Effects of Task-Induced Involvement on Incidental

Vocabulary Learning in a Second Language

        ! "   #  $ 

 % 905258

& ' ( ) * Hui-Fang Tu

+ , # - . / 0 1 ! Dr. I-Ru Su

2 3 4  5 6 7 8 9 :



   
              

        !" # $% & ' ( ) *  + ,  -  ./ 0 1

2 , 3 4   5 6 *    7 8 9 : ; <  = $> " ? @      

       (incidental vocabulary learning) A B C D $E A F GH I J .K

L$M GH N O P Q R B. Laufer S J. H. Hulstijn T U  V W X Y 

  Z

[ (Involvement Load Hypothesis) O        \   .LZ [ ] M

^ _ 2    
  ` a $b             ` c .

@ d $e f LZ [$g h   d i (time-on-task) 5     M j k

l$m  ? @   W n d i o M p q ? r @ $KLO s  ? @     

    d $t u v w x y z  K{ / .> " $| } GH (Hulstijn &

Laufer, 2001)  ~          A    €  5  ‚ d   .ƒ #

$O \ „ GH < $… † V  ‡       ˆ ‰ 5 K2 g h   d i

 Š $"       a
  .KL$2 ‹   g h   d i  

      A B C D $M GH Œ v LK{ x 2 P Q  Ž / . # $G

H 
‘ A T Ž 

1. ’ “ ”   " # $
  (involvement load)  a   5 • –
   —

  ˜ = A  ™

2. g h   d i (time-on-task) 5 • š  “ ”   › œ C D ™

M GH GH   2 ž Ÿ ’ ;    ¡ ¢ £ a <  œ ¤¥ Ÿ ¦ § ¨ ©

!$‘ ª « ž ¨ ¬ !­ .® ž Ÿ  œ 4 ¯ ° ± T ² J Q $t q m  ³ ´ µ ¶ 

 / : ; · Q ¸: ; · Q ±   ¹ º $³ S» ¼ ½ ¾ .O ¿ / ² J Q < $

i
µ À  œ g h   d i q ? r @ $" O ¿ ª ² J Q < $µ À  œ g h  

d i r @ .      Á 5 ³ T Â Ã Li Ä / Å   · Q Æ Ç g h 4

È.M GH ^ É  ~ Ê ´ 

1. Ë µ À  œ ³ ? @ d i g h Ì Í   d $
  ` a    “ ”  

 Ç ` c .

2. Ë µ À  œ ³ @ Î d i g h Ì Í   d $
  ` a   , Ï \  “

”    Ç ` c $Ð 5 ® µ ¶          Ñ Ò t u Ó 3 Ô Õ Ö

×  \ Ø Ù Ú Û .L $’ @ / ¶   " # $g h   d i ` Š $ “

”    Ç , Ï \  ` c .

M GH ’ 
  Z [ Ü Ž   ® Ý GH Æ Ç $t 2 u ˜ Þ ß G

H ³ Sà  á â X ã ä å æ ç .

ii
 ABSTRACT

The enormity of the lexical pool has long presented a formidable challenge for

many language learners. As direct vocabulary instruction clearly fails to account for

the substantial vocabulary knowledge of intermediate and advanced learners, there

has been a broad acceptance of the view among researchers as well as practitioners

that a large proportion of L2 vocabulary could be acquired incidentally from written

contexts by learners. Nonetheless, it is not clear if, or to what extent, different L2

learning tasks have different impact on incidental vocabulary learning. This study

aimed to examine whether retention of vocabulary acquired incidentally is contingent

upon the amount of task-induced involvement load, a construct proposed by Laufer

and Hulstijn (2001) in the Involvement Load Hypothesis. Furthermore, the factor of

time-on-task, according to this hypothesis, is inherent in tasks, thus not subject to

manipulation. Yet the superiority of tasks with a higher involvement load reported in

previous research (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001) may well have resulted from longer

exposure (longer time-on-task) rather than from deeper processing induced by this

type of tasks. Accordingly, the factor of time-on-task was scrutinized as well in this

study. To be brief, the present study aimed to examine the following two research

questions:

1. Are tasks with a higher involvement load more effective for vocabulary retention

than tasks with a lower involvement load?

2. Does the factor of time-on-task in its own right exert impact on vocabulary

retention?

Six classes of senior high school students in Taoyuan County participated in

two experiments (time-on-task not controlled and time-on-task controlled,

respectively) and were randomly assigned to perform one of the three learning tasks

iii
varying in involvement loads: reading comprehension, reading comprehension plus

filling in target words, and composition-writing with target words. Short- and long-

term retention of ten unfamiliar words was investigated on two (immediate and

delayed) posttests at an interval of one week. The results of the current study are

summarized as follows:

1. When the factor of time-on-task was not controlled, tasks with a higher

involvement load, as predicted by the Involvement Load Hypothesis, were more

effective for vocabulary retention than tasks with a lower involvement load.

2. When the factor of time-on-task was controlled, more involving tasks were in

general more effective for vocabulary retention, yet the difference in retention

scores among tasks with varying involvement loads was not consistently

significant. In addition, for an identical task, longer time-on-task mostly led to

better retention.

These results are discussed in light of the Involvement Load Hypothesis and

implications for further research and L2 pedagogy considered.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Words are not enough to convey my profound gratitude to my advisor, Dr. I-

Ru Su, whose continual inspiration, enlightening instructions, and thoughtful

guidance render the completion of this thesis possible. My sincere gratitude also goes

to my two committee members, Dr. Hsien-Chin Liou and Dr. Hao-Jan Chen, who

spent much time reading my work and provided many valuable comments.

Special thanks go to all of the teachers who taught me during my two years of

study in Tsing-Hua, in particular, Dr. Hsu Samuel Wang, through whose course I

learned about the basics of statistics, and who kindly provided statistical consultations

for my completion of the thesis. Besides, I would like to thank Hsiao-Yun Hsiao for

her generosity to offer me some of her class time for my experiment.

Likewise, I am indebted to all my classmates, who made my stay at Tsing-Hua

wonderful and worthwhile. I would also like to express my thanks to my colleagues

in National Chungli Senior High School for their continuous concern for my graduate

study.

Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratefulness and true love to my

dear family, in particular, my beloved husband, whose unflagging support has

sustained me through the years of my graduate study, and to whom I sincerely

dedicate this thesis.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT (Chinese)…………………………………………………………….. ….i

ABSTRACT (English)……………………………………………………………..…iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………... …………v

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………... ………………………...vi

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………. ……………….viii

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………... ………………...ix

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION…………………………….. …………………1

1.1 The Involvement Load Hypothesis…………………………………………….. …3

1.2 The Goals of the Present Study……………………………………………………3

1.3 Organization of the Thesis……………………………………... …………………4

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE…………………... …………5

2.1 Theoretical Concepts Associated with Incidental Learning…………… …………5

2.1.1 Implicit/Explicit Learning, Knowledge, and Instruction………………… …5

2.1.2 Incidental/Intentional Learning………………………………………….....14

2.1.3 Depth-of-Processing…………………………………………………….….19

2.2 Empirical Research on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition……………. ………..23

2.3 The Involvement Load Hypothesis…………………………………….. ………..28

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY……………………….....………………..36

3.1 The Goals of the Present Study…………………………………………………..36

3.2 Method…………………………………………………………. ………………..37

3.2.1 Participants………………………………………………………………....37

3.2.2 Instruments………………………………………………..……....………..37

3.2.2.1 The Target Words………………………………………... ………..37

3.2.2.2 The Reading Text………………………… ………………………..38

vi
 3.2.2.3 The Posttests……………………………………....……...……… ..39

3.2.3 The Tasks………………………………………… ………………………..40

3.2.4 Procedures………………………………………………... ………………..43

3.2.5 Data Analysis…………………………….. ………………………………..44

3.3 The Predictions………………………………………… ………………………..45

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………….. ………..47

4.1 Results and Discussion of Research Question 1……………………….. ………..47

4.1.1 Results……………………………………………………………. ………..47

4.1.2 Discussion………………………………………………………………... ..50

4.2 Results and Discussion of Research Question 2……………………………….. ..52

4.2.1 Results……………………………………………………………. ………..52

4.2.2 Discussion………………………………………………………………... ..56

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION………………………………………………....60

5.1 Summary of the Findings………………………………………………. ………..60

5.2 Implications……………………………………………………………..………..61

5.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research………...………..64

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………...………..67

APPENDIX A Reading text………………………...……….……………………..77

APPENDIX B Immediate posttest………………………......…………… ………..79

APPENDIX C Delayed posttest………………………...………...………………..80

APPENDIX D Work sheet for Task 1…………………………… ………………..81

APPENDIX E Work sheet for Task 2……………………………………………...83

APPENDIX F Work sheet for Task 3……………………………………………...85

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 The task-induced involvement loads for the three tasks in Hulstijn and Laufer

(2001)………………………………..…………………….………………..32

Table 2 The task-induced involvement loads for the three tasks in the present

study……...………….…………………………………………….………..42

Table 3 Number of participants, mean retention scores, and standard deviations of the

immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment I………...………………...48

Table 4 ANOVA on the retention scores of the immediate and delayed posttests in

Experiment I……………………………………….……....………………..48

Table 5 Number of participants, mean retention scores, and standard deviations of the

immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment II………….……. ………..53

Table 6 ANOVA on the retention scores of the immediate and delayed posttests in

Experiment II………………………...…………………………… ………..53

Table 7 Mean scores of the immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment I and

II …………………………………………………………………………....58

Table 8 Comparisons of mean scores of the immediate and delayed posttests between

Experiment I and II…………………………………………………………59

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Retention scores of the immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment

I…………………………………………………………………...………..50

Figure 2 Retention scores of the immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment

II…………………………………………………. ………………………..55

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Many learners of a second or foreign language feel concerned with the burden

of vocabulary learning and worry about how to tackle the formidable task of learning

many thousands of words. For learners at the beginning level, intentional and explicit

learning of new lexical items generally accounts for most of their vocabulary

knowledge, as their insufficient vocabulary largely inhibits them from acquiring new

words incidentally via extensive reading. Explicit attention of the beginners is

directed toward the various aspects of word features (e.g., form, meaning, and use),

which are to be imprinted on the memory of the learners with deliberate attempts, be

they rote learning or other vocabulary exercises.

This exclusive dependence on intentional learning, nonetheless, fails to

address the needs for intermediate and advanced learners, who in general process new

pieces of information in a second language not so much to acquire specific words as

to glean meanings from visual and verbal input. For instance, intermediate and

advanced learners may read extensively for pleasure or use a second language for

communication, yet they may well "pick up" certain words in the process of such

endeavors—a condition termed incidental vocabulary learning, as the acquisition of

the words is but a by-product of another main cognitive activity (Hulstijn, 2001).

Since the laborious nature of intentional learning precludes the possibility of its being

a major means of cultivating a large-sized lexicon, the incidental-learning mode

manifests as a viable alternative for vocabulary development.

Nevertheless, an investigation into the research on vocabulary acquisition

reveals an eminent precedence accorded to the intentional-learning mode. Empirical

studies and reviews probing the efficacy of intentional learning are in great abundance

1
(e.g., Dickinson, 1978; Konopak et al., 1987; McLaughlin, 1965), and research on

vocabulary learning strategies also presents a fruitful line of investigation (e.g., Coady,

1997a; Hulstijn, 1997; N. Schmidt, 2000). However, the primary emphasis on

intentional learning clearly runs counter to most human learning, which is cogently

argued to occur incidentally (e.g., Eysenck, 1982). Furthermore, a neutral stance is

also advanced, which contends that these two learning modes should be regarded as

complementary rather than dichotomous (N. Schmidt, 2000). Thus, it may be

justified to claim that incidental learning in its own right merits further investigation.

The appeal for a keen research interest in incidental learning is recently

responded by a major strand of research on vocabulary acquisition from context (e.g.,

Coady, 1997b; Konopak et al., 1987; Nation & Coady, 1988; Prince, 1996; Swanborn

& de Glopper, 2002), which accommodates rigorous theoretical as well as empirical

interest in the relationship between incidental vocabulary learning and extensive

reading. Drawing on the results of this line of enquiry, the investigation of incidental

vocabulary acquisition gains fresh insights from research on textual aids (Herman,

Anderson, Pearson & Nagy, 1987; Hulstijn, 1992; Watanabe, 1997), on dictionary use

(Cho & Krashen, 1994; Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996; Knight, 1994;

Luppescu & Day, 1993), and, akin to the nature of the present study, on tasks (Joe,

1995, 1998; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Wesche & Parabakht, 2000). In search of a

plausible explanation for the superior effect of one approach or task over another,

researchers sometimes claim that the benefits may be attributable to the greater depth

of processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) that one approach or task induces than the

other. Yet this concept of deep processing is seriously afflicted with a lack of an

operationalizable definition. Accordingly, research on task effectiveness would entail

the formulation of criteria that are amenable to manipulation and measurement,

thereby providing a solid basis for explaining task efficacy of vocabulary learning.

2
1.1 The Involvement Load Hypothesis

Feeling the compelling need to translate such an important yet general concept

as depth-of-processing into a concrete task-specific construct, Laufer and Hulstijn

(2001) proposed the Involvement Load Hypothesis for L2 vocabulary learning,

whereby tasks may be unambiguously graded for the processing depths they induce

and thus their relative efficacy in terms of vocabulary acquisition.

According to the hypothesis, task-induced involvement consists of three basic

elements—need, search, and evaluation, each of which may be present or absent in

the processing of vocabulary items in a task with varying degrees of prominence. The

combination of these factors with their degrees of prominence comprises involvement

load, which explains and predicts the successful retention of heretofore unfamiliar

words by learners—the greater the involvement load, the better the retention. Worded

differently, tasks that induce a higher involvement load are more effective in terms of

vocabulary retention as compared with tasks with a lower involvement load.

1.2 The Goals of the Present Study

Seminal as this proposition, empirical research drawing on this construct has

been sparse, which underscores the importance for further investigation. The current

study, aiming to provide such an empirical testing, was composed of two experiments

based on the Involvement Load Hypothesis to examine whether task-induced

involvement, as defined by this hypothesis, is positively correlated with the retention

scores of the target lexical items.

A second goal underlying the present study is the fact that the factor of time-

on-task is accorded virtually little importance in this hypothesis, as the researchers

argue that this component is an inherent feature of tasks and therefore not amenable to

manipulation. Yet this contention plainly goes against a prevalent view espoused by

3
research on task effects—that the length of exposure to targets should be kept

identical to allow for equal comparison of task effects (see e.g., Paribakht & Wesche,

1997; Robinson, 1996, 1997; Swanborn & de Glopper, 2002; Watanabe, 1997).

Accordingly, three tasks are designed based on the hypothesis and crossed with the

component of time-on-task in the current study to further investigate the efficacy of

the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) and also to delineate the

relationship between processing time and depth.

The significance of the present study resides in its attempt to make an

empirical contribution to the long-contested issue of task efficacy with respect to

incidental vocabulary learning. In a pedagogical sense, it is hoped that the results

from the investigation may shed some light on the effectiveness of the Involvement

Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) in predicting task efficacy, thereby

assisting in the development of tasks that best foster vocabulary learning in an

incidental setting.

1.3 Organization of the Thesis

The present thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter One elucidates the need

and motivations for the current study—an empirical testing of the Involvement Load

Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001). Chapter Two reviews major theoretical

concepts as well as empirical studies relevant to incidental vocabulary learning.

