就通过阅读习得词汇而言，研究表明，一些针对单词的活动形式能够有效促进词汇学习。Laufer和Hulstijn在2001年提出的“投入量假设”可用来比较不同任务对词汇习得效应的影响。该假说指出，一共有三个共同影响任务效应的要素：“搜索”、“需要”和“评估”。然而，此假说的真实性一直以来备受争议，尤其是“评估”要素。 基于此，本研究试图专门探究“评估”要素。107名高中生参与了此研究。研究中，他们被要求完成三个投入量不同的任务。尽管任务不同，但“需要”（+）和“搜索”（-）要素的水平都是一致的，只有“评估”要素的水平不同：在阅读后，任务1是使用目标词完成句子填空（中等“评估”）；任务2是使用目标词造句（强“评估”）；任务3是使用目标词写作（强“评估”）。 为了研究接受性和产出性词汇知识的习得结果，参与者接受了词汇即时和延时测试。测试结果显示，所有的参与者在一周后都遭受了严重的词汇磨蚀。任务3和任务1都显著优于任务2，这违背了假说。而且，对于接受性词汇知识而言，任务3与任务1无显著性差异；而对于产出性知识而言，任务3显著优于任务1。从测试结果、半结构式访谈和自我陈述来看，任务1似乎应该被赋予更高的“评估”水平。 此外，为了进一步探索任务效应和“评估”要素，一些有可能影响词汇习得的因素也被考虑在内了。这些因素包括：词汇出现频率、语境、词在语篇中的地位、词形、词性、其他类型的词汇知识以及任务难度。 此研究得出如下结论：词汇习得受各种因素影响，当根据 “评估”要素来对词汇习得效果进行预测时，应该考虑到更多的维度和因素。例如：多次的词汇复现和定期的重复对词汇习得至关重要。鉴于最终的实验结果和结论，从任务设计和词汇习得方面来看，本研究有其一定的参考价值。

Concerning vocabulary acquisition through reading, research shows that some word-focused activities can effectively promote vocabulary learning. The Involvement Load Hypothesis proposed by Laufer and Hulstijn in 2001 is used to compare task effects on vocabulary acquisition. The hypothesis suggests three elements jointly influencing task effects: search, need and evaluation. However, this hypothesis has been faced with a lot of controversies over its truthfulness, especially the evaluation element. In view of this, this study attempts to investigate the evaluation component specifically. 107 senior high school students took part in this study and were required to do three tasks with different involvement loads. Need (+) and search (-) were the same in spite of different tasks, and only evaluation was different: After reading, Task 1 was using target words to fill the gaps in sentences (+evaluation); Task 2 was using target words to make sentences (++evaluation); and Task 3 was using target words to write a composition (++evaluation). To investigate the acquisition results of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge, immediate and delayed post-tests were given to the participants. The results showed that all the participants suffered severe word attrition after a week. Task 3 and Task 1 were significantly better than Task 2, which was against the hypothesis. What is more, for receptive vocabulary knowledge, Task 3 and Task 1 had no significant difference; whereas for productive vocabulary knowledge, Task 3 was significantly better than Task 1. From the testing results, self-reports and semi-structured interviews, it seems that Task 1 should be given a higher degree of evaluation. In addition, to further investigate the task effects and the evaluation component, some factors which might influence vocabulary acquisition were also taken into consideration. These factors included: word encounter frequency, context, the status of a word in a discourse, word form, part of speech, other types of vocabulary knowledge and task difficulty. This study concluded that vocabulary acquisition is influenced by various factors and when predicting task effects based on evaluation, more dimensions and factors should be taken into account. For instance, large numbers of word encounters and regular repetitions are of vital importance in vocabulary acquisition. With regard to the final experimental results and conclusion, this study has its certain referential values from the aspects of task design and vocabulary acquisition.