Yazdanpanah further writes about a lower-tech alternative to a video project where students prepare posters to share their results and findings with others - it is the second PBL lesson “Challenging cultural stereotypes - Poster presentation”. He notes that repetitive presentation (e.g. to different audiences) enhances presentation skills and language ability. It is important to notice how the author highlights that “having students present their work to others who are not their classmates is a key component to PBL”. It is indeed true, as it allows students to further master their presentation skills (through interaction with an unknown audience).

The third PBL lesson is called “Teens talk!”. Yazdanpanah describes the HQPBL framework for the project. He notes that the project meets the requirements of authenticity, as materials for the project are taken from American Teens Talk! - a program where young Americans speak about their background and daily life. Students, therefore, not only interact with real-life language input but also are motivated to think critically about what they hear and draw parallels between the American youth and themselves. Yazdanpanah also describes how this project relied on intellectual challenge and accomplishment; students listen to the selected talks and could thus diversify their knowledge of the American culture (e.g. its national diversity). As for collaboration and project management, students were divided into pairs and practiced interviewing each other (and being interviewed). The public product of this PBL lesson was a blog online where students' interviews (photos, audio clips and video recordings) were published. The products, therefore, could be shared with friends and families and evaluated by other students. Reflection for this PBL lesson suggests that one of the greatest PBL assets is motivating students to speak English outside the classroom. This is normally a very complex task, provided that EFL students have too few options outside the classroom to engage in meaningful language use.

The fourth PBL lesson is called “Analysis of Commercials and Culture”, which requires students to watch commercials from different countries and thus identify the leading themes (i.e. values and norms). The intellectual challenge is in identifying those patterns and figuring out contrasts with their native (Vietnamese) culture. Authenticity of the project lies in the fact that students build media awareness and consumer literacy as they learn what cultural beliefs are emphasized. Collaboration and reflection this time were combined in creating a Facebook community where students could post and comment and share opinions on the ads. The project was a written analysis of an ad based on the questions instructor posted (“What cultural values, norms and practices are in the video?”; “How are these cultural values …. used to advertise the product?”; “Does the commercial influence you and other people to buy the product? Why or why not?”). The author offers one more option that would address the public product requirement: students could themselves create an ad targeting either a foreign culture or the native culture (students choose this).

Yazdanpanah concludes with the advice on how to implement PBL in the classroom. The highlights are (1) the goal of the activity should be made clear to students and teachers; (2) allow freedom in your students' work (e.g. give some suggestions but leave the final choice for students); (3) provide feedback throughout the process (to keep students guided).

In addition, Yazdanpanah carried out projects that allowed his students to master their language skills and build real-life skills thus making these PBL classes authentic and interesting. Yazdanpanah does not mention the duration of these projects (although he explains that some PBL lessons were carried out multiple times throughout a semester), so it could be assumed that these projects may be successfully implemented into other EFL contexts.

To conclude, it should be noted that the author does not describe any grammar that students had to use, although there is an objective concerning using intercultural communication terms, which contributes to students' vocabulary. This can be explained by the fact that Yazdanpanah specializes in teaching language through culture perspective. This is an interesting approach which could be implemented alongside more traditional and language-oriented approaches in HSE's Practice of Speech course.

6.2 “Social Ad” Project in the Intercultural communication course in Year 2 at Higher School of Economics, Moscow

When students enter their second year, they are required to take an obligatory introductory course of Intercultural Communication (ICC), which is taught in English. Students learn the basics of ICC, as they read selected readers, listen to lectures, take part in class discussions and create presentations and a final project.

Although the course is taught in English, its objectives mostly lay in the realm of intercultural communication, as judged from the list of competencies the course seeks to develop in students. For instance, the competencies are: ability to study and gain new knowledge including that outside the major; ability to solve problems in professional engagement with the means of synthesis and analysis; ability to work with information (i.e. find and use relevant quality information in solving academic and professional problems); ability to work in a group; ability to carry out empirical research of problematic situations in professional engagement (Bergelson et al, 2018).

The final project - i.e. the social ad - may be in the form of a poster or a video, depending on which format is preferable for students. Students are told about the project in the beginning of the course, although actual work begins by the middle of the course. The course includes 10 seminars and 5 lectures. Once students grow familiar with some of ICC concepts and develop some basic understanding of how a culture works, they start to work on the project.

To complete the task, students need to identify a problem that is present in a foreign society. As a rule (and for the sake of language practice), the lecturer of the course shares American students' emails. These students major in ICC and in fact have a similar project to complete, in which they need to speak to some natives of their target culture and learn about their social issues.

Students from Russia, therefore, are the source of quality information and first-hand experience of social issues; they share their opinions through email/messengers/social networks with American students, so they could complete their project. Likewise, students from America serve as an authentic source of information for Russian students; as is required in the project, students need to come up with a poll to figure out the topic that matters most.

This in fact means much work with statistics, Google Sheets and poll creation. Students had to come up with an adequate questionnaire that people would want to answer; they also had to collect responses and analyze them (e.g. What age group agrees there is social inequality?). Students further also need to show this research to the audience, so there is justification to their choice.

