Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Flipped learning’s widespread adoption and multiple meta-analyses notwithstanding, there exists a scarcity of analyses scrutinizing its comprehensive influence on language learning results. This meta-analysis assesses flipped learning’s impact on language learning outcomes vis-à-vis non-flipped instruction, encompassing distinct moderators encompassing study attributes and instructional facets: target language, level of education, school location, treatment duration, classroom activities, and the pre-instructional comprehension check mechanism. Effect sizes were extracted from 70 eligible studies (involving 4,616 students across 19 countries). Cochran’s Q was used to detect moderator variable effects, and post hoc comparisons were performed if significant differences existed among moderator subsets. Results yielded an overall mean weighted effect size (flipped learning vs. non-flipped instruction) of 0.96 under the random-effects model, indicating a large positive effect on student learning outcomes. Treatment duration, school location, and level of education were influential moderators affecting language learning results, while the other three were not. Flipped learning, particularly when implemented for over 6 weeks, consistently yields superior learning outcomes across different educational contexts. Educators are thus encouraged to adopt flipped learning as a versatile pedagogical approach to maximize student learning potential.

Keywords

flipped learning language learning outcomes meta-analysis moderators classroom activities online comprehension checks

introduction

Described as a pedagogical practice in which “events that have traditionally taken place inside the classroom now take place outside the classroom and vice versa” (Lage et al., 2000, p. 32), the flipped learning approach inverts the typical cycle of content delivery through face-to-face lectures and knowledge application via homework. With the distinctive feature of maximizing in-class time for more enriching learning tasks, flipped learning thus shifts lecture-based instruction, often teacher-centered, to a student-centered paradigm (Chen Hsieh et al., 2017; Reidsema et al., 2017). Such a perspective shift reflects concerns over the effectiveness of lecture-based teaching practices, and educators have come to realize the importance of deep learning, rather than superficial learning, wherein learners actively engage in the learning process (Archambault et al., 2022; Prince, 2004) and develop abilities through “active and constructive processes” (Ritchhart et al., 2011, p. 7).

Flipped learning transcends the mere rearrangement of instructional activities, emphasizing the inversion of content acquisition and knowledge application (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). in distinguishing itself from other teaching methods, flipped learning encompasses key elements such as pre-class knowledge acquisition by students, enabling valuable class time for elevated guided practice and collaborative endeavors. in stark contrast to traditional instruction, which often features limited guided practice followed by homework checks and lengthy in-class lectures, this pedagogical shift has demonstrated a correlation with heightened student satisfaction, as supported by the meta-analysis conducted by Strelan et al. (2020b).

Nonetheless, limited research has explored the direct connection between flipped learning and language learning, resulting in a dearth of substantial findings regarding the specific pedagogical factors that can enhance language learning outcomes when employing flipped learning compared to non-flipped instruction. Despite the presence of several meta-analyses (L. Cheng et al., 2019; Strelan et al., 2020a; van Alten et al., 2019) and review articles on flipped learning (Bond, 2020; S.-C. Cheng et al., 2020; O'Flaherty & Phillips, 2015), comprehensive investigations focusing on the flipped classroom approach in language learning are still underrepresented, as shown in the content analysis by Filiz and Benzet’s (2018), systematic reviews by Zhong and Abdullah (2023) as well as Turan and Akdag-Cimen’s (2020), and meta-analyses by Shahnama et al. (2021) and Vitta and Al-Hoorie (2020). However, their meta-analyses primarily focused on the effects of flipped learning on English language learning in English as a foreign or second language (EFL/ESL) contexts, and their moderator variables both focused on study type (such as thesis or journal papers) or report source (such as SSCi or Scopus), educational level, and pretest status/form (tested or not, or empirical pretest or pre-existing evaluation). Vitta and Al-Hoorie (2020) suggested future meta-analysis should probe into when and how its effectiveness could be maximized (i.e., investigating more or other possible/potential moderators of flipped learning), in line with Shahnama et al.’s (2021) statement that more evidence specifically regarding instructional design and implementation is required to validate the effects of flipped learning in the EFL/ESL field, thus the purpose of this study.

Background

Research into flipped learning instructional methods suggests that it has benefits and affordances beyond other methods (e.g., Fathi et al., 2023; H. Hung & Yeh, 2023; Strelan et al., 2020a, 2020b). Such evaluations, however, are generalizations and cannot encompass every variation of instruction that does not conform to the definition of flipped learning, some of which have greater strengths and affordances than others. it is, therefore, superficial to broadly say that flipped learning has the potential to be better than other traditional methods. While the existing literature has explored six potential moderating factors through systematic reviews and meta-analyses when comparing flipped learning with conventional approaches (e.g., Ardasheva et al., 2017; Filiz & Benzet, 2018; Zheng et al., 2020), comprehensive insights into pre-instructional comprehension check mechanisms, in-class learning activity design, and instructional time frames remain unclear.

Pre-instructional Comprehension Check

The pre-instructional comprehension check warrants investigation due to its pivotal role in ensuring student engagement and preparation, conditions essential for the successful implementation of flipped learning. As highlighted by Boyraz and Ocak (2017), the successful implementation of flipped learning relies on students recognizing the value of utilizing the teacher as a resource during assignments and actively engaging with instructional materials outside of class (oftentimes at home). By providing easy access to learning materials, flipped learning offers a promising alternative to traditional lecture-based approaches, emphasizing student preparation before class. The level of student engagement in pre-instructional activities significantly impacts the dynamics of subsequent in-person class meetings, as the “simple availability of a learning opportunity (e.g., completion of preparation tasks) does not necessarily translate to a learner completing the required task nor consistency in how the task is approached” (Pardo et al., 2019, p. 2). Additionally, the importance of student accountability, as emphasized by Chen Hsieh et al. (2017), highlights the necessity of identifying and assisting students who may struggle with engaging in flipped learning activities outside of class. Given that student engagement is influenced by the learning environment and available support systems (Martin & Borup, 2022), implementing pre-class comprehension checks—typically executed through verifying students’ access to instructional materials such as videos—has emerges as a critical measure to ensure the efficacy of flipped learning (Zhao & Li, 2021).

Classroom Activities

An investigation into classroom activities during flipped learning is crucial due to its pivotal role in fostering deeper learning experiences for students. Flipped learning methodology expects students to acquire foundational knowledge at home, then facilitating their active engagement in higher-order cognitive tasks during face-to-face class sessions. in-class activities are designed to cultivate critical thinking skills, transcending rote memorization and comprehension to encourage evaluation and creation. Different studies have proposed alternative forms of in-class activities, including individual-based (Chen Hsieh et al., 2017), collaborative (J. Lee & Choi, 2019; Sergis et al., 2018), or mixed approaches (G. Lee & Wallace, 2018; Yu & Wang, 2016). Regardless of the nature of these activities, students are required to demonstrate thinking skills based on their prior knowledge. However, the terminology and definition of “group” or “collaborative” work in previous studies have been vague, and there is no standardized recommendation for group size, making it necessary to investigate the effectiveness of classroom activities in more detail. in other words, the lack of standardized definitions and recommendations regarding group dynamics necessitates a comprehensive examination of the effectiveness of classroom activities. Therefore, further exploration is warranted to establish clear guidelines and optimize the pedagogical impact of these activities within the flipped learning framework.

Treatment Duration of Flipped Learning

investigating the treatment duration of flipped learning is essential to discern its optimal implementation timeframe and its impact on student learning outcomes compared to non-flipped instructional approaches. Studies have explored a spectrum of durations, from longer interventions spanning over 8 weeks (Amiryousefi, 2019; Chen Hsieh et al., 2017) to shorter interventions (Asaka et al., 2018; Tao et al., 2016). Understanding how instructional time impacts student learning outcomes in flipped learning compared to non-flipped modes is crucial for determining the optimal duration for flipped learning, since the precise influence of instructional time on learning outcomes remains unclear. Therefore, a more in-depth examination of the relationship between treatment duration and learning outcomes would provide valuable evidence with the most effective allocation of instructional time within flipped learning frameworks.

Level of Education, Location of Flipped implementation, and Target Languages

This investigation into the level of education, location of implementation, and target languages within flipped learning research is crucial for several reasons. Existing studies have predominantly focused on implementing flipped learning in higher education settings, wherein students are required to engage with pre-instructional online materials and participate in in-class activities that foster critical thinking skills, as evidenced in studies such as O'Flaherty and Phillips’s (2015) scoping review and Brewer and Movahedazarhouligh’s (2018) effectiveness review. However, there is a notable gap in the extant research regarding its application in K–12 education (Lo & Hew, 2017). Addressing this gap is essential to better understand and compare the effectiveness of flipped learning across different age groups and educational levels. Furthermore, while numerous studies have examined the use of flipped learning in English language learning, exemplified by works such as those by Haghighi et al. (2019) and G. Lee and Wallace (2018), there is a significant need for research on its application in other languages. Studies featuring languages other than English, such as Chinese (J. Yang et al., 2018) or Turkish (Özdemir & Açik, 2019) are encouraged, as it is imperative to validate the efficacy of flipped learning across diverse linguistic contexts. Such investigations will not only broaden our understanding of the potential benefits of flipped learning but also contribute to the development of more inclusive and effective language learning strategies worldwide.

The current study fills a research gap by examining three important, yet less frequently studied pedagogical moderators of flipped learning: the pre-instructional comprehension check mechanism, classroom activities, and duration of treatment. These moderators, along with commonly examined factors such as target language, level of education, and school location, provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence language learning outcomes in the context of flipped learning. By exploring these characteristic pedagogical factors, the study offers a unique perspective, particularly in tertiary education, shedding light on the specific conditions and practices that contribute to the effectiveness of flipped learning in language learning. The inclusion of students’ background data also adds to the validity of the research, addressing a potential limitation found in previous studies. Overall, this study aims to enhance our understanding of flipped learning and its impact on language learning outcomes by examining a wide range of moderators and providing valuable insights for educators and researchers in the field. The following research questions guide this study:

What are the overall effects of flipped learning on student language learning outcomes compared with non-flipped instruction?

