* * * On the Internet * * *
August 2020 — Volume 24, Number 2
Helaine W. Marshall
Long Island University-Hudson
Purchase, NY, USA
<helaine.marshallliu.edu>
Ilka Kostka
Northeastern University
Boston, MA, USA
<i.kostkanortheastern.edu>
Abstract
Many educators are divided about the benefits of online teaching and learning, especially in the current COVID-19 pandemic when such instruction is necessary and often accompanied by insufficient preparation. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of us who teach English language learners and train pre-service teachers find ourselves in a difficult moment in our professional lives. Our students are also confronting the prospect of becoming disconnected from the person who is arguably their most essential link to their learning experiences. In this article, we describe how teachers can leverage the flipped learning approach in online courses to foster teaching presence. We begin by reviewing the literature on flipped learning and Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry framework. We then introduce the Synchronous Online Flipped Learning Approach (SOFLA) (Marshall, 2017), including the asynchronous and synchronous pedagogical elements that form the approach. We conclude the article by reflecting on SOFLA and suggesting areas for future scholarship.
Key Words: flipped learning, online learning, teaching presence
In a recent webinar sponsored by New York State TESOL, one author asked participants, nearly all of whom were language teachers, to find one adjective to complete the following sentence: Online learning is… This activity was one of the pre-work tasks assigned in advance of a webinar focused on online pedagogy. Of the 36 responses, roughly half included positive adjectives such as revolutionary, dynamic, and fun. However, one quarter of the comments were negative, such as overwhelming and stressful. Interestingly, the most common response from the remaining 25% of participants was challenging. In a similar activity, the other author asked graduate English language learners in an online academic listening and speaking course to complete the same sentence. The students’ answers included a mix of positive responses (e.g., efficient, temporary, interesting) and negative ones (e.g., difficult, tough, exhausting). As responses from both surveys indicate, teachers and students expressed a range of attitudes about learning online.
Indeed, teaching online against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic has presented many challenges. It demands even more resourcefulness and creativity because of the distractions and pressing issues that compete with our missions as teachers and students, such as curriculum mandates, accountability measures, and even scheduling, all of which force us to address any one of these as primary responsibilities. However, we argue that the internet is an ally and a valuable resource for establishing and maintaining the bond we share with students. Because of advances in technology, we are able to continue teaching and assessing students when we cannot meet them in person. We can also incorporate best practices from teaching approaches used in on-ground instruction to make online learning engaging, active, and collaborative.
In this article, we draw from theoretical perspectives on flipped learning to describe an innovative approach that allows teachers to foster teaching presence in online settings. The essential argument underlying our recommendations is that by implementing flipped learning in online instruction, teachers can maintain their presence in robust and visible ways and help students remain engaged and motivated while learning online.
Literature
Flipped Learning
For the past 13 years, flipped learning has been implemented in a wide range of educational settings to foster student-centered learning and allow teachers to reach all students. The Academy of Arts and Sciences (n.d.) defines flipped learning as a model which “inverts the traditional classroom by introducing course concepts before class, allowing educators to use class time to guide each student through active, practical, innovative applications of the course principles.” What results from this reorganization of learning is a dynamic environment in which students use skills that are in the upper range of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy – application, analysis, evaluation, and creation (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) – to engage in activities that allow them to further explore the concepts they learned outside of class (Brinks Lockwood, 2014; 2018). Kostka and Marshall (2017) note that flipped learning can be a valuable approach for English language learners in particular, as it helps teachers provide more opportunities for interaction and exposure to English and addresses the challenge of having mixed proficiency levels within a class.
The Flipped Learning Network (2014) developed an acronym, F-L-I-P, to describe the four fundamental pillars of the approach, with indicators to ensure that teachers effectively implement each of the pillars. Flexible Environment refers to how and where students engage in learning. Learning is fluid as the teacher is no longer the center of the physical classroom, and students have more ownership in terms of where and how they learn (Voss & Kostka, 2019). The second pillar, Learning Culture, highlights the shift from teacher-centered to student-centered instruction, emphasizing the importance of active learning, feedback, and scaffolding. The last two pillars, Intentional Content and Professional Educator, focus on the teachers’ role in facilitating learning and creating and curating relevant content to support learning outside of class. As a professional educator, the teacher creates a flexible learning environment, conducts regular formative assessments both in and out of class, and shares ideas and reflects on teaching with their colleagues. As Voss and Kostka (2019) note, all of the four pillars are critical for guiding the implementation of flipped learning and addressing misconceptions about the approach.
These pillars are also applicable to online instruction. For instance, there are many options for creating a flexible environment, as teachers determine how learning can occur in the asynchronous setting and what would most benefit students in the synchronous class session. Then, the Intentional Content pillar asks teachers to focus on precisely what material to include outside of class (i.e., asynchronously) so that they can bolster students’ understanding. An example is building in instant ‘quiz’ items within the instructional content that encourages students to retrieve the material as they learn (Schell, 2017). Then, teachers can examine how the synchronous portions of instruction can be made both engaging, through interactive components, and, at the same time, differentiated for each learner based on proficiency levels or other factors. Finally, the Professional Educator pillar highlights the importance of considering how teachers must provide both ongoing and summative feedback to students and make them accountable in both the synchronous and asynchronous settings. Taken together, these four pillars function as signposts for both novice and experienced flipped learning educators to assure fidelity to the letter and the spirit of this robust model of instruction.
Community of Inquiry Framework
Although flipped learning was not originally designed to be implemented in an online instructional context, connections can be made to Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) influential Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework for online learning. The authors identified three interconnected elements that contribute to a meaningful online learning experience. First, they define teaching presence as designing learning and building understanding among participants. Secondly, cognitive presence refers to “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, p. 89). Finally, they describe social presence as “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally as ‘real people’ (i.e., their full personality), through the medium of communication being used” (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, p. 94). While this seminal article was published nearly 20 years ago, these core principles remain useful in informing the design of online learning today even as technology advances.
Whereas Garrison (2016) states that teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence are interdependent, this article explores how flipped learning in particular can facilitate teaching presence specifically in online instruction. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) developed three categories of teaching presence within the Community of Inquiry model: direct instruction, instructional design, and facilitation of discourse. Direct instruction refers to the teacher’s responsibility to post questions, engage students in discussion, deliver assessments, provide feedback, and clarify new or previously presented material. Instructional design refers to how teachers develop the curriculum, teaching methods, assignments, deadlines, and guidelines for communication among students and with the teacher. Finally, Garrison (2016) defines facilitating discourse as “enabling and encouraging the construction of personal meaning as well as collaboratively shaping and confirming mutual understanding” (p. 73). In the following section, we demonstrate how a new pedagogical model of online flipped learning elevates these three components of teaching presence and allows teachers to create “an accessible and collaborative experience” (Garrison, 2016, p. 3) in the context of online learning.
The SOFLA Framework
Known as the Synchronous Online Flipped Learning Approach (SOFLA), the model was developed by Marshall (2017) and Marshall and Rodriguez Buitrago (2017) in order to align flipped learning principles with online instruction. SOFLA mirrors flipped learning in that work that is completed outside of class now moves to the asynchronous space, and in-class work is completed in synchronous class sessions when the teacher and students’ peers are present. The key advantage to implementing SOFLA is that it replicates the most important part of flipped learning instruction, which is the interactive and dynamic nature of learning that results when teacher-led activities are moved out of class. By meeting synchronously on a regular basis, both the teacher and students can clearly distinguish between the in-class or synchronous learning context and the out-of-class or asynchronous learning context. They are also able to participate in real-time class sessions as they would in person and interact with their peers (Marshall & Rodriguez Buitrago, 2017).
Just as with instruction in a physical classroom, the teacher’s role is vital in ensuring that online instruction is well-designed and students’ learning outcomes are achieved. As Garrison (2016) points out, “teaching presence is not possible without the expertise of a pedagogically experienced and knowledgeable teacher who can identify worthwhile content, organize learning activities, guide the discourse, offer additional sources of information, diagnose misconceptions, and provide conceptual order when required” (p. 76). Following the tradition of flipped learning and its four pillars, SOFLA emphasizes the role of the teacher as pivotal but not central, powerful but not controlling, and spontaneous in the context of careful planning (Marshall & DeCapua, 2013). For all of the learning activities, the teacher’s role is to observe students’ interactions, provide feedback, assess their work, and maintain a presence that offers support and validation of student efforts.
