This article describes the implementation of a university teaching improvement grant in which the instructor undertook to engage graduate-level teacher education students in a flipped classroom model (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Flipped Learning Network, 2014) within a face-to-face learning environment. The course selected, Fundamentals of Linguistics, had historically been the most challenging and least popular of the courses in the program for preparing TESOL educators. Student performance tended to be at least one grade lower than in other courses in their program and comments indicated student frustration with the material as irrelevant and unnecessary to their becoming ESOL teachers.

In an attempt to reverse this lack of success, the instructor set out to achieve three goals through the implementation of the flipped classroom model: (1) to increase comprehension of linguistics concepts; (2) to increase interaction among students, leading to peer instruction; and (3) to increase thinking skills for linguistics problem-solving. Studies of flipped learning at the college level have indicated gains in each of these areas for other disciplines (e.g., O'Flaherty & Phillips, 2015; Talbert, 2014). An ancillary goal, relating to the affective domain, was to increase student enjoyment of learning about linguistics and to help them understand its relevance to them as ESOL teachers, a theme maintained throughout the course.

Instructional Design

The instructor designed an effective, user-friendly and cognitively demanding flipped classroom that included the following components.

• Video Lectures: The instructor recorded weekly lectures in Adobe Connect, with webcam, interactive slides, SmartBoard integration through screen sharing, and questions alongside the slides as a guide to students.

• Individual Research Assignments: Students had to prepare activities based on the material introduced in the online lecture. This individual research was designed for sharing in class, both to demonstrate concept mastery and to include peer instruction as part of the in-class component of the course.

• In-Class Problem-Solving: Students worked through linguistics problems based on the material from the lecture, working in small groups or pairs. These problems were sometimes differentiated and students grouped according to similar or mixed ability.

• Final Project: Each student selected a language to analyze throughout the semester using the tools of linguistic analysis as they were introduced. The final project was to create a recorded mini-lecture in Adobe Connect or, alternatively, a web-based poster in Glogster, designed to teach fellow students about the language each had researched.

The elements of this flipped course worked synergistically and developed over time so that by the semester’s end, students were acting independently of the instructor and making group decisions about how to work through the material. The intent was to build learner autonomy through peer instruction. Much of the class time was spent hands-on doing whole class or group activities. One such activity consisted of poster presentations for the classroom walls. For example, in studying semantics, each student signed up to handle one new term, and, for morphology, each student analyzed one word of their choosing, including derivational affixes, idioms, and other expansions and applications of the word, and then created a wall poster for the classroom. In this course structure, the role of the instructor shifted to observation, feedback, and informal assessment, but remained key to student success (Marshall, 2014). As one student noted,

Although she's not at the head of the classroom most of the time, she's what I'd call leading from behind – a role I wish more teachers would undertake. If they knew that leading from behind didn't mean a loss of their control or importance, more teachers would be willing to try the flipped classroom. (Flipped Learning Questionnaire, TED 655-001, LIU Hudson, May 2013).

Assessment

To assess mastery, the instructor used informal assessments, exams, and the aforementioned final project. Informal assessment was ongoing, and the instructor could see which students were able to apply a given concept to a practice exercise or to a problem-solving activity. Areas that challenged the entire group became immediately evident as the students requested clarification from the instructor. For example, based on the results of in-class exercises on morphophonemics, particularly in languages other than English, additional time needed to be allotted.

Formal assessment consisted of two examinations. The first was an in-class midterm exam requiring both lower level skills (understanding and recalling terms and concepts) and more complex skills (applying concepts by analyzing language samples). In this way, the instructor could ascertain where each student was in being able to negotiate course material. The grades ranged from 98 to 72, with 50% of the students receiving a score above 90. The second was a take-home final exam that included linguistic problem-solving and an essay in which students had to revisit course concepts through the lens of their individual investigations of selected linguistic elements. Given the new course structure, the instructor was able to include more challenging problems on the final exam than in previous semesters. Again, the results showed more than half of the students achieving to the level of 90 or above on a final exam.

