English Language Teaching; Vol. 15, No.

5; 2022
ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

The Effects of Blended Learning Instruction on Vocabulary

Knowledge of Thai Primary School Students
Phichitra Katasila1 & Kornwipa Poonpon1
1
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Correspondence: Kornwipa Poonpon, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University,
Thailand.

Received: March 16, 2022 Accepted: April 11, 2022 Online Published: April 22, 2022
doi: 10.5539/elt.v15n5p52 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n5p52

Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the effects of blended learning instruction on vocabulary knowledge of Thai
primary school students and students' perceptions toward learning vocabulary through blended learning instruction.
A mixed-methods approach was used. Quantitatively, a single group pretest-posttest design was used to measure
students' vocabulary knowledge after ten weeks of vocabulary lessons via blended learning instruction. The
qualitative method focused on students' perceptions toward blended learning instruction. There were a total of
eight student participants at a small school in Kosumphisai, Maha Sarakham province. Three students were in fifth
grade and five students in sixth grade. Two research instruments were used in this study: a pre-and-post-test and an
in-depth interview. The quantitative results revealed that the post-test score was higher than the pretest score. The
blended learning instruction can improve the students' vocabulary knowledge. The qualitative results showed that
students had positive attitudes toward blended learning instruction on vocabulary teaching.
Keywords: vocabulary knowledge, blended learning, Thai primary school students
1. Introduction
Vocabulary serves as a crucial tool in communication. One cannot understand the meaning being conveyed
without knowing the meaning of the words. Knowing vocabulary is the beginning stage of language learning,
especially for young learners. Children need exposure to new words by hearing those words pronounced many
times before speaking out and developing their language skills (Harmon et al., 2009; Linse, 2005; Meredith, 2012;
Schmitt, 2000).
Vocabulary knowledge plays a vital role in second language learning because the students need sufficient
knowledge of the words before comprehending what they have heard or read (Teng, 2014). It contributes to
comprehension in language learning because understanding words enables readers and listeners to understand
usages and develop verbal aptitude for both word and passage comprehension (Anderson & Freebody, 1981). In
addition, vocabulary knowledge contributes to language production. Understanding the meaning of words can
assist the student in conveying the message appropriately based upon the contexts in which it is used. Vocabulary
knowledge promotes the comprehension and production of a language and also works as a good indicator of the
performance and acquisition of any language skill. Therefore, language learners need to learn and accumulate
vocabulary to be a master of a language.
Even though vocabulary is essential in language learning, a lack of vocabulary knowledge is already a serious and
obvious problem for many students. Hunt and Beglar (2005) proposed that many EFL learners are likely to have
less than sufficient vocabulary knowledge when using English. Chang and Read (2006) stated that many EFL
learners struggle to comprehend the spoken language, mainly when there is no visual illustration. Besides, Cheng
and Good (2009) found that a lack of vocabulary knowledge causes many EFL learners to find it difficult to
understand passages or sentences that they read in English. These studies revealed the obstacles for EFL learners
caused by the lack of adequate vocabulary knowledge.
In Thailand, studies have shown similar problems regarding students' inadequate vocabulary knowledge. A study
by Songsiri (1999) explored the English reading comprehension of grade 12 students. The results revealed that the
students' English reading abilities were unsatisfactory due to a lack of vocabulary knowledge. The students were
not able to predict the vocabulary meaning in context. Adunyarittigun (2002) investigated Thai students who

52
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

learned English as a foreign language from the fifth grade until the end of secondary school. The study revealed
that the students could not predict the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary in context due to their lack of vocabulary
knowledge and sentence structure. Likewise, Intarasombat (2002) investigated the effect of vocabulary
development on English reading comprehension of tenth grade students and found that the students' mean score in
vocabulary and reading comprehension tests was low due to limited vocabulary knowledge. Rattanaseeha (2007)
also investigated the implementation of critical thinking to develop the reading comprehension of tenth grade
students at a high school in Loei, Thailand. The results showed that the student's reading comprehension ability
was low because due to a lack of vocabulary knowledge that interfered with their reading comprehension. A study
by Patanasorn and Patanasorn (2011) examined the English vocabulary size of primary students. The results
revealed that the sixth-grade students' vocabulary size was small compared with the expected vocabulary size of
sixth-grade students set out by the Ministry of Education. Besides, Kotchana and Tongpoon-Patanasorn (2015)
found that Thai Grade 6 students in the Northeastern region had a small vocabulary size, both receptive and
productive. This previous research indicates that Thai EFL students commonly face difficulties in English learning
caused by a lack of vocabulary knowledge (Saenpakdeejit, 2014). Moreover, inadequate lexical knowledge may
obstruct students in enhancing their English proficiency. The Ordinary National Educational Test (O-NET) scores
in the last few decades show that Thai primary school students' average English score is meager compared with
scores in other core subjects (Mala, 2021). Therefore, it is important to increase students' vocabulary knowledge
with effective instruction.
Attempts to enhance students' vocabulary knowledge has been done through various types of instruction,
especially through the use of technology (Bozorova & Salixova, 2020). Currently, technology plays an important
role in both Thai and international educational contexts. Students are constantly engaged with technology or social
media, both inside and outside the classroom. Wantulok (2015) stated that learning through technology has
become a part of students’ lifestyles and the easiest way to learn since it is such an integral part of their lives.
Moreover, technology has been implemented in primary education instruction (Prescott et al., 2018; Schechter et
al., 2015; Sharifi et al., 2015), especially for teachers and students in the digital era where technology is considered
an essential tool in the learning environment. Technology can make the relationship between the students and
teachers better because it makes the teaching and learning process more enjoyable (Cox, 2019). Therefore,
technology-assisted instruction is one of the most popular ways to enhance vocabulary knowledge nowadays
(Cristen, 2009).
Blended learning instruction is one of the most effective types of technology-assisted instruction. (Motteram &
Sharma, 2009a). Blended learning aims to facilitate the language learning process in both online and face-to-face
instruction (Reay, 2001; Rooney, 2003; Sands, 2002; Ward & LaBranche, 2003; Young, 2002). This type of
instruction is the most suitable solution for many teachers working in physical classrooms who need to use
technology as an aspect of their practice of educational technology development (Motteram & Sharma, 2009b).
Online instruction is usually designed by teachers and implemented through E-learning software or smartphone
applications.
Blended learning instruction is a technology-assisted approach that has rapidly grown, especially since the
COVID-19 pandemic that started in 2020. Education has been affected particularly hard by the pandemic. Many
countries worldwide have had to temporarily close educational institutions to prevent the spread of the COVID-19.
Almost a billion students worldwide have not been able to go to school (UNESCO, 2020). Most governments are
concerned about education, so they have sought possible ways to keep instruction going. Therefore, it has been
necessary to support teachers, community experts or leaders, and everyone involved in the education system with
other possible ways to teach, such as through smartphone applications, home-schooling, web-based online
learning, and further innovative instructions.
In Thailand, the Ministry of Education (MoE) has also been concerned about education during the pandemic. They
informed educational institutions to follow social distancing measures (UNESCO Bangkok, 2020a). The MoE has
suggested different teaching methods, e.g., distance learning television (DLTV), online learning instruction, and
blended learning instruction, enabling students to learn at their own pace and be empowered to take charge of their
learning during the crisis. They have also encouraged teachers to be more active in providing support to learners
via online platforms. By doing so, teachers can respond to the different needs of learners, provide them with
feedback and generate an exchange of ideas. Among the suggested teaching methods, blended learning instruction
offers an opportunity to give teachers and students interaction through face-to-face and online learning sessions
(Singh, 2021).

