THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM IN INTRODUCTORY FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING By Susan G. Hojnacki A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of German Studies - Doctor of Philosophy 2018 ABSTRACT THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM IN INTRODUCTORY FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING By Susan G. Hojnacki This dissertation looks at the effects of the flipped classroom model on foreign language learners at the introductory level. Specifically, the project examined students’ learning outcomes in reading, writing, speaking, and listening when exposed to the flipped classroom format for one or two semesters of introductory German classes at the college level. The study also examined learner perceptions about the flipped classroom model and the use of technology for foreign language learning in general. This yearlong study investigated two sections of the same introductory German course during two consecutive semesters. The delivery of new content was flipped so that one course (control) received its instruction in face-to-face (F2F) lectures from the professor and completed written homework assignments outside of class time, while the other section (flipped) watched recorded online videos outside of class time and completed more interactive activities during face-to-face instruction. Each semester of the study took place in a first- or second-semester German course and measured student proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, and listening through a placement test at the beginning and an achievement test at the end. The study also issued a survey at the end of each semester on learner perception to measure students’ attitudes about the flipped classroom specifically, and language learning through technology in general. The study set out to investigate two specific research questions. Research question #1: Does the flipped classroom delivery format result in different learning outcomes for beginning foreign language learners when compared with a control group? Research question #2: How does the flipped classroom model affect introductory language learners’ attitudes and perceptions about CALL in general and the flipped classroom specifically? The results were mixed from the first to the second semester. For RQ#1, by the end of the first semester, 64% of the students in the flipped section reached the benchmark score on the achievement test, compared with 32% of the students in the control section. These results were approaching significance (p = .056). In the area of vocabulary learning, 57% of the flipped section and 18% of the control section achieved the benchmark score. These results show a significant effect for course design on vocabulary learning (p = .016). In all other categories of reading, writing, listening, and speaking, there were no significant differences in the percentage of learners reaching the benchmark score during the first semester of the study. In the second semester of the study, there were no significant differences in the results of the achievement test. For RQ#2 in the first semester, students in the flipped section were significantly more likely to choose a flipped course design for their next foreign language class than the students in the control group. Students in the flipped group were just as likely to choose a flipped class as a traditional class in the future, while the control group was significantly more likely to choose a traditional class. This demonstrated the effect of placing the flipped classroom delivery format on an even footing with the traditional format in student opinion after one semester of exposure to the flipped classroom. Student retention from first semester to the second was higher in the flipped group. For RQ#2 in the second semester, the control group continued to prefer a traditional lecture format and grammar-based instruction while the flipped classroom section gave equal preference to all formats of learning including face-to- face lecture, online videos, and interactive group work. Für meine Familie: Dave, Sophie, Lily, und Grace, die sich nie zu viel beschwert haben und immer für mich da waren. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to start by thanking my dissertation chair, Dr. Senta Goertler, for all of her guidance, support, and friendship throughout my graduate studies but especially over the course of the completion of this dissertation. Her patience and encouragement were indispensable and have served as a model for me in my professional career. I would also like to thank all the members of my committee, including Dr. Angelika Kraemer, Dr. Tom Lovik, and Dr. Patrick McConeghy, all three of whom have provided me with excellent feedback and suggestions throughout the dissertation process, as well as serving as excellent faculty members, who have given me the knowledge and experience necessary to complete my PhD. I am grateful to Dr. Katharina Häusler-Gross, who has supported me both personally and professionally on a daily basis throughout my teaching career, who allowed me to pursue my research in her courses, and who has always collaborated with me on the teaching methods that served to inform this dissertation. Of course, I am the most grateful to my family for all they have put up with and all the ways they have stood by me over the past (too many) years of completing my work. My three wonderful daughters, Sophie, Lily, and Grace, have grown up over the course of this PhD and I couldn’t be prouder of how they have all thrived despite my occasional lack of attention. Without David Hojnacki’s endless work at home, commitment as a father and a provider, and mental and emotional cheerleading, this dissertation would never have been completed. I can never thank him enough for all he has done to make it possible. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………..…….ix LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………….………....xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ................................................................................................................. 2 1.2. Definition of Terms .................................................................................................... 6 1.3. Statement of Problem and Purpose of the Study ................................................... 10 1.4. CALL and SLA ......................................................................................................... 11 1.5. Research Questions and Hypotheses ...................................................................... 13 1.6. Importance and Framework of the Study .............................................................. 15 1.7. Outline of Dissertation ............................................................................................. 16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 17 2. Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 17 2.1. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 17 2.2. Computer-Assisted Language Learning ................................................................. 19 2.3. Instructional Delivery Formats ............................................................................... 27 2.3.1. Online, Blended, and Face-to-Face Learning .................................................. 29 2.3.2. Fully Online Learning ....................................................................................... 31 2.3.3. Hybrid Learning ................................................................................................ 33 2.4. Curricular Programming and Online Education .................................................. 35 2.5. The Flipped Classroom ............................................................................................ 37 2.6. Learner Affect .......................................................................................................... 41 2.7. Design Based Research ............................................................................................ 43 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 47 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 47 3.1. Context ...................................................................................................................... 48 3.2. Participants ............................................................................................................... 49 3.2.1. Instructors .......................................................................................................... 52 3.3. Procedure .................................................................................................................. 55 3.4. Materials ................................................................................................................... 62 3.4.1. Course Design .................................................................................................... 62 3.4.2. Tasks ................................................................................................................... 66 3.4.3. Online Videos ..................................................................................................... 67 3.4.4. At-Home Practice with CALL .......................................................................... 73 3.4.5. F2F Interactive Activities .................................................................................. 74 3.5. Instruments ............................................................................................................... 75 3.5.1. Tests .................................................................................................................... 75 3.5.2. Surveys ................................................................................................................ 77 vi 3.6. Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 78 3.6.1. Reading ............................................................................................................... 78 3.6.2. Writing ................................................................................................................ 78 3.6.3. Listening ............................................................................................................. 79 3.6.4. Speaking ............................................................................................................. 79 3.7. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 80 3.7.1. Research Question #1 ........................................................................................ 80 3.7.2. Research Question #2 ........................................................................................ 81 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS I: First Semester ................................................... 83 4. Research Findings I: First Semester .......................................................................... 83 4.1. First Semester Study: Research Question #1 ......................................................... 84 4.1.1. Test #1 Scores ..................................................................................................... 85 4.1.2. Test #2 Scores ..................................................................................................... 87 4.1.2.1. Test #2 Reading, Vocabulary, and Grammar ........................................... 91 4.1.2.2. Test #2 Writing ............................................................................................ 92 4.1.2.3. Test #2 Listening Comprehension ............................................................. 93 4.1.2.4. Test #2 Speaking .......................................................................................... 94 4.2. First-Semester Study: Research Question #2 ......................................................... 94 4.2.1. First Semester Survey Results .......................................................................... 95 4.2.1.1. Results by Category .................................................................................... 96 4.3. Conclusions of Results for First Semester .............................................................. 99 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH FINDINGS II: Second Semester ........................................... 101 5. Research Findings II: Second Semester .................................................................. 101 5.1. Second-Semester Study: Research Question #1 ................................................... 102 5.1.1. Test #2 Scores by Second-Semester Grouping .............................................. 102 5.1.2. Test #3 Scores ................................................................................................... 105 5.1.2.1. Test #3 Reading, Vocabulary, and Grammar ......................................... 107 5.1.2.2. Test #3 Writing .......................................................................................... 109 5.1.2.3. Test #3 Listening Comprehension ........................................................... 109 5.1.2.4. Test #3 Speaking ........................................................................................ 110 5.2. Yearlong Participants: Learning Outcomes ........................................................ 111 5.3. Results by Participant Across Tests ...................................................................... 113 5.4. Second-Semester Study: Research Question #2 ................................................... 115 5.4.1. Second-Semester Study: Written Survey Results ......................................... 115 5.4.2. Perceptions About the Flipped Classroom: Oral Survey Responses .......... 118 5.4.2.1. Oral Survey Item #1 .................................................................................. 119 5.4.2.2. Oral Survey Item #2 .................................................................................. 121 5.4.2.3. Oral Survey Item #3 .................................................................................. 123 5.4.2.4. Oral Survey Item #5 .................................................................................. 125 5.4.3. Perceptions About CALL ................................................................................ 128 5.4.3.1. Asynchronous Conversations and VoiceThreads ................................... 128 5.4.3.2. Course Blog ................................................................................................ 129 5.4.3.3. Online Videos ............................................................................................. 129 5.4.3.4. Text Chat ................................................................................................... 130 vii 5.5. Conclusions of Results for Second Semester ........................................................ 131 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 133 6. Discussion ................................................................................................................... 133 6.1. Results ..................................................................................................................... 134 6.1.1. Summary of Language Learning Outcomes .................................................. 134 6.1.2. Summary of Learner Perceptions .................................................................. 137 6.2. Discussion and Conclusion .................................................................................... 144 6.2.1. Discussion of Language Learning Outcomes ................................................ 145 6.2.2. Discussion of Learner Perceptions ................................................................. 147 6.3. Limitations of the Study ......................................................................................... 149 6.4. Contributions of the Study .................................................................................... 151 6.5. Implications ............................................................................................................. 153 6.5.1. Implications for the Interaction Approach .................................................... 154 6.5.2. Implications for Blended and Flipped Learning ........................................... 155 6.5.3. Implications for Program Administration .................................................... 157 6.5.4. Implications for Language Teaching ............................................................. 158 6.6. Recommendations for the Implementation of the Flipped Classroom .............. 160 6.6.1. Delivery Tools ................................................................................................... 160 6.6.2. Designing the Tasks ......................................................................................... 161 6.6.3. Professional Development ............................................................................... 162 6.7. Further Research .................................................................................................... 164 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………….167 APPENDIX A: Syllabi……………………………………………….………….….….168 APPENDIX B: Assessment Materials…………………………………...……………194 APPENDIX C: Surveys………………………………………………………….…….225 APPENDIX D: Transcripts………………………………………………..…………..230 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………240 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Study Participants (N=37) ............................................................................................... 51 Table 2 Average Breakdown of Class Time in Pilot Study ........................................................... 54 Table 3 Teacher Talk vs. Student Talk and Target Language Usage ........................................... 55 Table 4 Timeline for Assessment and Implementation of the Study .............................................. 56 Table 5 Average F2F Class Time Spent on Activities (in Minutes) .............................................. 58 Table 6 Distribution of Course Components by Section ............................................................... 59 Table 7 Task Completion by Section ............................................................................................. 66 Table 8 Online Videos by Format, Length, Topic, and Creator ................................................... 70 Table 9 Data Collection and Analysis for RQs #1 and #2 ............................................................ 82 Table 10 Test #1 Number and Percentage of Scores in Benchmark Categories by Treatment Group ..................................................................................................................................... 86 Table 11 Test #1 Average Scores by Category ............................................................................. 86 Table 12 Test #2 Number and Percentage of Scores in Benchmark Categories by Treatment Group ..................................................................................................................................... 88 Table 13 Test #2 Average Scores by Category ............................................................................. 89 Table 14 Test #2 Learning Outcomes for Reading Comprehension, Grammar, Vocabulary, and Combined Reading Scores ..................................................................................................... 91 Table 15 Test #2 Learning Outcomes for Writing ........................................................................ 93 Table 16 Test #2 Learning Outcomes for Listening Comprehension ........................................... 93 Table 17 Test #2 Learning Outcomes for Speaking ...................................................................... 94 Table 18 First-Semester Survey Results ....................................................................................... 95 Table 19 First-Semester Student Retention Numbers ................................................................... 98 ix Table 20 Summary of Learning Outcomes and Significance Levels from Chi-Square Tests on Test #2 ........................................................................................................................................... 99 Table 21 Second-Semester Test #2 Groupings. Number and Percentage of Scores in Benchmark Categories ............................................................................................................................ 103 Table 22 Average Scores on Test #2 by Category prior to Second Semester ............................. 104 Table 23 Test #3 Numbers and Percentages Achieving Benchmark Scores by Treatment Group ............................................................................................................................................. 105 Table 24 Test #3 Average Scores by Category ........................................................................... 107 Table 25 Test #3 Learning Outcomes for Reading, Vocabulary, and Grammar ........................ 108 Table 26 Test #3 Percentages of Students Reaching the Benchmark Score on Reading, Vocabulary, and Grammar .................................................................................................. 108 Table 27 Test #3 Learning Outcomes for Writing ...................................................................... 109 Table 28 Test #3 Learning Outcomes for Listening Comprehension ......................................... 110 Table 29 Test #3 Learning Outcomes for Speaking .................................................................... 110 Table 30 Test #3 Summary of Learning Outcomes and Significance Levels from Chi-Square Tests ............................................................................................................................................. 111 Table 31 Learning Outcomes for Yearlong Participants: Average Percentages ....................... 112 Table 32 Individual Results by Participant across Tests. (A) = Achieved, (B) = Below, (N) = Nearing ................................................................................................................................ 114 Table 33 Significant Results on Second-Semester Survey .......................................................... 116 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Distribution of Course Components (F2F and Online) for Control Section .......... 60 Figure 2 Distribution of Course Components (F2F and Online) for Flipped Section .......... 60 Figure 3 New Content Presentation ...................................................................................... 64 Figure 4 Percentage of Learner Practice ............................................................................. 65 Figure 5 Test #1 Average Scores by Category ...................................................................... 87 Figure 6 Test #2 Students Achieving Benchmark Scores by Course Section ........................ 90 Figure 7 Test #2 Scores by Category .................................................................................... 90 Figure 8 Average Scores on Test #2 by Category Prior to Second Semester ..................... 104 Figure 9 Test #3 Students Achieving Benchmark Scores .................................................... 106 Figure 10 Test #3 Percentage Scores by Category ............................................................. 107 Figure 11 Test #3 Students Achieving Benchmark Scores after one Academic Year in Treatment Group ........................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 12 Summary of Students Achieving Benchmark Scores in First- and Second-Semester Studies .......................................................................................................................... 136 Figure 13 Summary of Students Achieving Benchmark Scores .......................................... 137 xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the effect of a flipped classroom delivery format in beginning German classes on language learning outcomes and students’ perceptions about the flipped classroom for foreign language learning when compared with students who were not exposed to the flipped classroom format. I examined the students’ language learning outcomes in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The dissertation arose out of an ongoing research agenda that focused on computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in general and student output through the use of CALL specifically. While much research within the SLA and language pedagogy communities has focused on CALL and its unique affordances for language learning (Abrams, 2003; Arnold, 2007; Blake, 2009; Perez, 2003; Schenker, 2012; Smith, Alvarez-Torre, & Zhao, 2003), the flipped classroom is a specific application of CALL tools, used to achieve the purpose of freeing up F2F learning time for more interactive activities. It is a specific type of blended learning (Strayer, 2012). The flipped classroom utilizes online videos, watched outside of F2F class time, in the place of classroom lecture. This lecture time is then replaced with more interactive activities designed to increase interaction. This unique combination of online learning with F2F class time is meant to capitalize on the strengths and weaknesses of each format to elicit the maximum gains in proficiency with the time available for instruction. This study looks at how this unique application of CALL tools affects the learners’ language learning development and the effect of the flipped classroom model on their attitudes and perceptions about the class. The flipped delivery format originated with two secondary school Chemistry teachers, 1 named Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams who, around 2007, started creating online videos to help students learn material when they had to miss class (Tucker, 2012). They realized that not only the absent students, but also those who had been in class were utilizing the videos to enhance their learning. The most famous creator of online learning videos is Sal Khan, creator of the Khan Academy. This online repository of thousands of online learning videos began with Khan himself making instructional math videos for his nephews who lived across the country (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Today the Khan Academy is used in schools nationwide in all subject matter areas and has spurred the implementation of blended learning through the use of instructional videos in a myriad of different ways. While the flipped classroom began in the STEM fields, there are aspects of language learning, which need special attention when considering the design and efficacy of the flipped model for second language acquisition. The saliency of interaction in the language learning process, which includes input and output in both the oral and written format, plays an important role in decisions about how to deliver content and how best to design F2F class time in the foreign language classroom so as to best promote language proficiency and to positively affect student attitudes towards the learning of foreign languages. In this chapter, I will outline the background for this study and the rationale for carrying out a study on the flipped classroom in foreign language learning. I will introduce the research questions and hypotheses and define the most important terms for understanding the topic. Finally I will outline the remainder of the dissertation. 1.1. Background This study grew out of a personal interest in computer-assisted language learning and the question of whether a delivery format, which was gaining popularity in other subject matter 2 areas, would yield results in the area of introductory language learning. Previous studies had shown unique advantages for the flipped format in other subject matter areas (see section 2.5) (Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000), but instruction in the second language classroom was inherently more interactive than that of other subject matter areas, utilizing communicative approaches such as question and answer, choral response, and Total Physical Response in addition to a small amount of lecture time for new content delivery. This study posed the question of whether removing interaction from the delivery of new content itself and moving it to interactive activities in the classroom instead would have a positive or negative effect on the learners’ language learning achievement. The questions behind the design of this study began by thinking about how the flipped delivery format would affect language learning in the early stages, especially given the communicative approach used in language instruction today. The teaching methods of foreign languages in the 21st Century are constantly evolving. The focus of language instruction has moved from grammar and rote memorization to using language and intercultural competencies to communicate with people around the globe (Eaton, 2010). Eaton (2010) has identified trends in 21st Century language instruction including: 1) Clear, provable demonstrations of learning; 2) Frameworks, benchmarks, and other asset-based approaches to assessment; 3) Individualized, customizable, learner-centered approaches; and 4) Using technology for language learning. The flipped classroom lends itself to addressing these trends in multiple ways. 1) The increased class time afforded by removing the lecture component can be better utilized for Integrated Performance Assessments and Project-Based Learning, providing the required provable demonstrations of learning. 2) It addresses benchmarks, such as the ACTFL World Readiness Standards, by articulating the instruction, vertically and horizontally. This is accomplished by 3 crafting the videos according to the standards and making sure that all students in the program are receiving the same language input. 3) It utilizes technology to broaden access to the language instruction outside of the F2F classroom hours. Additionally, research on second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign language teaching methodology is examining ways to understand the processes involved in adult SLA and to increase second language proficiency within the same number of contact hours of instruction. The question of how best to achieve the desired proficiency level within the least amount of time becomes significant. European students begin a mandatory study of their first foreign language (usually English) in elementary school and many pick up a second or a third foreign language in high school (Devlin, 2015). Some districts in the U.S. have implemented immersion programs at the elementary level, and those are increasingly valued by parents and communities (Rocque, Ferrin, Hite, & Randall, 2016), but an overview of U.S. state language education requirements for high school graduation found that only seven states require the study of a world language other than English as a prerequisite for high school graduation (O'Rourke, Zhou, & Rottman, 2016). The study noted some positive developments, such as the recent Seal of Biliteracy initiative. This award is given to graduating high school students who have studied and attained proficiency in two or more languages, based on the Intermediate Mid proficiency level in the American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines (O'Rourke et al., 2016). In order to remain globally competitive with countries that train their students to reach an advanced level in several foreign languages, the U.S. would need to create greater efficiency, i.e. reach the same language proficiency goals in less time. 4 One way to accomplish this greater efficiency could be hybrid and online courses. Is it possible to improve foreign language teaching and learning so that language learners’ proficiency can be increased within the same amount of contact hours? The possibility of hybrid learning, specifically with the flipped classroom format, is that instructors can learn from SLA theory and pedagogy to create a more effective curriculum, in which students learn more quickly through the use of technology. Some states have implemented stricter standards for incoming language instructors, who must now pass a proficiency test showing their language proficiency to be at a minimum of advanced low on the ACTFL scale (Pearson, Fonseca-Greber, & Foell, 2006). Hybrid instructors are looking at ways to increase proficiency through the use of technology. The flipped classroom is one of those iterations of the hybrid classroom, which shows promise in increasing proficiency. There is pedagogical promise in the idea of restructuring FL teaching through the use of technology, but the ideas of this order of instruction are not new. Before the use of technology in the language classroom, written homework assignments, field trips, study abroad, pen pals and reading were all options for instructors to extend learning outside of the classroom. All of these outlets still exist, but since the inception of educational technology (which only continues to accelerate as the technology itself becomes more powerful), instructors and learners have looked for new ways to harness that technology for language learning inside and outside of the F2F classroom. The flipped classroom is, “A new pedagogical method, which employs asynchronous video lectures and practice problems as homework, and active, group- based problem solving activities in the classroom” (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). This idea of turning around the traditional pattern of learning so that content is first learned at home and then engaged with via 5 practice activities in the classroom is also known as the inverted classroom, and this term is used interchangeably with the term flipped classroom in research and literature on the topic (Strayer, 2012). Where the traditional format of teaching included lectures during class and the practice activities done in a written format at home, the flipped classroom utilizes asynchronous online lectures and moves the practice into class time when the instructor and classmates are present and able to provide feedback and interaction. This format has the advantage of freeing up class time for more interactive activities and active participation. It also holds promise for increasing proficiency levels in learners through improved course design. While some instructors may have utilized the “learn at home, practice in class” model by assigning readings ahead of class and then discussing them during class time, the difference in the flipped classroom model is the, “regular and systematic use of interactive technologies in the learning process” (Strayer, 2012, p. 172). Strayer situates the inverted classroom within the broader movement of combining F2F and online learning in general, which is known as blended learning (Donnelly, 2010). Another focus of this study is on learner affect in relation to the flipped classroom and how it could relate to language proficiency and student retention. Affect and attitude can also be important administrative factors in student retention and program assessment. With the call for more U.S. citizens to be proficient in all languages, including the less commonly taught ones as well as strategic languages for diplomacy and national defense, the flipped classroom could help keep smaller language programs up and running through increased proficiency and greater student satisfaction, if those hypotheses were to be borne out through this study. 1.2. Definition of Terms Computer assisted language learning (CALL) is just one subset of educational technology, but 6 research on CALL makes up the basis for the design of the flipped classroom in that CALL investigates ways to improve the use of technology for language learning. Technology plays a key role in the design of the flipped classroom because the tools, which are chosen to deliver content outside of the classroom, are almost always accessed and created with the computer. Within the research literature, various elements may be categorized under CALL: mobile-assisted language learning (MALL), internet-based language learning (IBLL), online language learning (OLL), Google-assisted language learning (GALL), and technology-enhanced language learning (TELL), all of which fall under the broader category of technology-based language learning (TBLL) (Saqlain, 2012). These more narrowly defined elements of CALL look at specific types of Internet usage such as content accessed with a mobile device, or at specific implementations of instruction, such as learning based entirely online. The tools used for the creation and implementation of this flipped classroom study fall under CALL, since, at the time of the study, the tools were created with a computer and the students accessed the content with a computer. The coursework in this study could have been accessed by many types of devices and was not based solely online, but delivered in a hybrid format. Definitions for CALL include, “not shorthand for ‘the use of technology,’ but…a dynamic complex in which technology, theory, and pedagogy are inseparably interwoven” (Garrett, 2009, p. 719). In Garrett’s definition, minimal technology use such as using a course management system to post syllabi or keep records, using email or word processing to communicate or create classroom materials, or even finding authentic materials in the target language and making them available to students is not considered a part of CALL (Garrett, 2009). Instead, the integration of pedagogy, theory, and technology must happen in such a way that the technological tool is used based on sound pedagogical and language learning 7 theory to facilitate language learning in a unique way. Garrett divides CALL into three categories: 1) Tutorial – including intelligent CALL (iCALL) tutors, which can be used to instruct and give feedback through activities, 2) Engagement with authentic materials – including the ability of the instructor to add glosses or other aids for comprehension, and 3) Communication – including computer mediated communication (CMC), web 2.0, telecollaboration, and social networking. The flipped classroom, as it was conceived for this study, made use of all three of those categories. In category one (tutorial), iMovies and screencasts were made to teach new vocabulary and grammatical topics. Some online instructional sites to teach and review new vocabulary were also used. In category two (engagement with authentic materials) some online realia were used, such as websites or music videos, if they met the needs of the topic being taught. In category three (communication), the students also communicated with the instructor and each other through simulated conversations, text chat, and an online blog. This online learning took place in many different forms, which often show different advantages and disadvantages from the F2F classroom (Smith et al., 2003). Synchronous computer mediated communication (SCMC), in which communication is happening in real time, includes tools such as videoconferencing (oral) and text chat (written). Asynchronous computer mediated communication (ACMC), includes activities and tools where the interaction may be delayed and responses do not come at the same pace as a F2F conversation. These tools include email (written) and simulated online conversations (oral). Definitions of the flipped classroom have varied along with the forms in which it has been implemented. At its inception, the flipped classroom began with the idea that, “That which is traditionally done in class is now done at home, and that which is traditionally done at 8 home is now completed in class” (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). In the STEM fields, such as math, this could take the form of recorded lectures watched by students at home combined with practice activities done during class time when the instructor is present to help solve problems and answer questions (see Kahn Academy at www.kahnacademy.org). In the humanities, this might take the form of a large lecture section for the delivery of information combined with a small discussion section to promote interaction and work on problem solving. In language classrooms, some institutions have implemented this format with a large lecture course to teach explicit grammar and two smaller discussion sections per week to provide implicit exposure to forms, feedback, and interaction (Zyzik, 2008). A guiding principle of the flipped classroom is that work typically done as homework, (e.g., problem solving, essay writing) is better undertaken in class with the guidance of the instructor. Listening to lecture or watching videos is better accomplished at home. Hence the term flipped or inverted classroom (Herreid, N., 2013). As instructors adopted this idea and began flipping where certain types of learning were distributed in their curricula through the use of technology, the definition moved to contain reference to the asynchronous videos, which quickly became indispensable to its implementation. Bishop and Verleger (2013), summarized this development with their updated definition of the flipped classroom as, “A new pedagogical method, which employs asynchronous video lectures and practice problems as homework, and active, group- based problem solving activities in the classroom.” The flipped classroom used for this study takes the form of recorded videos, watched at home by the learners, and more interactive small-group activities done with the guidance of the instructor in class. The videos generally take one of three forms: 1) iMovies created by the instructor with voiceovers and subtitles and posted on YouTube. These videos are primarily 9 used to teach new vocabulary, verb forms, and commands. They are all in the target language (in this case, German). 2) Screencasts created by the instructor with Camtasia and hosted on screencast.com. These videos often center on a PowerPoint presentation and are used to either introduce a new thematic unit or explain a grammatical point. These videos are usually in the target language (German), but a few of the difficult grammatical topics are in the native language (English). 3) The third type of video refers to those already existing instructional tools found on the web and utilized for this class. These videos vary and have included short video clips of native speakers talking or non-native speaking instructors explaining a grammatical topic. The unifying factor for all of these videos is that they are all created for learners of German and are not unmediated examples of the target language. The term traditional classroom is used in this study to refer to the control group section, which was primarily taught using lecture, small group work, large group discussion, and grammar explanations in the face-to-face setting, while assigning written work from the textbook and other supplemental materials for homework. Classes were considered face-to-face when both the instructor and learners were physically present in the same physical space. Hence, in this definition virtual sessions using video-conferencing software or computer- mediated communication between instructor and student are not considered F2F elements of the course. 1.3. Statement of Problem and Purpose of the Study The problems to be addressed in this dissertation focus on the question of efficacy of the flipped classroom as a delivery model for foreign language learning. This study aims to take an unbiased and statistical look at the flipped classroom, specifically in FL learning, to contribute to a balanced analysis of whether or not it is a prudent addition to the curriculum in the introductory 10 foreign language classroom. This study will compare a group of learners in a flipped classroom environment with a control group, who do not learn via the flipped classroom, by measuring their achievement in learning the course material. The attitudes of the two groups of learners towards the use of computer-assisted language learning and the flipped classroom specifically will also be compared. The purpose of the study is to analyze the achievement and attitudes of both groups, and to identify any differences that can be attributed to the flipped learning model. Another problem to be addressed by the study is the question of lack of time and funding for foreign language learning at the post-secondary level. While many institutions are looking at hybrid and online courses as a means to serve more students with less full-time faculty and with a reduced need for physical meeting space and resources, this study is looking at whether the flipped classroom could, instead, provide greater results with the same amount of manpower and facilities. By removing the lecture element from the F2F class time and utilizing technology to expand the learners’ exposure to instruction in the target language as well as by increasing the amount of interaction and feedback received via the use of the flipped classroom, this study would like to examine whether students could attain a higher level of language proficiency with the same number of hours of instruction. 1.4. CALL and SLA The second language acquisition theory upon which the design of this study is based is the interaction approach (Long, 1990). This approach seeks to bring several individual theories together within one overarching approach and, as will be discussed in greater depth in chapter 2, is moving in the direction of being considered a fully encompassing model of SLA (Gass & Mackey, 2007). The interaction approach is relevant to the design of this study because it integrates the ideas of input, interaction, and forced output; all keystones of the 11 design of the interactive tasks made possible in the F2F portion of the flipped classroom by removing the lecture portion to an online presence. The interactive activities, on which more time was spent in the flipped sections of the study, included information gap activities, interviews, text chat, and other written and oral work, in which learners exchanged information in the target language. These activities were based on the concept that the elements of input (listening to or reading the target language), negotiation for meaning (asking for clarification, signaling understanding or a lack thereof), and forced output (being required to create with the language in a specified way) are all necessary for the learner to increase their language proficiency. Swain’s (1985) Pushed Output Theory is an integral sub-set of the interaction approach, which states that when learners attempt to create with the language in a prescribed way, they learn what it is they do not know and are able to go in search of the information to fill the gaps in their learning. Removing the passive lecture listening aspect of the language- learning classroom from F2F class time allows more interaction and forced output to take place. Input is a necessary component of SLA based on the interaction approach, and enhanced, modified, or flooded input makes up a good portion of the types of input learners encounter in a classroom learning setting. Enhanced or modified input is defined as, “Attempts to direct the learner’s attention to a specific linguistic form, usually in written text, by emphasizing the text in some way,” (Loewen & Reinders, 2011, p. 91). The videos created for this study utilized a form of enhanced input unique to video instruction in which the input available to the learner is provided simultaneously in a visual and an auditory way. The iMovies, for example, showed video of objects and concepts while the words were subtitled 12 and spoken. This multi-channel learning is hypothesized to lead to a more durable memory trace for the learner and to be more individualized for both visual and auditory learners (Guillory, 1998). The computer and students’ access to online videos through the Internet, make possible this specific model of the flipped classroom for second language instruction. This model of the flipped classroom relies on the use of online videos as well as in-class text chats, a course blog, asynchronous conversation tools, and student-produced videos to increase the amount of interaction in the target language by the learners. When creating the online videos and screencasts, as well as the in-class interactive activities, the concepts of the interactionist approach and enhanced input were heavily relied upon with the aim of increasing the learners’ language proficiency within the same number of contact hours. 1.5. Research Questions and Hypotheses This dissertation is made up of two iterations of a flipped classroom, labeled as the first- and second-semester studies, carried out over two consecutive semesters of introductory German courses. In both the studies, I investigated the language learning outcomes for German language learners in the U.S. at the introductory college level when exposed to the flipped classroom delivery format as opposed to a similar cohort of students, taught without the flipped format. I also investigated if and how these students’ perceptions about learning with the flipped model changes in relation to their exposure to the format. With this study, I hope to contribute to research on the use of technology to teach foreign languages and to pinpoint any specific areas of language proficiency, which are significantly affected by the use of the flipped classroom model. Through the use of a mixed-methods approach to the study, I hope to identify some specific learners, whose proficiency and attitudes appear to benefit or suffer 13 from exposure to this delivery format. Through the implementation of two iterations of the flipped classroom in a college-level German course in the U.S. over the course of one academic year, I hope to contribute to the body of knowledge on the flipped classroom in foreign language learning; its design, efficacy, and effects on learner perceptions. This dissertation intends to answer the following research questions: Research question #1: Does the flipped classroom delivery format result in different learning outcomes for beginning foreign language learners when compared with a control group? Research question #2: How does the flipped classroom model affect introductory language learners’ attitudes and perceptions about CALL in general and the flipped classroom specifically? The hypothesis for RQ #1 is that the language learning outcomes, for students exposed to the flipped classroom model, will be higher than that of the control group. This hypothesis is based on the interaction approach to SLA (Gass, 1997) and the implementation of the flipped classroom in order to increase the amount of interaction during the F2F class time and the students’ access to course content online. The hypothesis for RQ #2 is that the language learners’ attitudes towards, and satisfaction with, the flipped classroom model will improve positively in direct correlation with their exposure to the model. This hypothesis is based on some of the same theories supporting RQ #1, which predict that the flipped classroom will be more effective in increasing academic achievement, thereby leading to greater satisfaction for motivated students who want to increase their language proficiency as quickly as possible. The accessibility of the learning materials in the flipped format may also make the course requirements easier to complete for 14 traditional and non-traditional students alike. Finally, the visual elements of the flipped videos and the interactive F2F learning may appeal to different learning styles. 1.6. Importance and Framework of the Study One aspect of this study deals with an attempt to encourage and maintain enrollment in foreign language study, especially in LCTLs, in the U.S. through increased satisfaction with the learning process. The numbers published in the 2013 MLA, “Report on enrollments in Languages Other Than English,” show that aggregate enrollment in all languages decreased by 6.7% since 2009, the first time that such results have been found since 1995 (Goldberg, Looney, & Lusin, 2015b). One aspect of this study deals with students’ satisfaction with their own learning and their willingness to continue with the study of the language at a higher level. The current study will look at how exposure to the flipped classroom in an introductory foreign language class might affect enrollment through higher learner satisfaction with the learning process. Like most skills, learning a language requires a significant amount of time in order to become proficient. The amount of time during which the learner is exposed to the language and its instruction becomes a highly significant factor in proficiency gains. The flipped classroom utilizes this time factor by giving learners exposure to instruction outside of the normal F2F classroom. The use of videos and interactional online activities holds the possibility of extending the learner’s exposure to input and output in the target language, thereby achieving more interaction with the target language and culture more quickly than in a fully F2F environment. The accessibility factor of online learning could also allow learners to gain more interaction with authentic TL input. For non- traditional students, life-long learners, working students, geographically isolated learners, and learners with disabilities, 15 online learning might be the only exposure to quality language learning available. For this reason, the current study aims to look at proficiency level gains in learners who have been exposed to the flipped classroom delivery format. 1.7. Outline of Dissertation This dissertation will be made up of six chapters. The introduction has introduced the topic and the rationale for the dissertation study. It has also defined the necessary terms and theories needed to understand the design, methodology, and results of the study. In chapter 2, I will review previous research on the topic of the flipped classroom, computer- assisted language learning, and its use in foreign language learning. I will also look at research on second language acquisition and how it can be applied to a flipped classroom design. Chapter 3 will explain the methodology for the study including the context, participants, instruments, and data collection and analysis. Chapters 4 and 5 will cover the results of both semesters of the study. These two studies, carried out over two sequential semesters and with primarily the same participants, were two iterations of the same idea, but were carried out with enough differences to make them worthy of separate analysis. Chapter 5 will also look at the results for those students who remained in either the flipped or control section for the entire year of the study. The research questions for each study remained the same. The results were analyzed quantitatively through analysis of the language learning outcome data and perception surveys, and qualitatively through analysis of student feedback on their experiences in the class. Chapter 6 will be dedicated to summarizing the results, identifying the limitations of the study, and discussing implications for further study in the areas of SLA and language pedagogy. Finally, I will give recommendations for the design of a flipped classroom in an introductory foreign language course. 16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2. Literature Review The current literature on the flipped classroom, computer-assisted language learning, the interaction approach to SLA, blended course delivery, student opinion in learning, and design- based research have all informed this study in some way. This literature review seeks to show how the design of the study developed out of these different background areas. This chapter will also give the reader a better understanding of how each of these subtopics relates to the main concept of this study. This Literature Review will focus on the areas of second language acquisition theory, computer-assisted language learning, online instructional delivery formats, the flipped classroom, and design-based research. 