THE GLOBAL eLEARNING JOURNAL

VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2, 2016

Flipped Learning with Turkish Students:

Joel David Compton

Abstract
Flipped Learning is a rapidly expanding, popular methodology. It is becoming a talking point
at educational conferences and in academic studies, and its use is growing worldwide. As it
grows, certain questions surface which demand thoughtful consideration. Do issues arise in
the implementation of Flipped Learning in settings which could be considered culturally
diverse from the settings in which the movement began? If so, how should these be
addressed? In order to answer these questions, three studies based on Geert Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions were conducted in a Turkish foundation university context. The results
suggest that in order for the pedagogical assumptions of Flipped Learning to be accepted
and put to use, certain values could be discussed and behaviors developed and which would
build even more bridges between the learning philosophies of both student and teacher in
the MEF University English Language Preparatory Program. The results of this study will
prove beneficial in helping both parties identify what areas of disagreement or
misunderstanding might appear and how to effectively address these in order to create a
healthy learning environment.
Keywords: MEF University, Flipped Learning, Flipped Classroom, Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions, intercultural competence, educational cultural convergence (ECCO)

Introduction
Background to MEF University
The story of the start of MEF University is worth repeating as it highlights key concepts within a
student-centered education. In 2013 the rector, Prof. Dr. Muhammad Şahin, invited a select group of
seasoned academicians and then, at a later date, a group of students from some of the best
universities in Turkey. He explained to them what Flipped Learning entailed and asked them what
they thought. The results seemed to reveal a generational gap. The professors were not overly
impressed; however, students loved the idea. (Interestingly, this ad hoc survey seems to match with
more formal research performed in multiple undergrad and graduate settings [Bormann, 2014].) Dr.
Şahin trusted the students and MEF University opened its doors September 2014 to its first freshman
cohort as the “World’s First and Only Flipped University.”
Goals of this study
Particularly relevant for this study is the recently published study by the British Council, “The State of
English in Higher Education in Turkey” (2015). One of the eleven improvement recommendations
suggested is “communicative methodology”, and “all teachers should undergo training in techniques
for incorporating student-student interaction at every stage of the lesson, with speaking integrated into
every activity, regardless of the skill being practiced.” The potential impact of such a suggestion would
be increased motivation of the students and increased skills and confidence. Based on the Council’s
THE GLOBAL eLEARNING JOURNAL
2