Do these effects differ by moderating factors such as target language, level of education, school location, treatment duration, classroom activities, and pre-instructional comprehension check mechanism?

Method

We conducted this meta-analysis following guidelines from Chambers (2004) and conducting and reporting procedures from Cooper (2015) and Hu et al. (2021). We also followed procedures for homogeneity testing from Hedges and Olkin (2014).

Gathering Relevant Studies

This study used the following keywords—(flipped learning OR flipped teaching OR flipped classroom OR flipped) AND (language learning) AND (outcome OR performance OR achievement)—to search the extensive social-science database platforms of EBSCOhost (including Academic Search Premier, OpenDissertations, ERiC, OmniFile Full Text Select, Teacher Reference Center), ProQuest (including Education Database Linguistics Database, Psychology Database, Research Library, Social Science Database), and ScienceDirect. Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) was searched with the exact keywords to identify additional literature not included in these databases. We used the resulting article titles and meta description tags to identify other literature not uncovered in the database search, browsing the results pages until all pertinent articles had been identified (i.e., those comparing flipped learning implementation with non-flipped instruction); moreover, we examined the references of the relevant papers to include as many eligible studies as possible.

inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Two trained research assistants specializing in foreign language learning screened articles for the following inclusion criteria:

Studies must employ an experimental approach (e.g., pretest-posttest or posttest-only equivalent/non-equivalent groups design).

Articles must compare the influence of a flipped learning intervention with that of non-flipped instruction on language learning outcomes. in this meta-analysis, flipped learning was operationally defined as previously stated in the introduction section; non-flipped instruction referred to the pedagogical implementation wherein students acquired new knowledge during class via the instructor’s lecture, then practiced those relevant skills at home via homework. Language learning outcomes refer to the outcomes, performance, and achievement of language learning.

Articles must be in English.

The research assistants selected the articles according to the following exclusion criteria:

Research results are not presented with students’ language learning outcomes as a dependent variable.

Statistical data are insufficient to calculate an effect size; that is, the means and standard deviations, F value(s), or t value(s) for the flipped and non-flipped groups, in addition to the sample sizes are not provided.

Seventy articles were deemed eligible and retained for the meta-analysis, as summarized in the provided PRiSMA flow diagram (see Figure 1). Most of the studies were peer-reviewed journal articles; they included 67 peer-reviewed journal articles (95.7%), two dissertations (2.9%), and one conference proceedings paper (1.4%).

Figure 1.

PRiSMA flow chart of the study selection process.

Testing for Publication Bias

This study used Egger’s regression test and the trim-and-fill method to test the publication bias. The result of Egger’s regression test was intercepted = 3.52, SE = 0.96, t = 3.68 (p < .05). This study used the trim-and-fill method (Duval & Tweedie, 2000), which estimates the number of missing studies and also yields an adjusted average effect size by inserting the missing studies on the biased side. As shown in Table 1, under the random-effects model, 13 missing studies were found on the right, and the overall effect in fixed effects was adjusted from 1.08 to 1.19 (p < .05) and random effects from 0.98 to 1.37 (p < .05). The results of the trim-and-fill method showed that the current meta-analysis results are not substantially subject to publication bias.

Table 1.

Results of the Trim-and-Fill Method.

	Fixed effects			Random effects
	Point estimate	Lower limit	Upper limit	Point estimate	Lower limit	Upper limit	Q value
Observed values	0.81	0.75	0.88	0.96	0.79	1.13	491.81
Adjusted values	1.13	1.08	1.19	1.18	0.98	1.37	972.66

Setting Up Moderators

To determine the influences of potential factors on the effectiveness of flipped learning, six categorical moderator variables (i.e., study features) were set: three represented study characteristics, and three represented activity design characteristics. The six moderators were: (a) target language (English, Chinese and Japanese, Turkish and Arabic, and others); (b) level of education (elementary school, middle school, high school, undergraduate, postgraduate, and mixed); (c) school location (North America, Europe, West Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and others); (d) treatment duration (6 weeks and below, 7–12 weeks, 13–18 weeks, and 19 weeks or more); (e) classroom activities (individual work, group work, and mixed); and (f) a pre-instructional comprehension check mechanism (online comprehension checks, comprehension checks at the beginning of physical class meetings, and unspecified comprehension check mechanisms). The researchers grouped the treatment duration categories based on natural breaks in the treatment lengths of the examined studies, in part resulting from the different semester lengths in various countries.

Coding of Moderator Variables

Before the formal coding, the two trained research assistants independently coded 75% of the eligible studies, more than the percentages (30%–50%) suggested by previous meta-analyses (see Chen & Yang, 2019; Sowislo & Orth, 2013) based on the study features. The assistants agreed on the coding for 91.7% of the 312 codings (52 studies; each study had six moderator variables), with an intercoder agreement of 100% for the target language, 90.4% for the level of education, 94.2% for school location, 90.4% for treatment duration, 90.4% for classroom activities, and 84.6% for the pre-instructional comprehension check mechanism. in cases of discrepant coding, the two assistants examined and discussed the articles until reaching a consensus. One of the assistants then coded the rest of the eligible studies. To ensure coding accuracy, a researcher with extensive experience in conducting educational meta-analyses examined each coding for all studies.

Effect Size Calculation for Each Study

This research adopted the formula that Rosenberg et al. (2000) proposed to calculate each study’s effect size (ES). The t or F values estimated the ES for studies not reporting means and standard deviations. Each ES was weighted based on a sample size to obtain an unbiased ES estimator as Hedges’s g (Rosenberg et al., 2000). The original approximation given by Hedges is

1 - \frac{3}{4 (N - 2) - 1} .

(1)

Here N = n₁ + n₂; n₁ refers to the number of subjects in the experimental group, and n₂ is the number of subjects in the control group. We multiplied the original ES by (1) and aggregated the weighted ESs to obtain a weighted mean estimator g₊ with variance σ²_(g+). Finally, the researchers calculated a 95% confidence interval (Ci) for g₊ to test for significant differences between learning outcomes in the flipped and non-flipped groups. if zero lay outside the Ci and g₊ was positive, the flipped learning group achieved significantly more favorable learning outcomes than the non-flipped instruction group. The researchers used MetaWin 2 (Rosenberg et al., 2000) to run the meta-analysis.

Homogeneity Testing

The researchers followed Hedges and Olkin’s (2014) procedures to test the heterogeneity of outcomes. The formula for the homogeneity test is

Q = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} \frac{(g_{i} - g_{+}) 2}{{σ^{2}}_{(g_{i})}} .

(2)

When significant differences were discovered, Cochran’s Q was used to detect the effects of moderator variables on the overall study g₊. One study (i.e., Li, 2015) was removed in this step to avoid possible hierarchical effects since the study was conducted based on identical research groups or participants. The random-effects model reported the effects on language learning outcomes. The researchers calculated the between-class variance, Q_B. if Q_B indicated significant differences among subsets of a moderator with three or more subsets, we performed multiple comparisons post hoc using the Scheffé tests (Chen & Yang, 2019); subsets with only two studies and the subset with not specified studies were eliminated from the post hoc comparisons.

Results and Discussion

Research Question 1. What are the Overall Effects of Flipped Learning on Student Language Learning Outcomes Compared with Non-flipped instruction?

Table 2 presents the weighted effect sizes (ESs) and the numbers of ESs, schools, and students (in the experimental or control group) in the 70 studies. The researchers paid attention to the effectiveness of flipped learning versus non-flipped instruction based on measurements of student learning (including performance, achievement, and cognitive outcomes) in language learning. in addition, the current study referred to Ahn et al.’s (2012) paper regarding the evaluation of included studies in a meta-analysis and summarized information about study designs and controls that contribute to making the quality of the studies more transparent. information concerning study design, teacher and class/school arrangements, analytical method used, types of language learning outcomes, classroom activities employed during flipped learning, student grades, and school location is included in Table 2.

Table 2.

information About the 70 Studies included in the Meta-Analysis.

