Introduction
Collocations, as part of the lexicon, are considered highly important in second language (L2) learning. Emphasizing the importance of collocations in L2 learning and teaching, Bui (2021) contends that collocations constitute a substantial part of the English language, as they are employed in both written and spoken language. Bui, highlighting the importance of collocations, maintains that collocations are regarded as an essential factor in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ proficiency. Notwithstanding the prevalence of collocations, EFL learners find learning and using collocations quite challenging (Fang et al., 2021) and commit errors in regard to collocations (Bui, 2021). Therefore, it is highly important to take appropriate teaching procedures to possibly improve the associated challenges with learning collocations and improve EFL learners’ collocational knowledge.
One of the important aspects of language learning is the meaning-focused input-output duality, which should be considered when teaching different language components, such as vocabulary (Noroozi & Siyyari, 2019) and collocations. Decidedly, language is the major source for the generation and understanding of meaning; therefore, it is important to engage learners in meaning-focused activities associated with both input and output. It should be noted that not only the input-output duality should be considered to address both reception and production of language (Nation & Yamamoto, 2012), but also the possible environmental affordances, such as technology and its different modes of use. This should also be capitalized on to contribute most to developing various language components (Alipour, 2020).
With the ever-growing spread of technology, one of the teaching approaches which can be employed to possibly enhance collocational knowledge is blended learning. Blended learning has proven effective in terms of vocabulary learning (Khodabandeh & Naseri, 2021). However, the possible contribution of blended learning to collocational knowledge has not been adequately researched. Given that blended learning offers the advantages of both online and face-to-face learning and there are few, if any, investigations exploring the effect of blended learning through meaning-focused input and output activities on learning collocations, it is essential to investigate the possible impact of blended learning, along with meaning-focused input and output activities on learning collocations. Thus, the present study, in an attempt to fill the gap in the empirical literature, sought to address the following research questions:
RQ1: Does blended learning significantly improve EFL learners’ collocational knowledge in comparison with conventional learning?
RQ2: Do meaning-focused input activities in a blended learning environment significantly improve EFL learners’ collocational knowledge?
RQ3: Do meaning-focused output activities in a blended learning environment significantly improve EFL learners’ collocational knowledge?
RQ4: Is there a significant difference between the effects of meaning-focused input and output activities in a blended learning environment on EFL learners’ collocational knowledge?
Literature Review
Collocations
Collocations are considered one of the most important constituents in the realm of English L2 learning (Saito & Liu, 2021). In a similar vein, Öksüz, et al. (2021) contend that multiword sequences, including collocations, are the essential building blocks in the process of language acquisition. Likewise, Nation (2013) maintains that collocational knowledge is deemed as one of the most essential aspects of vocabulary knowledge in several models of the mental lexicon. Due to their importance in L2 learning, collocations have been subject to many recent investigations (e.g., Dağdeler, et al., 2020; Namaziandost et al., 2020; Öksüz et al., 2021; Saito, 2020; Saito, & Liu, 2021; Wongkhan & Thienthong, 2020).
Collocation is defined as the frequent co-occurrence of several words the meaning of which can be derived from literal concepts (Chan & Liou, 2005). As pointed out by Cruse (1986), collocations refer to a string of naturally co-occurring lexical items. As Sinclair (1991) notes, collocations are made up of two elements, the node and the collocate co-occurring with the node. A review of the literature (e.g., Bahns & Eldaw, 1993; Durrant, 2009; Howarth, 1998; Nesselhauf, 2003; Schmitt 2010; Wray 2002) indicates that learning and using collocations is a demanding endeavor for L2 learners. A study conducted by Durrant (2009) showed that L2 learners made limited use of collocations, overusing general terms and underusing terms that are indicative of the degree of specificity. Research on collocations (e.g., Bahns & Eldaw, 1993; Howarth, 1998; Nesselhauf, 2003) reveals that the common errors made by highly proficient learners during their L2 production have to do with insufficient knowledge of collocations. Furthermore, as mentioned by Wray (2002), an argument has been put forth that the advanced learners’ capability in making use of L2 collocations is by far weaker than their capability to use grammar and vocabulary. Consequently, it is essential to conduct research for the purposes of finding how to help EFL learners enhance their knowledge of collocations. Highlighting the importance of collocations in learning EFL, Rezaee et al. (2015) maintain that collocational competence should be considered an integral part of native-like L2 performance. Obtaining native-like competence requires L2 learners to acquire collocational competence besides other skills and sub-skills of language competence (Hill, 1999).