2.1.Theoretical Framework The second language acquisition theory, which most fully informs this study, is the interaction approach (Gass, 1997). The origins of this theory began with Long’s interaction hypothesis, which considers interaction as the crucial component for language learning (Long, 1990). Long stated that one factor, such as motivation, comprehensible input, or an innate language acquisition device, cannot fully encompass the multiple environmental and learner variables, which govern adult SLA. Rather, “an explanatory theory of SLA that hopes to be viable will have to be interactionist” (Long, 1990, p. 661). The interaction approach takes into account a list of accepted findings in the field of SLA, which Long argued must be explained by any valid, encompassing theory of SLA. These findings include common patterns in development, differences in first language (L1) and second language (L2) interference, differences in rates of acquisition, the subordination of affective factors to linguistic and cognitive ones, the need for 17 focus on form, the need for negative feedback, interlanguage systematicity, and the U-shaped development of learners’ interlanguage (Long, 1990). The interaction approach explores how input combined with interaction, feedback, and output in the target language are all necessary in order to integrate the key aspects of SLA such as comprehended input and uptake, noticing, negotiation for meaning, and forced output (Gass, 1997). The term interaction approach was introduced by Gass and Mackey (2007) and indicates the fact that many believe the interaction hypothesis to be well on its way to becoming a fully encompassing model of SLA. Gass and Mackey (2007) suggest that the hypothesis has withstood the criticism and developments within the field of SLA and can be considered a model, “in the sense that it describes the processes involved when learners encounter input, are involved in interaction, and receive feedback and produce output” (Gass & Mackey, 2007, p. 176). The interaction approach integrates several main tenets of SLA such as the Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985), The Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985), negotiation for meaning (Long, 1996), negative feedback (Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998), and uptake (Lyster & Ranta, 1997), to argue that no one element is sufficient for FL learning to take place. Output is one of the elements included in Gass’s list of elements necessary for SLA (Gass, 2003). Izumi (2002) compared language gains by learners with and without output tasks and found that the output tasks resulted in greater proficiency gains than input tasks alone. Even the presence of enhanced input (such as glossing or highlighting) did not appear to be sufficient for the type of learning brought about through the use of output tasks (S. Izumi, 2002). Izumi hypothesized that it was exactly the forced production of language, that caused learners to pay attention to the form-meaning mapping in the TL. The difference between the decoding process of making sense of input and the encoding process of producing 18 the language pushed the learners to go from the process of intake to true uptake of forms (Gass & Mackey, 2006). Negotiation for meaning is the glue at the point where input and output come together. Interactionists are often careful to point out that this negotiation does not directly lead to learning, but primes the pump, by causing learners to go in search of new information when they realize a gap in their interlanguage skills (Gass, 1997). “When asked to negotiate meaning, L2 students are forced to notice what they do not know (i.e., the gaps in their L2 knowledge) and, subsequently, seek a resolution to their linguistic or cultural misunderstanding” (Blake, 2008, p. 20). Long and Gass both highlight the essential nature of interaction in the L2 learning process, which drives the questions in this study of whether the flipped delivery format can provide ample opportunities for this essential component in both the online and the F2F modality. While the online content delivery may not be as inherently interactive as the communicative language instruction in a F2F classroom, the removal of this instructional time from the limited class time frees up space for more interactive activities, designed with the interaction approach in mind. This is one of the most salient questions informing this study from a pedagogical standpoint; can the flipped delivery format create a better model for L2 instruction and learning by switching the time and place that the instruction takes place? 2.2. Computer-Assisted Language Learning McCarthy defines CALL as, “a broad term covering any situation in which language- learning activities are carried out on computers, and what happens at the human-machine interface” (McCarthy, 2016b, p. 8). CALL is one of the more recent sub-categories of SLA (Chambers, 2010) and concerns itself with how the use of technology for language learning both facilitates 19 and illuminates SLA. The bibliography of CALL literature includes books on CALL from as early as 1982 (Davies & Higgins, 1982) and organizations such as EUROCALL, the European Association for Computer-Assisted Language Learning, with its Journal, ReCALL; CALICO, the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium, with its own journal; and the online journals Language Learning & Technology and Computer Assisted Language Learning (Chambers, 2010). Data published by The U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics in 2014 on enrollment in distance learning courses at U.S. postsecondary institutions showed that enrollment in distance education has rapidly increased (Allen & Seaman, 2013). The 2012 Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS) Survey was the first to collect data on instruction delivered entirely through distance education, defined as, “education that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously” (Ginder & Stearns, 2012, p. 1). The survey found that 13.3% of postsecondary students were enrolled in some but not all distance education courses, while 12.5% were enrolled exclusively in distance education courses. With the rise in enrollment in online courses comes a need to constantly assess the efficacy of online learning formats and tools. According to Blake (2008), CALL has existed in three distinct generations. Others have also defined CALL’s generations in similar ways including Chapelle (2009). Blake identifies the use of web pages as the first generation, iCALL or tutorial CALL as the second, and computer mediated communication (CMC) as the third phase of CALL, in which people interact with other people via the computer. Language instructors have looked to CALL 20 for ways to increase the efficiency of the L2 language learning process and researchers have identified some distinct advantages for the use of CALL, as will be outlined in the proceeding paragraphs. In its first generation, the Internet mainly served as a portal for retrieving information, and it most certainly still serves this purpose today. For most students, a search engine does what encyclopedias previously did. The generation of students currently moving through the K-12 school system relies heavily on technology to find answers to questions, learn new skills, and simply collect data and information from various sources. In the FL classroom, students can use search engines to look up new vocabulary words, learn about geography, watch videos in the target language, or read texts primarily aimed at native speakers. These uses of technology are not so different from the use of textbooks or movies for language learning in the past, but the ubiquitous nature of the Internet allows students to access massive amounts of information, in various formats (audio, visual, etc.), at all hours of the day or night with the caveat that learners must have the hardware and software necessary to access this information. One major hurdle to integrating this type of learning into the FL classroom is a lack of access to the Internet, especially in areas of greater poverty or rural areas where Internet service may not be reliable. Studies on blended foreign language courses point to several issues with their design and implementation. Goertler et al. (2012) looked at participants in a hybrid introductory Spanish class and non-traditional learners in a non-credit German class and compared them with participants in all major language courses (German, French, and Spanish). They examined how the three populations compared in their computer literacy skills, attitudes, and computer access. One hypothesis of the study was that students enrolled in the hybrid Spanish 21 course would have higher levels of computer literacy, better attitudes towards the use of computers for language learning, and greater access to technology. This was not found to be the case. Although the students chose to enroll in a hybrid course, their levels in those three areas were not found to be significantly higher than the overall language learning population. In addition, one reason for offering hybrid courses has been to reach the non-traditional learner, who may not have a traditional student’s schedule or needs more flexibility in showing up for class. If, however, those students lack access to computers or have a low level of computer literacy, they may not be able to take advantage of the technological aspects of a hybrid course, such as accessing or uploading video and audio, computer-mediated communication, working with blogs or wikis, or navigating the Internet. It was therefore examined whether the non-traditional learners would lag behind in the types of computer literacies necessary for the true hybrid class. Contrary to the hypothesis, there was not a significant difference in the non-traditional learners’ ability to work with such literacies or access to technology in general. This first generation Internet expands the amount of target language input available to learners and also allows expanded time spent in interaction with that language (Chen Hsieh, Wu, & Marek, 2017). One element being examined in this study is whether technology can make the language learning process more efficient. While learners still only have 24 hours in a day, they may be able to more efficiently reallocate their language learning time in a way that works best for them by having greater access to it (Chun, Smith, & Kern, 2016). Instructors can now individualize instruction based on student needs. For example, students can be directed to specific content on the web or give students tasks, which require navigating that content and lead different students to disparate content. The content linked to through the Internet may be 22 more current than previously printed material (Chun et al., 2016). The advantages of learning through some online tools, such as text chat or videos may help learners progress to a higher proficiency level in the same amount of time previously needed in F2F instruction (Smith, 2012). In the flipped classroom model the instructor is moving from delivering new content and providing the bulk of the information for the learner, either through the lecture format or by assigning specifically chosen texts, to a position of designing online content and guiding the learners through activities, which allows the learner to aggregate information and learn in a more self-directed fashion. The second generation of CALL, known as intelligent CALL (iCALL) or tutorial CALL, while holding great promise, has yet to be fully realized according to the bulk of the studies in this area. The pedagogical advantages of iCALL include immediate and explicit feedback, individualized learner progress reports, and the combination of form- and meaning- based instruction (Heift, 2010). Studies on feedback in intelligent language tutorial systems (Heift, 2004; Heift & Rimrott, 2008; Nagata, 1996a; Nagata & Swisher, 1995) have shown that immediate feedback is helpful because it leads to better performance on subsequent tasks and because it raises grammatical awareness (Heift, 2010). Another benefit of iCALL is its ability to track learners and develop detailed reports on their learning. Tracking each learner’s progress is helpful from a pedagogical and programming perspective because it helps instructors monitor learners’ progress, identify areas of difficulty or misunderstanding, and tailor lessons to students’ needs. Tutorial CALL programs can also preemptively focus on form by analyzing a learner’s past errors and suggesting specific tutorials before a certain task is completed (Heift, 2010). The underlying programming for iCALL is also benefiting from the collection of a 23 corpus of learner interlanguage. By collecting examples of learners’ multitude of interlanguage variance, the system can be programmed to respond in a more effective way with explicit and individualized feedback to the learners’ various errors. The ideal iCALL system integrates the efficiency of technology with the design of language pedagogy, which is what distinguishes iCALL from other CALL programs (Colpaert, 2006). Blake (2008) argues that, while these types of parser-based tutorial systems hold great promise for individualized language learning, they are extremely labor intensive, expensive to create, and still result in many false acceptances or false alarms, which can be frustrating for the learner, leading to a high attrition rate with their usage. Despite some of the questions about its efficacy, tutorial CALL still has a solid place in the language-learning curriculum. Beginning language learners can benefit from the grammatical and syntactical feedback given by online language programs. Most textbook series now come with ready-made online exercises rather than a written workbook. These programs contain practice activities with instant feedback so that learners gain some experience with vocabulary building, word order, grammatical structures, and cultural images and comparisons. The downfall of many of these programs is in their lack of flexibility and inability to parse extended or unpredictable amounts of language production. While they may be able to comprehend and give feedback on short, pre-programmed utterances, they are easily overwhelmed with the unique qualities of a learner’s interlanguage and often give false feedback (Blake, 2008). Parser-based error analysis such as spellcheck and grammar correction often fails to take into account the different errors created by native speakers and FL learners. For example, Rimrott and Heift (2005, 2008) found that a generic spell checker failed to detect or provide a correction for 48% of the spelling mistakes made by learners of 24 German. They suspect that this is because generic spell checkers are not geared towards non- native speakers, whose misspellings can deviate from the norm in more substantial ways. However, the use of iCALL has been shown to be more effective than the use of static workbooks alone (Nagata, 1996b). Blake’s (2008) third generation of CALL consists of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and involves the use of technology for human-to-human communication rather than computer-human interaction alone. This type of communication can take several forms, some of which are unique to the use of technology and some of which are only time-honored forms made possible through the use of technological tools. CMC can be divided into two major distinctions: written or oral, and synchronous or asynchronous. These four divisions can overlap in a multitude of ways and newer mobile and online tools are making them less distinct. One can communicate in an oral, synchronous environment through the use of Skype or FaceTime. This type of oral conversation is not a new form, but technology has made it possible for individuals or groups to have “F2F” conversations from any geographical distance, through the use of the Internet. Asynchronous, oral communication is possible through recording programs, which save a person’s oral production and deliver it to be listened to at a later time. For language learning, this could include applications such as VoiceThread, or simulated conversations like Michigan State University’s Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)’s former Rich Internet Applications (Note that these tools have been discontinued since this study was conducted. Other tools, which perform similar tasks, such as Flipgrid, have evolved to fill this gap.). This type of communication was previously possible through recordings, but the addition of the Internet has allowed their access much more quickly and in geographically remote areas, making feedback 25 more useful and combining the aspects of audio and visual more easily. Written communication can also be divided into synchronous and asynchronous. Online asynchronous writing includes emails, texts, blogs, and a multitude of other applications. Some of the synchronicity of the writing apps is variable; texts and emails might be read almost synchronously or accessed hours or even days later before a response is sent. Smith (2009) found that students initiate self-repair and refer back to previous language samples when working with text chat. This is not normally found in the written transcripts, but can be seen using screen capture technology (Smith, 2009). Smith summarizes the benefits of text-based CMC for SLA from an interactionist approach by listing increased student participation, an increased quantity and heightened quality of learner output, enhanced attention to linguistic form, and an increased willingness to take risks with their second language (Smith et al., 2003). The slowed-down nature of the conversation due to the lag time of typing and turn-taking leads learners to spend extra planning time and refer back to previous language within the text (Smith, 2009). The permanence of the written text also allows learners to notice linguistic forms, corrective feedback, as well as the gaps between their own written production and that of the interlocutor (Sauro, 2009; Smith, 2009). Eye tracking devices are being used to measure learners’ noticing in SCMC (Smith, 2012). Smith used eye trackers to examine learners’ noticing of recasts in text- based SCMC between NS and NNS. Through the use of eye trackers, Smith was able to identify how learners scanned, focused on, and attended to the recasts provided by the NS. This study confirmed that learners take more planning time and refer to previous linguistic examples when utilizing text-based SCMC. Noticing is a key factor in the mediation between input and learning in the interaction 26 approach. Schmidt (1990) defines noticing as the availability of learning for verbal report. In order for input to be converted to uptake, it must first be attended to and then noticed. Uptake describes the learner’s response to feedback on either erroneous statements or queries about a linguistic item (Loewen, 2004). According to Schmidt, it is attention, which is responsible for noticing. Input that is not attended to cannot be stored in short-term memory and is therefore not available for further processing (Schmidt, 1990). Noticing is a key element for the interaction approach because learners must first notice the differences between their own interlanguage and that of the linguistic input. This noticing of the gap is thought to be a higher mental activity than just attending to the meaning of the input and could lead to a deeper linguistic analysis on the part of the learner (Smith, 2012). All of these examples of the benefits of SCMC come down to the element of time. With increased time to attend to input and to plan and create output, learners can more efficiently make use of the interaction and feedback provided with text-based CMC. All of these findings present opportunities to change the ways in which the current use of technology is affecting the learning and teaching of L2. As the use of the Internet has grown, so have the ways in which people use technology for educational purposes, and this applies equally to the learning of second or foreign languages. 2.3. Instructional Delivery Formats The growth of computer-assisted language learning has prompted instructors to integrate online tools into both classroom and at-home learning, or learning done outside the classroom. This has led to a myriad of different formats for CALL ranging from the fully online course with no F2F elements, to the hybrid course, which blends online and F2F learning, to the fully F2F course, which enhances learning with CALL tools for homework or during class time. 27 The Sloan Consortium for Online Learning (now the Online Learning Consortium) defined hybrid courses, also known as blended, as those that take place partially in an online environment and partially in a face-to-face environment (The Sloan Consortium, 2005). The fully online course could also be described as distance learning (Kraemer, 2008). The F2F course, which integrates technology, can be labeled “technology enhanced.” Each of these three forms is open to interpretation by the institution offering the course and by the instructor developing the syllabus. The history of distance learning goes back as early as the mid 1800s, well before the implementation of the computer, to correspondence courses by mail. Kraemer (2008) summarizes the five generations of distance learning as defined by Taylor (1999) and Godwin- Jones (2003) as 1) Correspondence, 2) Multimedia, 3) Telecommunication, 4) Flexible learning: Web 1.0 and 2.0, and 5) Intelligent flexible learning. These five generations build on the technologies of those preceding them to offer increasing levels of interaction, learner collaboration, and feedback. The last two generations encompass what we currently think of as CALL (computer-assisted language learning with web tools) and iCALL (intelligent CALL, involving adaptive learning systems (McCarthy, 2016a), which respond to the learner with individualized feedback) respectively. Kraemer notes that Taylor points out an important distinction between generations 4 and 5, in that generation 4 (CALL) is very similar to on- campus teaching with one instructor managing around 20 students per class even with the help of technology and online materials, while generation 5, with its intelligent feedback and automated responses, has the (as of yet unrealized) possibility to significantly reduce costs by reducing the need for infrastructure and teachers. Aside from predicting the lessening role of instructors in the language learning process, Taylor also points out that such intelligent tutoring 28 could also allow the teacher to maximize instructional time by focusing on those aspects that cannot be replaced by the computer (Kraemer, 2008). In the L2 learning community, experimentation with each form has grown and the results have pointed the way toward a more intentional use of some tools over others. The following sections will look at previous studies on online vs. F2F language learning, fully online, and hybrid instruction. The results, agreements, and disagreements within the SLA research community will be analyzed in the context of the flipped classroom and the design of the study in this dissertation. 2.3.1. Online, Blended, and Face-to-Face Learning The Online Learning Consortium 2014 survey on online learning shows that online learning continues to increase but may be nearing a plateau. The year-to-year 3.7% increase in distance learning students was the smallest increase in the 13 years that the survey has been conducted, but still exceeds the growth in overall enrollment at institutions of higher learning (Allen & Seaman, 2015). The percent of academic leaders rating the learning outcomes in online education as the same or superior to those in face- to-face instruction rose from 57.2% in 2003 to 77.0% in 2012. Since that time, the rate has reduced to 74.1% and held steady there for the past two years (Allen & Seaman, 2015). Additionally, the online learning survey shows that academic leaders are far more positive about the results of blended learning than they are for fully online. There was a distinct difference shown between online enrollment at for-profit and non-profit four-year institutions. For-profit institutions showed the first-ever drop in online enrollments, down 8.7%, while public and private non-profit institutions showed gains of 7.2% and 12.7% respectively. This trend also points the way towards a more conscientious use of blended learning in higher education, only utilizing the fully online 29 programs when the course cannot be offered in a face-to-face or blended format for reasons of geographical location or time. Studies comparing online with face-to-face learning have consistently shown that there is no significant difference in learner outcomes between the two formats (Dell, Low, & Wilker, 2010); for additional studies see (Bernard et al., 2004; Fortune, Shifflett, & Sibley, 2006; Herman & Banister, 2007; Koory, 2003). All of these studies on online learning across academic disciplines found no significant difference in their efficacy. However, in a review of the research on student learning outcomes in online vs. face-to- face course delivery, Means et al. (2009) concluded that, “in recent applications, online learning has been modestly more effective, on average, than the traditional face-to-face instruction with which it has been compared” (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009, p. 51). The discussion within the research community, both in SLA and in other disciplines, has more recently focused on determining which elements of instruction are most effective in the F2F classroom and which could hold unique affordances if moved online with specific online tools. McCarthy (2016a) points out that we may conclude, from previous research, that the more transmissive types of learning (accessing facts or new knowledge, the meaning of a word, reading a text) can be done as well if not better outside of the classroom. Researchers studying this differentiation are almost completely in agreement when recommending that the decision about what to move online should be pedagogy-led rather than technology-led; that the technology should facilitate pedagogy and not the other way around (McCarthy, 2016a). The previously mentioned 2012 study on blended learning through the Laureate English Program was of particular interest, in that it asked language instructors around the world to determine which aspects of their courses belonged in the classroom and which could 30 best be moved online (Johnson & Marsh, 2016). Johnson and Marsh reiterate that blended language learning must not simply be based on the newest technology, but be grounded in previous research, SLA, and language pedagogy in order to deliver its potential benefits. In the 2012 study the EFL teachers were asked, “How would you like to make best use of time in class?” and their answers were most often, “Getting my students to use the language communicatively” (Johnson & Marsh, 2016, p. 58). To figure out the blend that would make that possible, the teachers in the focus groups overwhelmingly, and without collaboration, decided to allocate the online content to preparing and practicing language before the classroom sessions. As one teacher stated, “The actual preparation part doesn’t need to be done by a human being.” (Johnson & Marsh, 2016, p. 59). Although the study was intended as a blended language-learning experiment, it became clear that what the teachers ended up doing was flipping their classrooms. 2.3.2. Fully Online Learning Research on asynchronous online communication for FL learning has shown it to have distinct advantages over the purely face-to-face learning environment. Some of these advantages include: flexibility, reflection, interpersonal and teamwork skill development, motivation, and collaborative learning environments, resulting in deep and meaningful understandings and communities of inquiry (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Issues with retention and proficiency gains in fully online courses have led to a reduction in their use over the past three years (Allen & Seaman, 2015). Research on fully online learning has focused on issues of pedagogy in an age of independent learning, social networking and interconnectedness as a learning model, and the results of learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). 31 MOOCs have the advantage of reaching large numbers of learners in disparate locations and connecting learners to large amounts of information for independent learning. Evolutions in technology have made networked learning more accessible and mobile. The advantages of open-sourced learning include removing geographical barriers to learning, supporting life-long learning, reducing the cost of a college education, and creating new forms of networked learning through wikis, blogs, and social media, that were not possible in the traditional face- to-face classroom (Saadatmand & Kumpulainen, 2014). Researchers generally divide MOOCs into two branches: connectivist Moocs (cMOOCs), which are more interactive and rely on learner networks to generate knowledge; and xMOOCs, which are other types of MOOCs, such as Coursera, Udacity, and edX, that follow a more traditional format of knowledge distribution through videos, tests, and quizzes (Saadatmand & Kumpulainen, 2014; Siemens, 2012). On the downside, MOOCs have had historically low retention rates and many question the act of giving any sort of certification for their completion, since it is nearly impossible to prove the identity of the learner. A 2013 survey (Kolowich, 2013) of professors, who have taught a MOOC, found that while 33,000 students were enrolled in the MOOCs in question, only 2,600 completed the course with a passing grade. The professors reported that they spent an average of 100 hours preparing for the MOOC and 8 hours per week on its maintenance while it was running. Of those professors, 72% believed that students who succeeded in their MOOC should be awarded credit from their home institution (Kolowich, 2013). This type of survey underlines the general assumption that MOOCs can serve a role in higher education by disseminating knowledge and creating networks for distance learning, but that they are not the most ideal replacement for the face-to-face classroom. 32 2.3.3. Hybrid Learning Hybrid or blended learning can be defined as being simultaneously extremely simple and inordinately complex (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). The simplicity lies in the fact that the format is a combination of online and face-to-face elements. The complexity is revealed in the multitude of ways there are to combine the two aspects. The advantage of the blended format over the fully online is its ability to foster a community of inquiry (Garrison, 1985). By combining the best practices of the F2F instructor and peer-to-peer learning, with the presentational capabilities of online audio and visual tools, teachers are searching for the best blend for language instruction. The hypothesis of the current study states that the specific version of hybrid learning used in the flipped classroom may lead to a better learning environment for FL learners, therefore this section will focus on the positive aspects of hybrid learning. To read more about the possible negatives of this delivery format, see (Blake, 2008, 2011; Goertler, Bollen, & Gaff, 2012; Winke, Goertler, & Amuzie, 2010). McCarthy (2016b) argues that blended learning also holds the capability to increase our knowledge of SLA by recording how learners use technology and creating language learner corpora for further research and learning. In arriving at the ideal blend of classroom and computer-mediated work, McCarthy proposes the use of SLA studies, classroom interaction studies, and corpus linguistics to make decisions about tasks and tools. Goertler, Bollen, and Gaff (2012) categorize eight reasons for implementing a hybrid or technology-enhanced language course. The reasons are: (1) space and financial savings for the institution; (2) improvement of the quality of instruction; (3) access to more (non- traditional) students; (4) engaging the digital natives in a learning mode they know; (5) flexibility; (6) articulation; (7) logistical issues; and (8) trends. The argument for space and financial savings is dependent on the institution and its individual needs. 33 Goertler et al. cite an increase in overall enrollment as well as in FL course enrollment as of 2007 (Furman, Goldberg, & Lusin, 2007) to argue that larger institutions are reaching a space capacity and need hybrid classes in order to better utilize their physical space and instructor resources. On the other hand, the most recent reports on FL enrollment show a downward trend from 2009-2013 (Goldberg et al., 2015b), leading some program directors to offer hybrid learning as an opportunity to reach more learners in the hopes of increasing enrollment. This speaks more to reasons (3), (4), and (5): access to non- traditional students, engaging the digital natives, and flexibility as motivating factors for smaller schools and institutions where programs are being cut rather than added. A study performed at a network of international universities in 2007 utilized CALL for just this purpose. In order to provide an opportunity for all students to reach a desired proficiency level in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) courses: B1, the threshold for the intermediate level in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), universities within the Laureate International Universities program (two from Chile, one from Spain and one from Mexico) increased their contact hours with students through a blend of class time, online time, and a social networking platform for interacting with other language learners. This was done primarily because the necessary number of contact hours required for reaching the desired proficiency level (400-500 hours) was not feasible for the average maximum F2F class time within the EFL program. Therefore the blended approach was introduced through the use of CALL in order to reach the desired proficiency level (Johnson & Marsh, 2016). Many advantages are possible within the argument of increased quality of instruction for blended language learning. The previously mentioned advantages of F2F learning, 34 including input in the TL, feedback, and forced output can be combined with the emerging advantages of online L2 learning to create an optimal learning environment. Some of these online advantages include the slowed down communication in CMC (Blake, 2008), immediate feedback from iCALL (Goertler & Winke, 2008; Heift, 2010), increased exposure to the target language and culture (Arnold, 2007; Belz, 2003), enhanced input of audiovisual multimedia, and a lowering of the affective filter through increased preparedness for in-class activities. Further research on CALL is leading to a narrowing of the focus in the blended L2 classroom to best practices within both the F2F and online environment to include only those elements, which are most effective in each modality. 2.4. Curricular Programming and Online Education From a programmatic perspective, online and hybrid courses can hold some promise. Fully online courses do not need the brick and mortar physical space that is so expensive to build and maintain, leading many to tout the cost savings of online offerings. Many also believe that fewer instructors are needed to handle a larger load of students in the fully online format, an argument that is refuted by instructors themselves, who often find the work of building and maintaining an online course more time consuming than the traditional work of teaching in the face-to-face classroom. Studies have also shown that the fully online format is not as effective as the traditional face-to-face model, especially in areas of retention and learner satisfaction (Khalil & Ebner, 2014). Hybrid courses, on the other hand, have been shown to be as effective as the face-to-face format (Bernard et al., 2004) and can take advantage of the best aspects of both formats to better utilize the time in class. The flexibility of the hybrid schedule allows students to learn at their own pace and schedule visits to campus when it is more convenient for them. This can have advantages, especially for the non-traditional student. By increasing 35 learner satisfaction with their learning experience, curriculum programmers hope to retain more students in the courses they have and reach more students, who are not currently enrolled in the courses. Studies have shown that the majority of students prefer the flipped format to the traditional format (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). With the study of foreign language in the U.S. moving more and more in the direction of encompassing only a handful of languages (primarily Spanish) (Goldberg et al., 2015b), it is within the best interest of language program directors to offer the less-commonly taught languages in a hybrid format, so that more learners can take advantage of those language courses. Technology and hybrid language courses can also aid in the articulation of curricula both vertically and horizontally. Online lessons can be standardized in a way that individual instructors in individual classrooms cannot, leading to better horizontal articulation (Goertler, 2012). Instructors at each level of the curriculum can also have access to the lessons being taught both above and below their level, leading to better vertical articulation. Paradoxically, the very videos, which can aid in articulation, can also serve to differentiate instruction for different types of learners. Videos can be watched at different paces and a various number of times depending on the student’s level and abilities. While the time and financial demands involved in creating the online content should not be underestimated, different videos can be made to help serve the needs of the slower and more advanced learners. According to the Web- based Education Commission’s 2000 report, “the creation of online courses can take anywhere from 66% to 500% more time than creating traditional courses” (Kraemer, 2008, p. 9). The upfront investment in creating this content is substantial, but does not need to be repeated year after year, leading to a flattening of the investment over time. Finally, the ability of a hybrid course design to facilitate the creation of a community 36 of inquiry, while also serving the needs of a diverse set of learners, makes it the ideal choice for program directors. While the number of contact hours needed in a face-to-face course in order to improve proficiency in SLA may become difficult to maintain and the fully online learning experience can lack the community element and instant feedback, the hybrid model can serve as the perfect balance between the two. 2.5. The Flipped Classroom In the previous section I defined blended learning as instruction that takes place partly F2F and partly online. The flipped classroom has been developed as a specific version of blended learning. Definitions of the flipped classroom vary, but can be boiled down to the concept that what is traditionally done in the classroom and what is traditionally done at home are switched or flipped (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). This definition is problematic in that classrooms and homework vary widely across institutions, instructors, and subject matter areas. A more specific description, which includes the use of technology for the delivery of new content outside of face-to-face classroom time is that of Bishop and Verleger (2013), who define the flipped classroom as, “A new pedagogical method, which employs asynchronous video lectures and practice problems as homework, and active, group-based problem solving activities in the classroom” (p. 2). The term “flipped classroom” is often attributed to Bergmann and Sams (2009), who began recording their lectures for a high school chemistry class to free up time for hands-on learning during the school day. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education discusses a study done on a math course at the University of Michigan. The study found that flipping led to greater gains in conceptual understanding. Students in the flipped courses showed gains at about twice the rate of those in traditional lectures on concept inventories. The lowest 37 performing students in the flipped classrooms had the same gains as the highest performing group in the lecture classrooms (Berrett, 2012). As technology advances and learners have an infinite amount of information available to them, it becomes futile for the instructor to maintain the position of the “font of all knowledge” as he or she moves into the role of the coach or guide, who helps students learn how to integrate all that information, perform a skill, or interact with others in the F2F environment. At Harvard, the student evaluations were generally lower on flipped courses, but the learning outcomes were better. According to Berrett (2012), this is a debate about what matters more: getting students in the door, or sending them out with a better command of the knowledge. In 2011 an entire high school in Clintondale, MI, became the first school in the country to flip all of its classes (Berman, 2015). It found that struggling students benefitted the most from flipping. According to the school, their failure rate dropped from 35% to 10% and college enrollment went from 63% to 80% (Berman, 2015). Scholarly evidence of the efficacy of the flipped classroom, however, is much scarcer. Previous research into student perception and the flipped classroom has found that general student opinion tends to be positive with a minority being opposed (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). In a 2012 study of the flipped classroom in a software engineering course, students were largely supportive of the model, with a small minority remaining opposed to its implementation (Gannod, Burge, & Helmick, 2008). In a first- year physics course, 80% of the respondents preferred the flipped format over the traditional classroom structure (Bates & Galloway, 2012). Not all studies into student perception have been positive. In a 2012 study, students in an introductory statistics class were less satisfied with the classroom structure in a flipped 38 section than in the traditional class, and in a first year algebra course, students preferred a traditional lecture format to the flipped format (Strayer, 2012) The flipped classroom has been explored as a way to improve student outcomes, differentiate instruction, create a more student-centered classroom, and improve student retention, especially in less-commonly taught subjects. Fulton (2012) hypothesized the following among the advantages of the flipped classroom: (1) students move at their own pace; (2) doing “homework” in class gives teachers better insight into student difficulties and learning styles; (3) teachers can more easily customize and update the curriculum and provide it to students 24/7; (4) classroom time can be used more effectively and creatively; (5) teachers using the method report seeing increased levels of student achievement, interest, and engagement; (6) learning theory supports the new approaches; and (7) the use of technology is flexible and appropriate for “21st century learning.” Possible negatives for the flipped classroom include: (1) Students may initially be resistant to doing the individual learning ahead of time and come to class unprepared, i.e. not watch the videos. This can be remedied by giving quizzes either online or in class or by giving assignments which reference information only obtainable in the videos. (2) The videos must be carefully tailored to the needs of the students and the curriculum. Herried and Schiller (2013) pointed out that instructors have two options: either find an existing online video, which may not be appropriately tailored, or create their own video, which may be of marginal quality and takes extensive time and technology. A survey of the research on the flipped classroom by Bishop and Verleger (2013) found that most studies explored student perceptions and used single group study design. Analysis of the results on student perceptions found that while students preferred face-to-face lectures to 39 video lectures, they also preferred interactive group activities to lectures of either kind. This summary of the research found that very little work had been done examining student outcomes. The authors recommended more investigation of learning outcomes using controlled experimental or quasi-experimental designs. They also recommended that researchers carefully consider the theoretical framework used to design the interactive, in-class activities (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Video podcasts, an integral part of many flipped classrooms, have been shown to have a positive effect on student attitudes, behavior, and performance (Herreid & Schiller, 2013). Studies have also shown that video lectures slightly outperform live lectures, while interactive online videos garner the best results (Cohen, Ebeling, & Kulik, 1981). In a chemistry course redesign, a flipped section watched videos outside of class and completed more hands-on activities during class time. When compared with the regular lecture sections, the RI (flipped) students outperformed the standard lecture students by scoring higher on the final exam and showing a higher percentage of students receiving a grade of C or higher in the class (Ruddick, 2012). When surveyed on their opinions, the students in the flipped section also expressed more interest in chemistry and felt less intimidated by the subject in addition to finding the online videos and PowerPoints helpful (Ruddick, 2012). Studies on student opinions have led instructors to recommend the inclusion of “accountability aspects” into the videos themselves. Items such as online quizzes or embedded assignments hold students accountable for having watched the video and let the instructor know how well the learners have comprehended the material in that video. In the area of foreign language study, research trends have been similar to those in other disciplines, primarily tracking student attitudes but also looking at outcomes in some 40 cases. A report on a Spanish classes at the University of Delaware (Guidry, Cubillos, & Pusecker, 2013) comparing three traditional sections with two hybrid sections began by stating that, “Unfortunately, the information available on the comparative pedagogical advantage of this online learning environment versus the traditional face-to-face model is very limited,” and, “Despite the recent popularity of ‘flipped classes,’ there is little high-quality research that specifically addresses college- level language coursework taught in a hybrid format.” (Guidry et al., 2013, p. 4). The Delaware study found that the students in the hybrid sections performed as well as those in the traditional section, contributing to the “no significant difference” phenomenon, which has been found in the majority of studies on hybrid courses. These studies have contributed to the growth of hybrid courses at the post-secondary level, since outcomes remain similar and cost savings can be found by utilizing fewer resources. 2.6. Learner Affect Learner affect or a learner’s affective filter is also an area that has been explored in the SLA literature. Krashen hypothesized that emotional variables, such as anxiety, self-confidence, motivation, and stress could prevent learning in the L2 learning process by blocking input from being attended to in a way that would lead to uptake and processing. Krashen hypothesized that when this filter was low it could be facilitative to SLA, but not causal. The term affect has been used to cover a wide array of subjects within language learning including motivation (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Shoaib & Dörnyei, 2004), attitudes and beliefs (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993), self-referential judgments (deAndres, 1999), and various personality traits. In general psychology, affect is most closely related with emotion (Brown & White, 2010), and Scovel (2001) notes that, while emotion has not received as much attention in SLA research, ironically emotion could end up being the most influential force in 41 language acquisition. Brown and White (2010) encourage further research on the issues of learner engagement and the contributions of emotions to engagement with learning opportunities in second language acquisition research. The current study looks at the issue of learner affect in examining the learners’ attitudes and motivations towards learning German through the flipped classroom when compared with the control group, who learned through the lecture format. Individual differences in L2 learners have been analyzed for patterns, which might predict a common set of beneficial personality traits or emotions for language learning, without much success. Motivation would seem an intuitively good predictor for success in L2 learning, but motivation alone has not been shown to act in affecting learning. Dörnyei (2005) suggests that motivation involves the desire for people to reduce the discrepancy between their actual and ideal selves. In L2 learning this might involve moving along the continuum of the NNS towards more NS-like behaviors. However, other areas of affect, such as anxiety, cognitive ability, or the learning environment and experience can have an equal impact on the learner’s overall success in language acquisition. Scherer (2001) identified a stimulus appraisal approach to understanding affect and motivation in SLA. According to Scherer, learners assess stimuli in their environment by making appraisals across 5 categories: 1) Is the situation novel? 2) Is it pleasant? 3) Does it contribute to attaining one’s needs or goals? 4) Does one have the coping potential to deal with the situation? 5) How will the situation affect one’s self and social image? These five areas can be especially important in language learning since interactionists believe that input and output play such a large role in the process. The interdependence of input, feedback, and forced output all rely on the learner playing along in the learning process by participating in 42 classroom activities, thereby eliciting more input, gaining more feedback, and moving to the encoding process of creating with the language through written and oral output. Each element of the stimulus appraisal approach could potentially lead to a disruption in SLA because of emotional and affective factors. For example, the target language and culture are novel environments for most learners, and those for whom novel experiences create anxiety or rejection, could reject the new paradigm as too strange or weird. The elements in the stimulus appraisal approach can all be affected by the flipped delivery format, for example by contributing to helping the students attain their language learning goals more independently, making the learning process more pleasant, and allowing the learner to tackle the novel situation more successfully with preparation and greater access to the learning materials. 2.7. Design Based Research The current study falls into the category of Design Based Research (DBR) in that it is designed as an intervention into teaching practice in a real, authentic setting with an aim to producing design principles with a broad and practical value (Levy, 2013). Design Based Research is an iterative methodology, which pairs instructional design with learning theory (Hermes, Bang, & Marin, 2012). DBR seeks to counter the problem that decontextualized research often fails to influence teaching practice (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). CALL and DBR are two areas of research that complement each other, because the technology can often easily be adjusted throughout the iterative research process and the results can be logged so that they can be examined retroactively, which is also a hallmark of DBR (Larsen-Freeman, 2013). The combination of CALL and DBR is a relatively new one, which has only recently gained ground in the research community. The combination of DBR and CALL has sought to obtain three important outcomes; effective interventions, theoretical understandings/design principles, and 43 professional development (Rodriguez, 2013). The current study also falls under the category of Design Based Research because the design of the study was to alter one aspect of the instruction and then see what happened to the students’ proficiency and perceptions. It was not based on attempting to reach a prescribed result, but in trying out a change in one part of the complex whole of CALL and language pedagogy. The current study also sought out a set of design principles based on the results of two iterations of the flipped classroom study, when looking retroactively at the data collected and the survey results of the participants’ opinions. These design principles were formulated for the specific environment of the small, liberal arts college where the courses were taught, as well as for a more general audience, who could adapt them to other learning environments. DBR relies on the interaction between theory, pedagogy, and a designed artifact to guide its interventions (Rodriguez, 2013). The current study falls under the category of DBR because it is intervening in an educational setting based on SLA theory and the pedagogy of foreign language instruction. One previous study utilizing DBR in CALL was Yutdhana (2005), who developed a teacher-training model for improving how teachers use the Internet to teach English as a Second Language (ESL). Echevarria, Short, and Powers (2006) utilized DBR when developing their sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP). “They (the researchers) acknowledged the complexity of using DBR in the ‘messy settings’ that are actual classrooms, but maintained that it is exactly this type of long-term design research that is required to enable the development of high-quality instruction for English language learners” (Reeves & McKenney, 2013, p. 14). Lund (2008) examined the collective cognition enabled by Wikis in Norwegian secondary school EFL learners. Lund utilized DBR and was successful in utilizing the three hallmark outcomes of DBR: effective interventions, theoretical 44 understandings/design principles, and professional development (Rodriguez, 2013). The intervention produced a more effective use of a new technology while also refining the understanding of how the sociogenetic aspects of collective language production can enhance second language learning. Finally, the study addressed ways to provide better professional development opportunities for EFL teachers interested in CALL (Reeves & McKenney, 2013). Hung (2011) developed digital video technology to support EFL learners in a multiyear DBR project. As a result, Hung created six major design principles based on the study and its results as well as its underlying theoretical framework (Reeves & McKenney, 2013). The conclusions of many of these studies recommended the continued use of DBR to ground current and new design principles in language learning theory and to make educational research more “socially responsible” (Hung, 2011). Taking all of the aforementioned research into account, the current study looks to situate the flipped delivery format for introductory foreign language learning into the context of: the flipped classroom across subject matter areas, CALL, the interactionist approach to SLA, issues of learner affect, instructional delivery format, and design-based research. Previous studies have looked at the flipped classroom in isolation by analyzing student proficiency or learner attitudes by measuring outcomes and surveying student opinion. The current study addresses a lack of control groups used in these previous studies by comparing learners in both the flipped and non- flipped modality across the areas of language learning and student opinion. It is situated in the interactionist approach to SLA in that it attempts to increase the amount of interaction available to the learner during the F2F class time without sacrificing time for the learning of new content. CALL informs how the online materials were created and utilized by the learners, and Design Based Research informs the real-world application of the study within the classroom context as 45 it was adjusted from one semester to the next. In the following section, I will outline the methodology used to create and carry out the study, including the context, participants, materials, procedure, course design, data collection and analysis. 