suggestion, this study aims to bring such motivation, skills, and confidence to fruition through the
creation of an active classroom, via Flipped Learning.
Flipped Learning, though, is a creation of several American educators. Questions arise when the
context of such pedagogy is transported outside America. If “Cultural competence [is] an essential
aspect of classroom harmonious relations” (McKeown and Kurt, 2012) how will the Flipped Classroom
hurt or help the teacher and the student? Further, as McKeown and Kurt (2011) explain with the
“Educational Cultural Convergence” (ECCO) model, “intercultural competence is a way to address
cultural anxiety.” This study aims to show that identifying areas of possible dissonance in the
interaction of people from two different cultures will go a long way in creating intercultural
competence. Dealing constructively with these areas of dissonance would then set up the possiblity of
having a suitable environment for learning the English language. Establishing suitable environments
for learning the English language could become a renewable cultural resource.
Finally, this paper will not be a critique of the MEF University English Language Preparatory Program
(ELPP). It is also not a discussion of the pros and cons of Flipped Learning per se. The goal of this
study is to evaluate the attitudes that MEF University ELPP teachers and students have toward
Flipped Learning as well as on possible points of connection between these teachers (all foregin
passport holders) and students who are exclusively Turkish.
Deconstructing Flipped based on Hofstede’s Dimensions
A brief history of Flipped Learning
Flipped Learning has it’s origins in several educator’s works. Initially, in the late 1990s Eric Mazur
developed peer learning (2015). Dr. Mazur was concerned that his students understand the “whys” of
the formulas rather than just focusing on problem solving per se. Then there is the work of Alison King
(1993), who initiated the “guide on the side” terminology; Wes Baker (2000) and the “classroom flip”;
Lage, Platt, and Treglia (2000) and the “inverted classroom”; Salman Khan (2011) and the Khan
Acedemy in 2006; and, finally, Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams (2012). These latter three
educators (along with Eric Mazur) introduced videos into their teaching as pre-classroom work,
replacing the lecture. Following that development, Bergmann and Sams (2014) transitioned to
speaking of Flipped Learning which fulfills, at least for them, the ideal educational environment
produced by an equal mix of curiosity, content, and relationship along with instruction via web-based
technologies prior to class and face-to-face interaction in class.
The Flipped Network (2014) is also instrumental in promoting the advances of Flipped Learning.
According to the Network, Flipped Learning involves four pillars, following the acronym FLIP: (1)
flexible environment “where students choose when and where they learn”; (2) learning culture in
which “students are actively involved in knowledge construction”; (3) intentional content “in which
students develop conceptual understanding”; (4) and professional educator who is “less visibly
prominent… [but remains] the essential ingredient that enables Flipped Learning to occur.” The
Flipped Network defines Flipped Learning as “a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction
moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space
is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students
as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter.”
Finally, Bergmann and Sams (2014) talk repeatedly of “giving the control” over to the students. In fact,
they suggest that if a teacher must have control over his or her classroom, then that teacher shouldn’t
attempt flipping the class since this contradicts the Flipped Learning ideal which places the students
learning at the center. What Bergmann and Sams mean is that in a Flipped Learning environment,
classroom time should be devoted to more “student-directed and inquiry-based learning.”
Flipped Learning’s relationship to Hofstede’s scale
Following this brief introduction to Flipped Learning, a closer look at Flipped Learning vis-a-vis the
cultural dimensions established by Hofstede is essential. The questions and results from the surveys
are based on the work of Geert Hofstede, the Dutch social psychologist who pioneered the cultural
dimensions, as well as that of Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov (2010). Geert Hofstede came
up with the first four dimensions. The other two dimensions are based on the first four, and are useful
expansions. They include the work of Michael Harris Bond (1988), who, with support from Hofstede,
came up with Long-Term Orientation as well as the work of Michael Minkov (2007) who included
Indulgence.
 COMPTON
3

