Figure 3 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Based on Involvement Load Hypothesis (LAUFER; HULSTIJN, 2001), current study examined the effect of involvement load and task type on vocabulary acquisition. Six classesof EFL learners were assigned to one of six experimental groups with different involvement loads, thus leaving three groups with receptive tasks and three with productive tasks. Lea...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... < 0.001], and for the Sentence writing group [t (24) = 14.975, p < 0.001]. In addition to the t-tests results, the downward lines in Figure 3 also revealed a general degeneration of the performance in all three groups on the delayed post- test, suggesting that the interval between the two post-tests may be a main reason for the decline in performance of all groups. ...
Similar publications
The present study examined the interaction effects between teachers’ choice of language in lexical explanation and second language (L2) learners’ proficiency level on the learning of phrasal verbs and listening comprehension in a meaning-focused listening activity. Undergraduate L2 learners with two different levels of proficiency (intermediate and...
p>The present study deals with two types of L2 glosses, namely dynamic and traditional text-based glosses. The former were presented to students as a set of prompts designed to help learners identify the correct keyword, whereas the latter were introduced as traditional annotations containing L1 equivalents. A third control group was included in th...
Research has shown that learning a known-and-unknown word combination leads to greater learning than learning an unknown word alone (Kasahara, 2010, 2011). These studies found that attaching a known adjective to an unknown noun can help learners remember the unknown noun. Kasahara (2015) found that a known verb can serve as an effective cue to reme...
p>Despite the current importance given to L2 vocabulary acquisition in the last two decades, considerable
deficiencies are found in L2 students’ vocabulary size. One of the aspects that may influence vocabulary
learning is word frequency. However, scholars warn that frequency may lead to wrong conclusions if the way
words are distributed is ignored...
The interactional strategies of negotiation and reactive focus on form (FoF) have gained considerable attention in second language research. However, the combination of negotiation and reactive FoF has not been examined with regard to L2 vocabulary learning. To address this gap, the present study investigated how the amount of negotiation and react...
Citations
... According to the ILH, writing using pre-specified TWs induces ILs of at least 3: moderate need (1), because the use of specific TWs is imposed by the researcher rather than self-imposed; and strong evaluation (2), as it is necessary to use the words in original contexts (as opposed to gap-filling, for example). Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) were the first to show that composing texts with TWs (IL=3) generated more lexical learning than other tasks (reading comprehension [IL=1] and reading + gap-filling [IL=2]) (see also Keating, 2008;Kim, 2008;Sarani, Negari, & Ghaviniat, 2013;Teng, 2015). Nonetheless, the assumptions of the ILH do not differentiate between different types of writing, such as producing complex texts as opposed to writing sentences. ...
The involvement load hypothesis (ILH), which predicts the lexical learning potential of tasks, assumes that writing sentences (SW) and compositions (CW) using novel target words (TWs) lead to similar lexical gains. However, research on the issue is scarce and contradictory. One possibility is that the higher cognitive load of CW hinders learning relative to SW. To verify the learning potential of SW and CW, we selected 20 English academic TWs and conducted a pretest–posttest quasi-experiment with Polish advanced learners of English. First, all participants wrote a control essay (without TWs), then SW participants wrote sentences and CW participants wrote two essays, each with 10 TWs. Generalized linear mixed models revealed higher gains in breadth and depth of knowledge for SW than for CW, which contradicts the predictions of the ILH. Furthermore, to detect signs of cognitive load, we derived three task-based performance measurements from the compositions: holistic scores, number of errors, and words per minute. The measurements found that the control essay and essays with TWs were of similar quality (holistic scores), but that the control essay was written faster and with fewer errors than the other two. Concluding, using TWs in essays probably increased learners’ cognitive load, slowing down their writing, generating more errors, and ultimately, decreasing learning of the TWs.
