THE JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL

Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.2.11.559

The Journal of Asia TEFL

http://journal.asiatefl.org/
e-ISSN 2466-1511 © 2004 AsiaTEFL.org. All rights reserved.

Effect of Micro Flipped Method on EFL Learners’ Speaking

Fluency

Ali Roohani*
Shahrekord University, Iran

Parisa Etemadfar
Shahrekord University, Iran

This study investigated the effect of the micro flipped method on English as a foreign language (EFL)
learners’ speaking fluency and compared its effect with the traditional face-to-face teacher-fronted
method in the EFL context of Iran. To this end, 40 intermediate-level EFL learners in a language
institute were selected through a placement test and were assigned to experimental and control groups.
The control group (non-flipped classroom) was exposed to in-class activities and instructional
materials in the print format whereas the experimental group (micro flipped classroom) was exposed
to both in-class and out-of-class instructional materials, including mini videos uploaded before class
via Edmodo, a technology-based pedagogical environment. To assess the participants’ speaking
fluency, they were interviewed at the beginning and end of their course, and the recorded speech data
were analyzed through PRAAT (computer software package for speech analysis) in terms of six
aspects of speaking fluency, including articulation rate (syllables per second), rate of all pauses, rate
of long pauses, rate of unfilled and filled pauses and mean length of run. The analysis of the data
through Mann-Whitney tests revealed statistically significant differences regarding the measures of
fluency with the higher articulate rate and mean length of run and lower rates of pauses for the
experimental group in the posttest interview. The findings accentuate the role of the flipped classroom
and blended learning where second/foreign language (L2) leaners can develop their L2 speaking skills
and fluency in online and actual settings.

Keywords: Edmodo, micro flipped teaching, speaking fluency, L2 learners

Introduction

Speaking skill is an interactive process of constructing meaning which involves producing, receiving,
and processing information (Luoma, 2004). Speaking a second/foreign language (L2) well is one of the
significant objectives in L2 learning/teaching (Celce-Murcia, 2001), and it makes real communication
between interlocutors possible. As Zaremba (2006) asserts, compared with other language skills, speaking
skill contributes more to communication. Through speaking, L2 learners can express their ideas,
intentions, and personal viewpoints. Thus, it is crucial for them to speak fluently and without
comprehension difficulties in their L2 classes. Fluency can facilitate communication in the target
language (Mirzaei & Heidari, 2012). However, speaking the target language fluently is challenging for
many foreign language learners, including English as foreign language (EFL) learners, because oral
communication proficiency needs the ability to interact in the real social context (Richards & Renandya,
2002), and L2 learners need to invest much time and energy to develop this skill.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 559

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

Fluency in speech is an important criterion in assessing speaking skills and a crucial part of oral
proficiency and L2 learning (De Jong & Perfetti, 2011). In fact, speaking fluency is considered an
essential component of communicative competence (Harmer, 2015). It is defined as the use of naturally
occurring language when a speaker engages and maintains meaningful communication (Richards, 2006).
According to Bailey (2003), fluent speaking is being able to use language quickly, without much
hesitation and abnormal pauses. A fluent speaker knows what and how to say without a need to pause to
think (Nation, 1989). Nonetheless, in many foreign language teaching/learning contexts, little attention is
paid to speaking fluency due to such factors as low proficient L2 teachers, inadequate meaning-focused
class activities, and lack of communicative or task-based syllabuses (Yingjie, 2014). Moreover, given the
inadequate interaction between teachers and learners, the dominance of teachers in regular teacher-fronted
classrooms, and EFL learners’ inadequate skills to appropriately initiate oral performance, traditional
teacher-centered classes have faced criticism. As a result, several researchers (e.g., Bushweller, 2011;
Davis, 2011) have called for more innovative methods in language education that allow learners to be
more active, autonomous, and productive.
One relatively recent method to teach the target language is the flipped teaching method, which aims to
incorporate technology into education. Technology is employed in the flipped classroom to allocate more
time to meaningful communications in L2 with the hope of having more profound levels of cognitive
involvement in the learning process (Moranski & Kim, 2016). As Bergmann and Sams (2012) explain, in
flipped teaching, the mainstream traditional approach of teaching, in which the class starts with the
teacher introducing a topic, changes to a discussion about the video watched before class, perhaps as a
homework assignment at home. This method is intended is “to clarify any misunderstanding and provide
the students with the opportunity to ask any questions about the issue they have in their mind” (Bergmann
& Sams, 2012, p. 13). The flipped classroom is viewed as a pedagogical approach that has reversed the
place for doing homework and instruction (Zou et al., 2020).
So far, flipped method has been employed as for different language skills, such as writing (e.g., Ahmed,
2016), oral proficiency (Wang et al., 2018), academic achievement and performance (e.g., Adnan, 2017;
Lee & Wallace, 2017), and learning attitudes (Hung, 2015). However, employing the micro flipped
classroom for language skills and components is under-researched, particularly in L2 education. The
micro flipped classroom is a kind or model of flipped classroom. According to Lu and Sun (2016), micro
class is the short form of micro-video network class. In this type of teaching, the micro-video is
considered as the main component of the educational process, which aims to explain the knowledge
points in an online video course. Micro flipped teaching, according to Freeman et al. (2014), establishes a
link between the activities outside and inside the classroom. The use of conventional lectures in this
model is reduced, without being entirely canceled. It is claimed that the micro flipped method overpasses
the limitations in time and space, common in traditional English learning classes (Lu, 2013).
According to Jinlei et al. (2012), it is justified to apply micro flipped teaching in colleges and schools
because it can improve students’ learning interests and autonomous learning. This issue might be
compelling for EFL learners who consider speaking fluently as a neglected area in their classroom, have
problems to use the target language (English) confidently with little hesitation and unnatural pauses, and
they do not find enough time to practice their oral proficiency in the class (Yingjie, 2014). This topic
bears significance, especially after the Coronavirus pandemic, in situations where L2 learners cannot
physically attend classes full time. All things considered, this study aimed to investigate the effect of
using micro flipped classroom on speaking fluency and compare its effect with the traditional
instructional method utilized in mainstream classrooms in a sample of EFL learners.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 560

