The Impact of Flipped Classroom on EFL Students’ Reading Anxiety in Higher Education

May 2025 – Volume 29, Number 1

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29113a3

Quyen Tran
Can Tho University, Vietnam
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
<thanhquyenctu.edu.vn>

Elena Verezub
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
<everezubswin.edu.au>>

Rosemary Fisher
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
<rlfisherswin.edu.au>>

Abstract

Extensive research has been conducted on the effects of flipped learning on student outcomes and perceptions, however, little empirical evidence has been provided on its psycholinguistic effects, particularly in foreign language learning anxiety. This study investigated the impact of the flipped classroom method on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ reading anxiety, using a quasi-experimental design. Two hundred and twenty-one students were randomly assigned to experimental (111 students) and control (100 students) groups. Data was collected from pre- and post-questionnaires and focus group discussions after 7 weeks of training. We found significant differences within the groups after the training; but no significant differences were found between the groups, suggesting that both the flipped classroom and usual teaching methods were equally effective at addressing EFL student reading anxiety. However, qualitative results did clarify the pedagogical features that students perceive as instrumental in reducing their reading anxiety to enhance effective reading and preparation, foster self-determination, and diminish perceptions of the EFL classroom as an intimidating environment. The broader implications of these positive perceptions include that the flipped learning classroom model offers a fundamental advantage for subjects associated with student learning anxiety. The study implications, limitations and recommendations are outlined.

Keywords: flipped classroom; EFL; reading anxiety; higher education

Reading is a crucial skill to master a language, particularly in academic contexts (Grabe & Stoller, 2020). Learning reading comprehension is not easy in EFL settings, as it requires students to have an adequate command of vocabulary, reading strategies, grammar, motivation for learning, etc. Besides, EFL students often experience anxiety in reading classes (Tsai & Lee, 2018). Reading anxiety is one of EFL learners’ challenges. Horwitz (2001) stated that foreign language anxiety is a popular emotional phenomenon affecting one-third of EFL learners. Indeed, foreign language students may have difficulty learning, maintaining, and producing a language due to anxiety (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991), which negatively affects academic performance, self-esteem, and the ability to learn foreign languages (Von Worde, 2003).

Research showed that learners who experience low levels of anxiety during learning of a second language have more likelihood of achieving higher levels of comprehension (Roustaei, 2015). Especially, confident foreign language learners would be more likely to convert undesirable feelings (e.g., confusion and anxiety) into encouraging ones (Huang, 2012). Therefore, instructional methods should specifically be designed to reduce student reading anxiety.

In the current digital era, implementing innovative teaching methods to reduce students’ reading anxiety plays an essential role in EFL teaching and learning. Researchers and educators have begun to notice the flipped classroom (FC) as an innovative teaching method, particularly in EFL (Jiang et al., 2022), and pedagogically, this falls under the area of blended learning (Abdullah et al., 2019; Challob, 2021).

By inverting the learning process, the FC provides students with increased learning time prior to, during and after class (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). During FC, input materials like lecture videos prepared by teachers or available online, are provided to students before the class. Class time focuses on collaborative activities, projects, and discussions (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Chen et al. (2014) supported that the time spent in class of flipped learning is allocated to student-centred activities, leading to active learning experiences through role plays, problem solving, interactive lectures, and group discussions.

Prior literature has shown the efficacy of flipped learning on student learning outcomes (Fisher et al., 2017), learner perceptions (Andujar & Nadif, 2022), and its benefits and drawbacks (Chen Hsieh et al., 2017). However, there are limited empirical studies on the psycholinguistic aspects of flipped learning in EFL education. Although research into the impact of the FC method on EFL anxiety is still in its infancy with one or two studies found for each sub-skill, the results are quite promising, indicating that flipped learning contributed towards the reduction of student speaking anxiety (Chen & Hwang, 2020; Korkmaz & Mirici, 2023), listening anxiety (Qiu & Luo, 2022), and writing anxiety (Zhao & Yang, 2023). Few studies have been found on reading anxiety: Gok et al. (2023) and Mohammaddokht and Fathi (2022), but the results differed. Mohammaddokht and Fathi (2022) indicated significant differences in student reading anxiety between the groups, whereas Gok et al. (2023) did not. Especially, these two studies were quantitatively designed, highlighting a gap for qualitative research to explore deeply how flipped learning affects EFL student reading anxiety.

The present study, therefore, investigated the impact of the FC method on EFL student reading anxiety in a Vietnamese university context via a quasi-experimental mixed method design. The following research question guided this study:

RQ: What is the impact of the FC method on EFL students’ reading anxiety?

Literature Review

Foreign Language Anxiety and Reading Anxiety

Foreign language anxiety is characterised as complicated feelings, perceptions, beliefs, and behaviours associated with learning a foreign language in the classroom (Horwitz et al., 1986), which contributes to the success or failure of foreign language learners. Furthermore, Saito et al. (1999) identified two causes of reading anxiety: unknown cultural material and unknown scripts/writing systems. Learners may struggle to decode the script and process the passage meaning, leading to anxiety. Various factors such as new vocabulary, new topics, and the threat of errors can also provoke anxiety in EFL reading classes (Muhlis, 2017).

Zoghi and Alivandivafa (2014) classified three types of EFL reading anxiety: top-down reading anxiety, bottom-up reading anxiety, and classroom reading anxiety. Top-down anxiety relates to difficulties recognising details and main points, often due to unfamiliar cultural content (Guimba & Alico, 2015). Bottom-up reading anxiety arises from unfamiliar and incomprehensible texts with complex grammatical structures (Guimba & Alico, 2015). Classroom reading anxiety is triggered by negative teacher corrections in read-aloud situations and an unfriendly learning environment (Guimba & Alico, 2015). According to MacIntyre (1999), as learners become anxious while reading, their cognitive abilities decrease, and their reading performance deteriorates. Therefore, reading anxiety should be addressed to improve student reading comprehension.

Reading Strategies, Motivations and Reading Anxiety

Using effective reading strategies can enhance EFL learners’ comprehension, easing reading difficulties and reducing anxiety (Huang, 2012). In contrast, over-reliance on a dictionary or translation can lead to less benefit and enjoyment from reading and increased anxiety (Gonen, 2005). Thus, employing appropriate reading strategies correlates with lower foreign language reading anxiety levels (Tsai & Lee, 2018).

Motivation for reading also impacts reading anxiety. Torudom and Taylor (2017) observed a significant negative relationship between reading attitudes, motivation, and reading anxiety. By fostering positive attitudes and increasing motivation, students’ reading anxiety can be significantly reduced, leading to better learning outcomes in EFL contexts. This emphasises the importance of motivation on foreign language learning, especially reading skills.

