The benefits and challenges of using a project-based learning

syllabus with Thai Secondary EFL learners

Understanding Learning and Teaching in International Contexts

Contents
1. Introduction...............................................................................................................2

2. What is project-based learning?.............................................................................3

2.1 Teachers and PjBL.......................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Suggested benefits of project-based learning..............................................................................4

2.3 Critiques and misconceptions........................................................................................................ 5

2.4 Non-examples of PjBL..................................................................................................................... 7

3. Implementing PjBL in my context...........................................................................8

4. Vignette: Project-based learning with Thai Secondary EFL teens....................10

5. Discussion...............................................................................................................15

6. Conclusion...............................................................................................................17

7. References...............................................................................................................17

Appendix 1......................................................................................................................19
 1. Introduction

In this assignment I critique the project-based learning approach (PjBL) which underpins the Secondary

EFL syllabus at my school. First, I frame PjBL in relation to theories of learning, and I outline design

principles of the approach. Then, I discuss some benefits, criticisms and misconceptions of PjBL, and

explore research into the use of this approach in similar contexts to my own. I include a vignette

explaining how I adapted one PjBL module for a class of 10 Thai Secondary students (ages 14-17, B2+).

The discussion focuses on the prescribed materials and my adapted delivery. I conclude that the

approach(es) taken did not align with established design principles of PjBL, therefore it was not possible

to evaluate the benefits of project-based learning effectively in my context.

2. What is project-based learning?

PjBL is a student-centred instructional approach which focuses on solving real-life problems or challenges

(Kavlu, 2017; Peachey, 2020). In PjBL, learners typically investigate a problem or question step-by-step

over a sustained period (Tan and Chapman, 2016). Project outcomes usually involve creating a

purposeful product, such as a presentation or artefact, aimed at a real audience (Kavlu, 2017).

The design principles for PjBL seem well-established, with summaries available in Markham (2012),

Krauss and Boss (2013), and Peachey (2020) among others. Larmer, Mergendoller and Boss (2015:1)

outline these essential project design elements as ‘gold standard’ PjBL:

 A challenging problem or question

 Authenticity

 Student voice and choice

 Feedback and revision

 Reflection

 Sustained inquiry

 A public product

Blumenfeld and Krajcik (2006) suggest that PjBL has its origins in the work of John Dewey, who

advocated learning by doing and a focus on real-life situations. Larmer et al (op.cit.) state that PjBL has
its roots in the teachings of 16th Century Italian architects, who built scale models of buildings as a

problem-solving exercise. Tan and Chapman (2016) explain that PjBL was popularised in the 1960s for

vocational teaching of subjects such as medicine, engineering and law, although Kirschner et al (2006)

question whether such approaches were effective.

Some PjBL practices align with Vygotsky’s social constructivist approach (e.g. 1986), with an emphasis

on co-construction of learning and the importance of social interaction in the learning process (see also

Greeno 2006). In practice, PjBL often involves groupwork and collaboration among learners, with the

doing in a project being the experience through which learning is co-constructed. It is the element of co-

constructed learning that links PjBL more to Vygotsky than to Piaget’s constructivist theory of learning -

Piaget emphasized self-discovery over social interaction (e.g. Donaldson, 2006). It is worth noting that the

focus on interaction in PjBL fits well with a Communicative Approach of language teaching as promoted

by my school. This approach stresses meaningful interaction as both the means and aims of learning

(Scrivener 2010).

2.1 Teachers and PjBL

Co-construction of learning should not imply that a PjBL approach is solely student-led. Markham (2012)

emphasizes that a goal of PjBL is mastery of core knowledge, along with skills acquisition; such core

knowledge may be outlined in a curriculum and form the basis of student inquiry. The skills acquired by

learners are not project-specific, they are transferable to other contexts. Bell (2010) states that PjBL is a

worthwhile approach for helping learners develop 21 st Century Skills (such as the 4Cs) and learning

dispositions. Bell also stresses that teacher facilitation helps learners develop such skills – learners are

not simply expected to learn independently. Buck Institute of Education (BIE - 2019), which focus

