Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseńanza 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

The Impact of Flipped Learning on the Language Performance of Beginning Spanish as a Second Language Learners

El Impacto del Aprendizaje Invertido en el Desempeńo Lingüístico de Estudiantes Principiantes de Espańol como Segunda Lengua<= /i>

<= /o:p>

Susana Dimas Cintas <= /span>

Universidad de Alcalá

su= sana.dimas@uah.es

ABSTRACT

The present study compares the academic performance of students of Spanish as a second language between a control g= roup 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 performa= nce. The results of the pre- and post-tests based on grammar activities indicate that, in the between-subjects design, there are no notable differences betw= een the inverted and non-inverted groups. The findings of the within-group anal= ysis show that students who have combined both methodologies perform better in t= he 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 espańol como segunda lengua entre un grupo de control que si= gue la metodología de aprendizaje invertido y otro que recibe una instrucción m= ás tradicional. Además, evalúa el impacto que tiene la combinación de ambas metodologías durante el mismo semestre en el desempeńo lingüístico de los estudiantes. Los resultados de los pre y post-tests basados en actividades de gramática indican que, en el diseńo 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 e= n el modelo de instrucción no invertido.

Palabras clave: aprendizaje invertido; espańol como segunda lengua; rendimiento académico; actividades de gramática.=

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, 2= 020). 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 n= ew ways of teaching and studying is the flipped model (Bergmann & Sams, 20= 12). This pedagogical innovation moves the direct instruction into videos watche= d by learners outside the classroom setting, in an individual learning space, wh= ile class time is used to engage in higher cognitive levels of learning with pe= ers 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 langu= ages (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 flip= ped model increases across different academic contexts, at all levels and field= s, including second language teaching; its study has recently become a research interest for many scholars. Previous studies have argued that the flipped m= odel seems to have positive results in student academic achievements when compar= ed to more traditional learning formats (e.g., Ahmad, 2016; Aybirdi, Efe & Atasoy Sal, 2023; Bredow et al., 2021; Farah, 2014; Huang & H= ong, 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 performa= nce 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, 20= 21; Kang, 2015) and teachers (e.g., Vaezi, Afghari & Lotfi, 2019; Wang & Chen, 2020) whi= le it has also been found that some teachers recognize problems with its implementation (Fontecha, 2020; Hoshang, Hilal &a= mp; Hilal, 2021) and some students manifest a clear resistance towards it (e.g., García-Allen, 2020; Moranski & Kim, 2016; O= żadowicz, 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., Mora= nski & Kim, 2016), and particularly at the novice level (e.g., Fontecha, 202= 0; García-Allen, 2020). In addition, the majority of studies within the Spanish L2 field seem to have explored differences betwe= en 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 g= aps has partially motivated the present investigation, which besides including = a between-group analysis, also involved a within- group study.

This research aimed to contri= bute to this body of literature by implementing the flipped model in two beginner Spanish L2 courses at the tertiary level in U= nited 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.<= /span>

2.   THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Flipped-classroom approach: history and definition

The concept of flipped-classr= oom 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 Nechkin= a, 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 hom= e. 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 cla= ss 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 “Inverti= ng the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating and Inclusive Learning Environment” (2= 000) Lage, Platt and Treglia, associate professors of economics at Miami Univers= ity (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 wi= th 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 co= uld 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 iss= ues 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 t= hat 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 homew= ork, projects, guided and independent practice, and higher-order thinking activi= ties where interaction and meaningful communication are the main focus. The resulting outcome was a total success, and in their book “Flip your classro= om” (2012) the first definition of flipped learning was born as leaving “what w= as traditionally treated as homework to be done in the class time, and that wh= ich was previously done in class being done at home” (Bergmann & Sams, 2012, p.13).

