Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.

org 25

DOES WEB 2.0-SUPPORTED PROJECT-BASED INSTRUCTION

IMPROVE JORDANIAN EFL LEARNERS'
SPEAKING PERFORMANCE?1
by Ruba Fahmi Bataineh
Anwar Solaiman Migdadi
Muhammad Khalid Al-Alawneh
Yarmouk University
Irbid, Jordan
rubab @ yu.edu.jo

Abstract
This study examines the potential effectiveness of Web 2.0-supported project-based learning in
Jordanian EFL eleventh-grade students’ speaking fluency and accuracy of grammar and
vocabulary. The participants of the study were 43 female students who were purposefully selected
from two schools at Al-Koura Directorate of Education (Jordan) in the first semester of the
academic year 2018/2019. Using a quasi- experimental, pre-/post-test design, the participants
were divided into the experimental group (n=21) who was instructed using computerized project-
based instruction and the control group (n= 22) who was taught per the guidelines of the
prescribed Teacher Book, Action Pack 11. Descriptive statistics and One-Way ANCOVA were
used to analyze the students’ scores on the speaking pre-/post-tests. The results showed that the
participants instructed through the computerized project-based treatment outperformed those who
were conventionally instructed in both speaking fluency and accuracy of vocabulary and
grammar. A number of pedagogical implications and recommendations are put forth.
Keywords: accuracy; EFL; fluency; Jordan; project-based learning; speaking; Web 2.0

1. Introduction and background of the study

When speaking, one expresses thoughts, feelings, and ideas through “a complex mental process
combining various cognitive skills virtually simultaneously, and drawing on working memory
of words and concepts, while self-monitoring” (Burns & Hill, 2013, p. 232). Speaking is also
described as a dynamic, laborious (Goh, 2007), and purposeful (Richards, 2009) process.
A good body of research (Brown, 2000; Burns, 2012; Omaggio Hadley, 2000) suggests
that speaking fluency and accuracy of voacabulary and grammar are requisites for successful
1
This manuscript is an extension of the second author's doctoral dissertation per the regulations in force at
Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 26

communication. Accuracy is defined as the learners’ ability to produce grammatically correct

sentences, as learners should not only know grammatical rules but also be able to speak and
write accurately. Fluency, on the other hand, refers to the learner’s ability to produce written
and spoken utterances with ease and efficiency and without pauses or breakdowns in
communication (Srivastava, 2014). For many foreign language practitioners, speaking
accurately and fluently is one of the ultimate goals of language learning (Thornbury, 2000).
Thus, success in learning speaking culminates not only in speaking fluently but also in
producing fewer errors in grammar and vocabulary (Brown, 2000; Kumar, 2013).
There has been a near-consensus among researchers that speaking is a challenging skill
(Bahrani & Soltani, 2012; Wallace, Stariha, & Walberg, 2004). Communication problems often
appear when learners are unable to express themselves adequately in a foreign language or to
understand other people’s messages (Fitriani, Apriliaswati, & Wardah, 2015).
Two major types of difficulties are noted in learning speaking in the EFL classroom:
linguistic and psychological (Fitriani et al., 2015). Speaking is generally challenging not only
because of the differences between languages (Bani Abdo & Breen, 2010), inadequate
command, and lack of practice but also of affective factors such as anxiety and fear to be
judged by others (Fitriani et al., 2015).
For Jordanian EFL learners, learning English is doubly challenging not only because of
the linguistic differences between Arabic and English (Bani Abdo & Breen, 2010) but also
because of the lack of adequate opportunities to practice, as English is taught as a school
subject with an average of four 45-minute periods a week.
Thus, in the Jordanian EFL context, there seems to be a near consensus among
researchers (despite a relative dearth of research on the difficulties faced by Jordanian learners
in speaking) that Jordanian learners suffer serious problems in oral communication (Al-Jamal,
2007; Bataineh, Al-Bzour, & Baniabdelrahman, 2017; Yaseen, 2018). Research suggests that it
is imperative to allow learners adequate opportunities to develop their speaking skills. For
instance, Bailey (2005) reported that communicative activities in the foreign language
classroom are catalysts for learners’ engagement in the speaking lessons, especially with
message-oriented and learner-centered activities which promote active learning, cooperation
and empathy (Klippel, 1984; Kumar, 2013). However, teaching EFL speaking in Jordan is both
traditional and teacher-centered, as learners have little opportunity to speak in authentic
communicative contexts or for authentic purposes within the school context.
Project-based learning (PBL) underlies Dewey's theory of experience which essentially
relates the school, as a meaningful and authentic context for learning, to life to provide the
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 27