Chapter Three delineates the research questions, the research method, including the

selection of participants, instruments, tasks, procedures, data analysis, and describes

the predictions of the current investigation. Chapter Four presents the results and

discusses the findings from these two experiments. Chapter Five concludes the thesis

with a summary of the major findings, theoretical as well as pedagogical implications,

the limitations of the current study and suggestions for further research.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter comprises three major sections. The first section examines the

theoretical concepts commonly associated with incidental learning in cognitive

psychology as well as in second language research. To begin with, incidental learning

is discussed in terms of the implicit – explicit distinction, which manifests itself

mainly in three issues: learning, knowledge, and instruction, as the investigation of

these issues yields substantial insight into the nature of incidental learning. The

second subsection reviews incidental learning with regard to the distinction between

incidental and intentional learning, which is in turn followed by a detailed discussion

on the depth-of-processing hypothesis, a critical theoretical assumption that a myriad

of empirical research on incidental vocabulary learning draws upon. The second

major section of the chapter reviews relevant empirical research on incidental

vocabulary learning. Finally, the third main section outlines the construct of task-

induced involvement, the basic concept underlying the Involvement Load Hypothesis

(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), which motivates the present study.

2.1 Theoretical Concepts Associated with Incidental Learning

2.1.1 Implicit/Explicit Learning, Knowledge, and Instruction

A central concept in cognitive psychology as well as in second language

acquisition research that has generated a host of fruitful work is the implicit – explicit

distinction, which takes several different forms and has been applied to different

referents. For instance, researchers are intrigued by the processes of implicit and

explicit learning, by the nature of implicit and explicit knowledge, and by the effect of

5
implicit and explicit teaching strategies on language acquisition. Albeit the extensive

application, the inconsistent and unqualified use of the terms implicit and explicit has

aroused certain confusion in recent years and calls for delineation (Berry, 1994).

In the realms of cognitive psychology and second language acquisition alike,

the presence of “awareness” serves as a primary defining feature in terms of this

implicit – explicit distinction. R. Schmidt (1990, 2001) elucidates in great length the

role of awareness in implicit and explicit learning, the definition of the former being

“learning without awareness” whereas the latter, “learning with awareness”. The

sheer weight that R. Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1994, 2001) has allocated to awareness (or

attention/consciousness) is not incidental: Winter and Reber (1994) believe that the

spirit of implicit learning is mirrored in the notion that 'people can under some

circumstances "absorb" knowledge or information from the environment without

awareness of the learning process' (p. 117). Like viewpoints are presented with

reference to attention by N. Schmidt (2000), who considers explicit learning the

allocation of attention directly on the information to be learned.

N. Ellis (1994a) also brings to the fore of the discussion on the implicit –

explicit dimension the importance of conscious operations. He specifies implicit

learning as the "acquisition of knowledge about the underlying structure of a complex

stimulus environment by a process which takes place naturally, simply and without

conscious operations" (p. 1); explicit learning, on the contrary, refers to "a more

conscious operation where the individual makes and tests hypotheses in a search for

structure" (p. 1). Put simply, knowledge attainment may be achieved either by

abstraction of the structural nature of the stimulus via exposure to instances or by

searching for information then forming and testing hypotheses or via assimilation of

given rules. This concept of hypothesis building and testing is taken up by Berry

(1994) in her definition of implicit and explicit learning and yet is viewed in

6
somewhat different light. She defines these two modes of learning not in terms of

consciousness but of the recourse to deliberate strategies: Learning is implicit when

people learn to employ the structure of an environment without using such analytic

strategies as generating and testing hypotheses; learning may be explicit when such

deliberate strategies are used. Given that Berry provides little elaboration on the

relationship between "deliberate strategies" and "consciousness", it remains to be seen

whether these two terms are co-referent from her standpoint, but it has almost become

conventional wisdom that consciousness has some role to play in the discussion of the

implicit – explicit dimension.

Based on the foregoing review, the current study formulates the definition of

implicit learning and explicit learning as follows:

Implicit learning:

a. No attention on the part of learners is allocated directly on the information to be

learned.

b. No conscious operations on the part of learners are involved in the learning

process.

i) Learners are unaware of the process of learning.

ii) Learners are unaware of the information to be learned.

iii) Learners are unaware of the resultant knowledge from the learning process.

c. Learners do not exploit analytic strategies such as hypothesis formation to learn

the knowledge.

Explicit learning:

a. Learners focus their attention directly on the information to be learned.

b. Conscious operations on the part of learners are involved in the learning process.

i) Learners are aware of the process of learning.

ii) Learners are aware of the information to be learned.

7
 iii) Learners are aware of the resultant knowledge from the learning process.

c. Learners might exploit analytic strategies such as hypothesis formation to learn the

knowledge.

Following the heels of a general definition of implicit and explicit learning

comes the issue of the relative effectiveness of these two modes of learning, which

sparks another furious debate in research on second language acquisition. In line with

the consciousness issue advanced in cognitive psychology, explicit learning is

generally viewed as facilitative, in that it promises the greatest chance for the

acquisition of information by virtue of direct attention to it (N. Schmidt, 2000).

Another cogent argument for the importance of explicit learning is that it serves as a

prerequisite for learning under other conditions. For instance, it is a widespread belief

in research on vocabulary acquisition that some explicit learning is probably

necessary to reach a vocabulary size threshold such that incidental learning from

reading may be rendered possible, and that this learning mode may be particularly

effective in developing a sufficient knowledge of crucial technical vocabulary as a

basis for further learning (N. Schmidt, 2000). An additional asset of this learning

mode is that explicit focus on stimulus promotes correct understanding of the

information, while implicit exposure might lead only to knowledge of surface features

rather than authentic rule knowledge (Johnstone & Shanks, 2001).

A careful investigation into language acquisition, nonetheless, yields a

different picture much more complicated than a general preference for explicit

learning over the implicit mode. Given that learning the various aspects of a language

explicitly is too laborious an endeavor for even the most diligent learner to undertake,

it is generally assumed that language acquisition, be it L1 or L2, occurs mostly

implicitly (in this present study, the terms “learning” and “acquisition” will be

exploited interchangeably). Chomsky (1986) is probably justified in claiming that

8
explicit learning could account for only a small part of language acquisition, in that no

native speaker has a level of explicit understanding that could approximate the

complex intuitive knowledge people have of their language. By the same token,

Krashen (1982, 1985, 1989, 2002) accords little importance to explicit learning in his

Monitor Hypothesis, which relegates the role of learned competence to that of a

Monitor for one’s utterances. As Stern (1992) contends, this favor for implicit

learning is indisputable, since much of the learning is deemed to occur below the level

of consciousness while the learner is busy using the language in the course of daily

life. Accordingly, he proposes that it is “perfectly reasonable to encourage

unconscious language acquisition” (p. 340).

Nevertheless, some researchers contend that implicit and explicit learning

should be regarded not as an absolute dichotomy (MacWhinney, 1997), but as a

continuum in which these two approaches complement each other (Sharwood Smith,

1981; Faerch et al., 1984, cited in Stern, 1992). It is advantageous for learners to

have access to both learning modes and to shift from a more cognitive to more

intuitive command (from explicit to implicit), or in the opposite direction (from

implicit to explicit). In a similar vein, R. Schmidt (1993) argues that interaction

between these two modes of learning brings about positive effect on language

acquisition, and that each has its merits. Worded differently, these two modes are

best regarded as complementary, not distinct and isolated, and the artful combination

of these two modes makes an ideal basis for teaching packages (Berry, 1994).

The implicit – explicit dimension also finds expression in terms of the

resultant knowledge from the learning processes. According to Chomsky (1986), the

key determinant of these two types of knowledge refers to whether facts about the

language can be confirmed through introspection, whereas in second language

research, this distinction is based primarily on “whether a learner is able to articulate a

9
rule of the language” (R. Schmidt, 1990, p. 133), or at the operational level, “whether

the learner is aware of what s/he knows and can verbalize it” (R. Ellis, 1994, p. 167).

Bialystok (1979) reported that both implicit and explicit knowledge contribute to

language learning and that both should be developed.

The acknowledgement of the importance of these two types of knowledge may

have gone unchallenged, yet the relationship between them is far from straightforward.

For example, in the discussion of the acquisition of grammatical knowledge, three

positions are usually advocated (N. Ellis, 1994a; R. Ellis, 1993; Laufer & Hulstijn,

2001): the No Interface position, Strong Interface position, and Weak Interface

position. According to the various contentions advanced with respect to the

relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, explicit, metalinguistic

knowledge has no effect on the acquisition of implicit knowledge (No Interface),

converts into implicit knowledge (Strong Interface), or may indirectly impact on the

acquisition of implicit knowledge by focusing learners’ attention on features in the

input crucial for the grammatical phenomenon to be acquired (Weak Interface). A

fervent supporter for the "No Interface" position is Krashen (1982, 1985, 1989, 2002),

who contends that the explicit knowledge resulting from conscious learning can by no

means be converted into the implicit knowledge acquired subconsciously. R. Schmidt

(1994, 2001) developed the "Weak Interface" position into the Noticing Hypothesis,

which holds that metalinguistic knowledge may not be essential for L2 grammar

acquisition, but learners must “notice” the critical features in utterances. This

advocation of the importance of “noticing” has lent strong support to the exploitation

of explicit instruction in language acquisition, which will be elaborated in the

following discussion.

In the realm of SLA, a long-standing practice in experimental paradigms is to

investigate the implicit – explicit contrast with reference to teaching rather than

10
learning—whether explicit grammar rules1, vocabulary, and strategies can be taught

to learners. For most researchers as well as practitioners, the importance of implicit

learning is unrivaled, yet explicit instruction does have some role to play, largely on

the grounds that it facilitates learning either by focusing learners’ attention directly on

the features in point or by making these features more salient. For instance, R.

Schmidt (1990, 1993, 2001) suggests that explicit instruction assists in focusing

attention on forms and meanings in the input, thus facilitating learning. Drawing

upon his review of research which attests to the efficacy of explicit instruction,

MacWhinney (1997) comments from a psycholinguistic perspective that a no-lose

proposition would be to provide learners with explicit instruction along with standard

implicit exposure. In a similar vein, N. Ellis (2002), while advocating that language

processing is based on frequency and probabilistic knowledge, thus mostly implicit,

admits that language acquisition can be speeded by explicit instruction. More

specifically, Robinson (1996, 1997) reported a beneficial effect for learners receiving

explicit instructions in the learning of simple rules as opposed to implicit, incidental,

and rule-search computerized training groups. Roediger (1990) draws a similar

conclusion that thorough instruction of abstract principles and rules combined with

numerous concrete examples can lead to substantial rates of spontaneous transfer of

these rules to problems in other contexts.

In comparison with the relatively much emphasis allocated to explicit

grammar instruction, the efficacy of explicit instruction of vocabulary is also well

attested to, and may have even closer affinity with the purpose of the present study.

For example, Konopak et al. (1987) found a superiority for instructed learners as

opposed to incidental and control groups in terms of vocabulary gains from context.

1
The discussion of focus on form and focus on forms instruction is well beyond the scope of the
present study. For detailed discussions on relevant topics, see e.g., Doughty and Williams (1998);
Long (1988).

11
Nation and Newton (1997) outline a direct approach to vocabulary learning which

involves the study of vocabulary by means of explicit vocabulary exercises. For the

advocates of reading as a primary means of language acquisition, the need for explicit

vocabulary instruction is particularly compelling: N. Schmidt (2000) contends that a

certain vocabulary size resulting from explicit instruction is essential such that

incidental learning from reading may occur; Huckin and Coady (1999) suggest that

learners may benefit not only from explicit instruction on vocabulary but also from

instruction on inferencing strategies. In a nutshell, as R. Schmidt (1994) discreetly

points out, instruction facilitates both explicit and implicit learning, but probably in

different ways, and that the mechanisms involved merit further investigation.

As opposed to the extensive discussion of the effect of explicit instruction on

learning, the exploitation of implicit instruction strategies is relatively understated in

the literature of second language pedagogy. According to Stern (1992), techniques in

this category "encourage the learner to approach the new language globally and

intuitively rather than through a process of conscious reflection and problem-solving"

(p. 339). Typically, the implicit strategy manifests itself in three ways: (1) through

implicit practice (e.g., techniques from the audiolingual method that minimize

thinking about the language); (2) through experiential approaches which focus the

learner's attention on the content, use, rather than the rules or system of the language;

(3) through creating a receptive state of mind in the learner by means of heeding the

affective state of the language class. Winitz (1996) reported a beneficial effect for

implicit grammar instruction over explicit grammar instruction; nevertheless, as is the

case with implicit and explicit learning, Stern (1992) proposes that the two strategies

should ideally be combined for maximum benefits in language learning and teaching,

with the respective weight allocated to each strategy being based on the language

topic, the course objectives, the characteristics of the students, and the needs of the

12
teaching situation.

With the foregoing discussions on implicit/explicit learning, knowledge, and

instruction respectively, some investigation into the relationship between these

concepts seems warranted as well as relevant to the present study. To begin with,

different aspects of knowledge may be susceptible to different modes of learning. For

example, N. Ellis (1994b) claims that the perceptual aspects of new lexical items (e.g.,

their phonetic and phonological features) are learned implicitly as a consequence of

frequent exposure, and that the motor aspects (e.g., the articulation of word forms)

develop implicitly via practice. Nonetheless, he proposes that the meaning of words

is learned explicitly by means of conscious processing at the semantic and conceptual

levels and of attention to the form-meaning connections on the part of learners. The

relationship between modes of learning and instruction is another issue that deserves

some attention. R. Schmidt (1994) cautions against the faulty assumptions that

implicit teaching strategies trigger implicit learning process, that rule-search

instructions result in explicit knowledge, that uninstructed learners learn implicitly, or

that learners receiving form-focused instructions do not learn implicitly. The effect of

instruction in SLA is well worth investigating, yet any claims concerning implicit and

explicit learning (essentially learner-internal processes) cannot be well sustained

without adequate assessment of learner awareness.

Given that the concept of "intention" has some role to play in the discussion of

implicit and explicit learning (e.g., Williams, 1999), and that much research work on

implicit learning is in essence conducted under incidental conditions—situations

where subjects are not given outright instructions to learn the targets but asked to

perform tasks that focus their attention on things other than the real targets—it seems

timely for a look into language acquisition in view of the incidental/intentional

situations with a focus on the incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language.

13
2.1.2 Incidental/Intentional Learning

Interest in incidental and intentional learning has presented a main line of

investigation in the psychological literature since the beginning of the twentieth

century and has served experimental psychology a long time (for classical readings,

see Eysenck, 1982; McLaughlin, 1965; Postman, 1964). Notwithstanding the

numerous studies conducted on L1 and L2 acquisition, be they about vocabulary,

grammar, or other aspects of language, there seems to be a disturbing lack of an

unequivocal distinction between these two terms, or even a clear theoretical definition

of either. In Singleton’s (1999) comprehensive review of a wide variety of studies

that claimed to have investigated “incidental” learning of L2 vocabulary, he notes that

a consensus will certainly have to be reached about what is to be included and what is

to be excluded under the term “incidental” if the debate about incidental vocabulary

learning is to proceed with any degree of coherence in the future.

Despite the lack of an absolute theoretical distinction between the terms

“incidental” and “intentional”, matters are relatively straightforward at the operational

level, as “intentional and incidental learning can be distinguished in terms of the use

of prelearning instructions that either do, or do not, forewarn subjects about the

existence of a subsequent retention test” (Eysenck, 1982, p. 198). Emanating from

this distinction are two basic experimental methods (Eysenck, 1982; Hulstijn, 2001).