46 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3. Methodology In this chapter I will outline the methodology of my mixed-methods quasi-experimental research study on the effectiveness of a flipped delivery format. This dissertation is based on a yearlong study consisting of two one-semester studies carried out in two consecutive semesters. The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of the flipped classroom as a content delivery model on students’ language learning in reading, writing, listening, and speaking, as well as their attitudes and perceptions about the flipped classroom as a delivery model. By definition, the flipped classroom takes what is traditionally done in class and that, which is traditionally done at home, and flips them, meaning that often new content is learned outside the classroom and the practice of that content takes place during F2F meetings. In this study, new content in the flipped sections was delivered at home via online tools such as videos, screencasts, and other multimedia tools while the classroom time was used for interaction and group activities. In the control group, new content was delivered via instructor lecture in a F2F setting, while homework consisted of written activities from the textbook. Differences between trends in proficiency across the categories of reading, writing, listening, and speaking between the two sections were measured. Changes in students’ attitudes about computer-assisted language learning and the flipped classroom as a delivery format for beginning the study of a new language were also analyzed. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected, requiring a mixed-methods approach to the data analysis. In this methodology section I will outline the context, participants, instruments, and data analysis procedures used for the study. 47 3.1. Context This dissertation examines a study comparing two sections of the same first- and second- semester German courses at a small, liberal arts college in the Midwest of The United States during the 2013-2014 academic year. Both sections of the courses were meant for beginning language students and covered the same material, utilizing the same curriculum, yet delivered in two different formats. The treatment (flipped) section was taught by the researcher and the control section was taught by an experienced colleague. The sections were chosen because of their introductory nature, as the study intended to look at the effect of the flipped classroom on introductory language learners, who are generally more uniform in their proficiency levels, having started their learning at the same beginning point. The difference in the two sections consisted of how new content material was delivered to the students, as well as when and how the language practice work was completed. Students in the flipped section watched videos on new content before coming to class approximately 50% of the time and then completed interactive activities during face-to-face class time. Students in the control group received lectures during face-to-face class time on the same content as the videos. They then completed written homework assignments outside of class time. The students were required to have Internet access and a laptop computer at this campus, and the instructors both had experience with the use of technology for language instruction. A smaller study, which I completed in 2012 (Hojnacki, 2015), looked at how learners’ oral output could be increased through the use of online tools. While that study found that students spoke more and utilized the time spoken in a more democratic fashion when using online tools, it did not look at proficiency levels resulting from this expanded oral output. With this previous study, I found that the students responded well to the use of technology and that 48 the infrastructure in this context was adequate to implement a larger scale study on the use of CALL by looking at the efficacy of technology use in a different aspect of language teaching. This dissertation aims to evaluate the benefits and challenges of the flipped delivery format in comparison with the traditional delivery format in terms of language learning and student attitudes. 3.2. Participants The participants in this study consisted of 37 undergraduate college students in four different sections within two introductory German courses. For the first-semester study, two sections of first semester German at a small Midwestern U.S. college were chosen. One was designated as flipped (n=14) and the other as the control group (n=22). The second semester study took place in the following semester and looked at two second semester German courses at the same college, one flipped (n=11) and one control (n=22). The participants for this study self-selected their section with no prior knowledge of the difference in teaching formats. The participants in this study were a mixture of true beginners along with those who had some high school German experience but did not test out of any of the college levels. The initial language test (Test #1) showed no significant difference between the two sections in language proficiency before the treatment was administered. A chi-square test was performed and no significant relationship was found between course section and performance on Test #1, X2 (1, N = 36) = 1.35, p = .246. The students were between the ages of 18 and 24, a mixture of male and female (see Table 3), and all were full-time undergraduate students. In the first semester, the control group consisted of 68% female and 32% male learners. This distribution stayed similar in the second semester with a 64% female and 36% male make-up. The flipped section had more male than female students in both semesters with 43% female/57% male in the first semester and 40% 49 female/60% male in the second. In the cohort of learners who remained in one section for the duration of the study, the flipped section contained 60% male and 40% female participants, while the control group contained 33% male and 67% female. The college has a two-semester language requirement for all students, so some students were there to complete this requirement and others would go on to major or minor in German in the future. This information was not collected from the students prior to the study, but they were tracked after the study to see how many continued with the study of the language. The tracking determined that more students from the control group went on to major or minor in German in the future. It is not apparent from the data whether this was the case prior to, or as a result of, the treatment. The college required that students have the use of a personal computer and provided Internet access to all students on campus. No further information was elicited about their preparedness for, or access to, online learning prior to the pilot study. The participants for this study are shown in Table 1 below. The learner IDs show the unique ID number assigned to each participant as well as the key to their section format each semester and their gender. For example, Learner #01 was in the control group both semesters and is female: CC(F). Learner #23 was in the flipped group first semester and the control group second semester and is female: FC(F). These identifiers will also be used to report tests scores and survey results for individual participants in later chapters. 50 Table 1 Study Participants (N=37) Format Instructor A Male Female Learner ID* Semester 1 Section 1 Control 7 (32%) 15 (68%) #01 CC(F) #02 CC(F) #03 CC(M) #04 CC(M) #05 CC(M) #06 CC(F) #07 CC(F) #08 CØ(M) #09 CC(F) #10 CC(F) #11 CC(F) #12 CC(F) #13 CC(F) #14 CØ(M) #15 CØ(M) #16 CC(F) #17 CC(M) #18 CØ(F) #19 CC(M) #20 CC(F) #21 CC(M) #22 CC(F) 22 Semester 2 Section 1 Flipped B 6 (55%) 5 (46%) #24 FF(M) #25 FF(F) #26 FF(F) #27 FF(F) #28 FF(F) #29 FF(M) #30 ØF(F) #31 FF(M) #32 FF(M) #33 FF(M) #36 FF(M) Semester 1 Section 2 Flipped B 8 (57%) 6 (43%) #23 FC(F) #24 FF(M) #25 FF(F) #26 FF(F) #27 FF(F) #28 FF(F) #29 FF(M) #31 FF(M) #32 FF(M) #33 FF(M) #34 FC(M) #35 FC(M) #36 FF(M) #37 FC(F) Yearlong Semester 2 Group 1 Section 2 Flipped Control B A 6 (60%) 8 (36%) 4 (40%) 14 (64%) #24 FF(M) #01 CC(F) #25 FF(F) #23 FC(F) #02 CC(F) #26 FF(F) #03 CC(M) #27 FF(F) #04 CC(M) #28 FF(F) #05 CC(M) #29 FF(M) #06 CC(M) #31 FF(M) #07 CC(F) #32 FF(M) #33 FF(M) #09 CC(F) #10 CC(F) #36 FF(M) #11 CC(F) #12 CC(F) #13 CC(F) #16 CC(F) #17 CC(M) #34 FC(M) #19 CC(M) #35 FC(M) #20 CC(F) #21 CC(M) #37 FC(F) #22 CC(F) 22 10 Yearl ong Group Control 2 A 6 (33%) 12 (67%) #01 CC(F) #02 CC(F) #03 CC(M) #04 CC(M) #05 CC(M) #06 CC(F) #07 CC(F) #09 CC(F) #10 CC(F) #11 CC(F) #12 CC(F) #13 CC(F) #16 CC(F) #17 CC(M) #19 CC(M) #20 CC(F) #21 CC(M) #22 CC(F) 18 Total *C=Control, F=Flipped, Ø = Not enrolled, (F)=Female, (M)=Male 14 11 After the initial semester, some students continued in the same format, whereas others switched formats, which resulted in some students being able to self-select which learning condition they would participate in. Some students left the courses completely and one student joined the study for the second semester, resulting in different participants for each semester of the study. Follow-up interviews with the students who switched sections showed that all students who switched reported doing so because of scheduling reasons and not because of a preference for one learning format over the other. The first semester started with 22 in the control group and 14 in the flipped. At the end of the first semester, four students dropped out of 51 the control group and four students switched from the flipped to the control group. One student joined the flipped section at the beginning of the second semester. For the yearlong study, ten students participated in the flipped group and 18 in the control group. The students who switched from the flipped to the control group indicated that they had done so for scheduling reasons. The students who dropped out of the control group at the semester were not contacted about their motivation. When discussing data from an individual semester, I will refer to the flipped group (i.e., the experimental group) and the control group. When discussing the data from the entire year, I will refer to the yearlong participants, who stayed in one treatment group for the entire year. The data analysis will show results for each study independently and then for the yearlong participants. 3.2.1. Instructors Instructor A taught the control section. She was a Professor in her 40’s at the college where the data was collected. Instructor A had a Ph.D. in German Studies from a large research university with a focus on Literary Studies and 15 years of teaching experience at the college level. She was the only full-time German Professor at the college and teaches both language and literature courses. Instructor A was a native speaker of German, who had lived in the United States for 25 years and had native- speaker proficiency in English. She had taught the first- and second-semester German courses at the college every year since she began teaching there. Instructor B, who is the researcher and also in her 40’s, taught the flipped section. She was a female doctoral candidate at the same large, research university where Instructor A received her Ph.D. Her role at the college where the data was collected was as an Adjunct Assistant Professor of German. She was a native English speaker with near-native language proficiency in German. She had seven years of German teaching experience at the high school 52 level and five years experience at the college level before this study. She had taught at the first-, second-, and third-year level at the college. In the semester before the study took place, she rewrote the curriculum for the first- and second-semester German courses including the adoption of a new textbook, new assessment instruments, and new achievement goals. Her focus area of teaching and research was CALL, and foreign language teaching methodology. Instructor A normally teaches 4-5 courses per semester and advises all students who declare a German major or minor. Instructor B normally teaches 2 courses per semester and does not advise students at the college. Instructor A is a high profile and popular professor on campus, who is well-known and well-respected among faculty and students alike. Traditionally, students who expressed an interest in studying German upon arriving at the college were placed in the class of Instructor A if their schedule allowed. Instructor B, in her role as part-time adjunct, and part-time graduate student, was not as well-known on campus and often did not have as many German majors and minors in her first-year courses. A look at the numbers of German majors and minors prior to the dissertation study showed that out of 28 students, only four had been in Instructor B’s first-year classes previously. This will be noteworthy in the student retention rates reported for this study in chapters 4 and 5. The initial intent was for one of the professors to teach both sections so as to eliminate the effect of instructor differences on the results of the study. This became impossible because of scheduling issues, one professor’s unfamiliarity with the flipped format, and requirements at the college for one tenured professor to teach at least one section at every level of the curriculum. The instructors worked together to plan the curriculum and design lesson plans. During the study, they met regularly to discuss their teaching styles and content for each class. In order to account for the differences in teaching styles between the two instructors, an initial 53 pilot study was conducted, prior to the data collection for this study, in which the amount of target language usage and the teacher-student talk ratio in two class periods was measured for each instructor. The results showed that Instructor A used the target language (TL) 100% of the time, while Instructor B used the TL 92% of the time, both in-line with professional expectations of target language use. Teacher-student talk ratios between the two instructors were also comparable with Instructor A at 52% - 48% teacher/student talk, and Instructor B at 48% - 52% teacher/student talk. Instructor A used slightly more of the target language and had a slightly higher teacher to student talk ratio, meaning that she spoke 52% of class time and students spoke 48% of the time. Instructor B used the TL 92% of class time and spoke 48% of the time while her students spoke 52% of the time. This preliminary pilot study will be discussed in more detail in the limitations section of chapter 6. Results of that pilot study are shown in Table 3 below. Table 2 Average Breakdown of Class Time in Pilot Study Instructor A Instructor B Individual student Oral Production Choral response Student read-aloud Student group work Total student oral Instructor productio TL usage n 36 sec 3%* 1:05 min 6% 9:22 min 49% 7:54 min 42% 18:58 min 48% 20:42 min 100% 90 sec 7% 3 sec 0.2% 11:20 min 48% 10:20 min 45% 23:00 min 52% 21:16 min 92% *Percentages show percent of total class time in an approximately 50-minute class as some class ran a bit longer or shorter. 54 Table 3 Teacher Talk vs. Student Talk and Target Language Usage Teacher Talk Student Talk TL Usage Instructor A 52% Instructor B 48% 48% 52% 100% 92% 3.3. Procedure This longitudinal study was conducted over the course of one academic year, though as mentioned in the previous section, eight of the participants either dropped out of the study or switched delivery formats after one semester. The study followed the learning outcomes and learner perceptions of 37 students as they learned first-year German either through the established instructional delivery format or through the flipped classroom format. For the purposes of this study, the face-to-face class sessions of both sections were recorded for time spent on four key tasks: lecture, large-group discussion, small- group work, and dedicated grammar explanation. Lecture was defined as time spent by the instructor on content delivery that was not specifically grammar based, allowing the collection of data on grammar-specific instruction separately. This primarily included vocabulary, culture, and thematic introductions to topics. Large-group discussion included whole-class question and answer sessions, which were used to model sentence structure and vocabulary and included individualized responses from one student at a time. Some of these discussions were on topics of cultural differences and took place in the native language. All other large-group work was done in the target language. Small-group work took the form of assigned tasks to be completed in pairs or small groups. These tasks were designed to be communicative and elicit the interactive aspects of input, negotiation, and forced output from the learners. These activities allowed for an egalitarian division of time, providing all students with practice time 55 simultaneously. Finally, the grammar portion of class time addressed specific grammar points of the target language and gave students time to practice those skills in isolation. The following data were collected: language proficiency levels at the beginning of the study, and learning outcomes and perception surveys at the end of each semester. Table 4 below shows the timeline for the study. Table 4 Timeline for Assessment and Implementation of the Study Semester 1 Week 1 Semester 1 15 weeks Semester 1 Week 15 Semester 2 15 weeks Semester 2 Week 30 Phase Assessment Implementation Assessment Implementation Assessment Instrument Test #1 Purpose Establish comparability of language levels Control or flipped teaching Teach first semester German language skills Test #2 Survey #1 Establish learning outcomes and student perceptions Control or flipped teaching Teach second semester German language skills Test #3 Survey #2 Establish learning outcomes and student perceptions In order to ensure the comparability of the language proficiency of the groups prior to treatment, a placement test was given to the students in the beginning of the first semester. During that first semester, both sections followed the same curriculum, preparing the students for the same goals using the same course materials. The control group continued in the same format as in previous years, whereas the experimental group experienced the flipped delivery format. Each section met four days a week F2F for 50 minutes per meeting over the 15-week semester. Students were expected to spend one hour outside of class on coursework for each hour of F2F class time. In the control group, new material was delivered via lecture during the face-to- face sessions. These lectures were delivered primarily in the target language and implemented 56 choral response, question and answer, Total Physical Response (Asher, 1969) picture stories, and group reading of texts. After the delivery of new content, interactive activities allowed for learner practice time. These activities consisted of information gap, interviews, small group discussions, or task-based activities to practice the content, which had been delivered via lecture. The homework, which was completed outside of class after the delivery of new content, consisted of written exercises assigned from the textbook and some online activities, created by the instructor. In the experimental group, new content was delivered via online videos 2-3 times per week, which were watched by the students before coming to class. Ideally, a fully flipped classroom would involve watching videos before coming to each F2F session, however, this study consisted of an approximate half-flip, in which videos were presented for about 50% of the F2F meetings. On the days that no videos were available, a lecture format was used during class in the flipped section as well. This partial flip was due to time constraints on the planning and creation of the videos. As this was the first iteration of the flipped classroom carried out at this institution, all of the online materials had to be created, hosted, and maintained by the instructor before the class could be implemented. This led to the decision to flip 50% and observe the results. Based on the results, recommendations for adjusting the amount of videos will be made in Chapter 6. During the F2F class sessions, students in the flipped section reviewed short assignments, which had been completed while watching the online videos. The rest of the hour was then spent on the same interactive activities completed by the control group, but with more time to commit to them since the lecture component had been moved online. The homework for the flipped cohort was to watch the next instructional video and complete its embedded assignment, or to complete another online assignment based on that 57 day’s work. Both instructors kept a journal to determine how much time was spent on each type of activity during the respective F2F class time. The results of that journal are listed in Table 5. Table 5 Average F2F Class Time Spent on Activities (in Minutes) Lecture Small group work Whole class discussion or group work Grammar instruction Total Instructor A Control Group Instructor B Flipped Group 14.4 10.3 13.9 5.6 44.2 8.5 14.1 17.0 5.7 45.3 The averages found in the instructor journals bear out the expectations for F2F course time in the study. In the control group, on average six extra minutes per class were spent on lecture. In the experimental group, those extra minutes were taken up with small and large group activities. The amount of time spent on grammar activities was the same. The primary differences between the two delivery formats were threefold: 1) The flipped section allowed for more interactive work during F2F meetings. 2) In the flipped section, approximately 50% of new content was delivered through an online, audiovisual format while in the control section, new content was delivered via lecture in a F2F classroom setting. 3) In the flipped section, learners were required to work independently with new material before working with the instructor and other students in the F2F classroom, while in the control section, learners encountered new material in class and practiced independently outside of class. Table 6 shows the distribution of instructional and practice time as well as when these elements were completed for each section. This table illustrates the instructional 58 model for one unit of instruction. As the course was taught, the before and after time periods would overlap and students in both sections would be completing coursework both before and after the F2F class. The time spent in class is taken from the instructor journals. The time spent outside of class is what was expected of the students. Data on actual student time outside of class was not collected. Table 6 Distribution of Course Components by Section After Class 30 min: Complete practice homework assignments Individual Practice 30 min: Complete projects and performance assessments Individual Practice 30 min: Complete projects and performance assessments Individual Practice Control Group Before Class* F2F Class Time 33% lecture Presentation 55% group work Peer and Group Interaction 13% grammar Presentation Flipped Group 30 min: Watch video and complete embedded assignment 50 % Presentation 50% Individual Practice 19% lecture Presentation 69% group work Peer and Group Interaction 13% grammar Presentation * All times in this chart are suggested estimates that vary from student to student 59 Figure 1 Distribution of Course Components (F2F and Online) for Control Section Figure 2 Distribution of Course Components (F2F and Online) for Flipped Section Table 6 and Figures 1 and 2 show how the three course components, Presentation, Peer and Group Interaction, and Individual Practice, were distributed within the control section and the flipped section. The first difference, visible in Table 6, is that the flipped learners were exposed to the material before, during, and after the F2F class session while the control group learners first saw new material during the F2F class and then practiced afterwards. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the differences in amount of time spent on the different course components. 60 When combining F2F and at-home time, it is clear that the students in the control section spent more time on practice than any other course component. Compared with the control group, it is evident that the flipped group spent their time more equally between the three course components. They spent less time on practice but more on learning and interaction. It should be pointed out that the out of class time components are all suggested estimates and cannot be corroborated with collected data. Another difference visible in Table 6 is the difference in time spent on interactive activities in the F2F class. This is a vital component of the flipped classroom format. The distribution of course components in the flipped classroom is meant to increase the amount of interaction available during the F2F class time. The numbers from the teacher show that this actually happened in the classroom. The addition of watching the videos before class also had the effect of increasing the amount of presentation available to the students and decreasing the amount of individual practice time. While the control group students had more individual practice time, they had less time to practice with peers and in groups. The hypothesis behind the added benefit of the flipped classroom is that interaction is a key component of the language learning process (Gass, 1997). The data in Table 6 and Figures 1 and 2 show that by removing the lectures from the F2F class time, more interaction was added to the instructional format. This added practice time with input, interaction, and output serves the purpose of rehearsal, which increases students’ automaticity (Segalowitz, 2003). Greater automaticity has been shown to free up the learner’s working memory so that they can commit that working memory to noticing new forms (Schmidt, 1992). The formatting of the flipped course was also able to provide more presentation of new material, in this case primarily new vocabulary. This presentation was also 61 partially in an online, recorded format, so that students could refer back to it when needed. All new material presented in the control section was done in the F2F format, which is not recorded and is not available to the learner in any format outside of class. Students in the F2F delivery format who miss class or do not take notes do not have recourse to that material after each class is complete. All of these factors predict that the flipped classroom should lead to greater learning outcomes for the introductory language learner. 3.4. Materials The materials section will discuss which tasks and interventions were designed and implemented to carry out the flipped classroom. The tools used to complete each task will also be discussed for clarification purposes and for those interested in the pedagogical design of the flipped classroom in an introductory foreign language course. 3.4.1. Course Design To proceed with the study, the curriculum for the two sections was aligned so that the same material would be delivered over the course of the semester. The content followed the proficiency standards set forth in the ACTFL guidelines (The National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015) and utilized the textbook Kontakte (Tschirner, Nikolai, & Terrell, 2013) along with supplementary materials for several of the units (see syllabi in appendix A). Both courses were taught with a Communicative Approach. The curricula of the two sections contained the same content and goals for learner outcomes in language proficiency and intercultural competence. The syllabus was based on the ACTFL World Readiness Standards (i.e., the 5 Cs of Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities). In addition to the Standards, the course was also written from the standpoint of Backward Course Design 62 (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This curricular model takes specific skills that the students should be able to perform and works backwards to deliver content, which will best enable them to perform those skills. The assessments (aside from the pre- and post- tests for the purposes of the study) were designed as task-based performance assessments (Ellis, 2003). The learners were given specific tasks at the beginning of each unit and had to perform them at the end of the unit, using the linguistic and cultural skills they had learned throughout the unit. For example, the goal of the first unit was for students to be able to introduce themselves and give basic facts about themselves. They were taught personal pronouns, conjugating the verbs to have, to be, and to come from, the numbers 1-20, and a basic vocabulary list. At the end of the unit, they gave short presentations about themselves including a greeting, their names, their ages, where they come from, and a good-bye. The performance skills were practiced and performed during the F2F class time. Each section of the study was given an identical assignment sheet for each chapter with the online assignments and the assessment goals for each chapter. The assignment sheet outlined the performance skills expected at the end of each unit within the categories of reading, writing, listening, and speaking and broke those skills down into interpretive, communicative, and performative abilities. For example, the performance tasks in Unit One included: Interpretive: • Respond to commands from the instructor and fellow classmates (L, S) • Read a description of an outfit and draw the outfit (R) • Answer questions about a videotaped introduction scene (L, W) Communicative: • Have a conversation introducing yourself, asking and answering questions about name and age (L, S) 63 • Give commands to the class (S) Performative: • Count to 20 orally (S) • Introduce yourself (S, W) The presentation of new content in the control group was done through lecture in the F2F classroom. In the experimental/flipped section new content was presented 50% of the time through online videos and 50% through F2F lecture. The following chart shows the differences between new content delivery and learner practice format in both sections. Figure 3 shows the percentage of new content presentation in each learning format. Figure 4 shows the percentages of learner practice time in each format. Figure 3 New Content Presentation 64 Figure 4 Percentage of Learner Practice Figure 3 shows that the flipped section received presentations of new content in two different ways: online videos and F2F lectures, while the control section was presented with new content in only one way: F2F lectures. Figure 4 shows that individual and group practice took place in three different formats: interactive F2F activities, written homework assignments, or practice via CALL tools such as asynchronous conversations, VoiceThread, blog posts, and text chats. Figure 4 shows that the flipped section practiced through interactive peer and large group work, written assignments given in the online blogs, and online practice with CALL tools. The control section practiced via a smaller percentage of interactive peer and large group work, the same amount of online practice with CALL, and slightly more written homework assignments from the textbook. As outlined in the previous sections, both sections of the course were based on the same textbook (Tschirner et al., 2013), were taught with the Communicative Approach, were based on the same curriculum, which utilized a task- and performance-based assessment strategy, 65 were written using Wiggin’s Backward Course Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), and integrated the 5 Cs of the National Standards for Foreign Language Instruction (The National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015). Within this framework, there were multiple tools utilized to deliver content and facilitate learner practice both in and outside of the classroom. The following sections will outline the various tasks completed by the students in the control and treatment groups, how they overlapped, and how they were distinct from each other. 3.4.2. Tasks Multiple tasks were designed for both groups in the study. Table 7 shows the tasks and which sections completed each one. The table shows where students in each section completed more, less, or the same amount of each given task. In the case of the control group, the videos and their embedded assignments were not completed at all. Table 7 Task Completion by Section Videos Embedded video assignments Lectures Interactive F2F activities Written textbook assignments Practice activities with CALL Control none none more less more same Flipped more more less more less same Students in the flipped section watched online videos with embedded assignments, completed a larger number of F2F interactive activities, and completed practice activities with CALL. Students in the control group heard lectures, completed the same F2F interactive activities in smaller amounts, did written grammar assignments from the textbook, and 66 completed practice activities with CALL. The lecture component was replaced with online videos created by the researcher in the flipped delivery format (see 3.4.3. Online Videos). Written homework assignments from the textbook were assigned for the control group, which were not completed by the treatment group. The flipped group completed written assignments embedded in the videos. This different distribution of content presentation, interactive practice, and individual practice through drills in the two delivery formats is the main difference between the two sections. While the control/traditional section did more individual, written practice, the experimental/flipped section completed more interactive practice activities. A description of the tasks is given in the sections that follow. 3.4.3. Online Videos The videos used to deliver content to the flipped (treatment) group, were used exclusively by this group and were not viewed by the control group. Students in the flipped group watched the videos for homework before coming to class and completed assignments embedded within the videos to practice the new material and assure that they would be prepared to complete the interactive activities during class. The videos presented new vocabulary and presented new grammar points/structures. Three video types were used: 1) iMovies created by the researcher, 2) screencasts created by the researcher, 3) videos found online. The intended advantages of learning through the videos were: to utilize enhanced input to learn new vocabulary and sentence structure (S. Izumi, 2002); the online availability making them accessible whenever the students had time to watch them and also as review material later on in the course (Bishop & Verleger, 2013); as a means to explain some topics in English so that the classroom could remain in the target language as much as possible (Johnson & Marsh, 2016); and as a tool to differentiate instruction so that advanced and remedial students could access the material more 67 or less depending on their needs (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). The iMovies were made by the researcher to provide instruction on new vocabulary within the curriculum. The format of the movies included pictures or videos on the chosen topic with a voiceover of the word or concept shown. Some videos used single words, while others contained a running narrative of the action in the videos or pictures. The video played twice within one recording; once with sound and the second time with sound and subtitles in German. The iMovies were presented 100% in the target language. Once the project was turned into an iMovie, it was uploaded onto the course management system (Course Connect) and assigned as homework before coming to class on the day that topic was to be covered. Some of the topics covered by the iMovies were: commands, numbers, introductions, family members, free-time activities, household items, daily routine, clothing and colors, modal verbs (“to be able to” and “to want to”), and vacations. The instructional intent of these videos was to connect spoken and written language with visual images to teach new vocabulary items and to demonstrate the use of words and phrases in the target language to describe actions or ideas. These videos utilized the concept of enhanced input (Izumi, 2002) to deliver the target language through audio and visual channels simultaneously and to help students with noticing and recall. The students were encouraged to watch the videos as often as needed to complete the assignment and master the material. Many of the new grammatical concepts were presented via screencasts, which were also created by the researcher with the online screencasting tool, Camtasia. The screencast consisted of a PowerPoint and audio provided by the instructor, which was placed on the course management system. Like the iMovies on new vocabulary, students were supposed to watch these screencast videos before they came to class. Some of these videos were also 68 focused on vocabulary delivery, in which the voiceover was completely in the target language and the visuals helped students map the sound and spelling of the words to their meanings. Other versions of the screencasts were more explanatory in nature and gave descriptions of grammatical concepts, partially in the students’ native language (English). These explanations were intended to help students learn more difficult grammar topics outside of class and reserve the F2F class time for more target language usage. Some topics covered by the screencasts were: clothing and colors, weather and the seasons, telling time, conjunctions, emotions, the present perfect tense, the dative case, and careers. The embedded assignments were tasks, asking students to produce some written language based on the contents of the videos. The third type of video consisted of already existing material found online. These videos were not created specifically for the study, but they had been previously made for the purpose of learning German as a second language and often met the needs of the curriculum. These videos made up the smallest number of overall videos and came from several different sources such as other language instructors or online language learning websites. These videos were most often based on grammatical topics and were sometimes in German and sometimes in English. The topics covered included direct and indirect objects, household chores, readings of poems or short texts in the target language, and often were useful because they were made in the target culture and contained images or cultural references, which were not present in the videos made outside of the target country. Table 8 shows the distribution of the various types of videos watched by the students in the flipped classroom, their topics, format, and length. 69 Table 8 Online Videos by Format, Length, Topic, and Creator 1st Semester Video # A-1 A-1 A-1 A-2 A-2 B-1 B-2 1-1 Video 1-2 1-3 2-1 2-2 2-3 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-1 4-2 4-3 5-1 Topic Hello and Good-bye Greetings Format Screencast Camtasia Glossed video Good-byes Glossed video Numbers 1-10 Glossed iMovie Commands Glossed iMovie Family Screencast Camtasia Screencast Camtasia Screencast Camtasia Format Weather Seasons Free time Topic Telling time Daily routine House items Clothing and colors Hobbies (stem change verbs) Talents and plans (modal verbs) Subordinating conjunctions Emotions Accusative pronouns Past tense (the Perfekt form) Vacation Summer vacation Dative case Screencast Camtasia Glossed iMovie Glossed iMovie Screencast Screencast Camtasia Glossed iMovie Screencast Powerpoin t only Quizlet flashcards Screencast Camtasia Screencast Camtasia Animated video Screencast Camtasia 70 Creator Instructor Online for L2 learners Online for L2 learners Instructor Instructor Instructor Instructor Instructor Creator Instructor and online source Instructor Instructor Online for L2 learners Instructor Instructor Online for L2 learners Instructor Online for L2 learners Instructor Instructor Online for L2 learners Instructor Length 10:58 :30 :30 9:19 12:34 9:01 8:35 10:57 Length 12:08 2:45 12:16 11:30 14:27 4:54 14:46 na na 23:49 4:51 3:00 13:27 Table 8 (cont’d) 5-2 5-3 5-4 Giving gifts Careers and the workplace Future tense 2nd Semester Video # Topic Screencast Camtasia Screencast Camtasia Screencast Camtasia Format Glossed iMovie Screencast Camtasia Screencast Camtasia Screencast Glossed iMovie Format 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-4 (2) Video 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 9-1 Homes and apartments In the city Two-case prepositions Household chores Household chores Topic The Lorelei Video The Lorelei The Lorelei Travel Food Food Household appliances Shopping YouTube video with text YouTube video with text Screencast Camtasia Video Video with subtitles Glossed iMovie Video Restaurant Interactive web page Wenn, wann, als Interactive web page 71 Instructor Instructor Instructor Creator Instructor Instructor Instructor Online for L2 learners Online for L2 learners Creator Online for tourism Online music video Online music video Instructor Online for L2 learners Online for L2 learners Instructor Online for L2 learners Online for L2 learners Online for L2 learners 14:33 18:39 16:25 Length 11:00 13:29 20:47 8:37 2:37 Length 3:29 3:17 2:57 6:55 5:04 3:52 6:35 5:47 na na Table 8 (cont’d) 9-2 9-3 10-1 10-2 10-3 11-1 11-2 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 Summary First Semester Snow White Mashup with embedded Simple Past Screencast tense video Camtasia Taking the train Screencast Camtasia The Berlin Wall Video (English) Powerpoin t Glossed video Screencast Camtasia Video Interactive website Video Powerpoin t Formats Animals Body parts Care of body and accidents Post-war German history Berlin Wall Reunification Berlin Total # of videos 25 Second Semester 26 10:00 video 17:43 10:07 40:00 na 2:46 18:29 25:17 na 5:45 na Mashup: Instructor Video: Online Instructor Instructor Online Instructor Online for L2 learners Instructor Online Online Online Instructor Created By Instructor Length in Minutes 19 Total 246.8 Screencast 15 iMovie Other Screencast iMovie Powerpoint Interactive website Video with no glossing 7 Average 9.8 6 learners Instructor 7 Online for L 2 3 7 4 2 10 Total Online for L 2 learners 8 Average 224.6 8.6 3 Online for general audience 8 All of these videos made up the online delivery of the instruction in the flipped classroom course. Students were assigned a video to watch before coming to class and each 72 video contained an accountability element, which assured that the students had watched the video before coming to class. These elements included a short online quiz, an assignment such as a vocabulary list, or answers to questions embedded in the video. The class met four times a week for 50 minutes each session and the videos were assigned, on average, twice a week. Therefore, this study represents only a partial flipping of the classroom, as half of the sessions were not preceded by an assigned video. A full picture of the flipped classroom would have to be expanded to provide a video prior to every F2F class meeting, which was not accomplished in this study due to time and cost restraints. 3.4.4. At-Home Practice with CALL The at-home practice tasks were completed by both groups in the study and provided opportunities to practice creating with written and oral language. Both the experimental and control sections of the study maintained and contributed to their own course blog, posting about cultural topics in English and completing written assignments in German. Both sections completed the same assignments for the blog and those assignments were completed outside of class as written homework. The blogs in English served the purpose of increasing the learners’ intercultural competence so that they could communicate more appropriately in the target language. Both sections completed identical online simulated conversations based on thematic topics throughout the course. These asynchronous simulated conversations involved watching recorded questions from instructor B and then recording themselves answering those questions. Both sections also completed a series of online VoiceThread (www.voicethread.com) assignments, which provide opportunities to hear and use the target language outside of the F2F class time. A VoiceThread looks somewhat like a slideshow. The 73 learners see a series of pictures or videos on the screen and hear an oral prompt in the target language asking them questions about the visual material. The learners can then record themselves answering the question or responding to the material and each response appears on the edges of the visual as an icon. When others click on that icon they can hear how the student responded. Some assignments on VoiceThread can be multi-layered in which students return to the material and respond to each other’s statements over time. These activities build on my 2016 study on oral output in online vs. F2F classrooms (Hojnacki, 2016). That study implemented more interactive online homework assignments and then measured the amount of oral output produced in those activities and in the F2F classroom. I found that the students produced more oral output in the online modules and that the online oral production was more evenly distributed among the students. That result led me to ask if further blending of the classroom could lead to better learner outcomes. This study asked if technology could more efficiently present new content allowing for more interaction in the F2F class. Both of these hypotheses are supported by the interaction approach (Gass, 1997) because they look for ways to increase input, interaction, and output in the foreign language classroom. 3.4.5. F2F Interactive Activities The activities completed in-class in both sections consisted of partner and small group work including information gap activities, interviews, or other task-based activities, which required the use of the target language to solve a problem or task. Both sections used these types of activities to facilitate interaction and feedback, however the flipped section had more time to devote to such activities since the lecture component had been moved online. These types of activities are expected to be good for language learning because they force output (Swain, 74 1995), increase input (Krashen, 1985), and provide feedback (Gass, 1997). 3.5. Instruments The language learning outcomes were measured with an achievement test at the beginning of the study and a language achievement test at the end of each semester. Changes in student perceptions were measured with surveys at the end of each semester. The language achievement tests measured reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills while the surveys measured learners’ opinions about the flipped classroom specifically and computer-assisted language learning in general. For each semester of the study, students took a pre-test and a post-test to measure their achievement in language learning outcomes. Test #1 was the achievement test at the beginning of the first semester, Test #2 was given at the end of the first semester, and Test #3 was given at the end of the second semester. Because the second semester course followed directly after the first semester, Test #2 from the first semester also served as the pre-test for the second semester. In essence, this meant that each student was tested three times throughout the overall yearlong study; once before, once during, and once after the study. All tests and all surveys can be referenced in the Appendices. 3.5.1. Tests The initial proficiency test for the first-semester study was a shorter test since the students at that point possessed little to no language proficiency and would have been overwhelmed with a full battery of testing on their first day in German class. Test #1 was used to determine if any students should be placed in a higher language course and to ensure that the two sections were starting at the same language skill levels. Test #2 was an achievement test, consisting of reading, writing, listening, and speaking tests given over the course of three days. This test was used to determine how well the students had met the learning outcomes for the class. For 75 those reasons, the pre-test was a different test than the post-test. Tests #2 and #3 were also different in material although they were exactly the same in format. Test #1 consisted of 11 multiple choice listening comprehension questions in German, 9 multiple choice reading comprehension questions on a German text, 5 short- answer written questions in German, and 6 short-answer speaking prompts in German. It was meant to assess whether the students held a false beginner status, in which students with higher language abilities are not placed in the correct language class. The goal of the tests was to determine that the majority of students scored below a benchmark score of 86%. This score was decided on with the teaching faculty members as a sufficient measure of achievement on all tests given in the study. The tests were scored analytically, meaning that points were given for correct answers and correct language usage. Students scored points out of an amount possible, which was converted to a percentage for comparison purposes. The achievement tests were designed to analyze the learners’ language learning outcomes in reading, writing, listening, and speaking vis a vis the course goals. Tests #2 and #3 contained the same number and format of questions in each section with the content and structure and vocabulary focus corresponding to the respective course content. Test #2 tested students on their achievement level in mastering the material presented in first-semester German, while Test #3 replaced that content with the information and achievement levels of second-semester German. The tests consisted of: a listening comprehension test in four sections; a written test with sections on grammar, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing; and a speaking test conducted with an online asynchronous conversation tool. All tests are listed in Appendix B. 76 3.5.2. Surveys Both the first- and second-semester participants were given a survey at the end of each semester regarding their attitudes and perceptions about the class. The surveys in the first- semester study were completed anonymously. After consideration, the dissertation surveys were not given anonymously so that survey data might be triangulated with test and course performance data. The second-semester surveys were, however, sealed until the course had ended and the grades had been distributed, so that there would be no fear of reprisals for negative feedback. The surveys for the first-semester study consisted of 23 questions with a Likert rating scale of 1-4: 1 meaning “strongly disagree”; 2 meaning “disagree”; 3 meaning “agree”; and 4 meaning “strongly agree” (see Appendix C). The 1-4 rating scale was chosen so that respondents would have to choose either a negative or positive response and not be able to remain neutral on any question. The questions were broken down into five categories: 1) Satisfaction with online vs. F2F learning tools, 2) Preference for a traditional or flipped learning format, 3) Measure of personal engagement in the respective class, 4) Satisfaction with personal learning experience, 5) Willingness to continue with the study of the language. The surveys for the second-semester study contained 31 questions with the same Likert scale of 1-4 (see Appendix C). The same five categories were included in the dissertation survey along with five extra questions, which pertained to historical and cultural learning, as that was an emphasis of the second semester course. The six categories for this survey were: 1) satisfaction with online vs. F2F learning tools, 2) preference for a traditional or flipped learning format, 3) measure of personal engagement in the respective class, 4) satisfaction with personal learning experience, 5) willingness to continue with the study of the 77 language, 6) preference for learning about history and culture with technology or F2F. The dissertation survey also elicited written feedback on the students’ perceptions about their learning experience during that semester. See Appendix C for each of the surveys used. 3.6. Data Collection Data were collected throughout the yearlong study in the form of achievement tests, surveys, teacher journals, and student oral commentary on the flipped classroom. If a student entered the study at the second semester, they were given Test #2 before entering the class. The language tests were blind scored within each section by both instructors. In cases of variance by more than two points per section, both graders conferred to eventually award a final score. The format of the test sections and the grading format for each section are laid out below. 3.6.1. Reading The reading section of the exam consisted of 20 multiple-choice vocabulary questions, 15 multiple-choice grammatical structure questions, and 10 multiple-choice questions about a written text. The vocabulary questions asked for the correct word to fill in a blank in a sentence while the grammatical structure portion asked for the correct form of various words such as verb conjugations, articles, cases, and verb tenses. Each question in the first two sections was given one point for a correct answer while the written text portion counted for two points each. The total points achieved were divided by the total points possible, to give each student an average for the reading section. 3.6.2. Writing The writing portion of the exam consisted of a written prompt in the form of a letter or email with embedded questions to the recipient. The students were to respond to the letter or email 78 with a greeting, an answer to each of the embedded questions, and an appropriate sign-off. An analytic scoring rubric was used. Up to three points were given per question: one for the correct answer, one for correct grammar, and one for correct spelling. The awarded points were tallied and divided by points possible to gain a final percentage. All the sections were second rated. 3.6.3. Listening The listening sections consisted of four sub-sections each. The first section involved taking notes based on a German text, which was read aloud by the instructor. The answer sheet provided an outline with specific questions and the students had to fill in as much information as they heard in each area. Students were given points for each piece of correct information they wrote down. Section 2 took the form of a table, with areas for filling in information about a second read-aloud text. Again, students were awarded points for each piece of correct information they were able to write down. Section 3 consisted of 7 true/false questions and 7 multiple choice questions based on a third text read by the instructor. The fourth section repeated the format of the first section with notes written down about a listening text and points awarded for correct information recorded. Points for all four sections were totaled and a percentage grade was given for points achieved out of the total possible. 