53
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

A number of previous studies focusing on using blended learning for students' vocabulary knowledge
enhancement were conducted with primary school students or higher level (e.g., Banditvilai, 2016; Banyen et al.,
2016; Wichadee, 2017, 2018). However, studies focusing on primary schools, especially in the Thai context, has
gained less interest (Schechter et al., 2015; Sharifi et al., 2015). To fill this gap, the present study aims to focus on
implementing blended learning instruction to enhance the vocabulary knowledge of primary students in the Thai
EFL context, particularly in a small local school. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following research
questions to reflect the purpose of this study.
1) To what extent does blended learning instruction affect Thai primary school students' vocabulary
knowledge?
2) What are the Thai primary school students' perceptions toward learning vocabulary through blended
learning instruction?
2. Literature Review
2.1 Vocabulary Knowledge
2.1.1 Definition of Vocabulary Knowledge
Vocabulary knowledge refers to the knowledge of words (Laufer et al., 2004; Milton 2009; Nation, 1990, 2001).
Haastrup and Henriksen (2000) identified word knowledge from the point of view of meaning, knowledge, and
collocation, all of which make vocabulary knowledge. At the same time, Schmitt (2000) suggested that vocabulary
knowledge is a knowledge of the different elements of vocabulary, which consists of word organization,
productive and receptive fluency, and proficiency. Further, vocabulary knowledge implies the word's definition
and tells how to use the word appropriately based on a given context.
2.1.2 Significance of Vocabulary Knowledge
Vocabulary knowledge is essential in learning languages. It contributes to the comprehension and production of
language and works as a good indicator of performance and acquisition of any language skill (Nation, 2001).
Besides, Fan (2003) stated that vocabulary knowledge is the most significant part of learning a language. Learners
are more confident to understand and interpret the meaning of some unknown words from context. Indeed,
learning vocabulary not only means learning new words but also knowing their functions and applicability to
different contexts and situations.
Previous studies suggested that vocabulary knowledge is important for EFL students because they need sufficient
knowledge of the words before comprehending what they have heard or read (e.g., Adunyarittigun, 2002; Chang &
Read, 2006; Hunt & Beglar, 2005; Intarasombut, 2002; Songsiri, 1999). Therefore, language instructors should
find an effective teaching methodology to help learners learn vocabulary and increase their lexical knowledge.
2.2 Blended Learning Approach
2.2.1 Definition of Blended Learning
Blended learning is one of the most effective approaches that has been used to facilitate language learning in the
past two decades. Blended learning has been defined and characterized by many scholars. Allen et al. (2007)
advocated that blended learning requires a rich blend of teaching and learning technology-based approaches and
sometimes a mixture of technology-based and classroom learning. Graham (2006) described blended learning as a
blended, combined learning system with computer-mediated teaching. In comparison, Garrison and Kanuka (2004)
defined blended learning as the cautious incorporation of classroom experiences into online learning experiences.
Bernath (2012) indicated that blended learning is a learning program that uses a combination of electronic learning
(E-Learning) and traditional classroom teaching. To conclude, blended learning is a practice integrated with
various learning modes, either in the classroom, outside learning, or different learning tools.
2.2.2 Blended Learning Models
When designing a blended learning classroom, an explicit model should be considered. According to Horn and
Staker (2011), there are six blended learning models: the Face-to-Face Driver Model, the Rotation Model, the Flex
Model, the Online Lab Model, the Self-Blend Model, and the Online Driver Model. The Face-to-Face Driver
Model is the most similar to the framework of a conventional school. This model allows for the introduction of
online education on a case-by-case basis, meaning that only a subset of students in a class will engage in any sort of
blended learning. The Rotation Model employs a fixed schedule to speak to their instructors face-to-face and then
switch to the online learning environment. The Flex Model is focused on heavy online training. The instructors
work as facilitators rather than as instruction providers. The Online Lab Model includes learners who enter and
attend a school for whole courses of fully online instruction. No licensed professors are available, but instead,

54
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

qualified professionals supervise them. The Self-Blend Model is used for more classes in a single school or district
in a conventional environment. Learners take part in lectures but then take courses to accompany their usual study
programs. The Online Driver Model is the opposite of a traditional face-to-face instructional paradigm. Learners
operate from remote areas, for instance, from their homes, and receive their entire range of learning online. These
models are crucial for conducting effective teaching activities. Nonetheless, teachers could choose a blended
learning model suitable for their contexts to manage the classroom to provide a more effective learning
environment.
In the present study, the rotation model was used as the primary model for many reasons. First, the study was
conducted in an elementary school where students tended to be familiar with the online learning environment. This
model also complies with traditional learning instruction in which face-to-face instruction is still used in class. In
other words, teaching activities were not entirely online. It was also relevant and suitable for the participants'
context in the study. The appearance of the rotation model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The rotation model (Horn & Staker, 2011)