In the Type I paradigm, which is characteristic of the earlier studies, the subjects in

the incidental-learning condition perform an orienting task on the stimulus materials

without being given instructions to learn but are afterwards tested for retention.

Conversely, the subjects in the intentional-learning condition are informed in advance

of an upcoming retention test. In the Type II design, which was deployed in most

later studies, all subjects are instructed to learn some of the stimuli that are presented

to them, with some other additional stimuli presented along not being the target of the

14
orienting task but being the basis for assessment of incidental learning. One of the

major merits of this second type of design resides in the cost-effective nature that

subjects act as their own controls—that is, they serve both under the incidental- and

intentional-learning conditions. For instance, in a hypothetical study on the effect of

glossary types on incidental vocabulary acquisition, learners may serve under an

intentional condition as they are required to read a text for a later comprehension test,

but meanwhile they are engaged in an incidental condition as they are exposed to

unfamiliar words (with different types of glossary), which are to be subsequently

tested for retention.

In the realm of pedagogy, however, the picture is slightly different.

Controversial as the two types of experimental design in the research on psychology,

studies on pedagogy in general adopt similar definitions with respect to the

incidental – intentional distinction. With Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) proposal of the

depth-of-processing framework (see the next section on depth-of-processing for a

detailed discussion), the behaviorist tradition in psychology gave way to the cognitive

paradigm, and accordingly modified the meaning of the terms “incidental” and

“intentional”. In the applied domains of current L1 and L2 pedagogy2, incidental

vocabulary learning is “the learning of vocabulary as the by-product of any activity

not explicitly geared to vocabulary learning, with intentional vocabulary learning

referring to any activity aiming at committing lexical information to memory”

(Hulstijn, 2001, p. 271). Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) offer a similar definition, which

states that incidental vocabulary learning means learning without the intention to learn,

or the learning of one thing (e.g., vocabulary) when the learner’s main concern is with

something else (e.g., communication). In contrast, intentional vocabulary learning

2
In line with much of the research on language acquisition as well as the purpose of this present study,
the discussion of this subsection, together with the later sections, will focus mainly on vocabulary
acquisition.

15
refers to the learning of vocabulary by deliberately committing lexical information to

memory. These definitions, which share a fundamental emphasis on the presence or

absence of intention and focal attention, have become prevalent in much research on

second and foreign language pedagogy.

Albeit the almost unanimous definitions of the two learning modes, the

controversy of the role intention plays in learning has spawned much research work.

For instance, McLaughlin (1965), though questioning the legitimacy of maintaining a

conceptual distinction between intentional and incidental learning, concludes that

“learning is more difficult under disadvantageous (no-instructions) conditions” (p.

373), when compared with learning under advantageous conditions (with the

instructions to learn). Similarly, in Dickinson’s (1978) study of the acquisition of

four linear arm-positioning movements by incidental and intentional learners, long-

term storage was found to be dramatically affected by intention to learn and

foreknowledge of a recall test, whereas short-term memory performance was

marginally different for these two groups of learners. Konopak et al. (1987) reported

a tendency for intentional learning group to outperform both the incidental and control

groups when focusing on word learning from context.

The advantages that the preceding studies have accorded intentional learning

are not without their general critics. The acknowledgment of the efficacy of learning

intentionally is often accompanied by discreet cautions against the exclusive

dependence on its exploitation, as this mode of learning virtually contributes to a

rather limited proportion of vocabulary acquisition (Hulstijn, 1992; Krashen, 1989;

Laufer, 2001). Furthermore, empirical evidence for the effectiveness of incidental

learning over the intentional mode is simply substantial. Shelton and Newhouse

(1981), for example, observe that learners who were exposed to the stimulus material

in an incidental-learning situation significantly performed better in a subsequent recall

16
test than subjects who were simply instructed to learn the same material. By the same

token, Gass (1982, cited in Gass, 1999) found a superior effect for incidental learners

who performed well not only on the relative clauses they were exposed to but also on

some linguistically related structures that they had no preknowledge of. A somewhat

neutral stance, however, is advocated by some researchers who allocate more

importance to factors other than the incidental – intentional distinction in terms of

language acquisition. Eysenck (1982) proposes that “memory performance is

determined far more by the nature of the processing activities engaged in by the

learner than it is by the intention to learn per se” (p. 203). This concept is endorsed

by R. Schmidt (1993), who argues that what really matters in learning is how tasks

force learners to process the material, rather than the intention to learn on the part of

the learner. R. Schmidt (2001), while acknowledging the importance of task demands,

further claims that intentionality is not so much a general requirement in learning as

attention is.

While the importance of intentionality in language acquisition is still an open

question, the incidental-learning mode is often posited, and widely subscribed to, as

the primary means of vocabulary acquisition as opposed to intentional learning

(Fukkink, Blok & de Glopper, 2001; Hulstijn, 1992; Krashen, 1989; Laufer, 2001;

Nagy, Herman & Anderson, 1985; Nation, 1990, 2001; N. Schmidt, 2000).

Nonetheless, some researchers as well as educators become increasingly concerned

with the limitations of incidental learning at the practical level. According to Huckin

and Coady (1999), incidental learning is susceptible to certain serious limitations. For

instance, in most cases, incidental learning demands a tactical use of inferencing

strategies as well as substantial prior vocabulary knowledge on the part of the learner

in order to render the learning effective. In addition, the meaning of lexical items

inferred from context may not be precise for tasks that call for accurate interpretation,

17
and it is still subject to criticism as the meaning obtained in this way may not translate

into acquisition.

With the foregoing concerns and issues in mind, nevertheless, the present

study took the incidental-learning paradigm as the framework for investigation, in that

this mode of learning is still deemed as a more appropriate condition than intentional

learning for empirical research on memory performance (Craik & Lockhart, 1972;

Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001). The preference for incidental over intentional learning in

terms of empirical paradigms is cogently stated in Hulstijn (1992), who contends that

the intentional-learning condition will prompt students to invoke all kinds of rehearsal

and memorization techniques, thus interfering with the effect of the initial processing

of word meanings. Besides, as this current study aimed to make an empirical

contribution to the construct of the Involvement Load Hypothesis proposed by Laufer

and Hulstijn (2001, see the review section on the Involvement Load Hypothesis for a

detailed discussion), the definition of incidental learning draws on the distinction

between incidental and intentional learning formulated by Laufer and Hulstijn (2001).

Put differently, in this present study, incidental vocabulary learning refers to “the

learning of vocabulary as a by-product of any activity not explicitly geared to lexical

learning” (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, p. 554). At the operational level, the two

prerequisites to this study are: (1) the primary concern of the subjects is with

something other than learning the target vocabulary, and (2) the subjects’ attention is

directed to the completion of the orienting tasks rather than to the target lexical items.

These two requirements could be achieved by the instructors’ demand on the subjects

to perform the respective assigned orienting tasks without informing them of

subsequent retention tests on the target vocabulary they were exposed to in their

attempts to accomplish the tasks.

Though it may be too assertive to eliminate the possibility of the deliberate

18
memorization of the target lexical items on the part of the subjects, there are sufficient

grounds to minimize this possibility in the present study. To begin with, as none of

the tasks was presented as a vocabulary-learning task, it is hoped that no undue

attention on the part of the participants would be directed toward the targets. Second,

the time constraints of each task would pose further challenge on top of the task

demand for the participants if they try to commit the words to memory, which may

tax their cognitive capacity too heavily. A final argument for reducing the possibility

of intentional vocabulary learning in this study is that it is highly unlikely that the

participants would make vocabulary learning their primary objective when they are

unaware of subsequent tests on the target lexical items. Only highly motivated

students may attempt to memorize words that are not to be tested on, which was

obviously not a prevalent phenomenon in this study. In view of the foregoing, it may

be safe to argue that the chances of the deliberate memorization of the targets by the

participants are virtually negligible.

2.1.3 Depth-of-Processing

A crucial concept underlying most of the investigation within the incidental-

learning paradigm is the depth-of-processing framework proposed by Craik and

Lockhart (1972), which states that “the memory trace can be understood as a by-

product of perceptual analysis and that trace persistence is a positive function of the

depth to which the stimulus has been analyzed” (p. 671). In terms of the relationship

between trace persistence and processing depths, they suggest that deeper levels of

processing contribute to more elaborate, longer lasting, and stronger traces.

According to this hypothesis, retention is determined not so much by the length of

time a piece of information is held in primary memory as by the depth to which the

information is initially processed. To render this concept of a hierarchy of processing

19
stages more complete, Craik and Lockhart further postulated several levels of

processing depths. For instance, processing the sensory features of a new lexical item

(e.g., orthography) occurs at a shallow level, whereas processing the semantic

attributes (e.g., meaning) takes place at a rather deep level. In an empirical sense, a

task that requires subjects to work out the meaning of words leads to better word

retention than one that induces them to simply check whether a certain letter occurs in

these words.

The launch of this concept of levels of processing spurred rigorous theoretical

as well as empirical interest in various strands of memory research, as it allocates

more emphasis on the “process” of cognitive activities than on the structure of

memory system (e.g., Baddeley, 1978, 1998; Craik & Tulving, 1975; Eysenck, 1993;

Glover, Rankin, Langner, Todero & Dinnel, 1985; Nelson, 1977). Nevertheless, the

original framework proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972) is far from clear-cut. For

example, this framework provides commonsensical statements such as “deeper

processing leads to better memory performance,” but says relatively little about the

actual processing mechanism. As an amendment to this preliminary proposal, Craik

and Tulving (1975) further specified the “depth” of processing as “greater degrees of

semantic involvement” (p. 268). Apart from the degree of semanticity in processing,

they also highlighted the importance of elaboration, namely the richness with which

the information is encoded, as a factor that exerts a great influence on retention. This

notion receives added impetus in much of the subsequent research that attests to the

critical role that elaborateness of processing plays in facilitating retention (e.g.,

Chaffin & Herrmann, 1983; Diekhoff, Brown & Dansereau, 1982; Eysenck, 1993;

Eysenck & Eysenck, 1979).

Albeit the profound impact this hypothesis exerts on memory research, doubts

about the depth-of-processing view keep emerging (Baddeley, 1978, 1998; Eysenck,

20
1982, 1993; Nelson, 1977; Nelson, Walling & McEvoy, 1979). One of the major

criticisms is the lack of an independent index of the processing depth. If this

construct of levels of processing is to be empirically testable, a necessary prerequisite

is a sensible measurement whereby different levels of processing can be

unambiguously defined. Craik and Lockhart (1972) suggest that processing time may

serve as a predictor of processing depth, and hence of memory performance, since

deeper processing generally requires longer time to accomplish. Nevertheless, this

proposal was soon rejected, as the relationship between processing time and depth

may not always be positively correlated (Craik & Tulving, 1975; Eysenck, 1982;

Eysenck & Eysenck, 1979).

Another attack that the levels-of-processing theory fails to counter is the

circularity inherent in its core concept that deeper analysis leads to a more persistent

trace (e.g., Eysenck, 1993; Nelson, 1977). According to this framework, the ordering

of the various kinds of processing is achieved in terms of their effect on memory. For

instance, processing semantic attributes is posited to be more effective than

processing phonological features in terms of word retention, and therefore semantic

processing is deeper than phonological processing, and yet it is also contended that

semantic processing is more effective than phonological processing since the former

occurs at a deeper level than the latter does. In an empirical sense, no verification of

such a statement can possibly occur unless a separate stipulation is proposed for both

the ordering of processing depth and for the ordering of memory performance.

Unresolved as these preceding issues may seem, this depth-of-processing view

still enjoys unprecedented status in memory research, albeit the major obstacle of

providing operationalizable, unambiguous definitions is equally formidable for this

hypothesis and for any subsequent proposals to replace the processing depth with any

notion, be it encoding specificity, distinctiveness of encoding, degree of elaboration,

21
degree of richness (e.g., Baddeley, 1998; Eysenck, 1982). Yet, it seems to be a

widely endorsed viewpoint among cognitive psychologists that elaborate processing

of information does facilitate subsequent memory performance. If rich (qualitative)

and numerous (quantitative) associations with the existing framework of knowledge

can be established, the new information will be retained (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).

When applied to the acquisition of the lexicon, the more learners attend to the

linguistic features of a new lexical item, such as its orthography, pronunciation,

grammatical category, meaning, relationship with other words, the better the chances

are that learners may acquire this item.

Nevertheless, nothing can be more fallacious than the attempt to establish a

direct causal link between intentional learning and more elaborative processing, or

between incidental learning and less elaborative processing. As is elaborated in the

previous discussion on incidental and intentional learning, the critical determinant of

intentionality resides in the use of prelearning instructions that either forewarn

subjects of an upcoming test or not (at the psychological level) or the acquisition of

certain knowledge as a main purpose or as a by-product of other cognitive activities

(in a pedagogic sense). Accordingly, the relationship between incidental/intentional

learning and elaborateness in processing may be intertwined. For instance, when a

student is preparing for an oncoming vocabulary test by deliberately committing the

words to memory, the intention on the part of this student is obvious: The purpose is

the mastery of the target words, and this induces intentional learning of these lexical

items. However, if this student attempts to learn these words by allocating attention

simply to the superficial features of these words (e.g., orthography, phonological

characteristics), it is rather unlikely, according to the depth-of-processing hypothesis,

that deep (or elaborate) processing of these words will ensue. On the other hand,

incidental learning may induce elaborate processing provided that substantial

22
attention is allocated to the words that are encountered in another main cognitive task.

For example, when a student concentrates on writing a composition with certain

words, the processing of the lexical items at the semantic level is probably essential,

which in turn, as the depth-of-processing framework dictates, entails deep processing.

It is thus a prudent practice to draw a clear distinction between the concepts of

intentionality in learning and elaborate processing.

2.2 Empirical Research on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition

A wide variety of empirical studies on incidental vocabulary learning are

reviewed in this section. In view of the myriad foci that these studies were aimed to

investigate, this discussion starts with the presentation of these studies grouped

according to their respective research concerns. The review then proceeds to

synthesize from the results of these studies the factors conducive to effective

incidental vocabulary learning. The various host of factors underscore the need for a

set of definite theoretical criteria upon which learning tasks may be graded in terms of

the processing depth, and also the need for the current study—an empirical

investigation of such a theoretical hypothesis—the Involvement Load Hypothesis

(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001).

A major strand of research on vocabulary acquisition, be it L1 or L2, stems

from the conventional wisdom that much of vocabulary learning is made possible

mainly via extensive reading, as the sheer number of words to be acquired is simply

too intractable for explicit vocabulary instruction. Krashen (1989), a leading

proponent of extensive reading, argues that language learners acquire vocabulary and

spelling most efficiently by receiving comprehensible input in reading, a result

conforming to his Input Hypothesis, which ascribes successful language learning

exclusively to a substantial amount of comprehensible input. The uncontested view

23
of the effectiveness of reading stimulated rigorous interest in examining the

relationship between reading and incidental vocabulary learning from context (Coady,

1997b; Fukkink et al., 2001; Konopak et al., 1987; Nagy et al., 1985; Nation & Coady,

1988; Prince, 1996; Swanborn & de Glopper, 2002; van Daalen-Kapteijns et al.,

2001). A unanimous conclusion drawn from these studies is that incidental learning

from context accounts for a substantial proportion of vocabulary acquisition on the

part of the subjects. And yet, it is also suggested that the probability of learning an

unknown word from a single exposure in context is disappointingly low, merely

between .10 to .15 (Nagy et al., 1985) or even less, for about .05 (Herman et al., 1987).

