Ðàçìåùåíî íà http: //www. allbest. ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Department of foreign languages

BACHELOR'S PROJECT

Field of study: 45.03.02 Linguistics

Degree programme: Foreign languages and intercultural communication

Social projects in language teaching (within linguistics department)

Aleksandra Brazhnikova

Supervisor Visiting scholar

Candidate of Sciences, PhD

Tatiana Glazkova

Moscow, 2020

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Chapter 1
• 1.1 An overview of CLT
• 1.2 The Russian perspective on CLT
• Conclusions to 1.1 - 1.2
• Chapter 2
• 2.1 Task-based Learning
• 2.2 Definition of Tasks
• Conclusions for 2.1 - 2.2
• Chapter 3
• 3.1 Problem-based learning
• Conclusions for 3.1
• Chapter 4
• 4.1 The project method and TBL
• 4.2 ESL and EFL
• 4.3 The project method in EFL
• Conclusions for 4.1 - 4.3
• Chapter 5
• 5.1 Authenticity
• 5.2 Technology
• 5.3 Audiences
• Conclusions for 5.1-5.3
• Chapter 6
• 6.1 Exploring and Expressing Culture through Project-based learning by Ramin Yazdanpanah
• 6.2 “Social Ad” Project in the Intercultural communication course in Year 2 at Higher School of Economics, Moscow
• 6.3 The social project in group 188-1 in Practice of Speech at Higher School of Economics
• Conclusions for 6.1 - 6.3
• Conclusions and Implications
• References
• Appendix


Introduction

The thesis examines as an object of this study a social project, i.e. a project that has an authentic audience as its integer component and that considers the audience's response a factor which contributes to the grade. The principal aim of this research is to determine how native speaker interaction at the stage of assessment influences language study experience and benefits students. Additionally, the study is to provide a framework for a comprehensive/meaningful formalized use of social projects in higher education.

To fulfil these aims, the following steps were taken: first, literature review has been conducted to understand whether audience is distinguished as a factor that is particularly crucial in TEFL contexts; second, a social project was implemented in a group of sophomores in order to see the special qualities the project method gains once placed in a higher education context; third, a survey was distributed among students so as to understand the students' opinion on the project; fourth, a detailed error correction was carried out to articulate the shortcomings of this project and to propose solutions for them.

For the implementation of these tasks, the research employs qualitative and quantitative approaches. Therefore, the first part is literature review which allows to formulate a theoretical perspective on the project method on the whole and its precursors as well as conditions which stimulated its appearance. The second part of the study is the case of social project employment in the current curriculum in a group of sophomores. Along with this social project, other works are examined to further distinguish social projects.

The theoretical framework of research includes a wide range of studies.

First of all, John Dewey's work is considered fundamental in this study (Dewey, 1997). Ideas and views of foreign scholars, such as Richards (2005, 2014), Brown (2007), and Spiro (2013), are examined to formulate the background in which the project method developed. The method is also seen through the lens of influential scholars from abroad; for example, Knoll (2014), Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2013), Beckett (2002) and Stanley (2013). Exclusively TEFL perspective is manifested in the works of Russian scholars (Polat, 2009; Dukhavneva, 2002; Bagrova, 2015) and foreign TEFL specialists (Poonpon, 2017; Yazdanpanah, 2019).

Although these scholars contribute much to understanding of the project method and consider many factors that shape its portrait, still little attention is paid to the audience that students address. As students are pushed to generate TL output, they require contacts with the natives where their language use and proposed ideas are objectively assessed. Once they are exposing their products to the TL community audience, students become stakeholders as their grade now depends not only on grammar and curriculum requirements but also on “what people say”. The research gap, therefore, is studying how interaction with natives at the stage of assessment can affect language study experience and benefit students. Social projects that serve to connect EFL students and native speakers of the TL allow space for meaningful exchange of ideas and language use.

Chapter 1

1.1 An overview of CLT

Language teaching pedagogies are known to be very similar to a pendulum in their movement (Long & Doughty, 2009). The metaphor becomes even more obvious once the major pedagogical approaches are considered. Language teaching, though having started with the grammar-translation approach, a method devoid of any communicative practices and meaningful language use (Babaeva, 2014), developed itself to today's Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) which is considered to be the leading and the most influential approach in language teaching today (Savignon, 2007).

CLT appeared in fact as a reaction to the chaos in language teaching. The “new” ways of language teaching, such as the Silent Way, the TPR and others, showed how language teaching was struggling to get a new perspective on language acquisition (Richards, 2008). That struggle was also connected to the failure to educate language learners in a way that, once out of the classroom, they are fluent and, even more importantly, communicatively competent (Manoliu, 2012). Overall, it was clear that the paradigm was evolving to be more responsive to the change and the need as it was undergoing pressure from two particular forces.

