Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, Vol 21, March 2021, pp.

171-188
DOI: 10.15738/kjell.21..202103.171

KOREAN JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS

ISSN: 1598-1398 / e-ISSN 2586-7474
http://journal.kasell.or.kr

A Comparative Study on Blended Learning and Flipped Learning:

EFL Students’ Learner Autonomy, Independence, and Attitudes*

Na-Young Kim (Sehan University), Seo Young Yoon (Baekseok University)

ABSTRACT
This is an open-access article Kim, Na-Young and Seo Young Yoon. 2021. A comparative study on blended learning
distributed under the terms of and flipped learning: EFL students’ learner autonomy, independence, and attitudes.
the Creative Commons Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 21, 171-188.
License, which permits
unrestricted non-commercial
use, distribution, and The purpose of this study was to investigate EFL students’ learner perspectives on blended
reproduction in any medium, learning and flipped learning concerning their autonomy, independence, and attitudes. The
provided the original work is participants for the study were 114 first-year students taking an English course at a university
properly cited. in Korea. They met once a week for 2 hours for 15 weeks but engaged in different instructional
designs of conventional (C), blended learning (BL), and flipped learning (FL). For the C
group, in-class instructions and activities were given based on the textbook. The BL group
Received: Feb. 19, 2021
joined online activities following the face-to-face instruction. In contrast, the FL group
Revised: March 11, 2021
received the online instruction preceding the face-to-face class. For the quantitative data, the
Accepted: March 16, 2021
questionnaire was designed based on previous research on learner autonomy, independence,
and attitudes. The qualitative data included interviews and classroom observation. The main
Na-Young Kim (1st author) findings are as follows: the FL group showed the need for teacher presence to improve learner
Professor, Sehan Univ. autonomy while the BL group recognized the importance of learner autonomy for their
[email protected] successful learning with fewer learning choices. All groups showed a positive attitude toward
learning but felt the need for autonomy training. No group differences were found. Based on
Seo Young Yoon the results, suggestions for further study are provided.
(corresponding author)
Professor, Baekseok Univ.
[email protected]

KEYWORDS
*This work was supported by
EFL, flipped learning, blended learning, learner autonomy, learner independence, learner
the Sehan University Research
attitude
Fund in 2021.

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 171

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

1. Introduction

English as a foreign language (EFL) learners have various knowledge backgrounds and mixed language abilities with
different goals. They also have various learning needs and different levels of motivation. According to Webb and Doman
(2016), this is one of the biggest challenges in a language classroom. For the past years, several EFL professionals have
emphasized the strengths of blended and flipped learning, and they have highly promoted their practices in class (Hamdan,
McKnight, McKnight and Arfstrom 2013, Harrington 2010, Soliman 2016, Wu and Liu 2013).
Specifically, students in EFL settings have shown a positive attitude towards blended learning (Harrington
2010). According to Wu and Liu (2013), EFL students enjoy themselves in a blended learning environment as it
offers the students fun and pleasure. In a blended learning environment, they have flexibility regarding time, place,
and even the ways of learning. While interacting online with their classmates and teachers more conveniently,
students can enjoy learning with ease and interest. This entertaining experience makes them feel satisfied with EFL
blended learning, and both the performance and learning efficiency of EFL students can increase as a result.
In EFL learning, the adoption of the flipped model has also been emphasized, which allows individualized
instruction as teachers can reach each student in the class (Soliman 2016). EFL students in flipped learning settings
can also have more opportunities to use their target language in collaborative learning environments. They can
deepen their understanding of English and use it effectively with immediate feedback from their teacher or peers
by interacting with them (Mehring 2016). Furthermore, the flipped EFL classroom has enabled a shift from a
teacher-centered to a student-centered approach. According to Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight and Arfstrom
(2013), in flipped learning, the students actively participate in verbal and written activities outside the classroom
through their online learning community.
In particular, blended and flipped learning advocates have claimed that both online-based instructional designs
can enhance EFL students’ learner autonomy (Banditvilai 2016, Han 2015, Hung 2015, Wong and Chu 2014,
Yoon 2016). For example, after conducting a case study of using blended learning to enhance EFL students’
language skills and learner autonomy, Banditvilai (2016) discovered that the blended model enhances EFL skills
and autonomous learning. Yoon (2016) also found positive learner perspectives on a blended learning model for
improving learner autonomy in EFL classes. Regarding flipped learning, Han (2015), Hung (2015), and Wong and
Chu (2014) proved that flipped instruction develops EFL learner autonomy, improves learners’ learning attitudes
and participation levels, and increases their confidence and commitment levels.
Therefore, for their successful language learning, EFL students’ learner autonomy should be promoted (Yoon
2016). Considering that learner autonomy consists of various features (Thanasoulas 2000) and its measurement are
multidimensional (Yoon 2016), the current study investigates EFL students’ learner perspectives concerning their
autonomy with their independence and attitudes. According to Mulcahy (1991), learner independence is one of the
key features making an autonomous learner. As a goal in the educational world, learner independence has also
played an important role in language learning (Finch 2001). Furthermore, independent learners also hold positive
attitudes (Mariani 1992). Pichugova, Stepura, and Pravosudov (2016) claimed that learner attitudes should also be
considered as a goal to enhance learner autonomy in the EFL context. According to them, autonomous learners
have positive attitudes toward learning, and the success of language learning largely depends on learner attitudes.
Previous studies have shown that both blended and flipped learning can enhance EFL students’ learner
autonomy (Banditvilai 2016, Han 2015, Hung 2015, Wong and Chu 2014), but the existing studies on blended
learning tend to focus on its development and effectiveness. Consequently, there is a need for an in-depth
investigation of its impact on learner autonomy (Yoon 2016). Furthermore, there is the dearth of research on
flipped learning in the Korean EFL context (Sung 2015). An absence of such studies motivated the researchers to
examine the impact of different instructional designs – flipped learning and blended learning – on learner
autonomy. Based on the previous research (Sharle and Szabó 2000, Tassinari 2012, Yoon 2016), the present study
aims to fill the gap by asking the following questions:

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 172

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

a. What are the impacts of flipped learning and blended learning on learner autonomy in EFL classrooms?
b. What are the impacts of flipped learning and blended learning on learner independence in EFL classrooms?
c. What are the impacts of flipped learning and blended learning on learner attitudes in EFL classrooms?
d. Are there significant differences in learner perspectives between flipped learning and blended learning
classes in terms of research questions a, b, and c?