exclusively on effective PjBL instruction, list various responsibilities of teachers during a project. These

include ongoing, formative assessment, aligning learning to (prescribed) standards, and building a culture

of inquiry. Krauss and Boss (2013: 6) explain that PjBL teachers do less direct instruction, design projects

with skills and dispositions in mind, encourage learners to use higher-order thinking skills, and allow for

creative expression. Carefully directed inquiry rather than teacher instruction drives PjBL, but the role of

the teacher is still very much hands-on. While teaching in my own context is rarely inquiry-driven, there is
an emphasis on learning by doing (through task-based approaches), and general guidance is to limit

direct instruction.

2.2 Suggested benefits of project-based learning

As Bell (op.cit.) mentions, PjBL can aid 21st Century Skills development – this aligns with the ethos of my

institution. Simpson (2011) lists a range of skills that can be developed through PjBL, including higher-

order thinking skills, communicative competence, learner autonomy, teamwork, and affective traits such

as self-confidence. Kavlu (op.cit.) lists advantages of this approach, stating that PjBL helps learners make

meaningful links, projects are motivating, a change from prescriptive work and offer lower-achieving

students the chance for more support through groupwork. Peachey (op.cit.) highlights some drawbacks

related to learner inhibition in groupwork – something I have noted in my context throughout the years.

PjBL design principles suggest further benefits to this approach. Feedback, revision and reflection all

develop metacognitive competence, which research suggests has a high impact on learning (e.g. Hattie

2012 , EEF 2018), sustained inquiry would involve self-regulation (EEF, ibid) and other learning

dispositions such as curiosity (e.g. Claxton 2017), which are considered effective learning traits. Tan and

Chapman (op.cit.) state self-regulated learning and self-directed learning are important mindsets for an

independent learner to develop; our school promotes self-regulation/direction to help Secondary learners

develop a sense of progress, so this fits well with PjBL.

2.3 Critiques and misconceptions

In their comprehensive resource on PjBL, Krauss and Boss (op.cit.) include a project library. Each ‘project

sketch’ provides an example of a driving question for inquiry, along with guidance on how a project may

evolve and what the tangible outcomes might be. Most examples appear to have a product in mind from

the outset, as design principles state. However, the examples read more as situated learning exercises -

some lack authenticity. Krauss and Boss (ibid) inadvertently highlight the disconnect between theory,

principles and practice in PjBL, and they are not alone.

Along with Krauss and Boss (2013), Larmer et al (2015) emphasise creative expression in PjBL and

flexibility (as in IBL). However, having a predetermined end-product for learning may run contrary to this.

Researchers such as Aditomo et al (2013) suggest that because PjBL design principles include creating a
purposeful product this means PjBL is primarily product-oriented. However, this seems an

oversimplification, as BIE promote ongoing assessment during PjBL to monitor skills development, and

the product itself is only one realization of what has been learnt. According to Aditomo et al (ibid),

problem-based learning (PBL) is more process-oriented compared to PjBL. Yet the authors also describe

PjBL as a series of problems to be solved which lead to an end-product. This suggests that PjBL is both

process- and product-oriented.

Aditomo et al’s distinction is further complicated by educators who view PjBL design as rather flexible.

John Spencer (2019), an educational consultant and expert in PjBL, suggests that a PjBL can be driven

by inquiry, interest, problem, product or empathy. This seems to contradict PjBL design principles and

would also suggest that problem-based approaches are just another form of PjBL.

Peachey (op.cit.) states that a problem with PjBL approaches is the difficulty of covering the syllabus, yet

Krauss and Boss believe the approach is the syllabus (or in their case the curriculum). There is ambiguity

with regards to which content (if any) should be prescribed, and which content will or can emerge through

inquiry. In my context, PjBL modules veer more towards prescription, which can be a constraint.

Kirschner et al (2006) critique inquiry-driven approaches such as PjBL, suggesting that they provide

insufficient support for learners, which could impact negatively on learning due to issues with cognitive

load or insufficient prior knowledge. Lack of schematic knowledge related to project topics is something

our school is addressing through project pre-tasks for home learning, but they have only done so based

on learner feedback.

