Proficiency

had a significant effect on students’ production in class. This is especially vital in the present study, in which classes are not being taught in the students' mother tongue. Therefore, without the ability to watch and listen to the teacher's explanations a number of times and have the option of reading closed captions of what is being said, it becomes easy for students to miss important explanations of the class.

for the students’ compositions in Week 1 and Week 10 for each group can be seen in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6

Comparisons of English composition proficiency in the present study

Week 1 Week 10

Group Mean SD 95%CI Mean SD 95%CI

Flipped 11.09 3.19 [9.96, 12.22] 15.55* 4.44 [13.97, 17.12]

Regular 7.67 2.73 [6.70, 8.63] 9.70* 3.88 [8.32, 11.07]

Note. * p < .001; Max.: 25; Min.: 0.

Independent samples t tests were conducted to determine whether learning in a flipped classroom environment is more effective in increasing the proficiency of students' ability than those studying in a regular classroom. The results indicated that at Week 1, the mean

proficiency of the Flipped Group (M = 11.09, SD = 3.19) was already significantly greater than that of the Regular Group (M = 7.67, SD = 2.73), t(64) = 4.42, p < .001 with an effect size index of d = 1.15. This suggests that the proficiency of the Flipped Group was higher

than that of the Regular Group at Week 1 of the study. Therefore, rather than compare the two groups' proficiency at the beginning and end of the study, the authors decided to look at changes of proficiency within each group.

A paired samples t test was conducted to investigate the changes in proficiency within the Flipped Group and whether a significant improvement would be observed. The results, which can be seen in Table 2.6, indicated that the mean average for Week 10 (M = 15.55, SD

= 4.44) was significantly greater than the mean proficiency for Week 1 (M = 11.09, SD = 3.19), t(32) = 5.17, p < .001, with a strong effect size (d = 1.15). The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the two ratings of proficiency was 2.70 to 6.21.

Second, a paired samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether students in the Regular Group were able to make significant improvements in their English composition writing proficiency. The results showed that the mean for Week 10 (M = 9.70, SD = 3.88) was significantly greater than that of Week 1 (M = 7.67, SD = 2.73), t(32) = 3.72, p < .001, with medium effect sizes reported (d = .61). The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the two ratings of proficiency was 1.78 to 5.07. A Split-Plot Analysis of Variance was conducted to measure whether the increase in the English composition

proficiency of the Flipped Group between the Pre- and Post- Tests was significantly greater

than that of the Regular Group. The results were significant with the Flipped Group displaying great improvements in comparison to the Regular Group between the Pre and Posttests, F (1, 64) = 9.00, p = .020, ηp2 = .08.

A second way of testing the effects on proficiency was conducting a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Larson-Hall suggests an ANCOVA as a useful technique to use when “there is some external factor, such as pre-test or TESOL score, which will affect how your students will perform on the response variable” (2010, p. 357). This method has been used in previous studies (e.g., Lyster, 2004; Lim & Hui Zhong, 2006; Fraser, 2007;

Larson-Hall, 2008) in order to remove the differences observed at the pre-test stage. The study by Lim and Hui Zhong (2006) comparing a regular reading class and one conducted in a computer-assisted language learning environment especially resembles the study described in the present paper as it found statistically significant differences in the pretest scores. It was therefore deemed satisfactory by the authors to run an ANCOVA to give an accurate

indication of the performance of both groups, despite the statistical differences observed in the pretest. The ANCOVA shows that when pretest scores for both groups are adjusted to 9.38, the proficiency of students in the Flipped Group in the posttest (M = 14.67) is

significantly greater than those in the Regular Group (M = 10.57), F (1, 63) = 13.50, p < .001,

with strong effect sizes (η² = .18) according to the standards of effect size strength for ANCOVA (Green & Salkind, 2011, p. 213). Table 2.7 displays the adjusted scores for the Flipped Group and Regular Group in this study.

Table 2.7

Comparisons of English composition proficiency with ANCOVA adjustments

Group Week 1 Week 10 95%CI

Flipped 9.38 14.67* [13.20, 16.14]

Regular 9.38 10.57 [9.10, 12.04]

Note. * p < .001; Max.: 25; Min.: 0; SPSS Version 22 does not supply standard deviations for

ANCOVA; 95%CI is not required for Week 1 as both scores are adjust by the ANCOVA to

be identical.

The results confirm that using a flipped method in an English composition class is

indeed more effective in increasing students' proficiency than a regular class. Significantly greater scores were seen in Week 10 for both groups, which indicates that the teacher's instruction was effective in improving writing ability. However, despite the significantly

greater proficiency observed in the Flipped Group at the beginning of the study, the members of this group were able to increase their scores even further which is evident in the stronger effect sizes in the comparison of Week 1 and Week 10 for the Flipped Group. Similar to the discussion related to the number of hours studied and amount of words produced by students earlier in this paper, the ability to play and replay explanations of the structure of English compositions given by the instructor, as well as accessibility to links recommended to students via the videos rather than simply being mentioned in class, may have been vital factors in helping to increase the proficiency of students in the Flipped Group more rapidly than that of those in the Regular Group.

Another reason for the increased study and production by students and more rapid improvement in proficiency seen in the Flipped Group may be personalized instruction, a vital aspect of education at any level (Keefe, 2007). Students in the flipped classroom environment were able to watch the instructional videos at their convenience and digest the teacher’s explanation well before the class. This allowed more opportunities for the instructor to work one-on-one with those students on weekly assignments. In the present study, these weekly assignments were English compositions. As the students were typing their

compositions, the instructor walked around the classroom giving advice based on weak points

he noticed in students’ work. Furthermore, it was easy for the teacher to give brief

explanations to the entire class if there were any common errors discovered. On the other hand, students in the Regular Group only received feedback from the teacher a week after they had completed their compositions. What students were writing was no longer fresh in their mind, and they were not able to make any adjustments to their compositions as those in the Flipped Group were. Furthermore, even though the instructor was able to give feedback to the entire class regarding common errors noticed in students’ writing, which also could not be done until days after the compositions had been submitted. The capability of giving

immediate feedback to students during the process of writing the English compositions appears to give a clear advantage to students in a flipped classroom environment.