The Impact of Flipped Learning on the Language Performance of
Beginning Spanish as a Second Language Learners
El Impacto del Aprendizaje Invertido en el Desempeño Lingüístico de
Estudiantes Principiantes de Español como Segunda Lengua
Susana Dimas Cintas
Universidad de Alcalá
susana.dimas@uah.es
ABSTRACT
The present study compares the academic performance of students of Spanish as a second
language between a control group following a flipped learning methodology and another group
receiving more traditional instruction. It also evaluates the impact of combining the two
methodologies during the same semester on the students' linguistic performance. The results of
the pre- and post-tests based on grammar activities indicate that, in the between-subjects
design, there are no notable differences between the inverted and non-inverted groups. The
findings of the within-group analysis show that students who have combined both methodologies
perform better in the non-inverted instructional model.
Keywords: flipped-classroom approach; Spanish L2; student academic performance; grammar-focused
tasks.
RESUMEN
El presente estudio compara el rendimiento académico de estudiantes de español como segunda
lengua entre un grupo de control que sigue la metodología de aprendizaje invertido y otro que
recibe una instrucción más tradicional. Además, evalúa el impacto que tiene la combinación de
ambas metodologías durante el mismo semestre en el desempeño lingüístico de los estudiantes.
Los resultados de los pre y post-tests basados en actividades de gramática indican que, en el
diseño entre sujetos, no hay diferencias notables entre el grupo invertido y el no invertido. Los
hallazgos del análisis realizado dentro del mismo grupo demuestran que los estudiantes que han
combinado ambas metodologías tienen mejor rendimiento en el modelo de instrucción no
invertido.
Palabras clave: aprendizaje invertido; español como segunda lengua; rendimiento académico; actividades
de gramática.
Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas (RNAEL) ISSN 1699-6569
Vol. 18 Núm. 36 (2024) doi: 10.26378/rnlael1836561
Recibido:30/11/2023 / Aprobado: 1/04/2024
Publicado bajo licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento Sin Obra Derivada 4.0 Internacional
1. INTRODUCTION
Education has traditionally been viewed as the transfer of information from teachers to
learners within the context of the classroom. However, during the last decades, and
increasingly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic that forced reorganizations in
the teaching process, there has been a desire to move away from this paradigm (Vitta
& Al-Hoorie, 2020). With innovative methods having adapted to the new technological
advancements and to the changing global situation, some alternatives to teacher-
dominated instruction have recently emerged across various educational domains.
One method that responds to new ways of teaching and studying is the flipped model
(Bergmann & Sams, 2012). This pedagogical innovation moves the direct instruction
into videos watched by learners outside the classroom setting, in an individual learning
space, while class time is used to engage in higher cognitive levels of learning with
peers and teacher present. Many educators applying the flipped model reimagine
classroom time, replacing long lectures with scaffolded, learner-centered activities
(Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Since highly interactive activities have long been an integral
component of instruction in modern foreign languages (FL) (i.e., task-based instruction,
two-way information tasks, etc.), instructors value the flipped classroom pedagogy
particularly for its opportunity to dedicate less time to explicit content instruction and
to allocate more time to use a second language (L2) meaningfully in class (Moranski &
Kim, 2016).
As the popularity of the flipped model increases across different academic contexts, at
all levels and fields, including second language teaching; its study has recently become
a research interest for many scholars. Previous studies have argued that the flipped
model seems to have positive results in student academic achievements when compared
to more traditional learning formats (e.g., Ahmad, 2016; Aybirdi, Efe & Atasoy Sal,
2023; Bredow et al., 2021; Farah, 2014; Huang & Hong, 2016; Kang, 2015; Samadi et
al., 2024; Shahnama, Ghonsooly & Shirvan, 2021; Shi et al., 2020; Webb & Doman,
2016; Wu, Hsieh & Yang, 2017; Zhang, 2015). However, some others have claimed
that benefits of this teaching methodology in student performance is still debatable
(e.g., Durfee et al., 2020; Jia et al., 2021; Oki, 2016). Additionally, positive opinions
about this teaching methodology have been shared by learners (e.g., Basal, 2015;
Belmonte, Guerrero & Cabrera, 2021; Kang, 2015) and teachers (e.g., Vaezi, Afghari &
Lotfi, 2019; Wang & Chen, 2020) while it has also been found that some teachers
recognize problems with its implementation (Fontecha, 2020; Hoshang, Hilal & Hilal,
2021) and some students manifest a clear resistance towards it (e.g., García-Allen,
2020; Moranski & Kim, 2016; Ożadowicz, 2020).
Today research on flipped learning in the FL classroom is abundant, especially in English
courses. However, to the writer’s knowledge, limited amount of research has been
conducted in the Spanish L2 classroom at the university context (e.g., Moranski & Kim,
2016), and particularly at the novice level (e.g., Fontecha, 2020; García-Allen, 2020).
In addition, the majority of studies within the Spanish L2 field seem to have explored
differences between a flipped learning environment and a traditional teaching context
in different groups, but little is known about the impact of combining these two teaching
methodologies in the same group of learners. The need of addressing these gaps has
partially motivated the present investigation, which besides including a between-group
analysis, also involved a within- group study.
This research aimed to contribute to this body of literature by implementing the flipped
model in two beginner Spanish L2 courses at the tertiary level in United States. The
objective of this study was to examine the impact that the flipped-classroom approach
has on student academic performance on grammar-focused tasks compared to the non-
flipped model.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Flipped-classroom approach: history and definition
The concept of flipped-classroom model is not new but has evolved to the present stage
after the passage of an extended period. The seed of what today is known as the flipped-
classroom approach was first proposed in 1984 by Militsa Nechkina, a member of the
USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences. She advised teachers to “let pupils extract new
things from autonomous reading of a textbook at home. Allow them to consider it, then
discuss it with their teacher at school and come to a united conclusion” (Nechkina, 1984,
p. 51). After this, in the 1980s and 1990s teachers in Russia began to try this
instructional strategy, becoming the first nation that implemented this innovative
practice.
