Poetry Project – A New Technique in Teaching Poems

Tran Thi Hanh *

* School of Foreign Languages – Thai Nguyen University
tranhanh.sfl@tnu.edu.vn

Abstract
English poems are extremely challenging to discover because they require students a great deal of effort
and motivation in learning. A number of studies have indicated that Project Based Learning is one of the
most effective ways to engage students and develop language ability. Therefore, the researcher, in this
study, would like to present a project which can be used as an inspiring technique in teaching poetry. The
features of the project are described in details, and the author explains how those features address the
principal goals of Project-Based Learning (PBL).
Key words: English poems, motivation, Project Based Learning, poetry, English Literature

Introduction
Literature is an essential part in mastering a language. Among multiple aspects of literature, poetry is a
challenging one to explore because it requires a large amount of effort. As a teacher at a language school,
I have been repeatedly astonished by the adverse reaction students have to poetry. In the past, poetry was
a primary means of expression; however, today it is often considered a lost art. Many students do not
connect with poetry because of its complex nature or the open expression of emotions and personal
thoughts. There are a number of students who have difficulties buying into the necessity of writing or
reading poetry. It is undeniable that students’ motivation determines the success of teaching (Bradford,
2005). If success can be hindered by lack of students’ motivation, then teaching has to motivate students
in their learning.
Numerous studies have been conducted concerning the effects of teaching methodology on students’
motivation (Brophy, 1999; Burden & Byrd, 2003; Covington, 1999). Constructivists claim that when
students are active participants in authentic projects (i.e., those that are related to real-world situations)
that are shared and reviewed with others, the learners can then create meaning or ideas (Han &
Battacharya, 2002). Allowing learners to create their own meaning, instead of using them as receptacles
for information, forces them to become more involved with their learning experiences. “Project-based
learning is based on constructivist theory that involves students working collaboratively to produce a
meaningful artifact or product representative of the knowledge learned.” (Houghton, 2000, p. 34).
Traditionally, students read a poem and answer questions in order to assess understanding and exhibit
mastery of knowledge. Often, the learning stops here and teachers move on to the next unit of study.
However, this study builds on the foundation of students’ knowledge using project-based learning which
has proven to be effective in teaching. The purpose of this study is to present a project which can be used
as an inspiring technique in teaching poetry. The features of the project are described in details, and the
author explains how those features address the principal goals of Project-Based Learning (PBL).
Definition and characteristics of PBL
Many definitions of PBL have been proposed by various authors. Project work is viewed as "An approach
to learning which complements mainstream methods and which can be used with almost all levels, ages,
and abilities of students" (Haines, 1989, p. 6). The Department of Curriculum and Instructional
Development (1998) said that PBL is a method that assists learners to study and practice their abilities
and interests by using the scientific process to reach the result of that topic. Teachers act as facilitators
from the beginning of the project; choosing topics, planning the process and presenting the results.
Thomas (2000, p.43) proposed a definition of PBL “… a teaching model that organizes learning around
projects” and projects as “… complex tasks based on challenging questions or problems that involve
students in design, problem-solving, decision-making, and/or investigative activities, that give students
-1-
opportunities to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time, and culminate in realistic
products or presentations”. From the definitions above, it can be concluded that PBL is a teaching and
learning approach that allows learners to study independently under the observation of teachers by
creating plans, designing the process, and evaluating the project. Learners are offered opportunities to
study on the topics that interest them. They use the language skills and other skills naturally. At the end of
the project, they can make their own presentation and apply their knowledge in real life.
Stoller (2006, p. 54) identifies 10 characteristics of PBL: (1) having both a process and product; (2)
giving students (partial) ownership of the project; (3) extended over a period of time (several days, weeks,
or months); (4) integrating skills; (5) developing student understanding of a topic through the integration
of language and content; (6) students both collaborating with others and working on their own; (7)
holding students responsible for their own learning through the gathering, processing, and reporting of
information gathered from target-language resources; (8) assigning new roles and responsibilities to both
students and teacher; (9) providing a tangible final product; and (10) reflecting on both the process and
the product. According to Hedge (2002), projects usually integrate language skills by means of activities.
These activities may include the following steps: planning, gathering of information through reading,
listening, interviewing, and observing; group discussion of the information; problem solving; oral and
written reporting; and display.
More detailed characteristics of project work will be discussed as follows:
(1) Project work focuses on content learning: Project work focuses on content learning rather than on
specific language targets. Hutchinson claims that “there is nothing simulated about a project …] students
are writing about their own lives and because it is such personal experience; they will thus put a lot of
effort into getting it right.” (1991, p.11)
(2) Project work is student centered: Fried-Booth asserts that “project is student-centered rather than
teacher-directed.” (1986, p. 5) Hutchinson suggests that “content and presentation are determined
principally by the learners”. (2006, p. 11)
(3) Project work is cooperative rather than competitive: Richards and Renandya state “project work is
cooperative rather than competitive.” (2002, p. 108) The students can work on their own, in small groups,
or as a class to complete a project, sharing resources, ideas, and expertise along the way.
(4) Project work leads to the authentic integration of skills: “Project work leads to the authentic
integration of skills and processing of information from varied sources, mirroring real-life tasks.”
(Richards and Renandya, 2002, p. 108)
(5) Project work focuses on fluency: It provides students with opportunities to focus on fluency and
accuracy at different stages of the project. Basically, “project work encourages a focus on fluency…
therefore some errors of accuracy are bound to occur. (Hutchinson, 1991, p. 8)
(6) Project work makes students become responsible: “If we put students in situation where they need to
make decisions for themselves we allow them to become more responsible for their own progress.”
(Rodgers in Scrivener, 1994, p. 15)
(7) Project work culminates in an end product: Hutchinson states that “projects are often done in poster
format, but students can also use their imagination to experiment with the form. “ (1991, p. 8) Průcha,
Walterová and Mareš (1995), and Fried-Booth (1986) are of the opinion that project work culminates in
an end product which can be an oral presentation, a chart, booklet, poster session, bulletin board display,
report, or stage performance. Harmer (1991) considers the end product as the most important thing of the
project work, and all the language use that takes place should be directed towards the final version.
Richards and Renandya (2002) state that the end product can be shared with others; Moreover, they add
the value of the project, however, lies not just in the final product but in the process of working towards
the end-point.
The researcher, therefore, focuses on these following characteristics of PBL in order to analyze the
project in this research: a student-centered approach, natural integration of skills, collaboration, students’
motivation and self-confidence, the creation of a final product, and assessing the project.

