The utilisation of
the Flipgrid application through mobile devices to enhance motivation and oral
expression skills in secondary school students learning English as a foreign
language
Uso de la aplicación Flipgrid a través de dispositivos móviles para
mejorar la motivación y las habilidades de expresión oral en inglés del
alumnado de la ESO
Dra. Verónica Chust-Pérez.
Profesora asociada.
Universidad de Alicante. España
Dra. Rosa Pilar Esteve-Faubel.
Profesora Titular
de Universidad. Universidad de Alicante. España
Dra. María del Carmen Fernández-Morante. Profesora Titular de Universidad. Universidad de Santiago
de Compostela. España
Dr. José María Esteve-Faubel.
Catedrático de
Universidad. Universidad de Alicante. España
Received: 2025/02/02 Revised 2025/02/03 Accepted: 2025/04/02 Online First: 2025/04/09 Published: 2025/05/01
How to cite:
Chust-Pérez, V., Esteve-Faubel,
R.P., Fernández-Morante, Mª. C., & Esteve-Faubel, J.M. (2025). The utilisation of the Flipgrid application
through mobile devices to enhance
motivation and oral expression
skills in secondary school students learning English as a foreign language [Uso de la aplicación Flipgrid
a través de dispositivos móviles para mejorar la motivación y las habilidades
de expresión oral en inglés del alumnado de la ESO]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 73, art.6. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.113494
ABSTRACT
This exploratory study examines the impact of Flipgrid
and the generative AI tool, Copilot, on the development of oral expression and
motivation among Year 7 students in English language learning. The aim is to
ascertain how these technological tools can enhance fluency, pronunciation, and
confidence when students communicate in a second language. A sequential
explanatory mixed-methods design was employed, combining both quantitative and
qualitative analysis. Pre-tests and post-tests were administered to two groups:
one with technology-mediated learning and the other without. Fluency,
vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and levels of anxiety and motivation were
assessed. The data reveals that the group using Flipgrid and Copilot showed
significant improvements in fluency, vocabulary, and grammar, along with
increased motivation and reduced anxiety. However, no notable advances in
pronunciation were observed. The flexible access to
materials and immediate feedback fostered autonomy and collaborative learning. The
study affirms the value of m-learning and digital tools in English language
instruction, highlighting the importance of active methodologies and
well-planned pedagogy to maximise benefits.
Este estudio
exploratorio analiza el impacto de Flipgrid y la IA
generativa Copilot en el desarrollo de la expresión
oral y la motivación en estudiantes de 1º de ESO en el aprendizaje del inglés.
Se busca determinar cómo estas herramientas tecnológicas pueden mejorar la
fluidez, pronunciación y confianza de los alumnos al comunicarse en una segunda
lengua. Se empleó un diseño mixto secuencial explicativo, combinando análisis
cuantitativo y cualitativo. Se aplicaron pretest y postest
a dos grupos: uno con aprendizaje mediado por tecnología y otro sin ella. Se
evaluaron fluidez, vocabulario, gramática, pronunciación y niveles de ansiedad
y motivación. Los datos muestran que el grupo que utilizó Flipgrid
y Copilot experimentó mejoras significativas en
fluidez, vocabulario y gramática, además de una mayor motivación y menor
ansiedad. Sin embargo, no se observaron avances relevantes en pronunciación. El
acceso flexible a materiales y la retroalimentación inmediata favorecieron la
autonomía y el aprendizaje colaborativo. El estudio confirma el valor del m-learning y las herramientas digitales en la enseñanza del
inglés. Se destaca la importancia de metodologías activas y planificación
didáctica adecuada para maximizar beneficios.
KEYWORDS· PALABRAS CLAVES
Habilidades de expresión oral; EFL (inglés
como lengua extranjera); Educación digital; Aprendizaje móvil; Inteligencia
artificial
1. Introduction
Proficiency in at least one language other than one's
mother tongue is now recognised as an essential component of a person's
well-rounded education (Agenda 2030 UNESCO, 2016; Baker & Fang, 2021) and
is considered as one of the key competences for lifelong learning in the
European reference framework (Council of the European Union, 2018).
Communicative competence in any language is developed
through four fundamental skills: listening, reading, writing and speaking, and
among these, oral expression is considered a key indicator of language
proficiency (Hinkel, 2005). However, this skill is not only a communicative
act, but also a significant challenge in the process of learning a second
language.
In the specific context of this study, the focus is on
the acquisition of English as a second language (L2) during compulsory
secondary education [Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (ESO)] given its
relevance as a lingua franca (Crystal, 2003; Jenkins & Leung, 2017) in
academic, scientific, business and technological spheres. During this stage,
which spans from 11 to 16 years of age, particular challenges present
themselves due to the fluctuations in confidence, motivation and anxiety levels
characteristic of adolescent psycho-affective development.
It can therefore be argued that the central issue in
teaching English as L2 in ESO is how teachers should address the specific
difficulties faced by adolescents in developing their oral competence in this
language.
The scientific literature indicates that the
development of oral expression in L2 English during ESO is a significant
challenge in its teaching, because of both the complexity of this skill and the
difficulties faced by teachers.
