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

234  Mo Chen and Roz R. Hirch
used to evaluate students’ knowledge and skill improvement after engag-
ing in specific learning activities. Collecting both learning process and
outcome data is beneficial because these data are complementary, indi-
cating the effects of learning activities and reflecting complex learning
processes in PBLL.

Methods of Collecting Learning Process Data in
Technology-Infused PBLL
In PBLL classrooms, instructors and researchers can collect students’
classroom performance data, such as classroom recording data, class-
room observation data, and in-class handouts and assignment sheets, to
evaluate students’ learning performances; they can also collect self- and
peer assessment data from students’ weekly journals/reflections, class-
room surveys and project diaries, regular group meetings, and one-on-
one conferences to see how students perceive their learning and that of
their peers.

Classroom and Online Recordings of Group Activities
Many researchers record students’ conversations in the classroom and
then transcribe them for discourse analysis of language or skill devel-
opment. Historically, transcribing students’ utterances has been tedious
and time-consuming, but the development of artificial intelligence (AI)
technology has made the task manageable, enabling assessments to be
made with such data. For instance, some mobile apps, such as Otter
Voice Notes, have ambient voice intelligence technology that allows for
the pauses, overlaps, and ungrammatical speech that naturally occur in
conversation and generates transcripts with very high accuracy. Moreo-
ver, those apps are able to recognize the identity of each speaker and tag
each utterance with the speaker’s ID in the digital transcripts. In PBLL
classrooms, teachers can instruct each group of students to set a phone
with the app on the table during classroom conversations. Instructors
can then use the transcripts to grade individual performance by develop-
ing a scoring rubric to quantify specific aspects of students’ language in
the transcripts from a class activity. Researchers and instructors can also
conduct detailed qualitative analysis with transcripts.

Classroom Observation
Classroom observation is another means by which instructors and
researchers can assess learning processes in classroom settings. Com-
pared to recording and transcribing, classroom observation saves time,
but it requires efficient and quick assessment. In a 50-minute PBLL class,
each group’s observation cycle can last 5 to 10 minutes. Observers watch

Assessing Technology-Infused PBLL 235
students’ interactions, answer their questions, score their performance,
and take notes. A Likert-scale observation checklist and an accompany-
ing evaluation rubric can facilitate efficient assessment of students’ per-
formance and learning attitudes when observers have limited exposure
to group activities. During the evaluation phase, observers can weigh
students’ performance against pre-determined criteria to establish a score
for each dimension. They may also take notes on the details of students’
speech and behavior.

Class Assignments
Instructors usually distribute in-class assignments with a list of questions
for students. For instance, when assessing students’ learning of sequenc-
ing words, instructors may ask them to use those words to arrange a
number of sentences in logical order. Such assignments can help instruc-
tors gain insight into how well students are learning.

Self- and Peer Assessment
Many PBLL classes ask students to keep journals or project diaries to
reflect on their learning process and describe their learning attitudes
and feelings when they are involved in different components of project
development with partners or by themselves. Weekly journals, project
diaries, and classroom surveys are self- and peer assessment tools that
enable instructors to monitor students’ progress and understand their
difficulties. Based on students’ L2 proficiency, instructors and researchers
can design different tasks for self- and peer assessment. Sidman-Taveau
(2005) found that language learners at beginner or intermediate levels
often lack the metacognitive knowledge to sufficiently describe their
learning experience and feelings with L2 in journals or diaries. He sug-
gested that instructors design multiple-choice questions on specific learn-
ing of knowledge and capacity development and Likert-scale items for
such students to use as tools for reflection. For students with higher L2
English proficiency, instructors can also include open-ended questions to
guide writing in journals and diaries. As described in Sidman-Taveau’s
report (2005), instructors can compose specific questions related to
project knowledge learning and capacity development (such as, “what
grammar did you learn while writing your articles?”) and ask students to
assess their learning.

Regular Group Meetings and One-on-One
Conferences
Instructors can arrange a time in or outside of class for group meetings
or one-on-one conferences with students. By holding group meetings,

236  Mo Chen and Roz R. Hirch
instructors can monitor the progress of a group project and task distribu-
tion among group members; they can also note students’ questions and
concerns and provide oral and written feedback. In addition, to better
assess each student’s progress, instructors can meet individuals during
a 10-minute feedback session in their office. Instructors check on stu-
dents’ learning attitudes and feelings and make suggestions concerning
students’ individual and collaborative learning at specific stages of PBLL.

Methods of Assessing Learning Outcomes
in Technology-Infused PBLL
In addition to assessing students’ learning process, it is important to eval-
uate the learning outcomes to determine whether they have been met.
Methods of assessing outcomes include final products and their pres-
entation, pre- and post-tests, self- or peer assessments, interviews, and
reflections.

Final Products and Their Presentation
The final products are students’ tangible outputs that address the learning
objectives and driving questions of the lessons, units, or courses; therefore,
they can be used to assess students’ learning and development in PBLL
(Condliffe et al., 2017). In alignment with the learning objectives, instruc-
tors can develop rubrics and criteria to assess each group’s work from vari-
ous perspectives. The presentation of final products can also be used to
assess students’ learning outcomes. Instructors can develop their evaluation
rubrics and criteria based on the learning objectives of each course or unit.

Pre- and Post-tests
Traditional pre- and post-tests are usually used in language classes to
assess students’ knowledge before and after a unit or a semester. Sim-
kins, Cole, Tavalin, & Means (2002) found that pre- and post-tests are
appropriate to assess project knowledge development in PBLL. Based
on learning objectives, tests on target linguistic and content knowledge
are developed and distributed to students. It is noted that content and
technical skills and project competences, such as reasoning and think-
ing competence, group competence, and project affective disposition, are
not easily assessed in achievement tests (Conley & Darling-Hammond,
2013). These areas can be assessed using either final products or through
self-assessment/peer assessment.

Self-assessment/Peer assessment
Self- and peer assessments are valuable in project learning (Foss, Car-
ney, McDonald, & Rooks, 2008). Various forms of self-assessment are

Assessing Technology-Infused PBLL 237
available, such as a final course survey, an oral interview with instruc-
tors, or a final written reflection (Simkins et al., 2002). For instance, in a
course survey, students can check Likert-scale items to indicate how they
perceived their improvement in target linguistic and content knowledge/
skills, how they perceived their development of specific thinking compe-
tences (e.g., critiquing skills) and group competence (e.g., collaborative
skills), and how they perceived the growth of their engagement, motiva-
tion, and interest towards project learning. In addition, instructors can
include open-ended questions to allow students to add more detailed
information in their assessment. Students can also conduct peer assess-
ments to evaluate their group members’ individual contribution to the
project collaborative skills and attitudes towards project learning (Oak-
ley, Felder, Brent, & Elhajj, 2004). Simkins et al. (2002) suggested that
instructors should involve students in designing evaluation items and
rubrics for self- and peer assessment. In such cases, students are required
to review the learning objectives and goals of the project, devise Likert
scales/checklists, compose evaluation rubrics, and use those rubrics in
assessment.

When evaluating students’ PBLL performance, Condliffe et al. (2017)
suggested that both process and outcome information should be taken
into consideration. To emphasize the importance of learning process and
outcomes in PBLL, instructors can assign values to various components/
tasks in the project assignment. For instance, Debski (2006) described a
grading rubric for a PBLL course. In this rubric, assessment of learning
outcomes accounted for 60% of the final grade (40% based on website
development and 20% based on a presentation/interview), with the pro-
cess assessment accounting for 40% (20% based on a chat task and 20%
based on journals). Integrating both process and outcome scores helps
evaluate students’ performance holistically.

An Example of Using the Framework for Technology-Infused
PBLL Assessment in a Unit
To illustrate the operation of this framework in PBLL assessment, we
described a movie unit and its learning assessment in a language course.
The four-week movie unit has been used in an advanced ESL writing
course at a large university in the midwestern United States. In week one
of this unit (three hour per week), the instructor discussed the unit in gen-
eral, its major group tasks (i.e., developing a website for a movie), and the
requisite individual task (i.e., writing a movie review). The instructor also
demonstrated how to develop movie websites on Google Sites. Groups of
three or four students then selected and watched a movie on the theme
of cultural clash, and made a plan for the project. The next week, the
instructor discussed the plot summary assignment, and students in each
group were given time to compose the plot summary together in class.
They also delegated website development tasks (e.g., homepage, gallery,

238  Mo Chen and Roz R. Hirch
and multimedia center) to individual members, and began website devel-
opment. In week three, the instructor explained the movie review assign-
ment, students composed reviews individually, and then they continued
developing the movie website in groups. The following week, students
posted the plot summary and their individual movie reviews on the web-
site, tested website navigation and links, practiced website presentation,
and delivered their group presentations in class. With this movie unit as
sample content, we designed learning objectives and related assessments
based on the PBLL framework for assessment described in this chapter
(see Table 12.2).

In terms of project knowledge and skills, the movie unit had three
main learning objectives: language, content, and technical knowledge/
skills. For each of them, the process and outcome assessments are listed
in Table  12.2. For instance, in terms of linguistic knowledge, the unit
can focus on distinguishing simple past, present perfect, and simple pre-
sent tenses in academic writing. In alignment with this learning objec-
tive, instructors can deliver a lecture on simple past, present perfect, and
simple present tenses and then distribute in-class assignments (e.g., error
correction exercises) to monitor students’ learning progress. Instructors
can also conduct classroom observations and collect weekly reflections
to assess learning progress. At the end of this unit, instructors can assess
students’ mastery of those tenses in the final products.

According to this framework, the unit plan not only includes clear
learning objectives in terms of project knowledge/skills, but also in terms
of project capabilities, namely critical thinking competence and group
competence. Specifically, three thinking skills—sequence, principles, and
evaluation—from the KF proposed by Mohan (1986) and suggested by
Slater (Chapter 10, this volume) can be established as learning objectives
for critical thinking. Correspondingly, the learning objectives concerned
with language use include temporal sequencing conjunctions and adver-
bials (e.g., to begin with, when-clauses), explaining vocabulary (e.g.,
because), and evaluative vocabulary (e.g., valuable, provocative). The
instructor can prepare in-class assignments and activities to assess skills
and vocabulary related to sequence and principle in class. In one class
activity, groups of students can be required to put sentences in the right
order and to connect those sentences with appropriate sequencing con-
junctions and adverbials. They can also be asked to articulate the reasons
for each of their choices by using explaining words or phrases. To assess
the learning process, the in-class assignment is graded, and the class
activity can be recorded and transcribed by transcription software and
then analyzed by instructors. These learning outcomes can be assessed
through the final product (i.e., the plot summary).

Finally, when assessing students’ affective disposition towards PBLL,
instructors may schedule a one-on-one conference with individual
students or ask students to assess their own and their peers’ learning

Table 12.2  An example of the PBLL framework assessment for learning process and outcome assessment

Subcontract Component Learning objectives Learning process Learning outcome
Project assessment assessment
knowledge Language Verb tenses: In-class assignments a. Plot summary
and skills knowledge/skills simple past, present perfect, simple present b. Movie review
Project a. Movie website
capacity Content The content of the selected movie on Classroom observation/ b. Group presentation
knowledge/skills “A Cultural Clash” In-class assignments a. Movie website
Affective b. Group presentation
disposition Technical Technical knowledge of building a website Classroom observation/ a. Plot summary
towards knowledge/skills on Google Sites Weekly reflection/Survey b. Movie review
PBLL
Critical thinking - Skills: sequence and principle; evaluation In-class assignment/ a. Movie website and
Competence Classroom recording group presentation
- Language:
Group sequencing and explaining vocabulary; Classroom recording/ b. Surveys
competency Weekly journals
evaluative vocabulary Surveys
- Skills: One-on-one conference/
a. Negotiating skills for clarification in Surveys/Weekly journals

communication and workload distribution
b. Individual accountability in the group

work
- Language:
Using wh-, yes-no, and tag questions and

modal verbs to negotiate ideas
Students have positive attitudes towards

the PBLL

240  Mo Chen and Roz R. Hirch

motivation and interest with surveys or weekly journals in the learning
process. The self- and peer assessment can also be given at the end of
the unit to assess students’ overall attitudes and satisfaction toward the
technology-infused PBLL in this unit.

