Ayçiçek, B., Yanpar Yelken, T. (2021). The effect of flipped classroom model applications on high school students’ classroom engagement and classroom life perceptions in teaching English. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(4). 2523-2539. Received : 18.06.2021 Revised version received : 10.08.2021 Accepted : 11.08.2021 THE EFFECT OF FLIPPED CLASSROOM MODEL APPLICATIONS ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM ENGAGEMENT AND CLASSROOM LIFE PERCEPTIONS IN TEACHING ENGLISH1 Research article Burak Ayçiçek 0000-0001-8950-2207 (corresponding author) Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University aycicekburak@gmail.com Tuğba Yanpar Yelken 0000-0002-0800-4802 Mersin University tyanpar@gmail.com Burak Ayçiçek received his Ph.D. degree in Curriculum and Instruction from Mersin University. He is currently a Dr. lecturer in Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University. His research interests include curriculum and instruction, higher education, technology-enhanced teaching approaches, and current teaching and learning methods and techniques. Tuğba Yanpar Yelken is a Professor in the department of Educational Sciences at Mersin University, Turkey. She conducts researches on curriculum and instruction. Copyright © 2014 by International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). ISSN: 2148-225X. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET. 1 This study is a part of a doctoral dissertation titled "An investigation of technology-enhanced flipped classroom model applications effect on high school students’ classroom engagement, academic achievement and classroom life perceptions in teaching English" under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Tuğba Yanpar Yelken. mailto:aycicekburak@gmail.com mailto:tyanpar@gmail.com http://orcid.org/xxxx http://orcid.org/xxxx Ayçiçek & Yanpar Yelken 2524 THE EFFECT OF FLIPPED CLASSROOM MODEL APPLICATIONS ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM ENGAGEMENT AND CLASSROOM LIFE PERCEPTIONS IN TEACHING ENGLISH Burak Ayçiçek aycicekburak@gmail.com Tuğba Yanpar Yelken tyanpar@gmail.com Abstract This study investigated the effect of technology-enhanced flipped classroom model applications on high school students’ classroom engagement and classroom life perceptions in teaching English. In the study, pretest and posttest experiment-control group quasi- experimental design was used. The experimental group was taught using the flipped method and the control group was taught using the current conventional method. The study was conducted with 45 students attending 9th grade for 8 weeks. The data were collected from classroom engagement inventory and classroom life perception scale quantitatively. According to the findings, there was a significant difference in terms of classroom engagement levels. When the classroom engagement inventory sub-dimensions were examined, significant differences were found in the experimental group in terms of cognitive engagement and affective engagement sub-dimensions. However, there was not a significant difference between the two groups in terms of behavioral engagement–compliance, behavioral engagement- effortful classroom participation and disengagement sub-dimensions. On the other hand, there was a significant difference in terms of classroom life perception levels. When the classroom life perception scale sub-dimensions were examined, significant differences were found in the experimental group in terms of student feelings related to the classroom environment and student feelings related to the teacher sub-dimensions. However, there was not a significant difference between the two groups in terms of student feelings related to other students sub- dimension. Keywords: Flipped classroom model, classroom engagement, classroom-life perception, high school students 1. Introduction An educational institution should educate students to meet comtemporary challenges and remove limitations on learning environments. To avoid such limitations, it is crucial to integrate new technologies into current learning and teaching processes (Ahmad, 2010; Means, Toyama, Murphy & Baki, 2013). Due to the technological developments, it has become necessary for today’s classroom learners to engage in active learning processes. Many current educational environments are unable to meet the requirements (Roehl, Reddy & Shannon, 2013) that include acquiring social and affective skills (Birgin, Tutak & Turkdogan, 2009) as well as cognitive skills such as using, interpreting and explaining information (Parlar, 2012). Therefore, it has become indispensable to use new and effective methods and techniques in the educational environment. Recent trends in education have triggered various changes and developments. Thus, it has become important to be able to adapt to the pace of the rapidly mailto:aycicekburak@gmail.com mailto:tyanpar@gmail.com International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2523-2539. 2525 changing world and to be able to use and process information efficiently by means of technology. Rapid developments in science and especially internet technologies provide teachers with new opportunities to design their lessons to support teaching and students' cognitive competencies. One innovation in teaching-learning approaches is blended learning which is the practice of using face-to-face and distance education together to integrate digital technologies into education (Gecer, 2013). Blended learning is an eclectic approach to minimize the limitations of face-to-face and online learning and to combine the positive features of both (Pesen, 2014; Williams, Bland & Christie, 2008). The literature indicates that there are various blended learning methods, one of which is the flipped classroom model (FCM). FCM is a relatively new way of teaching that reverses the current applied teaching approach of classroom instruction (Alvarez, 2012; Bergmann & Sams, 2012; Brunsell & Horejsi, 2011). Bergmann and Sams (2012) and Lage, Platt and Treglia (2000) introduce FCM as a technique where tasks traditionally carried out in classrooms are completed at home, and students complete homework in class, rather than at home. Students obtain the content individually outside the classroom by watching