Open Access

Implementing project-based language teaching in an Asian context: a university EAP writing course case study from Macau

Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education20172:4

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0027-x

Received: 29 November 2016

Accepted: 19 March 2017

Published: 4 April 2017

Abstract

Project-based language teaching (PBLT) provides a number of potential language learning benefits through opportunities for authentic meaningful language use. Previous research has also indicated how PBLT can encourage student motivation and develop learner autonomy. However, mixed findings have been found when implementing PBLT in Asian contexts. The aim of this study was to describe the development of a PBLT project and explore the implementation and student perceptions of this project within an EAP writing course in Macau. The study utilized student questionnaire data (n = 16) and teacher reflections. Results indicated that the project appeared effective at creating opportunities for meaningful interactive language use, and students were comfortable with their autonomous role within the project. Findings also indicated that student motivation, autonomy and learning opportunities were raised through the PBLT approach. These results are discussed in light of the previous research on implementing PBLT in Asian EFL contexts, and further potential improvements to the project used in the current study are explored.

Keywords

Project based language teachingAsiaLanguage taskEAPSecond language writing

Background

Findings from a range of studies in both ESL and EFL contexts show that utilizing a project-based approach can provide many benefits to classroom language learning. What we know about these benefits derives primarily from literature indicating how project-based language teaching (PBLT) provides meaningful contexts for authentic language use in much the same way as task-based language teaching (Beckett and Miller, 2006; Ellis, 2003; Samuda and Bygate, 2008; Stoller, 2006). These meaningful and authentic interactions aid in acquiring language, and PBLT is also supportive of areas such as improving student motivation (Dörnyei, 2005; Egbert, 2003) and student autonomy for learning (Allen, 2004). Despite these identified benefits, more case studies are needed to explore projects that can be implemented with students in academic EFL contexts. In this article, I will outline the potential language learning benefits from PBLT, discuss several practical examples of PBLT from previous studies undertaken in Asian contexts, and report on the development and implementation of a PBLT project in a Macau university EAP writing course.

Background and theoretical bases for projects in language teaching

PBLT is an extended series of activities utilizing a combination of different language skills in pursuit of a goal or outcome (Hedge, 1993; Savery, 2015). This series of activities should be meaningful and bring about opportunities for comprehensible language input and output between interlocutors (Beckett, 2006b; Bygate and Samuda, 2009). The terms project and task are sometimes used interchangeably in much of the PBLT literature, but one way it has been noted to differentiate between the two is in terms of scale. Bülent and Stoller (2005) suggested that tasks in general are limited in scope to a single or part lesson, whereas a project can contain multiple tasks spanning a much longer timeframe. Slater, Beckett, and Aufderhaar (2006) also noted that a key consideration for instructors utilizing PBLT is to clarify the exact task sequence that makes up the overall project. Language learning theories supported by task-based and project-based approaches are also very similar. I will briefly discuss the most relevant of these theories here.

Dewey and experiential learning theories

Previous literature has discussed how PBLT is supportive of Dewey’s problem solving method of teaching and other experiential learning theories (Beckett, 2006b; Hedge, 1993; Savery, 2015). The Dewey approach places the individual at the centre of the learning process (Baker, 1965; Dewey, 1959). In this way, individual learners become active agents in the learning process by continually encountering, exploring and overcoming problems. Dewey (1959) noted how through this exploration, knowledge is developed as a subjective interactive process between individual and the world around. In this sense, the process is an experiential one. Rather than learning by rote, experiential learning theories suggest that learning is most beneficial when it is grounded in concrete experiences with the world around the individual (Kolb, 1984; Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2001). Based on this, PBLT is supportive of learning by providing an authentic basis for learners to carry out learning-based problem solving through their second language in authentic ways.

Meaningful language input, output and negotiation

Many well established language acquisition theories can also account for language development through a PBLT framework (Ellis, 2009, 2015). These theories posit that language is most effectively acquired through meaningful interaction (Bygate and Samuda, 2009; Ellis, 2003, 2008, 2015; Samuda and Bygate, 2008) as these types of interactions give opportunities for language development through language input, output and negotiation of meaning. For the sake of clarity, I will briefly explain each of these.