According to Richards and Rodgers, “there are two sources that bring about the paradigm shift”; namely, the changing position of the English language in the world symbolizes the demand for English-proficient workforce and the “internally initiated” realization of newer practices in language teaching. The former became particularly obvious in Europe where people of various professions were only able to receive knowledge through English. The latter, however, came from within the teaching community where practitioners re-examined newly discovered knowledge of applied linguists and other specialists of language.

The theoretical base of CLT was developed by several scholars. As Richard-Amato writes, it was Dell Hymes who originally used the term “communicative competence” which refers to a language learner's potential to communicate in the right way in the target language (TL) (Richard-Amato, 2003). Communicative competence today is the major principle of language education (Richards, 2005). Michael Halliday also contributed to the formation of CLT: he discussed the functions that the first language fulfils for young children as they acquire it and further argued that a foreign language serves similar functions to learners. Therefore, proponents of CLT held that language teaching is “acquiring the linguistic means to perform different kinds of function” (Richards & Rogers, 2014). One of the most famous contributors to CLT was D.A. Wilkins who came up with a distinction between two types of meaning; he referred to notional categories (e.g. time and location) and categories of communicative function (e.g. denials and requests). Consequently, he described the language as “the system of meanings that lay behind the communicative uses of languages” (Richards and Rogers, 2014; Wilkins, 1974). All these ideas eventually served as a basis for developing communicative syllabuses for language teaching.

Both American and British CLT proponents would define CLT as an approach which served “to make communicative competence the goal of language teaching” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014) and at the same time to advance teaching technologies to teach the four language skills (i.e. speaking, writing, listening and reading) that would recognize the interconnection of communication and language.

1.2 The Russian perspective on CLT

In Russia CLT has also received acceptance and praise for its unique features. CLT is recognized as a perspective and effective method, as it is founded on findings and theories of communicative linguistics and concepts of personality development through culture interaction. These define the ultimate goal of language teaching, i.e. discovering and internalizing a foreign culture in the course of language study. (Zarechnaya & Piliukova, 2018).

In the similar vein, it has been argued that CLT has led to placing cultural awareness (i.e. forming a foreign language cultural identity) as the goal of language teaching in higher education. Consequently, curricula are based on communication, i.e. it is talking that education relies on in its pursuit of educational goals (Prus, 2018).

Prus goes on to explain the principles on which CLT is founded: 1. The teacher is communicatively-active which means they are engaging their students in processes of communication; 2. Exercises that are most representative of an actual communicative situation are employed; 3. Students' attention is directed at the ultimate goal of communication and contents of their utterances (Prus, 2018).

Here, it is appropriate to cite Solovova E.N., as her contribution to the EFL practices is most certainly invaluable. Solovova in her book «Foreign langauge teaching methodology. The beginner lecture course” (“Ìåòîäèêà îáó÷åíèÿ èíîñòðàííûì ÿçûêàì. Áàçîâûé êóðñ ëåêöèé”) enumerated the basic principles of education: cultivation principle (ïðèíöèï âîñïèòûâàþùåãî îáó÷åíèÿ), deliberateness principle (ïðèíöèï ñîçíàòåëüíîñòè), activity principle (ïðèíöèï àêòèâíîñòè), prominence principle (ïðèíöèï íàãëÿäíîñòè), accessibility principle (ïðèíöèï äîñòóïíîñòè è ïîñèëüíîñòè), durability principle (ïðèíöèï ïðî÷íîñòè), individualization principle (ïðèíöèï èíäèâèäóàëèçàöèè). Alongside these foundational guidelines, the professor also points out language-teaching specific principles; those are: differentiation and integration principle, (ïðèíöèï äèôôåðåíöèàöèè è èíòåãðàöèè), L1 consideration principle (ïðèíöèï ó÷åòà ðîäíîãî ÿçûêà); communication-oriented language teaching principle (ïðèíöèï êîììóíèêàòèâíîé íàïðàâëåííîñòè îáó÷åíèÿ) (Solovova, 2005). Undoubtedly, each of these principles are important; yet in the context of these present study, it is êîììóíèêàòèâíàÿ íàïðàâëåííîñòü that is crucial. Very similar to what CLT proponents hold, Solovova focuses on teaching language as the means of communication and intercultural interaction, which once again proves important to the modern approach in teaching. This priority in language links CLT to TBL to the project method.

Conclusions to 1.1 - 1.2

It can be observed, therefore, that language study transformed into a communication-oriented practice where contents of education were closely related to the real life tasks and challenges learners may encounter. The trigger for the change was the need to have a skilled workforce who would be able to speak the language fluently once they left the classroom to integrate into the international communities.