... The ILH predicts that when tasks have identical load, they would be equally beneficial; otherwise, tasks with higher involvement indices would be more effective. Many researchers (Kaivanpanah et al., 2020;Naserpour et al., 2020;Sarani et al., 2013;Tahmasbi & Farvardin, 2017) have embraced the use of input-and output-oriented tasks with different involvement loads on vocabulary learning to examine this claim. The results of the studies have largely revealed that involvement indices are not the only determinant factor, and that task type matters as well. ...
... Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) suggest that other researchers examine the basic contention of the ILH, which claims that task efficacy is dependent only on its task-induced involvement load and not on task type. In the same vein, Sarani et al. (2013) state that regarding the same type of task, task-induced involvement load is the significant factor of task efficacy in the retention of vocabulary. However, they add that considering different task types, involvement load is not the only factor determining task efficacy. ...
... Although several studies (Sarani et al., 2013;Tavakoli et al., 2019;Yaqubi et al., 2010) have examined the effects of task type and involvement degree on EFL learners' vocabulary learning, little attention, if any, has been paid to the role of task focus in the studies related to the ILH. There seems to be a paucity of research as to the effect of form-focused and meaningfocused tasks and task involvement load on EFL learners' idioms learning. ...
... However, TILH is limited to only one factor to determine the effectiveness of vocabulary tasks on vocabulary acquisition and more studies need to be conducted to unearth any possible factors. In the literature, there are some TILH studies (Yaqubi, Rayati, and Allemzade Gorgi, 2012;Sarani, Mousapour Negari and Ghaviniat, 2013;Pourakbari and Biria, 2015; Jones-Mensah, Tabiri, Fenyi, Kongo and Amexo) which took task type effect into regard. However, these studies were all conducted in other countries. ...
... As seen in the studies above, TILH studies in Turkish context investigated the effects of TILH on VG and VR by only comparing the vocabulary tasks with varying levels of involvement load. However, some studies in the literature (Yaqubi et. al., 2012;Sarani et. al., 2013;and Pourakbari and Biria, 2015) added a new dimension to TILH studies by using inputoutput or receptive-productive vocabulary tasks and testing the effects of task type which was neglected in TILH studies in Turkish context. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) acknowledged that task's efficacy is only determined using TILLs. In other saying, two ...
... The answers for the first research question provided partial support for TILH contrary to the similar research studies in the literature (Sarani et. al., 2013 andPourakbari andBiria, 2015). The current study did not provide full support for TILH on both post-tests. Kim (2008) also concluded with partial support to TILH as the task with the highest TILL did better on the posttest. However, the task with the moderate level of involvement load was not found to be superior to the task with the lowest ...
Incidental vocabulary learning, foreign language teaching, EFL, Task induced involvement load hypothesis
... Several studies (Hassanzadeh, 2016;Sarani et al., 2013;Tajeddin & Daraee, 2013) have examined the effects of involvement load as well as orientation and type of tasks on vocabulary learning. For instance, Kaivanpanah, et al. (2020) examined the effects of output-based and inputbased tasks with identical and different involvement degrees on L2 vocabulary learning. ...
... Furthermore, Kaivanpanah et al. (2020) reported that, like involvement load, task type was important, and output tasks turned out to be more effective than input tasks. Further support for this finding comes from Sarani et al. (2013), who compared the effectiveness of involvement load and task type. However, they used input and output tasks with load indices of 1, 2, and 3, whereas in our study, the tasks were either form-focused or meaning-focused with load indices of 2, 3, and 4. Similar to our findings, Tajeddin and Daraee (2013) showed that tasks type was an effective factor in vocabulary retention. ...