Description of the course and the project

-2-
The course
English literature is a compulsory course at a language school. This course is aimed at:
- Helping students understand the history of English literature development from the beginning (5 th
century) to the 20th century through basic presentations of English writers and their famous literary works
as well as activities.
- Providing students with a platform to practice four skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking while
they are learning about the content specific to English literature.
- Helping the students thoroughly understand and critically analyze English literary stories and extracts
through:
 introduction of stylistic devices,
 famous literary stories,
 extracts from famous novels, and
 exercises for literary appreciation.

The project
In Literature course, students have chance to study poems; therefore, this project will focus on this type of
literature. The researcher conducts four stages: preparation, implementation, presentation and evaluation
when carrying out this project. The project lasts for 4 weeks.
a. Preparation
The purpose of this stage is to help students identify the content of their project as well as the whole plan
for this project. When students have an idea of what they have to do, they will make specific plans. It is
important for students to work together to make decisions right from the beginning. Galancher (2004, p.
56) suggests that teachers help students plan by providing guidance on:
- Content included in the project
- Form of the product
- Division responsibility for each member
- Time spent for each part
- Types of resources / materials needed to conduct the project
While conducting the teaching of poems in the form of a project, I implement the following contents.
First of all, the students are divided into groups of 2 or 3 students. After that, teacher asks students to
choose one of the poems by a famous author and do the following tasks. Firstly, students will record their
poem reading; then with the recording, make a video to illustrate the poem. Secondly, they will write a
review about the poem: its content, what students like or dislike about the poem (about 200 words) and
then make their own poems. After that, students write a reflection on the process of doing the project:
what they have done, what they like about the project, how to make the project more successful. Finally,
each group will make a presentation about their products
b. Implementation
In this stage, students work collaboratively to finish their project. As working in a group, students play
different roles such as reciter, designer, writer. The specific tasks of these roles are as follows:
Reciter(reading the poem), Designer (make video to illustrate the poem), and Writer: (write the review
about the poem). Each team member completes their own part, and then they will together make the
sonnet, the presentation and the reflection.
Teachers assist students in editing work by highlighting errors in grammatical organization, grammar
(punctuation, punctuation, word usage ...), and style ... Students make corrections based on the teacher's
recommendations. During the editing process, the reviews would receive the suggestions from the
teacher.
c. Presentation
This phase is carried out once the student complete the project. Sharing results can be done in different
ways such as classroom presentation using wallpapers or power point. Many researchers assert that the
most common way of sharing results is by presenting projects to the audience. This phase is essential for
a project because the provision of information to the reader or the audience makes the project purposeful.
-3-
d. Evaluation
There are two types of evaluation: cross evaluation among team members (30%) and teacher evaluation
(70%).
The team is asked to create a profile including: team contract, plan, audio recordings of meetings, minutes
of meetings, evaluation of the members, and group assessment). Students are members. Peer evaluation
among members follows teacher assessment criteria assigned to the team. We use a number of evaluation
benchmarks on
https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/teach/instructionalstrategies/groupprojects/tools/index.html
because the criteria here are consistent with item from the teacher evaluation rating. (see APPENDIX 1)
Teachers conduct the assessment of the project after the presentation complete basing on the criteria in
APPENDIX 2.