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

Literature Review

Flipped Teaching

Flipped classroom is an educational method in which the status of classroom activities and homework
is reversed. The inverted classroom is used for this method, which refer to the design of a class in which
information transfer takes place outside of class, and students in class focus on activities/tasks using the
time that is freed up (Talbert, 2014). As noted by Teng (2017), the call for flipped teaching is associated
with the development of technology, which has facilitated the duplication of information at a low cost.
According to Kong (2014), this type of learning method/approach can be organized into three steps,
including getting ready before class, following some in-class activities and consolidating knowledge after
class. For before-class preparation, students are exposed to teaching materials such as videos, presentation
slides, or reading worksheets and online quizzes at home. Learning resources such as pausing, replaying
videos can be presented to learners as many times as needed. During the classroom, the knowledge that is
acquired can be used in a more desirable scope (Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Tucker, 2012). During post-
class stage, students review the materials to improve their outcomes and consolidate their knowledge.
With this model, teachers can give the “instruction by recording and narrating screen casts of work they
do on their computers, creating videos of themselves teaching, or curating video lessons from trusted
Internet sites” (Hamdan et al., 2013, p. 13).
Several empirical studies have looked into flipped teaching in L2 contexts (e.g., Ahmed, 2016; Chen et
al., 2017; Hung, 2015; Jehman, 2016; Lee & Wallace, 2017). For instance, in a study, Hung (2015)
investigated the effect of the flipped classroom on EFL learners’ academic performance, learning
attitudes, and participation levels in a sample of 75 Taiwanese EFL learners. Using quasi-experimental
design, Hung (2015) developed three different formats for teaching, including non-flipped, structured,
and semi-structured flipped lessons. The results indicated that the structured and semi-structured flipped
classes were more effective instructional designs than the non-flipped classes. Both helped the students
attain better learning outcomes, and develop better attitudes toward their learning experiences.
Jehman (2016) applied the flipped classroom to EFL teaching in a freshman course at Thammasat
University in Thailand. The participants were 20 students of English. Jehman investigated how the
flipped classroom influenced Thai EFL learners’ beliefs and developments in their English writing. At the
beginning of the course, the students were asked to write a paragraph related to a topic assigned as
homework which they had to complete without any instructional materials. During the course, they were
asked to interact with the materials uploaded on a platform. At the end of the course, the students were
asked to complete a final exam, which included an essay and a course evaluation satisfaction survey. The
results showed that the Thai students were satisfied with the course, scored high in the entries of the
evaluation rubric, and improved their writing skills. In another study, Ahmed (2016) investigated the
effect of a flipped classroom on EFL learners’ writing skills. The participants were 60 students from
Qassim University in Saudi Arabia. They were assigned to the experimental and control groups. The
experimental group was exposed to 15 videos and some online activities. Additionally, writing practices
were given to them in class. The same tasks were presented to the students in the control group based on
the traditional in-class instruction. The data analysis from the pretest and posttest revealed that the
experimental group outperformed the control group in their writing posttest.
In a study carried out at a South Korean university, Lee and Wallace (2017) compared the two groups
of EFL learners taught either by a communicative language teaching approach or by a flipped instruction.
The researchers collected data by administering tasks and surveys to the learners and analyzing the
content of the teacher’s notes. The findings revealed that the flipped classroom students outperformed the
non-flipped students in their final examination. Additionally, the survey results indicated that most
students in the study enjoyed the flipped type of learning. Likewise, Adnan (2017) investigated the effect
of flipped classrooms versus non-flipped as a means to contribute to the growing line of research on
flipped teaching. Adnan used student grades, weekly e-journal entries, guided final journal entries, and

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 561

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

focus group interviews as data collection tools in a Turkish public university course. The results revealed
no significant difference between mean scores of the flipped and non-flipped groups regarding midterms
and final e-portfolio. Yet, the flipped students received higher essay scores and had positive perceptions.
L2 oral proficiency has also been investigated in the flipped classroom. For instance, Wang et al.
(2018) studied beginner learners’ oral proficiency in a flipped Chinese foreign language classroom.
Foreign language development was assessed by standard complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures,
alongside subjective ratings. The results showed that those learners who were exposed to flipped
instruction significantly outperformed the baseline group in oral proficiency in speech fluency, though
their advantage in complexity and accuracy was less evident. Also, Yoon and Kim (2020) examined the
effectiveness of flipped teaching, compared with traditional and blended teaching, regarding L2 (English)
speaking skills in Korean context. A sample of 70 Korean university EFL students were divided into
flipped, blended and conventional learning groups. The flipped learning group used online contents, the
blended learning group used online contents and messengers, and the conventional group used paper-
based activities. The results of speaking pre- and posttest data analysis revealed significant improvements
in the posttest phase regarding fluency and coherence and lexical resources for all three groups. They
concluded that both flipped and conventional classrooms have positive effects on L2 learning outcomes.