Their products need to be written and explained in English to their group mates and the instructor of the course. There is a sheet of criteria to guide students through their work. Students both in America and Russia are explained to contact each other as soon as possible because for both countries, this task has a deadline. Once projects are complete, Russian students show their American counterparts their product and present it in class; American students as well share their product and Russian students comment on it.

As it was mentioned above, the goal of the project (and the course) is about developing cultural awareness and learning how cultural beliefs, norms, and values may disrupt and enhance communication. However, in the syllabus there is a criteria that speaks about language performance; in general, though, the project seeks to be an authentic task where students are distanced from using language for the sake of language; instead, they are welcome to express themselves without exclusive focus on tenses or articles.

As it is with any project, what students will learn on their own may not be anticipated. As they use language to find information, they come across authentic input and interact with many “real” sources. Yet the very special feature of this project is cooperation with foreigners. This approach to project work comes very close to what the last case study (and social projects) is about. Students not only need to learn to speak to foreigners and pay attention to formal qualities of their speech (e.g. appropriate syntax of sentences) but they also need to be aware of how they write to their colleagues oversees (e.g. “Do you think you could please ask your friends to spend a minute on our survey?” instead of “Share with your friends and let us know”). As students come up with questions for their questionnaire, they come across the importance of politically correct wording; in other words, they need to think like Americans and think in English as they create those polls and work on their projects.

Although students do interact with native speakers of English (and natives of the TL community) and even show their final product to them, it could be argued that feedback needs to be somehow recorded and considered as a part of the final grade. That is, students from Russia and America share their impressions with each other but that sharing really comes down to “Oh, this is cool! Great job you guys!”. In contrast, longer and more detailed opinions will not only pay attention of both parties to contents and cultural value of social ads, but also encourage Russian students in particular to think like Americans (as they create the social ad) and to think like Russians (as they evaluate other people's work about their culture).

Another important feature of the project is that it made students turn to many technological apps and resources. Video production, for example, required knowledge of editing; poll creation also meant understanding of how to create an attractive poll that would ask questions effectively and thus reflect the whole picture. At last, response analysis required students to come up with adequate representations of trends and many factors that influence responses (e.g. age, gender, social status, race).

In conclusion, “Social ad” project was not about language use for the sake of language use, which allowed students to focus on their content; rather, it was about discussing culture with the means of the TL. Due to minimal and adequate instructions, students enjoyed freedom of expression and methods they employed to create their project. Its presentation to the class (i.e. making public) was essential in turning it into a meaningful language task which served to let students speak, i.e. produce meaningful output.

6.3 The social project in group 188-1 in Practice of Speech at Higher School of Economics

This project was a short-term project carried out in a group of sophomores in Higher School of Economics Moscow (the group taught by Elena Sergeevna Zyryanova). This project was equal to a self-study task in duration and in grade significance. Normally, the self-study task is announced in the middle of the unit, so students usually have around 10 days to complete the assignment. Self-studies are handed in and no official presentation (an in-class PPT-assisted presentation) is needed.

The task was to write an article addressing a social issue of one of the American cities: Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. In the project syllabus, some links to resources where students could find inspiration were posted; yet research was not limited to these sources. Students further published their articles online on Facebook and on VK to receive comments and likes/dislikes by users. Within the three following days after publication, the project leader (the author of the paper) kept track of responses on both social nets. In the end, works were printed out and graded; comments were collected and added to papers as well. Those comments served to check relevance and adequacy of problems and solutions posed and were taken account of when grading the works. Although the project leader carried out grading, the final decision was made by the teacher. Students were also asked to write short responses in a questionnaire in order for the instructor to see how students perceived the project.

This project is different from an ordinary project or an ordinary self-study due to a range of factors:

1. Presentation. Although group mates were not sharing their findings and ideas with each other traditionally, works were posted online on Facebook and on VK where students, teachers, and city residents commented on their articles.

2. Audiences. Readers of the articles were very different across the social nets. On Facebook, they were adult immigrants and the cities' residents. On VK, they were students and teachers from local universities. This diversity led to a number of challenges for the students and the instructor.

3. Technology. This project relied heavily on social networking sites (Facebook and VK) as publishing platforms. Additionally, students had to work with online and e-resources as they worked on their project, which also meant increased necessity for digital literacy and critical thinking skills.

4. Assessment. In this project, students posted their work right away where the instructor found those works. The assessment sheet can be found in the Appendix of the present paper. Alongside traditional criteria, such as Coherence and Cohesion or Key Vocabulary and Grammar, some project-specific criteria were also offered.

5. Instruction. The project had a written (and timely distributed) syllabus but the instructor also published additional requirements for writings online at the project's online community (https://vk.com/club190783093). They included notifications, reminders, and instructions.

6. Feedback. This step was a necessity which allowed the project leader to articulate the students' opinions of the task. It could be argued that, for the sake of future improvements and innovations, a questionnaire is a means of connecting with students to learn about their expectations and impressions about the work they do. At this stage, the poll powered by SurveyMonkey was shared with the students to collect their feedback.

This project has shown that project work is much more complex than a traditional self-study task or an essay. To some extent, these articles, too, were in fact essays; yet as the task demanded, the students were most welcome to go beyond the usual formats and write in any way they wanted. The project can be analyzed from the following perspectives: the linguistic viewpoint and the technical viewpoint.

The linguistic viewpoint discussion addresses language skills goals set to achieve in the course of the project.