The following deconstruction is not of all Flipped Classrooms, but the Flipped Learning happening at
MEF University. Since all Flipped Classrooms are different, even those at MEF, this deconstruction is
preliminary. That said, it is vital that the attempt be made and then serve as a point of reference for
the students’ and teachers’ survey scores. Turkey’s results (and others) are also discussed for sake
of comparison.
First, Hofstede describes power distance (PD) as “the extent to which the less powerful members of
institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”
(Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). So, for example, Turkey has a higher score (66), which
means that people in Turkey tend to be “dependent, hierarchical” and the “superiors [are] often
inaccessible.” The “ideal boss is a father figure” and teachers are the center of the educational system
(Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). Flipped Learning, on the other hand, is decidedly low on the
PD dimension. It is student-centered and the focus in the classroom is on equality between teacher
and student—the two actors are focused on sharing knowledge. Solicitation of answers empowers the
student not the teacher. The teacher is a guide, not a sage. The teacher is alongside of the students
and not lecturing. As mentioned above, Bergmann and Sams (2014) note that relationship (and not
the strict maintenance of hierarchy) is essential to learning.
The second dimension is individualism (IND). This is “the degree of interdependence a society
maintains among its members” (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). So, in this dimension Turkey
(with a score of 37) is a “collectivistic society” in that the group’s value is more important than the
individual’s value. Further, in-groups such as “families, clans or organizations…look after each other
in exchange for loyalty” (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). Flipped Learning is higher on the
IND dimension. In Flipped Learning, individual scores matter, so even within group work, Mazur
(2015) and the MEF ELPP have developed rubrics which test the individual’s learning. Further,
working at one’s own pace is part of many Flipped mastery classrooms (Bergmann and Sams, 2012).
A higher score on individualism also means people’s personal opinions are solicited and encouraged.
The masculine (MAS) dimension is next and is defined as the range of motivation. Is it being the best
(masculine) or liking the job (feminine)? Hofstede describes Turkey this way: “Turkey scores 45 and is
on the Feminine side of the scale. This means that the softer aspects of culture such as leveling with
others, consensus, sympathy for the underdog are valued and encouraged. Liking what you do is also
a revelation of a more feminine dimension to the culture. Conflicts are avoided in private and work life
and consensus at the end is important” (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). That said, a score of
45 also reveals that the culture as a whole is closing in on the MAS qualities of being driven by
competition, achievement and success (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). Flipped falls in the
middle of the MAS dimension. For example, for peer-to-peer instruction to work, the masculine idea of
competition is discouraged (Mazur, 2015). And group work involves helping one another and going at
one’s own pace, rather than seeing who is best or finishing first. The Flipped Learning in the ELPP
seeks to create a classroom where everyone’s ideas are encouraged but not necessarily for
developing consensus. But, specific targets and goals, a masculine idea, are put forward for the
students to achieve. On the other hand there is not a high level of competition between students in
the MEF ELPP as far as final grades are concerned.
The fourth dimension is uncertainty avoidance (UA). UA is understood as “the extent to which the
members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs
and institutions that try to avoid these” (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). Turkey’s score is 85
and, therefore, underscores the Turks desire for the multiplication of laws and involvement of the
government. Further, Hofstede also notes, “For foreigners [Turks] might seem religious with the many
references to ‘Allah,’ but often they are just traditional social patterns, used in specific situations to
ease tension” (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). Flipped Learning falls below 50 on the UA
scale. Teachers in the ELPP help students focus on exploration of ideas (in speaking/writing
exercises), and they solicit concepts (in grammar and vocabulary) rather than dictate ideas. Further
they may sometimes need to say, “I don’t know” if a question is asked outside of the expertise of that
particular teacher. Of course, there are grammatical rules to be followed (in those speaking/writing
exercises) since words mean one thing and not another; but, there is an openness to the
demonstration and usage of such grammar and vocabulary. Of course, regularly scheduled quizzes
and assessments helps Flipped Learning in the ELPP from going lower on the UA scale
Fifth, long-term orientation (LTO) is the dimension which measures “how every society has to
maintain some links with is own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future”
(Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). Turkey’s score (46) demonstrates that it is neither
THE GLOBAL eLEARNING JOURNAL
4