Kirschner et al’s critique simply assumes that inquiry-based approaches provide only minimal guidance to

learners. Hmelo-Silver et al (2007) refute this, providing clear examples of how inquiry and problem-

based approaches are scaffolded. Personally, I feel the question is not whether scaffolding is necessary

or provided (which it nearly always is with any instructional approach), it is at what point the level of

support or instruction provided by a teacher shapes a pedagogical approach beyond recognition. I would

argue (as might Thomas, 2000) that the more prescriptive a syllabus, the less aligned it would be with a

PjBL approach.
Greeno (2006) refers to PjBL as situated learning. The term ‘situational language exercises’ has been

used in ELT (Widdowson 2003) to suggest delivering content through pseudo-authentic tasks. I would

argue that the same concept is applied in PjBL. Krauss and Boss (2013) suggest that a 12 th grade social

studies task in which learners explore functions of the executive board by doing, for example ‘applying’ for

a green card, is authentic. It might be, if the class are all future migrant workers, or perhaps applying for

roles in the future which would require them to assist with the green card process. I would suggest that

these tasks are pseudo-authentic and that they lack direct relevance to the learners. It feels that some

projects are more a contextual hook for content and skills development, and may not necessarily relate to

learner interests and needs.

Overall, it seems that there are stronger and weaker forms of PjBL. The ‘gold standards’ highlighted by

Larmer et al (2015) may be optimal PjBL, whereas the project sketches from Krauss and Boss (2013)

which are often pseudo-authentic may be a form of ‘PjBL lite’. There is also some ambiguity regarding

what sets PjBL apart from other approaches such as PBL. I have already mentioned that in my context

our PjBL approach is rather prescriptive. However, after exploring the design principles of project-based

approaches I have started to question whether our syllabus can even be considered a form of PjBL at all.

2.4 Non-examples of PjBL

The design principles of PjBL are perhaps more flexible than I first assumed. However, one important

distinction to make is the difference between PjBL and a project. Simply doing a project is not the same

as taking a project-based learning approach. Thomas (2000) outlines some of the key differences

between projects and PjBL, including the following:

 PjBL is central rather than peripheral to a syllabus or curriculum (in line with comments from

Krauss and Boss (2013)).

 Learning takes place through PjBL, but stand-alone projects tend to review known content.

 Constructivism through collaboration and interaction is central to PjBL, whereas this is not the

case with a project.

 PjBL is student-driven to a far greater extent then with traditional projects, and there is a greater

real-world focus.
On reflection, it seems the term ‘project-based learning’ is misused by a lot of educators. An online search

for ‘project-based learning resources’ reveals ample resources for download which appear to be projects

that are inauthentic, prescribed, lack interaction, lack inquiry, yet are classed as a project-based learning

resource.

3. Implementing PjBL in my context

There has been some research into the use of PjBL in SE Asia, although the focus is rarely on Secondary

learners. The research offers a balanced view on benefits and drawbacks of this approach in contexts

similar to my own, and highlights some of the tensions faced by teachers and learners.

In government school contexts in Thailand, formal learning seems rather traditional, teacher-centred, and

knowledge-based. The education system is generally angled towards cultural transmission (Bottery,

1990) and upholding national unity (see Thai National Curriculum 2001). It is worth noting that the Thai

National Curriculum has what could be classed as a ‘current’ educational ethos – learner-centred

approaches are encouraged, there is a focus on developing 21st Century life skills, practical know-how,

and problem-solving skills. However, based on my own experiences and anecdotal evidence from

learners, implementation is more traditional and often of the ‘chalk-and-talk’ variety.

All my learners attend Thai government schools. The approach that these Thai EFL learners encounter at

my language school promotes the development of the aforementioned skills alongside language

development, and our methods are learner-centred. You could argue, as seemed the case in Bailey

(2015), that my learners receive a favourable mix of methods through their local and private learning

contexts, but adapting to a more learner-centred approach has its own demands.

