The Effects of Task Orientation and Involvement Load on Learning Collocations

Document Type: Research Paper


Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran



This study examined the effects of input-oriented and output-oriented tasks with different involvement load indices on Iranian EFL learners' comprehension and production of lexical collocations. To achieve this purpose, a sample of 180 intermediate-level EFL learners (both male and female) participated in the study. The participants were in six experimental groups. Each of the groups was randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions, namely input-oriented tasks with involvement load 1 (True-false), 2 (Matching), 3 (Multiple-choice), and output-oriented tasks with involvement load 1 (Short response), 2 (Fill in the blanks), and 3 (Sentence formation). At the end of the treatment period, the researchers administered a 40-item test in multiple-choice format and a 40-item test in fill-in-the-blanks format to assess the participants' comprehension and production of collocations. The collected data were analyzed using two different two-way ANOVAs and a series of independent-samples t-tests. The results showed that the tasks with higher involvement load indices were more effective on both receptive and productive knowledge of lexical collocations. The results also revealed that output-oriented tasks were more beneficial than input-oriented tasks at all three indices of involvement load. These findings can have theoretical and pedagogical implications for language teachers, researchers, and learners.


Ahmadi Fatalaki, J. (2014). Involvement Load Hypothesis: Word meaning retention across oral and written task types. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 37(1), 29-45.
Alcaraz-Mármol, G., & Almela, A. (2013). The involvement load hypothesis: Its effect on vocabulary learning in primary education. Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada (RESLA), 26(1), 11-24.
Ansarin, A., & Bayazidi, A. (2016). Task type and incidental L2 vocabulary learning: Repetition versus task involvement load. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 34(2),135–146.
Asadzadeh Maleki, N. (2012). The effect of the involvement load hypothesis on improving Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition in listening comprehension classes. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(9), 119-128.
Behzadi, A., & Haji Pour Nezhad, G. (2014). The effect of two task types on learning English words and idioms. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 3(1), 12-20.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., Coxhead, A., & Webb, S. (2014). Gauging the effects of exercises on verb-noun collocations. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 54–74.
Broeder, P., & Plunkett, K. (1994). Connectionism and second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit leaning of language (pp. 421-53). London: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ertürk, Z. (2017).  The effects of receptive and productive learning tasks on EFL learners’ knowledge of collocation and meaning. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 3(2), 59–73.
Ghabanchi, Z., Davoudi, M., & Eskandari, Z. (2012). Vocabulary learning through input and output tasks: Investigating the Involvement Load Hypothesis. California Linguistic Notes, 37(1), 1-18.
Gholami, N., & Farvardin, M. T. (2017). Effects of input-based and output-based instructions on Iranian EFL learners’ productive knowledge of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(3), 123-130.
Hazrat, M. (2015). The effects of task type and task involvement load on vocabulary learning. Waikato Journal of Education, 20(2), 79-92.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558.
Hüttner, J. (2005). Formulaic language and genre analysis: The case of student academic papers. Views, 14(1), 3–20.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 357-377.
Jahangard, A. (2013). Task-induced involvement in L2 vocabulary learning: A case for listening comprehension. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning,5(12),43-62.
Jahangiri, K., & Abilipour, I. (2014). Effects of collaboration and exercise type on incidental vocabulary learning: Evidence against involvement load hypothesis. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(1), 704-712.
Karalik, T., & Merç, A. (2016). The effect of task-induced involvement load on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 13(35), 77-92.
Karimi, M., & Jahani, A. (2014). L2 learners’ vocabulary learning: Differential effect(s) of comprehension-based vs. production-based proactive/reactive focus on form. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(1), 61-90.
Keating, G. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research 12(3), 365-386.
Kıvrak, C. & Uygun Gökmen, D. (2019). The effects of task-induced involvement load and input modality on incidental vocabulary learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(4), 1355-1375.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 567-587.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. London: Language Teaching Publications.
