Article

Flipping the Foreign Higher Education for the Future

2(2) 114–125
Language Classroom ©2015 The Kerala State
Higher Education Council
and Critical Pedagogies: SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
A (New) Old Trend DOI: 10.1177/2347631115584122
http://hef.sagepub.com

Maite Correa1

Abstract
Since the foundation of the Khan Academy (2006), a great deal of attention has
been generated to the term flipped classrooms (also known as reverse or back-
wards classrooms), which is a (new) pedagogical movement that reverses the
traditional paradigm of class lecture and homework. This approach subordinates
teacher-centred lectures to a secondary level of importance and proposes that
lectures should be carried outside of class time in the form of screencasts/video
recordings that students can watch at home. As a consequence, this newly freed
class time can be used for discussion, questions and assisting students with mean-
ingful practice and hands-on activities.
  This article first defines what a flipped foreign language (FL) classroom is, and
what it is not. The discussion then moves to the fundamental tenets of critical
pedagogy (following Vygotsky and Freire), namely: (a) the opposition between
banking education and problem-posing education, (b) scaffolding and the zone of
proximal development (ZPD) and (c) accountability of the student’s own learn-
ing. It is argued that flipped classrooms and problem-posing models of education
are in fact two sides of the same coin. Then, the author addresses some of the
most common concerns among FL instructors regarding the flip and proposes
possible solutions. Finally, the limitations are discussed.

Keywords
Critical pedagogy, second language teaching, applied linguistics, flipped classrooms,
scaffolding, banking education

1
Associate Professor, Foreign Languages, Literatures and Cultures, Colorado State University,
USA.

Corresponding author:
Maite Correa, Associate Professor, Foreign Languages, Literatures and Cultures, Colorado State
University, United States Campus Delivery 1774, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1774, USA.
E-mail: maite.correa@colostate.edu

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

Correa 115

The History of the Flipped Classroom

In the early 1990s, after realizing that his lectures were not as effective as they
should be, a physics professor at Harvard named Eric Mazur designed what he
called peer instruction, a teaching strategy in which homework was completed in
the class and lectures (readings) were done at home (Crouch & Mazur, 2001;
Mazur, 1997). The main idea of this reversal was to give students a chance to be
actively questioned instead of being passively told (Mazur, 2009, p. 51). In the
late 1990s, a group of economics professors added a multimedia component (stu-
dents watched the pre-recorded lectures instead of doing the readings) and called
it inverted classrooms (Lage, Platt & Treglia, 2000). That same year, this new type
of classroom was also implemented by Baker (2000), who renamed it flipped
classroom. In 2007, high school chemistry teachers Jonathan Bergmann and
Aaron Sams decided to record their slideshow lectures using screen capture soft-
ware (instead of recording themselves giving the lecture) and started presenting
their flipped model throughout the US (although their book did not come out until
2012). At around the same time, Salman Khan—a hedge fund analyst who had
been recording mathematics instructional videos for his cousins—created the
Khan Academy, which became known worldwide after he told its story in his TED
talk in 2011.
As we can see, although the concept has been adapted and renamed, it still has
the same principle as its core: What traditionally has been taking place inside the
classroom now takes place outside the classroom and vice versa. In the rest of this
article, these educational strategies will be referred as flipping, as it is the term
that has been gaining strength in the past five years.
It is important to note that the motivation behind this flip goes beyond the when
and where of instruction. As Foertsch, Moses, Strikwerda & Litzkow (2002) and
Bergmann & Sams (2012) argue, this reversal is mostly concerned with (a) the
attention that is given to the role of the learner in the classroom and (b) the
enhancement of their learning experience:

If students ask questions of the professor or engage in constructive discussion with the
professor and other students during the lecture, the lecture becomes more interactive,
and, therefore, more worth the time that everyone is spending together. But if students
do not ask any questions, as is all too often the case during lectures in large courses,
particularly in science and mathematics based disciplines, the face-to-face time is
essentially wasted. Most students would have done just as well to read the professor’s
lecture notes or view a videotape of the lecture on their own time. (Foertsch et al.,
2002, p. 267)

In what follows, the author discusses the limits of what a flipped classroom is
and establishes the parallels between this pedagogical approach and the basic
principles of Vygotskian and Freirean critical pedagogy. Then, some of the com-
mon concerns that language instructors might experience about the flip are
addressed and the limitations of this approach are identified.

