Sie sind auf Seite 1von 35

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 vocabularyfocused tasks is dependent on the degree of cognitive processing required of an L2 learner by a given task.

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

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.

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. Idioms not only play a major role in language comprehension but also

Involvement Load Hypothesis

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 individuals. She expresses that words do not label things but classify concepts. In order to learn vocabulary, individuals need to learn how to

Involvement Load Hypothesis

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 spelling with the grammatical point behind the word. Knowing the grammatical function will aid the learner to adjust the word in the

Involvement Load Hypothesis

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. 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis

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 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis

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.

1.2.2 Advantages of TBLT Rooney (2000) lists some of the advantages of using a task-based

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 criterionreferenced 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.

1.2.3 Teacher and Learner Roles in Task-Based Learning Both the students and the teachers have different roles during task-based

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 pretask activities, text exploration, guided exposure to parallel tasks, and use of highlighted material.

They further explain that TBLT provides learners with a variety of opportunities:

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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.

1.2.4 Features of TBLT Nunan (1991) considers the following features for the task-based

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 3. A task involves real world processes of language use. Learners engage in activities which resemble the activities in the real world, for

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 realworld 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, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 selected with reference to some theory or model of second language acquisition. Pedagogic tasks have a pedagogical or psycholinguistic rationale.

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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.

Ellis (2003) compares two activities to show the difference between a task and an exercise: Activity 1: Dialogue

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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.

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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 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,

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 "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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 learner, such as the learners 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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-asecond-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 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)

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 lowproficiency 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 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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 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.

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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- Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. UK: Cambridge University Press. 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

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 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.

Involvement Load Hypothesis


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. 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.