
register of the target language vocabulary can be presented through
collocations, also through existing relationships with synonyms, antonyms,
hyponyms, and co-hyponyms (Ur, 1996).
According to Ur (1996), vocabulary can be taught with a concise or
detailed definition or description through illustration, examples, and
demonstrations, or miming. She suggests that in some cases, as a last resort
translation into L1 is possible to wipe out any misleading thoughts. She also
believes that sharing ideas, brain storming around an idea and identifying
words we know can lead to enhancement of vocabulary acquisition.
Uberman (1998) believes that vocabulary acquisition is viewed as crucial
to language acquisition; however, it is perceived as a tedious and laborious
process. He says that, although, there are numerous techniques with
vocabulary presentation, they need to be learnt in context, practiced, and
then revised to prevent students from forgetting.
7
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Similarly, Wright (1989) emphasizes the importance of having as wide a
range of resources as possible in the classroom so that students can have a
rich base and stimulus for this development. He thinks that the resources
must include pictures since things we see play an enormous part in affecting
and giving us information. Hill (1990) believes that pictures bring images of
reality into the unnatural world of the language classroom. He lists several
advantages of pictures: they are available (one can get them in any
magazines, on the internet, etc.); they are cheap, often free; they are
personal; they are flexible (useful for various types of activities); they are
always fresh and different, which means they came in a variety of formats
and styles.
1.2 Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching
1.2.1 Definition of 'Task'
In the literature, various definitions have been offered that differ quite
widely in scope and formulation. In this paper I would like to point out that I
adopt the general definition of task provided by Richards, Platt & Weber
(1985). They define a task as:
An activity or action which is carried out as the result of processing or
understanding language i.e. as a response. For example, drawing a map
8
Involvement Load Hypothesis
while listening to a tape, and listening to an instruction and performing a
command, may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not involve the
production of language .A task usually requires the teacher to specify what
will be regarded as successful completion of the task. The use of a variety of
different kinds of tasks in language teaching is said to make teaching more
communicative . . . since it provides a purpose for classroom activity which
goes beyond practice of language for its own sake.
In the so-called task-based approach, task is given a more specific
meaning as in the definition of Skehan (1996). According to Skehan (1996),
task is an activity in which:
Meaning is primary
There is some communication problem to solve
There is some sort of relationship to comparable real world activities
Task completion has some priority
The assessment of the task is in the outcome.
9
Involvement Load Hypothesis
1.2.2 Advantages of TBLT
Rooney (2000) lists some of the advantages of using a task-based
approach to language teaching:
1. It allows for a needs analysis, thus allowing course content to be
matched to identify student needs.
2. It is supported by a large body of empirical evidence, thus allowing
decisions regarding materials design and methodology to be based on
the research findings of classroom-centered language learning. This
distinguishes it from other syllabus types and methods, which have
little empirical support.
3. It allows evaluation to be based primarily on task-based criterion-
referenced testing. Students can now be evaluated on their ability to
perform a task according to a certain criterion rather than on their
ability to successfully complete a discrete-point test.
4. It allows for form-focused instruction. There is now considerable
evidence particularly from research studies which have compared
naturalistic L2 learners to instructed L2 learners and have claimed that
form-focused instruction within a communicative context can be
beneficial.
10
Involvement Load Hypothesis
1.2.3 Teacher and Learner Roles in Task-Based Learning
Both the students and the teachers have different roles during task-based
learning. Richards and Rogers (2001) elaborate on the role of the teacher:
Selector and sequencer of tasks: The teacher has an effective role in
selecting, adjusting, and creating tasks and then forming these into an
instructional sequence in keeping with the learners’ needs, interests,
and language skill levels.
Preparing learners for tasks: Most TBLT proponents suggest that
learners should not go into new tasks and that some sort of pre-task
preparation or cuing is important. These training activities may
contain topic introduction, describing task instructions, helping
students learn or recall useful words and phrases to make the task
completion easy, and providing partial display of task process.
Consciousness-raising: Current views of TBLT hold that if learners
are to acquire language through participating in tasks they need to
attend to or notice critical features of the language they use and hear.
This is referred to as "Focus on Form". It does mean employing a
variety of form-focusing techniques, including attention-focusing pre-
task activities, text exploration, guided exposure to parallel tasks, and
use of highlighted material.
11
Involvement Load Hypothesis
They further explain that TBLT provides learners with a variety of
opportunities:
Group Participant: The students complete many tasks in pairs or
small groups. Pair or group work may require some adaptation for
those who are more accustomed to whole-class activities and/or
individual work.