This ability goes beyond vocabulary and grammar
mastery, as it also requires pragmatic competences, suprasegmental skills and
the ability to communicate effectively in different contexts, including
pronunciation, rhythm and intonation (Agenda 2030 UNESCO, 2016). One of the
main obstacles to its acquisition is a lack of practice in authentic settings due to the fact that, despite the classroom being a
fundamental space for learning, opportunities to develop oral expression in a
spontaneous and meaningful way remain limited.
Furthermore, second language acquisition, especially
in speaking, is influenced by psycho-affective factors such as motivation,
anxiety, fear of making mistakes and lack of confidence, which have an adverse
effect on learners' active participation (Hanifa, 2018; Hinkel, 2005). These
factors may decrease motivation and generate negative attitudes towards oral
communication in English, making it difficult to acquire in the long term
(Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000).
From a pedagogical perspective, teachers face a number of challenges in regard to
the promotion of English speaking. The high ratio of students in the classroom,
with a minimum of 25 per group, hinders the implementation of personalised and
learner-centred oral activities (Arredondo Ruiz, 2017). As a result,
historically, reading and writing have been prioritised over speaking, limiting
students' exposure to real communicative situations in English (Okada et al.,
2018; Tsou, 2005). This lack of interaction in authentic contexts contributes
to anxiety and lack of confidence, reducing learners' motivation to practise
English oral expression (Hanifa, 2018).
To overcome these obstacles, there has been a shift in
recent years towards more communicative approaches and innovative pedagogical
strategies, such as Extramural English. This methodology focuses on encouraging
students to interact in the language outside the classroom, integrating digital
resources that encourage oral practice (Fernández Sesma et al., 2023; Sylvén & Sundqvist, 2012). These tools create
meaningful, safe and motivating learning environments that promote English
interaction in digital environments (Hanifa, 2018; Lyrigkou,
2019).
L2 oral practice can be strengthened through two types
of digital aids: applications designed specifically for language learning and
those that favour social learning, facilitating online communication and
collaboration.
This second group includes the mobile version of the
Flipgrid application, which offers a collaborative and dynamic learning
environment that could be an effective alternative for improving oral
competence in terms of fluency, vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation in
English (Gill-Simmen, 2021; Lowenthal & Moore, 2020).
This approach allows for the integration of social and
academic aspects (Gill-Simmen, 2021; Payne, 2019) and enriches the learning
process inside and outside the classroom, encouraging creativity and promoting
a change of role in students, in line with active teaching strategies. It
should be underlined that Flipgrid is particularly useful for language
learning, as it reinforces not only oral competence but also reading and
writing skills. Our proposed use of Flipgrid responds to the principles of
e-learning 2.0 (Barroso Osuna & Cabero Almenara, 2013; Cabero Almenara,
2006; Cebreiro López et al., 2019) and connectivism (Siemens, 2005).
Flipgrid facilitates synchronous and asynchronous
communication, fostering student motivation and engagement with their learning,
at the same time as connecting social and academic elements (Gill-Simmen, 2021;
Juan-Lázaro & Area-Moreira, 2021). Its use allows students to share videos,
receive feedback and participate in a learning community that combines elements
of social and academic interaction, reducing anxiety and promoting autonomy in
learning to speak (Petersen et al., 2020). It also provides teachers with a
space for formative assessment, interaction with learners and the integration
of formal and informal learning (Godwin-Jones, 2011).
In this context, the incorporation of generative
artificial intelligence tools in the classroom for creating images and visually
representing vocabulary and concepts offers an innovative and motivating
approach for 1st-year ESO students, always being aware of its possible biases
and ethical implications in data collection and protection.
This technology, generative artificial intelligence
combined with Flipgrid, allows students to develop their creativity,
personalise their learning, and can improve understanding of English through
visual experiences and the development of essential digital skills for the
future (Chust-Pérez & Esteve-Faubel, 2022;
Godwin-Jones, 2011; Zhang & Zou, 2022).
However, the effective implementation of these
methodologies requires teachers not only to master linguistic knowledge but
also to have a solid didactic-pedagogical basis (Masuram & Sripada, 2020),
therefore allowing them to design conversational tasks that integrate all the
technical-pedagogical facets for providing students with more meaningful
speaking practice in digital contexts, and themselves with learning assessment
and personalisation tools.
The working hypothesis is that the integration of the
Flipgrid application in educational practice, in combination with generative
artificial intelligence tools, specifically Copilot, has a positive
impact on English L2 oral expression and motivation towards it in 1st-year ESO
students, and the following objectives are proposed to respond to this
hypothesis:
a) To determine the initial level of oral competence
in English of students beginning the 1st year of ESO.
b) To analyse the evolution in essential elements of
oral expression following the implementation of the Flipgrid and Copilot
application in the educational intervention.
c) To evaluate the impact on motivation and anxiety
levels of the use of the Flipgrid and Copilot application through mobile
devices in the oral practice of the English language.
2. Methodology
This study is of an exploratory mixed design type,
implementing a sequential explanatory strategy with a quantitative-qualitative
sequence, starting with a pre and post-test stage of statistical data
collection and analysis followed by a qualitative stage where the experiences
and perceptions of the subjects involved will be explored via the focus group
technique.
The purpose of this methodology is to generate valid
and reliable information that serves as a basis for informed decision-making,
in accordance with contemporary methodological principles in educational
research (Bisquerra Alzina, 2004). In this case, there is an analysis of the
use and contributions of mobile devices and the collaborative and communicative
Flipgrid and generative AI Copilot applications in L2 learning.