McCarty, M. (2005). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maftoon, P., & Sharifi Haratmeh, M. (2012). The relative effectiveness of input and output-oriented tasks with different involvement loads on the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 4(2), 27-52.
Marashi, H., & Amirabadi, S. (2017).  The impact of information-gap and opinion-gap tasks on EFL learners’ lexical collocation achievement.  International Journal of Educational Investigations, 4(2), 28-38.
Mármol, G., & Sánchez-Lafuente, A. (2013). The involvement load hypothesis: its effect on vocabulary learning in primary education. Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada (RESLA), 26(1), 11-24.
Martyńska, M. (2004). Do English language learners know collocations? Investigationes Linguisticae, 1(XI), 1–12.
Namaziandost, E., Hosseini, E., & Utomo, D. (2020). A comparative effect of high involvement load versus lack of involvement load on vocabulary learning among Iranian sophomore EFL learners. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1-15.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223–242.
Pourakbari, A. A., & Biria, R. (2015). Efficacy of task-induced involvement in incidental lexical development of Iranian senior EFL students. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 122-131.
Sarani, A., Mousapour Negari, G., & Ghaviniat, M. (2013). The role of task type in L2 vocabulary acquisition: a case of Involvement Load Hypothesis. Acta Scientiarum. Language and Culture, Maringá, 35(4), 377-386.
Sarbazi, M. (2014). Involvement load hypothesis: recalling unfamiliar words meaning by adults across enders. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(1), 1686-1692.
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2),147–163.
Shahbazy, G., & Oghli, H. (2015). A Comparative Study of Using Receptive and Productive Tasks on the Vocabulary Development of Upper-Intermediate Iranian EFL Learners. Studies in English Language Teaching, 3(2), 153-165.
Shamsi, M., & Rahimy, R. (2017). The impact of L2 semantic tasks (L2 collocation versus L2 definition) on Iranian Intermediate EFL learners’ vocabulary achievement.  International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(1), 58-67.
Silva, B., & Otwinowska, A. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition and young learners: Different tasks, similar involvement loads. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(2), 1-35.
Snoder, P. (2018). Improving English learners’ productive collocation knowledge: The effects of involvement load, spacing, and intentionality. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 34(3), 140-164.
Soleimani, H., & Rostami Abu Saeedi, A. (2016). The interaction between involvement load hypothesis evaluation criterion and language proficiency: A case in vocabulary retention. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8(1), 173-194.
Soleimani, H., & Rahmanian, M. (2015). Visiting involvement load hypothesis and vocabulary acquisition in similar task types. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(9), 1883-1889.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp.  471–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
Tahmasbi, M, & Farvardin, M. (2017). Probing the Effects of Task Types on EFL Learners’ Receptive and Productive Vocabulary Knowledge: The Case of Involvement Load Hypothesis. SAGE Open, 7(3), 1-10.
Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning 56(2), 319-385.
Un-udom, N. (2018). The Effects of Task-Induced Involvement on EFL Vocabulary Learning. Chophayom Journal, 29(3), 181-196.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33-52.
Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2009). The effects of vocabulary learning on collocation and meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1),55-77.
Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2011). Learning collocations: Do the number of collocates, position of the node word, and synonymy affect learning? Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 259-276.
Woolard, G. (2000). Collocation encourages learners' independence. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach (pp. 28-46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yaqubi, B., Rayati, R.A., & Allemzade Gorgi, N. (2010). The involvement load hypothesis and vocabulary learning: the effect of task types and involvement index on L2 vocabulary acquisition. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2(1), 145-163.
Zarei, A. A., & Afrash Ab, M. (2013). The contribution of output-oriented and input-oriented tasks to L2 vocabulary comprehension and production. International Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences, 2(S),1133-1141.
Zarei, A. A., & Moftakhari Rezaei, G. (2016). The effect of task type and task orientation on L2 vocabulary learning. Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 5(2), 255-278.
Zarei, A. A., & Mousavi, M.  (2016). The effects of feedback types on Learners’ recognition of lexical collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5 (2), 150-158.