Conclusion

Assessment is an important component of any curriculum and should be
built into the entire course, rather than treated as something that occurs at
the end. This is especially the case for technology-infused PBLL courses,
which have special requirements that must be taken into consideration;
students are simultaneously building content knowledge and learning
how to communicate within that knowledge environment. This chap-
ter has proposed a technology-infused PBLL assessment framework that
can assist instructors and researchers with setting up learning objectives
and evaluating student performance throughout a course. In alignment
with the learning objectives of each component of a subconstruct, we
have suggested activities and tools for assessing students’ learning pro-
cess and outcomes. Given that each course has its own unique emphases
in curriculum design, instructors and researchers need to select appropri-
ate course objectives and goals rather than assessing all the components
included in the framework. The framework also provides suggestions
for instruments that can be used when assessing learning processes and
outcomes of PBLL. Instructors and researchers can choose appropri-
ate assessment tools depending on the class design and the goals of the
assessment. While more field testing and validation work is required, this
framework offers a guideline based on established research for instruc-
tors to develop appropriate assessments for a technology-infused PBLL
classroom.

References

Bachman, L. (2007). What is the construct? The dialectic of abilities and contexts
in defining constructs in language assessment. In J. D. Fox, M. Wesche, & D.
Bayliss (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 41–71). Ottawa, ON: Uni-
versity of Ottawa Press.

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 lan-
guage learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics
(pp. 1–8). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.
wbeal1487

Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations, 2(4), 13–17.

Assessing Technology-Infused PBLL 241

Campbell, S. A. (2012). The phenomenological study of ESL students in a project-
based learning environment. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Social Sciences: Annual Review, 6(11), 139–152. doi:10.18848/1833–1882/
CGP/v06i11/52187

Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research.
In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language
acquisition and language testing (pp. 32–70). New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Pr.

Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam,
PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M. G., Bangser, M. R., Drohojowska, S., Saco,
L., & Nelson, E. (2017, October). Project-based learning: A literature review.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578933.pdf

Conley, D. T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Creating systems of assessment
for Deeper learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in
Education. Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pub-
lications/creating-systems-assessment-deeper-learning_0.pdf

Debski, R. (2006). Project-based language teaching with technology. Retrieved
from www.researchgate.net/publication/303792681_Project-based_language_
teaching_with_technology/download

Dooly, M.,  & Sadler, R. (2016). Becoming little scientists: Technologically-
enhanced project- based language learning. Language, Learning  & Technol-
ogy, 20(1), 54–78. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44446

Foss, F., Carney, N., McDonald, K., & Rooks, M. (2008). Project-based learn-
ing activities for short-term intensive English programs. The Philippine ESL
Journal, 1, 57–78.

Gómez, S. (2016). How working collaboratively with technology can foster a
creative learning environment. In A. Pareja-Lora, C. Calle-Martínez,  & P.
Rodríguez-Arancón (Eds.), New perspectives on teaching and working with
languages in the digital era (pp. 39–50). Dublin, IN: Research-publishing.net

Hafner, C. A. (2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching:
Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly,
48(4), 655–685. doi:10.1002/tesq.138

Halpern, D. F. (2013). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical think-
ing. London, England: Psychology Press.

Jeon-Ellis, F., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around
computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning  &
Technology, 9(3), 121–145. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44035

Lee, I. (2002). Project work made easy in the English classroom. Canadian Mod-
ern Language Review, 59(2), 282–290. doi:10.3138/cmlr.59.2.282

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

Lin, M., Preston, A., Kharrufa, A., & Kong, Z. (2016). Making L2 learners’ rea-
soning skills visible: The potential of computer supported collaborative learn-
ing environments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 303–322. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.06.004

242  Mo Chen and Roz R. Hirch

Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley Pub-
lishing Company.

Nishioka, H. (2016). Analysing language development in a collaborative
digital storytelling project: Sociocultural perspectives. System, 62, 39–52.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.07.001

Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups
into effective teams. Journal of Student-Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34.
Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/
Papers/Oakley-paper(JSCL).pdf

Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly chang-
ing world (1st ed.). Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Reisi, M.,  & Saniei, A. (2016). The contribution of word webbing to project-
based learning in teaching vocabulary: A comparative study in an EFL context.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(6), 1190–1197. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0706.17

Roy, D. (2017). Developing a project-based CALL environment with technical
communication in an exploratory 3D printing context. International Jour-
nal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 75–101.
doi:10.4018/IJCALLT.2017040105

Sawamura, S. (2010). Assessment in project-based language learning. Hawaii
Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 8, 1(2), 44–49.

Shiraz, M. P., & Larsari, E. E. (2014). The effect of project-based activities on
intermediate EFL students’ reading comprehension ability. Journal of Effective
Teaching, 14(3), 38–54.

Sidman-Taveau, R. L. (2005). Computer-assisted project-based learning in sec-
ond language: case studies in adult ESL (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from www.learntechlib.org/p/94766/.

Simkins, M., Cole, K., Tavalin, F., & Means, B. (2002). Increasing student learn-
ing through multimedia projects. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Slater, T. (2020). The knowledge framework: An organizational tool for high-
lighting the “LL” in technology-integrated PBLL. In G. Beckett  & T. Slater
(Eds.), Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and
assessment: Key approaches, technology tools, and frameworks (pp. 185–203).
NY: Routledge.

Slater, T., & Beckett, G. H. (2019). Integrating language, content, technology, and
skills development through project-based language learning: Blending frame-
works for successful unit planning. MEXTESOL Journal, 43(1). Retrieved
from www.mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=5557

Slater, T., Beckett, G. H., & Aufderhaar, C. (2006). Assessing projects as second
language and content learning. In G. H. Beckett  & P. C. Miller (Ed.), Pro-
ject-based Second and Foreign language education: Past, present, and future
(pp. 241–260). Greenwich, CO: Information Age Publishing.

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

Thitivesa, D. (2014). The academic achievement of writing via project-based
learning. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic
and Management Engineering, 8(9), 2994–2997.

Assessing Technology-Infused PBLL 243

Wu, S. J.,  & Meng, L. H. (2010). The integration of inter-culture educa-
tion into intensive reading teaching for English majors through project-
based learning. Online Submission, 8(9), 26–37. Retrieved from https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED514716

Yang, S. C. (2001). Language learning on the world wide web: An investigation
of EFL learners’ attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 24(2), 155–181.

Yang, Y. C., & Wu, W. I. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student aca-
demic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A  year-long
experimental study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 339–352. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.12.012

Zachoval, F. (2011). The effect of implementing an interactive reading project on
reading comprehension in the third-semester Russian language class (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/12007

13 Altering the View of Language
Instruction in Project-Based
Learning

Examining Bilingual Teachers’
Unit Design Experiences

Annie Camey Kuo, Paul S. Sutton,
Elizabeth Wright, and Bobbie K. Miller

Introduction
A group of bilingual teachers in Spain from various content areas and
grades worked collaboratively in a classroom to design a project-based
language learning (PBLL) unit for their students who were learning Eng-
lish. As they worked to create a highly engaging, authentic, and student-
centered unit that asked students to grapple with what it means to be
a refugee, they confronted the harsh realities and dilemmas of design-
ing such a unit that would deeply engage their students. Some of the
questions they had to confront were how can a unit be designed that
seamlessly interweaves the required content while fostering skills such as
empathy, compassion, and social awareness? And how can opportuni-
ties to learn and practice discipline-specific language be incorporated to
access content and practice, as well as the language needed to interact
with other students, adults, and outside professionals?

While more and more schools and districts look to project-based
­learning to solve academic issues such as decreased student engagement
and motivation, an over-reliance on teacher-centered instruction, or a
lack of relevant and authentic connections between students and the
content (Barron  & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Belland, Glazewski,  &
Ertmer, 2009; Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Boaler & Staples, 2008; Conley,
2010), opportunities to develop language and content simultaneously are
often overlooked (Beckett, 2006; Beckett  & Slater, 2005; Kuo, 2015).
In a review of research on the use of projects in language classrooms,
Stoller (2006) cited eight benefits for students, including the authentic-
ity of experience and language, improved autonomy, independence, and
increased content knowledge. Beckett (2006) explained, “general educa-
tion researchers seem to have neglected the development of language or
discourse by focusing solely on learning skills and content knowledge”
(p.  66). Incorporation of student language socialization into the unit
design can enhance the student experience in content area classrooms.

Altering the View of Language Instruction 245
This seems to be both a fundamental issue with how teachers approach
PBLL design (Barron et  al., 1998) and, perhaps more importantly, an
issue with how teachers approach language instruction in discipline-spe-
cific classrooms.

Project-based language learning emphasizes the role of language as the
mediator for learning (Halliday, 1993). Language learning in PBLL is
viewed as social practice or action (Van Lier  & Walqui, 2012), mean-
ing that language is developed through usage, not statically or sepa-
rately from content knowledge. PBLL combines building strategic and
scaffolded opportunities for interactive language use and practice with
project-based learning elements such as authentic real-world problems,
collaboration, and technology to support student engagement and
knowledge acquisition.

Rationale for Project-Based Learning as a
Pedagogical Approach
Project-based learning, in and of itself, is not a curriculum; rather it is a
pedagogical approach. Supported by an increase in scholarly research of
the design and outcomes of project-based learning (e.g., Halvorsen et al.,
2014; Parker et al., 2013; Sutton & Knuth, 2017), schools have been turn-
ing to this strategy to bridge gaps in achievement, inspire lifelong learning
(Banks et al., 2007), produce students who are college and career ready
(Sutton & Knuth, 2017), and invite students to be active participants in
their education, elements that are not always readily apparent in class-
rooms that utilize a more teacher-driven pedagogy. Project-based learn-
ing affords teachers the opportunity to generate dilemmas that encourage
students to investigate, explain, and resolve problems while working col-
laboratively (Barron et  al., 1998; Barron  & Darling-Hammond, 2008;
Evensen  & Hmelo-Silver, 2000; Krajcik et  al., 1998; Lambros, 2004).
The goal is to present students with projects and/or problems that are
relevant to the content domain and to students. This requires teachers to
have deep knowledge of their content area as well as of their students.
Project-based instruction also gives students the opportunity to engage
in reasoning, argumentation, and explanation in the process of working
on their projects. Students are presented with a real-world problem to
explore, solve, and explain during a process of gathering, analyzing, and
using evidence and reasoning. Students are capable of this work, but they
need to be apprenticed into these practices by teachers who have deep
knowledge of them and simultaneously understand the needs of diverse
learners (Windschitl & Calabrese-Barton, 2016).

Designing and implementing project-based instruction that is relevant
to students and addresses the content area domain requires a sophisti-
cated set of skills, including content knowledge and pedagogical finesse.
Teachers who are capable of navigating the space between their own

246  Annie Camey Kuo et al.
expectations and assumptions and the reality of student expectations and
understandings are more likely to help students learn. When teachers
draw upon their students’ funds of knowledge, they send a message that
their students are important contributors to the classroom community
and belong to that community (Moll, 1992). Attending to students’ prior
knowledge is a foundational component of project-based instruction.

Language as Action in PBLL Design
Project-based learning was introduced to the field of second language
education three decades ago to promote student-centered teaching (Beck-
ett, 2006). Its use in the field more broadly is within the framework of
experiential learning and within the theoretical framework of learner
autonomy, cooperative learning, and critical thinking (Stoller, 2006; van
Lier, 2007). PBLL use promotes comprehensible input and output, the
practice of listening and speaking skills as a content-based approach, and
teaching of combined content and language (Eyring, 1989; Stoller, 2006).
Students who are learning a new language need opportunities to practice
listening, speaking, writing, and reading, skills which PBLL provides in
the form of collaborative tasks and inquiry that lead to a culminating
project. Teachers using a PBLL approach also have opportunities to build
in formal aspects of language learning by integrating language lessons
connected with the content and focus of the unit to support students’
overall growth. PBLL also addresses the functional aspect as the focus
is on the learner making meaning and what her/his goals are. In PBLL,
students drive the exploration and focus of the project and make sense of
the topic with the teacher as the facilitator.

