TOWARDS THE EXPLOITATION OF PROJECT – BASED LEARNING FOR GROUP WORK ACTIVITIES TO ENHANCE THE ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL OF THE THIRD – YEAR ENGLISH MAJORED STUDENTS AT HONG DUC UNIVERSITY Nghiên cứu việc khai thác phương pháp dạy học theo dự án thông qua các

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

LÊ THỊ THANH HƢƠNG


TOWARDS THE EXPLOITATION OF PROJECT – BASED
LEARNING FOR GROUP WORK ACTIVITIES TO ENHANCE THE
ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL OF THE THIRD – YEAR ENGLISH
MAJORED STUDENTS AT HONG DUC UNIVERSITY

Nghiên cứu việc khai thác phƣơng pháp học theo dự án thông qua các
hoạt động nhóm nhằm nâng cao kỹ năng nói tiếng Anh cho sinh viên năm
thứ ba chuyên ngành tiếng Anh tại trƣờng Đại học Hồng Đức


M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE: 60140111





Hanoi, 2014

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

LÊ THỊ THANH HƢƠNG


TOWARDS THE EXPLOITATION OF PROJECT – BASED
LEARNING FOR GROUP WORK ACTIVITIES TO ENHANCE THE
ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL OF THE THIRD – YEAR ENGLISH
MAJORED STUDENTS AT HONG DUC UNIVERSITY

Nghiên cứu việc khai thác phƣơng pháp học theo dự án thông qua các
hoạt động nhóm nhằm nâng cao kỹ năng nói tiếng Anh cho sinh viên năm
thứ ba chuyên ngành tiếng Anh tại trƣờng Đại học Hồng Đức


M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE: 60140111
SUPERVISOR: Dr. NGÔ HỮU HOÀNG




Hanoi, 2014

i

DECLARATION

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Education. I certify that the thesis is the report of my own research, and
that it has not been submitted for any other university or institution.


Thanh Hoa, September, 2014
Signature

Lê Thị Thanh Hương













ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng -
my supervisor for his invaluable advice, constructive criticism, precious correction
and helpful encouragement in the completion of my minor thesis.
My thanks also go to all of the lecturers and the staff of the Department of Post-
Graduate Studies at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam
National University, Hanoi for their valuable lectures and supports.
I am also thankful to all the English teachers and students of Foreign Language
Department at Hong Duc University for answering the questionnaires and
interviews, which are indispensable for the analysis and discussion in my study.
Last but not least, I greatly appreciate the support and encouragement from my
family and friends.

iii
ABSTRACT

Focusing on learning and teaching English speaking skill at the Foreign
Language Department, Hong Duc University, this action research is aimed at
working out an effective supplementary learning activity to improve students’
speaking competence. After carrying out preliminary investigation and literature
review, it is found out that project based learning is one of the effective methods
used largely by teachers to teach speaking skill in English language learning. In an
attempt to examine the best way to apply PBL to teach speaking skill to the second
year English majored students at Hong Duc University, the study focuses on issues
(1) Students’ difficulties in learning speaking English (2) Factors motivating
students in speaking lesson-using project work (3) How project work improved
students’ English speaking competence? The speaking guide project was then
designed and implemented in the second semester of the school year 2011-2015
with the participation of 30 students from K15. The data was collected by a number
of instruments including questionnaire for students, teacher’s observation, and pre –
test and post – test. The result of the study indicates that most of the students had
positive attitudes towards the application of PBL activities in speaking lessons. PBL
activities have big attributions in creating contexts atmosphere for students to
practice speaking in English. As a result, there was great improvement in their
speaking performance.

iv
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND CHARTS
Figures

Figure 1: Steps in the action research cycle
Figure 2: Steps in the action research cycle in the current research
Tables

Table 1: Project topics
Table 2: Students’ result in the pre– oral test
Table 3: Students’feeling about topics of project carried out in this semester
Table 4: Students’ result in the post – oral test