To foster effective incidental learning, researchers have called for attention to other

provisos. For example, Prince (1996) compared the relative advantages and

disadvantages of both context learning (incidental vocabulary learning from context)

and translation learning (intentional learning of words accompanied by their L1

equivalents) and found a superiority of translation learning in terms of quantity, but an

inability of weaker learners to transfer their knowledge into L2 contexts (to supply the

words in appropriate sentences). Prince thus suggests that alternative learning

strategies combining the advantages of the two techniques may merit further

investigation.

Fukkink, Blok and de Glopper (2001), on the other hand, investigated the

nature of vocabulary growth by having young learners (grade 2, 4, and 6) read

assigned texts and then complete multicomponential measure designed to tap learners'

partial as well as full knowledge of the target items. Results suggest that the

incremental nature of vocabulary growth involves adding correct attributes (learning

correct attributes not yet included), deleting false attributes (obliterating false

attributes incorrectly included in the hypothesized word definition), and

decontextualizing students' word definitions (inferring word meanings from context).

24
The findings also showed that grade and concreteness of concepts may be important

factors that impinge on young learners' ability to derive word meaning from context.

Swanborn and de Glopper (2002) pursued yet another intriguing matter: the

relationship between reading ability, reading purpose, and incidental vocabulary

learning from context. Two hundred and twenty three sixth-grade students of a wide

range of reading abilities were assigned to read texts for fun, to learn about the topic

of the text, and to read for text comprehension. Results from a definition task suggest

that participants who read for topical knowledge learned more words than those who

read for text comprehension, who in turn outperformed those who read for fun, and

that low-ability readers were found to hardly learn any words incidentally. The

researchers thus conclude that further aids other than simply extensive reading should

be provided for low-ability readers for significant gains in vocabulary size, and that

the purposes for reading as well as ways to serve the purposes should be made lucid to

learners.

As opposed to the foregoing studies which allocated emphasis mainly to

learner factors (e.g., learners' vocabulary growth processes, reading ability), a relevant

line of research on the effectiveness of reading on incidental vocabulary acquisition

focuses more on the textual aids in the reading material (Herman et al., 1987; Hulstijn,

1992; Watanabe, 1997). Hulstijn (1992) found that when learners read an L2 text for

comprehension of the content, they were more likely to retain the words when they

had inferred their meaning than when the meaning was given to them. Nevertheless,

in view of the many cases in which learners drew wrong inferences when no cue had

been given, the researcher contends that discussion in foreign language pedagogy

should focus on the type of cues to be given to students rather than on whether it is

better to give cues or have learners infer meaning by themselves without a cue. An

effective alternative to traditional L1 or L2 equivalents, according to the researcher, is

25
the multiple-choice procedure in which learners have to choose between four possible

meanings the most appropriate one for the context. The major strength of this

procedure, the researcher argues, is the active involvement of learners in the process

of inferencing while the risk of wild guessing without cues may be effectively

minimized.

Watanabe's (1997) study reveals a somewhat different picture from the results

reported by Hulstijn (1992). He compared the effects of different cue types

(appositives, single and multiple-choice marginal glosses) and a task (translation) on

incidental vocabulary learning. He reported not only a superior effect of both single

and multiple-choice marginal gloss conditions over no cue and appositive conditions,

but also a lack of difference between single and multiple-choice conditions, which

clearly runs counter to the findings by Hulstijn (1992). Watanabe attributes this

difference to the possibility that the subjects in the multiple-choice condition in this

study might have chosen the wrong alternatives, as was evident in their performance

on the translation task during the treatment, or that they might not actually retain what

they had learned during the treatment for later recall more than in the single-gloss

condition.

In addition to such textual aids as the provision of glosses, the use of

dictionary also manifests itself as an intriguing issue for incidental vocabulary

learning (Cho & Krashen, 1994; Hulstijn et al., 1996; Knight, 1994; Luppescu & Day,

1993). The general finding these studies yielded is that access to dictionaries by

students leads to better retention of the target words than when neither such access nor

glosses is given. The efficacy of dictionary use is not without expense, however. For

instance, Luppescu and Day (1993) caution the obvious decrease in reading speed

when learners refer to their dictionaries. They suggest that the benefits of dictionary

use should be carefully weighed against the prolonged reading process.

26
 Apart from the preceding studies, some researchers are intrigued by the effects

of tasks on incidental vocabulary learning (Elley, 1989; Hulstijn & Trompetter, 1998;

Joe, 1995, 1998; Laufer, 2001; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Wesche & Parabakht,

2000). As is reviewed in the previous discussion on incidental/intentional learning,

the intention to learn per se does not matter so much as how the task forces the

material to be processed (R. Schmidt, 1993). Joe (1995, 1998) found that text-based

tasks that entail the active production of the target words (i.e., tasks that induce

generative processing) significantly enhances vocabulary learning, with greater levels

of generative processing leading to greater vocabulary gains for unknown words. On

the other hand, contextualized reading-related activities (selection, recognition,

manipulation, interpretation, production) coupled with a reading text are also found to

be more effective than exposure to multiple reading texts with regard to incidental

vocabulary learning (Parabakht & Wesche, 1997; Wesche & Parabakht, 2000). In

addition to these text-based tasks, the efficacy of interactional tasks also attracts

rigorous attention (e.g., R. Ellis, 1995; R. Ellis & He, 1999; R. Ellis, Tanaka &

Yamazaki, 1994; Loschky, 1994; Newton, 1995). Drawing upon the Interaction

Hypothesis (Long, 1981) and the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995), this line of

research explores the effect of interaction on incidental vocabulary acquisition.

Nevertheless, as the current study aimed to investigate the effect of reading and

writing tasks on L2 vocabulary acquisition, the discussion of the interactional tasks,

which are designed mostly in the oral mode, is beyond the scope and relevance of the

present study and accordingly will be excluded. It should always be borne in mind

that research on incidental vocabulary learning encompasses a wide range of studies,

of which those on reading and writing tasks are but a fraction.

The preceding discussion of research work on incidental vocabulary learning

reveals a wide variety of factors that may play a part in fostering word retention. In a

27
pedagogic sense, while learner factors (e.g., reading ability) may be relatively hard to

maneuver and vary across learners, textual aids and learning tasks are amenable to

manipulation. The potential benefits these factors afford highlight the necessity for a

definite set of criteria for evaluating the efficacy of learning activities. In the

foregoing review of empirical studies, the superiority of a task or a textual aid was

often ascribed to its effectiveness in inducing "deep/elaborate processing" or more

"mental effort " (Hulstijn, 1992). Seemingly sensible as this explanation, the concept

of depth-of-processing suffers from an intractable lack of operationalizable definitions.

As Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) cogently argue, the need is compelling for a set of

theoretical criteria whereby various tasks may be graded with regard to the depths of

processing they induce. To counter the problem, Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) proposed

the Involvement Load Hypothesis as a viable route for the evaluation of task

effectiveness in terms of the processing depth, which will be detailed in the next

section.

2.3 The Involvement Load Hypothesis

To compensate for the lack of operationalizable definitions of the depth-of-

processing theory (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) advanced the

Involvement Load Hypothesis for second language vocabulary learning, in which they

proposed a motivational-cognitive construct of involvement, comprising three basic

components: need, search, and evaluation. The need component refers to the

motivational, noncognitive dimension of involvement—the need based not on fear of

failure but on a drive to fulfill task requirements. Two degrees of prominence for

need, moderate and strong, are differentiated in terms of the intrinsic – extrinsic

distinction. For example, a need is moderate when it is imposed by an external agent

(e.g., the need to identify a word in a sentence as has been asked by the teacher). A

28
strong need is one that is intrinsically motivated (e.g., a need induced as a

consequence of the learner’s decision to look up a word when writing a composition).

Search and evaluation are, as opposed to need, the two cognitive dimensions of

involvement, which are conditional upon the allocation of attention to the form-

meaning relationship (R. Schmidt, 1994, 2001). Search refers to “the attempt to find

the meaning of an unknown L2 word or trying to find the L2 word form expressing a

concept (e.g., trying to find the L2 translation of an L1 word) by consulting a

dictionary or another authority (e.g., a teacher)” (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, p. 14).

Evaluation, on the other hand, refers to the assessment of an appropriate meaning or

use of a given word as is prescribed by a specific context. Put simply, the component

of evaluation implies “a comparison of a given word with other words, a specific

meaning of a word with its other meanings, or combining the word with other words

in order to assess whether a word (i.e., a form-meaning pair) does or does not fit its

context” (p. 14). For instance, in a reading task in which an L2 word looked up has

multiple meanings, the choice of the most appropriate meaning has to be achieved by

means of comparing all the meanings against the context. The component of

evaluation likewise has two degrees of prominence: When evaluation requires the use

of the new word in a given sentence or text, the evaluation is regarded as moderate

whereas an original sentence or text demands strong evaluation in that learners are

required to judge how other words will combine with the new word in point.

According to Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), all of the three involvement factors

may not be at work simultaneously during a reading-based task. The combination of

these factors with their degrees of prominence comprises involvement load. While it

is commonsensical to suggest that different tasks seem to impose varying task

demands on learners, the researchers took an endeavor to operationalize the abstract

load into the measurable concept of “task-induced involvement”. To further illustrate

29
this construct, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) proposed the idea of an “involvement

index”, in which the absence of a factor is marked as 0, a moderate presence of a

factor equals 1, and a strong presence of a factor signifies 2. Two tasks with varying

involvement loads are presented alongside as an example. In the first task, the learner

is asked to write original sentences with some new words whose meanings are

provided by the teacher. In this case, the need is moderate (imposed by the teacher),

there is no search (meanings are provided), and strong evaluation is required in that

the learner has to use the new words in learner-generated contexts. In view of the

involvement indices, the task can be described as having an involvement index of 3 (1

+ 0 + 2). In the second task, the learner is required to read a text (with glosses of the

new words) and to answer comprehension questions. The task thus induces a

moderate need, yet neither search nor evaluation. The involvement index of this task

is accordingly 1 (1 + 0 + 0). Worded differently, the first task is postulated, according

to the construct of task-induced involvement, to induce a greater involvement load

than the second task. With the preliminaries of ways of measuring involvement load,

the basic contention of the Involvement Load Hypothesis is that “retention of

unfamiliar words is, generally, conditional upon the degree of involvement in

processing these words” (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001, p. 545). In other words, the

researchers argue that the greater the involvement load, the better the retention.

Along with this basic formula, the researchers also called attention to the fact that all

three involvement factors may not share equal weight in determining task

effectiveness with regard to vocabulary learning. That is, the same involvement index

may not necessarily imply the same involvement load. For example, a task that

induces a strong need, search, and no evaluation (2 + 1 + 0 = 3) may not be equally

involving as one that induces a moderate need, no search, and a strong evaluation (1 +

0 + 2 = 3). In a similar vein, the researchers made no distinction between the effect of

30
input tasks and that of output tasks with identical involvement indices. The equation

of the involvement loads with same indices calls for further research.

Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) conducted a study testing whether retention of

vocabulary acquired incidentally is conditional upon the amount of task-induced

involvement. Advanced EFL learners at the college level in two countries (87 in the

Netherlands, 99 in Israel) participated in two parallel experiments, with three groups

in each country performing three learning tasks respectively. In the first task,

participants were asked to read a text (with the ten target words glossed in the margin)

and answer ten comprehension questions. In view of involvement load, this task

induced moderate need, but neither search nor evaluation. Its involvement index was

accordingly 1 (1 + 0 + 0). In the second task, the same text and the comprehension

questions were used, but the ten target words were deleted from the text and printed

with five distractors in random order with their L1 translations and L2 explanations

on a separate page. The learners were required to read the text, fill in the ten gaps

with words from the list of 15 words, and answer the comprehension questions. In

terms of involvement load, the second task induced moderate need, no search, and

moderate evaluation, as the words had to be used in a given context. Its involvement

index was thus 2 (1 + 0 + 1). In the third task, students were requested to write a

composition incorporating the ten target words, whose meanings were glossed and

examples of usage provided. With regard to involvement load, this task induced

moderate need, no search, and strong evaluation, as students had to incorporate the

words into their compositions. Its involvement index was therefore 3 (1 + 0 +2). The

three tasks and the involvement load each of them induced are summarized in Table 1

on the following page. After performing the tasks, the six groups of learners took

both an immediate posttest and a delayed posttest, in which they were asked to

provide the L1 equivalents (in this case, Dutch in the Netherlands and Hebrew in

31
 Table 1

The task-induced involvement loads for the three tasks in

Hulstijn and Laufer (2001)

Status of Target Involvement Factors

Task Involvement Index
Words Need Search Evaluation
Highlighted,
1.Reading
marginally-
  1
comprehension
glossed
2. Comprehension Glossed, listed


2
+ Blank-filling with distractors
3. Composition Glossed


3

Israel) or English (the second language of all the subjects) explanations for these

words, and also to indicate, in the immediate posttest, whether they had known the

words prior to the task.

As is indicated in Table 1, these three tasks were identical in inducing a

moderate need and requiring no search, as all the target words were provided together

with their meanings. Nevertheless, these tasks varied in their degrees of prominence:

the reading task entailed no evaluation as no judgment was to be made with regard to

the words; the second task required a moderate evaluation by asking learners to

choose correct words from a list, while the last task involved strong evaluation since

learners had to use the words in original contexts. Drawing on the Involvement Load

Hypothesis, Hulstijn and Laufer hypothesized that the retention scores of the ten

target words would be highest in Task 3 (composition-writing with target words),

lower in Task 2 (comprehension plus filling in target words), and lowest in Task 1

(reading comprehension). Results showed that the hypothesis posited for this study

was partially entertained—the retention score was related to the amount of task-

32
induced involvement load: Retention was highest in the composition task, lower in

reading plus fill-in, and lowest in the reading. Nonetheless, the results from the Dutch

groups revealed no significant differences between the effect of Task 1 (reading

comprehension) and Task 2 (reading plus fill-in). This lack of consistent support for

the Involvement Load Hypothesis along with the relatively few task types

investigated in this study3 points to a compelling need for further research.

Lee (2003) conducted a similar study to empirically test whether the retention

of English words was contingent upon the amount of task-induced involvement load.

EFL learners at the senior high school level performed tasks that involved either

dictionary use or provided glosses and that entail reading for comprehension with or

without gap-filling. Drawing on the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn,

2001) and previous research on incidental vocabulary learning, Lee hypothesized that

retention would vary across tasks with different involvement indices, that dictionary

use is more effective than glosses in view of vocabulary retention, and that reading for

comprehension coupled with gap-filling is more beneficial than reading for

comprehension alone in terms of vocabulary learning. Nevertheless, the study yielded

mixed results that for the most part defied the hypotheses. The researcher concluded

that the failure of the tasks to produce predicted results might be attributable to the

task design, the class difference, the teacher’s attitude and students’ behavior during

the experiment, or students’ exposure to the target words after school. These

arguments, though seemingly justified for the mixed results of Lee’s study, provided

explanations at a methodological rather than a theoretical level. For instance, Lee

suggested that some of the classes performing less involving tasks had better retention

scores than those doing more involving tasks as a result of the teacher’s attitude

toward the experiment (i.e., some teachers were more demanding than others when
3
For examples of learning tasks amenable to manipulation for research or pedagogical purposes, see
Laufer and Hulstijn (2001).