Research shows us that project-based approaches to language instruc-
tion can foster meaningful opportunities for students to use and practice
language as well as build community and content knowledge acquisition
(Beckett, 2002; Beckett & Slater, 2005; Chan, 2001). In order to facilitate
learning opportunities in PBLL, educators must understand its theoreti-
cal underpinnings and foundational components. Historically, language
learning theories fall into two categories: those that focus on form and
those that focus on function (Brydon-Miller, 2006). Form-focused theo-
ries inform approaches to teaching that highlight the rules of language,
such as parts of speech and sentence patterns. The goal of focus-on-form
is to have the students use the forms correctly when producing language,
and this is often done through tasks which have students conjugating
verbs and completing grammar exercises. One issue with this approach is
that the rules can be taught out of context, meaning they are not used in
the context of the real world or a content area.

Theories that focus on function inform approaches that highlight how
users make meaning and what the communicative goals are (Myles,
Hooper, & Mitchell, 1998). For example, to teach language learners how

Altering the View of Language Instruction 247
to make a request, a functional lesson would focus on the different ways
of asking the question or making a statement, whereas a formal language
lesson would focus on what an interrogative statement is and what gram-
matical components the question needs to have.

An approach referred to as Language as Action (van Lier & Walqui,
2012), which has been gaining ground in language education, blends both
theories. Language as Action argues that “language is an inseparable part
of all human action, intimately connected to all other forms of action,
physical, social and symbolic” (van Lier & Walqui, 2012, p. 4). Students
in classrooms that echo this approach use language as a mediator to par-
ticipate in engaging, action-based activities that also have opportunities
for authentic language practice. The objective for students in this type
of classroom is to acquire content, academic skills, and improve their
language.

We spotlight the Language as Action approach in our PLATE frame-
work (described in the next section) because it encompasses the way we
believe language should be learned, in context and through practice. We
want teachers to move away from a more traditional focus on form to
thinking about language as a mediator for learning content such as math.

The PLATE Framework
The PLATE framework (Figure  13.1) was developed for three primary
reasons. First, we aimed to conceptualize a robust approach to PBLL
teaching. Second, we wanted to provide teachers and other practitioners
with a common vocabulary to describe how they could integrate language

PLATE
Framework

Project as Main Language as Authenticity Technology Evaluation
Course Action

Relationship Opportunities for Link to students’ Connection Formative
between language practice lives, prior between assessment
Revisions and
culminating project knowledge, and technology and reflections
and content interests project Collaboration

Layout of project Language Association to real Relationship
components instruction in world, between

throughout the unit context professional technology and
content
Student choice Language as Public presentation
mediator for to stakeholders and Technology
learning content instruction
the community

Figure 13.1  PLATE Framework

248  Annie Camey Kuo et al.
learning into a PBLL learning experience rather than leaving language
learning implicit or incidental. Third, we aspired to provide teachers and
practitioners with a way to assess the units they designed to examine the
extent to which the embedded aspects of project-based language learning
are present in any PBLL unit they design.

The framework was developed through a collaborative and iterative
process in which the researchers identified a trajectory along which teach-
ers would progress as they moved towards comprehension of the com-
ponents, implementation, and evaluation of PBLL in their classrooms.
We view the framework as a living document and present the version
that was used in the analysis. Work on this framework has been ongoing
as the framework has shifted as it has served as a lens for data analysis.

Project as Main Course
To some, project-based language learning simply means that teachers
attach a project to the end of a typical unit of instruction. However,
project-based language learning at its best is exemplified by learning
experiences where the project serves as “the spine” of a unit (Parker
et al., 2013), to provide students with “meaningful learning” experiences
(National Research Council, 2000) throughout the duration of a unit of
study. Larmer, Mergendoller, and Boss (2015) argued that when teachers
anchor units to thoughtfully designed projects, the project itself “struc-
tures student inquiry and guides learning activities toward project goals”
(p.  39). In turn, the questions students develop as they work collabo-
ratively to research and analyze evidence or solve ill-defined problems
“establish a purpose for learning” (Larmer et al., 2015). The success of a
PBLL unit also largely depends on the extent to which it reflects the kinds
of work that experts and professionals do in the applied world (Larmer
et al., 2015; Parker et al., 2013).

Language as Action
The three language as action components of the PLATE framework draw
on what research has shown us to be critical to support second language
acquisition in the classroom: opportunity for practice, instruction in con-
text, and the use of language as a mediator in the learning context. To
increase language proficiency requires students to be active in their learn-
ing and in an environment where exploration and puzzles are carefully
scaffolded for interactions and foster autonomy (Allwright  & Hanks,
2009; Deci & Flaste, 1995; Walqui & van Lier, 2010). Even though this
seems obvious, building opportunities takes thoughtful planning, espe-
cially over the course of a unit. Language instruction in context should be
provided conjointly with content instruction and activities (van Lier &
Walqui, 2012). For example, language instruction, such as how to write

Altering the View of Language Instruction 249
a summary, is taught in the context of reading a text or lab report and
not by itself as a laundry list of rules that are meant to be followed. When
teachers use language as a mediator for instruction, the learning envi-
ronment immerses students in activities that require interaction as well
as conversation, argumentation, and researching (Rutherford-Quach &
Hakuta, 2019).

Authenticity
Authenticity is not just important to ensure that students learn knowl-
edge, skills, and dispositions that will be useful in the “real world,” but
authenticity is a source of motivation for students to engage with the
material (Barron et  al., 1998; Berger, 2003; National Research Coun-
cil, 2000; Parker et  al., 2013). By authenticity, we mean the extent to
which what students are learning is mirrored in work that professionals
do out in the world (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Larmer et al., 2015). Oral
histories, water sampling, and neighborhood mapping are all examples
of work that professionals do to generate knowledge that can positively
impact local communities. Relevant curricula are equally as important.
By relevance, we mean the extent to which students see how the knowl-
edge and skills they are learning are meaningful to them and their social,
cultural, and familial background (Banks et al., 2007).

Technology
Puentedura (2006) first introduced the Substitution, Augmentation,
Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) Model to help educators charac-
terize the nature of technology use in the classroom. Where Substitution
and Augmentation introduce technology, there is little to no functional
change in instruction or learning. When teachers introduce the use of
technology that modifies or redefines instructional tasks, those tasks are
significantly different and perhaps much more difficult to comprehend
than what came before it (Puentedura, 2006). Technology could mean
anything from laptops to tablets to the applications found on them. With
an emphasis on using technology as a tool to create new tasks and learn-
ing opportunities, Puentedura’s model describes how teachers could lev-
erage technology to enhance and ultimately transform student learning
in the classroom. The SAMR model seems especially well aligned with
the ambitious goals of project- or problem-based learning, in which stu-
dents either apply knowledge to new contexts or discover new ways to
solve persistent problems. The value of technology in the classroom, and
in a PBLL classroom specifically, hinges on the extent to which teachers
use it not just as a substitute for something students would already do
but, as Puentedura (2006) asserts, to transform how students approach
the problem-solving process by either “allow[ing] for significant task

250  Annie Camey Kuo et al.
redesign” or “for the creation of new tasks.” However, Hamilton, Rosen-
berg, and Akcaoglu (2016) suggest that teachers pay as much attention
to how technology can change the process of learning as they do on how
technology empowers the products that student produce.

Evaluation
Ongoing evaluation of student work through formative assessment is key
to powerful project-based learning (Wiggins, 1990). Evaluation through-
out students’ inquiry process is crucial and should include critical feed-
back and input from outside experts, professionals, and students (Berger,
2003; Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Falk, 1995; Larmer et al., 2015).
Outside experts from the surrounding community can be enlisted to pro-
vide students with feedback at crucial steps in their project. Teachers
should design corresponding activities that demand that students reflect
on the feedback they receive from experts and professionals to revise
their end product. This process is done collaboratively, between students,
and with support from the teacher.

It is just as important for outside experts and professionals to form-
atively assess and evaluate student work throughout a project as it is
important that students learn how to provide each other with ongo-
ing, thoughtful critique and feedback on their emerging projects. Berger
(2003) describes powerful examples of peer review whereby students are
taught how to provide feedback to each other and then how to take that
feedback to improve their work. These cycles of peer review can provide
students with several pivotal skills they may need in their future careers.
These include (1) a clearer and deeper sense of what successful projects
and products look like, (2) valuable habits of mind that position failure
as part of the learning process, and (3) strong communication and col-
laborative skills.

In this chapter, we focus our discussion around bilingual teachers in
Spain and the PBLL design work they completed to ask the following
research questions: (1) To what extent did teachers attend to Language
as Action in their PBLL units? and (2) How did teachers’s assumptions
about how students learn English in PBLL contexts change? By exam-
ining these two areas, our goal is to address tensions within the PBLL
coursework design space around how language is positioned within the
planned curriculum to instigate a discussion around taking full advan-
tage of the authentic opportunities within PBLL to learn and practice
language.

Study Design and Methods
This study examines bilingual teachers’ experiences with designing
project-based learning units that focus on language learning and

Altering the View of Language Instruction 251
technology. The data for this study were pulled from a larger, multi-year
study of bilingual teachers’ experience with project-based language learn-
ing across grades and content areas and is shown in the format produced
by the participants. The bilingual teachers were participants of a profes-
sional development institute held in Spain in the summer of 2017. The 16
teachers were from different schools across the region and taught a range
of grades from primary and educación secundaria obligatoria (ESO) to
bachillerato (BACH), which is the equivalent of 11th and 12th grade
in the U.S. with focus on attending college, and formación professional
(FP), which is vocational training. The teachers also ranged in years of
experience and subject areas. Figure  13.1 shows the participants’ sub-
jects, grades, and years of experience.

Table 13.1  Teacher participant information from the 2017 PBLL Institute

Teacher Subject Area(s) Level(s) Taught Years of
Javier Geography & History, ESO and FP Experience
1–3 years
Camila Ethic Values, Tutorial ESO, BACH
Valeria class; Communication and ESO, BACH 1–3 years
Ximena Society Primary 13+ years
Mariana English and Arts and Crafts Primary 4–7 years
Victoria English Primary 8–12 years
Martina English, natural and social ESO, BACH
Gabriela Science, and Arts ESO 8–12 years
Renata English, Natural and ESO 1–3 years
Lucia Social Science in Primary Primary 8–12 years
Fernanda Education ESO 8–12 years
English
Luna Adv. English ESO, BACH 13+ years
Manuela Spanish grammar and ESO, BACH 4–7 years
Paulina literature ESO
Adriana English, Natural Science, Primary 1–3 years
Alessandra Arts and Crafts and Primary 1–3 years
Valores 1–3 years
English language, Natural 8–12 years
Science and Art 1–3 years
Visual and Audiovisual
Arts and Comunicación
Audiovisual, Imagen y
Expresión (CAIE)
English—supply teacher
English language and French
language
English
English infant
English

252  Annie Camey Kuo et al.
The goals of the two-week institute were to improve teachers’ linguis-

tic competence in English; develop an understanding of the elements of
project-based language learning; deepen their knowledge of language
acquisition and develop disciplinary specific academic language; engage
with various technological tools to utilize with adolescent students;
identify and acquire academic, language, and technology resources for
project-based learning units; and build a professional learning network
with fellow participants to promote the continuous improvement and
development of resources. The authors of this chapter developed and
facilitated the institute. During the first week, teachers learned about
and grappled with projects, embedding language instruction and technol-
ogy. The teachers started to design their units during Day 5 and contin-
ued to work collaboratively in small teams on their two- to four-week
project-based language learning units during the second week. Each day
of the workshop focused on one or two essential questions:

Week 1 Essential Questions
• What is project-based learning?
• What does project-based learning look like in the classroom? What

are some benefits and challenges to PBL?
• How can technology be incorporated into project-based learning as

a resource? What types of technology can be incorporated?
• What language opportunities exist within project-based learn-

ing classrooms? How can disciplinary language and skills be built
through PBL?
• How can we start planning a project-based unit? What is backwards
planning?
Week 2 Essential Questions
• What is the final project? How can teachers build and use rubrics for
assessment?
• What are language and content objectives?
• How can we monitor progress and build in time for reflection?
• How can we facilitate peer review and revision?