Authors (Year)	k	g	No. of schools	No. of students		Student grade	School location	Study design	Treatment duration	Teacher/instructor	Students’ class and school	Language learning outcomes	Analytical method	Flipped learning activity	Comprehension check
Authors (Year)	k	g	No. of schools	Experimental	Control	Student grade	School location	Study design	Treatment duration	Teacher/instructor	Students’ class and school	Language learning outcomes	Analytical method	Flipped learning activity	Comprehension check
1. Abdelrahman et al. (2017)	1	1.09	1	14	14	Secondary yr. 1 (middle school)	Qatar (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	4 weeks	not specified	same school, intact classes	Paragraph-writing (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed (individual and group work)	Online check
2. Adnan (2017)	3	0.21	1	30	38	Senior yr. (undergraduate)	Turkey (West Asia)	post NEG	14 weeks	same-Teacher	same school, intact classes	Essay, e-portfolio (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	At-the beginning of class
3. Afrilyasanti et al. (2016)	1	2.73	1	30	32	15–16 years/o (high school)	indonesia (Southeast Asia)	pre-post NEG	Not specified	not specified	same school, intact classes	Writing ability (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	Online check
4. Al-Harbi and Alshumaimeri (2016)	1	0.33	1	20	23	Secondary yr. 2 (high school)	Saudi Arabia (West Asia)	post NEG	6 weeks	same-Teacher	same school, intact classes	ENGLiSH grammar evaluation (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	At the beginning of class
5. Alsowat (2016)	1	2.89	1	33	34	Graduate	Saudi Arabia (West Asia)	pre-post EG	10 weeks	same teacher	same school, different classes	Analyzing/evaluating/creating skills (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	Online check
6. Amiryousefi (2019)	6	1.33	2	45	22	Freshmen (undergraduate)	iran (West Asia)	post NEG	16 weeks	same teacher	not specified	Listening-Test, listening part of TOEFL, speaking-Test (English; L2)	ANOVA	Mixed	Online check
7. Asaka et al. (2018)	2	0.06	1	80	80	Seventh grade (middle school)	Japan (East Asia)	post NEG	3 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Grammar-Test, speaking-Test (English; L2)	t-test	Group work	Online or in-class
8. AlSmari (2020)	1	1.22	1	50	50	21–23 years/o (undergraduate)	Saudi Arabia (West Asia)	pre-post EG	14 weeks	same teacher	same school	Pragmatic Comprehension (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	Online check
9. Altas and Mede (2020)	7	0.62	1	27	28	18–22 years/o undergraduate	Turkey (West Asia)	pre-post EG	14 weeks	not specified	same school	Writing achievement; mechanics and use of English achievement (English; L2)	ANOVA	Not specified	Online check
10. Abedi et al. (2019)	1	1.39	1	16	16	15–18 years/o (middle school)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post EG	Not specified	not specified	not specified	English composition writing (English; L2)	ANCOVA	Not specified	At the beginning of class
11. Albahuoth (2020)	1	1.38	1	50	50	11th grade (high school)	Saudi Arabia (West Asia)	pre-post EG	16 Sessions	not specified	same school	Grammatical competences (Arabic, L1)	t-test	Mixed	Not specified
12. Boyraz and Ocak (2017)	1	0.97	1	17	23	Undergraduate	Turkey (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	An academic yr.	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Achievement-Test: multiple-choice questions (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Online or in-class
13. Bueno-Alastuey and Andrés Galar (2017)	1	0.61	1	17	21	14–15 years/o (middle school)	Spain (Europe)	pre-post NEG	5 weeks	different teachers	same school, intact classes	Academic performance (grammar and vocabulary acquisition) (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Online check
14. Bicen and Beheshti (2019)	1	1.31	1	65	65	Undergraduate	Cyprus (West Asia)	pre-post EG	8 weeks	not specified	same school, different classes	Students’ academic achievements (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
15. Bezzazi (2019a)	3	0.51	1	40	39	Sophomore (undergraduate)	Taiwan (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	12 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	English public speaking outcome (English; L2)	t-test	Group work	Online check
16. Bezzazi (2019b)	1	0.99	1	67	65	Freshmen (undergraduate)	Taiwan (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	8 weeks	different teachers	same school, intact classes	Grammar knowledge (English; L2)	t-test	Group work	Online check
17. Ekmekci (2017)	1	1.80	1	23	20	Undergraduate	Turkey (West Asia)	pre-post EG	15 weeks	same teacher	same school, different classes	Writing proficiency (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
18. Farah (2014)	1	1.31	1	22	20	12th grade (high school)	United Arab Emirates (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	15 weeks	same teacher	same school, different classes	English writing-Test (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
19. Fulgueras and Bautista (2020)	2	0.77	1	106	106	High school	Philippines (Southeast Asia)	pre-post EG	15 sessions	same teacher	same school	Critical thinking; reading comprehension (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
20. Fathi and Rahimi (2020)	9	0.09	1	27	24	Undergraduate	iran (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	10 weeks	sane teacher	same school, intact classes	Global writing performance; writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency (English; L2)	ANCOVA	Group work	Online check and in class
21. Haghighi et al. (2019)	1	1.24	2	30	30	Freshmen (undergraduate)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post EG	7 weeks	same teacher	different schools	Outcome of students’ learning of use of refusal in English (English; L2)	t-test	Group work	Online check
22. Hashemifardnia et al. (2018)	1	0.66	1	25	25	Third grade (middle school)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post EG	8 weeks	not specified	same school, different classes	Reading comprehension (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	At the beginning of class
23. Hughes (2019)	3	−0.08	1	11	18	Freshmen to senior (undergraduate)	South Korea (East Asia)	post NEG	16 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Quiz scores, competency-based assessment: presentation and giving feedback (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Online check
24. H.-T. Hung (2015)	6	0.71	1	26	25	First yr., 18–19 y/o (undergraduate)	Taiwan (East Asia)	post EG	8 weeks	not specified	same school, intact classes	Lesson assessment (vocabulary quiz, multiple choice questions for video comprehension, and oral presentation or writing performance) (English; L2)	ANOVA	Mixed	Online check
24. H.-T. Hung (2015)	6	0.71	1	24	25	First yr., 18–19 y/o (undergraduate)	Taiwan (East Asia)	post EG	8 weeks	not specified	same school, intact classes		ANOVA	Mixed	Online check
25. H.-T. Hung (2017)	1	0.97	1	21	22	Sophomores (undergraduate)	Taiwan (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	18 weeks	same teacher	not specified	English communicative competence (English; L2)	t-test	Group work	Online or in-class
26. Hajebi (2020)	1	1.18	1	20	20	11–40 years/o (mixed)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post EG	15 weeks	same teacher	same school	English performance (English; L2)	not specified	Not specified	Not specified
27. iyitoğlu and Erişen (2017)	1	0.80	1	21	20	Prep students (undergraduate)	Turkey (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	15 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	EFL listening, grammar, reading, vocabulary, writing	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
28. Jafarigohar et al. (2019)	1	0.52	2	30	30	Freshmen (undergraduare)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	44 hr	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Language performance-listening and speaking skills (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	At the beginning of class
29. Kang (2015)	1	−0.51	1	24	42	21–28 years/o (undergraduate)	South Korea (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	16 weeks	different teachers	not specified	English knowledge-grammar, vocabulary (English; L2)	ANCOVA	Mixed	At the beginning of class
30. Karimi and Hamzavi (2017)	1	2.89	1	25	25	19–25 years/o (undergraduate)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post EG	12 weeks	not specified	same school, different classes	Reading comprehension (English; L2)	ANCOVA	Not specified	Not specified
31. Köroğlu and Çakır (2017)	1	2.04	1	23	25	First grade (undergraduate)	Turkey (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	8 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Speaking skills (English; L2)	ANCOVA	Mixed	Not specified
32. Kirmizi and Kömeç (2019)	12	0.32	1	29	29	High school	Turkey (West Asia)	post NEG	4 weeks	not specified	same school	Productive Vocabulary; Receptive Vocabulary; Grade average (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	At the beginning of class
33. Khosravani et al. (2020)	1	1.12	1	15	14	Not specified	iran (West Asia)	post EG	8 weeks	not specified	same school	Student’s achievement (English; L2)	ANOVA	Not specified	Not specified
34. G. Lee and Wallace (2018)	6	0.24	1	40	39	Freshmen & seniors (undergraduate)	South Korea (East Asia)	post EG	13^a weeks	same teacher	same school, different classes	Final exam; writing assignment grades: paragraph; presentation grades (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	At the beginning of class
35. Leis et al. (2015)	2	1.14	2	11	11	Mixed, average age 19.6 (undergraduate)	Japan (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	10 weeks	same teacher	different schools	English composition proficiency (English; L2)	ANCOVA	individual work	Not specified
36. Li and Suwanthep (2017)	1	1.49	1	46	48	First yr. (undergraduate)	Thailand (Southeast Asia)	pre-post NEG	12 weeks	not specified	same school, intact classes	Speaking skills (English; L2)	t-test	Group work	Online check
37. Lo et al. (2018)	1	0.99	2	12	12	Grades 8–10 (middle school)	Hong Kong (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	12 weeks	same teacher	same school	Post-course exam (Chinese; L1)	Mann-Whitney U-test	Mixed	Online check
38. Lou et al. (2017)	1	0.32	1	62	62	First yr. (undergraduate)	China (East Asia)	pre-post EG	16 weeks	same teacher	same school, different classes	Translation skills (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	Online check
39. Lin and Hwang (2018)	3	1.20	1	33	16	Freshmen (undergraduate)	Taiwan (East Asia)	post NEG	18 weeks	same teacher	same school	Oral performance (English; L2)	ANCOVA	Group work	Online check
40. Lin et al. (2018)	1	1.91	1	35	33	18–22 years/o (undergraduate)	Taiwan (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	11 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Business writing (English; L2)	ANCOVA	Not specified	Online or in-class
41. Mubarok et al. (2019)	1	0.64	1	29	29	Undergraduate	indonesia (Southeast Asia)	pre-post NEG	4 Sessions	not specified	same school, intact classes	Writing achievement (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	Online check
42. Moreno and Malovrh (2020)	9	0.15	1	17	21	Undergraduate	USA (North America)	pre-post NEG	13–14 weeks	different teachers	same school, intact classes	Reading, writing, listening, speaking (Spanish; L2)	ANOVA	Not specified	Online check
42. Moreno and Malovrh (2020)	9	0.15	1	20	21	Undergraduate	USA (North America)	pre-post NEG	13–14 weeks	different teachers	same school, intact classes	Reading, writing, listening, speaking (Spanish; L2)	ANOVA	Not specified	Online check
43. Mohammadi et al. (2019)	1	0.78	2	48	47	11th grade (high school)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	12 weeks	same teachers	different schools	Students’ achievements (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	At the beginning of class
44. Nguyen et al. (2019)	1	0.77	1	40	40	Freshmen (undergraduate)	Vietnam (Southeast Asia)	pre-post NEG	9 weeks	different teachers	same school, different classes	Writing performance (English; L2)	ANOVA	Mixed	Online check
45. Nikitova et al. (2020)	1	−0.23	1	30	31	Second yr. (undergraduate)	Ukraine (Europe)	pre-post NEG	A semester	not specified	same school	Academic achievement (Ukrainian; L1)	ANOVA	Mixed	Online or in-class
46. Oki (2016)	1	−0.02	1	9	8	Prep students, 18–19 years/o (undergraduate)	USA (North America)	post NEG	10 weeks	not specified	not specified	Final course grade (written quiz and speaking evaluations) (English; L2)	t-test	Group work	Not specified
47. Özdemir and Açik (2019)	2	1.04	1	35	35	First yr. (undergraduate)	Turkey (West Asia)	pre-post EG	15 weeks	not specified	same school, different classes	Written expression skills (Turkish; L1)	t-test	Mixed	Not specified
48. Pavanelli (2018)	1	0.81	1	13	9	Undergraduate	USA (North America)	pre-post NEG	12 weeks	not specified	same school, intact classes	EAP writing (English; L1)	ANCOVA	Group work	Online check
49. Prefume (2015)	6	−0.00	1	19	20	Mainly 18–22 years/o (undergraduate)	USA (North America)	pre-post NEG	6 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Oral production skills and exam, written exam (Japanese; L2)	t-test	Group work	Not specified
50. Qader and Yalcin Arslan (2019)	1	0.49	1	34	32	Sophomore (undergraduate)	iraq (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	8 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Writing skills (English; L2)	t-test	Group work	Not specified
51. Quyen and Lợi (2018)	1	0.83	1	30	30	19–21 years/o (undergraduate)	Vietnam (Southeast Asia)	pre-post NEG	5 weeks	not specified	same school, intact classes	Speaking performance (English; L2)	t-test	Group work	Not specified
52. Rezaei Fard et al. (2021)	2	2.40	1	30	30	18–35 years/o (mixed)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	Not specified	not specified	same school	Vocabulary knowledge (English, L2)	MANOVA & ANOVA	Not specified	Not specified
53. Saglam and Arslan (2018)	1	0.77	1	29	27	Prep student (undergraduate)	Turkey (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	6 weeks	not specified	same school, intact classes	Academic achievement-grammar (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
54. Said Ahmed (2016)	5	1.45	1	30	30	Undergraduate	Saudi Arabia (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	12 weeks	not specified	same school, intact classes	Post-writing-Test; writing sub-skills (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
55. Salem (2018)	1	1.27	1	26	25	Third yr. (undergraduate)	Egypt (others)	pre-post NEG	14^a wks	not specified	same school, intact classes	Writing skills (English; L2)	t-test	individual work	Not specified
56. Santosa (2017)	1	2.44	1	63	88	Undergraduate	indonesia (Southeast Asia)	pre-post NEG	14^a weeks	not specified	not specified	Writing course (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
57. Sohrabi and Mohammadi (2019)	1	0.39	1	19	20	20–31 years/o (mixed)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	3 Sessions	not specified	same school; different classes	Writing performace-iELTS (English; L2)	Mann-Whitney U test	Not specified	At the beginning of class
58. Tao et al. (2016)	1	0.32	1	26	28	Fourth grade (elementary school)	Taiwan (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	3 weeks	not specified	not specified	Vocabulary, sentence structure (English; L2)	ANCOVA	Not specified	Not specified
59. Teng (2017)	8	2.21	1	60	30	First yr. (undergraduate)	China (East Asia)	post EG	8 weeks	different teachers	same school, different classes	Assessment: course content/materials comprehension and oral presentation performance (English; L2)	ANOVA	Not specified	At the beginning of class
60. Vaezi et al. (2019)	4	1.66	2	40	39	19–37 years/o (undergraduate)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	Not specified	not specified	different schools	Listening Comprehension (English; L2)	ANOVA	Not specified	Online or in-class
60. Vaezi et al. (2019)	4	1.66	2	40	39	19–37 years/o (undergraduate)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post NEG	Not specified	not specified	different schools	Listening Comprehension (English; L2)	ANOVA	Not specified	Online or in-class
61. Valizadeh and Soltanpour (2020)	2	2.91	1	27	26	23–42 years/o (mixed)	iran (West Asia)	pre-post EG	10 sessions	not specified	same school	Grammatical competence; writing skill (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	Online or in-class
62. Wang et al. (2018)	4	0.89	1	31	30	First yr. graduate (postgraduate)	China (East Asia)	post EG	16 weeks	same teacher	same school, different classes	Oral proficiency (Chinese-L2)	t-test	Mixed	At the beginning of class
63. Webb and Doman (2016)	1	0.99	2	39	25	First yr. undergraduate and postgraduate (mixed)	USA and Macau (others)	pre-post NEG	10 weeks	different teachers	different schools	English grammar (English; L2)	ANOVA	Not specified	Online check
64. J. Yang et al. (2018)	4	0.53	1	8	9	First yr. (undergraduate)	USA (others)	post NEG	15^a wks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Listening, speaking, writing and reading (Chinese; L2)	Mann-Whitney U test	Not specified	Online check
65. Yousefzadeh and Salimi (2015)	2	1.63	1	25	25	Second grade (middle school)	iran (West Asia)	post NEG	8 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Achievement in class (English & Arabic; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
66. Yu and Wang (2016)	1	0.50	1	35	36	19–23 years/o (undergraduate)	China (East Asia)	pre-post EG	16 weeks	same teacher	same school, different classes	Business English writing skills (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	Not specified
67. C. C. R. Yang and Chen (2020)	1	−0.04	1	94	95	2nd grade (Primary school)	China (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	A semester	different teachers	same school, intact classes	Students’ gain in the knowledge of the lesson topic (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	Not specified
68. Yesilçinar (2019)	6	1.20	1	11	11	Avg. of 33 years/o	Turkey (West Asia)	pre-post EG	14 weeks	same teacher	same school	Speaking skills (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	At the beginning of class
69. Zainuddin and Perera (2019)	3	1.47	1	31	30	18–21 years/o (undergraduate)	indonesia (Southeast Asia)	post NEG	12 weeks	same teacher	same school, intact classes	Vocabulary and written quiz; listening comprehension; oral presentation (English; L2)	t-test	Mixed	Not specified
70. Zhang et al. (2016)	1	0.75	1	32	32	Freshmen (undergraduate)	China (East Asia)	pre-post NEG	16^a weeks	different teachers	same school, intact classes	English pronunciation (English; L2)	t-test	Not specified	At the beginning of class
Sum	165		78	4,616