3.6.4. Speaking The spoken tests were administered via an online asynchronous simulated conversation tool (Conversations, MSU’s CLEAR RIA, which has subsequently been discontinued). The prompts were video-recorded by instructor B and saved in the conversation tool. The students could access the questions online and then video-record themselves answering the questions. 79 The responses were then logged and remained accessible to the instructor. The online simulated conversation contained 19 questions in the first-semester study, and 10 somewhat longer questions in the second-semester study. The answers were transcribed and scored using an analytic rubric, which gave 0-4 points for correct answer, correct grammar, pronunciation, and creativity/length of response for each question. Those scores were tallied and divided by a total to gain a percentage for the spoken section of the exam. 3.7. Data Analysis Each test in this study took a different form, based on its purpose. Test #1 was a placement test to determine that there were no significant differences going into the study. Test #2 was an achievement test to determine learning outcomes for the first semester. It was also used to establish baseline scores for the second semester. Test #3 was an achievement test for the second semester. Because the tests were different, it became impossible to run a repeated measures analysis on the scores and, instead, became necessary to look at learning outcomes in each category and overall on the tests. In order to determine if there were any statistically significant differences in learning outcomes between groups, a chi-square test was run on the number of learners from each section, who had achieved the benchmark score of an 86%. On the survey portion, which surveyed students’ opinions about the learning format, a one-way, between subjects ANOVA was run to determine significant differences in the opinions between course sections. 3.7.1. Research Question #1 Research question #1 asked how exposure to the flipped classroom affects language learning outcomes in reading, writing, listening, and speaking in an introductory foreign language course. The data pertaining to RQ#1 came from the proficiency test and the two achievement 80 tests and were analyzed using a chi-square test to establish significant differences in the number of students reaching the benchmark score of an 86%. The proficiency test scores were first compared across the sections to determine that there was no significant difference in proficiency levels between the two sections at the beginning, and that all students in both sections were placed correctly in the beginner-level course. This was the case for all the students. Because the placement and achievement tests did not consist of the same exam, the results were also scored and compared to determine how many students in each section reached a mastery level in learning outcomes. That mastery level was set at a score of 86% for both studies. This number was arrived at after consultation between the two instructors because it was a benchmark, which had been used within the department to assess curriculum and its effectiveness in the past. Students in each section were ranked as scoring below (74% or below), near (75% - 85%), or at (86% and above), the mastery level. 3.7.2. Research Question #2 Research question #2 asked how exposure to the flipped classroom affects a learner’s perception of, and satisfaction with, the experience of learning a foreign language using technology generally and the flipped classroom specifically. The surveys aimed to examine students’ perceptions of the flipped classroom format whether or not they were exposed to it. This helped to compare the control group’s perceptions of an unknown format with the actual experiences of the flipped group. The survey questions were grouped within subsets pertaining to their attitudes and perceptions surrounding the flipped classroom and CALL. Each subset was analyzed with a one-way, between- subjects ANOVA to determine significant differences between sections on any area of the survey. Table 9 summarizes the 81 data collection and analysis procedures for the study. Table 9 Data Collection and Analysis for RQs #1 and #2 Data Collection Procedure All three tests – Tests on reading, writing, listening, and speaking with increasing levels of proficiency tested Responses from survey Data Analysis Procedure Chi-square test run on percentage of students in each section reaching the benchmark score of an 86% on the overall test and within each category. Craemer’s phi to establish effect size. One-way, between subjects ANOVA with Craemer’s phi to establish effect size. RQ Data Test #1 – Placement test. Test #2 – Achievement test for 1st semester Test #3 – Achievement test for 2nd semester Responses on a survey. Likert scale from 1-4 1: Strongly Disagree 2: Disagree 3: Agree 4: Strongly Agree #1: how does exposure to the flipped classroom affect language learning outcomes in reading, writing, listening, and speaking in an introductory foreign language course? #2: How does exposure to the flipped classroom affect a learner’s perception of, and satisfaction with, the experience of learning a foreign language using technology generally and the flipped classroom specifically? The Methodology section has outlined the various components of the study, how they were designed, and the rationale for how the data was collected and analyzed. Now that I have examined the ways in which the study was carried out, I will move on to look at the results in Chapters 4 & 5. Chapter 4 will look at the findings in the first semester study and Chapter 5 will look at the same information for the second semester study. 82 RESEARCH FINDINGS I: First Semester CHAPTER 4 4. Research Findings I: First Semester The previous chapters have outlined the rationale for this study as well as the previous research on CALL, the interactionist approach to SLA, learner affect, the flipped classroom delivery format, and Design Based Research. The methodology of the current study was laid out in Chapter 3. This chapter will present the findings for the first semester of the study. I will first present the results for research question #1, which examines the language learning outcomes found in the flipped classroom and in the control group. I will determine these outcomes by looking at scores on tests taken both before and after the treatment and in relation to the achievement of benchmark scores. Because of the nature of the course and how the testing took place, the two tests were not the same, so cannot be labeled as pre- and post-test, but will be referred to as Test #1 and Test #2. I will report on average scores on the tests and within the four sub- categories of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. I will also report on the percentage of learners in each group, who achieved, came near to, and fell below the benchmark achievement score in each portion of the test. To address research question #2, I will look at differences between the flipped and control groups in student opinions and perceptions about their learning experiences. The data for this research question comes from post surveys taken by the learners in each group. The questions on the surveys related to the learners’ satisfaction with their learning experience, student retention in the foreign language program, learners’ opinions about different CALL tools used in the class, and which course format they would choose for their next foreign language course. The data will show if there were any significant differences between learner 83 opinions and perceptions between the two treatment groups and whether exposure to the flipped classroom changed the learners’ opinions and attitudes over the course of the first semester of the study. This study took place over a full academic year. Data were collected from a control group, taught as the class had been previously, and a treatment group, taught within a flipped delivery format, during two consecutive semesters. Because the participants in the two sections changed at semester break, the results needed to be divided into two separate studies, leading to two results chapters in this dissertation. Chapter 4 reports on the results for the first semester, which took place in a first-semester German course. Chapter 5 reports on the results for the second semester, which took place in a second-semester German course. Chapter 5 will also report on the results for the participants who stayed in the same section for the entire year of the study. Each results chapter will list the quantitative and qualitative results for both research questions. The results are discussed in Chapter 6. 4.1. First Semester Study: Research Question #1 Does the flipped classroom delivery format result in different learning outcomes for beginning foreign language learners when compared with a control group? At the beginning of the study, all students took Test #1 to establish baseline language proficiency levels. Those scores were compared between sections to confirm that neither group had higher language proficiency levels before the treatment was administered. In order to create discrete and comparable categories, the scores were assigned to an achievement group. The instructors used the score of 86% or higher as having achieved the performance assessment goals of the class. This was a score used in previous curriculum assessments within the department. Scores from 75% to 85% were nearing achievement, and scores below 84 75% were below that benchmark. For reporting purposes in this study, the total number and percentage of students in each section who fell within each benchmark category will be listed under the titles Achieved, Near, and Below. The percentages in each category were then compared with a chi-square test to determine if significant differences appeared between course sections in any of the achievement categories. The results of the scores on Test #1 and descriptive statistics for those results are listed in section 4.1.1. At the end of the first semester, all students took Test #2. The results of this test were compared between sections in the same manner as Test #1. This second test included measures of the students’ language learning outcomes in the areas of reading comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, writing, listening, and speaking. The tests were administered and scored for overall achievement and within each sub-category. The percentage of students in the Achieved, Near, and Below categories were compared with a chi-square test to determine if significant differences appeared between course sections in any of the achievement categories. The results of Test #2 within each treatment group are given in section 4.1.2. The individual scores by test sub-section are reported in sections 4.1.2.1 through 4.1.2.4. 4.1.1. Test #1 Scores Test #1 was given to all students entering the first semester courses on the first day of class. The questions were taken from a Goethe-Institut practice test for the A-1 proficiency certificate. The Goethe-Institut bases their proficiency exams on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for languages. Within this framework, A-1 is the lowest proficiency level. This test was meant to weed out any false-beginners, who may have had more experience learning German, and would therefore skew the results by starting at a higher achievement level. Each student in this introductory course had already been assessed with a 85 university placement exam and counseled to enroll in this course, therefore Test #1 served to determine that there was not a significant difference in achievement levels between the two treatment groups. For more details on the format of Test #1 and its scoring, see chapter 3.6. The overall results for Test #1 are listed in Table 10. In this table, the number and percentage of students from each section who scored within each achievement category are listed. The qualifying scores for the categories represent percentage scores on Test #1. Table 10 Test #1 Number and Percentage of Scores in Benchmark Categories by Treatment Group Below 0%-74% Near 75%-85% Achieved 86%-100% 20 (91%) 2 (9%) 14 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Control n=22 Flipped n=14 In the control group, 91% of the students scored at a 74% or below, compared with 100% of the flipped section. The highest score in the control group was an 82%, while the highest score in the flipped section was a 72%. A chi-square test was performed and no significant relationship was found between course section and performance on Test #1, X2 (1, N = 36) = 1.35, p = .246. Table 11 Test #1 Average Scores by Category Control n=22 Flipped n=14 Reading Writing Listening Speaking 63% 59% 29% 28% 76% 72% 30% 32% Overall Average 50% 48% 86 Figure 5 Test #1 Average Scores by Category Tables 10 and 11 as well as Figure 5 all show that the scores on Test #1 within each category, and in the overall average, do not differ much from each other. None of these differences are significant (also determined by chi-square), which confirms that the two sections started with the same proficiency level before the treatment began, hence any potential difference on Test #2 should be due to the delivery format. Both sections scored higher in the listening and reading sections than in the writing and speaking sections. This is an expected outcome since beginning language learners are generally able to decode language more easily than they can encode it. This figure also shows that, although the performance on Test #1 was different by sub-section, both groups performed equally well (or poorly) on each section and in the overall average score. This allows for comparison of scores at the end of the semester without fear that the results were skewed by previous ability before the treatment began. 4.1.2. Test #2 Scores Test #2 was given at the end of the first semester (i.e., after 15 weeks) of the study. During that 87 semester the students had learned German either through the flipped classroom model or in the control group, which was taught as it had previously been, with a lecture and written homework model. The test was given over three days: a listening comprehension component, which was given on one day; a written component, which included reading and writing and was given on a second day; and an oral component, which was taken online with an asynchronous conversation application. The purpose of the test was to ensure that all students had reached the learning goals for first- semester German and to measure whether there were statistically significant differences between the two delivery formats. As opposed to Test #1, which was meant to assure low achievement levels at the beginning of the course, Test #2 was designed to test how well the students had learned the material from the first semester. As in Test #1, the instructors determined that a score of 86% or higher had achieved the performance assessment goals of the class, scores from 75% to 85% were nearing achievement, and scores below 75% were below that benchmark. The overall scores show that 64% of the students in the flipped section achieved the benchmark score, while 32% of the students in the traditional section reached the benchmark score. The overall results for Test #2 are listed in Table 12. Table 12 Test #2 Number and Percentage of Scores in Benchmark Categories by Treatment Group Below 0%-74% 4 (18%) Near 75%-85% 11 (50%) Achieved 86%-100% 7 (32%) 2 (14%) 3 (21%) 9 (64%) Control n=22 Flipped n=14 The results show that 9 out of 14 learners, or 64% of the flipped section met the benchmark score compared with 7 out of 22 learners, or 32% of the control group. 50% of 88 the control group came near to the benchmark compared with 21% of the flipped section. 18% of the control group and 14% of the flipped fell well below the benchmark. Table 13 Test #2 Average Scores by Category Reading 71% Writing 79% Listening 85% Speaking 88% Overall 81% 79% 87% 90% 88% 86% Control n=22 Flipped n=14 A chi-square test was performed on the overall scores having met vs. not met the benchmark achievement level. The relationship between delivery method and reaching the benchmark score, although approaching significance, was not found to be significant, X2 (1, N=36) = 3.65, p = .056. The Phi effect size value (φ = 0.32) suggested a medium effect size. A p-value of .05 or lower would show significance, meaning that these results come very close to showing a significant difference in whether or not the learners reached the benchmark score on the post-test depending on which section of the course they were enrolled in. However, most likely because of the small sample sizes of the sections, the results cannot be said to be statistically significant. The above scores show the overall achievement levels for the final learning outcomes in the course, while the following figures show the overall numbers of learners achieving the benchmark scores (Figure 6) and breaks down the numbers into the four sub-categories of reading, writing, listening, and speaking (Figure 7). 89 Figure 6 Test #2 Students Achieving Benchmark Scores by Course Section Figure 7 Test #2 Scores by Category The results for the four sub-sections of Test #2 are shown in Table 13. They show that learners in the flipped section on average performed 8 percentage points higher in the sub-category of reading, 8 percentage points higher in writing, and 5 percentage points higher in listening. The results for the speaking section were nearly identical. The descriptive statistics for each sub-category will be presented in the following sections. These differences 90 show a trend towards higher scores in the flipped section but are not statistically significant differences. 4.1.2.1. Test #2 Reading, Vocabulary, and Grammar The reading, vocabulary, and grammar portion of Test #2 consisted of three separate sections: a grammar portion, a vocabulary portion, and a reading comprehension portion based on a written text. The questions were all multiple choice with some fill-in the blank and some true false questions. The results are reported in Table 14. Table 14 Test #2 Learning Outcomes for Reading Comprehension, Grammar, Vocabulary, and Combined Reading Scores Reading Comp. Control Average 75.5 18% Achieved Near Below 41% 41% Reading Comp. Flipped 81.4 43% 36% 21% Grammar Control Grammar Flipped Vocab Control Vocab Flipped Total Cont. Total Flipped 62.7 14% 18% 68% 68.7 29% 0% 71% 75.5 18% 41% 41% 86.8 57% Sig. 36% 07% 71.2 14% 32% 55% 85.9 36% 43% 21% * Higher score between the two treatment groups is highlighted For the overall reading portion of Test #2, 36% of the flipped section and 14% of the control group reached the benchmark score. A chi-square test performed on this data set shows that there is not a significant relationship between course section and reaching the benchmark score in the overall area of reading, X2 (1, N=36) = 2.41, p = .12. In Table 14, the final three rows show the percentage of each test section that fell within the given range of benchmark scores. The higher percentage between the two sections in each category is highlighted. The overall trend in the reading section was that the learners in the flipped section performed consistently better than those in the control section, however, the only area, which shows a significant difference, is the vocabulary section. While we do see higher learning outcomes for the flipped group in all sections of the reading exam, the results in the 91 vocabulary section show a significantly higher percentage of students in the flipped section reached the benchmark score. The results within the three subcategories of vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension are reported in the following paragraphs. Within the sub-set of vocabulary, 57% of the flipped section and 18% of the control group met the benchmark score. A chi-square test performed on this data set shows that there is a significant relationship between course section and reaching the benchmark score in the area of vocabulary, X2 (1, N=36) = 5.84, p = .016. The Phi effect size value (φ = 0.40) suggested a medium to large effect size. This shows a correlation between course section and learning outcomes, which indicates that the flipped classroom delivery format was more effective for the learning of vocabulary in the L2. One hypothesis for these results is that the enhanced input of the videos helped to imprint the new vocabulary better than F2F or textbook-based vocabulary learning. The enhanced input of the videos included simultaneous audio and visual input, repetition with visuals, and subtitles with audio. These results will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. Within the sub-set of grammar, a chi-square test showed no significant relationship between course section and learning outcomes, X2 (1, N=36) = 1.22, p = .270. This indicates that the difference in learning outcomes in the grammar section cannot be attributed to the flipped or control learning format. In the reading comprehension sub-category of the exam, the chi-square test showed no significant relationship between course section and learning outcomes, X2 (1, N=36) = 2.60, p = .107. 4.1.2.2. Test #2 Writing The writing portion of the exam consisted of a written prompt in the form of a letter with embedded questions. The answer was scored analytically with points for correct answers, grammar, and spelling. The results for the writing portion are reported in Table 15. 92 Table 15 Test #2 Learning Outcomes for Writing Total Achieved Near Below Control 79.1 36% 32% 32% Flipped 86.8 64% 07% 29% * Higher score between the two treatment groups is highlighted The chi-square results for the writing section show no significant relationship between course section and learning outcomes, X2 (1, N=36) = 2.68, p = .102. 4.1.2.3. Test #2 Listening Comprehension The listening comprehension portion of the exam consisted of taking notes or answering questions about four texts read aloud by the instructor. The answers were scored analytically with points awarded for correct answers or correct information recorded in the notes. This section focused on comprehension and did not award or subtract points based on spelling or grammar unless those aspects interfered with the meaning of the answers. The learning outcomes for listening comprehension are shown in Table 16 below. Table 16 Test #2 Learning Outcomes for Listening Comprehension Average Achieved Near Below Control 85.4 59% 27% 14% Flipped 90.1 86% 14% 0% *Higher score is highlighted In the listening portion of Test #2, 86% of the flipped learners and 59% of the control group learners met the benchmark score. A chi-square test was performed on the percentage of students reaching the benchmark score and no significant relationship was found between course section and reaching the benchmark score on the listening portion of Test #2, X2 (1, N=36) = 2.86, p = .091. Again, this shows a p score, which is approaching significance, but 93 cannot be said to represent a definitive relationship between course section and reaching the benchmark in listening comprehension. 4.1.2.4. Test #2 Speaking The speaking portion of the exam was taken via an online asynchronous conversation application. The prompts were video recorded by the instructor and the students’ responses were video recorded in the application for access by the instructor. Points were awarded for responding appropriately to the question, language usage within the answer, and length of response. The results for the speaking portion are reported in Table 17. Table 17 Test #2 Learning Outcomes for Speaking Student Total Achieved Near Below Control 87.9 60% 41% 0% Flipped 87.8 71% 22% 07% The chi-square test on the speaking portion of the exam shows no significant relationship between the course section and the learning outcomes X2 (1, N=36) = .56, p = .452. These results show that the higher scores in the flipped section of the exam cannot be attributed to the flipped classroom or the traditional lecture method of content delivery. In summary, the results for RQ #1 showed that a higher percentage of the learners in the flipped section (64%) than the control group (32%) reached the benchmark score on Test #2. The learners in the flipped section scored higher in the areas of reading, writing, and listening while the speaking scores were nearly identical. Overall, the average for the flipped section was 86% and the average for the control group was 81%. 4.2. First-Semester Study: Research Question #2 How does the flipped classroom model affect introductory language learners’ attitudes and 94 perceptions about CALL in general and the flipped classroom specifically? 4.2.1. First Semester Survey Results The survey results were collected via an anonymous survey with 25 questions. Answers were chosen on a Likert scale from 1-4: 1 meaning “strongly disagree;” 2 meaning “disagree;” 3 meaning “agree;” and 4 meaning “strongly agree.” The results were analyzed by comparing answers between classes on individual questions and in categories of questions addressing similar ideas. The questions were broken down into four categories: 1) Satisfaction with online vs. F2F learning tools, 2) Preference for a traditional or flipped learning format, 3) Measure of self-assessment of effort in the respective class, and 4) Interest in continuing with the study of the language. Table 18 summarizes the first-semester survey results by category and shows the average rating within each delivery format. Table 18 First-Semester Survey Results Survey Category 1. Preference for traditional class format 2. Preference for flipped class format 3. Opinion of lecture 4. Opinion of online videos 5. Opinion of interactive F2F activities 6. Opinion of written homework 7. Opinion of creating videos 8. Opinion of blogs 9. Opinion of Conversations/Voicethreads 10. The use of CALL for language learning – Includes categories 4, 8, 9 11. Repeated use of videos 12. Moderate use of videos 13. No use of videos 14. Homework completion 15. Participation 16. Attendance 17. Motivation 18.Self assessment of effort – Includes categories 14, 15, 16, 17 95 Control Average n=22 3.67 1.43 3.74 na 3.76 3.29 na 2.24 2.52 3.10 na na na 3.57 3.48 3.76 3.48 3.60 Flipped Average n=14 2.64 2.64 3.40 2.76 3.64 3.07 2.69 2.07 3.14 3.24 2.14 3.21 1.07 3.21 3.50 2.93 2.93 3.02 19. Enjoyment of course 20. Continuing with study of the language 21. Majoring/minoring in the language 22. Study abroad 23. Student retention – Includes categories 19, 20, 21, 22 24. Satisfied with grade 25. Satisfied with amount learned 26. Positive perception of course – Includes categories 19, 24, 25 A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of course design on 3.64 3.64 2.21 2.29 2.95 3.29 3.00 3.31 3.81 3.67 2.71 2.64 3.21 3.48 3.43 3.57 Table 18 (cont’d) attitudes and preferences about foreign language learning in the flipped classroom and the traditional lecture classroom. There was a significant effect of course design on preferences for the flipped or the traditional course format and on attitudes about the use of some online tools, such as asynchronous conversations. There was not a significant effect of course design on students’ satisfaction with their learning experience, their self-assessment of effort in the course, or in the self-reported intent to continue to study the language or study abroad. Details about these results are reported below in section 4.2.1.1. Results by Category 4.2.1.1. Results by Category In category 1) satisfaction with online vs. F2F learning tools, there was no significant difference in the effect of course design on students’ satisfaction with the overall use of online learning tools or F2F learning [F(1,33) = 1.63, p = .210]. These results show that the experience with the course format did not have a significant effect on whether or not students liked learning with online tools such as blogs and videos or F2F learning tools such as lecture, written homework, and interactive activities. There was, however, a significant difference in the students’ opinions about learning with asynchronous conversations. Students in the flipped section were significantly more positive about learning utilizing oral simulated conversations. The average response for the use of asynchronous conversations in the flipped section was 96 3.14 and the average in the control group was 2.52. In category 2) preference for a traditional or flipped learning format students in the flipped classroom section preferred the flipped classroom for a further foreign language course while students in the control group preferred that format for further study. There was a significant effect of course design on learners’ preference for course design at the p<.05 level for the two conditions [F(1,33) = 9.82, p = .004]. This means that students exposed to the flipped classroom were significantly more likely than the students in the control group to choose a flipped classroom format for their next foreign language course and, reversely, students in the control group were significantly more likely than those in the flipped classroom to choose a traditional lecture format for their next foreign language course. Unfortunately, because the flipped classroom was not offered above the 100-level, the actual follow-up data for this question after the study was over is not available. In category 3) measure of self-assessment of effort in the respective class, there was no significant effect of course design on students’ self-assessment of effort for the two conditions [F(1, 33) = 1.41, p = .243]. These results show that course design did not affect how motivated the students felt to complete their homework, attend class, or participate in in-class activities. In category 4) interest in continuing with the study of the language, there was no significant effect of course design on student-reported retention rates or interest in involvement with study abroad programs [F(1,33) = .833, p = .368]. These results show that the flipped or traditional course design did not affect whether or not a student reported that they intended to continue with the study of German or that they intended to participate in a study abroad program at some point in the future. 97 Follow-up data collected on the students participating in this study showed a different picture on student retention. Data on actual student retention does shows that the control group had a higher attrition rate after the first semester, with 82% enrolling in the next semester compared with 100% of the flipped group. However, following the second semester of the study, when many students have fulfilled their language requirement and only those pursuing the language as a major or minor move on to the next level, students with one semester of the flipped treatment did not re-enroll as often as those from the control group. In this case only 14% of the flipped group and 36% of the control group moved on the second year of German courses. Table 19 shows the number and percentages of students from each group, who continued with the study of German, studied abroad, and majored or minored in German. Table 19 First-Semester Student Retention Numbers Continued after 1st semester Continued after 2nd semester Studied Abroad Major/minor in German Control n=22 18 82% 8 36% 7 32% 8 36% Flipped n=14 14 100% 2 14% 1 07% 1 07% A chi-square test on the number of students who continued to study German after the first semester shows that the difference was not significant: X2 (1, N=36) = 2.86, p = .091. A chi-square test on the numbers of students who continued to study German above the 100- level shows that the difference was not significant: X2 (1, N=36) = 2.08, p =.149. The results of a chi-square on the numbers of students who studied abroad are nearing significance: X2 (1, N=36) = 3.01, p = .083. The Phi effect size value (φ = 0.29) suggested a medium effect size. The results for students majoring or minoring in German were significant: X2 (1, N=36) = 3.90, p = .048. The Phi effect size value (φ = 0.33) suggested a medium effect size. This shows that there is a significant relationship between course section and students going on to study abroad and major or minor in German after taking an introductory course in favor of the 98 control group. This difference will be discussed in Chapter 6 in terms of historical retention rates at the college. 4.3. Conclusions of Results for First Semester The results for the first semester of the study did yield some significant differences. It was first determined that there was no significant difference between language levels in the two treatment groups before the study began. For RQ#1, there was a significant effect for vocabulary learning outcomes in the flipped group at the end of the first semester. The results for overall learning outcomes and in the listening section were approaching significance with higher learning outcomes in the flipped group. Below (see Table 20) is a summary of the results for learning outcomes in each category. The percentage shows how many students in that section met or exceeded the benchmark learning outcome of an 86% on that portion of the exam. The p-value shows the significance of the relationship between the course sections and the learning outcomes. A p-value of .05 or below shows that there is a high probability that this relationship does not exist out of chance, but is directly attributable to the intervention in question, in this case: whether the students learned German with the flipped classroom or the control model. Table 20 Summary of Learning Outcomes and Significance Levels from Chi-Square Tests on Test #2 Listening Writing Speaking Reading Reading Comprehension Grammar Vocabulary Control* 59% 36% 60% 14% 18% 14% 18% Total 32% *percentage of students in each section who reached the benchmark score 99 Flipped* 86% 64% 71% 36% 43% 29% 57% 64% p-Value .09 .10 .45 .12 .11 .27 .02 .06 Effect size .28 medium .40 medium to large .32 medium Table 20 shows the percentage of students in each section who reached the benchmark score of an 86% on that portion of the exam. These results show a trend towards better learning outcomes for the flipped classroom section during the first- semester study. The highlighted results show that the learners in the flipped section performed better on the final exam in all sub-categories and overall. Only the vocabulary section showed a significant relationship with a medium to large effect size between section and learning outcomes. The overall scores and the listening section scores were approaching significance with a medium effect size. Scores in all other categories of Test #2 were not significantly different between treatment groups. For RQ#2, there was a significant difference in preference for the delivery format. The students in the flipped group were more likely to choose the flipped format for a future foreign language course than the students in the control group. The students in the flipped group also preferred the asynchronous conversations as a learning tool significantly more than the students in the control group. There were no further significant differences in the learners’ satisfaction with online or F2F learning tools, the students’ self-assessment of effort in the respective class, or the students’ self-reported interest in continuing with the study of the language or interest in study abroad. A follow- up study on the actual numbers showed that students from the control group were significantly more likely to major or minor in German and to study abroad. These results will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. 100 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH FINDINGS II: Second Semester 5. Research Findings II: Second Semester Chapter 4 outlined the research findings for the first semester of this yearlong study. Chapter 5 will outline the research findings for the second semester. These two iterations of a quasi- experimental, mixed-methods study on the effects of the flipped classroom on language learning in an introductory foreign language course had slight differences, although the overall design of the instruments and treatment were the same. The research questions remained the same. The first-semester study was carried out on a course consisting of true beginners with little to no prior experience learning German. The second-semester study was carried out on a second-semester course in the subsequent semester to the pilot study. The participants for the second-semester study shifted somewhat, in that some students switched sections, some new students entered the study, and some students exited the study at the semester break. For this reason, the results for the second-semester study take Test #2 from the first-semester study as the starting point for the language learning outcomes. New students entering the study were administered Test #2 at the beginning of the semester. The research questions for the second-semester study look only at the results from the beginning to the end of this semester. However, at the end of the yearlong study, results were available for three distinct groups: Group A, in which students learned with the flipped classroom for two semesters; Group B, in which students learned with the control model for two semesters; Group C, in which students learned with one semester of the flipped group and one semester of control. This chapter will report on the second-semester study in isolation and then the three groups over the course of the entire study. The results will be broken down by research 101 question. 5.1. Second-Semester Study: Research Question #1 Does the flipped classroom delivery format result in different learning outcomes for beginning foreign language learners when compared with a control group? The language learning outcomes for the second-semester study were measured by taking the results from Test #2, which directly preceded this study, as the pre-test and comparing them with the scores on Test #3, which was given at the end of the second semester. New students entering the study were administered Test #2 at the beginning of the semester. The tests took measures of the students’ language learning outcomes in the areas of reading comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, writing, listening, and speaking. The overall scores were analyzed to determine how many students met a baseline achievement score on identical tests given to both sections. The achievement categories were the same as the first semester: 86% and above were labeled Achieved; 75% - 85% were Nearing; and 74% and below were labeled Below. The results of the scores within each treatment group are given below. The individual scores by test section will be reported in the following sections. 5.1.1. Test #2 Scores by Second-Semester Grouping Overall achievement scores prior to the treatment in the second-semester study come from the Test #2 scores. Once the students self-selected their respective course sections for the second- semester study, each section’s pre-test outcomes were calculated to determine if there was a significant difference in their learning outcomes prior to the treatment during the dissertation study. This was meant to determine whether one section began with higher achievement scores than the other before the treatment began. While the Test #2 scores showed a significant difference in the area of vocabulary for the flipped group and were nearing 102 significance in the overall scores, several students switched sections at the semester due to scheduling issues, leading to a redistribution of learners across the two sections. Four students switched from the flipped to the control section. Of those students, three had achieved and one had come near to the benchmark score in the first semester. One student, who tested into second-semester German, joined the flipped classroom section in the second semester. This student tested at the achieved level when given Test #2 at the beginning of the semester. Four students from the control group did not continue with the second semester of German. One was below, two nearing, and one achieved the benchmark score in the pilot study. The results of Test #2, as the sections were configured for the second-semester study, are listed below. Table 21 Second-Semester Test #2 Groupings. Number and Percentage of Scores in Benchmark Categories Control n=22 Flipped n=11 Below 0%-74% 3 (14%) 2 (18%) Near 75%-85% 9 (41%) 2 (18%) Achieved 86%-100% 10 (45%) 7 (64%) These scores show the number and percentage of learners who either achieved the benchmark score of an 86%, came near to that score (75%-85%), or fell well below that score (74% or lower). These scores represent their achievement on the material covered in the first- semester class. These results show that 10 of the 22 students (45%) in the control section achieved the benchmark score of an 86% or above, while 7 of the 11 students (64%) in the flipped section did the same. 41% of the control section and 18% of the flipped section came close to the benchmark score. While these numbers differ slightly from each other, a chi- square test shows that prior to the treatment during the second- semester study, there was no significant difference between learning outcomes on the pre-test between course sections: X2 103 (1, N=33) = .971, p = .325. Here we can see that the differences in learning outcomes are becoming more varied as the students are progressing in their language proficiency. This is a common phenomenon in SLA as students learn at different paces because so many factors and individual differences influence learning outcomes. Although the difference between sections is not significant, it does show a larger standard deviation than the results of Test #1 for the first semester study, in which every student was a beginner and started with relatively the same language proficiency. Table 22 Average Scores on Test #2 by Category prior to Second Semester Reading Writing Listening Speaking Control n=22 Flipped n=11 74% 79% 82% 86% 88% 90% 88% 87% Figure 8 Average Scores on Test #2 by Category Prior to Second Semester Overall Average 83% 86% When category scores are compared with a chi-square test between sections, none of the pairs of scores show a significant difference (p-value < .05). This means that there is no significant difference in language skills between the two groups at the beginning of the 104 course, which means that any potential differences in outcomes as measured on Test #3 could be attributed to the differences in treatment, i.e. flipped or control. 5.1.2. Test #3 Scores Test #3 was given at the end of the 15-week semester after the two sections of second- semester German had learned German either through the flipped classroom model or in the control group. The test was identical to Test #2 in its format, but the material was changed to reflect what the students had learned throughout the semester. The test was taken on three separate days: day one was a listening comprehension test, day two was the reading and writing component, and the speaking section was taken online via an asynchronous conversation application. The results were compared across sections to determine what percentage of students in each section reached a benchmark score of 86% or above. Additionally, achievement for benchmarks was compared between the beginning and the end of the semester. Table 23 shows the number and percentage of the students in each section who achieved, neared, or fell below the benchmark score of 86% when all sub- categories were averaged. Table 23 Test #3 Numbers and Percentages Achieving Benchmark Scores by Treatment Group Control n=22 Flipped n=11 Below 0%-74% 5 (23%) Near 75%-85% 8 (36%) Achieved 86%-100% 9 (41%) 2 (18%) 5 (45%) 4 (36%) 105 Figure 9 Test #3 Students Achieving Benchmark Scores The Test #3 scores show that 4 out of the 11, or 36% of the students in the flipped section, and 9 of the 22, or 41% of the students in the control group, met or exceed the benchmark score of 86%. The total average scores on Test #3 showed no significant difference between the control group and the treatment group: X2 (1, N=33) = .063, p = .801. A chi- square test run on each of these pairs of scores shows no significant effect for treatment group in relationship to the learning outcomes in any category. The flipped section outperformed the control group on the reading portion of the exam on average by four percentage points. The control group outperformed the flipped section on the writing portion on average by two percentage points. The listening and speaking sections showed nearly identical outcomes. The overall scores of the flipped section were on average one percentage point higher than the control group. None of these differences are significant. The results are shown in Table 24 and Figure 10. 106 Table 24 Test #3 Average Scores by Category Reading 78% Writing 78% Listening 86% Speaking 86% Overall 82% 82% 76% 86% 86% 83% Control n=22 Flipped n=11 Figure 10 Test #3 Percentage Scores by Category The following sections take a closer look at the results within the sub categories of Test #3. 5.1.2.1. Test #3 Reading, Vocabulary, and Grammar The reading, vocabulary, and grammar portion of Test #3 consisted of an explicit grammar portion, a vocabulary portion, and a reading comprehension portion based on a written text. The questions were all multiple choice with some fill-in and some true false questions. The results are reported in Table 25. 107 Table 25 Test #3 Learning Outcomes for Reading, Vocabulary, and Grammar Student Reading Comp. Control Reading Comp. Flipped Grammar Control Grammar Flipped Vocab Control Vocab Flipped Total Cont. Total Flipped Average Achieved Near Below 88.2 68% 18% 14% 90.0 82% 09% 09% 66.6 13.5% 13.5% 73% 69.0 09% 18% 73% 78.2 32% 27% 41% 85.5 36% 55% 09% 77.7 32% 18% 50% 81.5 36% 55% 09% In the reading portion of the exam, the students in the flipped section on average had higher averages in every section and in the overall average. The highest difference in average scores from the flipped to the control section appeared in the vocabulary portion of the exam, where the control students averaged a 78.2% and the flipped students averaged an 85.5%, which is similar to the results from the first semester. The difference in the overall average scores on the written section of the exam was 3.8% in favor of the flipped section. The chi- square results for the written portion compare the percentage of students who achieved the benchmark score in each section on that category of the exam. The results are collected in Table 26. Table 26 Test #3 Percentages of Students Reaching the Benchmark Score on Reading, Vocabulary, and Grammar Reading Comprehension Grammar Vocabulary Total Control 68% 14% 32% 32% Flipped 82% 09% 36% 36% 108 Chi-Square X2 (1, N=33) =.687, p = .407 X2 (1, N=33) =.142, p = .706 X2 (1, N=33) =.068, p = .794 X2 (1, N=33) =.068, p = .794 None of the percentages of students reaching the benchmark score on the reading portion of the exam showed a significant difference between groups. More students in the flipped group reached the benchmark score in all categories except the grammar section. 5.1.2.2. Test #3 Writing The writing portion of the exam consisted of a written prompt in the form of a letter with embedded questions. The answer was scored analytically with points for correct answers, grammar, and spelling. The results for the writing portion are reported in Table 27. Table 27 Test #3 Learning Outcomes for Writing Average Achieved Near Below Control 77.8 27% 32% 41% Flipped 75.6 27% 27% 46% In the writing portion of the exam, the students in the control section on average scored slightly higher (77.8%) than the students in the flipped section (75.6%), but not to a statistically significant degree. The same percentage of students achieved the benchmark score in each section with 27%. 5.1.2.3. Test #3 Listening Comprehension The listening comprehension portion of the exam consisted of taking notes or answering questions about four texts read aloud by the instructor. The answers were scored analytically with points awarded for correct answers or correct information recorded in the notes. This section focused on comprehension and did not award or subtract points based on spelling or grammar unless those aspects interfered with the meaning of the answers. All tests were second-rated and scores outside a three percentage-point range of each other were rescored with both raters until the scores fell within three percentage points. The learning outcomes for 109 listening comprehension are shown in Table 28 below. Table 28 Test #3 Learning Outcomes for Listening Comprehension Average Achieved Near Below Control 86.3 45.5% 45.5% 09% Flipped 86.1 55% 36% 09% In the listening portion of Test #3, 45.5% of the control group and 55% of the flipped learners met the benchmark score. The chi-square test shows no significant relationship between outcomes and treatment group for the listening portion: X2 (1, N=33) = .243, p=.622 5.1.2.4. Test #3 Speaking The speaking portion of the exam was taken via an online asynchronous conversation application. The prompts were video recorded by the instructor and the students’ responses were video recorded in the application for access by the instructor. Points were awarded for correct answers, grammar, and length of response. The results for the speaking portion are reported in Table 29 below. Table 29 Test #3 Learning Outcomes for Speaking Average Achieved Near Below Control 86.1 50% 32% 18% Flipped 85.9 55% 36% 09% In the speaking section, the control students averaged 86.1%, the flipped students 85.9%. 55% of the flipped students and 50% of the control students reached the benchmark score. These differences are not statistically significant: X2 (1, N=33) = .061, p=.805. 110 Table 30 Test #3 Summary of Learning Outcomes and Significance Levels from Chi-Square Tests Listening Writing Speaking Reading Reading Comprehension Grammar Vocabulary Total Control* 46% 27% 50% 32% 68% 14% 32% 41% Flipped* 55% 27% 55% 36% 82% 09% 36% 36% *percentage of students in each section who reached the benchmark score For Test #3, more students on average met the benchmark score in the control group than in the flipped group but this difference was not significant. This does not replicate the results from the first-semester study, where the larger percentage of the flipped students meeting the benchmark in overall scores was approaching significance. Within the sub- categories, more students in the flipped section met the benchmark score in the categories of listening, speaking, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. More students in the control group met the benchmark in grammar and in the overall scores with the grammar portion weighing more heavily in the overall scores. None of these differences were significant. These results would indicate that while more students in the flipped section met the benchmarks in various portions of the test, the scores in the control group were slightly higher, leading to more students meeting the overall benchmark score. 5.2. Yearlong Participants: Learning Outcomes Once the first and second semester scores were analyzed by learning outcomes, a second analysis was completed on the yearlong participants in each learning format. The sample groups consisted of 18 students in the control section and 10 students in the flipped section. Results for students who learned either with the flipped classroom or the control group for 111 the entire length of the study are shown in Table 31 below. Table 31 Learning Outcomes for Yearlong Participants: Average Percentages Control n=18 Flipped n=10 Writing Listening Speaking Overall Reading Vocabulary Grammar 77.1% 85.1% 85.0% 77.3% 77.8% 66.3% 74.4% 78.0% 85.3% 80.8% 85.5% 67.9% 89.0% 81.8% Reading Comprehension 87.8% Total average score 81.2% Percent reaching benchmark 39% Achieved 33% Near 28% Below 30% Achieved 50% Near 20% Below The scores for the yearlong participants in each treatment group show that the control group on average scored three percentage points higher in the writing category and seven percentage points higher in the listening category. The scores on the speaking section were within one percentage point of each other. The flipped treatment group scored four percentage points higher in the reading category: eight percentage points higher in the vocabulary section, two percentage points higher in grammar, and one percentage point higher in reading comprehension. The overall Test #3 scores were within one percentage point of each other. None of these differences were significant. Learning outcomes for reaching the benchmark score showed that more students in the 112 control group reached the benchmark score for the yearlong treatment groups. 39% of the control and 30% of the flipped section reached the benchmark score at the end of the second semester of the study. This difference was not significant. Fewer students in the flipped section fell well below the benchmark score at 74% or below. 20% of the flipped section and 28% of the control section fell into that category. This difference was also not significant. Figure 11 shows the distribution of students reaching the benchmark score in each treatment group for yearlong participants in the study (N=28; control=18, flipped=10). Figure 11 Test #3 Students Achieving Benchmark Scores after one Academic Year in Treatment Group This distribution chart shows that more of the traditional students fell into the upper and lower categories while the flipped students clustered more into the middle range of achievement. This shows more bunching of scores in the control group and a wider spread of scores in the flipped section. While fewer of the flipped treatment group reached the benchmark score, fewer of them also fell well below that score. None of these differences are significant. 5.3. Results by Participant Across Tests In addition to looking at average scores by treatment group, the results of the three tests 113 can be analyzed by participant to look for trends from the beginning to the end of the yearlong study. Those results are summarized in Table 32. The trend compares scores from Test #2 to Test #3 as the two achievement tests (as opposed to Test #1, which was a placement test). Table 32 Individual Results by Participant across Tests. (A) = Achieved, (B) = Below, (N) = Nearing Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Trend ID # 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ID # 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 87(A) 93(A) 62(B) 89(A) 74(B) 79(N) 84(N) 75(N) 95(A) 75(N) 79(N) 84(N) 78(N) 68(B) 84(N) 90(A) 87(A) 86(A) 77(N) 75(N) 93(A) Test #2 68(B) 77(N) 73(B) 95(A) 91(A) 94(A) 82(N) 93(A) 94(A) 69(B) 89(A) 76(N) 78(N) 84(N) na 92(A) 71(B) 75(N) 91(A) 87(A) na na 84(N) 76(N) na 67(B) 71(B) 96(A) Test #3 70(B) 80(N) 74(B) 78(N) 87(A) 96(A) 77(N) Higher Slightly higher Higher Same Slightly higher (category) Slightly lower Same na Slightly lower Slightly lower (category) Slightly lower Higher (category) Higher (category) na na Lower (category) Lower (category) na Lower (category) Slightly lower (category) Slightly higher Trend Slightly higher Slightly higher Slightly higher Lower (category) Slightly lower Slightly higher Lower Groups and Gender CC(F) CC(F) CC(M) CC(M) CC(M) CC(F) CC(F) CØ(M) CC(F) CC(F) CC(F) CC(F) CC(F) 48 58 51 55 51 50 47 43 83 47 54 40 29 CØ(M) CØ(M) CC(F) CC(M) CØ(F) CC(M) CC(F) CC(M) Groups and Gender CC(F) FC(F) FF(M) FF(F) FF(F) FF(F) FF(F) 41 44 45 39 50 43 41 63 Test #1 28 38 40 73 49 63 55 114 Table 32 (cont’d) ID # Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Trend Groups and Gender FF(M) ØF(F) FF(M) FF(M) FF(M) FC(M) FC(M) FF(M) FC(M) 42 na 37 67 39 40 38 48 40 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Lower Same Slightly higher Slightly higher Lower (category) Slightly lower Same Slightly lower (category) Lower (category) In looking at trends across tests in both treatment groups, only the students who 60(B) 89(A) 85(N) 95(A) 81(N) 92(A) 93(A) 85(N) 80(N) 67(B) 89(A) 84(N) 91(A) 87(A) 94(A) 93(A) 86(A) 91(A) remained in the same group can be analyzed. This leaves 10 students in the flipped group and 18 students in the control group. In those groupings 40% of the flipped group and 44% of the control group had higher scores on Test #3 than Test #2. 