Throughout their planning for flipped instruction, Marshall and Parris (2020) suggest teachers ask themselves four questions. First, they should consider what material should be placed in out-of-class work and in-class work. As the authors state, “anything that can be processed without your immediate feedback and assessment can be placed out of class, while in class, you provide activities that demand your facilitation, ongoing informal feedback, and guidance” (Marshall & Parris, 2020, p. 24). Second, Marshall and Parris note that teachers must consider how they can ensure that students understand and remember what they do outside of class, offering suggestions for increasing comprehension, such as using all available multimedia. Third, the authors discuss how to maximize interaction and differentiation during class; when content delivery is moved outside of class, there is more time for group work during synchronous sessions. Finally, the authors highlight the importance of accountability and feedback both in and out of class. If we approach these questions from the standpoint of SOFLA, we note that “out-of-class” work becomes the asynchronous component of the approach and the “in-class work” becomes the synchronous component. With this online delivery lens, these same questions can assist teachers in designing instruction based on SOFLA, and these four questions can align with the four pillars of flipped learning to clarify instructional goals.
The SOFLA model comprises a series of eight steps, as listed in Figure 1, each of which delineates how learning occurs in either asynchronous and synchronous ways (Marshall, 2020, 19:28). In the following two sections, we describe each step in detail and show how teaching presence is cultivated through SOFLA in both asynchronous and synchronous settings.
Figure 1. The Eight Steps of SOFLA
Asynchronous Teaching Presence
Just as with flipped learning in on-ground classes, Pre-Work, Step 1, is the anchor point of SOFLA. Out-of-class work in flipped learning typically requires students to engage with course content on their own (Bergmann & Sams, 2014). In this initial stage, students complete a variety of activities that are low on Bloom’s taxonomy before participating in synchronous class sessions. The asynchronous tasks they complete draw on the tools available through the internet, and teacher feedback can also be pre-loaded into videos so students receive real-time information about their responses to questions asked about the lesson. Applications such as PlayPosit, or Edpuzzle, for instance, allow teachers to embed questions into self-created or pre-made videos and conduct formative assessments of student learning outside of class. The teacher then has access to student responses and can use them to determine the extent and nature of each student’s understanding and level of mastery of the material. Teachers can also assess students’ understanding in multiple ways; for example, by using the game-based polling software KAHOOT! and other instantaneous student response tools (Voss & Kostka, 2019), which can be played in synchronous sessions. These formative assessments provide the teacher with valuable information about the students’ comprehension.
Although video lessons are arguably the most common type of out-of-class activity in flipped learning, Kostka and Marshall (2017) propose other ways English language teachers can utilize students’ time on task, all of which can also be applied to asynchronous learning. First, the authors note that students can access increased amounts of authentic language input (e.g., TED talks or podcasts). The teacher can guide students to language that would provide comprehensible input and differentiate learning by sending students to internet sources matching their proficiency level. Kostka and Marshall (2017) also recommend that out-of-class time be used to reduce class time teacher talk; for instance, students can learn about assignment guidelines through a teacher-created video or a handout. The added advantage is that when these materials are provided outside of class, they remain available for students to review and refer to as needed. Students can also leave questions where explanations are housed for peer or teacher responses.
Pre-work for language instruction can also target discrete elements of language, language development skills, and learning strategies. Brinks Lockwood (2014) notes that students can practice language through exercises, such as focusing on elements of language (e.g., grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary). Next, she states that students can work on learning strategies such as selective listening, skimming and scanning, or identifying word and sentence stress. Similarly, Fethi and Marshall (2018) explain that students can complete vocabulary exercises, listen to selected film clips, and practice learning strategies such as visual literacy, by viewing stills or posters from a film. These out-of-class activities are designed to prepare them for an in-class viewing of a film, in a reversal of the often-used flipped learning design in which watching a video is an out-of-class activity. The authors situate this technique in an English as a Foreign Language program in Morocco in which the teacher focuses on teaching language and culture through film and uses flipped learning activities to make them more accessible to his students.
In addition to engaging with content, students can work with their peers in asynchronous settings. For instance, Bauer-Ramazani et al. (2016) recommend peer work as a viable option for out-of-class learning. The authors note that students can easily find ways to work together online between class meetings and collaborate on projects to share later with the larger group in class. Students can create lessons for peer instruction that they can deliver in synchronous class sessions or put into videos that the class can access. Finally, they can interact online as a class, such as in traditional discussion forums, class or individual blogs with commenting, or collaborative wikis with interactive features.