Chapter 2

2.1 Task-based Learning

There is at the same time an argument that CLT may in fact be one of the two leading pedagogical paradigms. Task-based learning (TBL) is claimed to be “at the very heart of CLT” and, on the other hand, it stands separately from the latter (Brown, 2007).

To better understand this approach and further examine how the project method evolved from TBL, it should be discussed from the viewpoint of its historical development. Regardless of where TBL stands in relation to CLT, this approach also has its own founding fathers. John Dewey, the American philosopher and educator, in his search for newer pedagogies that would “be consonant with society” (Bowen and Hobson, 1987), posed the question of “When do we (that is, learners) think?”. The answer was that a challenge, a problem triggers thinking. Consequently, another question was put forward: “How do we think?”. The response to the latter was that there are two ways learners follow: they may accept the views of others or they may engage in the process of conscious “critical inquiry” (Bowen and Hobson, 1987). Therefore, to Dewey, it was critical that students were not just “receptacles of the teacher's knowledge” (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011) and that knowledge was not simply given, as the tradition had it during his lifetime, where teachers relied on the supposedly highly receptive children's minds, but that it was begotten through conscious effort on behalf of the learner themselves (Dewey, 1997).

Although Dewey is recognized as the father of task-based learning and project-based learning (Moore, 2018), there are two more key figures that shaped the philosophy of education and whose ideas were closely associated with TBL (Kouicem & Kelkoul, 2016). Jean Piaget, a Swiss developmental psychologist, introduced the notion of equilibrium, i.e. the balance of assimilation (analyzing reality to fit it in the existing schemas) and accommodation (creating new schemas to fit in reality); the educational ideal then is this equilibrium where students are confident in what they know and are able to perform a task assigned. As a result, the teacher should use disequilibrium (i.e. introduce the unknown that challenges the mind of students) “to motivate their students because it allows for changes in students' mental structures” (Blake, 2015). Lev Vygotsky, however, argued that it is social interaction that is critical to student learning. His major construct of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is based on social interaction where students learn through scaffold from seniors (more successful students or teachers) and communicate to develop (Shabani, Khatib & Ebadi, 2010). ZPD is where learning happens, as students in ZPD are not quite able to perform on their own and rely on the teacher's help with the prospect of further independence. The key difference of Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories lies in their understanding of the impetus of development (Lloyd & Fernyhough, 1999). Namely, Piaget views a child as an active and creative constructor of their own knowledge, whereas Vygotsky places much emphasis on social interaction in learning.

Despite the difference, the two educators still viewed one very important aspect similarly: both saw students as capable of producing knowledge themselves without the teacher blindly reading separate facts to them. In fact, the teacher needs to help learners study and instruct them on tasks. Once education - in particular, language teaching - became student-centered, the role of the teacher was exactly that of the instructor and helper which finds its reflection in the works of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky.

2.2 Definition of Tasks

The argument about the relation between CLT and TBL has not been resolved, yet it is clear that at the heart of TBL there is a task. This concept has been given many definitions but one that encompasses the essential features of a task is articulated by Bygate, Skehan and Swain. They state that in tasks “meaning is primary”; “there is some communication problem to solve”; “there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities”; “task completion has some priority”; “assessment of the task is in terms of outcome” (Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2013).

TBL is seen as having evolved from the strong approach of CLT; that is, TBL believes that learning should engage the whole person and exceed simple grammar practice. What is more, in TBL “the meaning is prioritized over explicit language teaching” (Spiro, 2013) and the cognitive skills that are employed in learning are given sufficient opportunity to develop. Further discussion of essential features of CLT is provided by Craig Lambert (Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2013) where he outlines nine major principles of TBL; Craig explains that TBL is “learning by doing”, i.e. language learning happens “through” the assigned task and not “for” it. TBL is also about “individual development” and “individual differences” which allows reliance on the entire linguistic potential and provides space for individual solutions. Third, TBL is concerned with “relevance”, as tasks provide real communicative challenges and outline what is required to be proficient in a language. Next, TBL seeks to create interaction so students have ample opportunities to negotiate meanings and, basically, talk to each other. Alongside that, TBL is both input-based (with considerable reliance on TL (target language) input) and output-promoting (where students are given opportunities to create extended meaningful utterances). Following that, TBL is “supporting performance” which means in TBL students are given time to plan their performance and reflect on it. Finally, TBL focuses on form, i.e. in TBL students' attention is directed at forms that are not learnt accidentally through language use. In the similar vein, Katherine Bilsborough states that in order to complete a task, students have to use TL appropriately to communicate their ideas which, ultimately, makes the language “an instrument of communication, whose purpose is to help complete the task successfully”. Bilsborough also names the three stages of TBL: Stage 1 where the teacher introduces the topic (i.e. through reading and listening) sets up the task; Stage 2 where students perform the task; Stage 3 where learners and the teacher reflect on linguistic mistakes made at Stage 2 and assess their performance (Bilsbourough, 2013).

