Global Perspectives on Project-Based Language Learning, Teaching, and Assessment Key Approaches, Technology Tools, and Frameworks

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

This volume provides a comprehensive account of project-based
language learning (PBLL), which showcases key theoretical approaches,
empirical research, technological tools, and research-based frameworks
to help further PBLL implementation and research. Taking its cue from
the conclusions drawn from project-based learning more broadly, which
point to the impact of project-based work on learning and development,
discourse socialization, subject engagement, and collaborative skills,
the book highlights how these discussions might be extended and
enhanced within the context of language learning. The volume begins
with discussions of philosophical and theoretical models of PBLL and
is followed by case studies from contributors from a range of learning
contexts and geographic regions which demonstrate these models in
practice, with a focus on the implementation of technology in such
instances. The book also introduces resources for aligning projects
with government standards in the classroom but also frameworks for
researching and assessing PBLL. This comprehensive collection is
essential reading for students and researchers in language learning and
teaching, language education, curriculum design, and applied linguistics.
Gulbahar H. Beckett is a Professor at Iowa State University. She has
conducted numerous studies and published widely including on project-
based second/foreign language acquisition and socialization; content-
based second/foreign language education; language policies; technology
integrated teaching and learning; academic language and literacy
socialization and globalization.
Tammy Slater is an Associate Professor at Iowa State University and
researches primarily using analytic methods drawn from Systemic
Functional Linguistics. She has published widely on the development of
academic language through content-based and project-based teaching
and learning, particularly as these inform the field of education for
English language learners.

Routledge Studies in Applied Linguistics

Project-Based Language Learning with Technology
Learner Collaboration in an EFL Classroom in Japan
Michael Thomas
Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching
Edited by Åsta Haukås, Camilla Bjørke and Magne Dypedahl
Language Management and Its Impact
The Policies and Practices of Confucius Institutes
Linda Mingfang Li
Multiliteracies, Emerging Media, and College Writing Instruction
Santosh Khadka
Cantonese as a Second Language
Issues, Experiences and Suggestions for Teaching and Learning
Edited by John Wakefield
The Social Lives of Study Abroad
Understanding Second Language Learners’ Experiences through
Social Network Analysis and Conversation Analysis
Atsushi Hasegawa
Defining and Assessing Lexical Proficiency
Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska
Global Perspectives on Project-Based Language Learning,
Teaching, and Assessment
Key Approaches, Technology Tools, and Frameworks
Edited by Gulbahar H. Beckett and Tammy Slater
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/
Routledge-Studies-in-Applied-Linguistics/book-series/RSAL

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

Key Approaches, Technology Tools,
and Frameworks

Edited by
Gulbahar H. Beckett and
Tammy Slater

First published 2020
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 selection and editorial matter Gulbahar H. Beckett and
Tammy Slater; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Gulbahar H. Beckett and Tammy Slater to be
identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the
authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-35175-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-43509-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
List of Contributors x

PART I

Philosophical, Theoretical, and Empirical Models
of PBLL 1

  1 Philosophical Foundation, Theoretical Approaches, and 3
Gaps in the Literature

GULBAHAR H. BECKETT, TAMMY SLATER, AND BERNARD A.

MOHAN

  2 Researching Project-Based Learning: A Review and a 23
Look Ahead at Form and Function in Writing

CHIEW HONG NG, YIN LING CHEUNG, WEIYU ZHANG, AND

HARI JANG

PART II

Empirical Research on Technology-Mediated PBLL 47

  3 Translanguaging in Project-Based Language Learning 49

JAMES CARPENTER AND SAWAKO MATSUGU

  4 Project-Based Learning in the Advanced German Class: 69
Integrated Content and Language Learning

ROSWITA DRESSLER, BERNADETTE RAEDLER, KRISTINA

DIMITROV, ANJA DRESSLER, AND GARRETT KRAUSE

vi  Contents 85
  5 Plagues Infecting a Medical School: A Case for 104
126
Authentic Video Games to Promote Motivation, 146
Engagement, and Acquisition

BARNABAS J. MARTIN

  6 Students Co-Learning Linguistics Through PBL:
A Cross-Cultural Telecollaborative Implementation

AYSEL SARICAOĞLU AND JOE GELUSO

  7 ‘What Do You Zinc About the Project?’: Examples of
Technology-Enhanced Project-Based Language Learning

MELINDA DOOLY AND DOLORS MASATS

  8 Bridging Cross-Cultural Teaching Practices With
Technology-Enriched PBLL in Chinese as a Foreign
Language Education

JUANJUAN ZHAO

PART III

Frameworks for Technology-Mediated PBLL 165

  9 A Framework for Learning With Digital Resources: 167
Applications for Project-Based Language Learning

J. ELLIOTT CASAL AND DAWN BIKOWSKI

10 The Knowledge Framework: An Organizational 185
Tool for Highlighting the “LL” in Technology-
Integrated PBLL

TAMMY SLATER

11 Using the Knowledge Framework and Genre Pedagogy 204
for Technology-Enhanced Form-Function Project-Based
Language Learning

JESSE GLEASON AND STEPHANIE LINK

12 A Research-Based Framework for Assessing Technology- 224
Infused PBLL

MO CHEN AND ROZ R. HIRCH

Contents vii

13 Altering the View of Language Instruction in Project- 244
Based Learning: Examining Bilingual Teachers’ Unit
Design Experiences

ANNIE CAMEY KUO, PAUL S. SUTTON, ELIZABETH WRIGHT,
AND BOBBIE K. MILLER

14 Beyond Exams: Research-Based Dynamic, Technology- 263
Mediated, Project-Based Framework for Meaningful
Language Learning in a Secondary EFL Setting in China

JOHN LIANG, FEIFEI XIE, AND MENGCHAN GAO

Index 283

Figures

6.1 Overall student perceptions of FLAP and SLAP 113
6.2 Student perceptions of communication during FLAP 115
117
and SLAP 118
6.3 Student perceptions of the workload of PBL compared 120
120
to regular class sessions
6.4 Student perceptions of self-assessment in FLAP 207
211
and SLAP 212
6.5 Students’ self- and peer assessment of preparation 216

across FLAP and SLAP 219
6.6 Students’ self- and peer assessment of participation 247
270
across FLAP and SLAP 271
11.1 Example English Language Development (ELD)

Standards for Strand 2: The Language of Language
Arts in Grade 3 Writing-Level 6-Reaching
11.2 Guiding questions of the knowledge framework that
align with knowledge structures
11.3 A model for technology-enhanced form-function
project-based learning units
11.4 List of learning objectives in our TEFF PBLL learning
segment based on stages of the TLC
11.5 Example of daily learning objectives, activities, and
sample technologies for a two-week TEFF PBLL
learning segment
13.1 PLATE Framework
14.1 Overall project-based unit design
14.2 Instructions for the fashion show project

Tables

2.1 Theoretical concepts 33
2.2 Summary of methodology 35
5.1 Seven-week unit plan for Plague Inc. 91
5.2 Lesson 01 survey results 95
5.3 Lesson 02 survey results 95
5.4 Lesson 03 survey results 96
5.5 Project presentations lesson survey results 96
8.1 Participants’ demographic information 150
8.2 Observation information 151
9.1 The framework for learning with digital resources 170
9.2 Steps in developing our technology-based PBL language
learning course 175
10.1 The knowledge structures, thinking skills, and example
language of Mohan’s KF 191
11.1 Clause-level language features of the fictional narrative
and Sequence and Description 210
11.2 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and WIDA
performance indicators for English language arts (ELA)
in example learning segment 215
11.3 Language features of Description and Sequence in the
fictional narrative Pepita and the Bully 218
12.1 Framework for assessing the construct of learner
development in technology-infused PBLL 230
12.2 An example of the PBLL framework assessment for
learning process and outcome assessment 239
13.1 Teacher participant information from the 2017 PBLL
Institute 251
14.1 A project-based pedagogical framework for
secondary EFL 267
14.2 The place of technology in the sample project-based unit 276
14.3 The place of technology in the sample revised project-
based unit 278

Contributors

Gulbahar H. Beckett, PhD, is a Professor of Applied Linguistics and
Technology and the teaching of English as a Second and Foreign
Language at Iowa State University of Science and Technology. Her
research focuses on project-based second/foreign language acquisi-
tion and socialization; content-based second/foreign language (a.k.a
English as a medium of instruction); language policies; technology
integrated teaching and learning; and academic language and literacy.
Gulbahar has numerous publications including books, chapters, and
articles in such journals as Review of Educational Research; Lan-
guage Policy; TESOL Quarterly; The Modern Language Journal; The
Canadian Modern Language Review; The English Language Teaching
Journal; TESL Canada Journal; Journal of Research on Computing
in Education; Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education; Journal of Mixed-Method Research; and Distance Educa-
tion. Gulbahar is also an associate editor of Diaspora, Indigenous,
and Minority Education Journal (Routledge).

Dawn Bikowski, PhD, is the Director of the ELIP Academic and
Global Communication Program in the Linguistics Department at
Ohio University. Her research interests include English for Specific/
Academic Purposes and English as the Means of Instruction, tech-
nology and language learning, and second language writing. She
teaches Linguistics graduate coursework and leads university-wide
and international teacher training projects on global learning and
pedagogy. Conferences and workshops, curriculum development
projects, and program assessments have taken her to several coun-
tries worldwide.

James Carpenter has an MA in TESL and an MEd in educational technol-
ogy from Northern Arizona University. He has taught ESL in the U.S.
as well as EFL in Japan. His research interests include intercultural
communication and conversation analysis. He is currently an instruc-
tor at Rikkyo University, and is pursuing his PhD in Education, Con-
centration in Applied Linguistics, at Temple University.

Contributors xi
J. Elliott Casal is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at The Pennsyl-

vania State University. His scholarly interests include academic and
professional writing practices and pedagogy, corpus linguistics, and
genre studies. His publications have appeared in  Journal of Second
Language Writing,  Journal of English for Academic Purposes,  Lan-
guage Learning and Technology, and System.
Mo Chen earned a doctorate degree in Applied Linguistics and Technol-
ogy from Iowa State University. She also received her MEd in Literacy
and Second Language Studies from the University of Cincinnati, and
an MA in Applied Second Language Acquisition from Carnegie Mel-
lon University. Her  primary areas of interest are  computer-assisted
language learning, corpus-based language learning, and project-based
language learning.
Yin Ling Cheung  is an Associate Professor of English Language and
Literature at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Techno-
logical University, Singapore. She is also Associate Dean (Outreach
and Engagement) at the Office of Graduate Studies and Professional
Learning. Yin Ling’s area of research is second language writing. She
has published in journals such as  System and RELC Journal. She
co-edited  Advances and Current Trends in Language Teacher Iden-
tity Research  (Routledge, 2015) and co-authored  English Style and
Usage (Prentice Hall, 2011).
Kristina Dimitrov  has a BA first class honors (Law and Society) and a
BA German Studies from the University of Calgary. She is currently
studying for her Juris Doctor in the Faculty of Law at the University
of Calgary.
Melinda Dooly holds a Serra Húnter fellowship as researcher and senior
lecturer in the Department of Language & Literature Education and
Social Science Education (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), where
she teaches English as a Foreign Language Methodology (TEFL) and
research methods courses at both undergraduate and graduate levels.
She has taught in different countries worldwide, including an honor-
ary lectureship at the Institute of Education, University College Lon-
don. Her research interests are technology-enhanced project-based
language teaching and learning.
Anja Dressler is a teacher in a German-English Bilingual program. She
completed her BEd at the Werklund School of Education, University
of Calgary. Previously, she received her BA in German and Linguistics.
Both of her degrees are from the University of Calgary.
Roswita Dressler, PhD, is a faculty member in the Werklund School of
Education and former sessional instructor in German at the University
of Calgary. She holds a BEd in German and French and an MA in

xii  Contributors
German. She specializes in second language teaching. Her research
explores educational responses to cultural and linguistic diversity.