exclusively past oriented nor future oriented. It is unlike some societies, like Saudi Arabia (36) which
score low and demonstrate a high preference for the past, their traditions, and establishing absolute
truth. It is also unlike future oriented societies which are more pragmatic and focused on economy in
order to help safeguard against future possibilities (like France—63). Further, countries which score
higher on this scale also reveal a greater priority in education (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov,
2010). Flipped Learning falls slightly higher than 60 on the long-term orientation (LTO) dimension. In
the MEF ELPP, English is taught in order to prepare students for the future. Therefore, failure is not a
result of chance and success is a result of diligence, a quality marked higher on the LTO dimension.
As the name suggests, the final dimension, indulgence (IDG), measures the overall extent to which
people allow their impulses to control them or restrain these impulses (Hofstede, Hofstede, and
Minkov, 2010). The lower and person’s score is on this dimension reveals a weaker control over one’s
desires and impulses. The stronger a persons score is, the stronger their control over impulses.
Turkey has a 49 for this scale and therefore falls in the middle with no dominant idea about IDG.
(Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). The UK, for example, has a higher score on this dimension
(69) while Russia has a low score of 20, which means their society is overall more restrained, cynical,
and pessimistic and seek to control the gratification of their desires (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov,
2010). it is somewhat difficult to gauge where Flipped Learning falls on IDG. As far as MEF ELPP is
concerned, freedom of speech is encouraged. The result may be lively discussion where students
focus on giving their ideas and potentially talk over one another. Plus, as Hofstede notes, the more
indulgent one is, the more they see a higher level of self-efficacy, rather than control residing outside
of themselves (Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov, 2010).
Most common pitfalls of MEF ELPP teachers
The Cultural Compass Report contains 42 questions all designed to highlight a person’s position
within the six previously discussed cultural dimensions and to suggest areas of potential dissonance
(“pitfalls” in Hofstede’s language) when interacting with people from another country. When the results
of the participant’s answers vary significantly from the average preferences within the country of
interest, pitfalls are flagged. The Cultural Compass Report differentiates between pitfalls that are most
likely, those which have a big chance, those which have a fair chance, and finally, those which have a
small chance of happening.
The MEF ELPP has thirty-five non-Turkish English Language instructors with native-like fluency. Of
the 35 teachers all but six come from Europe and North America. One teacher each comes from the
following six countries: Australia, Brazil, Iran, the Philippines, South Africa, and Uzbekistan. Nineteen
teachers completed the Cultural Compass Report. Due to space considerations, the pitfalls listed
below include only those from the top two categories. The number following shows the frequency.
In all likelihood…
1. you may demotivate your students by showing up not fully prepared (x9)
2. you may demotivate your students if you tell them that you don’t have precise answers to all
their questions (x8)
3. you may underestimate the time and energy required to create trust among you and your
students (x7)
4. you may wonder why students don’t disagree with you at all. If they do, however, please be on
guard (x7)
There is a big chance…
1. you may get annoyed by the fact that parents try to give you favours so that you will give their
son or daughter preferential treatment (x13)
2. you may get annoyed that your students don’t like to be confronted with surprises (x6)
3. you may feel at a loss when you have found out that students in your host country are
motivated quite differently to learn from the way students are motivated to learn in your home
country (x6)
4. you may be surprised that your students don’t contradict you, not even when it must be clear to
them that you tell them nonsense (x6)
 COMPTON
5

5. you may be pleasantly surprised that your students try to please you all the time, but after
some time you may get bothered (x5)
6. you may get the feeling that your students are too dependent on you by indirectly soliciting a
lot of control from your side by checking whether they understood you well (x5)
7. you may get frustrated if your students will neither volunteer to give an answer nor ask you a
lot of questions, only if you address a particular student may an answer be given, but then only
hesitantly (x5)
Most common potential pitfalls of MEF ELPP level 4 students
Eighteen Level 4 students completed The Cultural Compass Report as “Students Studying Abroad.”
Here are the most common submissions for the students who chose to identify their country of
interest in western schools (US, UK, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands). Since some of the
pitfalls were found in both the “in all likelihood” and “there is a big chance” categories, I decided to use
a simple point system to reflect both the weight and the frequency of these pitfalls. If they occurred in
the “In all likelihood” (IAL) category, they received four points. If they fell in the “there is a big chance”
(BC) category, they received three points. From those results the most common pitfalls were these:
In all likelihood...
1. you experience the people around you as cold and aloof. They literally try to keep you at a
distance (x3; BC x4)=24
2. you may feel lost by the fact that you are not being treated in a hospitable way (x4; BC x2)=22
3. you may feel too much challenged by your friends and acquaintances who think that they will
please you if they can let you experience all kind of weird things (x3; BC x3)=21
4. you may get annoyed that your counterparts are apparently not able to read the clear
messages you send them when they have upset you or when you don't want to go along with
what they want you to do (x3; BC x2)=18
5. you may wonder why status seems to be much more important than at home (x1; BCx4)=16
6. you may be seen as timid by not giving your personal opinion about everything and nothing
(x3)=12
There is a big chance that...
1. you may wonder why most people around you don't respect your emotions and feelings
(x7)=21
2. you may get upset by the boastful and gloating manner in which many people around you
present themselves and/or their country instead of being humble= (x6) 18
3. you may demotivate many people around you if you are not giving positive feedback about
them regularly (x5)=15
4. you may start looking down on people around you who are playing around too much, so it
would be difficult to build up good relationships with them (x5)=15
Suggestions based on survey results
The following results might at first glance seem fairly obvious to anyone who has worked in MEF
University ELPP. That said, what has been a given now stands on firmer, statistical support. Of
course, some or all of these suggestions might be happening in the classes at MEF. But, even in
those case, the stastical data would argue for their continuation. Finally, not every pitfall will receive
attention in the following suggestions.
It would seem clear from the students surveys (SS) and the teacher’s surveys (TS) that the MEF
ELPP students will need time to continue to be oriented to Flipped Learning more fully (cf. SS, IAL 3,
6). This could happen at orientation 2016 or alternatively instructors may make this a fairly regular
part of their classes, to not only encourage their students to do pre-class and post-class tasks but to
share the rationale of the in-class tasks as well. To build confidence in learners as speakers of
English, they will be asked questions of self-reflection, which are highly valued in Flipped Learning.
THE GLOBAL eLEARNING JOURNAL
6

