Definition

In simple terms, distance language learning and teaching takes place when teachers and learners are not together in the same physical space and learning is mediated through the technology available. There are many forms of both formal and informal distance language learning, and the words “distance learning” are often used to refer to a number of different situations, mainly associated with attending a class remotely, through technology. Distance learning is often equated with online learning and, although online tools are used extensively in current distance learning practices, it is important to differentiate between distance learning through online environments and the online learning that many face-to-face institutions provide as part of a blended approach for otherwise traditional teaching.

The focus of this chapter is on language teaching provided by higher education distance learning institutions whose students choose, for the duration of their course, to learn mainly (and often completely) at a distance, through teaching materials, assessment, and interaction opportunities that have been specifically designed for this medium. Distance language-learning programs vary enormously in terms of materials, blend of self-access and tuition, and use of technology (among others) between different providers. Consequently this chapter will try to capture best practice from the research and experience of distance language-learning experts.

History

Distance language learning is a field where technological innovation is usually adopted early (White, Reference White, Chapelle and Sauro2017). It has evolved in parallel with both the dominant approaches to second language acquisition (SLA) and the advances in technology at different times. The earliest instances of distance language learning occurred in the early to mid-twentieth century, through correspondence courses (Sherry, Reference Sherry1995) in which tutor and student exchanged paper-based teaching materials and exercises for correction. This limited the language-learning experience to reading and writing skills, with an emphasis on grammar and translation, as was common practice at the time. The availability and increasingly widespread ownership of audio players that could use recorded material (first on vinyl, then on cassettes) afforded the opportunity to support listening skills, and the arrival of the recordable cassette made it possible to produce and record output that could be sent to the instructor. This coincided with a shift toward behaviorist language teaching, and students were expected to produce verbal and written output that either repeated what they had read or heard or required minimum manipulation of the language.

In the 1960s and 1970s broadcasters started programming distance learning education (Cambre, Reference Cambre and Anglin1991), which consisted of masterclasses provided by a lecturer and usually broadcast late at night. This practice had the drawback of enabling only one-way communication, but it supplemented the materials that distance learning institutions provided for their students. The presence of learning materials on broadcast schedules brought an awareness of distance education to many who had never encountered it and helped popularize it.

The growth in availability and affordability of home computers in the 1990s led to the development of language materials on CD-Rom. These multimedia platforms allowed access to audiovisual materials and interactive exercises, which, despite a shift in SLA toward communicative approaches at the time, remained mostly behavioristic in nature (Gimeno-Sanz, Reference Gimeno-Sanz2016). Some CD-Roms allowed learners to make recordings and compare them to a model answer, affording some opportunities to check their output, but feedback on tasks was mostly limited to whether the answer was correct or incorrect. Distance learning institutions would create such materials to supplement rather than replace the written materials they would send to their students. As the internet started to become ubiquitous and the use of technology, both in general and specifically for teaching and learning, became normalized (Bax, Reference Bax2003, Reference Bax2011), materials delivery shifted to online platforms – computer-based to begin with, then increasingly accessible through a variety of mobile devices. Nowadays some distance learning institutions no longer produce paper-based materials for their students.

In addition to the bespoke teaching and assessment materials that have been produced by language teachers at distance institutions, most students are given access to small group tutorials where they have the opportunity to practice their skills, ask questions, and interact with the teacher and among themselves. Initially and for a long time thereafter, these were mainly face-to-face encounters, although telephone tutorials were also available for those who could not or would not attend classes in person. Nowadays most opportunities for interaction are to be found online.

Teaching Methodology in Distance Language Learning

The most common setup for the delivery of distance language learning consists of a blending of materials for self-access and synchronous and asynchronous opportunities for interaction, both among students and tutors and among peers.

Self-Access Materials

The language-learning curriculum in distance learning settings usually incorporates a variety of competences and skills, including lexical, grammatical, and phonological competence, language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), knowledge about the areas where the language is spoken, and intercultural communication and competence. In addition, it is common for courses from higher education institutions to incorporate the development of transferable skills such as academic skills (summarizing, arguing), digital and information literacy skills, and employability and professional skills.

The main teaching materials usually consist of a combination of study guides, texts, and audiovisual material pitched at the appropriate level for the language course (often authentic material from a variety of sources, sometimes adapted), grammar explanations, exercises, pronunciation guides, vocabulary, and language-learning strategies. The types of exercise vary depending on the language and on the level. Generally each exercise aims to develop more than one skill. For example, materials designed to teach Chinese to Western students will focus on their learning to write the characters and getting the tonal training – in addition to reading, writing, speaking, listening, grammar, and vocabulary. Exercises are designed for students to practice language structures and check their understanding of the input provided through text, imagery, audio, or video; thus students produce output in the form of written texts or audio recordings and interact with others by engaging in written or oral discussion, either synchronously or asynchronously. Exercises are scaffolded so that, when students are presented with a new grammatical structure, for example, they have an opportunity to notice its use in context before being offered an explanation and opportunities to practice. A typical example (using the future tense) would follow the structure presented in Figure 6.1, with the scaffolded steps in the first row, the student process in the second, and an example in the third row.

Figure 6.1 Example of steps in the scaffolding of a new language structure in distance learning materials.