Charts

Chart 1: The role of speaking skill
Chart 2: Students’ interest in speaking skill
Chart 3: Student’s unwillingness to speak English in class
Chart 4: Students’ problems in speaking skill
Chart 5: Teacher’s activities in speaking lesson
Chart 6: The factors motivating students in speaking lesson by using project work
Chart 7: The improvement of students’ English speaking competence by using
project work

v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HDU: Hong Duc University
PBL: Project – based learning

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND CHARTS iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale of the study 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Research questions 2
4. Significance of the study 2
5. Scope of the study 3
6. Methods of the study 3
7. Design of the study 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

1. Speaking skill 4
1.1. Definitions 4
1. 2. Characteristics 4
1.3. A successful speaking activity in the classroom 5
1.4. Problems with speaking activities 6
2. Group work. 7
2.1 Definition of group work .8
2.2. Group size 8
2.3. Group work activities 9
3. Project – based learning (PBL) 9
3.1. Definition of PBL 9
3.2. Characteristics of PBL 11



vii
3.3. Advantages of PBL and disadvantages of PBL 11
3.3.1. Advantages of PBL 11
3.3.2. Disadvantages of Project-based Learning 12
3.4. Rationale for implementing PBL in speaking lesson 12
3.5. A framework for PBL 14
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 17
2.1 Action research 17
2.1.1. What is action research? 17
2.1.2. Key elements of an action research 17
2.1.3. Rationale for the use of an action research 19
2.2. Context of the study 20
2.3. Participants 21
2.4. Data collection 21
2.4.1. Questionnaires 21

2.4.2. Teacher’s observation 22
2.4.3. The pre – test and post test 22
2.5. Data analysis .22
2.6. The action research procedure 23
2.6.1. Initiation 23
2.6.2. Preliminary investigation 23
2.6.3. Hypothesis 23
2.6.4. Intervention 23
2.6.5. Evaluation 27
2.6.6. Dissemination 27
2.7. Summary 28
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 29
3.1. Findings from preliminary investigation 29
3.1.1. Students’competence and attitudes towards on speaking skill 29
3.2. Findings from evaluation 35



viii
3.3. Further findings from the teacher’s classroom observation 39
PART C: CONCLUSION 41
1. Summary of the study 41
2. Major findings and discussion of the research 43
3. Limitations of the study 43
4. Suggestions for further studies 44
REFERENCES 45
APPENDIX I

1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
Undeniably, English is a global language crossing many international
boundaries. It needs to be taught for four skills (listening, speaking, writing, and
reading) in the light of communicative language teaching (CLT). Among these
skills, speaking is the most important skill. However, there exists some weakness in
the teaching and learning of the speaking skill in major courses at colleges and
universities. I realize that the common teaching approach applied is teacher –
centered and lecture – oriented, which normally results in learner passiveness and

non – involvement in English speaking activities. Over the past years, as a teacher
for English – major students at Hong Duc University (HDU), Faculty of Foreign
Language, I found that English majored students have also faced many challenges
in learning speaking skills. To meet the diverse needs of learners, the teaching
English speaking skill in Vietnam as well as at HDU has been changing. By
applying various new approaches, methods, and techniques, English speaking skill
teaching has shift from the traditional grammar translations approach to
communicative approach. In the view of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
approach, the learner is considered the center of the learning process; the teacher
serves as a facilitator, allowing students to be in charge of their own learning.
Project –based learning (PBL), which has been strongly promoted in recent
years, encompasses all the core features of CLT approach. As Thomas J.W (2000)
summarizes, research has indicated clearly the benefits of PBL: (i) gains in student
achievement, (ii) gains in students’ problem – solving capabilities, (iii) gains in
students’ understanding of the subject matter, and (iv) gains in understanding
relating to specific skills and strategies introduced in the project. However, PBL has
not been popular in Vietnam. Particularly, it has not been applied to the teaching of
speaking English as a foreign language.
The facts above explain the reasons why I conduct this study “Towards the
exploitation of project – based learning for group work activities to enhance the



2
English speaking skill of the third - year English majored students at Hong Duc
University” which try to introduce some changes into my speaking course with the
hope to improve third - year English majors’ speaking skill.
2. Aims of the study
This study is aimed at:
- finding out some problems in speaking lessons.

