The implementation of project based learning in the new english textbook to develop high school students’ speaking skill

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ THỊ CẨM VÂN

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN THE
NEW ENGLISH TEXTBOOK TO DEVELOP HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’
SPEAKING SKILL
(Sử dụng phương pháp học dự án trong sách giáo khoa tiếng Anh thí điểm để
phát triển kĩ năng nói của học sinh trung học phổ thông)

MA. MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01

Hanoi – 2020
[


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ THỊ CẨM VÂN

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN THE NEW
ENGLISH TEXTBOOK TO DEVELOP HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’
SPEAKING SKILL
(Sử dụng phương pháp học dự án trong sách giáo khoa tiếng Anh thí điểm để phát

triển kĩ năng nói của học sinh trung học phổ thông)

MA. MINOR THESIS

Field

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 8140231.01

Supervisor

: Dr. Vũ Thị Thanh Nhã

Hanoi – 2020
[


DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
I hereby certify that the minor thesis entitled “The implementation of
project-based learning in the new English textbook to improve high school students‟
speaking” is the result of my own work in fulfillment of the requirement for the
Degree of Master of Arts at Faculty at Post-graduate Studies, University of
Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University of Hanoi. I
confirm that I cited all references in the study. This research has not been submitted
partially or wholly for a degree or any other qualifications at other universities. I am
fully aware that should this declaration be found to be dishonest, disciplinary action
and penalties in accordance with University policies and rules can be imposed.

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of my MA thesis is an arduous but rewarding process in
which I am fortunate to receive invaluable supports and encouragements from the
family, supervisor, lecturers, friends, colleagues, students. I would like to take this
opportunity to express my immense gratitude to their time and assistance. In
particular, I am profoundly indebted to my thesis advisor, Dr. Vu Thi Thanh Nha,
who offered me the right orientation, constant advice to develop the thesis, the
elaborate edition of my thesis, and ultimately a good role model of an effective
instructor. Her wit, confidence, knowledge, professional working style enable me to
be mindful of priceless lessons which I can apply to my prospective teaching career.
Secondly, I am grateful to all lecturers in my postgraduate course who equipped me
with the necessary research background knowledge as well as inspirations to
complete this research. Thanks to the learning opportunity in Vietnamese National
University, I can approach many conferences and teaching forums to refresh myself,
in one of which I had the chance to meet an expert in project-based learning,
professor Fredricka Louise Stoller. I am grateful to her timely assistance, constant
responses to my inquiries coupled with precious reading materials and references.
Her act of kindness to an acquaintance like me makes the research road less
challenging and more meaningful. Besides, I want to express gratefulness to the
colleagues and students in my school for their cooperation and their enthusiasm
towards project-based activities. Finally, but not least, immense gratitude goes to
my whole family for their care, understanding and spiritual encouragement.

ii

ABSTRACT
In an effort to involve teachers in high school in applying project-based
teaching and

improve students‟ learning speaking through the project-based

learning, this study aims at evaluating the impacts of the approach on high school
students‟ speaking performance, their attitudes towards the approach. An action
research was conducted in a high school in a mountainous area in a semester.
Participants were 36 students from a non- English majored class. Both quantitative
and qualitative data were collected through observations, questionnaires before the
intervention, open-ended questionnaires, observations during the intervention, the
close-ended questionnaire after the intervention. The results of the data analysis
indicated that students‟ speaking skills especially students‟ organization of ideas,
delivery of information and fluency made significant improvement. Over 60% of
students had positive attitudes towards project-based learning. Project-based
learning was beneficial to students‟ accumulation of soft skills, content and
character development. Besides, there was a strong correlation between students‟
attitudes and students‟ performance. For an effective implementation of projectlearning in the textbook, teachers can apply Stoller‟s five-stage project framework,
set clear project requirements as well as cooperate with other English teachers or
teachers of other subjects to optimize projects‟ effectiveness.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP .....................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
1.1.Rationale for the research ..................................................................................... 1
1.2.Aims and research questions ................................................................................. 2
1.3.Scope of the research ............................................................................................ 2
1.4.Methods of the research ........................................................................................ 3
1.5. Significance of the research………………………….……..………….……….3
1.6.Organisation of the thesis ...................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 4
2.1.Project-Based Learning ......................................................................................... 4
2.1.1.Definition of PBL............................................................................................... 4
2.1.2.Stages of PBL ..................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3.Core principles of PBL .................................................................................... 10
2.1.4.Features of high-quality project-based learning .............................................. 13
2.1.5.Benefits of PBL ................................................................................................ 14
2.1.6.Challenges of PBL ........................................................................................... 20
2.2.Speaking .............................................................................................................. 21
2.2.1.Definition of speaking ...................................................................................... 21
2.2.2.Affective factors ............................................................................................... 22
2.2.3.Approaches to teaching speaking ..................................................................... 24
2.2.4.Classroom-speaking assessment ...................................................................... 26
2.3.Summary ............................................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 29
3.1.Context of the study ............................................................................................ 29
3.1.1.Research site..................................................................................................... 29
3.1.2.Participants ....................................................................................................... 30
3.1.3.Material ............................................................................................................ 31
3.2.Research method ................................................................................................. 33
3.3.Research procedure ............................................................................................. 35
3.3.1.Report of Cycle 1 ............................................................................................. 35
iv