Mengchan Gao is an English teacher at Beijing Academy, Beijing, China.
As a beginning teacher, she has a keen interest in SLA theories and
practices. At present, she is collaborating with Feifei Xie in explor-
ing instructional models of integrated technology and project-based
learning that can be implemented in Chinese secondary EFL settings
to enrich and enhance students’ classroom language learning and
practices.

Joe Geluso is a PhD candidate in the Applied Linguistics and Technology
program at Iowa State University. Joe’s research interests include cor-
pus linguistics, cognitive and functional theories of second language
acquisition and learning, and computer assisted language learning. Joe
has presented his work at numerous conferences such as the Second
Language Research Forum and the American Association of Corpus
Linguistics, and published in journals such as Computer Assisted Lan-
guage Learning and Register Studies.

Jesse Gleason is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at South-
ern Connecticut State University, where she teaches in the Bilingual/
Multicultural Education & TESOL, Spanish, and Elementary Bilingual
Education programs. She also coordinates the Lower-Division Spanish
and the World Language Teacher Certification programs. Her research
interests include multiliteracies development and technology-mediated
language instruction. She regularly presents her research internation-
ally and has published work in journals such as  System, Language,
Culture & Curriculum, and Language and Education.

Roz R. Hirch  is a PhD student in language assessment at Iowa State
University. Before moving to Iowa, she worked as a test developer and
item writer in South Korea, which is how she developed her interest in
creating effective language assessments.

Hari Jang is a research assistant in the Office of Education Research at
the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological Univer-
sity, Singapore. She earned her MA in Applied Linguistics from the
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
Her research interests include second language writing and teach-
ers’  situated professional development. She has published in  Educa-
tion 3–13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early
Years Education.

Garrett Krause is a composer and musician from Calgary, Alberta. He
holds a BMus (Composition) and a BA (German) from the Univer-
sity of Calgary as well as certification as an associate of the Royal
Conservatory of Music. His written compositions continue to receive

Contributors xiii
numerous awards and performances at the local and national levels in
Canada, and he currently also works as an accompanist, teacher, and
performer in Calgary.
Annie Camey Kuo,  PhD, is the Director of Research-Practice Partner-
ships for Understanding Language in the Graduate School of Educa-
tion at Stanford University. In her role, she cultivates and maintains
partnerships with school districts through collaborations focused on
building systems of support for students designated as English learners.
Before coming to Stanford, Annie worked with teachers and interna-
tional school leaders in supporting culturally and linguistically diverse
students at the University of Washington, where she received her PhD
in Language, Literacy, and Culture. She also holds an MA from New
York University in TESOL and Foreign Language Education and a
BA in Mandarin Chinese and English from the University of Califor-
nia, Santa Barbara. Annie is a 1.5-generation immigrant from Taiwan
and has taught at the secondary and community college level in New
York and Los Angeles. Her areas of interest include understanding
and addressing the needs of students designated as English learners,
project- and problem-based language learning, and design thinking.
John Liang is Professor of TESOL at Biola University, La Mirada, Califor-
nia. He received his PhD in Foreign Language Education with a TESL/
TEFL concentration from the University of Texas at Austin. Active in
practitioner research, he is a frequent presenter at ELT conferences
and has published textbooks as well as articles in professional books
and  journals in TESOL. His research and teaching interests include
pedagogical English grammar, language assessment, second language
reading/writing, ESL materials, and technology-enhanced language
learning.
Stephanie Link  is an Assistant Professor of TESOL/Applied Linguistics
and Director of International Composition at Oklahoma State Uni-
versity. She earned her PhD from Iowa State University and a dual
Master’s degree from Winona State University in Minnesota, USA,
and from Tamkang University in Taiwan. She teaches graduate and
undergraduate courses in L2 pedagogy, language and technology, and
SLA while focusing her research on technology-mediated language
instruction with an emphasis on second language writing.
Barnabas J. Martin  is a lecturer at International University of Health
and Welfare Medical School in Narita, Chiba, Japan. He received his
MEd in literacy and second language studies from University of Cin-
cinnati. He has taught pre-kindergarten to junior high school students
in addition to medical students in Japan. His research explores game-
based learning, incidental language acquisition through media, and
shorthand.

xiv  Contributors
Dolors Masats  is a teacher-trainer and researcher at the Universitat

Autònoma de Barcelona and a consultant for the Ministry of Educa-
tion and Culture of Andorra in the design of a project-based cross-
disciplinary curriculum. As a member of GREIP (Research Centre
for Plurilingual Teaching & Interaction), she leads or participates in
numerous classroom-based national and international research pro-
jects in the field of discourse analysis applied to language learning in
multilingual and multicultural milieus.
Sawako Matsugu is an instructor at Rikkyo University. She has a PhD in
Applied Linguistics from Northern Arizona University. She has taught
EFL in Japan as well as ESL in the U.S. Her research interests include
language assessment, in particular speaking assessment, and curricu-
lum (e.g., EMI, CBI, PBLL) and program evaluation.
Bobbie K. Miller (MiT, NBCT) has spent the past 10 years working in
secondary education in Washington State, Spain, and the United King-
dom. With undergraduate degrees spanning Modern Foreign Language
(Spanish) and Biological Sciences (Zoology), Bobbie’s instructional
focus has been on bridging the pedagogical worlds of content knowl-
edge in science, language learning, and student-centered learning. In
addition to teaching secondary students, Bobbie has made the leap
into leading teachers in Problem Based Language Learning workshops
in conjunction with the coauthors. At present, Bobbie spends her time
with secondary students in an advisory capacity, helping them decide
how and where to study abroad after completing their schooling in
the UK.
Bernard A. Mohan  was Chair of Linguistics at the University of Mil-
waukee–Wisconsin, before becoming a professor in Language Educa-
tion at the University of British Columbia, Canada, where he worked
extensively with immigrant learners in Vancouver’s schools. Now an
Emeritus Professor at UBC, he is a Research Fellow at King’s College,
London University and in that capacity, took part in an eight-nation
research study in 2010–2011 that recommended changes in teacher
education across the European Union to benefit immigrant language
learners. Well-known for his pioneering work on integrated language
and content learning, most notably the developer of what has been
termed “the Knowledge Framework” (detailed fully in Mohan, 1986),
he is a functional linguist who sees language as a resource for meaning,
regards language as the primary means of learning about the world,
and views language as a dynamic interaction with its cultural context.
Chiew Hong Ng earned her PhD from Monash University. She is a senior
lecturer at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore. She specializes in pedagogies and teacher cogni-
tion. She has published in Changing English, International Journal of

Contributors xv
Bilingual and Multilingual Teachers of English,  and  The European
Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL. She has also published book
chapters with Routledge, Palgrave Macmillan, and Pearson.
Bernadette Raedler, PhD, is a sessional instructor in the School of Lan-
guages, Linguistics, Literatures and Cultures, University of Calgary.
She received her doctorate in German Literature in May 2019. Previ-
ously, she received her MA from the University of Munich in Deutsch
als Fremdsprache (German as a Foreign Language), German Litera-
ture, and History in 1996.
Aysel Sarıcaoğlu (PhD, Applied Linguistics and Technology, Iowa State
University) is an Assistant Professor in the English Language and Lit-
erature department at the Social Sciences University of Ankara. She
investigates academic writing, automated formative assessment, L2
written complexity, and telecollaborative learning. Her work has
appeared in journals such as ReCALL, CALL, and CALICO.
Tammy Slater is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and Tech-
nology (ALT) and the Teaching of English as a Second and Foreign
Language (TESL) at Iowa State University of Science and Technology
(ISU). She teaches courses in linguistics and second language literacy
as well as holds seminars to introduce graduate students to the basics
of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and Mohan’s social practice
theory. She also works with pre-service teachers in English language
teaching. Her research, which draws upon analytic methods from SFL,
particularly Mohan’s work on social practices in education, seeks to
understand the development of academic language through content-
based and project-based teaching and learning, particularly in ways
that inform and advance the field of education for English language
learners. She has co-authored several journal articles and book chap-
ters that have analyzed educational activities from a linguistic per-
spective, including several written with Gulbahar H. Beckett that have
focused specifically on project-based language learning and teaching.
Paul S. Sutton,  PhD,  is an Assistant Professor of Education at Pacific
Lutheran University, where he teaches various courses in the teacher
education program including secondary methods courses, a multicul-
tural education course, sociocultural foundations of education courses,
and an introductory writing course. While completing his PhD at the
University of Washington, he worked as a research associate study-
ing how a public, comprehensive high school adopted problem-based
learning across all core content areas. National publications and pres-
entations include articles documenting findings from that research as
well as research examining the collaborative practices of teachers as
they developed PBL curriculum. Dr. Sutton’s service commitments
center on establishing more equitable schools and classrooms for

xvi  Contributors
historically marginalized students, especially Black and Brown stu-
dents. Currently, Dr. Sutton serves as an at large board member of
the Parent Alliance for Black Scholars in the Bellevue School District
and as a content issue expert on the Bellevue School District’s Equity
Advisory Group. Before earning his PhD, Paul worked for eight years
as a high school English and student leadership teacher.

Elizabeth “Biz” Wright, PhD, is a Postdoctoral Scholar at The Pennsyl-
vania State University following the completion of her PhD in Cur-
riculum and Instruction in Science Education at the University of
Washington. Biz taught middle school science in Boston and Seattle
area school programs for more than seven years. Her research focuses,
in part, on the ways that science teachers make science more accessible
for their students, particularly for students who have been marginal-
ized in science classrooms (students of color, students who speak a
language other than English at home, students with special needs, and
girls), and looks at how students collaborate in problem-based science
classrooms.

Feifei Xie is an instructor of English at Beijing Academy, Beijing, China,
where she teaches English to middle school students. She is very active
in exploring innovative teaching techniques, including models of pro-
ject-based learning, that can create an enriched classroom learning
environment to engage middle school students in active, meaningful,
and self-directed language learning. Feifei is also very active in prac-
titioner research as a classroom teacher. Her articles have appeared
in The Journal of Chinese Teachers and Education in Beijing.

Weiyu Zhang is a PhD student in English Language and Literature Aca-
demic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Techno-
logical University, Singapore. Her research interest is second language
writing. She has published in the International  Journal of English
Studies, The Asian ESP Journal, and the Journal of Language Teach-
ing and Research.

Juanjuan Zhao  earned her doctorate in Educational Studies with a
concentration in Second Language Education. Her research inter-
ests include project-based learning in second and foreign language
education; cross-cultural educational theories and practices; teacher
education; academic discourse; sociocultural, sociolinguistic, and soci-
opolitical aspects of language(s) in education; and research methods.
She has published several studies in these areas.

Part I

Philosophical, Theoretical,
and Empirical Models
of PBLL



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

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

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

In this chapter, we first contextualize PBLL in project-based learning
(PBL), discuss the philosophical foundations and theoretical frameworks
that have guided PBLL work, and state the positioning that helped con-
ceptualize the current volume, as such positioning influences the devel-
opment of problems (McMillan  & Schumacher, 1993; Pierce, 1995),
research questions, and choice of conceptual frameworks (Beckett,
1999). We follow this with an overview of the remaining chapters as
well as discuss the significance of the book and implications for further
research and practice.
Project-Based Learning (PBL): Deeper Foundations
of Educational Thoughts
Project-based learning (PBL) began in the U.S. general education over a
century ago (see Beckett, 1999, 2006; Brubacher, 1947; Kilpatrick, 1918).
Leo van Lier (2006) believes that a similar approach to education—
action-based, experience-based, and perception-based—existed in Europe
based on Jan Comenius in the 17th century, Johann Pestalozzi in the 19th
century, and Maria Montessori in the 20th century. PBL traces its philo-
sophical roots to Deweyan experiential learning philosophy (e.g., Dewey,
1916; Dewey & Dewey, 1915), which has been the foundation of general

4  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.
progressive education, guiding pedagogy that aims to engage students in
life-long learning to equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary
for a changing society (Beckett, 1999, 2006; Brubacher, 1947; Kilpat-
rick, 1918). Dewey’s experiential learning and democratic philosophy for
education was part of a large, far-reaching educational reform started
in the U.S. PBL was seen as a student-centered pedagogy that encour-
ages students to learn subject matter deeply, critically, and responsibly
(Berliner, 1992; Holt, 1994). Following Dewey’s action as a process
organized and guided by activity and the questions it raises, PBL involves
students in creating knowledge and solving problems by engaging in pur-
poseful, real-world interdisciplinary activities (Dionne & Horth, 1994)
holistically. These activities reflected the reform of traditional educa-
tion that divided curriculum into different subjects, transmitted through
teacher-centered pedagogy (Cremin, 1964), and promoted discrete skills
Kilpatrick (1925).

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

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

Swain’s (1985) evaluation of Canadian French Immersion students
showed an insufficiency of comprehensible input, and illustrated the
need to create communicative opportunities for second language learn-
ers to “produce comprehensible output through meaningful interac-
tion with native speakers” (Beckett, 1999, p. 3). In response, Brumfit’s
(1984) project-based communicative language teaching methodology
increased in popularity. According to Brumfit, through the “emphasis
on integrated projects” which arise “from the communicative needs of

Philosophical Foundation 5
students within the framework of the project” (p.  123), his methodol-
ogy could provide the opportunities learners need to develop linguistic
accuracy and fluency. Fried-Booth (1986) and Candlin, Carter, Legutke,
Semuda, and Hanson (1988) agreed that second language learners can
effectively develop their communicative competence through projects by
interacting with each other and with native English-speaking people. Var-
ious projects were developed and enacted to promote linguistic fluency
(see Eyring, 1989, 2001; Fried-Booth, 1986; and Legutke  & Thomas,
1991/1999). The purpose of all PBLL work then was to promote formal
linguistic (e.g., Chomsky, 1986) proficiency psycholinguistically, neglect-
ing the sociolinguistic functional meaning-making resource view of lan-
guage (e.g., Halliday, 1994) that PBLL affords. Such a narrow view of
PBL in the second language field allowed few opportunities to see how it
is a foundation of alternative thoughts for second language studies and
second language education.

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

Beckett (1999) defined projects as teaching and/or learning (individual
or group) activities designed to engage students in language and content
learning “through planning, researching (empirical and/or document),
analyzing and synthesizing data, and reflecting on the process and prod-
uct orally and/or in writing by comparing, contrasting, and justifying
alternatives” (Beckett, 1999, p. 4). She argued that projects engage stu-
dents in deeper learning by using language as a resource or tool to learn

6  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.
more language, content, and various skills (Beckett, 1999) with and/
or through technology tools (Beckett & Slater, 2017) in authentic con-
texts. As such, PBL can become project-based LANGUAGE learning
with content-based activities composed of a series of tasks for solv-
ing problems, thinking critically, making decisions, producing prod-
ucts, and articulating the process and products. More recent work (e.g.,
Beckett, 1999, 2005, 2006; Beckett & Slater, 2005; Slater & Beckett,
2019) adopted all or some aspects of Beckett’s (1999) definition of PBL.
Such work has also been informed by Dewey’s experiential learning
philosophy (Dewey, 1926; Dewey & Dewey, 1915), Vygotskian social
constructionist learning theories (Vygotsky, 1978), systemic functional
linguistics (Halliday, 1994), and language socialization (Schieffelin  &
Ochs, 1986). Vygotskian Cultural—Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)
(Engeström, 2001) has also informed recent work that has explored
the complex dynamics of PBL such as multiple subjects (actors), goals,
objects, tools, division of labor, and the contexts of the activity (Gibbes
2011, Zhao & Beckett, 2014).

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

Much general education scholarly and professional work on PBL has
been published. There are PBL institutes (e.g., BIE) and PBL conferences
(e.g., PAN-PBL); however, as pointed out earlier, the implementation of a
project-based approach in second or other language contexts (i.e., PBLL)
is relatively new and needs to be implemented and studied much more

Philosophical Foundation 7
widely. The first dissertation level research in second language educa-
tion was Eyring (1989), which studied PBL in a U.S. university context.
Beckett (1999) was the second, exploring PBL in a Canadian secondary
school ESL context. Since then, PBL/L research and professional work
in second language contexts has slowly but surely increased. While there
is no separate project-based language learning (PBLL) conferences yet,
work has been presented in related conferences such as American Asso-
ciation of Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages (TESOL), and American Educational Research Asso-
ciation (AERA).

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

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

8  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.
Studies of PBL in the second language field have been growing in num-

bers in various journals. Findings of these studies indicate that PBL facili-
tates the learning of second and foreign languages, academic discourse
socialization, decision-making, critical thinking, and collaborative work
skills while providing deep engagement with subject matter content (e.g.,
Beckett, 2005, 2006) through the use of language as a medium (Beck-
ett & Slater, 2017, 2018a, b). Research has also suggested that although
ESL/EFL students generally value PBL, they can become frustrated when
they are unable to see how PBL helps them focus on the learning of form
(e.g., Beckett, 1999; Eyring, 1989). As Kuo et al. (Chapter 13, this vol-
ume) suggest, students are capable of utilizing all aspects of PBL, and
they understand the knowledge acquisition, including linguistic knowl-
edge, but they need their teachers to show them (see Beckett & Slater,
2005; Windschitl & Calabrese Barton, 2016). With the exceptions of an
MA thesis study by Lee (2014), Li (2010), and Zachoval (2011), there
has been little research, especially experimental research, addressing how
PBL promotes the development of language form and function, particu-
larly in technology-mediated PBLL contexts. As Ng et al. (Chapter 2, this
volume) point out, insufficient gains in learning could be due to insuffi-
cient focus on form by the project designers’ and implementers. That is,
the focus was placed on other aspects of projects, such as subject mat-
ter and skills, rather than the development of language form. Projects
offer numerous affordances for language learning and development as it
requires learners to speak, read, listen, and write for their projects as well
as revise and improve their language for accuracy, logic, arguments, and
completeness. Teachers and researchers need to harness such affordances
to teach and to study the language teaching and learning that take place
through PBLL activities.

Additionally, while technology tools have become a large part of pro-
ject implementation within current language teaching and learning con-
texts (Beckett & Slater, 2018b; Salpeter, 2005; Slater & Beckett, 2019;
Zhao & Beckett, 2014), there has been a paucity of published research on
how projects that implement technology explicitly facilitate the learning
of language in general and language form in particular. In other words,
theoretically grounded empirical research on project-based approaches
that involve technology is very much in its infancy (Dooly  & Sadler,
2016). A recent call for book chapters for an edited volume Project-based
Language Learning and CALL: Theory and Practice by Thomas and
Yamazaki, confirms this claim. The call describes the planned volume as
a book “that aims to be the first substantive scholarly book on project-
based and cross-curricular language learning using digital technologies.”

More research on technology-infused PBLL is needed because technol-
ogy use has become ubiquitous by learners, and professional organiza-
tions such as Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
and the American Council for Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)

Philosophical Foundation 9
call for it. State standards also call for the integration of technology in
language education to enrich and enhance language and content learn-
ing (see Gleason  & Link, Chapter  11, this volume). Indeed, technol-
ogy-mediated instruction empowers students and makes learning more
uniquely relevant to them (Chapelle  & Jamieson, 2008). Technology
mediated PBLL makes learning multimodal and dynamic, enabling stu-
dents to learn and articulate their learning linguistically and visually in
collaboration with their regional, national, and global peers, utilizing
each other’s strengths, and without limitations of time and space. In
the true spirit of PBL, technology-mediated PBLL can promote multi-
literacies, allowing “alternative starting points for learning (what the
learner perceives to be worth learning, what engages the particularities
of their identity)” and “allows for alternative pathways and comparable
destination points in learning” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2013, pp. 128–129)
with agency. Multimodal PBLL equips students “with the knowledge
and skills necessary to be active and informed citizens and workers in
a changing world—a world of diversity and one in which ours means
of communication and access to information are changing rapidly”
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2013, p. 131).

Existing research, however, reveals that even though some students
can be motivated by technology-integrated projects, not all see the
usefulness of technology for language learning (Terrazas-Arellanes,
Knox,  & Walden, 2015). Nishioka (2016) examined language-related
episodes that occurred during digital storytelling projects and concluded
that higher level students retained language knowledge that they had
acquired during the project more effectively than did lower level students,
suggesting that language level may play a notable role in technology-
mediated PBLL, with lower levels perhaps requiring more direct instruc-
tion of language than higher level students. Not all students are able
to see how technology can be transformative, seeing its use merely as
spelling and grammar checkers designed to leave teachers alone (see
Slater, Chapter 10, this volume). In their research on teachers’ percep-
tions of project-based learning, Habók and Nagy (2016) suggested that
at certain levels of schooling, teachers do not make sufficient use of tech-
nology and do not consider it to be important, particularly when adopt-
ing a PBLL approach. Several studies have commented on the need for
more teacher training for technology (e.g., Deacon, Parkin, & Schneider,
2017; Foss, Carney, McDonald, & Rooks, 2014; Kraus, 2009; Meyer &
Forester, 2015). In fact, most existing research on PBLL is about learn-
ing and on learners (see Gleason & Link; Kuo et al.; Dooly & Masats;
Slater; & Zhao, this volume), pointing to the need for more research on
PBLL instruction and teachers, teacher training on PBLL pedagogy, and
teacher training on technology-mediated PBLL in particular. Research
studies, various pedagogical tools, and training need to be available to
teachers so that they have a better understanding of the pedagogy, its

10  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.
principles and practices, and knowledge about perceptions and experi-
ence in training and implementation.

Also missing from the existing PBLL literature is sufficient work on the
assessment of PBL in general and PBLL in particular (Condliffe, 2016), an
issue also noted by Chen and Hirch (Chapter 12, this volume; also Glea-
son & Link, Chapter 11, and Kuo et al., Chapter 13, this volume). The
existing instruments are mostly self-evaluation rubrics (e.g., Beckett  &
Slater, 2005) and guidelines for formative language and content anal-
ysis (Slater, Beckett,  & Aufderhaar, 2006). Existing assessment instru-
ments, according to Beckett and Slater (2018b), “do not address how
learning takes place through PBLL or technology-integrated PBLL, pos-
sibly because these approaches are complex and influence many aspects
of development” (p. 6). They suggest that complex does not mean it is
impossible to create assessment tools or that sophisticated instruments
that can assess complex learning should not be developed. Contemporary
professors and assessment specialists are technology savvy and technol-
ogy tools are powerful. It should thus be possible to develop and vali-
date more powerful assessment instruments that researchers and teachers
can utilize for further evaluation and exploration of PBLL pedagogy and
activities.

Addressing the Gaps: Most Recent Theories, Research,
Tools, and Frameworks
This section of the chapter summarizes how contributing authors address
the issues previously identified with rigorous quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed-method research on technology mediated, infused, or inte-
grated PBLL. In Chapter 2, Ng, Cheung, Zhang, and Jang highlight the
scarcity of PBLL research that focuses on learning language form and
function in writing and review 60 articles on project-based learning pub-
lished in international journals, conference proceedings, and research
reports between 2004 and 2018. They examine the benefits and chal-
lenges of using technology-infused PBLL to teach and learn writing in
elementary, secondary, and tertiary ESL/EFL contexts as well as the theo-
ries that have guided the research and the methodologies employed in the
empirical research. The authors discuss the implications of their findings
for academic writing pedagogy and research, with a focus on language
form and function.

Chapters 3 through 8 present several empirical studies on technology-
integrated PBLL. In Chapter  3, Carpenter and Matsugu illustrate how
19 Japanese university students learned English through translanguaging
during drama projects. Their analysis of students’ English and Japanese
language use and the coordination of their linguistic and cognitive ability
with the project task demands suggests that by translanguaging during
their projects, students were able to create, interact, review, and repair

Philosophical Foundation 11
utilizing technology tools such as smartphones. Carpenter and Matsugu
also found that for lower proficiency students, building rapport and shar-
ing personal information is easier to do in their first language, but argue
that allowing students to use both their first and target languages system-
atically allows them to make use of the affordances of their context to
improve their overall performances.

In Chapter 4, Dressler, Raedler, Dimitrov, Dressler, and Krause discuss
their action research, conducted in a small-enrollment, advanced level
German class at a Canadian university. Utilizing iterative looking, think-
ing, and acting cycles, they demonstrate that Stoller’s (2006) 10 char-
acteristics of PBL can be applied to small classes. Their analysis of the
data collected from technology-aided German culture projects show that
students not only learned language form and function as well as the cul-
ture and knowledge contextualized in their own project work, they also
learned language and content through giving feedback to and receiving
feedback from their peers. Students utilized Web 2.0 tools and videos,
among other affordances, to carry out and showcase their projects.

In Chapter 5, Martin addresses the potential of game-based learning
(GBL) that uses technology for PBLL, looking at its impact on student
motivation for developing related content knowledge and content-
specific language. The study involved 28 first-year medical students in
Japan who participated in a PBLL unit that centered on the authentic
game Plague Inc. Martin’s analysis indicates that the project engaged the
students and promoted learning in the areas of language acquisition as
well as content knowledge of epidemiology and its medical symptoms.
Martin’s findings also suggest that careful use of video games in the class-
room may increase student motivation and provide a setting for language
and content acquisition.

In Chapter 6, Sarıcaoğlu and Geluso discuss a cross-cultural telecollab-
orative study of 64 students enrolled in introductory linguistics classes,
32 in the U.S. and 32 in Turkey. The students were linked through PBL
to complete first and second language acquisition projects, by working
telecollaboratively in pairs. Students used Skype, FaceTime, WhatsApp,
and Messenger for their projects. Sarıcaoğlu’s and Geluso’s analysis of
students’ written reflections revealed that the cross-cultural telecollabo-
rative PBL was positively perceived by both Turkish and U.S. students
and that students’ perceptions became more positive towards the end of
the second project.

In Chapter 7, Dooly and Masats discuss two ethnographic studies of
technology-enhanced project-based language learning in primary and
middle school contexts. In both cases, the focus is on the classroom
interactions of groups of young EFL learners who were participating in
telecollaborative exchanges. Data were collected from Internet-mediated
exchanges between six-year-olds in Spain and seven-year-olds in Can-
ada as well as from middle school students involved in an intercultural

12  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.
telecollaborative project in Sweden and Spain. Conversational analysis
of these naturally occurring data suggests that technology in the form of
recording devices was helpful in focusing students on language form by
getting them to practice language naturally. Moreover, Dooly and Masats
show that the telecollaborative nature of the task provided an authentic
audience in the form of Swedish partners, thus ensuring that the tar-
get language use was meaningful. The authors concluded that technol-
ogy-enhanced project-based language learning (TEPBLL) is an effective
approach to integrating the teaching of language and content and that it
is a particularly effective means to introduce user-driven, form-focused
language learning tasks.

In Chapter  8, Zhao describes ethnographic research conducted to
examine Chinese language teachers’ experiences with technology-
enriched PBLL in American secondary classrooms. Zhao’s analysis of
multiple data sources indicated that PBLL served as an instructional
bridge for instructors transitioning from a teacher-centered approach to
a constructivist pedagogy and connected pedagogical beliefs that have
roots in the Chinese education system to those in current American edu-
cational practices. However, findings of the study also showed that the
teacher participants in this study had doubts about PBLL and demon-
strated only restricted use of it in their teaching, revealing potential dis-
satisfaction with the approach and the complexity of teachers’ knowledge
development. Zhao concludes the chapter with implications for teacher
education and professional development for Chinese as a Foreign Lan-
guage teachers and international teachers with foreign educational back-
grounds. The findings expose the deep-seated Chinese language ideology
and stoic pedagogical culture where learning should not be fun. Zhao’s
findings also show that the teacher participants in the study were open to
learning and needed training in student-centered constructivist teaching
approach in general and PBLL in particular.

The authors of Chapters  9 through 12, Part III of the book, exam-
ine research-based models, heuristics, and frameworks that help learners
and teachers design, develop, implement, and assess PBLL that uses tech-
nology and focuses on form-and-function while also teaching authentic
subject content. In Chapter  9, Casal and Bikowski present a research-
driven framework of strategies and behaviors for language learning with
digital resources. The Framework for Learning with Digital Resources
(Bikowski & Casal, 2018) is the result of a semester-long examination
of learners’ evolving behaviors and strategies in a second language writ-
ing course as they interacted with highly multimodal, interactive digital
learning resources. After presenting the framework, the authors discuss
its development and implementation in their context and reflect on how
it may guide materials development and course design in other contexts.
Casal and Bikowski argue that the Framework for Learning with Digi-
tal Resource can be contextually utilized to help learners recognize the

Philosophical Foundation 13
affordances of technology tools. Learners may also be trained to use the
framework to monitor and alter their learning behaviors, making con-
ceptual connections between and with the materials.

In Chapter 10, Slater establishes the need for more emphasis on explicit
language instruction through PBLL and provides Mohan’s (1986) knowl-
edge framework (KF), demonstrating how it can be incorporated into
technology-integrated PBLL. She frames her argument and suggestions
around data from two semesters of a higher-education project-based
intensive English exit program that prepares students for entry into regu-
lar university degree programs. Slater argues that although the curricu-
lum was not planned using the KF, examining the data through Mohan’s
framework shows how the program’s learning objectives, discussions,
lectures, and assignments can be described in terms of knowledge struc-
tures, thus offering opportunities for instructors to develop and reinforce
new, more academic ways for students to construct content through
language.

In Chapter 11, Gleason and Link provide a technology-enhanced form-
function project-based language learning (TEFF PBLL) heuristic. They
illustrate how it allows teachers to weave together content, language,
technology, and standards to organize projects that focus on develop-
ing students’ multiliteracies and their world and career readiness. They
describe how teachers can use their model to organize units within a
content-language-technology curriculum while at the same time explic-
itly focusing on language. Aided by the knowledge framework (KF) and
the teaching-learning cycle (TLC) for genre pedagogy, Gleason and Link
offer a third-grade classroom learning segment as an example to help
teachers create or modify their own existing curricula.

As pointed out elsewhere, while technology-infused PBLL courses and
units have been implemented in language classrooms, assessment of lan-
guage acquisition, content knowledge learning, and skills competence
development in those courses remain underdeveloped. In Chapter  12,
Chen and Hirch discuss a much-needed research-based model developed
for assessing technology-infused PBLL for instructors and researchers.
The model includes three main subconstructs (project knowledge and
skills, project capacities, and affective disposition towards PBLL), dis-
cussed in relation to the importance of setting learning objectives for the
assessment of each. The assessment model probes the extent to which
learners’ knowledge and capacities improve throughout the PBLL course/
unit and evaluate students’ final learning outcomes and perceptions.
Their chapter also describes a technology-infused PBLL unit in a lan-
guage course to illustrate how to apply the framework for actual PBLL
assessment.

Chapters 13 and 14 show that, when opportunities are presented to
them, teachers are willing and able to learn and utilize models and frame-
works. For example, in Chapter  13, Kuo, Sutton, Wright, and Miller

14  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.
discuss a study of the experiences of bilingual teachers designing PBLL
units at a summer institute in Spain. They investigate (1) the extent to
which teachers attend to language as action in their PBLL units using
their PLATE framework, and (2) what can be learned from those data
with respect to the assumptions teachers make about how students learn
English in PBLL contexts. PLATE refers to Project as Main Course, Lan-
guage as Action, Authenticity, Technology, and Evaluation.

In Chapter 14, Liang, Xie, and Gao describe action research that two
middle-school EFL teachers in China conducted during the implemen-
tation of a project-based, technology-mediated instructional  frame-
work in their classrooms. Their findings reveal that the teachers’
experience with this instructional model was positive as their students
showed gains in communicative language ability, learner engagement,
cultural awareness, collaborative learning, and critical/creative think-
ing. Students exhibited high levels of engagement at the exploration,
communication, and evaluation stages of their projects. Liang, Xie,
and Gao further report that their findings showed that learning goals
were achieved as evidenced by the students’ demonstration of a good
command of the fashion-related vocabulary words taught to them dur-
ing the scaffolded language instruction stage and that there was devel-
opment in reasoning and thinking skills and a high level of creativity
sustained by critical thinking. The teachers reported that although not
required for standardized tests, the reasoning and creative thinking
processes inspired by the project helped prompt the students to use
English to learn instead of just learning to use English in the traditional
classroom or for exams. While findings also identified a minimal use
of technology by students as an issue, the chapter offers an example of
pedagogical scaffolding that shows how PBLL can be implemented in
teacher-centered, form-focused, and exam-oriented education cultural
contexts such as in China.

Significance of the Book
As discussed in Part I of the book, PBLL was brought into second language
education to address the inadequacies of form-focused, teacher-centered,
and decontextualized second language education and to increase stu-
dents’ linguistic communicative competence, and initially projects were
designed and carried out mainly for language practice. During the last
two decades, however, PBLL research and pedagogy have become much
broader. Projects have been designed and implemented for language
and content knowledge learning and skills development contextually
in authentic subject matter contexts. Various technological affordances
have been incorporated into PBLL pedagogy and research. Neverthe-
less, research has shown that the first “L” in PBLL has been neglected;
that students used to a form-based pedagogy fail to see the language

Philosophical Foundation 15
development that can occur through PBLL (Beckett, 2002); and that
there is paucity of research on technology mediated/integrated/assisted
PBLL in K-12 and foreign language contexts. With regards to teacher
training and assessment, research has shown the need for workshops to
help teachers understand, design, develop, implement, and evaluate the
effectiveness of PBLL.

The 14 chapters in this volume address those issues, each making a
unique contribution to PBLL research. Ng et al.’s chapter (Chapter  2)
makes significant contributions as the first systematic review study of
PBLL writing research. Carpenter and Matsugu (Chapter  3) contrib-
ute by showing how translanguaging can be utilized in project activi-
ties, which is a most recent introduction to PBLL studies. Dressler et al.
(Chapter 4) contributes to our knowledge by demonstrating how Stoller’s
characteristics can be applicable in small classes where students may need
to work on their projects individually. Additionally, their study contrib-
utes through its focus on German language form, function, and culture
learning with technology in a foreign language context. Martin’s study
on game-based medical content (Chapter  5) contributes to the litera-
ture by showing how games, much loved by many, can be incorporated
into project design for increasing motivation for language and content
learning. Sarıcaoğlu and Geluso’s study on telecollaboration (Chapter 6)
makes an important contribution for future PBLL research and prac-
tice, particularly now that there is an increased interest in and need for
online education. Their chapter also contributes to addressing the need
for more work on self- and peer assessment in PBLL. Dooly and Masats
(Chapter 7) makes an additional contribution to the emerging intercul-
tural telecollaborative PBLL work, balancing the higher education expe-
rience from Sarıcaoğlu and Geluso’s research with information from
primary and secondary school contexts where little work has been done.
Zhao (Chapter 8) adds to the small but growing number of technology-
mediated PBLL studies in foreign language contexts and teacher training
for PBLL by raising issues that foreign language teachers can encounter
when implementing PBLL.

Casal’s and Bikowski’s research-driven framework of strategies and
behaviors for language learning with digital resources (Chapter  9) is a
welcome framework. It helps address the ubiquitous research findings
that learners may not always be able to see the affordance of PBLL
and technology tools for various reasons. Slater’s work (Chapter  10)
addresses the issue of explicit language teaching in PBLL, adding to the
literature by contributing data from under-researched intensive English
teaching contexts. Faced with increasing pressure to offer pathways such
as the Exit Program for preparing students to enroll in university courses,
a program from which Slater drew her data, intensive English programs
are increasingly turning to PBLL to address decreased enrollment. Thus
researchers, administrators, and teachers of intensive English programs

16  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.
should find this chapter a valuable contribution to the PBLL research
literature and the ESL profession. Gleason and Link’s TEFF PBLL (Chap-
ter  11) is a much-needed heuristic helpful for P–12 teachers who are
expected to draw explicit links between their classroom practice and
state standards, including fostering students’ digital literacies, or other-
wise be faced with high-stakes consequences, such as job insecurity. Chen
and Hirch offer a technology-infused PBLL unit in a language course to
illustrate how to apply their suggested model for PBLL assessment. This
model provides much-needed guidelines for instructors and researchers
to establish clear learning objectives for learning and assessment so that
they may choose appropriate assessment instruments and tools for their
PBLL courses or projects. Kuo, Sutton, Wright, and Miller (Chapter 13)
contribute to the field’s knowledge base by showing how teachers trained
with their framework learned to move away from a decontextualized,
traditional approach to language teaching towards more intentional and
explicit language learning in the context of a PBLL unit, and also by
pointing out additional gaps.

Liang, Xie, and Gao help further our knowledge of PBLL teacher-­
training by illustrating how teachers develop different pedagogical
thoughts and practices. Equipped with such knowledge, teachers can
implement PBLL even in teacher-centered, form-focused, and exam-­
oriented cultural contexts such as we see in China, and motivate even
previously unmotivated students who were perceived to be “weak” to
flourish in the PBLL environment. Their work also suggests that if there
is content that students consider relevant, they can be motivated.

In sum, this volume makes a significant contribution to the PBLL lit-
erature by addressing these issues and guiding readers to understand that
PBLL is a sophisticated and transformative educational approach that
has deep foundations of educational thinking; it is not another fashion-
able method (van Lier, 2006). The work in this volume illustrates the
complexity that projects play in language education concerning learn-
ers, teachers, curriculum and materials designers, language assessment
specialists, and language program administrators. Collectively, the work
shows that as is the case with PBL, PBLL offers an alternative paradigm
to the still prevalent formalistic psycholinguistic model of second lan-
guage education. As such, this book is a step towards a paradigm shift
for second and foreign language education.

Implications for Further Research and Practice
This volume makes the convincing case that PBL not only affords oppor-
tunities for learning language form, function, disciplinary content, and
various skills, but also engages learners in deeper learning with agency.
It also points to a need for second language education researchers and

Philosophical Foundation 17
practitioners to catch up with the general education research and practice
by making PBL part of second language education and allow second lan-
guage students to benefit from the same affordances of PBL as their gen-
eral education peers do. Second language students also deserve to learn
language in context, develop problem solving and critical thinking skills,
learn to be creative, collaborative multimodal students equipped with
multiliteracies, and be trained to function in the real world of the 21st
century. While the work in this volume can help interested readers imple-
ment PBL more widely in second language education, more research will
lead to continuous improvement.

More document analysis studies should be conducted to explore how
much and what types of PBLL research has been conducted in L2 read-
ing, listening, speaking, and even pronunciation. Qualitative, quantita-
tive, and mixed-methods research can examine the relationships between
PBLL and gains in learning language form. As there is still little PBLL
research in K–12 contexts, more needs to be conducted to explore how
PBLL can be implemented and improved in K–12 contexts exploring
the needs, gains, experiences, and perceptions of students, teachers, and
administrators as well as curriculum developers and assessment special-
ists. More research on translanguaging and multimodal PBLL should be
conducted to show how PBLL works in contexts with different linguistic
proficiency students.

Additionally, more research on game-based PBLL in different socio-
linguistic and disciplinary contexts and at different education levels can
expand our knowledge on how games can be used in second language
education for authentic learning and student motivation. Cross-cultural
telecollaborative PBLL research can also be expanded to various levels
and contexts. We also encourage and invite second language research-
ers to challenge themselves to design and conduct sophisticated experi-
mental research to evaluate and field-test the models and frameworks
proposed in this book and to measure learner gains through technology-
mediated PBLL.

Second language educators at all levels and in various contexts should
find this volume to be a valuable resource. They can utilize the mod-
els and frameworks as well as other examples included and discussed
for professional development and teaching. They can adapt the models,
frameworks, unit, and lesson ideas to suit the particularities of their local
contexts. We invite professors, teachers, and graduate students to con-
duct similar action research studies and share their findings so that more
resources can be generated for their peers and students. We challenge
assessment researchers and specialists to design, develop, and validate
technology-mediated PBLL assessment frameworks and instruments.
Just because PBLL is complex does not mean we should not take up the
challenge.

18  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.

Who Should Read This Book?

In summary, this volume is of interest to second language researchers,
educators, theory- and research-based curriculum designers, and assess-
ment specialists who wish to explore innovative approaches to educating
digital-age learners for the 21st century. This volume should also be of
interest to researchers who wish to read more about the role language
and technology play in project implementation (i.e., discourse as mean-
ing), and the various methodologies that have been employed to research
the use and effectiveness of PB(L)L. The book will be of special interest
to those who follow Dewey’s tradition of pragmatism and experiential
learning, and Donald Schon’s work on reflective practitioners.

This book makes an excellent adoption for technology-assisted lan-
guage learning and teaching-related courses as it shows how technologi-
cal tools can be used in various contexts and with provided frameworks.
Such courses include methods classes in teaching content-based language
learning or English as a medium of instruction to help pre-service or
in-service instructors expand or hone their approaches to how they can
develop their students’ language, skills, and content knowledge across
the curriculum at any level. Because the chapters bring to light the empir-
ical research that supports a project-based methodology, the volume as a
whole goes beyond the available books that focus on telling teachers how
to implement the approach and helps them understand why the approach
is beneficial, and this examination of why has become now a critical
aspect of teacher education and professional development programs, not
to mention practice in the schools.

References

Beckett, G. H. (1999). Project-based instruction in a Canadian secondary school’s
ESL classes: Goals and evaluations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Uni-
versity of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/
id/24487/ubc_1999-463176.pdf

Beckett, G. H. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruc-
tion. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 52–66. doi:https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.
v19i2.929

Beckett, G. H. (2005). Academic language and literacy socialization of second-
ary school Chinese immigrant students: Practices and perspectives. Journal of
Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1), 191–206. doi:10.1075/japc.15.1.12bec

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

Beckett, G. H., & Miller, P. C. (Eds.). (2006). Project-based second and foreign
language education: Past, present, and future. Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing, Inc.

Philosophical Foundation 19

Beckett, G. H., & 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

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2017, March). A synthesis of project-based language
learning: Research-based teaching ideas. Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) Convention. Seattle, USA.

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2018a). Project-based learning and technology. In
J. I. Liontas (Ed.). The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118784235

Beckett, G. H.,  & Slater, T. (2018b). Technology-integrated project-based lan-
guage learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguis-
tics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley  & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbe
al1487

Beckett, G. H., Hemmings, A., Maltbie, C., Wright, K., Sherman, M., & Sersion,
B. (2016). Urban high school student engagement through CincySTEM iTEST
projects. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 995–1007–13.
doi:10.1007/s10956–016–96406

Beckett, G. H., Hemmings, A., Maltbie, C., Wright, K., Sherman, M., Sersion,
B., & Jorgenson, S. (2015). An evaluation study of the CincySTEM iTEST pro-
jects: Experience, peer support, professional development, and sustainability.
Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 50(1), 3–17.

Berliner, D. C. (1992). Redesigning classroom activities for the future. Educational
Technology, 32(10), 7–13. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/44427630

Bikowski, D.,  & Casal, J. E. (2018). Interactive digital textbooks and engage-
ment: A  Learning strategies framework. Language Learning  & Technology,
22(1), 119–136. doi:10125/44584

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.

Brubacher, J. S. (1947). The history of the problems of education. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. London:
Cambridge University Press.

Candlin, C., Carter, G., Legutke, M., Semuda, V., & Hanson, S. (1988, March).
Experiential learning: Theory into practice. Paper presented at the 22nd
Annual TESOL Convention, Chicago, IL.

Chapelle, C.,  & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for Teaching with CALL: Practical
approaches to computer-assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson
Education.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New
York: Praeger.

Condliffe, B. (2016). Project-based learning: A literature review (White paper).
Lucas Education Research. Retrieved March  12, 2018 from https://s3-us-
west1.amazonaws.com/ler/MDRC+PBL+Literature+Review.pdf

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2013). Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning.
In M. R. Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated
views and perspectives (pp. 104–135). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cremin, L. A. (1964). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in Ameri-
can education 1876–1957. New York: Vintage Books.

20  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.

Deacon, A., Parkin, L., & Schneider, C. (2017). Looking beyond language skills:
Integrating digital skills into language teaching. In C. Alvarez-Mayo, A. Gal-
lagher-Brett, & F. Michel (Eds.), Innovative language teaching and learning at
university: Enhancing employability (pp. 137–144). Dublin, Ireland: Research-
publishing.net

Dewey, J. (2016/1926). Democracy and education: An introduction to the phi-
losophy of education. New York: The Macmillan Company

Dewey, J., & Dewey, E. (1915). Schools of to-morrow. London: J. M. Dent.
Dionne, H., & Horth, R. (1994). Challenges of literacy and development in rural

Quebec. In Alpha 94: Literacy and cultural development strategies in rural
areas. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000100004
Dooly, M.,  & Sadler, R. (2016). Becoming little scientists: Technologically
enhanced project-based language learning. Language Learning  & Technol-
ogy, 20(1), 54–78. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2016/
doolysadler.pdf
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity the-
ory reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
doi:10.1080/13639080020028747
Eyring, J. L. (1989). Teacher experience and student responses in ESL project
work instruction: A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of California, Los Angeles.
Eyring, J. L. (2001). Experiential language learning. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.),
Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 333–344). Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle Publications.
Foss, P., Carney, N., McDonald, K., & Rooks, H. (2014). Project-based learn-
ing activities for short-term intensive English programs. Asian EFL Journal.
Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/publication/255555131_Project-Based_
Learning_Activities_for_Short-Term_Intensive_English_Programs
Fried-Booth, D. L. (1986). Project work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fried-Booth, D. L. (2002). Project work (2nd. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gibbes, M. (2011). Project-based language learning: An activity theoretical per-
spective (Unpublished MPhil thesis). Trinity College, Dublin.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkley and Los Angles: Univer-
sity of California. USA.
Habók, A., & Nagy, J. (2016). In-service teachers’ perceptions of project-based
learning. SpringerPlus, 5(83). doi:10.1186/s40064-016-1725-4
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.).
London, UK: Arnold.
Holt, M. (1994). Dewey and the “cult of efficiency”: Competing ideologies in col-
laborative pedagogies of the 1920s. Journal of Advanced Composition, 14(I),
73–92.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–
335. Retrieved from www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 3606
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1925). Foundations of method: Informal talks on teaching.
New York: MacMillan.
Kraus, H. A. (2009). Generating depth and engagement: The development of a
project-based curriculum. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 4(1).

Philosophical Foundation 21

Lee, S. (2014). CALL-infused project-based learning: A case study of adult ESL
students learning prepositions (Unpublished MA thesis). Iowa State Univer-
sity. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=www.
google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=5181&context=etd

Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991/1999). Process and experience in the language
classroom. New York, NY: Longman.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch
(Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). New York: M.
E. Sharpe.

Lewin, C., & McNicol, S. (2015). The impact and potential of iTEC: Evidence
from large-scale validation in school classrooms. In F. van Assche, L. Anido-
Rifón, D. Griffiths, C. Lewin, & S. McNicol (Eds.), Re-engineering the uptake
of ICT in schools (pp. 163–186). London, UK: SpringerOpen.

Li, K. (2010). Project-based college English: An approach to teaching non-Eng-
lish majors. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 99–112.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual
introduction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Meyer, E., & Forester, L. A. (2015). Implementing student-produced video pro-
jects in language courses. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 48(2), 192–
210. doi:10.1111/tger.10195

Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Nishioka, H. (2016). Analyzing language development in a collaborative

digital storytelling project: Sociocultural perspectives. System, 62, 39–52.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.07.001
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and
language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicality and socialization. In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, &
G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human develop-
ment (pp. 287–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pierce, B. (1995). The theory of methodology in qualitative research. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 569–576. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3588075
Salpeter, J. (2005). Telling tales with technology. Technology and Learning,
25(7), 18–24.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986). Language socialization across cul-
tures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Slater, T., & Beckett, G. H. (2019). Integrating language, content, technology, and
skills development through project-based language learning: Blending frame-
works for successful unit planning. MEXTESOL Journal, 43(1). Retrieved
from www.mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=5557
Slater, T., Beckett, G. H., & Aufderhaar, C. (2006). Assessing project-based sec-
ond language and content learning. In G. H. Beckett  & P. C. Miller (Eds.),
Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future
(pp. 241–262). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Stoller, F. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning
in second and foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett & P. C. Miller (Eds.),
Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future
(pp. 19–40). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

22  Gulbahar H. Beckett et al.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Mad-
den (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253), Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.

Terrazas-Arellanes, F. E., Knox, C., & Walden, E. (2015). Pilot study on the fea-
sibility and indicator effects of collaborative online projects on science learning
for English learners. International Journal of Information and Communication
Technology Education, 11(4), 31–50. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2015100103

Thomas, M. (2017). Project-based language learning with technology: Learner
collaboration in an EFL classroom in Japan. Routledge Studies in Applied Lin-
guistics 1st Edition. New York, NY: Routledge.

van Assche, F., Anido-Rifón, L., Griffiths, D., Lewin, C.,  & McNicol, S.
(Eds.). (2015). Re-engineering the uptake of ICT in schools. London, UK:
SpringerOpen.

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). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MFT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development (M. Lopez-

Morillas, Trans.). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner,  & E. Souberman
(Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
(pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Windschitl, M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2016). Rigor and equity by design: Seek-
ing a core of practices for the science education community. In D. Gitomer &
C. Bell (Eds.), AERA handbook of research on teaching (5th ed, pp.  1099–
1158). Washington, DC: AERA Press.
Zachoval, F. (2011). The impact of implementing and interactive reading pro-
ject in the reading comprehension in the third semester Russian language
class (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin.
Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/12007
Zhao, J., & Beckett, G. H. (2014). Project-based Chinese as a foreign language
instruction: A  teacher research approach. Journal of the Chinese Language
Teachers Association, 49(2), 45–73.

2 Researching Project-Based
Learning

A Review and a Look Ahead at
Form and Function in Writing

Chiew Hong Ng, Yin Ling Cheung,
Weiyu Zhang, and Hari Jang

Introduction
The main objective of this chapter is to review existing studies on project-
based learning (PBL) as well as technology-infused project-based learning
(TIPBL) and teaching with a specific focus on how project work helps
students focus on learning language form and function (project-based
language learning, or PBLL) in writing lessons to inform writing instruc-
tion. PBL “promote[s] the simultaneous acquisition of language, content,
and skills” (Beckett & Slater, 2005, p. 108) and involves a combination
of complex communicative and language skills ranging from “receptive
skills (listening and reading) and productive skills (speaking and writing),
to processing skills (critical and creative thinking), usually in authentic
or simulated situations” (Foulger & Jimenez-Silva, 2007, p. 110). Stoller
(1997) sees PBL as fully integrating language and content learning viable
for a variety of instructional settings such as general English, English for
academic purposes (EAP), English for specific purposes (ESP), and Eng-
lish for occupational/vocational/professional purposes.

PBL studies encompass the use of traditional books, paper and pen as
well as technology-infused PBL (Beckett & Slater, 2018) which, accord-
ing to Donnelly (2005), supports learning in “improving student moti-
vation and engagement with tasks . . . [due to the interactive nature of
technology which creates] environments in which students can learn by
doing, receive feedback and continually refine their understanding and
build new knowledge” (p.  157). Technology-infused project-based lan-
guage learning can involve applications such as PowerPoint, WebQuests,
digital and video projects, learning platforms systems, computer-medi-
ated and web-based learning using text-based tools (e.g., wiki, blog,
forum, reflective journals), and social networking sites such as Twitter
and Facebook for writing instruction and research methodologies (e.g.,
Miyazoe & Anderson, 2010).

This study explores the challenges and key benefits of learning English
through PBL in the area of writing specifically because students engaging

24  Chiew Hong Ng et al.
in research for PBL need to present or reflect on both the product and
process through writing and/or orally (e.g., Beckett, 2005; Beckett  &
Slater, 2005; Lotherington, Holland, Sotoudeh, & Zentena, 2008; Ram-
irez, 2014). Given the specific focus on the writing aspect in PBL, in
terms of PBLL, the theories examined are drawn from these writing
approaches and theories: cognitive, social cognitive, and sociocultural.
This is because researchers and educators on PBL have investigated writ-
ing from multiple theoretical perspectives such as teaching correct refer-
encing, critical reading, and reasoning for academic writing in PBL (e.g.,
Ramachandran, 2004) and the process approach in writing (Li, 2013;
Ramirez, 2014; Tessema, 2005).

Teaching writing through projects entails drawing students’ attention
to form and function. According to Ellis (2016), form can refer to “lexi-
cal (both phonological and orthographic), grammatical, and pragmalin-
guistic features” (pp. 408–409). Focus on form can take the form of “a
set of techniques deployed in a communicative context by the teacher
and/or the learners to draw attention implicitly or explicitly . . . to lin-
guistic forms that are problematic for the learners” (p. 411). These tech-
niques may be pre-planned to address predetermined linguistic feature(s)
or incidental in teachers/peers responding to linguistic problems occur-
ring when learners are focused on meaning in production and reception.
In this chapter, focusing on form in writing also refers to using language
correctly, where language is a code of grammatical rules, and focus on
form as a recast is in terms of providing negative evidence about the rule
of the language code. Mohan and Beckett (2003) described this form-
based view as one where learners engage in “correction which is evidence
of progress  .  .  . since language development implies a movement from
learner error to correct language form” (p. 423). Researchers have high-
lighted how task-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) can
foster attention to linguistic form by looking at language-related episodes
defined as “any part of a dialogue where students talk about language
they are producing, question their language use, or other- or self-cor-
rect their language production” (Swain  & Lapkin, 2001, p.  104). For
instance, despite limited occurrence of overt focus on form in the study
on text chat writing by Adams, Nik Mohd Alwi, and Newton (2015), the
authors believe that learners are likely to attend to form in terms of lin-
guistic accuracy if pre-task language support is provided and the perfor-
mance of the task is guided. For focus on function in writing according to
Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) (Halliday, 1961, 1985), language is
a meaning-making tool where “all the units of a language—its clauses,
phrases and so on  .  .  .  [are] interpreted as functional with respect to
the whole” (Halliday, 1994, p. xiv), and students use the metalanguage
of grammar to talk about how meaning is constructed. The SFG model
builds on the idea of language use as functional with links to the pur-
poses for which humans use language in the many social contexts they

Researching Project-Based Learning 25
inhabit (Derewianka & Jones, 2010). McCrocklin and Slater (2017) see
SFG as “a theory of language that emphasizes how people use language
to construe their realities (the experiential or ideational), establish rela-
tionships (the interpersonal), and reflect the particular mode of commu-
nication being used (the textual)” (p.  84). Given that this chapter sets
out to review existing studies on project-based learning (PBL) as well as
technology-infused project-based teaching and learning, we have briefly
defined PBL and PBLL and elaborated on the concepts of language form
and function in writing based on the cognitive, social cognitive, and soci-
ocultural approaches.

There have been literature reviews on how PBL can facilitate the acqui-
sition of content knowledge, collaborative work skills, and academic dis-
course socialization with language learning (e.g., Kokotsaki, Menzies, &
Wiggins, 2016; Thomas, 2000). However, Kokotsaki et  al. (2016) did
not review writing and although Thomas (2000) highlighted a few stud-
ies pertaining to writing, those projects occurred before 2000 and were
not specifically related to form or function in writing.

Methodology
The current review looks at form and function in second and foreign
language writing using 60 research papers on PBL published in inter-
national journals, conference proceedings, and research reports over
15 years (2004–2018) as a way to ensure comprehensiveness. We decided
to analyze articles from this time span because, as Beckett, Slater, and
Mohan (2020, Chapter  1) indicated, PBLL publications were scarce
before 2004 and the including 2018 allowed us to include the most recent
work. We used the keyword search procedure to search the web and the
online library system of the National Institute of Education in Singapore
through databases such ProQuest, Education Source, and Directory of
Open Access Journals. The search criteria were as follows:

1. The article was published between 2004 and 2018.
2. The article has a word from Category A plus a word from Category

B or C in its title (e.g., project and academic writing, or project-based
learning and elementary students):
a. Project-based learning, project, technologically enhanced

projects
b. Writing, academic writing, grammar, form, function, language

learning, language teaching
c. Students, elementary, intermediate, tertiary, ESL, EFL

In the search process, we first identified 100 empirical studies on PBL
by reading the article abstracts. In the review process, we carefully

26  Chiew Hong Ng et al.
read through the theoretical and methodological descriptions in each
article to summarize the key ideas and then manually grouped them
in terms of elementary, secondary/intermediate, and tertiary partici-
pants. Forty were rejected because they were not related to writing,
or because the study was on learning the Chinese language. The final
60 publications were selected to fulfill the following criteria: (1) they
were related to language teaching in general or the learning and teach-
ing of writing for form and/or function with the objective of enhanc-
ing students’ writing, and (2) they pertained to the following three
research questions:
1. What are the key benefits and challenges of the project-based

approach to teaching and learning in ESL/EFL elementary, second-
ary, and tertiary education contexts with reference to language learn-
ing, writing, and the learning of form and function?
2. What are the theories and conceptual foundations that have guided
the existing research on PBL related to writing for a focus on form
and function?
3. What methodologies of empirical research have been used to study
technology-infused project-based language learning?

To answer the research questions, the data were coded at four levels
according to (1) the research context in terms of the learners’ grade
level; (2) theories and conceptual foundations guiding the research;
(3) the methodologies adopted by the studies; and (4) whether the PBL
approach was employed to improve the acquisition of form and/or
function. We developed a coding scheme and trialed it on 15 percent
of our data. The trial coding was done by the first and third author
independently and the inter-rater agreement rate was at 83  percent.
The coding scheme was then amended and finalized by discussions
between the two authors to resolve differences. The first author con-
tinued to code all the data according to the finalized scheme and the
coding was checked by the third author to ensure consistency and
reliability. Based on the salient themes identified through the coding,
the data were categorized and detailed analyses were conducted by
repeated reading of the studies to interpret the themes and relate them
to our research questions.

Findings
The findings are presented in terms of the three key research questions.
Each section begins with an overview of the key findings through a sum-
mary table prior to the discussion.

Researching Project-Based Learning 27

RQ1: Key Benefits and Challenges of Technology-Infused
Project-Based Learning to Teaching and Learning English
and Form and Function in ESL/EFL Contexts

To address research question 1, the 60 studies were grouped in terms of
(1) elementary and secondary (13; 21.7%) and (2) tertiary (47; 78.3%).
There were more studies for tertiary students than elementary and sec-
ondary, although over the past 10 years, there has been increasing inter-
est for the latter group of students. The discussion of findings regarding
the benefits and challenges in implementing and/or researching PBL will
be in terms of the two key groups: (1) ESL/EFL elementary and secondary
and (2) tertiary.

Key Benefits and Challenges in ESL/EFL Elementary
and Secondary Education Contexts

Researchers and educators that examine PBL in ESL/EFL elementary
and secondary education contexts have reported key benefits for writing
through PBL in diverse ways. Baş and Beyhan (2010) found significant
gains in academic achievement in English for fifth graders engaging in
PBL activities such as publishing information cards. Baş (2011) showed
ninth graders’ positive development in academic achievement levels in
English lessons after the students wrote up and presented a project.
Praba, Artini, and Ramendra (2018) discussed improvement in writing
test scores.

Some reports have described how PBL can benefit students in other
language skills. In the project-based inquiry by Spires, Hervey, Morris,
and Stelpflug (2012), eighth-grade students learned multimodal literacy
through reading, writing, and creating videos. Lotherington et al. (2008)
highlighted how three pre-school teachers taught students multilingual-
ism and multiliteracies through a story-writing project where parents
rewrote the same story to enable the incorporation of their home cultures
and languages while students rewrote the story through shared writing.
The reflections of 14 K–8 English classroom teachers in the study by
Foulger and Jimenez-Silva (2007) highlighted how learners could “work
at higher levels of thinking through authentic, project-based activities
that relied on writing” (p. 110). The multimedia software enabled draft-
ing, revising, editing, and elaboration of writing through the addition
of graphics, audio, and video. Children could learn the narrative genre
in Pim’s (2013) description of a successful cross-curricular story-writing
project for five- and six-year-old Turkish children.

As for studies focusing on form in writing specifically, Mak and
Coniam’s (2008) technology-infused PBL study revealed that three out of
four of the EFL secondary learners in Hong Kong, after using wikis, wrote

28  Chiew Hong Ng et al.
significantly more than the required 150 words that were expected. Stu-
dents made a large number of revisions in terms of adding ideas (57.65%
of 250 t-units), expanding ideas (16%), reorganizing ideas (17.6%), and
correcting errors (0.88%) in the writing process. Lund’s (2008) study
described how 31 high school Norwegian EFL students in a wiki writ-
ing project were engaged in collective content development, peer writ-
ing, and peer correction. In the collaborative research wiki project for
fourth- and fifth-grade students writing persuasive pieces, Boling, Castek,
Zawilinski, Barton, and Nierlich (2008) found the students motivated to
extensively revise and edit. Twelve children aged 9/10 who were engaged
in wiki-based collaborative writing made form/surface changes in terms
of spelling and punctuation in writing and video production (Pifarré &
Fisher, 2011). Chang and Schallert (2005) described a proposed system
for a constructivist English composition community consisting of a wiki
platform for peer-reviewing and Link Grammar for automatically check-
ing senior high school students’ papers. The project had the potential to
lead to an improvement in student writing as the Link Grammar function
could parse the draft for mechanical errors. The post-test results from
the content-based project for EFL by Korosidou and Griva (2013) indi-
cated significant improvement in all students’ writing skills as there was
a reduction in grammatical mistakes.

There are challenges involved with implementing technology-infused
PBL in terms of actual writing improvement in form and a negative per-
ception of PBL instruction among some students.

The sixth-grade Greek primary school students in the study of Fragou-
lis and Tsiplakides (2009) improved in listening and speaking (commu-
nicative competence) but less so for “knowledge of lexical items and of
rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics and phonol-
ogy . . . and sociocultural competence” (pp. 116–117), perhaps due to no
explicit focus on form during the PBL project. Similarly, the fifth-grade
students completing a collaborative writing wiki project in Woo, Chu,
Ho, and Li (2011) were mostly concerned about content (adding, reor-
ganizing, replacing, and elaborating on ideas) rather than form (syntax,
spelling, punctuation, and formatting). The teacher’s instruction focused
more on content than form as researching on the Internet involved select-
ing and evaluating copious information to extract main ideas for writing.

Ware and O’Dowd (2008) found that post-secondary students offered
feedback on form only when explicitly told to do so in their telecollabo-
rative project. Beckett (2005) reported how only 18 percent of the ESL
(grades 8–12) students in her study were positive regarding project-based
instruction as a literacy socialization activity with 57 percent being nega-
tive and 25 percent having mixed feelings.

This review of benefits highlights some challenges in synthesizing
research in form and function for writing for ESL/EFL elementary and
secondary students. The first challenge concerns the paucity of research

Researching Project-Based Learning 29
as the studies pertaining to this group constituted only 21.7 percent of
the 60 studies reviewed. Within the few studies, there was diversity in
terms of participants (pre-school, elementary, intermediate/secondary,
teachers) and areas of research focus, ranging from benefits in learning
English in general, learning of various language skills such as multimodal
literacy, to measurement of perceptions towards PBL. Another chal-
lenge is the lack of explicit focus on form and function. Even when the
researchers reported on gains in form in their analyses, such as changes
in the wiki entries for Mak and Coniam (2008) and the writing test for
Praba et al. (2018), there was no explicit teaching or instructions to focus
on form (see Fragoulis & Tsiplakides, 2009; Woo et al., 2011).

Key Benefits and Challenges in ESL/EFL
Tertiary Education Context
Firstly, five educators and researchers have highlighted benefits for the
ESL/EFL tertiary group as increased motivation in language learning
and learning to write through PBL. Tessema’s (2005) 45 advanced learn-
ers of second language writing found PBL highly motivating because of
“an authentic purpose for writing; collaboration with their peers; [and]
use of all four skills” (p. 27). Omar, Taib, and Basri (2012) reported on
how PBL language games built university students’ self-confidence in and
motivation for learning English. Marwan (2015) described the positive
effects of PBL action research on students involved in writing emails to
real-life audiences, videotaping conversations, and presentations. Mali
(2017) studied 30 EFL university students’ reflective notes to conclude
that they were generally positive towards PBL. However, though 62 per-
cent of Wang’s (2009) students believed that the PBL tasks helped them
learn English more efficiently and collaboratively, only 52  percent felt
motivated to learn English through PBL.

Secondly, the benefits of utilizing PBL for the acquisition of writing
skills have also been investigated in the context of holistic integrated lan-
guage learning, and six studies have looked at the acquisition of a range of
language skills. In a study by Beckett and Slater (2005), 79 percent of the
university students reported learning language, subject matter content,
and skills simultaneously. Foss, Carney, McDonald and Rooks (2009), in
offering descriptions of a Wikipedia Project, Newspaper Project, Small-
Groups Video Project, and Whole-Group Video Project, talked about
the learning of various language skills (such as writing and speaking).
Poonpon (2017) claimed that the interview data for 47 undergraduates
revealed that PBL helped students practice their reading, writing, and
speaking skills, while writing was enhanced through the preparation of
PowerPoint slides and scripts for their presentations. The perception sur-
vey by Miller, Hafner, and Ng (2012) revealed that 67 EAP university
students felt they had improved in these language skills: presentation

30  Chiew Hong Ng et al.
(73%), pronunciation (67%), grammar (43%), reading (44%), writing
(44%), and listening skills (51%). In Hsu (2014), 34 Taiwanese EFL col-
lege students who were engaged in a project-based course reported that
writing project diaries improved their reading and writing skills. Smith
and Thondhlana (2015) conducted a task analysis of the EAP group pro-
ject to conclude that the first-year Business undergraduates in their study
learned EAP skills and academic competencies such as collaborative writ-
ing and genres (academic report and minutes).

Thirdly, a number of PBL studies have investigated benefits in terms
of increased awareness or attention to form in writing. While completing
group project work, Thitivesa’s (2014) 38 university students did revi-
sions and scored better for form on their final piece of academic writing
in terms of mechanics (spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and para-
graphs) and usage (word order, verb tense, and subject-verb agreement)
in relation to sentence formation. Al-Rawahi and Al-Mekhlafi (2015), in
examining online collaborative PBLL for Intermediate Academic English,
discussed positive improvements in writing in terms of student recall and
application of the use of grammar as well as paragraph organization, the
writing of longer texts, and the use of a wider range of vocabulary. Kova-
lyova, Soboleva, and Kerimkulov (2016) found that students’ grammar
aspects of speaking and writing had improved in terms of using a variety
of speech models and structures through PBL. Grant (2017) reported
students’ attention to form in language output due to formative feed-
back on the appropriacy of language, grammatical form, and vocabulary
choice during PBL. In looking at four students’ drafts (process writing
approach) and questionnaire responses in implementing project work,
Ramirez (2014) reported on students’ heightened awareness of language
accuracy and improvements in structure, length, organization of ideas,
and speed for writing, although a lack of grammatical proficiency still
affected their compositions. Affandi and Sukyadi (2016) reported signifi-
cant differences between the pretest and the posttest results for students’
argumentative essays using the writing criteria by Heaton (1991) that
cover content, organization, language use, vocabulary, and mechanics.

A number of studies also reported on attention to form as benefits in
online writing projects such as blogs and wikis. To Sun (2010), the most
frequent blogging behavior of students was reviewing their blogs before
uploading, with the revisions being mostly form-related, addressing
problems in spelling, vocabulary, and grammar. Sun and Chang (2012)
found students using inquiry strategies to improve their accuracy in col-
location use in their writing of blogs. Baker and Ismail (2009) reported
that 96 percent of the students engaging in a group blogging project were
writing better in terms of using correct grammar (91%), writing longer
texts (68%), and using better organization (91%). In wiki-based writ-
ing, the demand for students to constantly review and revise each other’s
work appears to lead them to pay close attention to the formal aspects

Researching Project-Based Learning 31
of writing, such as grammar, lexical choice, and structural coherence
(Kuteeva, 2011; Lee & Wang, 2013). Self- and peer review and correc-
tion through the wiki process contributed to more accurate use of gram-
matical structures up to 94 percent of the time (Aydin & Yildiz, 2014).
In Li’s (2013) study, Chinese EFL students also edited in terms of addi-
tion, deletion, rephrasing, reordering, and correction. However, Kessler
(2009) reported that students did not focus on correctness of form in
editing their wikis.

The benefits in terms of function in writing pertain to the experiential,
the interpersonal, and textual meanings (McCrocklin & Slater, 2017). For
online group writing projects, Alyousef and Picard (2011) analyzed the
metadiscourse markers of six ESL students using Hyland and Tse (2004)
and Hyland’s (2005, 2010) metadiscourse analysis models. Students used
more engagement markers and self-mentions in wiki discussion pages
than in their final reports. They found varied use of interpersonal and
interactional metadiscourse features for informal wiki discussion pages
versus the final formal project report. Kuteeva (2011) observed students’
high use of linguistic markers for reader engagement in argumentative
texts published on a wiki, indicating students’ awareness that the rhetori-
cal function of argumentative texts (i.e., to persuade readers) is achieved
through linguistic form. The students’ gradual acquisition of style distinc-
tion in terms of more lexical density for blogs than for forums in Miya-
zoe and Anderson (2010) suggested that students noticed the functional
differences between the discourse of blogging (i.e., self-expression and
reflection) and that of the discussion forum (i.e., exchange of opinions).

Some researchers, however, reported challenges in terms of minimal
or no improvement in writing or focus on form through PBL. Despite
significant differences between project group and non-project group for
test scores, Ke (2010) found no difference in reading and writing because
“the project work emphasized ideas or content without much attention
to the choice of words, sentence patterns, length, and style” (p. 107). The
students of Elola and Oskoz (2010) also focused primarily on content and
organization followed by editing and grammar probably because they
felt it was inappropriate to discuss grammar as this “perceived criticism
might threaten the establishment of a good working relationship” (p. 62)
in collaborative writing through wikis and chats. In Mamakou and Gri-
goriadou’s (2010) e-project-based approach to ESP learning, 43 percent
of the students agreed that they acquired knowledge and skills in English
incidentally although the “students’ focus is off the language form and on
the language use” (p. 130).

Neal, Ho, Weihs, Hussain,  & Cinar (2011) reported a statistically
significant increase in marks for presentations but not for report writ-
ing in their communication skills project despite the teacher providing
feedback for both skills. Miller (2016) found that the language in uni-
versity students’ communications via their mediated devices was at times

32  Chiew Hong Ng et al.
less sophisticated and less grammatically accurate in contrast to their
formal video projects and scientific reports. The 38 scholars engaged
in collaborative web-based writing in Kessler, Bikowski, and Boggs’s
(2012) focused more on meaning than form. Form changes were made in
spelling, punctuation, and spacing while changes in grammatical errors
(such as plurals, pronouns, part of speech, and verb tense) occurred less
frequently.

In terms of challenges for the tertiary group, although there are a
number of studies looking at form and function in writing through PBL,
most of the educators and researchers have not set out to study which
aspects of form and function can be enhanced through PBL or PBLL.
When the researchers reported no improvement in writing or accuracy of
form, many of the projects were focusing on receptive, productive, and
processing skills rather than writing specifically (see Foulger & Jimenez-
Silva, 2007). Given that a focus on form entails highlighting the accuracy
of syntactic structures (Swain  & Lapkin, 2001), another key challenge
is the issue of the trade-off between the acquisition of myriad language
skills while trying to focus simultaneously on form and function in writ-
ing. It seems that students would focus on form less if they were con-
cerned about completing projects involving meaning negotiation tasks
(see Elola & Oskoz, 2010); Mamakou & Grigoriadou, 2010). This could
be that PBL being “open-ended . . . [inspires] greater linguistic creativ-
ity . . . [and] . . . with greater variation in language performance there is
a corresponding reduction in accuracy” (Swain & Lapkin, 2001, p. 111).

Another challenge is the sheer diversity of research focus as the stud-
ies ranged from reporting on attitudinal changes to PBL, to measuring
achievement in English in general, or to improvement in writing in gen-
eral, to the improvement in form or accuracy through PBL. There were
also very few studies dealing with function in writing or gains in both
form and function.

To summarize, for ESL/EFL elementary and secondary students, the key
benefits of PBL have been improving English learning in terms of gains
in academic achievement and test scores. In terms of teaching form and
function, only Baş’s (2011) study reported improvement in sentence struc-
turing. For ESL/EFL tertiary students, researchers have reported positive
effects in terms of motivation and enhancing writing by practicing the lan-
guage skills required for PBL such as writing for presentations. There are a
number of studies that have reported students’ attention to form and func-
tion as part of the results although the researchers had not set out to inves-
tigate this, which might also explain the paucity of research on function.

RQ2: Theories and Conceptual Foundations
Guiding Existing Research
Given the importance of theory in advancing the field in the area of
PBLL, the conceptual foundations for writing approaches and theories in

Researching Project-Based Learning 33
relation to the teaching of form and function in writing need to be defined
to contextualize the analysis of the 60 PBL studies. Leggette, Ruther-
ford, Dunsford, and Costello (2015) discussed how theoretical frame-
works that guided writing research and pedagogy started emerging only
in the 1980s. They identified three theories: (1) cognitive process theory
of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1981), (2) social cognitive theory (Flower,
1994) during the mid-1990s, and (3) sociocultural theory where learn-
ing is socially situated (Vygotsky, 1978). Social cognitive and sociocul-
tural theories are best achieved through collaboration with and dialogic
feedback from peers and teachers and which incorporates the “social,
historical, and political contexts of writing” (Prior, 2006, p. 54) or collab-
orative writing. When writing is taught using a form-focused approach,
the element of form is the “linguistic and rhetorical conventions of the
text” (Raimes, 1991, pp. 238–239). It is possible to see focus on form in
Hyland’s (2008) writing theories concerned with texts, where in texts as
the products/objects of writing, writing involves the application of rules
and “learning to become a good writer is largely a matter of knowing
grammar” (p. 2). However, the focus is on function if texts are viewed as
discourse, or when writers use language to communicate and to achieve
purposes in particular situations or goals and intentions through genres,
and teaching involves getting students to notice, reflect on, and then use
conventions to produce well-formed and appropriate genres (Hyland,
2008). The genre approach to writing has also been presented from a
systemic functional grammar perspective (Halliday, 1985, 1994).

To address the second research question regarding the theories and
conceptual foundations of form and function in writing that have guided
the existing research on PBL, the number of studies in relation to the dif-
ferent writing approaches and theories as well as form and function in
writing is summarized in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1  Theoretical concepts

Theoretical concepts Studies Form Function Both form Neither form
related related and function nor function
focused focused

Cognitive and social 11 61 1 3
cognitive theories 0 9
of writing; process 0 16
writing 
Sociocultural: 23 12 2
constructivist
approach;
collaborative
writing
PBL: conceptual 26 73
understanding and
implementation