Conclusions for 2.1 - 2.2

TBL has evolved from John Dewey's innovative view on education and knowledge acquisition and has been further empowered by Vygostky's and Piaget's views on learners. These researchers believed that students are capable of producing knowledge on their own through exploration. TBL is based on a task, which is founded a set of principles, such as meaning priority, presence of a communicative problem, and some degree of importance given to task completion. Tasks are an effective teaching method, as they promote output production and make the TL the means of communication and not its goal.

Chapter 3

3.1 Problem-based learning

As stated above, John Dewey challenged the then traditional outlook on education, cognition and knowledge acquisition through posing a simple question of when thinking happens. His answer, as noted earlier, was that thinking occurs when there is a challenge to overcome or a problem to solve. This answer, naturally, gave rise to problem-based learning (PBL) in language education where learning is believed to take place through problem solving and critical thinking.

According to Patricia Richard Amato, there is a pedagogy known as problem posing which was developed by Nina Wallerstein (Wallerstein, 1983). The pedagogy, originally developed to advance critical thinking abilities in language students, had a problem posed via a codification (e.g. a picture or a text - any symbolic artefact) which students discussed and created solutions for. This technique is not an end-all and be-all; rather it needs to be adjusted to a given classroom and given students. PBL similarly has a central open-ended problem that allows for debate and multiple viewpoints.

The Russian scholar Dukhavneva A.V. names several distinctive features of PBL. Some of the most relevant to language learning are considered. First, TBL involves very specific intellectual activity on behalf of students as they work to internalize knowledge on their own; this ensures depth and integrity of knowledge learnt. Secondly, PBL is special for its dynamics as any task is preceded and followed by other tasks which resemble the real-life interconnectedness and causality. Though potentially a language class may not be as concerned with causality in the world, this feature adds authenticity and “life” to students' work and language learning. Thirdly, PBL is particularly effective due to its relation to students' background knowledge and experience that are treated as a foundation for new knowledge and a source of solutions. At last, PBL is characterized by involving students emotionally. Once students respond to a problem, they engage in independent thinking and, as a result, become emotionally involved in solution search. (Dukhavneva, 2002).

The basis of PBL is of course a problem. Dukhavneva calls it a problem-based situation which has three components: the (yet) unknown knowledge; cognitive need (to learn the unknown knowledge); intellectual capacities of a person that include their creative abilities and past experience.

A problem-based situation is aimed at creating conditions that stimulate students to rely on their communicative competence to express themselves. A problem-based situation relies on activating productive thinking, thus triggering activity directed at problem solving and creative thinking. In turn, this does not only enhance knowledge acquisition but also students' personal development and creative abilities (Zarechneva and Piliukova, 2018).

It may be observed that TBL and PBL focus on similar priorities and even strive to achieve similar goals. As Mehdi Haseli Songhon writes, TBL and PBL resemble each other and even have developed as a reaction to the traditional subject-based teaching. Moreover, both TBL and PBL promote communication in order to negotiate meaning which is believed to enhance language learning. Just like in PBL, TBL classes rely on materials and contents that are meaningful to students as it is (perhaps exclusively) meaningful material that students learn better and remember for longer. However, a few differences may be drawn. The most basic one is that problem-solving is the dominating activity in PBL whereas in TBL that is only one type of task. Additionally, PBL seeks to engage learners into language learning by means of a real-life case that students need to solve. All of these characteristics suggest that despite differences in the methods and types of tasks, TBL and PBL both rely on authentic material and seek to promote language learning through meaningful tasks. One very particular feature that describes TBL and PBL is their reliance on communication which is indeed beneficial (Songhon, 2007). As Freeman and Freeman write, “language develops when the language learner focuses on accomplishing something together with others rather than focusing on the language itself” (Freeman & Freeman, 1998).

Conclusions for 3.1

TBL and PBL pursue similar goals in language teaching, and one of those is communicative abilities of learners. At the same time, there is a distinction between the approaches, which is that PBL has problem-solving as its primary technique; in TBL though there is a greater variety of tasks and exercises. Nonetheless, the approaches are centered around the principle that once focus on language accuracy is dimmed, language performance becomes better.

Chapter 4

4.1 The project method and TBL

Projects have gained due respect over the last years as a need for multi-tasking and mobile students emerged. Indeed, be they employed in a language class or a major discipline, projects include a lot more than passive listening or even communication. Michael Knoll points out that a project is “an enterprise in which children engage in practical problem solving for a certain period of time” and further he notes that projects “aim at the enhancement of intrinsic motivation, independent thinking, self-esteem, and social responsibility” (Knoll, 2014).

