Global Perspectives on Project-Based Language Learning, Teaching, and Assessment

Key Approaches, Technology Tools, and Frameworks

Gulbahar Beckett, Tammy Slater, Gulbahar Beckett, Tammy Slater

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9780429786952
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This volume provides a comprehensive account of project-based language learning (PBLL) which showcases key theoretical approaches, empirical research, technological tools, and research-based frameworks to help further PBLL implementation and research. Taking its cue from the conclusions drawn from project-based learning more broadly, which point to the impact of project-based work on learning and development, discourse socialization, subject engagement, and collaborative skills, the book highlights how these discussions might be extended and enhanced within the context of language learning. The volume begins with discussions of philosophical and theoretical models of PBLL and is followed by case studies from contributors from a range of learning contexts and geographic regions which demonstrate these models in practice, with a focus on the implementation of technology in such instances. The book also introduces resources for aligning projects with government standards in the classroom but also frameworks for researching and assessing PBLL. This comprehensive collection is essential reading for students and researchers in language learning and teaching, language education, curriculum design, and applied linguistics.

Part I

Philosophical, Theoretical, and Empirical Models of PBLL

1 Philosophical Foundation, Theoretical Approaches, and Gaps in the Literature

Gulbahar H. Beckett, Tammy Slater, and Bernard A. Mohan

Introduction

This volume furthers project-based language learning (PBLL) work in the field of second/foreign language education by providing much needed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research and research-based models and frameworks that focus on form, function, skills, content learning, teaching, and assessment with technology. This is accomplished through 14 chapters contributed by 33 authors, from Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, and the U.S., who conducted multimodal project-based learning and teaching research in Catalan, Chinese, English, German, Japanese, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish contexts.

In this chapter, we first contextualize PBLL in project-based learning (PBL), discuss the philosophical foundations and theoretical frameworks that have guided PBLL work, and state the positioning that helped conceptualize the current volume, as such positioning influences the development of problems (McMillan & Schumacher, 1993; Pierce, 1995), research questions, and choice of conceptual frameworks (Beckett, 1999). We follow this with an overview of the remaining chapters as well as discuss the significance of the book and implications for further research and practice.

Project-Based Learning (PBL): Deeper Foundations of Educational Thoughts

Project-based learning (PBL) began in the U.S. general education over a century ago (see Beckett, 1999, 2006; Brubacher, 1947; Kilpatrick, 1918). Leo van Lier (2006) believes that a similar approach to education— action-based, experience-based, and perception-based—existed in Europe based on Jan Comenius in the 17th century, Johann Pestalozzi in the 19th century, and Maria Montessori in the 20th century. PBL traces its philosophical roots to Deweyan experiential learning philosophy (e.g., Dewey, 1916; Dewey & Dewey, 1915), which has been the foundation of general progressive education, guiding pedagogy that aims to engage students in life-long learning to equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary for a changing society (Beckett, 1999, 2006; Brubacher, 1947; Kilpatrick, 1918). Dewey’s experiential learning and democratic philosophy for education was part of a large, far-reaching educational reform started in the U.S. PBL was seen as a student-centered pedagogy that encourages students to learn subject matter deeply, critically, and responsibly (Berliner, 1992; Holt, 1994). Following Dewey’s action as a process organized and guided by activity and the questions it raises, PBL involves students in creating knowledge and solving problems by engaging in purposeful, real-world interdisciplinary activities (Dionne & Horth, 1994) holistically. These activities reflected the reform of traditional education that divided curriculum into different subjects, transmitted through teacher-centered pedagogy (Cremin, 1964), and promoted discrete skills Kilpatrick (1925).

The ideas of other education philosophers such as Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky have also influenced PBL. PBL thus is not another fashionable method, but a sophisticated educational approach that has deeper foundations of educational thoughts that must be studied and appreciated (van Lier, 2006).

Project-Based Language Learning (PBLL): Foundation for Alternative Thoughts and Practices

In line with PBL in general education, PBLL should also be a foundation of alternative thoughts for second language studies and second language education, broadly defined to include foreign language studies and education. However, as pointed out in Beckett (1999), initially “project-based instruction was introduced to second language acquisition pedagogy in response to perceived inadequacies in Krashen’s input hypothesis” (p. 2) “as a way to combat the teacher-centered formal approach prevalent in the field at that time” (Beckett & Slater, 2018a, p. 1). Legutke and Thomas (1991/1999) claimed that PBL was introduced to second language education in the 1960s and 1970s. Krashen claimed that, as is the case in first language acquisition, extensive exposure and comprehensible input are “the most significant determiner of whether a language would be acquired or not” (Eyring, 1989, p. 1).

