Flipped learning has become a popular approach in various educational fields, including second language teaching. In this approach, the conventional educational process is reversed so that learners do their homework and prepare the material before going to class. Class time is then devoted to practice, discussion, and higher-order thinking tasks in order to consolidate learning. In this article, we meta-analysed 56 language learning reports involving 61 unique samples and 4,220 participants. Our results showed that flipped classrooms outperformed traditional classrooms, g = 0.99, 95% CI (0.81, 1.17), z = 10.90, p < .001. However, this effect had high heterogeneity (about 86%), while applying the Trim and Fill method for publication bias made it shrink to g = 0.58, 95% CI (0.37, 0.78). Moderator analysis also showed that reports published in non-SSCI-indexed journals tended to find larger effects compared to indexed ones, conference proceedings, and university theses. The effect of flipped learning did not seem to vary by age, but it did vary by proficiency level in that the higher proficiency the higher the effects. Flipped learning also had a clear and substantial effect on most language outcomes. In contrast, whether the intervention used videos and whether the platform was interactive did not turn out to be significant moderators. Meta-regression showed that longer interventions resulted in only a slight reduction in the effectiveness of this approach. We discuss the implications of these findings and recommend that future research moves beyond asking whether flipped learning is effective to when and how its effectiveness is maximized.
AdnanM. (2017). Perceptions of senior-year ELT students for flipped classroom: A materials development course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 204–222.
2.
Al-HoorieA.H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 721–754.
3.
Al-HoorieA.H.Al ShlowiyA.S. (2020). Vision theory vs. goal-setting theory: A critical analysis. Porta Linguarum, 33, 217–229.
4.
Al-HoorieA.H.VittaJ.P. (2019). The seven sins of L2 research: A review of 30 journals’ statistical quality and their CiteScore, SJR, SNIP, JCR Impact Factors. Language Teaching Research, 23, 727–744.
5.
AlJaserA.M. (2017). Effectiveness of using flipped classroom strategy in academic achievement and self-efficacy among education students of Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University. English Language Teaching, 10, 67–77.
6.
AlnuhaytS.S. (2018). Investigating the use of the flipped classroom method in an EFL vocabulary course. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9, 236–242.
7.
BaşG.KuzucuO. (2009). Effects of CALL method and DynED language programme on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards the lesson in English classes. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6, 31–44.
8.
BergmannJ.SamsA. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
9.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.V.HigginsJ.P.T.RothsteinH.R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Oxford: Wiley.
10.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.V.HigginsJ.P.RothsteinH.R. (2014). Comprehensive meta analysis: Version 3.3. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
11.
BrownA.V.PlonskyL.TeimouriY. (2018). The use of course grades as metrics in L2 research: A systematic review. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 763–778.
12.
BryfonskiL.MckayT.H. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 603–632.
13.
BurnhamJ.F. (2006). Scopus database: A review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1).
14.
Chen HsiehJ.S.WuW.-C.V.MarekM.W. (2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 1–21.
15.
ChengL.RitzhauptA.D.AntonenkoP. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 793–824.
16.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
17.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
18.
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
19.
DavisN.L. (2016). Anatomy of a flipped classroom. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 16, 228–232.
20.
DickersinK. (2005). Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In RothsteinH.R.SuttonA.J.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 11–33). Chichester: Wiley.
21.
DörnyeiZ.Al-HoorieA.H. (2017). The motivational foundation of learning languages other than Global English. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 455–468.
22.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000a). A nonparametric ‘trim and fill’ method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98.
23.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.
24.
EllisR. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
25.
EvseevaA.SolozhenkoA. (2015). Use of flipped classroom technology in language learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 205–209.
26.
FanelliD. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS One, 5(4), e10271.
27.
FilizS.BenzetA. (2018). A content analysis of the studies on the use of flipped classrooms in foreign language education. World Journal of Education, 8, 72–86.
28.
FreireP. (1968/1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
29.
GignacG.E.SzodoraiE.T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78.
30.
GreenA. (2012). Language functions revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
HallidayM.A.K.MatthiessenC. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edition. New York: Routledge.
HassanS.R.R. (2018). Using the flipped learning model to develop EFL argumentative writing skills of STEM secondary school students. Majalat Kuliyat Altarbiah (Education College Journal), 70, 24–74.
34.
HattieJ.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
35.
HewK.F.LoC.K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: A meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education, 18, 38.
36.
HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H. (2020a). Reexamining the role of vision in second language motivation: A preregistered conceptual replication of You, Dörnyei, & Csizér (2016). Language Learning, 70, 48–102.
37.
HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H. (2020b). Research methods for complexity theory in applied linguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
38.
HungH.-T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 81–96.
39.
HungH.-T. (2017). Design-based research: Redesign of an English language course using a flipped classroom approach. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 180–192.
40.
IshikawaY.Akahane-YamadaR.SmithC., et al. (2015). An EFL flipped learning course design: Utilizing students’ mobile online devices. In HelmF.BradleyL.GuardaM.ThouësnyS. (Eds.), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 261–267). Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
41.
KarimiM.HamzaviR. (2017). The effect of flipped model of instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension: Learners’ attitudes in focus. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8, 95–103.
