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

184  J. Elliott Casal and Dawn Bikowski

Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure
of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research,
98(3), 184–192. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.3.184–192

Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C.
M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms
(pp. 45–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kessler, G.,  & Plakans, L. (2001). Incorporating ESOL learners’ feedback and
usability testing in instructor-developed CALL materials. TESOL Journal,
10(1), 15–20. doi:10.1002/j.1949–3533.2001.tb00012.s

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W.,  & Soloway, E. (1994). A  collab-
orative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based
instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483–497.

Lam, P., Lam, S., Lam, J., & McNaught, C. (2009). Usability and usefulness of
eBooks on PPCs: How students’ opinions vary over time. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 25(1), 30–44. doi:10.14742/ajet.1179

Lim, C., Song, H., & Lee, Y. (2012). Improving the usability of the user inter-
face for a digital textbook platform for elementary-school students. Educa-
tional Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 159–173. doi:10.1007/
s11423-011-9222-5

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis:
A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The New Media Consortium. (2017). Horizon report: 2017 higher education
edition. Retrieved from www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2017-
higher-education-edition/

Norton Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31. doi:10.2307/3587803

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.

Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communica-
tion. Language Learning  & Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10125/25200

Thorne, S. L. (2016). Cultures-of-use and morphologies of communicative
action. Language Learning  & Technology, 20(2), 185–191. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10125/44473

10 The Knowledge Framework

An Organizational Tool for
Highlighting the “LL” in
Technology-Integrated PBLL

Tammy Slater

Introduction
As discussed in the introduction to this volume, project-based lan-
guage learning (PBLL) grew from project-based learning, a more gen-
eral approach to education reflecting John Dewey’s experiential learning
philosophy as well as frameworks that reflect social constructivist learn-
ing theories. While acknowledging the critical role language plays in a
project-based learning approach, most advocates of the approach have
focused on the benefits offered through its naturalistic “authentic” con-
text that offers language learning alongside content and skills. Such an
approach, Stoller (2006) stated, encourages students, under the direction
of teachers, to become active agents in their learning of content and their
development of the skills and language needed to complete their projects
successfully. Projects, in the eyes of Habók and Nagy (2016), should
revolve around students’ choices and self-motivation, and provide the
impetus for problem-solving, cooperation, and autonomous learning. Yet
although Alan and Stoller (2005) suggested that PBLL can focus on form
purposefully, much of the literature on PBLL has described language
learning more as incidental due to the nature and goals of project-based
learning itself.

Such implicit development of language has been identified as prob-
lematic by many English language learners involved in past research on
PBLL. As discussed in this book’s introduction, research has noted—and
continues to note—that students struggle to see how they are learning
language through their participation in project-based learning. Research-
ers such as Eyring (1989), Beckett (1999), Gibbes (2011), Li (2010), and
Tang (2012) have all commented that students in their studies, despite
positive participation in the project-based approach and improvement
documented in various areas of language development by their instruc-
tors, found it difficult to view PBLL as an effective way to study language.
Beckett and Slater (2005) attempted to address this issue by introducing
the Project Framework, a tool that allowed students to keep track of the
types of learning they were doing, including the learning of language

186  Tammy Slater
related to their projects. Despite being well received by the students who
used the Project Framework, the student-centeredness of the approach
offered almost no systematic advice for instructors to teach language that
all students doing their various projects would find useful both for the
types of activities they were currently engaged in and those inside and
outside of the classrooms in the future. Such a framework that teaches
language that is generalizable across content areas is needed to ensure the
“LL” in PBLL is explicit and noticeable by the English language learners.
This chapter takes a qualitative approach to arguing in favor of a frame-
work for technology-integrated PBLL that aims to do just that.

This chapter first describes the context that inspired the current discus-
sion, presenting interview data from students in two sections of a tech-
nology-integrated, project-based intensive English exit program that was
offered through the Intensive English Program (IEP) of a large midwest-
ern university. The chapter then describes Mohan’s (1986) Knowledge
Framework, a heuristic that can be used to integrate language and con-
tent in teaching language across curricular areas. Data from documents
and classroom visits is then used to illustrate how the framework can be
used to address the key issue that arose from the interviews: the issue of
identifying explicit language teaching and learning.

The Context, the Data, and the Ongoing Question
of Language Learning
The technology-integrated, project-based intensive English exit program
in the 2016–2017 academic year consisted of three courses: Orientation
to American Higher Education (Orientation), Academic Skills Course
(Skills), and Technology for American Higher Education (Technology).
The latter two courses were taught by the same instructor for both semes-
ters of this study; the Orientation course had one instructor for the fall
and a different one for the spring. All four instructors were experienced
English language teachers with graduate-level educations. All were famil-
iar with project-based language learning, yet none had been trained in
the use of Mohan’s KF. There were 10 students in the fall semester and
11 in the spring, and all students agreed to be interviewed for this study.

The three courses were strongly connected. As part of the Skills course,
students participated in two existing mainstream courses at the univer-
sity, one in political science for the first eight weeks and the other in envi-
ronmental science for the final eight weeks. These two courses provided
focal content for many aspects of all three IEP courses, as the Skills course
used these to help students hone their note-taking skills, write academic
papers, do presentations about what they were studying in those courses,
and practice (with the goal of improving) their listening skills. The Ori-
entation course connected with this by, for example, focusing on ways to
interact successfully with university faculty and staff (including students’

The Knowledge Framework 187
prospective advisors and the mainstream course instructors) as well as
classmates, both orally and through email correspondence. This course
also honed students’ ability to participate in mainstream classes and to
integrate information from multiple sources and cite them appropriately.
The Technology course taught students how to use various technologi-
cal affordances for academic purposes, such as for finding information
online, using PowerPoint or Prezi, and employing online grammar check-
ers, using assignments also related to the mainstream classes that the stu-
dents participated in. All IEP instructors worked together to ensure that
the strong connections were complementary rather than overlapping.

There were multiple types of qualitative data collected to gain a sense
of the teaching and learning that occurred. First, relevant documents
(e.g., course syllabuses, student essays) were collected to see both what
the courses intended to do and examples of the students’ attempts at
these course assignments. Second, 10 randomly selected class meetings
were attended by the researcher, audio-recorded, with field notes taken.
Transcriptions of these classes along with the notes allowed for a closer
look at the types of language being presented and/or modeled in the
classes. Finally, interviews with the 21 students were done both indi-
vidually and in groups. These semi-structured interviews, done at the
end of each semester, attempted to probe students’ understandings of
what they had learned through the project-based program and what their
perceptions were of their own progress. All students were asked the same
core questions that aimed to ascertain their understandings of how these
courses benefitted them; follow-up questions based on student responses
were also recorded and examined. The main goal was to see whether the
students felt that doing the coordinated projects helped them improve
their academic English and whether they could offer concrete examples
of their learning of the four primary aspects of technology-integrated
project-based learning: technology, skills, content knowledge, and lan-
guage. As the interviews help to establish the rationale for implement-
ing a new language-focused framework, they will be addressed in this
section.

The interviews revealed that all 21 students were pleased with the three
courses they had taken and felt that they had learned a lot from them.
They were happy to have been introduced to technology such as Endnote
for organizing their citations, Google Scholar for searching the literature,
Google Docs for sharing, Turnitin to check for unintended plagiarism,
PowerPoint and Prezi for presenting, and even video-recording devices
for helping them reflect on and improve their presentation skills. Students
commented frequently on the various skills they had honed through the
program, such as managing their time, making presentations, note-taking
and listening, participating in class discussions, interacting with students
and professors in and out of class, and writing. On the topic of skills, one
student exclaimed, “I’m faster at writing better. . . . It takes me less time

188  Tammy Slater
to read nowadays.” A  further examination of the transcripts revealed
that students frequently connected skills and technology for salient learn-
ing opportunities. For example, one student, talking about his view of
some of the most important learning that took place through the pro-
gram, said, “We learned to make a successful PowerPoint, and with this
PowerPoint to  .  .  . make a presentation.” In fact, students in general
heralded the use of PowerPoint in helping them make their presenta-
tions better, articulating clearly that there were associated skills involved,
such as making sure their ideas were organized, ensuring their slides were
pleasing, making eye contact with the audience, being able to “hook” the
audience, and using a “good voice” (i.e., speaking clearly and loudly).
A second example of this blending was students connecting their learning
of the online discussion platform with skills such as reading, note-taking,
doing online searches for research on their chosen topic, critically reflect-
ing on issues related to the topic, and responding appropriately to other
students and the instructors through the online discussion format.

Students’ comments reflected the great variety in the content they felt they
learned through the program. As they stated, content learning frequently
revolved around the political and environmental science mainstream
courses in which they participated: “We learned about the U.S. Govern-
ment . . . and a lot about political science. The federal system. The health
system.” But students also acknowledged that they learned about APA cita-
tions, plagiarism, and what information to expect on a course syllabus.
They learned a lot about the university and its majors and what would be
expected of them as mainstream students. As one student exclaimed to the
agreement of the others in his interview group, “But the most important
thing for me is that I learned about what university life looks like.”

Yet one would expect from courses in an intensive English program
that language would be identifiable in what the students felt they were
learning. But when asked about language learning, students laughingly
agreed they were learning English, but they struggled to find examples.
This is especially surprising when several learning outcomes in the three
courses were concerned with students obtaining 80 percent proficiency in
academic written and spoken sentence structure and discourse organiza-
tion. Most interview responses that addressed language learning were
about specific vocabulary that was tied to their two mainstream univer-
sity courses. As one student claimed, “In one class I  learned so many
words about the topics of the classes. Like in biology” (the class on envi-
ronmental science). This vocabulary focus was not surprising given that
the academic skills class offered a list of words that students needed to
understand before attending the mainstream classes. Another student
commented, “We get lots of new vocabulary. We have to practice it for
ourselves because we have tests on political studies.”

Aside from vocabulary, students acknowledged that their courses were
helping them to use “more formal words” to write essays, and that they

The Knowledge Framework 189
were given some practice blending sentences using cohesive adverbials,
that they should not use “I” in academic papers, and that the passive is
more common in written academic discourse than in other registers. In
general, the transcripts suggested that other than vocabulary and these
surface-level aspects of language use, students did not see any explicit
language teaching in the program. Supporting this finding, one student
highlighted the implicitness of language learning in his experience of the
program’s project-based language learning approach by saying, “We
don’t have specific learning language here. It’s like self-study. You pace
yourself. Like personal study. The teacher doesn’t give you language to
learn.” Another student was pleased to connect technology with lan-
guage learning by suggesting that Criterion was useful for understanding
“how to fix grammar . . . without bothering teachers.”

It was clear from the interviews that the students enjoyed the technology-
focused project-based language learning approach that the exit program
provided, and their enthusiasm for what they had studied and felt they
learned was evident. What was equally clear from these interviews, how-
ever, is that the explicit teaching and learning of language was buried
under the learning of technology, (non-language) content, and skills that
were part of the goals of the program. Yet given that students were study-
ing in an intensive English program, it seems surprising that they had
such difficulty identifying explicit language learning or teaching, despite
the obvious language learning that must have taken place to allow stu-
dents to meet the objectives of the program. While the overall success of
the program guarantees its continuation, bringing intentional language
teaching into the curriculum in a way that does not distract from the
learning opportunities the students have heralded should add positively
to the learning outcomes of the courses and validate the inclusion of
PBLL in an intensive English program. Such intentional teaching oppor-
tunities may help to nullify the students’ confusion about what language
they were (or were not) being taught and address the continued criticism
that past students have made about PBLL’s lack of focus on language.
What is needed to provide such intentional teaching is a framework that
teachers can use to help students see how language functions to do things
across content areas. How might the implicitness of language in project-
based language learning be changed so that students understand and can
articulate how the language they are learning relates directly to the vari-
ous skills and technology (and content) they are also learning? Mohan’s
knowledge framework (Mohan, 1986) offers such a framework that can
address this question.

