Building International Communication Online with
Pearson English Interactive

Michael Rost 2015

Michael Rost is principal author of Pearson English Interactive.

The aim of this presentation is to outline some key benefits of Pearson English Interactive for students learning online or in a blended (classroom+online) context. The presenter utilizes a Complication-Resolution framework, which is a method of focusing on solutions in “less than ideal” situations.

1. What is PEI?

PEI is a 4-level multimedia course, with a primary emphasis on listening and speaking. Detailed scope and sequence information and correlations to the Common European Framework are available.

For product info:

2. Defining the Situation

How would you describe your own experience as a student with “online learning” or “virtual training”?

What has been one of your best online learning experiences to date? What features of that experience stand out for you?

Identify a small number of key constructs that capture satisfying learning experiences.

As a teacher, what is your primary reason for wanting to use technology in language learning?

Attempt to understand personal reasons for wanting to incorporate technology.

Aim to set realistic expectations for what available technology can asssit with.

Some key parameters of “the situation”:

• Students need more practice time. Asynchronous online instruction is the most feasible option.

• Online networking is part of modern life. Connecting language learning with students’ “online life” is natural.

• Independent learners tend to be the most successful. Providing the most meaningful online tools to them will make them more independent.

• Online communication is an alternate – not replacement – form of communication. It provides an additional “field” for language acquisition.

• Part of “21st Century Competence” is managing online communication. Includes designing, running applications, playing, uploading, sharing, hacking, posting, editing

3. Recognizing “complications”: What makes the situation less than ideal?

The “haves” have more and better technology:

• Artificial Intelligence

• Robotics

• Virtual Reality

• Emotional Computing

• Animation

• Data Crunching

•Content Delivery

• Learning Management Systems

The “have nots” must make do with:

• limited resources

•outmoded systems

• sporadic training of teachers

• incompatible content

User experiences with new technologies are often quite mixed.

> Common descriptors for online learning experiences are: boring, impersonal, passive, ineffective –often at a 4:1 ratio to positive evaluations

Another set of human complications!

User experiences’ & ‘outcomes’ will always be mixed.

• There are too many technical variables to predict universal success.

• Users without goal orientation are easily demotivated

• Completion rates very low without ongoing encouragement & coaching.

• Human attention spans are getting shorter!

• We tend not to use our brains effectively formaximum memory retention.

• Without active “game elements”, little engagement.

• Without appeal to sensory and emotional “learning styles”, users get bored.

4. The “Solution” is not an ideal one, but rather a practical one.

I call this a combination of “least common denominator” (what factors work in almost any situation) and “Learner-Centered Design” (how the learner interacts with other learners / teacher / technology)

• Scaffolding: Bullet-proof scope & sequence = Learners can skip around and still get enough of the basics to make sense of what they may miss.

• Flexible syllabus, overlapping objectives = Learners can create unique sequences and still reach learning objectives (in vocabulary, grammar, comprehension skills)

• Ease of navigation = Learners need to stay focused, not get lost, not have the “negative impact” experiences that frustrate them

• Emotional investment: Story-based = Narrative based learning tends to be more compelling (gives you a reason to come back), more memorable

• Active learning styles: focus on listening & speaking = Providing “real time” input allows for more engaged learning, “slows down” the learning process

•Microlearning tasks: 90 second rule = Give the students something concrete to do, every 90 seconds, some tangible outcome

• Keep it personal: add interaction with the teacher = One-to-one contact with the teacher is still the most powerful learning potion available. Maintain personal contact with each student, through regular group emails or discussion boards.

• Gamify: Track scores and student achievements = Gamification is all about achievement, recognition, rewards. Friendly competition and collaboration enters this also.

• Allow for variety& choice = Encourage use of options, individualized learning paths

• Make it count = Assessment and feedback should be concrete, and ongoing

• Provide blended options = where possible, add classroom contact and group projects.

5. OUTCOME

There is no perfect solution, but here are 3 “truths” to adapt:

• Any online learning activity is likely to be better than no online learning… if Students can select, if tasks are short, if there is progression, if there is spaced learning, if there is feedback

• Learners are much more likely to benefit

if there is ongoing coaching from teacher.

• Rotational Blended Learning > Simple Blended Learning > Classroom alone > Online alone

REFERENCES

Blascovich, J. & Bailenson, J. (2011) Infinite Reality: Avatars, Eternal Life, New Worlds, and the Dawn of the Virtual Revolution. New York: Harper Collins.

Boettcher, J.V. & Conrad, R. M. (2010)E-Coaching Success Tips

Boettcher. J. (2013) Ten Best Practices for Teaching Online:

Quick Guide for New Online faculty

Grovo Training Industries (2015) Bite Size Is the right size: How microlearning shrinks the skills gap in higher education Grovo-HigherEd-Microlearning-whitepaper.pdf

Henry, M., Pooley, J. & and Omari, M. (2014) Student motivations for studying online: A qualitative study. Teaching and Learning Forum

Kapp, K. (2012) The Gamification of Learning and Instruction. New York: Wiley

Review here:

Markoff, J. (2013) The Rapid Advance of Artificial Intelligence

Minto, B. (2010) The Minto Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing, Thinking and Problem solving. London: Minto Books International.

Hanson-Smith, E., Healey, D., Hubbard, P., Iannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2011).TESOL technology standards.Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

Horn, M. & Staker, H. (2012) Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. New York: Wiley.

Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training in technology enhanced language learning environments.CALICO Journal, 30(2), 163–178.

Lin, K-M. (2011) e-Learning continuance intention: Moderating effects of user e-learning experience. Computers & Education, 56, 515–526.

Norman, D. (2015) “User experience”

Porter, J. (2015) Testing the Three-Click Rule

Riedl, M. & Young, R. (2014) The importance of narrative as affective instructional strategy. Design Recommendations for Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Volume 2, pp. 57-79. In In R. A. Sottilare, A. Graesser, X. Hu, & B. Goldberg (Eds.) Orlando, FL: USARL.

Sims, R. (2014). Design alchemy: Transforming the way we think about learning and teaching.

TeachThought (2015) 5 Problems With Technology In Classrooms

Underwood, G., Underwood, J. & Farrington-Flint, L. (2015) Learning and the E-Generation. Oxford: Wiley.

University of Southern California Marshall School of Business (2013) “Media consumption and Hyper Attention”

1

Rost Pearson English Interactive