As students will complete most exercises on their own, it is paramount that answers to the questions and clear explanations or signposting to the relevant section of the teaching text are supplied. Authors need to consider the possible answers, both correct and incorrect, to the exercises, so that feedback that addresses common mistakes may be provided. This is relatively simple with low-level grammar exercises, for example, but more complex in the case of higher-level activities such as free writing or open-ended questions. For these types of exercise, the authors should provide model answers or guidance on the expectations of how a text should be structured and on the types of structures students should use so as to be able to check their work in a meaningful way. It is very important that authors consider the amount of time that completing the activities will take. Careful planning is necessary to avoid overworking the students by surpassing the number of hours per week allocated to the study of the course.

The language of instruction for explanations and exercises is usually the students’ first language (L1) for courses at beginner and lower intermediate levels (A1 and A2 of the Common European Framework of Reference), and the target language at intermediate (B1) and higher levels, although some courses may use both the L1 and the target language as an interim measure, bridging the transition. In addition, language-learning materials should expose learners to different cultures and variations of the target language so as to prepare them to access resources and interact with L2 speakers. Such exposure should cover different registers and dialects – for example, in the case of Spanish, the different accents, vocabulary, and structures used in Spain and in Latin American countries. To achieve this goal, distance language-learning material designers often use input sources and speakers from a variety of areas where the target language is spoken. Still, this is not always the case, as some areas show a preference for a particular variety (e.g. Mexican Spanish in the United States, or British English in parts of Europe).

Materials are usually designed well in advance of the start of the course, by an academic team of subject and distance language-learning experts. Traditionally, materials consisted of a combination of physical objects: printed books, workbooks, and audio delivered through the prevalent technology (vinyl records, cassettes, CDs), as well as video (cassettes, DVDs). Nowadays most materials are delivered online, in a combination of text, audio, and video digital files, interactive exercises, and online interaction tools. The lead time to plan the syllabus, write the materials, record the necessary audio and video, build the online environment, and design the assessment before the start of a course is often long, sometimes up to three years. As the expense of creating these resources is considerable, the materials are used for several years (Hurd, Beaven, & Ortega, Reference Hurd, Beaven and Ortega2001), even when they fall behind evolving technological capabilities. One implication of this long-term use is that authors try to avoid subjects and sources that could date quickly, although they could also update them easily and inexpensively by introducing links to more current resources when necessary.

Distance Learning Tools

The evolution of distance language teaching has been facilitated by developments in technology (White, Reference White2007, Reference White, Chapelle and Sauro2017). The tools currently used to interact online as part of the distance language-learning provision are both synchronous and asynchronous.

Among the asynchronous tools used, email continues to be the main method of communication between the institution, the tutors, and the students. Communication can also take place on social media channels, namely with those tutors who are willing to share their spaces with their students; and, in many cases, it plays out between an institution’s public spaces (e.g., Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok) and their online followers. This latter type of communication tends to be more focused on institutional initiatives, promotion of courses, and recruitment, whereas direct communication with the tutor tends to focus on individual queries. It is important to stress that whether a tutor chooses to share their private social media spaces with students is entirely up to them and not up to the institution, as there are ethical and privacy considerations involved, as well as issues around the mixing of personal and professional identities.

Another asynchronous tool that is often used is the online forum, where social interaction as well as academic activity can take place. Participation in forums can vary enormously between cohorts, but usually a small percentage of the students are very active and contribute often, whereas others contribute sporadically or not at all.

The most commonly used synchronous communication tool nowadays is online conferencing. Although many people assume that the use of synchronous audio or video conferencing for teaching is a relatively recent development mainstreamed by the COVID-19 pandemic, these tools have been used in distance language teaching for over twenty years. An early incarnation of the conferencing platforms that most teachers and students are now familiar with (Zoom, Teams, Adobe Connect) was Lyceum, created at the UK Open University in the late 1990s. This piece of software provided audio conferencing as well as whiteboards, mind maps, a document editor, and a chat facility. It was later replaced by Elluminate, which allowed the use of video and eventually the tools mentioned above. The early 2000s saw many studies on the use of Lyceum for language learning being carried out to investigate task design, student and tutor experiences, tutor skills for online teaching, multimodality, and many other issues related to using synchronous conferencing as a language teaching tool (de los Arcos & Arnedillo Sánchez, Reference de los Arcos, Arnedillo Sánchez, Zaphiris and Zacharia2006; Hampel & Hauck, Reference Hampel and Hauck2004; Rosell-Aguilar, Reference Rosell-Aguilar2005, Reference Rosell-Aguilar2006).

A common criticism of the use of technology-mediated communication in teaching languages is the assumption that this type of communication may not prepare students for “real” interaction outside the classroom. There is no evidence to support this view in the studies carried out, and it is worth pointing out that, for many people, most of the communication they engage in on a daily basis (social media comments, messaging, email, audio and video calls) is technology-mediated.

The use of technology in learning is now commonplace almost everywhere, but it is worth remembering that access to technology remains a luxury for many, and the digital divide between those who have access to it and those who do not, because of physical, economic, or cultural factors, is far from over. In addition, having access to technology does not equate to being able to use it for learning purposes, and digital literacy skills cannot be taken for granted.