60% of the flipped group and 44% of the control group had lower scores on Test #3 than Test #2, and in the control group, 11% of the students remained the same when comparing the two test scores. This bears out the conclusion that the second semester of the study was not as effective for the flipped classroom as the first semester. 5.4. Second-Semester Study: Research Question #2 How does the flipped classroom model affect introductory language learners’ attitudes and perceptions about CALL in general and the flipped classroom specifically? 5.4.1. Second-Semester Study: Written Survey Results The survey results for the second-semester study were collected via a perception survey about learning with the flipped or traditional learning format and the use of CALL tools for second language acquisition. The survey consisted of the same questions as the first- semester study with some additional questions, which had come up throughout the course of the second 115 semester. Answers were chosen on a Likert scale from 1-4: 1 meaning “strongly disagree;” 2 meaning “disagree;” 3 meaning “agree;” and 4 meaning “strongly agree.” For the second- semester results, only responses for students staying in one format for the entire year were analyzed. This eliminated the effect of student perceptions in the control group, who had been exposed to the flipped format during the first semester. After eliminating the responses from the students who had switched formats, the sample sizes were n=11 for the flipped group and n=14 for the control group. A one-way between- subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of course delivery format on students’ perceptions and attitudes about their learning. Significant differences were found in several areas of questioning. Primarily, the students in the control group were significantly more likely to prefer a lecture format of learning as well as to rate grammar exercises as the best way to learn a second language. There were also significant differences in the learners’ satisfaction with the course and their grade in the course in favor of the control group. I will address my hypotheses about those differences in Chapter 6. Table 33 summarizes the significant results from the second-semester survey responses. Table 33 Significant Results on Second-Semester Survey Survey Question ANOVA Results 1. Listening to in-class lectures is the best way to learn a second language 6. I generally prefer to learn concepts from in-class lectures 7. I prefer to learn a second language through whole-class discussions 10. I prefer to learn a second language through lectures by my professor F(1,23) = 17.52, p = .000 F(1,23) = 19.61, p = .000 F(1,23) = 5.88, p = .024 F(1,23) = 70.84, p = .000 116 Observed Power .980 Significance in favor of control .989 .642 control control 1.000 control Table 33 (cont’d) 12. Written textbook assignments (grammar exercises, answering questions, reading texts, etc.) are useful for learning a second language 16. I would choose a traditional lecture format for my next foreign language class 19. I was motivated to complete the homework for this class 20. I enjoyed learning German this semester 21. I registered for another German class next semester 22. I plan to major or minor in German 23. I plan to study abroad in Germany 24. I am satisfied with the amount I learned in this class 25. I am satisfied with the grade I am receiving in this class 30. In-class lectures are a good tool for learning about the culture of another country 31. In-class lectures are a good tool for learning about the history of another country F(1,23) = 4.20, p = .052 .501 control F(1,23) = 9.41, p = .005 F(1,23) = 25.17, p = .000 F(1,23) = 38.27, p = .000 F(1,23) = 18.66, p = .000 F(1,23) = 15.87 p = .001 F(1,23) = 9.49 p = .005 F(1,23) = 17.48 p = .000 F(1,23) = 5.35 p = .030 F(1,23) = 8.21 p = .009 F(1,23) = 9.22 p = .006 .836 control .998 control 1.000 control .985 .968 .839 .979 .601 .783 control control control control control control .829 control As is shown in Table 33, students in the control group gave higher ratings to lectures, grammar activities, and the traditional learning format than the flipped group. Questions 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 30, and 31 all showed significant results in favor of the control group and all related to a general preference for lecture and traditionally teacher-fronted activities in the F2F classroom. The control group, which had not been exposed to the flipped classroom, and spent more time learning through the lecture format and grammatical practice activities, was 117 significantly more in favor of lectures and grammar work for foreign language learning. In contrast, the flipped group, which had been exposed to learning through online videos in addition to lecture, grammar, and interactive activities, did not rate lecture learning as highly as the control group and rated the various types of learning more equally. The students in the control group also reported significantly higher rates of satisfaction, enjoyment, motivation, and student retention than the flipped group. The student retention results can be explained with historical retention numbers at the college for the two instructors, who taught in the study. The instructor for the control group was a tenured professor, who advised all German majors and minors at the small, liberal-arts college. Therefore, all students intending to major or minor in German were advised to enroll in her section upon their initial advising session at the college. Historical trends show that student retention had been much higher from the control-group instructor’s sections in previous semesters as well. 5.4.2. Perceptions About the Flipped Classroom: Oral Survey For the second semester study, students who had taken the flipped classroom section for at least one semester were asked to complete an asynchronous online conversation in English, eliciting their feedback on aspects of the flipped classroom in addition to the written survey. 10 of the 15 possible students completed the conversation. The students were asked five questions and responded orally within the online application. The answers were transcribed and analyzed for confirmation or contradiction of the average survey results. The five items were: 1) Give me your opinion of the flipped classroom now that you have learned with it for at least one semester. 2) What were the most positive aspects of the flipped classroom in your opinion? 3) What were the most negative aspects of the flipped classroom in your opinion? 4) Which specific online tools did you like using or find the most effective and which online tools did 118 you not like using or find the least effective? 5) If you were to sign up for another foreign language class, would you choose a flipped classroom or a traditional classroom format? For these results, I will first address the answers to items 1, 2, 3, and 5. Item #4 addressed students’ perceptions about CALL tools in general and will be analyzed separately in section 5.4.3. 5.4.2.1. Oral Survey Item #1 Of the 10 responses to item one, which asked, “Give me your opinion of the flipped classroom now that you have learned with it for at least one semester,” six were positives, one was negative, and three were of mixed reactions. The positive responses focused on several areas that corresponded with the hypotheses about the advantages of the flipped classroom including: the permanence of the online videos; the pre-loaded aspect of learning before coming to class; and the advantages of having more speaking time during the F2F class. The following quotes give examples of these types of responses. “Overall I would say I liked it. It was nice being able to see the lecture at home for homework and then come into class and have everyone be closer to being on the same page, and that way when we went to talk about it, everyone had an idea what we were talking about. It just made things go a little bit smoother in class.” (First semester flipped; achieved) “I did like the flipped classroom for learning language, specifically that you could re- watch videos for vocabulary and grammar. When you didn’t understand it, you could look back and that made comprehension easier and more repetitive. Something that was more on the students is that they are expected to get more work done on their own.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved, nearing) Some students mentioned being able to access the videos online and the repetitive nature of re-watching the videos as positives. This confirms the hypothesis that increased input outside of class time can be afforded through the use of the flipped classroom for introductory foreign languages. Students also mentioned the advantage of coming to class with some 119 knowledge of the subject matter, so that everyone was on the same page when class started. This is a positive aspect, which was predicted about the flipped classroom as well; the idea being that students will already have a baseline knowledge of a topic, reducing the necessity of spending lecture time on that topic during the F2F class time. Of course, this only works if all of the students have watched the video before coming to class. The flipped classroom relies on a student-centered learning model, which is more effective in an ideal world, but less effective if the students are not prepared for the added responsibility of doing more independent learning outside of class. “I liked the flipped classroom. I think it helped with our speaking abilities since we did that inside the classroom and all of the partner activities helped with that.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved) Several students pointed out the higher level of learner responsibility required in watching the videos before coming to class. Others liked the fact that they could learn passively outside of class and complete the active learning during the F2F class time. One student mentioned, “I think it helped with our speaking abilities since we did that inside the classroom and all of the partner activities helped with that.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved) Several students mentioned the lack of ability to ask questions when learning from the videos, while others liked being able to ask questions while doing the activities in class. Finally, some students noticed an accelerated pace of learning with the flipped classroom. They felt that by completing the work ahead of time we were able to move at a faster pace during the F2F meeting times. “I think the flipped classroom would teach me the basics much faster than the traditional classroom. I can understand a lot (of German) and I think a lot of that has to do with how much we were exposed to hearing German in class.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved, nearing) 120 5.4.2.2. Oral Survey Item #2 The second item asked, “What were the most positive aspects of the flipped classroom in your opinion?” The responses focused on two main areas of the flipped classroom: the at-home videos and the increased time for interaction in the classroom. The two most favorable aspects of the flipped classroom according to the responses to this question were the online videos and the amount of interaction afforded in the classroom. Students mentioned the ability to re-watch the videos and the videos’ effectiveness for learning new vocabulary as positives. “I liked the PowerPoints that were pre-made. We could go in and write down definitions. That really helped me.” (Two semesters flipped, below). Several students mentioned vocabulary in conjunction with the PowerPoints as a good tool for individual learning outside of class. Students mentioned that the videos often presented the material in a different way than when we went over material in class, so it gave them several explanations for the same content. “With the lecture you’re just taking in whatever the person teaching it is talking about, but with the videos you’re having kind of like visual aids in addition to just what you’re hearing. It helps give a more full understanding of what you’re talking about.” (First semester flipped; achieved) “I really liked the prerecorded videos that you had us watch of your lessons. Sometimes things were just explained a little differently in the video than in class. So, for that I really enjoyed being able to have the same lesson over again. To just get a different feel for it or when you had us watch someone else’s video maybe they explained it in a different way that it may have just clicked better for me.” (First semester flipped; achieved). The gains in vocabulary learning by the students in the flipped group as shown by the significant findings in Test #1 show that the durable memory trace of the enhanced learning in combination with the opportunities for pushed output may have created stronger vocabulary learning in the flipped classroom. 121 “I liked that we got to do vocab, like write that all down instead of wasting time in class. I liked that we got to do that outside of class and I liked having access to the videos.” (Second semester flipped; achieved) “I liked the PowerPoints that were pre-made. We could go in and write down definitions. That really helped me.” (Two semesters flipped, below) Students mentioned the partner work in class as being valuable for developing language skills and for making class more interesting and fun. “I really liked the partner work inside of the classroom. I think it helped with our speaking abilities. I really liked the videos that we had to watch because it helped us prepare for the class before we came to class. It was better to know what we were going to go over so we could look over it.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved) “One of the positive aspects was doing the partner work in the classroom. It just made the class seem more interesting, more involved than just listening to lectures. I also liked how we just watched the videos for homework with some activities. It made the homework not seem like homework that much. I just liked how it was set up.” (Two semesters flipped; nearing) One student brought up the faster pace of learning in the first-semester class, feeling that the removal of lecture from some classes allowed the instruction to be conducted more in the target language thereby accelerating the pace of learning. “I think the in-class was probably the most positive part of my German experience. Just the overall fast paced nature of the class really helped me to get off to a fast start and I just picked up a lot in so many different areas right away. Rather than starting with basics and learning baby steps here and there, it kind of just threw you into it, and just hearing basically the whole German class being spoken in German really helped my understanding. Actually having conversations in German in class was really valuable” (Two semesters flipped; achieved, nearing) “The most positive aspect of the flipped classroom is you would talk about it in class but then like if you didn’t know it or you had to go back over it you could like go back on Course Connect and watch the video again and kind of like remember like ‘oh yeah, that’s what that was all about.’” (First semester flipped, achieved) Overall students noticed an accelerating effect of the flipped classroom when compared with the traditional format, which was born out with higher test scores in the flipped section. 122 “In the first semester, I think the flipped classroom will get you way ahead of the traditional classroom.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved, nearing) 5.4.2.3. Oral Survey Item #3 Item #3 on the oral survey asked, “What were the most negative aspects of the flipped classroom in your opinion?” The responses varied, but most centered on learning styles, such as note-taking, learning grammar, and staying organized. The amount of time required outside of class and the perceived extra work were also common themes. The two areas touched on in the responses to item #3 had to do with learning style and the amount of perceived work. One of the issues of learning style involved learning from the videos as opposed to learning in class. Students mentioned grammar specifically as something that they found more difficult to learn from a video. “I don’t really like learning grammatical parts of a language on a video. Sometimes I have questions and I can’t directly ask the video a question. So, just like sentence structure I prefer learning in class over learning through online notes, but we also did go over it in class, too. That’s something I like doing in class more is the grammatical portion. Helps me understand more.” (Second semester flipped; achieved) Another mentioned that she did not take as many notes from the videos as she did in class, “I feel like we didn’t really take a lot of notes in the flipped classroom. The flipped classroom kind of took away from that aspect of lecture learning because when you’re watching the PowerPoints you just watch the Powerpoint, you don’t usually take notes because you just watch it.” (First semester flipped; achieved) One student had a hard time keeping track of what was due each day because so much of the content was hosted online. “One thing that I would like to have done differently is just kind of how we know what assignments are due. I know it’s college and it’s our responsibility to stay on top of our work, but everything is online. It’s just kind of hard to get in the swing, just constantly going onto Course Connect and getting everything that you need to know for that week or that chapter, then just staying on top of that.” (First semester flipped; achieved) Additionally, one student did not feel that the course provided enough focus on 123 grammar. “We didn’t spend a lot of time like conjugating verbs and mastering the endings to everything. I think if you really want to master the language you have to do it the good old-fashioned way, memorizing, studying endings, and all that good stuff, but I think the flipped classroom does get you off to a faster start.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved, nearing) Some of these issues go back to the discussion from item #1, in which I discussed the need for students to adjust how they approach learning when utilizing the flipped classroom. Students may not have learned much via videos in the past, and their video- watching behavior might not have involved note taking in the past. Their skills may increase as instructors teach them how best to approach that kind of learning. Note taking and organization are both skills, which might need to be taught more explicitly at the beginning of a flipped course, based on these types of responses. The amount of time required outside of class was also mentioned several times as a negative aspect. “Overall, I liked it, but the negative part was that a lot of times it did seem like a lot of work. Just because it seemed like, I’m going to class and then I’m basically… it’s like having two classes a day instead of the one. Sometimes I’d be sitting at home and I can’t get a link to work and it can be kind of frustrating. Sometimes, rather than really trying to fully understand what I’m doing, I’d just try to get it done.” (First semester flipped; achieved) The videos were assigned, on average, twice a week and lasted between 10 and 20 minutes, except for a few historical documentaries, which were longer. The course syllabi in both sections stated that one hour of homework was expected per hour of F2F time. The courses each met four times per week for 50 minutes, resulting in four hours of homework expected per week. The college’s course evaluations regularly reveal that students do not spend that much time on homework outside of class. Because we made an attempt to assure that students watched the videos by giving online quizzes and embedding assignments, it 124 could have felt like more work than just completing written work. Again, the idea of learner responsibility comes up when learning is supposed to be done before it is addressed in class, and that is an issue, if students cannot adjust their learning styles to best make use of this different style of instruction. The learning outcomes do not show that there was a problem, as the flipped classroom cohort did as well or better than the traditional section in all learning areas. 5.4.2.4. Oral Survey Item #5 Of the ten responses to the question of whether they would choose a flipped or a traditional format for their next foreign language class, six said they would choose a flipped classroom, one said they would choose a traditional classroom and three said they would like a mix of the two. Students who responded by saying that they would choose the flipped classroom for a further foreign language course noted the advantages of being able to follow the class instruction better because of the prep work done in the videos, covering more material and speeding up the learning process because of the access to instruction outside of class, and the flexibility of learning when the time was right for them. Several students mentioned feeling more prepared when coming to class in comparison with a previous foreign language class, where they felt lost or unprepared during class time. “In the future I think I would sign up for a flipped classroom because I took German in high school and from high school to now I know my speaking ability has gotten a lot better, and I really liked the videos outside the classroom and doing the homework inside the classroom. I think that helped a lot. I really did like this course.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved) Two students noticed the possibility of covering more material with the same amount of F2F class time because the recorded lectures essentially extended the amount of instruction, if the students were willing to take advantage of it. 125 “If I had to sign up for another flipped classroom I think I would. Even though at times it could be frustrating it could be kind of difficult. You definitely have to put more work into it, but I honestly think I take more out of it. Like me, I had the flipped class and then the traditional class. Maybe if the lecture classes were a bit longer, but since they’re only 50 minutes, having the flipped classroom you could fit double the curriculum into the 50-minute classes. It gives the students and the teacher the opportunity to learn more. So, overall I’d probably take another one.” (First semester flipped, achieved; Second semester traditional, achieved) “If I was to take a second language other than German I would definitely take the flipped classroom, even though it was kind of difficult to stay on top of all the technology that was used and sometimes it didn’t work right, it was much easier to say, ‘ok, I’m going to learn this on the time I have now when I have my own time, so I feel the need to want to go learn it instead of being forced to go to class.’ Having class lectures definitely helps a lot, especially for me, but going online and getting all of the information that you set up for us on Course Connect and being able to go on my own time to see that was definitely something that I would choose. I would definitely pick the flipped classroom.” (First semester flipped, achieved; Second semester traditional, achieved) In the mixed category, two students said they would pick the flipped classroom for a first semester class but not for a second semester one. “If I was starting over with a new language I would prefer the flipped classroom because I think it gets you to a functional level faster. If you need to get dropped off someplace where you have to speak a different language, I think a flipped classroom will get you to a higher level faster. If I was continuing with the language, for a second year, I think I would choose a traditional classroom. Because right now I could function, I could understand German speaking in Germany and get around, but if I really wanted to master the language, I think I’m lacking in the areas of like building sentences. I think in a traditional classroom you spend more time working on the basics, and the rules, and the laws, you know the foundation first rather than throwing it all at you at once, so if I was going to continue with the language I would choose the traditional classroom.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved, nearing) “I think I would choose the flipped classroom for first semester and possibly not second.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved, nearing) The perception here seemed to be that the flipped classroom was better for learning more basic ideas, like vocabulary and simpler grammatical concepts, but did not lend itself as well to a more in-depth study of the grammar and sentence structure of the language. Perhaps because our current focus in language learning is on the communicative approach, the videos 126 were made in that style and meant to support a communicative classroom. The types of videos created to support the flipped classroom are also key to how well the homework fits with the interactive activities completed in class. In this case, the in-class activities were structured to provide opportunities for oral interaction in a communicative setting. A curriculum, which focuses more on form would benefit more from grammatically focused videos. It is possible that the videos in the second semester were not a good fit with the communicative focus of the curriculum since more of them focused on grammar, cultural, and historical topics. This topic will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. Within the mixed category and in the comments of the student who would choose the traditional classroom, the main complaint seemed to be not being able to ask questions when learning a new concept from a video. Although students were encouraged to bring their questions to class the next day, some missed the immediate feedback, or the fact that we did not go over every homework assignment in class. There did not appear to be a correlation between achievement level and a student’s choice for or against the flipped classroom. Students in all three categories (below, nearing, and achieved) chose the flipped classroom, while those choosing the mixed and traditional options represented nearing and achieved. More likely was a correlation with learning styles. My hypothesis is that these were students with a more independent learning style, who learned well on their own and did not request as much support through questions and emails to the instructor, were the most enthusiastic about the flipped classroom and gave the longest and most detailed responses to these survey questions. The evidence for this distinction in learning styles was not collected for the study, but comes from observations by the instructor throughout the study. Students who requested more secondary input from the instructor in the 127 way of questions in class and verification of assignments outside of class chose the mixed or traditional answer. These students felt more comfortable having more access to a F2F instructor and were not as comfortable learning in the online environment. In this case all of these students were also female. 5.4.3. Perceptions About CALL Oral Survey Item #4 asked students to talk about their experiences with the different CALL online learning tools in conjunction with the flipped classroom. The responses were quite unified in the fact that they overwhelmingly liked using the asynchronous conversation tools and the online videos but did not enjoy working with the course blog. The responses and a discussion are listed by tool in the following sections. 5.4.3.1. Asynchronous Conversations and VoiceThreads 7 of the 10 respondents mentioned Conversations and Voicethreads as a tool they either liked using or was their favorite. They mentioned aspects such as increased time for speaking practice, and planning time. For most of the conversations, students could listen to the questions as many times as they wanted before giving a recorded, oral response. This helped them take the time to plan out their speaking and refer back to the questions for sentence structure. There was no mention of technological glitches, which had been a problem in other semesters, but didn’t seem to affect this group as much. “I think the Conversations were probably my favorite ones and I think the most effective in helping me learn the language.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved, nearing) “My favorite use of technology in the class was the Conversations. I feel like that the conversations and the text chats were kind of the most useful technology.” (First semester flipped; achieved) “The Conversations I think are really helpful because they are probably a more efficient way to do it. That way we can do it more and the students can have more 128 experience actually speaking.” (First semester flipped; achieved) 5.4.3.2. Course Blog The course blog was, by far the least popular tech tool used in the study. Students were assigned two blog posts per chapter: one post in English about a cultural topic and one post in German based on the linguistic topic of that chapter. The negative comments mostly mentioned the cultural English posts. General sentiment was that learning about the German culture outside of class time was not helpful in improving their language skills, which was apparently a priority for the students. Some of the comments about using Google translate were problematic, because the students admitted to using an online translator and then complained that this did not help their language learning very much. “I think the blog entries were the least effective. I just feel like you could get by without significant effort.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved, nearing) “The blog kind of bored me because you could see everybody else’s and you would be like, that’s basically what I was going to say.” (One semester flipped; achieved) “I didn’t like the blogs as I said before because it was easy to use Google translate.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved) 5.4.3.3. Online Videos The online videos included both Screencasts of PowerPoints narrated by the instructor and iMovies created by the instructor and others for the purpose of teaching German. 6 of the 10 respondents mentioned the online videos in a positive way and one student responded negatively to them. Several mentioned that they liked the videos made by the teacher/researcher better than the ones made by others. Students also mentioned the ability to re-watch the videos as a positive factor. One student recognized the enhanced input of the videos when she noticed that the visual aids and the voice-overs of the Screencasts helped her understanding. Again, students pointed out the difference between learning vocabulary and 129 grammar with the videos. They found the videos helpful for learning vocabulary but one student still mentioned that she would rather learn grammar in the F2F classroom. “With the videos, I really, really enjoyed them. I really liked when you filmed them at your house with your kids. That was really funny, that really kept my attention the entire time. I thought that was really great. I think you should keep doing that. Especially because it just takes it from just a classroom level to a much more personal level, almost like we were colleagues. I enjoyed seeing them over and over again and just getting the concept down. I think all the technology that was used was really good. Even though people may not like what they’re doing, they might not realize that’s something that’s really helping them more.” (One semester flipped; achieved) “The screencast Powerpoints were probably the best, because you have not only your voice doing a lecture but also the visual aids because it just brings it full circle and helps you understand it better.” (One semester flipped; achieved) “I like the videos where you actually go through and pick out the different vocab and show us because it’s more visual.” (One semester flipped; achieved) “I thought that the videos that you made at home with your kids, they were a lot easier to follow and understand than the videos you found online” (Two semesters flipped; nearing) 5.4.3.4. Text Chat One of the comments about the text chats showed a strong correlation to the theory of forced output contained in the interaction hypothesis (Gass, 1997). “The text chats, I’m kind of on the fence about them, I think they were helpful because it really forced you, just made you sit down and think, ‘what do I know, what don’t I know,’ which for me… getting crunch time like that was something that I didn’t like very much, but I think it was still really helpful for me.” (One semester flipped; achieved). This comment validates the hypothesis of forced output, which states that being faced with an output task shows a learner what they do not know and sends them in search of other input to fill in the gaps in their learning. While the student mentions that this process is not always enjoyable, he recognizes its worth in the language learning process. “The text chats were very helpful because you had questions and you could form the 130 sentences and it helped with how to use and structure sentences. You could always go back and see them.” (Two semesters flipped; achieved). This comment mirrors the work done on text chat by Smith (2009), in which he points out the benefits of text chat for language learning including the slowed down nature of the conversation, extra planning time, and the ability to refer back to previous language samples. The student recognizes the advantage of referring back to previous sentences to structure answers within the text chat. Overall, the comments from the oral surveys reflected the perceptions by the students that the videos were helpful and enjoyable to watch and that the shift towards more interaction during the F2F class time was also a welcome move. The work done outside of class time was also seen as more time consuming and reflected the fact that the flipped classroom places more responsibility on the learner for being an independent learner. This can be seen as “extra work” since the learning is active rather than passive, i.e. the learner is constructing meaning on their own rather than being led through the learning process by the instructor. Certain tools, such as Voicethread and Conversations had consistently positive ratings. These comments stated that they enjoyed the interaction that they made possible even in an online format. The blog was consistenly the lowest rated tool as it was seen as one-sided and not as useful. The following, and final, chapter will summarize the conclusions of this study, discuss its implications and suggest directions for further research on the topic. An additional section gives suggestions for the creation and implementation of the flipped classroom for foreign language teaching and learning. 5.5. Conclusions of Results for Second Semester The results for second semester first re-evaluated each student section to determine that there were not significant differences in their proficiency levels before the second semester study 131 began. This was necessary because some students switched sections or dropped out of the study altogether at the semester break. Test #2, when re-analyzed for second semester sections, showed that there was no significant difference in their language proficiency before the second- semester treatment. In response to RQ #1, Test #3 measured the learners’ language proficiency after their second-semester treatment and showed that, contrary to the first-semester results, there were no significant differences in the overall scores or in any of the sub-categories. The student attitudes towards the delivery formats and online tools showed that, after the second semester, the students in the control group, who had learned primarily through lecture and written homework, were significantly more in favor of these traditional learning formats than in the idea of using the flipped format. The students in the flipped section rated all learning formats more equally, not favoring the traditional or flipped tools more or less favorably. 132 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION 6. Discussion This quasi-experimental, mixed-methods study looked at how the flipped classroom would affect the learning outcomes and learner attitudes for introductory foreign language learners when compared with learners in a traditional lecture-format course. Two sections of first- and second-semester German were taught: (1) flipped and (2) traditional lecture format. The study was carried out over two consecutive semesters. The results were analyzed for each semester. Results for students who participated for the entire year in one format were analyzed as a yearlong participant study. The results found that the flipped classroom showed greater advantages for learning outcomes in the introductory class than in the second semester class and that the flipped treatment group had significantly higher learning outcomes in the area of vocabulary building during the first semester. For the second semester and yearlong participant studies there were no significant differences in the learning outcomes. Self-reported learner satisfaction with the course was higher in the control group for the yearlong participants. For learner perception, the participants in the first-semester study were significantly more likely to choose a flipped classroom for their next foreign language class than the students in the control section, who had not been exposed to the flipped classroom. The students in the flipped section were also more positive about the use of asynchronous online conversations as an online foreign language-learning tool than the students in the control section. In the yearlong participant study, the results showed that the students in the control section had a higher level of learner satisfaction and student retention. Overall, the students in 133 the control section reported having more satisfaction with the delivery model than in the flipped section. There were also more control students who reported wanting to continue with their study of the language and to study abroad in the future, although these numbers continued a historical trend, which will be discussed in section 6.1.2. Finally, 60% of students with exposure to at least one semester of the flipped format reported that they would choose a flipped format for their next foreign language course, 10% would choose a traditional class, and 30% said they would prefer a mixture of the two. 6.1. Results 6.1.1. Summary of Language Learning Outcomes The results in the area of language learning outcomes showed slightly higher achievement test scores for the flipped classroom section on all portions of the first-semester achievement test, except for the speaking section, in which the results across sections were identical. Within the reading portion of the first-semester exam, the flipped section also performed better than the traditional section in all sub-categories of vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension. A benchmark score of 86% was set for the overall exam and each of its sub-categories. Scores on the exam were then compared to see what percentage of students in each group achieved the benchmark score. In Test #2, the achievement test for first semester, 32% of the students in the control section reached the benchmark score compared with 64% of the students in the flipped section. This result is nearing significance (p = .056). Within each sub-category of Test #2, a higher percentage of the flipped classroom students achieved the benchmark score of 86%. Within the sub- category of vocabulary knowledge, 18% of the control group students and 57% of the flipped students achieved the benchmark score. That difference was significant (p = .016). The sub-category of listening comprehension had the next highest difference in 134 benchmark score achievement with 59% of the control students and 86% of the flipped students achieving the level benchmark (p = .091). In the second-semester study, the scores on the achievement test (Test #3) were more uniform with no significant differences in any of the categories or overall scores. The flipped treatment group on average scored four percentage points higher on the reading portion, the control group on average scored two percentage points higher on the written portion, and the speaking and listening scores were within one percentage point of each other. Overall, the flipped students scored one percentage point higher on the exam. Within the reading category, the largest difference in scores was in the vocabulary section, where the flipped section averaged an 86% and the control section averaged a 78%. Although this result is not significant, it does mirror the results of the first-semester study, where the only significant difference was in the vocabulary section. In looking at the number of students who reached the benchmark score in the second-semester study, 41% of the control section and 36% of the flipped section achieved an 86%. This was not a significant difference and none of the sub-categories showed a significant difference in the percentage of students achieving the benchmark score. 135 Figure 12 Summary of Students Achieving Benchmark Scores in First- and Second-Semester Studies In looking at Figure 12, one can see that the flipped classroom had the largest effect on learning outcomes in the first-semester study. The largest percentage of students achieved the benchmark score in the flipped classroom treatment group on the achievement test for first- semester German, which was an introductory language-learning course. In the first semester, fewer students in the flipped section also fell into the “below” category, which consisted of scoring a 74% or lower on the achievement test. The results in the second semester did not replicate the results of the first semester. In that study, there was no significant difference in the percentage of students who met the benchmark score. This is possibly due to the fact that individual learning differences caused greater changes in the learning outcomes by this point, which overcame the instructional differences in the course formats. The final step in the analysis of the learning outcomes was to look at the students who were exposed to the same format for the entire year of the study. These groups were called the yearlong participants. When their scores were analyzed, the results showed that there was no significant difference in the learning outcomes of the two groups. The yearlong control group 136 did slightly better in the writing and listening sections and the flipped treatment group did slightly better in the reading section on Test #3. There was also no significant difference in the percentage of students in each of the achievement categories for reaching the benchmark score on the Test #3. Slightly more students achieved the benchmark score in the control section and slightly fewer students fell well below the benchmark score in the flipped section. Figure 13 Summary of Students Achieving Benchmark Scores For language learning outcomes, the significant results were found in the first- semester of the study, where a significantly higher percentage of learners in the flipped classroom achieved the benchmark score on the vocabulary portion of the achievement test. There were also results nearing significance for the percentage of students in the first- semester flipped classroom group who achieved the benchmark score on the achievement test overall. 6.1.2. Summary of Learner Perceptions In the area of learner perceptions, the results from the first-semester study were that students, 137 who learned with the flipped classroom for one semester, were significantly more likely than the learners in the control section to choose the flipped classroom for their next language course. While the control section was much less likely to choose a flipped classroom in the future, the flipped section was equally open to a flipped or a traditional class going forward. One can safely assume that all students in the study had exposure to the traditional learning format before enrolling in the flipped course, meaning that, after experiencing both learning styles, they found both courses to be an equal alternative in the future. The students in the control section had only experienced traditional learning and were less positive about the possible benefits of learning language with the flipped classroom without having experienced it themselves. While this result may simply bear out the maxim that people generally like what they already know, it also shows that after one semester of learning with the flipped classroom (a first for every member of that section), they felt it was equal to the design with which they had learned a foreign language up until that point. It also showed that learners without exposure to the flipped classroom did not prefer it from its reputation, but could see its merits, if exposed for one semester. In the other categories of the student survey for the first-semester study, there was one significant difference in opinions about the use of asynchronous conversations as a learning tool for foreign language. The students in the flipped section were more likely than the students in the traditional section to rate Conversations (MSU CLEAR application) and VoiceThreads as greatly enhancing their learning. There were no other significant differences in opinions about satisfaction with online vs. F2F learning tools, assessment of self-effort in the course, or interest in continuing with a study of the language. Non-significant differences, which stood out on the survey, were that both sections still rated lecture learning and interactive F2F 138 learning the highest, pointing towards the importance of keeping as much of that aspect present in the flipped classroom, while also implementing the use of videos to maximize the F2F class time. The flipped section rated computer-assisted language learning overall slightly higher than the control section, which could show a growing comfort level with the use of technology as students learn to use CALL more effectively on their own. All other areas of the first- semester study survey were quite similar. The survey results in the second-semester study showed some changes from the first semester but generally matched the preference for the traditional format within the control group with more acceptance for a broader range of learning formats within the flipped group. The second-semester survey results looked only at the students who had exposure to one delivery format or the other for the entire year, so the sample sizes were smaller than the first semester. The flipped section still chose the flipped and traditional formats equally and the control students still greatly favored the traditional format for a future L2 course. Both sections still rated asynchronous conversations as the most useful online tool for language learning, with the flipped section preferring it more than the traditional one. Other significant differences in the second semester came in the areas of self- assessment of enjoyment, satisfaction, and student retention in favor of the control section. Scores in the areas of enjoyment of the course, satisfaction with the course, continuing with study of the language, and plans to major or minor in German and study abroad were all significantly higher in the control section than in the flipped section in the yearlong participant study. These results partially parallel the oral feedback from the students in the flipped section, who reported less satisfaction with the second semester of the flipped classroom than the first. Satisfaction with the second semester course seems to have fallen in the flipped section, but 139 the oral feedback indicates that the students’ concerns were with the emphasis on culture and history in that semester, and not with the flipped delivery format itself. Several students mentioned enjoying the more basic vocabulary-building videos, which were more prevalent in the first semester, rather than some of the screencasts, which addressed the more complicated grammar topics and required a higher level of critical thinking as the second semester progressed. These results can also be triangulated with the language learning outcomes, in which the flipped classroom showed the greatest gains in vocabulary learning, which were more emphasized in the first semester. The greater student retention from the control section can also be seen historically and could have its roots in the organization of courses at the college. Students who declare an interest in majoring or minoring in German upon arrival at this small college are often funneled into the course taught by instructor A, the full-time tenured faculty member, who will become their advisor in the future. This became the control group for the study and ended up showing higher student retention numbers. A look at all 28 declared German majors and minors in the year before the study was carried out shows that only four came from Instructor B’s first- and second-semester courses. This may explain the higher retention rates for the control group after the flipped classroom study was carried out. The significant differences in the learning satisfaction category are hypothesized to come from a more general comfort level with the traditional learning format. In the oral feedback, several students mentioned that the flipped classroom felt like more work and that it was sometimes harder to stay focused on the online lectures, even when they felt like the material was beneficial and helped them learn. A 2012 study at Harvard University on the flipped classroom also found that the student evaluations were generally lower for flipped 140 courses but the learning outcomes were better (Berrett, 2012). Previous studies into student perceptions about blended learning have found that student opinions tend to be positive with a significant minority being opposed (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). The current study found similar results in the perception survey, where the majority of students in the flipped group rated the flipped and traditional formats equally after one year of exposure. The oral reports from the students in the flipped classroom at the end of the second semester showed 60% positive responses, 30% mixed responses, and 10% negative responses towards the flipped format. The positive factors of the flipped classroom most often mentioned included: having access to the videos outside of the classroom; moving at a faster pace in classroom due to watching the videos before coming to class; remembering the vocabulary better because of the enhanced input of the videos; increased speaking opportunities in class; and the lower stress level of completing work in class. Several students, who switched to the traditional section in the second semester, reported having done better in the flipped section. The mixed responders most often reported liking the first semester better than the second. Some mixed comments reported a feeling of “extra work” with the flipped classroom or a difficulty in switching their personal learning style this late in their education. Several students simply did not like online learning in any form and preferred the personal attention that the lecture format provides, such as the ability to ask questions and get instant feedback. These observations about online learning are not just restricted to blended learning in the foreign language classroom, but a comment on the nature of online learning in general. As one student mentioned in the comments, “I feel like this late in my education, if it were applied earlier, like Kindergarten towards now, it would be more effective than it was for me.” (Two semesters flipped: nearing) Language learners, especially the successful ones, who have made 141 it to college, have learned to be good at the job of learning, in the form of coming to class to learn and then going home to practice. Quite literally flipping that notion on its head requires those students to approach learning in a different way and it requires them to take a different form of initiative. For example, peer-assisted, collaborative, and cooperative learning are all supported by the flipped classroom model and may differ from the independent learning and assessment models common in U.S. schools today (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). In the traditional format, students showed up for class, maybe having read a text ahead of time, and expected the instructor to provide the content and the structure of class. This format placed the scaffolded portion of learning in a different place than in the flipped classroom. Rather than scaffolding the instruction, the flipped classroom scaffolds the practice. Bloom (1984) found, in his research on methods of group instruction, that the lecture format was the least effective, followed by mastery learning (where students have time to practice what they’ve just learned). Only individual tutoring scored better in delayed post-tests. The flipped classroom helps facilitate the opportunity for practice and individual tutoring by removing the lecture from the F2F classroom and giving the students and instructors the ability to utilize that extra time in more effective ways. Because technology is proving to have the ability to change the way instructors teach and students learn, these new classroom formats are still developing. As instructors become more experienced at creating educational modules with technology and learners become more confident that this learning format will be beneficial for them, the process should become more effective. In general, it is safe to say that the majority of students want to learn. When confronted with a novel learning style, such as the flipped classroom was for every student participating in this study, the buy-in and expertise on the part of the students may not be there 142 right from the start. However, as the majority of positive or mixed responses from this question showed, students were enthusiastic about the flipped classroom’s potential and liked several of the aspects, which I had predicted would be beneficial. Watching a video or screencast to learn about an unfamiliar topic takes a different type of motivation than producing a written piece of homework to turn in. Purists may say that the type of assignment is inconsequential, and if the flipped classroom shows the promise of affording better learning outcomes, then students should complete the homework, regardless of format, but even the most effective homework is rendered useless if it is not done. Many strong students have learned from experience that they can often catch up on homework simply by coming to class and paying attention. This strategy is not effective with the flipped classroom, because they have skipped the first step in the learning process and can’t continue to the next step of practicing without it. So the student’s remark about, “maybe if I’d done it since Kindergarten, I might be better at it,” could be a key insight into whether or not to continue implementing the flipped classroom. If a 50% flip in its first semester of use by both instructor and learners can show results approaching significance and garner positive feedback from both sides, then it would certainly merit taking a look at how to continue to develop and improve the format. The issue of grammar learning vs. vocabulary building has come up several times in various parts of the student response section. Responses on vocabulary learning were mostly positive, while those on grammar were more negative. Some did not like learning about grammar from a video and some mentioned the advantages of the audio and visual input for learning vocabulary. The students’ responses to the videos on vocabulary was more positive, and the language learning outcomes in that area were also more positive for the flipped 143 classroom cohort (see section 4.1). Perhaps the enhanced input feature of the videos is easier to utilize when teaching vocabulary. Grammatical topics are more complex and might not be as easy to transfer to video, where students cannot ask questions to clarify. It would perhaps be beneficial to look at the formats of the grammar videos to see if there is a way to make them more impactful. Several students mentioned missing the ability to ask immediate questions when viewing the videos. This is another instance of students having learning habits set through a long period of learning in the traditional format. Many students have learned to be successful through advocating for their own learning during class time by asking questions and reconfirming their answers. This can be positive for the student and also help others around them if they are having the same problems. However, this can also slow down the F2F learning process if one student monopolizes the conversation to ask questions that the other students already understand. One of the advantages of the flipped classroom should be that students can access the videos and learn at their own pace, either moving quickly through the ones that are easy for them or re-watching the ones that are harder. In this iteration of the flipped classroom there was no built-in option for feedback or further clarification within the videos. As technology advances, it would be optimal if the videos could contain a feedback loop to the instructor or fellow students or be glossed with links to FAQs and extra explanations for those who need more help. 6.2. Discussion and Conclusion The results of this study point to better overall learning outcomes for students exposed to the flipped classroom for one semester (nearing significance) and significantly higher vocabulary learning outcomes in the first semester. The hypothesis for this advantage to learning in the 144 flipped classroom is a combination of the enhanced input of the videos, which allows students to learn and recall new vocabulary at a higher rate at the end of the semester, and the interaction approach (Gass, 1997), which helps students fill in the gaps in their learning and gain feedback through input and output in the target language. After exposure to the flipped classroom, students were equally likely to choose a flipped or a traditional foreign language course in the future, while the students with no exposure to the flipped classroom were significantly more likely to choose a traditional classroom in the future. 