The flipped classroom was lat= er defined by The Flipped Learning Network (2014) as:=

A pedagogical approach in whi= ch 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 concep= ts 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 t= heir 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 autono= mous 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 gain= ed 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 learn= ing in many fields as an alternative to traditional face-to-face instruction du= e to the COVID-19 pandemic. =

2.2 <= b>Research on the flipped model=

2.2.1 Flipped model research on STEM and science-related courses

<= /span>

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 pion= eer 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 s= ome (e.g., Belmonte, Guerrero & Cabrera, 2021; Kugler et al., 2019; Love = et al., 2014; Rehman et al., 2020; Umam et al., 20= 19; Yildiz, 2018). These studies have observed that the flipped model can enhan= ce 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 & Coo= k, 2013), health professions education (e.g., Hew & Lo, 2018), nursing edu= cation (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 approach= es and those receiving instruction under the flipped model. For instance, in Durfee’s et al. study (2020), conducted in a radiology course at the univer= sity level in USA, learners’ performance on the standardized final exam in the flipped group was similar to that of the in-pers= on teaching group.

Considering the shift in the role of the learner in the flipped mo= del where new content is “learned” by students on their own, research has also focused on examining learners’ perceptions about the flipped classroom thro= ugh 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, Tsimer= man & 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 f= ound 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 tow= ards 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 regul= ar class but gradually they became more open to cooperative learning and innovative teaching methods during the course. Thus, Strayer reasoned the n= eed of a transition between methodologies. Supporting Strayer´s (2007) conclusi= ons, 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 cour= se entirely online with minimal adjustments (i.e., Attara= been et al., 2021; Collado-Valero et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Liberman-Martin & Ogba, 2020).

2.2.2 Fli= pped model research on second language courses

Given the success of the flipped model in many different teaching contexts, researche= rs 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 d= ifferent countries. For instance, Farah (20= 14) 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 fe= male 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). Bo= th 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 tow= ards 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.<= /o:p>

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, helpfuln= ess, 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 Dom= an (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 t= hat although both control and experimental groups showed increased comfort in t= he 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 consiste= nt with more research that has also observed that flipping the classroom benef= its intermediate and upper-intermediate students in other various aspects, including enhancing their creative thinking (e.g. Al-Zahrani, 2015), listen= ing 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 rese= arch regarding learners’ opinions has also been conducted with teacher education students, an interesting population since these are students training to be= come 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 the= ir 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 teacher= s 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 cl= ass time.

In the la= st years, some scholars have also examined the impact of the flipped approach during and after the COVID-19 pandemic since educational institutions world= wide have embraced online learning measures through this tough time. Shahnama, Ghonsooly, & Shirvan (2021) conducted a meta-analysis that consisted of 69 between-subje= ct design studies in the field of EFL, in which they compared the flipped and lectured-based classrooms in improving students’ achievements. They found t= hat 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. <= span class=3DSpellE>Aybirdi, Efe & Atasoy Sal (2023), examined the ef= fects 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. (20= 24), 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 resea= rch 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 E= FL students seemed to enjoy their flipped classroom because they perceived that class-time was used more efficiently to review, discuss, and engage in crit= ical thinking activities. They also stated that the teacher’s role as a facilita= tor 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 appea= r 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.

Consideri= ng 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 inclu= ding the ability to personalize instruction, manage time more efficiently, and conne= ct more to the L2 learners (Vaezi, Afghari & Lotfi, 2019).

It has al= so 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 consider= able differences were found for both groups in the usage description task or in = the chapter test. Results from the attitudinal questionnaire showed that learne= rs 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-Al= len (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. Particip= ants in this study had no previous knowledge of Spanish. Student performance was examined through summative assessment (four tests throughout the year and o= ne 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 w= ere no fill-in-the-blank exercises. In addition, participants completed a writt= en questionnaire at the end of the academic year where they were asked to indi= cate, 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 significan= tly better than students in the traditional classroom sections on the tests throughout the year. However, participants performed similarly in the delay= ed 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 sa= me vein, although without analyzing student performance, Fontecha (2020) condu= cted an action research that aimed to evaluate teache= rs’ perception and students’ attitudes and practices over the impact of applyin= g a flipped learning model for a basic Spanish course at a university in USA. T= he 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 wo= rk and that if the flipped model was implemented properly, the role of the tea= cher was more of a facilitator. It was also suggested that the flipped model hel= ped 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<= /span> the previously mentioned studies focus on intermediate and upper-intermedia= te 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 additi= on, to the writer’s knowledge, the flipped model in language learning has not b= een thoroughly explored in educational contexts in the United States. With Span= ish 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. <= /span>

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 Span= ish 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 flip= ped learning approach than in the non-flipped learning format?