While many studies focus on the source of foreign language reading anxiety (Tsai & Lee, 2018; Zemni & Alrefaee, 2020) or the correlation between reading anxiety and reading strategies (Huang, 2012) and reading motivation (Torudom & Taylor, 2017), limited attention has been given to research on reducing EFL students’ reading anxiety. This study contributes to this area by examining the effects of the FC method on EFL student reading anxiety in a university context.

Student Beliefs and Perceptions

Beliefs can be described as “student opinions on a variety of issues and controversies related to language learning” (Horwitz, 1988, p. 284). Literature rarely distinguishes between learners’ beliefs and perceptions (Wesley, 2012); especially, there is a relation between student perceptions of the education received and objective outcomes (Crawford et al., 1998). Research has shown that learners’ attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs are related to outcomes such as enjoyment (Brantmeier, 2005), proficiency (Brantmeier, 2005; Mills et al., 2007), levels of foreign language anxiety (Yan & Horwitz, 2008), and motivation (Noels et al., 2001).

Regarding EFL flipped learning experience, recent studies have shown students’ positive perceptions (Fisher et al, 2024); however, their perceptions about the impact of flipped learning on reading anxiety are still under-investigated. Therefore, it is imperative to understand students’ perceived experiences with this novel teaching method in this area as they form an integral part of teaching practices (Keskin, 2023).

Flipped Classroom for Teaching Reading Comprehension: Theoretic Perspectives

This study is grounded in Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Sweller, 2005), Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2004), and the Four Pillars of the Flipped Learning (Flipped Learning Network, 2014) which are presented below.

Flipped Learning Network (2014) defines four pillars of flipped learning: a flexible environment, learning culture, intentional content, and professional educator. Previous studies have employed these four pillars for FC design and shown positive effects (Chen Hsieh et al., 2017; Rahman et al., 2019). Flexible environment allows students to watch video lessons and do pre-class assignments at any time and place and at their own pace (Hill, 2006). In this study, pre-class activities known as preparatory tasks were provided to students in advance through Google Classroom so that they could flexibly access and complete the assigned tasks. The learning culture followed a learner-centred approach, allowing students to actively engage in course contents both outside and inside the classroom, and group-sharing activities. Intentional content included video lessons about reading strategies and tips, teacher-made videos about the units in the reading textbook, and vocabulary tasks, particularly made for students to learn in advance at home. Finally, the researcher was a professional educator who facilitated, observed, gave feedback and scaffolded students’ learning.

CLT explains that working memory stores information in schemata and overloading it hampers learning (Sweller, 2010). Sweller (2005) defines cognitive load as intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. Intrinsic load relies on the complexity of the material and learners’ expertise, which impacts the learners’ cognition or understanding complex content (Sweller & Chandler, 1994). Extraneous load consists of unnecessary elements hindering learning; and germane load involves mental resources devoted to acquiring and automating schemata (Sweller et al., 1998). Appropriate instructional methods would reduce extraneous and intrinsic load (Schmeck et al., 2015) and improve germane load to enhance language learning.

SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2004) explores students’ motivations for learning, explaining autonomy, competence, and relatedness as essential factors for effective learning. Autonomy means that students are responsible for their learning, find pleasure in learning and manage time effectively (Macaskill & Taylor, 2010). Flipped learning enhances autonomy by allowing independent knowledge development, leading to improved academic performance (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015). Deci and Ryan (2004) define competence as satisfaction from skill and knowledge improvement while relatedness is a sense of connection with peers and instructors. Flipped learning fosters competence by enabling preparation at home so that students can gain knowledge in advance and become ready for in-class activities, which reinforces their intrinsic motivation, and potentially boosts their academic performance (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015).

Method

Research Design

This study complies with the Australian National Statement on the Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018). A quasi-experimental mixed-method design is used to investigate the effects of the FC method on EFL student reading anxiety. The mixed-method design enhances understanding by enriching the quantitative results derived from the reading anxiety questionnaire with qualitative data derived from focus group discussions, allowing for a comprehensive view and deeper insights into the thought processes of participants with respect to how the FC design affected their reading anxiety (Punch, 2013).

Participants

Students scoring ±7 from the mean score on a reading diagnostic test (M=12.57, score range 0-40; n=254) were invited to participate in this study.  Consenting participants (n=211) were allocated into the experimental group (111 students) or the control group (100 students). A post hoc power analysis, using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007), confirmed the adequacy of the sample size with an alpha level of 0.05, power of 0.95, and degrees of freedom (df) of 209. The analysis yielded a medium effect size (d = 0.50) and a critical t value of 1.97, indicating sufficient statistical power to detect meaningful differences.

The experimental group was instructed by the research teacher whereas the control group was led by a colleague not associated with the research. Participants were first-year students in the English preparatory program in semester 1, 2022-2023 academic year at a large university in Vietnam, aged between 18 and 19 years old and had been studying English for three to thirteen years. Their English language proficiency levels were elementary and pre-intermediate.

The Experimental Group

Flipped classroom teaching was designed based on the four pillars of flipped learning (Flipped Learning Network, 2014) (see Figure 1). With the FC design, preparatory tasks were uploaded to Google Classroom. This provided a flexible environment (i.e., the first pillar) for students to access the materials at any time, place, and at their own learning pace. The second pillar, learning culture, was reflected through student-centred learning environment which students could learn both outside and inside the classroom and encouraged interactive learning through group sharing activities and discussions.

The intentional content, or the third pillar, included carefully selected online reading strategies videos produced by International English Language Testing System (IELTS) trainers and teacher-created videos. Together with vocabulary tasks, these materials known as preparatory tasks were designed for students to explore outside of the classroom.

The last pillar, professional educator, emphasised the teacher’s role as an organiser, manager, and facilitator throughout all teaching and learning stages. During in-class sessions, the teacher reviewed vocabulary, scaffolded reading strategies for specific IELTS question types and facilitated group discussions.

Figure 1. The FC Design for Teaching Reading Comprehension (Adapted from Flipped Learning Network, 2014)

The Control Group

In the control group, all instructions about vocabulary, reading strategies, and reading comprehension practice were conducted in class. There was no compulsory preparation prior to classes.

The program covered the first four units of “Mindset for IELTS Book 1” (Cambridge University Press, 2017). The students in both groups learnt reading skills from the same textbook, lessons and learning hours. The only difference was the delivery method.