In 1993, Alison King, as associate professor of education in the College of Education at
California State University in San Marcos, focused on the importance of the use of class
time for the construction of meaning rather than information transmission in her book
“From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side”. Despite not directly illustrating the
concept of flipping the classroom, her work is often considered as an impetus for an
inversion to allow the educational space for active learning.
In their publication “Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating and Inclusive
Learning Environment” (2000) Lage, Platt and Treglia, associate professors of
economics at Miami University (Ohio), asserted that class time that became available
from the inversion of the classroom could be leveraged. By moving information
presentation via lecture out of the classroom to media such as computers, students’
needs with a wide variety of learning styles could be better met. Therefore, according
to them, inverting a classroom meant that events that traditionally take place inside a
classroom would take place outside and vice versa with the goal of aligning learning and
teaching styles to improve student learning and engagement.
In practice, the flipped classroom approach was then started in 2006 in Colorado by the
high school teachers Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams. With their chemistry
students reporting that classroom time was not enough to go over all new concepts and
then, practice them in class, these teachers noticed that time spent in the classroom
explaining new content limited the amount of practice students could do in the
classroom. However, without explicit instruction, students could not do the practice
exercises.
After reflecting on these difficulties, Bergmann and Sams discovered that taking notes
in class, doing the assignments, and catching up with lessons were the main problematic
issues in their classes. As a consequence, they decided to invert the classroom lecture
and bring homework to class. They recorded PowerPoint slides explaining the new
content and distributed them online on YouTube, then; they assigned those videos as
homework, using in-class time to help students with the concepts that they had not
understood.
In this way, Bergmann and Sams divided the process of flipping the classroom into two
steps. The first part consists of transferring lecture content into videos made by
educators so that students can go at their own pace since they can stop or rewind the
videos and take notes; this is done outside the classroom setting. The second part is
developed in class where students complete homework, projects, guided and
independent practice, and higher-order thinking activities where interaction and
meaningful communication are the main focus. The resulting outcome was a total
success, and in their book “Flip your classroom” (2012) the first definition of flipped
learning was born as leaving “what was traditionally treated as homework to be done
in the class time, and that which was previously done in class being done at home”
(Bergmann & Sams, 2012, p.13).
The flipped classroom was later defined by The Flipped Learning Network (2014) as:
A pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space
to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a
dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they
apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter.
This inversion results in a different setting for the classroom compared to traditional
methods. While in the traditional instruction time is mainly devoted to explaining new
concepts and going over assigned homework, in the flipped model, most of the time is
used for guided and independent practice, discussion, action-orientated and peer-
learning activities, cooperative and collaborative learning, as well as assistance and
feedback, and focusing on student learning needs, autonomy, agency, interaction and
engagement. This time enhancement is achieved by the fact that lecture time and
content delivery is not part of the lesson since the explicit instruction is moved by means
of asynchronous video lectures, presentations or podcasts and assigned as homework
prior to coming to class. In this way, the flipped classroom model allows learners to
work at their own pace, with students receiving a personalized education tailored to
their individual needs since they can view and pause the video lectures as many times
as needed and at their own pace, which provides students with the opportunity to be
well prepared and ready for class time (Bergmann and Sams, 2012).
In addition, the role of both learners and teachers changes in the flipped model
compared to traditional teaching practices. The concept of the flipped classroom is based
on a student-centered approach. In the flipped model students become more
autonomous while the teacher becomes the guide and facilitator of content, activities,
and models. As stated by Bergmann and Sams (2012) “flipping the classroom is
redirecting attention away from the teacher and putting attention on the learner and
the learning” (p. 27).
Since Bergman and Sam were chemistry teachers, soon after their experiment, the
flipped classroom gained popularity particularly in pure sciences as they are mainly
lecture-based classes. Given the positive results obtained in STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) subjects, the flipped model was recommended for all
other subjects, including language teaching.
More specifically in recent years, this methodology has become a predominant form of
teaching and learning in many fields as an alternative to traditional face-to-face
instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
2.2 Research on the flipped model
2.2.1 Flipped model research on STEM and science-related courses
With the increasing implementation of the flipped classroom in many different domains
during the last decades, the study of this innovative teaching practice has recently
become a research interest for many scholars. STEM and science-related courses have
been targeting subjects for many pioneer experts on the topic. Research has assessed
the impact of the flipped model on students’ academic results on diverse subjects such
as pharmacotherapy, programming, algebra, mathematics, and chemistry courses, just
to mention some (e.g., Belmonte, Guerrero & Cabrera, 2021; Kugler et al., 2019; Love
et al., 2014; Rehman et al., 2020; Umam et al., 2019; Yildiz, 2018). These studies have
observed that the flipped model can enhance students’ academic performance. Similar
results regarding the effectiveness of this methodology on learners’ achievements were
also found in multiple meta-analysis studies in engineering courses (e.g., Mason,
Shuman & Cook, 2013), health professions education (e.g., Hew & Lo, 2018), nursing
education (e.g., Xu et al., 2019) and some other disciplines.
However, some studies have not found significant differences on students’ grades when
comparing those learning through traditional approaches and those receiving instruction
under the flipped model. For instance, in Durfee’s et al. study (2020), conducted in a
radiology course at the university level in USA, learners’ performance on the
standardized final exam in the flipped group was similar to that of the in-person teaching
group.
