A symmetrical continuum: flipped classrooms, semi-flipped classrooms and non-flipped classrooms

I have just read the article by Hung (2015) entitled “Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning”. The article presents Hungs’s work and expands the literature on the flipped classroom experience connecting it with active learning. It suggests that flipped and semi-flipped classrooms were more effective than non-flipped classrooms as they helped language learners attain better learning outcomes and better attitudes towards learning in is study. However, I find the design of the study to be a bit ill-structured. The researcher divided the participants into three groups (flipped classroom, semi-flipped classroom and non-flipped classroom) in order to examine the effect of flipped classrooms on English language learners’ academic performance, attitudes and their participation in learning procedures. I personally think that this way of grouping learners is not a sound basis for divining the effects of the flipped classroom. Traditional vs flipped classrooms can not easily be put at two ends on a continuum. How can we make sure that effects observed in the flipped classroom are due just the reverse of the traditional lecture layout? Was there any difference in regards to cognitive engagement required by assigned materials in both settings? How can we measure the cognitive engagement of the learning environments in the three designs individually?  How and to what extent do semi-flipped classrooms differ from flipped classrooms?  These were the questions for which I hoped to find an answer in the discussion but unfortunately I couldn’t. 

Hung, H-T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.