Due to recent pedagogical developments, colleges and universities have offered instructional modes in classrooms that diverged from the traditional in-person classroom model. One example was the flipped (or inverted) pedagogical model. We set out to investigate if the student experiences and outcomes were similar or different between flipped and traditional instructional approaches. During the investigation, we learned how to navigate different research settings and approaches that might be best suited for teaching upper-level American Sign Language (ASL) courses at a university. We had planned to conduct one study but ended up with two studies. In this case study, readers will learn how the conditions for doing research can change over time while keeping its primary purpose and ensuring high reliability and validity of data collection and analysis. For the first study, we used two instructors, one who taught the traditional classroom and the other who taught the flipped classroom. We used mixed methods, including quantitative and qualitative methods, since each method provided different information on traditional versus flipped classroom teaching and learning processes. We found that student outcomes and experiences were similar in both classrooms. Not satisfied, we decided to conduct a second study, which replicated the first study using only one instructor who taught traditional and flipped classrooms. It kept its primary purpose and ensured high reliability and validity of data collection and analysis. We found from the second study that student outcomes and experiences were also similar. This led to our conclusion that the traditional and flipped classrooms in ASL are equally viable in ensuring high-quality student outcomes and experiences under different instructor conditions. [This content is provided in the format of an e-book.]