Considering the shift in the role of the learner in the flipped model where new content
is “learned” by students on their own, research has also focused on examining learners’
perceptions about the flipped classroom through individual and focus-group interviews,
reflective journals and/or questionnaires (e.g., Belmonte, Guerrero & Cabrera, 2021;
Hoshang, Hilal & Hilal, 2021; Hussain et al., 2015; Kurtz, Tsimerman & Steiner-Lavi,
2014; Strayer, 2007; Zappe et al., 2009).
In an overview of recent studies in flipped learning (Bishop and Verlenger, 2013) it was
found that general reports of students’ perceptions in engineering courses were
consistent and positive. For example, students preferred going to the classroom having
previously worked on the material on their own since they came to class better prepared
(DeGrazia et al., 2012). Students in other studies have pointed out the level of
enjoyment and engagement in flipped learning (Zappe et al., 2009). Similar results
were found in Belmonte, Guerrero & Cabrera (2021), where students in a mathematics
course indicated that the flipped model had contributed to a better relationship with
their teachers, to the improvement of their degree of autonomy, to the deepening of
their learning and to the use of time in the classroom.
Results in some other studies show students’ negative opinions towards this
methodology or suggest a transition between the traditional and the flipped classroom.
For instance, in Kurtz, Tsimerman and Steiner-Lavi´s study (2014), business university
students in Israel, although reporting some advantages of the flipped model (i.e., an
increase in involvement, understanding, and confidence in their own learning), clearly
preferred receiving in-person instruction in class. Besides, Strayer (2007) compared a
traditional classroom with a flipped classroom at an introductory statistics class at the
university level. His findings showed that initially students were less satisfied with the
flipped classroom than with the regular class but gradually they became more open to
cooperative learning and innovative teaching methods during the course. Thus, Strayer
reasoned the need of a transition between methodologies. Supporting Strayer´s (2007)
conclusions, Hoshang, Hilal & Hilal (2021) observed students and teachers’ opinions in
engineering courses and based on the results, suggested that both students and
teachers may need to take training about the process of flipped classrooms. In line with
these implications, several studies described in a review article by Divjak et al. (2022)
that offers findings and recommendations for flipped classrooms during the pandemic,
showed that in study programs where students had experience learning through this
approach since that they had already utilized this methodology before COVID-19, it was
possible to give the course entirely online with minimal adjustments (i.e., Attarabeen
et al., 2021; Collado-Valero et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Liberman-Martin & Ogba,
2020).
2.2.2 Flipped model research on second language courses
Given the success of the flipped model in many different teaching contexts, researchers
have recently started looking at flipped teaching in the second/foreign language
classroom. Similarly to other studies, research in the L2 classroom have also included
comparisons between traditional teaching contexts and flipped classrooms and their
impact on language performance as well as students’ perceptions. Interestingly enough,
much of the research in L2 settings has taken place in EFL classrooms across many
different countries. For instance, Farah (2014) examined the impact of using a flipped
classroom instructional method on the EFL writing performance of twelfth grade Emirati
female students with high level of English Proficiency at the Applied Technology High
School (ATHS) in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE). The study also sought to
identify female students’ perceptions of the flipped instruction in an EFL writing setting.
There were two groups, students who learnt through the flipped model (experimental
group) and those who learnt traditionally (control group). Both groups completed a pre-
test and post-test. Findings revealed statistically significant differences between the
mean scores in favor of the students in the experimental group. The results showed
that this improvement in the writing performance was largely attributable to the flipped
instruction method of teaching. Students’ attitudes towards the flipped instruction were
analyzed through a questionnaire. Supporting those findings in student performance,
the majority of learners showed positive attitudes towards this approach regarding
involvement, confidence, and motivation. However, almost half of students showed
preference to having the teacher explaining in class and favored the traditional
instruction over the flipped model.
In Kang’s (2015) study, 24 upper-intermediate EFL learners in Korea were taught using
both regular and flipped approaches. In order to explore the efficiency of the flipped
model pre-tests and post-tests were analyzed. These pre and post-tests illustrated that
only the flipped classroom group produced statistically significant changes in both
vocabulary and grammar knowledge. In addition, student’s perceptions were also
examined. Data from students’ blogs and opinions suggested that well-blended flipped
classroom maximized face time, retained more interaction, and achieved learning goals.
Likewise, students in a post-questionnaire and interviews reported that the flipped
model was highly positive in aspects such as satisfaction, helpfulness, in-class activities,
and instructor’s roles. However, the author also found that students not completing the
pre-assigned tasks was the biggest disadvantage of the flipped classroom (Kang, 2015).
Similarly, Webb and Doman (2016) investigated whether the flipped classroom led
students to increased gains on learning outcomes in two high-intermediate EFL
contexts, in Macau (China) and in the United States. The effectiveness of this model on
students’ achievement on grammar was evaluated with a pre-test and a post-test
grammar test, along with students’ perceptions of their increased comfort and
confidence using English grammar through a survey. Despite the differences in
instructional contexts, the findings suggested that although both control and
experimental groups showed increased comfort in the self-report data, gains on actual
achievement were significant only for the flipped learning groups (Webb & Doman,
2016).
Findings regarding gains on students’ achievement in these studies are also consistent
with more research that has also observed that flipping the classroom benefits
intermediate and upper-intermediate students in other various aspects, including
enhancing their creative thinking (e.g. Al-Zahrani, 2015), listening comprehension (e.g.