2. Literature Review

2.1 Fliped Learning and Blended Learning

In order to support classroom teaching, technology has been widely used. The advancement of technology has
allowed students to learn anytime, anywhere. Furthermore, the various high-tech learning tools have increased the
students’ interest and motivation in learning, enhancing their self-directed learning skills (Kim 2017). Such tools
have also encouraged the students to engage in collaborative learning, promoting their social interactions through
giving and receiving feedback or sharing ideas. In particular, the adaptation of technology has enabled a shift from
teacher-centered learning to student-centered learning (Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight and Arfstrom 2013).
In recent years, various pedagogical models have been employed to facilitate technology-assisted learning. One
of them is blended learning. This model refers to an approach to education that combines online learning and
face-to-face classes. In blended classrooms, traditional teaching methods are supplemented with online
educational materials. There are also some opportunities for interaction, training, and assessment online in blended
learning. Bañados (2006) claimed that this approach could improve students’ learning outcomes. Students in a
blended class can perform much better than those in a non-blended class (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia and
Jones 2010). According to previous researches (Alebaikan and Troudi 2010, Yoon 2016), the students also have
positive perspectives on blended learning.
Thorne (2003) claimed that blended learning is one of the most essential educational advances of the 21st
century. According to Grgurović (2011), future language learning is closely connected to blended learning.
However, Bañados (2006) addressed that both teachers and students should make adjustments in blended classes.
Teachers, for example, need to acquire new skills such as how to integrate materials, how to use hardware and
software, and how to solve technical problems. He added that not only should students learn new technology, but
they should also become autonomous learners. Murday, Ushida and Chenoweth (2008) also emphasized the
importance of the students taking responsibility for their learning. According to them, there is a direct relationship
between student motivation and academic progress.
Apart from blended learning, flipped learning has also attracted much attention among scholars from different fields
worldwide. Flipped learning is considered a form of blended learning approach by some (Ekmekci 2014) due to its
similarities, like using more than one delivery mode utilized in learning. However, the delivery method for instruction is
reversed in flipped classes. Teachers prepare online lectures for students to take at home on their own time. The
classroom time is spent on doing activities to understand the important concepts and knowledge being delivered. The
flipped approach forgoes unnecessary teacher-talk time during class time and expands or deepens learning in class. This
changes the focus of class time, drawing attention to the students while taking the focus off the teachers.
According to Bergmann, Overmyer and Wilie (2011), flipped learning is not just about the lectures offered
online. There is meaningful interaction through in-class activities. As flipped learning can free instructional time,
students can have more interactive and dynamic classroom learning experiences. In the flipped model, most lesson
content is delivered by video clips, and the students watch them at home before attending class. That is, the
students can synthesize the information they have learned through videos, ask questions as they come up, and work
out problems collaboratively with their classmates in class (Bormann 2014). The student-centered approach can be

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 173

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

applied to the flipped instructional design as the students participate in meaningful and collaborative activities
outside the classroom via the online learning community (Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight and Arfstrom 2013).
Furthermore, the flipped model helps teachers improve classroom management with increased time to interact
with every student (Bergmann and Sams 2015, Sung 2015). That is, video lectures before class allow for increased
interaction, meaning that the flipped lessons are interactive.
Flipped learning has been considered to be one of the best learning models (Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight and
Arfstrom 2013), and now is the most popularly used instructional design in the EFL field (Ekmekci 2017).
However, Chowdhury (2019) noted that no single model can be a perfect fit for all educational settings, and
empirical evidence in support of flipped learning is lacking, and few materials are available in the EFL classroom.
Besides, there is little research supporting the incorporation of the flipped model in the EFL classroom (Mehring,
2016). Particularly in Korean EFL settings, research is rarely found on the flipping of English language classes,
especially at the college level (Sung 2015). Considering there are few studies on flipped EFL learning in Korea
(Yoon and Kim 2020), its effectiveness and practicality should be examined more carefully.
More recently, Yoon and Kim (2020) investigated whether flipped learning leads to more increased English
speaking skills in comparison to blended or conventional learning. For the study, a total of 70 college students in
Korea were recruited and divided into flipped, blended, and conventional learning groups. The participants’
speaking outcomes on the pre- and post-tests were evaluated based on the rubric following IELTS speaking
assessment criteria. However, the authors found no statistically significant differences among the three groups.
They suggested that flipped learning is effective for EFL teaching and learning but the same goes for blended and
conventional learning as well. That is, although flipped learning is receiving increased attention, this may simply
be a trend and should be examined more carefully. Therefore, we aim to investigate whether flipped learning and
blended learning impacts learner autonomy, independence and attitude in comparison to the conventional teaching
and learning, particularly in Korean EFL contexts.

2.2 Learner Autonomy, Learner Independence, and Learner Attitudes

In the educational world, learner autonomy has attracted educators’ attention with the rise of globalization, the
information age, and the knowledge-based economy (Benson 2001). According to Tilfarlioglu and Ciftci (2011), if
students can organize and control their own learning, it can be said that they are autonomous learners. For a long
time, learner autonomy has been the ultimate goal of education (Benson 2001, Waterhouse 1990). However, it is a
complicated capacity (Dang 2010), and the concept has been argued to be very complex, particularly in language
learning (Little 2003).
There are a number of different labels regarding learner autonomy, and previous scholars have tried to define its
concept in many different ways. For example, Holec (1981) defined learner autonomy as “the ability to take charge
of one’s own learning (p. 3)” while Dam et al. (1990) viewed it as “ [the] capacity and willingness to act
independently and in cooperation with others as a social, responsible person (p. 102).” According to Little (1996),
it is “learners’ ability and willingness to make choices independently (p. 97).” It can also be “the capacity for a
certain range of highly explicit behavior that embraces both the process and the content of learning (Cotterall and
Crabbe 1999, p. 11).” Although defining learner autonomy has its variations, the main point of all the definitions is
that students should be the authors of their own education world (Tilfarlioglu and Ciftci 2011). In other words,
learner autonomy is the capacity to take control of one’s own learning (Benson 2001, Yoon 2016).
Zhou and Deci (2009) claimed that learner autonomy could not only enhance students’ positive feelings about
themselves but also improve their academic achievement. In particular, the increased attention to learner autonomy
has gained momentum in the context of language teaching and learning (Tilfarlioglu and Ciftci 2011). Language
learning is an autonomous art accumulated over long periods of time. According to Tilfarlioglu and Ciftci (2011),
since language learning is a life-long journey, its process should be autonomous. In EFL contexts, learner