videos created by the teacher. In this way, there is more time in the classroom to carry out various practices such as problem solving activities (Seaman & Gaines, 2013). Also, differentiation can be seen in the classroom when different students simultaneously engage in various activities and students have the opportunity to get what they need (Anderson, 2007; Huebner, 2010; Long, 2011). The aspects of FCM transform the classroom into an active learning place, in which students can make use of higher-order thinking skills. Since FCM provides a learning approach based on cooperative learning through technology, especially using online video media, it reduces lecture time and increases the time for in-class activities (DeLozier & Rhodes, 2017) and for active learning, collaboration, learning reinforcement, critical thinking and problem solving (Cunningham, 2016; Yelamanthi & Drake, 2015). The integration of technology into English as a foreign language classroom has led to a shift from a teacher-centered teaching environment to a more learner-centered (Mehring, 2016). In the past few years, various studies have been conducted using FCM in English language learning (Ahmad, 2016; Al-Harbi & Alshumaimeri, 2016; Basal, 2015; Han, 2015; Sam, 2016; Soliman, 2016). The implementation of FCM in English language teaching provides a learning environment where interaction between teachers and students increases; classroom management skills of teachers can be developed (Basal, 2015; Bergmann & Sams, 2015; Sung, 2015); overall English proficiency is improved (Wu, Hsieh & Yang, 2017); students learn to take responsibility for their learning (Han, 2015; Sung, 2015) and various language skills can be developed (Abaeian & Samadi, 2016; Al-Harbi & Alshumaimeri, 2016; Koroglu & Cakır, 2017; Lee, 2017; Li & Suwanthep, 2017; Pudin, 2017). All in all, these studies highlight the critical role of FCM in language instruction. FCM is gaining popularity in higher education as an innovative instructional model, because it enhances students’ learning performance via student-centered activities (Keengwe, Onchwari & Agamba, 2014). FCM was implemented in higher education in the studies conducted by Brewer & Movahedazarhouligh (2018); Lundin et al., (2018) and O’Flaherty & Phillips (2015). University instructors implement FCM to increase student engagement, to improve academic performance and to redesign monotonous courses (O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015). The adoption of FCM in higher education helps students to perform better in self- regulated learning, thus better learning outcomes can be acquired (Moos & Bonde, 2016). Based on the literature review, the studies on FCM conducted in higher education can be seen, but there was a lack of research in a high school setting. Ayçiçek & Yanpar Yelken 2526 There are many aspects of FCM that are useful for students. For example, providing video lectures to students who have frequent absences from class helps them to watch instructional content at home (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Gilboy, Heinerichs and Pazzaglia (2015) state that students' preparation for classes increase their readiness levels. FCM provides students the opportunity to acquire and interpret information themselves outside the classroom. Thus, students can engage more actively in classroom practices (Kim et al., 2014). Flexible learning environment which is independent of time and space, provided by the model, helps students to repeat and to reinforce what they learn via video lectures whenever they want (Fulton, 2012). FCM enables students to take an active role as active learners in the learning process and it creates a more effective educational environment (Talbert, 2012). Thus, FCM helps students to regulate their time of learning at their own pace. Besides these advantages of the model, students' classroom engagement levels increase through the application of FCM (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Student engagement is crucial for FCM. Classroom engagement means active involvement of students to the educational processes (Christenson et al., 2012). Studies related to classroom engagement discuss engagement under three dimensions: cognitive engagement, affective engagement and behavioral engagement (Wang, Bergin & Bergin, 2014). If a student participates in classroom practices cognitively, affectively and behaviorally, that student participates in the learning process actively (Kahn, 1990). Cognitive engagement includes learning processes such as meaningful-processing, strategy use, concentration and metacognition. Affective engagement involves the feelings of students such as curiosity, excitement and amusement. Behavioral engagement corresponds to the observable behaviors such as completing assignments on time, asking and answering questions and active participation in teamwork (Skinner, Kindermann & Furrer, 2009). Most activities in learning and teaching process take place in the classroom. In this respect, the classroom environment directs the learning process (Gulec & Alkıs, 2004). An important concept related to the classroom environment is classroom life. Classroom life refers to a complex structure including the relationship between teachers and students in the classroom, cognitive and social actions taken in the classroom (Shimahara, 1998). Classroom life perception includes the opinions, attitudes and expectations of teachers and students about what is happening in the classroom (Ellison et al., 2000) and the degree of support and interest that students receive from their teachers in the classroom environment (Reynolds & Miller, 2003). Classroom is a learning center where all educational activities are conducted (Cakmak, 2001). In addition, classroom has a great influence on the cognitive and affective development of students and it is the most important social environment that affects students' academic success (Baek & Choi, 2002). In this sense, determining classroom life perceptions of students can be regarded as an important factor for effective implemention of FCM. The role of flipped learning for teachers is to facilitate the process of learning a language in a classroom setting. As Marshall & DeCapua (2013) indicate that a major benefit for teachers is to provide time and to increase student engagement outside the classroom by moving delivery of content to the out-of-class portion of the course, thus they can devote their time to observation, assessment and feedback. As a result of an extensive international literature survey, there are almost no studies investigating the effect of FCM applications on classroom life perceptions. In national literature, there are almost no studies investigating the effect of FCM applications on classroom engagement and classroom life perceptions in English courses at the high school level. It is thought that great contribution can be made to the literature by the obtained data, and the findings can shed light to the future researchers. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect of FCM applications on high school students’ International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2523-2539. 2527 classroom engagement and classroom life perceptions in teaching English. To this end, answers to the following questions were sought: 1. Is there a significant difference between pretest-posttest classroom engagement scores of students in the control and experimental group? 2. Is there a significant difference between pretest-posttest classroom life perception scores of students in the control and experimental group? 2. Method 2.1. Research Design In the present study, quasi-experimental design with pretest-posttest control group was employed. Designs where subjects are not randomly allocated to groups, but experimental and control groups are randomly chosen are called quasi-experimental design (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2012). Since study groups are chosen from ready classes, one existing class is chosen as the experimental class, and other class is determined as the control group. 2.2. Study Groups The sample of the study consists of ninth grade students attending a high school in Turkey. The classes were randomly assigned to the control and experimental groups. A total of 45 students participated in the study. The experimental group consisted of 25 students, while the control group consisted of 20 students. 2.3. Data Collection Tools “Classroom Life Perception Scale” and “Classroom Engagement Inventory” were used to collect data. 2.3.1. Classroom Life Perception Scale As a data collection instrument, “Classroom Life Perception Scale” was used in the study with the aim of determining the classroom life perception levels of students towards English lesson. The scale developed by Aycicek and Yanpar Yelken (2019) consists of 28 items as a five-point Likert-type instrument, ranging from strongly disagree (1) through strongly agree (5). The scale consists of three dimensions, namely “Student Feelings Related to the Classroom Environment”, “Student Feelings Related to the Teacher” and “Student Feelings Related to Other Students”. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be .93. In the current study, reliability coefficients related to the dimensions of the scale were found as follows: “Student Feelings Related to the Classroom Environment” =.89, “Student Feelings Related to the Teacher”= .81, and “Student Feelings Related to Other Students” =.78. The Cronbach alpha is used to determine the reliability of the research instrument. According to Hair et al. (2010), a Cronbach alpha value of more than .70 is acceptable and sufficient. The value of reliability coefficient in this study is .93, suggesting that the research instrument is reliable. 2.3.2. Classroom Engagement Inventory In the study, “Classroom Engagement Inventory” was used to collect data to determine the classroom engagement levels of students in the control and experimental groups. The inventory developed by Wang, Bergin and Bergin (2014) and adapted to Turkish by Sever (2014), consisted of 23 items and five sub-factors; “Cognitive Engagement”, “Affective Engagement”, “Behavioural Engagement-Compliance, “Behavioral Engagement-Effortful Classroom Participation”, and “Disengagement”. According to validity and reliability test results, the Ayçiçek & Yanpar Yelken 2528 Cronbach Alpha coefficients are as follows; “Affective Engagement”=.87, “Behavioral Engagement-Compliance”=.82, “Behavioural Engagement-Effortful Classroom Participation”= .74, “Cognitive Engagement”= .89, and “Disengagement”=. 69. The reliability of the scale has been recalculated for this study and the Cronbach alpha coefficient of reliability has been found as follows; “Affective Engagement” .88, “Behavioral Engagement- Compliance” .84, “Behavioural Engagement-Effortful Classroom Participation” .79, “Cognitive Engagement” .89, and “Disengagement”. 73. 2.4. Data Analysis After obtaining the pretest-posttest scores of the experimental and control groups, the data were evaluated and comparisons were made between the two groups. The normality of the distribution was tested by employing the Shapiro-Wilk test. This test is applied for study groups involving a sample size of 50 and less (Buyukozturk, 2018). The data related to the variables were found not to differ significantly from the normal distribution (p>.05). Therefore, paired sample t tests were run to examine the effect of FCM on the students’ classroom engagement and classroom life perceptions within group (Kalaycı, 2014). 2.5. Implementation Process In the current study, students were informed about FCM in detail. A detailed application plan and video lectures based on current regular curriculum were prepared. These videos were shared with students in the experimental group via the Edpuzzle educational platform. This particular application was chosen, because it is free and easy to use on electronic devices for both teachers and students. In addition, the platform facilitating student-teacher interaction provided a report on which students watched the video, how many times they watched it, when they watched it and how they performed on any of the quiz questions for which the teacher required an answer. The duration of the video lectures was determined based on the recommendations given in the literature. Wan (2014) and Sarawagi (2014) stated that short videos (not more than 15 minutes) are beneficial to provide students’ understanding. In the current study, the videos lasted for a maximum of 13 minutes. A total of 12 videos were sent to the students in the experimental group through the Edpuzzle platform, and a 15-day period was given to watch the videos. A screenshot of the videos is presented in Figure 1. Figure 1. A screenshot related to videos International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2523-2539. 