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

116 Higher Education for the Future 2(2)

Is It Online/Distance Learning? What About Hybrid

Courses? What the Flipped Classroom Is and Is Not.
The advent of technology has brought about significant changes to foreign lan-
guage (FL) teaching and learning practices, one of which is the mode of delivery.
Based on the distribution of contact hours spent face-to-face or online, courses
can be divided into three types:

1. Traditional courses: Although they can be technologically enhanced, all

contact hours are face-to-face.
2. Hybrid courses (also called blended courses): Approximately 25–50 per
cent of the contact hours are delivered online and the remaining hours are
face-to-face.
3. Online courses: All the contact hours are delivered online.

Although some classifications might include the flipped classroom in the

hybrid category, the author considers that the flipped classroom is still a special
form of traditional course since the totality of contact hours is delivered face-to-
face (vs. the hybrid courses where a percentage of face-to-face time is replaced by
online activities).
In order to understand what the flipped classroom is, it is important to first
clarify a few of the popular notions that some teachers have about what it is or is not.
Bergmann, Overmyer and Wilie (2012) clarify that the flipped classroom is not:
(a) about replacing teachers with videos, (b) an online course, (c) students working
without structure, (d) students spending the entire class staring at a computer
screen or (e) students working in isolation. Instead, the flipped classroom is a
class/environment where (adapted from Bergmann et al. (2012) and Bennet, Kern,
Gudenrath & McIntosh [2012]):

1. Students take ownership of the material and use their knowledge to lead
one another without prompting from the teacher (a constructivist class-
room where students become active learners).
2. Interaction and personalized contact time between students and teachers is
increased.
3. The teacher is not the sage on the stage, but the guide on the side.
4. Collaborative work is fluid with students shifting between various simulta-
neous discussions depending on their needs and interests.
5. Student-led tutoring and collaborative learning forms spontaneously.
6. Students ask exploratory questions and have the freedom to delve beyond
core curriculum.
7. Content is permanently archived for review or remediation.

Further, the most important difference between flipped classrooms and other
types of technology-enhanced courses (online, hybrid or traditional) is that the

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

Correa 117

former are designed not only to allow for extra time for students to interact with
each other but also to humanize the classroom:

[T]he more interesting thing is—and this is the unintuitive thing when you talk about tech-
nology in the classroom—by removing the one-size-fits-all lecture from the classroom and
letting students have a self-paced lecture at home, and then when you go to the classroom,
letting them do work, having the teacher walk around, having the peers actually be able to
interact with each other, these teachers have used technology to humanize the classroom.
They took a fundamentally dehumanizing experience—30 kids with their fingers on their
lips, not allowed to interact with each other. A teacher, no matter how good, has to give this
one-size-fits-all lecture to 30 students—blank faces, slightly antagonistic—and now it’s a
human experience. Now they’re actually interacting with each other. (Khan, 2011, [np])

What follows is a comparison between the typical allocation of time in a tradi-

tional and a flipped classroom (note that these are only estimates and could vary
considerably depending on teaching approach).
As sample time breakdown in Figures 1–4 shows, flipping classroom and
homework time (keeping lecture and reading time constant) still allows for

Home Time Usage (6–9 hrs)

42% Readings
58% Exercise/Activities

Figure 1. Traditional Classroom: Time Breakdown at Home

Source: Compiled by the author.