Micro Flipped Teaching

The concept of micro flipped classroom goes back to micro lesson and mini lecture, which is also
known as 60-Second Course or One-Minute Lecture originated by Professors LeRoy, McGrew, and Kee
(Zhang, 2017). Professor LeRoy McGrew from the Netherlands put forward 60-Second Course in 1993
and Professor Kee from England proposed the One-Minute Lecture (Zhang, 2017). Later, in 2008, David
Penrose, a senior teaching designer, applied the idea of micro lecture into teaching. According to Penrose,
to record a video, the time can be short. In this way, it is possible to achieve the same effect as the
traditional long-time teaching with the support of the corresponding assignments and discussions (Zhang,
2017). In fact, micro flip(ed) teaching is an innovative model in education which has resulted in creation
of spaces that supply short online video content for the classroom use while boosting students’ active
involvement in learning experience (Fidalgo-Blanco et al., 2017).
As for the micro flipped teaching, the nascent body of investigation is not established well enough to
form a cohesive review. However, a few studies have looked into the micro flipped classroom. For
instance, Zhang (2017) investigated how the microlesson fostered innovation and utilization of
educational information technology. The participants were a group of EFL teachers in China who took
part in a survey. The findings revealed that strategies which improved the quality of college English
teaching through micro flipped included: reforming the previous teaching evaluation system;
strengthening teacher training; correctly understanding the role of modern education technology in
college English teaching; managing the pre-class and classroom time; paying attention to convergence
between teaching materials and teaching software; strengthening the interaction inside and outside of the
classroom, and implementing a variety of teaching methods.
In another study, Cao (2018) analyzed the papers published about micro lecture and College English
teaching in China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The results revealed that Chinese teachers’ role
was changed with the emergence of micro lecture in College English teaching. In closing, the close
review of the related literature on micro flipped teaching indicates that research on this type of flipped
method is scanty.

Speaking Fluency

Fluency is defined as “natural language use occurring when a speaker engages in meaningful
interaction and maintains comprehensible and ongoing communication despite limitations in his or her

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 562

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

communicative competence” (Richards, 2009, p. 14). Lennon (1990) believes that fluency, in a narrow
sense, is a subcomponent of oral proficiency, and is usually considered in evaluating oral proficiency.
This complex concept has been described or operationalized in different ways in relation to speaking.
According to Kormos and Dénes (2004), fluency is sometimes described as speech or articulation rate and
operationalized in terms of the number of syllables per time unit. It is sometimes operationalized in terms
of breakdown, that is, the duration and number of silences in the running, that is, pausing and hesitation
(Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005) or ready-made chunks (McCarthy, 2005). Fluency is sometimes described and
measured in terms of different types of pauses and mean length of run. As De Jong et al. (2013) explain,
rate of all pauses is measured as the number of pauses which last a certain period of time, namely, 0.25
seconds or more, per 100 syllables. Rate of long pauses includes the number of pauses which last a longer
period of time, namely, 0.5 seconds or more, per 100 syllables. Rate of filled pauses is the number of
filled pauses (an articulation, like “um”, which is not a word and is encountered between utterances)
lasting 0.25 seconds or more, per 100 syllables. Rate of unfilled pauses refers to the number of unfilled
(silent) pauses which last 0.25 seconds or more, per 100 syllables. Finally, mean length of run is the mean
number of syllables spoken between pauses for 0.5 seconds or longer.
Measures of fluency have also been subject to some investigations in different domains. For instance,
pausing as an important subdimension of fluency has been subject to several studies on such topics as the
relationship between L1 and L2 fluency (De Jong et al., 2013; Derwing et al., 2009), the relationship
between utterance fluency and perceived fluency (Bosker et al., 2013; Rossiter, 2009), and fluency
development during study abroad (Llanes & Muñoz, 2009). As Mirzaei and Heidari (2012) maintain,
these prior studies accentuate both importance and complexity of fluency in communication.
Despite the subjectivity and difficulty involved in measuring fluency, fluency has attracted the
attention of some L2 researchers. For instance, within the area of MALL (mobile assisted-language
learning), Grimshaw and Cardoso (2018) studied the effect of Spaceteam, which is a mobile game, on 20
low-intermediate second language learners’ oral fluency. The ESL (English as a second language)
participants were assigned into game and non-game groups, and then they were interviewed. The results
showed that the learners who played the Spaceteam game performed better than the control group in
speaking fluency, that is, the number of syllables produced per minute in an oral interview test.
Also, Diyyab et al. (2013) investigated the effectiveness of using a multimedia-based program for
developing EFL speaking fluency skills among second year, English section student teachers. Their
sample consisted of 30 student teachers in Egypt. A speaking fluency test with a rubric for assessing the
participants’ performance was used before and after using a multimedia-based program to measure the
level of the participants in English speaking fluency. The results revealed that the multimedia-based
program was effective in developing student teachers’ EFL speaking fluency.
In the EFL context of Iran, several researchers (e.g., Amirnejad, 2015; Bahrani, 2011) have used
technology to see its effect on speaking fluency. For instance, Amirnejad (2015) investigated the effect of
cell phone video recordings on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking fluency, as measured by speech rate. The
participants were 40 elementary-level learners who were randomly assigned to experimental and control
groups. The participants in the experimental group were exposed to 15 monologue videos through their
cell phones as part of their homework. They were asked to video-record themselves talking on the topics.
The findings revealed that recording the participants’ voice greatly affected the learners’ rate of speech.
Targeting fluency in speaking on account of flipped methods appears to be a promising area for
research in EFL contexts. Recent interest in technology-oriented methods along with the exigency of
online courses due to the COVID-19 outbreak in teaching speaking may shape a growing stream of
flipped teaching research practice, such as micro flipped teaching, in EFL contexts. However, as the
review of literature shows, this issue is fairly absent from the L2 research archive. This study, thus, aimed
to fill this research gap about the (in)effectiveness of micro flipped classroom on speaking fluency of
Iranian EFL students, as compared with the mainstream traditional teacher-fronted classroom. The
findings may be important for many EFL students who know grammar and vocabulary, and are able to
write short sentences or paragraphs, but they have not developed good fluency in speaking. The outcome

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 563

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

of the present study may be important for those who want to gain more desirable results in speaking
classes. Taken together, the study was an attempt to seek an answer to the following research question:

 Is micro flipped classroom more effective than the traditional teacher-fronted classroom in
developing speaking fluency among Iranian EFL learners?