In the view of Benson et al. (1997), collocations should be classified as either grammatical or lexical. The former are concerned with the co-occurrence of content and function words, for instance, extend to, fall for, and in advance. In contrast, lexical collocations have to do with the co-occurrence of two or more content words (Rezaee et al., 2015). Some examples for lexical collocations include keep a secret, heavily influenced, scream blue murder, and get away with murder. Studies show that L2 learners make both lexical (e.g., Nesselhauf, 2003) and grammatical (e.g., Hill, 1999) collocational errors. A review of previous literature reveals that scholars have adopted various approaches in teaching collocations. Some scholars have explored the role of web-based concordancing (e.g., Rezaee et al., 2015; Sun & Wang, 2003; Wu et al., 2010) on learning collocations. Web-based concordancing involves the generation of many example sentences for collocation from a web corpus. Some researchers have looked into the effect of mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) (e.g., Dağdeler et al., 2020) on learning collocations. Still other have examined the role of spaced instruction (with time intervals between exposures), massed instruction (with no time interval between exposures) (e.g., Namaziandost et al., 2020), and extensive reading (Khonamri & Roostaee, 2014; Vu & Peters, 2021) on learning collocations.
Meaning-focused input and output
As Nation and Yamamoto (2012) maintain, a well-balanced language course should have four equal strands of meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development. It can thus be inferred that focusing on meaning can help enhance the language learning outcomes. Such a meaning-focused aspect of L2 learning activities is described as a focus on form in L2 acquisition literature. Laufer (2005) asserts that focusing on form involves focusing on the communicative aspect embedded in the linguistic structures required for completing the task. There is a general impression that concentration on form is more learning-centered and hence more conducive to L2 learning. According to Nation and Yamamoto (2012), meaning-focused tasks focus on learning through listening and reading. Such a mode of learning is similar to incidental learning in that the learners’ attention concentrates on understanding what is being read or listened to. Therefore, in meaning-focused activities, the attention is mainly on comprehension, and learners are simply exposed to linguistic items in an attempt to learn the target items in an implicit way. The tasks focusing on making sense, namely, meaning-focused output activities, describe a process whereby learners are provided with an opportunity to enhance their L2 knowledge through taking part in speaking and writing activities with their attention being focused on the information they are trying to transmit (Swain, 2000).
As pointed out by Ellis (1997), while input-based instruction offers inputs in L2 contexts, output-based production tasks are aimed at providing the learners with ample opportunities to produce language in their interactions. This can possibly result in more effective learning outcomes. According to Swain (1985), L2 learning can be more effective if learners have the chance to produce language via output-based activities. As Swain (2000) contends, practicing output pushes learners to move from the strategic processing in comprehension to the comprehensive grammatical processing needed for accurate production.
Meaning-focused input and output activities have recently been explored by various scholars (e.g., Hanabusa & Juhn, 2018; Khonamri & Roostaee, 2014; Noroozi & Siyyari, 2019). Noroozi and Siyyari (2019) investigated the effect of meaning-focused input and output activities on Iranian EFL learners’ active and passive vocabulary learning. The results revealed that both meaning-focused input and output activities led to improving active and passive vocabulary learning. Moreover, their results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the meaning-focused input and output activities in terms of their effects on active and passive vocabulary learning. Khonamri and Roostaee (2014) investigated the effect of an extensive reading program, coupled with form versus meaning-focused activities- on the development of lexical collocations among Iranian Intermediate EFL learners. The results indicated that both form-focused and meaning-focused activities significantly enhanced learning collocations. However, there was not a significant difference between the effects of form-focused and meaning-focused activities on learning collocations. In another study, Hanabusa and Juhn (2018) elaborated on the development of a U.S. university’s Japanese extensive reading Program. The program aimed at enhancing investigating Japanese EFL learners’ extensive reading in the light of meaning-focused input and output activities. Hanabusa and Juhn (2018), underscoring the vital role of meaning-focused input activities for generating meaning-focused output content, reported that the program assisted the learners in becoming truly independent readers and learners. As they reported, the majority of the learners became involved in projects such as writing travel guides, poster exhibitions, and story writing as meaning-focused output activities subsequent to receiving meaning-focused input through extensive reading. through extensive reading.
Blended learning
The emergence of technology has led to its application to language learning. As an outcome of cutting-edge technology and its application in teaching, blended learning aims to enhance knowledge and performance (Rosenberg, 2001). Graham (2006) has described blended learning as a sort of learning involving a combination of online learning and face-to-face learning. In such a context, learners are directed to do pre-class self-directed learning activities, as well as interactive group learning activities for purposes of developing higher-order thinking abilities (Hung, 2015). The findings of several investigations have revealed the benefits of blended learning in the context of L2 education. For example, a study conducted by Spika (2002) showed that this method enables learners to improve their time management skills since they gain more autonomy and flexibility in selecting time and place outside the classroom to do their work. Furthermore, blended learning allows learners to work with technology to enhance their learning. Technology encourages students to be more active, focusing on the lessons they are learning (Wesson et al., 2015).
According to Dziuban et al. (2005), blended learning increases student and teacher satisfaction and their motivation. Moreover, Graham et al. (2013) assert that blended learning allows learners to experience student-centered learning, enabling them to channel their own learning by themselves. In the same vein, Oh and Park (2009) note that blended learning creates an active environment of learning where resources are flexibly used by students. Therefore, L2 teachers can encourage learners to form groups for the purposes of collaboration and collective tasks. Learners’ confidence and competence are expanded through additional resources provided through technology. This, in turn, improves the quality of learning (Azizan, 2010). Overall, the collaboration between teachers and learners can be reinforced by offering a type of online learning, which is appealing to the learner and can ultimately enhance learning outcomes (Yuen, 2010).
The results of previous studies reveal that blended learning is effective in improving writing performance (e.g., Hosseinpour et al., 2019; Purnawarman et al., 2016; Safdari, 2021; Wahyuni, 2018), accuracy and richness of collocations in writing (Chen & Jiao, 2019), reading comprehension (Ghazizadeh & Fatemipour, 2017), grammar (e.g., Al Bataineh et al., 2019), and speaking performance (e.g., Ginaya et al., 2018). Notwithstanding the important role of collocations, the effect of blended learning on learning collocations via meaning-focused input and output activities, which is the focus of the current study, is underexplored.
Method
Participants
The initial participants of the current study were 162 Iranian EFL learners studying at a language institute in Tehran.The participants were at the intermediate level of language proficiency and within the age range of 18 to 43 (M=28.75). They were selected based on convenience sampling from both male (N=89) and female (N=73) learners. The initial 162 learners were given an Oxford Placement Test (OPT) and based on the results only those whose scores fell within the range of 28 to 36 in line with the guidelines of the OPT were selected. The main reason was to have a group of homogenized participants in terms of language proficiency. Therefore, based on the OPT scores, 124 learners (Male N= 65, Female N=59) were selected to take part in this study. All had an intermediate level of language proficiency. Methodologically, the selection of homogenized learners could neutralize the possible effect of proficiency level on the results of the study.
Instruments and Materials
Oxford Placement Test (OPT)
At the outset of the study, OPT was applied to make sure that the participants were homogenous with regard to English language proficiency. Oxford Placement Test (OPT) is made up of 60 items, which assess the English learners' L2 proficiency. The test takers’ performance is assessed based on their scores, showing their level of L2 proficiency from beginners to high advanced as follows: 1-17 (Beginner), 18-27 (Elementary), 28-36 (Intermediate), 37-47 (Upper-Intermediate), 48-55 (Advanced) 56-60 (High Advanced).
Collocations Test
To assess the learners’ performance on collocations, a test containing 30 items (See Appendix) was developed by the researcher. The source of the collocations was the English Collocations in Use Intermediate (McCarthy & O’Dell, 2017). Initially, the researcher randomly selected ten units of English Collocations in Use Intermediate, and, then from each unit randomly selected three collocations to be incorporated into the test. To select the collocations, the researcher gave a number to each of the collocations in each unit and then drew three of the numbers randomly for each unit. Therefore, the selection of the target collocations was based on pure random chance. Then, a 30-item multiple-choice test was developed by the researcher. To ensure the content validity of the test, the initial items were commented by two PhDs in TEFL, and their comments were addressed accordingly. Following that, the test was given to 30 participants having similar characteristics to those of the main participants and Cronbach’s Alpha was run. The Cronbach’s Alpha index turned out to be .75, which is considered a satisfactory level of reliability (Cohen et al., 2018). The test of collocations was used both as pretest and posttest.