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 174

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

autonomy has also been viewed as a characteristic of successful learners (Yoon 2016). Therefore, teachers in EFL
settings should teach their students how to be autonomous, supporting their autonomous learning; and the students
should also learn to be autonomous in taking responsibility for their learning.
In addition to learner autonomy, learner independence has also been cited as a goal in the educational world. It
refers to a learner’s ability to make his/her own decisions about what he/she thinks and does (Boud 1988). Mariani
(1992) introduced some features and qualities of independent language learners. First, independent learners use
effective strategies. In particular, they know how to use both cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The independent
learners have their own plans, actions, and techniques that are effective for them and choose from according to their
needs. Furthermore, they have appropriate knowledge about the nature of language and communication. They also
know the nature of learning, including the learning process. They are even aware of why they are carrying out a
particular task, what demands the task makes on their skills, and what strategies are appropriate for the task itself.
Lastly, independent learners hold positive beliefs and attitudes. Although the learners’ beliefs and attitudes are
influenced by their previous learning experiences, they can be brought into consciousness. Therefore, language and
learning awareness is important when training learners for independence (Mariani 1992).
Dickinson (1995) stated that learners’ independent involvement in their own learning also refers to learner
autonomy. An autonomous learner is fully responsible for all the decisions regarding his/her learning and the
implementation of those decisions. There is no involvement of a teacher, and the learner is independent in full
autonomy. However, this does not mean that autonomy refers to independence (Asuman 2010). According to Yoon
(2016), learner autonomy and learner independence are not equivalent. Indeed, learner independence is a quality of
learner autonomy. Mulcahy (1991) also insisted that one of the key features making an autonomous learner is his/her
independence. Both learner autonomy and learner independence play an important role in language learning by
raising issues like learners’ responsibility for their own learning or their right to determine its direction (Finch 2001).
According to Pichugova, Stepura, and Pravosudov (2016), learner attitudes should also be considered as the goal to
enhance learner autonomy in the EFL context. The authors asserted that autonomous learners have a positive attitude
toward learning. Independent learners also hold positive beliefs and attitudes (Mariani 1992), and the success of
language learning largely depends on learner attitudes. Aksenova et al. (2015) claimed that learners need to put in a
tremendous amount of time, effort, and energy to learn a language, and a positive learner attitude is equally important
in this process. Fakeye (2010) also added that many factors such as aptitudes, intelligence, age, and personalities
influence learners’ learning process, but the most crucial factor that affects language learning is learners’ attitudes.
Attitudes can be defined as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some
degree of favor or disfavor” (Eagly and Chaiken 1993, p. 1). According to Pichugova, Stepura and Pravosudov
(2016), language attitude is what learners show towards their native languages as well as other languages. It also
indicates the state of their mind towards a particular language. An optimistic attitude towards the target language
leads the successful foreign language learning. On the other hand, if learners have a pessimistic attitude toward the
language, they would not learn their target language effectively nor conveniently. Successful language learning
depends on both learning methods and learners’ attitudes towards it (Pichugova, Stepura and Pravosudov 2016).
Therefore, language teachers also need to encourage their students to have a positive attitude towards language
learning.
To sum up, it is unquestionable that learner autonomy should be promoted in EFL settings (Yoon 2016), and it
needs to be kept in mind that learner autonomy consists of various features (Thanasoulas 2000). Therefore, the
measurement of learner autonomy should consider a multidimensional construct. Careful analysis and observation
are needed regarding learner control and its degrees, learner engagement in independent learning, how responsible
learners are in learning, and their attitudes towards learning, learning activities, and learning tools (Asuman
2010). Following the previous studies (Sharle and Szabó 2000, Tassinari 2012, Yoon 2016), the current study also
intends to examine the impact of different instructional designs on EFL learner autonomy, learner independence,
and learner attitudes.

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 175

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

3. Methodology

3.1 Participants

The participants for the study are 114 first-year students taking an integrated skills English course at an A
university in South Korea. The course was a mandatory graduation requirement, and they met once a week for 2
hours for 15 weeks. The participants were given a placement test prior to registration and were placed into three
intermediate level sessions. All were taught by one of the researchers. All three sessions were taught with the same
goals and objectives with the same materials but had different instructional designs of conventional (C) as the
control group, blended learning (BL), and flipped learning (FL). For the C group, there were 37 participants with
15 male and 22 female students, the BL group had 37 total with 19 male and 18 female participants, and the FL
group consisted of 40 total participants with 12 males and 28 females. On the whole, four students had experiences
abroad. Considering they spent less than two months abroad for non-academic purposes, they were not excluded
from the study.

3.2 Procedure

The textbook used for the study was Smartchoice 2, 3rd edition (Wilson and Healy 2016) with online resources.
For the C group, in-class instructions on vocabulary, grammar points, reading, listening, and speaking, along with
activities, were given based on the textbook. In-class activities included individual work and pair and small group
discussion, and paper-based worksheets were handed out as weekly individual assignments. Projector, PPT, and
LMS for submitting voice recording assignments were used, but online content or CMC tools outside of the
face-to-face classroom interaction were not used. Biweekly individual voice recording assignments on the topics
from the textbooks were given to all three groups.

Figure 1. Procedures for BL and FL classes

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 176

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

The procedures for the BL and FL groups can be seen in Figure 1. For the BL group, online content and Learner
Response System (LRS) were used in face-to-face class for vocabulary, grammar points, listening, and reading
instructions, followed by individual activities. Online activities following the face-to-face instruction for BL group
were video contents with comprehension questions and task-based activities involving small group cooperation
and collaboration using a local mobile messenger called KakaoTalk.
For the FL group, the instruction on vocabulary, reading, and listening was provided via online instructional
videos and contents preceding the face-to-face class. The participants were to watch the video and carry out
individual learning activities then come to the class. A quick review was provided during the class, and then they
engaged in task-based speaking activities in groups followed by presentation and feedback.
The topics addressed during the study are presented in Table 1. Cooperative and collaborative activities were
both used in BL and FL groups. Cooperative activities included group presentation, group interview, and
problem-solving activities, and collaborative activities included jigsaw, think-pair-share, and peer feedback.

Table 1. Topics for the Class

Weeks Topics Speaking Listening Grammar Reading
Useful classroom
1 Introduction
language
How was your Activities and
2 Vacation Agreeing/disagreeing Unusual vacation
vacation? plans
Making
I think it’s
3 Giving opinions movies and -ing/-ed adjectives Movie reviews
exciting
music
Do it before Personal
4 Personal experiences Present perfect Extreme sports
you’re 30! experiences
The best place in Geography
5 Describing places Superlative adjectives Deadly animals
the world! game show
Where’s the New Year’s Before, after, and
6 Special events Famous festivals
party? traditions when
7 Midterm exam
You should try
8 Suggestions/obligations Giving advices Should and have to Managing stress
it!
There are too Shopping Too, enough, many,
9 Complaints/shopping Online shopping
many stores! habits much
I like people who Voicemail
10 Describing preferences Relative clauses Dating advice
are smart messages
What were you Describing
11 Reporting events Past continuous Dramatic events
doing? accidents
It must be an Extreme
12 Speculating Modals of possibility Storm-chaser
earthquake! natural events
Family
13 I used to sing. Past habits Used to Biographies
histories
If you live down Student
14 Housing options If clauses with modals Changes
town… interviews
15 Final Exam

3.3 Data Collection Instrument and Analysis

For the study, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Questionnaires on learner autonomy,
independence, and attitudes from on previous research by Sharle and Szabó (2000), the descriptors of dynamic
model of learner autonomy by Tassinari (2012) were adapted and revised, then translated into Korean to ensure
accurate responses. The questionnaire used for the study consisted of 31 items using five-scale Likert-type
questions (1: not at all, 2: not likely, 3: Somewhat likely, 4: Quite likely, 5: Very likely) twice to investigate
changes in learner perspectives. The first was conducted on week 1 to investigate the initial perspectives of the