Method

Participants

The participants of the study included 40 female learners of English who were chosen from 44 EFL
learners studying in a language institute in Isfahan, Iran. The participants with a mean age of 23 had an
experience of learning English for 5-6 years, and registered for an intermediate-level English
conversation course. In addition, teaching materials for speaking included the topics and questions
presented in the book titled Discussions A-Z Intermediate by Wallwork (2010). The participants were
native speakers of Persian who they were selected through Outcomes Placement Test, with a range score
of 26 to 32, set for intermediate-level language learners. They were randomly assigned to a control group
and an experimental group, each with 20 participants in each. In the control group, the participants were
exposed to the regular method of teaching speaking. The experimental group was exposed to speaking
materials through micro flipped method of teaching.

Instruments

Outcomes placement test

To check the participants’ homogeneity to be within the intermediate level, the Outcomes Placement Test
(2016), was employed. This test was originally developed to help course providers place students at the most
appropriate level. The Outcomes Placement Test Package includes three types of sections/tests: separate oral
and writing tests, along with the core placement test. The core placement and oral sections were used in the
present test. The oral section contained 50 items assessing test takers’ grammar and vocabulary knowledge,
and the oral section consisted of an interview to help interviewers determine the appropriate speaking level
of the test takers. The test was piloted among a group of 30 EFL learners who were at the similar level as the
main participants. The interrater reliability of the oral section index was set to be high (r = .94), and
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the core section was found to be acceptable (α = .89).

Speaking test: Interview

To assess the participant’s speaking fluency, a speaking test was administered before and after the
treatment. The test comprised of an interview and lasted between 11 to 14 minutes with two parts. In part
one, the participants introduced themselves and answered several simple opening questions. This part was
not recorded. In part two, the participants were given two cards which asked them to speak about two
topics for 10 minutes, 5 minutes for each topic in each card. For instance, in one card, it was written:

 Describe an item of technology that is very important for you. You should explain:
 What the technology is.
 When you get it.
 How often you use it and how different your life would be without it.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 564

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

The interviewer first read the questions and the participants were then given 1-2 minutes to prepare
their talk. They could make notes before speaking. Then, they were asked to talk about the two topics (for
a limit of 10 minutes) with their voices recorded by a voice recorder. To control the practice effect of
utilizing the same version as the pretest, two different topics were used in the posttest. The topics were
extracted from The Cambridge English IELTS Book 13, published by Cambridge University Press (2018).
The appropriacy of the questions and the clarity and coverage of the topics, were checked in advance with
two experienced experts. The speech samples of the participants were audio-recorded and introduced to a
computer program called PRAAT, computer software package for speech analysis, (Boersma & Weenink,
2015).

Procedure

Forty-four EFL learners, who registered for intermediate-level English course from a language institute
in Isfahan, were selected. At the beginning of the study, an Outcome Placement test was administered to
ensure their homogeneity in terms of proficiency before they receive the instructions of the study. Four
students were excluded from data analysis. After establishing homogeneity of the participants, they were
randomly assigned to an experimental group and a control group. Then, a speaking pretest, i.e., interview,
was administered to gauge the participants’ speaking fluency. In doing so, the participants were contacted
personally and one of the researchers interviewed them individually during a week.
During the research treatment, both experimental and control groups attended English conversation
classes two days a week, receiving 90 minutes of instruction in each session. The same instructor taught
both groups. The treatment continued eight sessions, for about a month, taking both classroom and non-
classroom locations into account. The time was also identical for both groups.
The experimental group was exposed to both in-class and out-of-class activities. The out-of-class
activities included video files about the conversations, lecture, and topics raised in Discussions A-Z
Intermediate (Wallwork, 2010). These videos were uploaded each week before face-to-face class via
Edmodo (see Figure 1), which is a social learning platform for teachers and students to exchange ideas,
share content or information, and access homework. Some of the videos contained recordings of the
teacher’s instructions to stimulate the participants’ interests and improve their speaking skills. The
participants were provided with micro videos of 1-5-minute length through Edmodo. In addition, they
were sometimes invited to take online quizzes through Edmodo at home.
As shown in Figure 1, the teacher provided instructions and asked the students to reflect on their topics
related to the following session materials in the classroom. The videos used in the experimental group
were short in duration to reduce the cognitive load on the part of the learners. Then, the learners met their
teacher in person in the classroom to discuss the video content, solve their problems, do textbook-based
in-class activities, and communicate their views. Occasionally, they were asked to stand up in front of the
class with a partner and present the video content and then discussed the topic of mini videos and lecture
files (see Table 1). After class, unlike the participants in the control group, they were not required to do
homework, but were asked to review their materials to consolidate their knowledge.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 565

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

Figure 1. A screenshot of the out-of- class instruction in Edmodo.