Procedure
Initially, 162 learners were selected based on convenience sampling and given an OPT. Based on the OPT results, 124 learners whose scores lay within the range of 28 to 36 were chosen as participants with intermediate level language proficiency. The 124 chosen learners were divided non-randomly into four groups consisting of the conventional group (N=32), the blended group (N=28), the meaning-focused input group (N=33), and the meaning-focused output group (N=31). The non-random division of the learners was done as the random assignment of individual learners to a specific group by the researcher was not feasible. Thus, the learners were asked to select the group, which best fit their time schedule of class. Upon grouping the participants, the collocations test was given to the four groups as pretest. To make sure that the four groups were not statistically different in terms of knowledge of collocations, a one-way ANOVA was run on the pretest scores.
Then, the first group (the conventional group) received face-to-face conventional treatment. More specifically, in this group, the learners were exposed to the target collocations via a conventional face-to-face method. In doing so, the teacher-researcher wrote the collocations on the board along with their definitions randomly and asked learners to match the collocations with their corresponding definitions. Then, the researcher asked the learners to use the collocations in sentences. Following that, the learners received feedback on their wrong collocation use from the teacher and other peers.
The second group (blended learning) was exposed to blended learning for teaching collocations. To do so, a combination of face-to-face and online teaching was used. The learners in this group were initially taught the collocations in a face-to-face environment. Following that, in a group on Telegram, the learners along with the teacher followed up the learning. To do so, the learners made sentences with the collocations and posted them on the group. Then, the learners and the teacher gave feedback and the learners corrected their sentences. Moreover, the teacher and learners found supportive materials on the Internet and posted them on the group.
As for the third group (meaning-focused input), the learners received meaning-focused input activities in a blended learning environment. In doing so, the learners received reading texts with target collocations in class. They were asked to underline the collocations they found difficult and then tried to guess the meanings. Then, the learners were required to answer reading comprehension questions and identify true/false statements posted by teacher on Telegram at home. The learners in this group were not required to use the collocations to produce any sentences.
As for the fourth group (meaning-focused output group), the learners were given the same reading texts used in the third group during class time. Then, on Telegram, they were required to make sentences with the target collocations. Moreover, they were asked to summarize each text using the target collocations and post the summary via a voice message on the group on Telegram. The treatment lasted for ten sessions for all groups.
After the ten sessions of treatment, all learners were given the posttest of collocations, and the scores were used to address the research questions.
Results
To make sure that the four groups of the study were not significantly different in terms of knowledge of collocations prior to treatment, a one-way ANOVA was run on the pretest scores for the four groups. Table 1 demonstrates the results of descriptive statistics for the pretest scores of the conventional, blended, blended meaning-focused input, and blended meaning-focused output groups.
Table 1: Results of descriptive statistics for the pretest scores of the conventional, blended, blended meaning-focused input, and blended meaning-focused output groups
As shown in Table 1, the means for the conventional, blended, blended meaning-focused input, and blended meaning-focused output groups on pretest are 7.437, 7.571, 7.575, and 7.354, out of the maximum test score of 30. To see whether the differences among the means of the groups are statistically significant, One-way ANOVA was run. Table 2 depicts the results of ANOVA on the pretest scores for the four groups.
Table 2: Results of ANOVA on the pretest scores for the groups
As Table 2 indicates, the sig equals .968, which is higher than the confidence level of 0.05. Therefore, there were not any significant differences among the four groups of the study in terms of knowledge of collocations. Because, when the obtained sig level is higher than 0.05, it is an indication of the rejection of the null hypothesis stipulating any significant differences among the mean scores of the groups. Therefore, now, it can be inferred that the groups were homogenized in terms of collocational knowledge prior to the treatment and any differences among the posttest scores of the groups can be attributed to treatment types.
To explore any differences among the score means of the four groups and address the research questions, a one-way ANOVA was run on the posttest scores. Table 3 presents the results of descriptive statistics for the posttest scores of the conventional, blended, blended meaning-focused input, and blended meaning-focused output groups.