Figure 1 shows the process of the rotation model. In the process, the teacher-led instruction is shifted from a
physical classroom to an online learning mode. In other words, the teacher introduces a lesson to the students
through face-to-face instruction. Later the students are assigned to work collaboratively while the teacher acts as a
facilitator. The students then rotate to online learning using technology devices such as computers, tablets, or
smartphones in order to work on a given task or activities through an online education platform that their teacher
has set up for them. This model can be conducted in a physical classroom as well as a virtual classroom through
online learning. In this model, the teacher can manage how much time is spent on face-to-face learning and how
much time is spent on online learning.
2.2.3 Blended Learning Resources
Blended learning resources in class are also crucial in designing and conducting blended learning programs.
Various blended learning resources are used for teaching blended learning classes to promote students'
environment by considering safety and convenience. Allan et al. (2007) proposed blended learning resources,
namely classroom technologies such as PowerPoint and interactive whiteboard, virtual communication tools such
as podcasts and chat rooms, social networking software such as wikis and blogs, e-learning systems such as VLEs
and smartphone applications, and smartphone learning. These resources are comprised of tools and technologies
that teachers can choose from for designing and implementing blended learning in classes depending on the
students' needs.
Regarding blended learning resources, many scholars have stated that using smartphone applications in teaching
and learning provides positive ideas and benefits (Kizito, 2012; Prensky, 2004; Wang, 2017). These resources can
motivate students to learn and understand better. It also helps new generations of students become interested in
learning languages. In their blended learning classes, many teachers use various smartphone applications, e.g.,

55
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

Kahoot, Nearpod, Duolingo, Schoology, and Seesaw. For Kahoot, this application is a digital game-based student
response system that allows teachers and learners in classroom settings to interact through competitive knowledge
games (Educational App Store website, n.d.). Nearpod is a website and app-based digital tool that lets teachers
create slide-based learning resources that are interactive for students to engage with and learn from. (Edwards,
2021). In addition, teachers can create lots of different interactive learning resources that allow students to engage
and learn via their device or a single screen in the room. Duolingo is a free language learning application and
website. This application is designed for users to progress through lessons. Users can learn a language for free by
translating webpages (Jaskova, 2014). Schoology is considered an online learning management system, which has
been developed to ensure collaborative online education and to maximize the cumulative impact on all learners in
the learning phase (Schoology website, n.d.). Seesaw is an Instructional Content Platform that amplifies reading
engagement and learning in every subject (Riadil, 2020). This application offers its platform to students from
pre-kindergarten to grade 12 for all standard subjects such as English language arts, English language learning,
health, history, math, music, etc. (Seesaw website, n.d.). For these applications mentioned earlier, teachers can
choose blended learning resources for use in class depending on the students' needs.
In the present study, the Seesaw application was used as the leading blended learning resource for implementing a
blended learning course in terms of online sessions to enhance students' vocabulary knowledge. Seesaw is a
platform for student engagement. Seesaw is also an Instructional Content Platform that amplifies reading
engagement and learning in every subject (Riadil, 2020). It offers a platform for students from pre-kindergarten to
grade 12 for all standard topics such as art, computer science, drama, digital citizenship, English language arts,
English language learning, health, higher education, history, math, music, physical education, reading, religion,
science, social-emotional learning, social studies, special education, STEAM, world languages, and writing
(Seesaw website, n.d.). This platform was constructed as a web application, to allow teachers to empower students
to create, reflect, share, and collaborate.
The Seesaw application provides many features, such as photos, videos, drawings, PDF, links, QR codes, and text
(Hamilton, 2017). It allows students to learn and engage in creative educational activities while giving teachers
and parents insight into their progress and thinking. Students can annotate and draw, record, create captions with
text or voice, create collages, add labels and text, and add shapes and backgrounds to their learning materials. This
application can help teachers and learners create more creative activities in class.
There are many advantages of using this application in the language learning classroom. Students can show what
they know using creative ways or techniques such as taking pictures, drawing, recording voices or videos, and
more to capture learning in a portfolio. Teachers can create an effective way or creative activities to share the
contents with their students in class. Moreover, parents can access the application to follow their child's portfolio.
In the present study, Seesaw was used as the main blended tool for implementing a blended learning course in
terms of online sessions to enhance students' vocabulary knowledge. Because this application has various creative
activities that provide students to show their work and its features seem to be suitable for young learners as primary
level. Additionally, in this case, the researcher used Seesaw for online vocabulary teaching to support the teaching
and learning process and make the students more interested in the class.
2.3 Related Studies
Several studies have been conducted using blended learning with learners in EFL/ESL settings. The review of the
previous research can be divided into three aspects, which influenced the present study: EFL students' vocabulary
knowledge through blended learning, the use of Seesaw application, and target groups of participants similar to the
context in the present study.
Several studies revealed that learners' vocabulary knowledge increased after implementing blended learning. For
instance, Djiwandono (2013) examined the effectiveness of blended learning approaches in Indonesian students'
vocabulary learning and identified the learners' opinions about the blended learning experience. Similarly, a study
by Krishnan and Yunus (2019) investigated the extent to which low-proficient learners acquire vocabulary based
on the global CEFR scales. The research focused on using blended learning to extend vocabulary development
among low-level learners. These studies suggested that blended learning positively affected EFL students’
vocabulary knowledge. Blended learning can improve students’ vocabulary knowledge after being implemented
in vocabulary learning.
When considering tools used in blended learning, several research studies supported the use of the Seesaw
application. To illustrate, a study by Javis and Martin (2018) found that Seesaw could motivate students and
positively affect elementary school students' learning. In addition, Riadil (2020) from Tidar University, Indonesia,
conducted research to investigate the effect of using Seesaw as the media of literacy to cultivate learners'