42.
LågT.SæleR.G. (2019). Does the flipped classroom improve student learning and satisfaction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5, 3.
43.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.
44.
Larsen-FreemanD. (1996). The changing nature of second language classroom research. In SchachterJ.GassS. (Eds.), Second language classroom research: Issues and opportunities (pp. 157–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
LeiL.LiuD. (2019). Research trends in applied linguistics from 2005 to 2016: A bibliometric analysis and its implications. Applied Linguistics, 40, 540–561.
46.
LeisA.CookeS.ToheiA. (2015). The effects of flipped classrooms on English composition writing in an EFL environment. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 5, 37–51.
47.
LinC.-J.HwangG.-J. (2018). A learning analytics approach to investigating factors affecting EFL students’ oral performance in a flipped classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21, 205–219.
48.
LinC.-J.HwangG.-J.FuQ.-K.ChenJ.-F. (2018). A flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL students’ English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21, 117–131.
49.
LoC.K.HewK.F. (2019). The impact of flipped classrooms on student achievement in engineering education: A meta-analysis of 10 years of research. Journal of Engineering Education, 108, 523–546.
50.
LomickaL.LordG. (2016). Social networking in language learning. In FarrF.MurrayL. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 225–268). New York: Routledge.
51.
LundinM.Bergviken RensfeldtA.HillmanT.Lantz-AnderssonA.PetersonL. (2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: a systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 20.
52.
MahmudM.M. (2018). Technology and language: What works and what does not: A meta-analysis of blended learning research. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15, 365–382.
53.
MehringJ. (2016). Present research on the flipped classroom and potential tools for the EFL classroom. Computers in the Schools, 33, 1–10.
54.
MehringJ. (2018). The flipped classroom. In MehringJ.LeisA. (Eds.), Innovations in flipping the language classroom: Theories and practices (pp. 1–10). New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
55.
MehringJ.LeisA. (Eds.). (2018). Innovations in flipping the language classroom: Theories and practices. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
56.
MilmanN.B. (2012). The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be used?Distance Learning, 9, 85–87.
57.
MoriY.OmoriM.SatoK. (2016). The impact of flipped online Kanji instruction on written vocabulary learning for introductory and intermediate Japanese language students. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 729–749.
58.
NationI.S.P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
60.
OhE. (2017). The effect of peer teaching via flipped vocabulary learning on class engagement and learning achievements. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 20, 105–127.
61.
OrwinR.G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159.
62.
PaivaC.E.AraujoR.L.C.PaivaB.S.R., et al. (2017). What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multi-national web-based survey. ecancermedicalscience, 11, 718.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
65.
RosenthalR. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
66.
RoundsP.L. (1996). The classroom-based researcher as fieldworker: Strangers in a strange land. In SchachterJ.GassS. (Eds.), Second language classroom research: Issues and opportunities (pp. 45–59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
RybackD.SandersJ.J. (1980). Humanistic versus traditional teaching styles and student satisfaction. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 20, 87–90.
68.
ShiL.LinL. (2019). The trim-and-fill method for publication bias. Medicine, 98(23), e15987.
69.
ShiY.MaY.MacLeodJ.YangH.H. (2020). College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in flipped classroom instruction: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Journal of Computers in Education, 7, 79–103.
70.
SimonsohnU.NelsonL.D.SimmonsJ.P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 534–547.
71.
StrelanP.OsbornA.PalmerE. (2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review, 30, 100314.
72.
TengM.F. (2017). Flipping the classroom and tertiary level EFL students’ academic performance and satisfaction. Journal of Asia TEFL, 14, 605–620.
73.
TuranZ.Akdag-CimenB. (2019). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33, 590–606.
74.
van AltenD.C.D.PhielixC.JanssenJ.KesterL. (2019). Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 100281.
75.
VittaJ.P.Al-HoorieA.H. (2017). Scopus- and SSCI-indexed L2 journals: A list for the Asia TEFL community. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14, 784–792.
76.
VittaJ.P.JostD.PusinaA. (2019). A case study inquiry into the efficacy of four East Asian EAP writing programmes: Presenting the emergent themes. RELC Journal, 50, 71–85.
77.
VossE.KostkaI. (2019). Flipping academic English language learning: Experiences from an American university. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
78.
WebbM.DomanE. (2016). Does the flipped classroom lead to increased gains on learning outcomes in ESL/EFL contexts?CATESOL Journal, 28, 39–67.
79.
WillisD.WillisJ. (2019). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
80.
XuP.ChenY.NieW., et al. (2019). The effectiveness of a flipped classroom on the development of Chinese nursing students’ skill competence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 80, 67–77.
81.
ZannaM.P.FazioR.H. (1982). The attitude-behavior relation: Moving toward a third generation of research. In ZannaM.P.HigginsE.T.HermanC.P. (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario symposium: Volume 2 (pp. 283–301). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
82.
ZarrinabadiN.EbrahimiA. (2019). Increasing peer collaborative dialogue using a flipped classroom strategy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13, 267–276.
83.
ZhangX. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of second language acquisition between 1997 and 2018. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 199–222.
84.
ZhangS.ZhangX. (2020). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 31 March 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1362168820913998.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
