17
Hokkaido University of Education Title Enhancing Students� Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Inter action App Author(s) AISSA, Ahmed; KATAGIRI, Noriaki Citation �. �, 70(1): 69-83 Issue Date 2019-08 URL http://s-ir.sap.hokkyodai.ac.jp/dspace/handle/123456789/10526 Rights

Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

Hokkaido University of Education

TitleEnhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Inter

action App

Author(s) AISSA, Ahmed; KATAGIRI, Noriaki

Citation 北海道教育大学紀要. 人文科学・社会科学編, 70(1): 69-83

Issue Date 2019-08

URL http://s-ir.sap.hokkyodai.ac.jp/dspace/handle/123456789/10526

Rights

Page 2: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

北海道教育大学紀要(人文科学・社会科学編)第70巻 第1号� 令�和�元�年�8�月Journal�of�Hokkaido�University�of�Education�(Humanities�and�Social�Sciences)�Vol.�70,�No.1� August,�2019

69

Enhancing�Students’�Speaking�Performance�Through�a�Flipped�Interaction�App

AISSA�Ahmed�and�KATAGIRI�Noriaki

Department�of�English�Communication�Studies,�Asahikawa�Campus,�Hokkaido�University�of�Education

反転授業アプリケーションによるスピーキング力向上の効果測定

アイサ アハメッド・片桐 徳昭

北海道教育大学旭川校英語コミュニケーション学研究室

ABSTRACT

 Speaking�is�one�of�the�four�language�skills�with�which�Moroccan�and�Japanese�students�struggle� the�most�when�they�take� the�Test�of�English�as�a�Foreign�Language� Internet-based�Test,�or�TOEFL� iBT�(test�and�score�data�summary� for�TOEFL� iBT�Tests,�2018).�Aissa�and�Katagiri�(2019)�reached� the�conclusion� that�both� the�Moroccan�and�Japanese�English� education� systems�have� similar�problems� related� to� the� speaking� skill� of� the�students.�Because�of� this,� the�current�paper� introduces� the� flipped� interaction�method�through� a� smartphone� app� to� help� students� in� both� countries� develop� their� oral�performance.�Based�on�previous� study� findings� that� showed� the� impact� of� the� flipped�learning�model,� the�authors�examined� the�effect�of� the� framework�and�concepts�of� the�Mobile�Active�Learning�Outside�of�Class�app�(MALO)�on�university�students’� speaking�performance.�Twenty-two� Japanese�university� students�majoring� in�English� language�education�participated� in� the�eight-week-long�study.�The�participants�(n�=�11)� in� the�experimental�group�utilized�MALO�on�a�smartphone�for�flipped�interactions�before�the�in-class�discussions.�The�teacher�monitored�and�evaluated�the�experimental�group�participants’�interactions,�which�were�completed� in�response� to� the�prompts,�and� in-class�discussions�followed�as�a�verbal� realization�of� the� flipped� interactions.�The�participants� in�both� the�experimental� and�control�groups�carried�out�a� series�of� the� same�discussions,� and� the�experimental�group�also�completed�as�peaking�pretest�and�posttest�and�a�questionnaire.�The�results�of� the�statistical� testing�revealed�a�significant� improvement� in� the�experimental�group�over�the�control�group�regarding�the�relationship�between�the�number�of�interactions�and� improvement�scores.�The� findings�provide�support� for�using� the� flipped� interaction�method�with� high� school� students� as� a� homework� task� to� facilitate� active� in-class�discussions.�

Page 3: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

70

AISSA Ahmed and KATAGIRI Noriaki

1.Introduction

 According�to�Aissa�and�Katagiri�(2019),� the�lack� of� interaction� in� the� classroom� is� the�predominant� reason� for� the� low� score� in� the�speaking� sect ion� of� the� test� among� the�Moroccan� and� Japanese� students,� which�exp l a in s � the � overa l l � l a ck � o f � p rac t i c a l�communication�skills.�Speaking,�being�a�process�aiming�at� constructing�meaning� that� involves�producing� as�well� as� receiving� information�(Brown,�1994;�Burns�&�Joyce,�1997),�is�thus�the�key�to�successful�communication.�Nevertheless,�teachers� in�both�Morocco� and� Japan� tend� to�minimize�speaking�activities� in�favor�of�writing�and� reading� tasks�due� to� three�main� factors.�One� is� that�priority� is�given� to� the�passing�of�exams.�The� second� is� students’�demotivation,�and� the� third� is� teacher-centered� instruction�(Aissa�&�Katagiri,�2019).�These� factors�hinder�the�opportunities�provided�for�verbal�interactions�in� the�classroom.�In�addition,� there�has�been�a�need� for� a�method� that� can� ensure� in-class�instruction� time� that� is� devoted� to� exam�preparation�while�creating�room� for� students’�verbal� interactions�in�a�way�that�motivates�the�students,� develops� their� self-confidence,� and�improves� their�communication�skills�(Aissa�&�Katagiri,�2019). Building�on�Aissa�and�Katagiri’s� suggestion�(2019),� this� paper� reports� the� results� of� the�adaptation�of� the� flipped� learning�model� as� a�pedagogical� approach� to� second� language�instruction.�According�to�Bergmann�and�Sams�(2012),�flipped�learning,�or�the�flipped�classroom,�is�a�student-centered� instructional�model� that�encourages� students� to� prepare� for� in-class�activities�by�watching�videos�or�reading�texts�as�homework�assignments.�The�in-class� instruction�time� is�minimized,� allowing�more� room� for�

interactive�activities�(Alvarez,�2011;�Bergmann�&� Sams,� 2012).�The� flipped�model� (FM)� is�hence�one�of�the�preferable�methods�to�increase�student–student�(S-S)�interaction�and�redirects�attention�away�from�the�teacher�and�toward�the�students� and� learning� (Bergmann�&� Sams,�2012).� The� FM� combines� online� learning��with� classroom� instruction� (Poon,� 2014).��This� combination� is� characterized� by� the�implementation�of�technology�both�in�and�outside�the�classroom,�serving�primarily�as�a�preparation�for� tasks� before� engaging� in� face-to-face�activities.� In� addition,� the� learning� process�occurs� in� collaboration� among� students�with�help� from� their� teachers� (Marlowe�&�Page,�2005).�Therefore,� having� enough�preparation�before� class , � students� not� only� develop�confidence� in� their� abilities� but� also� have� a�chance� to�personalize� their� learning,� in� that� it�becomes�their�responsibility�as�well�as�working�at� their�own�pace�(Bergmann�&�Sams,�2012).�Based�on�this�model,�the�present�study�proposes�to� flip� the� S-S� interaction� to� increase� the�students’� talking� time�before�moving� to�actual�face-to-face� S-S� interactions� in� class.�As� a�result,�the�classroom�becomes�a�place�where�the�students�can�become�more�fluent�and�confident�(Scrivener,�2011).� Nation’s� principles� (2007)� for� f luency�development�revolve�mainly�around�interactions�to� increase�and� improve�students’� spoken�and�written�production,�both� inside�and�outside�the�classroom.�The�nature�of�the�flipped�interaction�required� is�more� like�a�chat�or�discussion�that�positions� students� in� a� “safe”� situation�where�they�can�recall�their�knowledge�of�the�language�and�use� it,� eventually� leading� to� fluency�and�confidence�(Scrivener,�2011).�Flipped�interaction�thus� provides� preparation� time,� gives� an�opportunity� to�gather� information,�or�develops�

Page 4: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

71

Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Interaction App

knowledge�about�the�subject�matter�or�a�topic,�and� lets� students� experience� collaborative�interaction�virtually� in�a�written� form�before�they� engage � in � extended� face-to- face�discussions�to�reproduce�the� language�verbally�in�real�time.� Recent� research� shows� that� the�FM�had�a�significant� impact� on� improving� speaking�performance� among� students� who� used�podcasting�(as�an�FM)�in�practicing�speaking�in�and�outside� the�classroom�over� students�who�received�regular�classroom-based�communicative�instructions�(Farangi,�Nejadghanbar,�Askary�&�Askary,�2015).�Similarly,� implementing�the�FM�also�resulted� in� increasing� the� interaction�and�language�production�(both�spoken�and�written)�among� Japanese� students� (Leis,� 2016).� In�addition,�Li�and�Suwanthep�(2017)� found� that�the�integration�of�the�FM�and�constructive�role-play�had�positive�effects�on�the�development�of�speaking� skills.� Teng’s� data� (2018)� notably�support� these�previous� findings,� finding� that�flipping�a�spoken�class�was�a�beneficial�tool�that�engaged� students� in� spoken� activities� and�he lped � enhance � the i r � speak ing � sk i l l s .�Considering�all� this�evidence,� the�FM�seems�to�have�a�considerable�impact�on�the�enhancement�of� the� language�skills.�However,� there� is�still�a�relatively� small� body�of� literature� concerned�with� investigating�the�effect�of� flipped� learning�on� speaking� skills,� which� requires� further�investigation�of�its�efficacy.� Given� the� l i terature� reviewed� above ,�technology�has�proven�to�have�a�relevant�role�in�developing� language� skills,�mainly� speaking.�Thus,�there�is�a�potential�for�the�implementation�of�technology�as�an�alternative�learning�tool�for�millennial� students�who� have� grown� up� as�digital�natives�(Prensky,� 2001)� to�keep� them�focused�and�motivated.�Having�lived�surrounded�

by� and� using� computers,� smartphones,� and�other�digital�devices,� they�have�become�more�community-driven�by� the�unrestrained�aspect�of�communication�in�the�virtual�world.�This�fact�suggests�that� flipped� interactions�may�promote�the�amount�of�their�output�as�well�as�boost�their�motivation�(Yanguas�&�Flores,�2014).� It� follows�that�new�mobile�technology�known�as�mobile-assisted�language�learning�(MALL)�is�reshaping� learning,�as�research�on�MALL�has�been�proliferating�and�keeps�reporting�numerous�advantages�of�its�applications�inside�and�outside�the�classroom�(Hashim,�Yunus,�Embi,�&�Ozir,�2017).�One�of� its�significant�properties� is�social�interact iv ity , � where� students� exchange�information�and� ideas,�cooperate� in�performing�tasks,�and�negotiate�or�discuss�topics�using�the�target� language� (Klopfer,� Squire,�&� Jenkins,�2002).�Song�and�Fox�(2008)�found�that�students�who�used�personal�digital� assistants� (PDAs)�were�highly�motivated� to� communicate�with�their� classmates� both� in� and� outside� the�classroom.�Accordingly,�social�networking�apps�such�as�Facebook,�Twitter,�YouTube,� and� so�forth�can�be�easily� installed�on�mobile�devices�and�used� for� social� interactions.�These� apps�become�useful�tools�for� learning�and�promoting�output�when�educators� successfully� integrate�them� into� a� teaching�model� such� as� the�FM�(Wallace,� 2014).�Alsagoff,�Baloch,� and�Hashim�(2014)�recommend�using�social�networking� to�create�meaningful�learning�among�the�students.�Mobile�devices� include�many�gadgets,� such�as�smartphones,� tablets,� and�many� others.�The�present�study�will�utilize�smartphones�because�of�their�portability�and�daily�accessibility. Another� example� of� a� smartphone� app�designed� for� flipped� learning�activities� is� the�Mobile� Active� Learning� Outside� of� Class�(MALO)� app.� Ishikawa,� Tsubota,� Smith,�

Page 5: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

72

AISSA Ahmed and KATAGIRI Noriaki

Murakami,�Kondo,�and�Tsuda�(2019)�developed�MALO�to� research�whether� the� frequent�and�sustained� use� of�MALO� can� help� build� the�students’� language�skills.�The�app’s� theoretical�framework� is�based�on� three�concepts,�which�set� the�ground� for� the� learning�practice.�First,�the�blended� learning�concept,�which�combines�physical�instructions�with�online�ones,�takes�into�consideration�which� “parts� [of� the�materials]�should� be� delivered� face-to-face� and�which�elements�of�the�course�are�more�appropriate�for�online�activities”� (Ishikawa�et� al.,� 2019,�p.� 4).�Second,� the� flipped� learning�concept� that�aims�at�maximizing� the� students’� engagement� in�tasks� through�groups�of� four� to� five� students�using� the� app� for� collaborative� interaction.�Third,� collaborative� learning� is�defined�as� “a�mutual�engagement� in�the� learning�process�by�teachers�and�students”�(Ishikawa�et�al.,�2019,�p.�7).�The� learning�engagement� that� Ishikawa�et�a l . � ( 2 0 19) � r e f e r r ed � t o � means � “ t ak i ng�responsibilities� for� choices,� and� then,�utilizing�feedback�from�one’s�self�and�other�participants�to� assess� personal� performance� and� to� take�autonomous�action� for�self-�and�peer-progress�towards� learning�targets”�(p.�8).�The�students�then�were�engaged�in�small-group�collaborative�learning� discussions� on� the� app� outside� the�classroom,�before�they�reflected�on�their�output�as�well� as� in-class� tasks� inside� the�classroom.�

The� teacher� role�was�monitoring� interaction�inside� and� outside� the� classroom�by� giving�comments� and� advice�when�necessary.�The�overall� results� indicated� satisfaction� and�motivation�among�the�participants�as� Ishikawa�et�al.� (2019)�reported� that� “collaboration�with�the�other�students�helped�improve�their�English�l a n g u a g e � s k i l l s � b y � c o m p a r i n g � t h e i r�understandings�of�the�reading�texts�with�that�of�other� students”�(p.� 17).�Figure�1�outlines� the�conceptual� framework� of� the�FM�adopted� in�MALO�experiment�by�Ishikawa�et�al.�(2019): Upon�successful�reports�of�the�positive�effects�of� the� out-of-class� online� platforms� and�smartphone�apps�on� language� learning�(Sung,�2015;� Leis,� 2016;� Ishikawa� et� al.,� 2019),� the�current�empirical� study�utilizes�one�of�Malo’s�functions , � which� faci l i tates� out-of-class�discussions,�and�invests�in�its�promising�results�to� study� the� impact� of� using� the� app� on�students’� speaking� skills�development.�Hence,�for�this�experiment,�MALO�is�the�app�on�which�the�participants�interacted�and�discussed�topics.�This�study�also�attempts�to�reveal�the�students’�reflections�and�attitudes�towards�using�the�app�for� purposeful� interaction.�Accordingly,� the�paper�poses�the�following�research�questions:⑴� Can�the� flipped� interaction�on�MALO�help�

enhance�speaking�performance?⑵� What� are� the� students’� attitudes� toward�

Figure 1.Conceptual�diagram�of�MALO’s�flipped�model�(adapted�from�Ishikawa�et�al.,�2019).

Page 6: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

73

Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Interaction App

using�MALO?� The� following� section� will� describe� the�methods� of� the� experiments� to� answer� these�questions.

2.Methodology

2. 1 Participants

 The�participants�were�22� first-year�students�majoring� in�English� education� at� a� national�university� of� education� in� Japan,�who�were�divided�into�two�groups�of�11,�and�had�the�same�language�level�according�to�their�TOEIC�scores�(t�(22)�=�-0.209,�df�=�20,�p=.835,� see Appendix�A� for� the� participants’� scores� in� the� two�groups).� They� received� the� same� in-class�i n s t r u c t i o n � a nd � t h e � s ame � h omewo rk�assignments.�The�authors� randomly� split� the�participants� into�two�groups—the�experimental�

group�(using�MALO)�and�the�control�group—with�each�group�consisting�of�11�students.�Table�1�shows�the�participants�profiles:

2.2 Procedure

 We� col lected� the� data� through� voice-recording�both�groups�during� the�pretest�and�posttest�along�with�observation�notes�(on� in-class� interactions)�and�MALO�transcripts�(of�t h e � e xp e r imen t � g r o up ) � t o � t r a c k � t h e�development� of � each� group� dur ing� the�experimental�period.�The�two�groups�received�the� same� instructions� in� and� outside� the�classroom,�and�the�topics�focused�on�the�content�of� learning� the�Cross-Cultural�Communication�Course.�The�whole�experiment� lasted� for�eight�weeks.�Table�2�demonstrates�how�the�authors�carried�out�the�research: We�administered� the�same�test�questions� to�both�groups,�with�each�participant�of� the� two�groups�participating� in�a�one-minute�speech� in�response�to� the� task.�During�the�experimental�period,� the� experimental� group,� divided� into�three� groups , � answered� quest ions , � and�interacted�with�their�group�members�on�MALO�on� a�weekly� basis.� On� the� other� hand,� the�control�group�participants�were�assigned� the�

Table 1

Participants’ Profiles

Groups NGender

AgeMale Female

Experiment 11 3 8

18-20Control 11 8 3

Total 22 11 11

Table 2

Procedure and Data Collection

Period ProcedureParticipants�(outside�of�the�classroom)

DataEG CG

Week�1 Pretest Provided�informed�consents�before�the�experimentVoice-recorded,�transcribed,�and�evaluated�the�speech

Weeks�2–7

Read� the� texts� and� answer� the�comprehension�questions.Discuss�the�content�based�on�the�teacher’s�prompt�on�MALO

Read� the� texts� and� answer� the�comprehension�questions.