Note. k = number of effect sizes (i.e., number of comparisons); g = mean weighted ES; pre-post EG = pretest-posttest equivalent groups design; post EG = posttest-only equivalent groups design; pre-post NEG = pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups design; post NEG = posttest-only nonequivalent groups design.

The weeks of treatment duration in these five studies were estimated by each country’s university academic calendars, since these papers report that treatment durations were one semester but do not provide the specific weeks.

The 70 studies represent 165 comparisons and a total sample of 4,616 students (from grade 4 to postgraduate) across 78 schools in 19 countries. The weighted ES was positive for 64 studies (91.4%) and negative for six studies (8.6%). The weighted ESs for individual studies ranged from −0.51 to 2.91, within three standard deviations (g₊ < 3.25) (Chen & Yang, 2019; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 108), from the overall ES; therefore, no studies were excluded from further analysis. According to Cohen (1988, p. 40), ESs of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are considered small, medium, and large effects, respectively. The overall weighted mean ES was 0.96 (95% Ci [0.79, 1.13]) under the random-effects model. Therefore, compared to non-flipped instruction, flipped learning exerted a large positive effect on language learning outcomes, indicating that students instructed through flipped learning learn considerably more effectively than those learning via non-flipped instruction.

The outcomes of the meta-analysis support the positive effects of flipped learning on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) language learning outcomes, consistent with previous research findings (Chuang et al., 2018). A key factor contributing to the significant benefits of flipped learning over non-flipped instruction is the enhancement of pre-instructional preparedness and the promotion of student engagement in interactive and collaborative learning environments. Bergmann and Sams (2012) emphasize that flipping the learning process allows for more efficient use of class time, as students are exposed to instructional materials before attending physical classroom sessions. This enables them to engage in extensive target language practice during face-to-face interactions. By preparing beforehand and ensuring comprehension through teacher guidance, students are empowered to fully grasp the language materials, in contrast to traditional teaching methods where students are expected to practice immediately after learning, often struggling to fully comprehend the knowledge.

Flipped learning is increasingly recognized as a facet of blended learning, as it integrates various teaching modalities, including digital technologies aiming to enhance students’ readiness before instruction and physical instructional sessions to facilitate meaningful in-person interactions. This combination of online and face-to-face learning has been demonstrated to enhance the quality of learning (Rasheed et al., 2020). Consequently, flipped learning, in its expansive scope, immerses learners in online pre-instructional activities that emphasize the pivotal role of digital tools in fostering effective course preparedness and in subsequent in-class tasks that foster deeper interaction and discourse among students, aligning closely with the pedagogical principles of active learning (Q. F. Yang et al., 2021). Pedagogically, by combining pre-class online engagement with in-person interactive sessions, flipped learning enhances the blended learning experience. it allows for a more personalized and flexible approach to learning and promotes active engagement with the material, since it allows students to be familiar with the materials independently at their own pace and according to their individual learning styles. Flipped learning also fosters deeper understanding and critical thinking skills among students, as they are engaged in active learning activities in a physical setting such as discussions, problem-solving exercises, group projects, or hands-on demonstrations. During these in-person sessions, students engage in deeper exploration of the content, apply their understanding, and collaborate with peers under the guidance of the instructor. Moreover, flipped learning empowers instructors to optimize their instructional time by focusing on higher-order learning activities and providing targeted support to students based on their individual needs (M. A. Chen et al., 2019; Reidsema et al., 2017). Overall, flipped learning embodies the essence of blended learning by integrating digital and face-to-face elements to create a dynamic and effective learning environment.