First, the students were asked to use key vocabulary items from their unit “Night in Night out” in the course book. This requirement is common in the language course, as students thus are able to internalize target vocabulary by using it purposefully in their speech. In this project, which aims at language development alongside socio-cultural competencies, the criterion about key vocabulary items weighed 2 points. On the other hand, quality of language mattered a lot to the project leader and the teacher, so at times when the quantity requirement (at least 5 points) was violated, but the text had creative language use, the grade was not decreased.

Second, coherence and cohesion were a criterion that cost 3 points. The students were supposed to write articles that native speakers of English would read, which placed these two textual traits as being particularly important for the text to be readable and understood. Some groups (e.g. San Francisco group) did an amazing job with this, for their text had a melody and read well. At the same time, the group that wrote about Los Angeles failed to deliver coherence in their writing which led to inconsistent argumentation and, as a result, a poorly supported topic.

Third, this social project was designed to develop certain competencies that refer to both linguistic and social skills. To discuss the project from the linguistic perspective, the following competencies can explain how this project is effective:

The linguistic competence, which implies knowledge of lexical items and grammar rules of the TL, was developed in this project, as (1) students were required to be creative with their language and feel free to experiment with phrases, words, and genres; (2) key vocabulary items were also a requirement which led to purposeful use of those in the articles.

The discourse competence, which stands for composing utterances for the purposes of communication in the TL, was an important goal in this project. Interestingly, the term `article' to the students was “unbound” enough so many of them went super-creative and wrote incredible magazine-like heart-felt articles. The project leader, of course, noted some grammar inconsistencies but word choice and text structures were unexpected and original.

The sociolinguistic competence was manifested in how students had to choose words (and register of their writings) to sound native and trustworthy. It must be noted that the articles boasted a very free command of language, which, although being correct and adequately used, also had a melody to it and fit in the general tone of Facebook posts. The authors were polite (particularly in their communication with their reviewers) and did a great job by being very straight-to-the-point.

The social project also has some technical characteristics, such as assessment procedure, manner of instruction, etc.

First, presentation in this type of project is not in a traditional “come up front and tell” manner; published articles were shown to online audiences who had much expertise in the actual life in the cities. The students received comments and views; some of them were positive and some disagreed with the articles, which eventually affected the grade.

Second, unlike usual “hand in” requirements, this time it was the project leader who “handed in” those works of the students. The set contained the article, the comments, the grade and the table with the grade breakdown. The handouts had hand-written comments which were meant to show to the students that the project leader truly cared and checked everything; this method, however, is mostly a personal preference and a personal belief which may not have to be the norm.

Third, this social project had a separate set of competencies it aimed to develop. The strategic competence was most frequently recalled as the whole project is basically built on something students did not know. Here, the strategic competence mostly refers to the students' ability to sound like they are experts. An example of that could be a reference in one of the articles to how people go to Hollywood to become movie stars but never make it; the Los Angeles group used this to build their article. As noted earlier, this task was related to their “Night in Night out” unit; the group tried hard to come up with a link and they did a great job. Likewise, the sociocultural competence was developed through the necessity to understand how the city lives. The best this competence in action would be the San Diego group article of marathons: not only did they appeal to a very common sports activity, but they also referred to a grill restaurant that is very popular in California - Chipotle. The note was made in a very subtle manner which, although not standing out, adds trust to this article. At last, social competence was also in place. Every article sounded very complete and had a melody to it, which showed the writers were working as a team (the standard opposite of a compound article would be separate pieces of writing that clearly tell they were written by different people) and cooperated closely to produce a unified line of arguments. It was still more clear that people in these groups cooperated, because the Los Angeles group had a certain conflict within (as one of the students told me a few days before the projects were due) and their article was one that didn't sound complete (the girl was almost on her own at some point).

At the end of the project, students were asked to share their opinion of the project through a SurveyMonkey questionnaire. The questions asked were the following:

1. Did you like the project? (YES/NO)

2. Why did you like/dislike the project?

3. What was the easiest part about it?

4. What was the hardest part about it?

5. As compared to the review (the originally planned task), do you feel this project demanded more from you?

6. As compared to the review, was this project more authentic (that is, did it give you a better experience of actual feedback from people outside the classroom)?

7. How much time did you spend on the project?

8. Do you feel like the responses are consistent with the effort you've put in your articles?

9. Feel free to share your opinion with me. Your grade won't get lower/higher depending on your comments.

7 out of 8 students responded to this questionnaire; the majority (72 %) were satisfied with the task and confirmed it was more `real' than the review. The minority (14%) were partially satisfied (“kinda” to Q1) and unsatisfied (14% with a response “No”). The grades received were 8, 7, and 10; these grades were given in accordance with the assessment sheet (see Assessment: formulas and guidelines in Appendix) and are dependent on the response of the audience.

It must be noted that the social project was as interesting (for the project leader and for the students, as the poll showed) as it was complex.

Audience, for instance, was a painstaking aspect of this project. As some students shared, they wanted their articles to be published in native communities (something along the lines of “Students of San Diego State University”). The problem with all such communities, however, is that they take a lot of time to accept a membership request and their admins ignore messages. For example, a community on Facebook devoted to Los Angeles (“What's happening in LA?”), administered by an American and followed by Americans, only responded to the project leader's request in 20 days (two days after the articles were published). The admin still never replied to a message where the reason why the project leader wanted the community's audience was explained. This one community is just one example; in every city there are communities that unite the youth and that are very slow with their acceptance.