6.2.1. Discussion of Language Learning Outcomes The flipped classroom removed the lecture portion of the F2F class time several days a week, allowing students to spend more time on interactive activities, which provided them with more input, more feedback, and more opportunities to create with the language. Based on the Interactionist Approach to SLA, this interaction should facilitate greater amounts of inout, feedback, and output in the target language. This led to better learning outcomes in vocabulary knowledge for the learners in the flipped classroom treatment group after one semester. In the first semester, the students primarily watched videos, created by the instructor, which presented new vocabulary via video images, sound, and text. This multi-channel input was more effective in teaching basic vocabulary than the traditional textbook method of pictures and vocabulary lists. In the second semester, as the class advanced and focused on topics such as German history and higher-level grammatical concepts, the learning outcomes for the flipped classroom in vocabulary were still higher than in any other category of the achievement test, but not to a significant degree. This points to the greatest effect for the flipped classroom in basic vocabulary building at the introductory level. 145 The interaction approach states that the input, feedback, and output provided by interactive activities in the classroom do not, in and of themselves, lead to greater learning gains, but that they prime the pump by accentuating what the student does not know and sending him or her in search of the information to fill the gaps in his or her knowledge (Gass & Mackey, 2006).The flipped classroom not only provides more interaction by removing the lecture time from some classes, it also provides the enhanced learning of the online videos in a permanent form, which can be accessed numerous times by the students as they recognize which vocabulary words they do not know. The pre- loading of knowledge through watching instructional videos before class can also give the students greater capacity for interaction at the early levels of language learning. More output capacity creates the opportunity for more feedback, which leads to more input, increasing the information students get about their ability level and gaps in their knowledge. Students in the flipped classroom section had significantly higher learning outcomes in vocabulary learning and outcomes nearing significance on the overall achievement test with the hypothesis that the increased interaction and the enhanced input of the videos combined to increase their success in the early stages of language learning. In the second semester of the study, the effect of the flipped classroom was not seen as clearly on learning outcomes. The scores on the second semester achievement test showed no significant difference overall or in any category. This points to a lesser advantage for the online videos, at least in the form they took for this study, when dealing with less concrete information. Many more of the second semester videos were screencasts instead of iMovies. The screencasts were verbal explanations of grammar topics spoken over PowerPoints. They were not moving videos, contained more English, and often were meant to explain a grammatical topic. The students were not as favorable about these types of videos and the 146 results of the second semester study showed that they were not as effective for teaching the material in the second semester class as the iMovies were in the first semester. In essence, they were not a good fit for the material in the second semester. The trend of higher overall scores and significantly higher vocabulary scores in the first semester suggests that the flipped classroom was an effective teaching method for an introductory foreign language class. In its first iteration it was able to produce higher learning outcomes than the traditional lecture method, which has been utilized, analyzed, and improved upon for years. In addition, the fact that this study only utilized videos on half of the instructional days suggests that the utilization of more vocabulary- building videos could lead to even higher learning outcomes. 6.2.2. Discussion of Learner Perceptions In the area of learner perceptions, the learners in the flipped treatment group held an equal preference for the flipped and traditional methods after being exposed to both. Students who had never experienced the flipped classroom were quite skeptical of its benefits and were much more likely to choose a traditional course format in the future. This preference showed up after just one semester of exposure to the flipped classroom and continued into the second semester. When ten students were asked whether they would choose a flipped or traditional format for their next foreign language class, nine said they would choose either a fully or partially flipped course and one said she would choose a traditional course. The advantages mentioned by the students in the final survey pointed to the same theoretical hypotheses, which predicted the flipped classroom’s advantages before the study, including having access to, and watching, the vocabulary videos before class (enhanced input) and completing the interactive activities during class time (interaction approach). Several students also mentioned the fact that through 147 the flipped classroom they often learned the same topic several different times and several different ways. Between the online videos, the feedback and clarification during class, and the interaction with other students in the target language, students with different learning styles or preferences could figure out a new concept in the best way for them. All of these insights into the preferences and perceptions of the learners pointed to the possibility of better learning outcomes with the next iterations of the flipped classroom in introductory foreign language learning. Students, who were exposed to the flipped classroom for the entire year, had less positive attitudes about the class when surveyed at the end of the year, than students, who were in the control group for the entire year. Even though they overwhelmingly chose the flipped classroom for a future foreign language class, their self-evaluations of satisfaction with the course and the student retention were significantly lower than the control group at the end of the year. The feedback from the two groups did not always corroborate each other when it came to satisfaction with the course. The surveys and student evaluations in the flipped group showed lower student satisfaction, but the oral feedback provided an overwhelmingly positive picture of their experiences with the flipped classroom specifically. Since 90% of the respondents indicated that they would choose a flipped or partially flipped class in the future, it is hypothesized that the dissatisfaction may have come from a poor fit of the videos with the learners’ goals in the second semester. In looking at the breakdown of video types and sources from Chapter 3, it became clear that the videos in the second semester were more often those taken straight from other sources on the Internet and less iMovies created by the instructor. The student feedback paired with the learning outcomes in L2 vocabulary acquisition, point to the iMovies focused on vocabulary as 148 the most effective for this type of flipped classroom. In the first semester, 28% of the videos were iMovies and 76% of all the videos were created by the instructor specifically for the class. In the second semester, only 15% of the videos were iMovies and 38% were instructor made. This meant that in the second semester, many more of the videos were taken from other sources and did not match the needs and subject matter of the class as well. In addition, many of the second semester videos dealt with historical and cultural topics, in this case, the Berlin Wall and post- WWII German history. Student responses on the oral feedback and in the university course evaluations showed that this class was much more focused on language learning and often saw the historical videos and assignments as a waste of time. Responses to the blogs, which were meant to elicit discussion about the historical and cultural aspects, were also overwhelmingly negative. The blogs were rated the lowest of all the online tools on the student surveys. They were also the most-often mentioned negative aspect in the oral feedback and on the university course evaluations. Because the focus of the course shifted in the second half of the second semester to look at German history, the flipped classroom did not seem to facilitate that type of learning as well as it did the more language- based learning of the first 1.5 semesters. Those results show up in the language learning outcomes, which evened out in the second semester, as well as the learner perceptions, which turned sharply lower in the second semester. Overall, the learner perceptions followed the trend that previous studies had found, which was that the majority of the students liked the flipped format with a vocal minority remaining opposed to online learning in general. 6.3. Limitations of the Study The primary limitations of the study include small sample sizes and the possible impact of 149 different instructors on the learning outcomes of the two treatment groups. The consistently higher scores on the first-semester achievement tests pointed towards an advantage for the flipped classroom for learning outcomes overall but could not be said to be significant without a larger sample size. The mixing of the treatment groups from one semester to the next was also problematic because it reduced the number of students exposed to one treatment for the entire year. A more effective study would have followed a larger number of the same students within a treatment group for the entire year. The fact that the two sections were taught by different instructors was due to scheduling factors within the college where the classes were taught. The instructor for the traditional section was a tenured faculty member with 20 years of teaching experience and limited experience teaching with technology. The flipped section was taught by the researcher, who was an adjunct faculty member and Ph.D. candidate in German Studies with an emphasis on CALL and five years of college teaching experience. While the ideal situation for the study would have been to have both sections taught by the same instructor, this was not possible given the scheduling and teaching requirements at the college where the study took place. The preliminary pilot study, comparing teacher- student talk ratios and percent of TL usage in class should lend some validity to the assertion that the two instructors taught in a very similar fashion, and were therefore not the reason for any differences in the learning outcomes or student perceptions found in the dissertation study. Replication was not present in the second semester of the study for the significant or near-significant results of the first semester. While learners in the flipped section still performed better than the control group on Test #3, the results were not significant. 150 6.4. Contributions of the Study This study started out as an examination of the effects of the flipped classroom on learning outcomes and student perceptions. Through analysis of the language-learning results, it became clear that the largest effect happened in the area of L2 vocabulary learning. Therefore, the contributions of this study on the flipped classroom come primarily in the area of learning outcomes in L2 vocabulary acquisition in CALL at the beginning level of second language learning. This result suggests that the use of videos, especially those focusing on concrete vocabulary acquisition, in place of in-class lectures can lead to better student performance in the area of L2 vocabulary acquisition at the introductory levels. The online availability of these videos, combined with more F2F interactive activities, were hypothesized to help beginning learners acquire and retain new vocabulary at a higher level than the traditional lecture instructional format. There was also a trend in higher overall learning outcomes for the flipped treatment group during the first semester, which would point towards the possibility of greater learning outcomes in future iterations of the flipped instructional method with larger sample sizes. The learning outcomes during the second semester of the study, at a slightly higher level of language instruction, did not match those of the first semester, indicating that this iteration of the flipped classroom is more suited for concrete areas of instruction and less effective for the instruction of grammar, especially as that grammar becomes more complex, as well as cultural and historical aspects. These results might point to the need for a different format for the video production for grammatical and historical presentations, or indicate the need for more focus on form during the interactive F2F assignments. Compared to previous studies involving the interaction approach and the use of CALL, 151 the effect of the flipped classroom on overall achievement levels, and especially on those in the area of L2 vocabulary acquisition, supports the theoretical framework that enhanced input combined with opportunities for interaction facilitating forced output lead to better learning outcomes. Based on Izumi et al. (1999), tasks, which involve forced output led to better performance on delayed post-tests than tasks with enhanced input alone. This supports the flipped format, which combines both enhanced input (online) and forced output (F2F) and appears to lead to better outcomes in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Izumi (2002) argues that the forced output leads to deeper, more elaborate processing, creating a more durable memory trace. It is through this deeper processing that learners go from the decoding process of syntactical understanding to the encoding process of integrative processing and language creation. The results in the first semester, where vocabulary learning was done in a more discrete form, seem to bear this out. In the second semester, in which the language chunks became longer, and the texts more grammatically challenging, this does not appear to have happened. De la Fuente (2002) looked at the benefits for oral productive acquisition of L2 vocabulary of interactive tasks where learners were pushed to produce target lexical output and found that the pushed output was beneficial for L2 vocabulary acquisition. Ellis and He (1999) also found that groups using modified output achieved higher levels of acquisition of words (both receptive and productive) due to the type of interaction that occurred in those groups. Both of those studies found that interaction where learners did not produce output did not lead to better performance. Ellis, Tanaka, and Yamazaki (1994) completed a dual classroom study, which investigated the effects of modified interaction on comprehension and vocabulary comprehension among students of English in Japan. One finding of that study was 152 that interactionally modified input led to more new words being acquired than pre-modified input. The distinction between these two types of input was originally made by Long (1990), who pointed out that interactionally modified input was the result of negotiation of meaning. Pre-modified input has been modified or simplified before the learner sees or hears it and is often referred to as “teacher-speak” or “foreigner-speak.” It includes such accommodations as repetitions, paraphrasing, slowed-down speech, and reduction of sentence length and complexity (Maleki & Pazhakh, 2012). Because this study increased the amount of interactionally modified input during the F2F class, these results would point to an advantage for the acquisition of new words. Maleki and Pazhakh (2012) also completed a study comparing learning outcomes for four groups of EFL learners’ comprehension of new words. Each group completed tasks with different types of input and output. The four types included: 1) pre-modified input, 2) interactionally modified input, 3) modified output, and 4) a control group with unmodified input and output. The study found that the group with interactionally modified input had the highest scores with significant results (p<0.05). The second highest group was that using modified output In the case of the current study, and based on the findings of the previous studies, it would seem that the increased amount of interaction involving output in the flipped section was responsible for creating better learning outcomes in the area of L2 vocabulary acquisition. 6.5. Implications The implications from this study include the importance of enhanced input and interaction for the learning of second languages; recommendations for the types of videos, which could be the most effective at different instructional levels in foreign language teaching, and 153 suggestions for the implementation of the flipped classroom in foreign language programs at the college level. The specifics of those recommendations are listed in the following sections. 6.5.1. Implications for the Interaction Approach The implications for the Interaction Approach suggest that by removing the lecture portion from the F2F classroom, more time could be gained for interaction including feedback and pushed output during F2F class time. The analysis of time spent in class showed that students in the flipped classroom spent 30% of their time on peer and group interaction while the control group spent 23%. The flipped group also spent more time with the presentation of new content, which was partially presented via video. Those videos included enhanced input such as subtitles with simultaneous audio and visual input of new vocabulary words. My hypothesis is that these two factors could have led to the gains in L2 vocabulary acquisition by the learners in the flipped group. With the small sample sizes and the mixed results in the second semester, it is difficult to say whether the course format itself led to the gains in learner outcomes. It is, however, encouraging from the standpoint of the flipped format, that, especially in the first semester, the students in the flipped section outscored the control group in every area of the achievement test and had better results nearing significance (p = .056) on the overall exam. This, in addition to being a group, which did not enter the class with as many students intending to major or minor in German, point to encouraging possibilities for the flipped classroom with future research and an emphasis on its development based on sound SLA pedagogy. Based on my previous research (Hojnacki, 2016), it was found that students could produce more oral output and utilize the speaking time more democratically when using online tools. This study looked for ways to expand that idea with a new iteration of blended learning, 154 which could integrate aspects of the Interaction Approach to improve learner outcomes through the use of technology. This study was able to utilize online videos to remove some of the presentation of new content and make room for more interactive activities. As a result, the students in the flipped section had better outcomes nearing significance on the first-semester achievement test and significantly higher outcomes in the area of L2 vocabulary acquisition. There were no significant differences in language learning outcomes during the second semester of the study or among the learners, who were exposed for an entire year to one format or the other. In analyzing the videos from the second semester, it became clear that those videos moved away from the sound basis in the Interation Approach that the videos in the first semester utilized. Rather than implementing enhanced input, which was tailor-made for that specific class, more of the second-semester videos were taken from the Internet and were not created for L2 learners. This seemed to lessen their effect on language learning and on student satisfaction with the course content. Students felt that they did not learn as much language in the second semester because the curriculum was focused more on culture. This portion of the curriculum did not appear to benefit as much from the online videos as the basic language learning had. 6.5.2. Implications for Blended and Flipped Learning Students mentioned that they liked the videos created exclusively for the class better than the ones found on the Internet. This follows the previous research, which has found that educational technology works best when it is tailor made for its audience (Hastie, Chen, & Kuo, 2007). The results of the current study found that the videos made by the instructor were mentioned the most in the student feedback and were perceived to have contributed to the better learning outcomes in the first semester. The theoretical basis for the flipped classroom 155 is often that it can increase the amount of time students spend interacting with the language both in- and outside of class. This study found that the students did spend more time on interaction in the F2F class and focused the time they did have on the presentation of new material along with interactive group work. Previous research on the flipped classroom has called for more long-term, controlled studies on learning outcomes as well as student attitudes (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). This study looked at a flipped classroom group in comparison with a control group, who did not have access to the online videos. The implications for those results on the flipped classroom are that access to the videos and greater amounts of interactive activities led to higher learning outcomes in the first semester, when the focus was on vocabulary building and basic sentence structure. In the second semester, the learner differences as well as more focus on cultural and historical aspects of the course led to no significant differences in the language learning outcomes. 90% of the students who responded would choose a fully or partially flipped class for their next foreign language class, which matches previous studies, in which the majority of students were in favor of the flipped classroom, with a vocal minority opposed. The videos, which garnered the highest feedback and led to the greatest gains in learning, were the iMovies, which were made by the instructor for the class. Students responded the most positively to the interactive online tools, which allowed them to practice their language skills, such as asynchronous online conversations and text chats. The students were the least favorable about the course blog, which they saw as superfluous and not leading to gains in their language development. Therefore, instructors should be encouraged to create their own videos where possible and base them on the principles of the Interaction Approach, which focuses on enhanced input and increased interaction both in and out of the classroom. 156 6.5.3. Implications for Program Administration The flipped classroom created for this study was used in conjunction with Wiggin’s Backward Course Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), the ACTFL 5 Cs and an integrated performance assessment model of assessment. From the instructor’s standpoint, the flipped instructional model was found to work well with these aspects of curriculum design, primarily because of the flexibility it provided in the use of F2F time. Since Backward Course Design espouses setting up goals for communication first and then providing learners the tools to achieve those goals, the flipped classroom can be set up so that students learn the foundation of the language outside of class and then have time to practice during F2F time. The tools for completing the performance assessment goals can be delivered via the online videos first, and then the students can practice and exhibit their achievements during F2F class time. The videos can deliver a large portion of what students need to achieve those tasks, and the expanded F2F time can be used for practice and performance. Curriculum articulation can also benefit from the uniformity of the instructional videos. Although this study only implemented the videos in one section, universities could make use of them across instructional levels to improve both horizontal and vertical articulation. Horizontal articulation would mean that all learners in every section of the first semester course would watch the same videos at home and complete the same interactive activities in class. This would align the curriculum in a way that is not possible with various different instructors lecturing in different sections. Vertical articulation would mean that instructors and coordinators at the different levels would know exactly what the students had learned in the level below and what they would be exposed to at the next level because they could have access to the videos as well. Colleagues can work together to prepare the videos in 157 advance. Knowing what is being presented outside of the classroom, instructors and supervisors have a better idea of what materials students have been exposed to and how the curriculum can evolve to fill in gaps where needed. One of the key gaps in this study was that the videos only accounted for about 50% of the homework assigned to the students, so lectures were still necessary during some of the F2F time. As colleague cohorts work together with a bank of videos, they can expand that library to cover more topics and more days of instruction. This would mean that students would have access to more videos and thereby gain more F2F time for explanation and interaction. With a larger pool of videos to choose from, students can also pinpoint which ones they need for review or advancement. The instructor journals showed that by watching the videos, the flipped section had more time for interaction, so instructors gain more F2F time when more lectures get moved online. The implications of this study for Program Administrators in the teaching of second languages are that utilizing well-designed video instruction in combination with increased interaction during the F2F class time can lead to better learning outcomes and greater learner satisfaction at the introductory levels of L2 instruction. 6.5.4. Implications for Language Teaching From the teacher’s perspective, the flipped classroom has the potential to expand the amount of content one can cover in a given amount of contact hours with students. By delivering new content outside of class time, F2F time can move more quickly and cover more material, leading to more practice time and higher mastery levels for the students. The feedback from students showed that they recognized the faster pace of the flipped section but also felt prepared to keep up with that pace, especially in the beginning levels. Because both students and instructors recognized the possibility for increasing the amount of content covered and 158 speeding up the pace of instruction, teachers are encouraged to work with the creation of online videos to present more new material outside of the class and create interactive activities in the class, which remain in the target language and are based on sound SLA pedagogy to increase interactional input and forced output. Other advantages for the flipped classroom for teachers include greater flexibility for both instructor and student. Once the students have some experience with the independent learning format of the flipped classroom, material can be instructed in either format: either online through a video or in class through lecture. This study has shown that the more basic vocabulary lessons can be taught more effectively through the video format, while the grammar explanations could take up more of the F2F lecture time. This suggests that teachers and curriculum designers should look at moving the building blocks of language learning (vocabulary, basic sentence structure, and enhanced input) online and leave the more complex grammatical structures for instruction in the F2F class. An important aspect for instructors wishing to utilize the flipped classroom is to create and utilize F2F activities, which reinforce and require the watching of the videos beforehand. Previous studies have found that the students do watch the videos when they are assigned (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). This study did not track access patterns for the videos, but on the second semester survey, the majority of students responded that they had watched the videos either once or more than once. The videos are only effective if they are viewed, and then are the most effective if viewed before the interaction. From the experience of teaching with the flipped classroom for a year, it became clear early on in the experience that accountability checks are key to the success of the flipped classroom. A quick online quiz, an embedded assignment, or some pre-work required for the F2F activity will ensure that students actually 159 watch the videos and are prepared to participate during class. 6.6. Recommendations for the Implementation of the Flipped Classroom This study consisted of creating a new, yearlong, introductory German course in the form of the flipped classroom. The course was newly designed and taught for a year in 2014- 15 at a small liberal arts college in the Midwest. For anyone interested in understanding more about how to design and carry out the flipped classroom in an introductory foreign language course, the following sections give advice and examples based on the experiences of the instructors and the results of this study. Overall the study found that the flipped classroom was the most effective for introductory level vocabulary learning, that the results for the flipped group were better in the first semester but no better in the second semester, and that students who took the flipped course were more likely to choose a flipped format for a future language course. Information on designing the course format, online tools, and the tasks for a flipped classroom can be found in Chapter 3. In addition to those suggestions, here is more information about how those aspects contributed to the results of this study, as well as some suggestions based on the instructor’s experiences during the study. Finally, there are some resources for professional development for those instructors wishing to try out the flipped classroom in their own curriculum. 6.6.1. Delivery Tools The results of the study found that the iMovies, which focused on vocabulary building had the greatest effect on learning outcomes. The results were more positive in the first semester, when the flipped classroom focused on basic language learning materials and the F2F activities built directly on that information. For example, in the early part of the first semester, students watched videos on how to introduce themselves in German. After watching that 160 video, students came to class and were put into pairs to practice introducing themselves before performing an introduction skit with a randomly assigned partner. Feedback from the students showed that online asynchronous conversations and text chats were their favorite online tools because they facilitated interaction and helped them practice their speaking and writing skills. Students were not generally in favor of the course blog, where they often wrote in English about cultural topics as well as some posts in German, in which they answered questions or presented information. Their complaints were that they did not get much feedback on those assignments. They much preferred activities in which they were actually communicating with someone, whether it was online or in the classroom. This feedback suggests that the use of online discussion forums or eTandem partnerships would be a more popular structure for online writing practice and for an introduction to intercultural learning. This particular group was also much more focused on building language skills and did not see the purpose of building their intercultural competence. Suggestions for improving the use of blog posts would be to integrate the cultural topics more into class time so that the relevance of their learning for the blog becomes more apparent. Also, prepping the students from the beginning of the course about the importance of cultural understanding for learning another language helps students see the value in that type of work. Both of those strategies were implemented in the semester following the dissertation study and the attitudes about the blog activities improved on course evaluations. 6.6.2. Designing the Tasks The in-class tasks included information-gap activities, interviews, games, text-chats, or walk- around activities. It was necessary to create tasks, which required the maximum amount of interaction and output, and which integrated the concepts taught in the most recent online 161 videos. Tasks such as information-gap activities require students to attend to input, give feedback, and produce output in the TL. If these activities are based on the vocabulary or sentence structure that the students learned by watching the videos the night before, then this step moves them from the decoding process of comprehension to the encoding process of language production in a sheltered environment with the scaffolding of reference sources, fellow students, and the instructor as suggested by Izumi (2002). Again, the accountability checks such as online quizzes or embedded homework assignments keep the learners accountable and make sure that they are prepared to move to the step of language production during F2F class time. 6.6.3. Professional Development Instructors hoping to implement the flipped classroom will need both experience and support in the use of online teaching and learning. The materials used in the flipped classroom can also be developed well in teams within the same subject matter area. A cooperative approach to curriculum design and online material development will create materials more quickly and lead to a larger amount of available materials in a shorter period of time. Professional development most useful for the flipped classroom would include workshops and conferences on the production of online instructional videos as well as best practices in F2F interactive activities to maximize interaction among students. Instructors looking for more training in areas of CALL and educational technology should look into the following professional development opportunities: CALICO – The Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium https://calico.org/ This consortium is devoted to research and development of technology in second language 162 acquisition. It hosts an annual conference each spring with presentations and workshops devoted to its mission. It also publishes a peer-edited journal three times a year with articles on current research and developments as well as a book series on CALL/SLAT. ACTFL - The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages http://www.actfl.org/ This council provides assessment and curriculum guidelines for foreign language instructors. The yearly conference provides numerous presentations and workshops on the flipped classroom and CALL in general. Their bi-monthly publication, the Language Educator, also contains articles on research and best practices in the use of CALL. ISTE – International Society for Technology in Education http://www.iste.org/ This society is a leading non-profit organization with the mission of supporting teachers and learners in the use of technology for education. The ISTE standards (formerly the NETS) provide a framework for implementing digital strategies for teaching and learning. They also host a yearly conference and expo with presentations and workshops on topics related to educational technology. Title VI Language Resource Centers http://www.nflrc.org/ There are 16 Language Resource Centers (LRCs) at universities across the US. They are designed to support the teaching and learning of languages and provide many resources, online tools, workshops, and teacher training. Their website describes them in the following way, 163 “In 1990, the Department of Education established the first Language Resource Centers (LRCs) at US universities in response to the growing national need for expertise and competence in foreign languages. Twenty years later, there are fifteen LRCs, supported by grants under Title VI of the Higher Education Act, creating a national network of resources to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages. Led by nationally and internationally recognized language professionals, LRCs create language learning and teaching materials, offer professional development opportunities for teachers and instructors, and conduct research on foreign language learning.” (http://www.nflrc.org/) Several of the online tools utilized for this study came from the Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR), one of the Title VI LRCs. Their Rich Internet Applications include the Conversations, which made up the asynchronous online simulated conversations from the current study. IALLT – International Association for Language Learning Technology http://www.iallt.org/ IALLT hosts an annual summit and publishes a journal on the development, integration, evaluation and management of instructional technology for the teaching and learning of language, literature and culture. 6.7. Further Research The motivation for this study was to implement the flipped classroom in a controlled study environment and examine how it would affect learning outcomes and learner preferences. While this study found an effect for vocabulary learning and a trend towards better learning outcomes in the flipped classroom during the first semester, the second semester of the study was not able to replicate those results. A further area of study would be to replicate the study in 164 the first semester again to see if the vocabulary and learning outcomes gains could be repeated. Ideally, a replicated study would be able to utilize the same instructor for both sections and engage larger classes for greater sample sizes. Another controlled study on the flipped classroom could also look at language proficiency gains rather than learner outcomes, to see if those proficiency gains match the learning outcomes results from this study. Proficiency gains would be measured with a repeated measures test to isolate change in language ability over time. This study looked at language learning outcomes, which measured how well each student attained the goals of each individual course. Studies on the use of online videos not in tandem with the flipped classroom would also be of interest. Further study on the use of online videos outside the flipped classroom format could help isolate whether the learning outcome gains are connected to the enhanced input of the videos or rely on the combination of the videos and the interactive activities. Mackey and Gass (2005) suggested that a further area of research on the flipped classroom could be to record observations of the flipped and traditional classes and compare student behavior in these settings with an observation protocol. This study was based on previous suggestions that research on the flipped classroom needed to look at language learning outcomes in a controlled, long-term study. The results of this study found that the gains in learning outcomes through the flipped classroom came primarily in the first semester and in the area of L2 vocabulary acquisition. The hypothesis is that these gains came from the combination of enhanced input via online videos and expanded time for interactive activities during F2F class time. The videos in the second semester were not as effective in bringing about increased language learning outcomes. Further research on the design of the videos should look at crafting videos for the higher levels of language 165 instruction, which integrate the principles found to have been more effective in the first semester, such as a focus on vocabulary learning. Data from the current study could also be analyzed to determine any differences in the type of language produced by students in the two sections. My preliminary observations about the oral output was that the language created by students in the flipped section was more varied and creative while the language produced by students in the control group repeated more identical language chunks, which had most likely been memorized. An analysis of variation in vocabulary, complexity of syntax, and sentence length might lead to interesting observations about how the content delivery method affected learner’s interlanguage. Finally, studies on curriculum design should look at the amount of concepts covered in a given semester and compare them between a controlled and a flipped course. This type of study could help to determine if the projections are correct that a flipped format could be successful in covering more material because of the increased access to content on the web. The flipped classroom holds great promise for gains in language proficiency and a faster development of language skills over a shorter period of time. Further studies could build on the results of the current study, to create more effective videos and possibly increase language skills through the unique combination of input and output. 166 APPENDICES 167 APPENDIX A: Syllabi A-1: First-Semester Study Syllabi for Both Sections Mission Statement of the Department of World Languages The Department of Modern Languages promotes an understanding of and exchange with other cultures both within and outside the United States. Our integrated program of language learning incorporates all of the four language skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Students learn to use the language in a communicative, interactive environment within the classroom. The Department also offers a variety of courses for advanced study in culture and literature. These courses are designed to enhance an understanding of the richness of the human experience across both times and cultures. Integrity Statement The College is rooted in the Dominican traditions of prayer, study, community and service, combined with a deep respect for truth, honesty and integrity. In this spirit, we strive to create an environment in which integrity is prized and practiced. We expect all community members to uphold these values through honesty, fairness, and respect for others. COURSE SYLLABUS AND CALENDAR GN 101/S1 – Introductory German, Part I – Fall 2013 I. Identifying Information Course Time/Location: Prerequisite: Instructor: Office: Office Phone: Office Hours: Mail: MTThF 12:15 – 01:05PM A positive, self-motivated attitude towards learning A T+F: 8:00 – 10:30AM E- II. Required Textbooks and Instructional Materials Kontakte: A Communicative Approach. Terrell/Tschirner/Nikolai. 7th Edition, 2012. A 1- inch three-hole folder/ binder with lined paper to be used for all in-class notes, writing assignments and journal entries. Kontakte Activities Website for Students: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073386340/student_view0/index.html Kontakte Audio Website for Students: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073386340/student_view0/textbook_audio.html Supplemental Texts and Resources Zorach and Melin. English Grammar for Students of German. 4th Ed. Online bilingual German-English/ English-German dictionaries: http://www.dict.cc/ or http://dict.leo.org/ www.memrise.com – Great website for German students to learn new vocabulary! III. Course Description: Skill Development based on the 5 C’s 168 German 101 is the first part of an introductory two-part course on contemporary German and will cover the chapters Einführung A and B, and 1 through 5 of Kontakte, 7th edition. This course is designed to foster your skills in all four areas of linguistic competence (speaking, writing, listening, and reading comprehension), in addition to cultural awareness. Furthermore, it strives to engage students in the appreciation and acceptance of languages, diversity, and change in an increasingly global society. The course follows the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) guidelines, integrating the 5 C’s – communication, cultures, connections, comparisons and communities – to offer all students a well-rounded classroom experience. Most importantly, we aim to support the learning process (while having fun J) through a positive atmosphere and a wide variety of activities, technology and media! IV. Teaching Methodology to achieve Learning Goals German at this College is taught using the ‘communicative’ approach, which emphasizes the use of German in the classroom in practical communicative situations. Both you and your instructor will speak German exclusively, with very few exceptions. You will not understand every word – do not worry, this is normal and expected. Listen to your instructor and your fellow students as carefully as you can, and your skills in determining meaning in context will improve over time. If you consistently keep up with all your assignments, by the end of the semester you will be able to achieve the following Course Learning Outcomes. Learning Goals V. National Standards The course German 101 incorporates the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century as follows: Communication Standard 1.1- Interpersonal Communication: Students engage in conversation, provide and obtain information, express feeling and emotion, and exchange opinions. Standard 1.2 – Interpretive Communication: Students understand and interpret written and spoken language on a variety of topics. Standard 1.3 – Presentational Communication: Students present information, concepts and ideas to an audience of listeners or readers on a variety of topics. Cultures Standard 2.1 – Practices and Perspective: Students demonstrate an understanding of the of the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the culture studied. Standard 2.2 – Products and Perspectives: Students demonstrate an understanding relationship between the products and perspectives of the culture studied. Connections Standard 3.1 – Knowledge of Other Disciplines: Students reinforce and further their knowledge of other disciplines through the foreign language. Standard 3.2 – Distinctive Viewpoints: Students acquire information and recognize the distinctive viewpoints that are only available through the foreign language and its cultures. Comparisons Standard 4.1 – Nature of Language: Students demonstrate understanding of the nature 169 of language through comparisons of the language studied and their own. Standard 4.2 – Culture: Students demonstrate understanding of the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own. Community Standard 5.1 – Beyond the School Setting: Students use the language both within and beyond the school setting. Standard 5.2 – Life-long Learners: Students show evidence of becoming life-long learners by using the language for personal enjoyment and enrichment. Course Objectives By the end of this course, students should have developed a functional command of German at the novice level as defined by the ACTFL Standards and should be able to do the following: Develop basic proficiency in listening, speaking, reading and writing German Recognize and use basic core vocabulary of about 750 words Recognize and use basic essential grammar concepts Comprehend brief simplified and authentic texts on familiar topics (oral and written) based on vocabulary presented with the aid of a glossary Introduce themselves to others giving personal data (name, age, description) and additional information such as academic major, interests, likes/dislikes Converse and write on topics related to immediate personal needs, family, friends, weather, daily routines, sports, activities, etc. using simple conversational patterns Pose and answer simple questions on a limited range of topics (oral and written) Vary word order and use simple sentence structure as required in casual conversations Use letters, numbers and tell time Identify and compare/contrast cultural key concepts (including persons and places) and differences between the U.S. and German-speaking countries on a limited variety of topics (i.e. student life, eating, leisure activities etc.) Develop a basic understanding on selected issues related to contemporary German geography, politics and social life Student Learning Outcomes for General Education Courses In support of the College’s mission and the General Education curriculum, the course German 101 addresses the following Gen Ed SLO’s: Exhibit competence in disciplines across the liberal arts Read critically and formulate relevant conclusions (critical thinking) Demonstrate proficiency in communication (writing, speaking, reading, listening, presentation skills) Acquire research and analysis skills (quantitative and qualitative) Integrate knowledge of diverse perspectives and cultural traditions. Understand the application of theological and ethical concepts in daily life. VI. Course Requirements German 101 is taught in a student-centered format, which means that the individual student's daily and active participation during class (i.e., speaking German in class, participating in language-related activities, asking questions in German, having all homework assignments completed etc.) ensures his or her success in learning the language. 170 BASIC REQUIREMENTS Arrive on time – class starts at 12:15 PM sharp! Failure to attend class regularly will lower your overall course grade and may result in possibly failing the course (12 missed classes = F) Have all required materials (text- and workbooks, folders, pencils etc.) on your desk at 12:15pm Be prepared to spend a minimum of 8 hours per week outside of class on completing all assigned homework (i.e., studying, reviewing, and memorizing vocabulary and grammar etc.) Participate actively in all pair-, group-, and class activities and work cooperatively with your class mates and your professor Display a positive and respectful attitude towards your professor, your fellow class mates and the learning process in general Use German consistently and whenever possible in class WHAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN GERMAN 101? Chewing gum, eating food and wearing hats and inappropriate clothes (i.e. pajamas, bath robes, overly revealing clothes etc.) Using any PDA device (pagers, beepers, cell phones, I-pods, laptops etc.). They must all be turned off before class starts. We will occasionally use technology in the classroom to supplement our lessons and you may be asked to use these devices for classroom purposes only at some times. 1.Attendance, Preparation and Participation = 10% Since this class is communicative in nature, you are expected to be an active part of class during the semester. Regular attendance, diligent preparation and active participation are therefore basic requirements in this course. However, should you miss a class, it is your responsibility to find out about any assignments and other relevant information for that day and cover all materials and homework assignments that are due for the next scheduled class meeting. Be sure to obtain telephone numbers and/or email addresses from at least three other students in your class to contact in the event of an absence. Class moves quickly: everything you learn in a language class is cumulative, and interactive classroom work is virtually impossible to make up solely through self-study. You are allowed 3 absences per semester – no questions asked. After that, every additional absence (4, 5, 6…) will result in a 2% reduction of your overall semester grade. A total of 12 absences will result in automatically failing this course, i.e. grade “F”. 