The Role of Task‐Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition

Abstract

Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) proposed a motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement to account for variation in effectiveness among different vocabulary learning tasks. Building upon their original research, this study consisted of two experiments investigating the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary learning. Experiment 1 compared the performance of 64 adult English as a second language (ESL) learners from a range of countries at two different proficiency levels (i.e., matriculated undergraduate students vs. students in an Intensive English Program) to ascertain the effectiveness of three vocabulary tasks with different levels of task-induced involvement. Experiment 2 investigated whether two tasks hypothesized to represent the same level of task-induced involvement would result in equivalent initial learning and retention of target words by 20 adult ESL learners at two different levels of proficiency. The results of Experiment 1 showed that a higher level of learner involvement during the task promoted more effective initial vocabulary learning and better retention of the new words. The findings of Experiment 2 indicated that when different tasks had the same involvement load, they resulted in similar amounts of initial vocabulary learning and retention of new words. The results of the two experiments are discussed in light of the involvement load hypothesis.Keywords involvement load hypothesis; processing depth theory; task-induced involvement; second language vocabulary acquisition; English as a second language; learner proficiency

Receptive vocabulary knowledge and motivation in CLIL and EFL

“…So far, however, there has been little discussion about the connection of motivation and vocabulary learning (Elley, 1989;Gardner and MacIntyre, 1991;Laufer and Husltijn, 2001;Kim, 2008). For example, Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) theorise on the cognitive and motivational load of vocabulary tasks.…”

“…For example, Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) theorise on the cognitive and motivational load of vocabulary tasks. As they call it, the Involvement Load Hypothesis, is further investigated by Kim (2008), who finds a connection between motivational factors and lexical performance. Other studies conclude that both integrative and instrumental motivation can help vocabulary learning (e.g.…”

The Effect of Evaluation Factor on the Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading

“…However, other group of scholars doubts the role of incidental vocabulary acquisition, arguing that it does not have effect a high pick-up rate (Schmitt, 2008). Thus, numerous vocabulary enhancement tasks have been researched to identify the effectiveness of incidental vocabulary acquisition while reading (Knight, 1994;Rott & Cameron, 2002;Hill & Laufer, 2003;Kim, 2008).…”

“…Some other researches focus on the different effects of involvement loads on verbs, nouns, and adiectives. Although reading materials and involvement load have been researched widely (Hill & Laufer, 2003;Hulstijn et al, 1996;Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001;Knight, 1994;Kim, 2008;Rott, 2004), few studies have investigated the effectiveness of tasks with the same degree of involvement load but different factors on EFL vocabulary learning and retention through reading. The current research attempts to explore this question in an empirical way.…”

A comparison of male and female learners’ English collocation learning through using WhatsApp

“…It is argued that EFL learners need to achieve a threshold level of L2 vocabulary to be able to communicate fluently in L2 and understand an authentic text (Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010). According to Kim (2011), the EFL teachers are EFL learners in performing this task. Therefore, using an effective approach in promoting L2 vocabulary knowledge is one of the concerning of aware of the difficulty of mastering a number of L2 vocabulary, but may not know how effectively assist L2 educators.…”