- exploring the PBL for group work activities as an intervention in speaking lessons
to improve English majors’ speaking skill.
- Exploring how PBL improve in third - year English majored students’ speaking
competence.
3. Research questions
In order to achieve these aims, the study is carried out with an attempt to answer the
following four questions:
1. What are the students’ problems regarding their English speaking skill?
2. To what extent PBL bring about any effectiveness in English speaking skill?
4. Significance of the study
Several studies found that PBL is challenging for teachers to enact despite its
positive benefits. PBL may not work well with students who do not take readily to
this new approach (Felix,1999; Levy, 1997), and a great deal of guidance and
intervention may be required to avoid potential problems with group dynamics,
assessment and time commitment. Due to above caution, the study provide an
insight into the effectiveness of applying project – based learning in English
speaking skill of the third - year English majors. The study will result some
improvement in theoretical understanding of PBL of the researcher, her colleagues,
and her students at HDU. They will make appropriate decisions on how to use PBL
effectively. In addition to this, the findings of the study will help the third - year
English majors to enhance their English speaking skill by using PBL.





3
5. Scope of the study
This study mainly focuses on improving third - year English majors’
speaking skill at Hong Duc University by exploring PBL for group work activities.

It involves the participants of 30 third - year English majors who are in their second
semester at HDU. The findings and recommendations most appropriately applied to
the teachers of English as well as the third - year English majors at HDU.
6. Methods of the study
This study is conducted in the form of an action research. The data serving the
research analysis and discussion were collected by means of:
- Questionnaires for students
- Classroom observation
In addition, to make the data collected more reliable an authentic, qualitative
method was applied.
7. Design of the study
The study is divided into three parts.
Part A - Introduction shows the rationale for the research, the aims, the research
questions, the significance , the scope, the methods and the design of the study.
Part B - Development consists of three chapters.
Chapter 1 - Literature review, not only deals with an overview of background to
the study, including key concepts and theories to the research topic but also
discusses previous studies of the field to reveal the research gap which needs filling.
Chapter 2 – Methodology introduces the participants, instrumentation, research
process and plan of action.
Chapter 3 – Results and discussion gives a detailed presentation of data and a
detailed description of data analysis. Some explanations and interpretations of the
findings of the study are also presented.
Part C Conclusion presents the summary of major findings, points out the
limitations of the study and provides the suggestions for implication of project –
based learning



4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Speaking skill
1.1. Definitions
Speaking is a natural people’s ability which was founded since they were
born, and a lot of researches on it have been done to work out various definitions.
One of the definitions is speaking considered as “the productive skill in the oral
mode (sil.org/lingualinks/languagelearning). In addition, according to Bygate
(1997, p.3), speaking is often thought of as a popular form of expression which uses
the unprestigious colloquial register”. It means that students must speak so as to
carry out many transactions and speaking skill is a medium of communication
which languages are learnt through. To speak a language, especially a foreign
language, learners need to know “not only the linguistic knowledge” but also “the
culturally acceptable ways of interacting with others in different situations and
relationship” (Hymes, 1971). It is assumed that speaking a language requires more
than the language’s knowledge itself; speakers must learn the way which native
speakers use the language to speak fluently and accurately. Nowadays the goal of
teaching speaking is to improve learner‟s communication skill. “Speaking is an
interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving and
processing information” (Brown, 1994; Burn & Joyce, 1997). Speaking needs that
learners not only should know how to produce specific points of language such as
grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary but also understand when, why and in what
ways to produce language communicatively.
It cannot be denied that speaking deserves as much attention as or even more
attention than written skill. In order to carry out many of the most basic
transactions, it is necessary for learners to speak with confidence.
1. 2. Characteristics
Bygate (1987) suggests that conversation can be analyzed in terms of
routines which are “conventional ways of presenting information because they are