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 177

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

participants, and then the second was administered in week 14 to examine differences in their perspectives. All 114
participants completed and turned in the questionnaire. The data gathered from the questionnaire were analyzed
using SPSS for frequency, ANOVA, and Chi-square for multiple response analysis on the participants’
perspectives on learner autonomy. The significance level was set at 0.05 (p < 0.05) to test the null hypothesis of no
association and difference among majors in terms of their responses, and the Tukey test was used for post-hoc. The
Cronbach's alpha values for the questionnaire were over .919, showing high reliability for the items in the
questionnaire.
Data sources for the qualitative data included interviews and classroom observation. A semi-structured
interview was conducted in week 15 based on the items on the questionnaire, and three interviewees were chosen
randomly from each group on volunteer basis. Questions for the semi-structured interview were 1) what aspect of
the class fostered learner autonomy/independence? 2) how do you feel about your learning experience? 3) and
what elements of the class did you find helpful in developing learner autonomy? The interviews were transcribed
and translated, then presented descriptively. The in-class and online observation was conducted in weeks 3 to 6 and
weeks 9 to 12 during in-class activities and the BL group’s mobile messenger discussions. Learner participation
and interactions were observed and logged. The data from the observation is presented descriptively.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1 Learner Autonomy

In order to explore learner perspectives on blended learning and flipped learning, all participants were given a
questionnaire on learner perspectives regarding learner autonomy, learner independence, and learner attitudes. A
paired t-test was performed to investigate changes in the participant’s perspectives. Then ANOVA was conducted
to investigate whether any significant difference existed amongst the three groups.
The results for perspectives on learner autonomy are presented in Table 2 below. It appears that the participants
displayed positive responses from the beginning of the study. There was a general increase in perspectives except
C and FL groups in item 2, FL group in items 3 and 7, although not statistically significant.
Significant differences in perspectives were found in the FL group for item 6, ‘Teacher presence is needed in
autonomous learning.’ The FL group responded more positively at the end of the study on the need for teacher
presence. Their online assignments included engaging in online learning before the offline classrooms, and it
seemed they felt the need for actual teacher presence. According to Morrison, Ross, Kalman and Kemp (2011), in
flipped learning, teachers should play multiple roles. They should be content experts, instructional designers, and
media developers. Furthermore, teachers need to guide their students and interact with them. The findings of this
study also showed the need for teacher presence in the FL group. An interviewee from the FL group confirmed that
although watching video lectures on their own can help them to manage their own learning, the lack of teacher
presence made them feel uncertain when they did not fully understand. Also, it was observed that participants in
the FL class were likely to stay after class and ask individual questions and confirm what they understood. On the
other hand, those in the BL and the C group asked questions during the class or asked their friends but did not seek
individual attention from the instructor.
Additionally, significant differences were found in item 8, ‘Learner autonomy is important for success in
learning.’ The C and BL groups’ perspectives on the relationship between autonomy and success in learning
increased. On the other hand, it can be observed that their perspective was highly positive from the beginning of
the study than C and BL groups, which may explain why the FL group did not show a significant increase.
Previous studies, including Zhou and Deci (2009), claimed that learner autonomy improves EFL learners’
academic achievement. Indeed, learner autonomy has been viewed as a characteristic of successful learners in EFL

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 178

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

contexts (Yoon 2016). In particular, previous scholars (Banditvilai 2016, Han 2015, Hung, 2015, Wong and Chu
2014) asserted that the two online-based instructional designs – either blended or flipped learning – can enhance
EFL students’ learner autonomy, which can lead to academic success. In accordance, the findings of the study
revealed that the BL group more understood the importance of learner autonomy for their success in learning after
engaging in blended learning. However, it is noted that the FL group’s perspective did not change significantly.
During the interview, it was mentioned by two of the FL interviewees that when they understood the FL design,
they thought that if they fail to pace their own learning, their grades would suffer. It seems that upon entering the
study, the FL participants mentally prepared themselves for receiving instruction via video at home without
teacher presence, and it caused them to be more aware of the relationship between learner autonomy and academic
success. The amount of increase in the mean value for the FL group may not be significant, but regardless, the
perspectives for this item at the end of the study were all highly positive across the three groups.

Table 2. Descriptive Data and t-test Results for Learner Autonomy

Mean
Items Groups MD SD df t Sig.
(Pre/Post)
C 2.98/3.30 -.41 1.32 113 -1.865 .070
I can manage my own
1 BL 3.05/3.08 -.03 1.32 113 -.124 .902
learning
FL 3.23/3.48 -.25 .98 113 -1.612 .115
C 3.00/2.89 .11 1.37 113 .480 .634
I can set my own learning
2 BL 2.81/2.86 -.05 1.39 113 -.236 .815
goals and objectives.
FL 3.03/3.00 .03 1.42 113 .111 .912
I have specific plans to C 2.89/3.30 -.41 1.32 113 -1.865 .070
3 achieve my learning goals BL 2.84/3.22 -.38 1.38 113 -1.666 .104
and objectives FL 3.08/3.05 .03 1.42 113 .111 .912
C 2.73/3.00 -.28 .96 113 -1.709 .096
I can use learning tools and
4 BL 2.43/2.54 -.11 1.41 113 -.466 .644
resources
FL 2.80/2.95 -.15 1.51 113 -.628 .534
C 2.73/2.92 -.19 .91 113 -1.268 .213
I can use various learning
5 BL 2.54/2.62 -.08 1.23 113 -.400 .692
strategies
FL 2.80/2.88 -.08 1.46 113 -326 .746
C 3.49/3.68 -.19 1.18 113 -.980 .334
Teacher presence is needed
6 BL 3.38/3.65 -.27 1.28 113 -1.281 .208
in autonomous learning
FL 3.53/3.90 -.38 1.17 113 -2.027 .050*
C 3.65/3.51 .14 1.23 113 .669 .508
Peer interaction is needed in
7 BL 3.27/3.38 -.11 1.41 113 -.466 .644
autonomous learning.
FL 3.83/3.68 .15 1.23 113 .771 .446
Learner autonomy is C 3.76/4.24 -.49 1.02 113 -2.909 .006*
8 important for success in BL 3.54/4.14 -.60 1.28 113 -2.827 .008*
learning FL 4.05/4.20 -.15 .95 113 -1.000 .323
C 3.41/3.86 -.46 1.10 113 -2.552 .015*
Learner autonomy training
9 BL 3.03/3.86 -.84 1.14 113 -4.459 .000*
is needed
FL 3.33/3.80 -.50 1.24 113 -2.550 .015*
* p < .05

As for item 9, the need for learner autonomy training, all three groups showed a significantly positive increase in
their perspectives at the end of the study compared to the beginning. Lengkanawati (2016) suggested training EFL
students with learning autonomy strategies claiming that the students should be taught to develop their learner
autonomy skills in class in the first place. While some teachers in EFL settings are more concerned with increasing
students’ awareness of learner autonomy by talking to the students about its importance, others care more about its
know-how by training students in autonomous learning strategies. Nonetheless, the author noted a lack of student
training opportunities for learner autonomy in EFL contexts (Lengkanawati 2016). Findings of the current study
are also in line with the previous study, showing the students’ need for learner autonomy training

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 179

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

It is interesting to note that all groups, including the C group, showed the desire for learner autonomy training.
According to the interview with participants, this phenomenon appears to be due to the changes in the academic
paradigm from high school to university. The following transcript from the interview with group BL shows the
changes in perspective and why they felt the need for someone to show them how to be autonomous.