3.3.2.Report of cycle 2 and 3 .................................................................................... 38
3.4.Data collection instruments ................................................................................. 39
3.4.1.Observations ..................................................................................................... 40
3.4.2.Questionnaires .................................................................................................. 41
3.4.3.Students‟ presentations .................................................................................... 42
3.5.Data analysis ....................................................................................................... 42
3.6.Summary ............................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................................... 44
4.1.Summary of three cycles ..................................................................................... 44
4.1.1. Cycle 1………………………………………………………………...……45
4.1.2.Cycle 2 ............................................................................................................. 46
4.1.3.Cycle 3 ............................................................................................................. 47
4.2.Students‟ speaking performance ......................................................................... 48
4.2.1.The teacher‟s evaluation of students‟ speaking performance .......................... 48
4.2.2.Students‟ self-evaluation of their speaking performance................................. 51
4.2.3.Comparison of teacher‟s evaluation and students‟ self-evaluation of speaking
performance ...............................................................................................................52
4.3.Students‟ attitudes towards PBL ......................................................................... 53
4.3.1.Students‟ attitudes drawn from the teacher‟s reflection .................................. 53
4.3.2.Students‟ attitudes drawn from questionnaires ................................................ 54
4.3.3.Comparison of students‟ attitudes drawn from teacher‟s reflections and from
students‟ responses in questionnaires .......................................................................66
4.4.Discussion ........................................................................................................... 66
4.5.Summary ............................................................................................................. 72
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 74
5.1.Recapitulation ..................................................................................................... 74
5.2.Implications ......................................................................................................... 76
5.3.Limitations of the study ...................................................................................... 78

5.4.Suggestions for further study .............................................................................. 79
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 80
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I

v


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: Stoller‟s five stage PBL framework (Stoller, 2020, p.31) ........................... 9
Figure 2: Gold Standard PBL (Larmer, Mergendollar, and Boss, 2015) .................. 13
Figure 3: A methodological framework for a holistic approach to teaching speaking
(Goh & Burns, 2012, p. 138) ................................................................................... 25
Table 1: The research procedure for the implementation of PBL ........................... 39
Table 2.1: Group statistics of project 1 and 3 .......................................................... 48
Table 2.2: Independent samples test of project 1 and 3 ........................................... 48
Table 3.1: The number of students in delivery, content, fluency in three projects .. 49
Table 3.2: The number of students in vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation in three
projects .....................................................................................................................50
Table 4.1: Students‟ self-evaluation of speaking performance after three cycles …51
Table 4.2: Students‟ speaking involvement and affective factors ........................... 54
Table 5.1: Students‟ opinions on PBL‟s benefits ..................................................... 55
Table 5.2: Students‟ favorite activities in three projects .......................................... 57
Table 5.3: Students‟ dislikes in three projects ......................................................... 59
Table 5.4: Students‟ difficulties in three projects .................................................... 61
Table 5.5: Students‟ expectations of the teacher‟s help in three projects ................ 63

