Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 24, Issue 154 (12-2025)
Journal of Psychological Science 2025, 24(154): 136-155 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mahmoudi A R, Askari M I, Fatehi Rad N. (2025). Investigating the Role of Laufer’s three “I” model on Students’ Engagement in Vocabulary Learning: A Progressive Perspective on Input, Instruction, Involvement, Interaction, and Interpretation in Digital Contexts. Journal of Psychological Science. 24(154), 136-155.
URL: http://psychologicalscience.ir/article-1-2927-en.html
URL: http://psychologicalscience.ir/article-1-2927-en.html
Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University, CT.C., Tehran, Iran. , mi.askari@iau.ac.ir
Abstract: (398 Views)
Background: While vocabulary acquisition models have been widely studied, the comparative role of Laufer’s frameworks in digital environments—particularly their effects on learner engagement and perception—remains underexplored. This research addresses this gap by examining how these models mediate vocabulary learning outcomes among Iranian EFL learners.
Aims: This study aimed to investigate the impact of Laufer’s Three "I" model (Input, Instruction, Involvement) and the extended Five "I" model (adding Interaction and Interpretation) on Iranian EFL learners' deliberate and incidental vocabulary learning engagement in digital contexts.
Methods: The study employed a sequential mixed-methods design with 93 intermediate-level male EFL learners (aged 16–20) selected via convenience sampling from private language institutes in Tehran. After homogeneity screening using the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT), 60 participants were randomly assigned to experimental (digital-based instruction) and control (traditional face-to-face) groups. Data were collected through vocabulary tests, engagement surveys, and semi-structured interviews, analyzed using SPSS (v.26) for quantitative data (ANOVA, t-tests) and thematic analysis for qualitative responses.
Results: Results indicated that the Five "I" model significantly outperformed the Three "I" model in both deliberate (p< 0.05, d= 0.85) and incidental (p< 0.05, d= 0.72) vocabulary learning. Qualitative data revealed enhanced engagement, reduced anxiety, and improved metacognitive awareness among learners using the progressive model, particularly through its Interaction and Interpretation components.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that Laufer’s expanded Five "I" model offers a more effective framework for digital vocabulary instruction by integrating social-interactive and interpretive elements. Educators should prioritize structured yet interactive digital activities to maximize lexical acquisition and learner motivation in EFL contexts.
Aims: This study aimed to investigate the impact of Laufer’s Three "I" model (Input, Instruction, Involvement) and the extended Five "I" model (adding Interaction and Interpretation) on Iranian EFL learners' deliberate and incidental vocabulary learning engagement in digital contexts.
Methods: The study employed a sequential mixed-methods design with 93 intermediate-level male EFL learners (aged 16–20) selected via convenience sampling from private language institutes in Tehran. After homogeneity screening using the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT), 60 participants were randomly assigned to experimental (digital-based instruction) and control (traditional face-to-face) groups. Data were collected through vocabulary tests, engagement surveys, and semi-structured interviews, analyzed using SPSS (v.26) for quantitative data (ANOVA, t-tests) and thematic analysis for qualitative responses.
Results: Results indicated that the Five "I" model significantly outperformed the Three "I" model in both deliberate (p< 0.05, d= 0.85) and incidental (p< 0.05, d= 0.72) vocabulary learning. Qualitative data revealed enhanced engagement, reduced anxiety, and improved metacognitive awareness among learners using the progressive model, particularly through its Interaction and Interpretation components.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that Laufer’s expanded Five "I" model offers a more effective framework for digital vocabulary instruction by integrating social-interactive and interpretive elements. Educators should prioritize structured yet interactive digital activities to maximize lexical acquisition and learner motivation in EFL contexts.
Keywords: Laufer’s "I" models, digital vocabulary learning, EFL learners, deliberate learning, incidental learning, learner engagement
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2025/04/3 | Accepted: 2025/07/4 | Published: 2025/12/28
Received: 2025/04/3 | Accepted: 2025/07/4 | Published: 2025/12/28
References
1. Heidari, K. (2024). The Impact of Spaced and Massed Practice on Deliberate Learning of English Opaque Idioms across L2 Proficiency Levels: A Mixed-Methods Research (Doctoral dissertation, Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington).
2. Keating, G. D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 365-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089922
3. Laufer, B. (2016). From word parts to full texts: Searching for effective methods of vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683118
4. Minalla, A. A. (2024). Enhancing Young EFL Learners' Vocabulary Learning Through Contextualizing Animated Videos. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 14(2), 578-586. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1402.31
5. Rassaei, E. (2015). Effects of three forms of reading-based output activity on L2 vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 76-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815606160
6. Teng, F. & Zhang, D. (2021) The associations between working memory and the effects of multimedia input on L2 vocabulary learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0130
7. Teng, M. F. (2022). The Roles of Second-Language Proficiency Level and Working Memory on Vocabulary Learning from Word-Focused Exercises. RELC Journal, 55(2), 296-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221102228
8. Teng, M. F., Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2024). Understanding growth mindset, self-regulated vocabulary learning, and vocabulary knowledge. System, 122, 103255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103255
9. Turan, Z., & Akdag-Cimen, B. (2019). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning,33(5-6),1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1584117
10. Uchihara, T., & Saito, K. (2019). Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability. Language Learning Journal, 47(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1191527
11. Van de Wege, M. (2018). Teaching strategies for independent vocabulary development teaching vocabulary. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0754
12. van den Bosch, L. J., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The Role of Linguistic Diversity in the Prediction of Early Reading Comprehension: A Quantile Regression Approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(3), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1509864
13. Van Laer, S., & Elen, J. (2017). In search of attributes that support self-regulation in blended learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1395–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9505
14. Walsh, S., & Sert, O. (2019). Mediating L2 learning through classroom interaction. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 737–755). Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_35-1
15. Wandari, T., Unsiah, F., & Sahar, R. (2024). Utilizing Wordwall. Net on the Improvement of Students’ Vocabulary Mastery: An ICT-Based Lesson. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 12(2), 952-962. http://dx.doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i2.10754
16. Wang, F. L., Zhang, R., Zou, D., Au, O. T. S., Xie, H., & Wong, L. P. (2021). A review of vocabulary learning applications: From the aspects of cognitive approaches, multimedia input, learning materials, and game elements. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 13(3), 250-272. https://www.kmel-journal.org/ojs/index.php/online-publication/article/view/479
17. Webb, S., & Chang, A. C. S. (2015). How does prior word knowledge affect vocabulary learning progress in an extensive reading program? Studies in Second language Acquisition, 37, 651–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000606
18. Webb, S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v12i1.1458
19. Webb, S., Yanagisawa, A., & Uchihara, T. (2020). How effective are intentional vocabulary‐learning activities? A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 104(4), 715-738. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12671
20. Xiaoning, C. & Feng, T. (2017) Assessing the effects of word exposure frequency on incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading and listening. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 40(1): 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2017-0004
21. Yamamoto, Y. (2014) Multidimensional vocabulary acquisition through deliberate vocabulary list learning. System, 42:232–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.005
22. Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2021). To what extent does the involvement load hypothesis predict incidental l2 vocabulary learning? A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 71(2), 487-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12444
23. Zhu, T., Zhang, Y., & Irwin, D. (2024). Second and foreign language vocabulary learning through digital reading: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4531-4563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11969-1
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License. |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)