Hokkaido University of Education Title Enhancing Students� Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Inter action App Author(s) AISSA, Ahmed; KATAGIRI, Noriaki Citation ���������. ����������, 70(1): 69-83 Issue Date 2019-08 URL http://s-ir.sap.hokkyodai.ac.jp/dspace/handle/123456789/10526 Rights
17
Embed
Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Hokkaido University of Education
�
�
TitleEnhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Inter
Murakami,�Kondo,�and�Tsuda�(2019)�developed�MALO�to� research�whether� the� frequent�and�sustained� use� of�MALO� can� help� build� the�students’� language�skills.�The�app’s� theoretical�framework� is�based�on� three�concepts,�which�set� the�ground� for� the� learning�practice.�First,�the�blended� learning�concept,�which�combines�physical�instructions�with�online�ones,�takes�into�consideration�which� “parts� [of� the�materials]�should� be� delivered� face-to-face� and�which�elements�of�the�course�are�more�appropriate�for�online�activities”� (Ishikawa�et� al.,� 2019,�p.� 4).�Second,� the� flipped� learning�concept� that�aims�at�maximizing� the� students’� engagement� in�tasks� through�groups�of� four� to� five� students�using� the� app� for� collaborative� interaction.�Third,� collaborative� learning� is�defined�as� “a�mutual�engagement� in�the� learning�process�by�teachers�and�students”�(Ishikawa�et�al.,�2019,�p.�7).�The� learning�engagement� that� Ishikawa�et�a l . � ( 2 0 19) � r e f e r r ed � t o � means � “ t ak i ng�responsibilities� for� choices,� and� then,�utilizing�feedback�from�one’s�self�and�other�participants�to� assess� personal� performance� and� to� take�autonomous�action� for�self-�and�peer-progress�towards� learning�targets”�(p.�8).�The�students�then�were�engaged�in�small-group�collaborative�learning� discussions� on� the� app� outside� the�classroom,�before�they�reflected�on�their�output�as�well� as� in-class� tasks� inside� the�classroom.�
The� teacher� role�was�monitoring� interaction�inside� and� outside� the� classroom�by� giving�comments� and� advice�when�necessary.�The�overall� results� indicated� satisfaction� and�motivation�among�the�participants�as� Ishikawa�et�al.� (2019)�reported� that� “collaboration�with�the�other�students�helped�improve�their�English�l a n g u a g e � s k i l l s � b y � c o m p a r i n g � t h e i r�understandings�of�the�reading�texts�with�that�of�other� students”�(p.� 17).�Figure�1�outlines� the�conceptual� framework� of� the�FM�adopted� in�MALO�experiment�by�Ishikawa�et�al.�(2019): Upon�successful�reports�of�the�positive�effects�of� the� out-of-class� online� platforms� and�smartphone�apps�on� language� learning�(Sung,�2015;� Leis,� 2016;� Ishikawa� et� al.,� 2019),� the�current�empirical� study�utilizes�one�of�Malo’s�functions , � which� faci l i tates� out-of-class�discussions,�and�invests�in�its�promising�results�to� study� the� impact� of� using� the� app� on�students’� speaking� skills�development.�Hence,�for�this�experiment,�MALO�is�the�app�on�which�the�participants�interacted�and�discussed�topics.�This�study�also�attempts�to�reveal�the�students’�reflections�and�attitudes�towards�using�the�app�for� purposeful� interaction.�Accordingly,� the�paper�poses�the�following�research�questions:⑴� Can�the� flipped� interaction�on�MALO�help�
The�participants�were�22� first-year�students�majoring� in�English� education� at� a� national�university� of� education� in� Japan,�who�were�divided�into�two�groups�of�11,�and�had�the�same�language�level�according�to�their�TOEIC�scores�(t�(22)�=�-0.209,�df�=�20,�p=.835,� see Appendix�A� for� the� participants’� scores� in� the� two�groups).� They� received� the� same� in-class�i n s t r u c t i o n � a nd � t h e � s ame � h omewo rk�assignments.�The�authors� randomly� split� the�participants� into�two�groups—the�experimental�
