• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Procedures
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • APA Style Guide
  • TESL-EJ Editorial Board

Voxy

November 2018 – Volume 22, Number 3

Title Voxy
Creators Paul Gollash & Gregg Carey
Contact Information salesatmarkvoxy.com
632 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10012, USA
Type of Product Web and mobile-based platform for learning English
Hardware Requirements Any device (computer, tablet, phone) with internet access
Software requirements An updated web browser (Chrome recommended); iOS or Android for mobile application
Price Cost varies for institutional licenses. For individuals, typically $20 – 30 per month for asynchronous features; $225 – $300 per semester for live instruction (six sessions of 30 minutes each). Cost varies based on geography, configuration, and other factors.

Introduction

Voxy is a web-based eLearning platform that aims to help English language learners (ELLs) build language skills, prepare for standardized language tests, and gain intercultural competence by offering both synchronous and asynchronous online courses. Voxy seeks to apply task-based and constructivist language teaching by using authentic materials and live instruction. This platform has gained a considerable presence around the world with four million users in 150 countries (Voxy, 2018) and is now being considered by some U.S. institutions as an alternative to individualized ESL instruction (University of Maryland Baltimore, n.d.). The intended levels of users are from novice to advanced.

General Description

One of Voxy’s defining features is its effort to personalize the language learning process. Once students create a new account they are directed to answer needs analysis questions regarding their learning objectives (see Figure 1), their perceived language proficiency level (see Figure 2), and their interests (see Figure 3). Voxy provides a 5-step study plan that includes the Voxy Proficiency Assessment (VPA), unit lessons, word banks, grammar guides, and live instruction. Based on learners’ interests and needs analysis data, the platform provides unit lessons and adjusts the learning materials to individual levels as they progress.


Figure 1. Needs analysis for study goals


Figure 2. Needs analysis for language proficiency


Figure 3. Needs analysis for student interests

Voxy Proficiency Assessment

The VPA is a tool intended to measure a student’s current proficiency level. This test takes approximately 30-60 minutes and includes grammar, listening, and reading comprehension questions. These questions are all multiple choice and rated automatically. A human-rated speaking section is also available as an optional paid component and is scored by two human raters. Voxy recommends students take the VPA upon creating their account and then every three months. Students receive immediate results summarizing their performance, and the platform readjusts curricula to their language level (see Figure 4). Based on in-house analysis of test results (Voxy, 2018), the VPA scale is aligned with global standards (see Figure 5) and learners are able to use the VPA to predict their performance on these tests.


Figure 4. Sample Voxy Proficiency Assessment results summary


Figure 5. Voxy Proficiency Assessment’s purported alignment with global standards

Curricula and Materials

Unit lessons. Voxy’s unit lessons are made up of six 30-minute classes, and they recommend students complete one unit per week. There are three types of asynchronous lessons: first, sequenced lessons are designed using the global standards in Figure 5 to help students meet specific needs. A variety of courses based on learning objectives are available for selection, such as TOEFL preparation, workforce skills, and English for specific purposes. The second type of asynchronous lesson is personalized units organized around interest topics. During these lessons, the listening and reading comprehension tasks (see Figure 6), grammar exercises, and vocabulary activities are based on topics the student expressed interest in. After each lesson, students receive feedback and performance reports (see Figure 7).


Figure 6. Personalized units for listening activity


Figure 7. Feedback and performance report after personalized unit

The last category is “real media” lessons, with up-to-date, authentic multimodal content taken directly from Voxy’s content partners, including Financial Times, Bloomberg, and the Associated Press. Students learn about recent news by independently choosing these real media lessons (see Figure 8). Each lesson comes with pre-defined learning outcomes and is followed by multiple-choice comprehension check questions. As seen in Figure 9, some of the words in the passage are highlighted and underlined to make them more salient for learners; these words are then used in the vocabulary activities.


Figure 8. Real media lesson selections


Figure 9. Real media course reading activity

Word bank. Voxy’s word banks collect all the vocabulary students have learned in their lessons and provide activities, including pronunciation practice with immediate automated feedback (see Figure 10). Some vocabulary terms are selected using the Phrasal Expressions List (Martinez & Schmitt, 2012) while others are selected using an algorithm based on relevance to the text and topic.


Figure 10. Word bank pronunciation practice

Grammar guide. This feature allows students to review and practice a myriad of grammar topics according to their VPA language level. These guides provide students with grammar rules, examples, and practice tasks (see Figure 11).


Figure 11. Grammar guide for subordinate conjunction grammar practice

Live instruction. Voxy offers two types of live instruction for students to interact with certified instructors, both of which are available around-the-clock. The first is 30-minute group classes, where students sign up for a class based on a topic of their choice at their proficiency level. The other option is private lessons, where students can book a one-on-one appointment and select the domains they want to work on. Students can schedule classes from 15 to 60 minutes. The instructor provides immediate and direct feedback based on the student’s performance in specific areas (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, listening).

Evaluation

For all language learners, there is a cost-benefit analysis between formal courses and live instruction on the one hand and self-learning platforms on the other. Formal courses and live instruction have many benefits but are expensive, while self-learning platforms are more affordable or even free, but are much more limited in feedback and interaction. For many students, live, formal courses simply are not an option due to financial or geographic constraints. Voxy represents a middle ground between formal courses and self-learning platforms, affording learners some benefits from each. This review evaluates Voxy’s curriculum design and pedagogical features through the lens of learner autonomy theory.

