10
ALLS 9(1
):5-13
Moreover, what has been found corroborates the effec-
tiveness of active learning and actively engaging the learners
in their learning, so that they would not be the passive re-
cipients of knowledge, rather they undertake responsibility
for their learning (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014; Basal,
2015; Davies, Dean, & Ball, 2013; Muldrow, 2013; O’Fla-
herty & Phillips, 2015).
Additionally, as the students had this opportunity to write
collaboratively, this activity could have positive effects on
the participants ability to write their essays, and this can be
considered as consistent with the ndings of previous studies
(See, e.g. Ajideh, Leitner, & Yazdi-Amirkhiz, 2016; Elola &
Oskoz, 2010; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005; Storch & Wig-
glesworth, 2007) and the sociocultural perspective in L2 in-
struction, which requires the learners to seek cooperation and
assistance from different people and resources (Cumming,
2001). It has been stated that collaboration makes learners
think about their language-related problems when they are
engaged in their writing tasks (Swain, 2000); therefore, it is
highly recommended that learners “be encouraged to partic-
ipate in activities which foster interaction and co-construc-
tion of knowledge” (Storch, 2005, p. 154).
Furthermore, the ndings prove the effectiveness of
teacher-learner interaction and face-to-face negotiation
to reduce the misunderstandings, as is in line with Long’s
(1996) Interaction Hypothesis and Vygotsky’s emphasis on
the importance of meaningful social interactions between
novice learners and more experienced others (Nyikos &
Hashimoto, 1997; O’Donoghue & Clarke, 2010); Vygosky
believed that such interaction will support learning because
cognitive functions originate in social interaction and that
learning “is the process by which learners are integrated into
a knowledge community” (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 18);
such interaction is highly recommended by several scholars
(e.g. Han & Hyland, 2015; Hyland, 2009; Lee, 2013; Nas-
saji, 2011; Nicol, 2010; Pica, 1994; Williams & Severino,
2004) because it is assumed to be essential for the learner’s
cognitive development to occur and progress, “which extend
his or her knowledge of the task at hand from a lower level
of understanding to a higher order of thinking through, with
the assistance of more experienced social partners” (Lin &
Yang, 2011, p. 4). Therefore, through the process of negotia-
tion, the participants in the FC were able to understand their
own strengths and weaknesses; they could also learn what to
“do to close the gaps (i.e. improve the weaknesses) in their
writing” (Lee, 2014, p. 204).
In conclusion, in this study, through the ipped instruc-
tion, both cognitive apprenticeship and scaffolding occurred;
like what Nyikos and Hashimoto (1997) explained, the stu-
dents were engaged in reective thinking. The responsibility
for learning was mainly on the learner, but the teacher, also
as the more knowledgeable person, had the responsibility of
offering the learner support to facilitate the process of learn-
ing because as Benko (2012) stated, scaffolding is essential
for tasks which are beyond students’ independent language
abilities. Moreover, the different functions of interactional
modications, such as providing a condition for the learners
to receive comprehensible input, produce modied output,
and notice the gaps in their knowledge could help them re-
structure their interlanguages (Mackey, 2012).
DELIMITATION OF THIS STUDY AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
As the concluding remarks, two points need to be mentioned:
First, even though the ipped instruction was proved ef-
fective in this study, we cannot generalize from this sample
because the participating students in the current study were
at the upper-intermediate level of English prociency, and
the ipped instruction may yield different results if it is con-
ducted in classes with lower-prociency-level students.
Next, a qualitative study is essential to investigate the
students’ attitudes and expectations towards the purpose
and value of the FC with the aims of rst, exploring their
attitudinal engagement, which was recommended by (Ellis,
2010), and second, nding out some information about their
individual differences via analyzing their statements in order
to understand how they can be helped to do the writing task
better (Hyland, 2009).
REFERENCES
Afrilyasanti, R., Cahyono, B. Y., & Astuti, U. P. (2016).
Effect of ipped classroom model on Indonesian EFL
students’ writing ability across and individual differ-
ences in learning. International Journal of English
Language and Linguistics Research, 4(5), 65–81. Re-
trieved from http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/
uploads/Effect-Of-Flipped-Classroom-Model-on-Indo-
nesian-EFL-Students’-Writing-Ability-Across-and-In-
dividual-Differences-in-Learning.pdf
Ahmed, M. A. E. A. S. (2016). The effect of a ipping
classroom on writing skill in English as a foreign lan-
guage and students’ attitude towards ipping. US-Chi-
na Foreign Language, 14(2), 98–114. https://doi.
org/10.17265/1539-8080/2016.02.003
Ajideh, P., Leitner, G., & Yazdi-Amirkhiz, S. Y. (2016). The
inuence of collaboration on individual writing quali-
ty: The case of Iranian vs. Malaysian college students.
Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning,
17, 1–24. Retrieved from http://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/arti-
cle_4958_2d1abea04fc764847e84f5e86b902382.pdf
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not
about seat time: Blending, ipping, and efciency
in active learning classrooms. Computers & Educa-
tion, 78, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe-
du.2014.06.006
Basal, A. (2015). The implementation of a ipped classroom
in foreign language teaching. Turkish Online Jour-
nal of Distance Education, 16(4), 28–37. https://doi.
org/10.17718/tojde.72185
Benko, S. L. (2012). Scaffolding: An ongoing process to
support adolescent writing development. Journal of Ad-
olescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 291–300. https://doi.
org/10.1002/JAAL.00142
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The ipped class-
room: A survey of the research. In 120
th
ASEE Annu-