Table 3: Results of descriptive statistics for the posttest scores of the conventional, blended, blended meaning-focused input, and blended meaning-focused output groups
As presented in Table 3, the means for the conventional, blended, blended meaning-focused input, and blended meaning-focused output groups on posttest are 7.656, 10.500, 13.878, and 18.419, respectively. To see whether the differences among the means of the groups on posttest are statistically significant, a one-way ANOVA was run. Table 4 presents the results of ANOVA on the posttest scores for the four groups.
Table 4: Results of ANOVA on the posttest scores for the conventional, blended, blended meaning-focused input, and blended meaning-focused output groups
As Table 4 indicates, there was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level among the mean scores of the four groups (F (3, 120) = 56.07, p = .00). Therefore, the post-hoc Scheffe test was run to spot the differences among the groups. Table 5 displays the results of the post-hoc Scheffe test for the posttest scores among the four groups.
Table 5: Results of the Post-Hoc Scheffe Test for the posttest scores among the conventional, blended, blended meaning-focused input, and blended meaning-focused output groups
As seen in Table 5, the post-hoc comparisons using the Scheffe Test indicated that the score means for conventional group (M = 7.656, SD = 2.025) and blended group (M = 10.500, SD = 2.714) were significantly different (p=0.021<0.05) with the blended group outperforming the conventional group. Thus, it can be inferred that blended learning significantly improved EFL learners’ collocational knowledge in comparison with conventional learning. Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference (p=0.003<0.05) between the posttest score means of blended group (M = 10.500, SD = 2.714) and blended meaning-focused input group (M = 13.878, SD = 4.357) with the blended meaning-focused input group outperforming the blended group. Therefore, it can be concluded that meaning-focused input activities in a blended learning environment significantly improved EFL learners’ collocational knowledge. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference (p=0.000<0.05) between the posttest score means of blended group (M = 10.500, SD = 2.714) and blended meaning-focused output group (M = 18.419, SD = 4.080) with the blended meaning-focused output group outperforming the blended group. Therefore, it can be concluded that meaning-focused output activities in a blended learning environment significantly improved EFL learners’ collocational knowledge. Finally, there was a statistically significant difference (p=0.000<0.05) between the posttest score means of blended meaning-focused input group (M = 13.878, SD = 4.357) and blended meaning-focused output group (M = 18.419, SD = 4.080) with the blended meaning-focused output group outperforming the blended meaning-focused input group. Accordingly, it can be inferred that the meaning-focused output activities in a blended learning environment were statistically more effective on EFL learners’ collocational knowledge compared to the meaning-focused input activities in a blended learning environment. Figure 1 graphically displays the posttest score means on collocational knowledge for the four groups.
Figure 1. The posttest score means on collocational knowledge for the four groups
Discussion and Conclusion
The results of the present study indicated that blended learning significantly improved EFL learners’ collocational knowledge. Moreover, the results revealed that both meaning-focused input and output activities in a blended learning environment significantly improved EFL learners’ collocational knowledge. Furthermore, there was a significant difference between the effects of meaning-focused input and output activities in a blended learning environment on EFL learners’ collocational knowledge with the meaning-focused output group outperforming the meaning-focused input group.
The results of the current study concerning the significant effect of blended learning on collocational knowledge substantiate the findings of previous investigations (e.g., Al Bataineh et al., 2019; Chen & Jiao, 2019; Ginaya et al., 2018; Hosseinpour et al., 2019; Purnawarman, et al., 2016; Wahyuni, 2018) revealing a positive effect of blended learning on different language skills and components. The findings of the current study are in congruence with the results of Chen and Jiao (2019) who concluded that blended learning approach is beneficial in improving the richness and accuracy of collocations in EFL learners’ writings. The high rate of success of blended learning can be attributed to the higher level of satisfaction compared to conventional face-to-face classes as evident in the current study.
The findings of the current study regarding the significant improvement of both meaning-focused input and output activities in a blended learning environment on EFL learners’ collocational knowledge confirm the results of previous research studies (e.g., Hanabusa & Juhn, 2018; Khonamri & Roostaee, 2014; Noroozi & Siyyari, 2019) indicating the positive effects of meaning-focused input and output activities on various language skills and components. In particular, the results of the current study are similar to the results of the current investigation of Noroozi and Siyyari’s (2019); their study revealed that both meaning-focused input and output activities led to improving active and passive vocabulary learning. Likewise, Khonamri and Roostaee (2014) meaning-focused activities significantly enhanced learning collocations. The results of the present study concerning the positive effects of both meaning-focused input and output activities on learning collocations can be attributed to the focus on meaning in both experimental groups.