Projects may be traced back to John Dewey and his combat against the traditional schooling and, alternatively, his proposition of “learning by doing”. Presently, in the light of TBL and PBL, project work seems very much related to these techniques. Project work is based on tasks, i.e. problems that require a solution. Moreover, those problems are authentic and are related to actual issues outside the class. Project work is based on the belief that it is communication (in groups) and an objective need to transmit ideas that ensure students learn as they use language as a tool to achieve greater aims than a fill-in-the-blank exercise.

The project method has been given much attention and a range of names: “project work, project approach, and project-based learning” (Knoll, 2014). Regardless of the name, projects have a set of characteristics that distinguish the approach from the rest and make it “distinctive enough to merit special consideration” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). As in TBL, it is the nature of the certain project that students are to do which stimulates and defines language use. Yazdanpanah also notes that project work “has been shown to be a powerful method that enables the integration of academic, social, and linguistic communication skills with the application of real-world issues and contexts” (Yazdanpanah, 2019). “Project work is exploratory in nature”, as Beckett points out, which means that what students will learn in the course of their work may not be anticipated. Beckett also goes on saying that projects promote comprehensible output which, too, is a necessary condition for better language acquisition (Beckett, 2002). The recent view on PBL may be summarized in the list of key criteria for PBL designed by Stoller (2006):

? “must be both process-oriented and product-oriented”;

? “students must have a say in shaping the process and product”;

? “must extend beyond a single class period”;

? “must encourage skill integration”;

? “must give students support in both language and content learning”;

? “students must work in groups/pairs/teams as well as on their own”;

? “must require students to be responsible for their own learning in the target language”;

? “must allow for time to focus on language and direct teaching if needed”;

? “must result in a final, tangible product”;

? “must conclude with students' reflection on both process and product”.

Project work naturally includes group work which, too, adds considerably to the benefits of the approach. According to Long and Porter (Long and Porter, 1985), group work fulfils the following functions:

1. group work creates more TL practice opportunities;

2. group work adds quality to learners' speaking;

3. group work assists in making instructions specifically tailored for each student;

4. group work brings in a positive emotional climate;

5. group work encourages students to learn the TL.

Projects imply a particular series of steps that students and teachers need to take as they work on a project. Stanley chooses the following steps: exposure (here, learners are explained the idea of the project so as to activate relevant previous knowledge and experience); participation (i.e. students work on their projects and develop a product); internalization (reflection on language use and language learning takes place at this stage) (Stanley, 2013).

4.2 ESL and EFL

It must be kept in mind, however, that the mentioned approaches have entered English language teaching in English as Second Language (ESL) settings. Nonetheless, many learners are found outside the English-speaking countries (the USA, England, Canada and Australia); those areas are English as Foreign Language (EFL) context. As may be seen from the bulk of knowledge and experience available, EFL practitioners adapt ESL materials and are even guided by ESL principles of language teaching, i.e. the difference in what language is spoken outside the classroom is neglected and easily overcome.

Still, there are differences that define the course and purposes of language education in EFL contexts. Jerry G. Gebhard (Gebhard, 2006) describes some essentials. First, he argues, in EFL classrooms, students are very likely heterogeneous, whereas ESL classrooms may consist of students from very diverse backgrounds. Hence the teacher of English in EFL who can refer to the native language and support their students in ways different from ESL educators who are not always familiar with their students' backgrounds to the same extent. Second, Gebhard also points out that for EFL students there are a lot less chances available outside the class to use their TL. Clearly, with the English language now so wide-spread, students come across English-language sources; yet comprehensive input and output are certainly lacking. Where ESL students see immediate links between the class content and the world around them, EFLs seem to be confined to in-class language use with very few opportunities to go “out there” and talk; particularly, engage in meaningful TL interaction. Yet the most basic difference, one that defines methods within the approach and its goals, is of course the purpose of language learning. EFLs need English to have access to resources and knowledge and be global citizens with a decent level of language to effectively communicate. In contrast, for ESLs it is not just being global citizens or being able to speak the language of the country they are in; it is in fact literacy, native-likeness not only in phonetics but also in language use. In other words, EFLs achieve success when they use language items adequately; ESLs achieve success once they think like natives and any L1 interference is eliminated.

Once this fundamental distinction is considered, it is important to look at the project method from an EFL classroom perspective.

