Effects Of Involvement Load, Working Memory And Vocabulary Knowledge On L2Learners’ Incidental Vocabulary Learning Through Reading

Hulstjin and Laufer (2001) proposed the Involvement Load Hypothesis in whichthey claimed the more involvement load in tasks results in better incidentalvocabulary learning. However, not many studies can fully verify this hypothesis.Moreover, within the framework of the Involvement Load Hypothesis, Search andevaluation comprise the cognitive (i.e., information processing) dimension ofinvolvement, and both involve attention to word form and word meaning andactivation of language learners’ previous vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, L2learners’ working memory’s (the central executive of attention) and prior vocabularyknowledge’s effects on incidental vocabulary acquisition may vary with the tasks withdifferent involvement load.In the present study, task-induced involvement load, working memory andvocabulary knowledge are independent variables in this study. The following tworesearch questions are discussed in the study to investigate the relationship betweenthe independent variables and vocabulary gaining through reading:1）To what extent can different types of task-induced involvement load influence L2learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading?2) Under the conditions of different involvement load, to what extent can workingmemory and vocabulary influence incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading?134non-English majors of College of International Education in NanjingUniversity of Technology (NJUT) were chosen and served as participants. Initially,they took part in a vocabulary test and a working memory capacity test. Then theywere assigned to three groups to read same passage and fulfill three different readingplus tasks with different task-induced involvement load (multiple choice, gap fillingand sentence making). After the completion of the tasks in a regular class, theparticipants were given a immediate posttest in which they were required to translatethe ten target words into Chinese to test the immediate vocabulary gaining. Twoweeks later, a delayed vocabulary test, which had the same target words but indifferent order, was conducted to examine their retention of the target words.One-way ANOVA and regression analysis were conducted to investigate theeffects of involvement load, working memory and vocabulary knowledge on incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. The major findings are displayedas follows:1. The result of One-way ANOVA verifies that tasks with higher involvement loadcan result in better immediate vocabulary gaining. However, the advantage offacilitating vocabulary learning cannot be identified in word retention.2. The different tasks will activate different inner factors of subjects during theprocess of vocabulary learning. In multiple-choice group, where the involvement loadis low, the subjects may rely on their prior vocabulary knowledge to comprehendreading passages and finish the task.16.4%variance of immediate vocabulary gaincan be explained by vocabulary knowledge, and the unique contribution of vocabularyknowledge to immediate vocabulary gain is.354(R square=.164, Beta=.354).Working memory does not have unique contribution to immediate vocabulary gain. Ingap-filling group, where the involvement load is middle, a significant, positiverelationship of low strength indicating that learners with higher working memoryscores produced more immediate word gain was detected.13.6%variance ofimmediate vocabulary gain can be explained by working memory, and the uniquecontribution of vocabulary knowledge to immediate vocabulary gain is.319(R square=.136, Beta=.319). Vocabulary knowledge is excluded from the regression model.And in the sentence making group, where the involvement load is high, the strongerpositive relationship between working memory and immediate vocabulary gain wasdetected.28.7%variance of immediate vocabulary gain can be explained byvocabulary knowledge, and the unique contribution of vocabulary knowledge toimmediate vocabulary gain is.478(R square=.287, Beta=.478). Positiverelationship of low strength indicating that learners with higher working memoryscores produced more word retention was detected as well (R square=.175, Beta=.374). Vocabulary knowledge does not have unique contribution in both immediatevocabulary gain and word retention.The results of the experiment provide both theoretical and pedagogical implicationfor language scholars and teachers. In the present study, the Involvement LoadHypothesis is partially verified. In addition, the effect of involvement load onincidental vocabulary acquisition is explained by the roles working memory andvocabulary knowledge play in different tasks. Thus, Language teachers shouldcarefully design the reading plus exercises, because exercises with more task-inducedinvolvement tend to promote immediate vocabulary gaining. The task with low involvement load especially multiple choice which can only activate L2learners’ priorvocabulary knowledge should not be the dominant tasks in extensive readingmaterials. The tasks with higher involvement load that can activate working memoryshould be advocated. Besides, repeated exposure to the newly acquired words isessential for word retention.