Discussion
In this part, the features of the project which address the characteristics of PBL are discussed in details.
As stated above, the following characteristics of PBL which are shown in the project are: a student-
centered approach, natural integration of skills, collaboration, students’ motivation and self-confidence,
the creation of a final product, and assessing the project.

A student-centered approach
Nicole Mills (2009, p.39) describes PBL as “a student-centered approach to learning in which students
collaborate on sequential authentic tasks and develop a final product”. In Stoller’s (2006, p. 24) words,
“Project-based learning should have a process and product orientation” and it should “be defined, at least
in part, by students, to encourage ownership in the project”. According to Fried-Booth (2002, p. 30), this
means that students should actively participate in defining the nature of the project.
One of the principal benefits of the poetry project is that it allowed students a high level of ownership in
the project as well as a different role in their learning than they would otherwise have had. Students have
chance to choose the poem to be performed, and they participat in decisions regarding all aspects of the
production. This level of involvement in decision-making narrowed the gap between teaching and
learning, making students and instructor co-facilitators in learning. It is clear that this project is student-
centered.

Natural integration of skills

According to Stoller (2006, p. 45), project-based learning should “encourage the natural integration of
skills” and “capitalize on the strengths of group members”. Fried-Booth (2002, p. 30) points out that the
integration of students’ various talents is particularly advantageous when there are varying linguistic
abilities among students: Project work draws together students of mixed ability and creates opportunities
for individuals to contribute in ways which reflect their different talents and creativity. The less
linguistically-gifted student may be a talented artist, able to create brilliant artwork, thus gaining self-
esteem, which would be unlikely in a more conventional language lesson.
Indeed, the production of this poetry project allows students to utilize a wide range of artistic talents and
skills (poetic, musical, graphic, technological, etc). As working in a group, students play different roles
such as reciter, designer, writer. The specific tasks of these roles are as follows:
- Reciter: reading the poem
- Designer: make video to illustrate the poem
- Writer: write the review about the poem
Each team member complete their own part, and then they will together make the sonnet, the presentation
and the reflection. It means that students will have opportunities to develop multi-skills such as
performing, writing, designing, presenting.

Collaboration

-4-
“Project-based learning should oblige students to work in groups and on their own” (Stoller, 2006, p. 24)
The production of this project provided constant opportunities for collaboration, not only among the
students and instructor, but also among students in the groups. They work collaboratively with others to
design the products and receive input from other students and teacher. This collaboration is also
inherently interdisciplinary. In other words, this poetry project helps students to better cooperate with
each other.

Students’ motivation and self-confidence

“Many language professionals have pointed out that project-based learning has resulted in increased
student motivation, in addition to common outcomes of motivation, including increased student
autonomy, enhanced self-confidence and self-concept, and increased interest” (Stoller, 2006, p. 28). The
performance of poetry project proved to be empowering to students who initially expressed anxiety about
performing before a live audience, but who ended up enjoying themselves and being proud of the work
they had done. Student comments reflected this sense of acquired self-confidence.
Literature courses in many programs are often taught to a number of students who may or may not be
interested in the course content, and who otherwise would never have chosen the course, but who take it
because they are few or no other options in their major. Again, projects like this one help to build
excitement and enthusiasm around what might otherwise be dismissed as dry or irrelevant.

The creation of a final product

“Project-based learning should result in a tangible final product” (Stoller, 2006, p.24). It is said that there
were several tangible final products to the poetry project. The presentation in front of a live audience is
clearly the most important final product, but it is important to add that the performance itself contained
within it a number of other “final products.” For example, students participate in reciting the poem and
design the video to illustrate their poem. Moreover, the video incorporates musical and graphic
performances. In addition, students have to write their own sonnets and reflection about the project. These
above are the multi-products of this project.

Assessing the Project: Evidence of Student Learning

The last condition for successful project-based activities stated by Stoller (2006, p. 25) is that they
“conclude with student reflections on both the process and the product”. As their final task in the poetry
project, students are asked to reflect on their experience of and participation in various aspects of the
project: what they have done, what they like about the project, how to make the project more successful.
Among other things, they reflect an enhanced understanding of the poem and the nature of poetry.

Conclusion
In conclusion, teaching through the project has positive effects on teaching and learning Literature. The
application of PBL in this subject is quite thorough and comprehensive. The conducted project addresses
multi-aspects of PBL such as a student-centered approach, natural integration of skills, collaboration,
students’ motivation and self-confidence, the creation of a final product, and assessing the project. All
these things make contribution to the success of the project as well as encourage students to discover
English poetry in particular and English literature in general. Furthermore, it helps to enhance students’
knowledge of this subject.