4.3 The project method in EFL

E.S. Polat discusses the following requirements of the project method: a meaningful problem that requires integrating knowledge; theoretical, practical and cognitive relevance of the (tangible) product; independent student work; employment of research methods; structuring of the contents of the project (Polat, 1999). Although she discusses the approach as unrelated to any one subject, her ideas very much echo those voiced by Knoll, Freeman & Freeman and Stanley.

Bagrova argues that the current globalization process influences educational goals and puts forward new goals. She considers the project method as an educational technology that not only challenges the language but also the mindset and attitude of students to the educational process. These challenges are the ability to find information independently, scrutinize and re-think the available knowledge, draw logical conclusions and defend them, solve problems, etc. Therefore, Bagrove writes, the project method can assist in teaching students to be intellectually independent and conscious (Bagrova, 2015).

The Azerbaijanian EFL scholar Isa Ashadov proposes the following procedure in project-based learning: “In the course of a project work learners independently(individually or often, in small groups), unassisted by the English language teacher or with her minimum help, define the problem from a problem situation, break it up into subproblems, hypothesize their solutions, research the subproblems and relations among them, and then come back to the basic problem and offer their solutions. In the next stage, the offered solutions are extensively discussed in English”. He also notes that, unlike in the traditional subject-based setting, project-method allows to displace the focus of students, i.e. it is the problem and its solution that matter and not the language that students use. It may be concluded that once the attention is shifted unto another meaningful task, students feel the need to express themselves and not to conjugate verbs correctly. At last, Ashadov points out that project-method requires receiving, analyzing and transmitting information in English which requires (and develops) critical thinking abilities, abilities to figure out the essential information and abilities to put forward counter arguments.

Another EFL practitioner from Thailand Kornwipa Poonpon discusses project work as a means of providing students with opportunities to use English in the real-life setting. She also notes that it is critical that students are given these opportunities because EFLs traditionally have very limited access to native speakers and authentic language use. The problem that she sees resulting from this lack is students' inability to adequately carry out their academic work (Poonpon, 2017).

Overall, these scholars generally agree on the fact that project work is able to drive students' attention away from the linguistic task and get them interested in what they are doing through emotional and cognitive aspects of the task. A paradox that it is, project work allows students to lower affective filters where the habitual fear of mistake and the graded accuracy fade and meaningful communication steps in where language acquisition happens unconsciously and more effectively (Helm & Snider, 2020).

Conclusions for 4.1 - 4.3

The project method implies problem-solving, group work and focus on a tangible product as a result of a language study process. Although ESL and EFL contexts differ principally in the purpose of language learning, the project method lends itself well to better and deeper language acquisition through using it as a means of communication. It is also agreed that projects, thanks to group work and focus on process and speech content, assist in language acquisition by lowering affective filters and help acquire the TL by shifting attention from accuracy onto finding solutions to real-life problems.

Chapter 5

5.1 Authenticity

It must also be noted that in order for students to learn English through projects the tasks need to be authentic and the language (e.g. informational resources) input as well is required to be truly TL. Authenticity has been given many definitions. Judith Buendgens-Kosten explains that the term “authenticity” appeared particularly important once CLT took ground in the 1970s. In that time, `realism' of the language employed in the classroom became especially critical. Today, with greater opportunities to access naturally occurring language through corpora and the world web, authenticity is defined as “related to notions of `realness' or `trueness to origin'” (Buendgens-Kosten, 2014). She also notes that authenticity is referred to when describing texts, tasks, modes of assessment and other materials. However, by the late 1970s, Henry Widdowson presents another concept known as “genuineness” that represents authentic texts in isolation and also describes tasks in the classroom. That is, tasks are “genuine” if they correlate with a real task outside the class (Widdowson, 1979).

So if these two concepts are employed to describe project work, it can be therefore described as genuine (since critical thinking tasks merged with language abilities do exist in real life) and authentic (as information that assists in solving problems is indeed found in TL sectors of the internet).

The Russian scholars Savinova N. A and Mikhaleva L.V. write about authenticity in materials in language teaching. They argue that any language is in the first place a national means of communication; therefore, language study must be reflective of the national background. This in turn is going to help successfully develop communicative competence in EFL learners (Savinova and Mikhaleva, 2007). Although these scholars discuss authenticity as present in materials, it could be argued that their proposition about authenticity being a guarantee of communicative competence development is still relevant when it comes to authentic tasks. Not only is the task of discussing a problem has an immediate connection with the real world, but it also encompasses authentic knowledge of society. As students work on projects - in particular, on social projects - they inevitably research authentic materials, which also means that they learn authentic ways of writing. In this regard it must be remembered that communicative competence is as about speaking as it is about writing.

5.2 Technology

Although Buendgens-Kasten mentions authenticity of audiences, this authenticity seems neglected. Naturally, if the context is once again considered, there is perhaps very little reason to talk about an audience as a contributing factor. EFLs, as it has been said earlier, are not quite able to have a foreign audience for every assignment they do.