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AR

Action research

EFL

English as a foreign language

PBL

Project-based learning

P1

Project 1

P2

Project 2

P3

Project 3

SA

Strongly agree

SD

Strongly disagree

vii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1.Rationale for the research
In Vietnamese high school context, a vast amount of in-class speaking time
is generally consumed by lecturing vocabulary, grammar rules, focusing on the
accuracy of forms to prepare students for the exams rather than providing them
meaningful tasks to stimulate their creation of meaning. Moreover, the stress on
forms breeds students‟ unwanted psychological impacts including the fear of
mistake, the lack of confidence and demotivation. Whenever uttering a word,
students are worried about being subject to peers‟ humiliation. Students, especially
the one of low ability are even not confident to express themselves for fear of
failing to make themselves understood, so they resort to silence in speaking period.
For those of higher ability, the repetition of form drills over years of learning
English demotivates them, gives them no practical purpose of learning English.
However long and grueling their English learning process is, students‟ inability to
use the language freely in the real life is a common sight. Evidently, speaking
incompetence is a disadvantage which hinders learners from expressing themselves,
partaking in communication, widening the social networks, becoming global
citizens, pursuing success. In quest of an effective formula for teaching speaking,
the emergence of the project period in the New English textbook as a different
component compared to the old English textbook offers teachers a guiding tool to
change that vexed issue. However, few teachers in the author‟s school take time and
efforts to facilitate PBL. Project lessons are even eliminated from the curriculum
unofficially due to the inadequate understanding of project-based learning, the lack

of feasible lesson plans with specific solutions to lessons in the textbook. As a
result, the topic of the implementation of PBL in teaching speaking was chosen with
the aim of persuading the teachers like colleagues in the author‟s school to use PBL
in their lessons by showing them the impact of this approach on specific aspects of
speaking, students‟ attitudes towards project activities as well as providing the

1


specific activities, implementation stages that may work to students.
In terms of the theory, various studies of PBL such as Blumenfeld, P. C. et
al. (1991), Alan and Stoller (2005), Apsari, Du and Han (2016), Apsari, Y. et al.
(2019), Stoller (2006, 2012, 2020) offer definitions, frameworks, key features,
benefits of this teaching instruction. However, little research focuses on describing
the implementation of such model in real teaching context. What students do in
specific stages and how teachers offer scaffolding are not explained thoroughly, so
teachers lack practical support to realise PBL. As a result, despite achieving popular
acclaim, PBL is not treated as an alternative but a complementary instruction to
conventional teaching methods.
Owing to insufficient guidances for the practical implementation of PBL
together with inadequate evidence to support the positive effect of PBL in the field
of English language teaching, especially speaking ability as well as a large
proportion of teachers‟ indifference to PBL, the study was done in the hope of
tackling those issues.
1.2.Aims and research questions
The study aims at improving high school students‟ speaking skill through the
implementation of project-based activities in the new textbook by answering two
research questions.
1. To what extent does the use of project-based learning in the new textbook
influence high school students‟ speaking skill?

2. What are high school students‟ attitudes towards project-based learning?
1.3.Scope of the research
This study was carried out in a non-English majored class 10 at a high
school in Yen Bai province in eleven weeks. The participants of the study included
36 students in that class. Project-based learning covers many aspects of research.
However, this minor thesis only focuses on measuring students‟ speaking
performance during the implementation of the project-based learning and their
attitudes towards PBL.

2


1.4.Methods of the research

The study was conducted in the form of an action research as the author
wanted to answer the question of students‟ failure to speak English by
implementing different project-based activities herself to measure their effects on
students‟ speaking skill. The features of action research allow the author to plan,
act, observe, reflect, then draw practical conclusions to her own questions, lesson
plans, which promotes her professional growth in the upcoming years.
1.5.Significance of the research
In terms of theory, the review of project-based learning research indicates
that previous studies focus on investigating students and teachers‟ attitudes towards
project-based learning, the roles of teachers and students and their difficulties in this
approach. Few studies offer specific evidence on PBL‟s impacts. Therefore, this
study covers both evaluative and intervention research which focus on measuring
the specific impacts of project-based learning on speaking skill, learners‟ attitudes
towards PBL. The findings of the study are expected to provide high school
teachers and students with specific, not general solutions to improve their learning
and teaching quality.

