||An Investigation on Learning Outcomes and Learner Perceptions in a Flipped English Course
||Department of English
||Active learning has been studied and has had valuable results up till the present moment. Active participation in learning tends to result in better learning outcomes. Recently, a new pedagogy, the flipped classroom model, infuses technology and changes the original structure of the classroom. The flipped classroom model enables students to learn the basic concepts outside of the classroom and share their knowledge by doing discussions in the classroom. As a result, learners are active in learning and develop learning autonomy. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of the flipped classroom and the students’ perceptions on the flipped classroom model and the traditional lecture model in English Drill classes. A total of 81 continuing education students participated in the study. There were 35 students in the traditional lecture model classroom and 46 students in the flipped model classroom. A GEPT mock test was used to measure students’ English proficiency before and after the experimental period and a questionnaire on learners’ perceptions was used to investigate how the students feel about the two pedagogical models. In addition, interviews were carried out to understand the impacts of the flipped classroom model. The results showed that both groups significantly improved after the experimental period, but the flipped classroom model group significantly outperformed the traditional lecture model group. The results indicated that both pedagogical models were effective but the flipped classroom model was better than the traditional lecture model. However, for the flipped classroom model group, participants reported dissatisfaction with the structure of the flipped classroom model. Although they were troubled by the procedures, they agreed with the effectiveness of the flipped classroom model. On the other hand, students in the traditional lecture model group showed satisfaction with the effects of the model but they pointed out that there were not enough activities in the classroom. In conclusion, the flipped classroom model is useful in helping students internalize knowledge and become active and skillful learners. The findings can also provide pedagogical implications for instructors teaching English Drill and research suggestions for future research.
||TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..........V
LIST OF TABLES..........VII
LIST OF FIGURE..........IX
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION..........1
1.1 Background of the study..........1
1.2 Statement of the problem..........5
1.3 Purpose of the study..........8
1.4 Research questions..........8
1.5 Significance of the study..........9
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW..........11
2.2 Zone of Proximal Development..........13
2.3 Active learning..........14
2.4 Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning..........18
2.5 Introduction of the flipped classroom model..........23
2.5.1 Definition of the flipped classroom model..........24
2.5.2 Advantages of the flipped classroom model..........26
2.5.3 Flipped classroom as active learning..........29
2.5.4 Comparison between the traditional lecture model and the flipped classroom model..........30
2.5.5 Related studies on the flipped classroom model..........33
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY..........38
3.1 Research design..........38
3.4.1 Flipped classroom model..........45
3.4.2 Traditional lecture model..........50
3.5 Data collection and analysis..........53
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..........54
4.1 Learners’ beginning levels..........55
4.2 Learning outcomes..........55
4.2.1 Learning outcomes of the flipped classroom model group..........56
4.2.2 Learning outcomes of the traditional lecture model group..........57
4.2.3 Comparison of learning outcomes between the flipped classroom model group and the traditional lecture model group..........57
4.3 Results of the questionnaire..........60
4.3.1 Results of learners’ perceptions on the flipped classroom model..........61
4.3.2 Results of learners’ perceptions on the traditional lecture model..........73
4.4 Results of the interview..........85
4.4.1 Previous English learning experiences in school..........85
4.4.2 Interviews on the flipped classroom model..........86
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION..........99
5.1 Summary of the results..........99
5.2 Limitations of the study..........102
5.3 Suggestions for future research..........103
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Structure of the Original Taxonomy..........19
Table 2.2 Structure of the knowledge dimension of the revised Taxonomy..........21
Table 2.3 Structure of the cognitive process dimension of the revised Taxonomy..........21
Table 2.4 Comparison of class time in the traditional lecture model vs. the flipped classroom model..........32
Table 2.5 Related research on the flipped classroom model..........35
Table 3.1 Participants’ GEPT mock test scores..........40
Table 3.2 Perceptions on the flipped classroom model questionnaire..........42
Table 3.3 Perceptions on the traditional lecture model questionnaire..........44
Table 3.4 Timetable of the flipped classroom recommended by Bergmann & Sams..........46
Table 3.5 Course schedule of the flipped classroom..........48
Table 3.6 The flipped classroom contents (reading section) and schedule..........49
Table 3.7 Course schedule of the traditional lecture class..........51
Table 3.8 The traditional classroom contents (reading section)and schedule..........51
Table 4.1 GEPT pretests between the two groups..........55
Table 4.2 GEPT pretest and posttest of the flipped classroom model..........56
Table 4.3 GEPT pretest and posttest of traditional lecture model..........57
Table 4.4 Learning outcomes between the two groups..........58
Table 4.5 Descriptive analysis of the pretest on learners’ perceptions of the flipped classroom model..........62
Table 4.6 Descriptive analysis of the posttest on learners’ perception of the flipped classroom model..........67
Table 4.7 Comparison of the eight items on the flipped classroom perception questionnaire..........73
Table 4.8 Descriptive analysis of the pretest of the perception on the lecture model..........75
Table 4.9 Descriptive analysis of the posttest of the perception on the lecture model..........80
Table 4.10 Comparison of the eight items on the lecture model perception questionnaire..........84
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1 Traditional classrooms and the flipped classrooms..........23
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives.New York, NY: Longman.