Yet it has also been mentioned that students and teachers alike do have access to the internet. Where telecommunicating may not be always working (merely due to time difference), publications online are an option. It is clear that students need to have some very real exposure to TL speakers and TL communities in the process of language learning. Currently in higher education this is often the case: EFL contexts generally are poor in chances to meaningfully use English and interact with the TL speakers. Therefore, the problem is lack of authenticity in cultural and linguistic aspects in linguistics departments as the ones which deal the most with languages and which want their students to have the most authentic language knowledge. In order to invite an audience from overseas, teachers need to rely on technology. Some considerations have been proposed addressing the use of technology in classrooms.

Graham Stanley writes that “technology can be a highly engaging and interactive tool, providing a source of real language, both written and spoken, in the classroom, and motivating learners to produce more language than they otherwise might have done” (Stanley, 2013). Indeed, technology allows for greater opportunities for learners but at the same time it is sometimes implied simply because it is there. Stanley notes that some teachers tend to use technology because it is there thus exhibiting “Everest syndrome” which is wanting to do something because there are opportunities for it.

Stanley further argues that “publication of learners' work online (e.g.via blogs, wikis, class webpages, etc.) is just one application that can have a positive effect on the quality and quantity of written work that learners produce. The fact that their work is being offered for reading to an audience beyond that of the teacher and the class can also be used to encourage process writing, and a focus on error correction, that would otherwise be difficult to achieve”.

The Russian scholar Ilchinskaya E.P. writes that social networks on the Internet allow teachers and students continue learning interactively outside the classroom and in a less formal setting, which to Ilchinskaya works a stimulating factor. The scholar also states that as students work on their own in a new setting of online communication, they experience individualized education, for learners themselves follow their own ways of information search, time management and task completion. Ilchinskaya concludes that as students work online, they get an opportunity to develop their group work skills and time management abilities, as well as integrate into the modern mode of work, where people are both autonomous and independent and collaborating with their teammates.

5.3 Audiences

Despite the fact that the project method and EFL language education have been discussed in depth in a multitude of ways, audiences in project work are considerably overlooked; the value of project work seems to lie in the fact that it activates not one but few skills and that it triggers more linguistic output. Whether students read or write, their output, however correct, is mostly aimed at some abstract audience. To give that output a direction, an option is to invite an audience into the class. Due to academically beneficial Web 2.0 concepts, an educational environment in which learners may reach widely distributed, authentic audiences with one click is now possible. (Chen & Brown, 2012).

It should also be argued that audiences do not only serve to be a receiving device that helps EFL students feel their words are heard and listened to; in fact, audiences allow them to interact with the target culture and learn unwritten rules of cultural behaviors and nation-bound specialties of language use. Normally, language teaching is focused on grammatical competence, which addresses students' abilities to write and speak correctly and in accordance with the standard of the TL. However, the pragmatic aspect of language study is often overlooked, which finds its reflection in learners' communicative incompetence. (Starks, 1996).

Another viewpoint on audiences in EFL classrooms holds that “the cultivation of social context or communicative context is a major factor affecting audience awareness of the learners” (Xiping, 2016).

Audience awareness, i.e. understanding how different audiences require different approaches and registers, together with cultural awareness, i.e. understanding how national backgrounds of the TL community members influence their communication practices, inform language teaching today and allow it to educate not only linguistically but also culturally correct members of the global community. These goals may not be achieved unless authentic audiences are invited in the classroom, so learners can not only practice language but also practice culture.

Therefore, audiences again play a major role in EFL contexts as they may serve to be key contributing factors which make students extremely precise and considerate with what they write. Of course, there are always criteria to follow which grade accuracy of language; yet the problem to solve or relate to is present as well and criteria take account of quality of what is written. Nonetheless, regardless of how accurate students are in what they are writing, TL audiences can both assess the written language and reflect on the ideas presented by students.

Any writing can be proofread and well-written; any writing may be structured and created in accord with the 5 paragraph essay type; yet it is an alive writing piece, perhaps free of genre, that allows students to truly experiment with language and focus on the expressive power of it. Ideas expressed in TL matter a lot and often weigh more than blind satisfaction of genre requirements. Audiences to whom projects are written and their problems on which articles are based should be and, in fact, can be most adequately assessed by those “locals” of the TL area that students work with.

There are certain reasons why the classmates and the teacher are not treated as an authentic audience. First, as is commonly the case, students, even those most timid, get accustomed to the habitual audience - and this is exactly what language class groupmates become to them. So, once the group becomes a regular environment, projects and results stop being as exciting and “scary” as they once were. Second, the major assessors and graders of projects are the teachers. They are also an audience that turns habitual and whose grading techniques become rather obvious and expected to (the most attentive) language learners. In addition, the teacher simply may not be aware of the actual state of affairs in the target area. Third, it is risks that are added to the project work and, hence, responsibilities that students face once they present their findings and share their ideas.