Finding effective ways to improve L2 idioms recall has been a long-standing concern of many practitioners. This study compared the effects of meaning-focused and form-focused tasks with varying involvement load indices on EFL learners' recall of L2 idioms. One-hundred eighty intermediate level EFL learners participated in this study and were randomly assigned to one of the six experimental groups. In three form-focused groups, the participants received multiple-choice, sentence-completion and sentence-making tasks with involvement indices of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In three meaning-focused groups, they were asked to perform summary writing, writing with glossary, and writing without glossary with involvement degrees of 2, 3, and 4, respectively. A 30-item test in fill-in-the-blank format was administered to all groups to assess their recall of idioms after the treatment. To analyze the data, a two-way ANOVA and a series of independent-samples t-tests were used. The results showed that the tasks with higher degrees of involvement were more efficient on the recall of idioms. The results also revealed that although form-focused tasks were significantly more effective than meaning-focused tasks at lower loads of involvement, at higher involvement load, the difference between form-focused and meaning-focused tasks was not significant. The findings of the present study can have theoretical as well as pedagogical implications for learners, teachers, textbook designers, and curriculum developers.
... This finding was observed in both overall vocabulary test and the productive part of the test. Similar findings are reported in previous studies (R. Ellis & He, 1999;De la Fuente, 2002;Jalilifar & Amin, 2008;Kwon, 2006;Sarani et al., 2013), which emphasized the importance of output in developing L2 vocabulary knowledge and considered output essential for the acquisition of productive vocabulary. Output is thus related to explicit vocabulary instruction. ...
... This finding is in line with previous studies (DeKeyser, 2008;De la Fuente, 2002;Dole et al. 1995;R. Ellis & He, 1999;Jalilifar & Amin, 2008;Joe, 1995;Kwon, 2006;Lucas et al., 2018;Norris & Ortega, 2000;Sarani et al., 2013;Schmitt, 2010;Soleimani & Mahmoudabadi, 2014;Swain, 1985;Tomesen & Aarnoutse, 1998;White et al., 1990). They indicated the superiority of modified-implicit treatment over implicit vocabulary instruction. ...
The present study examined the effect of different vocabulary instruction methods on EFL learners' vocabulary learning and retention. Elementary and advanced EFL learners (N = 120), selected through convenience sampling, were randomly assigned to three conditions (i.e., six groups for the two levels). The learners in the explicit group received vocabulary awareness-raising and pushed output activities. The implicit group was exposed to input flooding, while the modified-implicit group received the pushed output activity and input flooding. The vocabulary learning of the participants was measured using teacher-developed vocabulary tests. The results indicated that learners receiving explicit as well as modified-implicit activities outperformed those exposed to implicit instruction on vocabulary tests. This implies that awareness-raising as well as pushed output activities help learners notice, learn vocabulary better, and retain them longer. Several implications for teachers, materials developers, and syllabus designers on including pushed output activities with more involvement, and areas for further research are discussed.
... need, search and evaluation); mark 0 is given to the absence of a factor, 1 point is given to a moderate presence of a factor, and 2 points are awarded for a strong presence of a factor. Therefore, the involvement index of a task can range from 0 (lowest index) to 5 (highest index) (Sarani, Mousapour Negari & Ghaviniat, 2013). ...
The present study aimed to probe the impact of visual scaffolding using input and output-oriented tasks with different levels of involvement load on Iranian EFL learners' comprehension and production of lexical collocations. For this purpose, 180 male and female intermediate EFL learners were selected and assigned to six experimental groups. Three input-oriented tasks of True-false (load = 1), Matching (load = 2), Multiple-choice (load = 3), and three output-oriented tasks of Short-response (load = 1), Fill-in-the-blanks (load = 2), Sentence formation (load = 3) were developed. All the experimental groups were scaffolded through visual cues. At the end of treatment period, two posttests-a 40-item multiple-choice test and 40-item Fill-in-the-blanks test-were administered to assess the participants' comprehension and production of lexical collocations. To analyze the data, two separate one-way MANOVA procedures were used. The results revealed that visual cues were effective on learners' collocational achievement. The results also indicated that the output-oriented tasks had a significant positive effect on the comprehension and production of lexical collocations. In addition, tasks with higher involvement load indices were more effective on the comprehension and production of lexical collocations. These finding can have significant pedagogical as well as theoretical implications.