Baker, J. W. (2000). The “classroom flip”: Using web course management tools to become the guide by the side. In Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning (pp. 9-17).
Barrett, T., Cashman, D., & Moore, S. (2011). Designing problems and triggers in
different media. In T. Barrett & S. Moore (Eds.), New approaches to problem-based learning : revitalising your practice in higher education (pp. 18-35). London:Routledge.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to
medical education. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., & Wilie, B. (2011). The flipped class: Myths vs. reality. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). The flipped classroom. In J. Burkholder., L.Y. Gansel., T. Wells, & K. Landon (Eds.). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. America: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Our story : Creating The Flipped Classroom. In J. Burkholder, L.Y. Gansel., T. Wells, & K. Landon (Eds.). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. America: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the
research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA 30(9).
Black, L. (2005). Dialogue in the lecture hall: Teacher-student communication and
students’ perceptions of their learning. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 6(1), 31-40.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, F. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co Inc.
Bowell, C.C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Retrieved from ERIC database. ED336049
Brown, D. H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. (5th Eds.). New
York, NY: Longman.
Bryant, S. M., & Hunton, J. E. (2000). The use of technology in the delivery of instruction: Implications for accounting educators and education researchers. Issues in Accounting Education, 15(1), 129-162.
Carbaugh, E. M., & Doubet, K. J. (2015). Using formative assessment to check for understanding. In A.Burvikovs (Ed.), The Differentiated Flipped Classroom: A Practical Guide to Digital Learning. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task‐based learning with young learners. ELT Journal, 56(4), 389-396.
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead?. Computers & Education, 79, 16-27.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49, 3-6.
CommonWealth Magazine, (2016). Retrieved from http://www.cw.com.tw/
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, (2012). 7 Things you should know about Flipped
Classrooms. EDUCAUSE Creative Commons. Retrieved from net.educause.edu
Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends, 57(6), 14-27.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Cooperative learning. In P. A. Mabrouk (Eds.), Active learning: Models from the analytical sciences. ACS Symposium Series, 970, 34-53.
Fitzgerald K. (2008). Instructional methods and settings. In Bastable, S. B (Ed.).
Nurse as Educator: Principles of Teaching and Learning for Nursing Practice.
Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. In M. Orey (Ed.) Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from https://textbookequity.org/
Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12-17.
Hoffman, C., & Goodwin, S. (2006). A clicker for your thoughts: Technology for active learning. New Library World, 107(9/10), 422-433.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: ameta-analysis. ResearchGate. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/user/
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2013). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in University Teaching, 25(4), 1-26.
Junyi Academy (2015). Retrieved from https://www.junyiacademy.org/about
Khan, S. (2011) Khan’s TED talks. Retrieved from TED Ideas worth spreading Web site: https://www.ted.com/speakers/salman_khan
Khan, S., (2011). Let's use video to reinvent education. [video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education?language=en.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2), 300-305.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
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), 30-43.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press.
Marlowe, C. A. (2012). The effect of the flipped classroom on student achievement and stress (Unpublished master’s thesis). Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
Milman, N. B. (2012). The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be used?. Distance Learning, 9(3), 85.
Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L., & Gosselin, K. (2013). Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education. 52(10), 597-599.
Moore, K.D. (2015) Teaching effective thinking strategies. In R. Hester (Ed.), Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice 4th Edition (pp374-400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nyikos, M., & Hashimoto, R. (1997). Constructivist theory applied to collaborative learning in teacher education: In search of ZPD. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 506-517.
Ocak, M. A. (2011). Blend or not to blend: a study investigating faculty members perceptions of blended teaching. World Journal on Educational Technology 2(3), 196-205.
Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A Comparison of the Two Concepts Which Will Help Us Understand the Underlying Nature of Interactive Learning. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED448443)
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. NewYork: Basic Books.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. New York, NY:
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of
Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Rose, K. K. (2009). Student perceptions of the use of instructor-made videos in online
and face-to-face classes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 487-495.
Sahin, A., Cavlazoglu, B., & Zeytuncu, Y. E. (2015). Flipping a college calculus
course: a case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 142-152.
Schul, J. E. (2011). Revisiting an old friend: The practice and promise of cooperative learning for the twenty-first century. The Social Studies, 102(2), 88-93.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-54.
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 (Doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193. doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4
Stone, B. B. (2012). Flip your classroom to increase active learning and student engagement. In Proceedings from 28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wood, D. F. (2003). Problem based learning. British Medical Journal, 326(7384), 328-330.
Wu, W. V., & Marek, M. (2009). The impact of teleconferencing with native English speakers on English learning by Taiwanese students. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(1), 107-126.
Yu, Z. & Wang, G. (2016). Academic Achievements and Satisfaction of the Clicker-Aided Flipped Business English Writing Class. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 298–312.
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.