1.6.Organisation of the thesis
The study is divided into five chapters.
Chapter 1: Introduction covers the rationale, the significance, the aims, the
research questions, the scope, method of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature review provides the theoretical framework related to projectrelated aspects, speaking features, approaches, assessments, overview of ten-year
English textbooks for upper secondary level under the National Foreign Language
2020 Project.
Chapter 3: Methodology presents the context, participants, the material, the
research procedure, data instruments, data analysis.
Chapter 4: Findings and discussion present the results of data analysis, discuss the
impact of PBL on students‟ speaking performance and attitudes.
Chapter 5: Conclusion presents a summary of research procedure, findings,
implications, limitations, future directions for the study.
3


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This action research studies the effects of the implementation of PBL in the
new English textbook on student‟s speaking performance and attitudes. Therefore,
this study reviews theoretical issues related to PBL, speaking.
2.1.Project-Based Learning
This section reviews the literature in the area of PBL related to the study.
Based on the existing literature, the definition, core features, high qualities, benefits,
challenges of PBL are analysed to lay the theoretical foundations for the study.
2.1.1.Definition of PBL
Du and Han (2016) claim that the history of PBL can be traced back to the
progressive tradition supported by John Dewey. He advocates the theory of learning
by doing in which the classroom should be a kind of society and the students should
be encouraged to become the center in the learning process (Beard & Wilson,
2006). So far, project work, or PBL has experienced an integration into classrooms

with different age groups including young, adolescent, adult learners to meet
general, vocational, academic and specific language objectives. Such versatility of
PBL results in the difficulty for one single definition to cover all aspects of the
concept. Hedge (1993), Cooper and Murphy (2016) focus on the role of language
reinforcement of PBL while Kartz and Chard (2000) emphasize the aspect of
content learning. These authors clarify the single aspects of PBL while Fried-Booth
(1985), Stoller (2006) highlight the features of a project by comparing them with
those of the so-called project or motivating activities.
In the field of English language instruction, Hedge (1993) regards PBL as a
means to help learners develop their communicative competence and fluency in the
process of completing the extended tasks. She describes a project as an extended
task composed of a number of activities integrating with language learning and
working towards an agreed goal such as planning, gathering information, discussing
the information, solving problem, reporting oral or written and displaying. Sharing
the same viewpoint, Cooper and Murphy (2016) emphasize the role of PBL in

4


refining students‟ language skills through the completion of projects both in and
outside of the classroom. Teachers are supposed to create a classroom culture of
creativity and engagement so that students can share their work and reflect on the
processes they participate in.
Fried-Booth (1985) defines project work as a student-centred activity
facilitated by the need to create an end-product and emphasizes the worthwhile
value lying in the process. He distinguishes “full-scale projects” from “bridging or
motivating activities” and points out the main difference in setting. The former is
extended beyond the classroom while the latter is restricted to the classroom setting.
Obviously, three important criteria of Fried-Booth‟s project work are studentcenteredness, end-product, out-class setting.
Kartz and Chard (2000) describes a project as an “in-depth study” of a specific

topic an individual, a group or the whole group might undertake to explore a topic
or theme (pp.2-3). Depending on children‟s age and the nature of the topic, working
time on a project varies from several days or weeks of efforts involving advanced
planning and various activities to a shorter and impromptu project stimulated by an
unexpected event or visitor. Project work as an approach refers to a method of
teaching and learning the content. The teacher encourages children to interact with
people, objects and environment in a personally meaningful way and children
partake actively in their own studies. The content comes from a familiar world to
children. Obviously, Kartz and Chard emphasise the teacher‟s motivating role, the
learners‟ active participation and the familiarity of learning content.
Fredricka L. Stoller, an expert in PBL for over three decades claims the
different implementations of project work in different settings by classifying
projects into “under-exploited” project work and project work that maximises
benefits. According to Stoller (2005), multiple language educators implement fairly
non-elaborated tasks in a single class session, then label them as project work. In
some settings, students are required to join groups with their friends, complete basic
communicative activities. Students interact in a superficial way with little
cooperation and mutual assistance. In some settings, project work is just a break

