Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Proposal by Mind Map: Proposal

1. Chapter one Introduction

1.1. 1.1 Background and purpose

1.1.1. English seems the first dominant language of the world

1.1.2. The important role of vocabulary has been proved by many researchers.

1.1.3. Traditional methods: word-lists, dictionary use, workbooks, teacher-made materials, and group discussion

1.1.4. More efficient methods: Technology

1.1.5. The applications have changed the way we live, work, communicate, feel, and learn.

1.1.6. Mere relying on E-learning can induce students feel isolated. Investigations on full online methods, however, proved this feeling of isolation and this negative element is removed through blended learning.(Perera, 2010)

1.2. 1.2 Statement of the problem

1.2.1. The researcher as an educational technology instructor has faced with many teachers that are not aware and then are not too eager to use that devices with efficient software. Some teachers tend to use their previous traditional method of teaching vocabulary. Conducting blended learning program can gradually bring them to the field of technology in order to benefit face to face interactions.

1.3. 1.3 Research questions

1.3.1. Q1.Can blended learning programs significantly affect Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary achievement?

1.3.2. Q2. Can blended learning programs significantly affect the level of vocabulary achievement of Iranian EFL high achievers?

1.3.3. Q3. Can blended learning programs significantly affect the level of vocabulary achievement of Iranian EFL low achievers?

1.4. 1.4 Research hypotheses

1.4.1. H0 1.Blended learning programs can not significantly affect Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary achievement.

1.4.2. H0 2. Blended learning programs can not significantly affect the level of vocabulary achievement of Iranian EFL high achievers?

1.4.3. H0 3. Blended learning programs can not significantly affect the level of vocabulary achievement of Iranian EFL low achievers?

1.5. 1.5 Significance of the study

1.5.1. This study may be of a high significance for English language teachers to apply effective learning programs by means of implementing blended learning to foster their students' vocabulary achievement. It can be significant for teachers to direct students to interactive environment in order to develop their lexical knowledge. It can be used by syllabus designers to change and provide rich language curriculum needed for teaching through blended learning programs. It can help researchers to carry out researches and studies on blended learning.

1.6. 1.6 (De)Limitation of the study

1.6.1. 1. This study works on the male students with lower intermediate level of language proficiency. So participants’ gender and level are limited. The generalizability of the research is restricted to its sample.

1.6.2. 2. The study is restricted to promote English language vocabulary achievement of the lower intermediate students in public high schools in Iran and cannot be generalized to other skills and demography.

2. Chapter two Review of Literature

3. Chapter three Methodology

3.1. 3.1 Introduction

3.1.1. This chapter includes the procedures followed throughout the study. It describes the methodology of the research, the population, the sample, the instrumentation, a description of the blended program used in the study and the research design

3.2. 3.2 Participants and Settings

3.2.1. 60 male EFL learners

3.2.2. out of 107

3.2.3. lower intermediate

3.2.4. location: Iran,Khorasan Razavi, Khaf

3.2.5. age: between 15 and 16

3.2.6. native language: Farsi

3.2.7. selected by Nelson Test

3.3. 3.3 Instruments

3.3.1. Nelson English Language Test

3.3.1.1. In order to make sure that all participants are homogeneous,

3.3.1.2. 50 multiple-choice items

3.3.1.3. 45 minutes

3.3.1.4. 107 participants will respond.

3.3.1.5. 60 participants will be selected as the participants of this study

3.3.2. Pre-test

3.3.2.1. A vocabulary achievement

3.3.2.2. The source : “English 1” by Birjandi, Soheili, Norozi, and Mahmoodi

3.3.2.3. 50 items

3.3.2.4. The reliability : it will be piloted on the same level participants in another High School.

3.3.2.5. The validity of the test will be confirmed by two experts who will compare the version of test with students’ proficiency.

3.3.3. Post-test

3.3.3.1. The time between pre-post test is long

3.3.3.2. The same pre-test will be used as post-test too

3.3.3.3. Hatch and Farhady :"The researcher can use a pre-test as post-test, if there is more than two weeks duration between them".

3.3.3.4. The post-test aim: to measure the progress of the learner’s vocabulary achievement

3.3.4. Interview

3.4. 3.4 Procedure

3.4.1. At first...

3.4.1.1. Sample selection

3.4.1.2. Proficiency Test

3.4.1.3. 60 participants will be selected

3.4.1.4. The participants will be randomly assigned into two groups of experimental and control.

3.4.2. Then...

3.4.2.1. Vocabulary achievement test functioning as pretest

3.4.2.2. Include: 50 items

3.4.2.3. The content will be the last five lessons of the students’ English course book

3.4.2.4. Materials for both groups are the same

3.4.2.5. Include: 200 new words

3.4.2.6. The way is different

3.4.3. Control Group

3.4.3.1. will receive the content:

3.4.3.2. 20 sessions

3.4.3.3. Two sessions a week

3.4.3.4. 100 minutes

3.4.3.5. Traditional method

3.4.4. Warming up the Experimental Group

3.4.4.1. The way of using Platforms

3.4.4.2. Four Sessions

3.4.4.3. 45 minutes

3.4.5. Experimental Group

3.4.5.1. 20 sessions

3.4.5.2. Two sessions a week

3.4.5.3. 100 minutes

3.4.5.4. Each session consist of

3.4.5.4.1. 25 minutes face to face

3.4.5.4.2. 35 minutes LAN-Based

3.4.5.4.3. 40 minutes virtual classroom

3.4.6. At the end...

3.4.6.1. Both groups will take a Posttest

3.4.6.2. To find the effect of the treatment

3.4.6.3. In papers

3.4.6.4. SPSS version 21 to analyze the data.

3.4.6.5. Descriptive statistics of the data.

3.4.6.6. Then, two T-tests will be estimated

3.5. 3.5 Design

3.5.1. Quasi experimental , intact participants,

3.5.2. Randomly assigned to two groups

3.5.3. The experimental group receives the treatment or intervention

3.5.4. The control group will be treated similar but in different platform.

3.5.5. The schematic presentation:

3.5.6. Control Group (CG): T1 T2

3.5.7. Experimental Group (EG): T1 X T2

3.5.8. Where: T1 is the pre-test, T2 is the post-test and X represents the treatment.

4. Supervisor: Dr.Motallebzadeh

5. By: Naeem Noeparast