Swain’s (1985) evaluation of Canadian French Immersion students showed an insufficiency of comprehensible input, and illustrated the need to create communicative opportunities for second language learners to “produce comprehensible output through meaningful interaction with native speakers” (Beckett, 1999, p. 3). In response, Brumfit’s (1984) project-based communicative language teaching methodology increased in popularity. According to Brumfit, through the “emphasis on integrated projects” which arise “from the communicative needs of students within the framework of the project” (p. 123), his methodology could provide the opportunities learners need to develop linguistic accuracy and fluency. Fried-Booth (1986) and Candlin, Carter, Legutke, Semuda, and Hanson (1988) agreed that second language learners can effectively develop their communicative competence through projects by interacting with each other and with native English-speaking people. Various projects were developed and enacted to promote linguistic fluency (see Eyring, 1989, 2001; Fried-Booth, 1986; and Legutke & Thomas, 1991/1999). The purpose of all PBLL work then was to promote formal linguistic (e.g., Chomsky, 1986) proficiency psycholinguistically, neglecting the sociolinguistic functional meaning-making resource view of language (e.g., Halliday, 1994) that PBLL affords. Such a narrow view of PBL in the second language field allowed few opportunities to see how it is a foundation of alternative thoughts for second language studies and second language education.

From the sociolinguistic functional view, language is a resource used as a means for learning and living in sociocultural contexts, not for practicing discrete language skills in isolation for the sake of achieving fluency alone (Beckett, 1999). Language socialization theory (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) is helpful for further understanding how functional linguistic development works. In contrast to the language acquisition view that sees learning language “as a matter of learning a set of rules, the language socialization view holds that language learning is the acquisition of linguistic as well as sociocultural knowledge” (Beckett, 1999, p. 17). The language socialization view, as pointed out by Schieffelin and Ochs (1986), “treats language as a focus of study as well as a medium. It takes other learning such as content, classroom and socio-cultural knowledge (e.g., Mohan, 1986) into consideration” (Beckett, 1999, p. 17). According to Ochs (1990), language socialization is activity-based theory that is in line with sociological theories of Bourdieu (1977) and Giddens (1984), and the psychological theories of Vygotsky (1962, 1978) and Leont’ev (1981) that see activities (e.g., PBL and PBLL) as creative social practices that can restructure mind and activity (Ochs, 1990). From these theoretical perspectives, it can be seen that social activities are organized by psychological and social structures and carried out with linguistic and sociocultural knowledge (Ochs, 1990). In her words, “activity mediates linguistic and sociocultural knowledge” and “knowledge and activity impact one another” (Ochs, 1988, p. 15).

Beckett (1999) defined projects as teaching and/or learning (individual or group) activities designed to engage students in language and content learning “through planning, researching (empirical and/or document), analyzing and synthesizing data, and reflecting on the process and product orally and/or in writing by comparing, contrasting, and justifying alternatives” (Beckett, 1999, p. 4). She argued that projects engage students in deeper learning by using language as a resource or tool to learn more language, content, and various skills (Beckett, 1999) with and/or through technology tools (Beckett & Slater, 2017) in authentic contexts. As such, PBL can become project-based LANGUAGE learning with content-based activities composed of a series of tasks for solving problems, thinking critically, making decisions, producing products, and articulating the process and products. More recent work (e.g., Beckett, 1999, 2005, 2006; Beckett & Slater, 2005; Slater & Beckett, 2019) adopted all or some aspects of Beckett’s (1999) definition of PBL. Such work has also been informed by Dewey’s experiential learning philosophy (Dewey, 1926; Dewey & Dewey, 1915), Vygotskian social constructionist learning theories (Vygotsky, 1978), systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1994), and language socialization (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Vygotskian Cultural—Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Engeström, 2001) has also informed recent work that has explored the complex dynamics of PBL such as multiple subjects (actors), goals, objects, tools, division of labor, and the contexts of the activity (Gibbes 2011, Zhao & Beckett, 2014).