5
conventional, they are predictable and help ensure clarity. There are two main kinds
of routines: information routines and interaction routines.
With regards to information routines, we mean frequently recurring types of
information structures, including stories; descriptions of places and people;
presentation of facts, comparison, and instruction. Broadly speaking, information
routines can be defined as “expository and evaluative”. Expository routines involve
factual information hinging on questions of sequencing or identity of the subject.
Brown and Yule (1983) suggest that the principal types of expository routines are
narration, description, and instruction. Meanwhile, evaluative routines involve the
drawing of conclusion, usually requiring the expression of reasoning.
Concerning interaction routines, they are routines based not so much on
sequences of kinds of terms occurring in typical kinds of interactions. Thus, these
routines can be characterized in broad terms including the kinds of turns typically
occurring in given situations and the order in which the components are likely to
occur. So telephone conversations, interview conversations, casual encounters,
conversations at parties, conversations around a table at a dinner party, lessons,
radio or television interviews, all tend to be organized in characteristic a way
(Bygate, 1987)
1.3. A successful speaking activity in the classroom.
Spoken language is the primary objective in language teaching. Giving
speaking classroom activities that develop learners‟ ability to express themselves
through speech is important. According to Ur (1996:120), a successful speaking
activity requires four typical characteristics: learners talk a lot; participation is even;
motivation is high; and language is of an acceptable level. These characteristics are
closely related to the theme of this study in hope that learners involve much more,
more actively and enthusiastically in speaking lessons. First and foremost, they
need a motivation to be eager and encouraged to speak, for example, they have

something new to share, want to contribute to the task achievement or just they are
fond of the topic. Then, when taking part in speaking practice, learners, on the one



6
hand, should try their best to talk as much as possible in an available period of time;
on the other hand, opportunities to raise their voices should be fairly equal to every
learner. Besides, learners can express themselves in relevant and comprehensible
ways with acceptable accuracy.
However, if students cannot communicate in reality, they will not be supposed to be
successful. Thus, Pattison (1992:7-8) lays great stress on four conditions to develop
speaking ability as follows:
situations
or topics (with one or some grammar points for elementary level).
what
they are saying is left out.
interrupt
to correct mistakes or errors.

1.4. Problems with speaking activities
Classroom activities that develop learners‟ ability to express themselves
through speech are an important component of a language course where CLT is
applied. However, it is more difficult to design and administer such activities than
to do so for listening, reading or writing. According to Ur (1996, p.121), teachers
often come across the following problems:
* The first is “inhibition”. It is explained that unlike reading, writing and listening
activities, speaking requires some degree of real-time exposure to an audience.
Learners are often inhabited about trying to say something in a foreign language in
the classroom because they are worried about making mistakes, fearful of criticism

or losing face, or simply shy of the attention that their speech attracts.



7
* Nothing to say is the second problem. Teachers often hear learners complain they
can not think of anything to say. They may have no motivation to express
themselves beyond the guilty feeling that they should be speaking. The problem is
also mentioned by Lawtie (2004) and it is necessary to be tackled.
* Moreover, uneven or low participation is among the teachers‟ obstacles. Only one
participant can talk at a time if he or she is to be heard. In a large group, this means
that each one has only very little time for talking. This problem is compounded by
the tendency of some learners to dominate the group, while the others speak very
little or not at all.
* Last but not least, mother-tongue use is also problematic. When all, or a number
of the learners share the same mother tongue, they may tend to use it. This happens
because it is easier, because it is unnatural to speak to one another in a foreign
language and because or because learners feel less „exposed‟ if they are speaking
their mother tongue. Lawtie (2003, p.2) also states that the problem would happen if
the task or activity is not “pitched at the right level for the students”. If the language
is pitched too high they may revert to their first language, likewise if the task is too
easy they may get bored and revert to the first language, too. To deal with the
problems, Lawtie (2004) believes that as a teacher maybe you need to take a closer
look at the type of speaking activities in order to make the activities interesting
enough to capture students‟ interest and create a real need for communication. In a
word, overcoming these obstacles in speaking class to create successful speaking
activities where learners talk a lot, participation is even and motivation is high
certainly Requires a lot of teachers‟ efforts in designing and carrying out speaking
activities.
2. Group work.