learner opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills (Ulrich, 2016). It is also rooted in the
constructivist theory of learning which posits that learners can make sense of their learning and
construct new knowledge only if they actively engage in learning (Krajcik & Blumenfeld,
2006). Cognitive (Smith, 2015) and social sciences have also contributed to PBL, as both
promote social interaction in the learning process (Du & Han, 2016).
Project-Based Learning has been hailed as a viable alternative to traditional teaching
(Bell, 2010; Larmer & Mergendoller, 2015; Solomon, 2003), as it promotes independent
learning, learner responsibility, and social and democratic behavior (Knoll, 1997). It is
essentially an instructional approach that requires teachers and students to work collaboratively
to solve authentic problems (Harris, 2014), as learners select, plan, investigate and produce
something to answer real-world questions or respond to an authentic challenge (Holm, 2011).
Project-Based Learning has been reported to promote language teaching and learning
through the provision of authentic and meaningful contexts of learning (Bell, 2010; Brown,
2016; Thomas, 2000) often making use of technology (Solomon, 2003). It has benefited from
the advances in technology which potentially catalyzes language learners’ engagement,
communication, thinking and research skills (Ravitz, Hixson, English, & Mergendoller, 2012),
offers an engaging context of learning, and contributes to learners' creativity (Donnelly, 2005).
It is a lot more than just doing projects or engaging in simple real-life experiential activities to
allow learners opportunities to acquire a set of habits of mind (Markham, 2011), such as critical
and creative thinking, flexibility, decision making, and ability to work in groups (Bell, 2010;
Boss, 2012; Larmer & Mergendoller, 2015; Solomon, 2003), as the teacher is challenged to
shift roles from lecturer and deliverer of content to guide and facilitator.
Research has also established connections between PBL and 21st century skills. Some
studies describe PBL as the better deliverer of these skills (Alsop-Cotton, 2009; Bell, 2010;
Gunter, 2007), as both are central, rather than peripheral, to the curriculum (Markham &
Ravitz, 2003). They promote inquiry (Barell, 2003; Bender, 2012), creativity and innovation
(Bender, 2012), critical thinking and collaborative problems solving, authentic use of
technology (Larmer & Mergendoller, 2015), rapport among diverse learners (Markham &
Ravitz, 2003), intrinsic motivation (Markham, 2011), and life and career readiness skills
(America Achieves Educator Networks, 2018).
Web 2.0 encompasses a range of applications (e.g. blogs, wikis, multimedia sharing,
audio blogging, podcasting, syndication) which involve user-generated content, content
sharing, and the collaborative use of the web as a platform for generating, re-purposing and
consuming content (Franklin & van Harmelen, 2007; Redecker, 2009).
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 28

Other research (Figueroa-Flores, 2015; Luo, 2013; Wang & Vásquez, 2012) suggests
that the integration of Web 2.0 applications into language education has not only revolutionized
the field but also been advantageous for teachers and learners alike through the provision of
real-life learning scenarios which promote communication, collaborative learning, and deeper
levels of understanding of learning (Bartolomé, 2008; Boss, 2012; Markham, 2011).
Despite the dearth of research on the integration of Web 2.0 and PBL, this integration
has a lot of promise, as both potentially construct a learning environment which fosters the
language learners' knowledge and skills. The combination of Web 2.0 and PBL has made it
possible for learners not only to study alone, but also to share their experience and work
collaboratively in real-time, individually, or in groups.
To the researchers' best knowledge, the research on the effectiveness of Web 2.0-
supported PBL in language learning is scarce in both the international and Jordanian contexts
(Chang, 2014; Elam & Nesbit, 2012). Thus, this research aims to gain better insights into the
effectiveness of Web 2.0-supported PBL in improving Jordanian EFL learners' speaking skills,
which is an important goal of teaching English in Jordan (Bataineh et al., 2017).

2. The study

2.1. Problem, purpose, and research questions

The authors, EFL practitioners for over two decades, have observed first-hand how challenging
speaking is for Jordanian EFL learners, an observation which may be universal rather than
peculiar to Jordan. Fitriani et al. (2015), for example, claim that speaking is a challenge for
EFL/ESL learners because it requires not only knowing the grammar of a language but also
using that language in authentic contexts.
A plethora of research has reported that Jordanian EFL learners face difficulties in oral
communication in English (Bani Abdo & Bereen, 2010; Bataineh et al., 2017; Yaseen, 2018),
probably because these learners have relatively little opportunity to speak English in a context
where it is taught as a school subject with no or little contact with English outside the language
classroom.
A more learner-oriented approach rather than the current teacher-centered approach may
offer Jordanian learners better opportunities to speak for meaningful purposes. Coupled with
the support of Web 2.0, PBL may allow these learners an opportunity to engage in a learning
environment in which authentic communication, collaboration, and active learning may take
place.
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 29