Assessment and Feedback

Tutors

Teachers play a key part in the successful implementation of any learning approach (Comas-Quinn, Reference Comas-Quinn2011). The main role of distance learning tutors is not to teach new content, as this is usually done through the learning materials provided to the student. Instead, the roles of distance learning tutors include creating opportunities to practice what has been learnt at home, providing feedback, dealing with content, technical, and administrative queries, teaching learning strategies, offering practical and emotional support, and contributing to community building. The shift toward online learning that has taken place in both distance and blended learning has necessitated the formation of new skills. Initially training focused on the technical aspects as well as on the pedagogy of online teaching. Early initiatives involving synchronous online tutorials found that tutors encountered technical problems (Hampel, Reference Hampel2003; Hampel & Hauck, Reference Hampel and Hauck2004), although the majority liked using the software (Rosell-Aguilar, Reference Rosell-Aguilar2006). As learning technologies have become commonplace in education, alongside increased broadband speed and ownership of devices that can support audio and video conferencing, technical problems have reduced significantly, although they have not disappeared. It is not unusual for tutors to learn to use software as they go along, in an experience they share with their own students, which brings about a change in pedagogical relationships and hierarchies (Comas-Quinn, de los Arcos, & Mardomingo, Reference Comas-Quinn, de los Arcos and Mardomingo2012). These shifts in tutor roles have also impacted teacher training and professional development (Comas-Quinn, Reference Comas-Quinn and McCarthy2016). It is important to mention that distance learning tutors often work part-time for the distance learning institution and many have other jobs teaching elsewhere. This can have an impact on their availability and opportunities for training.

Students

Distance language learners have a very varied profile. While some are what one might consider “traditional” university students in terms of age and motivations for learning, many are adults who choose to study a language for pleasure or as an intellectual challenge (Coleman, Reference Coleman2009). One thing all distance language learners have in common is that they have chosen distance learning as their tuition mode. This is usually because they have barriers to accessing traditional face-to-face tuition. These barriers range from physical disability, mental health conditions, or financial circumstances, to time constraints such as having full-time work or caring for relatives. Regardless of their personal profile, there are a number of characteristics that make successful distance language learners, including motivation and the use of effective strategies for autonomous learning (Hurd, Reference Hurd, Hurd and Lewis2008).

Affective factors such as motivation, autonomy, and anxiety can have a considerable impact. In his affective profile of the good distance language learner, Xiao (Reference Xiao2012, p. 121) states that “the successful distance language learner is highly motivated with specific reasons for his/her study, perceived progress, and appropriate tactics to maintain motivation; he/she has strong self-efficacy, which may lead to increased motivation and an internal locus of learning; he/she is metacognitively mature, and uses his/her initiative in dealing with anxiety arising from the distance language learning process.” Motivation is an essential factor for success in language learning, and it becomes even more important in the distance learning environment (Furnborough, Reference Furnborough2012; Murphy & Hurd, Reference Murphy, Hurd, Nicolson, Murphy and Southgate2011). Motivation is a concept that includes the desire to achieve a language-learning goal, the effort that needs to be made toward this achievement, and the level of satisfaction with what has been achieved (Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, Reference Mitchell, Myles and Marsden2019), and has been linked to the role of identity (Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei, Dörnyei and Ushioda2009; Ushioda, Reference Ushioda2011).

Linked to motivation is another concept that is considered a success factor in distance learning: autonomy (Lewis, Reference Lewis and Murray2014). Learner autonomy refers to the level at which the student is involved in decision-making (what to study, when, how). In the case of language learning, autonomy goes beyond the individual, since this is a social activity that requires interaction. In a distance learning context, the interdependence between the learner and the others needs to be established and reconciled with the learner’s own, independent language-learning process (Furnborough, Reference Furnborough2012) if this learner is to be able to engage in social interaction, mostly online. Distance learning is often associated with flexibility – and, indeed, in terms of where and when the learning takes place it provides more flexibility than scheduled face-to-face classes at a traditional university, but it does so within the confines of set term dates and assessment deadlines. This flexibility places means learners need to have autonomy and be skilled in workload management. There is an apparent conflict between the autonomy required to engage in distance learning and the fact that distance learning courses are very structured and it is the course authors who decide what is presented to the student (Hurd, Beaven, & Ortega, Reference Hurd, Beaven and Ortega2001). Students, however, often find that they do not have as much time available for study as they would have hoped and make choices of their own, prioritizing some activities over others. White (Reference White, Chapelle and Sauro2017) proposes that distance language learners can be considered course producers, on the grounds that they construct their own course with the materials at their disposal, to suit their learning needs.

Another factor mentioned by Xiao (Reference Xiao2012) is anxiety. As stated above, these are people who have chosen to study at a distance and should therefore be used to working by themselves, but sometimes they find the prospect of attending a tutorial, particularly online (de los Arcos, Coleman, & Hampel, Reference de los Arcos, Coleman and Hampel2009), or collaborating online, or being assessed very challenging. This can lead to low attendance rates for tutorials, although students may have access to a recording of the tutorial that they can engage with at their own pace. Anxiety is also a factor in attrition, which can be higher than in traditional, face-to-face contexts, particularly before assessment points. The first assessment in a course and the end of module assessment are key points at which distance students drop out (Simpson, Reference Simpson2004, Reference Simpson2013), often because they feel unprepared (IET Student Statistics and Survey Team, 2014).