5


from routine classroom activities. Although challenging, real world subject matter is
selected, students tend to focus on the visual actractiveness of projects, neglect
content and language learning. In other settings, teachers‟ absent or excessive
guidance, control, feedbacks restrict students‟ growth from the project. So called
projects fail to maximize the benefits of project work. Stoller (2006) defines PBL
by specifying ten conditions for an effective PBL. Project-based learning should
have 1) a process and product, 2) promote student ownership in the project, 3) last
over a period of time instead of a single class session, 4) facilitate the natural

integration of skills, 5) encourage language and content learning, 6) encourage
students to work in groups and individually, 7) require students to be in charge of
their own learning, 8) encourage teachers and students‟ assuming new roles and
responsibilities, 9) have a tangible final product, 10) end with student reflections on
both the process and the product
It is apparent that the definition of PBL is approached from different
standpoints, from a means to help learners (Hedge, 1993), a learning activity (FriedBooth, 1985), an in-depth study of a topic (Kartz & Chard, 2000) to an approach
with ten necessary conditions (Stoller, 2005) . PBL can generally be described as a
systematic teaching method revolving around a prolonged inquiry process of
authentic driving questions, elaborate designed tasks to facilitate both knowledge
and skill acquisition. Stoller‟s (2006) definition is holistic as she points out the PBL
features of time, process, objectives, students and teachers‟ roles. Therefore, it is
selected as the guideline for this study.
2.1.2.Stages of PBL
Fried-Booth (1985) claims that however long or short the project is, it will
undergo three stages of development including planning stage, implementation
stage, the creation of the end-product. In the first stage, teachers and students
discuss the scope, content of the project, predict the specific language needs and the
end-product. In the second phase, tasks are implemented and teachers are supposed
to assume the role of support and monitoring. The third stage revolves around the
creation of a tangible end-product accompanied by evaluation and feedback on
6


students‟ product. Teachers can create a follow-up language program to meet
students‟ needs arising from the second stage. However succinct Fried-Booth‟s
project procedure is, students end their work with creating and sharing the endproduct. There is no room for them to self-evaluate and reflect on the whole process
of doing a project. This is the shortcoming of this model.
Papandreou (1994) in “An Application of the Projects Approach to EFL”
introduces a six step model in doing a project.

Step 1: Preparation: students are introduced the topic and asked to discuss and ask
questions.
Step 2: Planning: the mode for collecting and analyzing information is determined,
and different tasks are assigned.
Step 3: Research: students work individually or in groups to collect information.
Step 4: Conclusions: Basing on the analysis of the collected data, the students
draw conclusions.
Step 5: Presentation: the final product is presented to the whole class.
Step 6: Evaluation: the teacher makes comments on the students‟ endeavor and efforts.
Like Fried-Booth‟s model, Papandreou divides the similar tasks into
different stages. Planning and preparation are the same as planning stage, research
and conclusion corresponding to the implementation stage, presentation and
evaluation acting the same role as Fried-Booth‟s final stage. In other words,
Papandreou‟s model is another version of Fried-Booth‟s.
Addressing the shortcomings of earlier frameworks, Stoller‟s five stage
framework is the result of her three decade insights into PBL. It reflects her
evolution in thinking from Sheppard and Stoller‟s eight-step process in 1995, Alan
and Stoller‟s ten-step process in 2005, Stoller‟s seven-step process in 2012 to the
current five-step process in 2020. This framework is specified as follows.
Stage 1: Preparation cycle
Project theme, topics, final outcomes, planning decisions are determined in
this stage. Textbook materials and student interests are the source of themes.

7


Effective themes satisfy five criteria including being relevant to students‟
communities, studies and lives, having multiple reference resources, kindling
students‟ curiosity, motivating students, stimulating students‟ pride. Final outcomes
correspond with curricular aims, course goals, student needs. Variations of teacher