People keep saying that college is different than high school, and you have to study on your own. I didn’t
really know what that meant. I thought it just meant that I had to do homework by myself, lol. I know now that
being autonomous is not just studying by yourself, but setting my own goals and planning, pacing myself. And
knowing what I don’t know and finding ways to learn it. I never reflected on my work before, either.

It should be note that among the three groups, the BL group showed the highest increase. As mentioned above,
the FL group began the study with learner autonomy in mind, and the C group did not need to engage in online
collaborative and cooperative group interaction without teacher presence. On the other hand, the BL group had to
complete task-based activities in groups in an online environment, and it may have caused an increase in their
perspective toward learner training on autonomy.
In an effort to ascertain whether the results of the questionnaire are statistically significant amongst groups,
one-way ANOVAs for the group comparative analysis was run. ANOVA results for learner autonomy among the
C, BL, and FL groups indicate that there were no significant differences found, showing an overall increase in the
participants’ perspectives on learner autonomy for all three groups.

4.2 Learner Independence

Changes in perspectives on learner independence concerning C, BL, and FL models are investigated, and the
results are presented in Table 3. While the responses were generally positive or neutral, there are several findings
worthy of attention. The item with the lowest mean value in the post-test was item 3, ‘I often do learning activities
that are not assigned by the teacher, and the average of the three groups was 2.29. Although items on the need to
study, such as items 5 and 10 were positive, the participants were not likely to independently seek out learning
activities to compensate for any lack thereof. Similarly, the response for item 2, ‘I use a variety of learning
strategies to help me learn better’ was negative for both pre and post in the C and BL group. FL group shows an
increase of 2.75, but it was not statistically significant. So it seems that while students feel the need to study
English, and it is important to them, they have not gone out of their way to do so. Relatedly, item 11, ‘I get nervous
if the teacher does not point out important details for me,’ had an average post mean value of 3.58, which was the
highest. It shows that the students in this study were dependent on the teacher, and preferred for the teacher to
emphasize the focal information rather than to make conscientious learning decisions. It seems that the previously
discussed response for item 9 in learner autonomy may be associated with this finding. Considering that the
participants think they need training in being autonomous, they may not be aware of what learning activities are
available, how to find them, what learning strategies they can use, etc.

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 180

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

Table 3. Descriptive Data and t-test Results for Learner Independence

Mean
# Items Groups MD SD df t Sig.
(Pre/Post)
C 2.76/3.00 -.243 1.321 113 -1.120 .270
I know what I need to do in
1 BL 2.92/2.89 .027 1.518 113 .108 .914
learning English.
FL 3.10/3.30 .200 1.324 113 -.955 .345
C 2.35/2.43 -.081 1.038 113 -.475 .637
I use a variety of learning
2 BL 2.19/2.22 -.027 .928 113 -.177 .860
strategies to help me learn better.
FL 2.38/3.30 -2.75 1.012 113 -1.718 .094
C 2.46/2.35 .108 1.286 113 .511 .612
I often do learning activities that
3 BL 2.22/2.16 .054 1.332 113 .247 .806
are not assigned by the teacher
FL 2.50/2.38 .125 .992 113 .797 .430
C 3.51/3.24 .270 1.407 113 1.168 .250
I pay closer attention to classes
4 BL 3.19/3.19 .000 1.247 113 .000 1.000
that I am not good at.
FL 3.13/3.15 -.025 1.368 113 -.116 .909
Studying English is important to C 3.54/3.65 -.108 1.329 113 -.495 .624
5 me regardless of what my BL 3.65/3.78 -.135 1.619 113 -.508 .615
teachers or parents think. FL 3.51/3.43 .075 1.328 113 .357 .723
When choosing materials, I C 3.03/3.35 -.324 1.396 113 -1.414 .166
6 review the sources and make a BL 2.70/3.19 -.486 1.644 113 -1.801 .080
conscious choice. FL 3.25/3.33 -.075 1.457 113 -.326 .746
C 3.19/3.27 -.081 1.498 113 .329 .744
I know how close I am to reaching
7 BL 3.59/3.19 .405 1.384 113 1.782 .083
my learning goals.
FL 3.43/3.35 .075 1.185 113 .400 .691
C 2.70/3.05 -.351 1.252 113 -1.707 .096
I prefer to choose my own
8 BL 2.95/3.03 -.081 1.164 113 -.424 .674
learning materials.
FL 3.05/3.03 .025 1.641 113 .096 .924
C 3.03/3.22 -.189 1.391 113 -.827 .414
I know my strengths and
9 BL 3.43/3.38 .054 1.471 113 .224 .824
weaknesses in learning English.
FL 3.50/3.63 -.125 1.399 113 -.565 .575
C 3.35/3.51 -.162 1.482 113 -.666 .510
I want to make more learning
10 BL 3.81/3.43 .389 1.128 113 2.068 .046*
choices in English classes.
FL 3.48/3.28 .200 1.265 113 1.000 .323
I get nervous if the teacher does C 3.89/3.38 .514 1.742 113 1.793 .081
11 not point out important details for BL 3.73/3.49 .243 1.065 113 1.390 .173
me. FL 4.08/3.88 .200 1.285 113 .984 .331
* p < .05

The mean values for item 10 show that the BL group’s response significantly decreased from the pre to post,
showing that they do not wish to make more learning choices. The same goes for the FL group, although their
values are not significant. The concepts of learner independence have drawn attention to the student-oriented
approach to language pedagogy and emphasized its importance (Çelik, Arkin and Sabriler 2012). According to
Dickinson (1991), learner independence does not mean a learner is isolated, but rather an active participant in
learning. In particular, given that technology has provided a wealth of resources to independent learners (Çelik,
Arkin and Sabriler 2012), both BL and FL groups might have too many things to do by themselves. During the
interview, both BL and FL groups mentioned a lot of homework, and the BL group especially felt so due to online
interaction with classmates. This can explain why the BL group’s response significantly decreased from the pre to
post. Another aspect to consider is that the FL group’s online activity involved individually watching lectures and
doing activities that can be done in a given amount of time. On the other hand, the BL group’s online activities
involved group task-based activities and interaction, and students seemed to engage in online group discussions for
a more extended period of time. An interview with a BL group’s student is provided below.

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 181

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

Online activities were fun, especially those involving group discussion on KakaoTalk. But even though
professor told us we should spend approximately 15 minutes for teach, we spent more than twice as much. I
think we had fun talking to each other so we lost track of time. But sometimes, spending too much time was
tough for me.