A sense of community is essential in distance language-learning environments (Nielson and González-Lloret, Reference Nielson and González-Lloret2010). At the turn of the century, isolation and overcoming “the loneliness of the long-distance language learner” (Shield, Reference Shield2000) were common areas for concern. This factor has decreased as communication technology has become prevalent, but it still affects learners to some degree. To remedy loneliness and foster interaction (both in the L1 and the target language), learners are encouraged to form a community of peers where they can discuss course-related matters pertaining to the subject as well as strategies for coping with being a distance learner. Sometimes community building is embedded in the teaching strategy as well.

To counter some of the problems that affect distance learners, institutions offer support in a variety of ways and at different stages: before the start of the course (information about its content, duration, assessment, methodologies), at the start and throughout the course (technical problems, timely response times for queries and assessment), and after the course (careers services) (Jones & Bartlett, Reference Jones and Bartlett2004). Although the recording of small classes (as opposed to lecture capture) for public viewing is controversial on account of privacy as well as copyright issues – and language learning seems to be among the least obvious subjects where watching a recording may be of benefit to the learner, given a viewer’s lack of participation and interaction – there are advantages to watching recordings, such as consolidation and reflection, or access to different voices and perspectives (Pleines, Reference Pleines2020). Students with disabilities may require additional support through assistive technology and software add-ons, and institutions can provide alternative formats for the course materials (e.g. PDFs for print materials that are tagged for screen readers) as well as image descriptions, transcripts for audiovisual materials, and optimized navigation for browsers.

Recent developments have also focused on peer support, for instance in the form of contracting a student from a previous cohort of the course to act as an experienced “study buddy” (Motzo, Reference Motzo, Goria, Speicher and Stollhans2016) and guide the new students through areas they find problematic or anxiety-inducing.

Finally, the characteristics of the good distance learner in terms of motivation and autonomy can predispose them to make the most of the opportunities afforded by informal learning, supplementing their formal tuition with individual activity that involves using language-learning apps, signing up to MOOCs (Beaven, Reference Beaven, Beaven, Comas-Quinn and Sawhill2013; Rosell-Aguilar, Reference Rosell-Aguilar2018), streaming services, and podcasts to practice their listening skills (Rosell-Aguilar, Reference Rosell-Aguilar, Borthwick, Corradini and Dickens2015), interacting with others on social media (Kelly, Reference Kelly, Comas-Quinn, Beaven and Sawhill2019; Rosell-Aguilar, Reference Rosell-Aguilar2020), or engaging in e-tandem activities (Lewis, Reference Lewis, Gola, Pierrard, Tops and Van Raemdonck2020).

Research Trends Related to Flipped Classrooms

The popularity of flipped classrooms in education is evident from a number of systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in recent years. Table 7.1 presents a chronological list of previous reviews that are selected and discussed here. These reviews differ in their scope and research questions, but all contribute to identifying current trends in flipped classroom research.

While it has been proposed that the flipped classroom approach can be applied at all educational levels (Bergmann & Sams, Reference Bergmann and Sams2012), its distribution in practice varies widely. For example, Akçayır and Akçayır (Reference Akçayır and Akçayır2018) surveyed the full range of Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) publications between 2000 and 2016 using the Web of Science (WoS) database, and the results revealed that 80 percent of the seventy-one reviewed studies focused on university learners. The fact that participation in flipped classrooms generally requires higher levels of technology literacy and student self-regulation may explain why far fewer studies have adopted the flipped classroom approach in K–12 education.

Contextualized in higher education, O’Flaherty and Phillips’s (Reference O’Flaherty and Phillips2015) review is one of the earliest attempts to systematically synthesize flipped classroom research. Between 1995 and 2014, the authors conducted a scoping review by searching for relevant studies in peer-refereed journals and grey literature using eight databases (WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar among them). A total of twenty-eight primary studies in various subject domains were identified, most of them centering on STEM learning and only one focusing on language learning. Likewise, Al-Samarraie et al. (Reference Al-Samarraie, Shamsuddin and Alzahrani2020) conducted a synthesis of flipped classroom studies at universities published between 2009 and 2018 using five databases (WoS and ScienceDirect among them). They retrieved eighty-five relevant articles across disciplines, and further found that, in social sciences and humanities, the reviewed approach was mostly implemented in language courses. Interestingly, when the results of this study are compared with the review by O’Flaherty and Phillips (Reference O’Flaherty and Phillips2015), it appears that there has been a notable increase in the number of flipped language classrooms over the past few years.

More recently, three domain-specific reviews of flipped classroom research in the field of L2 education (Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Jong, Lau, Chai, Liu and Park2020; Turan & Akdag-Cimen, Reference Turan and Akdag-Cimen2020; Zou et al., Reference Zou, Luo, Xie and Hwang2020) have been published in a major journal, Computer Assisted Language Learning, which indicates that this approach has drawn significant attention from L2 researchers and educators. All three reviews feature a content analysis method for synthesizing important topics over a period of up to five years, using mainly the Web of Science (WoS) database. The findings of the abovementioned reviews (alongside others, summarized in Table 7.1) have led to comparable observations concerning recent trends of the flipped classroom approach in L2 education. These are summarized as follows:

• Settings. Most of the flipped language classrooms have been implemented in higher education institutions or universities (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, Reference Turan and Akdag-Cimen2020; Zou et al., Reference Zou, Luo, Xie and Hwang2020).