Along the same lines, perhaps discussions could be held about what motivates students as the
survey indicates this might be an area of dissonance (cf. TS, BC 3). However, teachers might want to
make sure that, while exploration of new ideas is a part of Flipped Learning and some questions don’t
have right or wrong answers (cf. TS, IAL 2), assessments find a significant place in the curriculum.
After all, assessments play a large part of the Turkish educational system and therefore will not
surprise the students.
Teachers will probably need to explore the students feelings about the reality that the answers given
are the correct answers because they accurately reflect the student’s ideas—not because they
conform to the teacher’s ideas or to any norm (cf. TS, IAL 2). The teachers should seek to create a
classroom where collegial disagreement is not only possible but sought after for the purpose of
enabling students to express themselves confidently (TS, IAL 4). At the same time, teachers should
realize that, as the Turkish proverb states, “sheep separated from the flock are eaten by the wolves.”
Thus, advocating only for highly alternative views on sensitive Turkish issues might not be conducive
to an interactive learning environment. It could feel isolating for some students. Thus, discussions of
this nature might be more productive outside of the classroom.
Next, the ELPP students could benefit by understanding the nature of individual competence vis-a-vis
group competence. Flipped Learning emphasizes both. Of course a large amount of pressure from
students friends, parents, and other well-wishers will be met with an awkward feeling that the teachers
are being asked to give the candidate special consideration (TS, BC 1). Perhaps teachers can
minimize this occurrence by encouraging discussion which highlights the advantages and
disadvantages of collective approaches vis-a-vis individualistic ones. Teachers might want to solicit
and highlight collective attitudes from collective societies which are beneficial in their university life as
well as most jobs (for example, building consensus as well as compromise). This would help build
trust and give support to the students’ feelings (SS, IAL 1, 2; BC 1). On the other hand, teachers
might want to remind the students that individual grades reflect the skill level they have achieved and
that, in the future workforce, individual skill sets and abilities are scrutinized.
Teachers at MEF ELPP could consider ways in which they can further build their credibility among
Turkish students. A Flipped teacher is a professional educator. If trust is difficult to earn (TS, IAL 3),
then not coming in prepared or not displaying confidence might lead some Turkish students to believe
the teacher is not qualified. Building confidence in the students by knowing the answers to
grammatical, vocabulary, or usage questions would go a long way in establishing trust. Further,
knowing some things about Turkish culture certainly builds trust in that the student sees effort from
the teacher to know Turkish priorities, which is part of establishing good rapport (and therefore, a
building block within an interactive learning environment). Some of the ELPP teachers have wisely
focused projects on Turkish foods, customs, and traditions.
Teachers might aim to implement more and more autonomy into the classrooms, potentially allowing
the students themselves to determine at least a part of how they are going to fulfill learning objectives
(cf. Flipped Mastery). This freedom might be hard, initially, for the students or teachers to handle,
given the results of the study (cf. TS, BC 2, 6, 7; SS, IAL 6). However, incremental steps toward this
are absolutely necessary in establishing the confidence that students need in English and in the
Flipped Classroom.
Students might feel the teachers are cold and aloof if they don’t completely understand the hidden
signals students give (SS, IAL 4). Perhaps discussing this aspect of Turkish culture (i.e., body
language) would lead to advances in this area and a minimization of the feeling of the lack of warmth
and respect on behalf of the teachers toward the students (SS, IAL 1). If relationship is a key element
in Flipped Learning, this conversation seems like a way forward.
It would seem likely that the students would be helped to realize that the teachers are globally-
interested, curious and, often, confident people (cf. SS, IAL 3; BC 2). Curiosity is a part of the
foundation of Flipped Learning. Therefore, discussion of other culture’s foods, customs, and religious
practices enhances everyone’s perspective and could potentially spur the students’ own curiosity to
learn more. Moreover, students would be helped to understand the difference between personal
preference and personal attack. That is, if someone doesn’t care for iskender or işkembe, this doesn’t
mean that they dislike all Turkish food and, by extension, Turkish culture.
The teachers might wish to help students become comfortable with not only expressing themselves
on particular subjects but also learning ways to pass the question. For example, simple phrases or
words can be used when the student hasn’t had time to think through a question and needs more time
 COMPTON
7