ANOVA results for learner independence among the C, BL, and FL groups indicate no significant differences
found, showing an overall increase in the participants’ perspectives on learner independence for all three groups.
According to Lin (1996), learner independence is highly desirable, and every teacher wants to see this acquired by
their students as the link between learner independence and effective learning is inevitable. That is, successful
learners tend to show a high level of learner independence. Lengkanawati (2016) also added that independent
learning should be instilled in EFL students. Therefore, teachers need to set tasks that require their students to do
more on their own. Considering the responses from all three groups, a balanced combination of learning activities
may encourage learners to engage in learning and, in turn, develop learner independence by making mindful
learning choices for themselves.

4.3 Learner Attitudes

The impact of instructional models on EFL learner’s change in attitudes towards learning English is presented in
Table 4. It seems the participants had positive perspectives for English itself and circumstances that would require
using English. For example, items 3 and 4 both showed positive perspectives for both pre and post results.
Participants in all three groups showed interest in English speaking culture and people in general. BL group
showed a significant increase in perspective for item 4, ‘I want to visit English speaking countries.’ Still, theredoes
not seem to be much value in discussing in detail, considering that both pre and post are positive.
Items with statistically significant changes for all groups were items 1, ‘I try to maintain a good relationship with
peers in my English classes.’ All three groups showed a significant increase, but the C and BL groups’ perspectives
changed from negative to positive. Pair and group discussions were part of all three groups, although required at
different times and environments, and continued interaction with peers seem to cause this change. It was observed
for both C and BL groups that in-class group discussions brought students together during the study, and students
could bond with one another. Interviews confirmed that peer interaction had a positive influence on them, and an
interviewee in group C mentioned that she had the chance to get to know people outside of her major in English
class, which she appreciated.
Item 2, ‘I hope to make significant improvements in 5 years,’ also showed a significant increase across all groups,
but both pre and post mean values were positive. It can be inferred that the participants wanted to become better in
English in 5 years, and by the end of the study, they strongly felt that they want to be better. During the interview,
a student mentioned that 5 years would mean that they are out of college, and English is one thing they need to have
prepared before graduation. Consequnetly, the desire to make improvement in English was seen for all groups.

In 5 years, I am going to be either fresh out of college or close to graduating. I want to make a lot of
improvement because I need to speak English well when I get a job. Also I want to travel to different countries
and enjoy other cultures after I graduate. For that reason, I need to study English now and prepare for the
future.

The current study proves the positive impact of flipped learning on students’ motivation. According to
Bergmann and Sams (2015), a flipped course can increase students’ motivation and engagement and help them to
take more independence for their learning. Strayer (2012) also claimed that the flipped model improves learning
motivation. Likewise, given that there is a positive increase in motivation in the BL group, the present study’s

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 182

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

finding can support the previous findings suggesting that the various high-tech learning tools can boost EFL
students’ motivation in learning (Kim 2017). Notably, findings of the present study are in accordance with Murday,
Ushida and Chenoweth (2008), emphasizing the importance of student motivation in blended learning, which can
result in their academic progress.
On the other hand, while they want to get better, the BL group responded that they are not putting the necessary
effort into achieving their goals. Items 5, ‘I spend a lot of time studying English’ had negative average mean values
for all groups for both pre (2.65) and post (2.63), indicating that they did not feel that they invest a lot of time in
studying English. Item 6, ‘I have my own learning strategies for studying English,’ also showed negative mean
values for the whole were 2.32 for pre and 2.52 for post 2.51. From these results, it can be assumed that while
students want to make improvements, they do not have the knowledge and skills to proceed, which reinforces the
need for learner training on how to become autonomous.

Table 4. Descriptive Data and t-test Results for Learner Attitudes

Mean
# Items Groups MD SD df t Sig.
(Pre/Post)
I try to maintain a good C 2.95/3.70 -.757 1.342 113 -3.431 .002*
1 relationship with peers in my BL 2.56/3.27 -.622 1.089 113 -3.472 .001*
English classes. FL 3.35/3.90 -.550 1.108 113 -3.139 .003*
C 3.24/3.73 -.486 1.261 113 -2.347 .025*
I hope to make significant
2 BL 3.59/4.00 -.405 1.142 113 -2.160 .038*
improvements in 5 years.
FL 3.03/3.58 -.550 1.280 113 -2.718 .010*
C 3.68/3.82 -.014 1.623 113 -.912 .368
I want to make English speaking
3 BL 3.73/3.97 -.243 1.065 113 -1.390 .173
friends.
FL 3.88/3.90 -.025 1.187 113 -.133 .895
C 3.86/4.08 -.216 1.566 113 -.846 .407
I want to visit English speaking
4 BL 3.59/4.05 -.459 1.216 113 -2.299 .027*
countries
FL 3.88/3.98 -.100 1.277 113 -.495 .623
C 2.50/2.50 .000 1.707 113 .000 1.000
I spend a lot of time studying
5 BL 2.70/2.59 .108 1.390 113 -.572 .571
English.
FL 2.75/2.80 -.050 1.431 113 .221 .826
C 2.30/2.49 -.189 1.525 113 -.755 .455
I have my own learning strategies
6 BL 2.19/2.30 -.108 1.149 113 -.572 .571
for studying English.
FL 2.48/2.73 -.250 1.193 113 -1.325 .193
Most of my English learning C 3.35/3.59 -.243 1.461 113 -1.013 .318
7 outside of the classroom consists BL 3.57/3.70 -.135 1.206 113 -.682 .500
of assignments. FL 3.49/3.77 -.282 1.169 113 -1.507 .140
My attitude to learning English C 3.22/3.41 -.189 1.411 113 -.816 .420
8 changes depending on the BL 3.68/3.65 .027 1.093 113 .150 .881
teacher. FL 3.38/3.38 .000 1.585 113 .000 1.000
* p < .05

Table 5. Post-hoc Results for Learner Attitudes

Source df F p Post-hoc
Between Groups 2
I hope to make significant Within Groups 112 3.165 .046 BL > FL
improvements in 5 years.
Total 114
I try to maintain good Between Groups 2
relationship with peers in my Within Groups 112 5.875 .004 BL < FL
English classes. Total 114
* p < .05

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 183

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

One-way ANOVA for the group comparative analysis was run, and there were some significant differences
observed. As shown in Table 5, significant differences were observed in item 2, ‘I hope to make significant
improvements in 5 years.’ and item 1, ‘I try to maintain a good relationship with peers in my English classes.’ The
post-hoc tests on these two items reached the .05 significance level. The results indicate that BL group’s mean
score for item 2 was significantly higher than that of the FL group, meaning that the BL group had a more positive
attitude for making long-term improvements than the FL group. Likewise, the perspectives of the FL group were
also significantly higher than that of the BL group regarding item 3. Considering that both groups had positive
perspectives for items 2 and 3, the differences do not seem to be worthy of in-depth discussion.