The EFL literature indicate that to improve our students' speaking skill, we
must reducing learner anxiety and ensuring meaningful communicative exchanges
in the classroom. And group work is one of the valuable techniques can help
achieve the above goals for the purpose of fostering speaking ability. Group work



8
can create a comfortable atmosphere and the intimate community necessary for
learners to take risks in speaking.
2.1 Definition of group work
Rod Killen (2004) indicades that “ Group work occurs when you ask two or more
students to work together” Davis (1993) sorts out three types of group work which
are called: informal learning groups, formal learning groups, and study teams
Informal learning groups are ad hoc termporary clusterings of students within a
single class session. Informal learning groups can be initiated, for example, by
asking students to turn to a neighbor and spend two minutes discussing a question
you have posed. You can also form groups of three to five to solve a problem or
pose a question. You can organize informal froups any time in a class of any size to
check on students’ understanding of the material, to give students an opportunity to
apply what they are learning, or to provide a change of pace. Formal learning
groups are teams established to complete a specific task, such as perform a lab
experiment, write a report, carry out a project, or prepare a position paper. These
groups may complete their work in a single class session or over several weeks.
Typically, students work together until the task is finished, and their project is
graded. Study teams are long – term groups (usually existing over the course of a
semester) with stable membership whose primary responsibility is to provide
members with support, encouragement, assistance in completing course
requirements and assigments. Study teams also inform their members about lectures
and assignments when someone has missed a session. The larger the class ans the

more complex the subject matter, the more caluable study teams can be.
2.2. Group size
It seems prudent to keep groups as small as possible to promote positive
interdependence, yet as large as necessary to provide sufficient diversity of opinions
and backgrounds as well as resources to get the job done. The size of groups formed
is directly dependent on the activity to be pursued and the length of time the group
will stay together. Typically, for in-lecture informal activities, group size is often



9
kept small (in the range of two to four students) since larger groups have
insufficient time to become cohesive. In contrast, a complex semester long project
may require the resources of a larger group (four to six students) and there is
enough time for the group to become effective.
2.3. Group work activities. There are some activities for group work activities:
- Games
- Question construction
- Guided practice
- Dictation
- Role play
- Guess ahead
- Speculative question
- Discussion
- Project
- Information gap
- Jigsaw
- Problem solving
- Discussion making
- Opinion exchange.

3. Project – based learning (PBL)
3.1. Definition of PBL
There are many definitions of project-based approach in learning. Each definition is
the reflection of the underlying theories or perspectives that the authors assume.
Carter and Thomas (1986, p.196) characterize project work with three features
referring to the venue, the inter-disciplined characteristic and student's autonomy:
i) it takes place outside the classroom
ii) it is cross-curricular
iii) it allows learners to set their own targets as they proceed.



10
Moss, D. and Duzer, V.C. (1998, p.1) defines "PBL is an instructional approach
that contextualizes learning by presenting learners with problems to solve or
products to develop".
Accordingly, the essential feature of project-based approach is a tangible and visible
result such as a product or a solution to a defined problem. Jones, Rasmussen and
Moffitt (1997, cited in Thomas, 2000) and Thomas, Mergendoller and Michaelson
(1999) to provide a synthesis features of PBL on the tasks, the students' activities,
the time and the result. Thomas (2000) writes, "PBL is a model that organizes
learning around projects … projects are complex tasks, based on challenging
questions or problems, that involve students in design, problem-solving, decision
making, or investigative activities; give students the opportunity to work
autonomously over extended periods of time; and culminate in realistic products or
presentations". (p.1). In Thomas' point of view, PBL is understood as a systematic
teaching method that engages students in learning knowledge and skills through an
extended inquiry process structured around complex, authentic questions and
carefully designed products and tasks. It seems to be the most suitable and clearest
in the context of this study. The author of this study also supports five features of

PBL proposed by Thomas (2000, pp.3-4) as follows:
1. PBL projects are central, not peripheral to curriculum. In other words, all
aspects of learning, such as objectives, teacher, and student activities, time
allocation, materials should focus on or aim at fulfilling the project, which
contributes to the accomplishment of learning outcomes stated in the curriculum.
2. PBL projects are focused on questions or problems that "drive" students to
encounter the central concepts and principles of a discipline. It means that the
question or problem here must include the learning objectives or concepts and
principles of a subject.
3. Projects involve students in a constructive investigation. This is characterized in
accumulative progress students make during the completion of the project.
4. Projects are student-driven to some significant degree. This emphasizes the



11
importance of students' participation during different stages of a project. Students
should have certain autonomy in doing the task.
5. Projects are realistic, not school-like. Projects should offer students real-life
problems or situations to deal with rather than a repetition of school drills.
3.2. Characteristics of PBL
Sarah North (1990) classifies projects into four categories based on the
primary sources of data.
1. Community projects, in which students derive their information largely from
local community, using methods such as observation, questionnaires, interviews and
letter writing.
2. Case studies, in which students are provided with specific documents (real or
imaginary) relating to a particular problem which has to be solved.
3. Practical projects, in which students are required to carry out practical work to
reach their objectives, for example, producing a design, building a model or real

object, carrying out an experiment, or the form of equipment and material.
4. Library projects, in which the main resource base is a library. Typically, students
are expected to take a particular topic, read about it, and produce some kind of
written work.
3.3. Advantages of PBL and disadvantages of PBL
3.3.1. Advantages of PBL According to Gallacher (2004), PBL has the following
advantages:
1. Increased motivation - learners become personally involved in the project.
2. All four skills are integrated.
3. Autonomous learning is promoted as learners become more responsible for their
own learning.
4. There are learning outcomes - learners have an end product.
5. Authentic tasks are given to learners.
6. Interpersonal relations are developed through working as a group.



12
7. Content and methodology can be decided between the learners and the teacher
and within the group themselves so it is more learner-centered.
8. Learners can get help from parents for the project work thus involving the parents
more in the child's learning.
9. A break from routine and the chance to do something different.
10. A context is established which balances the need for fluency and accuracy.
Fried-Booth (1997), taking a more practical view of PBL, emphasizes that project
work is a bridge between using English in class and using English in real life
situations outside of class. From a learner-centered perspective, Thomas et. al.
(1999) claim that the PBL can respond effectively to the needs of learners with
varying skill levels and learning styles.
3.3.2. Disadvantages of Project-based Learning

Gallacher (2004) has pointed out that despite its advantages; PBL has some
drawbacks, especially in a language class such as the excessive use of the first
language, the different speeds of different students and the control on actual
learning with lazy students when they have much freedom in doing project.
According to Thomas (2000), there are three kinds of challenges involving
students, teachers and school factors. However, the author only focus on the
students' problems as it is the centre of discussion in this study. The first challenge
encountered by learners is the students' failure to work in a team. The second is the
students' lack of skills to conduct a scientific study such as generating meaningful
scientific questions, managing complexity and time, transforming data, and
developing a logical argument to support claims.
In conclusion, students will face many challenges in doing a project.
However, being aware of these challenges will help them minimize the intervention
of these challenges to the success of a project.
3.4. Rationale for implementing PBL in speaking lesson
Since the mid-seventies, as speaking class has espoused principles of learner-
centered teaching, learner autonomy, the negotiated syllabus, collaborative learning,



13
and task-based learning, English language educators have explored and exploited
the tradition of project work and it is now part of the curriculum in many contexts.
Numerous advantages of using project work in the English language classroom are
well-documented in literature. Fried-Booth (1997) feels that project work within
speaking lesson has gained currency in recent years as a way of encouraging
students to use “real life” language in authentic situations. Zakari K. in his article
“Incorporating project work into the classroom” points out some advantages of
using project work in an speaking classroom as follows:

Fried-Booth in her “Project work” also describes in details the “layer
approach” to show that “project work can provide a useful way of integrating the
four skills” (Fried-Booth, 1986, p.8). She explains that however long or short the
project may be, it will pass through certain stages of development, each of which
involves some or even the combination of all language skills. The initial stages of
the project, for example, may provide learners with an opportunity to develop
speaking and listening skills rather than reading and writing. However, once the
project is under way, the learners will use all four skills simultaneously. She also
points out that project work helps to “bridge the gap between language study and
language use” (p.7). Therefore, it can be a valuable means of extending the
communicative skills acquired in the classroom. Beckett G. H and Slater T. in their
article “The Project Framework: a tool for language, content, and skills integration”
believe that “project-based instruction is a valuable way to promote the
simultaneous acquisition of language, content, and skills” (ELT Journal Vol 59/2
April 2005: 108) They even introduce a methodological tool called “the Project



14
Framework” which is influenced by Mohan‟s Knowledge Framework (Mohan:
1986) with the purpose of showing students the language, content and skill
development occurring through project work.
In the previous parts of the thesis, it has been pointed out that an ESP course
requires a methodology that allows the combination of language, subject matter,
and communicative skills necessary for the learners‟ specialist field. Obviously,

taking a constructivist point of view, project work should be incorporated into the
English class in general and speaking class in particular. However, teachers should
bear in mind that project work is not a “replacement for other teaching methods”
but rather “an approach to learning which complements mainstream methods and
which can be used with almost all levels, ages and abilities of students” (Haines,
1989, p.47).
3.5. A framework for PBL
Project work is multi-staged and the division of stages may vary from
researcher to researcher. Stoller (2002) divides the process of project work
development into five stages: Selection of topic and idea generation, organisation
of ideas and identification of areas of enquiry; research and information gathering;
compilation and analysis of information; publication, presentation and evaluation
of project. Hedge (1998) gives very clear guidance on how to carry out a practical
project which include six stages: orientation; preparation and planning;
implementation; collation; presentation; and reflection. Within the context of
English language teaching, I take Diana Curtis‟ view which divides the project into
three phases: orientation and planning; research and implementation; sharing
results.
Phase 1: Orientation and planning
According to Curtis (2001), this phase involves initial discussion of a topic in
certain groups. All students are involved by brainstorming, sharing ideas related to
the topic, making the final decision. During this phase, new issues and topics that
are appropriate for language learning may arouse (Moss & Van Duzer, 1998) and it



15
is these ideas that help them to study the language better. Gallacher (n.d) proposes
some guidelines that teachers can use to help their students work out their plan:

Phase 2: Research and implementation
After making the final decision on the project topic and working out a plan for the
project, students move on to the next phase. This phase involves mostly such
activities as research, fieldwork, sessions with experts and various aspects of
gathering information, reading, writing, drawing, and computing (Curtis, 2001).
This is an important stage for language learning and skill development as various
skills will be needed for the completion of the project. Although students work
mostly on their own or in their group, the teacher must be aware of and perform
their role as an instructor, a consultant, a facilitator, and even a group member.
He/She must decide on when, where and how much he/she should support the
students. This support, in Moss and Van Duzer‟ s view, may take the form of
language structures and skills, problem-solving strategies, and methods for
developing plans (Moss and Van Duzer, 1998).
Phase 3: Sharing results
This is the final phase occurring when students have accomplished their project and
it can be in the form of group presentation or disseminating the results in the larger
community (Moss and Van Duzer, 1998). Hedge (1998) uses other terms,
presentation and reflection, and makes a clear distinction between these two ways
of sharing results. Students will „listen‟ to others presenting in the former and
„read‟ other writing in the latter. However, these authors and some others such as
Curtis (2001), Gallacher (n.d) share a belief that the most common way of sharing
results is the presentation of the project to an audience. This is the last but not least