33
asking students to perform the tasks and the posttests). And yet, this confounding

factor provides little theoretical justification for the inconsistent results of the testing

of the Involvement Load Hypothesis. Furthermore, factors other than those suggested

by Lee may well have confounded the findings revealed in her study. For example, as

is detailed in the preceding review section, dictionary use should be deemed as a

complicated factor to be investigated in its own right with respect to vocabulary

retention, yet in Lee’s study, little consideration was given to the dictionaries used

and the ways of their exploitation on the part of students. Worded differently, the

varying information students obtained from the use of dictionaries may have exerted

differential impact on students’ vocabulary knowledge, contributing to the mixed

patterns of vocabulary retention by students. Accordingly, further studies that take

cautious control of the aforementioned confounding factors are needed to provide neat

empirical investigations into the Involvement Load Hypothesis.

From the foregoing discussion of empirical studies on the Involvement Load

Hypothesis, it appears that little consideration has been given to the potential impact

of time-on-task on incidental vocabulary learning. In these studies, no attempt was

made to control for time-on-task, as the researchers claim that it is an inherent feature

of tasks not amenable to manipulation. Yet the better retention effect of tasks with a

higher involvement load may well have resulted from longer exposure (longer time-

on-task) rather than from deeper processing induced by this type of tasks. As is

reviewed in the discussion on the depth-of-processing hypothesis, the relationship

between processing time and depth still calls for delineation. Furthermore, it is

generally argued that equal length of exposure to targets should be deemed as a

necessary prerequisite to allow for equal comparison of the effect across different

tasks (see e.g., Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Robinson, 1996, 1997; Swanborn & de

Glopper, 2002; Watanabe, 1997). To provide a further empirical testing of the

34
Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) while excluding the potential

confounding of processing time and depth, the present study was set up to scrutinize

the nature of the factors that facilitate vocabulary retention by treating time-on-task as

an independent factor. Likewise, to minimize the confounding effect of those factors

found in Lee’s study, the present investigation kept the need and search components

identical across tasks, focusing solely on the evaluation dimension, and some

precautions were taken to control possible methodological concerns (e.g., instruction

sheets for teachers to assure that the instructions were delivered as intended to avoid

teachers’ varying attitude toward the experiments; questionnaire for teachers to detail

the process of the experiments to keep track of students’ behavior during the

experiments).

35
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter is constituted of three major sections. The first section describes

the goals of the current study, followed by a section delineating the method of the

present investigation: the participants, instruments, tasks, procedures, and data

analysis. Finally, the third main section presents the predictions of the study.

3.1 The Goals of the Present Study

The present study aimed to investigate the Involvement Load Hypothesis

(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), which states that retention of unfamiliar words is

conditional upon the amount of task-induced involvement load. As noted in Chapter

2, research on the relationship between processing time and depth has hitherto failed

to provide conclusive results, and the factor of time-on-task has been accorded little

weight in the foregoing hypothesis. Two research questions were thus addressed in

the present study:

(1) Are tasks with a higher involvement load more effective for vocabulary

retention than tasks with a lower involvement load?

(2) Does the factor of time-on-task in its own right exert impact on vocabulary

retention in an incidental-learning context?

In search of answers to the preceding research questions, the researcher set up

two experiments; each contained three tasks with varying involvement loads based on

the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) and they were performed

by senior high EFL learners in an incidental-learning situation. These two

experiments were generally similar in terms of the tasks and instruments, which

included a reading text with ten target words and two (immediate and delayed)

36
posttests, with the difference being the participants and the factor of time-on-task.

3.2 Method

3.2.1 Participants

The participants in this study were six intact classes of first-graders in a

regular senior high school in northern Taiwan (with a total of 267 students), and each

of the classes was randomly assigned to one of the two experiments, thus leaving

three groups in each experiment. All the participants were native speakers of

Mandarin Chinese and also learners of English as a foreign language. All the first-

year classes consisted of male as well as female students, with a ratio of about one

male to one female. The number of students in each class was about 45. All the first-

graders had received English instruction for a minimum of three years and used

identical English textbooks and supplementary materials at the time of testing. Albeit

their various English proficiency levels, the participants shared an equal footing in

learning the target words provided that they had no preknowledge of these targets, a

proviso that were later checked with the results of the immediate posttest.

3.2.2 Instruments

The instruments that were exploited in this study comprised a reading text in

which the target words occurred, along with five reading comprehension questions of

the reading passage, and two (immediate and delayed) posttests.

3.2.2.1 The Target Words

Ten target words were selected from the reading text, based on three criteria:

(1) assumed unfamiliarity to the participants, (2) ease of incorporating the words into

37
a narrative describing personal experiences, and (3) ease of supplying a synonym or a

definition in English as well as an appropriate translation in Chinese in the two

vocabulary posttests. Each criterion was judged mainly by the researcher, who has

extensive experience in teaching English to Taiwanese senior high school students. A

further confirmation of the unfamiliarity of the target words to the participants was

done by checking the target words and their respective word families (e.g., the target

word suppression and words such as press and suppress) against the list of the 2,000

key words decreed by the Ministry of Education for elementary and junior high

school students as well as against the list of the target words in the main textbook

used by the participants at the time of testing. In other words, the participants may

have not been exposed to the target words via their English instruction in school. The

list of the ten target words was also submitted to several experienced English teachers

for comments on the unfamiliarity to first-graders at the senior high school level. As

final confirmation, the ten target lexical items were, prior to the experiment, checked

with the results of a pilot study with respect to the three criteria underlying the

selection of these target words (for a discussion of the pilot study, see the section on

procedures). The ten target words in the experiments, in the order of appearance in

the text, are annoy, hostile, conflict, unfortunately, suppression, maintain,

determination, circumstance, grit, and endure (four nouns, four verbs, one adjective,

and one adverb).

3.2.2.2 The Reading Text

The reading passage was adapted from an article in a reading-comprehension

book, Reading Master (Liu et al., 2002). The passage is about the suppression of

emotions and the potential threats of such behavior to the mental and physical health

of human beings. The text contains 331 words and was selected on several grounds:

38
(1) Participants are supposed to have some general idea of the topic yet little

knowledge of the words relevant to the issue; (2) Learners are capable of writing

about their personal experience pertinent to this topic. Five multiple-choice reading

comprehension questions were also adapted from the same reading material. The

reading passage as well as the comprehension questions was modified according to

the list of the 2,000 key words decreed by the Ministry of Education for elementary

and junior high school students such that the words in the text are roughly within the

participants’ vocabulary range, thereby facilitating comprehension (see e.g., Laufer,

1992). Furthermore, the understanding of the ten target lexical items is generally

relevant to the completion of the comprehension questions. Another criterion for

modifying the text is the number of occurrence for each target word. The passage was

revised in such a way that all the target words and their roots would appear only once

(see Appendix A).

3.2.2.3 The Posttests

Two vocabulary tests (immediate and delayed posttests) were administered in

this study to measure the participants’ vocabulary knowledge upon their completion

of the tasks and one week after their performing these tasks, respectively. No

vocabulary pretest was given directly to the participants so as to avoid undue attention

to the target words on the part of the students. The likelihood of target-word

familiarity, nonetheless, was assessed among a group of learners of similar language

proficiency (see the next section on procedures). The two posttests that were

exploited in this research are detailed as follows.

Immediate Posttest. Upon the completion of the tasks, the participants in both

experiments were unexpectedly given an immediate posttest, which contained a list of

the ten target words (word forms, see Appendix B). The learners were asked to

39
provide the Chinese equivalents or English explanations for these words, and also to

indicate whether they had known the words prior to the task.

Delayed Posttest. The participants in this study sat an unexpected delayed

posttest one week after their performing the tasks. This second vocabulary test is

composed of items identical to those in the immediate posttest, yet with the order of

the ten target words randomized (see Appendix C). These two vocabulary tests

measure receptive knowledge4 only, as this study aimed to investigate learners’

retention of the meaning of these target lexical items.

3.2.3 The Tasks

Three tasks with varying involvement loads were set to serve the purpose of

the present study. The two experiments of the study shared identical tasks, with the

differences being the participants and the factor of time-on-task.

Task 1: Reading comprehension with marginal glosses. Learners performing

Task 1 were provided with a text and five multiple-choice comprehension questions

based on the reading passage. These questions either incorporated some target words

or paraphrased the original sentences in which these targets occurred. Accordingly,

the successful completion of the questions entailed the understanding of the target

lexical items. In the reading passage, the ten target words were highlighted in bold

print and were marginally glossed in English (L2) as well as in Chinese (L1) (see

Appendix D). The task of the students was to read the text and answer the five

comprehension questions. In terms of involvement load, Task 1 induced moderate

need (imposed by an external agent), but neither search nor evaluation (as the

meanings of the target words were provided, and no assessment of the glosses was

4
For discussions on vocabulary knowledge, see Henriksen (1998); Hulstijn (2001); Laufer and Nation
(1999); Nation (2001); Qian (1999); Read and Chapelle (2001), and N. Schmidt (2000).

40
necessary). Its involvement index was 1 (1 + 0 + 0).

Task 2: Reading comprehension plus “fill in.” Students performing Task 2

were given the same text and the same questions as those performing Task 1.

Nonetheless, in Task 2, the ten target words were deleted from the text, leaving ten

gaps to be filled in. The ten target lexical items, along with five distractors that did

not appear in the original passage, were printed in random order as a list on a separate

page with their English explanations and Chinese translations (see Appendix E). The

task was to read the article, fill in the ten gaps with the words from the list of 15

words, and answer the comprehension questions. With respect to involvement load,

Task 2 induced moderate need, no search, and moderate evaluation, as the students

had to evaluate whether a certain word fit a given context. Its involvement load index

was thus 2 (1 + 0 +1).

Task 3: Writing a composition with the ten target words. Participants

performing Task 3 were required to write a composition about their personal

experience when they felt strong emotions (e.g., anger, excitement, happiness). The

students were instructed that grammaticality was of secondary importance, and that

the clarity of the main idea of the composition as well as the incorporation of the ten

target words would account for the most part of the scoring criteria. The same ten

words and their respective glosses were given as in Task 1, but with a sample phrase

for each target word (see Appendix F). The provision of a phrase rather than a

sentence was to minimize the possibility that students might simply copy the

sentences to their compositions, and thus reduce the need for elaborate processing of

the words. In view of the involvement load, Task 3 induced moderate need, no search,

and strong evaluation, as words had to be used in an original context. Its involvement

index was accordingly 3 (1 + 0 + 2).

The task-induced involvement loads for the three tasks in the current study are

41
 Table 2

The task-induced involvement loads for the three tasks in the present study

Status of Target Involvement Factors

Task Involvement Index
Words Need Search Evaluation
Highlighted,
1.Reading
marginally-
  1
comprehension
glossed
2. Comprehension Glossed, listed


2
+ Blank-filling with distractors
3. Composition Glossed


3

summarized in Table 2. All the three tasks in this study were identical to those in

Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), since the aim of the present study was to investigate

whether the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) holds for

participants at different proficiency levels from those in the aforementioned study.

The major difference between the two studies was the treatment of the factor of time-

on-task. Whereas time-on-task was regarded in the previous study as an inherent

feature of tasks not amenable to manipulation, this factor was deemed as an issue that

merited further investigation in this study. In the first experiment in the current study,

the three tasks were performed with time-on-task not controlled. In other words, all

the subjects were allowed to take as much time as they needed to complete their task.

Thus the first experiment bore much resemblance to Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001)

study except for the proficiency level of the participants. On the other hand, in the

second experiment, exactly the same three tasks were performed, yet the time limit for

these tasks was kept identical. This requirement was achieved by giving differing

instructions to the three groups of learners. In addition to the emphasis on the

successful completion of the tasks, participants performing the first and second tasks

42
were informed of an upcoming test on the topical knowledge of the reading text,

which might effectively motivate them to keep concentrating on the tasks even after

they have finished them. On the other hand, students performing Task 3 were, in

addition to the emphasis on the incorporation of the ten target words into their

compositions, instructed to focus more on the expression of concepts than on

grammaticality so that this task would not too heavily tax learners’ cognitive capacity

and would thus be easier to accomplish within the time limit.

3.2.4 Procedures

The selection of the reading material as well as the design of tasks and

posttests drew heavily on the results of a pilot study, which will be detailed below,

followed by an account of the procedures of the main study.

The Pilot Study. Prior to the experiments proper, a pilot study was conducted

to serve the following functions: (1) to assess the likelihood of target-word familiarity

among learners of similar language proficiency to the participants’ in this study, (2) to

examine the appropriateness of the difficulty level of the materials to be used in the

main study, and (3) to investigate whether the differing instructions given in the three

tasks will effectively keep the learners concentrating on their assigned task and finish

it within a time limit of 25 to 30 minutes. An intact class of 45 first-graders in the

same senior high school who did not take part in the experiments proper were

randomly divided into three groups, each of which was assigned one of the three

aforementioned tasks and received different instructions (discussed in the preceding

section on the tasks). Results showed that the mean of knowledge was lower than 1

out of the ten target words. As the students in the experimental groups in the main

study were of similar language proficiency, it was assumed that most of the target

words would in effect be unfamiliar to them. Nonetheless, as will be detailed below,

43
preknowledge of the experimental groups was also checked at the end of the treatment.

The Main Study. The six experimental groups in the two experiments (three

groups in each experiment) were randomly assigned to perform one of the three tasks

during regular English class sessions. The students followed their English teachers’

instructions to perform the tasks and were not informed of an on-coming retention test

of the target lexical items in the reading passage. None of the tasks was presented as

a vocabulary-learning task, with the first two tasks being introduced as reading

activities and the third task a writing exercise. As is delineated in the section on the

tasks, time-on-task was not controlled in the first experiment. Consequently, the three

classes spent 16, 28, and 30 minutes accomplishing their assigned task, respectively.

The time limit in the second experiment, nevertheless, was kept identical across

different tasks (35 minutes). In both experiments, the work sheets were collected

after the completion of the task, and the students were given a vocabulary test sheet

with a list of the ten target lexical items, for which they were requested to provide

meanings (either in Chinese or English). The participants were also demanded to

indicate whether they had known the words prior to the experiments proper. This

practice was an additional check for the preknowledge of the ten target lexical items

on the part of the learners. The test sheets were then collected and not returned to the

students. One week later, the students received the same vocabulary test again. The

time limit for both the immediate and delayed posttests was 5 minutes.

3.2.5 Data Analysis

The vocabulary posttests were scored by the researcher, who has extensive

experience in teaching English to Taiwanese senior high school students. A word that

was not glossed (either in English or Chinese) or was wrongly glossed was assigned a

score of 0. A correct response received 1 point. A semantically approximate

44
response was awarded 0.5 point. If an answer was controversial in terms of the

degree of semantic approximation, opinions of other experienced teachers were

sought for the scoring of this item. Nevertheless, if a learner gave a correct response

but had also marked the target word as known prior to the experiment, the response

was scored as zero.

Identical statistical procedures were performed for the analysis of the retention

scores in both experiments. To begin with, the mean scores and standard deviations

of the immediate and delayed posttests of the six groups in these experiments were

tabulated. Retention scores of the immediate and delayed posttests were then

submitted to a 3  2 analysis of variance (ANOVA), with task type as the between-

subjects factor (reading, reading plus fill-in, writing) and time as the within-subjects

factor (immediate and delayed posttests). As the results revealed statistically

significant differences among the groups, post-hoc analyses (Scheffé tests) were

administered to pinpoint the location of the differences. Finally, six t-tests were

performed to further compare the retention effect of each task in the two experiments.

An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.

3.3 The Predictions

Drawing on the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) and

previous research on incidental vocabulary learning, the following predictions were

formulated for both experiments to empirically test the effectiveness of this

hypothesis in predicting task efficacy of the retention of English vocabulary in an

incidental-learning situation in the Taiwanese EFL context:

(1) In the first experiment (time-on-task not controlled), the retention scores of

the ten target words will be highest in Task 3 (composition with

incorporated target words), lower in Task 2 (reading comprehension plus

45
 filling in target words), and lowest in Task 1 (reading comprehension with

marginal glosses for target words).

