10.30495/

Effects of WhatsApp, Adobe Connect, and Face-to-face Classes on Learning Collocations by Iranian EFL Learners

PDF
  • Faezeh Roudgar1,
  • Seyyed Abdolmajid Tabatabaee Lotfi*1,
  • Narjes Ashari Tabar1,
  • Seyyed Amir Hosein Sarkeshikian1,
  1. English Language Department, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran

Received: 2022-05-01

Revised: 2022-05-30

Accepted: 2022-08-16

Published in Issue 2022-08-01

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Roudgar, F., Tabatabaee Lotfi, S. A., Ashari Tabar, N., & Sarkeshikian, S. A. H. (2022). Effects of WhatsApp, Adobe Connect, and Face-to-face Classes on Learning Collocations by Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 1(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.30495/
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 150

Abstract

Technology has crept into every aspect of human life, and second language education is not an exception, giving rise to computer-enhanced language learning and mobile-assisted language learning. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of WhatsApp, Adobe Connect, and face-to-face classes on learning collocations by Iranian EFL learners in Qom, and to make comparisons among these three platforms. Thus, a quasi-experimental design was set up in which a number of available intermediate-level students were assigned to a WhatsApp group (WAG), an Adobe Connect group (ACG), and a Control group (CG). The three groups were given a collocation pretest at the outset of the study and they were exposed to collocations from the book English Collocations in Use, Intermediate (McCarty & O’Dell, 2005), though through different media (i.e., WhatsApp, Adobe Connect, and face-to-face instruction). In the treatment, which lasted for 10 sessions, for the learners in the WAG and ACG, the collocations were presented via a picture (and/or a video), an example sentence, and a follow-up quiz, which the CG learners received the same collocations in a similar fashion except that they were not provided with videos/pictures. At the end of the experiment, the learners were given a posttest of collocations, and the following results were obtained after running a series of paired-samples t tests and a oneway ANCOVA: (a) the three groups of WAG, ACG, and CG were fruitful and the learners in all these environments improved significantly from pretest to posttest of collocations, and (b) ACG learners significantly outperformed WAG learners, who in turn could perform significantly better than the CG learners. The obtained results bear implications for education in general and second language instruction in particular. 

Keywords

  • Adobe Connect, Collocations, Intermediate EFL Learners, WhatsApp, Technology-enhanced Language Learning
PDF