Ahmad, 2016), grammar skills (e.g. Al-Harbi & Alshumaimeri, 2016), reading
comprehension (e.g. Huang & Hong, 2016), writing skills (e.g. Ahmed, 2016), English
pronunciation (e.g. Zhang et al., 2016), and overall English proficiency (e.g. Wu, Hsieh
& Yang, 2017; Zhang, 2015).The flipped classroom has also been found to help students
become more responsible for their learning (e.g., Homma, 2015; Han, 2015).
Some research regarding learners’ opinions has also been conducted with teacher
education students, an interesting population since these are students training to
become teachers. In Hussain’s et al. study (2015), students (prospective teachers)
recognized having enhanced their pedagogical skills in the flipped approach since it
allowed them to plan regularly for the class, thus positively impacting their planning
skills; and practice different presentation activities and discussions, which had a positive
effect on their presentational skills. Similarly, Basal (2015) examined the perceptions
of prospective EFL teachers at a state university in Turkey on flipped classrooms.
According to their responses to the questionnaire, it was concluded that flipped
classroom was beneficial in terms of learning at one’s own pace, advancing student
preparation; increasing participation; and overcoming the limitations of class time.
In the last years, some scholars have also examined the impact of the flipped approach
during and after the COVID-19 pandemic since educational institutions worldwide have
embraced online learning measures through this tough time. Shahnama, Ghonsooly, &
Shirvan (2021) conducted a meta-analysis that consisted of 69 between-subject design
studies in the field of EFL, in which they compared the flipped and lectured-based
classrooms in improving students’ achievements. They found that the influence of
flipped learning on students’ achievements was large and positive. Researchers
concluded that flipped learning has the potential to improve students’ achievements if
appropriately designed and implemented. Aybirdi, Efe & Atasoy Sal (2023), examined
the effects of flipped learning on EFL students' overall academic achievements through
meta-analysis. Forty studies on flipped classroom and academic achievement were
included in this study. Results revealed that flipped learning has statistically significant
effect on EFL learners' academic achievements compared to traditional learning
approaches. Likewise, in Samadi et al. (2024), results demonstrated the potential of
the flipped classroom approach to positively shape EFL learners’ self-regulated learning
and higher-order thinking skills, advocating for its incorporation into language education
practices.
Although most of these studies agree that the flipped classes obtain better results than
the traditional classes in terms of performance, in Oki´s study (2016) in an intermediate
EFL course in Hawaii, it was found that students’ academic performance was not
impacted by the flipped classroom. In this action research study, course grades as well
as students’ perceptions of the flipped model were used to examine the impact of flipped
learning. Like other studies, these EFL students seemed to enjoy their flipped classroom
because they perceived that class-time was used more efficiently to review, discuss,
and engage in critical thinking activities. They also stated that the teacher’s role as a
facilitator in class was very helpful. However, the academic performance did not reveal
statistical difference; in fact, the author claimed that students performed similarly in
either flipped or traditional contexts. Similar findings appear in Al-Harbi´s study (2016),
where it was suggested that although adopting the flipped classroom strategy appeared
to play a role in enhancing students’ grammar performances with the flipped group
showing a mean score higher than that of the non-flipped class, the difference between
both classrooms’ mean scores was not statistically significant.
Considering teachers’ attitudes is important since their perceptions are translated into
classroom practices. Some researchers have recently focused on teachers’ perceptions
towards the use of a language flipped classroom. For instance, Vaezi, Afghari and Lotfi
(2019) examined perceptions of experienced EFL teachers in Iran through a written
questionnaire and found that an overwhelming majority of these instructors agreed or
strongly agreed that this approach had the capacity to improve students’ knowledge of
English. They also recognized flipped learning could open up many possibilities for
language teachers including the ability to personalize instruction, manage time more
efficiently, and connect more to the L2 learners (Vaezi, Afghari & Lotfi, 2019).
It has also been found that the flipped classroom allows teachers more individual
interaction with every learner and helps them develop better relationships with all their
students (e.g., Zhang & Wu, 2016). It has also been suggested that flipping the
instruction significantly reduces negative behavior in the classroom (e.g., Cockrum,
2013).
Research on the flipped model in Spanish L2 contexts is very limited. Moranski and Kim
(2016) compared the learning of complex Spanish grammatical structures in inverted
classrooms and in-class presentational classes in an Intermediate Spanish I course in
USA. To assess students´ Spanish L2 knowledge, a grammaticality judgment test
(explicit knowledge), a usage description task (metalinguistic knowledge), and a
chapter test (production knowledge) were used. An attitudinal inventory scale rating
was also included for students to rate their assignments in terms of comfort, enjoyment,
and confidence with the material. The results showed that students in the inverted
classroom scored higher in the grammatical judgment test, although no statistically
considerable differences were found for both groups in the usage description task or in
the chapter test. Results from the attitudinal questionnaire showed that learners in this
study were aware and in favor of the ways in which the flipped model facilitated their
processing of the material (i.e., pace of the videos, how these videos forced them to
actively listen to answer the questions, how the assignment structure facilitated
interaction with the lesson’s content, how they were more prepared to participate in the
classroom). A small number of learners objected to the practice of using videos, citing
conflicts with existing study habits. For example, the preference to learn by reading or
to listen to music when studying.
García-Allen (2020) compared student performance as well as learner’ attitudes in
flipped and traditional classrooms in a first-year introductory Spanish course (i.e.,
Spanish for Beginners) at the university level in Ontario, Canada. Participants in this
study had no previous knowledge of Spanish. Student performance was examined
through summative assessment (four tests throughout the year and one final exam).