Mohan’s Knowledge Framework (KF)
At its most basic, the KF can be described as a heuristic that teachers
can employ to ensure they are teaching the language that constructs the

190  Tammy Slater
basic knowledge students need to understand and produce academic lan-
guage. As Cummins and Early (2015) stated, simply put the KF “serves
as a tool to think explicitly about how to link content and language”
(p. 40). It provides organization that can help plan any activity, which
Mohan (1986) defines as involving “a combination of action and theo-
retical understanding” (p. 42). This action and theoretical understanding
can be thought of as the connection between students “doing” the edu-
cational tasks and “knowing” (or learning to know) the language and
content that they need to accomplish them successfully. Thus the KF is
a theoretical framework that relates an activity to its discourse, showing
how language builds “structures of knowledge” (Mohan, 1986, p. vi).
The linguistic features of these knowledge structures can be taught to
students in context to help them learn more varied ways of talking or
writing about whatever content they are working with; in other words,
Mohan’s work offers a framework that instructors can use to teach lan-
guage that students can “generalize from one activity to another” (p. vi).
One way to understand this is to note that classification (or any other
knowledge structure) is the same process no matter the content, and
therefore the same bank of language features can be used to classify. The
KF, Mohan says, can be used to teach language across activities because
it “simply picks out the knowledge structures common to all these activi-
ties (1986, p. 46).

The KF consists of six boxes that form three pairs of theory/practice
knowledge structures that have associated thinking skills, key visuals,
and characteristic language, as Table  10.1 shows. A  focus on teaching
the language of these knowledge structures becomes language teaching
that is useful across all educational activities. By using the KF both for
explicit language teaching within a unit as well as for planning units
that revolve around the use of various knowledge structures, teachers can
help students learn new and better ways to construct their knowledge of
a topic rather than leaving them to use “what they already know, focus-
ing only on vocabulary or random grammar exercises, or simply leaving
the language-learning process up to incidental acquisition and adding to
students’ confusion about how the project assists them in their language
development” (Slater & Beckett, 2019, p. 4).

The approach that the KF offers has historically been used to integrate
language and content in primarily K–12 contexts where English language
learners needed to learn both language and content to succeed in their
education. An assortment of representative literature will be described
here to establish its potential for PBLL. Early, Mohan, and Hooper
(1988) explored the inaugural use of the KF with over 100 educators
in eight elementary (kindergarten to seventh grade) and four secondary
(eighth to twelfth grade) schools with both ESL and mainstream students
in Western Canada. Their research provided evidence that the use of the
KF helped teachers design tasks that led students to think critically and

Table 10.1  The knowledge structures, thinking skills, and example language of
Mohan’s KF

CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES EVALUATION
Classify; Group; Sort;
Explain; Predict; Evaluate; Rank;
Define; Establish part/ Draw conclusions; Judge; Criticize
whole Apply rules, causes,
effects, means, ends; Grids; rating charts;
Trees; webs; tables Formulate, test, and evaluation charts
General reference establish hypotheses;
Relational verbs (e.g., be, Interpret data General reference
Thinking verbs (e.g.,
have) Cycles; line graphs;
Additive conjunction cause/effect chains; believe, think, value,
problem/solution consider, rank,
(e.g., and) branches judge)
Taxonomic, part/whole Comparative
General reference conjunction (e.g.,
lexis (e.g., nouns: Action verbs likewise, however,
types, classes, kinds, Consequential while)
categories, ways; verbs: Evaluative lexis (e.g.,
classify, sort, group, conjunction and nouns: best, worst;
organize, categorize, adverbials (e.g., since, adjectives: good,
divide, comprise) due to, in order to, bad, right, wrong,
Passives (e.g., are consequently, because, boring, acceptable;
classified, are grouped) thus, if-clauses) verbs: rank,
Cause-effect lexis (e.g., approve, value, like)
nouns: cause, effect,
result; verbs: cause
produce, bring about)
Passives + agency (e.g.,
is cause by, are
produced by)

Identify; Label; Describe; Arrange events in order; Select; Make
Compare; Contrast; Note changes over decisions; Propose
Locate time; Show processes; alternatives; Solve
Follow directions problems; Form
Pictures; maps; diagrams, opinions
Venn diagrams; Timelines; action strips;
drawings; pie charts; flowcharts Decision/consequence
same/different charts trees; generating
Specific reference alternatives/
General or specific reference Action verbs decisions charts
Relational verbs (e.g., be, Temporal conjunction
Specific reference
have) and adverbials Sensing verbs
Existential verbs (e.g., after, since,
as, initially, firstly, (e.g., like, want)
(e.g., there is/are) finally, when-clauses, Alternative
Additive conjunction as-clauses)
Sequential lexis (e.g., conjunction (e.g.,
(e.g., and) nouns: beginning, or)
Attributive lexis end; verbs: start, Appositional choice
conclude, continue, lexis (e.g., nouns:
(e.g., adjectives of color summarize) choice, option,
and size) which + noun;
Language of comparison verbs: choose, opt,
and contrast (e.g., the select, prefer)
same as, similar to,
different from) SEQUENCE CHOICE
DESCRIPTION

192  Tammy Slater
produce the language of the knowledge structures, and that it provided
room for individual variation in how students accomplished this across
curricular areas. Early (1990) described a lesson for fourth- and fifth-
grade ESL students on classifying animals in which the teacher engaged
the students in a discussion about the information in a classification
tree. From this discussion, the participants together co-developed a large
bank of various ways to construct all the relationships and concepts they
found in the key visual. Early argued that doing this offered students the
chance to focus on various but similar linguistic forms in context, rather
than teaching isolated forms, and so through the discussion the students
learned scientific wording and meaning. A similar discussion task with a
fish-labeling visual helped teach the students different language resources
they could use to describe. Early concluded that through the use of the
KF, “teachers can integrate ‘good’ language teaching with ‘good’ con-
tent teaching” and avoid “trivial, isolated language exercises” (p. 574).
Similarly, Early and Tang (1991) suggested that the use of key visuals
that represent knowledge structures (e.g., classification trees to build
the language of classification) by teachers who highlight the language of
these knowledge structures can increase ESL students’ ability to read high
school texts and to write academic discourse.

Tang (1991) used a pretest-posttest nonequivalent-control group quasi-
experimental design to examine diagrams that students created from sec-
tions of sixth-grade textbooks, and how the students used these diagrams
to recall the information from the texts. Students in the experimental
group were taught how to determine the knowledge structure from the
reading materials as well as taught the language of the knowledge struc-
ture; those in the control group explored the same texts using a more
traditional oral question-and-answer format. Tang’s findings showed
that the experimental group outperformed the control group in both
the amount of information retained and the organization of their recall
texts. Similarly, Tang (1997) examined the use of the KF in a seventh-
grade Canadian ESL social studies class, focusing on the connections
between authentic texts, teacher-created key visuals based on knowledge
structures, and student-made key visuals. She concluded that students
need explicit teaching along with practice to read and write academic
discourse.

Tang (2001) offered descriptions of two contexts in which the KF was
the organizing tool for teaching language and content: a seventh-grade
social studies class and a beginner ESL science course in a high school.
In both contexts, the teachers engaged students in explicit discussions
of the language of knowledge structures, text organization, cohesion in
discourse, and how knowledge structures, key visuals, and language con-
nected within the discourse of their respective content areas. The teachers
also engaged students in tasks that involved using key visuals to construct

The Knowledge Framework 193
text (writing) and using texts to construct key visuals (reading). By draw-
ing students’ attention to the linguistic characteristics of the knowledge
structures, and by teaching new language for these knowledge structures,
the two teachers used the KF in very similar ways to teach very different
content. Mirroring findings similar to Early and Tang, Huang and Mor-
gan (2003) focused on the knowledge structure of classification in science
being taught to ESL students aged 14 to 17. As with the previous research
on the use of the KF, their findings illustrated how a focus on language in
context helped students develop the relevant discourse (i.e., language) as
well as the relevant concepts (i.e., content).

The use of the KF has interested a number of researchers throughout
North American to examine how language is used in a variety of educa-
tional content areas such as science (Huang & Morgan, 2003; Mohan &
Slater, 2005, 2006; Slater & Mohan, 2010), mathematics (Huang & Nor-
mandia, 2007, 2008), foreign language instruction (Mohan  & Huang,
2002), and physical education (Slater  & Butler, 2015). Although most
of this work has been in K–12 contexts, Mohan (1986) used community
education materials on automobile insurance to illustrate how the KF can
be applied to any content area to help develop language through a focus
on individual knowledge structures. There has also been work on writing
instruction in higher education (Ma & Slater, 2015, 2016), and further
work on the use of the KF in higher education is currently in review for
an upcoming publication (Slater, in press).

This short review of research on the KF is far from comprehensive, but
a somewhat larger review by Slater and Gleason (2011) highlighted three
key points that arose through the literature that was reflected: Mohan’s
six knowledge structures appear across all areas of the curriculum in
texts, content, and activities; taking a KF approach allows teachers to
explicitly focus on the language of the knowledge structures which in
turn allows for language development in context; and using key visuals
that represent the knowledge structures can also help students see the
patterns of language in texts.

In sum, Mohan (1986) claimed that language, as communication, is the
medium through which content is presented and learned (and assessed),
and that content provides a context for using language so that language
is not taught in isolation. Mohan also stated that “language learning
in the language classroom can further the goals of content teaching by
offering learners help with the language of the thinking processes and
the structure or shape of content” (1986, p. 18, original emphasis). It is
this thought that motivates the use of the KF in technology-integrated
project-based language learning because it brings explicit language teach-
ing back into an intensive English program without detracting from the
focus on content, skills, and technology that students in the current study
praised.

194  Tammy Slater
Tying the Language Aspect of the KF to the
IEP’s Exit Program Activities
Planning project-based instructional units that teach content, language,
skills, and technology in an integrated way was the focus of Slater and
Beckett (2019). The article described a KF-based unit that aimed to help
students apply for an American university graduate program (content)
while simultaneously honing their academic language through knowledge
structures (language), developing the skills they would need to succeed
(e.g., note-taking, speaking, scanning and reading, listening, and writ-
ing), and familiarizing them with much of the technology that they would
need in their chosen programs. The authors advocated blending the KF
and technology with the key concepts of Beckett and Slater’s (2005) Pro-
ject Framework, which brings to the students’ attention the various com-
ponents (content, language, skills learning) of whatever topic chosen for
the project. Including a project diary and having students reflect on their
goals for their projects further help learners see the role that language
plays in PBLL as an educational activity.

For the IEP exit program that was the focus of this study, no KF-based
unit plans were developed. But given that doing a project for school is
an educational activity, and that the KF represents a linguistic model of
an activity (Mohan, 1986), it can be argued that guiding students to do
a course project is guiding them to do an activity, and thus the KF is a
useful tool to organize relevant instructional unit(s) as was done in Slater
and Beckett (2019). Moreover, because the KF is a linguistic model,
instructors can use it to organize and build explicit language teaching
into the unit(s) that can help students develop their linguistic resources
for use across curricular areas, and this is the topic of this section of the
chapter. In fact, there was evidence that these six knowledge structures
were appearing throughout the courses, yet only in a limited way—defin-
ing vocabulary—were they singled out for further linguistic development.
This section will describe selected examples of discussions, tasks, and
learning objectives taken from the data, show how these fit into related
pairs of knowledge structures, and offer suggestions for what instruc-
tors could do to focus—in context—on the linguistic forms that these
knowledge structures can take. In other words, the following discussions
of knowledge structures will offer suggestions as to how the language
in the exit program can be made explicit for the students, as they had
no problem acknowledging the other elements of technology-integrated,
project-based language learning.

Classification/Description
These knowledge structures, and particularly Classification, appeared
regularly and frequently throughout the classroom discourse, tasks, and

The Knowledge Framework 195
learning objectives. For example, there were several instances of tasks in
which students were asked to brainstorm or suggest various examples of
a concept, such as types of attention-getters that can be used in a pres-
entation. The questions the instructors ask naturally use the language
of classification (“what types of attention-getters?”), but the language
that is useful across various topics will probably not occur in the short,
phrasal responses of the students, which will likely be examples of atten-
tion-getters. The oral task, though, offers a great segue into capturing
students’ ability to use classification language. Using the example given
on attention-getters, once these are elicited, the teacher can work with
the students to group their responses in logical ways, and then bring
their attention to the ways that language is used to show such groupings.
Once a bank of linguistic resources are gathered, she can offer a short
lesson about any new resources that are missing from the bank and then
perhaps have students put their responses into writing using classification
language that may be new to them.

Another key area of classification is the thinking skill of defining. As
one student mentioned in an interview, there were word lists that students
were responsible for learning, and one learning outcome was to demon-
strate an understanding of discipline-specific vocabulary. This requires
being able to define. In the classroom, the teacher modeled definitions,
such as when she said, “We need to differentiate your topics. That means
make them different.” On another occasion, she asked, “What is the defi-
nition of plagiarism?” But it would be cross-topic language teaching to
bring the topic of defining to the forefront and talk with students about
the language of defining and how it can differ depending on whether
one is defining something oneself, as with the lists of disciplinary words
(e.g., differentiate means to make something different), or whether one
is attributing a definition to another source (e.g., Smith defines ‘differ-
entiate’ as meaning to make something different). Such a discussion can
show how linguistic form reflects function in the context of the students’
individual projects, connecting the latter example of a definition very
closely to the topic of plagiarism, which was a common topic throughout
the three courses.