Thus, this research examines the potential effectiveness of Web 2.0-supported project-
based learning in developing Jordanian EFL learners’ speaking fluency and accuracy of
grammar and vocabulary. More specifically, it seeks to answer the following question: To what
extent, if any, does Web 2.0-supported project-based learning affect Jordanian EFL learners’
speaking fluency and accuracy of grammar and vocabulary?
This research is one of the first to examine the effectiveness of Web 2.0-supported PBL
in improving speaking, a potentially challenging skill for all EFL learners. Because research on
the effectiveness of Web 2.0-supported PBL in improving speaking is rather scarce, it could be
beneficial to highlight research both on the effectiveness of PBL and that of Web 2.0
applications, besides any found on Web 2.0-supported PBL.
There has been a good body of research which supports the potential effectiveness of
PBL in improving EFL speaking (e.g., Al-Masadeh & Al-Omari, 2014; Anuyahong & Road,
2015; Castaneda, 2016; Dewi, 2016; Essien, 2018; Farouck, 2016; Maulany, 2013;
Rochmahwati, 2015; Vaca Torres & Gómez Rodríguez, 2017; Zhang, 2015). Research suggests
that Web 2.0 (e.g. YouTube - Bataineh & Al-Refa’i, 2019; Kuswara, 2015; Riswandi, 2016, as
well as social network sites - Chang, 2014; Popescu, 2014) are potentially effective in
enhancing speaking. However, even though the research on the effectiveness of a Web 2.0-
supported PBL is scarce, what little is there suggests that the integration of Web 2.0 and PBL is
a viable solution.
More related to this research, Elam and Nesbit (2012) reported that a combination of
PBL and Web 2.0 tools is an effective means to the acquisition of language skills, but, to the
best of these researchers’ knowledge, no research exists on their role in improving EFL
speaking. As this research could bring about insights into the effectiveness of Web 2.0-
supported PBL in improving speaking fluency and accuracy of vocabulary and grammar, the
instructional treatment involves the purposeful utilization of multiple Web 2.0 applications (e.g.
YouTube, Facebook Messenger, Weebly, Wikipedia) throughout each project.
However, it is worth noting that most of the skills inherent in project-based learning
lend themselves better to knowledge-building than rote memorization, which may explain the
conflicting reports that PBL is not the most effective approach when standardized testing is
involved (Quigley, 2010; Thomas, 2000). However, it yields superior results when long-term
knowledge retention and application of concepts are sought (Geier, Blumenfeld, Marx, Krajcik,
Fishman, Soloway, & Clay-Chambers, 2008; Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009).
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 30

2.2. Method, sampling and instrumentation

This study uses a quasi-experimental design, as a purposeful sample of 43 EFL eleventh-grade
students are divided into an experimental group (n=21) and a control group (n=22) from Al-
Koura Directorate of Education (Jordan) in the academic year 2018/2019. The experimental
group was taught through Web 2.0-supported PBL whereas the control group was taught per the
guidelines of the prescribed Teacher Book.
A speaking pre-/post-test and a scoring rubric were used to collect the data from the
participants. The test was designed in light of the speaking activities in the first three modules
of the prescribed textbook, Action Pack 11. The pre-test assessed the participants’ speaking
performance before the treatment whereas the post-test measured the potential effect of Web
2.0-supported PBL instruction on their speaking fluency and accuracy of grammar and
vocabulary.
The test, which was administered individually to each student for about 25 minutes,
consisted of four parts: an interview (seven items), a talk about a topic, a talk about a situation,
and expressing personal opinion about a given topic. The scoring rubric, adapted from Harris
(1969), uses an analytical five-point scale to measure the levels of improvement in speaking
fluency, accuracy of grammar, and accuracy of vocabulary.
The validity of the test was established by a jury of EFL specialists whose feedback was
used to amend the test. To establish the reliability of the test, a pilot study of 18 students, who
were tested and retested, was conducted with a two-week interval. Pearson’s reliability
coefficients for the speaking fluency, vocabulary accuracy, and grammar accuracy amounted to
97.6, 97.5, and 97.6 respectively, with an overall coefficient of 98.8 which was deemed
appropriate for the purposes of the research.
The content of the project section of the textbook was taught to both the experimental
and control groups. However, while the former was taught through Web 2.0-supported PBL, the
latter was taught per the guidelines of the Teacher Book. The instructional treatment comprised
redesigning the speaking content in the project section of the first three modules of Action Pack
11 (viz. Free-time, Plan a Celebration, and Search a Sport) per the PBL model. The redesigned
content was further supported by the purposeful use of several Web 2.0 applications (viz. a
Weebly website, a teacher website, Facebook Messenger group, YouTube, blog, Wikipedia).
The speaking content in the project section of the first three modules in the textbook
was incorporated into a free website. The partcipants, who were distributed into four (three
five- and one six-member) groups, were introduced to PBL, Web 2.0 applications, and Weebly
website, as the teacher/first researcher modelled using Weebly, creating pages, and adding
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 31