References

  1. Abbasi, M., & Hashemi, M. (2013). The impacts of using mobile phone on English language vocabulary
  2. retention. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4(3),541-547.
  3. Effects of WhatsApp, Adobe Connect, and Face-to-face Classes …
  4. Abdollapour, Z., & Asadzadeh Maleki, N. (2012). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition in CALL
  5. and MALL Environments and Their Effect on L2 Vocabulary Retention: A Comparative Study.
  6. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6 (9), 109-118.
  7. Ackermann, K., & Chen, Y. (2013). Developing the Academic Collocation List (ACL) - A corpus-driven
  8. and expert-judged approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 1-30
  9. Altenberg, B., and Granger, S. (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and
  10. non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 22, 173–195.
  11. Asgari, M., & Salehi, H. (2018). Impact of using web-quest on learning vocabulary by Iranian preuniversity students. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 6(22),
  12. -46.
  13. Ashiyan, Z., & Salehi, H. (2016). Impact of WhatsApp on learning and retention of collocation
  14. knowledge among Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literacy Studies, 7(5), 112-
  15. Başoğlu, E. B., & Akdemir, Ö. (2010). A comparison of undergraduate students’ Englishvocabulary
  16. learning: using mobile phones and flash cards. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
  17. Technology, 9(3), 1-7.
  18. Beyranvand, S. & Rahmatollahi, M. (2021). The effects of MALL on language learners' mastery of
  19. technical collocation: Use of Instagram and Adobe Connect. Turkish Journal of Computer and
  20. Mathematics Education, 12(11), 6697-6709.
  21. Cárter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1988). Vocabulary and Vocabulary Teaching. Harlow-Londres, Longman.
  22. Celikbas, S. (2018). The effectiveness of online conversation classes through the use of Adobe Connect
  23. live learning program. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 3(1), 130-147.
  24. Chowdhury, A., Breznik, G., Verdnik, K., & Prihavec, B. (2012). Customer identification and
  25. authentication procedure for online internet payments using mobile phone. Google Patents.
  26. Dehghan, N., & Tabatabaei, O. (2018). Effects of form-focused, meaning-focused, and forms-focused
  27. instruction on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' Development of Collocations. International
  28. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 6(24), 157-186.
  29. Farhady, H. (1995). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Tehran: Payame-Noor University Press.
  30. Forsberg Lundell, F., Lindqvist, C., & Edmonds, A. (2018). Productive collocation knowledge at
  31. advanced CEFR levels. Evidence from the development of a test for advanced L2 French.
  32. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(4), 627–649
  33. Gitsaki, C. (1999). Second language lexical acquisition: A study of the development of collocational
  34. knowledge. Bethesda, MD: International Scholars Publications.
  35. Haron, H., Al Abri, A., Alotaibi, N. M. (2021). The Use of WhatsApp in Teaching
  36. and Learning English during COVID-19: Students' Perception and Acceptance. International
  37. Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 15(3), 1014-1033.
  38. Khakzadan, R., & Bemani Naeini, M. (2018). Integrating interactive whiteboards in EFL learners’
  39. learning and retention of non-congruent collocations. International Journal of Foreign
  40. Language Teaching and Research, 6(23), 115-128.
  41. Laufer, B., and Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus
  42. analysis of Learners’ English. Language Learning, 61, 647–672.
  43. Mahvelati, E.H., & Mukundan, J. (2012). The effects of input flood and consciousness-raising approach
  44. on collocation knowledge development of language learners. International Journal of Applied
  45. Linguistics and English Literature, 1(6), 182-192.
  46. McCarty, M. & O’Dell, F. (2005). English Collocations in Use, Intermediate. Cambridge: Cambridge
  47. University Press.
  48. Muhammed A. A. (2014). The impact of mobiles on language learning on the part of English Foreign
  49. Language (EFL) university students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 104-108.
  50. Naderi, B., & Bagheri, B. (2017). Effect of spaced repetition on Iranian EFL learners' form recall of
  51. English single words and collocations. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching
  52. and Research, 5(19), 51-60.
  53. Namaziandost, E., Anwar, C., & Neisi, L. (2020). Comparing the impact of spaced instruction and
  54. massed instruction in learning collocations among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of English
  55. Education, Literature, and Culture, 5(1), 55-65.
  56. Paquot, M. (2018). Phraseological Competence: A Missing Component in University Entrance Language
  57. Tests? Insights from a Study of EFL Learners’ Use of Statistical Collocations. Language
  58. Assessment Quarterly, 15, 29-43.
  59. Rahimi, M., & Miri, S.S. (2014). The impact of mobile dictionary uses on language learning. Procedia -
  60. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1469-1474.
  61. Rezvani, E. (2011). The Effect of Output Requirement on the Acquisition of Grammatical Collocations
  62. by Iranian EFL Learners, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (3), 674-682.
  63. Siyanova, A., and Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study
  64. perspective. Can. Against. Long, 64, 429–458.
  65. Suranakkharin, T. (2017). Using the flipped model to foster Thai learners’ second language collocation
  66. knowledge. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 23(3). 1-20.
  67. Thomas, M. (2013). TBLT in business English communication: As approach for evaluating Adobe
  68. Connect and Second Life in a blended language learning format. International Journal of
  69. Computer-assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 3(1),
  70. DOI: 10.4018/ijcallt.2013010105
  71. Webb, S. & Kagimoto, E. (2009). The effects of vocabulary learning on collocation and meaning. TESOL
  72. Quarterly, 43(1), 55-77.
  73. Yaghoobi, M., & Razmjoo, S.A. (2019). On the development of a software towards ameliorating Iranian
  74. EFL learners' reading proficiency. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and
  75. Research, 7(28), 11-22.
  76. Yousefzadeh, M. (2012). Mobile-based learning vs. paper-based learning and collocation words learning.
  77. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies, 2(3), 2016-220.
  78. Zhang, H., Song, W., & Burston, J. (2011). Reexamining the effectiveness of vocabulary learning