3.   METHODOLOGY

3.1 Participants

Participants in this study were a coh= ort 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 requiremen= ts for their majors since they needed two semesters of a foreign language. Therefore, it should be considered that perhaps for most of the students th= eir 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, t= he learning outcome is to help students develop proficiency in the four langua= ge skills (i.e., reading, listening, writing, and speaking) essential to effec= tive 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 t= his course is in development of oral skills and Spanish is the language of instruction.

This course is taught through Co= ntraseńa,<= /span> 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 liste= ning), Vocaluario, Gram= ática I, Gramática II, Ex= ploración cultural, Estrategia de pr= oducción (writing or speaking) and Proyecto.

In this SPA 111 course students learn the mater= ial in the six units following the flipped-classroom approach. Students watch instructional and explanatory videos in Contraseńa a= nd complete some mainly input-based application activities (i.e., Aplicar and Comprobar<= /i> activities) before coming to class. During class time, they engage in o= ral and communication-based tasks in order to review= the content previously learned outside the classroom. All instructional videos = are created by Contraseńa. They usual= ly last between 5 and 8 minutes and include animation and input enhancement.<= /p>
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 approa= ch where new language concepts were explained by the teacher in the classroom = and learners completed homework (i.e., Aplicar a= nd Comprobar activities in <= i>Contraseńa) 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 flipp= ed 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 inpu= t- and output-based tasks.

Instructors for the two class sessions participating in this study agreed on the instructional material a= nd lesson plans used on the lessons targeted for this study. All instructors in this Basic Spanish language courses are trained to teach following a commun= icative approach to language teaching, giving prominence to exposure to meaningful input and encouraging output through personal and meaningful exchanged betw= een students. However, the fact that there were different instructors for the t= wo 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 we= eks (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 mater= ial 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<= o:p>

-FE: Flipped Experimental group<= /o:p>

3.4 Data collection instruments<= /o:p>

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 agr= eement 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 t= wo different steps. First, students are asked to match different conjugated fo= rms of “ser” and “estar” to their correct use in an input-based activity. In step 2, learners have to complete a conversation w= ith 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 wi= th the correct form of the verbs “ser”, “estar” and “<= span class=3DSpellE>haber” (hay); <= /span>

(v) Quiz #5 (Uni= dad 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. Lea= rners need to complete one narration with the correct forms of the most appropria= te verb in parenthesis based on the context.

These six grammar lessons were chosen= for this study because they included relevant and meaningful grammar concepts t= hat would help students develop their speaking competence and allow them to con= vey personal meaning in a substantial manner.

3.5 Data collection procedures

There were different stages to the da= ta 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 fo= r this study was collected only in the Gramática I or Gramática II sections from uni= ts 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 t= he 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 gro= ups 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- a= nd post-tests were done during the flipped-model period.

3.6 Data analysis <= /b>

Data in this study was analyzed using= a quantitative method. In order to answer the rese= arch question and using a quantitative analysis, students’ language performance = in control and experimental groups was assessed by examining their scores in s= ix pre- and six post- grammar-focused tests. These tests were completed by lea= rners before (pre-tests) and after (post-tests) each targeted grammar section tau= ght 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-quiz= zes in units 1-6.

<= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk120094576'>=

=

=

CONTROL GROUP=

<= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk120094576'>=

FLIPPED APPROACH=

(Units 1-6)=

<= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk120094576'>=

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<= o:p>

1

2

3

4

5

6

TOTAL<= /span>

95%=

(17)

61.7% (16)

91%

(15)

63.4%

(16)

95.9%

(11)

86.6%

(15)

82.2%=

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 incr= ease percentage of 60.8% after the instruction of grammar concepts. <= /span>

Some interesting facts are revealed regarding learners’ performance in pre-quiz 1 and pre-quiz 4. Students obta= ined 74% in pre quiz 1. This might happen because pre-quiz 1 focused on gende= r and number agreement. While the course description indicates the cou= rse 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 poss= ible that the results obtained in the pre-quiz 1 are a refle= ction of the student population’s prior knowledge in the language. Similar= ly, 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, th= is could explain the fact that they achieved a 30% in this pre-quiz.