The input hypothesis suggests that language is acquired when the learner receives adequate and extensive language input suitable to their ability level (Gass, 1997, 2005; Shintani, 2012; Takimoto, 2009). Swain (1985, 1995) however noted the limitations of solely an input approach to language development and argued that output in the form of writing or speaking is also important. Swain suggested language output affords opportunities for noticing, hypothesis testing, and metalinguistic reflection. That is, noticing of errors occurs when learners realise their language limitations evident through their output. Learners then form hypotheses regarding different language forms to overcome these noticed errors and trial these hypotheses through further language output (Hanaoka, 2007; Hanaoka and Izumi, 2012). This ongoing process results in metalinguistic reflection, and new language features being acquired. Furthermore, meaningful interaction with an interlocutor provides either positive or negative evidence that the new language has been understood (Gass, 2005; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013; Pica, 1994; Pica, Young, & Doughty, 1987; Yang and Lyster, 2010). Communication breakdown between interlocutors within interactions leads to negotiation through further trialling of different language until mutual understanding is achieved (Long and Porter, 1985), and previous studies suggest PBLT is effective at encouraging this to occur (Heo, Lim, & Kim, 2010; Koh, Herring, & Hew, 2010; Rooij, 2009) In short, input, output and negotiation are important to effective language acquisition, and the PBLT approach is supportive by providing the necessary conditions for these elements to arise.

Project-based language teaching, motivation and autonomy

Previous studies have also explored how PBLT can be beneficial for improving student motivation, autonomy and other important skills within the language classroom. Egbert (2003) and Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) outlined some key characteristics that influence motivation for class activities. These are (1) a balance of challenge and capability, (2) clear goals to focus learners’ attention, (3) clear processes and outcomes that are both authentic and enjoyable, and (4) a sense of student control over processes and outcomes. PBLT offers a framework for instructors to comprehensively address these four elements. For example, Tessema (2005) showed how utilizing PBLT assisted with engaging learners in the process of second language writing. Although the final product from this project was written, the process incorporated all the other language skill areas and students had some flexibility as to how they went about completing the project. Results on student motivation from the project were positive. Also in a review of 16 previous studies utilizing PBLT, Stoller (2006) noted that the most common reported benefit is authenticity in language use and processes within projects. This authenticity and engagement from PBLT are also likely to be supportive of classroom motivation (Baş, 2011; Yang and Wu, 2012).

PBLT can also assist with developing a more student-led classroom environment, student autonomy and skills for life-long learning (Benson, 2007, 2013; Hafner and Miller, 2011; Lier, 2007). Allen (2004) utilized PBLT by having students build written portfolios analysing culturally relevant topics. This analysis was done through a process of self-reflection, research, and further reflective writing contrasting their own with other cultures. Allen then used the portfolios to conduct analysis on the themes identified within the texts. These themes indicated evidence of high motivation for the project. Follow-up questionnaire data also indicated a high level of autonomy, critical thinking, and cultural self-reflection by students. In addition to autonomy, other necessary life-long learning and transferable skills can also be developed through a PBLT framework (Assiter, 1995; Coleman, 1992; Fallows and Steven, 2013). These skills include creativity and critical thinking (Beckett, 2006a; Chea, Chea, & Klein, 2007).

In summary, previous research has established that PBLT appears well suited for generating authentic communication in EFL classroom environments which may otherwise present a challenge for getting students to use English meaningfully. In addition, the approach seems well suited to encouraging broader skills such as student autonomy. Classroom context however also plays an important role in PBLT pedagogic decisions. I will now discuss more on practitioners’ previous classroom-based experience with PBLT in Asian contexts. Using this as background, I will report on the development, implementation and results from the current study project for a Macau university EAP writing class.