Another form of online interaction among students that combines authentic input and collaboration among students is shared online reading. Specifically, we refer to interactive textbooks in which the teacher poses questions or makes comments in a shared electronic version of the textbook or other reading material, as with Perusall or Active Textbook. Students highlight sections of the text that strike them and leave a comment or question. The other students can react, as in social media, with likes, replies, or other expressions of their views and feelings. This group activity thus becomes a conversation about the readings, and the teacher participates, guides, or responds, making the reading a social experience that includes all of the students and the teacher as well. This innovative way of engaging students while they read the same copy of the material is an example of facilitating discourse, which is one of the three aspects of teaching presence (Garrison, 2016). Through technology, a solitary activity like reading can be combined with social media to create a new and enriched reading method for our times.
From the array of options described above, teachers can effectively create an asynchronous presence in ways that are both beneficial to students and complement their synchronous presence. The teacher’s presence is felt here in terms of presenting new concepts, introducing new skills, delivering content in teacher-created materials, and providing new samples of language, all of which can be made interactive with applications for embedding questions and activities in the midst of the material being shared by the teacher. As long as the flipped activities are structured, multimodal, and interactive, as described above, they can contribute to the language acquisition process.
Synchronous Teaching Presence
To complement the asynchronous component, SOFLA makes critical use of real-time, camera-to-camera virtual classroom sessions. Ideally, these sessions are recorded and saved so that students can review them along with all work produced on whiteboards and in breakout rooms. In synchronous sessions, the teacher assigns activities in which students take the lead and the teacher is not central. That is, anything students can do individually or together without the teacher as an intermediary is encouraged. The SOFLA synchronous sessions follow a specific cycle with the seven steps that follow the initial Pre-Work stage, as shown in Figure 1 above. Synchronous sessions may occur in Zoom, Adobe Connect, or any other video conferencing application that allows for screen sharing and breakout rooms.
Upon arriving in the synchronous class session, there is a brief yet specific Sign-In Activity, Step 2, that all students participate in. This activity usually occurs on a collaborative whiteboard available in programs such as Zoom, or in web-based programs such as Flipgrid. This warm-up draws from the pre-work but asks the students to either apply content or relate it to their own immediate needs. For example, if the pre-work assignment comprised a video lesson on uses of the past tense, the sign-in activity could ask students to write one or two sentences about something they did the day before. This activity is both a meaningful communicative task and practice for a grammar point, and it helps activate the students’ knowledge of the topic, following the pedagogy of retrieval practice (Schell, 2017). The goal of Step 2 is to convey to the students that class begins as soon as they arrive rather than when the teacher starts the class. This step also reinforces the idea that students must also be prepared by completing the pre-work.
The next step is to engage all students in a collaborative activity, Whole Group Application, Step 3, that solidifies students’ learning, clarifies what they may have missed in the pre-work, or applies what they have learned from the asynchronous work. Returning to the example of past tense, the whole group activity might involve students working together to create a chart of past tense examples from their sentences, divided into regular and irregular verbs. Depending upon their proficiency level, students could also further divide verbs into categories (i.e., regular verbs, by the three pronunciations of the inflectional suffix, and irregular verbs according to the patterns of their principal parts). The teacher, after setting up the group task, becomes an observer, guiding only as needed, as the students complete the task together.
Step 4, Breakouts, provides a synchronous opportunity for the students to meet in small, separate groups and work as a team. This step aligns with the Community of Inquiry element of teaching presence where teachers facilitate discourse (Garrison, 2016), occurring naturally as the students interact in their groups to complete tasks based on the teacher generated content (i.e., the pre-work). All of the groups can complete the same task, or it can be designed as a jigsaw activity. Another option for structuring the breakout activity is to introduce a peer instruction component (Marshall & Rodriguez Buitrago, 2017) in which some students have prepared a lesson on a specific area of language or content. In this case, they teach each other their lesson, ask questions, and end with a brief quiz using built-in polling features in Zoom or Adobe Connect or an internet-based polling tool, such as Mentimeter or Poll Everywhere. The teacher can then examine the results to see how their fellow students managed with the peer instruction.