56
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

vocabulary. This study revealed that Seesaw could help learners increase their vocabulary knowledge and improve
their reading ability. These studies suggested that the Seesaw application had positive impacts when implemented
in the teaching and learning process.
Blended learning used with participants at the primary level has shown positive effects on vocabulary learning. For
instance, Sharifi et al. (2015) focused on the effect of Rosetta Stone Computer Software on vocabulary learning of
Iranian students. The study results indicated that the CAVI groups performed better on post-tests than the
Teacher-led Instruction groups. Similarly, a study by Prescott et al. (2018) examined the implementation of a
blended learning program for literacy instruction across kindergarten through Grade 5 in urban elementary school.
They found that students in kindergarten through Grade 2 showed more substantial gains than students in later
grades. These results suggest the benefits of a blended learning approach to literacy instruction for students,
particularly when beginning early grades.
The studies reviewed above have shown that blended learning in English classrooms can enhance students'
knowledge and skills in different contexts. However, while several studies on blended learning have been
employed, the strategy of using the Seesaw application has rarely been conducted on vocabulary teaching.
Therefore, the current study will use Seesaw to apply a blended learning instruction model in vocabulary learning.
In addition, most of the previous studies concentrated on secondary school students or higher, whereas students in
elementary school, especially in Thai contexts, have gained less interest. To fill this gap, the present study focuses
on implementing a blended learning instruction to enhance the vocabulary knowledge of primary students in the
Thai EFL context.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
This study used a one-group pretest-posttest design, in which only a single group of participants was in the
experimental group. This study employed a mixed-method approach of both quantitative and qualitative research
methods. The quantitative method was used to measure students' vocabulary knowledge after implementing
blended learning instruction. The qualitative practice focused on students' perceptions toward blended learning
instruction on vocabulary teaching.
An independent variable of the study was blended learning used in the class. The blended learning model called the
Rotation Model (Horn & Staker, 2011) was used to design the course. The blended learning course comprised 50
percent face-to-face sessions and 50 percent online sessions in the study.
A dependent variable was how much students' vocabulary knowledge improved in the study. After the posttest
was completed, the students' perceptions of blended learning were examined using an in-depth interview. This
research design was used because it is practical and appropriate in the school context. Due to the limited number
of students in the school, the participants in the study were a single group. Figure 2 illustrates the research design
of the study.

Figure 2. The research design of the present study

3.2 Population and Participants
The population in this study consisted of primary students in grades 4-6 who were studying at primary school in
Maha Sarakham province. One primary school in the province was purposively selected because one of the

57
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

researchers is a teacher at the school. The school is a small school which has a total of 17 students and is classified
as the Multi-grade Teaching school model, mixing students with different grades in the same class (Office of the
National Education Commission, 2006). There are only two teachers in the school and they must teach all eight
subjects including English. The researcher teaches grades 4-6 while the other teacher is responsible for grades 1-3
students.
In this study, the participants were 8 Thai students who were studying in grades 4-6 at the school. Due to the small
number of students, the participants were multi-grade students. These included three students in fifth grade and
five students in sixth grade, as no students were in fourth grade. Participants were selected purposively as a single
group or experimental group. The age of the participants was between 10-12 during the time of the research.
Basically, all of the participants were common characteristics of young learners. The students were enrolled in the
fundamental English course, a 3-credit compulsory course, in the academic year 2021. In this course, vocabulary
learning was focused on in every class period. These participants usually studied vocabulary from various
activities taught by the teacher, such as using games for vocabulary learning, making a vocabulary notebook, etc.
The selection of these students was done after research ethics approval was obtained.
3.3 Instruments
In this study, there were two instructional instruments and two research instruments. The instructional
instruments consisted of lesson plans and a smartphone application, whereas the research instruments consisted
of pre-posttests and in-depth interviews.
3.3.1 The Instructional Instruments
3.3.1.1 Lesson Plans
Lesson plans of the present study were designed to reflect a blended learning model (Horn & Staker, 2011). To
investigate the effects of blended learning on vocabulary teaching, the lesson plans were designed based on the
framework of the rotation model. The designed lesson plans are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The designed lesson plans based on the Horn & Staker’s Framework (2011)
Figure 3 shows that the framework was used to frame the study into three stages: preliminary, intermediate, and
final. At the preliminary stage, the students participated in class. Before the implementation, the teacher presented
the course syllabus, lessons, blended learning course, and Seesaw application, then let students sign up for the

58
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

Seesaw application and explained how to use it. After that, the vocabulary pre-test was given to the students before
the treatment. The intermediate stage was designed to integrate 50 percent of face-to-face sessions and 50 percent
of online sessions based on the rotation model of Horn and Staker (2011). In this stage, during weeks 2 to 10 of the
process, the students enrolled in a blended learning course. For face-to-face sessions, the teacher let students do
various activities, such as making vocabulary notebooks, playing vocabulary Bingo games, learning the meaning
of words, etc. Then students switched to the online session to do the activities that the teacher had set for practicing
vocabulary knowledge through the Seesaw application. In week 11, The teacher and students prepared for the final
exam. They summarized the whole course and reviewed the vocabulary through the Seesaw application as well.
The final stage was an entirely face-to-face session. After the implementation was done, the vocabulary posttest
was assigned to the students. The next day, the in-depth interview was also conducted with the students
immediately.
3.3.1.2 The Seesaw Application
Seesaw is a web-based application used to implement, plan, and access a specific learning process (Rouse, 2005).
The Seesaw application provides students with an opportunity to learn and engage in creative educational activities
such as drawing, voice recording, and creating collages. Moreover, it also allows teachers and parents to monitor
individual students' progress and thinking. In addition, teachers can manage and design courses for students with
an online learning platform via Seesaw.
For the online session in the present study, the teacher created a personal online class that was accessed through
the Seesaw application via a smartphone account as an instructor. Next, the teacher set and gave a passcode to
the students to access an online course in the Seesaw application made by the researcher.
After creating the class, the teacher created assignments for the students. The teacher then let the students do the
activities through the application, such as writing vocabulary and taking quizzes. Additionally, the teacher had
set a due date for submitting the assignment in the class. After the work was finished, the students gave feedback
on using Seesaw to the teacher.
3.3.2 The Research Instruments
3.3.2.1 Pretest and Posttest
In this study, the researcher developed the vocabulary pretest and posttest to investigate the effects of blended
learning to enhance students' vocabulary knowledge. The identical vocabulary pretest and posttest consisted of
30 multiple-choice items based on the CEFR A1 level. This was due to the Thai Ministry of Education setting a
target for Thai primary students to reach A1 proficiency. The tests were given before and after the treatment. The
test content covered eight parts of speech presented in the eight lessons in the textbook that the students had
learned. The reliability and content validity of the test was checked by two experts in language teaching who
have more than 20-years teaching experience. The reliability agreement between the two experts was 90%. Test
item analysis was also conducted to find the discrimination power and the difficulty index of the test for ensuring
that the test was appropriate for the level of the students.
3.3.2.2 The In-Depth Interview
The in-depth interview was conducted by one of the researchers to collect some qualitative information. It was
used to investigate students' perceptions toward blended learning on vocabulary learning. The researcher
prepared a list of five interview questions regarding the students' feelings overall about the English vocabulary
learning class, the students' perceptions about vocabulary learning through the Seesaw application, the benefits of
the Seesaw application, the students' perceptions toward vocabulary learning through blended learning instruction,
and students' improvement in vocabulary knowledge through blended learning. Furthermore, participants' answers
naturally and automatically were based on the formed that they learned in the blended learning course.
Additionally, the interview questions were in Thai, and the interviewing process lasted about 15 minutes for each
person.
3.4 Data Collection
The data collection was carried out in the first semester of the academic year 2021 at a primary school in Maha
Sarakham province. The procedures of the data collection are described in Figure 4.