In the control group, the same textbook was presented to the participants in a fully face-to-face
classroom. The teaching materials were also introduced in the print format in the classroom. However, no
videos or instructional materials were introduced before class. In this group, the topic of each unit was
introduced by the teacher briefly at the beginning and some warm-up activities, such as previewing the
topic, giving ideas about the pictures of the textbook lesson, brainstorming the topic, were presented by
their teacher. Then, based on the activities in their textbook, they were asked to listen to the audio files
and do follow-up activities, such as group activities, to improve their oral proficiency. This is followed by
lecture presentation by one or two students selected by the teacher. She provided some feedback on their
lectures, such as their errors and mistakes, and, from time to time, led a short discussion around the topic.
An overview of the procedures in both experimental (micro flipped) and control (non-flipped) groups is
presented in Table 1.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 566

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

TABLE 1
The Procedure of the Two Groups of the Study
Types of Material delivery Teaching method
teaching Before class In class After class
Non-flipped The teaching None (1) The teacher had a short talk and They were
classroom materials introduced the topic of each unit for asked to
presented to the about 5 minutes prepare a
participants were (2) The teacher presented warm up lecture on a
mostly in the print activities (e.g., previewing the new given topic and
format based on topic, commenting on textbook do the
their coursebook. pictures, or brainstorming the topic) textbook
for about 15 minutes. assignments as
(3) The students listened to audio files homework.
about the topic and then did follow up
textbook-based activities supervised
by the teacher, including group
activities, for about 30 minutes.
(4) Teachers and students listened to
one or two students’ lectures on an
assigned topic. The teacher asked
questions and provided feedback on
the lecture and their mistakes and
occasionally led a discussion around
the topic, which all took about 30
minutes.

Micro The learning Watching short (1) The learners talked about the None (No
flipped materials were in videos, content of mini videos and explained homework was
classroom print and nonprint answering what they were about for about 15 given.)
format. The questions, and minutes.
materials for out- taking quizzes (2) They discussed their questions and
of-class via Edmodo views as well as answers to the
preparation were questions in quizzes. They also
in the form of communicated the problems and
short video clips difficulties on the video contents
delivered through uploaded in Edmodo for about 30
Edmodo. minutes.
(3) The learners did pair or small
group activities and debated issues
with a partner in groups for about 20
minutes
(4) The students collaboratively did
the textbook assignments for about 25
minutes.

After the treatment in each group, a posttest speaking test, similar to the pretest speaking, was used.
That is, the participants in both groups were interviewed, similar to the interview procedure in the pretest
phase and the recorded data were analyzed through PRAAT to measure speaking fluency in terms of six
aspects including articulation rate (syllables per second), rate of all pauses, rate of long pauses, rate of
unfilled and filled pauses and mean length of run. The aspects of fluency measures, together with their
definitions as offered by Ruth (2015) are presented in Table 2. Finally, the quantitative output data from
PTAAT were submitted to SPSS Software for further subsequent analysis.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 567

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

TABLE 2
Fluency Measures and their Operational Definitions
Measure Definition
Articulation rate The number of syllables per second, with pauses ≥ 0.25 seconds
removed from the calculation
Rate of all pauses The number of pauses lasting 0.25 seconds or more, per 100
syllables
Rate of long pauses The number of pauses lasting 0.5 seconds or more, per 100
syllables
Rate of unfilled pauses The number of unfilled (silent) pauses lasting 0.25 seconds or
more, per 100 syllables
Rate of filled pauses The number of pauses consisting of non-lexical fillers lasting
0.25 seconds or more, per 100 syllables
Mean length of run The mean number of syllables spoken between pauses (filled or
unfilled) 0.5 seconds or longer

Results

To investigate whether the instructions in both experimental and control groups would have any effects
on the EFL learners’ speaking fluency, the data on the fluency aspects obtained from PRAAT were
subjected to quantitative analysis though SPSS. To see whether to run parametric or non-parametric
statistics, these data were checked for distribution normality using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. As the
sample size was small and the data were not normally distributed, the mean ranks on the six aspects of
fluency were obtained and non-parametric tests of significance, that is, Mann-Whitney tests, were run on
the data from the two groups in both pretest and posttest phases. The Mann-Whitney U test compares
medians between two groups. The results of the Mann-Whitney U tests on the speaking fluency for the
two groups of the study in the pretest are summarized and presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3
Results of Mann-Whitney Tests on the Experimental and Control Groups’ Fluency Data in the Pretest
Control Group Experimental Group
(N = 20) (N = 20) Mann- Z Sig.
Mean Mean Sum of Mean Mean Sum of Whitney
Rank Ranks Rank Ranks U
Syllables per 2.93 23.22 464.50 3.19 17.78 355.50 145.50 -1.476 .140
second
Rate of all 12.26 22.15 443.00 12.02 18.85 377.00 167.00 -.893 .372
pauses
Rate of long 11.84 23.05 461.00 11.23 17.95 359.00 149.00 -1.382 .167
pauses
Rate of unfilled 13.44 20.78 415.50 13.47 20.22 404.50 194.50 -.149 .881
pauses
Rate of filled 3.390 19.02 380.50 3.6400 21.98 439.50 170.50 -.801 .423
pauses
Mean length of 10.36 22.25 445.00 10.00 18.75 375.00 165.00 -.949 .342
run between
pauses

According to the results presented in Table 3, there was no significant difference between the
participants’ fluency regarding the aspects of speaking fluency measures at the beginning of the study (p
> .05). The Mann-Whitney statistics for the syllables per second (U = 145.500, p = .140), the rate of all
pauses (U = 167.00, p = .372), the rate of long pauses (U = 149.00, p = .167), the rate of unfilled pauses
(U = 194.50, p = .881), the rate of filled pauses (U = 170.50, p = .423), and the Mean length of run
between pauses (U = 165.00, p = .342) were not statistically significant, indicating that the control and
experimental groups were not significantly different on the six aspects of fluency before treatment.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 568

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

However, differences were observed in the posttest phase when the Mann-Whitney U tests were run on
the posttest interview data (see Table 4).