to consider the idea. The students, would have opportunity to consider what their thoughts are on an
idea as well as allow them a culturally appropriate way of saying, “I’d rather not say” or “I’m not ready
yet.” Flipped Learning promotes this kind of content.
Conclusion
This study has highlighted potential pitfalls (or, alternatively, areas of dissonance) as a result of
deconstructing Flipped Learning and reflecting on the attitudes of MEF students and teachers toward
learning with someone from another culture. Of course, more research could focus on other
suggestions--and avenues of implementation of these suggestions--based on the survey results.
However, the suggestions given could be the catalyst for having a Flipped Classroom which is even
more interactive and where content, curiosity and relationship all merge and form an even better
learning environment--giving the students more and more confidence--in the MEF ELPP.
References
Baker, J. Wes. (2000). The “classroom flip”: using web course management tools to become a guide
by the side. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and
Learning. Jacksonville, FL: pp. 9-17.
Bergmann, Jonathan, and Aaron Sams. (2012). Flip your classroom: reach every student in every
class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bergmann, Jonathan, and Aaron Sams. (2014). Flipped learning: gateway to student engagement.
Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Bormann, Jarod. (2014). Affordances of flipped learning and its effects on student engagement and
achievement. Master's thesis, University of Northern Iowa.
Hofstede, Geert H. and Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to
economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4-21.
Hofstede, Geert H., Gert Jan. Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. (2010). Cultures and organizations:
software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Khan, Salman. (2011). Let’s use video to reinvent education. TED talk. Retrieved from
http://ed.ted.com/lessons/let-s-use-video-to-reinvent-education-salman-khan.
King, Alison. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching 41 (1): pp. 30-
35.
Lage, M. J. and G. Platt (2000). The internet and the inverted classroom. The Journal of Ecomonics
Education 31(1), 11.
McKeown, John, and Ibrahim Kurt. (2011). Critical friendship in international education reform: a
jourvey to education cultural convergence. Mevlana International Journal of Education 1(2).
McKeown, John, and Ibrahim Kurt. (2012). Pathways to cultural rapprochement in schools: becoming
a global teacher through the use of the “Educational Cultural Convergence” (ECCO) model.
Mevlana International Journal of Education 2(1).
Mazur, Eric. (2014). Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Essex: Pearson.
Minkov, M. (2007). What makes us different and similar: A new interpretation of the World Values
Survey and other cross-cultural data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika i Stil.
“What Is Flipped Learning?” (2014). Flip Learning. Retrieved from http://www.flippedlearning.org/.