Learner Autonomy

Using Holec’s (1981) definition of learner autonomy, “the ability to take charge of one’s learning” (p. 3), this section evaluates the Voxy platform according to five key principles of learner autonomy in language courses (Cotterall, 2000):

(1) the course reflects learners’ goals in its language, tasks, and strategies;
(2) course tasks are explicitly linked to a simplified model of the language learning process;
(3) course tasks either replicate real-world communicative tasks or provide rehearsal for such tasks;
(4) the course incorporates discussion and practice with strategies known to facilitate task performance;
(5) the course promotes reflections on learning. (pp. 111-112)

Voxy provides individualized content-based instruction. Students are able to select lessons based on a variety of themes that interest them, encouraging them to become autonomous, active agents in their learning process and potentially leading to higher motivation (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003), positive attitudes towards learning (Benson, 2001), and self-direction (Kessler, 2013). This meets the first criteria of Cotterall’s (2000) framework, since the materials and curricula are based on the needs-analysis data (Figures 1, 2, 3) and VPA results to create personalized unit lessons and adjust content to better fit individual needs. Students are able to take charge of their own learning because the curriculum design reflects their goals.

For the second criterion, Cotterall (2000) claims that in order to become autonomous, learners need to understand the basic language learning process. Learners should be able to question and challenge the input texts and tasks, to try alternative strategies and learning methods, and to be proactive about seeking feedback from peers and instructors. Without this learning process model, language learners may turn into passive agents in their language development. In the Voxy platform, the opportunities to challenge and question the input texts and tasks are limited because the asynchronous unit lessons are pre-generated and selected from a database. Students are able to try alternative strategies on their own with very limited facilitation.

As to the third criterion, real media lessons offer students an opportunity to explore authentic media in a real-world context. Voxy’s size and success has allowed them to form partnerships with several news sites and industry journals, leading to lessons built around authentic, relevant, and topical multimedia catered to students’ interests. However, this type of asynchronous unit lesson is less interactive. The majority of exercises are multiple-choice questions that lack productive-skill practice. Students need the live-instruction sessions to participate in real-world communicative and social contexts, which can be accomplished within Voxy but for an extra cost.

For the fourth criteria, during unit lessons, students engage in grammar, listening, and reading comprehension activities and quizzes. This approach attempts to keep students engaged with the material, providing immediate and corrective feedback and comprehension checks. These features increase learner autonomy by allowing students to progress at their own pace, independent of an instructor or classmates. However, all of these activities fall victim to the drawbacks of tasks that are rated automatically: selected-response questions make for easier rating but do not encourage students’ use of productive language skills, and feedback is limited when compared to that of a human instructor. But again, this represents the trade-off between costs and benefits. The practice tasks in unit lessons are not able to provide discussion and foster conversation. The lack of interactive discussion and feedback has to be compensated for through live instruction sessions where students are able to receive not only corrective and evaluative feedback from instructors, but most importantly interactive and cognitive feedback. Cognitive feedback plays an essential role in learner autonomy development because it provides specific guidance for further improvement and facilitates students’ self-regulated learning (Jang & Wagner, 2018). Instead of merely summarizing the overall quality of student performance, cognitive feedback explains students’ conceptual errors, cognitive gaps, and cognitive strategies. Voxy could provide more opportunities for student production, even asynchronously, and help train students to evaluate their own responses through rubrics and models.

Regarding Cotterall’s (2000) fifth criterion, diagnostic assessments offer students information that encourages them to reflect on their learning and take remedial action to improve their language development (Alderson, 2005). The VPA tests reading, listening, and grammar, but not productive skills, though there is an optional paid speaking component scored by two human raters. Furthermore, after taking the test, students receive a brief summary of the test results but are not provided detailed feedback or the opportunity to revisit the tasks, review errors, and make corrections. According to Alderson’s (2005) definition, diagnostic assessments are designed to identify language learners’ strengths and weakness within the target language. These tests “should enable a detailed analysis and report of responses to tasks and must give detailed feedback which can be acted upon” (p. 256). Voxy can give detailed feedback but only in special circumstances, such as when a learner has been using the platform consistently but has not made any progress.

Conclusion

Despite the limited productive language tasks, Voxy has the potential to help learners who do not have access to formal courses improve their language learning. The wide range of course content, interactive practice, immediate feedback, informal and formal assessments, and live instruction allows learners to explore the target language and culture in a variety of settings. It will be interesting to see if Voxy can develop more detailed feedback and find ways to build more learner autonomy into the asynchronous activities in the future.

References

Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: the interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.

Benson, P. (2001). Autonomy in language learning. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principle for designing language courses. ELT Journal, 52(2), 109–117.

Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 589–630.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.

Jang, E. E., & Wagner, M. (2018). Diagnostic feedback in language classroom. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to language assessment. Wiley-Blackwell.

Kessler, G. (2013). Collaborative language learning in co-constructed participatory culture. CALICO, 30(3), 307–322.

Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A Phrasal Expressions List. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299–320.

University of Maryland Baltimore. (n.d.). Voxy trial. Retrieved from http://www.umaryland.edu/writing/voxy-trial/

Voxy (2018). Why Voxy. Retrieved from https://voxy.com

About the Author

Ellen Yeh <eyehcolum.edu> is an Assistant Professor in the English and Creative Writing Department and serves as the Director of the English as an Additional Language Program at Columbia College Chicago. Her research interests include media literacy, social media literacy, CALL, and intercultural communication.

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.

© 1994–2023 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.