5. Conclusion

Technology has been popularly used in the educational world (King 2008), and various pedagogical models
have been introduced to promote technology-assisted learning. Among them, blended learning has been claimed as
one of the most important educational advances in recent years (Thorne 2003). Grgurović (2011) asserted that
there is a close connection between future language learning and blended learning. Apart from blended learning,
flipped learning has also been regarded as one of the best learning models (Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight and
Arfstrom 2013), and according to Ekmekci (2017), it is the most widely used instructional design in the EFL
settings. In particular, the two online-based instructional designs – blended and flipped learning – are known to
enhance EFL students’ learner autonomy, which has been viewed as a feature of successful learners (Banditvilai
2016, Han 2015, Hung 2015, Wong and Chu 2014, Yoon 2016).
Nonetheless, the existing blended learning studies have concentrated on its development and effectiveness.
According to Yoon (2016), there is a lack of an in-depth investigation of the impacts of blended learning on learner
autonomy. Furthermore, there is also a need for empirical evidence regarding flipped learning. Particularly in EFL
classes, little research has supported incorporating the flipped model (Mehring 2016). In this context, the current
study intended to explore the effects of blended and flipped learning on EFL students’ learner autonomy. Based on
the previous research (Sharle and Szabó 2000, Tassinari 2012, Yoon 2016), the students’ learner autonomy was
examined concerning their autonomy, independence, and attitudes.
The major findings are as follows: In learner autonomy, a significant difference was found in the FL group in
relation to the need for teacher presence. The FL group responded more positively at the end of the study on item 6,
‘Teacher presence is needed in autonomous learning.’ The BL group also showed a significant mean difference
regarding learner autonomy. Compared to the beginning of the study, the BL group responded more positively at
the end of the study on item 8, ‘Learner autonomy is important for success in learning.’ In terms of item 9, ‘Learner
autonomy training is needed,’ both groups showed a significantly positive increase in their perspectives from the
pre to post, supporting the previous research (Lengkanawati 2016), showing the students’ need for learner
autonomy training. ANOVA results for learner autonomy among the C, BL, and FL groups revealed no significant
differences, showing the overall increase in students’ perspectives on learner autonomy for all three groups.
When it comes to learner independence, there was a significant difference observed in the BL group for item 10
‘I want to make more learning choices in English classes.’ The BL group’s response significantly decreased at the
end of the study, showing that they do not want to make more learning choices in comparison to the beginning.
ANOVA for the group comparative analysis was run, but the results for learner independence show no significant
differences among the C, BL, and FL groups, suggesting an overall increase in the participants’ perspectives on
learner autonomy for all three groups.
In terms of learner attitude, there were statistically significant changes for all groups in items 2, ‘I try to maintain
a good relationship with peers in my English classes.’ Both BL and FL groups showed a significant increase from
pre to post, suggesting that in-class group discussions and peer interactions might positively influence them. Item 3,

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 184

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

‘I hope to make significant improvements in 5 years,’ showed a significant increase across all groups, showing that
both groups wanted to become better in English in near future. Regarding item 5, ‘I want to visit English speaking
countries,’ only the BL group showed a significant increase at the end of the study, suggesting that they had
positive perspectives for circumstances that would require using English. ANOVA results revealed some
significant differences among the groups. The mean score of the BL group for item 2 was significantly higher than
that of the FL group, indicating that the BL group had a more positive attitude for making long term improvements.
On the other hand, the FL group’s perspectives were significantly higher than that of the BL group regarding item
3, meaning that the FL group wanted to maintain a good relationship with peers more than the BL group did.
Overall, it should be noted that language instruction can impact learners in positive ways, as seen in increases
found in all groups. However, the FL group specifically showed the need for teacher presence to improve their
learner autonomy. On the other hand, the BL group recognized the importance of learner autonomy for their
success in learning but wanted less learning choices. Both BL and FL groups felt the need for autonomy training
and showed a positive attitude toward learning. No group differences were found in learner autonomy and learner
independence. Although learner attitude showed mean differences regarding two items, both groups had positive
perspectives for the items, and it does not seem to be worthy of in-depth discussion.
From the findings of the current study, it can be said that the teacher presence should be emphasized in flipped
learning. As Morrison, Ross, Kalman and Kemp (2011) pointed out, teachers should play multiple roles as content
experts, instructional designers, and media developers and guide their students and interact with them. In blended
learning, teachers should encourage their students to use technology to become autonomous learners, as Bañados
(2006) claimed. However, a balanced combination of learning activities and mindful learning choices are needed
to develop the students’ learner independence. In addition, autonomy training sessions are necessary for both
blended and flipped learning. As Lengkanawati (2016) suggested, the students should be taught learning autonomy
strategies to develop their learner autonomy skills. Lastly, given that positive learner attitudes are important to
enhance learner autonomy (Pichugova, Stepura and Pravosudov 2016) and learner independence (Mariani 1992),
the teachers also need to encourage their students to have a positive attitude towards both blended and flipped
instructional designs. One single model cannot be a perfect fit for all educational settings (Chowdhury 2019).
Conventional, blended, and flipped learning have all positively influenced learner perspectives regarding
autonomy, independence, and attitudes.
The limitations of the studies are: 1) the scope of the research does not address the relationship between learner
autonomy, learner independence, and learner attitude are not addressed, and 2) the learner perspectives on blended
learning, flipped learning, and conventional learning are not examined due to the parameter set for the study. It can
be suggested that the extended follow-up research to be carried out to examine the impact of instructional designs
and their effectiveness in various settings and their relationship to learner autonomy, independence, and attitude. In
addition, the relationship between learner autonomy, independence, and attitude and their impact on each other in
different instructional designs can be investigated. Also, considering that the current study was conducted in the
Korean EFL context, different findings can be obtained in different learning environments. Furthermore, students
have various knowledge backgrounds with mixed language abilities. They also have diverse goals and a different
range of motivation with various learning needs. As learning is complex with many variations (Garrison and
Kanuka 2004), more studies on blended and flipped learning with the students from varied backgrounds are
suggested for effective EFL teaching and learning.

References

Aksenova, N. V., D. V. Shepetovsky, V. E. Mironova, S. N. Stepura and L. L. Pichugova. 2015. Developing

students’ motivation to learn foreign language in tertiary classroom and beyond. Mediterranean Journal of

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 185

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

Social Sciences 6(5), 240-247.