... According to the ILH, writing using pre-specified TWs induces ILs of at least 3: moderate need (1), because the use of specific TWs is imposed by the researcher rather than self-imposed; and strong evaluation (2), as it is necessary to use the words in original contexts (as opposed to gap-filling, for example). Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) were the first to show that composing texts with TWs (IL=3) generated more lexical learning than other tasks (reading comprehension [IL=1] and reading + gap-filling [IL=2]) (see also Keating, 2008;Kim, 2008;Sarani, Negari, & Ghaviniat, 2013;Teng, 2015). Nonetheless, the assumptions of the ILH do not differentiate between different types of writing, such as producing complex texts as opposed to writing sentences. ...
Using a pretest-posttest design, we compared the vocabulary learning potential of sentence writing tasks and essay writing tasks (60-minute essays). The vocabulary knowledge scale and a free association test were used as measures of lexical learning.
To check for increase in cognitive load, first participants wrote a 60-minute timed control essay (without using pre-specified keywords). Then, sentence-writing participants wrote their sentences (20 sentences, one with each keyword) and essay-writing participants wrote two 60-minute timed essays (each essay with 10 keywords). Textual measures of overall text quality (i.e., holistic scores), accuracy (i.e., normed errors), and fluency (i.e., words per minute) were derived from the control and treatment essays. These measures were then compared to detect signs of cognitive load in the treatment essays (with keywords)
... | 2021 VITÓRIA DA CONQUISTA | BAHIA | BRASIL Waring, 2004). Regarding the other side of the coin, output, this study like some other studies (e.g., Ellis & He, 1999;Hashemi & Kassaian, 2011;Jalilifar & Amin, 2008;Kwon, 2007;Sarani, Mousapour, & Ghaviniat, 2013) lends support to Swain's (1995) Output Hypothesis and suggests that production facilitates vocabulary learning. It mainly emphasizes the importance of output in developing L2 vocabulary knowledge and considering output as essential for the acquisition of productive vocabulary. ...
The present study is an attempt to examine the psychological processes of noticing, retrieval, and generation and their possible contribution to the process of vocabulary learning and retention among intermediate students. The research method was experimental. One hundred and twenty intermediate students were randomly assigned into four groups, namely Noticing through Input enhancement (n=30), Input Enhancement plus Input-Based Reviewing (n=30), Input Enhancement plus Output-Based Reviewing (n=30) and Input Enhancement plus Input-Based and Output-Based Reviewing. The Academic Words contextualized in Focus on Vocabulary 2: Mastering the Academic Word List (Schmitt, Schmitt, & Mann, 2011) were the target words of the study. A pretest composed of VLT items was administered to the participants. The first group encountered the target words that have been already highlighted to absorb their attention. Encountering the already highlighted words, the second group reviewed the words through researcher-made word cards. The third group, besides encountering the already highlighted words, reviewed the words through rewriting the sentences including the target words. The fourth group experienced noticing through input enhancement; retrieval through using researcher-made word cards; and generation through rewriting the sentences containing the unknown words. One week after the last treatment session, an immediate posttest, and after two weeks, a delayed posttest were administered. Based on the results of four one-way repeated measures ANOVAs and three one-way ANOVAs, it was revealed that all types of input-based, output-based and input+output-based reviewing have positive effect on vocabulary learning. However, their positive effect on vocabulary retention was fairly vague. Moreover, the group treated through input enhancement+input- and output- based reviewing outperformed the other groups.
... The study revealed that the output and input dichotomy cannot be reliable criteria to categorize vocabulary tasks in terms of their effectiveness. While some researchers (Martínez-Fernández, 2008;Sarani, Negari, & Ghaviniat, 2013) pointed out the output tasks lead to more vocabulary learning and retention, the present study found that different output tasks can lead to different results as far as their cognitive load index is concerned. That is to say, the degree of cognitive load that a vocabulary task entails can be an evidence-based index to determine its effectiveness for vocabulary learning and retention. ...