For students, an inquiry-driven approach may lead to affective issues. Yuliani and Lengkanawati (2017)

found that in an Asian EFL classroom context (Indonesia), learners had some difficulty when

implementing autonomous skills such as self-regulation as these were unfamiliar to the learners. I feel this

is the same in a Thai Secondary context – learners require training in effective strategies, and teachers

need to taper expectations in the early stages of implementing our PjBL approach.
Many Secondary Thai EFL learners feel inhibited when speaking English; this is partly due to affective

issues such as lack of self-confidence. However, it may also stem from their educational context, in which

learners tend to play a more passive role in the classroom. There is evidence that PjBL techniques

encourage Thai EFL learners to be more expressive. Sirisrimangkorn (2018) found that learners who

undertook project-based learning focusing on drama showed clear improvement in their speaking skills.

Sirisrimangkon’s discussion on which speaking skills were developed lacks depth and is based solely on

test achievement. Poonpon (2017) noted the enhancement of all four skills in English using PjBL, as self-

reported by learners in semi-structured interviews.

In a higher education context, Tonsakul et al (2011) found that project-based approaches developed

learners’ thinking skills. This was in a non-EFL learning context, although Kettanun (2015) also reported

that PjBL approaches improved learner cognition, along with interpersonal skills. One interesting avenue

to explore might be how the development of speaking and thinking skills together might result in the

development of interthinking skills (e.g. Littleton and Mercer 2013), in particular a movement from

cumulative to exploratory talk. I cannot find any studies which have covered this topic.

As mentioned, a PjBL approach should complement Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which

emphasises the importance of meaningful and authentic communication. According to Scrivener

(2010:30) CLT is considered a default approach to language teaching by ‘most contemporary teachers’,

although this seems a very western-centric statement. CLT does not oppose form-focused instruction, yet

it is expected that explicit teaching would be limited in a CLT classroom and learning by doing takes

precedent. Littlewood (2004, 2007) highlights that CLT causes tension in some Asian or non-western

educational settings, where traditionally teachers have taken a more didactic approach with more form-

focused instruction. Littlewood (2007) emphasizes that in Asian contexts, the goal is not to adopt CLT, but

adapt current practices to integrate some aspects of CLT alongside more traditional methods. I agree. I

feel that most of my teaching in a language school in Thailand follows a weak version of CLT, where non-

communicative teaching and communicative learning lead to structured but rarely authentic

communication (see Littlewood 2007).

So far, I have framed PjBL and touched on some broad points regarding PjBL in an Asian context, and

within TEFL. Last year, my school began using a PjBL syllabus with our Upper-Secondary learners (aged

14-17, B2+). The following vignette outlines how I taught one of the eight modules from this syllabus over

the course of five weeks.

4. Vignette: Project-based learning with Thai Secondary EFL teens in Thailand

The topic of our five-week (10-hour) module was ‘celebrities and fame’. Students received a module

booklet in Lesson 1, the front page of which (Figure 1) outlined the tasks building up to the final project.

Figure 1: Module booklet front page for Secondary project-based learning course.

The project aim was to write and deliver a persuasive speech from the perspective of a celebrity,

explaining what value they have to society. My immediate thoughts on the resource were the following.

 This didn’t feel like a project, and it didn’t seem authentic. However, balloon debates can be

useful for skills and language development.

 The content overall felt very Eurocentric. In particular, the visuals used were almost exclusively

aspirational images of white Caucasian pseudo-celebrities. I wasn’t sure that my learners would

relate to this – the content needed to be personalized.

  I did not feel that each task in the module clearly had the final product in mind. The language

focuses seemed linked to creating a speech, but the context building exercises on celebrity

culture and careers advice were more just a vehicle for practicing receptive skills. While this

coverage was important, the flow did not seem clear to me, and I wasn’t sure how engaging these

would be for my learners.

I decided to negotiate the module content with the learners. In Lesson 1 they looked through the module

resources, discussed what looked interesting and what parts they wished to study. Crucially, I asked them

whether they wanted to research individual celebrities in detail (as the project required) and they said no.