Monitor: In Task Based Learning, tasks are used as means of making
the learning easier. Classroom activities should be planned in order
that students have the chance to observe how language is used in
communication. Learners themselves need to “attend” not only to the
message in task work, but also to the form in which such messages
typically come packed.
Risk-taker and innovator: Many tasks will require learners to create
and interpret messages for which they lack full linguistic resources
and prior
experience. In fact, this is said to be the point of such tasks. The skills
of guessing from linguistic and contextual clues, asking for
clarification, and consulting with other learners may need to be developed.
12
Involvement Load Hypothesis
1.2.4 Features of TBLT
Nunan (1991) considers the following features for the task-based
language teaching:
1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the
target language.
2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation,
3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus not only on
language, but also, on the learning process itself.
4. An enhancement of the learners' own personal experiences as an
important contributing element to classroom learning.
5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language
activation outside the classroom.
In this regard, Ellis (2003) identifies the following critical features of a task:
1. A task is a work plan. It provides a plan for learning and teaching
activities. It may include teaching materials used in the class or a plan
for activities that arise in the course of teaching.
2. A task involves a primary focus on meaning. Learners engage in using
language pragmatically rather than practicing language structures. A
task creates a certain semantic scope and the need for certain
cognitive process.
13
Involvement Load Hypothesis
3. A task involves real world processes of language use. Learners engage
in activities which resemble the activities in the real world, for
example, finding an address on a map or asking for a direction.
4. A task can involve any one of the four language skills. Like the real
world activities, performing of the tasks may need the integration of
language skills. For example, learners may listen to a radio broadcast
and report it to their friends or they may read an article and write
about it.
5. A task engages cognitive processes such as selecting, identifying,
reasoning, and evaluating.
6. A task has a clearly defined communicative outcome. When the
learners perform the task successfully one should notice the outcome
of the task.
1.2.5 Pedagogical Tasks versus Real-world Tasks
Nunan (1989) draws a distinction between pedagogical tasks and real-
world tasks: real-world tasks are sorts of things that individuals do outside
the classroom, and pedagogical ones are what the learners do in the
classroom rather than in the outside world. He also states that a pedagogical
task is a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending,
14
Involvement Load Hypothesis
manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target language while their
attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to
express meaning and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than
to manipulate form. Examples of classroom tasks include:
Responding to a party invitation,
Completing a bank application form, and
Describing a photograph of one's family.
Nunan (2001) suggests that pedagogical tasks have a non-linguistic
outcome and can be divided into two groups: (a) Rehearsal tasks (a piece of
classroom work in which learners rehearse in class, a communicative act
they will carry out outside of the classroom, and (b) Activation tasks (a piece
of classroom work involving communicative interaction, but not one in
which learners are rehearsing for some out-of-class communication).
Long (1985, as cited in Nunan, 1999) defines target or real world task as
piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some
reward. Thus, examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child,
filling out a form, and borrowing a library book. In other words, by task he
means the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play.
According to Nunan (1999), the selection of real world tasks will proceed
with reference to some form of needs analysis. Pedagogic tasks will be
15
Involvement Load Hypothesis
selected with reference to some theory or model of second language
acquisition. Pedagogic tasks have a pedagogical or psycholinguistic rationale.
They facilitate the development of learners' general language proficiency.
1.2.6 Task versus Exercise
Nunan (1999) states that "the essential difference between a task and an
exercise is that, a task has a non-linguistic outcome, while an exercise has a
linguistic outcome"(p. 25). For example, in listening to a weather forecast
and deciding what to wear, the outcome will be the selection of appropriate
clothing. This is a non-linguistic outcome and success will be measured in
non-linguistic terms. In contrast, in an exercise (e.g., use a nonrestrictive
relative clause with a subject relative pronoun for each item below), the
outcome will be a set of structures and success will be decided in linguistic
terms. Bygate (2003, as cited in Roger, 2006) defines 'exercises' as activities
which practice parts of a skill, a new sub-skill, a new piece of knowledge. In
contrast, he defines 'tasks' as activities which practice the whole integrated
skill in some way.
16
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Ellis (2003) compares two activities to show the difference between a task
and an exercise:
Activity 1: Dialogue
Students are given a script of a dialogue and put into pairs. Each
student is allocated a part in the dialogue and asked to memorize the
lines for this part. The students then act out the dialogue.
