English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the present study, Laufer & Hulstijn’s Involvement Load Hypothesis was tested by a different methodology from that adopted by the previous similar studies. That is, instead of focusing only on the product of learning, the present study also attended to the details of learners’ task-induced online learning behavior via a specially designed computer program. Eighty-one participants were randomly assigned to one of the four tasks with different amount of involvement load. Once completing the task, the participants were unexpectedly tested on the retention of the target words that appeared in the texts. Two weeks later they were given two delayed posttests.The data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The results suggested that different tasks did elicit different patterns of on-line learning behavior in terms of frequency of look-ups and amount of time spent on target words. It was also found that tasks assumed with higher involvement load hypothesis did not necessarily lead to higher retention scores. It was concluded that the criteria that Laufer & Hulstijn have proposed for grading the task effectiveness may be too simplified and idealized, failing to reveal the sophisticated nature of the cognitive processes that the different task induces.

Effect of Task-induced Online Learning Behavior on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition by Chinese Learners—Revisiting Involvement Load Hypothesis