59
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

Figure 4. The procedures of the data collection

According to Figure 4, the data was collected following the steps in the figure. First, in the orientation, the
teacher introduced blended learning and presented the smartphone application to the students. The time
allocation was 30 minutes. In the next class, the students took the pretest to assess their vocabulary knowledge.
The test was 60 minutes long. The researcher checked the test for the test marking due to ensure its objectivity.
Then the treatments were assigned to the students. Each lesson was implemented. For lessons 1 to 8, the students
took the blended learning classes combined with face-to-face and online instruction. The time allocation for the
blended learning course was 16 hours. After the treatments were done, the posttest was given to the students to
measure the effects of blended learning instruction on vocabulary learning. The test was 60 minutes long. The
researcher scored the multiple-choice test items. Finally, after the posttest was done, the interview was conducted
with the students to investigate their perceptions toward blended learning instruction. Eight students who were
the participants in this study participated in an in-depth interview. Each student was interviewed in Thai for
around 15 minutes. A voice recorder was used to record the interview session. Then, the participants' feedback
about their attitudes toward blended learning instruction was transcribed.
3.5 Data Analyses
The data analysis was done both quantitatively and qualitatively. The pre-post test scores were analyzed using the
standard deviation arithmetic means for the quantitative data. As the sample size was too small to use a
paired-sample t-test, only mean scores were used to identify the difference between the pretest and posttest scores.
The posttest score was expected to be higher than the pretest score. These analyses were done to inform the effects
of blended learning on vocabulary learning. For the qualitative data, the interview data were analyzed using
content analysis (Creswell, 1998; Kondracki & Wellman, 2002) to investigate students' perceptions of blended
learning instruction. After the data was transcribed completely, the researcher read the transcriptions and
identified the key points representing the students' perceptions of using blended learning during their class.
4. Results
The results are presented and discussed to address two research questions. The quantitative data was used to
address the first research question. The qualitative data from the in-depth interview was used to address the second
research question.

60
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

4.1 The Effects of Blended Learning Instruction on Vocabulary Knowledge of Thai Primary School Students
According to the scores gained by each student from the vocabulary pretest and post test, the scores can be
presented as the percentages. The percentages of the scores gained of each student are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The percentages of the scores gained by each student from the vocabulary pretest and post test
Participants Percentages of pretest scores Percentages of posttest scores
1 60 80
2 57 60
3 67 83
4 53 73
5 77 87
6 67 73
7 60 63
8 53 80
From Table 1, the first participant (P1) got a pretest percentage score of 60%, and after the posttest was conducted,
the score in the posttest increased to 80%. For the second participant (P2), the pretest percentage score was 57%,
and the score in the posttest increased to 60%. The third participant (P3) got a pretest percentage score of 67%, and
the posttest score increased to 83%. Participant 4 (P4) got a pretest percentage score of 53% in the pretest, and the
posttest score increased to 73%. Participant 5 (P5) got a pretest percentage score of 77%, and the posttest score
increased to 87%. Participant 6 (P6) got a pretest percentage score of 67%, and the the posttest score increased to
73%. Participant 7 (P7) got a pretest score of 60%, and the posttest score increased to 63%. For participant 8 (P8),
the pretest percentage score was 53%, and the posttest score increased to 80%. The results show that the
percentages of each student in the posttest improved after they were taken with blended learning instruction.
The results show that pretest and posttest scores can be categorized into eight ranks of grades based on the
academic grading system in Thailand education provided by the Ministry of Education (MoE). The grades are
separated into the following percentage scores: greater than or equal to 80%, 76-79%, 70-75%, 66-69%, 60-65%,
56-59%, 50-55%, and less than or equal to 49%. The number of students achieving each rank in their posttest and
pretest scores is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. The percentages of the scores students gained

Percentages of the scores Number of the participants (N=8)

80 pretest 0
posttest 4
76-79 pretest 1
posttest 0
70-75 pretest 0
posttest 2
66-69 pretest 2
posttest 0
60-65 pretest 2
posttest 2
56-59 pretest 1
posttest 0
50-55 pretest 2
posttest 0
49 pretest 0
posttest 0

61
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

According to Table 2, in the pretest, no student got a score greater than or equal to 80% (N=0), while in the posttest,
four of them (N=4) got a score greater than or equal to 80%. At the lower stage of the percentage, one of the
students (N=1) got a score between 76-79% in the pretest, while no one (N=0) got a score between 76-79% in the
posttest. No student (N=0) got a score between 70-75% in the pretest, whereas two students (N=2) got scores
between 70-75% in the posttest. Two students (N=2) got a score between 66-69% in the pretest, and one (N=1) got
this score in the posttest. Two students (N=2) got a score between 60-65% in the pretest and posttest. One student
(N=1) got a score between 56-59% in the pretest, while no student (N=0) got a score between 56-59% in the
posttest. In the pretest, two students (N=2) got a score between 50-55%, whereas no student (N=0) got a score
between 50-55% in the posttest. At the lowest percentages, no student (N=0) got a score less than or equal to 49%
in both the pretest and the posttest.
According to the results, it was found that the students' posttest score was higher than the pretest score. The results
showed that blended learning positively affected students' vocabulary knowledge. The students' vocabulary
knowledge improved after they had studied with blended learning instruction. Furthermore, the results also
showed that blended learning instruction could be conducted with primary students.
4.2 Students' Perceptions toward Learning Vocabulary Through Blended Learning Instruction
To determine the students' perceptions toward blended learning instruction on vocabulary teaching, an in-depth
interview was used to investigate the students' perceptions toward blended learning instruction after the posttest
had been done. Five interview questions were discussed with all participants (N=8) of the experimental group for
the interview data. The students' interview statements were transcribed from the recordings.
According to the interview data from five interview questions, it was found that the majority of the students'
perceptions could be summarized into three main concepts: 1) Perceptions of their vocabulary knowledge
through blended learning. 2) Perceptions toward a blended learning approach and the use of the Seesaw
application, and 3) Perceptions toward the learning environment and students’ satisfaction. These three main
concepts are discussed in more detail below.
4.2.1 Perception of Their Vocabulary Knowledge through Blended Learning
According to the students' perceptions, most students mentioned that blended learning instruction could increase
their vocabulary knowledge. In addition, most of them stated that they gained more vocabulary knowledge after
learning vocabulary through blended learning. The examples of students’ statements are shown below.
“I feel that I gained more knowledge.” (Student 1)
“…I learned more English and learned new things.” (Student 2)
“…I have learned a piece of new knowledge.” (Student 4)
“…because I gained new knowledge.” (Student 6)
“…It makes us gain more knowledge as well.” (Student 2)
“This instruction can increase my knowledge.” (Student 1)
“Yes, it can improve my vocabulary knowledge…. it makes me understand the content and gain more
vocabulary.” (Student 2)
“It can increase my knowledge because I have learned vocabulary through pictures and videos, which
makes me gain more meaning from the English vocabulary.” (Student 3)
“Yes, this method can improve my vocabulary knowledge.” (Student 5)
4.2.2 Perception toward Blended Learning Approach and The Use of Seesaw Application
Regarding the students’ perceptions toward the blended learning approach and the use of the Seesaw application,
most of the students had a positive perception of the blended learning approach and the Seesaw application. This
was because they used various online learning materials for vocabulary learning such as iPads, Zoom program,
Google, Seesaw application, etc. For their perceptions of the blended learning approach, most of them mentioned
that they used the iPad to do a lot of things for online learning, such as searching for information and pictures via
Google, doing homework with a Stylus Pen for drawing and coloring, etc. In addition, they also stated that when
they used the Zoom program for online learning, they could see the teacher and their friends through the program.
Examples of students’ statements are as follows.
“…and I can use the iPad via the Zoom program and search for information on the web.” (Student 1)
“…I can use the Ipad to do everything such as searching the internet.” (Student 2)