TABLE 4
Results of Mann-Whitney Tests on the Experimental and Control Groups’ Fluency Data in The Posttest
Control Group Experimental Group
(N = 20) (N = 20) Mann-
Whitney U z Sig.
Mean Sum of Ranks Mean Sum of Ranks
Rank Rank
Syllables per 16.42 328.50 24.58 491.50 118.50 -2.208 .027*
second
Rate of all 27.05 541.00 13.95 279.00 69.00 -3.547 .000*
pauses
Rate of long 24.45 489.00 16.55 331.00 121.00 -2.141 .032*
pauses
Rate of unfilled 27.02 540.50 13.98 279.50 69.50 -3.537 .000*
pauses
Rate of filled 26.45 529.00 14.55 291.00 81.00 -3.238 .001*
pauses
Mean length of 16.38 327.50 24.62 492.50 117.50 -2.238 .025*
run between
pauses
*p < .05

According to Table 4, the mean rank for the syllables per second for by the participants in the control
group was 16.42, while the mean rank for the syllables per second for the participants in the experimental
group was 24.58. This means the participants in the experimental group produced more syllables per
second, resulting in more fluent speech. The posttest statistics for the rate of all pauses (U = 69, p = .000)
revealed a significant difference between the two groups, with the participants in the experimental group
having less pauses than those in the control group. Also, the rate of long pauses for the participants in the
control group was lower than the one for the participants in the experimental group (U = 121, p = .032),
which led to a significant difference between the two groups (*p < .05). Likewise, there was a significant
difference between the two group regarding the rate of unfilled pauses with a mean rank of 27.02 per 100
syllables for the participants in the control group and 13.98 for the participants in the experimental group
(U = 69.50, p = .000). Moreover, the rate of filled pauses (26.45) was lower in the experiment group than
the rate (14.55) in the control group. Finally, a significant difference was observed between the mean
length of run between pauses in the two groups in the posttest (U = 117.5, p = .025). The experimental
group had a statistically larger mean length between pauses (*p < .05). As Figure 2 vividly displays, the
mean rates of pauses were smaller in the experimental group, but the mean length of run between pauses
and articulation rate mean were larger in this group in the posttest.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 569

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

14

12

10

0
Long Unfilled Filled Rate of all Syllables Mean
pauses pauses pasues pauses per length of
second run
between
Control Group Experimental Group
pauses

Figure 2. Comparison of fluency measures between the experimental and control groups in the posttest.

Discussion

The findings revealed that micro flipped method had significant effects on the aspects of speaking
fluency. The effects were greater in the micro flipped group. The mean number of syllables per second
(articulation rate) and mean length of run between pauses increased after carrying out the instruction in
both groups, but the increase was greater in the micro flipped group, indicating better speaking fluency as
the result of micro flipped instruction. Moreover, the rate of all pauses, the rates of long pauses, unfilled
and filled pauses decreased in both groups due to the instruction, revealing that the participants were more
fluent after instruction. Nonetheless, the comparison of mean ranks between the two groups indicated that
there was a statistically significant difference between them. The participants in the micro flipped group
gradually improved their (English) speaking skill and demonstrated greater reduction in pauses such as
filled, unfilled, and long pauses in their speech than those who were exposed to the traditional method of
teaching. Their pauses were often at the end of clauses in speech. As Skehan (2009) states, higher degrees
of filled, unfilled, and long pauses are characteristics of less natural speech, compared with pausing at the
end of clauses, which is usually more common in fluent speech.
The lower pause rates and higher articulation rate or mean length of run in the posttest phase can be
explained in light of the method employed in the experimental group. Research in the field of
psycholinguistics (Christenfeld et al., 1991; Inoue, 2010; Kormos & Dénes, 2004) has demonstrated that
pauses are indications of time out when the speaker looks for the next linguistic element or the next idea.
The micro flipped activities for the learners delivered through Edmodo before class, such as watching
mini videos, reflecting on the teacher’s questions and recording their answers, allowed these learners to
speak and learn the content at their own pace in an individual manner. They may have learned how to
recognize demarcations in the speech stream, practice how to plan and manage their speech, hence
reducing the time out in their own speech. Additionally, they might have learned to reduce difficulty in
planning their thoughts and difficulty of speaking in front of others in the classroom. This issue might
have resulted in lower rates of pauses in the posttest interview. As Kenny (1996) asserts, the occurrence
of pauses might be related to the difficulty of the task, and pauses are symptoms of difficulties in planning
and processing, which can be tackled through effective methods of instructions. The findings corroborate
with the Kormos and Dénes (2004) and Rossiter’s (2009) report that the number of pauses per second and