Procedures

In the first two weeks, the teacher introduced the FC method, gathered consent forms, and administered a pre-reading anxiety questionnaire in both groups. Training occurred from week 3 to week 9. A post-reading anxiety questionnaire was collected in week 10 for both groups. Focus group discussions took place after students’ course scores were finalised to avoid bias due to the teacher-student relationship.

Data Collection and Analysis

Pre- and post–reading anxiety questionnaire. This study adapted the validated EFL Reading Anxiety Inventory (EFLRAI) (Zoghi & Alivandivafa, 2014), examining students’ classroom anxiety (5 items), top-down reading anxiety (7 items), and bottom-up reading anxiety (9 items). Two experts reviewed this questionnaire to improve its validity. The pre-reading anxiety questionnaire also collected student demographic information: gender, hometown, sub-majors, cohort, and the number of years learning English. Participants answered via a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Cronbach’s Alpha value was .83, ensuring reliability. The post-questionnaire used the same scale to measure student reading anxiety.

Data processing and analysis were conducted using IBM SPSS26. The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were checked using Skewness and Kurtosis and Levene’s tests, respectively. The SES and SEK were within the range of +/- 1.0 (see Table 3), confirming normal distribution of the dataset (Leech et al., 2005). Regarding homogeneity of variance, the Levene’s tests showed that all variables met this assumption, except for pre-top-down reading anxiety, p = .00 (see Appendix B), indicating the need for non-parametric tests for its analysis.

Initial condition differences at pre-test are examined using the independent sample t-test and Cohen’s d.

A mixed ANOVA was used to determine the intervention effect, assessing main effects between the groups (experimental vs. control), within the group or time (pre-test vs. post-test), and the interaction between group and time on student reading anxiety. Mauchly’s tests of sphericity was conducted to assess the assumption of sphericity for the within-subjects factor of time. The results indicated that the assumption of sphericity was not violated across variables, W=1.00. Partial eta square (η²) was used to characterize effect sizes of main effects and interactions.

Focus group discussions. Student insights into the impact of the FC method on reading anxiety were explored via 60-minute Zoom discussions. Focus-group discussions were employed to investigate perceptions of and experience with an innovative teaching method – the flipped classroom method from several participants at the same time (Kitzinger, 1995). Examples of questions include “Did the preparatory tasks (i.e., preparation in advance at home, Google Classroom platform) make your learning easier? How? and why?” and “Has the FC method changed your motivation to learn English reading skills?” to explore students’ perceptions of the impact of the FC on their cognitive load and motivation.

Fourteen students (12.6%) from the experimental group took part in two focus-group discussions. Each group consisted of seven students. Of the 14 students, 57% were female and 43% were male (see table 1).

Discussions were held in Vietnamese to encourage idea sharing which allowed in-depth insights to emerge. Recordings were made to ensure accurate response matching with students. To protect anonymity, student names were replaced with codes (e.g., ST1, ST2).

Table 1. Demographic information of focus-group participants

Code	Gender	Age	Major	Years of English learning
ST1	Female	18–19	Tourism and hospitality management	12
ST2	Male	18–19	Chemical engineering	7
ST3	Male	18–19	Finance and banking	12
ST4	Female	18–19	Chemical engineering	9
ST5	Female	18–19	Tourism and hospitality management	12
ST6	Male	18–19	Chemical engineering	10
ST7	Female	18–19	Software engineering	13
ST8	Male	18–19	Finance and banking	12
ST9	Female	18–19	Biotechnology	12
ST10	Male	18–19	Software engineering	10
ST11	Female	18–19	Software engineering	13
ST12	Male	18–19	Food technology	9
ST13	Female	18–19	Food technology	9
ST14	Female	18–19	Tourism and hospitality management	12

In cross-cultural research, back-translation is commonly recommended to ensure the quality of translations (Liamputtong, 2010). However, due to time and budget constraints, the researcher opted to personally handle the transcription and translation. To ensure accuracy and maintain high quality translation, the English version of the document was reviewed by a bilingual academic fluent in both English and Vietnamese. This review led to constructive feedback and minor revisions to make the text more natural. For instance, phrases such as “remember new words longer” were refined to “remember new words better,” “foreign teacher” was adjusted to “native speaker teacher,” and “study on my own” was changed to “self-study”.  The data was analysed using a five-step thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012) as follows.

Step 1: The English transcripts were read and reread to become familiar with the data.

Step 2: Initial codes were generated e.g., active learning, reduced anxiety, competence, better vocabulary learning, etc.

Step 3: Seventeen preliminary themes were first developed (see Appendix A).

Steps 4 and 5: Preliminary themes were iteratively reviewed; and the specific thematic area was redefined based on the study’s conceptual framework. For example, the “active participation” and “positive learning environment” were combined into one theme “positive learning environment”. The theme “reduced cognitive load” covered three sub-themes “knowledge segmentation”, “reduced extraneous load” and “reduced cognitive load”. Final themes and sub-themes are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Final themes and sub-themes

Themes		Sub-themes	Sources	References
Useful learning materials		Video lessons	1	11
Benefits of preparatory tasks			1	17
Combination of pre- and in-class activities	+ Positive learning environment	Active participation	1	5
		Positive learning environment	1	3
	+ Reduced Cognitive load	Knowledge segmentation	1	4
		Reduced extraneous load	1	6
		Reduced cognitive load	1	2
	+ Teacher scaffolding		1	3
Better vocabulary learning			1	7
Enhanced learning autonomy		Autonomous learning	1	9
		Self-study	1	7
Enhanced competence		Competence	1	6
Enhanced relatedness		Relatedness	1	5
Self-pace learning		Self-pace learning	1	2
Reduced anxiety		Reduced anxiety	1	6
		Confidence	1	5
Suggestion		Suggestion	1	2

Results

Quantitative Results

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of pre- and post-questionnaires for overall reading anxiety, classroom reading anxiety, bottom-up reading anxiety, and top-down reading anxiety for the experimental and control groups.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of pre- and post-questionnaires

Variables	Pre and post		Groups	N	M	SD	SES	SEK
Overall reading anxiety	Pre-overall reading anxiety	Control		100	4.89	.70	−.38	−.18
		Experimental		111	5.00	.65	−.30	.32
	Post- overall reading anxiety	Control		100	4.69	.86	−.31	−.01
		Experimental		111	4.73	.77	−.72	.67
Classroom reading anxiety	Pre-classroom reading anxiety	Control		100	4.18	1.0	−.12	.33
		Experimental		111	4.40	.97	−.56	.58
	Post- classroom reading anxiety	Control		100	4.01	1.08	.02	−.68
		Experimental		111	4.20	1.12	−.27	.10
Bottom-up reading anxiety	Pre-bottom-up reading anxiety	Control		100	5.16	.90	−.31	−.28
		Experimental		111	5.20	.86	−.53	.29
	Post- bottom-up reading anxiety	Control		100	4.86	.97	−.26	−.44
		Experimental		111	4.78	.85	−.37	.05
Top-down reading anxiety	Pre-top-down reading anxiety	Control		100	5.06	.83	−.38	−.54
		Experimental		111	5.18	.62	−.21	.82
	Post-top-down reading anxiety	Control		100	4.95	1.02	−.58	.28
		Experimental		111	5.03	.90	−.79	.88