Project-based language teaching successes and challenges within Asian contexts

Many case studies have explored how PBLT can be successfully integrated in a broad range of ESL and EFL language classroom contexts. Beckett (2006a) outlined how PBLT was used as a basis for socializing high school ESL students from Chinese backgrounds into Canadian cultural and language environments, and Mohan and Lee (2006) explored how a student-led action research project allowed a student from a Taiwanese background to critically examine and reflect on informal language episodes outside the classroom. Levis and Levis (2003) also developed a PBLT course to assist ESL graduate students with academic writing and genres related to their chosen field of study.

From an Asian university EFL perspective, positive results have also been demonstrated with PBLT. Successful examples include case studies of in-class student led survey projects with Japanese students (Tomei, Glick, & Holst, 1999), projects focusing on all four skill areas in Thai universities (Poonpon, 2011; Simpson, 2011) and projects incorporating technology in a Malaysian university (Thang, Lin, Mahmud, Ismail, & Zabidi, 2014). One difference between PBLT carried out in ESL compared to EFL settings appears to be the level of structure necessary to facilitate adequate second language usage. In ESL settings, second language use is facilitated by the nature of the English speaking environment and students from a broad range of language backgrounds. Where students share the same L1 however, the need for task and overall project process structure increases. Further below, I will exemplify how this structure can be considered and incorporated into PBLT at the project design phase.

Other studies show that PBLT projects can sometimes encounter difficulties. In a review of literature, Beckett (2002) found that PBLT in ESL classes can result in discrepancies between teacher and student evaluations. The review indicated that students can feel frustrated at the lack of language structure that PBLT entails. In addition, Gibbes (2011) and Gibbes and Carson (2014) found that PBLT group work requires both autonomy and responsibility on behalf of group members, and these competing demands can detract from focusing on project language goals. One explanation for negative student evaluations may be attributed to culturally defined expectations within classrooms. Beckett (2002) noted how Asian students’ preference for more teacher led and traditional learning methods within the classroom may make PBLT unsuitable for these types of students.

Some challenges have been encountered when implementing PBLT in Chinse EFL contexts. Guo (2006) reported on an attempt to introduce PBLT into language teaching classes in a Mainland China university. The university teachers involved in the study had concerns regarding how the alternative teaching approach would be received by students. Particular concerns included the student-teacher role adjustments required, ambiguity in the PBLT learning process, and the lack of access to authentic English resources within Mainland China. Despite this, PBLT has still been successful in other Chinese contexts. For example, Gu (2002) implemented PBLT within a Mainland China university and showed positive outcomes. The project incorporated technology and required collaboration between a Chinese student group and another student group based in the US. Overall, Gu utilized qualitative data and reported how project outcomes were successfully achieved. Hafner and Miller (2011) also developed a language technology project for engaging student autonomy at an English medium university in Hong Kong. Student feedback on the project was gathered through questionnaires and interviews. Hafner and Miller found evidence of improved student motivation, authentic language use and autonomy as a result of the project.

The contrasting examples of positive outcomes with Chinese EFL learners in Hafner and Miller (2011) and Gu (2002) compared to negative outcomes in Guo (2006) suggest access to authentic language or language speakers is important for students without prior PBLT experience. In addition, Bülent and Stoller (2005) suggested a number of other considerations for successfully implementing PBLT. These included focusing on real-world issues, balancing both student collaboration and independent work, incorporating some focus on form during the process, and having an eventual visible product at the end of the project. The context and project design in Guo (2006) may not have provided for these considerations. In addition, both student and instructor involvement is required throughout the project process (Beckett and Slater, 2005). These requirements were taken into account for the current study project design.

In summary, previous studies suggest PBLT is well suited for providing meaningful language interactions to facilitate second language acquisition. PBLT also appears supportive for developing a range of life long skills and student autonomy. In Asian EFL contexts, successful PBLT requires having well-structured projects, access to authentic resources and fluent or native speakers where possible. What remains unclear from previous studies however is how accepting students from Chinese backgrounds are of PBLT and how they react when PBLT projects require a high level of self-directedness. Reports on more case studies which exemplify and evaluate possible projects for EAP programs in these contexts would be beneficial. Based on this, the current study developed a project within an EAP writing course for students within a Macau university and reviewed the project through the following questions:
  • Can students within an Asian EFL university context successfully carry out a PBLT project semi-autonomously?