• Participants. Learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) have been the primary target population (Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Jong, Lau, Chai, Liu and Park2020; Turan & Akdag-Cimen, Reference Turan and Akdag-Cimen2020; Zou et al., Reference Zou, Luo, Xie and Hwang2020).

• Technology integration. Numerous technologies have been integrated into flipped language classrooms, and have been used mostly for content delivery and comprehension facilitation in pre-class preparation, via learning management systems (LMSs) such as Blackboard and Moodle (Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Jong, Lau, Chai, Liu and Park2020; Zou et al., Reference Zou, Luo, Xie and Hwang2020).

• Task design. Various pre-class and in-class activities or tasks have been used for flipped learning – the pre-class category being mainly devoted to self-paced video lectures, the in-class category to interactive group discussions (Akçayır & Akçayır, Reference Akçayır and Akçayır2018; Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Jong, Lau, Chai, Liu and Park2020).

• Effects. Most of the research on flipped language classrooms has revealed positive effects on student learning, most students reporting increased engagement followed by enhanced academic or language performance (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, Reference Turan and Akdag-Cimen2020; Zou et al., Reference Zou, Luo, Xie and Hwang2020).

• Challenges. Major challenges facing students have been related to the need for guidance during out-of-class learning and the heavy workload of pre-class learning (Akçayır & Akçayır, Reference Akçayır and Akçayır2018; Turan & Akdag-Cimen, Reference Turan and Akdag-Cimen2020; Zou et al., Reference Zou, Luo, Xie and Hwang2020).

Collectively, the reviews discussed here provide a snapshot of the state of the art in flipped classroom research. The trends identified also help shape directions for future research and the development of flipped language classrooms. It should be noted that not every flipped classroom leads to successful student learning, and that an effective flipped classroom requires more than a reversal between homework and lectures in instructional design. However, as can be seen from the research trends in technology use and task design, the current practice of flipped language classrooms appears to reflect a rather rigid way of learning, without much innovation. Therefore future investigations may look into the potential of interactive technologies beyond LMSs (e.g. social media, digital games, student response systems, virtual reality, augmented reality, and chatbots) to support interactive learning tasks other than group discussions. Such support could move the research forward by shifting the focus from “to flip or not to flip” to “how best to flip if one must.”

Theoretical Groundings for Flipping the Classroom

Researchers’ choices of theoretical perspectives when flipping the classroom often vary across contexts; and they vary on the basis of what is being researched. In the field of L2 education, a number of studies have drawn on general theories of learning to guide the development and implementation of flipped language classrooms. As outlined below, these studies should serve as useful references for L2 researchers to make informed decisions about theoretical frameworks for flipped classroom interventions.

Cognitive load theory proposed by Sweller (Reference Sweller1994) has been very influential in guiding the instructional design of educational research. Cognitive load theory is primarily concerned with the total mental effort placed on learners’ working memory, which has a limited cognitive capacity: It can process information within an estimated range of 7±2 chunks. According to Clark et al. (Reference Clark, Nguyen and Sweller2006), learners’ working memory is subject to three major types of cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. Thus the application of cognitive load theory to flipped classrooms becomes relevant in connection with the idea of redesigning learning activities and materials so as to reduce learners’ mental effort and enable an appropriate self-management of cognitive load (Abeysekera & Dawson, Reference Abeysekera and Dawson2015). For example, Tonkin, Page, and Forsey (Reference Tonkin, Page and Forsey2019) adopted the lens of cognitive load theory to flip an introductory German course for university students. In reducing the L2 learners’ cognitive load, the researchers replaced the face-to-face grammar lectures with manageable chunks of information in the form of short online videos. It was found that the flipped learning mechanism allowed the students to exert control over the pre-class learning materials and content, which also provided them with sufficient prior knowledge and confidence to participate in activities of applying the learned grammatical structures in class, with greater ease and lowered cognitive load.

Self-regulated learning (or self-regulation) refers to the processes through which learners systematically activate and adapt their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors regarding the attainment of their learning goals (Zimmerman, Reference Zimmerman1986). From the perspective of self-regulation theory, effective learning is more likely to occur when students are assisted to become self-regulated learners, aware of their individual differences in learning and masters of their own learning processes (Schunk & Zimmerman, Reference Schunk and Zimmerman2012; Zimmerman, Reference Zimmerman1990). However, a concern in flipped classroom research is that students may not always regulate themselves well, particularly in pre-class learning activities. Researchers thus highlight the potential of self-regulation theory for guiding the design of learning environments to better prepare students for flipped learning activities in and out of class (Lai & Hwang, Reference Lai and Hwang2016). This kind of instructional support and assistance for students typically focuses on students setting their own goals, monitoring their own learning progress, adjusting their own learning behaviors, and assessing their own performance. For instance, Shyr and Chen (Reference Shyr and Chen2018) applied this theory to develop a self-regulated learning system for use in an inverted classroom with undergraduate non-English majors. The system contained a set of theory-driven scaffolds or prompts, such as goal-setting and self-monitoring, which were designed to facilitate students’ self-regulation throughout the flipped learning process. Findings from the study showed that flipping the English classroom with the aid of the self-regulated learning system significantly enhanced the students’ self-regulation, which later contributed to their language learning performance.