The results showed slight decreases in overall reading anxiety, with the control group reducing from 4.89 to 4.69 and the experimental group from 5.00 to 4.73. For classroom reading anxiety, the control group showed a marginal decrease from 4.18 to 4.01, while the experimental group dropped from 4.40 to 4.20. Bottom-up reading anxiety decreased from 5.16 to 4.86 in the control group and from 5.20 to 4.78 in the experimental group. In terms of top-down reading anxiety, both groups showed minimal change, with the control group falling from 5.06 to 4.95 and the experimental group from 5.18 to 5.03. Overall, the experimental group showed more notable reductions in reading anxiety across the different categories compared to the control group. This suggests the intervention or FC method might be effective at reducing reading anxiety.

The impact of FC on overall reading anxiety, classroom reading anxiety, and bottom-up reading anxiety. Prior to the training, independent t-tests indicated no significant differences between the groups in terms of students’ overall reading anxiety (t = -.25, p > .05), classroom reading anxiety (t = -1.59, p > .05), and bottom-up reading anxiety (t = -.38, p > .05). Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were small for overall reading anxiety (d = 0.16), classroom reading anxiety (d = 0.22), and negligible for bottom-up reading anxiety (d = 0.05), indicating similar anxiety levels between the groups before the training.

Following the 7-week training period, the mixed ANOVA was computed to examine the impact of the FC method on EFL students’ reading anxiety between the groups (experimental vs. control) and time (pre and post) or within the groups. The results of the mixed ANOVA test (Table 4) revealed significant main effects for time in overall reading anxiety, classroom and bottom-up reading anxiety. The partial eta squared values indicate a medium reduction in overall reading anxiety over time (η² = 0.08) and a large reduction in bottom-up reading anxiety over time (η² = 0.11). The effects for classroom reading anxiety were smaller (η² = 0.03) (Cohen, 1988).

However, as can be seen in Table 4, the main effects comparing the two groups were not significant, nor were the interaction effects of (Time*Group). The between-group effects were negligible (η² ≤ 0.01). This means that both teaching methods were equally effective at addressing EFL students’ overall reading anxiety, classroom reading anxiety and bottom-up reading anxiety.

Table 4. Mixed-ANOVA Results

Source		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta squared
Overall reading anxiety	Time	5.92	1	5.92	17.57	.00*	.08
	Time*Group	.17	1	.17	.51	.48	.00
	Groups	.61	1	.61	.78	.38	.00
Classroom reading anxiety	Time	3.57	1	3.57	5.7	.02*	.03
	Time*Group	.01	1	. 01	.01	.91	.00
	Groups	4.46	1	4.46	2.87	.09	.01
Bottom-up reading anxiety	Time	13.38	1	13.38	24.94	.00**	.11
	Time*Group	.43	1	.43	.81	.37	.00
	Groups	.04	1	.04	.04	.85	.00

The impact of FC on top-down reading anxiety. A Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare top-down reading anxiety between the experimental and control groups before the training. The results showed no significant difference (U = 5891, p = .44, r = 0.05), indicating similar top-down reading anxiety levels.

After 7-week training, within-group analysis using the Related-Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed no significant differences in top-down reading anxiety for both the experimental group (z = -1.47, p = .14, r = 0.08) and the control group (z = -.47, p = .64, r = 3.23). This suggests that both FC and usual teaching methods had no impact on EFL students’ top-down reading anxiety.

A Mann-Whitney U test was additionally computed to compare EFL students’ top-down reading anxiety between the two groups after the training. The results revealed no significant difference (U = 5753.50, p = .65, r = 0.03), suggesting that both training methods had similar impacts on EFL students’ top-down reading anxiety.

Non-parametric analyses for top-down reading anxiety revealed small effect sizes both pre-training (r = 0.05) and post-training (r = 0.03 for between-group comparisons, r = 0.08 for within-group comparisons).

This study found significant differences within the groups for overall reading anxiety, classroom reading anxiety, and bottom-up reading anxiety after training, except for top-down reading anxiety, but no significant differences were observed between groups in any aspect. This lack of significant between-group differences was likely due to high variability in participants’ responses within each group, as indicated by relatively large standard deviations (ranging from 0.62 to 1.12, see Table 3), which may have masked differences in group means. Additionally, the small mean differences between groups (typically around 0.1 to 0.2) were insufficient to overcome the degree of within-group variability, reducing the sensitivity of the statistical tests. Consequently, the study’s power to detect significant differences between groups was diminished.

Qualitative Results

Qualitative results showed students’ positive perceptions of the FC design, contributing to reduced anxiety. They included the usefulness of learning materials, preparatory tasks, the combination of pre- and in-class activities leading to positive learning environment, reduced cognitive load and enhanced teacher scaffolding, the enhancement of learning autonomy, competence, relatedness, self-paced learning, vocabulary learning, and reduction of reading anxiety.

Useful learning materials. The students showed positive perceptions about the learning materials in the preparation tasks such as “very helpful”, “clearly presented”, “apply immediately” and “facilitated the preparation process.”

ST11: I found the videos very helpful. Videos the teacher prepared for the lessons in the Mindset book were clearly presented, facilitating preparation. (FG2)

ST10: [….]. The videos included both theory and practice. After learning, we could apply what we learned immediately. (FG2)

The students also highly appreciated the explicit instructions on reading strategies and tips in the videos. This helped them learn and apply reading skills effectively, save time and do reading tasks easier and faster.

ST5: By watching videos, I learned reading strategies and tips that made reading comprehension tasks easier to complete. [….] The videos guided me to find key words, allowing me to complete reading comprehension exercises faster and easier. (FG1)

ST3: The videos provided me with a better understanding of how to perform reading comprehension exercises. [….] Learning strategies and tips from the videos helped me improve my reading comprehension skills. (FG1)

Preparatory tasks. The students highlighted numerous benefits of pre-training preparatory tasks in this flipped reading course. Specifically, it allowed them to have a deeper understanding of the lesson, keep up with class activities and the teacher’s lectures, grasp information more easily, better and with less time.