Activity 2: Spot the Difference
Students are placed in pairs. Each student is given a picture and told
that the two pictures are basically the same but there are five small
differences. Without looking at each others' picture they talk together
to locate and write down the five differences.
Thus the dialogue is an exercise, spot the difference is a task.
1.2.7 Strong versus Weak Form of Task-Based Approach
Skehan (1996) identifies strong and weak forms of the task-based
approach. He states "in a strong form of task-based instruction, tasks should
be the unit of language teaching and that everything else should be
subsidiary," while "in a weak form of task-based instruction tasks are a vital
part of language instruction, but that they are embedded in a more complex
pedagogic context" (p. 39). He further clarifies that they are necessary, but
17
Involvement Load Hypothesis
may be preceded by focused instruction, and after use, may be followed by
focused instruction which is contingent on task performance. This version
of task-based instruction is clearly very close to general communicative
language teaching. Bruton (2002, as cited in Skehan, 2003) states that
proponents of the weak position tend to assume that tasks are not the driving
force for syllabus design; that the use of tasks is an adjunct to structure
based teaching; and that it may be possible to clothe structures through tasks
without compromise. In contrast, those who take the stronger view of tasks
have generally seen the engagement of acquisitional processes as central,
although views on the conditions which engage such processing have changed.
1.2.8 Task Types
Different scholars have identified different task types based on different
task features.
Nunan (1999) proposes two categories of task types: reproductive and
creative. A reproductive task is one in which the student produces language
provided by the teacher, the text book, or the tape while creative tasks are
those that require learners to come up with language for which they have not
been specifically cued. They are asked to put together familiar elements in
new or novel combinations.
18
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Long (1990) divides the pedagogic tasks into three groups:
1. Planned/unplanned: In activities with planning, students are given
time to decide what to say before they interact with other members of
their group. In activities without planning, students immediately
interact with the members of their group without time to plan what to
say or the language to use to say it.
2. Open/closed: In open tasks, participants know there is no pre-
determined correct solution, but instead a wide range of acceptable
solutions. In closed ones, the task itself requires the learners to
attempt to reach either a single correct solution or one of a small finite
set of correct solutions determined beforehand by the designer of the task.
3. One way/two way: The one-way/two-way distinction refers to the way
information is distributed at the outset of a task and the requirement
that the structure of the task imposes on participants to exchange that
information if they are to complete the task successfully.
1.2.10 Task Classification
Task classification is logically prior to task sequencing, but at least three
different approaches to classifying tasks are apparent in the broader
19
Involvement Load Hypothesis
educational and psychological research literature on developing taxonomies
of human learning and performance (Robinson, 2007).
In behavior descriptive approaches to task classification, categories of
tasks are based on observation (both participants and non-participants) and
descriptions (which may be elicited by structured or unstructured interviews
from job performers, supervisors, etc.) of what people actually do while
performing a task.
Information-theoretic approaches adopt a different level of description,
classifying tasks in terms of the information processing stages, and the
cognitive processes involved in mediating input to the task performer and
the output (spoken, written, and/or other behavioral responses) required for
successful task completion.
A third approach to task classification, the ability requirements approach,
classifies tasks in terms of the human cognitive abilities required to perform
them effectively (Carroll, 1993 as cited in Robinson, 2007). Clearly, L2
learners differ in their strengths in abilities drawn on during information
processing (such as working memory capacity), and these differences, as
well as differences in the information processing demands of pedagogic
tasks themselves, will affect the outcomes of pedagogic task performance for
individuals.
20
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Pica, Kanagy, and Foldun (1993, as cited in Richards and Rodgers, 2001)
classify tasks according to the type of interaction that occurs in task
accomplishment and give the following classification:
1. Jigsaw tasks: These involve learners combining different pieces of
information to form a whole (e.g., three individuals or groups may
have three different parts of a story and have to put the pieces of the
story together).
2. Information gap tasks: One student or group has a complementary set
of information. They must negotiate and find out what the other
party's information is in order to complete an activity.
3. Problem-solving Tasks: students are given a problem and a set of
information. They must arrive at a solution to the problem. There is
generally a single solution to the outcome.
4. Decision making tasks: Students are given a problem for which there
are a number of possible outcomes and they must choose one through
negotiation and discussion.
5. Opinion exchange tasks: Learners engage in discussion and exchange
of ideas. They do not need to reach an agreement.