2529 Both groups in the study followed the same curriculum, but the experimental group was taught using the flipped method and the control group was taught using the current conventional method. During the eight week session, students in the experimental group watched the teacher-made videos prepared by the instructor and actively engaged in common meaningful activities outside the classroom by means of online learning community. In class, they were divided into different groups (6-8 people) to perform activities related to the subject they watched at home. Groups were determined in a heterogeneous way so as to have students with different capacities within the same group. Students worked either in small groups or individually at an appropriate pace in some sessions. The control group was instructed using the current regular curriculum, based on face-to-face instruction and constructivist approach. The two groups were taught by the same instructor and the content was basically identical for both groups. A class session took 40 minutes. In out-of-class activities for the experimental group, students watched videos prepared on Edpuzzle platform. In-class activities were as follows; question-answer activities, discussion activities, subject-based activities, group studies, kahoot application activities, video-based activities, individual activities, activities based on mind mapping method, task-based activities and drama activities. In the sessions of control group, the course started with checking homework, then the instructor lectured by using conventional teaching methods. Students participated in activities individually or in groups. Basic activities in the sessions were whole class discussion, story completion activity, reading and drama activities. In both groups, interactive and collaborative learning activities were focused to encourage students to show more efforts and involvement in learning process. Both groups were evaluated by the same written and oral exams over the semester. Figure 2. Activities in control and experimental group 3. Results 3.1. Results Related to the First Sub-Problem Is there a significant difference between pretest-posttest classroom engagement scores of students in the control group? Descriptive statistics results for the pretest-posttest scores obtained by the control group were examined. The results are given below in Table 1. Ayçiçek & Yanpar Yelken 2530 Table 1. Results for the pretest and posttest classroom engagement scores of students in the control group Sub-dimensions Pretest Posttest N �̅� S �̅� S Affective Engagement 20 15.20 2.95 15.00 3.01 Behavioral Engagement - Compliance 20 11.75 3.08 12.10 3.01 Behavioral Engagement - Effortful Classroom Participation 20 7.05 1.73 8.25 2.77 Cognitive Engagement 20 14.95 3.02 15.70 2.64 Disengagement 20 7.10 1.77 8.30 2.75 When Table 1 is analyzed, it is seen that there are differences in arithmetic mean scores of students in the control group regarding the sub-dimensions. The posttest scores are higher than pretest scores in cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement–compliance, behavioral engagement-effortful classroom participation and disengagement sub-dimensions except affective engagement sub-dimension. Based on these results, the obtained data were analyzed using paired samples t-test in order to determine whether there is a significant difference. The results are given below in Table 2. Table 2. Paired Samples t-test results for the pretest and posttest classroom engagement scores of students in the control group Sub-dimensions t df p Pretest Affective Engagement - Posttest Affective Engagement 0.228 19 0.822 Pretest Behavioral Engagement - Compliance – Posttest Behavioral Engagement- Compliance -0.344 19 0.734 Pretest Behavioral Engagement - Effortful Classroom Participation – Posttest Behavioral Engagement - Effortful Classroom Participation -1.777 19 0.092 Pretest Cognitive Engagement - Posttest Cognitive Engagement -1.009 19 0.325 Pretest Disengagement - Posttest Disengagement -1.842 19 0.081 As seen in Table 2, it is revealed that there was no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the control group in all sub-dimensions (p>.05). Is there a significant difference between pretest and posttest classroom engagement scores of students in the experimental group? Descriptive statistics results for the pretest and posttest scores obtained by the experimental group were examined. The results are given below in Table 3. Table 3. Results for the pretest and posttest classroom engagement scores of students in the experimental group Sub-dimensions Pretest Posttest N �̅� S �̅� S Affective Engagement 25 15.32 3.17 21.16 3.39 Behavioral Engagement - Compliance 25 11.24 2.29 10.88 2.59 Behavioral Engagement - Effortful Classroom Participation 25 7.40 1.44 8.12 1.81 Cognitive Engagement 25 15.72 2.75 22.52 2.20 Disengagement 25 7.36 1.44 8.08 1.82 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2523-2539. 2531 As can be seen in Table 3, there are differences in arithmetic mean scores of students in the experimental group regarding the sub-dimensions. The posttest scores are higher than pretest scores in cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement-effortful classroom participation, disengagement and affective engagement sub-dimensions except behavioral engagement- compliance sub-dimension. Based on these results, the obtained data were analyzed using paired samples t-test in order to determine whether there is a significant difference. The results are given below in Table 4. Table 4. Paired Samples t-test results for the pretest and posttest classroom engagement scores of students in the experimental group Sub-dimensions t df p Pretest Affective Engagement - Posttest Affective Engagement -8.107 24 0.000 Pretest Behavioral Engagement - Compliance – Posttest Behavioral Engagement- Compliance 0.489 24 0.630 Pretest Behavioral Engagement - Effortful Classroom Participation – Posttest Behavioral Engagement - Effortful Classroom Participation -1.464 24 0.156 Pretest Cognitive Engagement – Posttest Cognitive Engagement -10.577 24 0.000 Pretest Disengagement – Posttest Disengagement -1.445 24 0.161 According to Table 4, while there was no significant difference in behavioral engagement– compliance, behavioral engagement-effortful classroom participation and disengagement sub- dimensions (p>.05), significant differences were found in affective engagement (t(24)=-8.107, p<.05) and cognitive engagement (t(24)=-10.577, p<.05) sub-dimensions. When the descriptive statistics results in Table 3 were examined in order to determine whether significant differences occur in favor of pretest or posttest scores, significant differences were found in cognitive and affective engagement sub-dimensions in favor of posttest scores. 