We� col lected� the� data� through� voice-recording�both�groups�during� the�pretest�and�posttest�along�with�observation�notes�(on� in-class� interactions)�and�MALO�transcripts�(of�t h e � e xp e r imen t � g r o up ) � t o � t r a c k � t h e�development� of � each� group� dur ing� the�experimental�period.�The�two�groups�received�the� same� instructions� in� and� outside� the�classroom,�and�the�topics�focused�on�the�content�of� learning� the�Cross-Cultural�Communication�Course.�The�whole�experiment� lasted� for�eight�weeks.�Table�2�demonstrates�how�the�authors�carried�out�the�research: We�administered� the�same�test�questions� to�both�groups,�with�each�participant�of� the� two�groups�participating� in�a�one-minute�speech� in�response�to� the� task.�During�the�experimental�period,� the� experimental� group,� divided� into�three� groups , � answered� quest ions , � and�interacted�with�their�group�members�on�MALO�on� a�weekly� basis.� On� the� other� hand,� the�control�group�participants�were�assigned� the�
Table 1
Participants’ Profiles
Groups NGender
AgeMale Female
Experiment 11 3 8
18-20Control 11 8 3
Total 22 11 11
Table 2
Procedure and Data Collection
Period ProcedureParticipants�(outside�of�the�classroom)
The� corre l a t i on � coe f f i c i en t � be tween�interaction�on�MALO�and� improvement�score�proves� a� significant� correlation� (α=� .92)�between� the� two�variables.�Accordingly,� the�following�scatter�plot�presents�a�strong,�positive�linear� relationship� between� the� number� of�interactions�and�the� improvement�score.�There�do�not�appear�to�be�any�outliers�in�the�data.
4.Discussion
The�objective�of�this�study�was�to�investigate�whether� the� f l ipped� interact ion� on� the�smartphone� app� (MALO)� can� help� develop�
Figure 2�.MALO’ s � i n t e rac t i on � room� on � a�smartphone.
First,� the� results� of� this� study� show� an�improvement� in� the� speaking�performance�of�the�experimental�group�participants�over�that�of�the�control�group�participants�(Table�4).�Such�a�significant� improvement�among�the�experiment�group� in� speaking�skills� (Table�3)�makes� the�current�finding�consistent�with�previous�studies�on� the�positive� impact� of� flipped� learning�on�speaking�skills�(Farangi�et�al.,�2015;�Leis,�2016;�Suwanthep,� 2017;�Teng,� 2018).�The� current�improvement� incorporates�not�only�the�speech�delivery,� achieving� a� mean� score� of� 2.82�(posttest)�vs.�1.82�(pretest),�but�also� language�use� (mean� scores=� 2.64� vs.� 1.64)� and� topic�development�skills�(mean�scores=�2.64�vs.�1.45)�as�well�(see�Appendix�D).�We�can�attribute�this�progress� to�outside-of-class�preparation�of� the�text�content�through�the�flipped�interaction�(FI)�on�MALO.�The�participants�discussed,�clarified,�and� exchanged� ideas�while� doing� chat-like�homework.�The�analysis�of� the�posttest�speech�transcripts� suggests� that� FI� provided� an�opportunity� for� the�participants�to�develop�the�use�of� formulaic�sequences,�discourse�markers,�and�communication�strategies,�as�in�the�following�transcription�excerpts�show�(Figure�6). The�use�of�such�expressions�helped�minimize�the�frequency�of�non-lexical�fillers,�silent�pauses,�repetitions,�and�restarts�(Appendix�E),�and�had�a � p o s i t i v e � imp a c t � o n � c o h e r e n c e � a n d�sustainability�of�speech�according�to�the�ratings�of� the� third�dimension� (topic� development).�This� helped� the� participants� save� time� and�effort�while� formulating� sentences,� thereby�increasing�production�speed�(Wood,�2009;�Wray,�
After� the�posttest,� the� experimental� group�answered� a� questionnaire� regarding� their�perceptions� on� the� interaction� on�MALO�as�homework,�and�whether�the� flipped� interaction�helped� improve� their�speaking�performance� in�the� in-class�discussion�activities.�The� following�are�the�participants’�representative�answers�to�the�questionnaire.Q.1�How often did you check MALO’s notifications? Most�participants�(90%)�reported�checking�the� notifications� at� least� twice� a�week.�The�statistics� show� that� the� participants� were�excited� to�check� their�peers’� contributions�on�MALO�and�were�willing� to� take�part� in� the�online�discussions.Q.2�How much time did you take to write your messages on MALO? The� mean� time� spent� writing� a� single�message�on�MALO�was�5.72�minutes,�with�63%�of�participants� reporting� that� they� spent� less�than� five�minutes� to� respond� to� their� group�members’�messages�or,�as�Participant�3�stated,�“about� 1–2�minutes� for� one�message.”� It� is�arguable�that�most�of�the�participants�developed�the�ability�of�instant�output�delivery�since�they�were�familiar�with�the�content�of�the�discussions�
78
AISSA Ahmed and KATAGIRI Noriaki
and�had�a�comfortable�atmosphere�that�helped�them�use� their� language�without� hesitation�(Scrivener,�2011).Q.3�Do you think interactions on MALO were useful for a better understanding of the texts and development of your ideas? The�vast�majority,� 82%�of� the�participants,�conf irmed� the� usefulness� of� the� f l ipped�interaction�on�MALO� in�helping� them�better�understand�the�content�of�the�texts�and�expand�their�knowledge�of�the�topics.�However,�18%�of�the�participants�responded�to�the�question�with�“sometimes� useful,”� expressing� uncertainty�about�MALO’s�usefulness� for�every�topic.� It� is�safe� to�conclude� that�most�of� the�participants�benefited�from�the�FI�to�answer�the�homework�questions� and� to� elaborate� on� their� ideas� to�enrich�the�in-class�discussions�(Leis,�2016).Q.4�Do you feel interactions on MALO helped you speak better during the in-class discussions? Only�one�participant�responded�with�a�“no”�to�this�question,�while�all� the�others�agreed� that�fl ipped� interaction� helped� them� develop,�understand,� and� learn� ideas� and� expressions�that� they�reused� in� the�classroom�during� the�discussion�activities,�which�resulted� in�a�better�speaking�performance.�For�example,�Participant�5�wrote,�“Yes,�before�this�class�starts�[sic],�I�was�able�to�get�a�lot�of�ideas�through�interaction�on�MALO.�So,�it�helped�me�speak�better.”Q.5�How do you describe your experience on MALO? The�overall� responses� to� this�question�were�very� positive.� For� example,� Participant� 4�described� MALO� as� a� “wonderful� tool� for�[flipped]� interaction”� as�well� as� learning� and�understanding� the� texts� before� the� in-class�act iv i t ies . � In� addit ion , � a l though� a l l � the�participants�reported�that�it�was�their�first�time�using�an� instant�chat�application�to�discuss�the�
Aissa,� A. , � &� Katagiri , � N.� (2019).� Investigating�similaritiesbetween�English�education�in�Morocco�and�Japan. Journal of Hokkaido University of Education (Humanities and Social Sciences), 69⑵,�51-60.
Alsagoff,�Z.,�Baloch,�H.,�&�Hashim,�N.� (2014).Flipping�largelectures�@IMU.In�M.,�A.,�Embi(Ed.),�Blended and flipped learning: Case studies in Malaysian HEIs,�256-274.�Bangi,�Malaysia:�Centre� for� teaching� and�learning�technologies,�University�of�Kebangsaan.
Alvarez,�B.�(2011).�Flipping�the�classroom:�Homework�in� class ,� lessons� at� home.� National education association: Priority schools campaign.�Retrieved�from��http://priorityschools.org/successful-students/flipping-�the-classroom-homework-in-class-lessons-at-home-2
Bergmann,�J.,�&�Sams,�A.�(2012).�Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day.�Eugene,�
OR:�International�Society�for�Technology�in�Education.Brown,� H.D.� (1994).� Teaching by principles: An
interactive approach to language pedagogy.�Englewood�Cliffs,�NJ:�Prentice�Hall�Regents.