Table 2 and Figure 2 shows the academ= ic performance of students in the experimental group in grammar-focused pre- a= nd post quizzes in units 1-6.

Table 2. Experimental group’s academic performance in grammar-focused pre and post-quizzes in units 1-6.

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

EX= PERIMENTAL<= o:p>

GR= OUP

=

NO= N-FLIPPED APPROACH

(U= nits 1-3)

=

FL= IPPED APROACH

(U= nits 4-6)

PRE-QUIZ

1

2

3

TOTAL

4

5

6

TOTAL

78%

(20)

12%<= /p>
(19)

9%
(15)

33%<= /p>

33.8%

(13)

2.3%=

(12)

0%
(5)

12%

POST QUIZ<= o:p>

1<= /span>

2<= /span>

3<= /span>

TO= TAL

4<= /span>

5<= /span>

6<= /span>

TOTAL

87.5%

(20)

76.6% (19)

89.4%

(16)

84= .5%

68.4%

(14)

86.9%

(12)

64.7%

(12)

73.3%=

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. Studen= ts 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 c= ase with learners in the control group, students in the experimental group also showed little knowledge of Spanish grammar before the instruction. In addit= ion, the same phenomenon as in the control group can be found in pre-quiz 1 and = 4.

&nbs= p;

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 of 51.5% (units 1-3) and 61.3% (units 4-6) respectively, after the instruction of grammar concepts. =

&nbs= p;

As expect= ed, 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 Contraseńa) 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 overa= ll 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 aver= age 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 t= he FC group). This may suggest that teaching methodology is not a factor impac= ting 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 f= or this fact could be 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.

&nbs= p;

= 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 or= der 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

As can be seen, students achieved an ove= rall 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 th= ey 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 flipp= ed lessons. This seems to suggest that the flipped model did not positively im= pact 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 methodolog= y 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=

&nbs= p;

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-b= ased activity that focused on metalinguistic knowledge (uses of ser and <= span class=3DSpellE>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 informat= ion for uses of se, results in this study may suggest that receiving an = explicit face-to face grammar instructi= on 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 differe= nt assessments (i.e., grammaticality judgement test, description tasks and cha= pter test). That is to say, this study looked at expl= icit 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 w= ould have been analyzed through several types of assessment, which was not feasi= ble 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.   <= /span>

These findings agree with García-Allen’s (2020), who compared stud= ent performance in flipped and traditional classrooms in a first-year introduct= ory 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 sectio= ns 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 f= ind a statistical difference between flipped and non-flipped classrooms in lang= uage proficiency gains in an EFL secondary school classroom in Saudi Arabia.

While student language performance did not show important differen= ces when learning the material under the flipped or the non-flipped models, the= se 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 pract= ice and develop their second language communicative skills in the classroom wit= hout their performance in grammar-focused tasks being affected.

However, the present study also contributed to this body of litera= ture by examining the effectiveness of the flipped learning approach in a within-group analysis, which sheds some light on this topic in a genuine ma= nner since it allows to compare not only the target language performance of both control and experimental groups, but also to analyze the academic performan= ce 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 stud= y. The experimental group was found to perform substantially better in u= nits 1-3 when learning the material under the traditional approach (NFE group) t= han 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 halv= es 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.

This discrepancy between results in the between-group and results in the within-group analysis may provide significant pedagogical implications since, while teaching methodology does not seem to be a factor impacting student performance in grammar-focused tasks if being the only one followed during the semester (between-group analysis), when combining methodologies in the same group and, more specifically, with the non-flipped model being the first approach implemented, learners’ target language performance is negatively affected (within-group analysis). This f= act could imply that it may be more difficult for learners to shift from one methodology to another in the same semester, which supports Strayer´s (2007= ), Hoshang, Hilal & Hilal (2021) and Divjak et al. (2022) suggestion of a transition between these two methodologies.

