Tran Thị Thanh Xuân THE EFFECTS OF FLIPPED LEARNING ON LEARNERS' SPEAKING PERFORMANCE LUAN VAN THAC SI KHOA HOC GIAO DUC Thanh phố Hồ Chi Minh — 2023 Tran Thi Thanh Xuan THE EFFECTS OF FLIPPED LEARNING ON LEARNERS' SPEAKING PERFORMANCE Chuyên ngành: Lý luận và phương pháp day học bộ môn tiếng Anh Mã số: 8140111 LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ KHOA HỌC GIÁO DỤC NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DÁN KHOA HỌC: TS. NGUYEN THUY NGA Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh — 2023 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP The research "The Effects of Flipped Learning on Learners' Speaking Performance" was conducted to fulfill the requirement for the Master's degree at Ho Chi Minh City University of Education. I contirm that this thesis shows my own hard work and belongs to my intellectual property. Besides the sources of information acknowledged and cited as references, this thesis does not include any published material elsewhere.
No other work was used in the thesis without citations and references in this thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree in any other educational institution. Ho Chi Minh City, July, 2023 Tran Thị Thanh Xuân ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The completion of this thesis would not have been accomplished without the support and encouragement of the people with whom | feel indebted, and I would like to express my gratitude. Firstly, I am deeply grateful for the guidance, feedback, and encouragement from my supervisor, Dr.
Nguyen Thuy Nga. Her dedication gave me motivation from the beginning to the end of this thesis. In addition, I sincerely thank my lecturers, classmates, and friends, who showed interest in my rescarch and gave me plenty of encouragement and resources. I felt inspired by them to carry on doing my thesis.
Lastly, I would like to thank my participant students who took part in the current study. Their willingness and engagement in the research play a vital role in the possibility of this thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF CHARTS ABSTRACT CHAPTER 1: ENTRODUC TION.1 Background to the Studìy.- HH nu HH nh HH nà | 1.2 Statement of the Problem.-- SH HH HH TT HH Hy 4 1.5 Scope and Limitation of the SLUdy. HH nan 4 LiGISistihCANCE ONNES WNGY :c::ci:2i:2::15221221212125252612811353355315853383355515835853 885375833853 85555 5 1:7iOrganization Ofithe Thesis .sscssisssssasisasssssisesioasssssssesseastsnsssesseassecsssesieassscsssesieess 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REV HE N.
SG HH ng 7 2:1 The' Conceptiot Flipped Learning ::::::::s:iaii:ii0:2102021122222212202120126121256816326583ã:835 7 2.1 Definitions of Flipped Learning .::cissssssssssessessssesisesssssssessessssossseassssssesiess 7 221151 The Flipped! Classroom isisssssssssasssssieasssessoasssesssossoesssossoessecessesesssve0savees 7 2:1. 2IEHippedl€aITE siscssccssscssscsssssssssssassensasssssasseasassassacsensesssesoaieosassatsoasese § 2.2 Underlying Learning Theories of the Flipped Learning Model.3 Merits and Demerits of Flipped Learning.-cc-c--cc-ciciceecee 12 2.2 The Concept of Speaking Performance .1 Definitions of Speaking Performance .2 Assessing Speaking Performance.3 Teaching Speaking with Flipped Learning.- «<< «<< 15 2:35IO0nIners2 ATITEHDOS:. 18 DAN OVETSCAS GIIẢIB.2 Studies in ViCtam. con Họ TH gọn TT TT 0100 0e 23 D1 S0IRLCSGRIDHLCOODS(154:01:10541124515513531355238143543853315331531385155313534383/35131513383505355461455135 27 2ỀIIIIEDFBLICDIIHTDIIIOTWVDOTE"2:40111274022137242323411140143:333)2451234314406336554323535355344575315430243354 28 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOCY.o HH HH gui 31 3.l Research Design: ssiscsiccisscsssssssesssassssassassessassescassessassassassessassaseassessessassessensescaess 31 S.3 The Traditional Classroom and the Flipped Classroom.-- 32 3:4! Research | IISffINERIS:::::;:::z::::::i2i0211101112011211101112111331181561358253E033483552532833623352588E 34 Bia Speakcing TGBES::::::::s:::::ii:ii:111211401111111161361421441613393395333395463393363391343323343g953E 34 3.1 Designing the Tests.