In contrast, because the project leader had some connections with Russian residents in San Francisco and San Diego, it was easier for her to reach out to the admins and tell them why the request was sent and what was going to be next. These people (having both Russian immigrants and native locals in their communities) responded a lot quicker and let the groups' articles through almost instantly.

Yet what was particularly unexpected and joyful was the fact that our community on VK actually brought quite a bit of responses - and Americans were among those commenters, too! The project leader's biggest concern was that her resources (American friends and friends of friends) would not be enough to create comments for each of the articles. Nonetheless, the difference in responses showed that the project leader's acquaintances helped tremendously. The better option, therefore, is creating a student community on Facebook and inviting people to read and comment, rather than manipulate community admins for the sake of quicker acceptance.

Instruction, too, was provided both offline and online. In the very beginning of the project the project leader introduced herself and the task to the group by joining their class and making an oral presentation of the project for the students. Offline support was carried out via the VK community where reminders, recommendations and checklists were regularly published. As the work progressed, some new requirements emerged (e.g. the “greetings” paragraph of the article that would help the audience understand who the people writing it were) and questions arose (students would ask those via posts and comments in the community). The online format helped quite a bit and made communication faster.

This social project had its limitations.

? The audience: On the one hand it was authentic and “true” who could judge the works based on their experience in the city. However, some commenters were rude and even inconsiderate. This can be fixed if the audience is invited to read the articles in the students' group. Besides, as it was mentioned earlier, truly American communities could not be quite reached; as a rule, admins would ignore the request (despite publishing new posts on their communities' walls). This was the case with most of the communities. The solution to that is creating a class's own Facebook page, so people are invited to read articles rather than intimidate other people's online space and thus cause this unwelcoming response. As practice shows, a group's community that is open to any visitor can potentially invite a lot more viewers; it is also a stress-free environment for students, as people that the project leader invites could be asked to be very gentle with their responses.

? The procedure: Despite having prepared detailed descriptions of what was expected, additional parts (i.e. the greeting) emerged closer to the end of the project. The greetings included a short introduction of students about themselves so people who would read the articles got familiar with the authors. It is believed that announcing this part earlier would be more helpful to students.

? The popularity: This issue echoes that of the audience. The project leader was not sure she could find enough `freelance' readers (e.g. friends and teachers from overseas universities) who would read those articles - particularly, readers who were originally from the US and the cities. This explains why she had to find other communities of locals and ask them to have her students' works posted. As it could be seen later, enough people were around to share their opinions.

? The authenticity: Paradoxically, it was the case. All works were published on Facebook communities where the local Russians were present (Russian San Diego, for one). This may be explained by the fact that the American San Diegans' communities would keep the project leader's request for membership for months (e.g. the project leader has only got accepted into one in early March). The project leader personally knew some admins and could ask them to let articles through the censure quickly. This convenience of knowing people offline was the major reason why the publication was only partially authentic. Nonetheless, responses received in those communities combined with individual readers whom the project leader contacted provided a considerable amount of attention and did form a good “authentic” audience.

? The truthfulness of responses: Although it could be seen during actual meetings that students liked the project and the responses seem to support the opinion, it is found rather probable that students showed some artificially positive attitudes. Although steps were taken to eliminate such an attitude (i.e. anonymous responses; the response had no effect on the grade), it still could be the case and might disorient the teacher (and the project leader) as to what the true opinions were.

Conclusions for 6.1 - 6.3

The projects considered exhibit an impressive focus on communication: not only was the message in the center of the linguistic output, but also students were given enough supporting materials to express their thoughts and ideas. Language was graded according to the criteria of accuracy and grammar, which is natural in higher education settings. Yet grammar was the focus, but it was learners' courage and depth of proposed ideas that counted. All three projects relied on technology and international communication (or at least research of foreign cultures) and proposed tasks that didn't have one clear answer to it, but that were open-ended, i.e. students could come up with original ideas equally plausible and were not limited to any one solution. However, it can be argued that audiences in Yazdanpanah's project and in the ICC course final project were not quite different from the usual setting. This point contrasts the last project, that of the author, where the audience not only was present but also was considered as a grade forming factor. Alongside other sufficient differences (e.g. assessment and submission), this focus on audience and its role makes the social project stand out in the paradigm of the project method.



Conclusions and Implications

This paper examined a new type of project work - social projects - and attempted to articulate a coherent framework of social project implementation in a higher education classroom. First, the research investigated the existing body of literature to define the advantages of the project method and to assess practices in English language classrooms both in EFL and ESL contexts. This part of the research pays particular attention to audiences, purposes of language study, project work features and use of technology in classrooms. This step allowed to see what points and issues in EFL classrooms traditional projects may not be able to address sufficiently.

The framework presented is based on the case study carried out in a group of sophomores at Higher school of Economics. As students completed the project, they were also asked to leave their responses in a questionnaire form, so it was possible for the project leader to better understand their attitude towards the method and measure their satisfaction with the social project directly implemented in their curriculum. The results showed that in the group of 7 students 72% enjoyed the project, 14% did nоt like it and 14% remained neutral. The grades students received were 7 (Los Angeles), 8 (San Francisco) and 10 (San Diego); their approach to writing an article showed smart language use and great writing abilities.

It has also been found that the social project differs from an ordinary project in a number of ways. Its presentation is carried out online which invites greater audiences and native English speakers as readers. Therefore, audiences, too, change once the means of presentation is changed. Furthermore, technology is employed in the form of a means of communication. Assessment practices in the social project setting have an external factor, i.e. public acceptance; in other words, “what people say” about the work will have its influence on the grade. Also, instructions have been given both on paper (i.e. the syllabus for the project) and online (i.e. in the student's group on VK where the project leader posted updates, reminders and important news on the project). Lastly, feedback was provided to students online, from those who read their articles, and offline with my comments written on their papers.

The study suggests that the social project invites an authentic audience into the classroom, once EFL students are given a chance to speak to natives. The reason why learners not only speak to natives but also are listened to by those natives is that learners discuss issues that happen overseas, in those areas where the TL is spoken. Therefore, the social projects give students opportunities to learn the language through real life communication where the language use is dimmed by the necessity to articulate thoughts and ideas to people that only speak the English language.



References

1. Ashadov, I. (2010). Application of Project Method to EFL Teaching in Globalization Period and in Framework of Bologna Process. Molodoi Ucheniy, 2(1-2), 233-239.

2. Babaeva V.Т., Akhmedova N.I. (2014). Istoria metodov obucheniya inostrannym yazykam. Nauka. Mysl: elektronniy periodicheskiy zhurnal, (3), 18-29.

3. Bagrova A. Y. (2015). Proektniy metod v obuchenii inostrannym yazykam. Vestnik Mosckovskoy Mezhdunarodonoy Akademii, (1), 12-16.

4. Beckett, G. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL Canada journal, 52-66.

5. Bilsborough, K. (2013). TBL and PBL: Two learner-centred approaches. TBL and PBL: Two learner-centred approaches| TeachingEnglish| British Council| BBC.

6. Blake, B. (2015). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories in classrooms.

7. Bowen, J., & Hobson, P. R. (1987). Theories of education: Studies of significant innovation in western educational thought (2nd ed.). Brisbane, Qld: John Wiley and Sons.

8. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

9. Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT journal, 68(4), 457-459.

10. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2013). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Routledge.

11. Chen, J. C., & Brown, K. L. (2012). The effects of authentic audience on English as a second language (ESL) writers: A task-based, computer-mediated approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5), 435-454.

12. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Courier Corporation.

13. Duhavneva, A. V. (2002). Problemnoye obuchenie. In V. S. Kukuhsin (Ed.), Pedagogicheskoye obrazovanie: Pedagogicheskie tehnologii (pp. 134-146). Rostov-na-Donu, Russia: Mart.

14. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

15. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success (pp. 31-45). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

16. Gebhard, J. G. (2006). Teaching English as a foreign or second language: A teacher self-development and methodology guide. University of Michigan Press.

17. Helm, J. H., & Snider, K. A. (Eds.). (2020). Growing Child Intellect: The Manifesto for Engaged Learning in the Early Years. Teachers College Press.

18. Ilchinskaya E.P. (2015). Osobennosti ispolzoaniya socialnyh setey na zanyatiyah po angliyskomu yaziky v vuze. Istoricheskaya b socialno-obrazovatelnaya mysl, 7 (6-2), 261-263.

19. Knoll, M. (2014). Project method. Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy, 2, 665-669.

20. Kommunicativniy podkhod v obuchenii inostrannym yazykam studentov vuzov [The communicative approach in teachin foreign languages to university students]. (2018). International scientific electronic journal, 2(32), 109-112.

21. Kouicem, K., & Kelkoul, N. (2016). Constructivist Theories of Piaget and Vygotsky: General Teaching Implications.

22. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

23. Lloyd, P., & Fernyhough, C. (Eds.). (1999). Lev Vygotsky: critical assessments (Vol. 4). Taylor & Francis.

24. Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. (2009). The handbook of language teaching. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.

25. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.

26. Manoliu, M. N. (2012). A Communicative Approach to Language Teaching - Origins and Development. International Journal of Communication Research, 2(2), 138-139.

27. Moore, Paul (2018). Task-based language teaching. In John I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1-7). Hoboken, NJ, United States: John Wiley & Sons.

28. Pavlova, L. V., Vtorushina, U. L., & Baryshnikova, U. V. (2018). Realizatsiya problemnogo podkhda v obuchenii inostrannym yazykam v paradigme novykh FGOS [Realization of problem-based approach to teaching foreign languages in the paradigm of new federal educational standards]. Modern problems of Science and Education, (3).

29. Polat, E. S. (1999). Project Method. In E. S. Polat (Ed.) & M. U. Bukharkina.

30. Poonpon, K. (2017). Enhancing English skills through project-based learning. The English Teacher, 10.

31. Richard-Amato, P. A. (2003). Making it happen. From interactive to participatory language teaching : theory and practice (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY.

32. Richards, J. C. (2005). RELC Portfolio Series: Vol. 13. Communicative Language Teaching Today. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

33. Richards, J. C. (2008). Growing Up with TESOL. English Teaching Forum, 1, 2-11.

34. Richards, J. C., & Rogers, T. S. (2014). Cambridge language teaching library: Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

35. Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What's ahead?. Journal of pragmatics, 39(1), 207-220.