Following the group work, there is a Share-Out, Step 5, in the main classroom where students present what they worked on and learned about in their groups. Depending on the breakout activities, the nature of this step shifts, but it will always include a peer feedback element in which students from other groups comment on the material shared. Fethi (2015), a veteran flipped educator, developed a useful instrument for this purpose that he terms Share, Help, Ask, Comment (SHAC). By giving students this simple acronym, which provides just enough structure, the teacher gives students a guide to peer feedback that is at once nonthreatening and likely to elicit high participation in the process (Fethi & Marshall, 2018). SHAC can be used easily online both synchronously, such as for the Share-Out step in SOFLA, and asynchronously, in interactive spaces such as blogs, wikis, and discussion forums.
In all of these steps, the teacher is guiding but not leading students as they are continuously called upon to process material in a new way or retrieve prior learning in order to apply it to new contexts. However, Preview and Discovery, Step 6, is different. The underlying, but not insignificant, objective of Step 6 is priming students for their upcoming assigned work, which addresses a major concern in flipped learning that students might not complete out-of-class activities (Talbert, 2017), resulting in a “collapse” of the flipped instruction. Here, the teacher prepares material that will lead them to explore what is coming next, spark their curiosity, and identify gaps in understanding.
To accomplish this goal, the teacher can pre-teach terms and concepts, activate students’ prior knowledge, and build new schemata. Importantly, the teacher’s task here is to introduce but not teach the material because direct instruction occurs in the pre-work for the next lesson in the cycle. The previewing of material in this step recalls the Explore-Flip-Apply model (Musallam, 2011) in which the students examine a problem, see the gaps in their knowledge required to solve it, and then become motivated to fill the knowledge gaps through the out-of-class work the teacher has planned.
Following Step 6 are the wrap-up steps of assigning new work and reflection. For Assignment Instructions, Step 7, the teacher explains what students are expected to do for the next out-of-class work and reminds them of where the resources they will need to access are located (i.e., on their e-learning platform and/or at an internet-based application site). While this step at first glance appears quite straightforward, there are caveats for teachers in giving instructions in an online setting. Explicit directions, and, if possible, rubrics, for each assignment should appear in multiple locations, as students often navigate online courses in different ways. Initially they should be presented in real time orally and in writing in this step of SOFLA. Then they should be both posted to the Assignment section of the online learning platform and sent out as an announcement. For long-term assignments and for assignments that are scheduled for specific students, as in peer presentations or peer instruction, the teacher needs to include reminders in the instructions to keep students on track. It is much easier to get behind and lose one’s way in an online setting, and these practices help to prevent pitfalls.
Finally, to close the synchronous class session, for Reflection, Step 8, the teacher asks students to write a short statement on the whiteboard, reflecting on what resonated with them most in one or two sentences. The response is typically completed in the online virtual classroom on the whiteboard where all students can see each other’s replies. However, reflections could also be recorded in VoiceThread or Flipgrid. Students’ reflections give the teacher insights into what each student found most meaningful. Although the most common reflection page is a wide open space for any type of take-away, including the learning of a new online skill or tool, the teacher may on occasion ask for a more specific response, such as ‘cite an example of something you learned from a peer during this session’ or ‘share one new strategy you plan to implement to support your language learning process.’ The main consideration here is that everyone is clear that this is a metacognitive task that ends the session.
As explained in Marshall (2020, 19:28), the eight steps of SOFLA can also be viewed as a cycle, as shown in Figure 2. Beginning with Pre-Work and concluding with Reflection, students are guided through a learning cycle that renews itself continuously, creating a natural flow for online instruction.
Figure 2. The SOFLA Cycle of Learning
Reflections
We have argued here that SOFLA, with its learning cycle of eight steps, represents an effective reframing of online learning which incorporates the principles and pillars of flipped learning and helps create teaching presence online. Despite the many benefits of implementing this model, there are some caveats and concerns. One concern regarding flipped learning in general is the amount of time it may take teachers to create or even to curate materials for out-of-class work and restructure in-class learning (Kostka & Marshall, 2017). Similar concerns are applicable to flipped learning in online courses. For example, building in redundancy is time-consuming but necessary because students often think differently about where to access course materials and assignment instructions. Implementing SOFLA does make substantial demands on the teacher, who, by maintaining a constant presence, must establish, manage, and teach students in both synchronous and asynchronous ways.