62
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

“…I also use an iPad. I have used the Zoom program and practice using it to find the information on
the web.” (Student 3)
“…I have used an iPad to find information via Google.” (Student 4)
“…I have used an iPad for learning.” (Student 5)
“…I also use an iPad to find information via Google.” (Student 6)
“…using the iPad at the same time.” (Student 8)
“…I can study online face-to-face with the teacher and friends via the Zoom application.” (Student 1)
“This instruction is convenient. We can study via online instruction during the pandemic.” (Student 2)
“…I feel excited to use an iPad to do exercises.” (Student 3)
“I feel excited to use the iPad for online learning because I hadn’t used this device before. I also used
the Zoom program for learning.” (Student 5)
“…I can see my friends and the teacher via the Zoom program during online learning.” (Student 7)
“…I have done a lot of things like searching for a lot of pictures on Google” (Student 5)
“I enjoyed using the Ipad for doing homework because it was easy to use with the Stylus Pen for
drawing and coloring.” (Student 8)
Similarly, for the perceptions toward using the Seesaw application, most of the students were satisfied with using
the Seesaw application for vocabulary learning. Most of them mentioned that the Seesaw application has various
vocabulary learning features and exercises such as drawing, taking photos, voice recordings, coloring, submitting
online work, etc. The following example statements are shown below.
“…I can learn and do the exercise through the Seesaw application.” (Student 8)
“…I have also learned the vocabulary through various activities in the Seesaw application.”
(Student 5)
“…The Seesaw application can help me do a lot of things such as drawing, taking a photo, and voice
recording.” (Student 1)
“…I can draw pictures through the app. This app can help me to do things” (Student 2)
“…I can draw pictures; it makes me enjoy it. I can record sound and do many exercises. It's a fun app
that isn't boring. I can also submit my work through it online.” (Student 3)
“…I have used a lot of features as well from the Seesaw application.” (Student 5)
“…I can draw pictures on the iPad through the app. I can record my voice and send it to the teacher
when I don't understand the assignment.” (Student 7)
“This application has many benefits such as drawing pictures, coloring pictures, and show links to
watching videos on Youtube.” (Student 3)
“This app helps me to draw and colour pictures. I have used various features through this
application.”
(Student 4)
“…This application helps me to draw pictures, colour pictures, and record my voice.” (Student 6)
4.2.3 Perceptions toward the Learning Environment and Students’ Satisfaction
In regard to the students’ perceptions toward the learning environment and students’ satisfaction, the students were
satisfied to participate in vocabulary learning through the blended learning environment. Most of them stated that
they enjoyed learning and were not bored learning English vocabulary through blended learning instruction.
Examples of students’ statements are as follows.
“…and more enjoyed learning….” (Student 1)
“…It makes me not bored to learn.” (Student 2)
“…I have fun because it's not boring.” (Student 3)
“I feel happy….. It's not boring.” (Student 4)
“I feel that I enjoyed learning….. It makes me happy to learn English more.” (Student 5)

63
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

“I feel happy, and I feel good to learn this course.” (Student 6)