and student roles depend on the context and students‟ level but students generally
have some voice in this stage to ensure the commitment.
Stage 2: Information gathering cycle
In this stage, students partake in collecting information. Types and methods
of collection vary. Teachers‟ scaffolding is based on course goals, students‟ needs.
A review of key grammatical structures, theme or topic related vocabulary is often
offered.
Stage 3: Information processing cycle
Teachers play the role of a guide in offering practice to review the purpose of
the project, collect information, determine relevant and less appropriate
information, code data to discover categories, characteristics, patterns, trends,
summarise or synthesise data. Students work in groups to compile and analyse
gathered information.
Stage 4: Information display cycle
Teachers can add scaffolding in classroom activities to prepare students for
finalizing the outcome products. Students display the final product to their
audiences.
Stage 5: Reflection cycle
Two rounds of student and teacher reflection are recommended to ensure the
real culmination of the projects. Teachers give feedbacks on “students‟ language
improvement, content learning, strategy use, decision-making skills, collaborative
abilities”, encourage students to reflect on what they have learnt regarding “content,
language, skills, strategies, process and product.” Teachers also reflect the same to
identify the strengths and weaknesses of the project for further improvement
(Stoller, 2020, p.31).

8


The content of each stage is illustrated by the diagram below.

Figure 1: Stoller’s five stage PBL framework (Stoller, 2020, p.31)
Obviously, compared to Stoller‟s previous models, stages in this model are concise
and clear. This framework avoids the extensive overlap between stages of the
project by pointing out the repeated nature of the project, thereby offering students a
clear sense of progression. Besides, the relationship between the teacher and
students are intertwined in cycles, highlighting the teacher‟s evolving roles and
9


students‟ language needs. Last but not least, this framework emphasizes the values
of reflective and evaluative tasks. After the display of the end product, both the
teacher and students look back on the teaching and learning activities, which makes
this process deeper. As a result, Stoller‟s five stage framework is adapted in this
paper by virtue of its clarity and appropriateness and other pluses. Various
definitions and stages of PBL have been discussed, but to gain insight into PBL, it
is appropriate to explore key features of PBL in the following section.
2.1.3.Core principles of PBL
This section analyses key features of PBL related to the learning process,
learners‟ roles, teachers‟ roles, characteristics of a high quality project.
2.1.3.1.Learning process

 Learner-centeredness
Project work can be implemented in any settings for various group ages
without any specific prescribed language aims. In fact, the most successful projects
are claimed to center on student interests and concerns (Stoller, 2012). Such
flexibility fosters learners‟ gradual development of autonomy and greater
responsibility as students are prepared to approach learning in their own suitable
way to their own abilities, styles, and preferences. In all stages of a project, students
are granted the right of partaking in the process of making choices and decisions.

According to Erying (2001), projects can be structured, semi-structured or
unstructured. The structured one is mostly determined by the teacher whereas the
remaining are determined by the teacher and students or mostly students.
Obviously, whatever the type of projects is, students can play a role in negotiating
the theme, final outcomes, the planning process, group responsibilities. This selfinitiation nurtures students‟ sense of ownership and pride in the project. They are
also the main responsible and active participants in gathering, processing,
displaying the product and reflecting on what they have learnt during the project.
Such active involvement gradually shapes students‟ autonomy and independence.
 Cooperative learning
10


Most project tasks involve group work activities. Students are supposed to
work together to create a final product. They have to negotiate with teachers and
classmates to select themes, topics, cooperate with each other in collecting,
analyzing and displaying the data. The frequency of group work, the negotiation in
reaching a plan, the discussion in conducting tasks enhance students‟ exposure to
group work and confidence to function in groups. After a project, students begin to
“view each other as single links in a chain that merge through exchanges of
information and negotiation of meaning, to produce a successful project outcome”
(Alan & Stoller, 2005, p.18).
 Authenticity of learning
In formal learning, most organized language learning occurs in classrooms
with the focus on the theoretical transmission whereby learners take time and efforts
to memorise vocabulary and grammatical rules but fail to use them in the real life.
There is a gap between the learnt language and the required language. Project work
characterized by authenticity of experience and language is supposed to bridge that
gap. Project-based learning is praised for creating “purposeful opportunities for
language input, language output, and explicit attention to language-related
features.” (Stoller, 2006, p.32). To begin with the content emphases, they are

authentic. The content of the project is often linked to curricular syllabus, or an
extension or enhancement of a unit in the textbook. Curricular themes tend to focus
on real-world or global issues. Secondly, the group works are shed light on by final
outcomes and the end products aim at solving real life tasks. To address these tasks,
learners are expected to gather, process and display information by reading
extensively, summarising, analysing data, presenting the results. These activities
reflect high ordering metacognitive skills which are really necessary for learners in
the real life. When students share the results of their projects with authentic
audiences like classmates, or other classes, they are engaged in authentic tasks of
presenting findings. By doing so, students are offered a rational reason to do a real
tasks, thereby engaging more in the project.

