The present study investigated the effects of integrating the flipped classroom (FC) with Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) on intermediate English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing, measured in complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). To this end, 60 university students with intermediate proficiency in English were randomly divided into experimental and control groups. The former experienced the FC integrated with MOOCs; the latter underwent traditional face-to-face classes. All participants took two essay writing tests: one at the beginning of the study as the pretest and another at the end as the posttest. The results showed that integrating the FC with MOOCs had a significantly positive effect on the experimental group’s writing in terms of CAF and its subcomponents. However, there was no significant difference between the two study groups in terms of the type-token ratio in the complexity of the text and the number of dysfluencies in the fluency. The implications of the study are discussed.
AffounehS.KhlaifZ.N. (2020). A hidden dream: Open educational resources. In BurgosD. (Ed.), Radical solutions and open science (pp. 57–67). Springer.
2.
AjabshirZ. F. (2024). Empowering EFL writing through digital storytelling: A quasi‑experimental assessment of CALF measures and multidimensional engagement. Acta Psychologica, 250, 104564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104564
3.
AllenD. (2004). Oxford Placement Test 1. Oxford University Press.
4.
Al-SaidR. (2023). Enhancing Saudi EFL learners’ CAF in narrative writing through native speaker kids’ reading websites. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 12(2), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.12n.2p.15
5.
BergmannJ.SamsA. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.
6.
BillsberryJ. (2024). MOOCs and the future of management education: Lessons from a decade of experimentation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 23(3), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2023.0052
CohenJ. (1988). Statistic power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Academy Press.
9.
Di BitettiM.S.FerrerasJ.A. (2017). Publish (in English) or perish: The effect on citation rate of using languages other than English in scientific publications. Ambio, 46, 121–127.
10.
DinhH.T. (2024). MOOC learners’ perspectives on self-regulated learning strategies: Implications for online pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 29(2), 1183–1202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11854-2
11.
EkmekciE. (2017). The flipped writing classroom in Turkish EFL context: A comparative study on a new model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 151–167.
12.
EllisR.YuanF. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84.
13.
FairchildE.E. (2003). Multiple roles of adult learners. New Directions for Student Services, 2003(102), 11–16.
14.
FathiJ.RahimiM. (2020). Examining the impact of flipped classroom on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A case of EFL students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(7), 1502–1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1825097
15.
FergusonG.Pérez-LlantadaC.PloR. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes, 30(1), 41–59.
16.
FerrisD.R.HedgcockJ.S. (2014). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
17.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323.
18.
GillilandB.OyamaA.StaceyP. (2018). Second language writing in a MOOC: Affordances and missed opportunities. Tesl-Ej, 22(1), n1.
19.
HewettB.L.WarnockS. (2017). Writing MOOEEs?: Reconsidering MOOCs in light of the OWI principles. In MonskeE.BlairK. (Eds.), Handbook of research on writing and composing in the age of MOOCs (pp. 17–38). IGI Global.
20.
HoodN.LittlejohnA.MilliganC. (2015). Context counts: How learners’ contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 91, 83–91.
21.
HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA, 32, 1–20.
22.
HungH.T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.967701
23.
KimJ.ParkH. (2023). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 writing across proficiency levels: A matter of L1 background?System, 115, 102993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.102993
24.
LageM.PlattG.TregliaM. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43. https://doi:10.1080/00220480009596759
25.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589.
26.
Larsen-FreemanD.AndersonM. (2013). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
27.
LeeD.WatsonS.L.WatsonW.R. (2019). Systematic literature review on self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 28–41.
28.
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(4), 37–51.
29.
LiS.HeJ.TaoY.LiuX. (2022). The effects of flipped classroom approach in EFL teaching: Can we strategically use the flipped method to acquire communicative competence?Language Teaching Research, 29(3), 1165–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221081575
30.
MacaroE.CurleS.PunJ.AnJ.DeardenJ. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76.
31.
MehringJ.LeisA. (Eds.). (2017). Innovations in flipping the language classroom: Theories and practices. Springer.
32.
Nezakat-AlhossainiM. (2018). Complexity, Accuracy, and fluency in EFL writing: A study of long-term effects of blended learning. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 3(2), 1–27.
33.
OshimaA.HogueA. (2017). Longman academic writing series 3: Paragraphs to essays. Pearson.
RizviS. (2023). Cross-cultural differences in MOOC learner engagement: A comparative analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(8), 2295–2309. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12883
40.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211.
41.
SokolikM. (2014). What constitutes an effective language MOOC? In E. Martín‑Monje & E. Bárcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning, transcending boundaries (pp. 16–32). De Gruyter Open.
42.
Su PingR.L.VerezubE.Adi BadiozamanI.F.B.ChenW.S. (2020). Tracing EFL students’ flipped classroom journey in a writing class: Lessons from Malaysia. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(3), 305–316.
43.
TschofenC.MacknessJ. (2012). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1143
44.
TuranZ.Akdag-CimenB. (2020). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5–6), 590–606.
45.
Van AltenD.C.PhielixC.JanssenJ.KesterL. (2019). Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003
46.
VittaJ.P.Al-HoorieA.H. (2023). The flipped classroom in second language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 27(5), 1268–1292.
47.
WangF.H. (2019). On the relationships between behaviors and achievement in technology-mediated flipped classrooms: A two-phase online behavioral PLS-SEM model. Computers & Education, 142, 103653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103653
48.
WangK.ZhuC. (2019). MOOC-based flipped learning in higher education: Students’ participation, experience and learning performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0163-0
49.
XuZ.LiY. (2023). The effects of automatic writing evaluation and teacher-focused feedback on CALF measures and overall quality of L2 writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8(14), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00201-9
50.
YangY. (2023). A systematic review of language MOOCs: Learners, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Computers in Education, 10(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00243-9
51.
YuanzhengL.ChinokulS. (2023). The effects of the MOOC-based flipped classroom with collaborative writing on Chinese EFL learners’ argumentative writing abilities. Rangsit Journal of Educational Studies, 10(2), 23–45.
52.
ZhangZ. (2024). Construction and application of physical education classroom teaching model integrating MOOC and flipped classroom. Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience, 25(1), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v25i1.2305
53.
ZhouL.YuS. (2024). Task complexity and foreign language writing emotions as predictors of EFL writing performance. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1323843. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1323843