36. Savinova, N. A., & Mikhaleva, L. V. (2007). Autentichnye materialy kak sostavnaya chast formirovaniya kommunikativnoy komptenetsii [Authentic materials as a construct of communicative competence]. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, (294), 116-119.

37. Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers' Professional Development. English language teaching, 3(4), 237-248.

38. Solovova, E. N. (2005). Metodika obucheniya inostrannym yazykam. Bazoviy kurs lektsiy (3rd ed.). Moscow, Russia: Prosveschenie.

39. Songhori, M. H. (2007). Two models compared: Problem-based learning and task-based learning. English for Specific Purposes Word Online Journal for Teachers.

40. Spiro, J. (2013). Changing methodologies in TESOL. Edinburgh University Press.

41. Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. Cambridge University Press.

42. Starks, D. (1996). Audience in Language Teaching and Learning. TESL Canada Journal, 26-32.

43. The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English, Tom Dalzell, 2009, 1104 pages, p.595, webpage: BGoogle-5F: notes U.S. Navy "Project KISS" of 1960, headed by Rear Admiral Paul D. Stroop, Chicago Daily Tribune, p.43, 4 December 1960.

44. Wallerstein, Nina. "Problem-posing can help students learn: from refugee camps to resettlement country classrooms." TESOL Newsletter 17.5 (1983): 28-30.

45. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press, USA.

46. Wilkins, D. A. (1974). Linguistics in Language Teaching (Reprint ed.). Edward Arnold.

47. Xiping, L. (2016). Promoting the Audience Awareness of EFL Writing in Chinese Communicative Context: A Case Study of" Notice". English Language Teaching, 9(9), 64-73.

48. Yazdanpanah, R. (2019). Exploring and Expressing Culture through Project-Based Learning. In English Teaching Forum (Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 2-13). US Department of State. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of English Language Programs, SA-5, 2200 C Street NW 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20037.

49. Zarechneva N.G., Piliukova A.V. Communicative approach in foreign language teaching. Professional education in the modern world. 2018;8(4):2255-2264.

50. Bergelson, M. B., Budnikova, A. A., & Zubalova, D. U. (2018). Intercultural Communication Module Syllabus.



Appendix 1

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Abstract:

This project given as a self-study task is designed to be a social project. This means that students are going to write an article in which they will be describing a social issue related to entertainment in San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles. The choice is motivated because these places are ones of the most popular in America; students will be able to find a lot of information about them. Students are going to describe a problem that results from entertainment practices in the cities. The final product is an article and a summary (a hook) posted online (Facebook and VK respectively) in specific online communities.

The project's purpose is to address an issue and to propose a solution for it. Students will be publishing their products because their view and awareness of the issue is an important signal to those who live in the area and who can work on the issue and influence its resolution. Consequently, a summary must be a hook, i.e. a very interesting intro to an article. Obviously, the public may not be too eager to read a diatribe addressing a well-known negative consequence of a common attraction somewhere in the cities. So the summary is supposed to disguise the article's true purpose and make it sound interesting even to the least socially active audiences.

Public reception and interest in the issue matters and serves as a final check on the quality of students' articles. Facebook users in the destinations (see communities list below) are able to assess relevance of the issues raised by students and provide a very expressive feedback in the form of comments and likes on communities' walls where articles are published. Students will be given a week to control feedback they receive and assess their articles targeting, whether they managed to pin the issue successfully or not. Then they are going to submit a written anonymous response to the teacher that will reflect their attitude to the project (if they liked it; if they felt the task was adequate; if they enjoyed writing their article; if they felt assessment was just; if they felt the project provided them with a better and an authentic communication experience than a review, etc.).

Academic purposes of the project are for students to develop their writing skills: article and summary writing skills. The project implies group work which allows students to develop their skills of group-work and group-work planning and organization. As students are completing the project, they are going to read texts of various genres and of different complexity. Because the final product is going to be posted online, students are also going to work with online tools. In addition, the project is designed to develop students' analytical and research skills, as well as the ability to present and produce work collaboratively. Furthermore, the project, it is hoped, is able to create not only a successful learning experience through authentic communication in real-life conditions. Integration of academic, social, and linguistic communication skills with the application of real-life issues and context is a crucial highlight of the project.

As stated in the syllabus, short-term mini-projects are considered innovative. The Project is believed to be a true mini-project as compared to the planned task - a review. The number of competencies it aims to develop is greater than that achieved in the course of review writing. Moreover, this project is able to provide students with real-life communication. It allows students to interact with those in the destination and thus makes students stakeholders highly responsible for issues they discuss in their articles.

Resources for ideas:

San Francisco: https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/san-francisco/99-problems-with-sf-san-francisco-issues

Los Angeles: https://www.laweekly.com/; https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/los-angeles/the-99-problems-with-la-los-angeles-issues

San Diego: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2019-08-06/animal-planet-the-zoo-san-diego-safari-park; https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/san-diego/the-99-problems-with-san-diego.

Media:

a. Facebook: the principal arena, the central stage. Students are going to post their writing here in which they name the issue and present a solution for it.

b. VK: the second arena. Students are going to create an introduction to their articles.. In every VK post, there is going to be an interesting hook (introduction to the Facebook post) and a link to the full essay on Facebook.