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 570

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

pruned speech rate, together mean length of utterance, are the good predictors of fluency scores. Also,
they find support from the research such as the study by Grimshaw and Cardoso (2018) who reported that
technology-based tools could help L2 learners to improve their oral fluency. Additionally, the results
partially lend support to the findings of the study by Amirnejad’s (2015) on the use of video recordings
and the study by Diyyab et al. (2013) on the use of multimedia-based programs for developing speaking
fluency. In the current study, the micro flipped participants were asked to record their voices outside the
class while responding to some questions following the video watching. Doing voice recording activity
could make them plan and manage their speech better later in the classroom. Similarly, Amirnejad’s
investigation showed that cell phone video recordings improved Iranian EFL learners’ fluency as
indicated by rate of speech.
The before-class activities might have helped the learners in the experimental group to lower the
cognitive load evoked by the materials in the face-to-face classroom. They learned to be prepared and
focus on instructional materials that relate to their learning and speaking skill in the classroom. Thereby,
they learned to increase their articulation rates of their speech with fewer pauses in their performance on
the posttest. As Garman (1990) states, pauses can be a function of heavy cognitive load. According to
cognitive load theory (De Jong, 2010; Sweller & Chandler, 1994), the working memory of an individual
is limited. When a learning task needs more capacity than can be accommodated by a learner's working
memory, an individual experiences cognitive overload. It is likely that the non-flipped learners
experienced more cognitive overload in their instructions. Moreover, it is likely that presenting materials
via micro videos in the experimental group might have helped the experimental group learn at their own
pace with less stress and anxiety associated with speaking performance. Based on Krashen’s affective
filter hypothesis, when affective filter is low, L2 learners can provide more comprehensible input
(Krashen, 2013). It can be argued that watching videos and pre-class activities gave them some
confidence to manage their speech in and in-class discussion and activities. This issue could be another
reason for the lower rate of filled pauses, higher articulate speech rates, and faster rate of speech, hence
better speaking fluency after receiving micro flipped method. Filled pauses reflect internal processes and
affective states and serve a communicative function (Adell et al., 2012). When speaking materials are
presented at learners’ own pace in a safe environment, the learner may experience less anxiety, leading to
lower rate in pause time. The findings can be justified in light of Krashen’s monitor hypothesis, according
to which, when L2 learners see themselves under heavy monitoring, their performance will decrease
(Krashen, 2013). In the micro flipped classroom, which was more student-centered, part of learning was
carried out before class at home at the learners’ own pace with less monitoring, and this issue might have
contributed to their better speaking gradually. The micro flipped participants would have benefited more
from individual coaching, and took responsibility for their own learning, hence, becoming more
autonomous. In view of the positive effects of the micro flipped model on speaking fluency, the findings
can lend support to some prior studies about the positive effect of the flipped classroom on language skills
and subskills (e.g., Ahmed, 2016), positive effects of microlesson on innovation and application of
educational information technology (Zhang, 2017), and College English teaching (Cao, 2018).

Conclusion and Implications

Micro flipped classroom was found to be more effective in improving the EFL learners’ speaking
fluency, compared with the traditional mainstream classroom. The micro flipped method allowed the EFL
learners to watch short videos in advance to remember and understand the material, and then solve their
problems with the support of the assignments and discussions in the classroom. It helped them to increase
the articulation rate and mean length of run between pauses in the speech, and decrease the rate of pauses,
including the rates of long pauses, unfilled and filled pauses, all contributing to the learners’ speaking
fluency in the micro flipped group. Compared with traditional method of teaching, the micro flipped

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 571

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

method could provide the learners with more opportunities to participate, interact with each other in the
classroom and practice their speaking skill.
The results obtained in this study may lead to several implications. First, the findings accentuate the
role of technological aids as a supporting means in L2 teaching and learning process in general, and in L2
speaking fluency development in particular. Second, this research can encourage L2 teachers and
educators to utilize pedagogical learning/teaching networks and platforms in their teaching environments
to improve the speaking fluency of their students in the target language. Third, the findings give
prominence to blended learning in which L2 students can learn and develop their L2 speaking skills and
fluency, in part, online and, in part, in the actual classroom. They support utilizing different modes of L2
teaching/learning, particularly after the coronavirus pandemic in the today’s world. Finally, in the micro
flipped classroom, language-related information transfer can take place outside the class to reduce the
cognitive load on the part of L2 learners in the actual classroom. By implication, the micro flip method
may create a more welcoming environment in which learners can improve their L2 speaking skills and
fluency.
Similar to other studies, this study suffers from certain limitations. A low number of participants,
limited range of activities, and the type of sampling may challenge the findings to generalize them to a
large population of EFL learners. Also, the participants’ level of English proficiency was intermediate. If
more students from other levels of English proficiency with a wider range of activities were included in
the study, more comprehensive results would be obtained. Moreover, quizzes in the experimental group
could allow multiple attempts, making the learners receive different amounts of input outside the class.
Future research can take these issues into consideration and investigate more aspects of speaking fluency
such as the rate of repetitions and false starts, too.

The Authors

Ali Roohani is an associate professor in the Dept. of English of Shahrekord University in Shahrekord.
His current research interests cover educational psychology, language testing, and textbook evaluation.
His recent publications include game-based and social media instruction in L2 lexical learning and
flipping EFL learners’ writing classroom.

Department of English
Shahrekord University
Shahrekord, Iran
Email: roohani.ali@gmail.com

Parisa Etemadfar is a graduate MA student of TEFL in the Dept. of English of Shahrekord University
in Shahrekord. Her current research interests cover teaching methods and second/foreign language skills.
Her recent publication includes the effect of the flipped classroom on L2 listening.

Department of English
Shahrekord University
Shahrekord, Iran
Email: parisaetamadfar@gmail.com

References

Adell, J., Escudero, D., & Bonafonte, A. (2012). Production of filled pauses in concatenative speech
synthesis based on the underlying fluent sentence. Speech Communication, 54(3), 459-476.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 572