ST2: “… preparatory tasks on Google Classroom helped me retain the lesson better and gain a deeper understanding. (FG2)

ST3: Preparing in advance helped me keep up with the class activities and the teacher’s lectures. (FG1)

ST9: Preparing at home will make classwork easier to follow and less time-consuming than learning everything in class. (FG2)

Combination of pre- and in-class activities. The students positively perceived the combination of pre- and in-class activities in the flipped reading class, which allowed them to acquire knowledge gradually, prevented overload, facilitated better understanding and improved retention of reading strategies, tips and vocabulary.

ST1: A traditional learning method involves a teacher giving a lot of information. I felt overwhelmed and could not absorb the information. With this method, I could learn a bit at a time, [….] I didn’t feel suffocated because I only learned a little bit at a time, but I remembered the information better. (FG1)

The students shared positive experience in this flipped reading course, providing them with a supportive learning environment. The students commented that they had an “enjoyable” and “comfortable” learning atmosphere.

ST3: This method helped me feel more comfortable and saved time learning. (FG1)

ST2: “… preparatory tasks on Google Classroom helped me retain the lesson better and gain a deeper understanding. Attending classes becomes more enjoyable. (FG2)

This method also helped the teacher identify students’ missed knowledge and reading strategies when preparing at home, through group-sharing activities in class. Whole class sharing further enabled the teacher to recognise problems and helped students improve their reading comprehension skills.

ST3: When preparation tasks were done at home, [….]. It helped the teacher see what knowledge we were missing to support us. (FG1)

The students also expressed their appreciation for the teacher’s scaffolding of essential reading comprehension strategies and tips in class.

ST10: […] the teacher’s summary of reading comprehension strategies and tips helped us eliminate redundant steps and grasp up reading strategies/ tips that we missed while preparing at home. This reinforced our reading comprehension and test-taking skills a lot. (FG2)

Vocabulary learning. The students reported that the two phases of learning vocabulary, through preparatory tasks on Google Classroom at home and in class, helped them remember it better. In addition, they increased their vocabulary resource thanks to preparation in advance at home and learned synonyms provided by the teacher in class.

ST4: When I was at home, I studied vocabulary once on Google Classroom. I learned it again in class. This helped me remember new vocabulary better. (FG1)

S10: I not only prepared vocabulary in advance at home but also learned synonyms the teacher provided in class. This helped me increase vocabulary resources and understand more deeply the reading passages when encountering those words. (FG2)

Learning autonomy. Students’ comments highlighted increased learning autonomy over the Reading course. Expressions like “willing to learn more vocabulary,” “search for more knowledge”, and “improve my self-study” showcased their growing learning autonomy.

ST1: With this method, […] I could search for more knowledge. (FG1)

ST11: The FC method helped improve my self-study. Before I learned English by attending a class where a teacher taught me, I didn’t think much about self-study. This method helped me find many useful external learning resources and self- studied more. (FG2)

Competence. The FC method had a positive impact on EFL students’ reading comprehension competence. Comments like “more competent,” “quite competent,” and “made a lot of progress” reflected their improved reading abilities and increased confidence in the course.

ST1: I am more competent at reading comprehension. Initially, I found the reading comprehension test too difficult. I couldn’t understand how to do it. Later, I felt quite competent because I had mastered reading skills and strategies. I feel that I’ve made a lot of progress. (FG1)

ST4: I have not volunteered in class, but when asked, I am confident of my answers. I haven’t felt unsure or shy. (FG1)

Relatedness. The students had a sense of belonging and relatedness in the Reading course, as expressed through comments like “I was part of the class,” “help my friends,” and “I was not left behind.”

ST1: By sharing exercises and answers in groups, I felt like I was part of the class. I participated in in-class activities, so I kept up with my friends. (FG1)

ST12: Doing the preparation tasks in advance at home [….], I could help my friends, participate in classes, and did not feel apart. (FG2)

Self-paced learning. The students appreciated the FC method as it helped them have private learning space, learn at their own speed, and be flexible in the learning process, i.e., stopping and taking notes while preparing at home through video lessons.

ST10: Learning through videos was also quite flexible […] I could stop and take notes…. (FG2)

ST6: … I often watched the videos 2 times. If I still didn’t understand I would watch 3 times. (FG1)

Reduction of reading anxiety. The students perceived that the FC method had a positive impact on reducing their reading anxiety. Preparatory tasks made them less afraid of reading skills, resulting in increased confidence.

ST2: This method helps me be less afraid of reading than the usual teaching method because I prepare in advance. (FG1)

Students expressed positive feelings, such as “not passive,” “not ashamed,” and “not shy or unsure,” indicating that the FC method reduced their reading anxiety.

ST8: Actively doing preparatory tasks at home helped us avoid feeling passive or ashamed …. (FG2)

The student also shared a positive change in their perception of reading anxiety.

ST4: Before I feared doing the reading comprehension test, but after the course, I’ve learnt specific reading comprehension strategies and tips. I want to apply them and see improvement, so I don’t feel scared. (FG1)

Discussion

Our study employed a quasi-experimental mixed-method design to investigate the effects of FC pedagogy on EFL students’ reading anxiety. The quantitative analysis did not reveal a statistically significant difference in reading anxiety between the FC and traditional classroom groups, suggesting that both teaching methods are similarly effective in reducing reading anxiety.

Our findings are consistent with those of Mohammaddokht and Fathi (2022) and Gok et al. (2023), showing a reduction in student reading anxiety after the training within the groups. However, both this study and Gok et al. (2023) did not find significant differences between the groups after the training, which contradicts the findings of Mohammaddokht and Fathi (2022). One possible explanation for this discrepancy is the longer duration of Mohammaddokht and Fathi’s (2022) experiment—14 weeks compared to 12 weeks in Gok et al. (2023) and 7 weeks in the present study. As noted by Plonsky and Oswald (2014), longer interventions tend to produce larger effects. Additionally, longitudinal designs allowed researchers to examine how effects evolve over time, track patterns of change, and explore other factors associated with temporal variation (Shadish et al., 2002).

Such non-significant differences can also be due to students’ characteristics i.e., lack of homogeneity in their English proficiency levels, with ranging between elementary and pre-intermediate levels. As poor readers are likely to experience higher levels of reading anxiety than good readers (Tsai & Lee, 2018), the sampling group of this study would have needed a longer duration of training to see significant effects. Furthermore, foreign language anxiety involves complicated feelings, perceptions, beliefs, and behaviours (Horwitz et al., 1986), which cannot be meaningfully reduced to numbers or adequately understood without asking participants to respond to certain questions for more nuanced information (Punch, 2013).