Sociocultural theory is rooted in the work of L. S. Vygotsky and aims to make us understand how a child’s mental functions are shaped by the broader social and cultural contexts. In the words of Vygotsky (Reference Vygotsky1978, p. 57), “every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level.” The concept of social origin is considered a cornerstone of sociocultural theory and has been used to explain the significance of social interaction in L2 acquisition (Lantolf, Reference Lantolf2000). As applied to flipped language classrooms, this theoretical understanding prompts L2 researchers to maximize interaction opportunities in their interventions. A paradigmatic study (Yang, Yin, & Wang, Reference Yang, Yin and Wang2018) of this kind of application examined students’ flipped learning of Chinese as a foreign language at a university in the United States. For out-of-class learning activities, the students were given opportunities to interact (1) with their peers, via asynchronous text-based discussions, using a course management system and (2) with the instructor, via synchronous oral communication, using a mobile messaging app. In-class learning activities were mostly collaborative, designed to help the students practice the four skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) in problem-solving tasks. Results of this study revealed that those who learned with the flipped classroom approach significantly outperformed those who learned with the lecture-and-drill approach, particularly in speaking (out of the four skills), largely because there were more social and meaningful interactions in the flipped language classroom.

Each of the aforementioned studies draws on a certain theory of learning to set grounds for flipped language classrooms, reflecting researchers’ varying assumptions about learning and thus their approaches to instructional design. Indeed, there are a variety of theoretical contexts in which flipped classrooms may operate, and most researchers designed their interventions on the basis of general learning theories (e.g. cognitive load theory, self-regulation theory, and sociocultural theory). According to the recent review of flipped language classrooms by Jiang et al. (Reference Jiang, Jong, Lau, Chai, Liu and Park2020), very few studies in the existing literature incorporate theories of L2 acquisition. Further studies are therefore necessary to strengthen the connection between flipped classrooms and language education by adopting domain-specific theories of learning. Doing so can enhance the robustness of design and better capture the distinct nature of L2 learning in the context of flipped classrooms.

Guidelines for Designing Flipped Classrooms

When flipping the classroom for student-centered learning, the broadly defined approach is often simplistically interpreted as doing “homework at school” and “schoolwork at home.” However, it is important to note that merely exchanging what is done in class with what is done out of class cannot guarantee the desired learning outcomes. Research has shown that, when design is not considered properly, students may encounter various challenges or difficulties while they learn in the flipped classroom. A few examples of such difficulties are being resistant to the unfamiliar structure of flipped learning (Herreid & Schiller, Reference Herreid and Schiller2013), feeling stressed with the pre-class preparation (Wang, Reference Wang2016), and lacking self-regulated learning skills without guidance (Shyr & Chen, Reference Shyr and Chen2018). In light of the potential challenges, Bergmann and Sams (Reference Bergmann and Sams2014) as well as other researchers (e.g., Hwang, Lai, & Wang, Reference Hwang, Lai and Wang2015; Shahnama et al., Reference Shahnama, Ghonsooly and Shirvan2021; Zou et al., Reference Zou, Luo, Xie and Hwang2020) have pointed out that effective flipped classrooms require thoughtful attention to student-centered instructional design, because the aim is to maximize student–student, student–teacher, and student–content interactions. Table 7.2 outlines some of the prominent design frameworks of flipped classrooms, highlighting their respective design principles or practical recommendations.

Among various expert opinions on how best to flip, the design framework proposed by the Flipped Learning Network (2014), namely the pillars of F-L-I-P^TM, is perhaps the earliest and the most commonly known in the literature. This design framework specifies four essential elements that contribute to successful flipped classrooms, namely (1) flexible environments – the time and space or context in which learning takes place flexibly; (2) learning culture – the ways of knowing, thinking, and doing among active learners; (3) intentional content – the materials that are intentionally designed to enable active learning activities; and (4) professional educators – the role of the teacher in fostering meaningful connections between the learner, the content, and the context. On the basis of these four pillars or elements, the Flipped Learning Network (2014) further provides a checklist of eleven design principles that teachers must incorporate into their practice of flipped classrooms.

In a highly cited article, Kim et al. (Reference Kim, Kim, Khera and Getman2014) adopted the revised community of inquiry framework (Shea et al., Reference Shea, Hayes, Smith, Vickers, Bidjerano, Pickett, Gozza-Cohen, Wilde and Jian2012) to examine multidisciplinary applications of the flipped classroom approach in higher education. This framework consists of four elements that can inform the instructional design of flipped classrooms: (1) cognitive presence – the knowledge building and thinking; (2) social presence – the encouraging settings for discourses; (3) teaching presence – the instructional orchestration of activities or tasks; and (4) learner presence – the self-regulated and co-regulated strategies for learning. The findings obtained from the three theory-driven flipped classrooms in different disciplines – engineering, social studies, and humanities – have been used to guide the elaboration of nine evidence-based design principles, which are considered to be applicable to typical undergraduate courses.

