Second language (L2) learning has largely occurred in the traditional lecture-based classroom setting. Studies show that the lecture format has an impact on student outcomes and perceptions of classroom learning. Negative impacts include insufficient time for reinforcement activities, reviewing lecture materials, and engaging in conversation between instructors and students. An innovative way to enhance L2 students’ classroom outcomes and perceptions is the inverted classroom pedagogy. This study assesses whether the inverted pedagogy leads to more positive student perspectives and higher student outcomes compared to traditional pedagogy in L2 classrooms in American Sign Language (ASL). In this study, student outcomes and instructor and student perceptions of inverted pedagogy for ASL are assessed using a mixed method design with one controlled (traditional) and one experimental (inverted) advanced ASL class in a post-secondary setting. Results suggest that the inverted pedagogy is an approach that is as viable as the traditional approach for teaching and learning ASL as an L2 that enables students to engage in meaningful activities and conversations.
BatesS.GallowayR. (2012). The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: A case study. Unpublished paper presentation, HEA STEM Conference, London, UK.
3.
Bauer-RamazaniC.GraneyJ.M.MarshallH.W.SabiehC. (2015). Flipped learning in TESOL: Definitions, approaches, and implementation. TESOL Journal, 7, 429–437.
4.
BergmannJ.SamsA. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. ISTE.
5.
BrooksJ.G. (2002). Schooling for life: Reclaiming the essence of learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
6.
ButtA. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped classroom approach: Evidence from Australia. Business Education & Accreditation, 6, 33–43.
7.
CannodG.C.BurgeJ.E.HelmickM.T. (2007). Using the inverted classroom to teach software engineering. Technical Report: MU-SEAS-CSA-2007-001. Miami University School of Engineering & Applied Science.
8.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
9.
CooperS.B. (1997). The academic status of sign language programs in institutions of higher education in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC, USA.
10.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (Eds.). (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Sage.
11.
CreswellJ.W.CreswellJ.D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th edition.Sage.
12.
DavisR.L. (1997). Group work in NOT busy work: Maximizing success of group work in the L2 classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 265–279.
13.
DeenJ.Y. (1991). Comparing interaction in a cooperative learning and instructor-centered foreign language classroom. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 93–94, 153–181.
14.
DietrichS.W.UrbanS.D. (1998). Cooperative learning approach to database group projects: Integrating theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Education, 41, 346.
15.
DoughtyC.PicaT. (1986). Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–326.
16.
FenicleR.CrippsJ.H.CooperS.B.SeverA. (2019). Research and development of inverted-type pedagogy in American Sign Language courses. In: ElredgeB.StinghamD.JarashowB.O. (Eds.), Waypoints: Proceedings of the sixth biennial Deaf Studies Today! conference (pp. 15–26). Utah Valley University.
17.
ForseyM.LowM.GlanceD. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology, 49, 471–485.
FraserB.J.TreagustD.F.DennisN.C. (1986). Development of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment at universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education, 11, 43–54.
20.
FreemanD.E.FreemanY.S. (1994). Between worlds: Access to second language acquisition. Heinemann.
21.
HoskinsB.NoelK. (2011). Conversations framework: A program for adolescents and young adults. The Cognitive Press.
22.
HoweK. (2012). Mixed methods, triangulation, and causal explanation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 89–96.
23.
HungH.T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 81–96.
24.
JacobsG.M.McCaffertyS.G. (2006). Connections between cooperative learning and second language learning and teaching. In McCaffertyS.G.JacobsG.M.IddingsC. (Eds.), Cooperative learning and second language teaching (pp. 18–29). Cambridge University Press.
25.
JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T.SmithK. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15–29.
KlimaE.S.BellugiU. (1979). The signs of language. Harvard University Press.
28.
LageM.J.PlattG.J.TregliaM. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31, 30–43.
29.
LeeG.WallaceA. (2018). Flipped learning in the English as a foreign language classroom: Outcomes and perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 62–84.
30.
LewinK. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. McGraw-Hill.
31.
LewinK. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. Harper.
32.
LiP.JeongH. (2020). The social brain of language: Grounding second language learning in social interaction. npj Science of Learning, 5, 1–9.
33.
LoganK.A.CrumpB.J.RennieL.J. (2006). Measuring the computer classroom environment: Lessons learned from using a new instrument. Learning Environments Research, 9, 67–93.
34.
LongM.H.PorterP.A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228.
35.
LongM.H.AdamsL.McCleanM.CastanosF. (1976). Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In FanselowJ.F.CrymesR.H. (Eds.), On TESOL 76: Selections based on teaching done at the Tenth Annual TESOL Convention, New York, March 2–7, 1976 (pp. 137–153). TESOL.
36.
MageeV.Y.G.JacobsG.M. (2001). Comparing second language student participation under tree teaching modes. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 31, 61–80.
37.
McDonaldK.SmithC.M. (2013). The flipped classroom for professional development: Part 1. Benefits and strategies. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 44, 437–438.
38.
MertensD.M.Hesse-BiberS. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods research: Provocative positions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 75–79.
NairC.FisherD.L. (1999). A learning environment study of tertiary classrooms. In Proceedings of the Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum 1999. Western Australian Institute for Educational Research. Available at: http://www.waier.org.au/forums/1999/nair.html (accessed August 2021).
41.
NairC.S.FisherD.L. (2000). Transition from senior secondary to higher education: A learning environment perspective. Research in Science Education, 30, 435–450.
42.
ParkerD.DolsonD.GoldN. (1985). Student oral language observational matrix. California State Department of Education.
43.
Quinto-PozosD. (2011). Teaching American Sign Language to hearing adult learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 137–158.
44.
RajeshM. (2015). Revolution in communication technologies: Impact on distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education – TOJDE, 16, 62–88.
45.
RichardsJ.C.RodgersT.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. 3rd edition.Cambridge University Press.
46.
RosenR. (2015). Learning American Sign Language in high school: Motivation, strategies, and achievement. Gallaudet University Press.
47.
SandlerW.Lillo-MartinD. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press.
StrayerJ.F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environment Research, 15, 171–193.
50.
SungK. (2015). A case study on a flipped classroom in an EFL content course. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 18, 159–187.
SupallaS.J.CrippsJ.H.ByrneA.P.J. (2017). Why American Sign Language gloss must matter. American Annals of the Deaf, 161, 540–551.
53.
SwainM. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In GassS.MaddenC. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
54.
SwainM. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
55.
TreagustD.F.FraserB.J. (1986). Validation and application of the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI). Unpublished paper presentation, The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, USA.
56.
ValliC.LucasC.MulrooneyK.VillanuevaM. (2011). Linguistics of American Sign Language. 5th edition.Gallaudet University Press.
57.
van der SilkF.W.van HoutR.W.SchepensJ.J. (2015). The gender gap in second language acquisition: Gender differences in the acquisition of Dutch among immigrants from 88 countries with 49 mother tongues. PloS ONE, 10, 1–22.
58.
VergaL.KotzS.A. (2013). How relevant is social interaction in second language learning?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 550: 1–7.
59.
ZainuddinZ.HaliliS.H. (2016). Flipped classroom research and trends from different fields of study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17, 313–340.