Observation� of� in-class�interaction� (both�groups)MALO�transcripts

Week�8Posttest

t-testThanked�the�participants

Voice-recorded,�transcribed,�and�evaluated�the�speech

Note.�EG�=�experiment�group,�CG�=�control�group,�MALO�=�mobile�active�learning�outside�of�class.

Page 7: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

74

AISSA Ahmed and KATAGIRI Noriaki

same�weekly�homework�(reading�the�texts�and�answering�the�questions),�without�using�MALO�or�discussing� the�homework�with�each�other�before� the� in-class�activities.�Both�groups�had�discussions�regarding� the�content�of� the� texts,�and�reflected�on�their� ideas�during�the�in-class�time. This�study�adapted�the�assessment�criteria�of�the�TOEFL� iBT�test� scoring�guides�(rubrics)�for�speaking�performance�(Educational�Testing�Service,� 2014)� on� scoring� the� participants’�speech� during� the� pretest� and� posttest.�An�independent�native�rater�participated�in�scoring�the�participants’�speaking�performance�to�obtain�a�credible�and�reliable�assessment.�The�score�ranged�from�1�(poor)�to�4�(excellent)�measuring�three�dimensions,�consisting�of�speech�delivery�(D1),�language�use�(D2),�and�topic�development�(D3)� (see� Appendix� B).� The� mean� scores,�p-value,� and� the� df�were� calculated� for� the�pretest�and�posttest;� then�the�� t-test�was�used�to� determine� any� significant� improvement�between�both�tests. The� experimental� group� responded� to� the�questionnaire�(see�Appendix�C)�to�answer�the�second�research�question.

3.Results

3. 1 Test data

 The�data�obtained� from� the� speaking� tests�(pretest�and�posttest)�was�calculated�using�the�paired� t-test� to� examine� the� stat ist ical�differences�within�the�same�group�and�between�the� two�groups� (experimental� and� control).�Table�3�shows�a�significant�difference�among�all�dimensions�within� the� experimental� group,�while�no�significant�difference�existed� for� the�control�group� in�D2�(p�=� .213)� and�D3�(p�=�.680),�except�for�D1�(p�=�002).

 The�unpaired� t-test� indicated� a� significant�dif ference� in� the� partic ipants ’ � speaking�performance�between�the�two�groups�(Table�4).�This�difference�was�in�favor�of�the�experimental�group� participants,� who� showed� noticeable�improvement� in� their� speaking�skills.�Table�4�below�displays�the�results�of�the�unpaired�t-test�between�the�two�groups.

3. 2 Interaction on MALO

 Figure�2�shows�a�sample�of� interactions� the�participants�had�during�the�experiment�period.�The� figure� i l lustrates� a� screenshot� on� a�

Table 3

Paired t-test Results Between the Pretest and the Posttest Within the Same Group

Evaluation� Signifi-canceGroup Criteria t df p-value

Experiment

D1 -4.567 20 .000 **

D2 -4.648 20 .000 **

D3 -5.397 20 .000 **

Control

D1 -3.803 20 .002 **

D2 -1.470 20 .213 ns

D3 -0.438 20 .680 ns

Note.�D1�=�speech�delivery;�D2=�language�use;�D3�=�topic�development.�**�=�p<.001

Table 4

Unpaired t-test Results of the Posttest Scores Within Different Groups

Evaluation Signifi-canceGroup Criteria t df p-value

Experiment� D1 3.577 20 .001 **

vs D2 3.938 20 .000 **

control D3 5.916 20 .000 **

Note.�D1=speech�delivery;�D2�=�language�use;�D3�=�topic�development.�**�= p<.001

Page 8: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

75

Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Interaction App

smartphone�taken� from�the�Week�5�discussion�of�Group�2.� In� addition� to� the� three� students�giving�their� ideas� in�response�to�the�prompt,� it�displays� the� teacher’s� comment�on�one�of� the�participants’�production. Figure�3� shows� that� the�experiment�group�participants’�number�of�words�produced� in�the�interactive� activities� on� MALO� increased�remarkably�over�the�weeks� from�a�mean�of�27�words�in�Week�1�to�109�words�in�Week�8.

 The� frequency� of� interaction� on� MALO�differed�from�group�to�group.�Group�1�was�the�most�active�(M =�3)�of�the�three.�and�Group�3�was� the� least� active� (M =1.41).� Figure� 3�

displays�the� interaction�ratio�of�each�group�on�MALO�with�Group�1�having� the�highest� ratio�(42%),�followed�by�Group�2�(38%),�and�Group�3�(20%).

3. 3  Relationship between interaction and

improvement

 The� corre l a t i on � coe f f i c i en t � be tween�interaction�on�MALO�and� improvement�score�proves� a� significant� correlation� (α=� .92)�between� the� two�variables.�Accordingly,� the�following�scatter�plot�presents�a�strong,�positive�linear� relationship� between� the� number� of�interactions�and�the� improvement�score.�There�do�not�appear�to�be�any�outliers�in�the�data.

4.Discussion

 The�objective�of�this�study�was�to�investigate�whether� the� f l ipped� interact ion� on� the�smartphone� app� (MALO)� can� help� develop�

Figure 2�.MALO’ s � i n t e rac t i on � room� on � a�smartphone.

