For submission: M.

Dooly

Dooly, M. (in press, 2021). Project-based learning. In D. Masats & C. Pratginestós

(Eds.), Lessons learnt in schools implementing project-based learning. Barcelona:
Omnia Science.

Project-Based Language Learning

Introduction

As educators continually shift their teaching in order to get students to think and
understand rather than memorize and recite; demonstrate and perform rather than report
and be tested, Project-Based Learning (PBL) has become increasingly more popular as
the medium to create more engaging learning environments. At the same time, the term
itself has been applied to a dizzying array of teaching practices. And as language
teachers begin to meld PBL into their language teaching (commonly known as Project-
Based Language Learning or PBLL), it has become increasingly relevant to fully
understand the premise of this approach.

A first question might be what exactly does a project in language learning look like?
Firstly, PBLL is founded on student-centred teaching practices and aims to promote
collaborative learning, shared goals and output and authentic communication.
CASLS (2015, p.1) defines PBLL “as an articulated series of activities, motivated by
real-world needs and driven by the learners’ interest, whose common goal is to improve
language learners’ communicative competence in the target language through the
construction of products”.

When applied to the area of language learning, a key underlying aim is to foster the
development of language learners’ cognitive, social and communicative skills (Beckett
& Miller, 2006) through their engagement in the execution of authentic activities
(authentic in the sense that they are not ‘simulated’ tasks designed by the teacher to
elicit specific responses). The activities are planned to lead up to a final project goal or
output.

Of course, Project-Based Learning is not new in the field of education, as is attested by

Dewey’s (1916) advocating of “learning by doing”, proposed at the beginning of the
last century (see also Stevenson, 1921).

Project-based learning (PBL) began in the U.S. general education over a century
ago (...). 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. (Beckett, Slater & Mohan, p. 3, 2020).

It is easy to see why a precise definition of PBL can be so elusive! As constructivist and
socio-constructivist learning theories have gained ground in education (see Vygotsky,
1978; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1988), so too has PBL become more favoured in education,
including second and foreign language teaching (Beckett & Slater, 2005; Beckett, et al.,
 For submission: M. Dooly

2020; Dooly, 2013; Dooly & Masats, 2020; Fried-Booth, 2002; Stoller, 2006). Central
to the premise of PBLL is the notion that the language projects involve authentic
language-use activities, not simulated language situations.

A well-designed PBLL can help support the learners’ use of the target language in
purposeful communication as they negotiate activities, analyze, and discuss information
and ideas to complete the sub-activities that will lead up to the completion of the project
output (Dooly, 2013; Dooly & Masats, 2020). Moreover, studies show that project work
encourages imagination and creativity, self-discipline and responsibility, collaboration,
research and study skills, and cross-curricular work through exploitation of knowledge
gained in other subjects (Beckett, 2006; Beckett, et al., 2020).

There is often confusion between task-based language teaching (TBLT) and PBLL.
This is quite understandable since TBLT also promotes second language acquisition as
an organic process, fostered through cognitively challenging activities that oblige the
student to use the language. Just as in PBLL, in the TBLT approach language learning
tasks are goal directed; focused on meaning, and have clearly defined outcomes
(Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2003). However, in TBLT, the task purpose is
usually simulated and created by the teacher as a means of eliciting previously deigned
target language use (filtered and chosen by the teacher), rather than an authentic purpose
that is linked in some way to the learners’ context inside and outside of the classroom.
For instance, in TBLT students might be asked to take on the role of rock band
managers and work together to devise a publicity campaign. This activity, while
ensuring the need for communication (and most likely quite motivating for students)
cannot be considered a project unless the pupils are really part of a rock band that needs
promotion!

PBLL teaching aims to move away from language instruction based on pre-defined
linguistic goals or simulated activities or roles. Initially project-based instruction was
introduced to language education (...) "as a way to combat the teacher-centered formal
approach prevalent in the field at that time" (Beckett & Slater, 2018, p. 1). PBLL
advocates argue that projects engage and motivate language learners in a deeper
learning process as they are compelled to use the target language as a resource of tool to
learn more language, content and accompanying skills necessary to complete the
project.

Because PBLL is designed as a series or sequence of activities (tasks and sub-tasks) that
lead up to at least one clearly articulated outcome, language use is extensive and
intensive. Many proponents of Project-Based Learning argue that the final output
should have an impact on an audience outside the school and is embedded in the
community itself, thereby reinforcing the authenticity of not only the language use but
also the learning that is involved (Dooly, 2013; Mont & Masats, 2018). This helps the
language learners see the cohesion between the output and other learning processes
taking place in their lives; they are able to see immediately through the project the need
for communicating with others in the target language of the project. Optimally, the
language learner sees that there is an authentic purpose for carrying out the work (not
just a display of knowledge for the teacher and the class).

Why PBLL?
 For submission: M. Dooly

PBLL is a powerfully motivating experience. It can be compared to the contrastive

experiences that learners often face between learning in school and learning outside of
school. In fragmented, disconnected subjects students usually do not have the time and
scope to truly build up their base knowledge and to practice key skills that will allow
them to master the subject content, often leading to feelings of frustration, anxiety and
lack of confidence in their own learning abilities. In contrast, in any extracurricular
activities which they have elected due to personal interests, these same students can
experience their own growing competence in their chosen sport or hobby – thus
allowing them to clearly see how their focused time, effort, coaching and practice has
paid off. Moreover, in PBLL, similar to an athletic team or a musical ensemble, students
can see their individual strengths as a vital part of the success of the project. As the
learners become more aware that their contribution truly matters to the whole group, the
more motivated they become.

Another key aspect is the immediate connection between PBLL and communicative
competences. Since the early 1980s, understanding of what it means to know a language
has shifted more and more towards the notion of communicative competence. Largely
stemming from Dell Hymes’ (1964) work on language use, the idea of communicative
competence has been increasingly adopted into models for language teaching (Beckett,
et al., 2020). Generally speaking, models of communicative competence are three or
four-pronged: linguistic or grammatical competence, pragmatic or discourse
competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence.

These notions of communicative competence have had a significant impact on language

teaching, in particular the recognition and promotion of what is commonly known as the
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach. The volume and type of
interaction in PBLL (projects can easily include decision-making, activity-design, task-
allocation, progress-reporting, problem-solving, output-production, etc.) ensures that
there is continual communication between participants and facilitates the integrated use
of language competences (grammatical, pragmatic, discursive, sociolinguistic and
strategic) and through different modes (reception, production, interaction; and
mediation).

The interpersonal competences stressed in the CEFR are essential for the type of
interaction that takes place in PBLL, foregrounding a further nexus between
competency-based teaching, CLT and PBLL which is small group interaction and
socially oriented lessons (essential to cooperative learning). Moreover, knowing how to
take part efficiently in teamwork is considered an essential skill for the 21 st century
workplace (Gleason & Link, 2020). As Jenkins (2006) points out, required current and
future skills relate to the ability to efficiently take part in a ‘globalized’ and
‘participatory culture’ in which collaboration and sharing of one’s creation is common
and members believe their contributions are relevant, based on a general feeling of
social connection.

Key Features of PBLL

According to several experts on PBL and PBLL, projects aimed to promote deep
learning should have the following features: authenticity, significant content, flexibility,
longevity, make use of continuous assessment. It should also be: inquiry-based,
 For submission: M. Dooly

embedded, student-oriented and collaborative. And in today’s current technology-

infused society, it can be argued that PBLL should also be technology-based. Each of
these characteristics is discussed in detail below.

Authenticity: Central to the premise of PBLL is the notion that the language projects are
authentic, not simulated language situations (see introduction). Within the parameters of
PBL, authenticity might lay in different domains of the learning activities (e.g.
purposeful project topics and contexts, outside-the-classroom collaborators, project
output and project audience within the community, etc.). All of these domains may be
included in one project or the project may incorporate only one or a combination of
several of them, however, in all cases, the students must be able to identify the
purposefulness and authenticity of the target language use (Beckett & Slater, 2005;
Stoller, 2006; Beckett & Miller, 2006).

According to the National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) at the

University of Hawai'i at Manoa, a sliding scale of authenticity can be applied to
projects, ranging from ‘Not Authentic’ to ‘Somewhat Authentic’ to ‘Fully Authentic’. A
project which is ‘not authentic’ would include work that only has an academic purpose,
such as writing an essay, creating a poster or making a PowerPoint presentation on a
given topic. In these types of tasks, there is no public audience beyond classmates and,
of course, the teacher. In ‘not authentic’ project, the output created by the students is not
used for any purpose outside of the classroom. In a ‘somewhat authentic’ project,
students might do work that simulates what happens in the world outside of school, such
as role play as engineers or advisors to Parliament. Output could include similar
products to what might be used in the real world but will not necessarily be put to use
outside the classroom. In a ‘fully authentic’ project, students carry out work that is real
to them in the sense that it has a direct impact on or use in the real world (this can, of
course, include a goal for something ‘real’ within the school). In these projects, students
might be advocates for a cause they have chosen, perform a service, or create a physical
artefact (through various media) to bring attention to a topic that is important to them.

Include significant content: A balance between ‘real’ outreach (authentic purpose linked
to the ‘real’ world), a project should focus on relevant knowledge and concepts derived
from local and national standards. In language teaching, special consideration must be
given to the essential language knowledge that learners need to acquire to successfully
complete the project. PBLL can "help students take their learning outside the classroom
and into the real through the scaffolded preparation of authentic practices and products
(Gleason & Link, p. 205, 2020); note, however, that the key word here is 'scaffolded'. It
is not simply a question of saying 'go, explore' and pushing the learners out the door of
the classroom without providing them with appropriate tools, including the language
resources they will need.

Be Embedded: This feature is directly related (in fact it overlaps) with the first two in
the list: (authenticity and significant content). An outstanding project will engage the
students through the curriculum (Beckett, et al., 2020). This implies that the project is
not an ‘added-on’ feature to already established learning objectives or ‘extra’ work that
is tacked on to the end of a unit in a course book. PBLL is a ‘new’ perspective on how
to approach the content that should be taught during the year. As mentioned earlier,
being embedded also implies that the project is an integral part of the class, the school,
the community and the ‘outside’ world.
 For submission: M. Dooly

Be student-oriented: According to Stoller (2006), Project-Based Language Learning

allows students to set and evaluate their own language learning goals, as well as content
learning goals and other related skills and learning strategies. This also ensures
enhanced language learner motivation and confidence as well as making assessment
more transparent and integrated into the overall learning process. The content and
project design should motivate and challenge learners to increase their proficiency in the
target language and create the need for them to engage with peoples and cultures related
to it. However, being student-oriented does not mean a complete ‘hands-off’ approach.
It is necessary to take into consideration the degree of learner autonomy, the learners’
proficiency in the target language and the expected learner performance at the end of the
project. Based on this assessment, learners may be allowed to set their own language
learning goals, choose topics and products that would create repeated opportunities for
output and negotiation of meaning in the target language.

Flexibility: The fact that the sequence of PBLL activities is embedded in a real life
situation is one of the major differences between many CLT approaches and PBLL
(Mont & Masats, 2018). This is a move away from language instruction based on pre-
defined linguistic goals or simulated activities or roles. This does not mean that
language learning goals are not set, however the planning should include sufficient
‘elasticity’ to incorporate time and opportunities for ‘emergent’ language use that stems
from the students’ authentic needs while communicating to complete the project.

Longevity: Despite the fact that there is no exact consensus on the required time-span, a
project, by definition, must last longer than one or two lessons. PBLL is based on a
teaching a learning approach that engages students in a learning process in which they
take some (or all, depending on the level) ownership through an extended inquiry
process” (Beckett, et el., 2020). This implies that there the project will cover several
lessons in a series of activities that are coherently sequenced to lead the students to the
intended output and learning outcomes.

Be inquiry-based: The language learning project should lead students to in-depth

exploration of authentic and important topics which are of interest and relevant to them
(this is related to the previous feature of being student-oriented). In this sense, because
the PBLL generates multiple output that require research, problem-solving, feedback
and reflection, it will also produce multiple opportunities for communication in the
target language (Kuo, Sutton, Wright & Miller, 2020).

Make use of continuous assessment: PBLL should include performance-based

assessment and not merely evaluate the final output and learning outcomes. A wide
variety of assessment typologies (e.g. rubrics, exit slips, 2-minute individual, pair or
group quizzes, lesson minutes, etc.) and assessment grouping (self, peer and teacher)
can help ensure greater insight into progress as well as higher validity on final marks.
Carefully planned assessment tools (and scheduling of their use) can help prevent
problems with group work, can help detect individual difficulties as well as serve as
‘training’ for students to learn the importance of interdependence when collaborating
(Chen & Hirch, 2020).

Promote collaboration: When teachers incorporate collaboration in instructional design,

language learning becomes a more cooperative and social undertaking, and the
 For submission: M. Dooly

instructor takes on a more facilitative role. The need for integrating collaborative
activities into the project design has been discussed in detail in the previous sections.
However, it should not be forgotten that this may include teacher collaboration as well.
Project-Based Language Learning (PBLL) hinges on the idea that language learning is
engendered through an approach that connects content and target language to students’
lives, often in collaboration with teachers from other disciplines (Dooly & Masats,
2020).

Technology-based: The use of digital technologies have long been promoted as optimal
means to get students to use a target language with individuals outside of the classroom
(Dooly, 2008; 2010; Dooly & O'Dowd, 2018). In short, technology –especially
technology that mediates communication between learners- can help the students ‘do
things’ with language, rather than simply learning ‘about’ language. The use of digital
(which would include computers as well as smartphones) can be easily integrated into
the project through ‘telecollaboration’. A broad definition of telecollaboration is the
process of communicating and working together with other people or groups from
different locations through online or digital tools (e.g. computers, tablets, cellphones) to
co-produce a desired work output, whether synchronously or asynchronously. This is a
competence that students will need in order to function competently in the 21 st century.
Within the environment of education, telecollaboration combines all of these
components with a focus on learning, social interaction, dialogue, intercultural
exchange and communication –which is an especially salient point of telecollaboration
in language education.

Planning, implementing and evaluating PBLL

Step 1. Begin with the end.

Successful PBLL requires careful planning and management skills so that it is not
simply a “divide into groups and discuss” approach instead of a truly cooperative
learning environment. Unfortunately, there is no easy recipe although some general
steps can be unpacked from the overall complexity of PBLL planning. A first step
consists of choosing a project topic or theme that not only lends itself to language
teaching but which is also germane to the students’ lives. This implies that the project
must fit naturally into the use of the target language (e.g. a project that culminates in
writing a letter to the European parliament) and be relevant for the students (e.g. noise
pollution in a school where the din in the community is problematic and breaks with EU
regulations). Also, the authenticity of the project activities and output should be
considered. Creating a task force about noise pollution for the EU Parliament as an
audience accommodates a language learning project more easily than if the target is a
local ombudsman since the students would not need to address him or her in the foreign
language being studied. This is a key reason why it is suggested that planning should
begin with the end —decide the final product(s) first and work backwards from there.

Step 2. Anticipate learners’ needs: decide implicit and explicit content.

An essential part of PBLL planning is anticipating limitations —what obstacles might
exist (e.g. physical and temporal limitations)— as well as considering which parts of the
curricula can be effectively handled in a PBLL approach. This requires long-term
planning in order to determine whether some areas of language learning might be more
easily and quickly covered (or must necessarily be covered) through direct instruction,
 For submission: M. Dooly

textbooks and lectures and so on, outside of, or parallel to the project. Once the topics
and areas of the curricula that will be dealt with through PBLL have been identified, the
teacher must then take into consideration the students themselves —what can they do by
themselves? What might prove to be too difficult and potentially frustrating (thus
possibly de-motivating)? How can students be gradually introduced to more
autonomous learning during the course? This type of student profiling is essential for
the initial planning.

Note that it is especially important to be able to recognize limitations that may affect the
final outcome of projects. Teachers should identify constraints that might have an effect
on language learning projects in each of the following categories
• Institutional constraints: school holidays, curriculum requirements …
• Physical constraints: immoveable desks, few computers …
• Time constraints: standardized tests periods, short school terms …
• Content constraints: complexity, repetitive …
• Other: lack of experience as autonomous learners, lack of familiarity with
cooperative learning …

Step 3. Planning and scaffolding embedded communication activities.

The project must ensure multiple (authentic) communicative outputs in varying forms
(speaking, listening, reading, and writing) in a wide variety of sub-activities and
activities, all within an array of contexts. At the same time, learners must be given time
and opportunities for repetition of some activities to ensure that they are familiar with
specific communicative events (e.g. being a scribe to keep record of group work; being
the group's spokesperson to explain sub-task outcomes and decisions) so that they gain
confidence in different language competences (writing, speaking, etc.). In other words,
there must be ample opportunities for review of language already learnt with gradual
introduction of more and more communication activities. This means anticipating and
allowing sufficient time in the PBLL calendar for all task sequences.

Providing opportunities for different types of target language use requires scaffolding,
perhaps more intensively at certain phases or during specific activities (e.g. providing
“cheatsheets” for group leaders that will help them in group negotiations of tasks).
Foreseeing the moments in the implementation where scaffolding will be needed means
more planning and preparation but will help the project run more smoothly. So, when
sketching out the project, it is helpful to brainstorm all of the different types of language
needed to reach the final product of the project and then to carefully consider pre-,
during and post- language sub-tasks for each step (while ensuring that there is variety in
the sub-tasks). To facilitate planning, the teacher might divide language use into
different categories: for setting up tasks (e.g. receiving instructions; explaining
instructions to others, etc.); for carrying out tasks (e.g. group discussion leader,
presentations, report writing, note-taking, etc.); and for output (e.g. posters, interviews,
letters, etc.). These questions can help the teacher decide where language scaffolding
will be needed:
• What language skills/structures/vocabulary/etc. must the students know to carry
out the project successfully?
• What can the learners do with language already?
• What language use might be difficult for them and/or will push them to the next
highest level of performance?
• Where are the gaps between what they know and what they will need?
 For submission: M. Dooly

• Where is student performance likely to break down?

• What scaffolding strategies will help bridge these difficulties without detracting
from their autonomous learning?

At the same time, the teacher must not become overly focused on language use at the
possible sacrifice of content or at the risk of weighing down the project with
schoolwork type activities. Instead language input and language use should be part of a
holistic, coherent milieu of activities leading up to authentic project output. In short,
good planning requires a balance of cognitive demand between language and content.
This aspect of planning highlights a significant difference between PBL and PBLL
implementation. PBLL necessarily entails a bifocal perspective by the teacher on both
the project content and the project language —language is both the object of study and
the vehicle for the learning process (Seedhouse, 2004). This underscores the complexity
and fluidity between language as focus of learning, language as vehicle of pedagogical
intentions and, to add a third level of complexity, the possible presence of other
languages in the classroom. Planning PBLL within a multilingual context requires
balance and in a well-designed language project activity sequence, both accuracy and
fluency will be focused at some point or other, along with open, creative opportunities
for spontaneous communication. It is important to design scaffolding strategies that can
be used ‘unobtrusively’ (without constant monitoring of the teacher) and which are not
too repetitious (but can be repeated enough to become a familiar tool for them).

Step 4. Decide on the assessment strategies.

In regard to assessment, the focus on performance-based teaching and assessment is a
key factor for PBLL implies that diversity of strategies is usually more suitable to PBLL
situations (Chen & Hirch, 2020). The literature on PBLL indicates that the more typical
assessment tools are rubrics, portfolios, learner diaries and peer assessment (Tsiplakides
& Fragoulis 2009). Other tools that also work well are recordings of group interaction,
short, performance-based classroom observation (using Likert-scale observation
checklist; Chen & Hirch, 2020). Pre- and post-tests are also common, but the teacher
must be careful to assess all the language domains used in the project. This means that
communicative competence with previously studied target language as well as new
target language introduced during the PBLL should be included in the assessment tools
and these should be assessed by varying means so that all the competences
(grammatical, pragmatic, discursive, sociolinguistic and strategic) are easily identifiable
to the students as integrated elements of the learning objectives. The tools used —in
particular rubrics— can be designed to provide descriptors of both performance and
products of the learning process (through clear descriptors). Students can learn to use
these descriptors to carry out peer and self-assessment throughout the learning process
(table 1 shows an extract from a rubric for the discussion leaders of a working group).

Table 1. Rubric Extract: Discussion Leader

Unsatisfactory Novice level Breakthrough level Expertise level
Language Use
Instructions Only tries to convey Able to convey Some relapses and re- Shows proficiency
meaning to group in meaning only after phrasing but on the in giving
L1. Makes no considerable effort whole able to convey instructions in
attempt to use & re-phrasing. meaning to group in target language.
knowledge of target Mostly uses L1 the target language. Uses the
language. with a few words Mostly uses the “cheatsheet”
in the target “cheatsheet” appropriately as a
 For submission: M. Dooly

language. appropriately. means of support,

not as a substitute
for leadership.
Use of Does not use Tends to use only Uses rehearsed Shows autonomy in
resources available language one resource (e.g. language chunks (e.g. the use of resources
resources to help in asking the teacher “how do you say …”, (e.g. language
role as leader. for vocabulary). “what does … mean”) chunks, online
with others (peers, dictionary,
teachers) as well as delegating language
“cheatsheet”. search, etc.).

It may be necessary for the teacher to coach students in using rubrics or other set of
criteria to critique one another’s work if they are not used to this type of interaction.
Students need to learn that most people’s first attempts don’t result in high quality
(students often mark their peers quite high, leaving little need for improvement).
Students should learn that revision is a frequent feature of real-world work.

Step 5. Bring it all together in a project ‘blueprint’.

There are many different templates available for designing language learning projects;
many of them have different foci. Teachers will usually choose the template that best
fits their ‘style’, for instance a ‘visual’ teacher might prefer a ‘map’ like the one below
(figure 1). This is taken from a telecollaborative exchange and as can be seen in the
blueprint, technology is used for communication between the distanced partners.
 For submission: M. Dooly

Fig. 1. PBLL Map: Bon Voyage! (Collaborative Travel Blog)

Introductions
Working in groups
Learning Accountability
Designing tasks
Decision-taking
Reaching consensus
Understanding
instructions
Giving/understanding
Calculating distances introductions
Estimating travel time Typing Writing short texts
Blog entries Reading short texts (for
Voice/text chat gist & detail)
Map-reading Giving arguments
Route-planning

Maths Interpersonal Technology

Communicative
Geography Competences

Project Final Product: Materials, Equipment &

Tasks resources
Collaborative Travel Blog

Parental permission
Subproducts Computers
Virtual introductions Internet Access
Grouping Blog website
Locating virtual meeting points Distanced network partner
Travel blog entries Virtual mapmaker account
Peer revision Class diary Videocamera
Final encounter Virtual map Microphone
Distance list Distance calculator
Virtual Conference (final)
Gift packets

More ‘textual’ teachers might prefer a template that requires verbal descriptions (blow-
by-blow) of each of the activities, as shown in figure 2.

Project Title:

Summary of the project (in general terms, what the students will do, sub-products, final
output, etc.
 For submission: M. Dooly

The Driving Question:

How these are linked to key competences, according to level in the national curriculum:

Context
Target language level of group:
Identified special needs of any students:
Class typology (EFL, cross-disciplinary):
Identified constraints (if any):
Approximate time frame:

The timeline of activities, materials, output and Learning Objectives (LO) for language &
content and performance assessment:

Session Activity Sub- LO LO Performance

product/Output (lang.) (cont.) Assessment

Short summary of how to task cycle for each session (including resources and scaffolding

strategies:

Assessment Outline (type of assessment to be used, frequency and how the performance
assessment is linked to the rest of the activities and project)

Annex (materials developed for the project, e.g. rubrics, hand-outs)

Trouble-shooting in PBLL planning

A common worry about Project Based Language Learning is that beginners cannot
participate in performance-based interaction and must be taught linguistic knowledge
first. However, PBLL can be efficiently used at beginner levels if the project focuses
principally on input-based activities designed to help develop initial proficiency.
Inevitably, beginning language learners may feel insecure and be less willing to take
risks at trying to communicate, especially if they are used to more controlled language
 For submission: M. Dooly

practice. To sustain their confidence, the teacher must slowly build on more input-based
activities in the project sequences so that learners are provided, very gradually, with
what might be called structured communicative events.

Students who do not have a great deal of experience with communicating in the target
language —or feel they do not have sufficient fluency— may be overwhelmed by the
idea of using the target language to carry out a project. It should be made clear from the
beginning that the target language use will be scaffolded and that the focus is on
communicating basic ideas, not creating extremely complex output. Since the idea of
projects is often associated with cognitively demanding outcomes, pupils may assume
that this implies a good command of the target language for the project implementation
and outcome and thus be reticent to the whole idea. Teachers and pupils can negotiate
the amount of target language that will be used and when; initiating students into PBLL
does not necessarily mean that the target language must be used 100% of the time.

Gradually scaled communicative events must be planned into the project sequence so
that there is possibility of repetition as well as building further complexity into the
events. One way of doing this is to avoid lockstep teaching (all of the students working
on the same activity at the same time) by having mixed activities and materials for
smaller groups —all of which are designed to contribute, in some way or another,
towards the completion of the project. This also provides time and opportunity for the
teacher to work intensively with different groups or individuals as needed. Language
resources (dictionaries, newspapers, online resources) should be readily available in the
classroom and the students must become competent in their use (again, this can be one
of the initial sub-activities that form the project sequence). Also, the teacher must
ensure that the planning of the activity sequences in the project is based on group work
that involves trust-building activities and team-building.

Structured communicative events need not only take place as part of the products and
sub-products; planning communication during group work is also important. For
instance, communicative events may be integrated into the different roles given to the
language learners during group work: for each group activity, there may be a leader
(who finds out the instructions for the day’s activities and communicates them to the
group and is responsible for overseeing the group during that day’s activities), a reporter
(who records the events, participation and outcomes and then informs the teacher or to
the whole class about what the group has completed/discovered, etc.), a technical
assistant (who is responsible for finding information or using the language resources)
and a group motivator (who encourages participation and evaluates performance of the
group). The roles needed for group work can be decided at the beginning of the project;
these are then rotated throughout the implementation, therefore enabling different
communicative events to be tried out by the learners.

Another concern often invoked about PBLL is that the complexity of the activity
sequences may force students to resort to communicating in languages they feel more
comfortable with rather than the target language. Research into the use of target
languages during sequenced tasks indicates communicative oral competence in the
target language during task performance principally implies a) contributing to the
management of the activity (turn taking, dealing with topics, proposing focus of
attention); b) formulating appropriate utterances; and c) overcoming communicative
obstacles (Masats, Nussbaum & Unamuno, 2007). Research reveals that learners pass
 For submission: M. Dooly

through stages of increased target language use (beginning with occasional utterances)
and move into more advanced levels of competence wherein they mostly use the target
language and manage most of the activity in the target language; or through
reformulations (Masats et al. 2007). In short, the learners will use the target language in
greater proportions as they feel more comfortable and secure with it —and this is best
accomplished by having ample opportunities to use it in meaningful ways and over
time, which is precisely the proposition of PBLL (Beckett & Miller 2006; Dooly 2013).

Another assumed obstacle for communicative-based approaches is the difficulty of

providing opportunities for all the learners to use the language in a purposeful way,
especially in large classes. However, if one looks at the original premise of Project-
Based Learning (not only projects focused on language learning), it is possible to see
how the approach itself implies a much greater potential for communication to take
place —through the different types of classroom interaction necessary for the project
implementation—; more so than almost many other approaches, including simulated
language situations designed for elicited language practice that often end in sample
displays of dialogue or similar output, performed primarily for the teacher. This is
especially true in projects that take advantage of communication technology in order to
create opportunities for collaborating (and using the target language) between
geographically distanced learners (often known as telecollaboration, cf. Dooly, 2017).

Final words

A main premise of PBLL is that the project should be connected with students’ lives in
such as way that it has an impact beyond the school walls —ensuring not only authentic
use of the target language but a visible impact on the students and the intended audience
or community. At the same time, PBLL ultimately channels the focus to a more
personalised learner-centred perspective that takes into consideration the students’
interests, their needs, the school and communities’ opportunities and needs; then seeks
to converge all of these factors with curricula aims. Moreover, PBLL expands the
parameters of learning in more ways than simply spotlighting communicative
competence; learners discover how to think knowledgeably and critically about what
they are saying, that is, how to properly understand and evaluate the learning content.
PBLL encourages learning methods for acquiring, understanding, and evaluating
information rather than memorizing new and isolated facts. And in an increasingly
complex society, having the know-how to continually learn in order to keep up with the
rapidly changing world is an important gift to bestow on students.

References:

Beckett, G.H. (2006). Project-based second and foreign language instruction: Theory,
research and practice. In G.H. Beckett & P.C. Miller (Eds.) Project-based
second and foreign language education: Past, present and future (pp. 3-18).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
 For submission: M. Dooly

Beckett, G.H. & Miller, P.C. (Eds.) (2006). Project-Based Second and Foreign
Language Education. Past, Present, and Future. Research in Second Language
Learning Series. Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishing.
Beckett, G. & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: a tool for language, content,
and skills integration. ELT Journal 59(2): 108-116.
Beckett, G., Slater, T., & Mohan, B.A. (2020). Philosophical foundation, theoretical
approaches and gaps in the literature. In G.H. Beckett & T. Slater (Eds.) Global
perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching and assessment. Key
approaches, technology tools, and frameworks (pp. 3-22). New York:
Routledge.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In Researching pedagogical
tasks: second language learning, teaching, and assessment, M. Bygate, P.
Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), 1-20. London: Pearson.
CASLS (2015). Project-based language learning: The basics. Center for Applied
Second Language Studies (CASLS). University of Oregon.
Chen, M., & Hirch, R.R. (2020). A research-based framework for assessing technology-
infused PBLL. In G.H. Beckett & T. Slater (Eds.) Global perspectives on
project-based language learning, teaching and assessment. Key approaches,
technology tools, and frameworks (pp. 224-243). New York: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Dooly, M. (ed.) (2008). Telecollaborative language learning. A guidebook to
moderating intercultural collaboration online. Bern: Peter Lang.
Dooly, M. (2010). The teacher 2.0. In S. Guth & F. Helm (eds) Telecollaboration 2.0:
Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the 21st Century, pp. 277-
303. Bern: Peter Lang.
Dooly, M. (2013). Promoting competency-based language teaching through project-
based language learning. In M.L. Pérez-Cañado (Ed.) Competency-based
language teaching in higher education (pp. 77-92). Dordrecht: Springer.
Dooly, M. (2017). Telecollaboration. A C. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.) The handbook of
technology in second language teaching and learning (pp. 169-183). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dooly, M., & Masats, D. (2020). 'What do you zinc about the project'? Examples of
technology-enhanced project-based language learning. In G.H. Beckett & T.
Slater (Eds.) Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching
and assessment. Key approaches, technology tools, and frameworks (pp. 126-
145). New York: Routledge.
Dooly, M. & O'Dowd, R. (Eds.) (2018). In this together: Teachers’ experiences with
transnational, telecollaborative language learning projects. New York/Bern:
Peter Lang.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fried-Booth, D.L. (2002) Project work (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gleason, J., & Link, S. (2020). Using the knowledge framework and genre pedagogy for
technology-enhanced form-function project-based language learning. In G.H.
Beckett & T. Slater (Eds.) Global perspectives on project-based language
learning, teaching and assessment. Key approaches, technology tools, and
frameworks (pp. 204-223). New York: Routledge.
Hymes, D. (with J. Gumperz, eds.). (19649. The Ethnography of Communication.
American Anthropologist 66(6), Part 2.
 For submission: M. Dooly

Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media

education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.
Kuo, C.A., Sutton, P.S., Wright, E. & Miller, B.K. (2020). Altering the view of
language instruction in project-based learning. Examining bilingual teachers’'
unit design experiences. In G.H. Beckett & T. Slater (Eds.) Global perspectives
on project-based language learning, teaching and assessment. Key approaches,
technology tools, and frameworks (pp. 244-262). New York: Routledge.
Mont, M., & Masats, D. (2018). Tips and suggestions to implement telecollaborative
projects with young learners. In M. Dooly & R. O'Dowd (Eds.) In this together:
Teachers’ experiences with transnational, telecollaborative language learning
projects (pp. 92-122). New York/Bern: Peter Lang.
Masats, D., Nussbaum, L. & Unamuno, V. 2007. When activity shapes the repertoire of
second language learners. In EUROSLA Yearbook 7, L. Roberts, A. Gürel, S.
Tatar & L. Marti (Eds), 121-147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
NFLRC. National Foreign Language Research Center at the University of Hawai'i at
Manoa: https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A
conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Stevenson, J. A. (1921). The project method of teaching. New York, NY: The
Macmillan Company.
Stoller, F.L. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in
second and foreign language contexts. In Project-based second and foreign
language education. Past, present, and future, G.H. Beckett & P. Chamness
Miller (Eds.), 19-40. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Tharpe, R.G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning and
schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsiplakides, I. & Fragoulis, I. (2009). Project-based learning in the teaching of English
as a foreign language in Greek primary schools: From theory to practice. English
Language Teaching, 2(3): 113-119. Retrieved 5 April 2010 from
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/viewFile/2739/3286
van Lier, L. (2006). Foreword. In G.H. Beckett & P.C. Miller (Eds.) Project-Based
Second and Foreign Language Education. Past, Present, and Future (pp. xi-
xvi). Research in Second Language Learning Series. Charlotte NC: Information
Age Publishing.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.