(2) In the second experiment (time-on-task controlled), the factor of time-on-

task will not exert impact on the retention scores of the ten target words.

Therefore, the retention scores of the ten target words will be highest in

Task 3, lower in Task 2, and lowest in Task 1.

46
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of two sections: results and discussion of the two

empirical investigations of the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn,

2001). To begin with, the results of the statistical analyses of the two research

questions are presented, followed by a discussion of each of its findings in light of the

construct of task-induced involvement load.

4.1 Results and Discussion of Research Question 1

Are tasks with a higher involvement load more effective for vocabulary

retention than tasks with a lower involvement load?

4.1.1 Results

As detailed earlier, the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn,

2001) holds that tasks with a higher involvement load will be more effective than

tasks with a lower involvement load in terms of vocabulary retention. Drawing upon

the criteria outlined in the hypothesis, the involvement index for each of the tasks was

3 for Task 3 (writing), 2 for Task 2 (reading plus fill-in), and 1 for Task 1 (reading).

Thus, the following prediction was formulated:

In the first experiment, the retention scores of the ten target words will be

highest in Task 3 (composition with incorporated target words), lower in Task 2

(reading comprehension plus filling in target words), and lowest in Task 1 (reading

comprehension with marginal glosses for target words).

Retention scores of the participants who were present at both the immediate

and delayed posttests in the first experiment are displayed in Table 3. To determine

47
 Table 3

Number of participants, mean retention scores, and standard deviations

of the immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment I

Immediate Posttest Delayed Posttest

Task n
M SD M SD
Task 1: Reading 45 1.1411a 1.5274 0.4222 a 0.5431
Task 2: Reading + fill-in 45 3.2778 b 1.9845 1.0889 b 1.0185
Task 3: Writing 45 5.6667 c 2.7199 1.9889 c 1.8753
Note. The possible maximum score was 10. Means in the same column that do not share the same
letters differ significantly at p .05 by the Scheffé test. In the immediate posttest, for instance, there
were significant differences among all the three tasks.

Table 4
ANOVA on the retention scores of the immediate

and delayed posttests in Experiment I

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between-subjects
Task 383.496 2 191.748 45.478 .000
S within-group error 556.556 132 4.216
Within-subjects
Time 352.490 1 352.490 180.181 .000
Time  Task 81.652 2 40.826 20.869 .000
Time  S within-group error 258.233 132 1.956

Note. S
subjects.

whether there was statistically significant effect of each factor, retention scores were

then submitted to a 3  2 analysis of variance (ANOVA), with task as the between-

subjects factor (reading, reading plus fill-in, writing) and time (immediate and

delayed posttests) as the within-subjects factor (see Table 4 above).

The ANOVA results indicated a significant task effect, F (2, 132) = 45.478; p

 .001, as well as a significant time effect, F (1, 132) = 180.181; p  .001, and a

48
significant task  time interaction, F (2, 132) = 20.869; p  .001. As a significant

task effect was obtained, Scheffé post hoc multiple-range tests were administered to

pinpoint the location of the differences (see Table 3).

The Scheffé test on the immediate posttest scores in Experiment I revealed

that in the immediate posttest, the mean scores of all the three groups were

significantly different from each other. As seen in Table 3, the mean score of the

writing group (Task 3) was significantly better than that of the reading plus fill-in

group (Task 2), which in turn was significantly higher than that of the reading group

(Task 1).

A similar pattern was observed in the retention scores of the delayed posttest

in Experiment I. A second Scheffé test indicated that in the delayed posttest, there

were statistically significant differences between all the pairs. Drawing on the mean

retention scores in Table 3 and the results of the Scheffé analysis, it appears that the

group performing Task 3 (writing) got significantly better scores than the group doing

Task 2 (reading plus fill-in), whose mean score was in turn significantly better than

that of the group performing Task 1 (reading). In brief, the figures in Table 3

demonstrated substantial and consistent support for the prediction. Retention scores

of both the immediate and delayed posttests patterned together revealing a superiority

of the performance in the group performing Task 3 (writing) over that in the group

doing Task 2 (reading plus fill-in), which, in turn, was higher than that in the group

performing Task 1 (reading).

As delineated earlier, a significant time effect as well as a significant task 

time interaction was found apart from a significant task effect (see Table 4 for details).

The effect of time and that of task  time interaction on the retention scores are

evident in the lines in Figure 1 on the following page. The sharp decline of the lines

shows that the performance in all the three groups degenerated significantly at the

49
delayed posttest, a phenomenon frequently ascribed to the incidental nature of

exposure to target words in studies on vocabulary retention. Furthermore, the initial

differences observed among the performance of the three groups were reduced at the

delayed posttest, indicating that the effect of task type on vocabulary retention may

have been attenuated by the lapse of time. Nonetheless, the pattern of performance in

the three groups on the delayed posttest remained similar to that on the immediate

posttest, suggesting that the effect of task persisted through the interval between the

two posttests.


&'
# $%


 

 
 
 !
" 


(*)

 +,.- /
0213 )
4/567
/18/7 +49(:;,<

(*)

 +,.- /
0213 )
4/567
/18/7 +49(:;

(*)

 +,.- /
0213 )
4/567
/18/7 +49(:;=

Figure 1

Retention scores of the immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment I

4.1.2 Discussion

The findings of Experiment I (time-on-task not controlled) in the present study

provide strong support for the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn,

2001), which claims that tasks with a higher involvement load are more effective for

vocabulary retention than tasks with a lower involvement load. As detailed earlier, it

was predicted that the retention scores would be highest in Task 3, lower in Task 2,

and lowest in Task 1. This prediction was fully borne out in both the immediate and

50
delayed posttests, indicating that task type was a factor of critical importance with

regard to incidental vocabulary learning.

Furthermore, in accordance with the results of most previous studies on

incidental vocabulary acquisition (e.g., Herman et al., 1987; Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001;

Nagy et al., 1985; Watanabe, 1997), the present study reports a significant decline in

the performance of all the three groups from the immediate posttest to the delayed

posttest. This finding provides further empirical backing for the claim that incidental

learning of vocabulary, though possible through reading or writing tasks, may be of

limited effectiveness unless it is coupled with some complementary measures (e.g.,

repeated exposure to target words on the part of learners, see Watanabe, 1997). As is

evident from the low mean scores of all the participants on the delayed posttest, one

single exposure to a vocabulary item is scarcely enough to leave a sufficiently deep

imprint in memory that keeps a word available for retrieval in the long term.

Likewise, the current study found that the initial advantage of tasks with a

higher involvement load was weakened as time elapsed (i.e., the significant task 

time interaction), suggesting that further reinforcement may be essential to sustain the

superiority of more “involving” tasks. In the present investigation, words that had

been initially processed with higher involvement load were retained better than words

that had been processed with lower involvement load, a finding consonant with the

claim that elaborate processing fosters retention (e.g., Chaffin & Herrmann, 1983;

Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Eysenck, 1993). Yet the somewhat reduced differences in

the mean scores across the three groups at the delayed posttest point to a compelling

need for measures that help consolidate the superior effect of more “involving” tasks

(e.g., follow-up vocabulary exercises on the target items).

In a nutshell, the findings of Experiment I fully entertain the Involvement

Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), providing sufficient grounds for

51
supposing that learning tasks with a greater involvement load induce more elaborate

processing of the target words, which in turn leads to better retention of the

vocabulary items. Nonetheless, such findings clearly run counter to the results of

Lee’s (2003) study, which was conducted with subjects comparable to those in the

present study (senior high school students) yet reported mostly negative evidence for

the hypothesis. Plausible reasons for such discrepancy in the results of the two

studies may be that the confounding variables Lee has enumerated (e.g., teachers’

attitude, students’ psychology) as well as other possible confounding factors (e.g.,

dictionary use) were controlled in the present study, and that different components

were investigated in these two studies (i.e., search and evaluation in Lee’s study

while evaluation in the current study). The veracity of the foregoing reasons remains

to be verified in future investigations into the Involvement Load Hypothesis.

4.2 Results and Discussion of Research Question 2

Does the factor of time-on-task in its own right exert impact on vocabulary

retention in an incidental-learning context?

4.2.1 Results

According to Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), time-on-task is a factor inherent in

tasks, thus not amenable to manipulation. Yet the better retention effect of tasks with

a higher involvement load found in Hulstijn and Laufer's (2001) study may well have

resulted from longer exposure to the target words (i.e., longer time-on-task) rather

than from deeper processing induced by this type of tasks. Accordingly, in tune with

previous emphasis on equal length of exposure to targets in studies on task effect (e.g.,

Paribakht & Wesche, 1997; Robinson, 1996, 1997; Swanborn & de Glopper, 2002;

Watanabe, 1997), the factor of time-on-task was held constant in Experiment II to

52
 Table 5

Number of participants, mean retention scores, and standard deviations

of the immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment II

Immediate Posttest Delayed Posttest

Task n
M SD M SD
Task 1: Reading 44 3.1932 a 2.1437 0.5227 a 0.6985
Task 2: Reading + fill-in 44 4.0909 a 2.2001 1.6477 b 1.8726
Task 3: Writing 44 6.0909 b 2.5683 1.7045 b 1.6682
Note. The possible maximum score was 10. Means in the same column that do not share the same
letters differ significantly at p .05 by the Scheffé test.

Table 6
ANOVA on the retention scores of the immediate and

delayed posttests in Experiment II

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between-subjects
Task 183.074 2 91.537 18.292 .000
S within-group error 645.551 129 5.004
Within-subjects
Time 661.833 1 661.833 254.661 .000
Time  Task 49.661 2 24.830 9.554 .000
Time  S within-group error 335.256 129 2.599

Note. S
subjects.

render equal comparison of the effect across tasks with different involvement loads.

Drawing upon the Involvement Load Hypothesis, a second prediction was formulated

as follows:

In the second experiment, the factor of time-on-task will not exert impact on

the retention scores of the ten target words. Therefore, the retention scores of the ten

target words will be highest in Task 3, lower in Task 2, and lowest in Task 1.

53
 Retention scores of the participants who were present at both the immediate

and delayed posttests in the second experiment are displayed in Table 5. To examine

the effect of each factor, retention scores were further submitted to another 3  2

analysis of variance (ANOVA), with task as the between-subjects factor (reading,

reading plus fill-in, writing) and time (immediate and delayed posttests) as the within-

subjects factor (see Table 6).

The ANOVA results revealed a significant task effect, F (2, 129) = 18.292; p

 .001, as well as a significant time effect, F (1, 129) = 254.661; p  .001, and a

significant task  time interaction, F (2, 129) = 9.554; p  .001. As a significant task

effect was obtained, Scheffé post hoc multiple-range tests were performed to locate

the statistically significant differences (see Table 5).

The Scheffé test indicated that in the immediate posttest, the mean score of the

writing (Task 3) group was significantly different from the mean scores of the reading

(Task 1) and reading plus fill-in (Task 2) groups, but that the mean scores of the latter

two groups did not differ significantly from each other. From the mean scores and the

Scheffé analysis in Table 5, it emerged that the mean scores of the three groups

conformed to the pattern of a superiority of Task 3 over Task 2, which in turn, was

better than Task 1, albeit the difference between the latter two tasks was not

statistically significant.

A somewhat different pattern was observed in the retention scores of the

delayed posttest in Experiment II. A second Scheffé test (see Table 5) showed that in

the delayed posttest, there were statistically significant differences between the mean

score of the group performing Task 1 (reading) and the means of the groups doing

Task 2 (reading plus fill-in) and Task 3 (writing), but that the mean scores of the latter

two groups did not differ significantly from each other. The means and the results of

the Scheffé analysis in Table 5 revealed that in the delayed posttest, generally, the

54
writing group (Task 3) performed better than the reading plus fill-in group (Task 2),

which in turn, outperformed the reading group (Task 1), yet the superiority of Task 3

over Task 2 was not statistically significant.

Apart from a significant task effect, the results of Experiment II showed a

significant time effect as well as a significant task  time interaction (see Table 6 for

details). The effect of time and that of task  time interaction on the retention scores

are pronounced as shown in Figure 2 below. The downward lines revealed a general

degeneration of the performance in all the three groups on the delayed posttest,

suggesting that the interval between the two posttests may be a plausible reason for

the decline in performance of vocabulary retention. Furthermore, the initial

difference between Task 3 and Task 2 reduced significantly at the delayed posttest,

indicating that the lapse of time may have diluted the effect of task type on

vocabulary retention. In general, the pattern of the performance across the three

groups remained similar at the immediate and delayed posttests, yet the differences

among tasks were not always significant.


&'
# $%


8
6
2 
 "
  !
"2 


(*)
0
 +.- /
613 )
04/56 
/1 /7 +49(:; <

(*)
0
 +.- /
613 )
04/56 
/1 /7 +49(:;

(*)
0
 +.- /
613 )
04/56 
/1 /7 +49(:; 

Figure 2

Retention scores of the immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment II

55
4.2.2 Discussion

The results of Experiment II (time-on-task controlled) provide partial support

for the Involvement Load Hypothesis, in that on both posttests Task 3 yielded higher

retention than Task 2, which in turn produced better retention than Task 1, and yet,

the differences among these tasks were not always statistically significant. The lack

of consistently significant differences among the three tasks points to the possibility

that the effect of task type, albeit an essential factor of vocabulary learning, may be

susceptible to other factors when the length of exposure to target items is held

constant. In other words, when learners are exposed to new words for an equal length

of time performing different tasks, the construct of task-induced involvement load

may not be the sole determinant of the superior effect of more "involving" tasks.

When the participants in the current investigation were given the same amount of time

to perform these tasks, it was found that the writing task fared significantly better than

the other two tasks in the immediate posttest, but that the two reading tasks (reading,

reading plus fill-in) did not significantly differ from each other. It thus appears that

task-induced involvement load may provide only partial explanation for the different

impact that the three tasks in point exerted on vocabulary retention. To be more

specific, the differential cognitive processing that each task induces may be too

sophisticated to be quantified by the simplified criteria that Laufer and Hulstijn (2001)

have offered for grading the evaluation factor. That is to say, the difference of a

“plus” in the evaluation component between Task 3 (++evaluation) and Task 2

(+evaluation) did not bear the same weight (impact on incidental vocabulary learning)

as that one “plus” between Task 2 (+evaluation) and Task 1 (-evaluation).

Accordingly, further research is needed to scrutinize the nature of the evaluation

factor so as to refine the criteria for grading this component, rendering the hypothesis

more effective in predicting task efficacy.

56
 Apart from a significant task effect, the results of Experiment II also show

poor vocabulary retention at the delayed posttest as commonly found in many

previous studies on incidental vocabulary acquisition (e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001;

Watanabe, 1997), indicating that substantial learning cannot be expected with one

exposure to target items, however "involving" a task is. An investigation into the

results of the two experiments in the present study shows that task efficacy of

vocabulary learning is largely constrained by the lapse of time between the two

posttests, regardless of the length of the initial exposure to the target words.

Furthermore, the second experiment reports a significant decline of the initial

superiority of the writing task (Task 3) from the immediate posttest to the delayed

posttest (i.e., the significant task  time interaction), whereas the difference between

the retention scores of Task 2 and Task 1 remains relatively unaffected. This finding

suggests that when learners are granted equal length of exposure to the target words,

the differential task effects are, to some extent, still susceptible to the influence of the

interval between the two posttests.