Alebaikan, R. and S. Troudi. 2010. Blended learning in Saudi universities: Challenges and perspectives. ALT-J
Research in Learning Technology 18(1), 49-59.
Asuman, A. 2010. Misconceptions on learner autonomy: A methodological and conceptual renewal. Ekev
Academic Review 14(43), 141-153.
Bañados, E. 2006. A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully through an
online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO Journal 23(3), 533-550.
Banditvilai, C. 2016. Enhancing students’ language skills through blended learning. Electronic Journal of
e-Learning 14(3), 220-229.
Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Bergmann, J., J. Overmyer and B. Wilie. 2013. The flipped class: What it is and what it is not. The Daily Riff.
Retrieved from http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-flipped-class-conversation-689.php
Bergmann, J. and A. Sams. 2012. Flip the Classroom. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in
Education.
Bormann, J. 2014. Affordances of Flipped Learning and Its Effects on Student Engagement and Achievement.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA.
Boud, D. 1988. Developing Student Autonomy in Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Çelik, S., E. Arkin and D. Sabriler. 2012. EFL learners’ use of ICT for self-regulated learning. The Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies 8(2), 98-118.
Chowdhury, F. 2019. Blended learning: How to flip the classroom at HEIs in Bangladesh? Journal of Research in
Innovative Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/
10.1108/JRIT-12-2018-0030/full/html
Cotterall, S. and D. Crabbe. 1999. Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting
Change. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Dang, T. T. 2010. Learner autonomy in EFL studies in Vietnam: A discussion from sociocultural perspective.
English Language Teaching 3(2), 3-9.
Dam, L., R. Eriksson, D. Little, J. Miliander and T. Trebbi. 1990. Towards a definition of autonomy. In T. Trebbi,
ed., Third Nordic Workshop on Developing Autonomous Learning in the FL Classroom, 96-103. Bergen:
University of Bergen.
Dickinson, L. 1995. Autonomy and motivation a literature review. System 23(2), 165-174.
Eagly, A. H. and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Ekmekci, E. 2014. Flipped Writing Class Model with a Focus on Blended Learning. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Gazi University Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Fakeye, D. 2010. Students’ personal variables as correlates of academic achievement in English as a second
language in Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences 22, 205-211.
Finch, A. 2002. Autonomy: Where are we? Where are we going? In A. S. Mackenzie and E. McCafferty, eds.,
Developing Autonomy, 15-42. Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching College and
University Educators Special Interest Group.
Grgurovic, M. 2011. Blended learning in an ESL class: A case study. CALICO Journal 29(1), 100-117.
Han, Y. J. 2015. Successfully flipping the ESL classroom for learner autonomy. NYS TESOL Journal 2(1), 98-109.
Hamdan, N., P. McKnight, K. McKnight and K. M. Arfstrom. 2013. The Flipped Learning Model: A White Paper
based on the Literature Review titled “A Review of Flipped Learning.” Arlington, VA: Flipped Learning
Network.
Harrington, M. A. 2010. Problematizing the hybrid classroom for ESL/EFL students. The Electronic Journal for
English as a Second Language 14(3), 1-13
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 186

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

Hung, H. 2015. Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted
Language Learning 28(1), 81-96.
Kim, N.-Y. 2017. Effects of types of voice-based chat on EFL students’ negotiation of meaning according to
proficiency levels. English Teaching 72(1), 159-181.
Lengkanawati, N. S. 2016. Teachers’ beliefs about learner autonomy and its implementation in Indonesian EFL
settings. Language learner autonomy, In R. Barnard and J. Li, eds., Language Learner Autonomy:
Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Asian Contexts, 134-149. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: CAMTESOL.
Lin, L. Y. 1996. Learner training towards learner independence. In L. Dickinson, ed., Autonomy 2000: The
Development of Learning Independence in Language Learning, 116-123. Bangkok: King Mongkut’s
Institute of Technology Thonburi/The British Council.
Little, D. 1996. The politics of learner autonomy. Language Learning 2(4), 7-10.
Little, D. 2003. Learner Autonomy and Second/Foreign Language Learning. Southampton, UK: The Higher
Education Academy.
Mariani, L. 1992. Language awareness/learning awareness in a communicative approach: A key to learner
independence. Journal of TESOL 18(2). Retrieved from http://www.learningpaths.org/papers/
paperawareness.htm
Means, B., Y. Toyama, R. Murphy, M. Bakia and K. Jones. 2009. Evaluation of Evidence based Practices in
Online Learning: A Meta-analysis and Review of Online Learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Mehring, J. 2016. Present research on the flipped classroom and potential tools for the EFL classroom. Computers
in the Schools 33(1), 1-10.
Morrison, G., S. Ross, H. Kalman and J. Kemp. 1998. Designing Effective Instruction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mulcahy, R. F. (1991). Developing autonomous learners. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 37(4), 385-397
Murday, K., E. Ushida and A. Chenoweth. 2008. Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on language online.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 21(2), 125-142.
Pichugova, I. L., S. N. Stepura and M. M. Pravosudov. 2016. Issues of promoting learner autonomy in EFL context.
SHS Web of Conferences 28, 1-4.
Sharle, Á. and A. Szabó. 2000. Learner Autonomy: A Guide to Developing Learner Responsibility. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Soliman, N. A. 2016. Teaching English for academic purposes via the flipped learning approach. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences 232, 122-129.
Strayer, J. F. 2012. How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation.
Learning Environments Research 15, 171-193.
Sung, K. 2015. A case study on a flipped classroom in an EFL content course. Multimedia-Assisted Language
Learning 18(2), 159-187.
Tassinari, M. G. 2012. Evaluating learner autonomy: A dynamic model with descriptors. Studies in Self-Access
Learning Journal 3(1), 24-40.
Thanasoulas, D. 2000. What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered? The Internet TESL Journal 6(11).
Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Thanasoulas-Autonomy.html
Tilfarlioglu, F. Y. and F. S. Ciftci. 2011. Supporting self-efficacy and learner autonomy in relation to academic
success in EFL classrooms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1(10), 1284-1294.
Thorne, K. 2003. Blended Learning: How to Integrate Online and Traditional Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Waterhouse, P. 1990. The curriculum. In I. Gathercole, ed., Autonomy in Language Learning, 4-6. London: CILT.
Webb, M. and E. Doman. 2016. Does the flipped classroom lead to increased gains on learning outcomes in
ESL/EFL contexts? CATESOL Journal 28(1), 39-67.
Wong, K. and D. W. Chu. 2014. Is the flipped classroom model effective in the perspectives of students’

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 187

Na-Young Kim & Seo Young Yoon A comparative study on blended learning
and flipped learning

perceptions and benefits? In S. K. S. Cheung, J. Fong, J. Zhang, R. Kwan and L. F. Kwok, eds., Hybrid
Learning: Theory and Practice, 93-104. Chennai, India: Springer International Publishing.
Wu, J. and W. Liu. 2013. An empirical investigation of the critical factors affecting students’ satisfaction in EFL
blended learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4(1), 176-185.
Yoon, S. Y. 2016. Exploring learner perspectives on learner autonomy for blended learning in EFL conversation
classes. STEM Journal 17(1), 197-220.
Yoon, S. Y. and N.-Y. Kim. 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.
Zhou, M., W. J. Ma and E. L. Deci. 2009. The importance of autonomy for rural Chinese children’s motivation for
learning. Learning and Individual Difference 19, 492-498.

Examples in: English

Applicable Languages: English
Applicable Level: All

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved 188