Class Time Usage (3 hrs)

Warm-Up/Cool-Down
11% 14%
Lecture
17%
Discussion of questions

Exercises/Activities
8%
50%
Formal/Informal Assesment

Figure 2. Traditional Classroom: Time Breakdown in Class

Source: Compiled by the author.

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

118 Higher Education for the Future 2(2)

Home Time Usage (6–9 hrs)

6%
Reading
15% Watch lectures (no more
than 15 minutes each)
Low-Stakes
58% assessment/controlled
21%
exercises (self-corrected)
Prepare qusestions

Figure 3. Flipped Classroom: Time Breakdown at Home

Source: Compiled by the author.

Class Time Usage

(3 sessions of 50 mins)

14% Warm Up
20%
Interactive Lecture
10%
Discuss questions about lecture
Facilitated/Interactive
13% problem solving
43% Formal/Informal Assessment

Figure 4. Flipped Classroom: Time Breakdown in Class

Source: Compiled by the author.

facilitated problem solving and discussion time in class. In the next section,
several pedagogical advantages of this shift are provided.

Parallels Between the Flipped Classroom and

Critical Pedagogy/Sociocultural Theories
Vygotsky, Freire and more recently Giroux, among others, proposed socio-
constructivist theories of learning that reformulate the role of teachers as facilitators
(and not transmitters) of knowledge. According to those theories, in order to
construct knowledge, experienced people (be it the teacher or other classmates)

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

Correa 119

help others fill a gap in their knowledge that would be impossible to fill in isolation.
This construction of knowledge does not happen as the teacher deposits information
into the student through one-way lecturing, but through reflection and discussion
among participants (regardless of their role in the classroom).
Transformative approaches pedagogy and the flipped classroom have several
parallels in common relative to FL instruction, such as:

1. The classroom as a place for learning (vs. a place for teaching). It is widely
accepted that language is not acquired passively. Unless interaction and
negotiation of meaning take place, input cannot become intake and no
acquisition will take place (Interaction Hypothesis, Long (1996)). With
this in mind, it is essential that the language learner is given the control to
practice with the language. If a significant amount of class time is spent
lecturing and drilling, how much time can be devoted to communicative
practice? The flipped classroom minimizes the teaching in the classroom
(what Freire (1970) calls banking of education) by assigning it at home,
and maximizes the learning time through discussion and interaction in the
classroom (problem-posing education).
2. Scaffolding. According to socio-cultural theories, language is socially
constructed and, as such, it is also dependent on the scaffolding support of
others (teachers or classmates). In order for language acquisition to happen,
ample opportunities for hypothesis testing and reorganization of prior
learning are needed. Although hypothesis forming can take place in
isolation, hypothesis testing has to occur through positive and negative
feedback, which is only available through meaningful interaction with
people who are able to provide it. The flipped classroom provides the
learner with time at home to form hypotheses and time in class to test them
with others (peers or the teacher).
3. Learner autonomy. When lectures are planned, it is difficult to improvise
and change the direction of the class (although not impossible). When
homework is assigned to be completed at home, addressing each of the stu-
dents’ needs might become challenging. However, when lectures are assigned
as homework and the activities are carried out in class, there is more room
for personalization of such activities. Instead of having everybody doing the
same activity, some students can be asked to take ownership of their learning
and design their own communicative activities to practice with.
4. Accessibility. The current educational system tends to punish those that do
not come to class or do not pay attention with lack of access to information.
Although some instructors might post their slides on the course webpage
for students to access, the explanation is still missing. In the case of an
excused absence (sports, sickness, travel…), it becomes the teacher’s duty
to set an appointment with the student to go over what was missed. Critical
pedagogy is, by nature, inclusive and accommodating: Those who did not
come or those who, for any reason did not come to class the day that some-
thing was explained, should have a chance to access that information. The
flipped classroom provides all the students with the same opportunities to