Communities (=Audiences):

Facebook: TBA. VK: TBA.

*see the VK community!

Pre-Requisites:

The students are expected to:

- Have achieved the upper-intermediate level of the English language (B2);

- Be able to use English as a means of acquiring information from foreign resources or educational and self-development purposes;

- Have a general idea about socio-cultural peculiarities of the TL country (here - America); be able to use major skills of cognitive, research and project activity;

- Be conversant in various sources of information and exercise critical analysis in interpreting data received thereof;

- Be able to use the skills of cognitive reflection (i.e. understanding of the actions committed and recognition of the boundaries of knowledge and ignorance; new cognitive goals and steps to take to accomplish it).

C1 Competencies developed in the Project:

- Sociolinguistic competence: use and interpret linguistic forms of the TL according to the context.

- Linguistic competence: knowledge of lexical items and grammar rules of the TL.

- Discourse competence: composing utterances for the purposes of communication in the TL.

- Strategic competence: using verbal/nonverbal strategies to compensate for lack of knowledge.

- Sociocultural competence: awareness of the TL culture.

- Social competence: developing the will to cooperate and situation control skills.

The ultimate goal is, to develop the competencies students will need for further acquisition of the disciplines within the major

Learning outcomes:

In listening and reading (as students' sources are going to be videos and texts):

- Listen to texts at C1 level for gist, for detail and for specific information;

- Read texts at C1 level for gist, for detail and for specific information;

- Make notes when reading authentic texts;

- distinguish between facts and opinions;

- distinguish between the main ideas and supporting details.

In writing (as the final product is going to be in written form):

- incorporate active vocabulary in written texts;

- plan, structure, create and write essays and summaries of those essays;

- employ background knowledge when planning;

- use linking devices for coherence and cohesion;

- word and support an opinion.

Study skills:

- Plan and execute independent work

- Use self-assessment and peer-assessment, as well as use assessment criteria

- Manage time and resources

The students will have developed the awareness of:

- Problems cities face;

- Peculiarities of cultural life in the places;

- Human society and the issues it is facing.

- Entertainment practices in the cities and issues resulting from those.

Methods of instruction:

- Direct instruction (as given in the Project Guidelines).

- Brainstorming (performed by students as an expected and necessary part of their work on the project).

SCHEDULE

Jan 13th, 2019	Students receives the Project Instructions. Students join the VK community where their project tutor will be posting reminders and introduce herself. Students sign in for a city. The group link: https://vk.com/club190783093. Students work in GROUPS OF 2-3 PEOPLE!
Jan 13-14th - 24th, 2019	Students have time to work on the project and write their summary/hooks and articles. Throughout this time the project tutor is posting reminders and motivators, as well as offers time when people can consult her and ask questions.
Jan 25th, 2019 - 7 pm - 8.30 pm	Students publish their summary/hooks and send me screenshots.
Jan 25th - 31st , 2019	Students monitor public feedback that their writings receive. The project tutor is checking their work.
Feb, 3rd	Students receive their grades and comments.
NOTES	- In every group of students, there should be a leader. That leader is going to post their group's products online. - Students are most welcome to speak to the tutor offline and online and ask questions. However, the tutor will NOT check their articles before submission. - Sometimes things just go wrong. Students need to make sure they tell their tutor about any troubles/problems before it is too late.

ASSESSMENT: FORMULAS AND GUIDELINES

Summary/Hook and Article Assessment Guidelines: Since the project is very broad and requires creativity on behalf of students, it seems reasonable to outline the expected qualities of the product instead of giving any strict standards for summary/hook and article.

Word Count: the article = 300 words (this is an average measure; of course, if you can discuss an issue and promote a solution for it within a sentence, you are welcome to do so (but still…); on the other hand, exceeding the average too much may result in your online (!) readers not wanting to read that much); the summary/hook = a Twit (200 symbols).

social teaching language linguistics

Creativity & Intrigue Max 3 points	Make sure your summary/hook stands out and catches the eye in the newsfeed. Make sure your summary/hook flickers interest in the reader: the person must want to follow the link and read your essay.	MAX 3 PTS	2 PTS	1 PTS	0 PTS
		A writing is full of interesting language. A writing is intriguing and creative as it shows great presentation of ideas and fresh arguments, as well as out-of-the-way solutions to problems. Some humor is welcome. ...

Подобные документы

• Project Work in Teaching English

  Characteristics of Project Work. Determining the final outcome. Structuring the project. Identifying language skills and strategies. Compiling and analysing information. Presenting final product. Project Work Activities for the Elementary Level.
  
  курсовая работа [314,5 K], добавлен 21.01.2011
  

• Foreign language classroom

  Culture in the Foreign language classroom. Cross-cultural communication. The importance of teaching culture in the foreign language classroom. The role of interactive methods in teaching foreign intercultural communication: passive, active, interactive.
  
  курсовая работа [83,2 K], добавлен 02.07.2014
  

• Communication in teaching English

  Theory of the communicative language teaching. Principles and features of the communicative approach. Methodological aspects of teaching communication. Typology of communicative language activities. Approbation of technology teaching communication.
  