All tests contained sections that evaluated oral comprehension, grammar and
vocabulary, and reading comprehension. All exercises required an open answer with
right or wrong responses, as there were no fill-in-the-blank exercises. In addition,
participants completed a written questionnaire at the end of the academic year where
they were asked to indicate, using a 5-point Likert scale, their agreement with different
statements regarding enjoyment and expectations. Results in this study indicated that
students in the flipped classroom sections were found to perform significantly better
than students in the traditional classroom sections on the tests throughout the year.
However, participants performed similarly in the delayed final exam. In the
questionnaire, no significant differences were found. The researcher highlighted that a
possible reason could be that the flipped learning method was a new experience for the
students and thus, they needed to have a better understanding of this approach.
In the same vein, although without analyzing student performance, Fontecha (2020)
conducted an action research that aimed to evaluate teachers’ perception and students’
attitudes and practices over the impact of applying a flipped learning model for a basic
Spanish course at a university in USA. The intervention consisted of four lessons that
dealt with grammar topics transferred into tutorial videos and in-class activities to
practice the content from the videos. To gain a broader spectrum of the teacher and
students’ perceptions, questionnaires and field journals designed to obtain both
numerical and non-numerical data from the teacher and the students were used. The
study highlighted the cyclical process (i.e., reflection phase, action phase and evaluation
phase) of implementing a new teaching model. The author concluded that assignment
completion was pivotal for the model to work and that if the flipped model was
implemented properly, the role of the teacher was more of a facilitator. It was also
suggested that the flipped model helped discuss and build grammar knowledge in a
bidirectional way between students and teacher.
As seen above, there is abundant research on flipped learning, especially in STEM
classes and in EFL contexts. However, there is a lack of research on some fields of
language learning, principally in non-English classes, as is the case of Spanish L2
contexts. Moreover, the vast majority of the previously mentioned studies focus on
intermediate and upper-intermediate EFL learners, and it seems that further research
is needed on beginning courses. It is also important to point out that most researchers
in these studies compared flipped and non-flipped models among different groups of
learners. Little is known about the impact of shifting from one to the other within the
same group.
In addition, to the writer’s knowledge, the flipped model in language learning has not
been thoroughly explored in educational contexts in the United States. With Spanish
being the most studied language in schools and colleges in the USA (Looney & Lusin,
2018), there is a need to research how flipped learning impacts Spanish second
language classrooms and learning in the United States.
Moreover, as a consequence of technology having significantly evolved during the last
decades and as commented above, as a consequence of COVID-19, the incorporation
of this methodology in academic settings has increased and therefore, its popularity has
grown rapidly in recent years, including language learning and teaching contexts
(Muldrow, 2013). The flipped approach to teaching has become particularly attractive
because of the availability of internet resources including audio and video on virtually
any subject; and the approach seems to have singular appeal for students in this
electronic age (Herreid & Schiller, 2013). In this way, addressing these new contexts of
Spanish L2 learning in the American educational framework is an important research
interest nowadays.
2.3 Research question
This study aimed to learn more about flipped learning in Spanish L2 classrooms by
examining beginning Spanish learners’ language performance at a tertiary level in
United States. The research question that the present study aimed to answer is:
Do Spanish L2 learners improve their target language performance on grammar-focused
tasks more in the flipped learning approach than in the non-flipped learning format?
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants
Participants in this study were a cohort of 40 undergraduate students with ages ranging
from 18 to 22 enrolled in two basic Spanish classes at Illinois State University in
Bloomington-Normal, Illinois, United States. The language learning groups consisted of
novice students who had never received instruction on the Spanish language or took a
couple of years of high school Spanish some time ago but did not present a strong
foundation in the language. It is also important to point out that participants enrolled in
this course to fulfil academic language requirements for their majors since they needed
two semesters of a foreign language. Therefore, it should be considered that perhaps
for most of the students their motivation was purely instrumental, that is, to meet the
language requirement.
3.2 Teaching context
The Basic Spanish Skills course (i.e., SPA 111) is the first of two introductory courses
for beginning students of Spanish. It is a four-credit hour course designed for students
with no prior Spanish study and imparted four days a week in fifty-minutes lessons
during one semester; that is to say, a total of fifteen weeks, sixty hours per term.
According to the course description, the learning outcome is to help students develop
proficiency in the four language skills (i.e., reading, listening, writing, and speaking)
essential to effective communicative language learning and to offer an introduction to
the culture of the ample Hispanic world. Overall, students in this course are trained to
be able to convey personal basic meaning and engage in very simple Spanish
conversations about personal topics and/or daily occurrences. Emphasis in this course
is in development of oral skills and Spanish is the language of instruction.
This course is taught through Contraseña, an interactive online platform with all the
learning resources and materials needed for the course. It covers six units, each of them
including different sections: Texto (reading or listening), Vocaluario, Gramática I,
Gramática II, Exploración cultural, Estrategia de producción (writing or speaking) and
Proyecto.
In this SPA 111 course students learn the material in the six units following the flipped-
classroom approach. Students watch instructional and explanatory videos in Contraseña
and complete some mainly input-based application activities (i.e., Aplicar and
Comprobar activities) before coming to class. During class time, they engage in oral and
communication-based tasks in order to review the content previously learned outside
the classroom. All instructional videos are created by Contraseña. They usually last
between 5 and 8 minutes and include animation and input enhancement.
The control group in this study followed the instructional model for the SPA 111
sequence, as described above. The experimental group combined different
methodologies during the semester. In the first eight weeks of the semester, students
were taught the material of the first three units using a traditional face-to face explicit
teaching approach where new language concepts were explained by the teacher in the
classroom and learners completed homework (i.e., Aplicar and Comprobar activities in
Contraseña) at home to practice what was taught in class. Starting week eight and thus,
the last three units in the course, the instructional model switched to a flipped learning
approach. Students were asked to watch instructional videos on new content as well as
comprehension-based exercises in the online platform and then, come to class to put
into practice what they had learned through input- and output-based tasks.
