Farnaz Masoud Kabir, Ghasem Aghajanzadeh Kiasi


Phrasal verbs have been the source of frustration for learners of English, and many students talk about the difficulties they have using phrasal verbs. They are widely used by native speakers of English but are difficult for second language learners to master. The present research aimed at investigating the effects different task types, based on the involvement load hypothesis, might have on the Iranian intermediate EFL students' learning of phrasal verbs. In an experimental research study conducted with a total number of 45 EFL students majoring English language literature, the students were randomly divided into three groups with three different task types and loads of involvement. The data were collected through pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test of phrasal verbs analyzed via descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and paired t test. Based on the results gained, the null hypothesis regarding the effects of the higher involvement load on learning and retention of phrasal verbs was rejected. The results would be practically useful for English language learners and teachers while dealing with phrasal verbs in and out of language classrooms.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



Allemzade, N., Rayati, R. A. & Yagubi, B. (2010). The involvement load hypothesis and vocabulary learning: The effects of task types and involvement index on l2 vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2, 145-163.

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.

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.

Cornell, A. (1985). Realistic goals in teaching and learning phrasal verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 269-280. doi:10.1515/iral.1985.23.1-4.269

Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs-a case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73-80.

De Groot, A., & Keijzer, R. (2000). What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign-language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 50(1), 1-56.

Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113-125). London: MacMillan.

Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539-558.

Hulstijn, J. H., & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241-255.

Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 767-87.

Kao, R. (2001). Where have the prepositions gone? A study of English prepositional verbs and input enhancement in instructed SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39,195–215. doi:10.1515/iral.2001.002

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.

Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 567-87.

Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. In S. H. Fostercohen, M. Gracia-Maya, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla yearbook, 5 (pp. 223-250) Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in second-language vocabulary learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 149-166.

Laufer, B. (2010). The contribution of dictionary to the production and retention of collocations in a second language. International Journal of Lexicography, 24(1), 29-49.

Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning? L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35-48.

Laufer, B., & Hulsijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary learning in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability Language Testing, 16, 33-45.

Liu, D. (2003). The most frequently used spoken American English phrasal verbs: A corpus analysis and its application. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 671-700.

doi: 10.2307/3588217

Min, H. T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning 58(1), 73-115.

Nagy, W., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.

Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4) 397-41. doi: 10.1177/1362168810375364

Nation, I. S. P. (2006). Language education-vocabulary. In K. Brown (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics (pp. 494-499). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Peters, E., Hulstijn, J., Sercum, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2015 - 2022. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).