For this purpose, a pilot study was carried out in a
Secondary School in the autonomous region of Valencia, where a
technology-mediated teaching activity was implemented to promote the learning
of oral English.
The study used a non-probabilistic purposive sampling
method, selecting two groups of students with homogeneous characteristics
relevant to the research. This approach allowed us to compare the two groups
and explore their experiences within the learning process at the same time.
2.1 Participants
The study was carried out in a secondary school in an
urban area of Alicante (50,000 inhabitants, medium socio-economic level), and
was implemented in two 1st-year ESO groups during the first term, with the
collaboration of the teachers.
Each group comprised 20 students with similar
psycho-pedagogical characteristics, in a lower ratio than in upper years to
facilitate ESO adaptation. The distribution was balanced: experimental group
(GA) 12 boys, 60%; 8 girls, 40% and control group (GB) 11 girls, 55%; 9 boys,
45%.
In GA, since all the pupils had smartphones, oral
expression was worked on Flipgrid and Copilot with mobile devices. In GB, the
same activities were carried out without technology.
2.2 Instruments
Four data collection techniques were implemented: (a)
diagnostic test, (b) play-didactic strategy, (c) confirmatory test and (d)
focus groups.
The diagnostic test used the A1 Movers Cambridge English
Assessment test format. The play-didactic strategy included three Cambridge
English pictures (‘At the doctor's’, ‘From the countryside to the jungle’ and
‘The weather’), each worked on in two sessions as described in Table 1 in order to practice oral production, using Flipgrid and
Copilot with GA and paper with GB. A confirmatory test with the same criteria
was then applied to assess progress in both groups.
Following this test, four focus groups of 10 students
(two per group, balancing gender) were formed to explore perceptions and
emotions about learning. The narratives were analysed in three phases: (1)
keyword identification, (2) categorisation and (3) grouping into
meta-categories.
The analysis, conducted with Atlas.Ti23, showed an
initial agreement of 90% between researchers, reaching 97% after two meetings.
Each student was assigned an acronym according to his or her group (A1, A2,
B1, B2) and gender (Boy - B, Girl - G).
2.3 Pilot study
Following the diagnostic tests, specific activities
were designed for working on oral expression: GA used Flipgrid and Copilot via
mobile devices, while GB did not use technological resources.
The GA students accessed the class on Flipgrid via a
private code, ensuring that only the teacher and peers saw the videos after
validation and feedback.
Teachers organised five heterogeneous groups of four
students, balancing gender, skills and knowledge. The three educational
interventions were developed in these groups throughout the first trimester,
with two sessions per week dedicated to their implementation (Table 1). The
learning activity was the same in both groups, differing only in the format of
the materials and the collaborative environment.
In GA, students used digital materials distributed
online (dictionary, digital images and explanatory video) and combined
face-to-face interaction with Flipgrid, accessed from their mobile devices. For the production of the videos
they relied on some functionalities of the generative AI tool Copilot (help
with image creation).
In GB the materials were printed (paper dictionary,
physical images and teacher's explanation), with all interaction taking place
face-to-face.
Table 1
Study approach (GA-Experimental class group. GB-
Control class group)
|
Stage |
Objective |
Resource |
|
Diagnosis |
Obtain information on initial level of fluency
and accuracy in students' oral expression in English. |
Standardised diagnostic test to be implemented at beginning of
school year. |
|
Implementations |
Oral language practice through group activities concluding with recording of video through Flipgrid in GA
and oral presentation in GB |
Session 1: Teachers provide one of the three
Cambridge English Assessment images mentioned above as starting point for
oral practice: vocabulary, grammatical structures, pronunciation and oral
interaction. GA accesses the image and instruction via Flipgrid on mobile,
while GB receives the image on paper with face-to-face instruction. The lexis
and language structures are worked on collaboratively. GA uses the online
Oxford dictionary and GB uses the printed classroom
dictionary. Each group then describes and interprets the image, structuring
an agreed story. Session 2: GA record their story on video and
share it on Flipgrid; GB present it orally in class. Afterwards, each group
creates a short story with four images, GA using AI (Copilot), and GB using
paper, recreating a communicative situation. GA records and shares the video
on Flipgrid, while GB gives an oral presentation in class. |
|
Evaluation / Verification |
Analyse student progress in English language speaking via
oral communication improvement and willingness to participate. |
End of term test carried out by teachers following
the same parameters as Cambridge English to evaluate student progress. |
3. Analysis and
results
The analysis of the equivalence of the groups in the pretest,
the results of which are shown in Table 2, reveal that the students in both
groups had a similar level at the beginning of the study. As the table shows,
no statistically significant differences were found (p>.05) between the
groups in any of the variables evaluated in the pretest.
Table 2
Difference of
means and statistical significance in pretest
|
|
Levene's test |
Experimental G. |
Control G. |
Statistical Significance |
|||||
|
Dimensions |
F |
p |
M |
SD |
M |
SD |
t |
df |
p |
|
PreA |
.00 |
.97 |
6.20 |
1.64 |
5.45 |
1.64 |
1,447 |
38 |
.156 |
|
PreB |
.11 |
.74 |
5.65 |
1.98 |
4.85 |
1.81 |
1,332 |
38 |
.191 |
|
PreC |
1.63 |
.21 |
4.15 |
2.30 |
3.45 |
1.79 |
1,074 |
38 |
.290 |
|
PreD |
1.31 |
.26 |
3.55 |
2.14 |
2.95 |
1.76 |
.968 |
38 |
.339 |
|
PreTotal |
.00 |
.97 |
6.20 |
1.64 |
5.45 |
1.64 |
1,447 |
38 |
.221 |
The posttest results for the
Experimental and Control groups for each of the dimensions and the total scores
were those shown in Table 2.