This last reason - an actual TL speaker of an actual TL community - is perhaps the foundation of many new challenges, risks and opportunities for EFL students. Clearly, TL area locals are best of all able to discuss the issue raised; this activates students' critical thinking skills as they search for relevant ideas and propose solutions. Additionally, the fact that locals do not have any background of students' native language emphasizes the need for very accurate proofreading and attentive choice of language. Students, however free in their genre or format, still need to use their TL resources within the conventions of TL discourse (consider the KISS rule (Keep it Simple, Stupid) and the rule of thumb of “tell them what you're going to say - tell it to them - tell them what you've just told them”) which again activates particular attention to what is said and how it is worded.

Conclusions for 5.1-5.3

The three main components of project work in EFL setting - authenticity, technology, and audience - have been discussed above. These concepts are equally important in social projects, because (a) authenticity ensures that students are heard by natives and engage in real-life problem solving, while language is the means of rendering ideas and thoughts; (b) technology grants students access to authentic communicational opportunities and audiences, which ultimately directs their output and makes it meaningful; (c) audiences are crucial for EFL students, since they learn English among people who share their first language (here, it's Russian) and so there is always reliance on this shared language which is absent when learners move into the TL community.

Chapter 6

6.1 Exploring and Expressing Culture through Project-based learning by Ramin Yazdanpanah

Ramin Yazdanpanah, who received his PhD in Florida State University for his dissertation on developing intercultural competence among English language teachers and students, is currently the director of Full Circle Language Learning, LLC.

Yazdanpanah has recently completed a Fellowship with the US State Department in Vietnam where he taught English to university students. In his article “Exploring and expressing culture through project-based learning” Yazdanpanah describes four lessons based on PBL that he taught to Vietnam university students. Specifically, he names his activities as High-Quality Project-Based learning (HQPBL), as he followed the following principles: (1) intellectual challenge and accomplishment; (2) authenticity; (3) collaboration; (4) project management; (5) reflection; (6) public product.

The first lesson was called “Challenging cultural stereotypes” and had a video as its product. Yazdanpanah and colleagues set the following course objectives: (1) “apply intercultural-competence terms and theory”; (2) “conduct research and identify quality information”; (3) “apply citations to reference information presented”; (4) “use objective language when describing people and cultural practices”; (5) “develop English-language fluency and accuracy”. Students, therefore, were assigned to carry out research of the origins of stereotypes and use their English to question those stereotypes and to master the course content.

Yazdanpanah describes the project in terms of HQPBL requirements. As for intellectual challenge, students not only had to distinguish stereotypes (which made students think in depth) but also to learn usage of adverbs of frequency (as opposed to stereotypical words like “never” and “always”). Collaboration as one of the basic principles of HQPBL was also in place, as students were divided into groups of four from the onset and had opportunities to share their intermediate results to their instructor to stay on the right track. As for project management, Yazdanpanah explains that he made his expectations very clear to students and provided them with well-articulated guidelines which ensured students felt directed and informed of language requirements and course guidelines. Authenticity of this first project, Yazdanpanah argues, lies in the fact that students experienced problems with looking for unbiased and relevant information and citing correctly, which were the areas students had to work on. To address the issue, the instructor asked their students to fill out a graphic organizer before students could move on to the project production (which again adds to both project management and collaboration). Then, Yazdanpanah discusses reflection. He writes that in their projects reflection is the ability to consider someone else's work and reflect on it to achieve similar (and better) results. So Yazdanpanah went through that project himself and presented his product to his students; however, the next semester the project was carried out, students could reflect on previous students' work. Reflection was also present throughout the course work as students submitted their graphic organizers to the instructor. This was done to ensure students were working on the right topic. At last, Yazdanpanah discusses how the public products were presented. Not only were projects shown in class as videos (which saved time and reduced stress for students thus allowing them to focus on language accuracy and fluency) but they also were posted on Facebook in the class's community where students and teachers could comment and give recommendations.

Yazdanpanah also devotes some time to student evaluation and student feedback where he provides two responses. One student explains that to her the project was a way to broaden her horizons on stereotypes and to practice her speaking skills. The other student writes that she applied her research skills which eventually changed her view of others, i.e. “a shift from an ethnocentric to a more ethnorelative perspective”. The author believes that these two comments summarize students' experience and may serve as evidence which proves how the objectives set in the beginning of the course (e.g. improve language skills and identify quality information) were fulfilled.