A further discussion can focus on texts that define through examples,
and the realm of different resources that writers can use to respond to a
question such as the one posed in the technology course by one instruc-
tor: “What are ‘credible’ sources?” Such a question in the context of
the PBLL work happening in this IEP exit program offers a multitude of
opportunities. The question offers practice in critical thinking skills, con-
tent development, and reflection on technological affordances. But it also
demands a sophisticated use of language to go beyond listing examples,
which means that it offers the language instructor a wonderful opportu-
nity to again discuss the various resources that can blend definitions with
the listing of examples.

196  Tammy Slater
Similar variations in linguistic form can be seen within the knowledge

structure of description, and opportunities arise anytime a new website
is presented. On several occasions, the teacher drew students’ attention
to the different aspects of particular websites, such as saying what affor-
dances were listed on the right and at the top and so on. Being able to
focus on the many different linguistic forms that can be used to describe
what these images look like and where they are on the site can be very
useful for students’ later writing, when they may have to describe images
or charts in their written reports. Students may have an understanding
of these differences depending on their current levels of English, but
some may lack the linguistic resources to choose appropriate or varied
academic wordings for their purpose or function. Thus the first step in
developing new language is to elicit what students already know by creat-
ing a bank of ideas that include the students’ ideas as well as new ones
that the instructor can offer. It should be reinforced that these linguistic
choices go beyond particular content areas and instead reflect structures
of knowledge rather than disciplinary vocabulary.

Principles/Sequence
There were many instances of sequence in context through the classroom
discourse, tasks, and assignments. Instructions for how to use technology
used the language of sequence. Task instructions used sequence language.
One course objective was to ensure that students understand directions
given in class, and these use the language of sequence. Any of these
opportunities offer the chance to discuss the various linguistic resources
that can be used to sequence any topic, and there are many beyond cohe-
sive adverbials. Even more important in a discussion of sequence is how
the language can reflect true and real sequences, such as how to follow
directions, and how it can be used expertly to put forth an argument in
text. Eliciting students’ understandings about how linguistic form con-
nects to these types of functions, and suggesting new sequence language
for them to use, is teaching language structure in context, especially when
tasks are assigned that help students use the new language to talk about
topics that are important to them.

Strongly connected to this idea of sequence is the idea of coherence
in writing. Many studies have noted that ESL students experience par-
ticular trouble organizing their essays in a way that moves the argument
along well (e.g., Alonso & McCabe, 2003; Hyland, 2004; Jing, 2015),
and the final essays written by these IEP exit students do not dispute that
finding in that coherence was one of the biggest issues in their writing.
Teaching students the basics of thematic progression (e.g., Danes, 1974;
Halliday, 2014; Jing, 2015) focuses on the language of sequence in very
subtle ways that uses both cohesive devices (e.g., reference, synonymy,

The Knowledge Framework 197
repetition, and so on) and the language that is at the beginning of the
clause (theme) versus what is later in the clause (rheme). Helping s­ tudents
identify these in texts and analyzing their own texts in similar ways can
help improve their writing (Wang, 2007). Teaching this type of language
organization both uses the language of sequence in the instructions and
helps students learn how to connect sentences throughout the text, which
offers them a much more subtle and expert use of the knowledge struc-
ture of sequence.

With regards to principles, there were various examples of language
use through the tasks and objectives in the IEP courses. A simple example
that could promote a conversation about one thinking skill within this
knowledge structure, rules, was evident in a technology class activity that
listed the dos and don’ts of making a presentation. The content is the
rules of making presentations, but how does the language differ when
these rules are spoken? Or written as a list? Or embedded in a longer
text? Or if the content is changed from making presentations? These
types of questions can succeed in promoting a deeper understanding of
what linguistic form is doing, and is thus language teaching.

One of the most important academic thinking skills within the knowl-
edge structure of principles is the one that constructs cause and effect.
The question “why” demands a response that involves the language of
causality, explicitly (but not requiring) “because.” There has been some
useful research surrounding causal discourse that can inform the teach-
ing of ESL students from a linguistic perspective. Mohan and Beckett
(2003) examined ESL students’ causal explanations to show how the
teacher scaffolded students into more academic ways of constructing
meaning, illustrating the role that knowledge structures play between
language learning and content learning. Slater and Mohan (2010) used
ethnographic oral data in four contexts of content-based language
learning to hypothesize a developmental path of cause that offers a use-
ful guide to helping students learn to construct more academic causal
discourse. This study found that words such as “so” and “because”
were used more frequently by younger and lower-level English speakers,
whereas older and more proficient speakers had a much larger bank of
resources to draw from. Although their framework resulted from oral
interactions, Ma and Slater (2015) later used the developmental path
in a comparison of Criterion scores and writing teacher evaluations,
revealing value in Slater and Mohan’s work for examining and assess-
ing written causal discourse. In helping the IEP students meet stated
learning objectives such as synthesizing content and demonstrating an
understanding of discipline-specific reading materials in writing and
speaking, teachers could introduce the developmental path of cause to
hone students’ ability to construct more sophisticated causal texts, both
in speech and writing.

198  Tammy Slater
Evaluation/Choice
Choice is an integral part of working in academic contexts. Students
choose topics to write about or present, then choose the sources they
want to use to support their papers and presentations. But dwelling on
the language of choice is not something that is typically done outside of
language classes, so what can teachers do to help their students express
their wants, needs, and choices? Some of the learning outcomes involve
working within the language of choice, although not so much the stu-
dents’ choices but wordings that cause their interlocuters to make choices
that impact them. To clarify, sending emails to students’ potential advi-
sors, especially to request an appointment, would need to use this type
of choice language, yet although students in their interviews referred to
emailing people as a skill, it is very much a linguistic skill that is needed;
the language choice can vary depending on who they are addressing and
what demands they may be making. Bringing these concepts to the stu-
dents’ attention and introducing various linguistic resources to use in
these contexts is language teaching.

Evaluation played a much larger role than choice in the activities of
the IEP exit students. They were asked to judge whether sentences were
plagiarized, evaluate their sources, and reflect on their own and oth-
ers’ work. Even the previously mentioned question “What are ‘credible’
sources?” demands evaluation. Probably the best opportunity to discuss
the language of evaluation, though, was the video-recordings of the stu-
dents’ presentations, which was carried out precisely to self-evaluate and
isolate areas that could be improved. With such a task, students can be
involved with creating a rubric. During this process, the teacher can elicit
the types of language that would be useful and appropriate for evaluating
peers and themselves and contrast this language with other evaluation
that may not be as appropriate, and why certain choices are better than
others. This can later be expanded on when summarizing literature for
their term papers so that students can see the differences between the
kinds of linguistic resources they can use to judge themselves and peers
in a classroom face-to-face situation and how to construct more subtle
evaluations of the research they are reviewing.

Highlighting the Language Aspects
Historically, the teachers who used the KF as an organizing framework
did not do so implicitly. They introduced the six boxes to the students
at all grade levels and drew attention to the appropriate box that they
were focusing on in particular lessons. This helped trigger appropriate
background knowledge for the students as the lessons progressed and
they reviewed the knowledge structures they had already studied. Such
a practice with the IEP students is also recommended so that they can

The Knowledge Framework 199
see how the language fits together with the types of tasks they are being
asked to do. They can draw from the examples they have noted in their
own KF diagrams as they write or plan their presentations, and they can
chart their own language learning in a manner similar to what Beckett
and Slater (2005) advocated through their Project Diary.

Moreover, the KF can be used with students to promote a broader
scope of critical thinking as they work with their peers on certain class-
room tasks. For example, in the technology class, students were asked to
narrow down their presentation topics by asking their classmates what
they knew and did not know about their chosen topics. Students circled
around the class, changing partners every few minutes as directed by the
teacher so that they could talk with all their peers. The responses they
got were to be used to choose information about their topic that others
would know little about and thus would be more interested in when they
listened to the presentations. To help the students discover the informa-
tion from their classmates in a systematic way, the questions could be
organized using the KF, thus reinforcing the language of the knowledge
structures and showing the students the value of using the framework.
The KF can also be a useful organizing tool for students when discern-
ing the most important ideas in the texts they read and the lectures they
attend, which were assignments that students are responsible for com-
pleting as part of the skills course.

Conclusion
Beckett and Slater (2018) revealed three main concepts for teachers
when they are thinking about implementing PBLL: fit, structure, and
explicitness. The concept of fit refers to whether the project approach is
appropriate to the context in which students are studying. In the IEP exit
program, one primary goal was to provide the students with knowledge
of the types of activities, skills, technology, and language they would
need as students at a university, and the exit interviews showed that stu-
dents felt that the fit was good, except that they were unable to identify
the language they had learned, beyond content vocabulary and assorted
language trivia. The concept of structure, whether the program was
organized and monitored well, was also addressed in a way that students
appreciated. The third concept, explicitness, addresses the issue that is at
the heart of this chapter, the idea that students have trouble seeing the
language learning opportunities within the PBLL approach.

One may argue that because the students felt they achieved so much
through this PBLL-based exit program, adding explicit language teaching
should not be a particularly important goal. Why play with perfection?
But as suggested in the introduction to this chapter, it seems odd that the
students had trouble identifying examples of learning English in an inten-
sive English program despite the fact that they were using the language

200  Tammy Slater

to do many tasks within their courses. Given that students throughout
the past 20 years have commented on the invisibility of language teach-
ing in PBLL, it seems it is time to incorporate an approach that goes
beyond focusing on over-contextualized language (e.g., vocabulary lists)
or decontextualized exercises. As Kuo, Sutton, Wright, and Miller (2020,
Chapter 13) stated, ideas about language learning have been moving from
a drill-based, language-focused approach towards a more communica-
tive one, but teachers continue to struggle with how to do this in a way
that promotes linguistic development across project topics. This chapter
has introduced Mohan’s knowledge framework as a way to address this
issue. The KF was developed as a way to integrate language with any
content across the curriculum because it offers a focus on the language
that underlies the thinking skills and knowledge structures which occur
in all educational activities. Such a theoretical framework offers a useful
organizational tool for teachers to plan explicit language teaching that
can be used in communicative language teaching contexts and be useful
to all students within all content areas. It can also be useful for students
as an organizer for the various linguistic resources they are learning as
they build each knowledge structure. Teacher-led discussions regarding
the connections between linguistic form and the purposes or functions
that the form constructs can be invaluable to students in developing their
critical thinking skills and their ability to write well.

This chapter has argued for the inclusion of Mohan’s knowledge
framework into technology-integrated project-based language learning
for those teachers who see the value of putting more emphasis on the
“language” aspect of PBLL and who want their students to recognize
the language form they are learning through their projects. The chapter
has also suggested ways to bring the KF into current course discussions,
tasks, and learning objectives. What is now needed beyond teaching
resources for the KF are studies—both ethnographic and experimental—
that examine the development of language form in intensive English pro-
grams through this approach, both to see if the students more easily see
the language/content connection, and to see if they exit their programs
with even more confidence and language ability than the current students
felt the PBLL approach afforded them.

References

Alan, B., & Stoller, F. L. (2005). Maximizing the benefits of project work in for-
eign language classrooms. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 10–21. Retrieved
from https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/05-43-4-c.pdf

Alonso, S., & McCabe, A. (2003). Improving text flow in ESL learner composi-
tions. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Arti-
cles/Alonso-ImprovingFlow.html

The Knowledge Framework 201

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., & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: A tool for language,
content, and skills integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108–16. doi:10.1093/eltj/
cci024

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2018). Project-based learning and technology. In J. I.
Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Hobo-
ken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0427

Cummins, J.,  & Early, M. (2015). Big ideas for expanding minds: Teaching
English language learners across the curriculum. Don Mills, ON: Pearson
Canada Inc.

Danes, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the
text. In F. Danes (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp.  106–
128). The Hague: Mouton.

Early, M. (1990). Enabling first and second language learners in the classroom.
Language Arts, 67, 567–574.

Early, M., Mohan, B. A., & Hooper, H. R. (1988). The Vancouver School Board
language and content project. In J. H. Esling (Ed.), Multicultural education
and policy: ESL in the 90s (pp. 107–122). Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.