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

120 Higher Education for the Future 2(2)

access the same materials and uses class time to put in practice what has
been learned. One absence should not have a significant impact on the
students’ learning as long as they have opportunities for more practice (in
or outside the class).
5. Functioning knowledge (vs. declarative knowledge). The main objective
of learning is not memorizing, or even understanding at the verbal level
(being able to verbalize an understanding). Instead, as Biggs and Tang
(2011) explained, the main objective should be to understand at the perfor-
mative level (putting it to empowered use). In the case of language learn-
ing, this translates as the need for students to use the language in a
meaningful way, which goes beyond a banking model where the emphasis
is on memorizing paradigms or understanding how grammatical structure
works (even though these might be a necessary foundation to acquire the
desired functioning knowledge). The flipped classroom gives the students
the opportunity to deal with declarative knowledge at home and acquire
the functioning knowledge in class through practice and active learning.

As we can see, flipping the classroom is not about technology, but about
pedagogy. It is undeniable that technology can enhance the flipped classroom the
same way it can also enhance a lecture. The point of both this paradigm and
critical pedagogies is expanding the learning objectives by shifting the learning
responsibility to the student. Now, it is the student who, after digesting the lecture
at home, has to come to class and put that knowledge into meaningful practice.
The student, of course, is not alone: The teacher has now become a learning coach
(or facilitator, in critical pedagogical terms) who will scaffold and ‘guide them in
the discovery of knowledge’ (Bergmann & Sams, 2012, p. 6).

Pedagogical Advantages
There are multiple advantages associated with flipping the classroom, some of
which have already been mentioned:

1. Exposure to input/output. As the class time is devoted to practice (problem-

posing) instead of teacher-led recitation (banking model), exposure to
meaningful input is maximized and opportunities for output are multiplied
(vs. online or hybrid courses where contact hours are reduced, and with
them, interaction opportunities).
2. Humanization of the classroom. Ample chances to have meaningful, face-
to-face interactions with students allow the teacher to get to know the stu-
dents better and vice versa (vs. online instruction where this interaction is
almost non-existent).
3. Retention of material. Retention of material is significantly greater with
group discussion (50 per cent), individual practice (75 per cent) and
opportunities to teach others (90 per cent) than with lecture (5 per cent) or
demonstrations (30 per cent) (Lang & McBeath, 1992). As lecture and

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

Correa 121

demonstrations are done at home as homework, the flipped classroom

ensures that the class time is devoted to activities that increase retention.
4. Individual pacing. Watching lectures and reading materials at home allows
students to learn at their own pace and provides space for thoughtful reflec-
tion (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett & Norman, 2010). If there is
something that they have difficulty with, they can come back and re-watch
it at any time during the learning process. Or if the lecture is too slow for
them, students can also watch the lectures at double speed if they desire.
5. Meaningful interactions. While mechanical drills and other traditional
activities such as fill in the blanks can be done at home, class time can be
devoted to meaningful, open activities that put in practice what was learned
at home (making and interpreting meaning).
6. Differentiated teaching and personalization of instruction. Ample time for
the teacher to walk around the room allows the teacher to identify and pro-
vide scaffolded, personalized help to those students who struggle the most:
When we taught in the traditional manner, the students who tended to get
most of our attention were the best and brightest—students who would
raise their hands first and ask great questions. In the meantime, the rest
of the students would passively listen to the conversation we had with
the inquisitive students [….] We think this may be the single most impor-
tant reason students thrive in the flipped model. (Bergmann & Sams,
2012, p. 23)
7. Development of higher-order skills. While time at home can be individu-
ally dedicated to lower skills such as remembering or understanding, flip-
ping the classroom allows the student to engage in higher-order skills such
as applying, analyzing, evaluating or creating (see Figure 5). In this case,
students are creating knowledge instead of digesting someone else’s:
Why do we, in the status quo, replicate in person in our classrooms what
is easily available elsewhere, the content delivery/skill modelling, and

Traditional Classroom (Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy The Flipped Classroom

Anderson et al. 2001)
Home Reme- Home
Create mber
Evaluate Understand
Analyze Apply

Apply Analyze

Understand Evaluate
Remember Class Create Class

Figure 5. Inversion of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson, Krathwohl & Bloom, 2001) in the
Flipped Classroom
Source: Compiled by the author.