The results of the present investigation concerning the more significant effect of meaning-focused output activities in comparison with meaning-focused input activities on learning collocations are in contrast with the findings of Noroozi & Siyyari (2019). They found no significant difference between the effects of meaning-focused input and output activities on vocabulary learning.
Based on the results of the current study, EFL teachers are recommended to employ blended learning, and meaning-focused input and output activities in a blended learning environment to enhance EFL learners’ knowledge of collocations. However, since the results indicated that meaning-focused output activities contributed the most to the knowledge of collocations, EFL teachers are encouraged to employ meaning-focused output activities in blended learning environments to improve EFL learners’ collocational knowledge. Syllabus designers are also recommended to design syllabi so as to facilitate the incorporation of meaning-focused output activities in a blended learning environment for both materials developers and teachers should the intention be the improvement of knowledge of collocations.
Although the results of the present study confirmed previous research findings regarding the effectiveness of both meaning-focused input and output activities in a blended learning environment on different language skills and components, the findings of this study should not be taken as conclusive. Thus, more research investigations are required to provide a more comprehensive picture of the contribution of meaning-focused input and output activities in a blended learning environment on knowledge of collocations. For instance, the participants of the current study were all at the intermediate level of language proficiency. A similar study can be carried out with participants from other proficiency levels to improve the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, collocational knowledge is only a part of lexical knowledge. Thus, future studies may focus on phrasal verbs or idioms to explore the impact of meaning-focused input and output activities in a blended learning environment on knowledge of idioms. Moreover, similar investigations can be conducted to probe EFL learners’ and/or teachers’ perceptions towards the effectiveness of meaning-focused input and output activities in a blended learning environment on knowledge of collocations.
References
Al Bataineh, K. B., Banikalef, A., & Albashtawi, A. H. (2019). The effect of blended learning on EFL students’ grammar performance and attitudes: An investigation of Moodle. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 10(1), 324 – 334.https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no1.27
Alipour, P. (2020). A comparative study of online vs. blended learning on vocabulary development among intermediate EFL learners. Cogent Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1857489
Azizan, F. Z. (2010). Blended learning in higher education institution in Malaysia. Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT (pp. 454-466). http://ldms.oum.edu.my/oumlib/sites/default/files/file_attachments/odl-resources/4334/blended-learning.pdf
Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations? System, 21(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(93)90010-E
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. F. (1997). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: A guide to word combinations. John Benjamin.
Bui, T. L. (2021). The role of collocations in the English teaching and learning. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(2), 99-109. http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11250/ijte.01.02.006
Chan, T.-P., & Liou, H.-C. (2005). Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL students’ learning of verb-noun collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220500185769
Chen, Z., & Jiao, J. (2019). Effect of the blended learning approach on teaching corpus use for collocation richness and accuracy. In S. Cheung, J. Jiao, L. K. Kee, X. Zhang, K. Li, Z. Zhan (Eds.), Technology in Education: Pedagogical Innovations. International Conference on Technology in Education (pp. 54-66). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9895-7_6
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Cruse, D. A., (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Dağdeler, K. O., Konca, M. Y., & Demiröz, H. (2020). The effect of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) on EFL learners’ collocation learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 489-509. https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/1597v
Durrant, P (2009). Investigating the viability of a collocation list for students of English for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.es(3)p.2009.02.002v
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P. D., & Sorg, S. (2005). Blended learning: Online learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds). Handbook of blended learning environment (pp. 195-208). Pfeiffer.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition research and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Fang, L., Ma, Q., & Yan, J. (2021). The effectiveness of corpus-based training on collocation use in L2 writing for Chinese senior secondary school students. China Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1(1) 80–109. https://doi.org/10.1515/jccall-2021-2004
Ghazizadeh, T., & Fatemipour, H. (2017). The effect of blended learning on EFL learners’ reading proficiency. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(3), 606-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0803.21
Ginaya, G., Rejeki, I. N. M., & Astuti, N. N. S. (2018). The effects of blended learning to students' speaking ability. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 4(3), 1-14. https://sloap.org/journals/index.php/ijllc/article/view/158
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3-21). Pfeiffer.
Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
Hains-Wesson, R., McKenzie, S., & Bangay, S. (2015, 19 July). Anytime and anywhere: A case study for blended learning. Educause.https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/7/anytime-and-anywhere-a-case-study-for-blended-learning
Hanabusa, N., & Juhn, H.-J. (2018). Japanese extensive reading courses at a US University: Meaning-focused input and output facilitated by a Japanese instructor-librarian team. Journal of Extensive Reading, 4, 209-218.
Hill, J. (1999). Collocational competence. English Teaching Professional, 11, 3–6.
Hosseinpour, N., Biria, R., & Rezvani, E. (2019). Promoting academic writing proficiency of Iranian EFL learners through blended learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.640525
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19, 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.24
Khodabandeh, F., & Naseri, E. (2021). Comparing the impact of blended and flipped teaching strategies on students' skimming technique and vocabulary learning. Teaching English Language, 15(2), 127-154. https://doi.org/10.22132/TEL.2021.141560
Khonamri, F., & Roostaee, S. (2014). Does extensive reading combined with form-focused or meaning-focused activities affect lexical collocational knowledge of Iranian learners? Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 4(5). https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.2021.141560
Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary acquisition. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, M. del P. García Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.). EuroSLA Yearbook, 5, 223-250.
McCarthy, M., & O’Dell, M. (2017). English collocations in use: Intermediate (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Namaziandost, E., Anwar, C., & Neisi, L. (2020). Comparing the impact of spaced instruction and massed instruction in learning collocations among Iranian EFL learners. EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 5(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.30659/e.5.1.55-65
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P., & Yamamoto, A. (2012). Applying the four strands to language learning. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 167-181.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.223
Noroozi, M., & Siyyari, M. (2019). Meaning-focused output and meaning-focused input: The case of passive and active vocabulary learning. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1651443
Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended instruction? Educational Technology & Society, 12(3).
Öksüz, D., Brezina, V., & Rebuschat, P. (2021). Collocational processing in L1 and L2: The effects of word frequency, collocational frequency, and association. Language Learning, 71(1), 55-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12427
Purnawarman, P., Susilawati, S., & Sundayana, W. (2016). The use of Edmodo in teaching writing in a blended learning setting. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 242-252. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i2.1348
Rezaee, A. A., Marefat, H., & Saeedakhtar, A. (2015). Symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding of L2 collocations in the context of concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 532-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.889712
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. McGraw-Hill-Professional.
Safdari, M. (2021). Contributions of Edmodo social learning network to Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy. Call-EJ, 22(1), 355-373. http://callej.org/journal/22-1/Safdari2021.pdf
Saito, K. (2020). Multi-or single-word units? The role of collocation use in comprehensible and contextually appropriate second language speech. Language Learning, 70(2), 548–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12387
Saito, K., & Liu, Y. (2021). Roles of collocation in L2 oral proficiency revisited: Different tasks, L1 vs. L2 raters, and cross-sectional vs. longitudinal analyses. Second Language Research, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320988055
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
Spika, P. (2002). Approximately “real world” learning with the Hybrid Model. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/6310
Sun, Y.-C., & Wang, L.-Y. (2003). Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.1.83.15528
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–252). Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500200123
Vu, D. V., & Peters, E. (2021). Incidental collocation learning from meaningful input: A longitudinal study into three reading modes and factors that affect learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000462
Wahyuni, S. (2018). The effect of blended learning model towards students’ writing ability. J-SHMIC: Journal of English for Academic, 5(2), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.25299/jshmic.2018.vol5(2).1801
Wongkhan, P., & Thienthong, A. (2020). EFL Learners’ acquisition of academic collocation and synonymy: Does their academic experience matter? RELC Journal, 52(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219895046
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
Wu, S., Witten, I., & Franken, M. (2010). Utilizing lexical data from a web-derived corpus to expand productive collocation knowledge. ReCALL, 22, 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009990218
Yuen, A. H. K. (2010). Blended learning in higher education: An exploration of teaching approaches. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education: Enhancing and Sustaining new knowledge through the Use of Digital Technology in Education, ICCE, 623- 630. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/176116
