Talking technology: Teaching 21st century communication strategies

Ken Beatty
A teacher holding a tablet to a young student in a classroom sat at a table
Reading time: 4 minutes

When my son created a web consulting business as a summer job, I offered to have business cards made for him. “Oh Dad,” he said, “Business cards are so 20th century!”

It was an embarrassing reminder that communication norms are constantly changing, as are the technologies we use. Younger generations share contact information on their phones’ social media apps, not with business cards. A similar shift has been the move away from business cards featuring fax numbers. “What’s a fax?” my son might ask.

Fax machines have had a surprisingly long life–the first fax machine was invented in 1843–but they have been largely retired because it’s easier to send images of documents via email attachments.

More recent technologies, such as the 1992 invention of text messages, seem here to stay, but continue to evolve with innovations like emojis, a 1998 innovation whose name combines the Japanese words e (picture) and moji (character).

The 55/38/7 rule and the three Cs

Changing technologies challenge language teachers who struggle to prepare students with the formats and the strategies they need to be effective in academic, business, and social settings. These challenges start with questions about why we have particular norms around communication. These norms form a culture of communication.

The artist/musician Brian Eno defines culture as what we Dz’t have to do. We may have to walk, but we Dz’t have to dance. Dancing, therefore, is culture. Communication is full of cultural practices that we Dz’t strictly need to do, but which make communication more successful. These include practices based on the 55/38/7 Rule and The Three Cs.

The 55/38/7 rule is often misinterpreted as being about what someone hears when we speak. It actually refers to the insights of University of California professor, , who looked at how our attitudes, feelings, and beliefs influence our trust in what someone says.

Mehrabian suggests words only account for seven percent of a message’s impact; tone of voice makes up 38 percent, and body language–including facial expressions–account for the other 55 percent. The consequence of this for our students is that it’s sometimes not so important what they are saying as how they are saying it.

Another way of looking at this nonverbal communication is in terms of The Three Cs: context, clusters, and congruence.

Context is about the environment in which communication takes place, any existing relationship between the speakers, and the roles they have. Imagine how each of these factors change if, for example, you met a surgeon at a party compared to meeting the same surgeon in an operating theater where you are about to have your head sawn open.

Clusters are the sets of body language expressions that together make up a message; smiling while walking toward someone is far different than smiling while carefully backing away.

Congruence refers to how body language matches–or doesn’t match–a speaker’s words. People saying, “Of course! It’s possible!” while unconsciously shaking their heads from side to side are perhaps being less than truthful.

How does a culture of communication practices translate to new technologies? Mobile phone texts, just like 19th-century telegraph messages before them, need to be precise in conveying their meaning.

In virtual meetings (on Teams and Google Hangouts, for example), students need to understand that tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language may be more important than the words they share.

Politeness as one constant

An additional key concern in virtual meetings is politeness. Once, in preparation for a new textbook, I was involved in soliciting topics of interest to university teachers. I was surprised that several teachers identified the need to teach politeness. The teachers pointed out that the brevity of social media meant that students were often unwittingly rude in their requests (typical email: “Where’s my grade!”). Moreover, such abruptness was crossing over to their in-person interactions.

Politeness includes civility, getting along with others, as well as deference, showing respect to those who may have earned it through age, education, and achievement. But politeness is also related to strategies around persuasion and how to listen actively, engage with other speakers by clarifying and elaborating points and ask a range of question types. Online or in person, if students cannot interrupt politely or know when it is better to listen, whatever they have to say will be lost in the court of bad opinion.

This is particularly important in preparation for academic and business contexts where students need to interact in groups, such as seminar settings and business meetings. Within these, it’s necessary for students to be able to take on a variety of roles, including leadership, taking notes, and playing devil’s advocate to challenge what a group thinks.

Engaging students with project work

Role-play can help raise awareness of these strategies among students, but it’s not enough to just take on a variety of roles found in common academic and business exchanges; students need to be able to reflect after each role-play session and infer what strategies are successful.

Technology-based projects can also help students engage in a range of communication strategies. For example, a ɫèAV series, StartUp, embraces technology in each unit by sprinkling various text messages and web-based research tasks. There are also multimedia projects where students use their phones to collect images or video and share the results in presentations that develop their critical thinking.

For example:

Make your own video

Step 1 Choose a favorite restaurant or meal.

Step 2 Make a 30-second video. Talk about the meal. Describe what you eat and drink. Explain why you like it.

