To What Extent Does the Involvement Load Hypothesis Predict Incidental L2 Vocabulary Learning? A Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

The involvement load hypothesis (ILH) was designed to predict the effectiveness of instructional tasks for incidental L2 vocabulary learning. In this meta-analysis we examined 398 effect sizes from 42 empirical studies (N = 4,628) to explore (a) the overall predictive ability of the ILH, (b) the relative effects of different components of the ILH (need, search, and evaluation), and (c) the influence of potential factors moderating learning (e.g., time on task, frequency of encounters or use, and test format). Results showed that the ILH was significantly predictive of learning and explained 15.0% and 5.1% of the variance in effect sizes on immediate and delayed posttests, respectively. We found that the evaluation component contributed to the greatest amount of learning, followed by need, whereas search did not contribute to learning. Moderator analyses revealed that (a) test format and frequency moderated learning gains and (b) involvement load had a greater impact on learning than time on task. Keywords involvement load hypothesis; incidental L2 vocabulary learning; metaanalysis; depth of processingThis article is based on part of the first author's doctoral dissertation, which was submitted to the University of Western Ontario in 2020. We would like to thank Batia Laufer, Jan Hulstijn, Frank Boers, Judit Kormos, Emma Marsden, and the anonymous Language Learning reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript. We are grateful to Akira Murakami, James E. Pustejovsky, and Wolfgang Viechtbauer for their input on statistical analysis. We are also grateful to Takumi Uchihara, Tomlin Gagen, and Su Kyung Kim for their help with data collection. Our gratitude also goes to the following researchers who provided information for the current metaanalysis:

Relationships Between Phonological Awareness and Reading in Spanish: A Meta‐Analysis

“…Our meta‐analysis was based on the recommendations of Plonsky and Oswald (2015) and was guided by other published meta‐analyses, such as those by de Vos, Schriefers, Nivard, and Lemhöfer (2018), Jeon and Yamashita (2014), Ke, Miller, Zhang, and Koda (2021), Plonsky (2011), Uchihara, Webb, and Yanagisawa (2019), and Yanagisawa and Webb (2021).…”

Involvement Load Hypothesis Plus

“…NOTES 1 In this article, activity and task were used interchangeably to refer to instructional language activities that promote students' L2 vocabulary learning. 2 The included studies in the analyses were the same as Yanagisawa and Webb (2021), and the dataset was greatly overlapped with that of Yanagisawa and Webb (2021).…”

“…Kim (2008) argued that strong evaluation might contribute to learning to the greatest extent, while Tang and Treffers-Daller (2016) found that search might contribute less than need and evaluation. Yanagisawa and Webb's (2021) meta-analysis of the ILH captured this trend revealing that evaluation had the most substantial influence, followed by need, while search was not found to have influence on learning. It is also important to note that the ILH assumes that strong need and strong evaluation have a larger impact on learning than moderate need and moderate evaluation (2 points are awarded for both strong need and strong evaluation, while 1 point is awarded for moderate need and moderate evaluation).…”

Cultivating Iranian IELTS Candidates’ Writing Skills through Online Peer Feedback: A Mixed-Methods Inquiry

“…is argument receives support from "Involvement Load Hypothesis." [59] It is argued that the retention of key structures to write well was, generally, conditional upon the degree of involvement in processing these structures. e peer feedback provided on the social networking might have helped the students to engage more in the learning processes of the writing aspects by increasing the involvement load.…”