21
Involvement Load Hypothesis
1.2.11 Components of a TBLT Framework
Willis (1998) states that tasks can be used as the central component of a
three part component: pre-task, task cycle, and language focus.
Pre-task stage: According to Willis (1998) in this stage teacher explores
the topic with the class, highlights useful words and phrases, and helps
learners understand task instructions. Learners may hear a recording of
others doing a similar task, or read part of a text as a lead into a task. He
states "learners get exposure at the pre-task stage and a chance to recall
things they know" (p. 2).
Task cycle: Willis (1998) divides the task cycle into three phases of task,
planning, and report. In task phase students do the task in pairs or small
groups. Teacher monitors from a distance, encouraging all attempts at
communication, not correcting. Since this situation has a "private" feel,
students feel free to experiment. Mistakes don't matter. In planning phase
students prepare to report to the whole class (orally or in writing), how they
did the task, what they decided or discovered. Since the report stage is
public, students will naturally want to be accurate, so the teacher stands by
to give language advice. In report phase, some groups present their reports to
the class, or exchange written reports, and compare results. The teacher acts
as a chairperson, and then comments on the content of the reports.
22
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Language focus: This stage also has two phases: analysis and practice. In
analysis, students examine and then discuss specific features of the text or
transcript of the recording. They can enter new words, phrases and patterns
in vocabulary books. In practice, the teacher conducts practice of new words,
phrases, and patterns occurring in the data, either during or after the analysis.
1.2.12 Theory of Language in TBLT
According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), TBLT is motivated primarily
by a theory of learning rather than a theory of language. Several assumptions
about the nature of language can be said to underlie the current approaches
to TBLT. These are:
Language is primarily a means of making meaning. In common with
other realizations of communicative language teaching, TBLT
emphasizes the central role of meaning in language use.
Multiple models of language inform TBI. Advocates of task-based
instruction draw on structural, functional, and interactional models of
language.
Lexical units are central in language use and language learning.
Vocabulary is here used to include the consideration of lexical
phrases, sentence stems, prefabricated routines, and collocations
23
Involvement Load Hypothesis
"Conversation" is the central focus of language and the key stone of
language acquisition. Speaking and trying to communicate with
others through the spoken language drawing on the learner's available
linguistic and communicative resources is considered the basis for
second language acquisition in TBI.
1.3 A model of Task-Induced Involvement: The Involvement Load Hypothesis
1.3.1 Theoretical Background
The Involvement Load Hypothesis was the first comprehensive
theoretical attempt to operationalize traditional general constructs such as
noticing, attention, motivation, and elaboration into concrete task-specific
components. As it is mentioned above, it is a motivational-cognitive
construct that has developed from the Depth of Processing Model which was
first proposed by Craik and Lockhart in 1972. Craik and Lockhart argued
that chance some piece of new information will be stored in long-term
memory is not determined by the length of time that it is held in short-term
memory but rather by the shallowness or depth with which it is initially
processed (Laufer and Hulstijn (2001). As Tsubaki (2006) puts it simply, the
information that is processed at a deep level stays in memory longer than
that which goes through a shallower processing.
24
Involvement Load Hypothesis
As Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) points out, the Involvement Load
Hypothesis consists of three basic components: need, search, and
evaluation, each of which can be absent or present when processing a word
during tasks. Combination of these three components made involvement
possible. In another word, involvement is defined as the combination of the
presence or absence of the involvement factors, need, search, and evaluation.
Involvement can explain and predict learners’ success in the retention of
unfamiliar words. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) also suggest three degrees of
value for each component: none, moderate, and strong. The need component
is the motivational, non-cognitive component of involvement while search
and evaluation are the two cognitive dimensions of the involvement, because
they entail information processing.
Need, as Lufer and Hulstijn (2001) explain, refers to whether knowledge
of novel words is required to complete a task. For example, the learner is
reading a text and an unknown word is absolutely necessary for
comprehension. This means that s/he will experience the need to understand
it. Two degrees of prominence are suggested for need: moderate, and strong.
Need is moderate when it is imposed by the task (e.g. answering reading
comprehension questions with knowledge of previously unknown words),
and it is strong when it is intrinsically motivated, that is, self-imposed by the
25
Involvement Load Hypothesis
learner, such as the learner’s decision to look up a word in a bilingual
dictionary when writing a composition.
Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) further explain that search is the attempt to
find the L2 word from expressing a concept, e.g., trying to find the L2
translation of an L1 word by consulting a dictionary or another authority
such as the teacher. Search is either present (1) or absent (0). Finally, they
suggest that evaluation entails a comparison of a given word with other
words, a specific meaning of a word with its other meanings, or comparing
the word with other words in order to assess whether a word does or does
not fit its context. For example, when a word looked up in a dictionary is a
homonym (e.g., bank of river or bank as a financial institution), Laufer and
Hulstijn (2001) propose, a decision has to be made about its meaning by
comparing all its meanings against the specific context and choosing the one
that fits best. Evaluation can happen without search if the meaning of the
target word is explicitly provided by the text or a teacher (Kim, 2008).
According to Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) two potential degrees of cognitive
processing are seen for the presence of evaluation: moderate (1) or strong
(2). Moderate evaluation requires recognizing differences between words,
whereas strong evaluation involves making a decision as to how additional
words will work in combination with the new word in an original sentence or text.
26
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Laufer and Girsai (2008) also suggest moderate and strong as the two
degrees of prominence. They contend a moderate evaluation entails
recognizing differences between words (as in fill-in task with words
provided in a list) or differences between several senses of a word in a given
context. Strong evaluation, they continue, requires a decision as to how
additional words will combine with the new word in an original, as opposed
to given, L2 sentence. They think each of the three factors can be present or
absent when processing a word in a natural or artificially designed task.
A task's involvement load, then, is the combination of the presence or
absence of the involvement factors of need, search, and evaluation. Tasks
with higher involvement load are deemed more effective for word learning
and retention than those with lower involvement load (Hulstijn and Laufer,
2001). For comparison purposes, Hulstijn and Laufer, (2001) assign tasks an
involvement load index on the basis of the presence or absence of
involvement factors, where absence of a factor is scored as 0, moderate
presence of a factor as 1, and strong presence of a factor as 2. For example,
a task in which learners read a text and answer comprehension questions that
require knowledge of unknown words glossed in the margin would receive
an involvement load index of 1 because need is moderate (imposed by the
task) and search and evaluation are absent ( 1+ 0+ 0). In another task that
27
Involvement Load Hypothesis
requires learners to write a composition using words provided by the
instructor, need is moderate (imposed by the task), search is absent, and
evaluation is strong (new words are used with other words in the original
text) and would receive a score of 3 (1+ 0 +2). It can be concluded based on
the Involvement Load Hypothesis that the second task is more effective than
the first because the second induces a higher involvement load.
1.3.2 Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis
Kim (2008), conducted a study to examine the hypothesis by exploring
the interaction between task-induced involvement and learners’ L2
proficiency on the initial learning and retention of target words. The study
consisted of two experiments that were carried out with English-as-a-
second-language learners at two different proficiency levels (i.e.,
matriculated undergraduate students vs. students in an Intensive English
Program). Experiment 1 was to examine how different levels of task induced
involvement affected the initial learning and retention of target words by L2
learners. The results of an immediate post-test showed that the composition
group (involvement load index = 3) yielded higher scores than the reading
and gap-fill groups. However, the gap-fill group didn't perform significantly
better than the reading group. But in the delayed post-test all three groups
were significantly different from each other. The results indicated that higher
28
Involvement Load Hypothesis
involvement induced by the task resulted in more effective initial vocabulary
learning and better retention of the new words. Experiment 2 examined
whether two tasks (i.e., writing composition and writing sentences) claiming
to have the same level of task-induced involvement (involvement index = 3)
would have similar effects on the initial learning and retention of target
words. The results suggested that the two tasks were equally effective in
promoting both the initial learning and retention of new words. Based on
theses results it can be concluded that tasks were equally beneficial for
vocabulary learning when their involvement loads were the same. Results
obtained from these two experiments were in line with the predictions of
Involvement Load Hypothesis.
Keating (2008) conducted another experiment to see whether the
predictions of the Involvement Load Hypothesis generalize to low-
proficiency learners, and whether differential gains in word learning emerge
on tests of passive and active word knowledge. In this study, the tasks were
a reading comprehension with marginal glosses, a reading comprehension
plus fill-in, and finally a sentence making task with the target words.