In fact, students were performing substantially better in the Aplicar and = Comprobar activities in the non-flipped period= and it is possible that their level of frustration with the flipped period, see= ing their scores for Aplicar and Comprobar were considerably lower, may have negatively impacted their overall performance and engagement in class activities and post-tests. More specifically, this may suggest that after having received grammar instruction through an explicit face-to face approa= ch the first eight weeks of instruction, which requires less work-load and effort in the induvial space, it may be harder for students in the experimental group to adapt to the flipped model afterwards, which requires= a higher work-load on the part of students. Moving from non-flipped to flipped model may be part of the problem. It would be interesting to see what would have happened if the experimental group had started with the flipped-learni= ng approach.

6. CONCLUSIONS

As applications of the flipped-learning approach continue to increase in prominence and implementation across vario= us educational domains, including foreign language teaching and learning, and continue to challenge the traditional models as they try to adapt to new emerging teaching contexts, it is indispensable to evaluate the impact of flipped learning methods in the classroom. This study aimed to learn more a= bout the impact of the flipped model on student language performance in Spanish = for Beginners L2 classrooms at a tertiary level in the United States.

Findings in this study offered some important pedagogical implications. Student language performance on grammar-focused tasks was virtually the same in these Spanish L2 courses wh= en learning the material under either the flipped or the non-flipped models. T= his result may imply that teaching under the flipped model is not detrimental to language learning and in fact, it is beneficial because it allows more time= in the classroom for language practice, something students cannot do on their = own since in order to learn to communicate in Spanis= h they need a partner. However, results also suggested that combining flipped and non-flipped models within the same group of learners in the same context may negatively affect their performance on grammar-focused tasks in favor of the non-flipped model. No clear findings can be shown in regards to this phenom= enon since, although language proficiency did not seem to be a factor affecting results in this study, it is uncer= tain if it was due to this combination of different teaching methodologies, due = to the order (from non-flipped to flipped model) in which this shift took plac= e or due to other factors such as individual differences (considering the limited number of participants in many of the pre and post-tests) that students performed better in the non-flipped classroom.

It would be interesting to compare the experimental group’s language performance inverting the order, with students learning the material first through the flipped model (units 1-3) and then,= via the non-flipped learning format (units 4-6). In addition, these results cou= ld also be informed and enriched by examining students’ opinions towards the combination of these two teaching approaches to determine if there is a concordance between their academic results and their perceptions.

This study suffered from a number of limitations. First, not all 40 students showed up during the duration of all grammar lessons targeted in the study, thus not all participants completed every pr= e- and post-tests. The different number of learners participating in each test should be a factor to consider when interpreting results in this study. =

Another limitation in this study is that, although agreeing on the instructional material and lesson plans used on the lessons targeted for this study, there were different instructors for contr= ol and experimental groups, which brings in another variable. Additionally, videorecorded data of the lessons being targeted was not collected. It would have been interesting to look at the amount of explicit instruction in class time in both control and experimental groups since students demand it regardless of the methodology followed. Thus, it is important that teachers should understand that adopting the flipped model does not mean eliminating explicit instruction in the classroom. What it means is that in class, as students engage in language practice, teachers should focus on form through student feedback or language related episodes where explicit attention to grammatical forms takes place based on students’ performance in class tasks= . As teachers evaluate students’ understanding of the material as they perform l= anguage tasks, they should spontaneously and always within meaningful context, prov= ide any form-focused attention to grammatical components in the input as well as making sure students are given the chance to ask for clarification of conce= pts not fully grasped.

Regarding the analysis, this study would= be strengthened by employing inferential statistical tests since this approach would facilitate the derivation of more robust conclusions regarding the differences among groups.

Finally, further research on flipped learning should contrast different participants based on their interest to learn Spanish L2 as well = as their level of Spanish proficiency since as seen in this study, in these mandatory introductory classes students lacked t= he discipline and motivation to learn the language. Comparing student language performance in the teaching context given = in the present study with a non-mandatory intermediate or upper-intermediate Spanish L2 course, where students are strongly involved in the subject and present some previous knowledge of the Spanish language, would inform this = body of literature with important insights.