While the findings across many studies show that flipped learning has advantages that non-flipped methods do not offer, or at least do not offer as extensively as flipped methods, the conclusion of a given study positing that flipped learning offers benefits or affordances not offered by non-flipped instruction does not automatically mean that the non-flipped instruction was inherently flawed. it simply means that the flipped learning method offered advantages not provided by the non-flipped instruction used in the study.

Research Question 2. Do These Effects Differ by Moderating Factors Such as Target Language, Level of Education, School Location, Treatment Duration, Classroom Activities, and Pre-instructional Comprehension Check Mechanism?

Homogeneity testing and moderator analysis were adopted to answer research question 2 regarding the moderation effects of diverse factors affecting the overall efficacy of flipped learning on student language learning outcomes compared with non-flipped instruction. Homogeneity testing revealed significantly different language learning outcomes (Q_T = 491.80, df = 69, p < .001), suggesting that such differences did not result from sampling errors among the same population. Among the six moderators, treatment duration, school location, and level of education were the three significant moderators affecting student language learning outcomes, whereas the other three moderators did not have a significant effect, as shown in Table 3. Nevertheless, as Borenstein et al. (2009, p. 211) cautioned with the use of subgroup analyses, “failure to obtain a statistically significant difference among subgroups should never be interpreted as evidence that the effect is the same across subgroups.” The 95% Cis of many subsets were positive and exclusive of zero, suggesting learning outcomes for students receiving flipped instruction were advantageous in contrast to those of the non-flipped students in those subsets. The subsequent sections discuss the results of moderator analysis and the differences between subsets.

Table 3.

Results of Moderator Analysis.

Moderator variable	Q_B	k	g₊	95% Ci	Pooled variance	Contrast
Target language	5.18	71^a
1. English		62	1.01	[0.83, 1.19]	0.45
2. Chinese and Japanese		4	0.60	[−0.61, 1.80]	0.11
3. Turkish and Arabic		3	0.99	[−0.76, 2.73]	0.12
4. Others (including Spanish and Ukrainian)		2	−0.05	[−6.52, 6.42]	−0.02
Level of education	11.08*	69^b
1. Primary school		2	0.13	[−5.80, 6.06]	0.01
2. Middle school		6	0.71	[−0.02, 1.45]	0.22
3. High school		8	1.10	[0.52, 1.67]	0.33
4. Undergraduate		45	0.90	[0.69, 1.10]	0.38
5. Postgraduate		2	1.83	[−4.42, 8.09]	1.90
6. Mixed		6	1.49	[0.74, 2.24]	0.73
School location	16.84**	70				3 > 1;
						5 > 1
1. North America		5	0.28	[−0.62, 1.17]	−0.05
2. Europe		2	0.17	[−5.73, 6.07]	0.27
3. West Asia		34	1.17	[0.94, 1.40]	0.35
4. East Asia		19	0.66	[0.35, 0.97]	0.30
5. Southeast Asia		8	1.26	[0.72, 1.79]	0.53
6. Others		2	1.13	[−4.75, 7.00]	−0.04
Treatment duration	10.78*	69^c				2 > 1
1. 6 weeks or less		10	0.48	[−0.01, 0.97]	0.07
2. 7–12 weeks		25	1.15	[0.87, 1.44]	0.32
3. 13–18 weeks		26	0.83	[0.55, 1.10]	0.54
4. Not specified		8	1.38	[0.80, 1.95]	0.48
Classroom activities	4.79	70
1. individual work		2	1.21	[−5.53, 7.95]	−0.14
2. Group work		13	0.60	[0.18, 1.03]	0.16
3. Mixed activities (including individual and group work)		26	0.95	[0.67, 1.24]	0.50
4. Not specified		29	1.11	[0.84, 1.38]	0.49
Pre-instructional comprehension check mechanism	3.86	70
1. Online comprehension check		32	0.92	[0.66, 1.18]	0.35
2. Comprehension check at the beginning of physical class meetings		8	0.58	[−0.02, 1.17]	0.43
3. Unspecified comprehension check mechanism (online or in-class)		4	0.94	[−0.19, 2.07]	0.79
4. Not specified		26	1.13	[0.84, 1.42]	0.47

Note. Q_B = between-class variance; Ci = confidence interval; Contrast = post hoc comparison. Subsets with only one study were excluded from moderator analysis; subsets with only two studies or a “not specified” subset were eliminated from the post hoc comparisons.

Yousefzadeh and Salimi’s (2015) study has two subsets: one for learning English, and one for learning Arabic.

One study (Khosravani et al., 2020) did not specify the level of education and was therefore eliminated from the analysis.

One study (Afrilyasanti et al., 2016) did not specify the treatment duration and was therefore eliminated from the analysis.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Target Language

Q_B (5.18) was not significant for target language, yet the examination of ES showed that flipped learning had a greater effect than non-flipped instruction on (in descending order of effect) English, Turkish and Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese, and other indo-European languages including Spanish and Ukrainian.

The meta-analysis revealed that a significant majority of the studies (88.6%) focused on examining the impact of flipped learning versus non-flipped instruction on English language learning outcomes. Overall, positive outcomes were observed, indicating that flipped learning has the potential to enhance English proficiency, especially for foreign language learners. This positive effect could be attributed to the pedagogical design of flipped learning, which includes pre-instructional content knowledge acquisition and in-class problem-solving collaboration (Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Berrett, 2012). it is important to note that although the analysis indicated variations in effect sizes among different subsets, caution should be exercised when interpreting the greater effects of flipped learning for English compared to other languages such as Chinese or Japanese, as the number of studies categorized into these subsets was limited (up to four studies).

The predominant focus of studies on flipped learning has been on English language learning. However, there is a pressing need for additional investigations to determine the benefits of flipped learning for the acquisition of other languages. Only through further research efforts examining languages beyond English can a comprehensive understanding of how flipped learning contribute to language learning be achieved. Moreover, considering the substantial number of comparisons within the English subset (62 studies) and the various factors influencing effect sizes across studies, future research could explore potential differences in the effects of flipped learning within English studies based on moderator variables such as school location or level of education (Kim et al., 2019).

Level of Education

The students involved in the studies examined by this moderator analysis generally ranged from fourth-grade primary/elementary school students to postgraduate students, though one study was conducted with a mix of community college students (Webb & Doman, 2016), and one study was conducted in a language school (Khosravani et al., 2020). The Q_B (11.08) was significant for levels of education.

The most common study groups were comprised of college and university students, with fewer studies investigating elementary and secondary students. This result echoes Lo and Hew (2017), who found a lack of relevant research in K–12 education. This finding is understandable because most researchers are at universities and thus have easier access to data from college students than from K–12 students. Student accountability is paramount in outside-of-class learning (Chen Hsieh et al., 2017); elementary and lower secondary school students may require additional teacher supervision, whereas it is less needed for older students. Furthermore, those schoolteachers might be concerned about letting their students engage in online learning independently. Nevertheless, since the language learning outcomes in flipped learning were more advantageous compared to those in non-flipped instruction at these educational stages (i.e., high school, undergraduate, and postgraduate), it is thus worth practicing flipped learning from upper secondary to tertiary education.

School Location

Q_B (16.84) was significant for school location; the observation based on the subset ES found that the relative effectiveness of flipped learning compared with non-flipped instruction varied with school location. The Europe subset (Bueno-Alastuey & Andrés Galar, 2017; Nikitova et al., 2020) and “others” subset (one from Egypt and the other a mix of the U.S. and Macau) of only two eligible studies respectively were not included in the following discussion. The results regarding the ES indicate that the effect of flipped learning in studies located in Southeast Asia (including four studies in indonesia, 2 in Vietnam, 1 in Thailand, and 1 in Philippines) was significantly larger than that in North America and that the effect in West Asia (including 15 studies in iran, 10 in Turkey, 5 in Saudi Arabia, 1 in Northern Cyprus, 1 in iraq, 1 in Qatar, and 1 in the United Arab Emirates) was significantly greater than that of North America (including the U.S.).

The meta-analysis findings reveal that flipped learning is more effective than non-flipped instruction for English learning in major Asian regions, including iran, Turkey, Taiwan, China, Saudi Arabia, indonesia, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Hong Kong, iraq, Northern Cyprus, Philippines, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The prevalence of studies on flipped learning for English competence in Asia can be attributed to the formal instruction strategies of EFL/ESL teaching in these countries, coupled with limited instructional time. Although huge efforts have been made to improve the existing language teaching/learning educational framework, challenges within teacher-centered instruction still exist, making students less motivated (Wu et al., 2020). Flipped learning, therefore, has emerged as an innovative solution to address the long-standing concern of students’ inadequate preparedness for academic life (K. T. C. Chen, 2017; Phakiti & Li, 2011). However, it should be noted that the greater effects observed in Southeast Asia and West Asia compared to North America do not imply the ineffectiveness of flipped learning practices in North America. This discrepancy may stem from the inclusion of only five U.S.-based studies in this meta-analysis, focusing on Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish as target languages, and potentially impacting the overall effect on students’ language learning outcomes.

Treatment Duration

Q_B (10.78) was significant for treatment duration; therefore, the weighted ESs differed among subsets. Post hoc comparisons revealed that the relative benefit of flipped learning versus non-flipped instruction was significantly greater when flipped learning was respectively implemented for 7 to 12 weeks, compared to shorter durations of 6 weeks or less. The findings of the meta-analysis suggested that more extended implementations of flipped learning were better than short-term implementation durations.