Our qualitative data revealed deeper insights into students’ experiences that quantitative measures could not fully capture. Students expressed a notably positive perception of the FC, uncovering features of the FC method that help to alleviate reading anxiety, by enhancing learning efficiency, reducing cognitive load, and fostering intrinsic motivation. There is a notable relationship between students’ perceptions of the education they receive and the objective outcomes they achieve (Crawford et al., 1998). When students view a flipped classroom positively, this perception becomes a “compelling form of information” (Clore & Huntsinger, 2007, p. 397) that can empower potential responses to their EFL learning.

While our quantitative data did not show a statistically significant reduction in reading anxiety between control and experimental groups, it does not negate the value of students’ positive perceptions. Our qualitative findings suggest that the FC method can enhance EFL student engagement, motivation, and the overall learning experience. That positive feelings are unrelated to anxiety is recognised in the literature (Kashdan, 2011). In the realm of educational innovation, the alignment of student perceptions with pedagogical objectives is itself a meaningful indicator of success. Therefore, we propose that students’ favourable views of the FC method are a crucial outcome of this pedagogical approach, potentially reduce reading anxiety, contributing to longer-term benefits in learning outcomes and student satisfaction.

Gardner and Boix-Mansilla (1994, p.5) stated that ‘‘we learn most easily when we already know enough to have organised schemas that we can use to interpret and elaborate upon new information”. With the FC design, we found that the video lessons in the preparatory tasks helped students learn reading question types, reading strategies and tips. This helped them build schema and transferred such knowledge to long-term memory so that they could discuss and apply reading skills effectively in class. Consequently, they needed less time to understand the lesson, remembered it better, kept up with class activities and did reading tasks easier and faster. In other words, students’ cognitive load was reduced, leading to reading anxiety reduction as suggested by CLT (Sweller, 2010).

Specifically, effective use of reading strategies like skimming and scanning allowed students to avoid unnecessary cognitive processes like translating or reading the entire passage. Instead, they could focus on key concepts. This helped reduce student extraneous load, making learning easier for students. Furthermore, the students positively perceived the flipped learning environment that combined pre- and in-class activities, allowing them to acquire knowledge gradually, prevent overload, facilitate better understanding and improve retention of reading strategies, tips and vocabulary. Thus, consistent with CTL (Sweller, 2010), our qualitative findings demonstrate that the FC method helped enhance student germane load, reduce extraneous load. Such results suggest the perceived effectiveness of the FC method in reducing reading anxiety.

Furthermore, students perceived the FC environment as active, comfortable, and enjoyable. Preparatory tasks completed at home made them feel confident during in-class activities. This suggests that the FC environment helped reduce classroom reading anxiety. This was consistent with Davies et al. (2013) who found that by familiarising themselves with the reading passages before class, students felt more confident during in-class activities and reduced nervousness during flipped learning classes or reading flipped learning classes in this context. We also found the students’ positive perception of self-paced learning. They could learn vocabulary and access video lessons to acquire reading strategies and tips at their own pace at home. This allowed them to take control of their learning process (Lee & Wallace, 2018). Such individualised instruction could be tailored to the proficiency levels of learners, resulting in a reduction in cognitive load (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015), which helped reduce student reading anxiety.

In addition, Gonen (2005) indicated factors associated with foreign language reading anxiety: a lack of motivation, low self-confidence, threat of evaluation, an unpleasant classroom environment, and unfamiliar texts and cultural content. We found the students perceived that with proper preparation in advance at home, they were ready for in-class activities; they did not feel shy, unsure or ashamed in class. These feelings show students’ readiness and increased self-confidence, overcoming their fear of evaluation or anxiety. We also argue that the unfamiliarity of cultural content and texts can be addressed through students’ proper preparation in the preparatory tasks at home at their own pace and group sharing activities in class. Furthermore, the two phases of learning vocabulary through preparatory tasks at home and in-class contributed to improved vocabulary resources for the students. This increase in vocabulary resources was associated with reduced anxiety, as unfamiliar words and cultural content often lead to apprehension and worry during reading classes (Muhlis, 2017).

The success of this FC design in reducing EFL student reading anxiety aligns with findings from other anxiety-prone disciplines where the reduction in anxiety has been attributed to the affordances of flipped learning pedagogy.  In language learning, flipped learning reduced anxiety in speaking (Korkmaz & Mirici, 2023), listening (Qiu & Luo, 2022) and writing (Zhao & Yang, 2023); in STEM, flipped learning has been associated with a reduction in anxiety when learning mathematics (Dorie et al., 2021) and physics (Asiksoy & Sorakin (2018).  Together these findings underscore that for subjects known to be anxiety-inducing flipped learning pedagogy is highly applicable.

Conclusion

Though this study revealed no statistically significant differences in EFL students’ overall reading anxiety and its constructs between the experimental and control groups, qualitative data revealed students’ more insights, highlighting the perceived positive impact of the FC on reducing reading anxiety. These findings contribute to literature that the FC is a valuable tool for reducing reading anxiety and enhancing EFL learning experiences. Especially, this study bridges research gaps by uncovering features of the FC that facilitated effective reading strategies, reduced cognitive load, improved intrinsic motivation and overcame foreign language reading anxiety factors, leading to reduced student reading anxiety. Such benefits of flipped learning call for educators and policymakers to consider its adoption.

This study suggests some practical implications for educators, teachers, and policymakers regarding the use of FC to enhance student outcomes and reduce learning anxiety. First, video lessons as part of preparatory tasks can enhance students’ understanding of reading question types, strategies, and tips. Educators or teachers should integrate high-quality instructional videos into pre-class activities. Videos should be carefully selected (e.g., official videos published by British Council or IDP Education to ensure the validity and reliability of the content) and have appropriate length. Short quizzes should be designed for each video so that the students have a purpose of watching the videos and for the teachers to check students’ understanding and track their work while preparing at home. Besides, teachers should structure learning activities to include both preparatory tasks for vocabulary building and interactive class activities that reinforce vocabulary usage. The tasks could include introduction of new vocabulary and activities associated with learning and remembering the new words. This ensures comprehensive vocabulary acquisition and reduces learning anxiety.

Teachers should create a supportive and interactive learning environment by blending pre-class preparation with engaging in-class activities. These can be group-sharing at different stages of the lessons for students to discuss their understanding of the reading content, reading strategies and tips, and analyse grammatical structures in the reading texts. This fosters a positive learning atmosphere and reduces anxiety, making learning more enjoyable and effective.

The rapid and transformative advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have not escaped the attention of educational scholars and practitioners, including its potential to enhance language learning (Xiao & Zhi, 2023). Integrating AI tools into FC designs, especially during the pre-class stage, offers exciting possibilities to enrich students’ flipped learning experience by providing them with real-time feedback, fostering autonomous learning, and supporting self-correction (Chen et al., 2021).

EFL instructors also play a pivotal role in guiding students’ learning during in-class sessions. This involves providing students with essential scaffolding of reading strategies and tips and handling unfamiliar vocabulary and grammatical structures within reading passages. Through thoughtful teacher guidance and interactive activities in a relaxed classroom environment, students can enhance their reading comprehension proficiency while reducing anxiety.

For policymakers, they should advocate for the adoption of the FC method in educational settings as well as ensure that educators receive comprehensive training in the use of this innovative teaching method. This enables them to effectively implement, create engaging and supportive learning environments that foster better educational outcomes and student well-being.

Opportunities for further investigations are suggested. Prospective research may extend the experiment duration to better understand the relationship between flipped learning environments and reading anxiety. Furthermore, it is likely that teacher traits and characteristics could potentially influence EFL anxiety in the FC. Future studies should have the same teacher for the FC and the usual teaching method. And finally, the potential integration of AI tools within FC frameworks warrants exploration to further enhance learning outcomes.

About the Authors

Quyen Tran, PhD is a lecturer at the School of Foreign Languages, Can Tho University, Vietnam. Her research interests include flipped learning, active learning, blended learning, learning autonomy, learning engagement, English as a foreign language, English as a medium of instruction, and AI in EFL teaching. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7594-6269

Elena Verezub, PhD is based at School of Business, Entrepreneurship and Law, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Her research interests are in the areas of teaching language and literacy, educational development, flexible learning, and student enrichment.  ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9399-0901

Rosemary Fisher, PhD lectures and researches in Entrepreneurship & Innovation, and SoTLE. She has held roles such as Head of Studies, Discipline Leader, and Deputy Chair. Rosemary serves on two SoTLE journal editorial boards, is Academic Editor for a third, and regularly peer reviews for academic publications.   ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4205-6347

To Cite this Article

Tran, Q., Verezub, E., & Fisher, R. (2025). The impact of flipped classroom on EFL students’ reading anxiety in higher education. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(1). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29113a3

References

Abdullah, M. Y., Hussin, S., & Ismail, K. (2019). Investigating the effects of the flipped classroom model on Omani EFL learners’ motivation level in English speaking performance. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2975–2995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09911-5

Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher education research & development, 34(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336

Andujar, A., & Nadif, F. Z. (2022). Evaluating an inclusive blended learning environment in EFL: a flipped approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5-6), 1138-1167. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1774613

Asiksoy, G., & Sorakin, Y. (2018). The effects of clicker-aided flipped classroom model on learning achievement, physics anxiety and students’ perceptions. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 5(2), 334-346. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/389/238

Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. (2018). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (Updated 2018). Australian Research Council and Universities Australia.

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.

Brantmeier, C. (2005). Nonlinguistic variables in advanced second language reading: Learners’ self-assessment and enjoyment. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02516.x

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association.

Cambridge University Press. (2017). Mindset for IELTS Book 1. Cambridge University Press.

Challob, A. I. (2021). The effect of flipped learning on EFL students’ writing performance, autonomy, and motivation. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 3743-3769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10434-1

Chen Hsieh, J. S., Wu, W. C. V., & Marek, M. W. (2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1111910

Chen, M. R. A., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Effects of a concept mapping-based flipped learning approach on EFL students’ English speaking performance, critical thinking awareness and speaking anxiety. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 817-834. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12887

Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Cheng, G. (2021). Twenty years of personalized language learning. Educational Technology & Society, 24(1), 205-222. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aPlfrNYxyPkZeohTg9PvDrWFNFhYR-sf/view?usp=sharing

Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N.-S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004

Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Taylor & Francis GroupIn.

Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 393–468. https://doi.org//10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00005-X

Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 563-580. https://doi.org//10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. University Rochester Press.

Dorie, A., Loranger, D., & Hurst, J. (2021). It all adds up: Impact of the flipped classroom approach related to achievement, student satisfaction, self-efficacy, anxiety, and optimism in a retail Maths course. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 29, 12–20. https://sacredheart.elsevierpure.com/ws/portalfiles/portal/39960364/JAME-2021-Vol29-SpecialIssue-Dorie-Loranger-Hurst-pp12-20%20Edited%20(1).pdf

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Fisher, R., Ross, B., LaFerriere, R., & Maritz, A. (2017). Flipped learning, flipped satisfaction, getting the balance right. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 5(2), 114-127. https://doi.org//10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.2.9

Fisher, R., Tran, Q., & Verezub, E. (2024). Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Higher Education using flipped learning/flipped classrooms: a literature review. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-20. https://doi.org//10.1080/17501229.2024.2302984

Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of FLIP. FLIP_handout_FNL_Web. pdf.[accessed 28.5. 14]. Available at: http://www.flippedlearning.

Gardner, H., & Boix-Mansilla, V. (1994). Teaching for understanding in the disciplines and beyond. Teachers College Record, 96(2), 198–218. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ498398.

Gok, D., Bozoglan, H., & Bozoglan, B. (2023). Effects of online flipped classroom on foreign language classroom anxiety and reading anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 840-860. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1950191

Guimba, W. D., & Alico, J. C. (2015). Reading anxiety and comprehension of grade 8 Filipino learners. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Special Volume, 44-59. https://shorturl.at/NrP3T

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2020). Teaching and Researching Reading (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual review of applied linguistics, 21, 112-126. https://doi.org//10.1017/S0267190501000071

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132. https://doi.org/10. 2307/327317

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294. https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb04190.x

Huang, Q. (2012). Study on correlation of foreign language anxiety and English reading anxiety. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 2(7). https://doi.org//10.4304/tpls.2.7.1520-1525

Jiang, M. Y. C., Jong, M. S. Y., Lau, W. W. F., Chai, C. S., Liu, K. S. X., & Park, M. (2022). A scoping review on flipped classroom approach in language education: Challenges, implications and an interaction model. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(5-6), 1218-1249. https://doi.org//10.1080/09588221.2020.1789171

Kashdan, T. B., Weeks, J. W., & Savostyanova, A. A. (2011). Whether, how, and when social anxiety shapes positive experiences and events: A self-regulatory framework and treatment implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(5), 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.03.012

Keskin, D. (2023). Implementation of flipped model in EFL reading classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 24(3), 261-279. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2495308

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299-302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299

Korkmaz, S., & Mirici, I. H. (2023). Converting a conventional flipped class into a synchronous online flipped class during COVID-19: university students’ self-regulation skills and anxiety. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5746-5758. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2018615

Gonen, S. I. K. (2005). The Sources of Foreign Language Reading Anxiety of Students in a Turkish EFL Context. [Doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University, Turkey]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Lan, E.-M. (2024). Unveiling the silent struggle: Investigating the effects of flipped classroom instruction models on business English oral presentation development through online learning: A case of learner engagement, emotions, and anxiety. Education and Information Technologies. 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12746-4

Lee, G., & Wallace, A. (2018). Flipped learning in the English as a foreign language classroom: Outcomes and perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 62-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.372

Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. Psychology Press.