Instructors for the two class sessions participating in this study agreed on the
instructional material and lesson plans used on the lessons targeted for this study. All
instructors in this Basic Spanish language courses are trained to teach following a
communicative approach to language teaching, giving prominence to exposure to
meaningful input and encouraging output through personal and meaningful exchanged
between students. However, the fact that there were different instructors for the two
courses in this study is also a variable.
3.3 Research design
The present study includes a between-group and a within-group design. The between-
group design involves one group of learners being instructed via a flipped classroom
approach during one semester (control group) and a comparison group learning the
same material via a traditional and explicit face-to face approach for approximately eight
weeks (experimental group).
In addition, the within-group design involves a comparison within the experimental
group, where the first eight weeks of teaching learners received traditional explicit
teaching in the classroom and the remaining eight weeks of teaching, they learned the
material under a flipped model. In order to facilitate the identification of the three
educational scenarios mentioned, the following identifiers are proposed:
-FC: Flipped Control group
-NFE: Non-flipped Experimental group
-FE: Flipped Experimental group
3.4 Data collection instruments
The research question was assessed through six pre and post-tests, which were
grammar-focused and mainly output-based tasks. The instructor designed the pre-tests
in a way that they asked for the same language function that the post-tests. Therefore,
the pre-tests were based on the content and format of the post-tests. The post-tests
included:
(i) Quiz #1 (Unidad 1, Gramática II): gender and number agreement with nouns
and adjectives. In this output-based task, students are asked to select from a list of
missing-ending adjectives the adjective that best describes a picture and to add the
ending (-o; -a;-os;-as) so that they agree in gender and number with the subject;
(ii) Quiz #2 (Unidad 2, Gramática I): “ser” and “estar” singular and plural forms and
uses. This grammar-focused task consists of two different steps. First, students are
asked to match different conjugated forms of “ser” and “estar” to their correct use in an
input-based activity. In step 2, learners have to complete a conversation with the correct
form of “ser” and “estar”;
(iii) Quiz #3 (Unidad 3, Gramática II): the present tense of “tener que” and “ir a”.
This is an output-based activity where students are asked to write a short paragraph
describing what they have to do (i.e., tener que) and what they are going to do (i.e., ir
a) during the week;
(iv) Quiz #4 (Unidad 4, Gramática I): the verb “haber” in contrast with “ser” and
“estar”. Students are asked to complete a paragraph with the correct form of the verbs
“ser”, “estar” and “haber” (hay);
(v) Quiz #5 (Unidad 5, Gramática II): “saber” and “conocer”. Students are asked to
first, decide whether they have to use “saber” or “conocer” in different sentences based
on the context, and then complete an email with the correct form of the verbs;
(vi) Quiz #6 (Unidad 6, Gramática II): stem-changing present tense verbs. Learners
need to complete one narration with the correct forms of the most appropriate verb in
parenthesis based on the context.
These six grammar lessons were chosen for this study because they included
relevant and meaningful grammar concepts that would help students develop their
speaking competence and allow them to convey personal meaning in a substantial
manner.
3.5 Data collection procedures
There were different stages to the data collection procedures. First, out of the seven
sections of each unit (i.e., Texto, Vocaluario, Gramática I, Gramática II, Exploración
cultural, Estrategia de producción and Proyecto), data for this study was collected only
in the Gramática I or Gramática II sections from units 1-6. Students in both control and
experimental groups completed one pre- and post- grammar-focused and mainly
output-based test on each lesson targeted for this study. Pre- and post-tests were the
same in both groups. Six written pen-and-pencil pre-tests were completed in both
classrooms the day before the target grammar concept was introduced and/or practiced
in the classroom. At the end of the second day of instruction, post-tests were completed
by both groups in the classroom. In the experimental group, three of the six pre- and -
post tests were done during the first eight weeks of instruction, that is, during the
explicating-teaching period or non-flipped model. The last three pre- and post-tests
were done during the flipped-model period.
3.6 Data analysis
Data in this study was analyzed using a quantitative method. In order to answer the
research question and using a quantitative analysis, students’ language performance in
control and experimental groups was assessed by examining their scores in six pre- and
six post- grammar-focused tests. These tests were completed by learners before (pre-
tests) and after (post-tests) each targeted grammar section taught either through the
flipped (FC and FE groups) or the non-flipped model (NFE group) in units 1-6. Scores in
both groups were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
4. RESULTS
A spectrum of the results of control and experimental groups in the grammar-focused
pre and post quizzes is offered in Table 1 and 2, respectively. Numbers in brackets
indicate the number of participants that completed each pre and post quiz. In addition,
Figures 1 and 2 provide a more visual version of this information.
Figure 1. Control group’s academic performance in grammar-focused pre and post-quizzes in
units 1-6.
Table 1. Control group’s academic performance in grammar-focused pre- and post-quizzes in
units 1-6
Table 1 and Figure 1 show results in the FC group. As expected, students in this group
seemed to barely have Spanish grammar knowledge before the instruction, with a total
average of a 21.4% in pre-quizzes. As can be seen in their outcomes in post-quizzes,
students in the FC group obtained a total average score of 82.2%. Thus, learners
achieved an overall increase percentage of 60.8% after the instruction of grammar
concepts.