Regarding learners' passive word knowledge of the target words,
participants who completed Task 2 and 3 gained higher scores in both
immediate and delayed post-tests compared to the participants who
29
Involvement Load Hypothesis
completed Task 1. But in testing learners' active word knowledge, the results
of the immediate post-test showed that Task 2 and 3 were more effective
than Task 1 and Task 3 was more effective than Task 2. However, after two
weeks, a delayed post-test showed that Task 2 was superior to Task 1, but
Task 3 was not more effective than Task 1 or Task 2. In explaining the
results of delayed post-test, Keating refers to Hulstijn (2001) and notes that
one expects a decline in knowledge over time in the absence of rehearsal or
additional exposure to the target words between testing intervals. Thus, it is
not surprising that there would be a decline in vocabulary performance of
the group that initially showed the greatest gains.
Jing and Jianbin (2009) studied the Involvement Load Hypothesis in
incidental vocabulary acquisition in EFL listening. They gave three tasks to
the subjects. Task A was listening comprehension questions with marginal
glosses irrelevant to the questions (involvement index = 0). Task B was
listening comprehension questions with marginal glosses relevant to the
questions (involvement index = 1). Task C was listening comprehension
questions with marginal glosses relevant to the questions and a composition
writing (involvement index = 3). They found that both in immediate and
delayed tests, Task C with higher involvement load produced the best
vocabulary retention than Task B and A.
30
Involvement Load Hypothesis
References
Bowen, J., Madsen, H., & Hilferty, A. (1985). TESOL techniques and
procedures. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A
framework of memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal
behavior, 11, 671-683.
Decarrico, J. (2001). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Celcia-Murcia
(Ed.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. (pp. 285-299).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. UK: Oxford
University Press.
Graves, M. F. (2000). A vocabulary program to complement and bolster a
middle-grade comprehension program. In B.M. Taylor, M.F. Graves,
& P. Van Den Broek (eds.). Reading for meaning: Fostering
comprehension in the middle grades. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hill, D. A. (1990). Visual impact: Creative language learning through
pictures. Essex, UK: Longman Group.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary
learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In
31
Involvement Load Hypothesis
P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction
(pp. 258-286). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty &
M. H. Long (Eds.). The hand book of second language research.
(pp. 349-381). London: Blackwell.
Hulstijn, J. H. (accepted). Incidental Learning in Second Language
Acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.). The encyclopedia of applied
linguistics. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the
involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language
Learning, 51(3), 539- 558.
Jing, L., & Jianbin, H. (2009). An empirical study of the involvement load
hypothesis in incidental vocabulary acquisition in EFL listening.
Polyglossia, 16, 1-11.
Keating, G. H. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second
language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language
Teaching Research, 12(3), 365-386.
Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task induced involvement and learner
proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58(2),
285-325.
32
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners
really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 567-587.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a
second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied
Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second
language Vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and
translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694-716.
Long, M. (1990). Task, group, and task group interaction. In Anivan, S.
(Ed.). Language teaching methodology for the nineties (pp. 31-50).
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Nguyen Thi Thanh Huyen & Khuat Thi Thu Nga. (2003). Learning
vocabulary through games. Asian EFL Journal, 5(4). Retrieved
February 13, 2006, from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/dec_03_sub.Vn.php.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
33
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and language curriculum. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(2), 279-295.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle
and Heinle.
Nunan, D. (2001). Aspects of task-based syllabus design. Retrieved April
21, 2010, from http:// www3. telus. net/ linguistic issues/ syllabus
design. html.
Richards, J., & Rodgers , T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied
Linguistics. UK: Longman.
Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic
tasks. In Mayo, M. P. G. (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language
learning (pp. 7-26). UK: Multilingual matters.
Roger, N. (2006). Designing holistic units for task-based learning. Asian
EFL Journal, 8(3), 69-93.
34
Involvement Load Hypothesis
Rooney, K. (2000). Redesigning non-task-based materials to fit a task based
frame work. Retrieved May 12, 2010, from http:// www. iteslj. org. /
techniques/ Rooney-task-based. html.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: instructed second language vocabulary
learning. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3), 329-363.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based
instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary? Essex, UK: Longman.
Tsubaki, M. (2006). The involvement load hypothesis: An inquiry into
vocabulary learning. Retrieved May10, 2010, from http://www .
cicero.u- bunkyo.ac.jp/lib.
Uberman, A. (1998). The use of games for vocabulary presentation and
revision. Forum, 36(1), 210-27.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J. (1998). Task-based learning: What kind of adventure? Retrieved
March 17, 2010, from http: //www. Jalt-publications. org /tlt/.
Wright, A. (1989). Picture for language learning: Cambridge handbook for
language teacher. UK: Cambridge University Press.
35