content personally and using YouTube videos. The importance of student collaboration was also
addressed as a catalyst for success.
Supervised by the teacher/first researcher, the members of each group elected a leader
and collaborated to create their own website and add content under the three themes (viz. Free
Time, Plan a Celebration, and Search a Sport), which culminated in four distinct websites. The
teacher/first researcher created a group on Facebook Messenger, dubbed Creative Builders, to
facilitate communication with and among the four groups at all times (e.g., sharing their
website addresses, asking know-how questions, announcing adding new content, seeking
teacher or peer assistance).
Through the Facebook Messenger group, Creative Builders, there were discussions of
processes, reflections of students’ opinions, exchange of ideas and information, and feedback
on their progress and performance in the oral presentations (the teacher/ first researcher and the
students agreed on time to be online via the messenger group).
Thus, Web 2.0 was utilized throughout the treatment not only as a source of information
and a tool for developing oral presentation but also as a means for communication and follow-
up of learners’ performance. The websites also constituted a final product and a medium
through which the participants exhibited their work.
The members of each group engaged in critical thinking, research practice, and
decision-making as they worked on supplementing the content of their respective websites
along the three themes. They delegated tasks amongst themselves, as each member researched
the topics through various Web 2.0 applications. They also organized and analyzed the data
they collected from Web 2.0 and agreed on the content to be used in their websites. They used
Weebly Builder tools (https://www.weebly.com/websites?lang=en) to create and develop their
websites. For two weeks, they experimented with Web 2.0 tools based on relevance and reader
appeal. After developing each website, each group presented their products to the class, after
which individual participants visited the websites and posted comments on their content.
After each session, there was a follow-up activity to communicate ideas, discuss topics,
and keep record of student progress through the messenger group. Students also visited the
teacher website and used Web 2.0 applications for independent learning.
Once done with building and collaborating in critiquing and developing the website, the
participants alternated in presenting their work orally to the school principal, teachers of
English, and other interested school personnel (13 people in total) in addition to their teacher
and classmates. They also answered audience’s queries and requests for further explanation.
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 32

The treatment lasted for eight weeks and was divided into seven stages. The first stage
(one week) was to introduce the groups to the treatment, the idea of the project, its stages and
procedures, and Weebly. The second stage was to establish the groups’ websites using Weebly.
The third, fourth, and fifth (two weeks each) stages were dedicated to developing the content of
the group websites per the themes of the projects under study in Action Pack 11. The sixth stage
(one week) involved reviewing and revising each website to each group’s satisfaction prior to
the seventh stage (one week) in which the participants presented their developed websites to an
audience.
The activities of the treatment comprised group-work, follow-up, and independent
learning activities. The participants worked collaboratively in groups to discuss the themes of
each website, exchange opinions, agree on sub-topics, look for and organize information,
negotiate the most appropriate tools from the Weebly Builder, edit websites, and present orally
to the other participants. Follow-up activities commenced after every lesson through Creative
Builders through which the teacher/first researcher monitored the progress in developing the
websites, provided feedback on performance, exchanged opinions about the themes, and sought
reflections on the oral presentation.

2.3. Results and discussion

In order to answer the research question to what extent, if any, Web 2.0-supported PBL
instruction affects Jordanian EFL learners' speaking fluency and accuracy of grammar and
vocabulary, the means and standard deviations of the learners' scores on the speaking pre-/post-
tests in vocabulary, grammar, and fluency were calculated, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the participants’ scores on the pre-/post-tests

Pre-Test Post-Test Adjusted Standard

Skill Group*
Mean SD Mean SD Mean Error
Control 9.40 2.97 11.04 3.22 10.83 0.31
Vocabulary
Experimental 8.95 2.78 14.76 2.98 14.98 0.32
Control 8.63 3.07 10.50 3.23 10.37 0.39
Grammar
Experimental 8.38 2.72 11.38 3.65 11.51 0.40
Control 8.27 2.56 10.00 2.77 9.98 0.31
Fluency
Experimental 8.23 2.64 13.90 3.33 13.92 0.31
Control 26.31 8.14 31.54 8.88 31.15 0.74
Total
Experimental 25.57 7.79 40.04 9.56 40.45 0.76
* n (Experimental)=21, n (Control)=22
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 33

Table 1 shows observed differences between the mean scores of the experimental group and the
control group on the post-test on all three skills and in favor of the latter. To determine whether
or not these difference are statistically significant, One-Way ANOVA was used, as shown in
Table 2.