3.2. Results Related to the Second Sub-Problem Is there a significant difference between pretest and posttest classroom life perception scores of students in the control group? Descriptive statistics results for the pretest and posttest scores obtained by the control group were examined. The results are given below in Table 5. Table 5. Results for the pretest and posttest classroom life perception scores of students in the control group Sub-dimensions Pretest Posttest N �̅� S �̅� S Student Feelings Related to the Classroom Environment 20 23.95 5.18 23.55 3.50 Student Feelings Related to Other Students 20 17.00 3.71 18.55 3.17 Student Feelings Related to the Teacher 20 20.90 5.94 23.00 4.75 According to Table 5, there are differences in arithmetic mean scores of students in the control group regarding the sub-dimensions. The posttest scores are higher than pretest scores in student feelings related to the teacher and student feelings related to other students sub- dimensions except student feelings related to the classroom environment sub-dimension. Based Ayçiçek & Yanpar Yelken 2532 on these results, the obtained data were analyzed using paired samples t-test in order to determine whether there is a significant difference. The results are given below in Table 6. Table 6. Paired Samples t-test results for the pretest and posttest classroom life perception scores of students in the control group Sub-dimensions t df p Pretest Student Feelings Related to the Classroom Environment – Posttest Student Feelings Related to the Classroom Environment 0.346 19 0.733 Pretest Student Feelings Related to Other Students – Posttest Student Feelings Related to Other Students -1.292 19 0.212 Pretest Student Feelings Related to the Teacher – Posttest Student Feelings Related to the Teacher -1.203 19 0.244 According to Table 6, it is seen that there was no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the control group in all sub-dimensions (p>.05). Is there a significant difference between pretest and posttest classroom life perception scores of students in the experimental group? Descriptive statistics results for the pretest and posttest scores obtained by the experimental group were examined. The results are given below in Table 7. Table 7. Results for the pretest and posttest classroom life perception scores of students in the experimental group Sub-dimensions Pretest Posttest N �̅� S �̅� S Student Feelings Related to the Classroom Environment 25 23.48 4.90 32.16 5.29 Student Feelings Related to Other Students 25 17.16 3.12 18.52 2.65 Student Feelings Related to the Teacher 25 20.16 4.33 31.88 5.29 The data given in Table 7 show that there are differences in arithmetic mean scores of students in the experimental group regarding the sub-dimensions. The posttest scores are higher than pretest scores in all sub-dimensions. Based on these results, the obtained data were analyzed using paired samples t-test in order to determine whether there is a significant difference. The results are given below in Table 8. Table 8. Paired Samples t-test results for the pretest and posttest classroom life perception scores of students in the experimental group Sub-dimensions t df p Pretest Student Feelings Related to the Classroom Environment – Posttest Student Feelings Related to the Classroom Environment -5.716 24 0.000 Pretest Student Feelings Related to Other Students – Posttest Student Feelings Related to Other Students -1.675 24 0.107 Pretest Student Feelings Related to the Teacher – Posttest Student Feelings Related to the Teacher -8.008 24 0.000 On the basis of the data presented in Table 8, it is seen that while there was no significant difference in student feelings related to other students sub-dimension (p>.05), significant International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2523-2539. 2533 differences were found in student feelings related to the classroom environment (t(24)=-5.716, p<.05) and student feelings related to the teacher (t(24)=-8.008, p<.05) sub-dimensions. When the descriptive statistics results in Table 7 were examined in order to determine whether significant differences occur in favor of pretest or posttest scores, significant differences were found in student feelings related to classroom environment and student feelings related to the teacher sub-dimensions in favor of posttest scores. 4. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations This study investigated whether there is a significant difference in the scores of students in the experimental and control groups in terms of classroom engagement levels. According to the results, significant differences were found in favor of the experimental group in terms of cognitive engagement and affective engagement sub-dimensions. On the contrary, there was not a significant difference in both groups in terms of behavioral engagement-compliance, behavioral engagement-effortful classroom participation and disengagement sub-dimensions. There have been many studies investigating the effect of flipped classroom applications on classroom engagement. These studies (Avery et al., 2018; Bormann, 2014; Chen et al., 2014; Cronhjort, Filipsson & Weurlander, 2018; Donovan & Lee, 2015; Eichler & Peeples, 2016; Enfield, 2013; Gilboy et al., 2015; Gross et al., 2015; Hung, 2015; McLaughlin et al., 2014; Mok, 2014; Rotellar & Cain, 2016; Smallhorn, 2017; Vaughan, 2014; Wihnan, 2015) reveal that classroom engagement levels increase