=

In all, results in this study showed that implementing the flipped-learning approac= h in the instruction of this Spanish L2 course may be a valid teaching practice = if following this methodology during the entire semester. However, when combin= ing non-flipped and flipped models throughout the same term, learners perform substantially better in the non-flipped format.

&nbs= p;

<= o:p>

REFERENCES

Ahmad, S. Z. (2016). The Flipped Classr= oom Model to Develop Egyptian EFL Students' Listening Comprehension. En= glish Language Teaching, 9(9), 166-178.<= /a>

https://doi.org/10.553= 9/elt.v9n9p166

Ahmed, M. A. E. A. S. (2016). The effec= t of a flipping classroom on writing skill in English as a foreign language and students’ attitude towards flipping. US-China Foreign Language, 14(2= ), 98-114.

Al-harbi, S. S., & Alshumaimeri, Y. A. (2016). The Flipped Classroom Impact in Grammar Class on EFL Saudi Secondary School Students' Performances and Attitudes. English Lang= uage Teaching, 9 (10).
       = http://dx.doi.org/10.5= 539/elt.v9n10p60

Al‐Zahrani, A. M. (2015). From passive to active: The impact of the fli= pped classroom through social learning platforms on higher education students' creative thinking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1133-1148.

       = https://doi.org/10.111= 1/bjet.12353

Attarabeen, O. F., Gresham-Dolby, C., & Broedel-Zaugg, K. (2021). Pharmacy student stress with transition to online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning.

Aybirdi, N., Efe, H., & Ataso= y Sal, Ç. (2023). The Impact of Flipped Learning on L2 Learners' Achievements: A Meta-Analysis. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 11, 41-60. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v11iS1-Jan.5= 891

Basal, A. (2015). The implementation of= a flipped classroom in foreign language teaching. Turkish Online Jour= nal of Distance Education, 16(4), 28-37.

       = https://www.learntechl= ib.org/p/193788/

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. Internati= onal Society for Technology in Education.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2017). Flipped learning: Gateway to students' engagement. International Society for Technology in Education.

Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. A. (2013, June 23). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research [Conferenc= e]. 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/= 22585

Bredow, C. A., Roehling, P. V., Knorp, = A. J., & Sweet, A. M. (2021). To flip or not to flip? A meta-analysis of t= he efficacy of flipped learning in higher education. Review of educational research, 91(6), 878-918.

Cockrum, T. (2013). Flipping your English class to reach all learners: Strategies and lesson plans. Routledge. h= ttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315819822

Collado-Valero, J., Rodríguez-Infante, G., Romero-González, M., Gamboa-Ternero, S., Navarro-Sor= ia, I., & Lavigne-Cerván, R. (2021). Flipped classroom: active methodology for sustainable learning in hi= gher education during social distancing due to COVID-19. Sustainability (Switzerland).

https://doi.org/10.339= 0/su13105336

De Grazia, J. L., Falconer, J. L., Nicodemus, G., & Medlin, W. (2012, June 13). Incorporating screencas= ts into chemical engineering courses [Conference]. 2012 ASEE Annual Confer= ence & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. https://peer.asee.org/= 21519

Divjak, B., Rienti= es, B., Iniesto, F., Vondra, P., & Žižak, M. (2022). Flipped classrooms in higher educat= ion during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings and future research recommendations. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 19(1), 9.

Durfee, S. M., Goldenson, R. P., Gill, = R. R., Rincon, S. P., Flower, E., & Avery, L. L. (2020). Medical student education roadblock due to COVID-19: virtual radiology core clerkship to the rescue. Academic Radiology. <= /p>

Farah, M. (2014). The impact of using flipped classroom instruction on the writing performance of twelfth grade female Emirati students in the applied technology high school (ATHS) [N= ot published Doctoral Dissertation]. British University in Dubai. <= /span>

Flipped Learning Network. (2014). What = is flipped learning? The four pillars of FLIP. https://flippedlearning.org/definition-of-flipp= ed-learning/

Fontecha, J. C. A. (2020). An Action Research Study on the Use of Flipped Learning in a Spanish as a Fore= ign Language Class [Not published Doctoral Dissertation]. Illinois Sta= te University.

García-Allen A. (2020). The Flipped Spanish Classroom: Student Engagement, Satisfaction and Autonomy [Not published Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Western Ontario.

Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom. Journal of College Scien= ce Teaching, 42(5), 62–66. https://www.jstor.org/= stable/43631584

Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2018). Fli= pped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC medical education, 18, 1-12.

       =

Hoshang, S., Hilal, T. A., & Hilal,= H. A. (2021). Investigating the acceptance of flipped classroom and suggested recommendations. Procedia Computer Science, 184, 411-418. 10. h= ttps://doi.org/1016/j.procs.2021.03.052

Huang, Y. N., & Hong, Z. R. (2016).= The effects of a flipped English classroom intervention on students’ information and communication technology and English reading comprehension. Edu= cational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 175-193.

Hussain, S., Ahmad, N., Saeed, S., & Khan, F. N. (2015). Effects of flip learning approach on prospective teache= r's pedagogical skills. The Dialogue A Quarterly Research Journal, 10(3), 326-337. https://tehqeeqat.org/= downloadpdf/36057

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp.269-293). Penguin.

Jia, C., Hew, K. F., Bai, S., & Hua= ng, W. (2021). Adaptation of a conventional flipped course to an online flipped format during the Covid-19 pandemic: student learning performance and engagement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. <= /span>

Kang N. (2015). The comparison between regular and flipped classrooms for EFL Korean adult learners. Multi= media-Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 41-72.

King, A. (1993). From Sage on the Stage= to Guide on the Side. College Teaching, 41 (1).

Kugler, A. J., Gogineni, H. P., & Garavalia, L. S. (2019). Learning outcomes and student preferences with flipped vs lecture/ca= se teaching model in a block curriculum. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 83(8).

https://doi.org/10.568= 8/ajpe7044

Kurtz, G., Tsimerm= an, A., & Steiner-Lavi, O. (2014). The flipped-classroom approach: The answ= er to future learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 17(2), 172-182. https://doi.org/10.247= 8/eurodl-2014-0027

Lage, M. J., Platt= , G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.230= 7/1183338

Liberman-Martin, A. L., & Ogba, O. = M. (2020). Midsemester transition to remote instruction in a flipped college-l= evel organic chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education.

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

Looney, D., & = Lusin, N. (2018). Enrollments in Languages Other than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Summer 2016 and Fall 2016. Modern Lang= uage Association.

Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., &= amp; Swift, A. W. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Scien= ce and Technology, 45(3), 317-324.<= /p>

Mason, G. S., Shuman, T. R., & Cook= , K. E. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE transactions on education, 56(4), 430-435.

       = https://doi.org/10.110= 9/TE.2013.2249066

Moranski, K., & Kim, F. (2016). 'Flipping' lessons in a multi-section Spanish course: Implications for assigning explicit grammar instruction outside of the classroom. The Mod= ern Language Journal, 100(4), 830-852.

https://doi.org/10.111= 1/modl.12366

Muldrow, K. (2013). A New Approach to Language Instruction: Flipping the Classroom. The Language Educator,= 11, 28-31.

Nechkina= , M. (1984). Increasing the effectiveness of a lesson. Communist<= /i>, 2, 51.

Oki, Y. (2016) Flipping a content-based= ESL course: An action research report. Working Paper Series, 14, 62-75. =

Ożadowicz<= /span>, A. (2020). Modified blended learning in engineering higher educati= on during the COVID-19 lockdown—Building automation courses case study. Edu= cation Sciences, 10(10), 292. = https://doi.org/10.339= 0/educsci10100292

Rehman, R., Hashmi, S., Akbar, R., & Fatima, S. S. (2020). Teaching "shock pathophysiology" by flipped classroom: Views and perspectives. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 7, 1-4.<= /p>
https://doi.org/10.117= 7/2382120520910853

Samadi, F., Jafarigohar, M., Saeedi, M., Ganji, M., & Khodabandeh, F. (2024). Impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners’ self-regulated learning= and higher-order thinking skills during the Covid19 pandemic. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education= , 9(1), 24.