Table 2. One-way ANCOVA of the participants’ scores on the speaking post-test

Sum of Partial Eta

Skill df Mean Squares f Sig.
Squares Squared
Fluency 166.83 1 166.83 78.83 0.000* 0.66
Vocabulary 184.10 1 184.10 85.95 0.000* 0.68
Grammar 13.84 1 13.84 3.99 0.050* 0.09
Speaking (overall) 927.78 1 927.78 76.15 0.000* 0.65
* significant at α = 0.05

Table 2 shows statistically significant differences (at α = 0.05) between the mean scores of the
two groups on the individual skills of speaking fluency and accuracy of grammar and
vocabulary and on speaking as whole, in favor of the experimental group.
As the participants engaged in extensive speaking practice, through the integration of
Web 2.0 and PBL throughout the treatment, the researchers observed first-hand these
participants’ enthusiasm to learn and keenness to create websites representative of their
respective personalities and aptitudes and, simultaneously, gain in fluency, accuracy, and
confidence in their ability to speak.
The individual and group work activities, which culminated in the oral presentations to
two distinct audiences, ran smoothly and fostered the quality of both the processes and products
of the project. Each group collaborated to construct a website, through a structure of
interrelated activities which entailed negotiating and agreeing on sub-topics, assigning roles to
group members, determining the most appropriate Web 2.0 applications to use, analyzing and
organizing ideas, negotiating and agreeing on appropriate Weebly builder tools to use, editing,
refining, and developing website content per teacher and peer feedback, presenting the
websites, and, eventually, reflecting on their own oral performance. These activities have
afforded the participants a meaningful context for learning and, at the same time, improving
their speaking.
The treatment was purposefully structured according to authentic learner-centered
activities (e.g., individual and collaborative decision-making, sifting through and selecting
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 34

content to include in the websites, negotiation, and independent acquisition of knowledge and
skills using Web 2.0 applications. This culminated in improved learner ownership of and
responsibility for learning.
The treatment involved the authentic and meaningful use of the foreign language to
communicate ideas and negotiate meaning, which has potentially created a context of learning
at each stage of the project which served as a catalyst for learning and an occasion for
reflection on strengths and areas which need further development.
The integration of Web 2.0 and PBL has also provided the participants with a non-
threatening learning environment in which they were encouraged to use the foreign language
with confidence and without fear of reprimand or ridicule. Creative Builders has also provided
a haven from immediate criticism of performance, as the participants were messaged feedback
as either text or audio-recording. Thus, deterrants of success, such as anxiety, shyness, and fear
of judgement were kept to a minimum, if not avoided altogether.
The fact that the learners were also given ample opportunities to practice language in-
and outside the classroom may have served as a catalyst for their improved performance. For
instance, to develop a website on a particular theme, the learners needed to access Web 2.0
applications (e.g. blogs, Wikipedia, websites) to read about the topics, search for information
in- and outside the boundaries of the classroom, analyze and organize ideas, express, discuss,
and exchange ideas, negotiate, edit, and incorporate appropriate content into the websites, and
present to an audience.
The treatment was designed to maintain a balance between the development of fluency
and accuracy of grammar and vocabulary. Every lesson offered an opportunity to practice
speaking, as the Teacher Website gave ample opportunities to learn language forms and
functions which were then used in group discussions of topics. The follow-up practice through
the Facebook Messenger group (aka, Creative Builders) addressed strong and weak areas of
their performance, and they were given opportunities to reflect on their own and peer
performance.