“I like vocabulary learning with this teaching method because it's fun, not boring. …..I enjoyed
participating in the class with this instruction. I like studying this way more than studying in the
classroom.” (Student 1)
“I like it! I am so satisfied with this instruction…. It is not boring to learn English, and this instruction
is a safe way to learn during COVID.” (Student 3)
“In the past, I didn't like studying English because it was difficult, and I did not understand. It made
me bored to study, but when I came to learn English through this method, I felt active to do the activity and
homework because the Seesaw application has various features. I want to participate in the class every
day.” (Student 4)
“…This instruction makes me feel happy and enjoy learning English.” (Student 7)
From the results, it can be concluded that most students have positive perceptions of learning vocabulary through
blended learning instruction. The students are motivated to learn the English language using blended learning.
This instruction assisted them in engaging in the English classroom and committed them to use technology
devices through the Seesaw application for online learning. On the other hand, a few problems occurred during
the online learning sessions. Some students reported that their home WiFi internet was unavailable, so they
relied on their Hotspot Wifi through their mobile phones.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
This part discusses the results of the study into two main aspects. First, the effects of blended learning on students’
vocabulary knowledge are discussed and compared to previous studies. Second, the students’ perceptions
regarding blended learning instruction on vocabulary learning are discussed in terms of positive and negative
aspects. The section concludes by presenting the study's implications, limitations, and suggestions for further
studies.
5.1 The Effects of Blended Learning Instruction on Vocabulary Knowledge
The results showed that the students’ posttest scores were higher than the students’ pretest scores. This reflected
that blended learning had a positive effect on students’ vocabulary knowledge. The students’ vocabulary
knowledge improved after they had studied with blended learning instruction. Furthermore, the results also
indicated that blended learning instruction could be conducted with primary students. From the results mentioned
earlier, it can be stated that blended learning contributed to the student's motivation to study the English language
and increased their enthusiasm to do activities that involved the technology-based resources in blended class. In
addition, blended learning can encourage them to engage more in the English classroom. Further, blended learning
can encourage them to use technology devices through the Seesaw application for online learning. In brief, it is
reasonable to suggest that the students got higher scores on the posttest because the blended learning instruction
that involved technology could enhance their motivation and make the class more engaging for the students. The
results of this study are similar to many previous studies, such as studies by Sharifi et al. (2015), Krishnan &
Yunus (2019), Djiwandono (2013), and Tozun (2015). All these previous studies support the results that blended
learning positively affected the students' vocabulary knowledge.
5.2 The Students’ Perceptions Regarding Blended Learning Instruction on Vocabulary Learning
The results in this part were found from the in-depth interviews. It revealed that most students had positive
perceptions of learning vocabulary through blended learning instruction. The results from the interviews show that
blended learning makes them self-satisfied to learn English because this type of instruction allows them to use
technology in class to do activities through the smartphone application. Besides, the students mentioned that they
prefer to learn English using the blended learning instruction more than the traditional method. These results are
consistent with many previous studies, such as studies by Al Bataineh et al. (2019), Javis and Martin (2018), and
Djiwandono (2013), which ensured that the students had a positive perception of English language learning
through blended learning. Furthermore, the findings of this study also supported blended learning reported in the
literature by Shand and Farrelly (2018) and Gedik et al. (2012), all of which stated that blended learning instruction
is advantageous.
However, some of the students’ negative perceptions regarding blended learning instruction on vocabulary
learning were due to a few problems that occurred during the online learning sessions. Some students reported that
the internet WiFi in their homes was unavailable. Thus, they had a poor connection to the internet, which made

64
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

them unable to understand some of the content and could not catch up with the class. They, therefore, used their
Hotspot Wifi on their mobile phones instead of their home internet WiFi to reconnect to the internet.
This study aimed to investigate the effects of blended learning instruction on the vocabulary knowledge of Thai
primary school students and students’ perceptions regarding blended learning instruction on vocabulary learning.
The findings indicated that blended learning positively affected students’ vocabulary knowledge. The students’
vocabulary knowledge was improved after learning vocabulary through blended learning instruction. They
gained more knowledge of vocabulary after learning through this instruction. Regarding the students’
perceptions toward blended learning instruction on vocabulary learning, the findings revealed that most of the
students had positive perceptions toward blended learning instruction in terms of their vocabulary knowledge,
their perceptions toward the blended learning approach, and the use of the Seesaw application, and toward the
learning environment and students’ satisfaction. The students were satisfied and enjoyed vocabulary learning
through blended learning. A blended learning class can increase their motivation to study English vocabulary
more than in a traditional class. They became more enthusiastic about doing the activities that the teacher set for
them. According to the findings, it can be concluded that blended learning instruction has its advantages in the
primary EFL context. Furthermore, the findings reflected that blended learning instruction could be conducted
not only with secondary school students but also with primary school students, particularly in the small school
context.
On the other hand, there were limitations of this study. This study was conducted with a small group of
participants due to the small school context in which the study took place. The data from the participants may
therefore not reflect all of the objectives of the study. Future research should be conducted with a larger size of
participants. Furthermore, data for this study was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, it seems
to be not convenient to collect the data due to the crisis. Further studies should be conducted under normal
conditions in order to gain more explicit and complete data.
References
Adunyaritigun, D. (2002). An investigation of factors affecting English language reading success: A case study of
an EFL college reader. Thammasat Review, 7(1), 244-271.
Al Bataineh, K. B., Banikalef, A. A. 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,
10(1), 324-334. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no1.27
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the
United States. Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from https://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/blended06
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and
teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77-117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Banditvilai, C. (2016). Enhancing students’ language skills through blended learning. The Electronic Journal of
E-Learning, 14(3), 220-229.
Banyen, W., Viriyavejakul, C., & Ratanaolarn, T. (2016). A blended learning model for learning achievement
enhancement of Thai undergraduate students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning
(iJET), 11(4), 48-55. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i04.5325
Bernath, R. (2012). Effective approaches to blended learning for independent schools. Retrieved from
https://www.testden.com/partner/blended%20learn.html
Bozorova, N. X., & Salixova Z. A. (2019). Using technology to assist in vocabulary acquisition and reading
comprehension. International Journal on Integrated Education, 2(6), 213-215.
https://doi.org/10.31149/ijie.v2i6.243
Chang, C-S., & Read, J. (2006). The effect of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 375-397. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264527
Cheng, Y., & Good, R. L. (2009). L1 glosses: Effects on EFL learners' reading comprehension and vocabulary
retention. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21, 119-142.
Christen, A. (2009). Transforming the classroom for collaborative learning in the 21st century. Techniques:
Connecting Education and Careers, 84(1), 28-31.
Cox, J. (2019). Classroom Activities to Help Students Make Friends. Retrieved from
https://www.teachhub.com/classroom-activities-help-student -make-friends