Early, M.,  & Tang, G. (1991). Helping ESL students cope with content-based
texts. TESL Canada Journal, 8(2), 34–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.
v8i2.586

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.

Gibbes, M. (2011). Project-based language learning: An activity theoretical per-
spective (Unpublished MPhil thesis). Trinity College. Dublin.

Habók, A., & Nagy, J. (2016). In-service teachers’ perceptions of project-based
learning. Springer-Plus, 5(83). doi:10.1186/s40064-016-1725-4

Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th
ed.). Revised by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. New York, NY: Routledge.

Huang, J., & Morgan, G. (2003). A functional approach to evaluating content
knowledge and language development in ESL students’ science classification
texts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 234–262.

Huang, J.,  & Normandia, B. (2007). Learning the language of mathematics:
A study of student writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3),
294–318.

Huang, J., & Normandia, B. (2008). Comprehending and solving word problems
in mathematics: Beyond key words. In Z. Fang, & M. J. Schleppegrell (Eds.),
Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy (pp. 64–83).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.

Jing, W. (2015). Theme and thematic progression in English writing teaching.
Journal of Education and Practice, 6(21), 178–187.

202  Tammy Slater

Kuo, A. C., Miller, B., Wright, E., & Sutton, P. S. (2020). Altering the view of lan-
guage instruction in project-based learning: Examining the bilingual teachers’
unit design experience. In G. Beckett & T. Slater (Eds.), Global perspectives on
project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment: Key approaches,
technology tools, and frameworks (pp. 244–262). New York, NY: Routledge.

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

Ma, H., & Slater, T. (2015). Using the developmental path of cause to bridge the
gap between AWE scores and writing teachers’ evaluations. Writing and Peda-
gogy, 7(2–3), 395–422. doi:10.1558/wap.v7i2–3.26376

Ma, H.,  & Slater, T. (2016). Connecting Criterion scores and classroom grad-
ing contexts: A systemic functional linguistic model for teaching and assessing
causal language. CALICO Journal, 33(1), 1–18.

Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Mohan, B.,  & Beckett, G. H. (2003). A  functional approach to research on

content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. The Modern
Language Journal, 87(3). doi:10.1111/1540–4781.00199
Mohan, B., & Huang, J. (2002). Assessing the integration of language and con-
tent in a Mandarin as a foreign language classroom. Linguistics and Educa-
tion, 13(2), 405–433. doi:10.1016/S0898–5898(01)00076–6
Mohan, B., & Slater, T. (2005). A functional perspective on the critical ‘theory/
practice’ relation in teaching language and science. Linguistics and Education,
16(2), 151–172. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2006.01.008
Mohan, B., & Slater, T. (2006). Examining the theory/practice relation in a high
school science register: A functional linguistic perspective. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 302–316. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.08.004
Slater, T. (Ed.). (in press). Social practices in higher education: A knowledge frame-
work approach to linguistic research and teaching. Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
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., & Butler, J. I. (2015). Examining connections between the physical and
the mental in education: A systemic functional linguistic analysis of a PE teach-
ing and learning register. Linguistics and Education, 30, 12–25. doi:10.1016/j.
linged.2015.03.006
Slater, T., & Gleason, J. (2011). Integrating language and content: The knowledge
framework. In J. Morrison (Ed.), Conference proceedings of MidTESOL: Gate-
way to global citizenship (pp. 5–20). Saint Louis, MO: University of Saint Louis.
Retrieved from www.midtesol.org/docs/MIDTESOLProceedings_2011.pdf
Slater, T.,  & Mohan, B. (2010). Towards systematic and sustained formative
assessment of causal explanations in oral interactions. In A. Paran & L. Sercu
(Eds.), Testing the untestable in language education (pp.  259–272). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
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.

The Knowledge Framework 203

Tang, G. (1991). The role and value of graphic representation of knowledge
structures in ESL learning: An ethnographic study. TESL Canada Journal,
9(1), 29–41. doi:10.18806/tesl.v9i1.594

Tang, G. (1997). Teaching content knowledge and ESL in multicultural class-
rooms. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom
(pp. 69–77). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Tang, G. (2001). Knowledge framework and classroom action. In B. Mohan, C.
Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream:
Teaching, learning, and identity (pp.  127–137). London: Pearson Education
Limited.

Tang, X. (2012). Language, discipline or task? A comparison study of the effec-
tiveness of different methods for delivering content-based instructions to efl
students of business studies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Durham
University.

Wang, L. (2007). Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of text: Implica-
tions for teaching academic writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 164–173.

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

Jesse Gleason and Stephanie Link

Introduction

State and national academic content standards across the U.S. have
attempted to standardize what students should know and learn, and what
testing should cover (Gottlieb, 2016; Webb, 1997). As a result, Pre-K to
12 teachers are expected to draw explicit links between their classroom
practice and ‘the Standards,’ or otherwise be faced with high-stakes con-
sequences, such as job insecurity. However, teachers may not always
know how best to support their students, English language learners in
particular, due to increasing language and content demands (Gibbons,
2014; Temple, Snow, & Christian, 2002). For educators of English lan-
guage learners, it can be challenging to strike a balance between design-
ing instruction that aligns with the standards and developing students’
academic literacies, which is paramount for accessing content knowledge
and thus meeting content standards (Brisk, 2015). Efforts to align both
academic content and language proficiency standards into U.S. grade-
level curricula are arising through the World-class Instructional Design
and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium and other statewide consortia. Yet,
to add complexity to the current standards-based movement, statements
about what students should know and be able to do with technology
have found their way into many of the current standards. In an attempt
to foster students’ digital literacies (ACTFL, 2017; ACTFL/CAEP, 2015),
specific technology standards for language instruction (TESOL, 2008)
have emerged, adding a third technological dimension to curricular
design.

With the collation of content, language, and now technology, the main-
tenance of sound pedagogical practices is ever more difficult to achieve.
Under the umbrella of content-based instruction (Schleppegrell  & de
Oliveira, 2006; Stoller, 2008), approaches such as task-based language
teaching (TBLT) (Nunan, 2004), content-and-language-integrated learn-
ing (CLIL) (Dalton-Puffer, Nikula,  & Smit, 2010), and project-based
learning (PBL) (Beckett & Miller, 2006; Beckett & Slater, 2005) are often

Using the Knowledge Framework 205
used to integrate language and content in mainstream education. Project-
based learning in particular has been found to help students take their
learning outside the classroom and into the real world through the scaf-
folded preparation of authentic practices and products (Larmer, Mergen-
doller, & Boss, 2015). Project-based learning provides a foundation for
standards-based curriculum development; yet there is still a need for a
unified approach that helps to combine standards while fostering creative
and principled teaching practices using the technologies that students and
teachers have available to them.

In this chapter, we aim to show how teachers can use our model for tech-
nology-enhanced form-function (TEFF) project-based language learning
(PBLL) to seamlessly integrate standards and organize curriculum units
within a content-language-technology curriculum while at the same time
explicitly focusing on language. By using a heuristic called the knowledge
framework (KF) for language and content integration (Mohan, 1986;
Slater, Chapter 10, this volume; Slater & Gleason, 2011) and the teach-
ing-learning cycle (TLC) for genre pedagogy, we will show how to plan
curricular projects using TEFF PBLL that ensure students’ well-rounded
access to thinking skills and language while integrating technology. We
start this discussion with notions about the role of standards for language
educators. We then discuss the placement of TEFF PBLL in standards-
based instruction. Third, we show through an actual third-grade class-
room learning segment how teachers might begin to create or modify
their existing curricula to develop projects that systematically integrate
standards, language, content, and technology. We end the chapter with
ethical considerations about the importance of form-focused TEFF PBLL
(Beckett, 1999; Beckett  & Slater, 2018; Eyring, 1989) and curricular
technology choices based upon lesson-level learning goals.

Integrating Standards, Technology,
Language, and Content
According to Gottlieb (2016) and others, the U.S. is currently in its third
wave of a standards-based movement. The first wave began in the 1980s
under the Reagan administration and in response to the Nation at Risk
report; the second wave came in the 1990s and 2000s under the Clinton
and Bush administrations’ No Child Left Behind Act; finally, we are now
in the third wave with the Obama administration’s Common Core State
Standards (CCSS, 2012). The CCSS, unveiled in 2010, adopted by 42
out of 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia as of 2013 and cur-
rently being implemented, is a list of standards that attempts to enumer-
ate what students by grade level and content area should know (Hess &
Shane, 2013). As of the writing of this chapter, teachers can find stand-
ards for just about any content area of the curriculum, including art, sci-
ence, music, mathematics, social studies, language arts, world language,

206  Jesse Gleason and Stephanie Link
English language development, and physical education. Unlike in recent
years Pre-K to 12 teachers in training across the U.S. must strive to use
academic content standards to guide development of their grade-level
curricula.

WIDA Standards for Students
In an effort to align academic content standards and language proficiency
standards, the WIDA Consortium developed English language develop-
ment standards for U.S. grade-level curricula (WIDA, 2012). Managed
out of the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (WCER) at the
University of Wisconsin at Madison, WIDA spans 38 U.S. State Edu-
cation Agencies and reaches over 1.5  million English Language Learn-
ers (ELLs), making it the most pervasive ELL standards implementation
nationwide. The widespread use of the WIDA standards along with the
consortium’s attention to language and content integration provides the
main motivations for its focus in our chapter. Other standards, such as
CCSS and English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century
(ELPA 21), could be used to guide development of TEFF PBLL units
similarly. Later, we illustrate how WIDA and CCSS can be used to design
a TEFF PBLL learning segment.

WIDA standards measure social and academic language expectations
of ELLs in five content area strands within Pre-K to 12 schools in the
United States. Strand 1 is for Social and Instructional Language and rep-
resents ELLs’ need to communicate for social and instructional purposes
in the school setting. Strands 2 to 5 focus on the language of language
arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, respectively. WIDA’s form-
ative and summative assessment frameworks, including their large-scale
language proficiency instrument “ACCESS 2.0” for ELLs in grades K to
12, offer ways for ELLs to demonstrate their language ability over time
and on an ongoing basis as part of instruction. This performance can
be measured through model performance indicators organized around
four language domains (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and
consisting of three elements. The first element is the language function,
which describes how ELLs use language to demonstrate proficiency. The
second is the example topic, or the specific context for language instruc-
tion. The final element is the support, including instructional strategies
(e.g., graphic organizers) to assist students in accessing knowledge and
skills. The WIDA standards also consist of six levels of English language
proficiency: entering, emerging, developing, expanding, bridging, and
reaching. The final level is achieved when ELLs can fully benefit from
mainstream classroom instruction, even if state standards permit them
to fully integrate into such classrooms sooner. Figure 11.1 illustrates the
model performance indicators in Strand 2: Language of Language Arts
for Grade 3 writing in Level 6.

Using the Knowledge Framework 207

Figure 11.1 E xample English Language Development (ELD) Standards for
Strand 2: The Language of Language Arts in Grade 3 Writing-Level
6-Reaching

Source: Adapted from WIDA

Technology Standards for Teachers
Most 21st-century standards already mention technology. For example,
TESOL/CAEP Standard 3c states, “Teacher candidates are familiar with
a wide range of standards-based materials, resources, and technologies,
and choose, adapt, and use them in effective ESL and content teaching”
(emphasis added). The TESOL (2008) standards, in contrast, focus solely
on teacher and learner uses of technology. The teacher standards include
four overarching goals and a total of 14 standards, each with separate
performance indicators. In addition to a number of different ends that
these teacher standards may serve, both within and outside the class-
room, a major purpose of these technology standards is “for teachers to
know what is expected of them in terms of knowledge, skills, and cur-
riculum implementation.” Goal 2, which pertains specifically to language
teaching and learning, states “Language teachers integrate pedagogical
knowledge and skills with technology to enhance language teaching and
learning” (TESOL, 2008, p. 32).

Standards 2 and 3 under Goal 2 state that language teachers (1) “coher-
ently integrate technology into their pedagogical approaches” and (2)
“design and manage language learning activities and tasks using technol-
ogy appropriately to meet curricular goals and objectives.” Performance

208  Jesse Gleason and Stephanie Link
indicators showing teachers have met these two standards include sources
of evidence documenting that language teachers do the following:

• embed technology into teaching rather than making it an add-on
• choose a technology environment that is aligned with the goals of the

class
 adapt technology-based activities and tasks to align with

the goals of the class, and with the needs and abilities of the
students
 identify more than one approach to achieve an objective (e.g., a
backup plan for when the technology is not working.