Ishikawa,�Y.,�Tsubota,�Y.,� Smith,�C.,�Murakami,�M.,�Kondo,�M.,�&�Tsuda,�M.(2019).�Integrating�online�and�offline�student�collaboration� in�EFL� flipped� learning�courses.� In� A.� Palalas� (Ed.),� Blended language learning: International perspectives on Innovative practices,�303-328.�Beijing,�China:�China�Central�Radio�&�TV�University�Press.
Klopfer , � E . , � Squire , � K . , � &� Jenkins , � H . � (2002) .�Environmental�detectives:�PDAs�as�a�window� into�a�virtual� simulated� world. Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education,�95-98.�Vaxjo,�Sweden:�IEEE�Computer�Society.
Li,� S.,�&�Suwanthep,� J.� (2017).� Integration�of� flipped�classroom�model� for�EFL� speaking.� International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 3⑵,118-123.�Retrieved�from:���http://www.ijlt.org/uploadfile/2017/05�25/2017052505�0549726.pdf
Marlowe,�B.�A.,�&�Page,�M.�L.� (2005).�Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom.�Thousand�Oaks,�CA:�Corwin�Press.
Nation,�P.�(2007).�The�four�strands.�International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1⑴,�1-13.�Retrieved�from�� �https://doi.org/10.2167/illt039.0
Prensky,�M.�(2001).�Digital�natives�digital� immigrants.��On the Horizon (MCB University Press), 9⑸,�1-6.
Scrivener,�J.�(2011).�Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers.�Oxford:�Macmillan.
Song , � Y . , � & � Fox , � R . � ( 2008) . � Us ing � PDA� f o r�undergraduate�student� incidental�vocabulary�testing.�ReCALL, 20(03),�290-314.
Teng,�M.,�F.� (2018).�Flip�your� classroom� to� improve�EFL�students’�speaking�skills.In�J.�Mehring�&�A.�Leis�(Eds.),� Innovations inflipping the language classroom: Theories and practices,�113-122.�doi:�10.1007/978-981-10-6968-0_9
Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Interaction App
Appendix A: Selected TOEIC Scores
Experiment�Group�(n =�11) Control�Group�(n =�11)
650 700
635 635
635 620
630 605
580 595
555 580
555 565
530 505
515 505
485 505
465 485
M 567 573
82
AISSA Ahmed and KATAGIRI Noriaki
Appendix B: Rubrics for Speech Measurement
Score Speech delivery Language use Topic development
4
-Well� paced-flow� (over� 100�words�per�minute)-Minor�lapses�(silent�pauses�and�restarts)-Minor�mispronounced�words�tha t � do � no t � a f f ec t � overa l l�intelligibility-Minor�use� of� fillers� (6� in� 100�words)
-Effective�use�of�grammar�and�vocabulary� (showing� good�c o n t r o l � o f � s t r u c t u r e s � a s�appropriate)-Minor� errors� do� not� obscure�meaning
-Slower�pace�(80–100�words�per�minute)-Minor�lapses�(silent�pauses�and�restarts)-Minor�mispronounced�words�that� require� listeners’� effort� at�t i m e s , � t h o u g h � o v e r a l l�intelligibility� is�not�significantly�affected�-Minor�use� of� fillers� (6� in� 100�words)
-Effective�use�of�grammar�and�vocabulary�-Inaccurate�use�of�vocabulary�or�grammatical�structures�that�may�a f fect � f luency� but � not � the�message
-The � r e s p o n s e � i s � mo s t l y�sustained�and�conveys�relevant�information/�ideas- S o m e � i n c o m p l e t e n e s s ,�inaccuracy,�and�lack�of�specificity�concerning�content�or�topic
-Limited� range� and� control� of�grammar� and�vocabulary� that�prevent�full�expressions�of�ideas-Use�of�serial�listing,�conjunction�and� juxtapos i t ions� caus ing�unclear�connections
-The� response� is� connected� to�the� task� though�basic� ideas�are�e x p r e s s e d � w i t h � l i m i t e d�elaboration-A�connection�of� ideas�may�be�unclear-Repetition�of�ideas
-Severely� limited� range� and�c o n t r o l � o f � g r a m m a r � a n d�vocabulary� that� prevent� the�expression�of�ideas- R e l i a n c e � o n � f o r m u l a i c�expressions