They also felt that the study skills add-on activities were straightforward and not interesting. I needed time

to consider a sequence of lessons based on this student feedback, so we used Lesson 1 to build context

and access prior knowledge. Students discussed a series of (ad-hoc) questions related to celebrities and

fame. This led to fluency practice with learners describing celebrities they admired and why.

One of the questions that prompted some debate was the following:

 Do celebrities have certain social or ethical responsibilities? If so, what/how/why?

This seemed a worthwhile driving question for deeper inquiry. In Lesson 2 we made use of the module

reading text, which explored whether obsession with celebrities has a harmful impact on society.
 Figure 2: Text from the module booklet used in Lesson 2.

After some fairly standard comprehension and vocabulary building activities based around the text, I

decided to explore critical reading with the learners – loosely similar to the approach used in research by

Winter (2018). I felt this would help develop their global skills such as critical thinking and digital literacy. I

asked learners to respond to the writer and question their language choices, seek clarity when needed,

and so on. They then roleplayed this, with one student reading a comment as if they were the writer, the

other challenging them with questions throughout.

 Figure 3: Example of the critical reading exercise undertaken.

This proved useful for integrated skills development (critical reading, fluency practice, dealing with

interruption, hedging language, etc) and really made the most of the text and topic. Learners responded

to this technique very well and reflected on the benefits of approaching texts with greater criticality.

In Lesson 3 we took a sidestep into exploring vloggers, as the learners expressed interest in this. We

explored the skills needed to be an online celebrity vlogger through a listening task, which was a

springboard into the prescribed resources on careers advice. Again, we undertook roleplay tasks on

advising students on career paths and thinking through the skills they may need to develop. We then

linked this back to celebrities, with students roleplaying giving advice/deterring their partner from following

a path leading to fame (e.g. joining a K-Pop bootcamp). This tangent was relevant to learners in a broader

sense (surprisingly, none of the learners had ever been given careers advice at school), and we tried to

link it back to the challenges celebrities face. However, the aims of this class were more to ensure skills

coverage.
Lesson 4 really built on our discussion during the first two lessons, and loosely drew on some of the

‘drawbacks of fame’ covered in Lesson 3. We really built on the driving question related to social and

ethical responsibilities. I gave learners a series of ethical dilemmas to debate and discuss. Process

language was provided, and the debates were a vehicle to reviewing language content we had covered

before (conditionals, modals of speculation, etc), along with addressing emergent language needs.

Figure 4: Example of ethical dilemmas from Lesson 4.

This task worked very well, and learners were highly engaged. As the final product was meant to be a

persuasive speech, we built on these dilemmas (adapted to writing) with learners writing emails or texts

from friends of the celebrities, the celebrities to their companies, and so on. These involved the writer

persuading their audience to take a certain course of action regarding the issue/dilemma (e.g. the chef

writing a post for their website in which they justify their approaches in the cookbook). I considered this to
be the final ‘public product’, although the end results did not fully reflect the rich discussions during most

tasks.

We had one more lesson in this module. We used half of this to consolidate and reflect on our learning.

Prior to this, we undertook a one-hour Philosophy for Children (P4C) style lesson (Lipman, 1982). I

instructed learners to consider the topics we had covered during the unit, and raise philosophical

questions for elected discussion. I could not control this content, and the chosen discussions related to

the ethical dilemma faced by the chef (see Lesson 4 text)

 Is it right to eat meat?

Which evolved as a question into two main discussions:

 What is right?

 What is consciousness?

Reflection at the end of this module related less to performance, and more on free writing to consolidate

views and consider what else learners would like to know about the topic.

5. Discussion

I feel it is clear from this vignette that while our school syllabus is marketed as following a project-based

learning approach, the modules are not fully aligned with PjBL principles. Considering the principles

outlined by Larmer, et al (2015), the approach taken by my school conforms to only some of these.

 The public product learners were asked to create seemed inauthentic.

 The resources seem more thematic or topic-based than project-based. There is a fair amount of

prescription in order to achieve coverage, and there is no driving question for inquiry, query or

challenge.