Nevertheless, this major investment in time occurs primarily the first time a course is offered. Much of what is created can be accessed and utilized in subsequent iterations of the course and stored in learning management systems. In addition, by working collaboratively, teachers, and even departments, can co-design courses to make their workload more manageable. This practice aligns with the Professional Educator pillar of flipped learning, which emphasizes collaboration among teachers and reflection on practice. Finally, as Kostka and Marshall (2017) note, teachers can flip one course at a time and start with courses that lend themselves more readily to this shift in instruction. They advise flipping a small portion of a class to allow the teacher to become familiar with the approach and reconceptualize how time is spent on learning both in and out of class. All of these practices can make a teacher’s foray into flipped learning less overwhelming and increase the likelihood of success.
Perhaps the most obvious component in the model, and the one that distinguishes SOFLA from other models of online teaching, is the scheduling of regularly occurring synchronous sessions. Whenever possible, we encourage teachers to include some synchronous elements in their online courses. Online learning often relies heavily on asynchronous course delivery, but the synchronous element is powerful in terms of leveraging teaching presence and providing opportunities for English language learners to use the target language in meaningful ways. When participating in synchronous sessions, students can “see” each other, work together, and feel that they are still regularly going to class. In addition, Garrison (2016) states that synchronous real-time sessions are also critical for enhancing the feeling of community among learners and providing immediate oral feedback. If regularly scheduled synchronous class sessions are not possible due to geographical or other constraints (e.g., time zones or curriculum restrictions), other options include regular weekly class sessions, less structured conversation hours, and individualized student conferences. All of these activities can enrich students’ connection to their teacher and allow them meaningful opportunities to use English.
Given that synchronous sessions are essential to the implementation of SOFLA, this takes us to the next significant shift that results from embracing this model. Implementing SOFLA in an online class inherently requires teachers to consider how learning is organized in both synchronous and asynchronous settings. The result is that teachers can rethink language instruction, returning to the fundamentals, to design learning activities and experiences that support learning goals in a specific language acquisition context. Writing about on-ground flipped learning, Marshall (2014) identified three reasons for English language teachers to consider flipping their instruction: increasing comprehension, increasing interaction, and increasing critical thinking. These reasons are even more applicable to online teaching that is guided by SOFLA. As the teacher moves the class through the eight-step cycle, tailoring each step to the students’ needs, students’ comprehension of the material deepens, and they gain mastery while seamlessly moving through to the next learning cycle.
Moreover, SOFLA affords students numerous opportunities to interact with their peers, both synchronously in their virtual classroom and breakout groups, and asynchronously, through interactive shared readings and online tools (e.g., wikis, blogs, journals, and Google Docs) or shared spaces such as Padlet and Miro. Finally, they hone their critical thinking skills by organizing and using their new knowledge, first in the whole group application work, and then by solving problems in their breakout groups. In both cases, the teacher structures the activities with high-level thinking skills as the focus. The advantages to be gained by English learners in such a teaching framework are clear and demonstrate that moving language learning online does not necessarily disadvantage the learner when instruction is carefully structured and scaffolded as with SOFLA.
Finally, the field of TESOL has been slower to embrace flipped learning than fields that are more content heavy, such as science, technology, engineering, and math (Kostka & Marshall, 2017). In the same way, flipping online language learning has remained relatively unexplored in English language teaching. Given the need today for online learning, however, it is vital that language teachers understand how the field of TESOL can best respond. Online language instruction must address the goal of developing English language proficiency in any given learning context, and today’s learning contexts necessitate the use of the internet and technology. As we have shown, online flipped learning provides an instructional design opportunity for this to happen, and SOFLA, with its robust and comprehensive structure, is the model best suited for promoting language mastery and fostering teaching presence.
Conclusion
Flipped learning remains a popular area of scholarship in a wide range of educational contexts (Cheng, Hwang, and Lai, 2020), and it has gained interest in the field of TESOL as well (Kostka & Marshall, 2017). Nevertheless, there is limited empirical research on flipped learning and online learning. Future research is thus needed to examine applications of SOFLA to English language learning in terms of students’ gains in language proficiency, their perceptions of the approach, and their engagement in asynchronous and synchronous settings. Empirical work may also examine whether the advantages of flipped learning also result when it is implemented solely online. Findings from this scholarship can inform the development of effective pedagogical models and establishment of best practices.
