Harmanlanmış Mobil Öğrenmenin EFL Öğrencilerinin Kelime Gelişimi Üzerindeki Etkisi

Year 2024, , 897 - 917, 31.10.2024

Mehmet Aslan , Birsen Tütüniş

https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1483178

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı Harmanlanmış Mobil Öğrenmenin (BML) İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen hazırlık öğrencilerinin kelime gelişimi üzerindeki etkilerini ve BML'ye ilişkin görüşlerini incelemektir. Bir karma yöntem çalışması olarak, Türkiye'deki bir devlet üniversitesindeki 40 hazırlık öğrencisi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Kontrol grubuna kelimeler sadece sınıf içinde ders kitabına bağlı kalınarak okuma metinleri ile öğretilirken, deney grubuna aynı eğitime ek olarak sınıf dışında Google Classroom uygulamasında oluşturulan bir sanal sınıf üzerinden kelimeler öğretildi. BML'nin kelime dağarcığı gelişimine etkisini belirlemek için öğrencilere bir ön test ve bir son test uygulandı. Testlerin sonuçları SPSS programı ile analiz edildi ve grupların kelime gelişimi bağımsız bir T-testi ile karşılaştırıldı. Ayrıca deney grubu öğrencilerinin BML'ye ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemek amacıyla yapılandırılmış bir görüşme yapılmıştır. Öğrencilerin yanıtları MAXQDA 2020 programı kullanılarak içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bu araştırma ile bir öğretim yöntemi olarak BML'nin hazırlık öğrencilerinin kelime gelişimini güçlendirdiği ve kelime öğrenmek için onları motive ettiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

Harmanlanmış öğrenme, kelime, mobil cihazlar, mobil öğrenme, SAMR

The Impact of Blended Mobile Learning on EFL Students’ Vocabulary Development

Abstract

The study's objective is to examine the effects of Blended Mobile Learning (BML) on the vocabulary development of EFL preparatory students and their views of BML. As a mixed method study, it was conducted with 40 preparatory students at a state university in Turkey. While the control group studied vocabulary by reading texts only in the classroom by adhering to the textbook, the experimental group, in addition to the same instruction, was taught vocabulary outside the classroom in a virtual classroom opened through the Google Classroom application. A pre-test and a post-test were administered to the students to determine the impact of BML on their vocabulary development. The results of the tests were analyzed with SPSS program and the vocabulary development of groups was compared via an independent T-test. Additionally, a structured interview was done with the students of the experimental group to determine their views of BML. Students' responses were analyzed using the MAXQDA 2020 program with the method of content analysis. This research has led to the conclusion that BML, as a teaching method, strengthens the vocabulary development of the preparatory students and motivates them to learn vocabulary.