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

122 Higher Education for the Future 2(2)

then have kids apply their learning to difficult problems at home, without
us there to help? (Martin, 2010, [np]).
8. Transparency of instruction and parent/tutor involvement. As the lectures
are watched at home, students who choose to involve their parents or a
tutor in the learning process can do so.

Common Concerns and Potential Solutions

In spite of the many advantages that flipping the classroom seems to offer, teachers
who are willing to do the flip still express several implementation concerns,
such as:

1. Boring/not engaging lessons. In addition to the potential for video lessons

to be boring or bland, watching those videos at home without teacher
supervision may lead to more distractions than if they were in class. Fix:
Teachers should ensure the video lessons are short (no more than 15 minutes)
and they should avoid monotony through the use of multimedia and other
engaging content. Also, having the students do something as they watch
(taking notes or answering short questions) or afterwards (a short online
quiz) will help students take an active role.
2. Deeming teachers non-necessary. Many teachers may believe that flipping
the classroom might turn against them and become proof that their services
are not needed anymore. Fix: Teaching is more than just delivery of infor-
mation. The main point of the flip is to leave the most difficult/specialized
part of the teaching experience for face-to-face sessions (discussion, ques-
tions, demonstrations and other hands-on tasks). Although videos can
indeed replace teacher–student interactions in the form of lecture, they
cannot replace the richness of the many other interactions between all the
parties involved.
3. Students not watching the videos. Holding students responsible for watching
the videos at home might result in them coming to class without having done
it. Fix: Not watching the videos in a flipped setting would be analogous to
not doing homework in the old paradigm. There will always be some stu-
dents who come to class unprepared, regardless of the instructional approach.
Periodic reminders about the importance of coming prepared to class in
order to successfully complete the in-class projects are, thus, paramount.
4. Not everything can be taught online. Some materials and concepts are too
complex to be taught in a one-way video. Fix: It has been suggested that
not all lectures should be flipped and that some traditional lectures should
be maintained (Zappe, Leicht, Messner, Litzinger & Lee, 2009, p. 2). The
advantage of the flipped classroom (over online classes) is that it still
allows ample time for special in-class sessions.
5. This approach is passive. Watching videos at home is more passive than
watching a lecture in class. Fix: To the contrary, lectures are, by definition,

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

Correa 123

the most passive part of any given class, and that is why they should be
watched at home. It has been suggested that, since class time is devoted to
discussions, questions and hands-on activities that minimize passivity, less
lecturing can indeed lead to more effective learning (Warter-Perez & Dong,
2012, p. 16).
6. Insufficient (technological) resources. Schools with small budgets might
not have enough resources to produce the videos/materials needed. Fix:
The flipped classroom is not about technology, but about changing peda-
gogy in a meaningful way. There are a variety of tools that can be used on
a budget and still give good results. Also, videos produced by others could
be used (see next two points).
7. Insufficient time to produce the materials. Creating videos takes too much
time. Fix: Flipping a classroom takes time, but it can be accomplished in
the span of several years. Additionally, for some lessons, videos created by
other teachers could be used.
8. Using other teachers’ videos would be unethical. Some teachers might
think that using someone else’s video would be like having someone else
doing their job. Fix: Teachers consistently use textbooks and materials
authored by others. Given the constructivist nature of this pedagogical
approach, collaboration with other teachers (at the same or other institutions)
in the production of videos and other materials is highly encouraged.