As Garrison (2016) noted, “the educational opportunities of the Internet and communication technologies present choices that require informed leadership if learning is to be purposeful and developmental. Implicit in this is the need to rethink the purpose, approach, and nature of the educational transaction” (p. 69). The COVID-19 pandemic has required educators to adapt quickly to massive disruptions and critically examine their approaches to teaching within the context of online learning. Technology has, in turn, moved from supporting instruction to being its focus, as teachers have relied heavily on technology to ensure that learning continues. The immediate future of instruction in the coming academic year remains uncertain; however, technology is likely to continue playing a crucial role in whatever the new normal in education becomes. We believe that the new normal might logically include SOFLA’s eight-step cycle of learning as a robust option for online instruction.
References
The Academy of Arts and Sciences. (n.d.). Updated definition of flipped learning. https://aalasinternational.org/updated-definition-of-flipped-learning/
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. A Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing. Longman.
Bauer-Ramazani, C., Graney, J. M., Marshall, H. W., & Sabieh, C. (2016). Flipped learning in TESOL: Definitions, approaches, and implementation. TESOL Journal 7(2), 429-437.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2014). Flipped learning: Gateway to student engagement. ISTE.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. ISTE.
Brinks Lockwood, R. (2018). Flipping the classroom: What every ESL teacher needs to know. University of Michigan Press.
Brinks Lockwood, R. (2014). Flip it! Strategies for the ESL classroom. University of Michigan Press.
Cheng, S., Hwang, G., & Lai, C. (2020). Critical research advancements of flipped learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited papers. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-17. 10.1080/10494820.2020.1765395
Fethi, K. (2015, March). Flipping movies: Why and how? Paper presented at the 8th Annual Flipped Learning Network Conference, East Lansing, MI.
Fethi, K. & Marshall, H.W. (2018). Flipping movies for dynamic engagement. In J. Mehring, & A. Leis (Eds.), Innovations in flipped learning in the language classroom: Theories and practice. (pp. 185-202). Springer Nature.
Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. http://flippedlearning.org/definition-of-flipped-learning/
Garrison, D.R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry. Routledge.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87−105.
Kostka, I., & Marshall, H. (2017). Flipped learning in TESOL: Past, present, and future. In J. Perren, K. Kelch, J. Byun, S. Cervantes, & S. Safavi (Eds.), Applications of CALL theory in ESL and EFL environments (pp. 223-243). IGI Global.
Marshall, H.W. (2020, May 1). SOFLA: The Synchronous Online Flipped Learning Approach [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/gLW1mNWlo_0
Marshall, H.W. (2017). The synchronous online flipped learning approach. FLGI Community Blog. https://community.flglobal.org/the-synchronous-online-flipped-learning-approach/
Marshall, H.W. (2014). Three reasons to flip your classroom. TESOL Connections. http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/issues/2014-02-01/2.html
Marshall, H. W. & DeCapua, A. (2013). Making the transition to classroom success: Culturally responsive teaching for struggling language learners. University of Michigan Press.
Marshall, H.W., & Parris, H. (2020). Jump start your flipped learning: Nuts and bolts. Mosaic. https://sites.google.com/nystesol.org/nys-tesol-mosaic/current-issue
Marshall, H.W., & Rodriguez Buitrago, C. (2017). The synchronous online flipped learning approach. TEIS News. http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolteis/issues/2017-03-15/6.html
Musallam, R. (2011). A pedagogy-first approach to the flipped classroom. OnCUE, 35(1), 6–8.
Schell, J. (2017). Defining a pedagogy of retrieval. Flipped Learning Today. https://flt.flippedlearning.org/fln-member-spotlight/defining-a-pedagogy-of-retrieval/
Talbert, R. (2017). Flipped learning: A guide for higher education faculty. Stylus Publishing.
Voss, E., & Kostka, I. (2019). Flipping academic English language learning: Experiences from an American university. Springer Nature.
Appendix
There appears below an alphabetical list of websites described in the article.
Name of the Website | Link |
Active Textbook | https://activetextbook.com |
Adobe Connect | https://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html |
Edpuzzle | https://edpuzzle.com |
Flipgrid | https://info.flipgrid.com/ |
Google Docs | https://www.google.com/docs/about/ |
KAHOOT! | https://kahoot.com |
Mentimeter | https://www.mentimeter.com/ |
Miro | https://miro.com/education/ |
Padlet | https://padlet.com |
Perusall | https://perusall.com |
PlayPosit | https://go.playposit.com |
Poll Everywhere | https://www.polleverywhere.com/ |
VoiceThread | https://voicethread.com |
Zoom | https://zoom.us |
© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. |
Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.