3. Conclusions, pedagogical implications and recommendations

The participants seem to have benefited from the Web 2.0-supported PBL, as gains in their
speaking fluency and accuracy of grammar and vocabulary were noted. However, more
research needs to be conducted before any definitive conclusion can be drawn.
Project-based learning constitutes a departure from traditional instruction, as teachers
shift from micro-managing the teaching/learning process to facilitating student inquiry and
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 35

hands-on learning. This often requires more time and resources (Barell, 2010; Bender, 2012),
but the return is well worth the investment, as PBL promotes innovative approaches to teaching
and learning and improved classroom dynamics.
However, this is by no means to imply that direct instruction is without merit. On the
contrary, there are many classroom scenarios where the teacher has to resort to direct
instruction to address certain learner needs (Markham & Ravitz, 2003), especially in contexts
where more attention is given to standardized testing (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009; Thomas,
2000) than problem solving and skill application (Markham & Ravitz, 2003).
This highlights the need for professional development efforts to bring the teachers up to
par with the dynamics of PBL instruction, as the restrictions in time and resources may impede
the implementation of project-based learning into the EFL classroom. The establishment of
professional learning communities may also catalyze both teacher agency and student learning
(Thorpe & Burgess, 2012).

References
Al-Jamal, D. (2007). English teaching and learning experiences in Jordan: attitudes and views. Umm Al-Qura
University Journal of Educational and Social Sciences and Humanities, 19(1), 29-55.
Al-Masadeh, A., & Al-Omari, H. (2014). The effectiveness of a proposed project-based program for teaching oral
skills to tenth grade EFL learners in Jordan and their attitudes towards these skills. Journal of Education
and Practice, 5(13), 133-148. Retrieved 18 June 2019 from
https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/ 12724.
Alsop-Cotton, J. (2009). Guided inquiry: learning in the 21st century. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,
35(1),102-102.
America Achieves Educator Networks (2018). Leveraging Project-Based Learning to improve career readiness.
Retrieved 26 July 2019 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/19A9Z
piofyBsMbRQzjbKzWbA0vMrEggCT/view.
Anuyahong, B., & Road, P. (2015). Using project-based approach to enhance English speaking ability of Thai-
Nichi Institute of Technology students. Retrieved 17 June 2019 from
https://icsai.org/procarch/1iclep/1iclep-18.pdf.
Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012). How to teach speaking skill? Journal of Education and Practice, 3(2), 26-29.
Bailey, K. M. (2005). Practical English Language: Teaching Speaking. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bani Abdo, I. B., & Breen, G. M. (2010). Teaching EFL to Jordanian learners: new strategies for enhancing
English acquisition in a distinct Middle Eastern student population. Creative Education, 1(1), 39-50.
Retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://file.scirp.org/pdf/ CE20100100005_ 64261863.pdf.
Barell, J. (2003). Developing More Curious Minds. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD).
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 36

Barell, J. (2010). Problem-Based Learning: the foundation for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved 25 June 2019 from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.25 51&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Bartolomé, A. (2008). Web 2.0 and new learning paradigms. eLearning Papers, 8. Retrieved 17 June 2019 from
http://www.lmi.ub.es/personal/bartolome/articuloshtml/ 08elearningPap.pdf.
Bataineh, R. F., & Al-Refa’i, A. M. (2019). The potential of TED Talks for developing prospective United Nations
Police Monitors' listening performance. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 43(4), 141-
153. Retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://journals.umcs.pl/lsmll/article/view/7657/6921.
Bataineh, R. F., Al-Bzour, W. K., & Baniabdelrahman, A. A. (2017). On the teachability of communication
strategies to Jordanian EFL beginners: exploration and reflection. International Online Journal of
Education and Teaching, 4(3), 213-227. Retrieved 19 June 2019 from
http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/154/167.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st century: skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39-
43.
Bender, W. N. (2012). Project-Based Learning: Differentiating Instruction for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks,
California: Corwin Press.
Boss, S. (2012). The challenge assessing of Project-Based Learning: on the heels of common core state standards,
administrators begin assessing critical thinking and content mastery. District Administration, 48(9), 46-
52.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by Principles. White Plains, New York: Longman.
Brown, S. (2016). Language input through Project Based Learning: why and how. [PowerPoint Presentation]
Retrieved 10-9-2017 from https://www.cityofglasgowcollege .ac.uk/sites/defau.
Burns, A. (2012). A holistic approach to teaching speaking in the language classroom. In C. C. M Goh & A. Burns
(Eds.), Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach (pp.165-178). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A., & Hill, D. (2013). Teaching speaking in a second language. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied Linguistic
Meterials Development (pp. 231-251). London: Bloomsbury.
Castañeda, R. J. P. (2014). English teaching through Project Based Learning method, in rural area. Cuadernos de
Lingüística Hispánica, 23, 151-171. Retrieved 17 June 2019 from
http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/clin/n23/n23a09.pdf.
Chang, W. (2014). Group communication and interaction in Project-Based Learning: the use of Facebook in a
Taiwanese EFL context. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research,
1(1),108-130.
Dewi, H. (2016). Project Based Learning techniques to improve speaking skills. English Education Journal, 7(3),
341-359.
Donnelly, R. (2005). Using technology to support Project and Problem-Based Learning. In T. Barrett & I.
McClelland (Eds.), Handbook of Enquiry and Problem-Based Learning: Irish Case Studies and
International Perspectives (pp. 157-178). The National University of Ireland, Galway.
Du, X., & Han, J. (2016). A literature review on the definition and process of Project-Based Learning and other
relative studies. Creative Education, 7(7), 1079-1083.
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 37