Table 3
Means and standard
deviation in posttest
|
|
Experimental Group |
Control Group |
||
|
Dimensions |
M |
SD |
M |
SD |
|
PostA |
7.60 |
1.39 |
6.40 |
1.54 |
|
PostB |
6.60 |
1.88 |
5.50 |
1.82 |
|
PostC |
5.15 |
2.37 |
3.65 |
2.03 |
|
PostD |
4.05 |
2.14 |
3.05 |
1.85 |
|
PostTotal |
23.40 |
7.15 |
18.60 |
6.95 |
A repeated measurements analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
then performed to evaluate the effect of the ‘Intra’ factor and its interaction
with the ‘Between’ factor on the A, B, C, D and Total variables, the results of
which are shown in Table 3.
The analyses revealed a significant main effect of the
‘Intra’ factor on variables A, B, C, and Total (p<.001; Table 4), indicating
that scores in these variables increased, as can be seen when comparing pre-
and post-test scores (Tables 2 and 3) for each variable. However, no
significant effect of the ‘Intra’ factor was found for variable D (p=.154).
After the programme was applied, changes were significantly greater in the
experimental group across all variables (p<.05 in all cases) (Tables 2 and
3). Regarding effect sizes, they were large for the ‘Intra’ variable in A, B,
and Total, moderate for C, and small for D. The effect size for the interaction
between both factors ranged from small to moderate in all variables where the
interaction was significant.
Table 4
Summary of ANOVA of repeated measurements for
variables studied
|
Dimensions |
|
Type III Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
p-value |
Partial Eta Squared |
|
A |
Intra |
27.61 |
1 |
27.61 |
178.60 |
.000 |
.82 |
|
Intra*Entre |
1.01 |
1 |
1.01 |
6.55 |
.015 |
.15 |
|
|
Error(Intra) |
5.88 |
38 |
.15 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
|
B |
Intra |
12.80 |
1 |
12.80 |
129.71 |
0,000 |
.77 |
|
Intra*Entre |
.45 |
1 |
.45 |
4.56 |
0,039 |
.11 |
|
|
Error(Intra) |
3.75 |
38 |
.10 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
|
C |
Intra |
7.20 |
1 |
7.20 |
36.00 |
0,000 |
0.49 |
|
Intra*Entre |
3.20 |
1 |
3.20 |
16.00 |
0,000 |
0.30 |
|
|
Error(Intra) |
7.60 |
38 |
0.20 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
|
D |
Intra |
1.80 |
1 |
1.80 |
2.12 |
0,154 |
0.05 |
|
Intra*Entre |
0.80 |
1 |
0.80 |
8.94 |
0,005 |
0.19 |
|
|
Error(Intra) |
3.40 |
38 |
0.09 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
|
Total |
Intra |
165.31 |
1 |
165.31 |
345.63 |
0,000 |
0.90 |
|
Intra*Entre |
19.01 |
1 |
19.01 |
39.75 |
0,000 |
0.51 |
|
|
Error(Intra) |
18.18 |
38 |
0.48 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
Graphically, all of the above can be clearly observed in the following
figures.
Figure 1
Group
Control group Experimental group Time. Estimated
marginal means for dimension A
Source: own elaboration
Figure 2
Estimated marginal means for dimension B
Source: own elaboration
Figure 3
Estimated marginal means for dimension C
Source: own elaboration
Figure 4
Estimated marginal
means for dimension D
Source: own elaboration
Figure 5
Estimated marginal means for Total dimension
Source: own elaboration
The difference between the two groups in these three
aspects is reflected in their progress rates. GA shows significant improvement
in motivation and reduced anxiety, which positively influences their
willingness to communicate. In contrast, GB shows minimal progress in reducing
foreign language anxiety and motivation, resulting in a low willingness to
communicate.
These results confirm the initial hypothesis about the
positive impact of virtual collaborative tools and environments on oral
expression and motivation to communicate in English.
Regarding performance levels, the degree of
acquisition in each area of oral competence was measured at three levels:
advanced, intermediate, and basic (Table 5). Additionally, teachers provided
each student with detailed feedback, highlighting both improved aspects and
those requiring further development.
Table 5
Results of the practical sessions
|
|
|
Practice 1 |
Practice 2 |
Practice 3 |
|||||||||
|
|
|
GA n=20 |
GB n=20 |
GA n=20 |
GB n=20 |
GA n=20 |
GB n=20 |
||||||
|
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Fluency |
Advanced |
3 |
15 |
2 |
10 |
3 |
15 |
6 |
30 |
7 |
35 |
8 |
40 |
|
Intermediate |
10 |
50 |
10 |
50 |
10 |
50 |
10 |
50 |
10 |
50 |
11 |
55 |
|
|
Basic |
7 |
35 |
8 |
40 |
7 |
35 |
4 |
20 |
3 |
15 |
1 |
5 |
|
|
Vocabulary |
Advanced |
4 |
20 |
5 |
50 |
10 |
50 |
9 |
45 |
16 |
80 |
15 |
75 |
|
Intermediate |
13 |
65 |
14 |
70 |
11 |
55 |
10 |
50 |
3 |
15 |
4 |
20 |
|
|
Basic |
2 |
10 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
|
|
Grammar |
Advanced |
3 |
15 |
4 |
20 |
6 |
30 |
7 |
35 |
12 |
60 |
12 |
60 |
|
Intermediate |
12 |
60 |
13 |
65 |
11 |
55 |
11 |
55 |
8 |
40 |
9 |
45 |
|
|
Basic |
5 |
25 |
4 |
20 |
3 |
15 |
2 |
10 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
|
|
Pronunciation |
Advanced |
3 |
15 |
4 |
20 |
4 |
20 |
6 |
30 |
9 |
45 |
8 |
40 |
|
Intermediate |
10 |
50 |
10 |
50 |
11 |
55 |
14 |
70 |
10 |
50 |
10 |
50 |
|
|
Basic |
6 |
30 |
7 |
35 |
5 |
25 |
2 |
10 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
10 |
|
The results of the three educational interventions
(practices) conducted during the first term reflect faster progress in GA
compared to GB. In GA, the use of Flipgrid extends the physical classroom and
facilitates collaboration and interaction with the teacher in a flexible
virtual environment. Additionally, it incorporates a playful, gamified and
creative dimension that fosters greater student engagement, promoting active
roles such as creator, evaluator (providing feedback), and researcher, thus
enhancing their learning and participation.
Progress was evaluated by comparing the final
assessment results in both groups, analysing student productions (videos on
Flipgrid and in-class performances), as well as observing and assessing their
oral interventions in different contexts: in a cooperative group, in the
general class group, and in interaction with the teacher.
The difference in progress between the two groups is
evident from the first educational intervention. Although faster progress is
observed in GA across all evaluated aspects of oral skills, the greatest
difference lies in fluency and pronunciation. The use of Flipgrid in GA
facilitates faster and greater progress to the advanced level in these aspects
compared to GB.
In Practice 3, over 50% of students using Flipgrid
achieved an intermediate or advanced level in all four evaluated areas of oral
expression. However, although GB also shows progress, the number of students
reaching an advanced level is lower than in GA. This difference is particularly
significant in the final test (Table 3), where significant progress is observed
in all four evaluated areas.
The results also reflect increased motivation and
reduced anxiety in GA thanks to the use of Flipgrid via mobile devices (Table
6). The application allows for detailed monitoring of student work, including
time and frequency of connections, with an increase in oral practice outside
the classroom being observed. As of the first practical, 50% of GA students
connected regularly and for extended periods to create and view their peers'
videos.
Table 6
Improvement in motivation and anxiety in Group A
|
|
|
n=20 |
% |
|
Practice 1 |
Frequent
and extensive connections to Flipgrid outside the classroom. |
10 |
50 |
|
Final video
interventions exceeding one minute. |
6 |
30 |
|
|
Peer
feedback videos exceeding one minute. |
6 |
30 |
|
|
Practice 2 |
Frequent
and extensive connections to Flipgrid outside the classroom. |
14 |
70 |
|
Final video
interventions exceeding one minute. |
12 |
60 |
|
|
Peer
feedback videos exceeding one minute. |
10 |
50 |
|
|
Practice 3 |
Frequent
and extensive connections to Flipgrid outside the classroom. |
20 |
100 |
|
Final video
interventions exceeding one minute. |
17 |
85 |
|
|
Peer
feedback videos exceeding one minute. |
18 |
90 |
The progress between Practice 1 and Practice 3 shows considerable
evolution, suggesting that mobile use has increased motivation and reduced
anxiety about making mistakes. 100% of students connected to Flipgrid outside
the classroom to continue speaking practice, and peer feedback videos exceeding
one minute reflect the cohesion achieved in the class group.
Regarding focus groups, the results show no intragroup
differences, with three main metacodes emerging:
language learning anxiety, motivation, and willingness to communicate (Table
7). The difference between the two groups lies in their progress rates, with GA
showing more notable advances in motivation and reduced anxiety thanks to the
use of Flipgrid in and outside class, which improves their willingness to
communicate. Conversely, GB shows minimal progress in anxiety and motivation
due to the lack of digital tools, resulting in a low willingness to
communicate.
Table 7
Metacodes, codes, and exemplary quotes
|
|
|
Code |
Exemplary quotes |
N=20 |
% |
|
|
Metacode |
Anxiety |
Reducing nerves before speaking. |
“Flipgrid's easy; it’s like TikTok.”(GFA1B) |
18 |
90 |
GA |
|
“I like making videos with Flipgrid and laughing
making them.”(GFA2G) |
17 |
85 |
||||
|
Reducing fear of understanding oral messages |
“I like doing activities like this with my group.”(GFB2B) |
15 |
75 |
|||
|
“I can understand more words from my classmates
and the teacher.”(GFA1G) |
17 |
85 |
||||
|
Motivation |
Enthusiasm in the classroom |
“It’s cool using mobiles to make videos and
images.”(GFA1B) |
20 |
100 |
||
|
“We all brought costumes and things for the
videos.”(GFB2G) |
18 |
90 |
||||
|
Interest outside the classroom |
“We repeated what we had to say at home because
we wanted Likes.”(GFA1G) |
17 |
85 |
|||
|
“I loved using videos to comment on others’ work
in class and at home”(GFA1B) |
20 |
100 |
||||
|
Willingness to communicate |
Work group |
“It was fun listening to my group mates speaking
English.” (GFA1B) |
16 |
80 |
||
|
“We liked learning new words and using them to
describe images.”(GFA1G) |
16 |
80 |
||||
|
General class group |
“It’s really easy to watch and reply with
another video.” (GFA2B) |
20 |
100 |
|||
|
“I had a great time recording videos at home. I
laughed a lot.”(GFA1G) |
18 |
90 |
||||
|
Anxiety |
Reducing nerves before speaking. |
“I spoke in English with my group mates without
feeling nervous.” (GFB2G) |
9 |
45 |
GB |
|
|
“We laughed a lot when we couldn't say a new
word properly.”(GFB1B) |
10 |
50 |
||||
|
Reducing fear of understanding oral messages |
“I can understand the teacher’s instructions
better.”(GFB1G) |
10 |
50 |
|||
|
“I can easily understand what my classmates are
saying.”(GFB2G) |
8 |
40 |
||||
|
Motivation |
Enthusiasm in the classroom |
“I really wanted to act.”(GFB1B) |
8 |
40 |
||
|
“I really enjoyed preparing the decoration for
us to be the best.”(GFB2G) |
7 |
35 |
||||
|
Interest outside the classroom |
“We met at my house to do the story.”(GFB1B) |
9 |
45 |
|||
|
“We all looked for stuff in magazines, stickers
and images for the work.”(GFB2G) |
8 |
40 |
||||
|
Willingness to communicate |
Work group |
“I spoke loads of English in these classes. It
was cool”(GFB2G) |
5 |
25 |
||
|
“We put the learnt words in the work”.(GFB1B) |
6 |
30 |
||||
|
General class group |
“We laughed a lot when we didn't say something
correctly doing the story”.(GFB1G) |
6 |
30 |
|||
|
“I’ve never spoken so much English in my life.”(GFB2B) |
7 |
35 |
4. Discussion
This exploratory study, with a
sequential explanatory mixed design, investigated the impact of integrating the
collaborative virtual environment Flipgrid and the generative AI tool Copilot
for image creation on the development of oral expression and motivation towards
this skill in 1st-year ESO (compulsory secondary education) students. The
results confirm that the educational intervention supported by Flipgrid,
complemented with AI, had a positive impact on oral expression and motivation
towards learning English as a second language. The quantitative and qualitative
data show progress in the oral production of the student group whose learning
was mediated by technology, as well as higher motivation and lower anxiety in
oral participation, compared to the group whose learning was not mediated by
technology.
Regarding the first objective,
the pre-test applied to both groups revealed significant homogeneity in oral competence
levels at the start of the intervention in fluency, vocabulary, grammar, and
pronunciation, allowing the subsequent differences to be attributed to the
effect of the Flipgrid and Copilot tools rather than pre-existing differences.
The initial results align with Cohen’s (2012) study, which identified
difficulties in fluency and pronunciation associated with the articulation of
phonemes and prosodic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic elements. Despite
these difficulties, students demonstrated basic mastery of vocabulary and
grammar, enabling them to construct messages.
The analysis of the posttest,
the second objective, showed that the group whose learning was
technology-mediated experienced significant improvement in fluency, vocabulary,
and grammar, with this improvement being greater than that of the
non-technology-mediated group. This suggests that Flipgrid provided a friendly
and secure collaborative virtual space to practice oral expression (Hanifa,
2018; Lyrigkou, 2019), fostering experimentation with
the language and repetitive, deliberate and contextualised
practice, essential for developing L2 oral competence (Gill-Simmen, 2021;
Lowenthal & Moore, 2020). During the first term, the technology-mediated
group progressed rapidly in fluency and pronunciation, with the majority
reaching an intermediate or advanced level in all four dimensions of oral
expression, while progress for the non-technology-mediated group was less
pronounced. Flipgrid facilitated more effective and
efficient oral practice. However, the post-test showed no significant
improvement in pronunciation, suggesting the need for other specific
ICT-mediated pedagogical strategies for this skill.
The analysis of the third
objective revealed that both groups shared metacodes
related to anxiety and willingness to communicate. Despite this, the
technology-mediated group showed greater predisposition towards oral
interaction, lower anxiety, and higher motivation for learning, both inside and
outside the classroom. These results align with research highlighting the
importance of psycho-affective factors in second language learning (Hinkel,
2005).
The creation of dynamic,
collaborative, and technology-enriched learning environments promoted
continuous and flexible learning, reducing anxiety and increasing motivation
and communicative skills (Gill-Simmen, 2021; Payne, 2019). Students valued the
use of mobile devices and tools like Flipgrid, while the generative AI tool,
via the provision of ideas and immediate feedback, enhanced their autonomy and
turned them into active agents of their learning, improving their motivation.
In contrast, the group whose learning was not mediated by technology showed
lower motivation and less reduction in anxiety.
The introduction of playful
elements in interactions with mobile devices and the use of Flipgrid and
Copilot generated motivation, fostered interest, and reduced anxiety (Dashtestani, 2016; Fombona Cadavieco & Rodil Pérez,
2018). By perceiving it as a game,
students found the activity intrinsically motivating (Chust-Pérez
& Esteve-Faubel, 2022).
The results confirm that
m-learning is a valuable resource in education (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010; Fallahkhair et al., 2007), encouraging autonomy and
bridging the classroom with adolescent reality. Additionally, it transforms
attitudes towards learning by offering flexible access to materials and
interactive feedback (Milrad & Jackson, 2008;
Stockwell, 2010). When used with appropriate methodology and under teacher
supervision, mobile devices can be important tools for innovating teaching and
expanding learning scenarios by connecting with reality.
This study also showed an
increase in time spent on videos outside the classroom and in app usage, which favours oral practice (Hwang et al., 2016). Moreover,
audiovisual feedback enhances comprehension, cooperation, and critical
thinking. In this regard, Flipgrid facilitates collaborative learning, reduces
errors and strengthens motivation, provided it is integrated with proper
didactic planning. Thus, the use of mobile devices, along with tools like
Flipgrid and Copilot, has not only reinforced English learning but also
stimulated student creativity and teamwork.
5. Conclusions
The study confirms that the
use of mobile devices (m-learning) and collaborative, communicative, and
generative AI applications, within a well-structured teaching proposal,
improves oral expression and motivation in 1st-year ESO students learning
English as a second language. This approach fosters autonomy, connects the
classroom with adolescent reality, and extends oral practice outside the
classroom thanks to flexible access to materials and constant feedback.
Applications and audiovisual
feedback not only strengthen comprehension and critical thinking but also,
through collaborative tools like Flipgrid, promote group learning, reduce
errors, and reinforce motivation. To maximise these
benefits, it is essential for teachers to implement active methodologies and
integrate technology in a structured and meaningful way.
However, the study has
limitations related to the sample, which may hinder the generalisation
of the conclusions obtained to very different
educational contexts. A longitudinal follow-up of participants is not possible,
either, as the organisational dynamics of secondary
schools involve regrouping students when they move up to the 2nd year of ESO,
preventing the evaluation of the persistence or evolution of the intervention’s
effects in the medium or long term.
Although the study
demonstrates improvements in oral expression, it is important to note the
absence of significant progress in student pronunciation. This does not
invalidate the intervention but serves as an indicator of the need to research
and develop more specific and effective pedagogical approaches for teaching
English phonetics and phonology.
To this end, it is necessary to design and validate focused didactic strategies,
including those supported by ICT to offer adaptive
practice or individualised feedback. Exploring the generalisation of these results and their long-term impact
is crucial, taking advantage of the potential of m-learning to stimulate
creativity, flexibility, and teamwork.
Finally, to improve
pronunciation, the systematic use of minimal pairs should be considered,
facilitating auditory discrimination and the production of sounds particularly
challenging for Spanish speakers, such as the distinction between /ɪ/ and
/iː/. Furthermore, structured exercises in
active listening and guided repetition such as songs, short poems and rhymes
should be implemented to help students internalise
the intonation patterns and rhythm characteristic of the English language.
Constructive feedback should also be ensured to address phonemes absent in
Spanish such as /θ/, /ð/ and the aspirated /h/, through explicit and playful introduction
via phonetic games or motivating activities.
Author
contributions
Conceptualisation,
V.Ch.-P., J.M.E.-F.; Data curation, R.P.E.-F., M.C.F.-M.; Formal analysis,
V.Ch.-P., R.P.E.-F., M.C.F.-M., J.M.E.-F.; Investigation, V.Ch.-P.;
Methodology, V.Ch.-P., R.P.E.-F., M.C.F.-M., J.M.E.-F.; Project administration,
J.M.E.-F.; Resources, R.P.E.-F., M.C.F.-M.; Supervision, M.C.F.-M., J.M.E.-F.;
Validation, V.Ch.-P., R.P.E.-F.; Visualisation, M.C.F.-M., J.M.E.-F.;
Writing—original draft, V.Ch.-P., R.P.E.-F., M.C.F.-M., J.M.E.-F.;
Writing—review and editing, V.Ch.-P., R.P.E.-F., J.M.E.-F., M.C.F.-M.
Funding
This research has not
received external funding
Data Availability
Statement
The data set used in this study is available at reasonable request to the
corresponding author
Ethics approval
Not aplicable
Consent for publication
The author has consented to the publication of the results obtained by
means of the corresponding consent forms
Conflicts of interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest
Derechos y permisos
Open Access. This article is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made.
References
Agenda 2030 UNESCO. (2016). Incheon declaration and Framework for action for the implementation of
Sustainable Development Goal 4. Towards inclusive and equitable quality
education and lifelong learning opportunities for all. Education 2030.
UNESCO. Retrieved 25 February 2023 from https://goo.su/XAY1eD
Arredondo Ruiz, C. (2017). Análisis de las concepciones del
profesorado de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y Bachillerato sobre la
Didáctica de la Lengua oral: estudio de caso. Revista de Educación de la Universidad de Granada, 24, 81-97.
Baker, W., & Fang, F. (2021). ‘So maybe I’m a global citizen’: developing
intercultural citizenship in English medium education. Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 34(1),
1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1748045
Barroso Osuna, J. M., &
Cabero Almenara, J. (2013). Replanteando el e-learning: hacia el e-learning
2.0. Campus Virtuales, 2(2), 76-87.
Bisquerra Alzina, R. (Ed.). (2004). Metodología de la investigación educativa. Muralla.
Cabero Almenara, J. (2006).
Bases pedagógicas del e-learning. RUSC, Universities & Knowledge Society, 3(1).
https://goo.su/ufEpY
Cebreiro López. B.. Fernández Morante. M. d. C..
& Casal Otero. L. (2019). Tecnologías emergentes y metodologías didácticas:
dos ejes básicos para el éxito educativo. In M. A. Santos Rego. A. Valle Arias.
& M. d. M. Lorenzo Moledo (Eds.). Éxito educativo: claves de
construcción y desarrollo (pp. 173-196). Tirant Humanidades.
Chust-Pérez. V. & Esteve-Faubel.
R. P. (2022). Las canciones como apoyo
didáctico para la enseñanza del inglés en la ESO. In C. Gonzálvez
Macià. R. Sanmartín López. & M. Vicent Juan (Eds.). Nuevos retos
educativos e investigación interdisciplinaria (pp. 77-93). Aula
Magna/McGraw-Hill Interamericana de España.
Cohen, A. D. (2012). Comprehensible Pragmatics: Where
Input and Output Come Together. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and
teaching (pp. 249-261). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20850-8_16
Consejo de la Unión Europea.
(2018). Recomendación del Consejo, de 22
de mayo de 2018, relativa a las competencias clave para el aprendizaje
permanente (Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE.). Bruselas: Unión Europea
Retrieved from https://goo.su/6YpUZMD
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
Dashtestani, R. (2016). Moving bravely towards mobile
learning: Iranian students' use of mobile devices for learning English as a
foreign language. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 29(4),
815-832. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1069360
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of
individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4(3),
275-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400305
El-Hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010).
Defining Mobile Learning in the Higher Education Landscape. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.13.3.12
Fallahkhair, S., Pemberton,
L., & Griffiths, R. (2007). Development of a cross‐platform ubiquitous language learning service via
mobile phone and interactive television. Journal
of computer assisted Learning, 23(4),
312-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00236.x
Fernández Sesma, M. G., Alvarez Flores, E. P., &
Reyes Arias, K. (2023). Enseñanza
del idioma inglés en educación primaria: Fortalecimiento de vocabulario y
pronunciación a través de podcast. Pixel-Bit. Revista de
Medios y Educación, 68, 245-272. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.100107
Fombona Cadavieco,
J., & Rodil Pérez, F. J. (2018). Niveles de uso y aceptación de los
dispositivos móviles en el aula. Pixel-Bit: Revista de
medios y educación, 52, 21-35.
https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2018.i52.02
Gill-Simmen, L. (2021). Using Padlet in instructional
design to promote cognitive engagement: a case study of undergraduate marketing
students. Journal of Learning Development
in Higher Education, (20). https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi20.575
Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies: Mobile
apps for language learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 15(2),
2-11. https://doi.org/10125/44244
Hanifa, R. (2018). Factors generating anxiety when
learning EFL speaking skills. Studies in
English Language and Education, 5(2),
230-239. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i2.10932
Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol.
III). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716893
Hwang, W.-Y., Shih, T. K., Ma, Z.-H., Shadiev, R., & Chen, S.-Y. (2016). Evaluating listening
and speaking skills in a mobile game-based learning environment with
situational contexts. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 29(4),
639-657. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016438
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2017). Assessing English
as a Lingua Franca. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S.
May (Eds.), Language Testing and
Assessment (pp. 103-117). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_7
Juan-Lázaro, O., & Area-Moreira, M. (2021). Gamificación superficial en e-learning:
evidencias sobre motivación y autorregulación. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 62, 146-181. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.82427
Lowenthal, P. R., & Moore, R. L. (2020). Exploring
student perceptions of Flipgrid in online courses. Online Learning Journal, 24(4),
28-41. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2335
Lyrigkou, C. (2019). Not
to be overlooked: agency in informal language contact. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(3), 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1433182
Masuram, J., & Sripada, P. N. (2020). Developing
Speaking Skills Through Task-Based Materials. Procedia Computer Science,
172, 60-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.009
Milrad, M., & Jackson, M. H. (2008). Designing and
implementing educational mobile services in university classrooms using smart
phones and cellular networks. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 24(1),
84-91.
Okada, Y., Sawaumi, T., & Ito, T. (2018). How do
speech model proficiency and viewing order affect Japanese EFL learners’
speaking performances. Computer Assisted
Language Learning Electronic Journal,
19(2), 61-81. http://callej.org/journal/19-2.html
Payne, L. (2019). Student engagement: three models for
its investigation. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 43(5), 641-657.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1391186
Petersen, J. B., Townsend, S. D., & Onak, N.
(2020). Utilizing Flipgrid Application on Student Smartphones in a Small-Scale
ESL Study. English Language Teaching, 13(5), 164-176. https://doi.org/
10.5539/elt.v13n5p164
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory
for the digital age. International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10. Retrieved January 10, 2024,
from https://goo.su/aQMMDd
Stockwell, G. (2010). Using mobile phones for
vocabulary activities: Examining the effect of platform. Language Learning & Technologvy, 14(2), 95-110.
Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as
extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302-321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401200016X
Tsou, W. (2005). Improving speaking skills through
instruction in oral classroom participation. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1),
46-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02452.x
Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2022). Types, purposes, and
effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 696-742. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1744666