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

Adnan, M. (2017). Perceptions of senior-year ELT students for flipped classroom: A materials
development course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3-4), 204-222.
Ahmed, M. A. (2016). The effect of a flipping classroom on writing skill in English as a foreign language
and students’ attitude towards flipping. US-China Foreign Language, 14(2), 98-114.
Amirnejad, A. (2015). The effect of using cell phone video recording features on Iranian EFL learners’
fluency. Scholars Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(4B), 927-933.
Bahrani, T. (2011). Speaking fluency: Technology in EFL context or social interaction in ESL context?
Studies in Literature and Language, 2(2), 162-168.
Bailey, K. M. (2003). Speaking. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 47-66).
McGraw-Hill Contemporary.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day.
Internal Society for Technology in Education.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.4.05) [Computer
program]. http://www.praat.org/
Bosker, H. R., Pinget, A. F., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & De Jong, N. H. (2013). What makes speech sound
fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30(2), 159-175.
Bushweller, K. (2011). Navigating the path to personalized education. Education Week, 30(25), 20-22.
Cao, M. (2018). An overview of micro-lecture in college English teaching in mainland China.
International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 34-38.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Heinle & Heinle.
Christenfeld, N., Schachter, S., & Bilous, F. (1991). Filled pauses and gestures: It’s not coincidence.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 1-10.
Chen Hsieh, J. S., Wu, W. C. V., & Marek, M. W. (2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2), 1-21.
Davis, M. R. (2011). Schools use digital tools to customize education. Education Week, 30(25), 10-11.
De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for
thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105-134.
De Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Second language fluency:
Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language
behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 223-243.
De Jong, N., H., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study
of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533-568.
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Linguistic skills and
speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(5), 893-916.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J. (2009). The relationship between L1
fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 533-557.
Diyyab, E., A., Abdel-Haq, E. M., & Abdel-Sadeq Aly, M. (2013). Using a multimedia-based program
for developing student teachers’ EFL speaking fluency skills. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext
/ED539987.pdf
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford University Press.
Fidalgo-Blanco, A., Martinez-Nuñez, M., Borrás-Gene, O., & Sanchez-Medina, J. J. (2017). Micro flip
teaching: An innovative model to promote the active involvement of students. Computers in
Human Behavior, 72, 713-723.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P.
(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Garman, M. (1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Grimshaw, J., & Cardoso, W. (2018). Activate space rats! Fluency development in a mobile game-
assisted environment. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 159-175.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 573

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. (2013). A review of flipped learning: Flipped
Learning Network. http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/41/LitR
eviewFlippedLearning.pdf
Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Longman.
Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.
Inoue, C. (2010). Investigating the sensitivity of the measures of fluency, accuracy, complexity, and idea
units with a narrative task. In G. Bota, H. Hargreaves, L. Chia-Chun, & R. Rong (Eds.), Papers
from the Lancaster University postgraduate conference in linguistics & language teaching (pp.
129-153). Lancaster University Press.
Jehman, H. (2016). Flipped Learning as a strategy for an effective EFL classroom. Asian EFL
Journal, 90, 54-65.
Jinlei, Z., Ying, W., & Baohui, Z. (2012). Introducing a new teaching model: Flipped classroom. Journal
of Distance Education, 4(8), 46-51.
Kenny, K. D. (1996). Language loss and the crisis of cognition. Mouton de Gruyter.
Kong, S. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge
learning in digital classroom: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers
& Education, 78, 160-173.
Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second
language learners. System, 32(2), 145-164.
Krashen, S. (2013). Second language acquisition: Theory, applications, and some conjectures.
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, G., & Wallace, A. (2017). Flipped learning in the English as a foreign language classroom:
Outcomes and perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 62-84.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 3, 387-417.
Llanes, Á ., & Muñoz, C. (2009). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System, 37(3), 353-365.
Lu, H. (2013). The feasibility analysis of the application of flipped classroom in college English teaching.
Foreign Language Electrochemical Education, 7, 33-36.
Lu, Y., & Sun, M. (2016). The application of flipped classroom based on the micro-class in college
English. In B. Li, G. Li, & H. Tang (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 6th Electronic, Mechanical,
Information and Management (EMIM 2016) Conference (pp. 1829-1833). Shenyang, China.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (2005). Fluency and confluence: What fluent speakers do. The Language Teacher, 29(6), 26-38.
Mirzaei, A., & Heidari, N. (2012). Exploring the use of oral communication strategies by (non)fluent L2
speakers. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(3), 131-156.
Moranski, K., & Kim, F. (2016). ‘Flipping’ lessons in a multi‐section Spanish course: Implications for
assigning explicit grammar instruction outside of the classroom. The Modern Language Journal,
100(4), 830-852.
Nation, I. S. P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17(3), 377-384.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2009). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. Regional Language
Center.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current
practice. Cambridge University Press.
Rossiter, M. J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 65(3), 395-412.
Ruth, L. K. (2015). Speaking fluency and study abroad: What factors are related to fluency development?
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of Iowa.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency,
and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 574

Ali Roohani & Parisa Etemadfar The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2021, 559-575

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction,
12(3), 185-233.
Talbert, R. (2014). Inverting the linear algebra classroom. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in
Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 24(5), 361-374.
Teng, F., M. (2017). Flipping the classroom and tertiary level EFL students’ academic performance and
satisfaction. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(4), 605-620.
The Cambridge English IELTS Book 13 (2018). Cambridge University Press.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.
Wallwork, A. (2010). Discussions A-Z: A resource book of speaking activities. Cambridge University
Press.
Wang, J., An, N., & Wright, C. (2018). Enhancing beginner learners’ oral proficiency in a flipped
Chinese foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5-6), 490-521.
Yingjie, Y. (2014). The development of speaking fluency: The 4/3/2 technique for EFL learners in China.
International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(4), 55-70.
Yoon, S. Y., & Kim, N.-Y. (2020). To flip or not to flip: A comparative study on flipped, blended, and
conventional learning in EFL Korean context. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(4), 1363-1376.
Zaremba, A. J. (2006). Speaking professionally. Thompson South-Western.
Zhang, F. (2017). Quality-improving strategies of college English teaching based on microlesson and
flipped classroom. English Language Teaching, 10(5), 243-249.
Zou, D., Luo, S., Xie, H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2020). A systematic review of research on flipped language
classrooms: Theoretical foundations, learning activities, tools, research topics and findings.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-27. doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1839502

(Received January 25, 2021; Revised May 20, 2021; Accepted June 18, 2021)

 2021 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 575