Whereas the results of the two experiments in the current study appear

compelling for the construct of task-induced involvement load, the lack of statistically

significant differences between Task 2 and Task 1 as observed on the immediate

posttest in Experiment II suggests that time-on-task may be a factor that also bears

considering in investigations of task effect on vocabulary retention. As detailed

earlier, the findings of the two experiments suggest that task-induced involvement

load, as applied to different task types, may be a prime determinant of task efficacy,

yet a closer investigation into the effect of identical tasks in the two experiments

reveals another systematic pattern. As mentioned in the methodology section, the

time spent for the completion of tasks in Experiment I was 16 minutes for Task 1, 28

minutes for Task 2, and 30 minutes for Task 3, while in Experiment II, the time limit

57
 Table 7

Mean scores of the immediate and delayed posttests in Experiment I and II

Experiment I Experiment II
Task
Immediate Delayed Immediate Delayed
Task 1: Reading 1.1411 0.4222 3.1932 0.5227
Task 2: Reading + fill-in 3.2778 1.0889 4.0909 1.6477
Task 3: Writing 5.6667 1.9889 6.0909 1.7045

for all the three tasks was 35 minutes. The figures in Table 7 above show that in

general, the participants spending more time for the completion of the same task in

the two experiments (i.e., longer time-on-task) got better retention scores on both the

immediate and delayed posttests (except the scores of the two writing groups on the

delayed posttest).

In view of the fact that for each task in the two experiments, longer time-on-

task generally led to better retention, six separate t-tests were then performed on the

retention scores to further compare the retention effect of each task (see Table 8 on

the following page). The results revealed a significant difference between the effect

of Task 1 on the immediate posttest in the two investigations as well as a marginally

significant difference between the effect of Task 2 on both posttests in these

experiments, suggesting that when the participants performed identical tasks, longer

time-on-task, hence longer exposure to target items, may lead to significantly better

retention. For instance, when the participants spent 16 and 35 minutes in Experiment

I and II respectively to complete the reading task, the same task yielded significantly

different retention scores in the two experiments, with the latter reading group

significantly outperforming the former one in vocabulary retention.

58
 Table 8

Comparisons of mean scores of the immediate and

delayed posttests between Experiment I and II

t-test for Equality of Means

Task Posttest
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Immediate 4.525 87 .000*
Task 1: Reading
Delayed .759 87 .450
Immediate 1.832 87 .070#
Task 2: Reading + fill-in
Delayed 1.754 87 .083#
Immediate .756 87 .452
Task 3: Writing
Delayed .755 87 .452

*significant at the .05 level. # marginally significant.

In summary, the findings of Experiment II (time-on-task controlled) partially

support the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), with tasks with

a greater involvement load generally producing better vocabulary retention than tasks

with a lower involvement load, yet the superiority of more “involving” tasks was not

always statistically significant. Furthermore, the comparison of retention scores of

each task in the two experiments indicates that longer time-on-task may produce more

facilitative effect as compared with shorter exposure to the target words when learners

are asked to perform identical tasks. Taken together, it is reasonable to infer from the

results of the two experiments that the Involvement Load Hypothesis does have

considerable merit in predicting task efficacy in terms of vocabulary retention, yet the

factor of time-on-task also has some role to play and should thus be given more

serious investigative attention in studies on task effect on incidental vocabulary

learning.

59
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

This chapter is composed of three sections. The first section summarizes the

major findings of the present study, followed by a section delineating the theoretical

as well as pedagogical implications of the current investigation. Finally, the third

section discusses the limitations of the study and provides suggestions for future

research.

5.1 Summary of the Findings

While it makes some intuitive sense to suggest that more involving tasks take

longer time and produce better vocabulary retention, there has been sparse empirical

investigation into task efficacy based on solid theoretical criteria for the degree of

task-induced involvement. The present study was set up to scrutinize the contention

of one such framework, the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001),

by examining the effect of tasks varying in involvement load on vocabulary retention.

Two research questions were addressed: (1) Are tasks with a higher involvement load

more effective for vocabulary retention than tasks with a lower involvement load? (2)

Does the factor of time-on-task in its own right exert impact on vocabulary retention?

The findings of the current study can be summarized as follows:

When learners were given as much time as they needed for the completion of

the assigned task (i.e., time-on-task not controlled), tasks with a higher involvement

load (as graded by the criteria outlined in the Involvement Load Hypothesis) were

found to be more effective for vocabulary retention than tasks with a lower

involvement load. Worded differently, the writing group significantly outperformed

the reading plus fill-in group, which in turn outscored the reading group.

60
 With regard to the question of whether the factor of time-on-task impacts on

vocabulary retention, the results point in a positive direction. On the whole, when

participants were given the same amount of time for the completion of tasks (i.e.,

time-on-task controlled), more involving tasks were found to be more effective for

vocabulary retention, as predicted by the Involvement Load Hypothesis, yet the

differences in retention scores were not consistently significant. Furthermore, a

comparison of the same task in the two experiments (time-on-task not controlled and

time-on-task controlled, respectively) revealed that for an identical task, longer

exposure (i.e., longer time-on-task) generally led to better retention. It thus emerges

from the above findings that time-on-task, albeit not as critical a component as the

construct of task-induced involvement load, may still have some role to play in task

efficacy.

5.2 Implications

Theoretically, the findings of the present study provide generally positive

support for the Involvement Load Hypothesis, which contends that the retention of

unfamiliar words is contingent upon the degree of involvement in processing these

words. Yet the lack of constant superiority of more “involving” tasks (i.e. tasks that

induce a greater involvement load) over less involving ones suggests that the

hypothesis may stand in need of further modification. Put differently, in the second

experiment, the failure of the reading plus fill-in task (with an involvement index of 2)

to consistently produce significantly better retention than the reading task (with an

involvement index of 1) illustrates the inadequacy of the Involvement Load

Hypothesis as a refined framework for predicting task efficacy. To be specific, the

criteria that Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) have proposed for grading the evaluation

component may be too simplified for the sophisticated nature of the cognitive

61
processing that different tasks induce. More research undertakings are thus essential

to further clarify the nature of this factor, rendering the construct of task-induced

involvement load a more valid theoretical perspective.

Likewise, the results of the study suggest that the factor of time-on-task in

itself merits more serious empirical interest in further investigation. According to

Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), time-on-task is an inherent property of tasks rather than a

separate variable. Yet the findings of the current study indicate that when time-on-

task is held constant, the superior effect of more involving tasks is no longer

consistently significant, and for an identical task, longer time-on-task generally leads

to better retention. These findings apparently cast doubt on the foregoing claim that

time-on-task is inherent in tasks, hence not amenable to manipulation. Conversely,

the position argued in this section is that this factor impacts on vocabulary retention,

and therefore warrants extensive exploration in future research on task efficacy.

In a pedagogical sense, the implications of the findings of the present study are

also readily apparent. To begin with, the low vocabulary retention rate as found in

both experiments endorses the notion that one incidental encounter with unfamiliar

words is scarcely enough for acquisition to take place, no matter how involving a task

is (see e.g., Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Nagy et al., 1985; Watanabe, 1997). It is

contended that at least ten exposures are required to make a word a promising

candidate for acquisition (Nation & Wang, 1999). Yet exposure by itself may not

suffice for vocabulary learning, in that many words may simply go unperceived.

Since incidental learning of vocabulary is a gradual process, substantial vocabulary

knowledge may best be built upon repeated exposures as well as elaborate processing

of lexical items. Accordingly, tactful exploitation of multiple tasks with different

involvement loads may foster optimal vocabulary development in learners.

A second pedagogical implication from the current study is that the

62
implementation of learning tasks should be a principled undertaking based on several

concerns. For instance, any task to be employed should be adequate for the language

proficiency levels of learners. In the present study, the participants were demanded to

write a composition, an involving task which was reasonable for these intermediate

learners yet too overwhelming for less competent learners. In the first case, the task

barely posed cognitive problems for the learners whereas in the second case, other

involving tasks which entail search and evaluation in given rather than original

contexts may be promising alternatives for less capable students. Another concern to

be taken into consideration is the sort of reinforcement that teachers want to provide

for different words (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001). Since the current study found that

involving tasks such as writing a composition produces significantly better retention

as compared with the two reading tasks (reading and reading plus fill-in), this type of

involving tasks may be appropriate for the learning of important words (e.g.,

academic words for advanced students) or words with considerable lexical difficulties

(e.g., idioms, false cognates, homonyms). Conversely, a reading task with a lower

involvement load, as was used in the present study, would suffice for relatively easy

words, which impose less learning demand on students.

A final implication for L2 pedagogy is that for the deployment of tasks

varying in involvement load, the time span for the completion of individual task

should be weighed carefully against the potential benefit that different tasks may reap.

Drawing on the findings of the current investigation, the claim we are led to is that

tasks with a higher involvement load are more effective for vocabulary retention as

compared to less involving tasks, thus better alternatives for fostering vocabulary

learning in students. Nonetheless, given that the instruction time of L2 learning in a

foreign language environment is often fairly limited, and that involving tasks

generally, though not invariably, take longer time, teachers should make strategic

63
decisions with regard to the exploitation of learning tasks. In the first experiment of

the current study (time-on-task not controlled), the participants spent the most time

for the completion of the writing task, which produced significantly better retention

than the other two reading tasks. Nevertheless, such involving tasks can hardly be the

sole focus of practice in a language-learning environment on account of their time-

consuming nature. Instructors should thus circumspectly balance the use of several

simpler tasks with a few involving tasks for optimal acquisition results.

5.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research

In addition to providing an empirical testing of the Involvement Load

Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) for its merit in predicting task efficacy in terms

of incidental vocabulary learning, the current study also evaluates the role that the

factor of time-on-task plays in this hypothesis. Nonetheless, the investigations

conducted in the present study are liable to several restrictions.

First of all, the participants in the study were provided with only one exposure

to the target words. In tune with previous studies on the Involvement Load

Hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Lee, 2003), the current study investigated the

short-term effect of tasks with different involvement loads on vocabulary learning in

one-shot experiments, which are particularly susceptible to several factors. For

example, given that one exposure to target lexical items scarcely leaves deep imprint

in memory, and that the study measured only receptive knowledge, learners might

have resorted to guesswork for the completion of the posttests. That is to say,

students might have made wild guesses on the tests for fear of getting poor grades.

Future research on the Involvement Load Hypothesis should therefore examine the

long-term effect of the hypothesis by providing learners with multiple exposures to

the target words so as to attenuate the possible effect of the aforementioned factors on

64
the acquisition results. On the other hand, investigation into the relationship between

task type and the number of exposures may also shed light on the effectiveness of the

hypothesis from a long-term perspective: whether the elaborate processing induced by

an involving task can compensate for the fairly limited number of times that learners

are exposed to unfamiliar words as commonly found in a language-learning

environment. Future studies should thus compare the relative effectiveness of one

involving, yet presumably time-consuming, task with that of several simpler tasks that

take up less instruction time.

Another limitation of the current study is that only three tasks (reading,

reading plus fill-in, writing) were investigated in the testing of the Involvement Load

Hypothesis. In view of the striking disparities of the results reported in previous

studies on the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Lee, 2003),

the present study aimed to empirically test the contentions of this hypothesis by

exploiting the same tasks in Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001) study. Nevertheless, since

the list of task type is constrained only by practitioners’ creativity, it is important for

further research to examine more tasks with different involvement loads if the

Involvement Load Hypothesis were to open up exciting vistas for application as well

as for theory. One such productive venue for future research would be text-based

vocabulary-learning activities, as the ones deployed in the current study, which, when

deployed on a regular basis, provide accumulative and diverse exposure to target

lexical items that result in effective retention within a limited instructional period

(Wesche & Parabakht, 2000). Future research on such tasks should make substantial

contributions to the discussion of the effectiveness of the Involvement Load

Hypothesis.

Finally, the present study is restricted in the sense that only one component,

evaluation, was investigated in the two experiments. As delineated earlier, the study

65
attempted to further scrutinize the contentions of the Involvement Load Hypothesis by

examining the three tasks in Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001) study, in which the factors

of need and search were held constant whereas three degrees of evaluation (absent,

moderate, strong) were explored. Albeit the current study yielded results that for the

most part corroborate Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001) findings, it remains to be

determined whether this hypothesis is still well-founded when more components are

involved. According to the hypothesis, the involvement load a task induces is

represented by the total pluses of each factor together with their degrees of

prominence. Yet it is not clear whether a plus for search (i.e., search for the meaning

of a word) plays as important a role as a plus for evaluation (e.g., choosing among

several meanings of a word). Lee (2003) reported some strikingly negative evidence

for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in her study, in which both search and

evaluation were manipulated. A plausible reason for the similar results of the present

study and of Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001) study as well as for the glaring

discrepancies between the findings of these two studies and those of Lee’s (2003)

research may be that the factor investigated in the first two studies (i.e., evaluation)

was different from those in the last study (i.e., search and evaluation), and that all the

three components (need, search, and evaluation) are not equally important for

vocabulary learning. Empirical research should thus establish the relative weight

(impact on incidental vocabulary learning) of each factor by comparing tasks with the

same number of components but with a different distribution of the factors involved.

66
 REFERENCES

Baddeley, A. D. (1978). The trouble with levels: A reexamination of Craik and

Lockhart's framework for memory research. Psychological Review, 85, 139-

152.

Baddeley, A. (1998). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Berry, D. C. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of complex tasks. In N. Ellis (Ed.),

Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 147-164). London: Academic

Press.

Bialystok, E. (1979). Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality. Language

Learning, 29, 81-103.

Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. J. (1983). A classroom demonstration of depth of

processing. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 105-107.

Cho, K., & Krashen, S. D. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley

Kids Series: Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37, 662-667.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York:

Praeger.

Coady, J. (1997a). L2 vocabulary acquisition: A synthesis of the research. In J. Coady

& T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 273-290).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coady, J. (1997b). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady

& T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 225-237).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for

memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-

684.

67
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words

in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-

294.

Dickinson, J. (1978). Retention of intentional and incidental motor learning. Research

Quarterly, 49, 437-441.

Diekhoff, G. M., Brown, P. J., & Dansereau, D. F. (1982). A prose learning strategy

training program based on network and depth-of-processing models. Journal

of Experimental Education, 50, 180-184.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C.

Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition (pp. 197-262). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading

Research Quarterly, 24, 174-187.

Ellis, N. (1994a). Implicit and explicit language learning: An overview. In N. Ellis

(Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1-43). London:

Academic Press.

Ellis, N. (1994b). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit

cognitive mediation. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of

languages (pp. 211-282). London: Academic Press.

Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.

Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL

Quarterly, 27, 91-113.

Ellis, R. (1994). Implicit/explicit knowledge and language pedagogy. TESOL

Quarterly, 28, 166-172.

68
Ellis, R. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied

Linguistics, 16, 409-441.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental

acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,

285-301.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension,

and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.

Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Incidental learning and orienting tasks. In C. R. Puff (Ed.),

Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition (pp. 197-228).

New York: Academic Press.

Eysenck, M. W. (1993). Principles of cognitive psychology. Hove, UK: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Eysenck, M. W., & Eysenck, M. C. (1979). Processing depth, elaboration of encoding,

memory stores, and expended processing capacity. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 472-484.

Fukkink, R. G., Blok, H., & de Glopper, K. (2001). Deriving word meaning from

written context: A multicomponential skill. Language Learning, 51, 477-496.

Gass, S. (1999). Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 22, 319-333.

Glover, J. A., Rankin, J., Langner, N., Todero, C., & Dinnel, D. (1985). Memory for

sentences and prose: Levels-of-processing or transfer-appropriate-processing?

Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 215-234.