11


2.1.3.2.Learners’ roles

Stoller (2006) attributes students‟ “increased autonomy, independence, selfinitiation and willingness to take responsibility for their own learning” to other
benefits of PBL (p.27). Specifically, students must show their active participation
and self-regulation in all stages of PBL from choosing the theme, planning,
collecting, analysing and displaying the data to reflecting the whole process.
Likewise, Hattie (2012) notes that students need to assume the active role in
managing and understanding their learning gains by being responsible for their
learning, cooperating with peers and evaluating their own progress (p.88).
2.1.3.3.Teachers’ roles

In a PBL classroom teachers act as “co-ordinator, facilitator or consultant”
(Fried-Booth,1985, p.9). In afore-mentioned stages of PBL, teachers‟ roles are
existent in parallel with students‟ work. However, Alan and Stoller (2005) note that
excessive teacher control or insufficient teacher feedbacks on students‟ work restrict

the student‟s ability to grow from their project and inhibit them from taking
responsibility for their learning. Likewise, Frank and Barzilai (2004) find that the
amount of time it takes to implement project-based learning as well as difficulty in
encouraging students to assume more active roles frustrate teachers. Therefore,
Larmer, Mergendollar, and Boss

(2015) emphasize the teacher‟s ultimate and

paramount responsibility in ensuring such learning occurs by implementing the
practices below. Firstly, the teacher needs to design a framework for the project
including the project‟s goals, the driving question, the major products as well as
make it work in the context for students. Secondly, the teacher needs to align a
project with a reliable standard early to ensure students‟ making the best use of
time. Thirdly, the teacher needs to build a healthy PBL classroom culture of
independence, inquiry and quality by allowing students to raise their opinions,
responding to students‟ inquiry, focusing comments and recognition of not only the
final products but also students‟ efforts, persistence, strategies to overcome
difficulties. Fourthly, the teacher is expected to manage project activities by

12


preparing students for PBL, arranging resources and steering the project. Fifthly,
scaffolding student learning is essential to ensure the attainment of project goals. It
includes everything from structuring lessons, lectures, providing relevant handouts,
tools, processes to supporting and monitoring group work. Implementing these
practices contributes to the teacher‟s satisfactory assumption of responsibility.
2.1.4.Features of high-quality project-based learning
Larmer, Mergendollar, and Boss (2015) in “Setting the standard for project
based learning” provide a path to rigorous PBL by offering seven essential elements

to make PBL high quality which is illustrated by the figure below.

Figure 2: Gold Standard PBL (Larmer, Mergendollar, and Boss, 2015)
Firstly, problems and questions make learning purposeful and meaningful, so
they need to be challenging. The level of challenge is determined by the difficulty
of key information and concepts, the degree of project structure and the complexity
of procedures. Teachers need to provide regular check and explanations of key
concepts to guarantee students‟ understanding and application.
Secondly, a project needs to sustain inquiry. Inquiry does not only mean
finding information but also a cycle of finding answers to their initial questions,
seeing new questions and seeking more answers. It is evaluated as the heart of all
13


meaningful learning as students learn more effectively, quickly and deeply (Bruner,
1966; Bransford et al., 2000; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). To sustain inquiry, teachers
need to struture student‟s inquiry, guide learning activities toward project goal
carefully, help students see the meaning of the project.
Thirdly, a project needs to be authentic. Authenticity can be illustrated by the
tasks and the tools students use. The tasks and tools are similar to what people do in
the real life. Besides, the project has an impact on the world or a personal
authenticity by meeting students‟ personal concerns, interests or issues.
Fourthly, students need to be given the freedom to express their own ideas,
opinions and make choices during project work as such opportunities reinforce
students‟ autonomy, competence and intrinsic motivation (Brophy, 2013). However,
teachers are supposed to determine the number of choice and kinds of choice to
ensure the completion and success of the project.
Fifthly, it is necessary for students and the teacher