when students are instructed with FCM. Based on the studies conducted by Clark (2013) and Lee and Wallace (2018), the classroom engagement levels of students instructed with FCM was higher than the students instructed with the current regular curriculum. Similarly, the results of a study conducted by Jamaludin and Osman (2014) showed that cognitive, affective and behavioral engagement levels of students instructed with FCM increased. According to the study conducted by Steen-Utheim and Foldnes (2018), at the university level, the classroom engagement levels of students instructed with FCM was higher than the students instructed with the current regular curriculum in a mathematics course. In the study conducted by Subramaniam and Muniandy (2017), at the high school level, a Computer Science course curriculum was designed in accordance with FCM, and the effect of the model on classroom engagement was investigated. The results showed that the classroom engagement levels of students in the experimental group were higher than those of the control group. In the study by Danker (2015), it was concluded that FCM increased students' classroom engagement level, helped students to get the opportunity to learn individually as a result of peer to peer communication between teachers and students and to develop their curiosity and high-level thinking skills through an effective learning environment. Another study conducted by Deslauriers et al. (2011), at the university level, reported that flipped courses enhanced students’ classroom engagement levels. Based on the findings of these studies, it can be concluded that students' cognitive, affective and behavioral engagements in learning process contributes to their academic advancement and creates a supportive learning environment (Reeve, 2013). Thus, FCM enhances classroom engagement levels of learners in classroom practices. The current study investigated whether there is a significant difference in the scores of students in the experimental and control groups in terms of classroom life perception levels. According to the results, significant differences were found in favor of the experimental group in terms of student feelings related to the classroom environment and student feelings related to the teacher sub-dimensions. On the contrary, there was not a significant difference in both groups in terms of student feelings related to other students. Ayçiçek & Yanpar Yelken 2534 In the present study, a significant difference was found in the scores of students in the experimental group in terms of student feelings related to the classroom environment. This finding indicates that the feelings of students in the experimental group based on the classroom environment are more positive than those in the control group. Students learn better if they consider the learning environment as positive and supportive. Such an educational environment encourages students. In addition, students are provided with learning opportunities in a positive classroom environment, which contributes to the development of their social skills (Young, 2014). In the sub-dimension of student feelings related to the teacher, there was a significant difference in the scores of students in the experimental group. In this regard, it can be said that there has been a positive change in students' opinions about their teacher through the application of FCM. It is noteworthy to note that this teaching model affects the feelings of the students related to their teacher positively. In the study, it was concluded that there was no significant difference in the scores of students in the experimental and control groups in terms of student feelings related to other students sub-dimension. This finding points out that students in the experimental and control groups have similar feelings related to their classmates. In this respect, when the items in the sub-dimension of student feelings related to other students are examined, it is seen that there is no difference between the two groups in terms of cooperation, exchanging ideas, establishing effective communication and respectful relations. Based on these results, it can be concluded that combining current instructional methods with online learning can be crucial in providing high quality education to learners. Based on the results and discussion of this study, the following recommendations can be offered for practitioners.  Workshops and conferences should be held to encourage the widespread adoption of FCM.  An introductory session about FCM needs to be held for students instructed with the model for the first time. Thus, students should be informed about its advantages.  If instructors who use FCM in teaching process are not proficient in the use of technology, they should be supported by in-service trainings to get better outcomes. As for future studies, a similar study can be conducted on a different sample with different characteristics. There is a need for more flipped classroom studies focusing on English course implementations. Future research should evaluate high school students’ perceptions of adopting the flipped classroom qualitatively. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2523-2539. 2535 References Abaeian, H., & Samadi, L. (2016). The effect of flipped classroom on Iranian EFL learners’ L2 reading comprehension: Focusing on different proficiency levels. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(6), 295-304. Ahmad, A. (2010). Constructivism based blended learning in higher education (Unpublished master’s thesis) Hasselt University, Germany. Ahmad, S. Z. (2016). The flipped classroom model to develop Egyptian EFL students’ listening comprehension. English Language Teaching, 9(9), 166-178. Al-Harbi, S. S., & Alshumaimeri, Y. A. (2016). The flipped classroom impact in grammar class on EFL Saudi secondary school students’ performances and attitudes. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 60-80. Alvarez, B. (2012). Flipping the classroom: Homework in class, lessons at home. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(8), 18-21. Anderson, K. M. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49-54. Avery, K., Huggan, C., & Preston, J. P. (2018). The flipped classroom: High school student engagement through 21st century learning. In Education, 24(1), 4-21. Aycicek, B., & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2021). Classroom life perception scale: A scale development study. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 253-264. doi: 10.29333/iji.2021.14115a. Baek, S. G., & Choi, H. J. (2002). The relationship between students’ perceptions of classroom environment and their academic achievement in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 3(1), 125-135. Basal, A. (2015). The implementation of a flipped classroom in foreign language teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 28-37. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2015). Flipped learning for English Instruction. Arlington, VA: International Society for Technology in Education. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington: International Society for Technology in Education. Birgin, O., Tutak, T., & Turkdogan, A. (2009). Primary school teachers’ views about the new Turkish primary school mathematics curriculum. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 4(2), 270-280. Bormann, J. (2014). Affordances of flipped learning and its effects on student engagement and achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Of Northern Iowa. Brewer, R., & Movahedazarhouligh, S. (2018). Successful stories and conflicts: A literature review on the effectiveness of flipped learning in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(4), 409-416. doi:10.1111/jcal.12250. Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M. (2011). "Flipping" your classroom. Science Teacher, 78(2), 10. Buyukozturk, S. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (24. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık. Cakmak, M. (2001). Sınıf ortamı ve grup etkileşimi. L. Küçükahmet (Ed). Sınıf yönetiminde yeni yaklaşımlar içinde (s. 27-45). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead?. Computers & Education, 79, 16-27. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004. Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7. Clark, K. R. (2013). Examining the effects of the flipped model of instruction on student engagement and performance in the secondary mathematics classroom: An action research study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7 Ayçiçek & Yanpar Yelken 2536 Cronhjort, M., Filipsson, L., & Weurlander, M. (2018). Improved engagement and learning in flipped-classroom calculus. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 37(3), 113-121. doi:10.1093/teamat/hrx007. Cunningham, U. (2016). Language pedagogy and non-transience in the flipped classroom. Journal of Open Flexible and Distance Learning, 20(1), 44-58. Danker, B. (2015). Using flipped classroom approach to explore deep learning in large classrooms. The IAFOR Journal of Education, 3(1), 171-186. DeLozier, S. J., & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1). doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862-864. doi: 10.1126/science.1201783. Donovan, J. D., & Lee, S. Y. (2015). How we flipped: Student and instructor reflections of a flipped-class model in a sensory evaluation laboratory course. NACTA Journal, 59(4), 335-342. Eichler, J. F., & Peeples, J. (2016). Flipped classroom modules for large enrollment general chemistry courses: A low barrier approach to increase active learning and improve student grades. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 197-208. doi: 10.1039/C5RP00159E. Ellison, C. M., Boykin, A. W., Towns, D. P., & Stokes, A. (2000). Classroom cultural ecology: The dynamics of classroom life in schools serving low-income African American children. Washington, DC: Howard University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Retrieved November 08, 2019 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442886.pdf. Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students in CSUN. TechTrends, 57(6), 14-27. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th edition). Boston: McGraw Hill. Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12-17. Gecer, A. (2013). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarında öğretim elemanı-öğrenci iletişimi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(1), 349-367. Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(1), 109-114. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008. Gross, D., Pietri, E. S., Anderson, G., Moyano-Camihort, K., & Graham, M. J. (2015). Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, 1-8. doi:10.1187/cbe.15-02-0040. Gulec, S., & Alkıs, S. (2004). Öğretmenlerin sınıf ortamında kullandıkları davranış değiştirme stratejileri. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 247-266. Han, Y. J. (2015). Successfully flipping the ESL classroom for learner autonomy. NYS TESOL Journal, 2(1), 98-109. Huebner, T. A. (2010). Differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 79-81. Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.967701. Jamaludin, R., & Osman, S. Z. M. (2014). The use of a flipped classroom to enhance engagement and promote active learning. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(2), 124- 131. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00159E https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442886.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2523-2539. 2537 Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. Kalaycı, S. (2014). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (6.baskı). Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Agamba, J. (2014). Promoting efective e-learning practices through the constructivist pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 19, 887- 898. Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37-50. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003. Koroglu, Z. C., & Cakır, A. (2017). Implementation of flipped instruction in language classrooms: An alternative way to develop speaking skills of pre-service English language teachers. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 13(2), 42-55. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education. 31(1), 30-43. Lee, B. (2017). TELL us ESP in a flipped classroom. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4995-5007. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00978a. Lee, G., & Wallace, A. (2018). Flipped learning in the English as a foreign language classroom: Outcomes and perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 62-84. doi: 10.1002/tesq.372. Li, S., & Suwanthep, J. (2017). Integration of flipped classroom model for EFL speaking. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 118-123. doi: 10.18178/ijlt.3.2.118-123. Long, J. (2011). Changing teachers’ practice through critical reflection on pedagogy. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(4), 145-159. Lundin, M., Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Peterson, L. (2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: A systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(20). doi: 10.1186/s41239-018-0101-6. Marshall, H. W., & DeCapua, A. (2013). Making the transition to classroom success: Culturally responsive teaching for struggling language learners. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D.A., & Mumper, R. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: A course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Academic Medicine, 89(2), 236-243. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-47. Mehring, J. (2016). Present research on the flipped classroom and potential tools for the EFL classroom, Computers in the Schools, 33(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2016.1139912. Mok, H. N. (2014). Teaching tip: The flipped classroom. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(1), 7-11. Moos, D. C., & Bonde, C. (2016). Flipping the classroom: Embedding self-regulated learning prompts in videos. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21, 225-242. doi: 10.1007/s10758-015-9269-1. O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002. https://link.springer.com/journal/10639 Ayçiçek & Yanpar Yelken 2538 Parlar, H. (2012). Bilgi toplumu, değişim ve yeni eğitim paradigması. Yalova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(4), 193-209. Pesen, A. (2014). The effect of blended learning environment on the academic success, study habits and motivation levels of prospective teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Dicle University, Department of Educational Sciences, Diyarbakır, Turkey. Pudin, C. S. J. (2017). Exploring a flipped learning approach in teaching grammar for ESL students. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 51-64. doi:10.21093/ijeltal.v2i1.47. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579-595. doi: 10.1037/a0032690. Reynolds, W. M., & Miller, G. E. (2003). Current perspectives in educational psychology. In W.M. Reynolds & G.E. Miller (Eds.). Handbook of psychology (pp. 1-22). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44-49. Rotellar, C., & Cain, J. (2016). Research, perspectives, and recommendations on implementing the flipped classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(2), 1-9. Sam, D. P. (2016). Natural approach of teaching English language on a flipped classroom platform to tertiary level engineering learners. International Journal of Science Education, 14(1,2), 13-18. Sarawagi, N. (2014). A flipped CS0 classroom: Applying Bloom's taxonomy to algorithmic thinking. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 29(6), 21-28. Seaman, G., & Gaines, N. (2013). Leveraging digital learning systems to flip classroom instruction. Modern Teacher Quarterly, 1(1), 25-27. Sever, M. (2014). Adapting classroom engagement inventory into Turkish culture. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 171-182. doi:10.15390/EB.2014.3627. Shimahara, N. K. (1998). Politics of classroom life: Classroom management in international perspective. New York: Garland Publishing. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493-525. doi: 10.1177/0013164408323233. Smallhorn, M. (2017). The flipped classroom: A learning model to increase student engagement not academic achievement. Student Success, 8(2), 43-53. Soliman, N. A. (2016). Teaching English for academic purposes via the flipped learning approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 122-129. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.036. Steen-Utheim, A. T., & Foldnes, N. (2018). A qualitative investigation of student engagement in a flipped classroom. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 307-324. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1379481. Subramaniam, S. R., & Muniandy, B. (2017). The effect of flipped classroom on students’ engagement. Tech Know Learn, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10758-017-9343-y. Sung, K. (2015). A case study on a flipped classroom in an EFL content course. Multimedia- Assisted Language Learning, 18(2), 159-187. Talbert, R. (2012). Inverted classroom. Colleagues, 9(1). Retrieved October 24, 2019 from https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/colleagues/vol9/iss1/7. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(4), 2523-2539. 2539 Vaughan, M. (2014). Flipping the learning: An investigation into the use of the flipped classroom model in an introductory teaching course. Education Research and Perspectives, 41, 25-41. Wan, N. (2014). Flipping: The science classroom exploring merits, issues and pedagogy. Teaching Science, 60(3), 16-27. Wang, Z, Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade classrooms: The classroom engagement inventory. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 517-535. Wihnan, J. (2015). Flipped learning and the motivational framework of students (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Victoria. Williams, N. A., Bland, W., & Christie, G. (2008). Improving student achievement and satisfaction by adopting a blended learning approach to inorganic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(1), 43-50. doi: 10.1039/b801290n. Wu, W. C. V., Hsieh, J. S. C., & Yang, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 142-157. Yelamanthi, K., & Drake, E. (2015). A flipped first-year digital circuits course for engineering and technology students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(3), 179-186. doi:10.1109/TE.2014.2356174. Young, J. (2014). Encouragement in the classroom: How do I help students stay positive and focused?. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.