  • Can a PBLT project provide opportunities to develop the student autonomy skills, such as seeking out suitably qualified support staff and framing questions to assist with ongoing EAP writing queries outside class?

  • Do students in an Asian university context perceive a PBLT assignment positively or negatively in an EAP writing course?

  • Does a PBLT project appear to provide opportunities for meaningful interactions to aid language acquisition for these students?

Case Presentation

The project

A case study approach was used to exemplify the development of a PBLT project within an Asian EFL context and then review the execution and resulting student perceptions and opportunities for language development. I will first describe the background, design and content of the project utilized before moving to discuss the method for reviewing the project. The PBLT project was prepared as part of an EAP writing course within an English medium university in Macau. Students (n = 16) within the course were aged from 19–24, had Chinese as their first language, and were from the business faculty of the university. The majority of student within the class were in their third or fourth year of university, and had completed general and academic English courses prior to entering the EAP writing class. Based on this, the students had roughly a CEFR B1 level of English proficiency. As an English medium university, there were a wide variety of local and international faculty and support staff who had lived, studied and worked within English speaking academic environments abroad.

The main goals of the course were to assist students with developing EAP writing skills to facilitate writing in their chosen major. However, the final assessment was a speaking assignment to give students an opportunity to explore and present on an EAP writing topic, and it was this assignment that used the PBLT approach. The goals of the PBLT project were not to develop any single language skill or feature of their writing, as many of the other assignments in the course had already addressed this. Instead, the main aims of the PBLT assignment were to develop student confidence and autonomy in seeking out ongoing assistance and learning opportunities once the writing course was complete as well as provide authentic opportunities for meaningful language interactions to aid fluency development.

Table 1 shows the main elements and process of the PBLT project. This process followed the approach discussed by Slater et al. (2006) by having clearly defined subtasks to an overall project to ensure a variety of different meaningful language interactions were undertaken by students. The project consisted of students autonomously working in pairs to identify one particular problem or challenge within their academic writing, identify an experienced writer on campus who could help resolve this problem, and interview this experienced writer. To facilitate the interview, an invitation email was sent to their intended interviewee and some interview questions were drafted. As the instructor, I was able to give feedback on language structure and appropriacy after the emails and interview questions had been drafted. Students then carried out the interviews and recorded them as audio files. These files were submitted as part of the project to ensure the interview had been conducted in English. Having the interview file also allowed students to listen again if they had not fully understood any points the interviewee had made during the live interview. From the audio file and notes taken during the interview, students worked with their partner to try and identify the main relevant solutions to their originally identified problem. Afterwards, student pairs carried out a 10 min presentation to the class on the interview process and some viable solutions to their original problem based on what they learnt from their interview. This was followed by a 5 min Q&A session with the class. A follow-up thank you email was also drafted by students as part of the project to be sent to the interviewee. In addition, four or five student-teacher consultations were held throughout the project process.
Table 1

PBLT project main elements

Main elements

Communication

Language Product

Instructor feedback

Assessed

Initial pair brainstorming on topic and interviewee

Student - Student

Brainstorm sheet

No

No

Drafting of invitation email to interviewee

Student - Student / Student - Instructor

Email

Yes

No

Drafting Interview questions for interviewee

Student - Student / Student - Instructor

Interview Sheet

Yes

No

Conducting interview

Student - Interviewee

Interview mp3 recording

No

No

Drafting of follow-up thank you email

Student - Student

Email

Yes

No

4–5 ongoing consultation on process and progress

Student - Teacher

-

Yes

No

Pair presentation to class

Student - Student

PPT / Presentation

No

Yes

Post presentation Q&A

Student - Student

Q&A sheet

No

Yes

This project overall took four weeks and students were able to use the class time exclusively for their projects. These classes were conducted in a computer laboratory, which gave students access to the tools they needed to plan and carry out all subtasks of the project.

The project review used both informal teacher reflections and quantitative student questionnaire data. First, critical reflection is commonly used as means for teaching practice improvement (Richards, 1998; Richards and Farrell, 2005). The current study used informal teacher reflections from during class time while students carried out the process of subtasks within the overall project. The ongoing teacher-student consultation with each group also gave opportunities to take notes and reflect on how students were dealing with the subtasks. These reflection notes were reviewed in a cyclical manner (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005) in order to determine how well the project was meeting the goals of providing opportunities for meaningful language development and preparing students for carrying out a similar process autonomously after finishing the course.

Questionnaire data was also collected to obtain a quantitative measure of student perceptions on their motivation, language learning opportunities, and level of learner autonomy derived from the project. Validity was assumed by structuring questions based on previous research in the areas of task motivation (Dörnyei, 2001, 2005; Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011), student autonomy (Benson, 2007, 2013), and student feedback on language learning (Blackstone and Jaidev, 2015; Hafner and Miller, 2011; Takeda, 2015) The questions in each of these three areas are shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5 below. For each question, a 5-point Likert scale was used to gauge the level of student agreement with the questionnaire statements. As this was developed as a simple instrument to gauge student feedback, no reliability analyses such as Cronbach’s alpha were calculated. Results from the questionnaire should be viewed with this in mind. This questionnaire was carried out after all students had done their final presentation and completed the project.

Project results

Table 2 presents the topics choices of each pair as well as the position and language background of the interviewees chosen by students. What is most interesting is that students were able to autonomously select a wide range of diverse topics relevant to EAP writing, and also choose well suited interviewees from a wide range of faculty and language backgrounds. This added to the variety of ideas within the final student presentations.
Table 2

Topic choices and interviewees

Student pair topic choice

Interviewee

Interviewee language background

How to find reliable sources

Graduate student

Non-native

How to write a good thesis statement

Residential Fellow

Non-native

Brainstorming in academic English writing

Residential Fellow

Non-native

How to translate ideas into English in academic writing

English Writing Centre Tutor

Non-native

How to find high quality sources

Teaching Fellow

Non-native

Academic versus general writing

Senior English Instructor

Native

Where students can find good resources to help with writing

Senior English Instructor

Native

How to get started with writing and essay

Professor

Non-native

Writing a good essay introduction

Residential Master

Non-native

Table 3 presents the questionnaire responses in the area of motivation during the project. From this data, we can see that students tended to agree that the project was enjoyable and better than other projects in the class. They also tended to disagree that the project was uninteresting.
Table 3

Follow-up questionnaire motivation items (n = 16)

Question

M (a)

SD

I enjoyed this project

4.38

0.72

I would like to do more projects like this one

3.81

0.83

This project was better than the other assignments in this class

4.19

0.83

I found this project boring

2.56

1.15

(a) 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree

Table 4 shows the questionnaire results in the area of learning that occurred as a result of doing the project and watching other student presentations. The table illustrates how students believed that the project provided good learning opportunities related to EAP writing.
Table 4

Follow-up questionnaire learning items (n = 16)

Question

M (a)

SD

I learnt a lot about academic English writing from doing this project and watching other students’ presentations

4.20

1.10

I discovered something new about academic English writing from doing this project and watching other students’ presentations

4.13

0.57

(a) 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree

Table 5 presents the questionnaire results in the area of autonomy for learning in academic writing. Overall following the project, students appeared to exhibit a reasonably strong willingness to take self-directed action for continued learning outside the classroom.
Table 5

Follow-up questionnaire autonomy items (n = 16)

Question

M (a)

SD

This project helped me to seek advice about my English writing from people other than my instructor

4.31

0.60

I feel more confident to approach UM staff with questions about my English writing

4.06

0.68

I didn’t like asking questions to people who are not my teacher

2.56

1.26

My teacher should be the only person to ask for advice about my English writing

2.75

1.18

(a) 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree

Discussion

Student autonomy and motivation

The current study was designed to develop and review the implementation of a relatively straightforward PBLT project for an EAP writing class within an Asian context. The project targeted improving motivation, language learning opportunities, and student autonomy for future self-directed learning. Based on the questionnaire results and teacher reflections a few important findings were evident relating to the study questions. The first questions addressed whether Asian EFL university students could successfully carry out a PBLT project semi-autonomously, whether the project would provide opportunities for developing student autonomy and how students would perceive the project. The approach appeared to achieve the intended aims of being student directed and beneficial to autonomous language learning during the study and encouraging self-directedness for resolving future language problems by seeking out advice. The findings also appear to contradict negative results encountered by Beckett (2002) and Guo (2006) and support positive findings from Gu (2002) and Hafner and Miller (2011) in regard to implementing PBLT within Chinese contexts. The questionnaire results and teacher reflections indicated that students felt comfortable to take a more self-directed role in the learning process as part of the project. The reason for this may be that Chinese student attitudes to learning have shifted since the Beckett (2002) and Guo (2006) studies. Alternatively, the access to fluent English speakers may have assisted with the project authenticity and student motivation levels. The current study results therefore suggest that realism through an authentic language context, whether online or face-to-face may be beneficial for conducting PBLT in Asian contexts.

The final study question addressed whether the project appeared to provide interaction opportunities to encourage language acquisition. The project appeared effective at providing authentic and meaningful communicative language opportunities, and students appeared proactive in seeking corrective language feedback. For example during drafting the interviewee invitation email, many students mentioned how concerned they were to avoid errors, as the email would be sent to a real recipient who they did not know. This attention to form in language output is exactly what the output hypothesis suggests benefits second language acquisition (Swain, 1985, 1995).

Project language assessment

In terms of formative and summative assessment of language, this project provided some opportunities which were not fully utilized. Firstly, conducting the entire project process in English and having input, output and interaction with interlocutors gave the opportunity for formative feedback on authentic and meaningful language use. Students received formative feedback on the invitation email, interview questions and follow-up thank you email. This feedback addressed email and question structure, appropriacy of language as well as grammatical form and vocabulary choice improvements. Despite this, much of formal summative assessment incorporated into the project could have been improved. Formal summative assessment within language projects is important (Slater et al., 2006), and PBLT facilitates a functional approach for summative assessment of each task incorporated into an overall project (Mikulec and Miller, 2011; Miller, 2006). This gives the instructor the benefit of language samples from authentic situations as the current project also did. Due to time constraints for the current project however, only the presentation structure and English within the final presentation and Q&A session were used for formal summative assessment and grading purposes. There are opportunities to extend this summative assessment to cover much more. The writing course where this project was utilized mainly focused assessment on essay writing and the necessary language skills for parts within an essay. Alternative perspectives on academic writing suggest success within academic environment requires second language skills that extend beyond strictly essay writing. For example, Swales (1990) noted the importance of being able to communicate effectively in a broad range of academic genres within different discourse communities. Some of these are similar to the genres covered within the current project such as email writing and academic discussion. Using these emails and recorded interviews for formal summative assessment could measure students’ language abilities in realistic academic genres which extend beyond essay writing.

Opportunities for interaction

Project modifications could also be incorporated to improve opportunities for student language development through the interactionist theories discussed earlier. Firstly, one of the main language learning benefits from output derives from error noticing and metalinguistic reflection in output, such as that generated from the project interview phase (Swain, 1995; Swain and Lapkin, 1995). However, the recordings from the interviews were only briefly used. These listening tracks could however be a useful source of authentic language for student analyses and other class activities. For example, an interesting activity could be to have each student transcribe or analyse their part within the interview from the recording to encourage noticing of errors within their speech.

Furthermore, the instructor could use online technology platforms such as Google Drive to error correct synchronously rather than asynchronously within the emails or drafted interview questions. Synchronous feedback occurs in real time while completing a task whereas asynchronous feedback occurs afterwards (Hsu, 2015). Giving instructor led error correction on student writing synchronously has shown to be more beneficial to language acquisition (Shintani, 2016; Shintani and Aubrey, 2016). Another possibility is for the instructor to use the group interview recordings as a basis for follow-up listening comprehension or further noticing activities for the wider class. Input flooding involves giving students an extensive amount of exposure to a particular language feature, which can be either explicitly or implicitly modified to draw attention to the feature (Han, Park, & Combs, 2008; Hernández, 2011; Izumi, 2002). Presenting a range of student texts or recordings with correct and incorrect usage of a particular language feature could effectively draw attention to the correct and incorrect usage of that feature. Using student output in this way for follow-up activities could also further improve students’ sense of engagement, involvement and motivation for language learning within the class.

Finally, pre-task planning and rehearsal can also have a significant effect on task performance (Bygate and Samuda, 2005) and noticing of output errors (Ellis, 2005). This is a result of working memory having limited capacity (Ellis, 2008). Allowing pre-task planning or rehearsal can allow students to better utilize this limited capacity and therefore enhance language performance. Due to time constraints, the students in the current study were not able to rehearse during class time prior to the real interview they conducted. Being able to rehearse through mock interviews with other students prior to conducting the real interview may be an additional way this project could better target language performance and acquisition.

Conclusion

This case study set out to exemplify and review a PBLT project developed for an EAP writing program within an Asian context. The study has shown that PBLT appears well suited for students within this context, and students indicated strong levels of perceived motivation, language learning, and willingness to autonomously take charge of their academic writing development as a result. The study has also highlighted the importance of realism in PBLT and the opportunity for utilizing student language generated through project subtasks for formative assessment in authentic ways. Some further modifications to the project could extend the language learning benefits derived through the project further by better addressing interactionist learning theories. Some important limitations of this study should be considered. The first is the small sample size and lack of pre-test measures which limits the ability for the study to recognize gains based on the questionnaire data. In addition, no reliability analysis was done on the questionnaire data and only informal teacher reflections were considered for the study, which could be open to bias or inconsistency. Future research would be useful to explore similar PBLT projects for Asian contexts in a more systematic and reliable manner.

Declarations

Competing interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
University of Macau

References

  1. Allen, L. (2004). Implementing a culture portfolio project within a constructivist paradigm. Foreign Language Annals, 37(2), 232–239. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02196.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Assiter, A. (1995). Transferable skills in higher education. Teaching and learning in higher education series. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M. (1965). Foundations of John Dewey's educational theory. New York: Atherton.Google Scholar
  4. Baş, G. (2011). Investigating the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement and attitudes towards English lesson. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 1(4). 1–15.Google Scholar
  5. Beckett, G. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 52–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v19i2.929.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckett, G. (2006a). Beyond second language acquisition. In G. Beckett & P. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education (pp. 55–70). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Beckett, G. (2006b). Project-based second and foreign language education: Theory, research and practice. In G. Beckett & P. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education (pp. 3–18). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Beckett, G., & Miller, P. (Eds.). (2006). Project-based second and foreign language education. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Beckett, G., & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: A tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108–116. doi:10.1093/eltj/cci024.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Benson, P. (2013). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Blackstone, B., & Jaidev, R. (2015). Significant task-based learning: Empowering students with position search skills in a university in Singapore. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia (pp. 103–122). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Bülent, A., & Stoller, F. (2005). Maximizing the benefits of project work in foreign language classrooms. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 10–21.Google Scholar
  14. Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (Vol. 11, pp. 37–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint role of field, purpose and engagement within the interaction approach. In M. Alison & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 90–116). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Chea, K., Chea, T., & Klein, A. (2007). A questionnaire project: Integrating the four macro skills with critical thinking. English Teaching Forum, 45(1), 2–9.Google Scholar
  17. Coleman, J. (1992). Project-based learning, transferable skills, information technology and video. The Language Learning Journal, 5(1), 35–37. doi:10.1080/09571739285200121.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In M. Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 19–32). New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  19. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  20. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  22. Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 499–518.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (Vol. 11, pp. 3–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Fallows, S., & Steven, C. (2013). Integrating key skills in higher education: Employability, transferable skills, and learning for life. London: Kougan Page.Google Scholar
  30. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Gass, S. (2005). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Gibbes, M. (2011). Project-based language learning: An activity theoretical perspective (Masters). Dublin: University of Dublin.Google Scholar
  33. Gibbes, M., & Carson, L. (2014). Project-based language learning: an activity theory analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 171–189. doi:10.1080/17501229.2013.793689.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Gu, P. (2002). Effects of project-based CALL on Chinese EFL learners. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 195–210.Google Scholar
  35. Guo, Y. (2006). Project-based English as a foreign language education in China: Perspectives and issues. In G. Beckett & P. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education (pp. 143–158). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Hafner, C., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 68–86.Google Scholar
  37. Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual Enhancement of Input: Issues and Possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597–618. doi:10.1093/applin/amn010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459–479. doi:10.1177/1362168807080963.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 332–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Hedge, T. (1993). Key Concepts in ELT. ELT Journal, 47(3), 275–277. doi:10.1093/elt/47.3.275.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Heo, H., Lim, K., & Kim, Y. (2010). Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1383–1392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Hernández, T. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159–182. doi:10.1177/1362168810388694.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Hsu, H. (2015). The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics. 10.1093/applin/amv032.
  44. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(04), 541–577. doi:10.1017/S0272263102004023.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Koh, J., Herring, S., & Hew, K. (2010). Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 284–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Kolb, D., Boyatzis, R., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In R. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 193–210). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Levis, J., & Levis, G. (2003). A project-based approach to teaching research writing to nonnative writers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(3), 210–220. doi:10.1109/tpc.2003.816788.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65. doi:10.2167/illt42.0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207–228. doi:10.2307/3586827.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Mikulec, E., & Miller, P. (2011). Using project-based instruction to meet foreign language standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(3), 81–86. doi:10.1080/00098655.2010.516779.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller, P. (2006). Integrating second language standards into project based instruction. In G. Beckett & P. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education (pp. 225–240). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Mohan, B., & Lee, I. (2006). Linking interpretive research and functional linguistics: From learning projects to teaching projects. In G. Beckett & P. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education (pp. 263–280). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737–758. doi:10.2307/3586992.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Poonpon, K. (2011). Enhancing english skills through project based learning. The English Teacher, 40, 1–10.Google Scholar
  58. Richards, J. (1998). Beyond training : Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Richards, J., & Farrell, T. (2005). Professional development for language teachers : Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Rooij, S. (2009). Scaffolding project-based learning with the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®). Computers & Education, 52(1), 210–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Savery, J. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 5–16). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253–279. doi:10.1177/1362168811431378.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.993400.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. doi:10.1111/modl.12317.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Simpson, J. (2011). Intergrating project-based learning in an English language tourisim classroom in a Thai university (PhD). Sydney: Australian Catholic University.Google Scholar
  67. Slater, T., Beckett, G., & Aufderhaar, C. (2006). Assessing projects as second language. In G. Beckett & P. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education (pp. 241–262). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. Stoller, F. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project based learning in the second and foreign language contexts. In G. Beckett & P. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education (pp. 19–40). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  69. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Cambridge: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  70. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle & practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Takeda, N. (2015). Bridging communicative language teaching and task-based language teaching in Cambodia: Learners' reactions to an integrated programme in the non-formal education sector. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia (pp. 46–64). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  74. Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners' pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–25. doi:10.1093/applin/amm049.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Tessema, K. (2005). Stimulating writing through project-based tasks. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 22–28.Google Scholar
  76. Thang, S., Lin, L., Mahmud, N., Ismail, K., & Zabidi, N. (2014). Technology integration in the form of digital storytelling: mapping the concerns of four Malaysian ESL instructors. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4), 311–329. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.903979.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Tomei, J., Glick, C., & Holst, M. (1999). Project work in the Japanese university classroom. The Language Teacher, 23(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
  78. Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners' acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Yang, Y., & Wu, W. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 339–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017