(TESOL, 2008, pp. 32–34)

These performance indicators are helpful for teachers in that they are
generic enough to ensure that teachers can focus first on the learning out-
comes in their classroom and then later incorporate technological tools
that would allow them to more effectively achieve those goals.

For language learners, the TESOL (2008) standards include three over-
arching goals and a total of 11 standards, each with separate perfor-
mance indicators. Of particular relevance for the present chapter, under
Goal 3, which pertains to language learners’ use of technology for formal
instruction, Standard 5 states “language learners recognize the value of
technology to support autonomy, lifelong learning, creativity, metacog-
nition, collaboration, personal pursuits, and productivity” (p. 28). Per-
formance indicators for this standard include:

• Language learners select the most appropriate available technology
for independent language learning

• Language learners can express themselves using technology (e.g., cre-
ating digital media)

• Language learners use technology to work in English more effectively
(e.g., using an electronic dictionary).
(p. 28)

Although these standards are admittedly over a decade old, they never-
theless serve as a foundation for what types of technology-based teacher
standards may be useful in the future.

Project-Based Learning
Project-based learning, as a branch of a communicative, content-based
curriculum, has a number of advantages that have already been enu-
merated in previous chapters. Therefore, we will limit our discussion of

Using the Knowledge Framework 209
PBL here to a particular strand of PBL known as “Gold Standard PBL”
(Larmer et al., 2015). A characterizing feature of Gold Standard PBL is
the fact that students create a product which is usable and showcased
outside of the classroom. In this, “students make their project work pub-
lic by explaining, displaying and/or presenting it to people beyond the
classroom” (Buck Institute for Education, 2017), which allows students
to focus on a real-world problem and thus extend their learning outside
the classroom. In addition to the public product, the remaining char-
acteristics include: (1) a challenging problem or question, (2) sustained
inquiry, (3) authenticity, (4) student voice and choice, (5) reflection, and
(6) critique and revision.

Project-based learning integrates knowing and doing, allowing stu-
dents to conceptualize how their classroom knowledge can go beyond
the walls of the classroom and enable them to engage with real-world
issues (Markham, 2011). However, as Mohan and Beckett (2003)
argue, a major challenge of PBL is that “content-learning research on
project-based instruction seems to have largely neglected language/
discourse development, and language education research on projects
seems likewise to have neglected content learning” (p. 425). By using
two language-and-content-integrated approaches—the knowledge
framework and genre pedagogy in conjunction with curricular stand-
ards and available classroom technologies—this chapter aims to show
how teachers can help students develop their 21st-century academic
multiliteracies using TEFF PBLL, while avoiding the drawback of
insufficient focus on form.

The Knowledge Framework and Genre Pedagogy
While standards frameworks and PBL help teachers to know what to
teach and what the end project and goals of a unit should look like (i.e.,
backward design), the path of how exactly to get there while integrat-
ing language and content within curricular units may be less clear, espe-
cially for the novice teacher. The KF and the Teaching-Learning Cycle
(TLC) (the model endorsed under genre pedagogy) are curricular mod-
els that can be implemented alongside standards-based PBL in order to
illuminate that grey area that occurs “in between” the standards and
the project. The KF (Mohan, 1986, 2007, 2011) is a linguistic heuristic
pioneered in Western Canada and used by teachers to integrate content-
and-language instruction (see Slater, 2020, Chapter 10 for more detailed
description). The TLC is an approach to writing instruction pioneered by
literacy educators in Sydney Australia (Humphrey, 2017; Martin, 2009;
Rothery, 1996), which uses a model “genre” in order to explicitly teach
students the characterizing elements of the most important types of texts
found in school.

210  Jesse Gleason and Stephanie Link
The KF and the TLC are theoretically aligned with a functional

approach to language and learning (Halliday, 1994; Halliday  & Mat-
thiessen, 2014). Both are compatible with content-based instruction.
While the KF hones in on the common knowledge structures (Classifica-
tion, Description, Principles, Sequence, Evaluation, Choice) that teachers
and students engage with every day, the TLC focuses on curricular stages
that allow students to gain control of the common genres of schooling.
While the KF also aims to help teachers focus on the linguistic features
salient in the knowledge structures associated with their content-based
units, one of the phases of the TLC focuses on text “deconstruction”
(e.g., literally talking with students about and identifying the traditional
discourse stages of common academic genres). In this way, both mod-
els help students build their academic literacies by making explicit what
might otherwise remain hidden in the curriculum, available first and fore-
most to students who already have ample preexisting knowledge of such
genres, generally those from historically privileged groups. Thus, the KF
and the TLC are seen as complementary in their goal to make the curricu-
lum visible through their explicit focus on linguistic features. Table 11.1
shows several such clause-level features common in the fictional narrative
genre and the knowledge structures of Sequence and Description.

While the KF focuses on discourse semantic level and clause-level fea-
tures, the TLC focuses on text-level rhetorical discourse features and clause-
level features. Slater, Gleason, and Link (2012) showed how the teachers
can organize their content-based units in a logical progression by using
the KF activity framework and guiding questions to ensure students well-
rounded access to knowledge structures. The guiding questions of the KF
align with each of the major knowledge structures as shown in Figure 11.2.

Table 11.1  Clause-level language features of the fictional narrative and Sequence
and Description

Stages of Fictional Clause-Level Features Knowledge
Narrative Structure
Complication,
Specific Participants (Mrs. Smith, our Sequence
Sequence of dog) Description
events
Verbs of action in past tense (went,
Orientation, climbed, drew)
Resolution
Verbs of saying/ feeling/ thinking (said,
thought)

Linking words/phrases of time (then, later)
General (people) or specific Participants
Verbs of being (is, was, had)
Descriptive words (new, gloomy)
Additive conjunction (and, as well)
Language of comparison and contrast

(but, similar to, different from)

Using the Knowledge Framework 211

Classification Principles Evaluation
What are the essential What are the rules, causes, What activities will
ideas of this topic and effects, or underlying require students to
how do they relate to principles I wish the evaluate or judge?
each other? students to understand?
Choice
Description Sequence How will students
How will students What sequences or patterns demonstrate their
describe their are useful for students understanding of the
knowledge of this studying the topic? topic as they make
topic? personal choices?

Figure 11.2 G uiding questions of the knowledge framework that align with
knowledge structures

By using these questions alongside national curricular standards and
available classroom technologies, teachers can ensure that their content-
based lessons and activities provide students opportunities for well-
rounded access to both language and thinking skills. When such lessons
and activities are incorporated into a PBLL curriculum, their potential to
help students extend their learning into authentic target-language-use situ-
ations is multiplied. Yet, there is still a need to focus on incorporating digi-
tal technologies that can facilitate achievement of 21st-century standards.

Building a Tech-Enhanced Form-Function
PBLL Curriculum
We will first elaborate on a model for developing and adapting tech-
nology-enhanced form-function (TEFF) PBLL instruction that addresses
content, language, and technology standards, as shown in Figure 11.3.
We then illustrate TEFF PBLL through an example third-grade learning
segment centered around a project involving digital stories. Lastly, we
focus on how teachers can integrate and organize content, language, and
technology using the KF and TLC in order to address the issue of insuf-
ficient focus on form in PBL (Li, 2010; Mohan & Slater, 2005).

Although Figure 11.3 equally portrays the components of the model,
the Context of Situation will ultimately determine the emphasis placed
on each. For example, form-function analysis may play a greater role
in learning contexts where technology and technology-based tasks are
already well developed.

Checklist for Curriculum Development
In our model, we highlight four key components for developing TEFF
PBLL instruction. Each component does not necessitate sequential

212  Jesse Gleason and Stephanie Link

Figure 11.3 A   model for technology-enhanced form-function project-based
learning units

completion; rather we recommend a top-down, bottom-up integrated
approach to curricular design. In some instances, multiple components
may be achieved simultaneously. Each component can be revisited using
the checklist as the unit develops to ensure content remains meaning-
ful for achieving learning objectives relative to the technology, content,
and language standards covered in the project segment. The TEFF PBLL
components include:
• Analyze form-function (and language-content) connections, aligning

technology, content, and language standards as applicable. Adop-
tion of national curricular standards frameworks varies by state
and by context. Therefore, analysis of form-function connections
of content and alignment of state content and language standards
is the first step in developing form-function, technology-enhanced
instruction. Content and language standards should complement
one another based on language functions, or in other words, what
you want students to be able to do during the project. Technology
standards can be revisited once a unit begins to materialize. In our
example, we drew on CCSS and WIDA Standards for Grade 3 and
TESOL Tech Goal 3, Standard 5. In contexts where standards are
not applicable, analysis of form-function connections of the content
should be prioritized.

Using the Knowledge Framework 213
• Develop your project, paying explicit attention to learning objec-

tives, and keeping in mind the public product. Standards-based cur-
ricula dictate the development of learning objectives that are aligned
to ensure explicit and measurable outcomes. One defining charac-
teristic of Gold-Standard PBL is the final public product. Thus when
developing the project, it is important to keep in mind the daily and
weekly objectives that will move students toward successful comple-
tion of the final public product. These choices will likely reflect day-
to-day or week-by-week learning and teaching events.
• Choose multimodal texts and materials. While in years past cur-
riculum development often included low-tech design, we encourage
a move of current teaching into the digital age. In many Pre-K to
12 classrooms, texts and materials are already chosen for teachers.
However, many classrooms will provide and/or allow multimodal
resources (e.g., images, text, video) to enhance course content and
achieve learning objectives. Both primary and secondary materials
should be chosen with the standards in mind as well as individual
differences of learners and their interests.
• Develop technology-enhanced activities and assessments. Simply
choosing materials that adequately address the standards, learn-
ing objectives, and characteristics of the learner population is not
sufficient for a language classroom using a TEFF PBLL approach.
Analyzing the language and thinking skills that such materials will
elicit and then developing activities that move students toward those
goals is a necessary step that will enable teachers to help their stu-
dents adequately focus on form. In other words, it is important to
know what language features arise in the lesson most frequently so
that these features can be explicitly taught during daily activities to
maximize learners’ awareness of them and facilitate the transfer of
this language to other contexts and content areas. Guiding questions
from the KF and the stages of the TLC for a given genre can assist the
teacher/curriculum designer.

Pepita and the Bully Digital Storytelling
Project Example
To illustrate how we utilized the checklist for a TEFF PBLL unit design
for the Pepita and the Bully (Lachtman, 2011) Digital Storytelling pro-
ject, we turn to an example learning segment, a portion of a full curricu-
lar unit, prepared for a third-grade classroom with integrated ELLs. The
overarching goal for the Pepita and the Bully Digital Storytelling project
was for students to write their own fictional narratives and publish them
on the class webpage. Note that we have chosen to use the term “learn-
ing segment” rather than “unit” due to page limitations. While a full unit
plan would include all six knowledge structures of the KF, giving students

214  Jesse Gleason and Stephanie Link
well-rounded exposure to language, our TEFF PBLL learning segment
highlighted here will selectively focus on Sequence and Description, two
important knowledge structures for writing fictional narratives.

Using the principles of Understanding by Design (UBD) (McTighe &
Wiggins, 2004), we began the creation of our TEFF PBLL learning seg-
ment by developing the idea for students’ final public product in conjunc-
tion with the state and national standards. In our third-grade classroom,
we chose a class webpage/digital collection of students’ fictional narra-
tives as our final public product. To reliably assess students’ digital nar-
ratives, teachers should look to the components of the narrative genre
(Derewianka, 2011; Gibbons, 2014; Humphrey, 2017). By developing
the final project, paying explicit attention to learning objectives, and
keeping in mind the public product while at the same time analyzing
applicable form-function (i.e., language-content) connections, aligning
technology, content, and language standards, we were able to cover our
first and second components.

The WIDA and CCSS standards we chose were based on similarities
in language functions addressed. For example, the CCSS for Grade 3
states that students will recount and explain, which aligns with WIDA’s
language functions of sequence and narrate. These also align with the
KF’s knowledge structure of Sequence. We used the Guiding Question of
the KF for Sequence (What sequences or patterns are useful for students
studying the topic?) to decide on the important sequences and patterns
within the learning segment. As the standards and the content of the
learning segment were clearly related to fictional narratives (e.g., recount
stories, describe characters, compare and contrast themes), our learning
segment primarily focused on the knowledge structures of Sequence and
Description. Table 11.2 shows how content and language standards as
well as the knowledge structures align through functional language.

To further “develop the project, paying explicit attention to learning
objectives” (TEFF PBLL) for each stage of the TLC, we next “focused
on the final public product”: the Pepita and the Bully Digital Storytell-
ing webpage. To do this, we kept in mind the seven principles for Gold
Standard PBL (Larmer et al., 2015), including (1) a challenging problem
or question, (2) sustained inquiry, (3) authenticity, (4) student voice and
choice, (5) reflection, (6) critique and revision, and (7) a public final prod-
uct. Learning outcomes for the sequence of lessons and example tasks/
activities within our example learning segment are shown in Figure 11.4.
As shown in the top five boxes of the figure, the stages of the TLC align
with both the standards and with the language functions (as shown in
bold in the lower boxes) associated with Sequence and D­ escription,
which guided the development of the learning objectives for our TEFF
PBLL learning segment and ultimately helped us create the activities
and incorporate technologies chosen for the various lessons. Figure 11.4
shows a macro-level structure of weekly learning objectives for the entire

Using the Knowledge Framework 215
Table 11.2  Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and WIDA performance indi-

cators for English language arts (ELA) in example learning segment

CCSS ELA Performance WIDA ELA Performance Knowledge
Indicators Indicators Structure
Grade 3 Grade 3–5

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY. WIDA.ELP Writing.L4 Sequence
RL.3.2 Expanding Description

Recount stories, including Sequence a series of illustrated
fables, folktales, and myths events using paragraph
from diverse cultures; transitions in narrative form
determine the central based on models
message, lesson, or moral
and explain how it is WIDA.ELP Writing.L4
conveyed through key Expanding
details in the text
Narrate a series of illustrated
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY. events using paragraph
RL.3.3 transitions in narrative form
based on models and peer
Describe characters in a edits
story (e.g., their traits,
motivations, or feelings) WIDA.ELP Speaking.L2
and explain how their Beginning
actions contribute to the
sequence of events Describe pictures of imaginary
people, objects or situations
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.
RL.3.9 WIDA.ELP Speaking.L4
Expanding
Compare and contrast the
themes, settings, and plots Compare/contrast
of stories written by the biographical information
same author about the same from two persons using
or similar characters (e.g., illustrations and graphic
in books from a series). organizers

TEFF PBLL learning segment, but it is recommended that teachers also
build day-to-day lesson objectives that can be measured using formative
and/or summative assessments.

Next, we were able to “choose the multimodal texts and materials”
to be used in our learning segment. Given that the CCSS standards focus
on fictional content and the WIDA standards on narratives, our cho-
sen primary text for the TEFF PBLL learning segment (and broader unit
plan) was a fictional narrative called Pepita and the Bully (Lachtman,
2011). Not only does the content speak to the standing issue of bully-
ing in schools, but its dual translation in English and Spanish helps to
support L1 language and identity development in a large portion of His-
panic/Latinx populations in the United States.

Figure 11.4  List of learning objectives in our TEFF PBLL learning segment based on stages of the TLC
Note: SWBAT stands for “Students will be able to.”

Using the Knowledge Framework 217
After choosing our mentor text/fictional narrative for the third-grade
language arts learning segment within our larger TEFF PBLL unit, we
analyzed it for its stages and language features, specifically focusing on
Description and Sequence in order to increase our own cognition of what
language should be emphasized. When teachers are reading the book in
the class, they will need to prepare to make explicit the rhetorical features
of a fictional narrative (orientation, complication, sequence of events,
and resolution) as well as bottom-up language features (e.g., general
or specific Participants and “being” verbs for describing) during tasks
and activities. Table 11.3 provides a glimpse of what this analysis could
resemble. Language features were determined based on Derewianka
(1990), Early (1990), and Mohan (1986).
Lastly, we chose to “develop ideas for technology-enhanced activi-
ties and assessments using the KF for the project.” Since our standards,
content, and language were all previously aligned using the language
functions, and with the principles of Gold Standard PBL (Larmer et al.,
2015) in mind, we were now ready to brainstorm ideas for specific activi-
ties, assessment tools, and technologies that we thought would help our
third-grade students achieve the learning objectives. It should be noted
that because the final product itself involved micro-publishing on a class
webpage, micro-tasks that involved students visiting other similar web-
pages and learning how to incorporate video, audio, and image into their
multimodal narratives were incorporated. Figure 11.5 shows how select
learning objectives facilitated the smooth transition to daily classroom
activities and assessments in a two-week TEFF PBLL learning segment,
all of which led to the final public product: a school-wide or district-
wide webpage which compiled all students’ narratives. The technolo-
gies that were chosen could also be modified depending on the available
technology.

Final Considerations for Technology-Enhanced Form-
Function PBLL
This chapter has laid the groundwork for a new model for technology-
enhanced form-function (TEFF) PBLL. By integrating the KF for lan-
guage and content integration and the TLC for genre pedagogy, our
four-component checklist can assist teachers and curriculum developers
with the development of logically organized units for classroom curric-
ula. Together, the knowledge structures of the KF and the stages of the
TLC help to conceptualize learners’ thinking and learning processes and
gradually lead them to discover and utilize functional language in their
path towards academic language and content development through pro-
ject work.

As we work towards the goal of enriching learners’ developmental tra-
jectories, there must also be a movement towards integrating technology

218  Jesse Gleason and Stephanie Link
Table 11.3  Language features of Description and Sequence in the fictional narra-

tive Pepita and the Bully

Stage of Knowledge Clause-level Example from Pepita and
Fictional Structure Language Feature the Bully
Narrative

Orientation, Description General or specific School, bullies, fights
resolution Sequence Participants Pepita, Miss Chu
Bright little flowers
Complication, Descriptive words Good little dog
Sequence of “Being” verbs Black satin ribbons
events She was in a hurry to get
Additive
conjunction home.
She had brown hair, blue
Language of
comparison and eyes, and skin that
contrast looked like peach ice
cream, but she was not
Specific Participants nice.
Action verbs in past Her classroom was sunny
and bright.
tense Bright bulletin boards and
Verbs of “saying”/ cut-out, red letters . . .
She especially liked
“feeling”/ . . . But, she did not
“thinking” like . . .
Linking words/ She had . . ., but she was
phrases of time not . . .
Babette, She
Pepita’s face wrinkled up
into a big frown.
Babette just turned and
walked away.
In bed Pepita tossed and
turned and tumbled . . .
She wanted to tell her
mom that three days in
her school were enough
She did not want to go
there again.
On the second day, . . .
And today . . .
Then, . . .

to better facilitate the process. The American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2017) statement on the role of t­echnology
in language learning speaks to this premise, stating that “[t]echnology
can and should be used by language educators to enhance language
instruction, practice, and assessment . . . the use of technology is not a
goal in and of itself; rather technology is one tool that supports language
learners as they use the target language in culturally appropriate ways

Learning Objectives (Bold) & Example Activities (Regular), and Technologies (italics)

Week 1 Week 2

Day 1 • SWBAT orally describe the Day 6 • SWBAT identify the language
images in the mentor text features of the major stages of
during a picture walk a fictional narrative
• Picture walk, read-aloud, • Text deconstruction to
gesture, and repeat identify clause-level language
portions of the mentor text features of Pepita and the
alongside the teacher Bully
• ELMO projector. PDF • Smartboard
versions of the text on
electronic devices around
the classroom
Day 2 • SWBAT gesture and Day 7 • SWBAT jointly write a
chorally recite portions of fictional narrative with the
the mentor text teaching, including the major
• Partner and individual events of the plot
pronunciation practice • Joint text construction with
with select clause-level whole class collaboration
language features using a word bank
• Audio recording tool for • Google Docs/live editable
pronunciation and fluency document projected for
practice, automatic speech students
recognition
Day 3 • SWBAT compare and Day 8 • SWBAT use their timeline
contrast the main graphic organizer to sequence
characters in the mentor the major events in their own
text fictional narrative
• Graphic organizer • Independent or pair-
comparing Pepita and construction of major events
Babette in their own narratives
• Venn Diagram templates • Timeline creator by
from https://www.canva. ReadWriteThink http://www.
com/ readwritethink.org
Day 4 • SWBAT correctly sequence Day 9 • SWBAT write their own
the series of events in the fictional narrative focusing on
mentor text paragraph transitions, actions/
• Picture sort feelings of main characters
• Timeline creator by • Independent or paired-text
ReadWriteThink http:// construction including process
www.readwritethink.org writing stages
• Wikis. Word Processing
Software. Chrome books
Day 5 • SWBAT identify the major Day 10 • SWBAT read aloud their own
stages of the fictional fictional narrative to the class
narrative genre in the • Presentation of school-wide
mentor text webpage, a digital collection
• Text deconstruction to of fictional narratives
identify stages of Pepita • Smartboard
and the Bully
Google Classroom. Kahoot!.
Quizlet

Figure 11.5  Example of daily learning objectives, activities, and sample tech-
nologies for a two-week TEFF PBLL learning segment

220  Jesse Gleason and Stephanie Link

to accomplish authentic tasks.” That is to say that rather than choos-
ing a technology to use in the classroom first, teachers should be able
to selectively and critically choose technologies that allow them to meet
their learning objectives and goals, and help them realize the complete
content-language-technology curriculum at the level of a project activ-
ity. While some teachers may find that their teaching techniques already
include technology, others will need to reconceptualize their precon-
ceived tasks and activities to decide how technology may help facilitate
their teaching and foster heightened language development by students as
they work on their projects.

While technology-enhanced PBL (ChanLin, 2008) has already been
shown to provide learners with immediate transfer of their skills to real-
world digital contexts, technology-enhanced form-function TEFF PBLL
takes this one step further by making salient content-language-technol-
ogy connections. Technology, now a part of our daily lives to a greater or
lesser extent, has the potential to infuse all parts of such a curriculum and
is based on both contextual availability and teacher decisions about what
makes the most sense to achieve stated learning outcomes. Form-func-
tion alignment of the curriculum can occur by way of national and state
curricular standards (e.g., content, language, and technology) or in the
absence of such standards (e.g., as is the case of higher education); align-
ment can take place by means of content/materials analysis for projects.

To address the insufficient focus on form which has been deemed prob-
lematic for many current implementations of PBL (Li, 2010), teachers can
use TEFF PBLL together with linguistics-based pedagogical tools such as
the TLC (Humphrey, 2017; Martin, 2009; Rothery, 1996) to make their
curricular language demands explicit, thus avoiding a hidden curricu-
lum; as well, the KF (Mohan, 1986, 2007; Slater & Gleason, 2011) can
be implemented to ensure that their learners are gaining well-rounded
access to language and content. This TEFF PBLL approach allows teach-
ers to create or modify their existing curricula to systematically integrate
standards, language, content, and technology, making smart curricular
technology choices based upon lesson-level learning goals of projects.

References

ACTFL (2017). World readiness standards for learning languages. Retrieved from
www.actfl.org/publications/all/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages/
standards-summary

ACTFL/CAEP (2015). ACTFL/CAEP Program standards for the preparation
of foreign language teachers. Retrieved from www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/
CAEP/ACTFLCAEPStandards2013_v2015.pdf

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

Using the Knowledge Framework 221

Beckett, G. H.,  & Miller, P. C. (2006). Project-based second and foreign lan-
guage education: Past, present, and future. Greenwich, CN: Information Age
Publishing.

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. (2018). Technology-integrated project-based language
learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1487

Brisk, M. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based peda-
gogy for K-5 classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.

Buck Institute for Education (2017). What is project-based learning (PBL).
Retrieved from www.bie.org/about/what_pbl

ChanLin, L. J. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning
in science. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 55–65.
doi:10.1080/14703290701757450

Common Core State Standards (CCSS). (2012). Common core state standards
for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and tech-
nical subjects. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices  &
Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from www.corestandards.
org/the-standards.

Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and lan-
guage learning in CLIL. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, NSW: PETAA.
Derewianka, B. (2011). A new grammar companion for teachers (2nd ed). Syd-

ney, NSW: PETAA.
Early, M. (1990). Enabling first and second language learners in the classroom.

Language Arts, 67, 567–574.
Eyring, J. L. (1989). Teacher experience and student responses in ESL project

work instruction: A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of California at Los Angeles.
Gibbons, P. (2014). Scaffolding learning, scaffolding language. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Gottlieb, M. (2016). Assessing English language learners: Bridges to educational
equity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Toward a language-based theory of learning. Linguis-
tics and Education, 5, 93–116.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. I. M. (2014). An introduction to systemic
functional grammar (4th ed). London: Edward Arnold.
Hess, F. M.,  & Shane, M. Q. (Eds.). (2013). Common core meets education
reform: What it all means for politics, policy, and the future of schooling. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Humphrey, S. (2017). Academic literacies in the middle years: A  framework
for enhancing teacher knowledge and student achievement. London, UK:
Routledge.
Lachtman, O. D. (2011). Pepita and the Bully. Houston, TX: Piñata Books.
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project-
based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction. Alexan-
dria, VA: ASCD.

222  Jesse Gleason and Stephanie Link

Li, Y. L. (2010). The negotiated project-based learning: Understanding the views
and practice of kindergarten teachers about the implementation of project
learning in Hong Kong. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and
Early Years Education, 40(5), 473–486. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300427
9.2010.544662

Markham, T. (2011). Project based learning: A bridge just far enough. Teacher
Librarian, 39(2), 38–42.

Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective.
Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2004). Understanding By design: Professional devel-
opment workbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision  & Curricu-
lum Development.

Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison, Wesley.
Mohan, B. (2007). Knowledge structures in social practices. In J. Cummins &

C. Davidson (Eds.), The international handbook of English language teaching
(pp. 303–316). New York, NY: Springer.
Mohan, B. A. (2011). Social practice and register. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 57–74). New York:
Routledge.
Mohan, B. A., & Beckett, G. H. (2003). A functional approach to research on
content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. The Modern
Language Journal, 87(3), 421–432. doi:10.1111/1540–4781.00199
Mohan, B. A., & Slater, T. (2005). A functional perspective on the critical theory/
practice relation in teaching language and science. Linguistics and Education,
16(2), 151–172. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2006.01.008
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics In R.
Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society (pp. 86–123). London, UK:
Longman.
Schleppegrell, M., & de Oliveira, L. (2006). An integrated language and content
approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5,
254–268.
Slater, T. (2020). The Knowledge Framework: An Organizational Tool for High-
lighting the “LL” in Technology-integrated PBLL. In G. H. Beckett & T. Slater
(Eds.), Global Perspectives on Project-based Language Learning, T­ eaching,
and Assessment: Key Approaches, Technology Tools, and Frameworks
(pp. 185–203). New York, NY: Routledge.
Slater, T., & Gleason, J. (2011). Integrating language and content: The knowledge
framework. In J. Morrison (Ed.), Conference proceedings of MidTESOL: Gate-
way to global citizenship (pp. 5–20). Saint Louis, MO: University of Saint Louis.
Retrieved from www.midtesol.org/docs/MIDTESOLProceedings_2011.pdf
Slater, T., Gleason, J., & Link, A. (2012, October). Creating integrated language-
and-content units across the curriculum. Paper presented at the MIDTESOL
Conference, Ames, Iowa.
Stoller, F. L. (2008). Content-based instruction. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.) Ency-
clopedia of Language and Education (pp. 1163–1174). Boston, MA: Springer.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (2008). TESOL
technology standards framework. Retrieved from www.tesol.org/docs/
default . . . /bk_technologystandards_framework_721.pdf

Using the Knowledge Framework 223

Temple, A. C., Snow, C., & Christian, D. (Eds.). (2002). What teachers need to
know about language. Crystal Lake, IL: Delta Systems Co.

Webb, N. (1997). Research monograph number 6: Criteria for alignment of
expectations and assessments on mathematics and science education. Wash-
ington, DC: CCSSO.

World-Class Instruction, Design, and Assessment Consortium (WIDA). (2012).
Amplification of the English language development standards: Kindergarten-
Grade 12. Madison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
System.

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

Mo Chen and Roz R. Hirch

In the past two decades, many technology-infused project-based language
learning (PBLL) courses and units have been developed and implemented
in second/foreign language (L2) classrooms (e.g., Dooly  & Sadler, 2016;
Gómez, 2016; Hafner, 2014; Jeon-Ellis, Debski, & Wigglesworth, 2005; Lee,
2014; Nishioka, 2016; Reisi & Saniei, 2016; Roy, 2017; Terrazas-Arellanes,
Knox, & Walden, 2015; Wu & Meng, 2010; Zachoval, 2011). Researchers
have discussed the value of using technology-infused PBLL in L2 classrooms
to promote language and content knowledge learning, 21st-century skill
development, and student motivation and interest (Beckett & Slater, 2018).

How to assess knowledge learning and skill development in project-based
learning, however, has become a major concern in classrooms and stud-
ies (Condliffe et al., 2017). To date, no comprehensive frameworks have
been developed to assess the processes and outcomes of technology-infused
PBLL. Beckett and Slater (2018) suggested that this lack of an effective
assessment framework may be due to the nature of PBLL projects, which
involve many aspects of development; the complex dynamics of technol-
ogy-based PBLL, such as multiple objectives and class activities, make it
challenging to decide what to assess and what data to collect as the bases
for assessment. Consequently, a PBLL assessment framework that entails
various aspects of development and addresses both learning progress and
learning outcomes is strongly needed. This chapter aims to fill that gap.

This chapter begins with a review of the existing literature on technology-
infused PBLL by focusing on the assessment of learning in those studies
and providing an analysis of the gaps in current PBLL assessment. It then
delineates a framework that has been developed to assess the learning
processes and outcomes of technology-infused PBLL projects. Finally, the
chapter describes a technology-infused PBLL unit in a language course to
illustrate how the framework for PBLL assessment can be applied.
Two Types of Technology-Infused
PBLL Projects
Reviewing the literature concerning technology-infused PBLL unveils
two types of PBLL projects, distinguished by their primary focus: (1)

Assessing Technology-Infused PBLL 225
technology-infused projects exclusively aimed at language learning (Type
I  projects), and (2) technology-infused content-and-language-learning
projects (Type II projects). Type I projects focus solely on learning lan-
guage forms or skills. One example of this type is detailed by Lee (2014),
who discussed a project in which ESL students learned about and prac-
ticed using English prepositions. Another example is found in Reisi and
Saniei (2016), who explored the effects of a word-webbing project on the
expansion of the English vocabulary of EFL students.

Reports of Type II projects occur more commonly in the PBLL litera-
ture than Type I projects. Type II projects aim to help language learners
acquire linguistic knowledge alongside knowledge or skills from other
disciplines. The majority of Type II projects have been implemented in
language and culture classrooms (e.g., Dooly  & Sadler, 2016; Gómez,
2016; Nishioka, 2016; Roy, 2017; Zachoval, 2011). For instance, Nish-
ioka (2016) conducted a case study in a Japanese language course where
three participants learned Japanese and storytelling skills in a collabora-
tive digital storytelling project. Few studies have described the implemen-
tation of PBLL in courses from other disciplines taken by ESL students,
such as science classes. Notable exceptions are Hafner (2014), who
described a PBLL project in a science course in which students learned
scientific and linguistic knowledge through digital video projects, and
Terrazas-Arellanes et al. (2015), who conducted a pilot study exploring
the effects of scientific knowledge and academic language learning in two
collaborative bilingual online project units.

Learning Assessment in the Two Types of
Technology-Infused PBLL
Research on the two types of technology-infused PBLL has revealed that
PBLL projects have been assessed from six aspects: language knowledge/
skill development; discipline-specific knowledge/skill development; tech-
nical knowledge/skill development; critical thinking development; group
competence development; and affective disposition toward PBLL. The
following sections discuss each aspect of assessment.

Assessment of Language Knowledge/Skills
As previously discussed, both Type I  and II technology-infused PBLL
projects have language learning as their overarching objective: Projects
are intended to improve students’ specific language knowledge or skills.
To evaluate learning outcomes, several studies have adopted a pre-test,
post-test, or delayed post-test design (e.g., Shiraz & Larsari, 2014; Wu &
Meng, 2010). Some studies (e.g., Gómez, 2016; Hafner, 2014) have
assessed the relevant linguistic knowledge learning as demonstrated in
the final projects. In addition to the assessment of language improvement,
limited numbers of studies have examined students’ interactive learning

226  Mo Chen and Roz R. Hirch
processes and assessed how language knowledge or skills develop in
PBLL (e.g., Jeon-Ellis et al., 2005; Nishioka, 2016). In one such instance,
Jeon-Ellis et al. (2005) conducted a discourse analysis of group members’
conversations and illustrated how they helped each other with French
pronunciation and vocabulary. Such assessments of the learning process
have provided instructors and researchers with crucial insights into com-
plex learning processes at the formative, classroom level.

Disciplinary Knowledge/Skills Assessment
In addition to language learning, students also learn discipline-specific
knowledge and skills in Type II PBLL projects. To assess learning out-
comes in specific disciplines or domains, instructors either assess a final
project or conduct pre- and post-tests (e.g., Hafner, 2014; Zachoval,
2011). Very few studies have assessed the process of learning disciplinary
knowledge. Research conducted by Dooly and Sadler (2016) is an excep-
tion. They analyzed learners’ communication with teachers, partners,
and virtual avatars when learning sociocultural knowledge about healthy
and unhealthy lifestyle habits. Classroom observations and an ensuing
discourse analysis revealed how learning took place and how different
factors in classroom settings contributed to learning.

Technology Knowledge/Skills Assessment
In many technology-infused PBLL projects, students use technologies to
develop products, interact with group members in a digital environment,
and log into software or webpages for class activities. In alignment with
the popularity of technology in PBLL, assessment of technology knowl-
edge/skills in PBLL has become crucial. However, only a few studies (e.g.,
Campbell, 2012; Hafner, 2014) have assessed students’ technical skills
with PBLL final projects or in students’ learning processes. In one study,
Hafner (2014) assessed three video documentaries made by English-
learners in a PBLL course in Hong Kong. He found that students success-
fully filmed and edited videos by using various techniques to represent
and explain scientific, social, or personal issues.

Assessment of Critical Thinking Competence
Developing students’ critical thinking has remained a key objective in
education for decades (Paul, 1993). According to Paul, critical thinking
is essential for individuals’ daily lives, social communication, and profes-
sional development; therefore, these skills should be honed throughout
one’s education. Critical thinking has been defined as

The use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the prob-
ability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that

Assessing Technology-Infused PBLL 227
is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed—the kind of thinking
involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating
likelihoods, and making decisions, when the thinker is using skills
that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type
of thinking task.

(Halpern, 2013, p. 4)
When discussing the benefits of PBLL, many researchers have highlighted
its value in developing skills for critical thinking (Beckett & Slater, 2018;
Slater, Beckett,  & Aufderhaar, 2006). Conversely, only a few studies
(e.g., Roy, 2017; Yang, 2001) have evaluated students’ critical think-
ing development in technology-infused PBLL projects. In Yang’s study
(2001), researchers found that students encountered difficulties in under-
standing, selecting, and evaluating online resources for project develop-
ment. Given that critical thinking skills are considered to be among the
most important “21st-century skills” and have been labeled as a key area
for development in PBLL (Lin, Preston, Kharrufa, & Kong, 2016), their
assessment in PBLL projects is vital.

Assessment of Group Competence
Group competence is the ability of the group to work together cohesively.
Many Type I and Type II technology-infused PBLL projects involve group
work and collaboration (e.g., Jeon-Ellis et al., 2005; Hafner, 2014; Lee,
2014; Reisi & Saniei, 2016; Thitivesa, 2014). However, studies assess-
ing group competence in technology-infused PBLL are scarce. In one
study, Jeon-Ellis et  al. (2005) video-recorded students’ conversations
during group activities. The discourse analysis revealed that in one three-
member group, one group member did not respond to another mem-
ber’s questions and seemed to exclude that person from group discussion.
Unsurprisingly, this non-collegial dynamic lowered the learning interest
and engagement of the excluded individual.

Assessment of Affective Disposition Towards PBLL
In addition to the assessment of knowledge learning and competence
development, many studies have assessed students’ confidence, attitude,
motivation, and enthusiasm for PBLL (e.g., Gómez, 2016; Lee, 2014; Sid-
man-Taveau, 2005; Terrazas-Arellanes et al., 2015; Wu & Meng, 2010;
Zachoval, 2011). By analyzing questionnaires, interview responses, and
classroom observations, Gómez (2016), Lee (2014), Terrazas-Arellanes
et al. (2015), Wu and Meng (2010), and Zachoval (2011) found that stu-
dents enjoyed and were motivated to learn language and content knowl-
edge with PBLL.

