You are here:

The effect of choice of instruction in personalized flipped learning

, Princeton University, United States ; , West Virginia University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


This study examined how and why certain instructional choices were made by students in a personalized flipped learning curriculum. In this curriculum, before attending class, students had the choice of watching a lecture video in Japanese, one in English, and/or reading the textbook to learn grammar points through Google Forms. In order to investigate students’ choices and effectiveness of the curriculum, a survey was given and the results were analyzed in a cross-case analysis. The findings show a tendency that students with higher success choose Japanese videos and/or textbook while the students with lower success choose English video and/or textbook. Some of the students choose multiple instructional methods for different purposes. The findings also show a need for an improvement to give more learning opportunities in-class as well as in-class effective time use for the students with higher achievements.


Matsui, H. & Ahern, T. (2017). The effect of choice of instruction in personalized flipped learning. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 240-246). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 25, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. ACTFL. (2010, May 22). Use of the Target Language in the Classroom. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from Anton, M. And DiCamilla, F.J. (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314-342.
  2. Clark, R.C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2005). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  3. Cook, V. (2001) Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 402-423.
  4. Ellis, R. (1984) Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon.
  5. Ellis, R. (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
  6. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  7. Reigeluth, C.M. (2012). Instructional theory and technology for a post-industrial world. In R.A. Reiser J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.,pp. 75-83). Boston, MA:
  8. Swain, M. And Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 253-276.
  9. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
  10. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-295.
  11. Ton, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105-134.
  12. Van Lier, L. (2000) From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.245-259). New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4)

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact