CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39English Language Learning and TeachingInnovative Teaching MethodsEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

TPS-Flipgrid: Transforming EFL speaking class in the 21st century

Open access
Budiarta, I Komang, Santosa, Made Hery·2020·English Review: Journal of English Education
DOI 10.25134/erjee.v9i1.3824
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Innovative teaching model in the 21st century is of necessity because in this digital transformation era, lecturers deal with tech-savvy students. These students should be taught differently; it can be done by integrating teaching technique with newly-updated and technological-based media or platform. In English Education Study Program, the lecturer still made use of conventional technique and it was monotonous and uninteresting. The present qualitative research with case study design was mainly intended to fathom out the students’ perceptions and the benefits of implementing TPS-Flipgrid in EFL speaking class. The implementation of TPS-Flipgrid in the present qualitative research with case study design for the sake innovating EFL speaking class has brought the language learning into certain level. The research clearly figured out that the perception of the third semester students was positive. They thought that TPS-Flipgrid was an innovative and flexible teaching model; besides, this model could invite active involvement and equalize classroom and online face-to-face interaction. The teaching model has successfully improved the students’ speaking performances and their 21st century life skills such as collaboration, creativity, communication, and critical thinking. Considering the significant results of applying TPS-Flipgrid, the implementation of this teaching model should be continuously carried out and improved

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25134/erjee.v9i1.3824

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Arends, R. I. (2007). Learning to teach (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Compnaies, Inc.
  2. Arends, R. I. (2012). Learning to teach (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Compnaies, Inc.
  3. Argawati, N. O., & Suryani, L. (2017). Teaching writing using think-pair-share viewed from students' level of risk-taking. English Review: Journal of English Education, 6(1), 109-116. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v6i1.776.Received · DOI
  4. Budiarta, I. K. (2015). The efficacy of think-pair-share with peer assessment in improving writing skill and developing character of the teacher candidates. Jurnal Bakti Saraswati, 4(2), 191- 203.
  5. Fatimah, A. S., Santiana, & Saputra, Y. (2019). Digital comic: An innovation of using toondoo as media technology for teaching English short story. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7(2), 101-108. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v7i2.1526.Receive · DOI
  6. Pickering, G., & Gunashekar, P. (Eds.). (2014). Innovation in English language teacher education. New Delhi: British Council.
  7. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149. Retrieved from http://one2oneheights.pbworks.com/f/MISHRA _PUNYA.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Budiarta, I. K., & Santosa, M. H.
Affiliations
  • Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar (ID)
  • Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha (ID)
ORCID
Venue
English Review: Journal of English Education
Publisher
University of Kuningan
Published
2020-11-16
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
13-20
ISSN
  • 2301-7554 (ISSN-L)
  • 2541-3643
DOI
10.25134/erjee.v9i1.3824
OpenAlex
W4381740808
Cited by
23
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • English Review Journal of English Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • English Review Journal of English Education (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
Think Pair Share, Flipgrid, EFL speaking instruction, student perceptions, digital learning media, oral performance, 21st century skills, cooperative learning, English education students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review