 The project element of the module feels like an add-on, or simply a free practice for language

input. The project itself (or rather, the task) does not require sustained inquiry.
  Based on the negotiation with learners at the start of the module, it is clear that the content was

not interesting, relevant or personalised enough for them. Student choice is mainly provided via

follow up tasks, not in core content.

The module content (see Appendix 1) does include reflection stages, and I added to these further.

However, reflection alone does not make PjBL, this is just one design principle. Overall, I had to find ways

to add inquiry, provide choice, and enhance the authenticity and relevance of the text. The issues I had

with the project sketches from Krauss and Boss (2013) are mirrored in our module booklet, and the

prescribed final task (deemed a project) seemed more of a situated exercise for language practice

(Widdowson 2003). Furthermore, there is no sense that the project is the curriculum, the prescribed

resources aim at coverage (addressing the issue raised by Peachey 2020) rather than exploring the

module theme with more flexibility and independence.

Regarding the components of PjBL outlined by Thomas (2000), the module resources seem to be a very

weak form of this approach. As mentioned, the project felt more peripheral than central. There are limited

opportunities provided for collaborative work, the content is not student-driven, and the focus is not on a

real-world task. A speech might be real-world, but a balloon debate is not. In line with Littlewood’s (2007)

mention of adapting rather than adopting a new approach, I made the materials work for the students.

However, to do so I veered away from a pure PjBL approach as no true public product was created. I feel

like the curriculum designers and writers have fallen into the trap of thinking ‘doing a project’ constitutes

project-based learning. In fact, the approach seems more like topic-based teaching culminating in a

project/task add-on for summative purposes. In adapting the resources, I created a series of

skills/strategy-based lessons within a theme, but these still lacked a key principle of PjBL – sustained

inquiry.

Despite this, some ways I adapted the resources did incorporate more principles of PjBL. They also

aligned with research from similar contexts; I added drama and roleplay and, like Sirisrimangkorn (2018),

I felt this helped develop learners speaking skills. I added opportunities for developing thinking skills,

something Tongkasul et al (2011) stated was a positive aspect of PjBL. The P4C activity in the final

lesson added opportunities for development of interthinking (Littleton and Mercer, 2013), communication,
co-construction of meaning and so on. I also added more speaking that was closer to authentic

communication, aligning the approach more with CLT (Littlewood, 2007; Scrivener, 2010). Furthermore, I

went to greater lengths than the original resource to help learners access and use prior knowledge of the

topic (addressing concerns from Kirschner et al, 2006). However, I did all this outside of a PjBL

framework, and mostly in response to learners’ emergent needs.

6. Conclusion

Is PjBL ineffective in my context? This is inconclusive. Having gained a better understanding of PjBL

through this assignment, I feel that neither the prescribed module nor my adaptation followed a PjBL

approach. Due to current global constraints, my vignette is rather anecdotal – detailed feedback from

learners on the approaches taken would have been preferable.

Regarding the prescribed resources, I have three concerns:

 On what basis did the product design team conclude that these resources follow a project-based

approach?

 Why was there such a mismatch between student interests and the chosen module topic?

 How prescriptive can a PjBL approach be before it becomes a different approach altogether?

Regarding my adaptation, in hindsight I wonder whether my approach moved closer to PjBL rather than

away from it. On the one hand, I was reactive, somewhat unprincipled, and did not begin with an end-

product in mind. On the other hand, in reacting to my learners’ emergent needs and interests, I came to

integrate more aspects of PjBL than were evident in the original module resources. At the very least, I

kept in mind the need for deeper inquiry, more student voice and choice, and the importance of

developing criticality.

While I do believe that a weak PjBL approach would benefit my learners, I am now aware that I have

never actually used this approach myself. This has been a valuable learning point, and I will consider this

when adapting future modules from this course.