2.Homework and other Assignments = 20% Homework to be completed in Kontakte and/or on-line will be assigned regularly by the instructor and is due on the assigned day given in the Kursplan (semester schedule). Late homework will not be accepted. Credit will only be given for completed homework assignments (including worksheets and/or writing assignments) that are turned in on the respective due date. Homework Grading Rubric: Completion Effort – All assigned exercises have to be completed – Review respective materials before completing your Accuracy homework – Use correct spelling of vocabulary and correct grammar 171 Legibility Correctness – If students present illegible writing they will need to submit their work typed –Students are expected to self-correct their homework, using the Student Activities Manual key after they have completed their assignments 3.Reflective Culture Entries on Course Blog = 10% Every 2 weeks, you will write a reflective blog entry of at least 10 sentences in English about a specific cultural subject or subjects presented in the given module or indicated by your instructor. These entries are to be written on the course blog by the initial due date, and will be graded according to the rubrics below. A second due date will be given for responding to three of your classmates’ entries in the form of a discussion thread. Late entries will not be accepted and will result in a reduction of 2% of the student’s overall semester grade. Culture Rubrics Very Good 90 – 100% Good 80 – 89% Marginal 70 – 79% Poor 0 – 69% Comparisons (between target culture and native culture) Relevance to topic Personal and thoughtful engagement with topic Ability to draw meaningful conclusion(s) Articulations of in-depth and insightful comparisons are made. Multiple angles explored. Consistently on topic Original personal investment in the topic is well thought-out and reflective. Very interesting, relevant, logical conclusions Interesting comparisons made, lacking some depth. Multiple angles mentioned. Comparison(s) are mentioned but not explored. Superficial. No comparisons differences and/or similarities Mostly on topic Somewhat on topic Some personal engagement with evidence of reflection. Personal engagement is minimal or unconvincing Not on topic No personal engagement demonstrated Conclusions are interesting, but lacking in logic. Conclusions are boring, typical, superficial. No conclusions 172 Evidence of research (other! than the textbook) Excellent demonstration of researched topic Demonstration of research is apparent, but lacks rigor. Demonstration of research is poor, sources are poorly chosen. No research demonstrated Length Required length Almost required length Half of required length Unacceptable length 4.Developmental Portfolio = 20% Over the course of the semester you will be given various tasks to complete, which will result in examples of your work (written documents, videos, recorded presentations, blog entries, drawings, etc.) The best examples of this work will be combined into one online portfolio, which will serve as a record of your learning progress throughout the semester. 5.Module Performance Assessments = 20% The assessment for this course will take the form of task-oriented performance assessment, meaning you will be asked to do things with the language in the areas of interpretive, communicative, and performative communication. Your instructor will provide you with the resources to perform well on these assessments. It is your job to prepare yourself through in-class and at-home practice. 6.Oral Final Exam = 10% The Oral Exam will be administered during the week before final exam week. 7.Written Final Exam = 10% A cumulative Written Final Exam assessing the areas of listening comprehension, reading comprehension and written production will be administered on Wednesday, December 18, 2013 from 11:00AM – 01:00PM in our regular classroom. IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Dates and times for homework assignments, essays, tests and/or exams are firm and indicated in the syllabus. There are no make-ups for any of these requirements. Failure to submit assigned work, or to attend tests and/or exams – in part or at all – will result in “0” points. VII. Assessment Tools and Criteria for Evaluation and Grading Purpose and Areas of Assessment: Assessments are an opportunity to inform both the student and the teacher of the effectiveness of course learning and teaching. Over the course of the semester students will be assessed in the following areas: Interpersonal communication Listening and Reading comprehension Written assignments Oral interview Culture Criteria for Evaluation and Grading: 173 Course Attendance, Preparation and Participation Homework (oral, written and online) Chapter Performance Assessments Reflective Blog Entries Portfolio Final Oral Exam Final Written Exam 10% 20% 20% 10% 20% 10% 10% Grading Scale A - B + A 91-93 90-88 94-100 B B - C + 87-84 83-81 80-78 C C - D + 77-74 73-71* D - 70-68 D 63-60 F 67-64 59 -0 *A grade of 71% or higher is needed to fulfill the language requirement and to advance to the next level, German 102. VIII. Support Services and Other Requirements Students with Disabilities The mission of the Disability Services Office at this college is to ensure equal access to the learning environment. Therefore, if any student has a documented disability and would like to request accommodations, please contact the Disability Services Office to schedule an appointment to discuss reasonable accommodations. After reasonable accommodations have been decided, you will receive a verified letter of accommodations, which must be presented to me. Please contact the Disability Services Office as soon as possible. Academic Assistance Academic Learning Services offers free tutoring to all students. All students are encouraged to visit the Writing Center. Academic Integrity Written or other work that a student submits must be the product of her/his own efforts. Plagiarism, cheating and other forms of academic dishonesty, including dishonesty involving computer technology, are prohibited. Further information on Academic Dishonesty can be found in the current Academic Catalog and in the Student Conduct Code. IX. Additional Resources College German Website: A variety or up-to-date materials (print, electronic format, audio and visual, i.e. CD's, tapes, VHS, DVD) on German language, culture and civilization are available in the Library. Inquire with the library staff for detailed information. Additional valuable Web sites in German are: Goethe www.goethe.de Institute Magazin Fokus Internet www.mhhe.com/german German www.germany-info.org Information Center Online German Dictionaries http://www.dict.cc/ or http://dict.leo.org/ Vocabulary Building www.memrise.com X. German Study Abroad Programs in Spring 2014 174 The College offers both a German Major (33 credits) and a German Minor (21 credits). The German Program has four established German Study Abroad Programs: During the latter part of the spring semester (April – July) students with sophomore status can study at the University in Tübingen/Germany (17 credits and German Minor “in hand”!) During the regular spring semester (January – May) students with junior or senior status can study at the University in Lüneburg/Germany (12 – 15 credits) Juniors and seniors also have the option to study for one full academic year (September – May) at the University in Freiburg/Germany (up to 24 credits for both semesters, German major “in hand”!) Sophomores (depending on instructor approval), juniors and seniors may also participate in a 6-week summer program (mid-May – June) offered in Mayen/ Germany. In all of these programs students study the German language, culture and literature as well as a variety of contemporary aspects of the German-speaking countries (i.e. politics, history, art, film, geography etc.). All programs are open to all qualified College students and are no more expensive than a semester on campus. For more information please see your professor during office hours, or contact the Director of Study Abroad Pilot Study: Course Calendar. Section 1: Traditional A-2: First-Semester Course Calendar for Control Group Datum Montag 26. August Dienstag 27.8. Donnerstag 29.8. Freitag 30.8. Unterrichts- themen Einführung/ Kursplan Vorprüfung Einführung A Begrüßung, Verabschiedung, Namen Aufforderungen, Zahlen Ressourcen S=Seite (page) im Textbuch Hausauf- gaben Fällig (Due Dates) S. 6, 7, 12 S. 4, 5, 14 Übung 2 Kulturjournal: Du und Sie Mo Di 2.9. TAG DER ARBEIT --- KEIN KURS 3.9. Kleidung, Farben S. 8, 9, 10, 11 Übung 1 Blog Antworten auf du und Sie Do 5.9. Wiederholung und Übungstag Übungen 3, 4 175 Blog Eintrag: sich vorstellen Kleidungsskizze Vokabelquiz Videoecke Übungen 1, 2 Kulturjournal: Weather und Wetter Übungen 5, 7 Text Chat über Familie Vokabelquiz Übungen 1, 4 Übungen 6, 8 Übungen 9, 10 Kulturjournal: Schule und Universität Vokabelquiz: Freizeit, Schule und Universität Übungen 11, 12 Blog Eintrag: Persönliche Daten Fr 6.9. Vorführungstag Sich vorstellen in Paaren, bis 20 zählen 9.9. Einführung B Der Seminarraum, Nationalität, Herkunft Familie, Körper Beschreibung Wetter, Jahreszeiten Vorführungstag: Stammbaum lesen/schreiben Wetterbericht abgeben Kapitel 1 Freizeit, Hobbies Schule, Uhrzeit Tagesablauf Mo Di 10.9. Do 12.9. Fr 13.9. Mo 16.9. Di 17.9. Do 19.9. Fr 20.9. S. 26 S. 34, 35 S. 27, 28, 29, 30 S. 31, 32, 33 48 – 52 53 – 55 56 – 58 Mo 23.9. Persönliche Daten 60 – 61 Di 24.9. 63 Steckbrief 176 Do 26.9. Fr Mo Di Do Lektüre Video: Perspektiven 27.9. Vorführungstag Kapitel 1 30.9. Kapitel 2 Besitzangabe, Geld 1.10. Geschenke 3.10. Kleidung, Aussehen Fr 4.10. 64 – 66 78 – 82 83 – 84 87 – 88 Mo 7.10. Spaß, Vergnügen 92-94 Di 8.10. Flohmarkt 91 Do 10.10. Fr 11.10. Mo 14.10. Di 15.10. Do 17.10. Fr 18.10. Lola rennt 89 - 91 Video Tag: Modeschau Kapitel 3 Talente, Pläne Pflichten, Aufgaben 108 – 111 114-118 Rollenspiele 119 - 121 Zeugnis 123 Semesterpause vom 21. – 25. Oktober 2013 177 Übungen 1, 2 Übungen 3, 4 Übungen 5,6 Übungen 9,10 Übungen 1, 2 Übungen 3, 4 Übungen 5, 6, 7 Text Chat: Freizeit und Hobbys Video: Was machen Sie wann? Kulturjournal: Euro Vokabelquiz: Besitz, Kleidung, Verben Blog Eintrag: Was haben Sie, was möchten Sie? „Conversations“: gern und nicht gern Blog Eintrag: Lola rennt Video: Modeschau Kulturjournal: Autos, Alkohol, und Alter Vokabelquiz: Modalverben, Emotionen Mo 28.10. Gefühle, Emotionen 124 - 125 Di 29.10. Gedichte lesen und schreiben 126 Do 31.10. Fr Mo Di Do Musik hören Videoecke 1.11. Vorführungstag Kapitel 3 4.11. Kapitel 4 Alltag 5.11. Urlaub, Ferien und Freizeit 7.11. Wochenendpläne 138 – 141 142 – 144 145 – 146 147 - 149 153 -154 155 - 156 Fr 8.11. Mo 11.11. Di 12.11. Do 14.11. Fr 15.11. Mo 18.11. Di 19.11. Do 21.11. Fr 22.11. Geburtstage und Jahrestage Ereignisse Filmlektüre: Jenseits der Stille Vorführungstag: Kapitel 4 Kapitel 5 Gefälligkeiten Geschenke Berufe Lektüre 170 – 174 175 – 176 177 – 178 178 – 180 178 Voicethread: Was ich kann, will, muss, darf Übungen 8, 9 Übung 10 Blog Eintrag: Was ich will Kulturjournal: Ferien und Feiertage Blog Eintrag: Meine Letzte Ferien Vokabelquiz: Perfektformen Text Chat: Wann machst du was? Ferien Präsentation Kulturjournal: die Mauer Übungen 1, 3 Übungen 4, 5 Übungen 6, 7 Übungen 9, 10 Übungen 1, 2 Übung 3 Übungen 4, 5 Übungen 6, 7 Übungen 8, 9 Voicethread: Berufe Vokabelquiz: Berufe und Arbeitsplätze Conversations: Weihnachtsgesch enke Hörverständnis- & Phonetikprüfung Mo 25.11. Di 26.11. Do 28.11. Fr 29.11. Arbeitsplätze 181 – 182 Ausbildung, Beruf Erntedankfest Erntedankfest 183 – 184 Kein Kurs Kein Kurs Mo 2.12. Küche, Haushalt 185 – 186 Filmlektüre 187 – 188 189 – 190 Video: Perspektiven Hörverständnis- & Phonetikprüfung 9.12. Wiederholung: Kapitel 1 - 5 Mündliche Abschlußprüfung Mündliche Abschlußprüfung Mündliche Abschlußprüfung Di 3.12. Do 5.12. Fr 6.12. Mo Di 10.12. Do 12.12. Fr 13.12. Schriftliche Abschlußprüfung Deutsch 101 Mittwoch, 18. Dezember von 11:00 – 13:00 Uhr A-3: First-Semester Course Calendar for Flipped Group Datum Montag 26. August Dienstag 27.8. Donnerstag 29.8. Unterrichts- themen Einführung/ Kursplan Vorprüfung Einführung A Begrüßung, Verabschiedung, Namen Ressourcen S=Seite (page) Hausauf- gaben S. 6, 7, 12 Video A-1 Fällig (due) 179 Freitag 30.8. Aufforderungen, Zahlen S. 4, 5, 14 Übung 2 Video A-2 Kulturjournal: Du und Sie Mo Di Do Fr Mo Di 10.9. Do 12.9. Fr 13.9. 2.9. TAG DER ARBEIT --- KEIN KURS 3.9. Kleidung, Farben S. 8, 9, 10, 11 Übung 1 Video A-3 5.9. Wiederholung und Übungstag Übungen 3, 4 Video A-4 Blog Antworten auf Du und Sie Blog Eintrag: sich vorstellen Kleidungsskizze Vokabelquiz Videoecke Video B-1 Video B-2 Video B-3 Kulturjournal: Weather und Wetter Textchat über Familie Vokabelquiz 6.9. Vorführungstag Sich vorstellen in Paaren, bis 20 zählen 9.9. Einführung B Der Seminarraum, Nationalität, Herkunft Familie, Körper Beschreibung Wetter, Jahreszeiten Vorführungstag: Stammbaum lesen/schreiben Wetterbericht abgeben S. 26 S. 34, 35 S. 27, 28, 29, 30 Übungen 1, 2 S. 31, 32, 33 Übungen 5, 7 180 Mo 16.9. Di 17.9. Do 19.9. Fr 20.9. Kapitel 1 Freizeit, Hobbies Schule, Uhrzeit Tagesablauf S. 48 – 52 S. 53 – 55 Übungen 1, 4 S. 56 – 58 Übungen 6, 8 Übungen 9, 10 Mo 23.9. Persönliche Daten S. 60 – 61 Di 24.9. Do 26.9. Fr Mo Di Do Steckbrief Lektüre Video: Perspektiven 27.9. Vorführungstag Kapitel 1 30.9. Kapitel 2 Besitzangabe, Geld 1.10. Geschenke 3.10. Kleidung, Aussehen Fr 4.10. S. 63 Übungen 11, 12 S. 64 – 66 S. 78 – 82 S. 83 – 84 Übungen 1, 2 S. 87 – 88 Übungen 3, 4 Übungen 5,6 Mo 7.10. Spaß, Vergnügen S. 92-94 Di 8.10. Flohmarkt Do 10.10. Lola rennt S. 91 Übungen 9,10 S. 89 - 91 181 Video K1-1 Video K1-2 Video K1-3 Kulturjournal: Schule und Universität Vokabelquiz: Freizeit, Schule und Universität Video K1-4 Video K1-5 Blog Eintrag: Persönliche Daten Text Chat: Freizeit und Hobbys Video: Was machen Sie wann? Video K2-1 Video K2-2 Video K2-3 Kulturjournal: Euro Vokabelquiz: Besitz, Kleidung, Verben Blog Eintrag: Was haben Sie, was möchten Sie? „Conversations“: gern und nicht gern Video K2-4 Video K2-5 Fr 11.10. Mo 14.10. Di 15.10. Do 17.10. Fr 18.10. Video Tag: Modeschau Kapitel 3 Talente, Pläne Pflichten, Aufgaben Rollenspiele S. 108 – 111 S. 114-118 Übungen 1, 2 S. 119 – 121 Übungen 3, 4 Zeugnis S. 123 Übungen 5, 6, 7 Semesterpause vom 21. – 25. Oktober 2012 Mo 28.10. Gefühle, Emotionen S. 124 - 125 Di 29.10. Gedichte lesen und schreiben S. 126 Übungen 8, 9 Do 31.10. Fr Mo Di Musik hören Videoecke 1.11. Vorführungstag Kapitel 3 4.11. Kapitel 4 Alltag 5.11. Urlaub, Ferien und Freizeit Übung 10 S. 138 – 141 S. 142 – 144 Übungen 1, 3 7.11. Wochenendpläne S. 145 – 146 Übungen 4, 5 Video K3-1 Video K3-2 Video K3-3 Video K3-4 Video K3-5 Video K3-6 Video K4-1 Video K4-2 Video K4-3 Blog Eintrag: Lola rennt Video: Modeschau Kulturjournal: Autos, Alkohol, und Alter Vokabelquiz: Modalverben, Emotionen Voicethread: Was ich kann, will, muss, darf Blog Eintrag: Was ich will Kulturjournal: Ferien und Feiertage Blog Eintrag: Meine Letzte Ferien Vokabelquiz: Perfektformen Do Fr 8.11. Mo 11.11. Geburtstage und Jahrestage S. 147 - 149 Video K4-4 Text Chat: Wann machst du was? 182 S. 153 -154 Übungen 6, 7 S. 155 - 156 Übungen 9, 10 Video K4-5 Video K4-6 Ferien Präsentation Video K5-1 Video K5-2 Video K5-3 Kulturjournal: die Mauer Vokabelquiz: Berufe und Arbeitsplätze Text Chat: Berufe Conversations: Weihnachtsgesch enke Video K5-4 Blog Eintrag: Jobben Di 12.11. Do 14.11. Fr 15.11. Mo 18.11. Di 19.11. Do 21.11. Di 22.11. Mo 25.11. Di 26.11. Do 28.11. Fr 29.11. Ereignisse Filmlektüre: Jenseits der Stille Vorführungstag: Kapitel 4 Kapitel 5 Gefälligkeiten Geschenke Berufe Lektüre Arbeitsplätze Ausbildung, Beruf Erntedankfest Erntedankfest S. 170 – 174 S. 175 – 176 Übungen 1, 2 S. 177 – 178 Übung 3 S. 178 – 180 Übungen 4, 5 S. 181 – 182 Übungen 6, 7 S. 183 – 184 Übungen 8, 9 Mo 2.12. Küche, Haushalt S. 185 – 186 Di 3.12. Do 5.12. Fr 6.12. Filmlektüre S. 187 – 188 Video: Perspektiven S. 189 – 190 Christkindlmarkt Chicago 183 9.12. Hörverständnis- & Phonetikprüfung Mündliche Abschlußprüfung Mündliche Abschlußprüfung Mündliche Abschlußprüfung Mo Di 10.12. Do 12.12. Fr 13.12. Schriftliche Abschlußprüfung Deutsch 101 Montag, 16. Dezember von 11:00 – 13:00 A-4: Second-Semester Course Calendar for Control Group Datum Montag 13. Januar Dienstag 14.1. Donnerstag 16.1. Freitag 17.1. Unterrichts- themen Einführung/ Kursplan Kapitel 6 Wohnen Haus und Wohnung Wohnen Stadtviertel Lektüre: Städteranking 2010 Ressourcen S=Seite (page) 204, 205 Hausauf- gaben Fällig (due) 206, 207, 208 Übungen 1,2 210, 211, 212 Übungen 3,4 Kulturjournal: Wohnen in Deutschland Wohnungssuche 213, 214, 216 Übungen 5,6 Vokabelquiz: Mo 20.1. Di 21.1. Do 23.1. Fr 24.1. Haus, Wohnung, Stadtviertel Blog Eintrag: Wo ich wohne Hausarbeit 216, 217, 218 Übungen 7,8 Hausarbeit und Videoecke 219, 222, 223 Vorführungstag Video: „Wo ich wohne“ Interview Übungen 9,10 184 Mo 27.1. Di 28.1. Do 30.1. Fr 31.1. Mo Di 4.2. Do 6.2. Fr Mo Di 11.2. Do 13.2. Fr Kapitel 7 Unterwegs Geografie Die Lorelei 238, 239 240, 241 Transportmittel 242, 243 Das Auto Verkehrsschilder 246, 247, 248 3.2. Reisen 250, 251 Die Schweiz 252 Städte im Deutschsprachige n Land online 7.2. Vorführungstag Stadtbericht 10.2. Kapitel 8 Essen und Trinken 270, 271, 272 Österreich 274 Mahlzeiten Haushaltsgeräte 275, 276, 277 14.2. Einkaufen und Kochen 279, 280, 281 Übungen 1,2 Übungen 3, 4, 5 Übungen 6,7 Übungen 8,9 Übung 10 Übungen 1,2 Übungen 3,4 Kulturjournal: Verkehrsmittel Vokabelquiz: Geografie, Verkehr, und Transportmittel Blog Eintrag: Meine Stadt „Conversation“ Städte im Deutsch- sprachigen Land Kulturjournal: Essen und Trinken Übungen 5, 6 Voicethread: Essen und Trinken Mo 17.2. Im Restaurant 284, 285 Übung 7 Vokabelquiz: Essen und Trinken, Einkaufen und Kochen 185 18.2. Videoecke und Grammatik 20.2. Deutsches Frühstück! 21.2. Vorführungstag: Restaurant Rollenspiel Di Do Fr Mo 24.2. Kapitel 9 Kindheit und Jugend Jugend Di 25.2. Do Fr 27.2. Märchen Brüder Grimm vs. Disney 28.2. Schneewittchen Mo Di 3.3. Aschenputtel 4.3. Rotkäppchen Do Fr 6.3. Arbeitstag: Märchentheater 7.3. Märchentheater 286, 287 Übungen 8,9,10 302, 303, 304 Übung 1 Blog Eintrag: Mein Lieblingsrestaura nt 305, 306, 308 313 Übungen 2, 3 Übungen 6, 7 Kulturjournal: Märchen aus Deutschland Vokabelquiz: Märchen Arbeitsblatt Arbeitsblatt Voicethread: Aschenputtel erzählen Übungen 1, 2 Kulturjournal: Reisen mit dem Zug Übungen 3, 4 Vokabelquiz: Reisen und Tourismus Semesterpause vom 10. – 14. März 2014 Mo 17.3. Kapitel 10 Auf Reisen Reisepläne Di 18.3. Am Fahrkartenschalte r DB Do 20.3. Nach dem Weg fragen 336, 337 339, online Zugverbindungen 340, 341, 342 Fr 21.3. Lektüre 342, 343, 344, 345 186 Di Do Fr Mo Di 27.3. Good-bye Lenin 28.3. Good-bye Lenin 31.3. Kapitel 11 Gesundheit und Krankheit 1.4. Körperteile und Körperpflege Do 3.4. Arzt, Apotheke, Krankenhaus Fr 4.4. Unfälle Mo 7.4. Di 8.4. Projektwoche: Kulturprojekt Do Fr 10.4. 11.4. Kulturprojekt Mo Di 14.4. Nachkriegs- geschichte 2. Weltkrieg 15.4. Nachkriegszeit Do 17.4. Berliner Mauer Mo 24.3. Urlaub am Strand 347, 348 25.3. Tiere 350, 351, 352, 353 Übungen 9, 10 Voicethread: Urlaub am Strand Blog Eintrag: Good-bye Lenin Übung 1 Übungen 2, 3 Kulturjournal: Krankheit und Versicherung Übungen 4, 5 Übungen 7, 8 Vokabelquiz: Krankheit und Körper „Conversation“ Mein Kulturprojekt Kulturprojekt fällig Arbeitsblatt Kulturjournal: Geteiltes Deutschland Arbeitsblatt Vokabelquiz: Nachkriegs- geschichte 372, 373 375, 377, 378 381, 382, 383 384, 385, 386 Online Ressourcen Arbeitsblätter, Texte, und Gedichte 187 Fr Mo 18.4. Osterferien 21.4. Osterferien Wiedervereinigun g Multikulterelles Deutschland Schreibetag: Nachkriegs- Deutschland Kein Kurs Kein Kurs Arbeitsblatt Blog Eintrag: Die Berliner Mauer Mo 20.1. Wohnungssuche 213, 214, 216 Übungen 5,6 Video: K6-3 Wohnungs- suche Vokabelquiz: Haus, Wohnung, Stadtviertel 188 28.4. Wiederholungstag Wiederholungstag 1.5. Mündliche Abschlußprüfung (online conversation) 2.5. Hörverständnis Abschlußprüfung (in der Klasse) Schriftliche Abschlußprüfung Deutsch 102 Mittwoch, 7. Mai von 11:00 – 13:00 Uhr A-5: Second-Semester Course Calendar for Flipped Group Datum Montag 13. Januar Dienstag 14.1. Donnerstag 16.1. Freitag 17.1. Unterrichts- themen Einführung/ Kursplan Kapitel 6 Wohnen Haus und Wohnung Wohnen Stadtviertel Lektüre: Städteranking 2010 Ressourcen S=Seite (page) 204, 205 206, 207, 208 Übungen 1, 2 210, 211, 212 Übungen 3,4 Hausauf- gaben Video: K6-1 Haus und Wohnung Video: K6-2 Stadtviertel Fällig (due) Kulturjournal: Wohnen in Deutschland Di 22.4. Do 24.4. Fr 25.4. Mo Di 29.4. Do Fr Di 21.1. Do 23.1. Fr 24.1. Mo 27.1. Di 28.1. Do 30.1. Fr 31.1. Mo Di 4.2. Do 6.2. Fr Mo Di 11.2. Hausarbeit 216, 217, 218 Übungen 7,8 Video: K6-4 Hausarbeit Hausarbeit und Videoecke 219, 222, 223 Übungen 9,10 Vorführungstag Video: „Wo ich wohne“ Interview Kapitel 7 Unterwegs Geografie Die Lorelei Transportmittel 238, 239 240, 241 Übungen 1,2 242, 243 Übungen 3,4, 5 Das Auto Verkehrsschilder 246, 247, 248 Übungen 6,7 3.2. Reisen Die Schweiz Städte im Deutschsprachige n Land 250, 251 Übungen 8,9 252 Übung 10 online 7.2. Vorführungstag: Stadtbericht 10.2. Kapitel 8 Essen und Trinken Österreich 270, 271, 272 Übungen 1,2 274 Übungen 3,4 189 Video K7-1 Geografie Video K7-2 Transport- mittel Video K7-3 Reisen Video K7-4 Städte in Deutschland , Österriech und der Schweiz Video K8-1 Essen und Trinken Blog Eintrag: Wo ich wohne Kulturjournal: Verkehrsmittel Vokabelquiz: Geografie, Verkehr, und Transportmittel Blog Eintrag: Meine Stadt Kulturjournal : Essen und Trinken Do 13.2. Fr Mahlzeiten Haushaltsgeräte 275, 276, 277 Video K8-2 Haushalts- geräte 14.2. Einkaufen und Kochen 279, 280, 281 Übungen 5, 6 Video K8-3 Einkaufen und Kochen Voicethread: Essen und Trinken Mo 17.2. Im Restaurant 284, 285 Übung 7 Video K8-4 Im Restaurant Vokabelquiz: Essen und Trinken, Einkaufen und Kochen Blog Eintrag : Mein Lieblingsrestaura nt Video K9-1 Kindheit Kulturjournal: Märchen aus Deutschland Vokabelquiz: Märchen Voicethread: Aschenputtel erzählen Video K9-2 Schnee- wittchen Video K9-3 Aschenputte l Video K9-4 Rotkäppche n Di Do Fr Mo 18.2. Videoecke und Grammatik 20.2. Deutsches Frühstück! 21.2. Vorführungstag: Restaurant Rollenspiel 24.2. Kapitel 9 Kindheit und Jugend Jugend Di 25.2. Do Fr 27.2. Märchen Brüder Grimm vs. Disney 28.2. Schneewittchen Mo 3.3. Aschenputtel Di 4.3. Rotkäppchen 286, 287 Übungen 8,9,10 302, 303, 304 Übung 1 305, 306, 308 Übungen 2, 3 313 Übungen 6, 7 190 Do Fr 6.3. Arbeitstag: Märchentheater 7.3. Märchentheater Semesterpause vom 10. – 14. März 2014 Mo 17.3. Kapitel 10 Auf Reisen Reisepläne 336, 337 Übungen 1, 2 339, online Zugverbindungen Di 18.3. Am Fahrkartenschalte r DB Do 20.3. Nach dem Weg fragen 340, 341, 342 Übungen 3, 4 Fr 21.3. Lektüre 342, 343, 344, 345 Mo 24.3. Urlaub am Strand 347, 348 Di 25.3. Tiere 350, 351, 352, 353 Übungen 9, 10 Do Fr 27.3. Good-bye Lenin 28.3. Good-bye Lenin Mo 31.3. Kapitel 11 Gesundheit und Krankheit 372, 373 Übung 1 Di 1.4. Körperteile und Körperpflege 375, 377, 378 Übungen 2, 3 191 Video K10- 1 Zug- verbindunge n Video K10- 2 Nach dem Weg fragen Kulturjournal: Reisen mit dem Zug Vokabelquiz: Reisen und Tourismus Video K10- 3 Passiv Voicethread: Urlaub am Strand Blog Eintrag: Good-bye Lenin Kulturjournal: Krankheit und Versicherung Video K11-1 Körperteile und Körperpfleg e Video K11-2 Arzt, Apotheke, Krankenhau s Do Fr 3.4. Arzt, Apotheke, Krankenhaus 4.4. Unfälle 381, 382, 383 Übungen 4, 5 384, 385, 386 Übungen 7, 8 Mo 7.4. Projektwoche: Kulturprojekt Online Ressourcen Di 8.4. Do 10.4. Di Mo 11.4. Kulturprojekt 14.4. Nachkriegs- geschichte 2. Weltkrieg Di 15.4. Nachkriegszeit Do 17.4. Berliner Mauer Arbeitsblätter, Texte, und Gedichte Fr 18.4. Osterferien Kein Kurs Mo Di 22.4. Do 24.4. Fr 25.4. 21.4. Osterferien Wiedervereinigun g Kein Kurs Multikulterelles Deutschland Schreibetag: Nachkriegs- Deutschland 192 Video K11- 3 Kulturproje kt Video K12- 1 Nachkreigs- geschichte Video K12- 2 Die Berliner Mauer Video K12- 3 Wieder- vereinigung Vokabelquiz: Krankheit und Körper „Conversation“ Mein Kulturprojekt Kulturprojekt fällig Kulturjournal: Geteiltes Deutschland Vokabelquiz: Nachkriegs- geschichte Blog Eintrag: Die Berliner Mauer Mo Di 29.4. Do Fr 28.4. Wiederholungstag Wiederholungstag 1.5. Mündliche Abschlußprüfung (online conversation) 2.5. Hörverständnis Abschlußprüfung (in der Klasse) Schriftliche Abschlußprüfung Deutsch 102 Donnerstag, 8. Mai von 11:00 – 13:00 Uhr 193 APPENDIX B: Assessment Materials B-1: Test #2 – First-Semester Achievement Test Listening Comprehension Script: Test #2 Hören: Ich: Hallo! Ich heiße Martin, Martin Zieren. Das schreibt man Z-I-E-R-E-N. Ich bin 20 Jahre alt und ich wohne in Deutschland, in der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg. Ich studiere Physik und Mathe an der Universität in Hamburg. Ich komme aber nicht aus Hamburg, sondern aus Münster. Dort bin ich zur Schule gegangen. Ich habe am Gymnasium meine Abitur in Englisch, Mathe, und Physik gemacht. Ich bin 1,80m groß und habe hellbraune Haare und blaue Augen. Ich habe am 6. Dezember Geburtstag. Meine Familie: Ich habe eine kleine Familie. Wir sind nur ich, meine Eltern, und meine kleine Schwester, Theresa. Theresa ist 15 Jahre alt und geht auch aufs Gymnasium. In ihrer Freizeit spielt sie gern Volleyball und Gitarre. Sie kann auch sehr gut kochen, am liebsten kocht sie Italienisch. Meine Mutter heißt Katrin. Sie ist 50 Jahre alt und ist Ärztin als Beruf. Sie arbeitet im Krankenhaus. Mein Vater ist Pilot. Er fliegt oft für Lufthanse zwischen Frankfurt und Hong Kong. In ihrer Freizeit gehen meine Eltern gern wandern und sie arbeiten auch gern im Garten. Tagesablauf: Mein Tagesablauf sieht so aus: Ich stehe normalerweise um 6:30 auf, dusche und frühstücke. Um 8:00 gehe ich zur Uni. Im Frühling, Sommer, und Herbst fahre ich mit dem Fahrrad. Im Winter fahre ich meistens mit der U-Bahn. Die Temperaturen im Winter in Hamburg sind nicht so kalt aber es regnet viel, also soll man besser mit öffentlichen Verkehr fahren. Von 9:00 Uhr bis 1:00 Uhr fast jeden Tag habe ich meine Kurse. In diesem Semester habe ich Chemie, Mathe, Englisch, Deutsch, und Kunst. Um 2:00 Uhr fahre ich nach Hause. Auf dem Weg gehe ich einkaufen oder ich erledige Sachen wie Briefmarken kaufen auf der Post oder Geld holen auf der Bank. Abends spiele ich zweimal in der Woche Basketball mit Freunden. Andere Tage bleibe ich zu Hause und sehe fern oder surfe im Internet. Ich esse um 6:00 Uhr zu Abend und gehe normalerweise so gegen 11:00 Uhr ins Bett. Meine letzten Ferien: In meinen letzten Ferien bin ich mit meiner Familie nach Italien gefahren. Es war im April und wir sind mit dem Zug gefahren. Wir haben Rom, Neapel, und Venedig besucht. Die Architektur war wunderschön aber am besten fanden wir das Essen! Wir haben viel Spaghetti, Lasagna, und Pizza gegessen und wir haben auch viel guten Rotwein getrunken. In Rom haben wir das Vatikan gesehen und eine Stadtrundfahrt gemacht. In Neapel haben wir nur am Strand gesessen und Bücher gelesen. Die Ferien waren einfach super. Ich habe meine Freundin eine Postkarte geschickt mit einem Bild von Venedig und ich habe geschrieben, “Das nächste Mal werden wir beide zusammen nach Italien fahren.” 194 Sprechen: Conversation Einführung A: Interview about you 1. Guten Tag 2. Wie geht es dir heute? 3. Wie heißt du? 4. Wie schreibt man das? 5. Wie alt bist du? 6. Welche Farbe hat die Aquinas College Logo? 7. Welche Kleidung trägst du heute? Einführung B: Interview about family 1. Woher kommst du? 2. Hast du Geschwister? Wenn ja, wie heißen sie und wie alt sind sie? 3. Wie spät ist es? 4. Wie ist das Wetter heute? Was ist die Temperatur? Kapitel 1: Tagesablauf, Freizeit, Stundenplan, Steckbrief, Text (guten Tag ich heiße), Interview (s. 61) 1. Wann stehst du auf, gehst du zur Uni, gehst du einkaufen, gehst du joggen, gehst du ins Bett? 2. Was machst du gern in deiner Freizeit? 3. Spielst du lieber Fußball oder Gitarre? 4. Was kostet dieser Pullover? 5. Welche Kurse hast du am Montag. Was studierst du? Kapitel 2 das Zimmer, akkusativ, Kleidung, Flohmarkt, gern, lieber, stem change verbs 195 1. Was hast du in deinem Zimmer? Nenne drei Sachen. 2. Schreibst du lieber E-mails oder lieber Briefe? 3. Siehst du lieber fern oder lieber Filme? Kapitel 3: Modal Verben, Zeugnis, Emotionen, wenn und weil 1. Was kannst du gut machen? 2. Was kannst du nicht gut machen? 3. Was willst du heute Abend machen? 4. Was musst du an der Uni machen? 5. Was darfst du an der Uni/zu hause bei den Eltern NICHT machen? 6. Was machst du, wenn du traurig bist? 7. Was machst du, wenn du Hunger hast? 8. Was machst du, wenn du Langeweile hast? 9. Warum lernst du Deutsch? Kapitel 4: Perfekt, Tagebuch, Urlaub und Ferien, Bildgeschichte Urlaub im Perfekt, Interview: Gestern (s. 154) 1. Was hast du heute schon gemacht? 2. Was hast du heute gegessen/getrunken? 3. Wann bist du das letzte Mal ins Kino gegangen? 4. Wann hast du das Geschirr gespült? 5. Was hast du in deinen letzten Ferien gemacht? 6. Wann hast du Geburtstag? Kapitel 5: Geschenke, Dativ, Normal? (s. 173), Berufe, Arbeitsplätze, in der Küche 196 1. Was kaufst du deiner Mutter/deinem Vater/ deiner Schwester/ deinem Bruder zur Weihnachten/ zum Geburtstag? 2. Wem schreibst du normalerweise einen Brief? 3. Dieser Mann arbeitet in einer Schule. Was ist sein Beruf? 4. Diese Frau arbeitet auf dem Gericht. Was ist ihr Beruf? 5. Wo arbeitet ein Arzt/ eine Ärztin? 6. Was hast du in deiner Küche? 7. Wie oft gehst du einkaufen? 8. Wie oft spülst du das Geschirr? 9. Backst du mir einen Kuchen zum Geburtstag? 197 Deutsch 101 Semesterexamen Hörverständnis Antwortblatt Herbstsemester A) Ich: Name: _________________________________________________________________________ Alter: _________________________________________________________________________ Wohnort: _________________________________________________________________________ Universität:________________________________________________________________ Studienfächer: _________________________________________________________________________ Heimatstadt:_______________________________________________________________ Abiturfächer: _________________________________________________________________________ Größe: _____________________ Haarfarbe: ____________________ Augenfarbe:_________________ Geburtstag: _________________________________________________________________________ 198 B) Meine Familie: Name Alter Beruf Mutter Vater Schwester Bruder Hund Freizeit Aktivitäten “nicht so gern” L Freizeit Aktivitäten “gern” J 199 Falsch Falsch Falsch Falsch Falsch Falsch Falsch Richtig Richtig Richtig Richtig Richtig Richtig Richtig C) Tagesablauf: Sie hören diesen Text zwei Mal. Das erste Mal markieren Sie richtig oder falsch. Das zweite Mal beantworten Sie die multiple choice Fragen. Markieren Sie Richtig oder Falsch 1) Martin steht um 7:00 Uhr auf. 2) Martin geht um 8:00 Uhr zur Uni. 3) Martin hat fast jeden Tag von 9:00 bis 12:00 Uhr Seminare. 4) Um 12:00 Uhr fährt Martin nach Hause. 5) Um 19:00 isst Martin zu Abend. 6) Martin spielt um halb acht Basketball. 7) Um halb zwölf geht Martin ins Bett. Multiple Choice 1) Wie kommt Martin im Frühling, Sommer, und Herbst zur Universität? A. C. mit dem Fahrrad 2) Wie kommt Martin im Winter zur Universität? A. C. mit dem Fahrrad 3) Wie ist das Wetter in Hamburg im Winter? A. Es ist kalt und es schneit. B. Die Sonne scheint und es regnet. C. Es ist nicht so kalt, aber es regnet viel. D. Es ist warm und windig. D. mit der U-Bahn D. mit der U-Bahn mit dem Auto mit dem Auto zu Fuß zu Fuß B. B. 200 4) Welchen Kurs hat Martin NICHT in diesem Semester? A. Biologie B. Chemie C. Deutsch D. Mathe 5) Was macht Martin NICHT auf dem Weg nach Hause? A. Freunde besuchen B. Einkaufen gehen C. Briefmarken kaufen D. Geld holen 6) An welchen Abenden spielt Martin Basketball? A. Montag und Dienstag B. Montag und Mittwoch C. Mittwoch und Freitag D. Dienstag und Donnerstag 7) Was macht Martin, wenn er abends zu Hause bleibt? (Mehr als eine richtige Antwort!) A. Kocht Italienisch B. Hört Musik C. Sieht fern D. Surft im Internet 201 D) Meine letzten Ferien *Städte in Italien: Rom, Neapel, Venedig *zusammen (together) *Stadtrundfahrt (city tour, usually by bus) Wohin?___________________________________________________________________ Mit wem?____________________________________________________________________ Wann?____________________________________________________________________ Wie lange?____________________________________________________________________ Wie ist er dahin gekommen (Auto, Bus, Flugzeug?) _________________________________________________________________________ Wie war das Wetter?___________________________________________________________________ Was hat er gegessen?_________________________________________________________________ Was hat er getrunken?________________________________________________________________ Was hat er gesehen?__________________________________________________________________ Was hat er gemacht?__________________________________________________________________ Was hat er getextet? _________________________________________________________________________ Wem hat er getextet? _________________________________________________________________________ 202 Schriftliche Schlussprüfung Deutsch 101 Herbstsemester c) d) c) d) a) b) a) b) Hund Mann Kaffee Kuchen was wie viel wer wann ist heißen sein heiße Name:________________________________ Sektion: ______________ VOKABELN: (20 PUNKTE) Multiple choice: 1. Guten Tag! Ich bin Professor Freund. Wie _____________________ Sie? 2. Entschuldigung?! Bitte sagen Sie, ___________ beginnt der Deutschkurs? 3. Ich trinke mit Peter und Maria einen ________________. 4. Karls Freundin hat lange, blonde _______________ 5. Hans-Georg kommt aus Frankfurt. Er ist __________________________. Deutsche Deutscher 6. Bananen sind _______. 7. Franz Schneider hat eine Tochter namens Sabine. Sabine hat eine Tochter namens Petra. Franz Schneider ist Petras_______. 8. Peter liest viele Bücher über Computer und Software Programme. Er studiert wahrscheinlich _______. a) b) 9. Heute ist Montag. Und morgen ist dann _______. 10. Der erste Monat im Jahr ist der _________. 11. In meiner Freizeit _________ ich gern. das Wochenende Donnerstag Deutschland Österreicher Geschichte Kunst Dezember Januar Dienstag Sonntag c) Englisch Augen Ohren März August orange gelb Onkel Vetter Arme Haare c) d) c) d) c) d) c) d) Informatik a) b) a) b) a) b) c) d) c) d) a) b) a) b) c) d) a) b) Oma Opa d) a) b) rot blau 203 a) b) a) b) Fluss Auto Musik c) d) lese sage a) b) a) b) a) b) a) b) a) b) a) b) c) d) c) d) finde sehe Jeans Noten Bahnhof Wetter Freunde einkaufen anrufen aufmachen einschlafen aufstehen Schreibtisch Pferd einen Rock einen Pullover 12. In meinem Zimmer habe ich einen ___________. Kino d) 13. Mein Bruder hört gern klassische __________. c) d) 14. Konrad muss jeden Morgen um Viertel nach sechs _________. 15. Frau Krause geht morgen schwimmen. Sie trägt ________. Stiefel einen Badeanzug 16. Martin lernt sehr viel und macht immer seine Hausaufgaben. Er bekommt gute ________. 17. Monika hat in ihrer Küche ________. 18. Wir sind gestern mit dem Auto nach Berlin _______. 19. In Tübingen schneit es schon seit einer Woche. Die Temperatur ist ______ . 20. Der 15. Oktober ist im ____________. GRAMMATISCHE STRUKTUREN (15 Punkte) 21. Anna hat _________ Bruder. 22. Ich ___________ noch meine Hausaufgaben machen. 23. Frau Schmidt, ____________ Sie sehr gut kochen? >>> Ja! ich backe auch sehr gern. ein Geschirrspüler ein Auto ein Bett einen Schlafsack 80 Grad F 0 Grad C gegangen gefahren 30 Grad C 50 Grad F geflogen gewandert Frühling Sommer müsst müssen einen eine Herbst Winter c) d) c) d) c) d) c) d) a) b) a) b) a) b) a) b) c) d) c) d) c) d) einem ein muss musst c) 204 zu bei a) b) c) d) c) d) c) d) a) b) a) b) c) d) c) d) ihm ihr a) b) a) b) a) b) ihren sein sollen dürfen können müssen seine seinen machst macht machen mache auf dem Balkon in der Küche im Wohnzimmer im Schlafzimmer 24. Meine Oma hat Geburtstag. Ich schenke ______ ein Buch. ihnen sie 25. Morgen will Thomas _________ Mutter anrufen. 26. Wo ist die Geschirrspülmaschine? >>> Sie ist _______________ 27. Robert kommt ________ Österreich. Er wohnt in Wien. in aus 28. Hallo Gerd! Was ___________ du heute Abend? >> Ich gehe ins Theater. 29. Kommst du mit ins Kino? >>> 30. Mama, wo _______ meine Turnschuhe? >>> Aber Hans! Im Schuhschrank, natürlich! 31. Barbara und Georg _______ gestern mit dem Auto nach Stuttgart _____________. 32. Uschi ist Vegetarierin: sie _______ kein Fleisch. 33. Was schenkst du ________ Vater zu Weihnachten? >>> Ich schenke ihm eine CD. 34. Thomas, ______ möchtest du anrufen? >>> Ich rufe meinen Freund, Peter an. Oh, danke _________________. 35. Wie geht es dir? >>> Ich bin gut. Ich geht gut. Nein, ich ______ leider nicht. Ich habe keine Zeit. c) Mir geht es gut. Ich gehe gut. sind… gegangen d) seid… gefahren ist… gefahren sind… gefahren deinem deine deiner d) wen was kann muss a) b) a) b) sind ist sein seid c) d) c) d) a) b) a) b) a) b) a) b) wo wer c) d) isst bist soll will c) c) d) c) d) c) d) a) b) esst ist dein 205 Lesen (20 Punkte. Alle Fragen X 2) Guten Tag, ich heiße Sofie Pracht, bin 22 und komme aus Dresden. Ich studiere Biologie an der Technischen Universität Dresden. Ein Paar Stunden in der Woche arbeite ich in einem Supermarkt als Kassiererin. In meiner Freizeit gehe ich oft ins Kino oder ich besuche Freunde. Ich spiele Gitarre und tanze sehr gern. Mein Freund heißt Willi Schuster. Er studiert auch hier in Dresden an der Technischen Universität. Er kommt aus Radebeul. Das ist ein kleiner Ort ganz in der Nähe von Dresden. Am Wochenende fahren wir manchmal mit dem Fahrrad nach Radebeul und besuchen seine Familie. 36. Woher kommt Sofie? Aus ________ a) Radebeul b) einer kleinen Ort 37. Wo studiert Sofie? a) Biologie b) am Wochenende 38. Wie oft arbeitet Sofie? c) Dresden d) einem Supermarkt c) Radebeul d) Technische Universität Dresden a) Ein Paar Stunden in der Woche b) Am Wochenende 39. Was macht Sofie NICHT in ihrer Freizeit? c) als Kassiererin d) in einem Supermarkt a) Fahrrad fahren b) aus Radebeul kommen 40. Wo ist Radebeul? c) ins Kino gehen d) Freunde besuchen a) in der Nähe von Dresden b) im Supermarkt 41. Wo wohnt Willis Familie? c) an der Technischen Universität d) in Dresden a) in Dresden b) mit dem Fahrrad 42. Was macht Sofie gern? c) in Radebeul d) am Wochenende 206 a) studieren b) tanzen 43. Wie kommen Sofie und Willi nach Radebeul? c) wohnen d) arbeiten a) im Supermarkt b) mit dem Fahrrad 44. Willi studiert _________ . c) am Wochenende d) an der Technischen Universität a) aus Radebeul b) Biologie 45. Wann besuchen Sofie und Willi seine Familie? c) an der Technischen Universität d) in seiner Freizeit c) mit dem Fahrrad d) ein Paar Stunden in der Woche a) am Wochenende b) Freunde 207 Schriftlicher Ausdruck (20 Punkte) A. Eine E-Mail von Marko. Write a response to Marko’s e-mail below. Use the questions in bold print in the e-mail to guide you. Wie alt bist Du und was machst Du gern in Deiner Freizeit? Gehst Du noch zur Schule oder studierst Du an der Universität? Woher kommst Du und wo wohnst Du zur Zeit? Hast Du Geschwister? Hallo ... ! Ich suche einen Brieffreund oder eine Brieffreundin. Ich heiße Marko und bin 18 Jahre alt. Ich wohne in Berlin und gehe auf das Gymnasium. Ich komme aus der Türkei. Ich habe eine Schwester und einen Bruder. Ich lese gern und spiele gern Gitarre. Ich reise auch gern. In August bin ich nach Österreich gefahren. Dort sind wir viel gewandert und haben viele klassische Musik gehört. Zu hause höre ich gern alle Arten der Musik wie Pop, Rock, Techno, und Folkmusik. Hörst Du gern Musik oder spielst Du ein Instrument? Ich kann sehr gut tanzen und ich gehe gern in die Disko, weil man dort gute Musik hören kann. Was machst Du gern am Wochenende mit Deinen Ich freue mich schon auf Deine nächste E-Mail. Tschüss, Marko Freunden? 208 B-2: Test #3 – Second-Semester Achievement Test Script for Listening Section: Test #3 Meine Wohnung Guten Tag! Ich heiße Martin. Ich möchte euch von meiner Wohnung erzählen. Ich bin Student in Hamburg und habe eine drei Zimmer Wohnung gemietet. Die Wohnung liegt im fünften Stock und es gibt keinen Aufzug also muss ich die Treppe nehmen. Das erste Zimmer ist das Wohnzimmer. In dem Wohnzimmer habe ich ein Sofa, einen Fernseher, einen Sessel, und einen schönen Teppich. In der Küche habe ich einen Tisch, vier Stühle, einen Kühlschrank, und einen Herd. Ich koche gern in meiner Küche, besonders Italienisch und Griechisch. Dann habe ich noch ein Schlafzimmer in meiner Wohnung. Im Schlafzimmer gibt es ein Bett, eine Kommode, ein Schreibtisch und ein Bücherregal. Auf dem Schreibtisch steht mein Computer und in dem Regal habe ich Bücher für die Universität. Ich habe auch ein Bad mit Toilette und Dusche. Ich wohne allein aber ich habe eine Katze. Sie heißt „Maus“ und sitzt gern am Fenster wo sie die Vögel draußen sehen kann. Stefans Reise nach Österreich Stefan ist Amerikaner. Er kommt aus Michigan. Letzten Sommer hat er in Juli eine Reise nach Österreich gemacht. Er ist allein gefahren und ist zwei Wochen geblieben. Er ist zuerst nach Frankfurt mit dem Flugzeug geflogen. Auf dem Bahnhof in Frankfurt hat er sich eine Zugfahrkarte gekauft. Dann ist er mit dem Zug nach Österreich gefahren. Erst hat er in den Alpen eine Wanderung gemacht. Dann hat er Salzburg besichtigt. In einem Cafe hat er Christine, eine nette Österreicherin kennengelernt. Sie sind zusammen in ein Konzert gegangen und haben in einer Disko getanzt. Jetzt ist Stefan wieder zu hause in Michigan und er schreibt viele Briefe an Christine in Salzburg. Schneewittchen Es war einmal eine Königin, die bekam eine Tochter, die so weiß war wie Schnee, so rot wie Blut und so schwarzhaarig wie Ebenholz. Die Königin war eine gute Mutter aber sie wurde krank und starb bald darauf. Der König heiratete eine neue Frau. Sie war eine böse Stiefmutter. Die böse Stiefmutter hasste Schneewittchen, weil sie so schön war. Ein Jäger brachte Schneewittchen in den dunklen Wald und sollte sie töten aber er hat sie nicht getötet und Schneewittchen lief durch den Wald zu den sieben Zwergen. Schneewittchen blieb bei den sieben Zwergen und machte Hausarbeit. Sie putzte und kochte und hat das Haus sauber gemacht. Die Stiefmutter fragte ihrem Spiegel „Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand, wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?“ und der Spiegel antwortete „Frau Königin, Ihr seid die Schönste hier aber Schneewittchen über den Bergen bei den sieben Zwergen ist tausendmal schöner als Ihr.“ Die Stiefmutter verkaufte Schneewittchen einen giftigen Apfel. Schneewittchen biss hinein und fiel tot um. Die Zwerge weinten und legten sie in einen Sarg aus Glas. Dann kam ein Königssohn (ein Prinz) und er verliebte sich in 209 Schneewittchen und wollte sie mit nach hause nehmen. Als seine Diener den Sarg wegtrugen, stolperten sie. Das giftige Apfelstück rutschte aus Schneewittchens Hals und sie wachte auf! Der Prinz und Schneewittchen heirateten, aber die böse Stiefmutter musste sterben. D. Reisen Es ist der erste Schultag nach den Sommerferien. Die Lehrerin, Frau Schmidt, fragt allen in der Klasse was sie in den Ferien gemacht haben. Schreiben Sie Notizen in der Tabelle für alle fünf Antworten. Frau Schmidt: So, Klasse, wer möchte von anfangen? Wer hat was interessantes in den Ferien gemacht? Thomas? Thomas: Ja, ich bin mit meiner Familie nach Spanien geflogen, nach Mallorca. Wir sind in einem schönen Hotel direkt am Strand übernachtet. Das Wetter war toll, wir sind im Meer geschwommen und haben tolles spanisches Essen im Restaurant gegessen. Eigentlich haben wir nicht viel besichtigt. Wir sind nur in der Sonne gelegen und haben Bücher gelesen. Frau Schmidt: Schön Thomas, das hört sich gut an! Marta? Warst du weg in den Ferien? Marta: Ja, ich war mit meiner Freundin mit dem Zug unterwegs. Wir sind überall hingefahren: nach Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin und auch Prag. In Paris haben wir den Eifelturm gesehen und in Berlin das Brandenburger Tor und den Kürfürstendamm. Dort haben wir schöne Kleider gekauft! Wir sind in Jugendherbergen übernachtet. Das war billig und wir haben viele andere junge Leute kennengelernt. Frau Schmidt: Super. Du hast ja viel gesehen! Ist noch jemand in Deutschland geblieben in den Ferien? Benni: Ja, ich. Ich bin auch nach Berlin gefahren. Ich habe meine Tante besucht. Meine Mutter und ich sind mit dem Auto gefahren. Wir haben Potsdam besucht und sind auch in die Philharmonie gegangen. Das neue Regierungsviertel und die Museumsinsel fanden wir auch ganz interessant. Wir sind bei meiner Tante übernachtet. Frau Schmidt: Wunderbar. Möchte noch jemand erzählen? Susanne? Susanne: Ja, Peter und ich waren in Amerika mit einem Austauschprogramm. Wir waren in Chicago und haben bei Gastfamilien gewohnt. Dort sind wir zur Schule gegangen und haben die Stadt besichtigt. Chicago ist eine sehr schöne Stadt mit vielen Wolkenkratzern. Peter: Ja, wir sind nach Chicago geflogen und dann mit der U-bahn und S-bahn in der Stadt weiter gefahren. Wir haben beide viel Englisch gelernt. Am besten fand ich den Wrigley 210 Field. Dort haben wir zum ersten Mal ein Baseballspiel gesehen. Deutsch 102 Semesterexamen Hörverständnis Frühlingssemester 2017 A) Meine Wohnung Name?____________________________________________________________________ Wohnort (Stadt)? _________________________________________________________________________ In welchem Stock ist die Wohnung? _________________________________________________________________________ Treppe oder Aufzug? ________________________________________________________________________ Was hat er im Wohnzimmer? _______________________________________________________________ Was hat er in der Küche? ___________________________________________________________________ Was hat er im Schlafzimmer? _______________________________________________________________ Wo ist der Computer? _______________________________________________________________________ Was ist im Bad? _________________________________________________________________________ Hat er ein Haustier? _______________ Name? ______________ Tier? __________ B) Stefans Reise nach Österreich Wohin?___________________________________________________________________ Mit wem?_______________________________________________________________ Wann?____________________________________________________________________ 211 Wie lange?________________________________________________________________ Wie ist er dahin gekommen (Auto, Bus, Flugzeug?) _________________________________________________________________________ Was hat er gemacht?________________________________________________________ Was hat er besichtigt?________________________________________________________________ Wen hat er kennengelernt?_____________________________________________________________ Wo hat er sie kennengelernt?_____________________________________________________________ Was haben sie zusammen gemacht? _________________________________________________________________________ Was hat Stefan geschrieben? _________________________________________________________________________ An wem hat er geschrieben? _________________________________________________________________________ C) Schneewittchen: Sie hören diesen Text zwei Mal. Das erste Mal markieren Sie richtig oder falsch. Das zweite Mal beantworten Sie die multiple choice Fragen. Markieren Sie Richtig oder Falsch 1) Die Stiefmutter war böse. 2) Die Stiefmutter liebte Schneewittchen. 3) Der Jäger tötete Schneewittchen. 4) Die sieben Zwerge machten Hausarbeit. 5) Der Spiegel sagte, dass Schneewittchen das Schönste im ganzen Land ist. richtig richtig richtig richtig richtig falsch falsch falsch falsch falsch 212 falsch falsch d) gut c) Blut c) groß richtig richtig a) nett b) Gras b) schön a) kochte a) Schnee d) Ebenholz 6) Die Stiefmutter verkaufte Schneewittchen einen giftigen Apfel. 7) Der Königssohn heiratete einen Zwerg Wählen Sie die richtige Antwort: 1. Schneewittchen war so rot wie ______________ . 2. Die Stiefmutter hasste Schneewittchen, weil sie so _________ war. 3. Was machte Schneewittchen NICHT? 4. „Schneewittchen über den Bergen bei den sieben Zwergen ist ______________ mal schöner als Ihr!“ 5. Die Stiefmutter verkaufte Schneewittchen einen giftigen _________________. 6. Die Zwerge weinten und legten Schneewittchen in einen Sarg aus ____________. 7. Das giftige Apfelstück rutschte aus Schneewittchens ______________. d) machte das Haus sauber b) mähte den Rasen a) hundert d) tausend b) Zwerg c) sieben c) Silber c) putzte a) Apfel d) Apfel a) Gold b) Glas b) zwei c) Sarg d) Blut 213 Wohin? übernachtet? D. Reisen Thomas Marta Benni Susanne Peter a) Auge b) Hand c) Hals d) Ohr Transport- mittel? Was gesehen? Was gemacht? 214 Schriftliche Schlussprüfung Deutsch 102 Frühlingssemester Name:_____________________________________Sektion:_____________________ VOKABELN (20 Punkte) Multiple choice: c) Äpfel d) Milch c) Auto d) Zug a) Brot b) Rindfleisch a) Heidelberg b) Liechtenstein c) auf dem Land d) an einem See c) in der Küche d) auf dem Balkon a) in den Bergen b) in der Innenstadt a) in dem Schlafzimmer b) in dem Wohnzimmer 1. In welchem Zimmer findet man normalerweise den Geschirrspüler? 2. Man kann am besten in der Metzgerei ______________ kaufen. 3. Ich gehe gern ins Theater und gehe auch gern ins Restaurant. Ich habe kein Auto und wohne am liebsten mit anderen Leuten zusammen. Wo wohne ich wohl? 4. Wie heißt der längste Fluss Deutschlands? 5. Ein Transportmittel mit zwei Rädern, das ohne Benzin fährt ist ein ______________. 6. Wann isst man in Deutschland normalerweise Brötchen, Schinken, Käse, Marmelade, und ein Ei und trinkt normalerweise Kaffee oder Saft? 7. Womit kann man das Essen kochen in der Küche? 8. Wenn man einen Obstsalat machen möchte, braucht man _________________. a) Bananen und Tomaten b) Blumenkohl und Karotten d) Gurken und Zwiebeln c) in der Schublade d) im Kühlschrank a) auf dem Herd b) in dem Spülbecken b) zum Frühstück d) zum Abendessen a) zum Mittagessen c) zum Imbiss c) der Genfer See d) der Rhein a) Fahrrad b) Flugzeug c) Erdbeeren und Birnen 215 9. Im Restaurant Sonja: Kann ich bitte die Speisekarte haben? Kellner: Ja, bitte schön. Was möchten Sie trinken? Sonja: Ein Bier, bitte. Kellner: Gut, und was kann ich Ihnen zum Essen bringen? Sonja: ________________________________ a) Ist hier noch frei? c) Das stimmt so. b) Hähnchen und einen Salat, bitte. d) Die Speisekarte, bitte. c) Blut, Braut c) sehen d) fressen a) hören b) packen a) gegossen b) gesaugt c) gebacken d) gelesen d) Gold, Braut a) Sand, Frau b) Sand, Braut 10. Als Jens 10 Jahre alt war, hat er seiner Oma die Blumen _________________. 11. Rotkäppchen: „Ei, Großmutter, was hast du für ein entsetzlich großes Maul?“ Der Wolf: „Dass ich dich besser _______________ kann!“ 12. Aschenputtel: „Rucke di guh, rucke di guh, _____________ ist im Schuh: Der Schuh ist zu klein, die Rechte ____________ sitzt noch daheim. 13. Wo hast du in deinem letzten Urlaub übernachtet? Ich habe ____________________ gezeltet. 14. Am Bahnhof: 15. Das schwerste Tier auf der Welt lebt im Wasser aber ist kein Fisch. Was ist es? 16. Du hast den ganzen Tag in der Bibliothek gesessen und Bücher gelesen. Was tut dir weh? Peter: Wissen Sie, wo der Zug nach München abfährt? Bahnangestellter: Ja, _____________________. a) um halb sieben b) hin und zurück a) auf Campingplätzen b) mit dem Auto c) der Blauwal d) die Fledermaus a) der Elefant b) der Wolf c) 115 Euro d) aus Gleis 10 c) in Hotels d) meine Familie 216 c) Sie putzt sich die Zähne d) sie bricht sich das Bein c) die Spree d) der Kürfürstendamm d) zehnte a) erste b) dritte a) die Nase b) der Hals c) die Augen d) die Ohren a) Sie wäscht sich die Haare b) Sie schminkt sich a) Deutschland, Japan, Italien, und Polen b) die USA, Frankreich, Deutschland, und die UdSSR c) Frankreich, Großbritannien, die USA, und die UdSSR d) Deutschland, die Schweiz, Österreich, und Liechtenstein 17. Was ist NICHT ein Teil Martinas tägliche Morgenroutine? 18. Der _______________ Weltkrieg endete im Jahr 1945. c) zweite 19. Die vier Alliierten (die Siegermächte) haben Deutschland und Berlin in vier Besatzungszonen geteilt. Welche vier Länder waren die Alliierten? 20. Die lebendige Einkaufsstraße im westlichen Teil Berlins mit dem Warenhaus Ka-De-We heißt: GRAMMATISCHE STRUKTUREN (15 PUNKTE) 21. Ich kaufe _____________ Bruder einen Laptop. 22. Wo ist der Hund? a) Unter den Linden b) der Reichstag a) mein b) meinen c) meine d) meinem 217 c) habe...gegangen a) kleiner wie b) größer wie c) größer als d) so groß wie d) hat...gegehen c) bin...gegessen a) bin...gespielt b) habe...gespielt a) bin...gegangen b) ist...gegehen c) unter dem Tisch d) an der Tür a) auf dem Bett b) vor dem Fenster 23. Berlin ist ____________________ Grand Rapids. 24. Ich __________ zum Supermarkt ________________. 25. Als ich 8 Jahre alt war, ___________ ich Fußball _____________. 26. Im Restaurant habe ich ein Glas Rotwein ______________. 27. Warum möchtest du Deutschland besuchen? >>> ___________ ich dort Familie habe. 28. Ich fliege diesen Sommer _________ Deutschland. 29. Ich wasche _______ die Hände. 30. Die Party beginnt ______ 20:30 Uhr. a) trank b) getrunken c) getrinkt d) getrinken c) wenn d) wann a) mich b) dich a) zu b) nach a) weil b) wo d) habe...gegessen d) vor c) mir a) bei c) bis d) sie c) auf 218 d) am c) auf d) am b) um 31. Die Party findet ________ Samstag statt. 32. a) bei b) um Peter: Guten Tag, Maria. Wie geht es dir heute? Maria: Danke, _________ geht’s gut! a) dir b) mir c) um d) auf c) um d) auf a) ist b) hat c) Ihnen d) ich a) an b) mit a) an b) mit 33. Um 6:30 Uhr stehe ich _______. Dann mache ich das Bett und frühstücke. Um 8:00 Uhr gehe ich zur Universität. 34. Ich will meinen Freund Thomas auf eine Party einladen. Ich gehe zum Telefon und rufe ihn _________. 35. Herr und Frau Frisch ___________ in den Bergen gewandert. c) sind d) haben LESEN (20 Punkte. Alle Fragen x 2) Read the text and answer the following multiple-choice questions based on the information in the text. 1918 in Berlin ruft der Sozialdemokrat Philipp Scheidemann die „Deutsche Republik“ aus. Berlin ist Hauptstadt der Weimarer Republik. 1933 Berlin wird Zentrum der nationalsozialistischen Diktatur, aber auch des Widerstandes. 1936 1938 werden von den Nazis zerstört. Die XI. Olympischen Sommerspielen finden in Berlin statt. (9. November) Reichspogromnacht („Kristallnacht“). Jüdische Geschäfte Ende des ersten Weltkriegs. (9. November) Vom Balkon des Reichstages Machtergreifung der Nationalsozialisten. Hitler wird Reichskanzler. 219 (17. Juni) Die Arbeitsnormen und auch die Preise für Lebensmittel werden Berlin wird durch die Rote Armee erobert. Berlin wird von den vier Die Blockade Berlins: Die Stadt wird politisch geteilt. Die westlichen 1945 Siegermächten (USA, UdSSR, Großbritannien, Frankreich) besetzt und verwaltet. 1948/49 Alliierten reagieren mit der „Luftbrücke“, dem größten Lufttransportunternehmen der Geschichte. 1949 Aus den westdeutschen Besatzungszonen wird die Bunderepublik Deutschland mit Hauptstadt Bonn gegründet. Aus der Sowjetischen Besatzungszone entsteht die Deutsche Demokratische Republik mit Hauptstadt Berlin (Ost). 1953 in Ost-Berlin erhöht. Es kommt zum Aufstand Ost-Berliner Arbeiter. 1961 1963 ein Berliner.“) 1972 Besuche in die DDR. 1989 Bundesrepublik Deutschland werden von der DDR geöffnet. 1990 23 des Grundgesetzes bei. Die deutsche Einheit ist vollendet. 1999 2002 der Deutschen Einheit finden am restaurierten Brandenburger Tor statt. 36. Von 1949-1989 war Ost-Berlin die Hauptstadt von ___________. Die Regierung siedelt offiziell nach Berlin um. (3. Oktober) Die zentralen Feierlichkeiten der Bundesrepublik zum Tag (13. August) Die Stadt wird durch den Bau der Mauer geteilt. Berlin wird vom amerikanischen Präsidenten Kennedy besucht. („Ich bin (3. Oktober) Die DDR tritt der Bundesrepublik Deutschland nach Artikel (9. November) Die Mauer fällt: Die Grenzen zu West-Berlin und zur Das Vier-Mächte-Abkommen regelt den Transit sowie Reisen und a) der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik b) der Bundesrepublik Deutschland c) Preußen d) der Weimarer Republik 37. In welchem Jahr wurde die Berliner Mauer gebaut? a) 1945 c) 1961 220 b) 1963 d) 1989 38. Zu welchem Krieg wollte Präsident Kennedy Kommentar geben mit seiner „Ich bin ein Berliner“ Rede? a) zum ersten Weltkrieg b) zum zweiten Weltkrieg c) zum kalten Krieg d) zum dreißig jährigen Krieg 39. Die Stadt Bonn war Hauptstadt _________________. a) der BRD b) der DDR c) der Weimarer Republik d) Preußens 40. In welchem Jahr endete der zweite Weltkrieg? a) 1918 b) 1961 c) 1945 d) 1953 41. In welchem Jahr ist die Hauptstadt der BRD von Bonn nach Berlin umgesiedelt? a) 1999 b) 1989 c) 1949 d) 2002 42. Welches Ereignis ist NICHT am 9. November passiert? a) Berlin wird Hauptstadt der Weimarer Republik b) Die Nazis zerstören Jüdische Geschäfte (Kristallnacht). c) Die Berliner Mauer wird gebaut. d) Die Berliner Mauer fällt. 