This review of the existing literature demonstrates the ways that
PBLL has been assessed in terms of language knowledge/skill learning,

228  Mo Chen and Roz R. Hirch
disciplinary knowledge/skill learning, technical knowledge/skill learn-
ing, critical thinking competence, group competence, and—more
generally—students’ overall affective disposition towards PBLL. One
of the main issues in PBLL assessment concerns the assessment of lan-
guage and discipline-specific knowledge/skills in PBLL projects. Many
PBLL courses or units teach both language and discipline-specific content
knowledge/skills; their assessment, however, focuses on only one of these
aspects of learning. Sawamura (2010) found that even though learning
disciplinary content knowledge is one of the main goals of PBLL, “it
appears to be only the background against which students’ language is
evaluated” (p. 48). Some researchers do not assess the learning outcomes
of disciplinary knowledge or skills when they teach both language and
disciplinary knowledge to students in PBLL projects (e.g., Shiraz & Lar-
sari, 2014; Wu & Meng, 2010; Zachoval, 2011). Conversely, studies on
PBLL units in discipline courses (e.g., science) focused mainly on content
knowledge and did not assess learners’ improvement in language knowl-
edge/skills (e.g. Terrazas-Arellanes et al, 2015). Although each course/
unit has different curricular emphases, Sawamura (2010) suggested that
both language and content should be assessed because both of them are
being developed in the learning process and invariably contribute to
the success of project learning (despite the fact that the weight of their
respective assessments may differ), as both of them are key components
to the success of the project.

Another difficulty in PBLL assessment relates to the assessment of
project competences, such as critical thinking competence and group
competence. Despite the emphasis on these in the PBLL literature, very
few PBLL courses have assessed the development of these competences.
There are two possible reasons for this. First, traditional exams that are
used to assess knowledge improvement are not appropriate for evaluat-
ing capacity development (Condliffe et al., 2017). Developing appropri-
ate assessment instruments can be demanding and time-consuming for
PBLL instructors. Second, few PBLL courses articulate concrete goals
for students’ capacity development, and few include appropriate activi-
ties to cultivate those competences. According to Biggs (2003), concrete
objectives are crucial for developing teaching materials and learning
assessments. Without specific and clear learning objectives, designers of
PBLL units are unable to integrate appropriate learning activities into
classrooms and assess students’ competence development efficiently. To
assess competences in PBLL, Condliffe et al. (2017) suggest that instruc-
tors use performance-based assessment (e.g., the assessment of students’
final products, writing samples, etc.) to evaluate students’ capabilities in
target knowledge and skills. Instructors should also establish clear and
measurable learning goals for capacity development and assessment.

Adding to these two main issues is the fact that technology-infused
PBLL assessment entails assessment of the learning process. In the

Assessing Technology-Infused PBLL 229
existing literature, some studies (e.g., Reisi & Saniei, 2016; Shiraz & Lar-
sari, 2014; Wu & Meng, 2010) assessed learning only before and after
projects and neglected to inquire into the learning process itself. PBLL
courses/units can last from a few days to an entire semester; assessing
the learning process throughout the entire period of instruction not only
provides insight into the ways in which knowledge and competences are
developed but also informs students that their involvement in project
activities is equally important to the presentation of their final products
and portfolios at the end of the course or unit.

Technology-Infused PBLL Assessment Framework
This chapter addresses the gaps in the literature previously mentioned
by describing a framework designed to help instructors and researchers
attend to the aspects of PBLL that warrant consideration when planning
and assessing projects or units. Described in Table 12.1, the assessment
framework includes four sections: the constructs and their subconstructs
for assessment; learning objectives and goals of each construct; instru-
ments for assessing the learning process; and instruments for assessing
outcomes. The following section will explain each element individually.

Constructs and Subconstructs for Assessment
Constructs are a topic too large to explore extensively here (for over-
views of construct, see Bachman, 2007; Chapelle, 1998); for the purposes
of this chapter, a construct is defined as “a meaningful interpretation of
observed behavior” (Chapelle, 1998, p. 33). In an assessment of language
skills, some aspect of language—for example, speaking, grammar, or aca-
demic writing—is the construct, and once it is defined, the assessment
can be developed from that construct (Bachman, 2007). PBLL differs
from other more traditional language assessments in that the construct
comprises both language and project skills (Slater et al., 2006). In order
to assess the construct of learner development in a technology-infused
PBLL class, the assessment framework presented in Table 12.1 includes
three subconstructs: project knowledge/skills, project capacity, and pro-
ject affective disposition. “Project knowledge/skills” refers to knowledge/
skills that learners are expected to improve based on the learning objec-
tives of the PBLL units/ curriculum. “Project capacity” is defined as vari-
ous competences that students are expected to develop through PBLL
based on the goals of the PBLL units/curriculum. “Project affective dis-
position” concerns students’ confidence, attitudes, and motivation about
their PBLL learning experience.

The first subconstruct, project knowledge/skills, includes three compo-
nents: language knowledge/skills, disciplinary knowledge/skills, and tech-
nical knowledge/skills. “Language knowledge/skills” refers to linguistic

Table 12.1  Framework for assessing the construct of learner development in technology-infused PBLL

Project knowledge and skills Subconstructs Affective disposition
Project Capacity toward technology-
infused PBLL

Language Disciplinary Technical Critical Thinking Group Competence
knowledge knowledge knowledge/ Competence
and skills and skills skills

Skill Language Skill Language
use use

Learning • Specific • Specific • Specific • Classification Related • Communication Related • Confidence
objectives language content technical • Principles language • Collaboration language • Attitude
or goals knowledge/ knowledge/ knowledge/ • Evaluation use • Conflict use • Motivation
skills skills in skills • Description resolution
target • Sequence • Leadership
discipline(s) • Choice

Assessment • Classroom and online recording of group activities
of • Classroom observation
learning • Class assignments/activities
process • Self- and peer assessment: weekly journals/reflections, project diaries, and group/one-one-one conference
• Regular group meetings and one-on-one conferences.

Assessment • Final products and their • Final products • Final products and their • Self- and
of presentation • Self- and peer assessment presentation peer
learning • Pre- and post-tests assessment
outcomes • Self- and peer assessment • Self- and peer assessment

Assessing Technology-Infused PBLL 231
knowledge/skills that students learn in PBLL (e.g., transition words,
reading comprehension skills). By comparison, “disciplinary knowledge/
skills” denotes the knowledge/skills in disciplines other than linguistics
that students learn in PBLL (e.g., statistics). “Technical knowledge/skills”
refers to skills such as the ability to use technology to develop projects,
communicate with group members, and search for resources. The second
subconstruct, project capacity, includes two components: critical think-
ing competence and group competence. “Critical thinking competence”
entails selecting appropriate project topics, justifying one’s ideas, criti-
quing the ideas of others, and making decisions. “Group competence”
concerns skills in group communication, collaboration, conflict resolu-
tion, and leadership.

It is important to note that this framework is broad and includes
a variety of subconstructs. In each PBLL implementation, instructors
and researchers should adapt the framework based on the learning
objectives of the class. For instance, some units focus on training stu-
dents in the use of target linguistic features (e.g., prepositions); these
units are not intended to introduce content knowledge from other
disciplines. When assessing students’ project knowledge development
in such circumstances, the disciplinary knowledge/skill would not be
included in the assessment, since the discipline and the language are
one and the same.

Course/Unit Objectives and Goals
“Course/unit objectives and goals” indicate a set of knowledge, skills,
competences and attitudes by which students are expected to demon-
strate their achievement in PBLL classes. Including clear and measur-
able learning objectives and goals for each construct in the framework
is critical for establishing assessments and selecting assessment methods.
In this framework, tentative objectives and goals for each construct are
suggested for instructors and researchers.

Project Knowledge/Skills
The objectives of project knowledge and skills comprise the target lan-
guage, discipline specific, and technical knowledge/skills that students are
expected to master through the course or unit.

In terms of language learning, students learn specific language forms
and functions or improve specific language skills via a technology-infused
PBLL project. For instance, the objective of a PBLL unit can focus on
teaching students English reading comprehension strategies through ana-
lyzing and reading a variety of articles. If aligned with learning objec-
tives, the assessment probes the extent to which knowledge of target
linguistic features has improved throughout the PBLL course and assess

232  Mo Chen and Roz R. Hirch
students’ final learning outcomes. It is worth noting that even though
PBLL work encourages students to use different language knowledge or
skills in various classroom activities and projects, each project should
have a focus or a specific objective for language teaching and learning.
Objectives such as “improving students’ English communication and
speaking skills” are too general for precise and meaningful knowledge
learning and assessment.

In addition to the objectives surrounding linguistic learning, many
PBLL classes are developed to teach students content knowledge from
other disciplines. For instance, students may learn three to five aspects of
Spanish culture along with target elements of the Spanish language when
they are working on a project requiring them to develop a travel bro-
chure for a three-day trip to Spain. In this circumstance, specific aspects
of Spanish culture constitute the content knowledge learning objective;
consequently, the assessment will focus on how students learn about
those aspects of Spanish culture, and how they demonstrate their mastery
of target cultural knowledge.

The objectives related to technology knowledge/skills may include
using technical knowledge and skills to develop projects, to communi-
cate with group members, and to search for necessary resources. Instruc-
tors can also establish course objectives related to technology knowledge
within those domains.

Project Competences
In addition to the objectives of project knowledge/skills, PBLL units/
courses should also set up clear and measurable learning goals for
capacity development. In this framework, two objectives for project
competences—critical thinking competence and group competence—are
suggested based on the existing research. Instructors may adjust these
objectives based on the requirements of their curricula. One key feature of
learning objectives for project competences in the framework is that each
competence has its own objectives for both skill acquisition and related
language development. Lee (2002) found that insufficient L2 knowledge
and skills limited students’ ability to engage in critical thinking and work
in groups of language learners at different proficiency levels. When teach-
ing critical thinking and group communication skills, instructors impart
relevant linguistic knowledge as tools for students’ competence develop-
ment. Moreover, according to Slater et  al. (2006), many ESL students
believe that language components should be the only learning objectives
in language courses. Setting up skill and language objectives for each
competence helps shift such thinking by highlighting the importance of
those competences in the PBLL classroom and demonstrating that the
development of language knowledge relates to those competences (Beck-
ett & Slater, 2005).

Assessing Technology-Infused PBLL 233
Critical thinking—a component of project capacity—refers to the
learners’ ability to apply reason and creativity to solve a problem
(Yang & Wu, 2012). As such, critical thinking involves different types of
cognitive skills; instructors therefore need to set up concrete and feasible
learning objectives for the development of critical thinking competence
in PBLL. Beckett and Slater (2005) described Mohan’s (1986) knowledge
framework (KF) as a powerful tool that synthesizes six critical thinking
skills—classification, principles, evaluation, description, sequence, and
choice—and related language use. Given that the KF describes and cat-
egorizes primary thinking skills and related language use for learning and
assessment, this framework has integrated the KF for setting up learning
objectives of critical thinking competence. Based on the KF, instructors
should consider what types of critical thinking—and language reflecting
that critical thinking—the project requires, and they should incorporate
these into learning goals in their PBLL courses. For example, an instruc-
tor might decide on learning objectives concerning thinking skills and
language knowledge related to evaluation and choice. In that case, the
instructor would plan to guide students to use appropriate thinking verbs
or comparative conjunctions in their utterances and writing to challenge
opposing points of view. See Slater and Beckett (2019) or Slater (2020,
Chapter 10) for more on the use of the KF in PBLL.
In terms of group competence, Condliffe et al. (2017) discussed four
relevant skills in project-based learning: communication, collaboration,
conflict resolution, and leadership. Instructors can develop course goals
based on imparting specific skills and language knowledge using group
competence. For example, the learning goals of a PBLL unit might be to
improve group communication skills in seeking help among group mem-
bers. Correspondingly, students would be expected to learn how to use
modal words to request help.

Affective Disposition Toward PBLL
Instructors can also establish expectations for students’ affective disposi-
tion toward PBLL. For instance, students are expected to become more
confident about target language and content knowledge/skills through
PBLL; they will be engaged in various PBLL activities and will be moti-
vated to learn knowledge and develop various competences.

After setting up clear learning objectives and goals for each component
of the PBLL unit, instructors and researchers need to collect evidence
to evaluate the achievement of those objectives. According to Chapelle
(2003), there are two types of data with which to evaluate learning in
computer-assisted language activities: learning process data and learning
outcome data. “Learning process data” refers to “records of learners’
language and behavior documented while they are working on computer-
mediated tasks” (p. 98). “Learning outcome data” is evidence that can be