Step 3 Share your video. Answer questions and get feedback.

This simple project subconsciously reinforces the unit’s vocabulary and grammar. It also allows students to personalize the project based on things that they need to talk about in daily life–their local foods in this case. This means that each student’s presentation is unique. Unlike with essay assignments, students tend to work hard to craft several versions until they are satisfied because they know their work will be seen by other students and that they will be asked questions that only they can answer.

All this forces students to consider speaking strategies, as well as strategies for appropriate facial expressions and body language. Similarly, they have to use active listening strategies when listening to others’ presentations while asking questions. As technology continues to evolve, teachers need to integrate new applications into their teaching so students learn how to communicate with the tools they have at their disposal.

Explore professional development for teachers

More blogs from ɫèAV

  • A girl sat at a laptop with headphones on in a library

    5 myths about online language learning

    By Steffanie Zazulak
    Reading time: 3 minutes

    Technology has radically changed the way people are able to access information and learn. As a result, there are a great number of tools to facilitate online language learning – an area that’s been the subject of many myths. Here we highlight (and debunk) some of the bigger ones…

    Myth #1: You will learn more quickly

    Although online learning tools are designed to provide ways to teach and support the learner, they won’t provide you with a shortcut to proficiency or bypass any of the key stages of learning.Although you may well be absorbing lots of vocabulary and grammar rules while studying in isolation, this isn’t a replacement for an environment in which you can immerse yourself in the language with English speakers. Such settings help you improve your speaking and listening skills and increase precision, because the key is to find opportunities to practise both – widening your use of the language rather than simply building up your knowledge of it.

    Myth #2: It replaces learning in the classroom

    With big data and AI increasingly providing a more accurate idea of their level, as well as a quantifiable idea of how much they need to learn to advance to the next level of proficiency, classroom learning is vital for supplementing classroom learning. And with the Global Scale of English providing an accurate measurement of progress, students can personalise their learning and decide how they’re going to divide their time between classroom learning and private study.

    Myth #3: It can’t be incorporated into classroom learning

    There are a huge number of ways that students and teachers can use the Internet in the classroom. Meanwhile, ɫèAV’s online courses and apps have a positive, measurable impact on your learning outcomes.

    Myth #4:You can't learn in the workplace

    Online language learning is ideally suited to the workplace and we must create the need to use the language and opportunities to practise it. A job offers one of the most effective learning environments: where communication is key and you’re frequently exposed to specialized vocabulary. Online language learning tools can flexibly support your busy schedule.

    Myth #5: Online language learning is impersonal and isolating

    A common misconception is that online language learning is a solitary journey, lacking the personal connection and support found in traditional classrooms. In reality, today’s digital platforms are designed to foster community and real interaction. With features like live virtual classrooms, discussion forums and instant feedback, learners can connect with peers and educators around the world, building skills together.

  • Two teenagers sat at a desk in a classroom working together in front of a laptop

    My lifelong learning journey: Why learning English never stops

    By Zarela Cruz
    Reading time: 4 minutes

    My journey with English began in the unlikeliest of places: a mining camp in southern Peru. As a child, I was fascinated by American culture – the movies, the music, the seemingly limitless world that English opened up. For me, the language was a gateway leading to a deeper understanding and feeling of belonging, making me part of their culture.

  • A classroom scene with a teacher and diverse students engaged in learning, using laptops on desks, in a brightly lit room.

    Is game-based learning technology a waste of time?

    By
    Reading time: 4 minutes

    We feel that game-based learning (GBL) is a waste of time… if not properly understood. Even then, one could argue that "wasting time" is a vital part of learning and perhaps we need to stop insisting that every second counts.

    Game-based learning vs. Gamification: Understanding the difference

    Let’s begin by first addressing the term "game-based learning" and how it compares to its doppelgänger, gamification. Gamification is the application of game mechanics and dynamics to non-game contexts to solve problems, engage users and promote desired behaviours. For example, rewarding acheivements with points, awards or badges for achievement, levelling up, using avatars, quests and collaboration are all gamification features, which elevate games above the mundane activities of normal life.

    The principles of gamification have been applied to the retail and services sectors for years: think of airlines' frequent flyers programs, pubs and bars running "happy hours" promotions, WeightWatchers' points-counting, Foursquare's badges for visiting new places. There are hundreds of examples of where game dynamics have been introduced into non-game contexts to influence behaviour and bring about a desired result.