-<- HH HH Hư, 35 uD 0 TESHOIIHDITC:::::4:2:122321411:0211232051125211123123143211551312133232163116511542151185521522153/365145 3§ 3.1 Designing the Questionnaire. -- «HH HH Hi, 35 3.2 Piloting the Questionnnalr€. -- á- << no HH ng gưư 37 3.3 Administering the QucstionnaiFC.5 Data Collection PToC€đUFC. HH HH Hàn ni 37 3.
Speake TOSS ssisssscissssassssssscesasssssaisesssasssssssaatsacsssassccssesssoaisanssasansassanssaciia 38 3:6.7 Validity and Reliability of the ÍnstrureniS. - co HH Họ nọ TT Họ nọ 090 38 2: 122 ()IỆSHOTIHBHTỂtgtniisiiiáitá5g15531165116515611555158555855555185615651568368558358853885585385555868556 40 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. cieiiiiedee 42 Ail) EIHES:iebaoiiiiiiiiiaiiosiiiasi11611450243113131431335315355355558358681583886333335553353515516338155335585 42 4.1 The Effects of Flipped Learning on Learners` Speaking Performance.1 Statistics for Identifying the Type of Data.-<c-~ece- 43 đ:1:21EToz(GSUSG0TGS:::::::iiiitiiitiiiii1111101112114013511312336933483952332933 50395233913 3833523362 43 4.3 Post-test SCOTeS.- HH TH ng ng 44 4.4 Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the Control Group.5 Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the Experimental Group .2 Learners’ Attitudes toward the Application of Flipped Learning .3 Summary of Findings.-- --- 6 << nọ HH nh HH ngư 33 4:2 DÌSGUSSIOTIŠL:2i:22004201211011111101511511515123133313549525133335549335533333848533133338539833133438548343582 54 4.1 The Effects of Flipped Learning on Learners’ Speaking Performance.2 Learners’ Attitudes toward the Application of Flipped Learning. 57 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND LMPLICA TIONS.I Main Pind ings wiscssisesiccssssscsasssasssasssaassesssasssaassasssasssaassasssssasaassesssssassassaasssasszacse 60 3.scisccsssscsscssssssssassossessessassassessessasseasessessassoasessessaesosses 60 3:3 LIDÏELÏOTS::::icco:sc:cssrosciissitssiisgi35i235112655361545553615453585554615583845536855845685685455655555 6l 5.4 Recommendations for Further Researchh.
HH HH TH HH TH HH TH II 00 4000000840084008400840084 84 63 APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE. xe 70 APPENDIX 2: LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR THE LESSONS IN THE TRADITIONAL AND FLIPPED CLASSES. 74 APPENDIX 3: SPEAKING RUBRIC. -- G5 S633 SE SS 3v gi cv.
76 APPENDIX 4: LESSON PLANS.--L Q Sàn HH TH Hy ng ước 78 APPENDIX 5: SPEAKING TEST SCORES. 85 APPENDIX 6: RAW CALCULATION. HH uưo 88 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEFR Common European Framework of Reference MOET Ministry of Education and Training EFL English as a Foreign Language ZPD Zone of Proximal Development CP Communicative Competence CLA Communicative Language Ability SPSS Statistics Package for Social Science CG Control Group EG Experimental Group LIST OF TABLES Table 3. Procedure of the Control and Experimental Group Table 4.
Independent Samples T-Tests for the Pre-test Scores Table 4. Independent Samples T-Tests for the Post-test Scores Table 4. The Values of ở in the Post-test Table 4. Paired Samples T-Tests of the Control Group Table 4.5, Paired Samples T-Tests of the Experimental Group Table 4.
The Values of d in the Experimental Group Table 4. The values of Cronbach’s Alpha in the Questionnaire Table 4. Learners’ Attitudes toward the Application of Flipped Learning Table 4. Effects of Flipped Learning on Learners’ Speaking Performance LIST OF CHARTS Chart 4.
Normal Distribution Curve for the Total Pre-test Scores for the Control and Experimental Groups Chart 4. Normal Distribution Curve for the Total Post-test Scores for the Control and Experimental Groups ABSTRACT In a conventional classroom, students encounter difficulties im learning Speaking, showing unsatisfactory performance. Hence, the flipped classroom model has been adopted and applied in various contexts around the globe, aiming to enhance learners’ speaking performance. Understanding the need to justify the use of flipped learning in teaching and learning Speaking, this study was conducted to investigate the effects of flipped learning on learners’ speaking performance and their attitudes toward the application in their speaking class.
It employs a quasi-experimental design and quantitative methods. Specifically, 16 students were assigned to the control group, while 18 were allocated to the experimental group. While the students in the control group were taught using the traditional classroom model, those in the control group learned with the flipped classroom model. Data from the groups were collected in the form of pre-test and post-speaking tests to shed light on the effects of flipped learning on learners’ speaking performance.