Some interesting facts are revealed regarding learners’ performance in pre-quiz 1 and
pre-quiz 4. Students obtained 74% in pre quiz 1. This might happen because pre-quiz
1 focused on gender and number agreement. While the course description indicates the
course is for
students with no previous knowledge of Spanish, the truth is that this course also
attracts
students with one or two years of high school Spanish but who had Spanish classes
several years earlier and thus, did not feel prepared to start their language learning
experience in college in the second semester of Spanish. Considering gender and
number agreement is one of the most noticeable characteristics of the Spanish
language, it may be possible that the results obtained in the pre-quiz 1 are a reflection
of the student population’s prior knowledge in the language. Similarly, pre-quiz 4 was
based on the conjugation of ser, estar and haber. Although the verb haber was first
introduced to students in this lesson, ser and estar were grammar concepts that
students had studied in previous units. Therefore, this could explain the fact that they
achieved a 30% in this pre-quiz.
Table 2 and Figure 2 shows the academic performance of students in the experimental
group in grammar-focused pre- and post quizzes in units 1-6.
CONTROL
GROUP
FLIPPED APPROACH
(Units 1-6)
PRE QUIZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
TOTAL
74%
(20)
15%
(18)
5%
(15)
30%
(13)
3%
(8)
1.8%
(6)
21.4%
POST QUIZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
TOTAL
95%
(17)
61.7%
(16)
91%
(15)
63.4%
(16)
95.9%
(11)
86.6%
(15)
82.2%
Table 2. Experimental group’s academic performance in grammar-focused pre and post-
quizzes in units 1-6.
Figure 2. Experimental group’s academic performance in grammar-focused pre and post-
quizzes in units 1-6.
As shown in Table 2 and Figure 2, similar results are found in the experimental group.
Students in both NFE (units 1-3) and FE (units 4-6) groups performed as expected in
pre-quizzes, with a total average of 33% and 12%, respectively. As in the case with
learners in the control group, students in the experimental group also showed little
knowledge of Spanish grammar before the instruction. In addition, the same
phenomenon as in the control group can be found in pre-quiz 1 and 4.
As can be seen in their outcomes in post-quizzes, students in the experimental group
achieved a total average score of 84.5% when learning the material under the non-
flipped model and a total average score of 73.3% when receiving the instruction through
the flipped-classroom approach. Thus, learners achieved an overall increase percentage
EXPERIMENTAL
GROUP
NON-FLIPPED APPROACH
(Units 1-3)
FLIPPED APROACH
(Units 4-6)
PRE-QUIZ
1
2
3
TOTAL
4
5
6
TOTAL
78%
(20)
12%
(19)
9%
(15)
33%
33.8%
(13)
2.3%
(12)
0%
(5)
12%
POST QUIZ
1
2
3
TOTAL
4
5
6
TOTAL
87.5%
(20)
76.6%
(19)
89.4%
(16)
84.5%
68.4%
(14)
86.9
%
(12)
64.7%
(12)
73.3%
78,0%
12,0% 9,0%
33,0%
87,5%
76,6%
89,4% 84,5%
0,0%
20,0%
40,0%
60,0%
80,0%
100,0%
1 2 3 TOTAL
NFE GROUP
Pre quiz Post quiz
33,8%
2,3% 0,0% 12,0%
68,4%
86,9%
64,7% 73,3%
4 5 6 TOTAL
FE GROUP
Pre quiz Post quiz
of 51.5% (units 1-3) and 61.3% (units 4-6) respectively, after the instruction of grammar
concepts.
As expected, learners in this study performed better in the grammar-focused tasks after
treatment (either through teacher explicit grammar instruction in class or under video
posts of grammar concepts in Contraseña) in the three educational scenarios (i.e., FC
group; NFE group and FE group).
Given that the experimental group was exposed to both flipped and non-flipped learning
and thus, results for this group may be confounded by other factors to be examined in
the Discussion section, it is important to compare flipped vs. non-flipped in two different
groups (i.e., between-group analysis). Therefore, Figure 3 shows the results from post-
quizzes for the first three units for the control group (i.e., flipped) and the experimental
group (i.e., non-flipped).
Figure 3. Scores of FC and NFE groups in units 1-3
The overall average score of the FC group in units 1-3 stood at 82.6% while students in
the NFE group achieved an overall average score of 84.5% in the same units. More
specifically, in post-quiz 1, the FC group achieved an average score of 95% while the
NFE group’s average score was 87.5%. In post quiz 2, students obtained an average
score of 61.7% in the FC group and 76.6% in the NFE group. In post quiz 3 the FC group’s
average score stood at 91% while learners in the NFE group achieved 89.4%.
Some interesting facts are revealed from these results. First, as can be seen in Figure 3,
there was hardly any difference between both groups’ total averages in units 1-3.
Likewise, student performance in two of the three targeted post quizzes (i.e., post-quiz
1 and post-quiz 3) did not show any important differences between FC and NFE groups
(being slightly higher in the FC group). This may suggest that teaching methodology is
not a factor impacting student performance in the form-focused tasks used in this study.
However, learners’ academic achievement in post quiz 2 was higher in the NFE group
(76.6%), than in the FC group (61.7%). One possible explanation for this fact could be
91,0%
61,7%
95,0%
82,6%
98,4%
76,6%
87,5% 84,5%
0,0%
20,0%
40,0%
60,0%
80,0%
100,0%
Post quiz 1 Post quiz 2 Post quiz 3 TOAL
Flipped Non-flipped
that post-quiz 2 consisted of two different steps and although the second step was similar
to other activities in the rest of the quizzes, as Figure 4 shows, the first one was purely
theoretical, with students being asked to match different sentences in Spanish with the
correct use of the verbs ser or estar.