to reflect on the

effectiveness of the process and activities, the quality of student work, their
difficulties and suggestions for improvement. Careful reflection helps students
determine the appropriateness of the strategies they are using.
Regarding critique and revision, it is important for students to give and
receive feedbacks on their work to revise their ideas or preprare for the future
inquiry.
Finally, students should have the opportunity to demonstrate their
understanding by creating a product that is presented or offered to others beyond the
classroom.
This gold standard framework shares similarities with Stoller‟s (2006) ten
conditions for an effective PBL. Therefore, it is selected as the criteria to design and
implement activities in this study.
2.1.5.Benefits of PBL
PBL is often credited with many positive outcomes such as authentic experience
and language; improved social, cooperative and collaborative skills; enhanced

14


content knowledge; enhanced autonomy; improved metacognitive skills (Stoller,
2006). Due to the scope of the study, this research focuses on benefits related to
motivation, language skill improvement and attitudes towards PBL.
2.1.5.1.Motivation
PBL increases students‟ motivation. When PBL is implemented successfully,
students can be highly motivated, feel involved actively in their own learning
(Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Stoller, 2006; Maftoon, Birjandi & Ahmadi, 2013; Shin,
2018). There is numerous empirical evidence to prove the positive outcomes of PBL
on motivation.
Maftoon, Birjandi and Ahmadi (2013) conducted an experimental research

on eighty undergraduate freshmen majoring in English Language from four classes
in two Iranian universities over fifteen sessions during fifteen consecutive weeks to
find out effects of PBL on their motivation. The measuring instrument used was the
academic motivation scale. The design of the study was Solomon four-group in
which there was one research question addressed by six complementary hypotheses.
On the basis of the results, the authors concluded that PBL leads to motivation
improvement for the participants who receive the treatment.
Shin (2018) conducted an experimental research on 79 Taiwanese students
who were taking general English as a three hour elective course to improve
speaking skill. These students were divided into 13 teams and each team was given
a project of making a video about authentic topics, and every student in each team
was assigned a task to help the team achieve the preset goal. The result showed that
there is a positive effect on students‟ learning motivation. They engage in PBL
activities more than in traditional teacher-centered instruction. Furthermore, student
responses in the survey after the project show that the students‟ perceptions toward
project-based learning are very positive.
Blumenfeld et al (1991) notes that to motivate learners to do projects in a
manner that nurtures understanding requires factors such as elements of project
design, students‟ perceived and achieved competence, and students‟ task focus

15


(p.375). There is a link between students‟ interest and perceived values to the
problem and elements in projects and their motivation. Students‟ interest and
perceived values are promoted thanks to varied, novel tasks; the authentic and
worthy problem; challenging problem; creation of a product; students‟ control over
task; opportunities to work with others. Turning to students‟ perceived and achieved
competence, to do projects, students need to access adequate knowledge of the
content and specific skills by using tool skills, learning, metacognitive, problemsolving strategies. Besides, they need to see the values of errors as learning

opportunities rather than indicators of low competence. The extended and
potentially confusing tasks can discourage students from engaging with the task if
they are unable to do the task, so the teacher needs to attend to students‟ difficulties
to offer timely support to sustain their perceived competence. According to
Blumenfeld et al, if the teacher emphasizes grades, compare performance,
discourage risk taking, use evaluation criteria stressing right answers, encourage
responsibilities for work by rewards, punishments or low-level tasks, students may
not engage in the task for the sake of knowledge. However, what the teachers
should do to create a supportive environment remains unanswered.
Stoller (2006) also points out several conditions for motivation. Firstly,
projects need to kindle students‟ curiosity and interest. Secondly, the tasks need to
have appropriate and manageable levels of challenge so that students will gain
success. Thirdly, learners need to feel competent, have sufficient autonomy, have a
sense of ownership by being able to set goals, receive others‟ feedbacks and
affirmation. These conditions correspond to Blumenfeld‟s et al mentioned
conditions. Both emphasise the appropriateness of the challenge level, the
importance of topic choice and project structure as well as the teacher‟s timely
assistance.
2.5.1.2.Improved language abilities
PBL has a positive impact on learners‟ second language acquisition (Stoller,
2006; Torres & Rodríguez, 2017; Molina & Cardona, 2017; Halil et al., 2018).

16