Keywords

Blended learning, vocabulary, mobile devices, mobile learning, SAMR

References

• Abraham, L. B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 199–226.
• Alipour, P. (2020). A comparative study of online vs. blended learning on vocabulary -development among intermediate EFL learners. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1857489.
• Alshwiah, A. A. S. (2009). The Effects of a Blended Learning Strategy in Teaching Vocabulary on Premedical Students' Achievement, Satisfaction and Attitude toward English Language. Online Submission.
• Averianova, I. (2012). A cell phone in the classroom: A friend or a foe? The EuroCALL Review, 20(1), 23-26.
• Brown, C., & Payne, M. E. (1994). Five essential steps of processes in vocabulary learning. In TESOL Convention, Baltimore, Md.
• Chen, M. H., Tseng, W. T., & Hsiao, T. Y. (2018). The effectiveness of digital game-based vocabulary learning: A framework-based view of meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 69–77.
• Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). 13 changes in learning English. In Change and language: Papers from the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics held at the University of Leeds, September 1994 (Vol. 10, p. 153).
• Creswell, J. W. (2012) Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 4th Edition.
• Cummings, C. (2014). Teacher Created Prescriptive Interactive Content (TCPIC), SAMR, and Modernizing Remediation in Social Science Education. Journal of Social Studies Research.
• Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers & Education, 51(1), 474-483. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.006
• Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. Educause Center for Applied Research Bulletin, (7).
• Ebadi, S., & Ghuchi, K. D. (2018). Investigating the Effects of Blended Learning Approach on Vocabulary Enhancement from EFL Learners' Perspectives. Journal on English Language Teaching, 8(2), 57-68.
• Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.
• Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Mobile apps for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2), 2–11. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44244
• Gorjian, B., Moosavinia, S. R., Ebrahimi Kavari, K., Asgari, P., & Hydarei, A. (2011). The impact of asynchronous computer-assisted language learning approaches on English as a foreign language high and low achievers' vocabulary retention and recall. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 383-391.
• Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
• Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The internet and higher education, 20, 20-34.
• Hao, T., Wang, Z., & Ardasheva, Y. (2021). Technology-assisted vocabulary learning for EFL learners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 14(3), 645-667.
• Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. Cambridge University Press.
• Hwang, G.-J., Tsai, C.-C., & Yang, S. J. H. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 81-91.
• Jia, J. Y., Chen, Y. H., Ding, Z. H., & Ruan, M. X. (2012). Effects of a vocabulary acquisition and assessment system on students’ performance in a blended learning class for English subject. Computers & Education, 58(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.002
• Joseph S. Krajcik and Phyllis C. Blumenfeld. (2006). In: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences.R. Keith Sawyer (ed). Cambridge University Press.
• Kang, P. T. (2010). Teaching online: What does blended learning require? In Web-Based Education: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 84-102).
• IGI Global.Khazaei, S., & Dastjerdi, H.V. (2011). An Investigation into the Impact of Traditional vs. Blended Teaching on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Acquisition: M-learning in Focus. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(15), 202-207.
• Kirkland, A. B. (2014). Models for technology integration in the learning commons. School libraries in Canada, 32(1), 14-18.
• Kurucova, Z., Medová, J., & Tirpakova, A. (2018). The effect of different online education modes on the English language learning of media studies students. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1523514.
• Marsh, D. (2012). Blended learning, creating learning opportunities for language learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning, The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan, Vol. 41, 27-29
• Ogata, H., Matsuka, Y., El-Bishouty, M. M., & Yano, Y. (2009). LORAMS: Linking physical objects and videos for capturing and sharing learning experiences towards ubiquitous learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 3(4), 337–350.
• Olapiriyakul, K., & Scher, J. M. (2006). A guide to establishing hybrid learning courses: Employing information technology to create a new learning experience, and a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(4), 287–301.
• Ono Y. & Ishihara M. (2012). Integrating mobile-based individual activities into the Japanese EFL classroom. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 6(2), 2012, 116-137.
• Palalas, A. (2013). Blended mobile learning: Expanding learning spaces with mobile technologies. Global mobile learning implementations and trends, 86-104.
• Puentedura, R. R. (2013, May 29). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation [Web log post]. http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html
• Pun, M. (2013). The use of multimedia technology in English language teaching: A global perspective. Crossing the Border: International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(1), 29-38.
• Saltan, F. (2017). Blended learning experience of students participating pedagogical formation program: Advantages and limitation of blended education. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(1), 63-7
• Sarajari, M. R., & Gilakjani, A. P. (2024). Investigating the impact of online vs. blended learning on vocabulary learning: Evidence from Iranian intermediate EFL learners. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 27(1), 434–460.
• Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice. The higher education academy, 4(2), 24-250.
• Shen, W. W. (2003). Current trends of vocabulary teaching and learning strategies for EFL settings. Feng chia journal of humanities and social sciences, 7(1), 187-224.
• Stockwell, G. (2013). Mobile-assisted language learning. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 201-216). Bloomsbury Academic.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: sage.
• Suartama, I. K. (2019). Development of an instructional design model for mobile blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(16).
• Tosun, S. (2015). The effects of blended learning on EFL students’ vocabulary enhancement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 641-647.
• Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. North American Council for Online Learning report.
• Wenyuan, G. (2017). Using smartphone to facilitate vocabulary mobile learning and teaching in Chinese college. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 6(4), 36-41.
• Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London, England: Arnold.
• Wong, A. K., & Ng, A. (2018). Design of blended mobile learning in an urban environment. In I. Management Association (Ed.), Online Course Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 796-817. IGI Global.
• Zumor, A. l., Refaai, A. W., Bader I. K., Eddin, E. A. & Al-Rahman, F. H. (2013). EFL students' perceptions of a blended learning environment: Advantages, limitations and suggestions for improvement. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 95-110.