Elam, J. R., & Nesbit, B. (2012). The effectiveness of Project-Based Learning utilizing Web 2.0 tools in EFL.
JALTCALLJournal, 8(2), 113-127. Retrieved 19 June 2019 from
https://journal.jaltcall.org/articles/8_2_Elam.pdf.
Essien, A. M. (2018). The effects of Project Based Learning on 21st Century Skills. Proceedings of the
International Academic Research Conference in Vienna (pp. 438-443). Retrieved 19 June 2019 from
http://www.ijbts-journal.com/images/main_1366796758/66)%20VI18-1142_Full%20Paper-
Abigail%20Melad%20Essien.pdf.
Farouck, I. (2016). A Project-Based Language Learning Model for improving the willingness to communicate of
EFL learners. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 14(2), 11-18. Retrieved 19 June 2019 from
http://www.iiisci.org/journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/EB193TO16.pdf.
Figueroa-Flores, J. F. (2015). Using the Web 2.0 to enhance the teaching and learning experience in the ESL
classroom. Revista Educação, Cultura e Sociedade, 5(2), 108-120. Retrieved 19 June 2019 from
http://sinop.unemat.br/projetos/revista/index.php/educacao/ article/ view/1895/ 1486.
Fitriani, D. A., Apriliaswati, R., & Wardah (2015). A study on student’s English speaking problems in speaking
performance. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran Untan, 4(9). Retrieved 19 June 2019 from
http://jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jpdpb/article/view/ 11345/10753.
Franklin, T., & van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education.
Retrieved 17 June 2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/24ba/
620460a6db0bd9284aabf8e286be62ddb77f.pdf.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Clay-Chambers, J. (2008).
Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of
urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.
Goh, C. C. M. (2007). Teaching Speaking in the Language Classroom. RELC Portfolio Series 15. Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Center. Retrieved 17 June 2019 from
https://www.academia.edu/953274/Goh_C._C._M._2007_._Teaching_Speaking_in_the_Language_Class
room_PP._50_._Singapore_SEAMEO_Regional_Language_Centre.
Gunter, G. A. (2007). Building student data literacy: an essential critical-thinking skill for the 21st century.
Multimedia and Internet@Schools, 14(3), 24.
Harris, D. P. (1969). Testing English as a Second Language. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harris, M. J. (2014). The Challenges of Implementing Project-Based Learning in Middle Schools. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved 25 June 2019 from http://d-
scholarship.pitt.edu/23533/1/MatthewJHarrisDissertation %235.pdf.
Holm, M. (2011). Project Based Instruction: a review of the literature on effectiveness in prekindergarten through
12th grade classrooms. InSight: Rivier Academic Journal, 7(2). Retrieved 18 June 2019 from
https://www2.rivier.edu/journal/ROAJ-Fall-2011/J575-Project-Based-Instruction-Holm.pdf.
Klippel, F. (1984). Keep Talking: Communicative Fluency Activities for Language Teaching. Avon: The Bath
Press. Retrieved 18 June 2019 from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/ 12169415.pdf.
Knoll, M. (1997). The Project Method: its vocational education origin and international development. Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 59-80. Retrieved 18 June 2019 from
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v34n3/Knoll.html.
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 38

Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-Based Learning. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge
Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 475-488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kumar, T. J. (2013). Teaching speaking: from fluency to accuracy. The Journal of English Language Teaching, 6,
16-2.
Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. (2015). Why we changed our model of the “8 Essential Elements of PBL”. Buck
Institute for Education. Retrieved 25 June 2019
http://mathisaverb.webstarts.com/uploads/Why_We_Changed_8EEs_article.pdf.
Luo, T. (2013). Web 2.0 for language learning. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning
and Teaching, 3(3), 1-17. Retrieved 18 June 2019 from http://digital
commons.odu.edu/stemps_fac_pubs/17.
Markham, T. (2011). Project Based Learning: a bridge just far enough. Teacher Librarian, 39(2), 38-42. Retrieved
25 June 2019 from https://books.apple.com/us/book/ project-based-learning-bridge-just-far-enough-
feature/id514380346.
Markham, T., & Ravitz, J. L (2003). Project sed Learning Handbook: A Guide to Standards-Focused Project
Based Learning for Middle and High School Teachers. Novato, California: Buck Institute for Education.
Maulany, D. B. (2013). The use of Project Based Learning in improving the learners' speaking skills (a classroom
action research at one of primary schools in Bandung). Journal of English and Education, 1(1), 30-42.
Retrieved 18 June 2019 from http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/L-E/article/view/323/212.
Omaggio Hadley, A. (2000). Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Popescu, E. (2014). Providing collaborative learning support with social media in an integrated environment.
World Wide Web, 17, 99-212.
Quigley, D. (2010). Project-Based Learning and Student Achievement. UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Ravitz, J., Hixson, N., English, M., Mergendoller, J. (2012). Using Project Based Learning to teach 21st Century
Skills: findings from a Statewide Initiative. A paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC., 16 April. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from
https://www.academia.edu/1854322/Using_
project_based_learning_to_teach_21st_century_skills_Findings_from_a_statewide_initiative.
Redecker, C. (2009). Review of Web 2.0 learning practices: study on the impact of Web 2.0 innovations on
education and training in Europe. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC49108.pdf.
Richards, J. C. (2009). Teaching listening and speaking: from theory to practice. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from
https://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/teaching-listening-and-speaking-from-
theory-to-practice.pdf.
Riswandi, D. (2016). Use of YouTube-based videos to improve students’ speaking skill. Proceeding of the Second
International Conference on Teacher Training and Education, 2(1). Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta,
Indonesia. Retrieved 21 July 2019 from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7726/30f1ba52af6e8cece1eb00c44863ee74 ba1d.pdf.
Rochmahwati, P. (2015). Fostering learners’ critical thinking by Project-Based Learning. Journal on English as a
Foreign Language, 5(1), 37-44. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from http://e-journal.iain-
palangkaraya.ac.id/index.php/jefl/article/viewFile/90/614.
 Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 25-39, http://www.tewtjournal.org 39

Smith, K. (2015). Project-Based Learning. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from

http://www.kevindsmith.org/uploads/1/1/2/4/11249861/project-based-learning-kevin-smith.pdf.
Solomon, G. (2003). Project-Based Learning: a primer. Technology and Learning, 23(6). Retrieved 24 June 2019
from http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/TL/2003/01/ project.
Srivastava, S. R. (2014). Accuracy vs. fluency in English classroom. New Man International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(4), 55-58. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from
http://www.newmanpublication.com/br/09.pdf.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses
comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1).
44-58. Retrieved 25 June 2019 from
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=ijpbl.
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of research on Project-Based Learning. San Rafael, California: Autodesk
Foundation. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf.
Thornbury, S. (2000). Targetting accuracy, fluency and complexity. English Teaching Professional, 16, 3-6.
Retrieved 24 June 2019 from http://nebula.wsimg.com/9a68a9ae1b7
8b17fb70d1126e7112409?AccessKeyId=186A535D1BA4FC995A73&disposition=0&alloworigin=1.
Thorpe, K., & Burgess, C. (2012). Pedagogical approaches in a Mandatory Indigenous Education Subject. The
International Journal of Learning, 18(11), 177-190.
Ulrich, C. (2016). John Dewey and the Project-Based Learning: landmarks for nowadays Romanian education.
Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, 6(68), 54-60. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from
http://academiapedagogilor.ro/images/9.pdf.
Vaca Torres, A. M., & Gómez Rodríguez, L. F. (2017). Increasing EFL learners’ oral production at a public school
through Project-Based Learning. Profiles. Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19(2), 57-71.
Retrieved 24 June 2019 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1147219.pdf.
Wallace, T., Stariha, W., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). Teaching speaking, listening and writing. Retrieved 24 June
2019 from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/resources/edu-practices_14_eng.pdf.
Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: what does the research tell us? CALICO
Journal, 29(3), 412-430. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from
http://camillaVasquez.com/pdf/WangVasquez_Web2_CALICO.pdf.
Yaseen, N. B. (2018). Factors Negatively Affecting EFL Learners’ Speaking Skills at Jordanian Private Schools.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Middle East University, Amman. Jordan. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from
http://www.meu.edu.jo/libraryTheses/5adc5943acab9 _1.pdf.
Zhang, Y. (2015). Project-Based Learning in Chinese college English listening and speaking course: from theory to
practice. Canadian Social Science, 11(9), 40-44. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from
http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/7532.