In a recent research synthesis, Lo (Reference Lo2018) attempted to ground the instructional design of flipped classrooms in Spector’s (Reference Spector2015) framework of educational technology in order to generate a systematic set of design principles. This framework comprises six pillars, and each is defined as follows:

Based on the literature review results of forty-nine empirical studies, Lo then proposed ten recommendations or design principles for flipping the classroom in K–12 and higher education.

The sets of design principles shown in Table 7.2, while drawing on different frameworks – namely the four pillars of F-L-I-P^TM, the revised community of inquiry framework, and the six pillars of educational technology – are all meant to offer a general guide to the implementation of flipped classrooms in education. They can be adopted or adapted to meet the needs of students and other stakeholders.

A crucial observation from the design considerations discussed here is that they are not specific to certain disciplines and do not specify technologies. Therefore, when applying a particular framework or a specific set of principles to guide the instructional design of flipped classrooms, it is important to provide precise descriptions of how exactly the selected design considerations are realized in a local context. For instance, Hung (Reference Hung2017) employed the four pillars of F-L-I-P^TM as a design framework to flip an English course for L2 students in a two-group quasi-experimental study. The adopted framework was thus appropriated into a flexible language learning environment (the F pillar), a language learning culture (the L pillar), intentional linguistic content (the I pillar), with professional language educator (the P pillar). Taking the P pillar as an example, it was further specified that the teacher adopted two different strategies of peer instruction and just-in-time teaching for the experimental and control groups respectively, so as to facilitate different ways of using a student response system – Kahoot! – for flipped English learning.

As Bergmann and Sams (Reference Bergmann and Sams2014) put it, “[e]ach teacher can personalize their version of flipped learning for their students” (p. 7). While there are virtually limitless design possibilities for flipped classrooms, articulating the instructional design is necessary to help disseminate the practice in a meaningful and useful way. The aforementioned design frameworks and principles may provide a jumping-off point for interested practitioners. One fruitful direction for future practice is for educators to incorporate additional strategies for active student learning in order to meet the curricular objectives within the broader pedagogical context of flipped classrooms. A wide array of active learning strategies are currently available for exploration. Examples include inquiry-based learning, task-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, self-directed learning, and game-based learning. Incorporating such strategies is a worthy attempt to design and develop flipped classroom enhancements that are believed to be more conducive to active and meaningful learning.

Low Bandwidth, Low Immediacy Approach to Technology Use

Three main areas of interest in the use of ICT in language teaching and in learning in general, either face to face or online, are access to language learning input, opportunities for producing target language input, and facilitation of interaction and feedback. The internet is a copious and wide-ranging source of language input, both oral and written. It allows language teachers and learners to download, real-time stream, and upload text, audio, audiovisual, and multimedia files from websites and mobile applications. It also facilitates synchronous and asynchronous interaction in the form of text, audio, and video chat.

All over the world, language teachers and learners use multiformat input – that is, text, image, audio, audiovisual, and multimedia. Text-only, although inexpensive, is often unappealing to language learners, hence language teachers strive to incorporate multimedia input into their teaching. However, multimedia requires more bandwidth as a result of file size. Comparably, when learners produce the target language output, file size is also of concern, because saving and sending a task or a project in an audiovisual format is more costly, in terms of memory and bandwidth, than saving and sending it in audio or text-only formats.

Similar problems occur when technology is used to mediate communication and interaction among learners, and between learners and teachers. Synchronous video conference platforms such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and Skype require hefty bandwidth to stream high-quality videos. A one-to-one video call in a low-resolution setting needs 0.4–0.6 megabits per second (Mbps), while its high-resolution counterpart calls for 1.2–1.5 Mbps (Business Insider South Africa, 2020). The requirement is much higher for group video calls. Without a reliable internet connection, users may experience a connection lag that renders the audio and video choppy or blurry and sometimes causes disconnection. Speedguide.net recommends reserving two Mbps both downstream and upstream for high-definition video, keeping in mind that video conferencing needs much bigger upstream than downstream bandwidth.

On the other hand, a WhatsApp video call designed for low-quality calling requires a minimum bandwidth of 0.064 Mbps (Business Insider South Africa, 2020). It allows up to eight users in one video call, which makes it ideal for pair and group virtual interaction. Thus this app would be a sensible option if we have low bandwidth and limited data. Stanford (Reference Stanford2020), an instructional designer, offers a bandwidth immediacy matrix to help teachers recognize their options. Figure 8.1 shows that those in a low-tech teaching and learning environment can make use of the “underappreciated workhorses” of bandwidth and low immediacy tools such as discussion boards with text/images, readings with text/images, and email. Low bandwidth and low immediacy technologies such as collaborative documents and group chat and messaging, which provide a sense of “practical immediacy,” are also feasible choices.

Figure 8.1 Bandwidth Immediacy Matrix.

(Stanford, Reference Stanford2020)

ICT provides inexhaustible access to second and foreign language input in the form of text, audio, audiovisual, and other multimedia formats. However, language teachers and learners may have difficulties accessing it when they are in a low-tech environment. Employing a low bandwidth, low immediacy, and common application approach, language teachers often do some of these tricks:

• They use flash disks to save texts, audios, and videos downloaded from the internet. There are many copyright-free resources on the internet that language teachers and students can use. These files can be distributed to students and used offline. File size can be reduced if the files are sent through emails or chat apps. When they are used in class, they can be projected on a wall using an LCD projector (if available).