ABSTRACT: The literature has witnessed a large number of studies investigating the merits and effectiveness of the available methods of vocabulary teaching and learning in different EFL/ESL contexts among which one can refer to the involvement load hypothesis (ILH).
Despite its widespread use, some criticisms have been levelled against this model. A new framework, namely cognitive load framework (CLF), has recently been proposed. Although CLF has been validated by some TESL experts, it has not, yet, been put to the acidity test.
Therefore, the present quasi-experimental study was carried out to determine whether activities with higher cognitive load degrees as predicted by CLF framework are more effective for vocabulary learning and retention. To this end, a sample of 60 Iranian EFL learners was
assigned to three experimental groups and was exposed to vocabulary learning tasks with different cognitive load indices for eight weeks. Experimental group 1 received the tasks with high cognitive load, while experimental groups 2 and 3 received the medium and low cognitive load tasks, respectively. The findings revealed that the vocabulary tasks with the highest cognitive load were the most effective, and those with the lowest load were the least effective in vocabulary learning and retention
... It can be also suggested that although it is often assumed that most vocabulary is learned from natural context (Krashen, 1989), vocabulary learning from context alone is not sufficient, particularly in an EFL context where learners have little exposure to the target language outside the classroom, and should be complemented with word-focused activities such word card, which is more certain and efficient (Hulstijn, 2001;Laufer, 2003;Nation, 2013;Waring, 2004). Regarding the other side of the coin, output, this study like some other studies (e.g., Ellis & He, 1999;Hashemi & Kassaian, 2011;Jalilifar & Amin, 2008;Kwon, 2007;Sarani, Mousapour, & Ghaviniat, 2013) lends support to Swain's (1995) Output Hypothesis and suggests that production facilitates vocabulary learning. It mainly emphasizes the importance of output in developing L2 vocabulary knowledge and considering output as essential for the acquisition of productive vocabulary. ...
O presente estudo é uma tentativa de examinar os processos psicológicos de observação, recuperação e geração e sua possível contribuição para o processo de aprendizado e retenção de vocabulário entre estudantes intermediários. O método de pesquisa foi experimental. Cento e vinte alunos intermediários foram divididos aleatoriamente em quatro grupos: Nota através do aprimoramento de entrada (n = 30), aprimoramento de entrada mais revisão baseada em entrada (n = 30), aprimoramento de entrada mais revisão baseada em saída (n = 30) e Aprimoramento de entrada mais revisão baseada em entrada e baseada em saída. As Palavras Acadêmicas contextualizadas em Foco no Vocabulário 2: Dominando a Lista de Palavras Acadêmicas (Schmitt, Schmitt, & Mann, 2011) foram as palavras-alvo do estudo. Um pré-teste composto por itens do VLT foi administrado aos participantes. O primeiro grupo encontrou as palavras-alvo que já foram destacadas para absorver sua atenção. Encontrando as palavras já destacadas, o segundo grupo revisou as palavras por meio de cartões de palavras feitos pelo pesquisador. O terceiro grupo, além de encontrar as palavras já destacadas, revisou as palavras reescrevendo as frases, incluindo as palavras-alvo. O quarto grupo experimentou perceber através do aprimoramento das entradas; recuperação através do uso de cartões de texto feitos pelo pesquisador; e geração através da reescrita das frases que contêm as palavras desconhecidas. Uma semana após a última sessão de tratamento, um pós-teste imediato e após duas semanas, um pós-teste tardio foi administrado. Com base nos resultados de quatro ANOVAs de medidas repetidas unidirecionais e três ANOVAsunidirecionais, foi revelado que todos os tipos de revisões baseadas em entradas, baseadas em resultados e baseadas em resultados têm efeito positivo na aprendizagem de vocabulário. No entanto, seu efeito positivo na retenção de vocabulário foi bastante vago. Além disso, o grupo tratado por meio do aprimoramento das entradas e análises baseadas em entradas e saídas superou os outros grupos.