65
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Djiwandono, P. (2013). A blended learning approach to enhance college students' vocabulary learning. Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10, 210-220.
Educational App Store. (n.d.). Educationalappstore.com. Retrieved from
https://www.educationalappstore.com/app-lists/apps-for-education?fbclid=IwAR0rKe29xac9O5EVqh81Rbl
MTE3VgqHFi_fkM_S5Gz0vfDoBKCdSxuYGXF0
Edwards, L. (2021, April 23). What is Nearpod and How Does it Work? Retrieved from
https://www.techlearning.com/how-to/what-is-nearpod-and-how-does-it-work
Fan, M. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary
strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222-241.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00187
Garrison, R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education.
The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Gedik, N., Kiraz, E., & Ozden, M. (2012). The optimum blend: Affordances and challenges of blended learning for
students. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 102-117. Retrieved from
https://dergipark.gov.tr/tojqi/issue/21396/229377
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definitions, 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, CA: Pfieffer.
Haastrup, K., & Henriksen, B. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition: Acquiring a depth of knowledge through network
building. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221-240.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00149.x
Hamilton, B. J. (2017). Seesaw: A space for sharing, community building, feedback, and formative assessments.
Harmon, J. M., Wood, K. D., & Keser, K. (2009). Promoting vocabulary learning with the interactive word wall.
Middle School Journal, 40(3), 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2009.11495588
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Retrieved from
https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-rise-of-K-12-blended-learning.pdf
Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 17, 23-59.
Intarasombat, P. (2002). The effect of vocabulary development approach on Mathayomsuksa 4 students’ English
reading comprehension (Unpublished master’s thesis). Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Jarvis, A., & Martin, Z. (2018). The impact of using Seesaw between students, parents, and teacher in an
elementary setting. Retrieved from https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/288
Jaskova, V. (2014). Duolingo as a New Language-Learning Website and its Contribution to E-learning Education.
Brno: Masarykova University.
Kizito, R. (2012). Pretesting mathematical concepts with the mobile phone: Implications for curriculum design.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 38-55.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1065
Kondracki, N. L., & Wellman, N. S. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in
nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, 34(4), 224-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3
Kotchana, S., & Tongpoon-Patanasorn, A. (2015). EFL learners’ vocabulary size: A case in the Northeastern
region of Thailand. AJE, 1(1).
Krishnan, P. D., & Yunus, M. M. (2019). Blended CEFR in enhancing vocabulary among low proficiency students.
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 5, 141-153. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call5.11
Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary
knowledge? Language Testing, 21(2), 202-226. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt277oa

66
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

Linse, C. T., & Nunan, D. (Ed.). (2005). Practical English language teaching: Young learners. McGraw-Hills.
New York.
Mala, D. (2021). Long-overdue end of O-net exams. Retrieved from
https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2044427/long-overdue-end-of-o-net-examsmedia-room/pub
lications/education-publications/the-rise-of-white paper
Meredith, R. L. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child-directed speech in
vocabulary development. Child Development, 83(5), 1762-1774.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01805.x
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge, England: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692092
Motteram, G., & Sharma, P. (2009a). Blending learning in a web 2.0 world. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies and Society, 7(2), 83-112. Retrieved from
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.8414&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Nation ISP. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York, NY: Newbury House.
Nation ISP. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759
Office of the National Education Commission. (2006). Administrative plan for promoting educational quality in
small schools. Bangkok: The Express Transportation Organization of Thailand.
Patanasorn, C., & Tongpoon-Patanasorn, A. (2011). Effects on second language vocabulary size and achievement
of primary school students. 3rd ICER, 9-10, 284-291.
Prensky, M. (2004). What can you learn from a cell phone? – Almost anything! How to use the 1.5 billion
computers already in our students’ and trainees’ pockets to increase learning, at home and around the world,
1-9.
Prescott, J. E., Bundschuh, K., Kazakoff, E. R., & Macaruso, P. (2018). Elementary school–wide implementation
of a blended learning program for reading intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(4),
497-506. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1302914
Rattanaseeha, N. (2007). Implementing critical thinking to develop reading comprehension and to enhance living
values for Mathayomsuksa 4 Students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen,
Thailand.
Reay, J. (2001). Blended learning - a fusion for the future. Knowledge Management Review, 4(3), 6.
Riadil, I. G. (2020). Teaching English: An afresh sophisticated technique to cultivate digital native learners’
vocabulary by utilizing seesaw media as digital literacy. Journal of Research on English and Language
Learning (J-REaLL), 1(2), 62. https://doi.org/10.33474/j-reall.v1i2.6855
Rooney, J. E. (2003). Blending learning opportunities to enhance educational programming and meetings.
Association Management, 55(5), 26-32.
Rouse, M. (2005). Learning management system (LMS). Retrieved from https://www.innosightinstitute.org/
Saengpakdeejit, R. (2014). Awareness of vocabulary learning strategies among EFL students in Khon Kaen
University. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(6), 1101-1108. Khon Kaen University.
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.6.1101-1108
Sands, P. (2002). Inside outside, upside downside: Strategies for connecting online and face-to-face instruction in
hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. 8.6.
Schechter, R., Macaruso, P., Kazakoff, E. R., & Brooke, E. (2015). Exploration of a blended learning approach to
reading instruction for low SES students in early elementary grades. Computers in the Schools, 32(3-4),
183-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2015.1100652
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schoology. (n.d.). Schoology.com. Retrieved from https://www.schoology.com
Seesaw. (n.d.). Web. Seesaw. Me. Retrieved from https://web.seesaw.me/activities
Shand, K., & Farrelly, S. (2018). The art of blending: Benefits and challenges of a blended course for pre-service
teachers. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO2018.15.1.10

67
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022

Sharifi, M., Azizifar, A., Jamalinesari, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015). The effect of Rosetta Stone computer software
on vocabulary learning of Iranian elementary EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192,
260-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.037
Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-to-face learning: Hybrid and
blended learning approach for COVID-19, post vaccine, & post- pandemic world. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 50(2), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211047865
Songsiri, S. (1999). A case study English reading skills of grade 12 students (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Ramkhamhaeng University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Teng, F. (2014). Research into practice: Strategies for teaching and learning vocabulary. Beyond Words, 2(2),
41-57.
Tosun, S. (2015). The effects of blended learning on EFL students’ vocabulary enhancement. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 641-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.592
UNESCO Bangkok Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. (2020, April 21). Education Minister
Nataphol Teepsuwan on COVID-19 strategy in Thailand. Retrieved from
https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/education-minister-nataphol-teepsuwan-covid-19-strategy-Thailand
UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all.
Paris, UNESCO. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/news/global-education-monitoring-gem-report-2020
Wang, B. T. (2017). Designing mobile apps for English vocabulary learning. International Journal of Information
and Education Technology, 7(4), 279-283. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.4.881
Wantulok, T. (2015). How Important is Technology in Education? Pine Cove's Top 10 Reasons. Retrieved from
https://marketing.pinecc.com/blog/the-importance-of-technology-in-education-pine-coves-top-10-reasons
Ward, J., & LaBranche, G. A. (2003). Blended learning: The convergence of e-learning and meetings. Franchising
World, 35(4), 22-23.
Wichadee, S. (2017). A development of the blended learning model using Edmodo for maximizing students’ oral
proficiency and motivation. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 12(2),
137-154. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i02.6324
Wichadee, S. (2018). Significant predictors for the effectiveness of blended learning in a language course. The
JALT CALL Journal, 14(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v14n1.222
Young, J. R. (2002). Hybrid teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

68