Henriksen, B. (1998). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303-317.

Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., Pearson, P. D., & Nagy, W. E. (1987). Incidental

69
 acquisition of word meaning from expositions with varied text features.

Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 263-284.

Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second

language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 181-193.

Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in

incidental vocabulary learning. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.),

Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113-125). London: Macmillan.

Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning:

Theoretical considerations and pedagogical implications. In J. Coady & T.

Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 203-224).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning

by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses,

dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language

Journal, 80, 327-339.

Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement

load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539-558.

Hulstijn, J. H., & Trompetter, P. (1998). Incidental learning of second language

vocabulary in computer-assisted reading and writing tasks. In D. Albrechtsen,

B. Henriksen, I. M. Mees & E. Poulsen (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign and

second language pedagogy (pp. 191-200). Odense, Denmark: Odense

70
 University Press.

Joe, A. (1995). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning. Second

Language Research, 11, 149-158.

Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on

incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357-377.

Johnstone, T., & Shanks, D. R. (2001). Abstractionist and processing accounts of

implicit learning. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 61-112.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and

vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern

Language Journal, 78, 285-299.

Konopak, B., Sheard, C., Longman, D., Lyman, B., Slaton, E., Atkinson, R. et al.

(1987). Incidental versus intentional word learning from context. Reading

Psychology, 8, 7-21.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New

York: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London:

Longman.

Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional

evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-

464.

Krashen, S. D. (2002). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei

lectures. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.

Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. J. L.

Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126-132).

London: Macmillan.

71
Laufer, B. (2001). Reading, word-focused activities and incidental vocabulary

acquisition in a second language. Prospect, 16, 44-55.

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second

language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22,

1-26.

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive

ability. Language Testing, 16, 33-51.

Lee, C. (2003). The effect of involvement load on English vocabulary acquisition in

an incidental learning situation. Unpublished master’s thesis, National

Tsinghua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.

Liu, W., Yun, J., Chen, N., Tsao, S., McCormack, S., & Wheeler, N. (Eds.). (2002).

Reading master. Taipei: AMC Publishers.

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz

(Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). New

York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues

in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-141). New

York: Newbury House.

Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is

the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303-323.

Luppescu, S., & Day, R. R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning.

Language Learning, 43, 263-287.

MacWhinney, B. (1997). Implicit and explicit processes. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 19, 277-281.

McLaughlin, B. (1965). “Intentional” and “incidental” learning in human subjects:

72
 The role of instructions to learn and motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 63,

359-376.

Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context.

Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nation, P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy

(Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching. Harlow: Longman.

Nation, P., & Newton, J. (1997). Teaching vocabulary. In J. Coady & T. Huckin

(Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 238-254). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nation, P., & Wang Ming-tzu, K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in

a Foreign Language, 12, 355-379.

Nelson, D. L., Walling, J. R., & McEvoy, C. L. (1979). Doubts about depth. Journal

of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 24-44.

Nelson, T. O. (1977). Repetition and depth of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning

and Verbal Behavior, 16, 151-171.

Newton, J. (1995). Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: A case

study. Second Language Research, 11, 159-177.

Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and

reading for meaning in second language vocabulary development. In J. Coady

& T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 174-200).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

73
Postman, L. (1964). Short-term memory and incidental learning. In A. W. Melton

(Ed.), Categories of human learning (pp. 145-201). New York: Academic

Press.

Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus

translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80,

478-493.

Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary

knowledge in reading comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language

Review, 56, 282-307.

Read, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2001). A framework for second language vocabulary

assessment. Language Testing, 18, 1-32.

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under

implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.

Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit

and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45-99.

Roediger, H. L. (1990). Implicit memory. American Psychologist, 45, 1043-1056.

Schmidt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial

grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of

74
 languages (pp. 165-209). London: Academic Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language

instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shelton, D., & Newhouse, R. (1981). Incidental learning in a paired-associate task.

Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 36-38.

Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input

and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden

(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA:

Newbury.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook

& B. Seidlhover (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language (pp.

125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (2002). Impact of reading purpose on

incidental word learning from context. Language Learning, 52, 95-117.

Van Daalen-Kapteijns, M., Elshout-Mohr, M., & de Glopper, K. (2001). Deriving the

meaning of unknown words from multiple contexts. Language Learning, 51,

145-181.

Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on

incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 19, 287-307.

Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading-based exercises in second

75
 language vocabulary learning: An introspective study. The Modern Language

Journal, 84, 196-213.

Williams, J. N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 21, 1-48.

Winitz, H. (1996). Grammaticality judgment as a function of explicit and implicit

instruction in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 32-46.

Winter, B., & Reber, A. S. (1994). Implicit learning and the acquisition of natural

languages. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.

115-145). London: Academic Press.

76
 APPENDI X A
Reading Text
Keeping A Straight Face
The last time someone was getting on your nerves, did you let them know they
were annoying you, or did you keep a polite—if still hostile—silence? Did you do
your best to hide your feelings in order to avoid a conflict or in the hope that the
person would shut up and go away?
Unfortunately for you if you did, there is some evidence to suggest that you
may have paid a high physical and mental price for keeping a straight face. It is well-
known that the suppression of strong emotions can affect the heart, but there is also a
possibility that it can have a negative effect on the memory.
In an experiment not long ago, a group of college students were asked to look
at pictures of badly hurt people. Some of them were asked to maintain calm while
viewing the pictures. Later, all the students were given a surprise memory test, and
the ones asked to hold back their feelings did much worse than the others.
The researchers who did the experiment think that hiding emotions can cause
the brain to redirect attention away from some thought processes and weaken the
ability to recall things. Brain resources being used to control emotions are not free to
aid in other tasks such as thinking clearly and forming memories.
Our determination not to show our feelings means, in a way, that we are
fooling ourselves about our emotions. This kind of behavior is partly because of the
great respect we have for people who are able to keep calm under pressure. A poker
face is seen as a sign of strength and of being in control.
In all likelihood, people whose outer calm hides an inner storm will have a
harder time remembering things. The researchers suggest that we would do better to
consider an unpleasant circumstance as a challenge and look for ways to solve it—
instead of just gritting our teeth and enduring it in silence.

After reading the article, choose the correct answer to each of the following questions.
_____1. Keeping a straight face __________.
(A) is priceless
(B) causes your heart to stop beating
(C) hurts your mind and body

77
 (D) is the best way to avoid conflict
_____2. After looking at the pictures of badly hurt people, the students __________.
(A) were too surprised to remember anything
(B) were given a surprise test to find out how much their memory was
affected
(C) were asked to hold back their feelings
(D) did worse than those who didn’t see the pictures
_____3. Hiding emotions will __________.
(A) do harm to the brain
(B) lead to poor memory
(C) assist in clear thinking
(D) lead to undivided attention
_____4. Keeping calm under pressure _________.
(A) makes one look like a fool
(B) is considered foolish behavior
(C) makes one feel high
(D) is highly respected by others
_____5. Which of the following statements is true?
(A) It is certain that people who look calm feel peaceful within.
(B) We can improve our mind by seeing an unpleasant circumstance as a
challenge to test our abilities.
(C) Anyone who wears a poker face will be attacked by a storm.
(D) We can solve our emotional problems by gritting our teeth and enduring
them in silence.

78
 APPENDIX B
Immediate Posttest
Class:_______ No:_____ Name:__________

Score:__________

Please write down the Chinese translation or English explanation for each of the

following English words and check on the words that you have known before the test.


    
  



1. annoy  

2. hostile  

3. conflict  

4. unfortunately  

5. suppression  

6. maintain  

7. determination  

8. circumstance  

9. grit  

10. endure  

79
 APPENDIX C
Delayed Posttest
Class:_______ No:_____ Name:__________

Score:__________

Please write down the Chinese translation or English explanation for each of the

following English words and check on the words that you have known before the test.


    
  



1. conflict  

2. grit  

3. circumstance  

4. endure  

5. annoy  

6. unfortunately  

7. hostile  

8. suppression  

9. determination  

10. maintain  

80
 APPENDIX D
Work Sheet for Task 1
Class:_______ No:_____ Name:__________
Keeping A Straight Face
The last time someone was getting on your nerves, did you let them know they
were annoying you, or did you keep a polite—if still hostile—silence? Did you do
your best to hide your feelings in order to avoid a conflict or in the hope that the
person would shut up and go away?
Unfortunately for you if you did, there is some evidence to suggest that you
may have paid a high physical and mental price for keeping a straight face. It is well-
known that the suppression of strong emotions can affect the heart, but there is also a
possibility that it can have a negative effect on the memory.
In an experiment not long ago, a group of college students were asked to look
at pictures of badly hurt people. Some of them were asked to maintain calm while
viewing the pictures. Later, all the students were given a surprise memory test, and
the ones asked to hold back their feelings did much worse than the others.
The researchers who did the experiment think that hiding emotions can cause
the brain to redirect attention away from some thought processes and weaken the
ability to recall things. Brain resources being used to control emotions are not free to
aid in other tasks such as thinking clearly and forming memories.
Our determination not to show our feelings means, in a way, that we are
fooling ourselves about our emotions. This kind of behavior is partly because of the
great respect we have for people who are able to keep calm under pressure. A poker
face is seen as a sign of strength and of being in control.
In all likelihood, people whose outer calm hides an inner storm will have a
harder time remembering things. The researchers suggest that we would do better to
consider an unpleasant circumstance as a challenge and look for ways to solve it—
instead of just gritting our teeth and enduring it in silence.

  
annoy (v.): to cause (someone) trouble; !" # 
hostile (adj.): unfriendly; $ % & '

conflict (n.): argument; ( )

unfortunately (adv.): by bad luck; * + ,
suppression (n.): the act of putting down by force; - .

81
maintain (v.): to keep as before; / 0
determination (n.): a firm decision in the mind; 1 2
circumstance (n.): situation; 3 4
grit (v.): to cause (as one’s teeth) to rub together; 56 7 8 9
endure (v.): to bear; : ;

After reading the article, choose the correct answer to each of the following questions.
_____1. Keeping a straight face __________.
(A) is priceless
(B) causes your heart to stop beating
(C) hurts your mind and body
(D) is the best way to avoid conflict
_____2. After looking at the pictures of badly hurt people, the students __________.
(A) were too surprised to remember anything
(B) were given a surprise test to find out how much their memory was
affected
(C) were asked to hold back their feelings
(D) did worse than those who didn’t see the pictures
_____3. Hiding emotions will __________.
(A) do harm to the brain
(B) lead to poor memory
(C) assist in clear thinking
(D) lead to undivided attention
_____4. Keeping calm under pressure _________.
(A) makes one look like a fool
(B) is considered foolish behavior
(C) makes one feel high
(D) is highly respected by others
_____5. Which of the following statements is true?
(A) It is certain that people who look calm feel peaceful within.
(B) We can improve our mind by seeing an unpleasant circumstance as a
challenge to test our abilities.
(C) Anyone who wears a poker face will be attacked by a storm.
(D) We can solve our emotional problems by gritting our teeth and enduring
them in silence.

82
 APPENDIX E
Work Sheet for Task 2
Class:_______ No:_____ Name:__________
Keeping A Straight Face
The last time someone was getting on your nerves, did you let them know they
were __________ you, or did you keep a polite—if still __________—silence? Did
you do your best to hide your feelings in order to avoid a __________ or in the hope
that the person would shut up and go away?
__________ for you if you did, there is some evidence to suggest that you
may have paid a high physical and mental price for keeping a straight face. It is well-
known that the __________ of strong emotions can affect the heart, but there is also a
possibility that it can have a negative effect on the memory.
In an experiment not long ago, a group of college students were asked to look
at pictures of badly hurt people. Some of them were asked to __________ calm while
viewing the pictures. Later, all the students were given a surprise memory test, and
the ones asked to hold back their feelings did much worse than the others.
The researchers who did the experiment think that hiding emotions can cause
the brain to redirect attention away from some thought processes and weaken the
ability to recall things. Brain resources being used to control emotions are not free to
aid in other tasks such as thinking clearly and forming memories.
Our __________ not to show our feelings means, in a way, that we are fooling
ourselves about our emotions. This kind of behavior is partly because of the great
respect we have for people who are able to keep calm under pressure. A poker face is
seen as a sign of strength and of being in control.
In all likelihood, people whose outer calm hides an inner storm will have a
harder time remembering things. The researchers suggest that we would do better to
consider an unpleasant _________ as a challenge and look for ways to solve it—
instead of just __________ our teeth and __________ it in silence.

83
  
memorize (v.): to remember; < =
determination (n.): a firm decision in the mind; 1 2
grit (v.): to cause (as one’s teeth) to rub together; 56 7 8 9
annoy (v.): to cause (someone) trouble; !" # 
harmony (n.): peacefulness; > ?
circumstance (n.): situation; 3 4
suppression (n.): the act of putting down by force; - .
persevering (adj.): showing continuous effort; @ :

conflict (n.): argument; ( )

unfortunately (adv.): by bad luck; * + ,
endure (v.): to bear; : ;
maintain (v.): to keep as before; / 0
prejudice (n.): unfair opinion; A B
hostile (adj.): unfriendly; $ % & '

elaborate (v.): to explain in detail; C D , E F

After reading the article, choose the correct answer to each of the following questions.
_____1. Keeping a straight face __________.
(A) is priceless
(B) causes your heart to stop beating
(C) hurts your mind and body
(D) is the best way to avoid conflict
_____2. After looking at the pictures of badly hurt people, the students __________.
(A) were too surprised to remember anything
(B) were given a surprise test to find out how much their memory was
affected
(C) were asked to hold back their feelings
(D) did worse than those who didn’t see the pictures
_____3. Hiding emotions will __________.
(A) do harm to the brain
(B) lead to poor memory
(C) assist in clear thinking
(D) lead to undivided attention
_____4. Keeping calm under pressure _________.
(A) makes one look like a fool
(B) is considered foolish behavior
(C) makes one feel high
(D) is highly respected by others
_____5. Which of the following statements is true?
(A) It is certain that people who look calm feel peaceful within.
(B) We can improve our mind by seeing an unpleasant circumstance as a
challenge to test our abilities.
(C) Anyone who wears a poker face will be attacked by a storm.
(D) We can solve our emotional problems by gritting our teeth and enduring
them in silence.

84
 APPENDIX F
Work Sheet for Task 3

Please write a composition about your personal experience when you felt strong
emotions (e.g., anger, happiness, sorrow, etc.).
NOTE: You MUST incorporate the following ten words into the composition in
whatever order you like.

G H I J K 3 L M N O
P Q R S T U VW X VY Z [
\]



 ^ _ ` a b  c d e I d f g h 
i j 1 k ]
annoy (v.): to cause (someone) trouble; !" # 
Example: To annoy someone with rude behavior.
hostile (adj.): unfriendly; $ % & '

Example: To treat someone in a hostile manner.

conflict (n.): argument; ( )
Example: To avoid a conflict with one’s best friend.
unfortunately (adv.): by bad luck; * + ,
Example: To die in an accident unfortunately.
suppression (n.): the act of putting down by force; - .
Example: The suppression of strong emotions.
maintain (v.): to keep as before; / 0
Example: To maintain a silence.
determination (n.): a firm decision in the mind; 1 2
Example: The determination not to show one’s feelings.
circumstance (n.): situation; 3 4
Example: To consider an unpleasant circumstance as a challenge.
grit (v.): to cause (as one’s teeth) to rub together; 56 7 8 9
Example: To grit one’s teeth and hold on in difficult situations.
endure (v.): to bear; : ;
Example: To endure a strong pain in one’s head.

85
 Class:_______ No:_____ Name:__________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

86