Conclusion and Limitations

The basic tenets of flipped language classrooms have been presented and com-
pared to the main principles of critical pedagogy. Even though flipping the
classroom might seem like a radical idea for both students and teachers, this
article argues that flipping and critical pedagogy are, in fact, two sides of the
same coin when it comes to shifting learning responsibility to students, scaf-
folding and rejecting the banking model of education. Although critical peda-
gogy goes far beyond what happens in the classroom and it is much more than
a method or a teaching strategy, the author considers that the flipped classroom
is a reasonable place for students to start the process of critical reflection as they
move into action.
As with any pedagogical approach, there are challenges and limitations to the
flip as well. First, not every student will find it engaging. Indeed, it might be a
challenge for teachers to keep students interested in a format that, if not designed
correctly, can become as monotonous as any other. It needs to be emphasized
that using technology does not automatically make a class more pleasing or
interesting, that is, bad teaching is bad teaching regardless of the medium of
instruction. Thus, technology must be used in such a way that it enhances the
content being presented.
Second, teachers need to be aware that videos will inevitably become obso-
lete: Teaching needs to be constantly informed by feedback, and consequently,
reviewed and redesigned. Flipped classes are not an exception, and teachers

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

124 Higher Education for the Future 2(2)

need to be prepared to change the videos every 2 or 3 years to accommodate

changes in the curriculum.
Third, not all content can be delivered through video. It is the responsibility of
the teacher to decide which lectures need to be dialogical and interactive and
which ones are more amenable to one-way presentations. As with any other type
of teaching innovation, shifting between different teaching strategies might be
needed in order to find the best approach to each lesson.
Finally, in order for the flipped classroom to work as intended, it is essential to
keep class size to a minimum. In-class activities maximize student–teacher inter-
action and this cannot be accomplished if the teacher cannot address each student
individually on a daily basis.

References
Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M.K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., & Bloom, B.S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.
London, UK: Longman.
Baker, J.W. (2000). The ‘classroom flip’: Using web course management tools to become
the guide by the side. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on College
Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, FL.
Bennet, B., Kern, J., Gudenrath, A., & McIntosh, P. (2012, May 3). The flipped class
revealed. The Daily Riff. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/yLGixx
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class
every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J., & Wilie, B. (2012, April 14). The flipped class: Myths vs
reality. The Daily Riff. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/sOIS8x
Biggs, J.B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.).
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results.
American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977. doi:10.1119/1.1374249.
Foertsch, J., Moses, G., Strikwerda, J., & Litzkow, M. (2002). Reversing the lecture/
homework paradigm using eTEACH® web-based streaming video software. Journal
of Engineering Education, 91(3), 267–274. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00703.x
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogía del oprimido. (J. Mellado, Trans., 53rd ed.). Mexico D.F.:
Siglo XXI Editores.
Khan, S. (2011). Salman Khan: Let’s use video to reinvent education. Retrieved from http://
www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html
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.
doi:10.1080/00220480009596759
Lang, H.R., & McBeath, A. (1992). Fundamental principles and practices of teaching: A
practical theory-based approach to reflective planning and instruction. Regina, Sask.:
Faculty of Education, University of Regina.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bahtia (Eds), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016

Correa 125

Martin, J. (2010, November 7). Reverse instruction: Dan Pink and Karl’s ‘Fisch Flip’.
Retrieved 7 March 2013, from http://connectedprincipals.com/archives/1534
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
———. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323(5910), 50–51. doi:10.1126/science.1168927
Warter-Perez, N., & Dong, J. (2012). Flipping the classroom: How to embed inquiry and
design projects into a digital engineering lecture. Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE PSW
Section Conference.
Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., & Lee, H.W. (2009). ‘Flipping’ the
classroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course. Presented at
the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exhibition.
Retrieved from http://goo.gl/pnRRxY

Author’s bio-sketch

Maite Correa is an associate professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department

of Foreign Languages, Literatures and Cultures at the Colorado State University.
She teaches foreign language teaching methodology, introduction to Hispanic
linguistics and phonetics and phonology, among other courses. She has pub-
lished on educational linguistics, academic integrity, critical pedagogies and
heritage language learning.

Downloaded from hef.sagepub.com at Curtin University Library on July 26, 2016