Data
Surveys and artifacts (all the documents associated with the design and
planning of the unit) were analyzed to help us understand teacher knowl-
edge uptake and the application of concepts in their units. Survey data were
collected before, during, and after the institute to provide a progressive doc-
umentation of the teachers’ experience. The six culminating assignments—
the teacher designed PBLL units—were analyzed by two researchers using
the Language as Action portion of the PLATE framework.

Altering the View of Language Instruction 253
Analysis
Our analysis of teachers’ units was conducted in the following ways.
We reviewed, discussed, revised, and finalized the PLATE framework
previous to our analysis of the teachers’ PBLL units. We then col-
laboratively analyzed one unit together and discussed the language
supports that were in place and the extent to which we thought
they represented the kind of support demanded by the “Language
in Action” dimension of the framework. We then individually ana-
lyzed three to four units, using sub-dimensions of the “Language in
Action” part of the PLATE framework, making sure that each unit
was analyzed by two of us. We used the Dedoose data analysis pro-
gram (Dedoose, 2018) to compile, organize, and structure our analy-
sis. Lastly, we met several times to discuss our individual findings,
establish over-arching themes and findings for all the units studied,
and further discuss the emergent tensions, complications, and com-
plexities of the data.

The Units
The six project-based language learning units coded were created during
the institute with teams ranging from one to four teacher participants.
Summaries of these six units are provided in the following paragraphs.

Mass Media and the Complex Sociocultural Makeup
(Camila, Martina, and Paulina)
The aim of the project is to reflect upon the different sociocultural aspects
of today’s society. Through the use of audio visual materials (American
TV shows, series), students explore a series of topics previously selected
by the teacher: diversity, LGBTQ+ collectives inclusion, and social media
pros and cons. Likewise, students reflect on their TV habits. The cul-
minating project has three stages. Stage one involves a student-created
survey about TV/Media habits, an infographic representing these habits,
and a presentation of their results to the public. Stage two is a social com-
mentary of a TV episode (a review of sorts). Stage three is a reimagining
of a TV episode. Students recreate a TV episode in some creative fashion
such as changing the ending, doing flashbacks/flashforwards, or dubbing
scenes with new dialogue.

School Art Gallery (Manuela, Adriana, and Alessandra)
The aim of the project it is to connect students’ life with art and try to
raise awareness about the role of art and artists in our society. Students
research how to run a gallery as curators of exhibitions choosing possible

254  Annie Camey Kuo et al.
Art History periods, art techniques, or media. The project is divided into
different moments. Students visit a real art gallery, research how art gal-
leries work, interview artists and experts, and present the project to the
principal to convince him or her to provide a place in the school for
the art show, create a virtual art gallery, express themselves through art,
describe art pieces, and mention the material, techniques, and elements
used, and develop an advertising campaign to make people participate
and visit the gallery. Students’ proposals are the base of the opening
day for the School Art Gallery. This event takes place at the end of the
term. Students invite the whole community to come to the gallery. They
have the opportunity to become guides and talk about the art displayed,
its style, and the elements and materials used. People coming have the
opportunity to rate the art pieces according to the feelings that this art
transmit to them.

Me as a Refugee (Javier, Valeria, Ximena, and Gabriela)
Students look at what makes someone a refugee, including looking at
the historical perspective of the French Revolution, US Human Rights
Movement, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The aim
of this project is to raise students’ awareness about the impact refugees
have on our societies, the arrival of refugees from countries in conflict,
and the fulfillment of Human Rights in their host countries towards
this group of people. Students create a Digital Magazine through the
application MADMAGZ, in which all the activities done during the
teaching-learning process are reflected for the culminating project.
The magazine must be completed during the process. There may be
the chance of:
1. An audiobook that records stories about refugees, written and illus-

trated by the students
2. Acting out and filming the stories
3. Producing a comic book
In order to promote the project and raise awareness for real impact, pro-
jects are presented during the school´s cultural week.

Healthy Habits (Mariana, Victoria, and Luna)
Year 6 Primary students already know about macromolecules (carbo-
hydrates, fats, proteins) and keep a journal (using MyFitnessPal) deter-
mining the correct amounts of macromolecules in a standard diet and
comparing that to their own eating habits. Students collect food packag-
ing representative of their eating habits and create a 3D representation
of a food pyramid as a class. Students interview a health expert asking

Altering the View of Language Instruction 255
about hygiene and necessary components of hygiene. For the culminating
project, the students show in a gallery work:
1. The food exercise diary and reflection
2. Pyramid of the food they ate and what they should eat in order to

have a healthier diet: Which proportion of fats, proteins, and carbo-
hydrates do we need?
3. Hygiene presentation
They show their own pie chart and explain the three dimensions food
pyramid with the packaging of the food they ate. As well, they create a
video, movie maker, and iMovie about hygiene.

Interior Room Design (Fernanda)
Students work with 3D-rendering objects, creating floor plans (drawn
to scale) and using architectural standards. They draw interior space
using perspective. For the culminating project, students create a profes-
sional quality Interior Design Pitch Board for a hotel customer, includ-
ing a concept, original photo, scale floor plan, 3D-perspective drawing,
3D-rendered object drawing in multiple perspectives, budget, and color/
soft-furnishings recommendations (based upon color theory).

Reproductive Systems (Renata and Lucia)
Students learn about human reproduction via confounding question of
“Am I Normal?” Students explore facets of pubertal development, and
about the human reproductive system components and functions. For
the culminating project, students create multi-media models (freedom of
choice in media) of the human reproductive tract and/or a stage in repro-
duction/gestation, and describe these models to a younger year group.

Findings
The findings from the unit analyses shed light on how bilingual teachers
understood and incorporated language instruction in their design of a
project-based language-learning unit. In addition, shifts in perspectives
on language instruction were reported by teachers in their reflections.
This section is organized by research question.

Research Question 1: To What Extent Did Teachers
Attend to Language as Action in Their PBLL Units?
We used the three elements of the Language as Action dimension of
the PLATE framework (opportunities for language practice, language

256  Annie Camey Kuo et al.
instruction in context, and language as mediator) as the lens for analysis
in conjunction with reflections from the surveys, and we found that teach-
ers recognized and built in opportunities for language learning in their
units, as we discuss in the following paragraphs. They also understood
and somewhat planned for language instruction in context. However,
explicit language instruction in relation to how disciplinary language is
used was not evident.

Language as Action: Opportunities for Language Practice
The units provided evidence that teachers were highlighting language
opportunities, in English and Spanish, the students’ first language,
throughout the units they designed. In the School Art Gallery unit, lan-
guage opportunities ranged from interviewing artists and experts to
describing art orally and in writing to various audiences. Similarly, in
the Reproductive System unit, teachers planned for students to present
their research findings and explain their models. In the Me as a Refugee
unit, students had the option to create an audio book, perform a play or
film, or create a comic book in English. In the Mass Media and Com-
plex Sociocultural Makeup unit, students had opportunities to practice
language through writing and oral language in the form of peer to peer,
whole group, and presentation opportunities. All of the units culminated
in a public presentation of their project to various audiences including
their peers, parents, experts in the field, and the broader school commu-
nity. Camila reflected, “That we can incorporate (language opportuni-
ties) all throughout the projects, without need to do an explicit unit on
it.” Opportunities for language practice were abundant throughout the
units and a crucial first step in incorporating language instruction within
project-based learning.

Language as Action: Language Instruction in Context
In the surveys, teachers also expressed an understanding of the impor-
tance of providing language instruction in connection with the content.
Mariana explained, “I’ve learnt that (teaching) the language is less diffi-
cult when you focus in the function. It’s more practical make the students
use the language with meaningful activities and when they have the goal
of explain to others.” Vocabulary instruction was a key component of
the units as language instruction. In the Me as a Refugee unit, students
practiced vocabulary related to the refugee crisis and created conceptual
maps to plot their understanding of the ways non-profit organizations,
government agencies, and politicians have conveyed their point of view.
As part of the Interior Room Design unit, students read floor plans while
identifying, defining, and learning vocabulary associated with pitching
concepts to hotel management. The School Art Gallery also highlighted

Altering the View of Language Instruction 257
vocabulary instruction related to art movements, art elements, and vari-
ous aspects of creating an art gallery. While vocabulary instruction is
important, it should not be the only aspect of language instruction taught
in context.

Language as Action: Language as Mediator
It was not evident from the units that teachers explicitly built in activities
that showed language as a mediator for learning content. For example,
many of the units included descriptions of the language functions stu-
dents would be using, such as “explaining findings to peers” and “reflect
on similarities and differences between TV series in oral and written
forms,” but they did not describe how the language would be taught,
such as looking at examples of entertainment critiques from the media
and dissecting the language including the structure and features they use.
There was recognition of the importance of teaching language usage in
connection to how it is used in the discipline and in the real world. Ales-
sandra shared, “I have realized that we must pay more attention to lan-
guage and know how we want students to use the language.” Lucia,
co-collaborator on the Reproductive Systems unit, said, “that a science
lesson can be useful to work language structures.”

Research Question 2: How Did Teachers’s Assumptions About
How Students Learn English in PBLL Contexts Change?
In their survey responses, teachers described moving away from a
decontextualized, traditional approach to language teaching and seem
to be thinking about how students can learn language in the context
of a PBLL unit. For example, responses such as, “Language is learned
through action using specific grammatical features in context” from Vic-
toria demonstrate that teachers were at least thinking about ways they
could teach language differently. Other teachers said such things as “It’s
more practical [to] make the students use the language with meaningful
activities,” and “Language needs to be seen and taught in action, as an
essential part of our everyday lives, not as a fill in the blank activity.”
The responses highlight the recognition of a different perspective around
language instruction that moves towards an interactive approach. The
shift in viewpoint may be the first step in changing teachers’ instruction
practice.

Whereas some teachers suggested that they were considering a differ-
ent approach to teaching language, they demonstrated a sort of ambiva-
lent middle ground between the way they were used to teaching language
and teaching language in context. For example, one teacher responded
that language “is included in the project so we can coordinate with Eng-
lish teachers,” or “I  have realized that we must pay more attention to

258  Annie Camey Kuo et al.
language and know how we want students to use the language.” In one
response, a teacher expressed that “I still have a lot of doubts of how the
language learning takes place [when] the level of [English proficiency] is
not high.” While these responses suggest progress in how teachers think
about teaching language, they also suggest that more support may be
needed to give teachers the tools they need to shift their instruction. Spe-
cifically, they expressed need to consider low-proficiency English learners
suggests that teachers need more experience and practice with PBLL unit
design and implementation to know how those students can be served in
PBLL learning experiences.

Overall, teacher responses suggested that the PBLL unit design expe-
rience helped them see the value in teaching language in relevant and
authentic contexts, even if they talked about what that should look like
in more general terms. These findings mirror those from the analysis of
the units teachers planned which demonstrated multiple opportunities
for students to use language in context but lacked in specific language
scaffolds and supports to ensure students’ language learning success in
the activities.

Discussion
Findings from this pilot study suggest that while teachers are more com-
fortable with providing opportunities for students to learn language in
action through PBLL, there remains a gap between their desire to do so
and their ability to enact those desires in their curricular design. That
finding, however, should be unsurprising. The enactment of Language as
Action is complicated, complex, and highly demanding work that is not
limited to a two-week professional development experience. In this dis-
cussion, we unpack that tension in the data and propose several recom-
mendations for both research and practice for other educators looking
to adopt and implement the PLATE framework in their PBLL practice.

Teacher survey responses revealed that their thinking around how
­students learn a foreign language in classrooms shifted to a more contex-
tualized, interactive approach. They grasped the language opportunities
that existed within PBLL to practice using language in an authentic way,
such as when students presented to a panel of experts and explained
findings of their research to peers. This is the first step in the design pro-
cess, recognizing that language opportunities exist. However, teacher
responses also revealed that, at this point, they lacked the skills and
knowledge to know how to enact those good intentions in thoughtful
and strategic ways. One consideration for teachers and schools inter-
ested in PBLL centers on the importance of understanding how teachers
view language learning, meaning how it is learned, taught, and p­ racticed.
Ongoing professional development during the school year focusing on
project-based language learning and assessment is one pathway for

Altering the View of Language Instruction 259
support. Another is to create a community of practice (Wenger, 1998)
of educators, focused on the delivery of PBLL, with time built in for col-
laboration and reflection.

Additionally, teachers designed multiple opportunities for students
to learn language in action. However, their units and survey responses
revealed that those opportunities only addressed surface level aspects,
such as highlighting vocabulary, with additional layers and connections
left out. Learners need both instruction and interactive opportunities
to learn language specific to the content. Just as content instruction
too often takes a back seat to language instruction in traditional lan-
guage classrooms, language instruction also takes a back seat to con-
tent instruction in subject-area classrooms. Nevertheless, the context of
bilingual classrooms, where the goal is to acquire content and increase
language proficiency simultaneously, provides an optimal environ-
ment for PBLL to be utilized to its full capacity (Stoller, Richards,  &
Renandya, 2011).

We believe teachers deserve sustained support to develop the sophis-
ticated skills necessary to design, implement, and redesign PBLL course-
work. While our data reflect a small window of time in the professional
lives of our participating teachers, we were encouraged by teachers’
intentional experimentation of PBLL practice asserted within the PLATE
framework and believe that in time they could produce cutting edge PBLL
curricula. As in keeping with other research around PBL implementation,
we acknowledge that many times teachers are asked to shift their prac-
tice within compressed time frames and that doing so demands that they
rethink their pedagogical and philosophical approach to their teaching
practically overnight. However, our data seem to suggest that teachers
find the approach to PBLL within the PLATE framework compelling,
providing practitioners and researchers a good starting point for future
PBLL curriculum design and teaching.

Conclusion
In this chapter, the PLATE framework was piloted with a set of PBLL
units. While it was used with teachers from Spain, it can be applied to
other bilingual classrooms with different languages. Additional research
is needed to examine the implementation of PBLL units in bilingual class-
rooms as well as on students. Additionally, our study highlights the diffi-
culties teachers encounter when they attempt to shift their practice using
PBLL principles. This work is undoubtedly challenging for teachers in so
far as it demands they candidly confront the effectiveness of their practice
and who they are and want to be as a teacher. If teachers are willing to
make that shift, we believe the PLATE framework specifically and PBLL
more generally, can encourage teachers to provide opportunities for stu-
dents to engage with content and practice language more authentically,

260  Annie Camey Kuo et al.

teaching them crucial skills like critical thinking and collaboration, while
increasing their motivation to learn.

References

Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An intro-
duction to exploratory practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan Press.

Banks, J. A., Au, K. H., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E. W., Gutierrez, K. D., . . .
Zhou, M. (2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments:
Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. Seattle, WA: The LIFE Center (The Learning in
Informal and Formal Environments Center) and the Center for Multicultural
Education, University of Washington, Seattle.

Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning:
A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Book Excerpt:
George Lucas Educational Foundation.

Barron, B., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Brans-
ford, J. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem
and project-based learning. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 7, 271–311.
Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1466789

Beckett, G. H. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruc-
tion. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 52–66. doi:10.1093/eltj/cci024

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

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

Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Inclusion and problem-
based learning: Roles of students in a mixed-ability group. RMLE Online,
32(9), 1–19. doi:10.1080/19404476.2009.11462062

Berger, R. (2003). An ethic of excellence: Building a culture of craftsmanship
with students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palinc-
sar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, sup-
porting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398. doi:10.10
80/00461520.1991.9653139

Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equi-
table teaching approach: The case of railside school. Teachers College Record,
110(3), 608–645. Retrieved from www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 14590

Brydon-Miller, M. (2006). Photovoice and Freirean critical pedagogy: Providing
a liberatory theoretical framework to project-based learning in second lan-
guage education. In G. H. Beckett & P. Chamness Miller (Eds.), Project-based
second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 41–54).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Chan, V. (2001). Fostering Learner Autonomy in an ESL Classroom. TESL Can-
ada Journal, 18(1), 75–91. doi:10.18806/tesl.v18i1.901

Conley, D. T. (2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed
beyond high school. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Altering the View of Language Instruction 261

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J.,  & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in
action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.

Deci, E., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-moti-
vation. New York, NY: Putnam’s Sons Press.

Dedoose Version 8.0.44, web application for managing, analyzing, and present-
ing qualitative and mixed method research data (2018). Los Angeles, CA:
SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. Retrieved from www.dedoose.com.

Evensen, D. H.,  & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2000). Problem-based Learning:
A research perspective on learning interactions. New York, NY: Routledge.

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.

Halliday, M. A. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics
and Education, 5(2), 93–116.

Halvorsen, A., Duke, N. K., Brugar, K., Block, M. K., Strachan, S., Berka, M.
B., & Brown, J. M. (2014). Narrowing the achievement gap in second-grade
social studies and content area literacy: The promise of a problem-based learn-
ing approach. East Lansing, MI: The Education Policy Center, Michigan State
University.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M.,  & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution
augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and
suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. doi:10.1007/s11528-
016-0091-y

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Solo-
way, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts
by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350.
Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1466790

Kuo, A. C. (2015). Navigating problem-based learning across content areas:
A  mixed-methods examination of English learner insights of support and
participation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washing-
ton, Seattle. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/
handle/1773/33746

Lambros, A. (2004). Problem-based learning in middle and high school class-
rooms: A  teacher’s guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

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.

Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some
recent trends. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20–24. doi:10.3102/001318
9X021002020

Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of
formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learn-
ing, 48(3), 323–364. doi:10.1111/0023–8333.00045

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Parker, W. C., Lo, J., Yeo, A. J., Valencia, S. W., Nguyen, D., Abbott, R. D., . . .
Vye, N. J. (2013). Beyond breadth-speed-test: Toward deeper knowing and

262  Annie Camey Kuo et al.

engagement in an advanced placement course. American Educational Research
Journal, 50(6), 1424–1459. doi:3102/0002831213504237
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/.
Rutherford-Quach, S., & K. Hakuta. (2019.) Bilingualism as action. In V. Grover,
P. Uccelli, M. Rowe, & E. Lieven (Eds.), Learning through language: Towards
an educationally informed theory of language learning. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Stoller, F. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learn-
ing in second and foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett & P. Chamness
Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, pre-
sent, and future (pp. 19–40). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Stoller, F., Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2011). Project work: A means to
promote language and content. In W. A. Renandya & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Meth-
odology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 107–120).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sutton, P. S., & Knuth, R. (2017). A school-wide investment in problem-based
learning: A  comprehensive high school embraces problem-based learning as
its strategy to improve student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 65–70.
Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/26388275
van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65. doi:10.2167/illt42.0
van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and the common core standards.
Understanding Language (pp. 1–9). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Walqui, A., & Van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent
English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment,
Research  & Evaluation, 2(2), 1–3. Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/
getvn.asp?v=2&n=2
Windschitl, M., & Calabrese-Barton, A. (2016). Rigor and equity by design: Locat-
ing a set of core teaching practices for the science education community. In D.
H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1099–
1158). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

14 Beyond Exams

Research-Based Dynamic,
Technology-Mediated, Project-
Based Framework for Meaningful
Language Learning in a Secondary
EFL Setting in China

John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao

The Practical Problems
In foreign language teaching settings, implementing meaningful language
learning can be challenging (Shin, 2007). In an examination-oriented cul-
ture such as is found in China, the high pressure for successful perfor-
mance on standardized tests often prompts secondary English teachers to
direct their instructional attention to rote learning and discrete structures,
since in their perceptions this type of classroom instruction is predictable,
easily manageable, and thus safe. Yet to the frustration of many English
teachers, teaching to the test often simply leads to low motivation as well
as low performance on tests, which perpetuates further student passivity
in their learning endeavors (Qian, 2000).

In China, the mandate of the new curriculum reform on holistic learner
growth (Ministry of Education, 2014) may represent yet another level of
challenge for secondary English teachers at the classroom level. The newly
published standards for secondary English language teaching specify four
particular areas for learner development, or “four core learner qualities”:
language ability, academic learning ability, reasoning and thinking skills,
and holistic learner development (Xin, Jiang, & Liu, 2013). These new
standards require fundamental shifts in instructional planning and prac-
tice in four respects: (1) a shift in the learning goals from the mastery
of the four skills to demonstrating communicative competence in given
social settings; (2) a shift in the conception of the nature of teaching and
learning from learning English as an academic subject to learning English
as a means to enhance holistic learner growth; (3) a shift in the teach-
ing approach from a teacher-centered methodology to a learner-centered
pedagogy; and (4) a shift in the content from learning English as discrete
knowledge to fostering learner development in learning strategy, moti-
vation, attitude, values, character, and intercultural awareness (Wang,
2015). In short, the new mandate of the current curriculum reform sees

264  John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao
cultivating holistic learner development for self-directed, life-long learn-
ing as an ultimate goal of schooling.

In the face of pressures from both the testing requirements and the new
curriculum mandate, many secondary EFL teachers find themselves hesitant
and disoriented. Although they recognize the need for classroom learning
to reflect real-world discourse and authentic language use, many teach-
ers are uncertain about how to create a favorable learning environment
that will allow students to engage systematically in meaningful language
learning. Moreover, they fear that even if they are able to provide students
with opportunities for communicative practice, they are not sure how to
manage the dynamics of the communicative classroom as facilitators rather
than as instructors in the traditional teacher-controlled classroom. Perhaps
the biggest fear is that they are uncertain if implementing the new com-
municative classroom will produce an immediate positive effect on student
performance on the annual, district-wide standardized tests.

In short, many teachers, with a palpable fear, have a very practical
question that they would like answered: Is there a practical instructional
model that teachers in the secondary English classroom in China can
implement to accommodate the expectation for high test scores while
also allowing students to develop a good command of communicative
language ability? Or simply put, is there a way to implement a workable
instructional model within an examination-oriented culture that can bal-
ance form- and function-based learning and resolve the “tension between
what is taught in the classroom and what students will need in the real
world” (Kramsch, 2014, p. 296)?

Project-Based Language Learning as a
Possible Solution
Project-based language learning (PBLL) as an innovative form of instruc-
tion represents a possible solution to the instructional tension between
classroom learning and the requirement for real-world practices.
Research in the Western context has suggested that PBLL can produce
many benefits. For instance, Stoller (2006), following a review of a set of
studies on project-based language learning, identified eight common ben-
efits attributed to project work: enhanced language skills; authenticity of
experience and language; increased motivation, engagement, and creativ-
ity; improved social skills; increased content knowledge; improved self-
efficacy; increased learner autonomy; and improved abilities in decision
making, critical thinking, and problem solving. Evidently, the many ben-
efits that PBLL offers may correspond very well to many of the desired
learning outcomes stated in the new mandate of the current curriculum
reform in China.

The practical issue to address then is how to successfully implement
PBLL into the EFL classroom. In reviewing current studies on PBL in a

Beyond Exams 265
variety of settings, Kokotsaki, Menzies, and Wiggins (2016) recommended
a set of principles to be considered when adopting a PBL approach in
the mainstream school setting. These principles include learner training
on self-management, time management, and productive use of techno-
logical resources; effective grouping that ensures an equal level of agency
and participation; balancing didactic instruction and independent work;
assessment via regular teacher monitoring, student reflection, self- and
peer evaluation; and fostering student autonomy. While these principles
are important, providing the necessary scaffolded instruction on the tar-
get language structures and language skills in the second language class-
room is of equal importance. For instance, Alan and Stoller (2005) noted
the importance of incorporating form-focused learning in the approach
even though it is also important to focus on real-world issues, balance
collaborative and independent work, and require an eventual tangible
product at the end. Slater, Beckett, and Aufderhaar (2006) also noted the
need for the ESL instructor to carefully sequence the tasks that make up
the overall project for a PBLL classroom.

Since PBLL is still a relative new concept in China’s secondary EFL
setting, there are few studies exploring project-based approaches to class-
room teaching (Wang & Beckett, 2019). However, in addressing the new
mandate of the curriculum reform on cultivating the “core learner quali-
ties,” some EFL practitioners have made good endeavors to search for
effective instructional techniques that, to a great extent, well reflect many
aspects of project-based learning. For example, Li and Peng (2016) sug-
gested that in teaching reading in a middle school English class, teachers
could select readings of real-world topics relevant to the students’ inter-
ests, design activities to serve different purposes (e.g., language learning
vs. reading comprehension, or critical thinking vs. cultivating reading
appreciation), and carefully sequence the activities in order to best culti-
vate autonomous readers.

Other practitioners have attempted to formulate an instructional
model that teachers can implement in the classroom to engage students
in systematic and meaningful language learning. Lu (2016) proposed
an instructional model for a high school listening/speaking class that
included the following pedagogical steps: (1) information processing, (2)
remembering and comprehending, (3) independent analysis and evalu-
ation, and (4) re-creating and applying. Wang (2017), in examining a
high school EFL writing class, suggested that effective writing instruction
should begin with instructional procedures that arouse student interest,
integrate intensive reading that focuses on comprehension and language
learning with extensive reading that cultivates reading habits and critical
thinking, and engage students in self-reflection to build learner autonomy
and prompt learner development. Zhong (2016), in examining various
lesson planning designs, pointed out that a PBL-based approach to les-
son planning is usually characterized by the following three pedagogical

266  John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao
steps: deciding on the research topic, investigating and exploring, and
communicating discoveries, whereas the traditional approach usually
embraces a different set of steps: goal setting, achievement of objectives,
and evaluation of learning outcomes. It needs to be pointed out that
underlying the pedagogical sequencing embraced by the PBL-based ver-
sus the traditional approach is that the former requires students to direct
their own learning whereas the latter has the teacher at the center, exer-
cising control over the entire classroom teaching and learning process.

The prevalence of technologies in our societies (e.g., e-mail, digital
media, mobile devices, Web 2.0) means that teachers can integrate digital
technologies into the classroom (Nussbaum-Beach  & Hall, 2012) and
create project-based English language classrooms to support student-
directed learning. González-Lloret and Orega (2014), in reviewing stud-
ies on task-based foreign language teaching mediated by technologies,
recommended the following guiding principles regarding technology use
in the language classroom: (1) focus on meaning; (2) offer a language-
and-action experience according to clearly defined goals; (3) address
learner needs and promote learner-directed learning; (4) provide students
with authentic language input and with opportunities for authentic lan-
guage use; and (5) engage students in reflective learning.

The integration of technology in the PBLL classroom, without a doubt,
carries much potential. Well implemented, technology-supported PBLL
can not only increase students’ communicative language learning ability
but also promote learner autonomy. For classroom teachers, however, a
practical question remains. That is, how will technology-integrated PBLL
be implemented consistently, systematically, and effectively, particularly
in an EFL setting, such as that in China?

A Technology-Supported Project-Based Pedagogical
Framework for Secondary EFL
In order to operationalize project-based instruction in a Chinese second-
ary EFL setting, we developed a pedagogical framework that consists
of the following four stages: contextualization, exploration, communi-
cation, and evaluation. Each of the stages, as shown in Table  14.1, is
characterized by a specific instructional focus in correspondence to a par-
ticular learning goal as defined by the new curriculum mandate in China.

At stage 1, the overall primary instructional focus is placed on engag-
ing students in meaningful, communicative language practice in the class-
room setting. Within a theme selected for a given unit (e.g., shopping
and fashion), all of the language materials are structured with an aim to
develop the necessary language skills in grammar, vocabulary, listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. In addition, classroom language prac-
tice activities are carefully sequenced from controlled to increasingly
communicative, emphasizing both accuracy and fluency. In this stage of

Beyond Exams 267
Table 14.1  A project-based pedagogical framework for secondary EFL

Instructional Stages Instructional Procedures Goals

Stage 1 Contextualization Providing thematically Language
Stage 2 Exploration informed, scaffolded, ability
Stage 3 Communication contextualized language
practices to prepare students Academic
Stage 4 Evaluation for the project. learning
ability
Engaging students in
exploratory learning by Holistic
collaborating on the project learner
in groups or pairs to foster development
academic study skills.
Reasoning and
Requiring students to present thinking
their project as well as skills
write up their research or
presentation in order to
cultivate holistic learner
development, including but
not limited to motivation,
attitude, and awareness of
sociocultural issues.

Engaging students in peer
assessment in addition to
the teacher’s evaluation to
foster learner autonomy.

instruction, digital media (e.g., digital videos, digital audios, PowerPoint,
etc.) are used to support the teacher’s delivery of instruction.

At stage 2, the overall instructional aim is to develop students’ aca-
demic learning ability. Students are assigned a project (e.g., students will
conduct a fashion show at the end of the given unit) with a detailed
description of the requirements, and study groups are formed. Students
collaborate to explore the content and prepare a presentation of the pro-
ject. This stage of learning occurs outside the classroom. Technology can
also be integrated at this stage. For instance, students working in groups
may be required to research information that substantiates the write-up
and presentation of the project.

At stage 3, students present their project to the whole class. The pres-
entation may involve writing and speaking, and may come in a variety of
formats (e.g., poster presentations, demonstrations, drama). This stage
of learning has one primary goal: cultivating learner commitment. In
other words, by presenting their projects to the whole class, it is hoped
that students will develop a sense of achievement with positive changes
in their learning attitude, learning motivation, and even their identity
as learners. It is also hoped that this sense of achievement will increase

268  John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao
students’ passion for learning and cultivate a commitment to lifelong
learning. Technology can play a role at this stage where students are dem-
onstrating their project. They may use digital presentation tools (e.g.,
PowerPoint, or Prezi) or digital media (e.g., digital videos, digital audios)
to enhance their presentations. Their presentation can also be digitally
recorded for subsequent teacher or student evaluation or for showcasing
in and beyond the classroom.

At stage 4, instructional attention is directed to increasing students’
metacognitive thinking. At this stage of learning, both the teacher and
students participate in evaluating the projects. Students are required to
reflect on the entire process, taking notes of their own learning strengths
and weaknesses, while also sharing with one another the learning strate-
gies they employed to deal with the difficulties they encountered in the
learning process. Once again, technology can be utilized to support this
stage of teaching and learning. Technologies such as social media and
shared online documents can be used as a platform both by the teacher
and students for evaluation and reflection tasks.

Action Research on PBLL in Secondary EFL
To test whether or not project-based instruction would work in a Chi-
nese secondary setting and how technology could support project-based
language learning in the EFL classroom, we, the second and third author
of this chapter, carried out an action research study along with other
seventh-grade English teachers at a school in Beijing in October  2014.
Since this was the first time we attempted a completely different approach
to classroom teaching and learning, one we were still trying to grapple
with, we were more interested in the process than in the product. Specifi-
cally, we wanted to find out what observable gains in the “core learner
qualities” as defined by the newly published standards for secondary
English language teaching project-based learning could bring about,
particularly those of (1) language ability, (2) academic learning ability,
(3) holistic learner development, and (4) reasoning and thinking skills.
We also wanted to identify any problems or issues that might arise in the
process of implementing PBLL in the classroom as well as explore any
practical instructional strategies that could be employed to support PBLL
in the classroom. Finally, we hoped to generalize a set of principles that
could guide our subsequent instructional planning and execution, princi-
ples that may be applicable to other Chinese secondary EFL classrooms.

The authors of this chapter planned and participated in the action
research. We crafted lesson plans, organized materials, and implemented
the lessons according to the project-based instructional framework dis-
cussed in the previous section. Since the focus of this action research was
more on the process than on the product, we decided not to give tests or
quizzes as we would usually do to measure the students’ language gains,

Beyond Exams 269
fearing that the tests and quizzes would invite resentment from the stu-
dents, thus derailing the experiment. Instead, we decided to use informal
assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of this instructional experiment.
We videotaped the students’ presentations of their projects for subse-
quent reviews and conducted personal reflections on the teaching process
at the end of the unit to help us come to a more objective assessment of
the effectiveness of the project-based framework.

One particular note we would like to make is that although a total
of four classes, each with 20 students, participated in the project-based
teaching experiment, all other seventh-grade teachers did not continue
with reflections and reviews after the experiment was completed. There-
fore, we are presenting only the data and results from the only class, a
class of 20 students that was taught by one of the teaching authors of
this chapter.

The Project-Based Unit for Action Research
As part of the action research project, a unit “Shopping and Fashion”
from the English coursebook for the seventh-grade English class was
selected and taught. No different than all other classes, this project-based
unit was conducted almost completely in English. Chinese was used only
when it was easier to explain an unfamiliar word or phrase in the first
language. The instructional materials were adapted and supplemented
to best support students’ subsequent explorative learning and prepara-
tion/presentation of the project. Figure 14.1 provides an overview of the
project-based design of the unit.

Stage 1: Contextualization
The contextualization stage, devoted to scaffolded instruction, consisted
of a set of six intensive language lessons, each on a different day, aiming
to build students’ language skills in vocabulary, listening, speaking, and
reading. Each lesson was 45 minutes long and covered a specific lan-
guage and/or skill area. Day 1 focused on vocabulary learning, covering
a list of vocabulary words: formal, sporty, casual, professional, trendy,
and scruffy. Day 2 focused on listening skills practice, engaging students
in comprehending a short dialogue at a department store through the
study of a dialogue. Day 3 saw students practice reading comprehension
skills through comprehension activities based on a reading passage on the
advantages and disadvantages of online shopping. Day 4 switched back
to listening comprehension practice through a set of listening activities
based on a dialogue about shopping plans. Day 5 had students engage in
oral practice that was designed to mirror real life, with students practic-
ing bargaining at a simulated secondhand market. The scaffolded inten-
sive language lessons then concluded with vocabulary-learning activities

270  John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao

Figure 14.1  Overall project-based unit design
structured around the following list of words: tear, rip, fold, roll, twist,
scrunch, be crumbled, wrap up/around, stick up/on, a designer, the
design team, and a model.

As previously shown, the first stage of instruction devoted two lessons
to vocabulary learning in order to provide lexical support for the students’
subsequent explorative learning for the project. This stage of classroom
instruction also included two listening lessons and one reading lesson, all
focusing on receptive skills which aimed at enhancing students’ language
learning through comprehensible input at the discourse level while also
increasing their intercultural awareness. The speaking class represented a
task-based approach to oral practice in an authentic-like setting, further
enhancing students’ command of oral communication skills and increas-
ing their intercultural awareness. During these lessons, PowerPoint slides
and audio/video clips prepared by the teacher were used to enhance class-
room instruction. In short, all of these skill-based lessons were carefully
designed to lay down a solid language foundation to support students’
language practice at the exploration and communication stages.
Stage 2: Exploration
At the end of the six intensive language lessons, the students were assigned
a project that they were to complete as a team at home. On Day 7, they
were to present their fashion project in class, as shown in Figure 14.2.

Beyond Exams 271

Project: A “Trash Bag” Fashion Show
Instructions: Work in groups of four as a fashion design team. You are to design

a suit using trash bags and demonstrate your design at tomorrow’s fashion
show. When you design the clothes, think about the following questions as a
group. Please know that at the fashion show, you will give a presentation of
your fashion design based on the following questions.
1.  What style will the clothes be? Use the adjectives we learned and any other
adjectives to describe the style of design.
2.  What clothes will you make?
3.  How will you make each part of the clothes? Use verbs to describe the entire
process, such as the verbs we learned in class.

You as a group are to choose one person to be the model who will put on
the clothes and another person to be the key designer for the clothes. Each
person in the group must participate by making part of the clothes, making
contributions to the introduction notes for fashion design, and getting ready
to answer questions at the end of the fashion show. Feel free to search online
for information about clothing design. Audios, videos, and articles in English
are acceptable.

Figure 14.2  Instructions for the fashion show project

Stage 3: Communication
On Day 7, the students demonstrated their fashion projects in class. The
students followed the following procedures to present their projects:
1. Prior to class, the student chosen as the model must have put on the

clothes the given group had designed.
2. Prior to each presentation, each student from the non-demonstrating

group was given a peer evaluation sheet (see Stage 2) to write up their
comments on the fashion show.
3. During the presentation, while the model was walking and showing
the clothes, the rest of the group members explained the design and
its making and answered questions raised by students from other
groups. At the end of the presentation, the whole class completed the
peer evaluation sheet.
As part of the technology integration, the students’ fashion shows were
recorded in video as a means to demonstrate their achievement. The vid-
eos were used later for evaluation by the teacher.

Stage 4: Evaluation
This stage of learning consisted of the following four types of evaluation:
1. In-class peer evaluation: Each non-demonstrating student was asked

to complete an in-class peer evaluation form at the end of each project

272  John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao
presentation which included the following questions: (1) What did
the group make? (2) What fashion style was it? (3) How did they
make it? (4) What are your overall comments?

2. After-class peer evaluation: Each student completed an essay, “My
Most Favorite Fashion Design That Showed the Most Environmen-
tal Awareness,” drawing from their observations and the comments
they had made during the in-class evaluation. These essays were later
collected and displayed, prompting students to engage in in-depth
peer evaluation through writing.

3. In-class teacher feedback on grammar errors: During the students’
presentations, the teacher took notes of the grammar errors and pro-
vided immediate feedback in class as a form of grammar instruction
at the end of each presentation.

4. After-class teacher evaluation: The teacher, along with the art teacher
from the same school, reviewed the videos and all of the peer evalua-
tions completed by the students. They then identified the finalists for
the best design and best model awards.

Reflections on the Action Research
Student Engagement
In reviewing the entire unit, we came to a keen awareness of differences
between the traditional classroom and this project-based classroom in
the area of student engagement. In the traditional classroom, this unit
would go through two stages: scaffolded language instruction and evalu-
ation by the teacher. In both of these stages, the teacher is the owner;
that is, the teacher would instruct and assess. The students, in contrast,
would have very limited freedom to explore and demonstrate learning.
In the project-based classroom we attempted and experimented with, we
noticed that the students exhibited a higher level of engagement at the
exploration, communication, and evaluation stages. This engagement
contributed greatly to an increased enthusiasm for active participation
by the students, as shown in the observation notes taken when reviewing
the students’ fashion show videos:

Students were gathering together in their own groups outside of the
classroom, laughing and talking. The kind and level of excitement
before class was unmatched in any of the class meetings we had in
the past. As we observed closely, we noticed that some of the groups
were discussing at the very last minutes issues they had to attend to
when demonstrating their clothes, whereas some of the students were
‘watching’ and eavesdropping what was discussed in other groups
to assess their readiness for the fashion show. To our surprise, those
who were quiet and constantly shy away from participating were

Beyond Exams 273
now interacting with their group members in the last minute of prep-
aration for the fashion show.
A close-up observation of a particular group in one of the authors’ classes
yielded more amazing discoveries. In this group, Jaden (fictitious name)
was elected by his group to be the model. This was surprising because
being shy and quiet, Jaden was almost “invisible” in class. Moreover, he
was not a strong student, at least as determined by test results. To our
further surprise, from the beginning to the end of his group’s presen-
tation, Jaden demonstrated a high level of self-confidence that we had
never seen in him before. He calculated every move to match the nar-
rator’s descriptions of the distinct features of the clothes his group had
collectively designed using trash bags. The kind and level of engagement
he demonstrated in the presentation was unrivaled in the traditional
teacher-led English classes the two authoring teachers had taught before.
The performance of the narrator of Jaden’s group caught us equally by
surprise. Like Jaden, Marie (fictitious name) was not a strong student in
class, yet she was elected by her group to be the narrator, charged with
the responsibility of describing clearly the clothes her group had designed.
Although she did not speak as loudly as other groups’ narrators, she
was confident and her narration was fluent. Evidently, she and her group
members had gone through the script they had co-authored many times
in order for her delivery to be as smooth and fluent as possible. Again,
the attentiveness and conscientiousness she demonstrated in the presenta-
tion was unmatched by how she had conducted herself in previous class
meetings. The other two group members, Cathy (fictitious name) and
Derrick (fictitious name), were stronger students. Although they were not
the ones to demonstrate or present the fashion product they had created,
their interaction with Jayden and Marie during the presentation, in our
observation of their behaviors on video, clearly revealed how much they
enjoyed the presentation of their fashion product.
To conclude, the level of student engagement in the presentation stage
of learning ran at a fairly high level, something rarely observable in the
teacher-led classes the two authoring teachers had taught before. Evi-
dently, the project had inspired the students, their interest, motivation,
and their enthusiasm for learning.

The Achievement of the Learning Goals
The project-based unit previously described also proved fruitful in all of
the four major areas of learner development defined by the new instruc-
tional mandate. In the area of language ability, the students demonstrated
a good command of the fashion-related vocabulary words taught to them
during the scaffolded language instruction stage. Take the following sam-
ple description a student group provided about how to make a bold tie as

274  John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao
an example. Although the description was not perfect, for EFL seventh
graders, their ability to clearly and fluently express the ideas was impres-
sive. (The words taught in the previous scaffolded instruction state are
italicized.)

Our design is formal in style. First, roll the trash bag and wrap it with
tape. Second, tear the paper into this shape and fold it three times.
Finally, we stick it on the trash bag. In that way, we made the tie.

As we examined the presentations by the other student groups, we were
equally impressed with how well each group demonstrated the ability to
describe, explain, question, and justify issues that came up in the pres-
entations, again with expressiveness unmatched in the traditional class-
room meetings.

In the area of learner awareness, in searching for and presenting ideas
about how to design clothes using recyclable materials, the students
demonstrated an appreciative understanding of fashion in China versus
Western countries. As we reviewed the presentation videos taken in one
of the authors’ presentation classes, we noticed that all students were
making efforts to design clothing in a style that was culturally distinct.
Of the five presentations, one group demonstrated a classical fashion
design for men, with the student model wearing a top hat, a bold tie, a
Tuxedo, men’s suit pants, and a pair of round head shoes. The second
group, inspired by ladies’ evening ball dresses, designed a long, tight-
fitting, strapless dress, along with a set of hair accessories made of trash
bags. The third group’s design went quite “wild” in that it was a shirt
that showed bare shoulders, a mini-skirt, along with a long stick, but the
group’s narrator justified that their design was inspired by tribal clothing
in the jungles in Africa. The remaining two groups’ fashion designs were
oriented toward Chinese culture, but in contemporary styles. However
different these groups’ designs were, they clearly revealed an appreciative
search for cultural differences for a re-creation of cultures appropriate to
the classroom setting.

In the area of reasoning and thinking skills development, the students’
collaborative work also demonstrated a high level of creativity sustained
by critical thinking. In reviewing the students’ fashion show videos, we
noticed that although every group was required to use trash bags as the
materials for their fashion products, the styles they demonstrated were
diverse. One of the groups we particularly noticed cut a trash bag into
strips and pinned them to the dress they designed, making the dress more
appealing. Again, the creativity that spun from team work was some-
thing that we had not seen in the traditional classes the teaching authors
had observed, classes that mostly dealt with worksheets, quizzes, and
exams. As we reflected, we realized that although this type of creativ-
ity was not necessarily relevant to the kinds of results on standardized

Beyond Exams 275
tests, the reasoning and creative thinking processes inspired by the pro-
ject helped re-shape the heart of the students and prompted them to use
English to learn instead of simply learning to use the language English in
the traditional classroom or on exams.

In the area of collaborative learning, the students also demonstrated
growth. In reviewing the presentation videos, we noticed that although
boys and girls did not usually interact with one another in or outside of
class, the groupings, which had boys and girls mixed together for the
presentation project, dismantled the gender barriers in class. Alice (fic-
titious name) and her group, for instance, caught our attention during
our video review. Alice was fairly quiet and did not usually interact with
any boys in or after class. However, during the fashion presentation, she
acted like a completely different person. As the elected model for her
group’s presentation, she had to pace herself on the stage at a tempo that
matched the narration by another boy student. Since the narration was
delivered somewhat slowly, Alice purposely walked a few more rounds,
pausing in different postures to match the narrator’s description of the
corresponding parts of the clothing she was wearing. Furthermore, at
the questions-and-answers stage, Alice volunteered to make additional
comments or pass reminding notes to support the other male team mem-
bers when she felt that the points needed clarification. In short, Alice’s
interaction with her male team members revealed a high level of trust
and intimate collaboration in their group. Once again, this type of social
interaction was unmatched in the traditional class sessions the two
authoring middle school teachers had conducted in the past.

To sum up, as we reviewed the presentation videos, we came to a clear
recognition that these students were highly engaged in collaborative
learning, passionately supporting each other, making use of one’s own
strengths to overcome each other’s weaknesses, with their sense of own-
ership and autonomy evident in the entire presentation process.

Since the teaching authors of this chapter had found project-based
classroom teaching proved to be workable, we, along with our fellow
English teachers in seventh grade, continued to implement PBLL in our
middle school English classes on a regular basis. A brief summative sur-
vey by the school administrator two years after this study was carried
out revealed positive and encouraging findings. Compared with student
ratings prior to conducting the action research at the beginning of the
participating students’ studies, 78  percent of the students (vs. 40% in
the initial survey) reported that the “new” English classroom they went
through had helped them increase their motivation for language learning;
65 percent (compared to 20%) reported gains in language learning con-
fidence; 70 percent (compared to 25%) reported gains in collaborative
learning ability; 80 percent (compared to 35%) reported development in
listening and speaking ability; 75 percent (compared to 20%) reported
growth in reading ability and vocabulary knowledge; and 60  percent

276  John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao
(compared to 15%) reported gains in learning how to learn. The dis-
trict’s exams at the end of their middle school program revealed similarly
encouraging results. The average score of the 80 students was 115.9/120,
with 25 students scoring in the 118–120 range, 31 in the 115–117 range,
18 in the 110–114 range, and only 3 below 110.

Inadequate Student-Directed Use of Technology
for Active Learning
The entire project-based teaching and learning process was not without
the need for improvement. As we reviewed the project-based unit after
it was taught, we realized that even though the unit ended with a fash-
ion show, one that was student-directed to a great extent, many of the
instructional activities, whether integrated with technology or not, con-
tinued to be teacher-directed. For instance, in reviewing the lessons we
had taught, we realized that technology was used primarily by the teach-
ers as a means to deliver instruction and assess student learning rather
than by the students to practice using the target language structures and
demonstrate their mastery. Table 14.2 provides a summary of the use of
technology tools throughout the entire unit.

Table 14.2  The place of technology in the sample project-based unit

Instructional Stages Technology Use by Technology Use by
Stage 1: Contextualization Teacher Students
Vocabulary lessons: None
Stage 2: Exploration
Stage 3: Communication PowerPoint slides None
Stage 4: Evaluation for presenting
vocabulary; None
Reading lesson:
PowerPoint slides for None
presenting the reading Internet used by
passage
Listening lesson: Digital students to search
audios for presenting for ideas
the listening passages WeChat, a mobile
or conversations social media app,
Speaking lesson: None used for group
None discussions
None
Presentations of the
projects recorded by
the teacher in digital
video

None

Beyond Exams 277
Clearly, there is room to allow more student-directed practice through-
out the entire process. This, however, requires the teacher to place the
learner truly at the center of the process in order to increase student-
directed learning at the preparatory or contextualization stage.
In reviewing technology-based approaches to language instruction,
Warschauer (1998) identified three major approaches. The first or “deter-
minist” approach believes that the mere presence of computers can have
a positive impact on language learning. The second or “instrumental”
approach holds that technology alone does not necessarily bring about
desired learning outcomes. Rather, it depends on how well the technology
is integrated in the lesson, how well it supports the objectives, and how
well the technology-based activities are managed. The third approach,
the “critical position,” unlike the previous two, emphasizes the need
to create an ecosystem, a favorable learning environment (Egbert  &
Hanson-Smith, 2007), to bring about a holistic change in the learner,
including in areas such as identity, motivation, and learner autonomy.
The use of technology in this project-based unit predominantly reflected
the determinist and instrumental approaches, with the authoring teach-
ers tacitly assuming that the teacher’s use of PowerPoint, digital audio,
and digital video recording would naturally and automatically enhance
student learning. If we were to re-teach the unit, we would give students
opportunities to utilize a range of technology tools to help them with
their communicative language practice throughout the entire process. We
would execute the unit in a different way, as Table 14.3 describes.

