Luận văn thạc sĩ 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 projectbased 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.


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 project- learning 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.


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


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......................................................................................................................... C
omparison 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......................................................................................................................... C
omparison 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
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


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


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.


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 projectbased 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.


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


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 student- centeredness, endproduct, 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


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


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 end- product. 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.


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).


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


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 self- initiation 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


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.


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 selfregulation 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


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


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


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


(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, problem- solving 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).