 7. References

Aditomo, A., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A.M. and Ellis, R.A. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in higher education:
principal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9),
pp.1239-1258.
Bailey, L. (2015). The experiences of host country nationals in international schools: A case-study from
Malaysia. Journal of research in international education, 14(2), pp.85-97.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The clearing house, 83(2),
pp.39-43.
Blumenfeld, P. and Krajcik, J. (2006). Project-based learning. The Cambridge handbook of the learning
sciences, pp.333-354. Cambridge: CUP
Bottery, M. (1990) The morality of the school: The theory and practice of values in education. Cassell.
Buck Institute for Education (2020). Website accessed 05/03/2020 via https://my.pblworks.org
Claxton, G. (2017) The Learning Power Approach: Teaching Learners to Teach Themselves. Corwin
Press.
Donaldson, M. (2006) Children's minds. London: Harper Perenial
Greeno, J. (2006). Learning in Activity. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp.79-96.
Cambridge: CUP
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G. and Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based
and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational psychologist, 42(2), pp.99-107.
Kavlu, A. (2017). Implementation of Project-Based Learning (PBL) in EFL classrooms in Fezalar
Educational Institutions (Iraq). In 5th International Research Conference on Education, May 1-2, Tbilisi,
Georgia.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-
based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), pp.75-86.
Krauss, J. and Boss, S. (2013). Thinking through project-based learning: Guiding deeper inquiry.
California: Corwin Press.
Education Endowment Foundation. (2018). Evidence summary: metacognition and self-regulation.
Retrieved 12/04/2020 from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-
learning-toolkit/meta-cognition-and-self-regulation/
Kettanun, C. (2015). Project-based learning and its validity in a Thai EFL classroom. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 192(24), pp.567-573.
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J. and Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project-based learning. ASCD.
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J.R. and Boss, S. (2015). Gold standard PBL: Essential project design
elements. Buck Institute for Education. Accessed 12/04/2020 via
https://my.pblworks.org/resource/document/gold_standard_pbl_essential_project_design_elements?
_ga=2.32989564.354842404.1586672098-748596954.1586672098
Lipman, M. (1982) Philosophy for children. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 3(3/4),
pp.35-44.
Littleton, K. and Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London: Routledge.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT journal, 58(4),
pp.319-326.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian
classrooms. Language teaching, 40(3), pp.243-249.
Markham, T. (2012). Project Based Learning: Design and Coaching Guide: Expert Tools for Innovation
and Inquiry for K-12 Educators. Heart IQ Press.
Peachey, N. (2020). Focus on… Project-based Learning. Accessed 12/04/2020 via Oxford University
Press, at http://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/elt/feature/oup-focus-project-based-learning.pdf?
cc=th&selLanguage=th&mode=hub
Poonpon, K., (2017). Enhancing English skills through project-based learning. The English Teacher,
Volume XL pp1-10.
Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching: The essential guide to English language teaching. Oxford:
Macmillan Education.
Simpson, J. (2011). Integrating project-based learning in an English language tourism classroom in a Thai
university (Thesis, Australian Catholic University). Retrieved 12/04/2020
from https://doi.org/10.4226/66/5a961e4ec686b
Sirisrimangkorn, L. (2018). The use of project-based learning focusing on drama to promote speaking
skills of EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(6), pp.14-20.
Spencer, J. (2019). Project-based learning toolbox. Accessed 12/04/2020 from
https://www.spencerauthor.com/project-based-learning-toolbox/
Tan, J.C. and Chapman, A. (2016). Project-Based Learning for Academically-Able Students. Sense
Publishers, Rotterdam.
Thai National Curriculum. (2001, 2008). Accessed 12/04/2020 via http://www.act.ac.th/document/1741.pdf
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved 12/04/2020 from
https://tecfa.unige.ch/proj/eteach-net/Thomas_researchreview_PBL.pdf
Tongsakul, A., Jitgarun, K. and Chaokumnerd, W. (2011). Empowering students through project-based
learning: Perceptions of Instructors and students in vocational education institutes in Thailand. Journal of
College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 8(12), pp.19-34.
Vygotsky, Lev (edited by Alex Kozulin). (1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winter, C. (2018) Disrupting colonial discourses in the geography curriculum during the introduction of
British Values policy in schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(4), pp.456-475.
Yuliani, Y. and Lengkanawati, N.S. (2017). Project-based learning in promoting learner autonomy in an
EFL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), pp.285-293.