literature review

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


"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


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


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


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


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 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


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


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


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


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


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


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

http://www/

literature review

Documents

structure words

new words

function words

unfamiliar words

intentional learning

effective vocabulary

number of content words

explicit learning