43. Aus welcher Besatzungszone entsteht die DDR mit Hauptstadt Berlin (Ost)? a) aus der Sowjetischen b) aus der Französischen c) aus der Amerikanischen d) aus der Britischen 44. In welchem Jahr sind die Nazis an die Macht gekommen? a) 1918 b) 1938 c) 1933 d) 1945 45. An welchem Tag findet der „Tag der Deutschen Einheit“ statt? 221 c) am 9. November d) am 2. Mai a) am 13. August b) am 3. Oktober 222 Schriftlicher Ausdruck (20 Punkte) Eine E-Mail von Marko. Write a response to Marko’s e-mail below. Use the questions in bold print in the e-mail to guide you. Hallo Hier ist Marko wieder. Mir geht’s gerade super, weil ich letzte Woche eine Reise nach Österreich gemacht habe. Ich bin mit meiner Schwester gefahren. Wir sind mit dem Zug gefahren und haben unsere Tante in Wien besucht. Dort sind wir viel gewandert und haben viele schöne klassische Musik gehört. Das Wetter war einfach super: dreißig Grad und Sonne pur! Es hat nur an einem Tag geregnet. An dem Tag haben wir in einem feinen Restaurant gegessen. Ich habe für das erste Mal Sushi probiert. Es hat mir gefallen! Wo warst du in deinen letzten Ferien? Wohin bist du gefahren oder geflogen? Was hast du dort gemacht? Bist du mit jemandem gefahren oder hast du jemanden besucht? Was hast du gut gegessen oder getrunken? Wie lange bist du geblieben und wie war das Wetter? Hast du schöne Sehenswürdigkeiten besucht oder bist du nur in der Sonne gelegen? Ich hoffe deine Ferien haben dir Spaß gemacht! Ich freue mich schon auf deine nächste E-Mail. Bis dann! Tschüss, Marko ________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _______________ 223 4. Questions for Oral Exam: Test #3 Welche Zimmer gibt es in deinem Haus? Welche Hausarbeit machst du gern? Welche Hausarbeit machst du nicht so gern? Hattest du schon mal eine interessante Reise? Wohin bist du gefahren oder geflogen und was hast du gemacht? Erzähl mir von deiner interessantesten Reise bitte! Was isst du normalerweise zum Frühstück, zum Mittagessen, und zum Abendessen? Erzähl mal was du an einem normalen Tag isst! Welche Aktivitäten hast du als Jugendliche oder als Teenager gemacht? Was hast du in deiner Freizeit gemacht, als du in der Schule warst oder Teenager warst? Welche Tiere sind gute Haustiere? Warum sind sie gute Haustiere? Was machen sie oder was machen sie nicht? Hast du Haustiere? Wie heißt das Tier? Also, sprich ein bisschen von Haustieren! Was machst du, wenn du dich erkältet hast? Bitte in einem kompletten Satz! Erzähl mir deine Morgenroutine? Was machst du morgens zuerst, als nächstes, zuletzt? Was ist deine Routine morgens, bevor du zur Klasse kommst? Welches Thema hast du für dein Kulturprojekt ausgesucht und was hast du gelernt? Also hoffentlich kannst du jetzt ein bisschen über dein Thema sprechen: was du gelernt hast und was in deiner Präsentation war. Was ist nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in Berlin passiert. Was haben die Alliierten gemacht und wer waren die Alliierten? Also hier kannst du nur sagen was du gelernt hast über Berlin nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg: die Alliierten, die vier Zonen und die Teilung Deutschlands in zwei Länder. Also bitte erzähl mir ein bisschen, was du gelernt hast über Berlin nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. 224 APPENDIX C: Surveys C-1: First-Semester Study Survey Please rate the following statements on a scale of 1-4 in which 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= agree, and 4= strongly agree SD D A SA 1. In-class lectures greatly enhance my learning Pre-recorded videos greatly enhance my 2. learning Interactive, in-class activities greatly 3. enhance my learning I participated and engaged in interactive, in- 4. class activities I prefer to learn concepts from pre- recorded 5. videos I prefer to learn concepts from in-class 6. lectures 7. Written online assignments (blog entries) greatly enhance my learning 8. Written textbook assignments greatly enhance my learning Interactive online assignments 9. (Conversations) greatly enhance my learning 10. I watched each pre-recorded video more than once 11. I watched each pre-recorded video once 12. I did not watch the pre-recorded videos 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 225 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SD D A SA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 13. Group homework assignments (videos) greatly enhance my learning I would choose a flipped classroom format 14. for my next foreign language course I would choose a traditional lecture format 15. for my next foreign language course 16. Accessing the pre-recorded videos at all times and more than once greatly enhances my learning 17. coming to class on a regular basis I completed the written homework before 18. My attendance in this class was very good I was motivated to complete the homework 19. for this class 20. I enjoyed learning German this semester 21. I registered for another German class next semester 22. I plan to major or minor in German 23. I plan to study abroad in Germany 24. I am satisfied with the amount I learned in this class 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23. I am satisfied with the grade I am receiving in this class 1 226 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C-2: Second-Semester Study Survey Student Evaluation Survey (postcourse) Name: Section: Please rate the following statements on a scale of 1-4 in which 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= agree, and 4= strongly agree SD D A SA 1. Listening to in-class lectures is the best way to learn a second language. 2. Watching instructional videos is the best way to learn a second language. 3. Interactive, in-class activities (partner work, walk-around activities, interviews) are useful for learning a second language. I actively participated and engaged in 4. interactive, in-class activities (partner work, walk- around activities, interviews). I generally prefer to learn concepts from 5. instructional videos. I generally prefer to learn concepts from in- 6. class lectures. 7. I prefer to learn a second language through whole-class discussions. 8. I prefer to learn a second language through reading and writing from the textbook. 9. I prefer to learn a second language through watching online videos. 10. I prefer to learn a second language through lectures by my professor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 227 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 11. Written online assignments (blog entries) are useful for learning a second language. 12. Written textbook assignments (grammar exercises, answering questions, reading texts, etc.) are useful for learning a second language. SD 1 1 13. Interactive online assignments (Conversations) are useful for learning a second language. 1 14. Group homework assignments (creating videos, skits, presentations) are useful for learning a second language. I would choose a flipped classroom format 15. for my next foreign language course. I would choose a traditional lecture format 16. for my next foreign language course. I completed the homework 17. before coming to class on a regular basis. 1 1 1 1 18. My attendance in this class was very good. 1 I was motivated to complete the homework 19. for this class. 20. I enjoyed learning German this semester. 21. I registered for another German class next semester. 22. I plan to major or minor in German. 23. I plan to study abroad in Germany. 1 1 1 1 1 228 D 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 SA 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SD D A SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SD D 1 2 2 2 2 24. I am satisfied with the amount I learned in this class. 25. I am satisfied with the grade I am receiving in this class. 26. I learned a lot about the culture of the German-speaking countries in this class. 27. I learned a lot about the history of the German-speaking countries in this class. 28. Technology is a good tool for learning about the culture of another country. 29. Technology is a good tool for learning about the history of another country. 30. In-class lectures are a good tool for learning about the culture of another country. 31. In-class lectures are a good tool for learning about the history of another country. Answer the following questions only if you participated in the flipped classroom (section 1, Professor Hojnacki) 32. I sometimes watched the pre-recorded videos more than once. 33. I watched each pre-recorded video only once. 1 I sometimes did not watch the pre- recorded 34. videos. 35. Accessing the online videos at all times and more than once helped me learn more German. 1 1 229 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 A 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SA 4 4 4 4 APPENDIX D: Transcripts D-1: Oral Responses to Online Asynchronous Conversation Survey Questions Item #1: Give me your opinion of the flipped classroom now that you have learned with it for at least one semester. Item #2: What were the most positive aspects of the flipped classroom in your opinion? Item #3: What were the most negative aspects of the flipped classroom in your opinion? Item #4: Talk about your experiences with the different online tools that we used in the flipped classroom such as the Conversations, VoiceThreads, text chats, the course blog, and the online videos. Which ones did you find the most or least useful and why? Item #5: If you were going to enroll in another language class would you choose a flipped classroom or a traditional lecture format? Please talk a little about your reasons for that decision. Learner #33 FF(M)- Two semesters flipped (achieved), (nearing) I think the flipped classroom was great for someone like me who had zero German experience coming into the class. I think the technique of the flipped classroom got me to an acceptable level where I could function, speaking German enough to survive much faster than a traditional classroom. If I had to get around in Germany I think the flipped classroom would accomplish teaching me the basics or what I need to get around much faster than the traditional classroom. Especially, just the, I’m not the greatest speaker of German but I can understand a lot and I think a lot of that has to do with how much we were exposed to hearing German in class. I think the in-class was probably the most positive part of my German experience. Just the overall fast paced nature of the class really helped me to get off to a fast start and I just picked up a lot in so many different areas right away. Rather than starting with basics and learning baby steps here and there, it kind of just threw you into it, and just hearing basically the whole German class being spoken in German really helped my understanding. I also really liked the online conversations. I thought they were really beneficial because you actually had to speak the language and come up with the answers in your head and react right away and they were kinda fun to do and challenging as well. And also I think that speaking German in class was also really great, and I don’t mean where we got to write out stuff and then speak it to each other, I mean like actually having conversations in German in class was really valuable. We did a lot of that in the first semester when we walked around and converse with each other in German and that was really helpful. We stopped doing that, or we didn’t do that as much at the end of the year. I think that would have been really helpful especially as things got more complex to practice speaking them to each other. I think the blog entries were kind of just a lot of busy work for the most part. I didn’t feel like it really helped me advance in my language skills, speaking or just my knowledge of the language. The ones where we had to write a response to a video were helpful but some of the ones where we just had to write five sentences in English about something historical, it’s nice to learn, but it 230 didn’t really help me to advance in my abilities speaking German. The first semester was really great, but the second semester was, I think we spent a little too much time learning the history of the Berlin Wall. I think we got to a pretty good level in one year and I think we could of taken it a little farther and used that two weeks that we spent on German history and continued learning the language, advanced our speaking skills. That’s pretty much it. In the first semester, I think the flipped classroom will get you way ahead of the traditional classroom, but after that it’s really hard to master the language. We didn’t spend a lot of time like conjugating verbs and mastering the endings to everything. I think if you really want to master the language you have to do it the good old-fashioned way, memorizing, studying endings, and all that good stuff, but I think the flipped classroom does get you off to a faster start. I think the conversation were probably my favorite ones and I think the most effective in helping me learn the language. I think the Blog entries were the least effective. I just feel like you could get by without significant effort. I think the blog entries where we were writing in German and had to answer questions in German were valuable, but the blog entries that were just reactions to a video we had to watch about something historical I didn’t think really helped me learn German very much, but that’s my only complaint. I really liked the conversations and the Voicethreads, those were really valuable because they were the most real time thing that you could get. If I was starting over with a new language I would prefer the flipped classroom because again I think it gets you to a functional level faster. If you need to get dropped off someplace where you have to speak a different language, I think a flipped classroom will get you to a higher level faster. If I was continuing with the language, for a second year, I think I would choose a traditional classroom. Because right now I could function, I could understand German speaking in Germany and get around, but if I really wanted to master the language, I think I’m lacking in the areas of like building sentences. I think in a traditional classroom you spend more time working on the basics, and the rules, and the laws, you know the foundation first rather than throwing it all at you at once, but if I was going to continue with the language I would choose the traditional classroom. But as far as my two semesters go, for a general education requirement, I think the flipped classroom was great. I’m not a German major. So I was just taking it because it seemed like the most interesting language and it was, and I think the flipped classroom was a great experience I would recommend it to other students and I had a great experience and it was really valuable and hopefully I will get the chance to put my skills to good use. Thank you for all you’ve done for us and all the energy you brought to class every day. Tschüß! Learner #35 FC(M) - First semester flipped (achieved), Second semester control (achieved) My overall opinion of the flipped classroom was definitely good. I really liked having the Conversations, like this. It really gave me a chance to really listen and actually hear what was being said and trying to imitate it while actually hearing what I actually sound like. The blogs were interesting. Sometimes they were kind of difficult. just because you didn’t really know exactly how or what you wanted to say, didn’t always have the exact translation, so sometimes 231 Google translate came in handy there, but that’s not always the best way to go about things. Otherwise, I did enjoy having the opportunity to go online to do some of our homework. So If I were to do it over again, I would definitely have the flipped classroom for the second semester since I was in it for the first semester. For some reason I just didn’t do as well in the second semester as I thought I would as I did in the first semester, so I definitely liked it a lot. I really liked the Conversations but also the prerecorded videos that you had us watch of your lessons. Sometimes things were just explained a little differently in the video than in class. So, for that I really enjoyed being able to have the same lesson over again. To just get a different feel for it or when you had us watch someone else’s video maybe they explained it in a different way that it may have just clicked better for me. The only thing that I didn’t really like about the blogs was that the online stuff in general you just got a grade for it, you didn’t really get a “how to work on it” kind of response, so that would be the only thing that I would change about it. One thing that I would like to have done differently is just kind of how we know what assignments are due. I know it’s college and it’s our responsibility to stay on top of our work. Everything is online. It’s just kind of hard to get in the swing, just constantly going onto Course Connect and getting everything that you need to know for that week or that chapter, then just staying on top of that. I don’t know how you would go about changing that except just advocating to just remember to just go online. make sure you’re doing this and that. You guys were really lenient about that which I really appreciate that just I’m not very good at going online and getting that stuff. With the videos I really, really enjoyed them. I really liked when you filmed them at your house with your kids. That was really funny, that really kept my attention the entire time. I thought that was really great. I think you should keep doing that. Especially because it just takes it from just a classroom level to a much more personal level, almost like we were colleagues. You know, “this is my family,” and they’re just skipping and running all over the place. I really liked that. The text chats, I’m kind of on the fence about them, I think they were helpful because it really forced you, just made you sit down and think, “what do I know, what don’t I know,” which for me… getting crunch time like that was something that I didn’t like very much, but it was I think it was still really helpful for me. All the videos, I really enjoy watching them. I enjoyed seeing them over and over again and just getting the concept down. I think all the technology that was used was really good. Even though people may not like what they’re doing, they might not realize that’s something that’s really helping them more. If I was to take a second language other than German I would definitely take the flipped classroom, even though it was kind of difficult to stay on top of all the technology that was used and sometimes it didn’t work right, it was much easier to say, “ok, I’m going to learn this on the time I have now when I have my own time, so I feel the need to want to go learn it instead of being forced to go to class. Having class lectures definitely helps a lot, especially for me, but going online and getting all of the information that you set up for us on Course Connect and being able to go on my own time to see that was definitely something that I would choose if it was Spanish or French. Well, French is really hard in my opinion, so maybe not that, but definitely for another language. I would definitely pick the flipped classroom. Thanks for letting 232 us be a part of your dissertation. It was definitely a cool experience being a part of actual research in the real world and not just in a lab somewhere. So thanks for that. It was a great opportunity and I, as well, hope to see you again in the future. Learner #37 FC(F) - First semester flipped (achieved), Second semester control (nearing) Learning with the flipped classroom I thought was little bit more difficult than learning in a regular classroom. I found using the Internet sources was a little difficult because I would get really distracted and then not do it. But, it was interesting, it was a good experience. The most positive aspect of the flipped classroom is you would talk about it in class but then like if you didn’t know it or you had to go back over it you could like go back on Course Connect and watch the video again and kind of like remember like “oh yeah, that’s what that was all about.” Even though like we had the blog entry online. I feel like that with out taking notes we didn’t really take a lot of notes in the flipped classroom. But I feel like taking notes in like a language classroom and seeing how the word’s spelled and not just hearing it, so like in a normal classroom setting the flipped classroom kind of took away from that aspect of like lecture learning because like when you’re watching the PowerPoints you just watch the Powerpoint, you don’t usually take notes because you just watch it. My favorite use of technology in the class was the Conversations. The Voicethreads kind of confused me, like the technology and how to use it. The blog kind of bored me because you could see everybody else’s and you would be like, that’s basically what I was going to say and then just be like, blah. I feel like that the conversations and the text chats were kind of the most useful technology. I would definitely prefer to use more of a traditional lecture type learning for a language class because I’m really more, I’m going to say “hands on” but that’s not really the word I’m looking for, because while in the flipped classroom we learned it outside of class and then applied it in class, I feel like you talk about something in the traditional type lecture and if you don’t understand something or you don’t know how to pronounce it you go over that. That’s probably why I prefer a more traditional classroom over a flipped classroom. Learner #34 FC(M) – First semester flipped (achieved), Second semester control (achieved) Overall I would say I liked it. It was nice being able to see the lecture at home for homework and then come into class and have everyone be closer to being on the same page and that way when we went to talk about it everyone had an idea what we were talking about. It just made things go a little bit smoother in class. Kind of like I said, it was nice having sort of an idea going into that day’s lecture abut what we were talking about that day, that way when we went to do it, everyone sort of had an idea and it made things go smoother. With a lot of the videos or screencasts it kind of added another 233 dimension to it. With the lecture you’re just taking in whatever the person teaching it is talking about, but with the videos you’re having kind of like visual aids in addition to just what you’re hearing. It helps give a more full understanding of what you’re talking about. Let me start by saying that I do think I ended up learning more from the flipped classroom. Overall I liked it, but the negative part was that a lot of times it did seem like a lot of work. Just because it seemed like, I’m going to class and then I’m basically It’s like having two classes a day instead of the one. Sometimes I’d be sitting at home and I can’t get a link to work and it can be kind of frustrating. I want to get it done and move on to other things and if I can’t it can be frustrating. not being in class and if you have a problem It can be frustrating. Sometimes, if we do an assignment and we do a blog entry one day and another blog entry the next day sometimes it just seemed. If you’re trying to get it done and then you’re trying to get a lot of other stuff done, so you’re just trying to rush through it to try to get it done. That didn’t happen all the time but sometimes. Rather than really trying to fully understand what I’m doing, I’d just try to get it done. The screencast Powerpoints were probably the best, because you have not only your voice doing a lecture but also the visual aids because it just brings it full circle and helps you understand it better. The Conversations I think are really helpful because they are probably a more efficient way to do it, like for an oral exam because you have to do it individually with each student. This way it’s more efficient. That way we can do it more and the students can have more experience actually speaking, which I think is the most important. The text chats and the group videos were ok. The text chats we had to do outside of class it could be frustrating because not only do I have to do a lot of homework but now I also have to coordinate with someone else, were kind of hard. Doing them in class is probably, you get more out of it and interact with your partner more. If I had to sign up for another flipped classroom I think I would. Even though at times it could be frustrating it could be kind of difficult. You definitely have to put more work into it, but I honestly think I take more out of it. Like me, I had the flipped class and then the traditional class, seeing the difference with the, maybe if the lecture classes were a bit longer, but since they’re only 50 minutes, having the flipped classroom you could fit double the curriculum into the 50 minute classes. It gives the students and the teacher the opportunity to learn more. So, overall I’d probably take another one. Oh, and good luck on your dissertation. Thanks. Learner #30 ØF(F) – Second semester flipped (achieved) It wasn’t bad. I’m not a big fan of online stuff when it comes to classes in general just cause I’m more of a visual learner and I like to be in the classroom. It wasn’t that bad and I liked having access to videos and whatnot at all points. That’s the beneficial part of having a more online- based classroom. Overall, I like to learn more in class. I liked that we got to do vocab, like write that all down instead of wasting time in class. I liked that we got to do that outside of class and I liked having access to the videos. I do like doing group work. I feel like that’s beneficial. I like asking other people questions instead of asking 234 the teacher all the time because sometimes I’m not always clear on what we’re supposed to do and it’s fun, so I don’t really like learning grammatical parts of a language on a video. Sometimes I have questions and I can’t directly ask the video a question, like, it won’t respond to me. So, just like sentence structure I prefer learning in class over learning through online notes, but we also did go over it in class, too. That’s something I like doing in class more is the grammatical portion. Helps me understand more. I like the videos where you actually go through and pick out the different vocab and show us because it’s like a more visual. I don’t mind Voicethreads. I kind of like them. They’re pretty easy to do and it gets the understanding across. Powerpoints, for sentence structure, I’m not a huge fan of, even with the voice-over because I like to learn more of that stuff in class. Overall the Voicethreads were good and the vocab videos I thought were nice. Overall I’ve had both. Usually when it comes to learning big parts of it, I prefer the lecture style but overall if I could do a mix, if that’s possible, it would be nice. Because, I do like having the online resources, but I do like doing more things in class. It’s just my preference for anything, including foreign language. Learner #24 FF(M) – 2 semesters flipped (below) Honestly, there were some things that were helpful, like some of the videos. I really didn’t like doing the blogs, I thought they were really annoying. I really liked the fairy tale lesson, that was really fun. Also, learning about the history, I felt like that was on a need to know basis, based on the fact that we learn that in history class now. I liked the PowerPoints that were pre-made. We could go in and write down definitions. That really helped me. The fairy tale lesson I just loved. Learning about the animals was pretty cool, too. I would have no idea what they were called. That was fun. The blogs, I hated, I think most people hated the blogs. They were just a nuisance to do. They were just a pain in the butt. Also, some of the videos. They were just a pain to have to listen to. You’d just have to sit down and take time out of your day to just watch a video in German when there were other things we could have been doing. I think I would have just rather have done some in-class stuff. Like sitting down and talking in the language. like listening to music. I like listening to music. Overall I like the conversations. They are really helpful because I can see the person while they’re asking the question, which is a good thing. The Voicethreads are kind of weird. It’s just kind of a random question and if you don’t stop the voice it just goes on to the person who did it before you, so it’s really easy to cheat on that. The text chats, yeah, you can see who did what, but in the long run it’s just one person doing it telling the other person what to do. The iVideos were useful because you could see what some of the things were as you were saying it. which was useful. Some of the screencasts were just long and boring. The online videos, some of them were helpful some of them weren’t, they were just hit and miss. I’d really want to know what things were going to be used. For me right now I’d probably 235 choose the flipped classroom as long as there wasn’t any blogs I’d have to do. Learner #31 FF(M) – 2 semesters flipped (nearing) For me personally with the flipped classroom, the blogs were my least favorite thing. In high school with my Spanish classroom we did a more traditional classroom for teaching and I feel like that helped, especially like the lectures online, I didn’t really like those. The videos and the movies we watched really helped. The sub-titles helped me pick up the words. The in-class work and the projects were nice. The group projects I enjoyed but I feel like this late in education if it were implied earlier like Kindergarten towards now it would be more effective than it was for me. The most positive aspect was making the vocabulary lists and then going over those in class and then hearing examples like in the movies or speaking in small groups. My favorite thing was when we did paired work with a worksheet, we get 10-15 minutes and then we go over it to see if we did it right and if we are wrong we get the corrections then and there, that was my favorite part. The part I liked the least was the blogs and the times we did the text chats. I didn’t know how to do the online German typing so that was kind of a pain. I enjoyed the Conversations and the Voicethreads. I liked the little tools you could use to circle while you were talking. The Course blog again I did not like that at all. I would go with a slightly modified flipped classroom. I did enjoy some of the aspects but the only things I didn’t like were the blogs and the text chat. If the blog and the text chats were removed I would really enjoy the flipped classroom. Learner #25 FF(F)– 2 semesters flipped (achieved, nearing) I did like the flipped classroom for learning language, specifically that you could re- watch videos for vocabulary and grammar. When you didn’t understand it, you could look back and that made comprehension easier and, particularly for learning vocabulary, more repetitive for language and that’s something that’s needed. Something that was more on the students is that they are expected to get more work done on their own. Whether it’s watching videos, there were some videos that were an hour long and had assignments in them that took a lot of time out of my day to do and we didn’t really go over them in class and that’s just more how self-motivated the students were and that’s just a college thing in general, but other than that I really liked the flipped classroom. The most positive would be doing assignments in class with each other and getting to know the feel of the grammar and the vocabulary. Taking German in high school compared with this, (here) we didn’t spend so much time just going over and making sure everything was correct. I think that can kind of…once you miss a certain lesson you really can’t go back on it and expand from what you know. One of the negatives would be how long the videos could have been. Some of them were just so repetitive that it was just unnecessary. Some of the assignments and projects should have been 236 given out ahead of time, just because of other classes and time constraints, especially group ones. It can be very difficult to meet with a group. When we weren’t allowed to choose our groups I found that the schedules were conflicting and we had to do the project at night. I actually really liked the Voicethreads and the Conversations, they were really helpful. I liked that you could go back and write down what the teacher was asking. I could get to just experience, take in, the information first. I particularly like speaking the language so that’s also why I enjoyed the Conversations and Voicethreads. The text chats not so much. It was really dependent on the internet connection and your partners and if your partner brought their laptops. Screencasts I did like, videos were mostly helpful. I think I would choose the flipped classroom for first semester and possibly not second. (cut off) Learner #26 FF(F) – 2 semesters flipped (achieved) I liked the flipped classroom. I think it helped with our speaking abilities since we did that inside the classroom and all of the partner activities helped with that. I didn’t really like the amount of videos that we were supposed to watch as homework but overall I liked it. I really liked the partner work inside of the classroom. I think it helped with our speaking abilities. I really liked the videos that we had to watch because it helped us prepare for the class before we came to class. It was better to know what we were going to go over so we could look over it The stuff we could have done differently would be the amount of things, like the amount of videos we had to watch or the amount of blogs that we had to do because I know with the blogs it was very easy to just use Google translate with and you’re not learning that way so I guess more in-class writing activities would help. I didn’t like the blogs as I said before because it was easy to use Google translate. I liked screencast. It actually helped because you could go through slides I think we used PowerPoint and that was mostly for vocab. I liked the Conversations. That really helped for speaking outside the classroom. The text chats were very helpful because you had questions and you could form the sentences and it helped with how to use and structure sentences. You could always go back and see them In the future I think I would sign up for a flipped classroom because I took German in high school and from high school to now I know my speaking ability has gotten a lot better. and I really liked the videos outside the classroom and doing the homework inside the classroom. I think that helped a lot. I really did like this course. Learner #28 FF(F) – 2 semesters flipped (nearing) I really liked it. I just thought that it was different from anything that I’ve ever done before. I liked the homework assignments, how we did all the bookwork together because I felt like it was less stressful that way. Because when we had to go do homework it was a lot better to just have to watch videos and do some activities than it was to just do ten activities from the book. 237 One of the positive aspects was doing the partner work in the classroom. It just made the class seem more interesting, more involved than just listening to lectures. I also liked how we just watched the videos for homework with some activities. It made the homework not seem like homework that much. I just liked how it was set up. I guess some of the negative aspects were that sometimes I didn’t get the concepts right away from the videos and it was more helpful when we learned about it in class when we discussed it. Sometimes I thought some of the blogs weren’t really relevant to what we were learning. I liked the Voicethreads, like on the Conversations if you messed up you had to start over every single time so that was kind of hard. I liked the Voicethreads how you could do it one at a time. I thought that the videos that you made at home with your kids, they were a lot easier to follow and understand than the videos you found online. I don’t mind the Conversations as much but I prefer the Voicethreads. I would actually pick the flipped classroom because I took two years of German in high school, learning it the normal way, and that was my least favorite class because we just sat there and didn’t know what was going on most of the time. With the flipped classroom we could go in with a sense of what we were learning that day because we watched the videos the night before. So I would pick the flipped classroom. 238 REFERENCES 239 REFERENCES Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167. Alladi, S., Bak, T. H., Duggirala, V., Surampudi, B., Shailaja, M., Shukla, A. K., . . . Kaul, S. (2013). Bililngualism delays age at onset of dementia, independent of education and immigration status. Neurology, 81(22), 1938-1944. Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Retrieved from San Francisco: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/ Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade Level: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradelevel.pdf Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41, 16-25. Arnold, N. (2007). Technology-Mediated Learning 10 Years Later: Emphasizing Pedagogical or Utilitarian Applications? Foreign Language Annals, 40, 161- 181. Asher, J. (1969). The Total Physical Response Approach to Second Language Learning. Modern Language Journal, 53(1), 3-17. Bates, S., & Galloway, R. (2012). The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: a case study. Paper presented at the HEA STEM Learning and Teaching Conference. Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language, Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68- 117. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2009). Remixing chemistry class: Two colorado teachers make vodcasts of their lectures to free up class time for hands-on activities. Learning & Leading with Technology., 36(4), 22-27. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip Your Classroom: Talk to Every Student in Every Class Every Day Berman, R. (Producer). (2015, Nov 5, 2015). His students were struggling, so he "flipped" his classroom. XQ: The Super School Project. Retrieved from http://www.upworthy.com/his-students-were-struggling-so-he-flipped-his- classroom- then-everything-changed?c=ufb2 240 Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379- 439. Berrett, D. (2012). How Flipping the Classroom can Improve the Traditional Lecture. Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/How-Flipping- the- Classroom/130857/ Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/How- Flipping-the- Classroom/130857/ Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta, GA. Blake, R. (2008). Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Blake, R. (2009). The Use of Technology for Second Language Distance Learning. 241 Modern Language Journal, 93, 822-835. Blake, R. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Applied Linguistics, 31, 19-35. Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16. Brown, J., & White, C. (2010). A social and cognitive approach to affect in SLA. International Review of Applied LInguistics in Language Teaching, 48(4), 331- 353. Chambers, A. (2010). Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Mapping the Territory. Language Teaching, 43(1), 113-122. Chapelle, C. (2009). The Relationship Between Second Language Acquisition Theory and Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 741-753. Chen Hsieh, J.S., Wu, W.V., & Marek, M.W. (2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2), 1-21. Chun, D., Smith, B., & Kern, R. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. Modern Language Journal, 100, 64-80. Cohen, P. A., Ebeling, B. J., & Kulik, J. A. (1981). A meta-analysis of outcome studies of visual-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(1), 26-36. Colpaert, J. (2006). Pedagogy-driven design for online language teaching and learning. Calico Journal, 23, 477-497. Davies, G., & Higgins, J. (1982). Computers, language and language learning. London: CILT. De la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 81-112. deAndres, V. (1999). Self-esteem in the classroom or the metamorphosis of butterflies. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 87-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dell, C., Low, C., & Wilker, J. (2010). Comparing Student Achievement in Online and Face- to-Face Class Formats. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 30-42. Devlin, K. (2015). Learning a foreign language a "must" in Europe, not so in America. Factank: News in the Numbers. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2015/07/13/learning-a-foreign-language-a-must-in-europe-not-so-in- america/ Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2015/07/13/learning-a-foreign- language-a-must-in-europe-not-so-in- america/ Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem- based learning. Computers and Education, 54, 350-359. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eaton, S. (2010). Global Trends in Language Learning in the 21st Century. Retrieved from Calgary: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510276.pdf Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English Language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 195- 210. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 7(3). Ellis, R., He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incedental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285- 301. Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 449-491. Finkel, E. (2012, November, 2012). Flipping the script in K12. District Administration. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/flipping-script-k12 242 Flaherty, C. (2015). Not a Small World After All. Inside Higher Ed. Fortune, M., Shifflett, B., & Sibley, R. (2006). A comparison of online (high tech) and traditional (high touch) learning in business communication courses in Silicon Valley. Journal of Education for Business, 81(4), 210-214. Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology., 39(8), 12-17. Furman, N., Goldberg, D., & Lusin, N. (2007). Enrollments in languages other that English in the United States institutions of higher education, Fall 2006. Retrieved from https://www.mla.org/content/download/2849/79750/06enrollmentsurvey _final.pdf Gannod, G. C., Burge, J. E., & Helmick, M. T. (2008). Using the inverted classroom to teach software engineering. Paper presented at the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering. Gardner, R., & MacIntyre, P. (1993). A learner's contributions to second language acquisition. Part II. Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11. Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-Assisted Language Learning Trends and Issues Revisited: Integrating Innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 719-740. Garrison, D. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovation in distance education. Distance Education, 6 (2), 235-241. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95-105. Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, S. (2003). Input and Interaction. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: an overview. In K. B.-H. a. Z. Dörnyei (Ed.), AILA Review (pp. 3-17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, Interaction, and Output in SLA. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 175-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ginder, S., & Stearns, C. (2012). Enrollment in Distance Education Course, by State: Fall 2012 Retrieved from National Center for Educational Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014023.pdf http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014023.pdf. From 243 Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies. Blogs and wikis: Environments for online collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12-16. Goertler, S. (2012). Theoretical and Empirical Foundations for Blended Language Learning. In F. Rubio, J. Thoms, & S. Bourns (Eds.), AAUSC 2012 Volume - Issues in Language Program Direction: Hybrid Language Teaching and Learning: Exploring Theoretical, Pedagogical and Curricular Issues (pp. 27- 43): Wadsworth. Goertler, S., Bollen, M., & Gaff, J. (2012). Students' Readiness for and Attitudes Toward Hybrid FL Instruction. CALICO, 29(297-320). Goertler, S., & Winke, P. (Eds.). (2008). Opening doors through distance language education: Principles, perspectives, and practices. San Marco, TX: CALICO. Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2015a). Enrollments in Languages Other than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf: http://www.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2015b). Enrollments in Languages Other Than English In United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2013. Retrieved from Guidry, K., Cubillos, J., & Pusecker, K. (2013). The Connection Between Self-Regulated Learning and Student Success in a Hybrid Course. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Long Beach, CA. http://www.mistakengoal.com/docs/Self- regulated_learning_hybrid_course.pdf Guillory, H. (1998). The Effects of Keyword Captions to Authentic French Video on Learner Comprehension. CALICO, 15(1/3), 89-108. Hastie, M., Chen, N., & Kuo, Y. (2007). Instructional Design for Best Practice in the Synchronous Classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 281- 294. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.10.4.281 Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16, 416- 431. Heift, T. (2010). Developing an Intelligent Language Tutor. Calico Journal, 27(3), 443- 459. Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36, 196-213. Herman, T., & Banister, S. (2007). Face-to-face versus online coursework: A comparison of costs and learning outcomes. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, 7(4), 318-326. 244 Hermes, M., Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2012). Designing indigenoous language revitalization. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 381-402. Herreid, C., & Schiller, N. (2013). Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5). Herreid, C. S., N. (2013). Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42.5, 62-66. Hojnacki, S. (2016). Oral Output in Online Modules vs. Face-to-Face Classrooms. In M. McCarthy (Ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Blended Learning for Language Teaching (pp. 107-122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hung, H. T. (2011). Design-based research: Designing a multimedia environemnt to support language learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48, 159-169. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: an experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577. Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., and Fearnow, S. . (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452. Johnson, C., & Marsh, D. (2016). The Flipped Classroom. In M. McCarthy (Ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Blended Learning for Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2014). MOOCs Completion Rates and Possible Methods to Improve Retention - A Literature Review. Paper presented at the EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2014. Kolowich, S. (2013). The Minds Behind the MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/The-Professors-Behind-the- MOOC/137905/%23id=results Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Professors-Behind-the- MOOC/137905/%23id=results Koory, M. (2003). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and F2F versions of "An Introduction to Shakespeare". Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 18- 39. Kraemer, A. (2008). Formats of Distance Learning. Calico Journal, 26, 11-42. Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366-372. 245 Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman. La Roche, C., & Flanigan, M. (2013). Student Use of Technology in Class: Engaged or Unplugged? Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 47-53. Lage, M. J., Platt, G., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). A Promising Combination: Complexity Theory, Design- Based Research, and CALL. In J. Rodriguez & C. Pardo-Ballester (Eds.), Design- Based Research in CALL (pp. 23-29). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Levy, M. (2013). Design-Based Research and the Quest for Normalization in CALL. CALICO Monograph Series: Design-Based Research in CALL, 11, 31-40. Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in Incidental Focus on Form in Meaning-Focused ESL Lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153-188. Loewen, S., & Reinders, H. (2011). Key Concepts in Second Language Acquisition. Long, M. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. London: Palgrave Macmillan. TESOL, Quarterly, 24, 649-666. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in SLA: Models and Recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357-371. Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A colective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20, 35- 54. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Mahwah: Routledge. 246 Maleki, Z., & Pazhakh, A. (2012). The Effects of Pre-Modified Input, Interactionally Modified Input, and Modified Output on EFL Learners' Comprehension of New Vocabularies. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 128-137. McCarthy, M. (2016a). Blended Learning. In M. McCarthy (Ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Blended Learning for Language Teaching (pp. 1-3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M. (2016b). Issues in Second Language Acquisition in Relation to Blended Learning. In M. McCarthy (Ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Blended Learning for Language Teaching (pp. 7-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning Studies. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: Nagata, N. (1996a). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. Calico Journal, 14, 53-75. Nagata, N. (1996b). Computer vs. worksbook instruction in second language acquisition. Calico Journal, 14(1), 53-75. Nagata, N., & Swisher, M. V. (1995). A study of conciousness-raising by computer: The effect of meta-linguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 337-347. O'Rourke, P., Zhou, Q., & Rottman, I. (2016). Prioritization of K-12 World Language Education in the United States: State Requirements for High School Graduation. Foreign Language Annals, 49(4), 789 - 800. Pearson, L., Fonseca-Greber, B., & Foell, K. (2006). Advanced Proficiency for Foreign Language Teacher Candidates: What Can We Do to Help Them Achieve This Goal? Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 507 - 519. Perez, L. C. (2003). Foreign language and productivity in synchronous vs. asynchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO, 21(1), 89-104. Reeves, T. C., & McKenney, S. (2013). Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Design- Based Research: Increased Complexity for Sure, Enhanced Impact Perhaps. In J. Rodriguez & C. Pardo-Ballester (Eds.), Design-Based Research in CALL (pp. 9-21). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Rimrott, A., & Heift, T. (2005). Language learners and generic spell checkers in CALL. Calico Journal, 23(1), 17-48. 247 Rimrott, A., & Heift, T. (2008). Evaluating automatic detection of misspellings in German. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3). Rocque, R., Ferrin, S., Hite, J., & Randall, V. (2016). The Unique Skills and Traits of Principals in One-Way and Two-Way Dual Immersion Schools. Foreign Language Annals, 49(4), 801 - 818. Rodriguez, J., Pardo-Ballester, C. (2013). Design-Based Research in CALL. CALICO Monograph Series, (11). San Marcos. Ruddick, K. W. (2012). Improving chemical education from high school to college using a more hands-on approach. (Dissertation), University of Memphis. Saadatmand, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2014). Participants' Perceptions of Learning and Networking in Connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 16-30. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no1/saadatmand_0314.pdf Saqlain, N. (2012). Technology and Foreign Language Pedagogy: What the Literature Says. Educause Review. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2012/6/technology- and-foreign-language- pedagogy-what-the-literature-says Sauro, S. (2009). Strategic use of modality during synchronous CMC. Calico Journal, 27(1), 101-117. Schenker, T. (2012). The effects of a virtual exchange on language skills and intercultural competence., Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. (1038142019) Scherer, K., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion: theory, methods, research. Canary, NC: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of conciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158. Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357-386. Scovel, T. (2001). Learning new languages. A guide to second language acquisition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. Shoaib, A., & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). Affect in lifelong learning. Exploring motivation as a dynamic process. In P. Benson & D. Nunan (Eds.), Learners' stories. Difference and diversity in language learning (pp. 22-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 248 Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a- platform/ Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-54. Smith, B. (2009). The relationship between scrolling, negotiation and self-initiated self- repair in an SCMC environment. Calico Journal, 26(2), 231-245. Smith, B. (2012). Eye Tracking as a Measure of Noticing: A Study of Explicit Recasts in SCMC. Language Learning and Technology, 16(3), 53-81. Smith, B., Alvarez-Torre, M., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Features of CMC technologies and their impact on language learners' online interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 703-729. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/85 582616?accountid=12598 Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171- 193. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 125- 144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471- 484). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Taylor, J. C. (1999). Distance Education: The fifth generation. Paper presented at the 19th ICDE World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education, Düsseldorf. http://www.usq.au/users/taylorj/publicationspre sentations/1999vienna_5thGeneration.doc The National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. Retrieved from Alexandria, VA: https://www.actfl.org/news/press-releases/national-standards-collaborative-board- releases-iworld-readiness-standards-learning-languages The Sloan Consortium. (2005). Growing by degrees. Online education in the United States, . Retrieved from Needham, MA: http://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/survey/growing_by_degrees_ 249 Tschirner, E., Nikolai, B., & Terrell, T. D. (2013). Kontakte: A Communicative Approach (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Tucker, B. (2012). The Flipped Classroom. Education Next, 12(1). Walsh, S. (2015). The Role of Interaction in a Blended Learning Context. In M. McCarthy (Ed.), The Cambridge Guide to Blended Learning for Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Winke, P., Goertler, S., & Amuzie, G.L. (2010). Commonly taught and less commonly taught language learners; Are they equally prepared for CALL and online language learning? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 199-219. Yutdhana, S. (2005). Design-based research in CALL. In J. L. Egbert & G. Mikel Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 169-178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zyzik, E. (2008). A Novel Format for Teaching Spanish Grammar: Lessons from the Lecture Hall. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 434-454. 250