Liamputtong, P. (2010). Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge University Press.

Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An exploration of foreign language anxiety and English learning motivation. Education Research International, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/493167

Macaskill, A., & Taylor, E. (2010). The development of a brief measure of learner autonomy in university students. Studies in higher education, 35(3), 351-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903502703

MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Language anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere, 24, 41. https://www.academia.edu/5348293/Language_anxiety_A_review_of_the_literature_for_language_teachers

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Investigating language class anxiety using the focused essay technique. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 296-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05358.x

Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning, 57, 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00421.x

Mohammaddokht, F., & Fathi, J. (2022). An investigation of flipping an English reading course: Focus on reading gains and anxiety. Education Research International, 2022, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2262983

Muhlis, A. (2017). Foreign language reading anxiety among Indonesian EFL senior high school students. ENGLISH FRANCA: Academic Journal of English Language and Education, 1(1), 19-44. https://doi.org/10.29240/ef.v1i1.160

Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French-Canadian learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 424–442. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.424

Nouri, J. (2016). The flipped classroom: For active, effective and increased learning -especially for low achievers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0032-z

Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079

Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage.

Qiu, Y., & Luo, W. (2022). Investigation of the effect of flipped listening instruction on the listening performance and listening anxiety of Chinese EFL students. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1043004-1043004. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1043004

Rahman, S. F., Yunus, M., & Hashim, H. (2019). A Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): Malaysian ESL lecturers’ attitude in adapting flipped learning. Malaysian Journal of Education, 44. https://doi.org/10.17576/JPEN-2019-44.01SI-04

Roustaei, M. (2015). Reading anxiety and its relation to reading proficiency, reading strategy, and gender: The case of Iranian EFL learners. Senior Editors, 4-32. https://asian-efl-journal.com/wpcontent/uploads/mgm/downloads/ta/AEJ%20TA%2084%20May%202015.pdf#page=4

Saito, Y., Horwitz, E., & Garza, J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00016

Samiei, F., & Ebadi, S. (2021). Exploring EFL learners’ inferential reading comprehension skills through a flipped classroom. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-021-00157-9

Schmeck, A., Opfermann, M., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Leutner, D. (2015). Measuring cognitive load with subjective rating scales during problem solving: differences between immediate and delayed ratings. Instructional Science, 43(1), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9328-3

Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.-Y., Huang, Y.-M., & Liu, T.-Y. (2015). The impact of supported and annotated mobile learning on achievement and cognitive load. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 53-69. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1078231

Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer, & Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). Cambridge University Press.

Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and instruction, 12(3), 185-233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. https://doi.org//10.1023/A:1022193728205

Torudom, K., & Taylor, P. (2017). An investigation of reading attitudes, motivation and reading anxiety of EFL undergraduate students. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 10(2), 47-70. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1229632

Tsai, Y. R., & Lee, C. Y. (2018). An exploration into factors associated with reading anxiety among Taiwanese EFL learners. Teflin Journal, 29(1), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v29i1/129-148

Von Worde, R. (2003). Students’ perspectives on foreign language anxiety. Inquiry, 8(1), n1. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ876838.pdf

Webb, M., & Doman, E. (2016). Does the flipped classroom lead to increased gains on learning outcomes in ESL/EFL contexts? CATESOL Journal, 28(1), 39-67.

Wesely, P. M. (2012). Learner attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 98-117.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01181.x

Xiao, Y., & Zhi, Y. (2023). An exploratory study of EFL learners’ use of ChatGPT for language learning tasks: Experience and perceptions. Languages, 8(3), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212

Yan, J.X., & Horwitz, E.K. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: A qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China. Language learning, 58(1), 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00437.x

Zemni, B., & Alrefaee, Y. (2020). Investigating the source of reading anxiety among undergraduate Saudi female EFL students in translation departments. TESOL International Journal, 15(5), 65-77. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1329508.pdf

Zhao, A., Guo, Y., & Dynia, J. (2013). Foreign language reading anxiety: Chinese as a foreign language in the United States. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 764–778. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781. 2013.12032.x

Zhao, X., & Yang, Y. (2023). Impact of social media-supported flipped classroom on English as a foreign language learners’ writing performance and anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1052737-1052737. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1052737

Zoghi, M., & Alivandivafa, M. (2014). EFL Reading Anxiety Inventory (EFLRAI) factorial validity and reliability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(4), 318-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913513686

Appendices

Appendix A: Preliminary Themes

Preliminary themes	Sources	References
Active participation	1	5
Autonomous learning	1	9
Better vocabulary learning	1	7
Competence	1	6
Confidence	1	5
Knowledge segmentation	1	4
Positive learning environment	1	3
Preparatory tasks	1	17
Reduced anxiety	1	6
Reduced cognitive load	1	2
Reduced extraneous load	1	6
Relatedness	1	5
Self-pace learning	1	2
Self-study	1	7
Suggestion	1	2
Teachers’ scaffolding	1	3
Video lessons	1	11

[back to article]

Appendix B: Homogeneity Test Results

Test of Homogeneity of Variance
		Levene Statistic	df1	df2	Sig.
Pre-Reading Anxiety	Based on Mean	1.562	1	209	.213
Pre-Classroom Anxiety	Based on Mean	.202	1	209	.654
Pre-Top-down Anxiety	Based on Mean	15.157	1	209	.000
Pre-Bottom-up Anxiety	Based on Mean	.296	1	209	.587
Post-Reading Anxiety	Based on Mean	2.326	1	209	.129
Post-Classroom Anxiety	Based on Mean	.032	1	209	.858
Post-Top-down Anxiety	Based on Mean	2.118	1	209	.147
Post-Bottom-up Anxiety	Based on Mean	2.615	1	209	.107

[back to article]

Copyright of articles rests with the 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.