Sánchez, S. P., Belmonte, J. L., Guerre= ro, A. J. M., & Cabrera, A. F. (2021). Effectiveness of flipped learning and augmented reality in the new educational normality of the COVID-19 era. Texto Livre: Linguagem e Tecnologia, 14(2), 11. https://doi.org/10.35699/19833652.2021.34260

Shahnama, M., Ghonsooly, B., & Shirvan, M. E. (2021). A meta-analysis of relative effectiveness of flipped learning in Eng= lish as second/foreign language research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1355-1386.

Shi, Y., Ma, Y., MacLeod, J., & Yan= g, H. H. (2020). College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in flipped classroom instruction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Jour= nal of Computers in Education, 7, 79-103. <= /span>

Strayer, J. F. (2007). The effects of the classroom flip on the learning environment: A comparison of learning activity in a traditional classroom and a flip classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system [Not published Doctoral Dissertation]. Ohio State University.

Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in = an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193= .

Umam, K., Nusantara, T., & Mulyono, H. (2019). An application of fli= pped classroom in mathematics teacher education program. International Journa= l of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 13(3), 68-80.

Vaezi, R., Afghari, A., & Lotfi, A. (2019= ). Flipped teaching: Iranian students’ and teachers’ perceptions. Applied Research on English Language, 8(1), 139-164. <= /span>

Vitta, J. P., & Al-hoorie, A. H. (2020). The flipped classroom in second language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 27(5), 1268-1292.= https://doi.org/10.117= 7/1362168820981403

Wang, L., & Chen, J. (2020, December 4). A comparative study of online teaching modes in Higher Vocational Colleges based on network questionnaire survey and SPSS analysis [Confe= rence]. 2020 International Conference on Information Science and Education, Sanya, China.

Webb, M., & Doman, E. (2016). Does = the Flipped Classroom Lead to Increased Gains on Learning Outcomes in ESL/EFL <= span class=3DGramE>Contexts?. CATESOL Journal, 28(1), 39= -67.

Wu, W. C. V., Hsieh, J. S. C., & YA= NG, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom = to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 142-157.=

Xu, P., Chen, Y., Nie, W., Wang, Y., So= ng, T., Li, H. et al. (2019). The effectiveness of a flipped classroom on the d= evelopment of Chinese nursing students' skill competence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse education today, 80, 67-77.

Yildiz Durak, H. (2018). Flipped learni= ng readiness in teaching programming in middle schools: Modelling its relation= to various variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 939-959. https://doi.org/10.111= 1/jcal.12302

Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., & Lee, H. W. (2009, June 14). “Flipping” the classroo= m to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course [Conference]. 2= 009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. =

Zhang, H., Du, X., Yuan, X., & Zhan= g, L. (2016). The Effectiveness of the flipped classroom mode on the English pronunciation course. Creative Education, 7(09), 13-40. https://doi.org/10.423= 6/ce.2016.79139

Zhang, L. (2015, January). Teaching model design of business English based on flipped classroom case study = [Conference]. International Conference on Education, Management and Computing Technology, Hong Kong.

Zhang, Q., & Wu, F. (2016). Study on teacher–student interaction in flipped classroom based on video annotation learning platform. In Li, Y., Chang, M., Kravcik, M., Popescu, E., Huang, R., & Chen, N. S. (Eds.) State-of-the-art and fu= ture directions of smart learning (pp. 257-261). Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-868-7_29

<= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk120094576'>= = = CONTROL GROUP=	<= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk120094576'>= FLIPPED APPROACH= (Units 1-6)= <= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk120094576'>=
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<= o:p>
1	2	3	4	5	6	TOTAL<= /span>
95%= (17)	61.7% (16)	91% (15)	63.4% (16)	95.9% (11)	86.6% (15)	82.2%=