  курсовая работа [608,8 K], добавлен 20.10.2014
  

• American Riddles

  American Culture is a massive, variegated topic. The land, people and language. Regional linguistic and cultural diversity. Social Relationships, the Communicative Style and the Language, Social Relationships. Rules for Behavior in Public Places.
  
  реферат [35,1 K], добавлен 03.04.2011
  

• Teaching English speaking at the beginning stage

  Principles of learning and language learning. Components of communicative competence. Differences between children and adults in language learning. The Direct Method as an important method of teaching speaking. Giving motivation to learn a language.
  
  курсовая работа [66,2 K], добавлен 22.12.2011
  

• The use of the linguacultural texts in teaching undergraduate degrees

  Information about the language and culture and their interpretation in the course of a foreign language. Activities that can be used in the lesson, activities and role-playing games. The value of the teaching of culture together with the language.
  
  курсовая работа [128,2 K], добавлен 15.10.2011
  

• Theory of foreign language teaching

  Methods of foreign language teaching and its relation to other sciences. Psychological and linguistic prerequisites for foreign language teaching. Aims, content and principles language learning. Teaching pronunciation, grammar, speaking and writing.
  
  курс лекций [79,6 K], добавлен 13.03.2015
  

• The British language teaching

  The origins of communicative language teaching. Children’s ability to grasp meaning, creative use of limited language resources, capacity for indirect learning, instinct for play and fun. The role of imagination. The instinct for interaction and talk.
  
  реферат [16,9 K], добавлен 29.12.2011
  

• Communication The Exchange of Information

  The nature of speaking and oral interaction. Communicative approach and language teaching. Types of communicative exercises and approaches. Games as a way at breaking the routine of classroom drill. Some Practical Techniques for Language Teaching.
  
  дипломная работа [72,3 K], добавлен 21.07.2009
  

• Intensification of learning a foreign language using computer technology

  Theoretical foundation devoted to the usage of new information technologies in the teaching of the English language. Designed language teaching methodology in the context of modern computer learning aid. Forms of work with computer tutorials lessons.
  
  дипломная работа [130,3 K], добавлен 18.04.2015
  

• Methods of foreign language teaching

  Description of the basic principles and procedures of used approaches and methods for teaching a second or foreign language. Each approach or method has an articulated theoretical orientation and a collection of strategies and learning activities.
  
  учебное пособие [18,1 K], добавлен 14.04.2014
  

• Multiple Intelligences in the structure of a new English syllabus for secondary school

  Present-day issues of foreign language teaching at secondary school. Current concepts in secondary school graduates EFL. Psychological analysis of Gardner's Theory. Learning environment in teaching English conversation.
  
  дипломная работа [71,5 K], добавлен 20.11.2004
  

• The Problem Teaching and Learning Vocabulary

  Teaching Vocabulary in English Language: effective Methodologies. Patterns of Difficulty in Vocabulary. Introduction of the Vocabulary. Ways of Determining the Vocabulary Comprehension and Remembering. Key Strategies in Teaching Vocabulary.
  
  курсовая работа [204,1 K], добавлен 06.12.2015
  

• Legal linguistics

  Legal linguistics as a branch of linguistic science and academic disciplines. Aspects of language and human interaction. Basic components of legal linguistics. Factors that are relevant in terms of language policy. Problems of linguistic research.
  
  реферат [17,2 K], добавлен 31.10.2011
  

• Social structure of the society

  What is social structure of the society? The concept of social structure was pioneered by G. Simmel. The main attributes of social structure. Social groupings and communities. Social status. Structural elements of the society’s fundamental institutions.
  
  реферат [25,4 K], добавлен 05.01.2009
  

• Social interaction and social relation. Levels of social interactions

  Social interaction and social relation are identified as different concepts. There are three components so that social interaction is realized. Levels of social interactions. Theories of social interaction. There are three levels of social interactions.
  
  реферат [16,8 K], добавлен 18.01.2009
  

• Methods of teaching English language

  Comparative teaching methodologies. Effective ways and techniques of teaching a foreign language. Role plays as a method of teaching. Comparative characteristics of modern techniques of teaching english. Grammar translation method. Communicative approach.
  
  дипломная работа [71,9 K], добавлен 18.04.2015
  

• Learner observation tasks as a learning tool for pre-service teachers

  Teaching Practicum in Kazakhstan, types of records at the Teaching Practicum and trainees’ problems. Learner’s central role in the teaching process. Observation in scientific research, approaches to observation in the language classroom studies.
  
  дипломная работа [80,3 K], добавлен 25.10.2009
  

• Possibilities of Internet resources in Teaching English Vocabulary

  Theoretical aspects of relationship between technology and language. Research-based principles of vocabulary instruction and multimedia learning. Analysis of examples of vocabulary learning strategies available on the Internet during the lesson.
  
  контрольная работа [1,6 M], добавлен 11.03.2015
  

• Social interactions and social processes

  The subjective aspects of social life. Social process – those activities, actions, operations that involve the interaction between people. Societal interaction – indirect interaction bearing on the level of community and society. Modern conflict theory.
  
  реферат [18,5 K], добавлен 18.01.2009
  

• главная
• рубрики
• по алфавиту
• вернуться в начало страницы
• вернуться к началу текста
• вернуться к подобным работам