Figure 4. Post-quiz 2 (“ser” and “estar”): Paso 1
Since post quiz 2 was the only post quiz that has a theory-based activity, it may be
suggested that the NFE group scored higher only in this post-quiz as a consequence of
having received an explicit face-to face grammar instruction in the classroom.
In addition to the between-group analysis, a within-group analysis of the data was also
conducted in the experimental group in order to compare student performance in the
grammar-focused tasks when shifting from a non-flipped to a flipped context.
Figure 5 offers a comparison between NFE (units 1-3) and FE (units 4-6) groups regarding
their overall academic performances in the targeted post-quizzes.
Figure 5. Scores of the NFE and the FE groups
84,4%
73,3%
0,0%
20,0%
40,0%
60,0%
80,0%
100,0%
NFE group FE group
As can be seen, students achieved an overall average score of 84.4% in units 1-3 when
learning the material through a non-flipped approach (NFE group) and a 73.3% in units
4-6 when receiving grammar instruction under the flipped-classroom approach (FE
group). These findings stand against those in the between-group analysis since contrary
to what is observed when comparing control and experimental group’s post-quiz scores
(no noticeable differences are found), students in the experimental group performed
better in the post quizzes in the first eight weeks when they learned the material in a
more traditional way (i.e., non-flipped learning context) than in the last eight weeks
where students were involved in flipped lessons. This seems to suggest that the flipped
model did not positively impact students’ academic performance in this group.
In summary, Spanish L2 learners did not notably improve their target language
performance on grammar-focused tasks more in the flipped learning approach than in
the non-flipped learning format. In fact, although results in the between-group showed
that teaching methodology is not a factor impacting student performance in this study,
findings in the within-group analysis indicated that students performed better in the non-
flipped model of instruction than in the flipped-classroom approach.
5. DISCUSSION
Students’ target language performance in the three educational scenarios (i.e., FC group;
NFE group and FE group) was examined through six grammar-focused pre- and post-
quizzes completed by students in each targeted grammar section in units 1-6.
In the between-group analysis, no differences were observed between the average scores
in units 1-3 for the FC and NFE groups, which may suggest that teaching methodology is
not a relevant factor impacting student performance in the form-focused tasks used in
this educational context. One could question whether the starting language proficiency
of participants was similar. However, since both groups performed similarly in pre-tests
and the overall performance in units 1-6 was 82.2% and 78.9%, respectively, it seems
clear that language proficiency is not a factor impacting results in this study.
While learners’ academic achievement in post-quizzes 1 and 3 was slightly higher in the
FC group, student performance was higher in the NFE group in post-quiz 2. This post-
quiz was the only one presenting a theory-based activity that focused on metalinguistic
knowledge (uses of ser and estar). In contrast to Moranski and Kim’s (2016) study, where
findings indicated that learners in both flipped and non-flipped groups were able to
provide the correct metalinguistic information for uses of se, results in this study may
suggest that receiving an explicit face-to face grammar instruction with the professor
explaining the concepts in the classroom could benefit student performance in purely
theoretical tests. However, it is important to consider that the present study assessed
student language performance only through these post-quizzes while Moranski and Kim
(2016) used three different assessments (i.e., grammaticality judgement test,
description tasks and chapter test). That is to say, this study looked at explicit
grammatical knowledge in simple production tasks that were not very communicative
while in-class activities were mainly meaningful and communicative and thus, the
practice that learners had in class and the assessment used were quite different. Findings
in the present investigation might be different if, as in Moranski and Kim’s (2016),
language learning would have been analyzed through several types of assessment, which
was not feasible for this study since this course was designed by a supervisor and it was
important to ensure that all sections followed the same procedure and expectations.
These findings agree with García-Allen’s (2020), who compared student performance in
flipped and traditional classrooms in a first-year introductory Spanish course (i.e.,
Spanish for Beginners) at the university level in Ontario, Canada. She found that although
students in the flipped classroom sections performed better than students in the
traditional classroom sections on the tests throughout the year, both groups performed
similarly in the delayed final exam. Therefore, in terms of overall academic performance,
no differences between these two teaching methodologies were observed.
Results in this study are also consistent with other studies on student performance in the
EFL context. For instance, Oki (2016) found that student academic performance in an
intermediate EFL course in Hawaii did not reveal statistical difference since learners
performed similarly in either flipped or traditional contexts. In the same way, Al-Harbi
(2016) did not find a statistical difference between flipped and non-flipped classrooms in
language proficiency gains in an EFL secondary school classroom in Saudi Arabia.
While student language performance did not show important differences when learning
the material under the flipped or the non-flipped models, these results prove that
replacing the traditional face-to face approach by a flipped learning format may still be
favorable for the academic achievement of Spanish learners in this context. By moving
the explicit grammar instruction to the individual space outside the academic setting,
students may be provided with more opportunities to practice and develop their second
language communicative skills in the classroom without their performance in grammar-
focused tasks being affected.
However, the present study also contributed to this body of literature by examining the
effectiveness of the flipped learning approach in a within-group analysis, which sheds
some light on this topic in a genuine manner since it allows to compare not only the
target language performance of both control and experimental groups, but also to
analyze the academic performance of students in the same group (experimental group),
which combined two different methodologies during the semester.
Results in the within-group analysis stand against those in the between-group in this
study. The experimental group was found to perform substantially better in units 1-3
when learning the material under the traditional approach (NFE group) than in units 4-
6, where the material was learnt through the flipped model (FE group). One could think
that topics learnt in the last three units might be more difficult than those in the first
three units. However, considering the overall averages for the control group were
virtually the same in both halves of the semester (82% in units 1-3 and 81% in units 4-
6) this does not seem to be a factor impacting results in this study.