Figure 3�.Word�production�mean� for�each�group�on�MALO.

Figure 4�.Ratio�of�group�interaction�frequency�on�MALO.

Figure 5�.Scatter� plot� of� MALO� interaction�quantity�and�total�improvement�score.

Page 9: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

76

AISSA Ahmed and KATAGIRI Noriaki

students’�speaking�skills.

4. 1  Usability and effectiveness of MALO as

a flipped interaction app on speaking

skills

 First,� the� results� of� this� study� show� an�improvement� in� the� speaking�performance�of�the�experimental�group�participants�over�that�of�the�control�group�participants�(Table�4).�Such�a�significant� improvement�among�the�experiment�group� in� speaking�skills� (Table�3)�makes� the�current�finding�consistent�with�previous�studies�on� the�positive� impact� of� flipped� learning�on�speaking�skills�(Farangi�et�al.,�2015;�Leis,�2016;�Suwanthep,� 2017;�Teng,� 2018).�The� current�improvement� incorporates�not�only�the�speech�delivery,� achieving� a� mean� score� of� 2.82�(posttest)�vs.�1.82�(pretest),�but�also� language�use� (mean� scores=� 2.64� vs.� 1.64)� and� topic�development�skills�(mean�scores=�2.64�vs.�1.45)�as�well�(see�Appendix�D).�We�can�attribute�this�progress� to�outside-of-class�preparation�of� the�text�content�through�the�flipped�interaction�(FI)�on�MALO.�The�participants�discussed,�clarified,�and� exchanged� ideas�while� doing� chat-like�homework.�The�analysis�of� the�posttest�speech�transcripts� suggests� that� FI� provided� an�opportunity� for� the�participants�to�develop�the�use�of� formulaic�sequences,�discourse�markers,�and�communication�strategies,�as�in�the�following�transcription�excerpts�show�(Figure�6). The�use�of�such�expressions�helped�minimize�the�frequency�of�non-lexical�fillers,�silent�pauses,�repetitions,�and�restarts�(Appendix�E),�and�had�a � p o s i t i v e � imp a c t � o n � c o h e r e n c e � a n d�sustainability�of�speech�according�to�the�ratings�of� the� third�dimension� (topic� development).�This� helped� the� participants� save� time� and�effort�while� formulating� sentences,� thereby�increasing�production�speed�(Wood,�2009;�Wray,�

2002).The�participants� developed� the�use� of�those�expressions�by� themselves�without�any�assistance�or�guidance� from�the�teacher.�Thus,�it� is� evident� that� giving� opportunities� for�interacting� in�a� friendly�atmosphere�outside�of�the� classroom� created� a� need� to� upgrade�language�production�to�a�level�of�fluency�by�the�participants� themselves,� though� the� mean�ratings�were�not�very�high.�The�latter�suggests�that� the�scores�could�have�been�higher� if� the�

Formulaic�expressions�

(Lexical�bundles)� �I agree with the fact that

(Collocations)���� �... didn’t meet his expectations

(Phrasal�verbs)� grow up

� go out with

(Language�copied�from� �To maintain the conversation

�the�prompt)� �... keep good relationship

� put up with

Discourse�markers�

(Making�boundaries)� �That’s all I have to say about that.

(Sequencing)� First, second, third...

(Signposting)� I repeat that..

� To sum up....

(Micro-markers)� So

� Well

� Yeah

Communication�strategies

(Repeating�ideas)� �She shouldn’t react severely�[sic],�

� �it was very severely�[sic],�I mean

� not appropriate.

(Non-verbal)  Gestures

� Facial expressions

(Circumlocution)� �You find difficulty and have fear

and get bad experience� [sic], it

usually happens when you go to

other countries [culture�shock]

Figure 6�.Posttest� transcription�excerpts�of� the�experiment�group.

Page 10: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

77

Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Interaction App

treatment�period�had� lasted� for�a� longer� time.�As� a� conclusion,� these� findings� revealed� the�need� to� incorporate� fluency� instruction� in� the�classroom� during� the� treatment� period� to�maximize� and� broaden� the� use� of� those�expressions�to�develop�fluency.� Second,�we�also�need�to�note�that,�in�general,�MALO� or� MALL� facilitated� and� enhanced�interactions�among�the�participants�(Hashim�et�al.,� 2017;�Wallace,� 2014;�Alsagoff,� Baloch�&�Hashim,�2014;� Ishikawa�et�al.,� 2019),� though� it�had�a�different� impact�on� the�MALO�groups,�possibly�attributable� to� the� interaction�ratio�of�each�group�(Figure�4).�This� interaction� ratio�suggests� the� existence� of� a� robust� positive�relationship�between�the�number�of�interactions�and� improvement� scores� (Figure� 5),�which�could�explain�the�notable�increase�in�the�rating�score�for�each�dimension.�Hence,�we�could�argue�that�the�more�interactive�the�participants�were,�the�more� chances� they�had� to�develop� their�communication� strategies� and�speaking� skills.�As� the�number�of� interactions� increased,� the�need� for�a�variety�of�expressions�and�phrases,�besides� correct� language� and� coherence,�emerged�to�maintain�a�meaningful�exchange�of�ideas�and�thus�effective�communication,�which�led�to�a�better�understanding�of� the�content�of�the�texts�and�a�noticeable� improvement� in� the�posttest. Third,�the�word�production�of�the�participants�increased� notably� both� on�MALO�(M�=� 109�words�per�minute,�Figure� 3)� and�during� the�posttest�with�a�mean� that� reached�104�words�per�minute�(wpm)�(see�Appendix�E).�The�rate�was�close�to� the�average�conversation�rate� for�English� speakers� in� the�United�States,�which�ranges� from�120� to�150�wpm�(National�Centre�for�Voice�and�Speech,�2005).�We�may�be�able�to�explain� this� finding� by� the� fact� that� the�

participants�had�enough�time�to�exchange�their�ideas�through�extending�the�discussions�among�themselves�on�MALO.�The� flipped� interaction�enriched� their� knowledge� about� the� topics,�thereby� leading� to� an� increase� in� their�word�production�and�helping�them�develop�the�skill�of�organizing�and�connecting� ideas�more�sensibly�and�productively. We�also�need� to�note� that� the�participants�approved�the�effectiveness�and�usability�of� the�FI� on�MALO� since�most� of� them� responded�positively�to�the�questions�on�the�questionnaire.