Meanwhile, a Likert-scale questionnaire comprising 12 close-ended questions was utilized to measure learners’ attitudes toward the application of flipped learning in their speaking class. The collected data was then reported and analyzed using SPSS. To elaborate, independent and paired samples t-tests were used to determine whether there were any significant differences between the mean speaking scores of the groups. In terms of the questionnaire, the mean value of the questionnaire, each attitude aspect, and each item were calculated, The findings disclosed that flipped learning improved learners’ speaking performance, particularly in Interaction, and Grammar and Vocabulary, and students held positive attitudes toward the application of flipped learnng model, with behavioral attitude being the most positive.
The research findings encourage the practical application of flipped learning in teaching Speaking to improve learners’ speaking performance. Keywords; effects, flipped learning, speaking performance, learners’ attitudes CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the background to the current study of the effects of flipped learning on learners’ speaking performance and its statement ofthe problem. Accordingly, these lead to the aims and research questions of the study alongside its scope and limitation, In addition, this chapter specifies the significance of the research prior to outlining its organization.1 Background to the Study Over recent years, globalization and advanced technologies have called for effective communication, entailing competent speakers of English. In language education, speaking is regarded as equivalent to language mastery since the overall success of the second or foreign language acquisition process could be observed through students’ ability to converse.
Developing new ideas, comprehending what others are saying, receiving and processing information, and creating something new are critical components of communication (Brown & Lee, 2015). With the growing importance of English as an international language, proficient speakers will have more opportunities for academic and career advancement, which puts more emphasis on improving students' speaking performance and making it a primary objective for most teachers and learners worldwide. In Vietnam, efforts and investments have been allocated to promote English language proficiency in speaking for students. Specifically, the National Foreign Language Project 2020 required college graduates to reach BI level on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), in which they could communicate confidently and use a foreign language independently.
However, on December 29th, 2018, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) admitted that Project 2020 failed, with less than 20 percent of participants achieving the goal. As a result, while high standards were set, thousands of students were held back from their graduations and harbored hard feclings towards the cducational system. Furthermore, according to the EF English Proficiency Index (2019-2021), Vietnam resides in the low- te proficient group in which learners can find directions as tourists, participate in small talks and understand simple emails from coworkers for three consecutive years. Overall, it is evident that despite the growing need and demands to improve speaking skills for students, their performance has been unsatisfactory.
This not only hinders their graduation but also causes them to miss their educational and work opportunities. Thus, it is of importance to employ another approach to teaching and learning speaking for students in Vietnam.2 Statement of the Problem Learning Speaking in a traditional classroom has been challenging for students due to four obstacles, including affective, social, instructional, and linguistic difficulties (Ur, 2000; Juhana, 2012; Hosni, 2014; Nguyen & Tran, 2015). First and foremost, affective filters contribute significantly to students’ unfulfilling speaking performance due to their fear of making mistakes, losing face, and lack of enthusiasm and confidence to speak up (Juhana, 2012), marking it as the main hindrance to developing speaking skills. With inhibition originating from criticism and peer pressure, students can only use the language in the classroom if they are prepared with necessary linguistic knowledge, such as grammatical structures and vocabulary.
In other words, this phenomenon can be explained by linguistic difficulties, such as a lack of language use and practice opportunities in class and outside of the classroom. In traditional classrooms, the majority of time is allocated to mastery of linguistic knowledge, such as grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Therefore, instead of spending class time on thorough analysis and application of learning content, students employ lower-order cognitive processes, such as remembering and understanding, before struggling to apply knowledge at the end of the lesson. After class, students must deal with homework independently and wait until the next lesson for the teacher's correction.
According to Riyaz & Mullick (2016), students struggle to build up their competence in grammar, vocabulary, and searching for ideas since they are only exposed to these when coming to their class. Hence, most students cannot use the language as successfully as expected, thus making courses fail to cater to learners' individual needs and diminish their confidence, motivation, and engagement in language lessons. Furthermore, learners are different individuals with distinct language abilities and background knowledge. Some may struggle to understand basic concepts, while others already move on to applying the content.
One size cannot fit all, yet the traditional classroom encouraged students to progress at the same pace, leaving either the advantaged too uninterested or the disadvantaged too miserable and desperate to fall behind. If only they had more time and space to process the language, the situation would be different. The situation shares the same patterns in Vietnam, with the dominance of linguistic difficulties. Vo et al.