Concluding Thoughts
Implementing meaningful language learning within in an EFL second-
ary setting can be challenging often due to the tension between what is
required in an examination-oriented culture and what students need to
learn to thrive in the real world. However, as suggested in this chapter, a
project-based language learning approach can be a solution to this ten-
sion, bridging the gap between form-based and function-based learning,
especially when the following principles are observed:
1. Students need carefully designed scaffolded instruction in order to be

well prepared for subsequent projects that will require language use
beyond what is learned in the classroom.
2. Meaningful learning tasks that make up the overall project need to
be carefully sequenced, beginning with controlled practice exercises
and leading to increasingly communicative activities in order to best
prepare students for the end-of-the-unit project that requires compli-
cated language production.
3. Technological tools ought not be utilized merely by the teacher;
instead, as meaningfully integrated in the project-based curriculum,

Table 14.3  The place of technology in the sample revised project-based unit

Instructional Stages Technology Use by Technology Use by
Teacher Students

Stage 1: Contextualization Vocabulary lessons: Use an online
PowerPoint slides dictionary, such as
Stage 2: Exploration for presenting ldoceonline.com to
Stage 3: Communication vocabulary; look up unfamiliar
Stage 4: Evaluation words; use Quizlet
Reading lesson: to create interactive
PowerPoint slides vocabulary flashcards
for presenting the for self-review
reading passage
Create PowerPoint
Listening lesson: slides to
Digital audios demonstrate reading
for presenting the comprehension
listening passages or
conversations Record the summary of
the listening passage
Speaking lesson: and post it on a social
Record student oral media page
practice in digital
video Record short dialogs
and post them on an
Allow students to draft online radio platform,
their presentation such as Himalaya FM
speech and provide
corrective feedback Internet used by
using the track students to search for
changes feature of ideas
MS Word
Record and edit fashion
N/A shows on their
own and post them
Review student- online via a mobile
created videos and social media app
provide feedback (i.e., WeChat) or on
accordingly a blogging site for
commenting

Complete peer
evaluations online;
students to use
these notes for the
subsequent written
peer evaluation
assignment.

Beyond Exams 279
they ought to be used in a student-directed manner to support
­learning and enhance their autonomy.
4. Projects ought not be seen as an end but as a means to effect holistic
learner development, not merely in language ability but also in aca-
demic learning ability, critical thinking, and learner commitment, as
mandated by the current curriculum reform in China.

One may argue that the principles previously listed represent nothing
new in the current literature on PBLL. Beckett and Slater (2018), for
example, summarized three required aspects of technology-based PBLL
to be explicitness (students’ ability to see how they are learning language,
content, skills, and technology), structure (well-organized and supported
materials and tasks), and fit (levels appropriate to the learners), which
mirror the above principles in many ways. We wanted to point out that
supplementary to the principles previously listed, there are three more
ideas that we particularly want to emphasize when implementing project-
based learning in secondary EFL within an examination-oriented culture
such as is found in China.

First, the teacher needs to balance carefully form-focused language
learning and communicative language learning within the project-based
instructional framework. There are two key words and phrases we want
to emphasize here: “balancing” and “within a project-based framework.”
Although the principle of balancing form-focused language learning and
communicative language learning is not new to the Western ESL context,
it is of particular relevance and importance in secondary EFL settings
where student performance on standardized tests, which often measure
form-based learning, serves as the sole indicator of learning growth.
However, the balancing of form-based and communicative language
learning that can occur within a project-based instructional framework
does not necessarily mean that the PBLL classroom ought to also teach to
the test with the addition of a tincture of communicative language learn-
ing to spice up the classroom. Rather, balancing means that form-based
language learning should be utilized intentionally as an instructional
strategy to scaffold student learning, laying down for students a solid
language foundation (e.g., in grammar and vocabulary) while at the same
time building and increasing students’ ability to carry out the projects
toward the end of a given unit of study. The project, on the other hand,
provides students with an opportunity to engage in experiential learning
for a genuine communicative purpose, which in turn enhances students’
retention of the discrete language structures that often appear on high-
stake, standardized tests.

Second, when implementing project-based language learning in sec-
ondary EFL classrooms, instructors need to reduce teacher dominance
and allow students to use the technological tools available to help them

280  John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao
exercise and develop learner autonomy. As has been pointed out earlier,
we did not realize that in the PBLL tryout, the classroom learning pro-
cesses were mostly teacher-directed. Technology was primarily used by
the teacher to enhance the delivery of instruction and the evaluation of
student work. In a PBLL classroom, even at different stages of instruc-
tion, students should be given ample opportunities to use technology to
engage in self-directed learning, whether it is for form-based or commu-
nicative learning. In other words, technology-enhanced PBLL ought to
help create an ecosystem, a favorable learning environment to enhance
student-directed practice.

Last but not least, to fully implement PBLL in the classroom, second-
ary EFL teachers must break away from the “teaching the text” mindset
and switch to the “using the text to teach” mindset. The former, being
prevalent in examination-oriented cultures, makes the teacher feel safe
given their purported need to fulfill the examination mandate. The lat-
ter, however, requires the teacher to re-organize and even re-develop
the learning material according to the needs of the students as well as
language standards such as the ones established by the new curriculum
reform in China. This new requirement may push teachers far out of
their comfort zones, forcing them to change their role as textbook users
to material developers who will need to spend a significant amount of
time planning, organizing, and re-developing the lessons and materials.
While this new requirement may not seem unnatural for an ESL teacher
in the Western context, it represents a tremendous challenge to EFL
teachers in an examination-oriented culture such as what is found in
China. Teachers there are already faced with daunting pressures from
the high-stakes exams, and they will now have to devote significant
energy to developing new material to facilitate students’ self-directed
learning. In our experience, this change requires belief, courage, and
perseverance.

Project-based learning is not without possibility in an examination-
oriented culture such as what is found in China, as demonstrated in this
chapter. We believe a major issue facing EFL teachers in China and other
examination-oriented cultures concerns how to implement technology-
integrated PBLL in the classroom. The research-based framework and
the principles proposed in this chapter may provide an operable model
of instruction to resolve the tension between the pressure for high per-
formance on standardized tests and the new mandate on communicative
language learning in the new age.

References

Alan, B., & Stoller, F. (2005). Maximizing the benefits of project work in foreign
language classrooms. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 10–21.

Beyond Exams 281

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

Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (2007). CALL environments: Research,
practice, and critical issues (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

González-Lloret, M.,  & Orega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT:
Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benja-
mins Publishing Company.

Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V.,  & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning:
A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277.

Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Intro-
duction. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296–311.

Li, M., & Peng, H. (2016). The middle school reading classroom and the culti-
vation of “core learner qualities.” Educational Science Forum, 20(1), 58–62.

Lu, X. (2016). Instructional design strategies for listening and speaking classes
based on the “core learner qualities” for English language teaching. Studies in
Basic Education, 19(1), 57–60.

Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China. (2014). On deepening the
curriculum reform in character building and whole person growth. Retrieved
from http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7054/201404/
167226.html

Nussbaum-Beach, S., & Hall, L. R. (2012). The connected educator: Learning
and leading in a digital age. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Qian, M. (2000). Education in crisis, system in need of reform: Reflections on
the harmful effects and potential negative influences of examination-oriented
education. Tsinghua University Research on Education, 4(1), 40–48.

Shin, J. K. (2007). Developing dynamic units for EFL. English Teaching Forum,
45(2), 2–8.

Slater, T., Beckett, G. H., & Aufderhaar, C. (2006). Assessing projects as second
language. In G. H. Beckett  & P. Chamness Miller (Eds.), Project-based sec-
ond and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 241–262).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Stoller, F. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project based
learning in the second and foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett & P.
Chamness Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language educa-
tion: Past, present, and future (pp.  19–40). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.

Wang, Q. (2015). From integrated language communication ability to the “core
learner qualities” in English language teaching: New challenges in the reform
of high school English curriculum in China. The English Teacher, 1(1), 6–7.

Wang, S., & Beckett, G. H. (2019, April). Project-based language learning stud-
ies in China: A literature review. In J. J. Zhao (Ed.), Project-Based Language
Learning (PBLL) for a Sustainable future. San Francisco, CA: Comparative
and International Education Society (CIES).

Wang, Z. (2017). An approach to teaching high school writing based on “the
core learner qualities” model. Guidance to the New Curriculum, 4(1), 9–10.

Warschauer, M. (1998). Research technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumen-
tal, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 757–761.

282  John Liang, Feifei Xie, and Mengchan Gao

Xin, T., Jiang, Y., & Liu, X. (2013). A pedagogical model for building the core
learner qualities in the compulsory education system. Beijing Normal Univer-
sity Academic Papers in Social Sciences, 1(1), 5–11.

Zhong, Q. (2016). Curriculum development based on the “core learner quali-
ties”: Challenges and topics for investigation. Global Education, 45(1), 3–25.

Index

Note: Page numbers in italic indicate a figure and page numbers in bold indicate
a table on the corresponding page.

acquisition 5, 7 – 8, 11, 13, 67, 190, and a secondary EFL setting in
232; and authentic video games China 265, 279; and technology-
89, 95; and bilingual teachers’ enriched PBLL 147, 151 – 152,
unit design 245, 248, 252; and 157 – 158; and TEFF PBLL 209
cross-cultural telecollaborative behaviors 12 – 13, 167 – 177,
implementation 106 – 107; and 179 – 181; and constructing a PBLL
researching project-based learning environment 175 – 177, 179 – 181;
23, 26, 29, 31 – 32, 36 – 37; see and the Framework for Learning
also first language acquisition; with Digital Resources 167 – 174
first language acquisition Bikowski, Dawn 32, 169 – 172
project (FLAP); second language bilingual teachers 14, 244 – 245,
acquisition (SLA); second language 258 – 260; and the PLATE
acquisition project (SLAP) framework 247 – 250; and a project-
based learning as a pedagogical
action, language as 14, 246 – 250, 252, approach 245 – 247; study design
255 – 258 and methods regarding 250 – 258
bridge: PBLL as 151 – 154
action research 268 – 277 Carpenter, James 10 – 11, 15, 53
active learning see learning, active Casal, J. Elliott 169, 170 – 172
advanced language levels 156 – 158 Chen, Mo 10, 13, 16
affective disposition 227 – 229, Cheung, Yin Ling 10
choice 30 – 31, 198, 209 – 211
238 – 239 class assignments 235, 238 – 239
assessment, framework for 230, 238, classification 190 – 195, 191, 210 – 211,
211
239; see also learning assessment; classroom observation 147, 149,
peer assessment; outcome 234 – 235
assessment; self-assessment clause-level language features
authenticity 69 – 71 210 – 211, 218 – 219
authentic language use 49, 51 – 52, 264 co-learning 104, 106 – 112, 121 – 123;
Beckett, Gulbahar H. 3 – 8, 24 – 25, and self- and peer assessment
28 – 29, 34, 36; and assessing 117 – 121; and student perception
technology-infused PBLL 224, 112 – 117; and telecollaborative
233; and bilingual teachers’ unit opportunities 105 – 106
design 244; and cross-cultural
telecollaborative implementation
104 – 106, 122; and the Knowledge
Framework 185, 194, 197, 199;