    Game-based learning in action: More than just play

    Gamification does not refer to the straightforward use of games (whether digital or otherwise) as part of a teaching or learning interaction. A teacher using the board game Monopoly in the classroom to demonstrate the idea of rent is not gamifying the learning environment; they are involving learners in game-based learning. GBL refers to the use of games as tools: as devices for opening discussion, presenting concepts or promoting learner engagement within clearly defined learning objectives, in other words, learning through playing games. Gamification is the appropriation of those principles, mechanics and dynamics that make games work in order to promote engagement or engender a desired outcome.

    Teachers have long introduced games into the learning environment – such as Kim’s Game, Pelmanism and Guess Who? – and the uptake of GBL with digital games is particularly well demonstrated by the work being done by the Institute of Play, and the growing popularity of the likes of Minecraft and SimCity in schools. In terms of our immediate ELT context, pretty much any video game can be repurposed for language learning, in the same way a text, song or website can be. Take, for example, the indie game . Although there is no actual spoken language in the game, the platform puzzle format lends itself perfectly to practising language around predictions or conditionals ("If I pull that lever, the door will open"), recounting events ("I was chased by a giant spider!"), strategising and so on. In this post, we will be referring to existing digital games that have been appropriated into a learning context, as opposed to games that have been designed with a specific educational use in mind.

    Sharma and Barrett’s definition of blended learning provides a useful context for approaching the use of digital games in such modalities, notably the combination of “a face-to-face classroom component with an appropriate use of technology”. We’re making no assumptions about whether the games are being accessed in the classroom, on mobile or online at home. The blend isn’t defined by where a learner is, but by how their use of technology supports and enhances their contact with the teacher.

    The notion of appropriateness in Sharma and Barrett’s definition is critical as, in the case of a GBL project, it assumes a teacher has a familiarity with both the tech and content accessibility of a selected game. Acquiring that level of familiarity with a game requires a certain amount of time engaging with it to determine its fit for the needs of the learners, an activity which might easily be considered off task when compared to the other demands being made on an educator’s schedule.

    How GBL fuels engagement and deeper learning

    The benefits of GBL with digital games are potentially quite profound, however. First, studies indicate that playing video games in general can stimulate the generation of neurons and enhance connectivity between the regions of the brain responsible for memory formation, spatial orientation and strategic thinking. The right pairing of game and learning objectives could be argued to promote situated cognition, a theory that knowledge is constructed through – and inseparable from – social interactions and the context in which they take place. A learner immersed in SimCity stands a much greater chance of understanding the principles of taxation and the provision of public services through playing the role of a mayor, for example, than a learner being walked through the annual budget. As Lim et al. state: “games are effective because learning takes place within a meaningful context where what must be learned is directly related to the environment in which learning and demonstration take place”.

    Early-stage research on mirror neurons is adding a new aspect to the discussion around the immediacy of playing games. In short, mirror neurons suggest that when we observe someone performing an action, there is a brief moment in which our brain cells fire as if we are carrying out that action ourselves. The boundary between observer (player) and observed (in-game character) becomes blurred for a split second. A lot can happen in that split second.

    In addition to the benefits of an immersive, neuron-stroking experience, games demonstrably promote learner engagement by introducing the F-bomb into the mix (fun). They also have the capacity to provide an unrivalled social experience, as in the case of MMORPGs (massively multiplayer online role-playing games). As an example, consider how a leading MMORPG game, World of Warcraft, is applied in learning environments.

    Addressing concerns and embracing change

    However, there are often deep-seated cultural aversions to the use of games in an educational context that GBL initiatives are required to overcome. Critics have said that digital games are anti-social, that they rot your attention span, that they are not legitimate, validated learning resources. Although there is not yet a body of research that can empirically confirm or debunk the effectiveness of games used for learning, surely watching a learner plan, execute and evaluate a project in Minecraft with classmates suggests that those objections are based on dated assumptions. The language learning space in particular is still very much attached to a coursebook paradigm that is predicated on levels and a clearly defined syllabus. Perhaps GBL is too much at odds with an established business model that is the bedrock of too many large education organisations.

    So is GBL a waste of time? We’d argue that it is when its potential is not properly recognised and it is treated as light relief. Games are dynamic, engaging resources capable of delivering experiences and drawing connections that can really ignite a student’s learning experience. Furthermore, they bring a playful and unpredictable aspect to the learning process.