O'Flaherty and Phillips (2015) found no evidence to support the comparative benefits between flipping the entire course and flipping selected class sessions/modules. However, the analyzed studies in this meta-analysis indicate a preference for longer implementation periods (over 6 weeks), which showed superior effects compared to shorter durations (6 weeks or less) and non-flipped instruction. The clear conclusion from the results is that shorter implementations, such as a single unit, are less preferable. Studies with flipped learning implementation for 7 to 12 weeks and 13 to 18 weeks demonstrate the advantages of more extended usage. One potential explanation for these benefits is the need for students to familiarize themselves with the learning process, which can initially pose challenges, such as acquiring content knowledge independently before class and applying it during class. Because students in flipped learning implementation are engaged in challenging tasks that require a high level of self-regulation (Shyr & Chen, 2018), students thus require considerable time to be guided through learning strategies to ensure pre-instructional delivery of content knowledge and promote in-class interaction and collaboration. Warm-up tasks that help students become familiar with the flipped learning procedure and sum-up activities that enable students to reflect on the whole learning experience are thus recommended. Developing thinking skills, promoted by flipped instruction, requires time and is not easily achieved within a short period. Consequently, it is unsurprising that students require more time to attain thinking skills during in-class learning activities, which demand critical, constructive, and effective thinking and judgment (Phakiti, 2018).

While many of the studies about flipped learning have shown its positive effects on language learning outcomes, some studies have pointed out that not every student prefers flipped learning. As Chen Hsieh et al. (2017) suggested, some students still preferred lecture-based instruction since “it required less work, regardless of the outcomes” (p. 11). They said that in identifying aspects of the student flipped learning experience that are related to successful outcomes, it is essential to consider diverse forces that are rapidly shaping and changing the context of student learning, such as the technology actually used. Therefore, a few weeks of non-flipped instruction, such as during the initial phase of the semester while students are being prepared for flipped methods, or during induction training, might help those who prefer acquiring new knowledge from in-classroom lectures.

Classroom Activities

Many of the studies (29 studies) in this meta-analysis omitted details of the actual pedagogical practices, such as the pre-classroom assignments and tasks expected of the students and the in-classroom activities, making assessing the research’s validity more difficult. The researchers, therefore, relied on the fact that each paper had passed peer review before publication as a determination of validity. Nevertheless, a large number of articles in this meta-analysis mentioned group-based activities, either in a specific group form or a mixed manner, including both individual tasks and group work. Although Q_B (4.79) was not significant for classroom activities, the weighted ES of flipped studies with mixed activities (including both individual and group work) was larger than that of studies with group work.

Although individual work exerted the biggest ES in this meta-analysis, it should be treated cautiously since only two studies were included in this subset. in general, it can be observed that flipped learning, incorporating mixed activities, yields greater improvements compared to non-flipped instruction, in contrast to flipped learning which is primarily focused on group work. Collaborative learning aligns with the principles of social constructivism, emphasizing active knowledge construction through interactions with others and the development of cognitive structures with external guidance. This collaborative learning can be facilitated through instructional scaffolding, as defined by Wette (2014), wherein instructors or more capable peers provide support for collaborative growth. in learner-centered flipped classrooms, instructors assume the role of facilitators rather than lecturers, guiding students toward active learning (Özdemir & Açik, 2019). Consequently, collaborative tasks within flipped learning foster learners’ social and intellectual development by facilitating interactions and assistance from others (Vikneswaran & Krish, 2016). During class time, individual inquiry as well as collaborative activities enable students to clarify concepts and contextualize content knowledge through higher levels of skills such as application, analysis, evaluation, and creation (Krathwohl, 2002). With ample opportunities to practice what they have learned, students either confirm, adjust, or even reject their assumptions (i.e., their perceived understanding of the content knowledge). Their skills are thus enhanced, strengthened, and reinforced with the help of additional scaffolds (Hall & DuFrene, 2016) in diverse in-class learning activities. Swain (2010) supported this claim by noting that mutual communication helps learners make sense of their learning and enhances their higher-order thinking skills throughout the problem-solving process, reflecting Skyrme’s (2018) conclusion that “establishing in-class processes which encourage mixed peer interaction can contribute to the developing proficiency of the English language learners” (p. 1285).

Pre-instructional Comprehension Check Mechanism

Q_B (3.86) was not significant for the pre-instructional comprehension check mechanism, yet the observation of the ES of the subsets suggested a difference in learning outcomes between flipped learning versus non-flipped instruction in variation with the chosen pre-instructional comprehension check mechanism. The results show that the effect of flipped learning with online comprehension checks was better than that of flipped learning with comprehension checks at the beginning of physical class meetings and an unspecified comprehension check mechanism (online or in-class).

Although there was no significant difference between different pre-instructional comprehension check mechanisms, over 50% of the articles included in this meta-analysis incorporated a comprehension check mechanism, with the majority (32 articles) utilizing an online check before the physical class meetings and having a large effect (>0.8) compared to non-flipped instruction. A smaller number of articles (eight) mentioned checking comprehension during the in-person sessions. The overall findings highlight the significance of conducting online comprehension checks prior to the face-to-face classes. One possible reason for this is that by assessing comprehension beforehand, instructors can gain insights into students’ level of preparedness (e.g., Amiryousefi, 2019; Haghighi et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2017). This understanding enables instructors to identify areas where students may still struggle or find confusion, and thus tailor their in-class activities accordingly. The articles in this meta-analysis demonstrate that pre-instructional preparation, as measured through online comprehension checks, offers advantages in improving subsequent in-class performance, promoting interactive learning experiences, and enhancing overall academic achievement. As Chen Hsieh et al. (2017) stressed, “the key to success of the flipped instruction is whether the students do the preparation work outside of class. if they do not, the teacher cannot engage them at an advanced level inside the class” (p. 17).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis presents a comprehensive examination of the effects of flipped learning versus non-flipped instruction on students’ language learning outcomes, drawing insights from 70 studies published up to late 2021. By analyzing different influential factors including target language, level of education, school location, treatment duration, classroom activities, and a pre-instructional comprehension check mechanism, this study offers a nuanced understanding of the flipped learning approach. The findings reveal significant moderating effects including school location, level of education, and duration of treatment. Particular attention has been given to flipped learning implementations lasting more than 6 weeks, suggesting a prerequisite of the sufficient time for successful utilization of the flipped learning approach.

Moreover, the results demonstrate that language learners engaged in flipped learning consistently outperform their peers confined to non-flipped instructional practices across various subsets of the moderators. Such findings accordingly foreground the fundamental effectiveness of flipped learning as a pedagogical alternative contributing to superior language learning outcomes. As such, flipped learning holds potential in enhancing comprehension among language learners. Furthermore, this study reinforces the notion that flipped learning transcends geographical and educational boundaries, as it proves to be a versatile approach to language education. Taken together, it has become evident that flipped learning represents a paradigm shift toward more interactive and student-centered learning experiences. Advantages of flipped learning over non-flipped instruction highlight its potential to transform language education, with its inherent strengths serving to foster more effective and engaging language learning.

This examination of studies comparing flipped and non-flipped teaching/learning modes reveals the positive effects of flipped practice in English learning. However, it does not negate the potential benefits of non-flipped instruction for language learning. Educators are encouraged to carefully evaluate both the learning content and the unique needs and prerequisites of their students to determine if flipped learning is the most appropriate instructional strategy. Additionally, in this innovative teaching/learning mode, it is essential for both instructors and students to develop a pedagogical understanding of their new roles. As students are expected to engage in pre-instructional tasks to enhance their preparedness for collaborative in-class activities, fostering and sustaining student accountability in accomplishing these tasks is crucial. instructors should not simply provide materials with the wishful expectation that students would learn independently. instead, the effective integration of resources into the overarching curriculum design is what truly matters (Tucker, 2012).

Although this meta-analysis contributes to the literature by identifying moderating factors leading to the advantages of flipped learning in language education, a few concerns must be addressed in future research to yield a comprehensive validation of the benefits of flipped learning. Firstly, this study only examined the effectiveness of flipped learning in terms of language learning outcomes. Future studies are therefore encouraged to focus on other aspects as well, such as affective factors like motivation, attitudes, and perceptions. Secondly, while this meta-analysis aimed to scrutinize six particular moderating factors in a flipped versus non-flipped comparison, some papers fell short of providing a detailed instructional design, thus limiting the depth of insights into the specific mechanisms through which flipped learning may be advantageous over non-flipped instruction. This paucity of detailed design information impedes a full understanding of the observed effects, potentially introducing uncertainty into the conclusions of researchers.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation to Shiera Hsin-Tzu Chiang and Phoebe Fang-Yu Shih for their invaluable contributions to the data collection process and analysis. Their meticulous efforts ensured the accuracy and reliability of our research findings of this meta-analysis paper.

ORCiD iDs

Cheng-Huan Chen

Wen-Chi Vivian Wu

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially supported by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (R.O.C.) under Grant No. MOST 108-2511-H-468-004.

Declaration of Conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

*Abdelrahman

L. A. M.

DeWitt

Alias

Rahman

M. N. A.

(2017). Flipped learning for ESL writing in a Sudanese school. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 60–70.

*Abedi

Keshmirshekan

M. H.

Namaziandost

(2019). The comparative effect of flipped classroom instruction versus traditional instruction on iranian intermediate EFL learners’ English composition writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(4), 43–56.

*Adnan

(2017). Perceptions of senior-year ELT students for flipped classroom: A materials development course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3–4), 204–222.

*Afrilyasanti

Cahyono

B. Y.

Astuti

U. P.

(2016). Effect of flipped classroom model on indonesian EFL students’ writing ability across and individual differences in learning. international Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 4(5), 65–81.