• They save websites to access them offline. If a website is saved as a pdf or as an html file, it can be saved to a local hard drive or flash disk for offline use. There are also website and apps downloaders that allow us to download or clone a whole website, with all its links, onto the website for offline use.

• They use Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds to get access to content without expensive data usage. Rather than going to individual websites and having to download unnecessary media items, an RSS feed gives us the basic content without some of the overheads. There are a variety of RSS feed readers (e.g., Reeder 5 https://reederapp.com for Mac/iOS users, RSSOwl www.rssowl.org/ for Windows, iOS, and Linux users, and RSS Feed Reader https://feeder.co for Google Chrome users) and different platforms, many of them free. Some of these applications allow us to block media items and only load text content.

When using resources for education purposes, however, language teachers and learners need to be aware that some materials are copyrighted and should be used only under their own country’s definition of fair use in education.

Maximizing Technology Affordances

Although the functionality of small mobile devices such as smartphones has increased considerably in recent years, there are still many ways in which they are inferior to desktops or laptops – for many tasks. Moreover, not all mobile phones are smart phones. Some of them are basic low-cost mobile phones that feature tiny low-resolution non-touch screens and make it difficult (if not impossible) to engage and interact with instructional content (UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, 2020). In most developing countries, internet access is primarily via mobile phones. In Africa, for example, only 7.7 percent of households possess a computer (Alsop, Reference Alsop2021). But even there the percentage is probably highly skewed in favor of wealthier countries such as South Africa and Egypt.

This being the case, when language instructors assign tasks to their students, it is imperative that they ensure that it is technically feasible for students to carry out the tasks without undue frustration.

Some major limitations of small, portable devices are as follows:

• Small screen size

  Mobile users will incur a higher interaction cost in order to access the same amount of information and must rely on their short-term memory to refer to information that is not visible on the screen. This increases the cognitive load, leaving less of it available for comprehending and accomplishing the task at hand. Also, though the screen is small, a larger proportion of its space must be used for objects that require touch, since fingers are larger than a mouse pointer; thus further reducing the information available on a single screen (Budiu, Reference Budiu2015).

• Lack of a keyboard capable of touch-typing

  Users need to continuously divide their attention between the content they are typing and the keypad area. Touch-typing is impossible in the absence of haptic feedback; plus, keypads themselves are small and keys are crowded.

• Lack of a coherent directory structure

  Connectivity issues will prevent the use of cloud storage devices to access needed files.

• Inability to keep multiple apps open simultaneously

• Inability to view multiple app windows simultaneously

• Comprehension

  Readers can understand short, simple text content on mobile devices just as well as on computers, but they slow down when reading difficult text on mobiles (Moran, Reference Moran2016).

If we are asking students to do work on their mobile phones, or even on a tablet, it is best to require work that can be done within these guidelines:

• The assignment should not require the viewing of large spreadsheets, or graphic data with fine detail.

• The assignment should require little or no copy and paste across different applications.

• It should use content that is short and of low reading difficulty.

• It should not require access to multiple files.

• It should not require a high volume of text input, unless the student mobiles are equipped with a voice input system.

These restrictions imply no video calls, no use of mobile apps, and no downloading and storing of multiple files when students are using basic mobile phones.

Common Applications Used as Language Learning Tools

Language teachers and learners often use a variety of commonplace applications that help students learn a language. These applications may, however, vary by region. Because language learners have access to these everyday apps and understand how to use them, language teachers in low-tech environments often use them for language learning.

Common Applications for Communication and Collaboration

Television and Radio for Language Learning

In some remote areas where the internet is not accessible, language learners make use of television and radio as sources of target language input as well as of language learning instructions. Although television and radio programs broadcast in the target language can provide valuable information for language learners, they may not be appropriate for all levels of competence. Because the grammatical difficulty of the language used in these programs is considerable, advanced learners will undoubtedly profit more than beginners. On the other hand, because the language used is basic and the themes are familiar, lower proficiency-level learners may benefit from watching cartoons for kids. Intermediate-level learners may find subtitles useful in interpreting auditory materials presented on television; nonetheless, subtitles can be incorrect and cause confusion. As a result of the mono modality, radio programs will appeal to advanced learners.

Some countries also offer language instruction programs that are broadcast on national and local television channels at particular times of the day. Despite the fact that they are few in number, they are frequently helpful in providing learners with explanations on grammatical points, vocabulary use, and language skills advice. According to UNESCO (2020), many broadcasters today design their programs to include more interactive elements in order to catch the attention of students, particularly younger ones. As these programs are also intended to serve as a forum for sharing information and experiences, they may include online quizzes and student engagement activities.

Using the radio and television for language learning has significant obstacles, including:

• With radio programs, there is a lack of audiovisual content for language learning.

• Many countries struggle to generate language learning programs in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality for language learners of various levels of proficiency.

• Learners are left to their own devices because of a lack of learning monitoring and evaluation, as well as a lack of interaction among learners and between learners and teachers.

• Language learning programs are often teacher-centered and use out-of-date methods, such as audio-lingual ones.

Language learning tasks that can be supported by television and radio include:

• listening

• watching while listening

• listening while reading

• watching while listening and reading

• note-taking

• summarizing.