-5-
 References
1. Bradford, M. (2005). Motivating students through project-based service learning. OUP.
2. Brophy, J. E. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing
appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.
3. Burden, P., & Byrd, D. (2003). Methods for effective teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4. Covington, M. (1999). Caring about learning: The nature and nurturing of subject-matter appreciation.
Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 127-136.
5. Fried-Booth, Diana, L. (1986). Project work. Oxford. Oxford University Press
6. Fried-Booth, Diana L. (2002). Project Work. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project based learning. In
M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. [Electronic version].
Retrieved March 3, 2018 from www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/LearningbyDesign.htm
8. Haines, S. (1989). Project for the EFL Classroom: Resource Material for Teachers, Nelson, UK
9. Harmer, J. 1991). The Practice of English Language teaching – New edition. New York. Longman
10. Hedge, T. (2002). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign
Language Education Press.
11. Hutchinson, T. (2006). Introduction to project work. Oxford. Oxford University Press
12. Houghton, M. (2000). Project-based learning space. [Electronic version]. Retrieved March 3, 2018
from www.college.hmco.com/education/pbl/background.html
13. Mills, Nicole. “A Guide du Routard Simulation: Increasing Self-Efficacy in the Standards through
Project-Based Learning.” Foreign Language Annals 42.4 (2009): 607–39.
14. Moss, D & Van Duzer, C. (1998). Project-based learning for adult English language learners,
National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education
14. Průcha, J; Walterová, E; Mareš, J. (1995). Pedagogický slovník. Praha: Portál
15. Richards, J., Reanandaya, W. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching. An Anthology of Current
Practise. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press
16. Stoller, F. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in second and
foreign-language contexts. In G.H. Beckett & P.C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign
language education: past, present, and future (pp.19-40). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age
Publishing.
19. The Department of Curriculum and Instructional Development, 1998, National Educational Act of
B.E. 2542, The Prime Minister Office, Bangkok.
20. Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf.

-6-
APPENDIX 1: Peer Evaluation Form

Your name ____________________________________________________

Write the name of each of your group members in a separate column. For each person, indicate the extent
to which you agree with the statement on the left, using a scale of 1-4 (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree;
3=agree; 4=strongly agree). Total the numbers in each column.

Evaluation Group member: Group member: Group member: Group member:

Criteria

Attend group
meetings
regularly and
on time.
Contribute
meaningfully
to group
discussions.
Complete
group
assignments
on time.
Prepare work
in a quality
manner.
Demonstrate
a cooperative
and
supportive
attitude.
Contribute
significantly
to the success
of the
project.
TOTALS

Feedback on team dynamics:

1. How effectively did your group work?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. Were the behaviors of any of your team members particularly valuable or detrimental to the team?
Explain.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

-7-
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. What did you learn about working in a group from this project that you will carry into your next group
experience?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

(Adapted from a peer evaluation form developed at Johns Hopkins University (October, 2006))

-8-
APPENDIX 2: Poetry Rubric

Category Poor (1-4) Average (5-6) Good (7-8) Excellent (9-10)

Sounds More than 10 5-10 pronunciation About 5 Less than 5
pronunciation mistakes, most pronunciation pronunciation
mistakes, most sounds are hard to mistakes, most mistakes, most of the
sounds are not understand sounds are sounds and words are
understandable understandable pronounced correctly.
Fluency The poem is full of The poem is read The poem is read The poem is read
hesitations or with more than 6 with 3-6 hesitations with no hesitations or
unnecessary hesitations or or unnecessary unnecessary pauses,
pauses, speed is unnecessary pauses, reasonable reasonable and
either too slow or pauses, speed is speed but natural speed
too fast, make it either too fast or sometimes too fast
unable to too slow or too slow
understand
Rhyme Almost no stress, Some stress, meter Recognizable Clear meter, rhyme
rhyme, or meter is and rhyme are meter, rhyme and and stress, less than 5
unidentifiable correct, more than stress, 5-8 mistakes mistakes in total
8 mistakes in total in total
Volume Sound is not clear, Sound is not clear, Sound is clear, Sound is clear, no
and sound a lot of some background some background background noise
quality background noise noise that badly noise but it does not volume is loud to
that badly affects affects the reading affect the reading of hear
the reading of the of the poem, the poem, volume
poem, volume is volume is hard to is loud enough to
too low hear hear
Video Very few visuals Some visuals or Various visuals or High quality video,
quality or illustrations illustrations with illustrations with various clear visuals
with low quality average quality average quality and or illustrations with
and irrelevant relevant content high quality and
content relevance

-9-