Increased Interests in PBL, PBLL, and Gaps in the Literature

Recently, PBL has attracted increased interest and has been adopted as an optimal approach for implementing state-level 21st-century curricular goals in U.S. general education (see Beckett et al., 2015, 2016). There have also been federally funded PBL initiatives (e.g., National Science Foundation) to implement 21st-century curricular innovations and teacher training (e.g., Beckett et al., 2015, 2016; and the 2016 special issue of Journal of Science Education and Technology). Outside of the U.S., Lewin and McNicol (2015) stated that European educational policy has aimed to increase employability and lifelong learning by developing students’ digital competency and 21st-century skills such as independent learning, critical thinking and problem-solving, communication and collaboration, creativity, and ICT skills, integrated with project-based and other approaches (Beckett & Slater, 2018b). Their review stated that the uptake of digital pedagogy amongst teachers is generally low and thus there is a growing need for teacher support. This need has led to the development of the iTEC (Innovative Technology for an Engaging Classroom) approach described in van Assche, Anido-Rifón, Griffiths, Lewin, and McNicol (2015), which reports on a study of more than 2,500 European classrooms between 2010 and 2014.

Much general education scholarly and professional work on PBL has been published. There are PBL institutes (e.g., BIE) and PBL conferences (e.g., PAN-PBL); however, as pointed out earlier, the implementation of a project-based approach in second or other language contexts (i.e., PBLL) is relatively new and needs to be implemented and studied much more widely. The first dissertation level research in second language education was Eyring (1989), which studied PBL in a U.S. university context. Beckett (1999) was the second, exploring PBL in a Canadian secondary school ESL context. Since then, PBL/L research and professional work in second language contexts has slowly but surely increased. While there is no separate project-based language learning (PBLL) conferences yet, work has been presented in related conferences such as American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), and American Educational Research Association (AERA).

A number of PBLL research and professional books have also been published, with examples such as Beckett and Miller (2006), Fried-Booth (2002), Legutke and Thomas (1991/1999), and Thomas (2017). Fried-Booth (2002) is a single-authored updated version of the 1986 practical resource book for teachers. It offers practical project activities and demonstrates how teachers can promote language learning through project work, with suggestions for modifications for various contexts. The book does not, however, address current theories and research from multiple perspectives and contexts. Legutke and Thomas (1991/1999), Process and Experience in the Language Classroom, is an authored volume, now quite outdated, that discusses Deweyan philosophical beliefs about learning by doing and focusing on communicative language teaching and classroom culture through various approaches. It devotes two chapters to PBLL, one chapter called “Learning in Projects” (overview) and another chapter called “Issues in Project Learning,” positioned within task-based language learning.

Beckett and Miller (2006), also somewhat dated, is the first and only edited volume that discusses empirical research as well as theoretical and practical models of project-based language learning (PBLL) at different levels in international contexts through its 16 chapters. Collectively, the volume demonstrates that language during PBL socializes learners through real-world activities that afford opportunities to learn subject matter, school and social cultures, critical thinking, decision making, and collaborative work skills, taking learners beyond second language acquisition (see Beckett, 2006). This volume also includes discussion of foreign language standards with PBLL as well as a PBLL assessment guideline. Missing from the volume, as van Lier pointed out in his foreword, is work that explicitly focuses on form and the role of technology in PBLL. Finally, Thomas (2017) is a single-authored book that reports mixed-method studies of two English as a Foreign Language (EFL) projects using technology in Japan. The book includes a theoretical discussion of task-based language learning (TBLL) and PBLL. However, as pointed out by the author himself, this book reports meaning-focused qualitative research on two projects with technology in only one EFL context.

Studies of PBL in the second language field have been growing in numbers in various journals. Findings of these studies indicate that PBL facilitates the learning of second and foreign languages, academic discourse socialization, decision-making, critical thinking, and collaborative work skills while providing deep engagement with subject matter content (e.g., Beckett, 2005, 2006) through the use of language as a medium (Beckett & Slater, 2017, 2018a, b). Research has also suggested that although ESL/EFL students generally value PBL, they can become frustrated when they are unable to see how PBL helps them focus on the learning of form (e.g., Beckett, 1999; Eyring, 1989). As Kuo et al. (Chapter 13, this volume) suggest, students are capable of utilizing all aspects of PBL, and they understand the knowledge acquisition, including linguistic knowledge, but they need their teachers to show them (see Beckett & Slater, 2005; Windschitl & Calabrese Barton, 2016). With the exceptions of an MA thesis study by Lee (2014), Li (2010), and Zachoval (2011), there has been little research, especially experimental research, addressing how PBL promotes the development of language form and function, particularly in technology-mediated PBLL contexts. As Ng et al. (Chapter 2, this volume) ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Part I Philosophical, Theoretical, and Empirical Models of PBLL
• Part II Empirical Research on Technology-Mediated PBLL
• Part III Frameworks for Technology-Mediated PBLL
• Index