4.2 Participants’ perceptions of MALO

 After� the�posttest,� the� experimental� group�answered� a� questionnaire� regarding� their�perceptions� on� the� interaction� on�MALO�as�homework,�and�whether�the� flipped� interaction�helped� improve� their�speaking�performance� in�the� in-class�discussion�activities.�The� following�are�the�participants’�representative�answers�to�the�questionnaire.Q.1�How often did you check MALO’s notifications? Most�participants�(90%)�reported�checking�the� notifications� at� least� twice� a�week.�The�statistics� show� that� the� participants� were�excited� to�check� their�peers’� contributions�on�MALO�and�were�willing� to� take�part� in� the�online�discussions.Q.2�How much time did you take to write your messages on MALO? The� mean� time� spent� writing� a� single�message�on�MALO�was�5.72�minutes,�with�63%�of�participants� reporting� that� they� spent� less�than� five�minutes� to� respond� to� their� group�members’�messages�or,�as�Participant�3�stated,�“about� 1–2�minutes� for� one�message.”� It� is�arguable�that�most�of�the�participants�developed�the�ability�of�instant�output�delivery�since�they�were�familiar�with�the�content�of�the�discussions�

Page 11: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

78

AISSA Ahmed and KATAGIRI Noriaki

and�had�a�comfortable�atmosphere�that�helped�them�use� their� language�without� hesitation�(Scrivener,�2011).Q.3�Do you think interactions on MALO were useful for a better understanding of the texts and development of your ideas? The�vast�majority,� 82%�of� the�participants,�conf irmed� the� usefulness� of� the� f l ipped�interaction�on�MALO� in�helping� them�better�understand�the�content�of�the�texts�and�expand�their�knowledge�of�the�topics.�However,�18%�of�the�participants�responded�to�the�question�with�“sometimes� useful,”� expressing� uncertainty�about�MALO’s�usefulness� for�every�topic.� It� is�safe� to�conclude� that�most�of� the�participants�benefited�from�the�FI�to�answer�the�homework�questions� and� to� elaborate� on� their� ideas� to�enrich�the�in-class�discussions�(Leis,�2016).Q.4�Do you feel interactions on MALO helped you speak better during the in-class discussions? Only�one�participant�responded�with�a�“no”�to�this�question,�while�all� the�others�agreed� that�fl ipped� interaction� helped� them� develop,�understand,� and� learn� ideas� and� expressions�that� they�reused� in� the�classroom�during� the�discussion�activities,�which�resulted� in�a�better�speaking�performance.�For�example,�Participant�5�wrote,�“Yes,�before�this�class�starts�[sic],�I�was�able�to�get�a�lot�of�ideas�through�interaction�on�MALO.�So,�it�helped�me�speak�better.”Q.5�How do you describe your experience on MALO? The�overall� responses� to� this�question�were�very� positive.� For� example,� Participant� 4�described� MALO� as� a� “wonderful� tool� for�[flipped]� interaction”� as�well� as� learning� and�understanding� the� texts� before� the� in-class�act iv i t ies . � In� addit ion , � a l though� a l l � the�participants�reported�that�it�was�their�first�time�using�an� instant�chat�application�to�discuss�the�

content�of�the�texts�assigned�as�homework,�they�agreed�that�using�MALO�as�a�flipped�interaction�app�was� a� positive� learning� experience.�For�example,�Participant�6�responded,�“it�was�a�good�experience.. . .We� could� talk� about� cultural�[matters]� and� know� other� members’� ideas�[freely].”

5.Conclusion

 This�study�set�out�to�determine�whether�the�flipped�interactions�through�the�smartphone�app�(MALO)�could�help� improve� speaking� skills,�serving�as�preparation�before�in-class�discussion�activities.�The�present� study,� then,� confirms�previous� findings� and� contributes� additional�evidence� that� implementing� the� FI� model�through�MALO�does� in� fact�promote�speaking�performance.�The�key�strengths�of� this� study�are� its�matched�groups�(the�same�age,�major,�and� language� level),� its� easy�generalizations�from� the� results,� and� the� reliabil ity� and�variability� of� the� data� collected� (pretest,�posttest,�and�the�questionnaire).�This�study�has�gone� some� way� toward� enhanc ing� our�understanding�of� the� importance�of�eliminating�anxiety� among� the� students� by� developing�enough� ideas,�phrases,�and�strategies� that�help�them� “buy� time”�and�organize� their� thoughts�whi le� speaking.� The� f l ipped� interact ive�preparation�using� a� smartphone� app� such�as�MALO� could� serve� as� a�method� that� helps�students� gain� confidence� in� themselves� and�motivates� them� to� increase� their� target�language�use. These� findings�have�pedagogical� implications�for� developing� the� speaking�performance� of�students�and� increasing� their�participation� in�the�classroom.�Language� teachers�could�apply�the� FI� as� homework� in� having� students�

Page 12: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

79

Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Interaction App

collaborate�on�their�assignments�and�exchange�ideas� on� their� answers,� while� the� teacher�observes�and�evaluates�the�interactions. However,� the�generalizability�of� the� findings�is� subject� to� certain� limitations.�For� instance,�the�mean� interaction�count�was�14.45� for�each�participant�(1.80�for�each�week),�which�was�less�than�the�authors�had�expected.�This�questions�the�availability�of�the�participants�for�the�flipped�interactive� preparation� activity.� Another�limitation�could�be�the�lack�of�group�facilitators�during� the� interactions�on�MALO,� since�some�participants� were� hesitant� to� initiate� the�discussions�and�elaborate�on�their� ideas� if� they�were�not�asked�to�react.�An�additional�limitation�would�be�the�treatment�period,�which�proved�to�be� not� long� enough� to� help� the� participants�reach�a�high� level�of� fluency�and�score�higher�on�the�posttest�(Appendix�D). This�paper�will� serve�as�a�base� for� further�investigation�of�applying�the�FI�model�through�a�smartphone�app�to�high�school�students�over�a�more�extended�treatment�period,�which�may�cover�the�entire�school�year.�

References

Aissa,� A. , � &� Katagiri , � N.� (2019).� Investigating�similaritiesbetween�English�education�in�Morocco�and�Japan. Journal of Hokkaido University of Education (Humanities and Social Sciences), 69⑵,�51-60.

Alsagoff,�Z.,�Baloch,�H.,�&�Hashim,�N.� (2014).Flipping�largelectures�@IMU.In�M.,�A.,�Embi(Ed.),�Blended and flipped learning: Case studies in Malaysian HEIs,�256-274.�Bangi,�Malaysia:�Centre� for� teaching� and�learning�technologies,�University�of�Kebangsaan.

Alvarez,�B.�(2011).�Flipping�the�classroom:�Homework�in� class ,� lessons� at� home.� National education association: Priority schools campaign.�Retrieved�from��http://priorityschools.org/successful-students/flipping-�the-classroom-homework-in-class-lessons-at-home-2

Bergmann,�J.,�&�Sams,�A.�(2012).�Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day.�Eugene,�

OR:�International�Society�for�Technology�in�Education.Brown,� H.D.� (1994).� Teaching by principles: An

interactive approach to language pedagogy.�Englewood�Cliffs,�NJ:�Prentice�Hall�Regents.

Burns,�A.,�&� Joyce,� H.� (1997).� Focus on speaking. Sydney:� National� Center� for� English� Language�Teaching�and�Research.

Educational�Testing�Service,�ETS�(2014).�TOEFL�iBT®�test�speaking�rubrics.�Retrieved�from� �https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/toefl_speaking_rubrics.pdf

Farangi,�M.,�Nejadghanbar,�H.,�Askary,�F.,�&Askary,�F.�(2015).�The� effects� of� podcasting� on�EFL� upper�intermediate� learners’� speaking�skills.�CALL-EJ. 16⑵,�1-18.

Hashim,�H.,Yunus,�M.,�Embi,�M.A.,&Ozir,�A.N.� (2017).�Mobile-assisted� language� learning�(MALL)for�ESL�learners:�A� review�of� affordances� and� constraints.�SainsHumanika,�9(1-5),�45-50.�doi:10.11113/sh.v9n1-�5.1175

Ishikawa,�Y.,�Tsubota,�Y.,� Smith,�C.,�Murakami,�M.,�Kondo,�M.,�&�Tsuda,�M.(2019).�Integrating�online�and�offline�student�collaboration� in�EFL� flipped� learning�courses.� In� A.� Palalas� (Ed.),� Blended language learning: International perspectives on Innovative practices,�303-328.�Beijing,�China:�China�Central�Radio�&�TV�University�Press.

Klopfer , � E . , � Squire , � K . , � &� Jenkins , � H . � (2002) .�Environmental�detectives:�PDAs�as�a�window� into�a�virtual� simulated� world. Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education,�95-98.�Vaxjo,�Sweden:�IEEE�Computer�Society.

Leis,�A.�(2016).�Flipped� learning�and�EFL�proficiency:�An�empirical�study.�TELES Journal36,�77-90.

Li,� S.,�&�Suwanthep,� J.� (2017).� Integration�of� flipped�classroom�model� for�EFL� speaking.� International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 3⑵,118-123.�Retrieved�from:���http://www.ijlt.org/uploadfile/2017/05�25/2017052505�0549726.pdf

Marlowe,�B.�A.,�&�Page,�M.�L.� (2005).�Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom.�Thousand�Oaks,�CA:�Corwin�Press.

Nation,�P.�(2007).�The�four�strands.�International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1⑴,�1-13.�Retrieved�from�� �https://doi.org/10.2167/illt039.0

Poon,�J.�(2014).�A�cross-country�comparison�on�the�use�

Page 13: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

80

AISSA Ahmed and KATAGIRI Noriaki

of�blended� learning� in�property�education.�Property Management, 32⑵,�154-175.�doi:10.1108/pm-04-2013-0026

Prensky,�M.�(2001).�Digital�natives�digital� immigrants.��On the Horizon (MCB University Press), 9⑸,�1-6.

Scrivener,�J.�(2011).�Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers.�Oxford:�Macmillan.

Song , � Y . , � & � Fox , � R . � ( 2008) . � Us ing � PDA� f o r�undergraduate�student� incidental�vocabulary�testing.�ReCALL, 20(03),�290-314.

Teng,�M.,�F.� (2018).�Flip�your� classroom� to� improve�EFL�students’�speaking�skills.In�J.�Mehring�&�A.�Leis�(Eds.),� Innovations inflipping the language classroom: Theories and practices,�113-122.�doi:�10.1007/978-981-10-6968-0_9

Test�and�Score�Data�Summary�for�TOEFL�iBT®�Tests:�2017�Test�Data.�Retrievedfrom� �https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/94227_unlweb.pdf.

The�National�Centre�for�Voice�and�Speech.�(2005).�Voice�qualities.�Tutorials-voice�production.�Retrieved� from�http://www.ncvs.org/ncvs/tutorials/voiceprod/tutorial/quality.html

Wallace,� P.� (2014).� Internet� addiction� disorder� and�youth.� EMBO Reports,15⑴,� 12-16.� doi:10.1002/embr.201338222

Wood,�D.� (2009).� Effects� of� focused� instruction� of�formulaic� sequences�on� fluent�expression� in� second�language�narratives:�A�case�study.�Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics,12⑴,�39-57.

Wray,�A.�(2002).�Formulaic language and the lexicon.�Cambridge:�Cambridge�University�Press.

Yanguas,�I.,&�Flores,�A.�(2014).�Learners’�willingness�to�communicate� in� face-to-face�versus�oral�computer-mediated�communication.�The JALTCALL Journal, 10⑵,�83-103.�

Page 14: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

81

Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Interaction App

Appendix A: Selected TOEIC Scores

Experiment�Group�(n =�11) Control�Group�(n =�11)

650 700

635 635

635 620

630 605

580 595

555 580

555 565

530 505

515 505

485 505

465 485

M 567 573

Page 15: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

82

AISSA Ahmed and KATAGIRI Noriaki

Appendix B: Rubrics for Speech Measurement

Score Speech delivery Language use Topic development

-Well� paced-flow� (over� 100�words�per�minute)-Minor�lapses�(silent�pauses�and�restarts)-Minor�mispronounced�words�tha t � do � no t � a f f ec t � overa l l�intelligibility-Minor�use� of� fillers� (6� in� 100�words)

-Effective�use�of�grammar�and�vocabulary� (showing� good�c o n t r o l � o f � s t r u c t u r e s � a s�appropriate)-Minor� errors� do� not� obscure�meaning

-The�response� is� sustained�and�sufficient�to�the�task-Well�developed�and�coherent

-Slower�pace�(80–100�words�per�minute)-Minor�lapses�(silent�pauses�and�restarts)-Minor�mispronounced�words�that� require� listeners’� effort� at�t i m e s , � t h o u g h � o v e r a l l�intelligibility� is�not�significantly�affected�-Minor�use� of� fillers� (6� in� 100�words)

-Effective�use�of�grammar�and�vocabulary�-Inaccurate�use�of�vocabulary�or�grammatical�structures�that�may�a f fect � f luency� but � not � the�message

-The � r e s p o n s e � i s � mo s t l y�sustained�and�conveys�relevant�information/�ideas- S o m e � i n c o m p l e t e n e s s ,�inaccuracy,�and�lack�of�specificity�concerning�content�or�topic

-Slow�pace�(less� than�80�words�per�minute)-Frequent� lapses�(silent�pauses�and�restarts)-Mispronounced� words� that�require�listeners’�effort;�meaning�may�be�obscured�in�places.-Frequent�use�of�fillers�-Speech�is�intelligible

-Limited� range� and� control� of�grammar� and�vocabulary� that�prevent�full�expressions�of�ideas-Use�of�serial�listing,�conjunction�and� juxtapos i t ions� caus ing�unclear�connections

-The� response� is� connected� to�the� task� though�basic� ideas�are�e x p r e s s e d � w i t h � l i m i t e d�elaboration-A�connection�of� ideas�may�be�unclear-Repetition�of�ideas

-A�small�number�of�words-Telegraphic� delivery� (very�frequent�silent�pauses)-Consistent�mispronunciations�that�cause�considerable� listener�effort-Frequent�obscure�meanings

-Severely� limited� range� and�c o n t r o l � o f � g r a m m a r � a n d�vocabulary� that� prevent� the�expression�of�ideas- R e l i a n c e � o n � f o r m u l a i c�expressions

-Limited�relevant�content�-Repetitions�(including�repetition�of�the�prompt)-Speaker� may� be� unable� to�sustain� speech� to� complete� the�task

Adapted�from�TOEFL�iBT®�test�speaking�rubrics

Page 16: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …

83

Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a Flipped Interaction App

(アイサ アハメッド 旭川校海外研修生)(片桐 徳昭 旭川校准教授)      

Appendix C: The questionnaire

1.How�often�did�you�check�MALO’s�notifications?2.How�much�time�did�you�take�to�write�your�messages�on�MALO? 3�.�Do�you�think� interactions�on�MALO�were�useful� for�a�better�understanding�of�the�texts�and�developing�

your�ideas?4.Do�you�feel�interactions�on�MALO�helped�you�speak�better�during�in-class�activities?5.How�do�you�describe�your�experience�using�MALO?

Appendix D: Mean rating summary

Experiment�group Control�group

Components Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

D1 1.82 2.82 1.27 2.09

D2 1.64 2.64 1.27 1.64

D3 1.45 2.64 1.27 1.36

Note.�D1=�speech�delivery;�D2�=�language�use;�D3�=�topic�development.�Scale:�1�(poor)–4�(excellent).

Appendix E: Speech statistics summary

Experiment�group Control�group

Components Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

WPM� 79.07 104 78 89

Silent�pausesa 4 1.29 3 4

Fillers�(non-lexical)� 10 6 12 9

Repetitions� 4.15 1.25 7 6

Restarts 1.76 0.76 2.83 2.03

Note.�aSilent�pauses�over�0.5�seconds�were�considered.�WPM�=�words�per�minute.

Page 17: Enhancing Students’ Speaking Performance Through a …