Ahn

Ames

A. J.

Myers

N. D.

(2012). A review of meta-analyses in education: Methodological strengths and weaknesses. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 436–476.

*Albahuoth

(2020). Effectiveness of flipped classroom in developing 11th graders’ grammatical competences in Arabic. interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 1089–1105.

*Al-Harbi

S. S.

Alshumaimeri

Y. A.

(2016). The flipped classroom impact in grammar class on EFL Saudi secondary school students’ performances and attitudes. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 60–80.

*AlSmari

N. A.

(2020). The effect of flipped classroom instruction on developing Saudi EFL learners’ comprehension of conversational implicatures. international Journal of English Linguistics, 10(2), 107–127.

*Alsowat

(2016). An EFL flipped classroom teaching model: Effects on English language higher-order thinking skills, student engagement and satisfaction. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 108–121.

10.

*Altas

E. A.

Mede

(2020). The impact of flipped classroom approach on the writing achievement and self-regulated learning of pre-service English teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 66–88.

11.

*Amiryousefi

(2019). The incorporation of flipped learning into conventional classes to enhance EFL learners’ L2 speaking, L2 listening, and engagement. innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 147–161.

12.

Archambault

Leary

Rice

(2022). Pillars of online pedagogy: A framework for teaching in online learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 178–191.

13.

Ardasheva

Wang

Adesope

O. O.

Valentine

J. C.

(2017). Exploring effectiveness and moderators of language learning strategy instruction on second language and self-regulated learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 544–582.

14.

*Asaka

Shinozaki

Yoshida

(2018). The effect of a flipped classroom approach on EFL Japanese junior high school students’ performances and attitudes [Conference session]. Proceedings of 2nd international Conference on Social Sciences, Humanities and Technology.

15.

Bergmann

Sams

(2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. international Society for Technology in Education.

16.

Berrett

(2012). How ‘flipping’ the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. Chronicle of Higher Education, 12(19), 1–3.

17.

*Bezzazi

(2019a). The effect of flipped learning on EFL learners’ public speaking in Taiwan. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 9(1), 1–19.

18.

*Bezzazi

(2019b). Learning English grammar through flipped learning. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 170–184.

19.

*Bicen

Beheshti

(2019). Assessing perceptions and evaluating achievements of ESL students with the usage of infographics in a flipped classroom learning environment. interactive Learning Environments, 30(3), 498–529.

20.

Bond

(2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped classroom approach in K-12: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151, 103819.

21.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P.

Rothstein

H. R.

(Eds.). (2009). introduction to meta-analysis (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

22.

*Boyraz

Ocak

(2017). implementation of flipped education into Turkish EFL teaching context. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 426–439.

23.

Brewer

Movahedazarhouligh

(2018). Successful stories and conflicts: A literature review on the effectiveness of flipped learning in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(4), 409–416.

24.

*Bueno-Alastuey

M. C.

Andrés Galar

(2017). Flipping the EFL classroom in a secondary education setting: Students’ perceptions and academic performance. Huarte de San Juan. Filología y Didáctica de la Lengua, 17, 35–57.

25.

Chambers

E. A.

(2004). An introduction to meta-analysis with articles from the Journal of Educational Research (1992-2002). Journal of Education and Research, 98(1), 35–45.

26.

Chen

C.-H.

Yang

Y.-C.

(2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71–81.

27.

Chen Hsieh

J. S.

W.-C. V.

Marek

(2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2), 1–21.

28.

Cheng

Ritzhaupt

A. D.

Antonenko

(2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 793–824.

29.

Cheng

S.-C.

Hwang

G.-J.

Lai

C.-L.

(2020). Critical research advancements of flipped learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited papers. interactive Learning Environments, 30(9), 1751–1817.

30.

Chen

K. T. C.

(2017). An exploratory study of NNES graduate students’ reading comprehension of English journal articles. Reading in a Foreign Language, 29(1), 20–35.

31.

Chen

M. A.

Hwang

Chang

(2019). A reflective thinking-promoting approach to enhancing graduate students’ flipped learning engagement, participation behaviors, reflective thinking and project learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2288–2307.

32.

Chuang

Weng

Chen

(2018). Which students benefit most from a flipped classroom approach to language learning? British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 56–68.

33.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

34.

Cooper

(Ed.). (2015). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

35.

Duval

Tweedie

(2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463.

36.

*Ekmekci

(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.

37.

*Farah

(2014). The impact of using flipped classroom instruction on the writing performance of twelfth grade female Emirati students in the applied technology high school (ATHS) [Doctoral dissertation, Dissertations for Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), The British University in Dubai].

38.

*Fathi

Rahimi

(2020). Examining the impact of flipped classroom on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A case of EFL students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(7), 1668–1739.

39.

Fathi

Rahimi

Liu

(2023). A preliminary study on flipping an English as a foreign language collaborative writing course with video clips: its impact on writing skills and writing motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 659–675.

40.

Filiz

Benzet

(2018). A content analysis of the studies on the use of flipped classrooms in foreign language education. World Journal of Education, 8(4), 72–86.

41.

*Fulgueras

M. J.

Bautista

J. U. D. Y

. (2020). Flipped classroom: its effects on ESL learners’ critical thinking and reading comprehension levels. international Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 2(3), 257–270.

42.

*Haghighi

Jafarigohar

Khoshsima

Vahdany

(2019). impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners’ appropriate use of refusal: Achievement, participation, perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 261–293.

43.

*Hajebi

(2020). Flipped Classroom as a supporting plan for iranian EFL learners’ English improvement in super intensive courses. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(9), 1101.

44.

Hall

A. A.

DuFrene

D. D.

(2016). Best practices for launching a flipped classroom. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(2), 234–242.

45.

*Hashemifardnia

Namaziandost

Shafiee

(2018). The effect of implementing flipped classrooms on iranian junior high school students’ reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(6), 665–673.

46.

Hedges

L. V.

Olkin

(2014). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.

47.

Chen

C.-H.

C.-Y.

(2021). Exploring the effectiveness and moderators of block-based visual programming on student learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1467–1493.

48.

*Hughes

(2019). The effects of flipping an English for academic purposes course. international Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 11(1), 26–41.

49.

*Hung

Yeh

(2023). Augmented-reality-enhanced game-based learning in flipped English classrooms: Effects on students' creative thinking and vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(6), 1786–1800.

50.

*Hung

H.-T.

(2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81–96.

51.

Hung

H.-T.

(2017). Design-based research: Redesign of an English language course using a flipped classroom approach. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 180–192.

52.

*iyitoğlu

Erişen

(2017). Delving into flipping EFL classroom: A mixed method study. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1), 120–151.

53.

*Jafarigohar

Khoshsima

Haghighi

Vahdany

(2019). incorporation of flipped learning into EFL classrooms: Performance and perception. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 1–14.

54.

*Kang

(2015). The comparison between regular and flipped classrooms for EFL Korean adult learners. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 41–72.

55.

*Karimi

Hamzavi

(2017). The effect of flipped model of instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension: Learners’ attitudes in focus. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(1), 95–103.

56.

*Khosravani

Khoshsima

Mohamadian

(2020). On the effect of flipped classroom on learners’ achievement, autonomy, motivation and WTC: investigating learning and learner variables. Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz, 12(25), 175–189.

57.

Kim

S. W.

Cho

Kim

L. Y.

(2019). Socioeconomic status and academic outcomes in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 89(6), 875–916.

58.

*Kirmizi

Ö.

Kömeç

. (2019). The impact of the flipped classroom on receptive and productive vocabulary learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 437–449.

59.

*Köroğlu

Z. Ç.

Çakır

(2017). implementation of flipped instruction in language classrooms: An alternative way to develop speaking skills of pre-service English language teachers. international Journal of Education and Development using information and Communication Technology, 13(2), 42–55.

60.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.

61.

Lage

M. J.

Platt

G. J.

Treglia

(2000). inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.

62.

*Lee

Wallace

(2018). Flipped learning in the English as a foreign language classroom: Outcomes and perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 62–84.

63.

Lee

Choi

(2019). Rethinking the flipped learning pre-class: its influence on the success of flipped learning and related factors. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 934–945.

64.

*Leis

Cooke

Tohei

(2015). The effects of flipped classrooms on English composition writing in an EFL environment. international Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 37–51.

65.

(2015). Enhancing EFL speaking via flipped classroom model and constructive role plays [Master’s thesis, Suranaree University of Technology]. http://sutir.sut.ac.th:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/5966

66.

*Li

Suwanthep

(2017). integration of flipped classroom model for EFL speaking. international Journal of Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 118–123.

67.

*Lin

C. J.

Hwang

G. J.

(2018). A learning analytics approach to investigating factors affecting EFL students’ oral performance in a flipped classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 205–219.

68.

*Lin

C. J.

Hwang

G. J.

Q. K.

Chen

J. F.

(2018). A flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL students’ English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 117–131.

69.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications.

70.

C. K.

Hew

K. F.

(2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: Possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 4–22.

71.

*Lo

C. K.

Lie

C. W.

Hew

K. F.

(2018). Applying “first principles of instruction” as a design theory of the flipped classroom: Findings from a collective study of four secondary school subjects. Computers & Education, 118, 150–165.

72.

*Lou

Gong

(2017). Effect of the flipped classroom model on Chinese non-English-majored college students’ translation skills. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 270–281.

73.

Martin

Borup

(2022). Online learner engagement: Conceptual definitions, research themes, and supportive practices. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 162–216.

74.

*Mohammadi

Barati

Youhanaee

(2019). The effectiveness of using flipped classroom model on iranian EFL learners’ English achievements and their willingness to communicate. English Language Teaching, 12(5), 101–115.

75.