Course Evaluation

As required for the grant, the instructional design specialist conducted two observations, one at the midpoint and another at the penultimate session. The observer noted on both occasions the extent to which a learning community had formed in the class. The following characteristics were found to be present in the linguistics classroom:

• a truly constructivist learning experience with students being active participants instead of passive recipients of learning;

• a real learning community with students showing great regard for each other, helping each other, prompting each other, asking each other questions, and building upon the work of each student;

• a multimedia experience with use of SmartBoard, Skype, audio, and use of a camera; and

• a physical space that was utterly dynamic, with the teacher standing at the back or the side while students led the discussions (J. Miller, personal communication, April 18, 2013).

Regarding student feedback, data on the evaluation of each course component was collected from blog posts, interviews, and anonymous student evaluations. The students, for their part, echoed the feedback from the design specialist with respect to the in-class work. They also commented on the out-of-class lectures, which constituted the major instructor input. Here is a quote from one of the students on the course structure:

You also needed to be forceful about your ideas and opinions. It’s very easy to sit in class and listen to the professor and not really think about what he or she is saying. But when you are doing a group project in class you need to be prepared to assert yourself if someone suggests a path that you think or you know is incorrect. And, going back to the lectures, this is one of the reasons why you as a student always want to watch the lectures and understand them. You have to make your case and your case would be built on what the professor had said in the lecture that week. (Online Student Evaluation of Instruction, TED 655-001, Marshall, LIU Hudson, May 2013).

Returning to the three goals of this instructional innovation, the end-of-semester student evaluation produced these results: (1) for increased comprehension of linguistics concepts, 83% rated understanding written material in this field and understanding the problem-solving as excellent or very good; (2) for increased interaction, 100% of the students rated the encouragement of student participation as excellent or very good; and (3) for the development of thinking skills, 83% rated their general intellectual development during the course as excellent. Most notably, the Challenge/Engagement index, a composite of questions related to these factors, was rated at 6.6 out of 7 (Online Student Evaluation of Instruction, TED 655-001, Marshall, LIU Hudson, May 2013).

Asked what contributed most to their learning, students uniformly cited the in-class interactions with students and instructor.

• “In-class exercises and peer interaction. I think we learn more by talking to each other.”

• “I like hands-on, working with other brains in the room, using people’s strengths, learning about each other and how we think.”

• “Activities in class (individual, small group, and large group) because we’re working with content instead of just talking, so we’re engaged and it reinforces material.” (Online Student Evaluation of Instruction, TED 655-001, Marshall, LIU Hudson, May 2013).

When asked to compare this course with others the students had taken, all students either agreed or strongly agreed that this course gave them by far a greater appreciation of the field in which the course resides. This result demonstrated success for the ancillary goal of reducing the negative feedback from previous semesters. Similarly, when asked about the course structure, students all either strongly agreed or agreed that they preferred this model and would recommend this structure to others.

Conclusion

In summary, flipping this linguistics course enabled students to learn at their own pace and in their own time frame as they viewed the lessons on video, thereby increasing their comprehension. It also increased the interaction among students and with the instructor as class time was freed for application of course concepts. Finally, it placed responsibility on the student to manage learning and engage in problem-solving activities, resulting in the development of critical thinking skills.

References

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved from http://flippedlearning.org/definition-of-flipped-learning/

Marshall, H. W. (2014). Three reasons to flip your ESL classroom. Retrieved from http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/issues/2014-02-01/2.html

O'Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.

Talbert, R. (2014). Inverting the linear algebra classroom. Primus, 24, 361–374.

Helaine W. Marshall is professor of education at LIU Hudson, where she teaches courses in linguistics and multicultural education. She began flipping her classroom in 2012 and now flips all courses in face-to-face, blended, or online synchronous delivery modes. Dr. Marshall has published in the TESOL Journal, Journal of English Language Teaching, and NASSP Bulletin, among others. She serves on the boards of the NYS TESOL Journal and the Flipped Learning Network.