*Moreno

Malovrh

P. A.

(2020). Restructuring a beginner language program: A quantitative analysis of face-to-face versus flipped-blended Spanish instruction. Hispania, 103(2), 259–274.

76.

*Mubarok

A. F.

Cahyono

B. Y.

Astuti

U. P.

(2019). Effect of flipped classroom model on indonesian EFL Students’ writing achievement across cognitive styles. DiNAMiKA iLMU, 19(1), 115–131.

77.

*Nguyen

N. Q.

Lee

K. W.

Nguyen

D. N. P.

Naidu

(2019). An investigation into using flipped classroom model in an academic writing class in Vietnam. international Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 32–57.

78.

*Nikitova

Kutova

Shvets

Pasichnyk

Matsko

(2020). Flipped learning methodology in professional training of future language teachers. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 19–31.

79.

O'Flaherty

Phillips

. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.

80.

*Oki

(2016). Flipping a content-based ESL course: An action research report. TESOL Working Paper Series, 14, 62–75.

81.

*Özdemir

Açik

(2019). Development of written expression skills with flipped learning instruction: An embedded mixed method study. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(4), 1–1091.

82.

Pardo

Gasevic

Jovanovic

Dawson

Mirriahi

(2019). Exploring student interactions with preparation activities in a flipped classroom experience. iEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(3), 333–346.

83.

*Pavanelli

(2018). The flipped classroom: A mixed methods study of academic performance and student perception in EAP writing context. international Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 16–26.

84.

Phakiti

(2018). Assessing higher-order thinking skills in language learning. in Liontas

J. i.

DelliCarpini

(Eds.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–7). TESOL international Association.

85.

Phakiti

(2011). General academic difficulties and reading and writing difficulties among Asian ESL postgraduate students in TESOL at an Australian university. RELC Journal, 42(3), 227–264.

86.

*Prefume

Y. E.

(2015). Exploring a flipped classroom approach in a Japanese language classroom: A mixed methods study [Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

87.

Prince

(2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

88.

*Qader

R. O.

Yalcin Arslan

(2019). The effect of flipped classroom instruction in writing: A case study with iraqi EFL learners. Teaching English with Technology, 19(1), 36–55.

89.

*Quyen

T. T. T.

Lợi

N. V.

(2018). Flipped model for improving students’ English speaking performance. Can Tho University Journal of Science, 54(2), 90–97.

90.

Rasheed

R. A.

Kamsin

Abdullah

N. A.

(2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 104024.

91.

Reidsema

Kavanagh

Hadgraft

Smith

(2017). The flipped classroom. Practice and practices in higher education. Springer.

92.

*Rezaei Fard

Shahrokhi

Talebinejad

. (2021). The effect of flipped classroom on iranian ESP students’ vocabulary learning, retention and attitude. international Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 9(35), 115–129.

93.

Ritchhart

Church

Morrison

(2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Jossey-Bass.

94.

Rosenberg

M. S.

Adams

D. C.

Gurevitch

(2000). MetaWin: Statistical software for meta-analysis: Version 2. Sinauer Associates.

95.

*Saglam

Arslan

(2018). The effect of flipped classroom on the academic achievement and attitude of higher education students. World Journal of Education, 8(4), 170–176.

96.

*Said Ahmed

M. A. E. A

. (2016). The effect of a flipping classroom on writing skill in English as a foreign language and students’ attitude towards flipping. US-China Foreign Language, 14(2), 98–114.

97.

*Salem

A. A. M. S

. (2018). Engaging ESP university students in flipped classrooms for developing functional writing skills, HOTs, and eliminating writer’s block. English Language Teaching, 11(12), 177–198.

98.

*Santosa

M. H.

(2017). Learning approaches of indonesian EFL gen Z students in a flipped learning context. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 7(2), 183–208.

99.

Sergis

Sampson

D. G.

Pelliccione

(2018). investigating the impact of flipped classroom on students’ learning experiences: A self-determination theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 368–378.

100.

Shahnama

Ghonsooly

Shirvan

M. E.

(2021). A meta-analysis of relative effectiveness of flipped learning in English as second/foreign language research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1355–1386.

101.

Shyr

Chen

(2018). Designing a technology-enhanced flipped learning system to facilitate students’ self-regulation and performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 53–62.

102.

Skyrme

(2018). Learning to write in the university after the writing course is over: What helps second language writers? Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1274–1286.

103.

*Sohrabi

Mohammadi

(2019). The impact of flipped model instruction on writing. Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 7(3), 111–122.

104.

Sowislo

J. F.

Orth

(2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213–240.

105.

Strelan

Osborn

Palmer

(2020a). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research and Reviews, 30, 100314.

106.

Strelan

Osborn

Palmer

(2020b). Student satisfaction with courses and instructors in a flipped classroom: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3), 295–314.

107.

Swain

(2010). Talking-it-through: Languaging as a source of learning. in Batstone

(Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford University Press.

108.

*Tao

S. Y.

Huang

Y. H.

Tsai

M. J.

(2016). Applying the flipped classroom with game-based learning in elementary school students’ English learning [Conference session]. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on educational innovation through technology.

109.

*Teng

M. F.

(2017). Flipping the classroom and tertiary level EFL students’ academic performance and satisfaction. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(4), 605–620.

110.

Tucker

(2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82–83.

111.

Turan

Akdag-Cimen

(2020). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5–6), 590–606.

112.

*Vaezi

Afghari

Lotfi

(2019). investigating listening comprehension through flipped classroom approach: Does authenticity matter. CALL-EJ: Computer-assisted Language Learning-electronic Journal, 20(1), 178–208.

113.

*Valizadeh

Soltanpour

(2020). The flipped pedagogy: Effects on the grammatical competence and writing skill of basic users of English. international Journal of instruction, 13(3), 761–776.

114.

van Alten

D. C. D.

Phielix

Janssen

Kester

. (2019). Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research and Reviews, 28, 100281.

115.

Vikneswaran

Krish

(2016). Utilising social networking sites to improve writing: A case study with Chinese students in Malaysia. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 25(3), 287–300.

116.

Vitta

J. P.

Al-Hoorie

A. H.

(2020). The flipped classroom in second language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 27(5), 1268–1292. Advance online publication.

117.

*Wang

Wright

(2018). Enhancing beginner learners’ oral proficiency in a flipped Chinese foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5–6), 490–521.

118.

*Webb

Doman

(2016). Does the flipped classroom lead to increased gains on learning outcomes in ESL/EFL contexts? The CATESOL Journal, 28(1), 39–67.

119.

Wette

(2014). Teacher-led collaborative modelling in academic L2 writing courses. ELT Journal, 69(1), 71–80.

120.

W.-C. V.

Chen Hsieh

J. S.

Yang

J.-C.

(2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 142–157.

121.

W.-C. V.

Yang

J.-C.

Chen Hsieh

J. S.

Yamamoto

(2020). Free from demotivation in EFL writing: The use of online flipped writing instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(4), 353–387.

122.

*Yang

C. C. R.

Chen

(2020). implementing the flipped classroom approach in primary English classrooms in China. Education and information Technologies, 25(2), 1217–1235.

123.

*Yang

Yin

Wang

(2018). Flipping the classroom in teaching Chinese as a foreign language. Language Learning and Technology, 22(1), 16–26.

124.

Yang

Q. F.

Lin

C. J.

Hwang

G. J.

(2021). Research focuses and findings of flipping mathematics classes: A review of journal publications based on the technology-enhanced learning model. interactive Learning Environments, 29(6), 905–938.

125.

*Yesilçinar

(2019). Using the flipped classroom to enhance adult EFL learners’ speaking skills. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 58(1), 206–234.

126.

*Yousefzadeh

Salimi

(2015). The effect of flipped learning (revised learning) on iranian students’ learning outcomes. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(5), 209–213.

127.

*Yu

Wang

(2016). Academic achievements and satisfaction of the clicker-aided flipped business English writing class. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 298–312.

128.

*Zainuddin

Perera

C. J.

(2019). Exploring students’ competence, autonomy and relatedness in the flipped classroom pedagogical model. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(1), 1–126.

129.

*Zhang

Yuan

Zhang

(2016). The effectiveness of the flipped classroom mode on the English pronunciation course. Creative Education, 7(9), 1340–1346.

130.

Zhao

S. R.

(2021). Unpacking peer collaborative experiences in pre-class learning of flipped classroom with a production-oriented approach. Sage Open, 11(4), 21582440211058203.

131.

Zheng

Bhagat

K. K.

Zhen

Zhang

(2020). The effectiveness of the flipped classroom on students’ learning achievement and learning motivation. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 23(1), 1–15.

132.

Zhong

Abdullah

(2023). The impact of COViD-19 pandemic on flipped classroom for EFL courses: A systematic literature review. Sage Open, 13(1), 21582440221148149.

Effects of Flipped Learning on Language Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis investigating Moderators

Abstract

Keywords

introduction

Background

Pre-instructional Comprehension Check

Classroom Activities

Treatment Duration of Flipped Learning

Level of Education, Location of Flipped implementation, and Target Languages

Method

Gathering Relevant Studies

inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Testing for Publication Bias

Setting Up Moderators

Coding of Moderator Variables

Effect Size Calculation for Each Study

Homogeneity Testing

Results and Discussion

Research Question 1. What are the Overall Effects of Flipped Learning on Student Language Learning Outcomes Compared with Non-flipped instruction?

Research Question 2. Do These Effects Differ by Moderating Factors Such as Target Language, Level of Education, School Location, Treatment Duration, Classroom Activities, and Pre-instructional Comprehension Check Mechanism?

Target Language

Level of Education

School Location

Treatment Duration

Classroom Activities

Pre-instructional Comprehension Check Mechanism

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCiD iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting interests

Data Availability Statement

References