Project-based Language Learning: an Activity Theory ...

"This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning (published online 20 May 2013) titled Project-based language learning: an activity theory analysis, by Marina Gibbes and Lorna Carson [copyright Taylor & Francis], available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17501229.2013.793689."

Project-based Language Learning: an Activity Theory Analysis Marina Gibbes and Lorna Carson

1. Introduction This paper reports on an investigation of learner perspectives on project-based language learning (PBLL) in a university language programme. Learner responses from questionnaires and an extended learner interview were categorized thematically according to Activity Theory actors: object and outcomes, subject, division of labour, tools, rules, and community. In our analysis, we explore underlying contradictions, or sources of tension, in the activity system of the Language Modules, which we hope will improve the programme’s second and foreign language curriculum. We firstly define and describe project-based language learning, and outline how Activity Theory can contribute to our understanding of a learning environment. We then briefly outline the research context and design of our project before presenting our findings and exploring the main tensions that arise in the curriculum under scrutiny. Whilst learner evaluation of project-based learning was mostly positive, our chief aim in this paper is to identify and explore the contradictions that can arise within the activity of language learning. Our hope is that by addressing such tensions, we can guide targeted curriculum development within the programme under scrutiny.

2. Project-based Language Learning and Activity Theory Project-based Learning Project-based learning is a pedagogical approach that can be traced back to Dewey's practical method which involved 'learning by doing' (Dewey & Dewey 1915), Kilpatrick's project method (1918), and subsequent approaches to progressive education. In Denmark, for example, two universities have, since the 1970s, institutionalized PBL as a central methodology for all courses (Vithal et al. 1995, 210). Project-based language learning (PBLL) began in the mid-1970s as a response to pedagogical theories of 'learner-centred teaching, learner autonomy, the negotiated syllabus, collaborative learning, and learning through tasks' (Hedge 1993, 276). In this context, a project may be defined as a 'long-term activity that involves a variety of individual or cooperative tasks' involving planning, research, and reporting (Beckett 2002, 54). Fried-Booth (2002) describes the approach as 'student-centred and driven by the need to create an end-product' (p. 6). Project-based language learning is characterised by use of authentic language (Fried-Booth 2002), emphasis on communicative competence and relevance (Hutchinson 1991), and promotion of language learner autonomy (Little 2007). An argued strength of PBLL is the development of non-linguistic skills in research and collaborative work (Moulton & Holmes 2000). In addition to the promotion of learner autonomy through emphasis on group-work and learner choice (Fragoulis 2009), PBLL supports the use of the target language for genuine communicative needs (Hedge 1993). Hutchinson (1991) argues that project work best fulfils the two elements of the communicative approach, a concern for motivation and a concern for relevance, which address the 'real needs of language learners' (p. 13). It promotes independent investigation, including the development or exercise of research skills, and cross-curricular studies, where learners

get the ability to apply their knowledge from other subject areas (ibid., 14). Tomei, Glick and Holst (1999) view project work as the appropriate method for university once-per-week language classes because of its multi-period application and more relevant content (p. 8). Reported drawbacks include the time-consuming nature of implementing PBLL, and the amount of preparation and classroom management skills from the teacher (Hutchinson 1991). Previous research on learner evaluation of PBLL has generated mixed responses, with learners citing the difficulty of project work (Moulton & Holmes 2000; Li 2010) and the time and effort required to execute projects (Beckett 2005). Classroom-based research on PBLL consists primarily of case studies, some of which feature learner evaluations (Li 2010; Moulton & Holmes 2000) or learner comments (Fried-Booth 1982). Beckett (2002; 2005) contains the most comprehensive review of learners' perspectives. Among the pioneers of PBLL, Fried-Booth (1982) conducted a term-long project on disability with a class of advanced English language learners in Bath. She found that learners were motivated by the tangible end-product and energized by field work. Moulton and Holmes (2000) created a university ESL course which centred on a research project that integrated research skills necessary for ESL learners to succeed in their academic majors. The benefits of project work, according to the learners, were that it filled a gap in their knowledge of the research process and tools, and it helped them succeed in classes related to their majors where group projects and research were required. However, some students did not like fulfilling non-linguistic tasks, and thought the course should have been limited to the study of language. Li (2010) conducted an experimental study with 183 second-year university students. Half of the group conducted a ten-week semi-structured project in the place of

the scheduled oral class, and the remaining English lessons were the same for both groups. Learner evaluations revealed positive reviews of the project-led course relating to self-improvement, the effectiveness of combining English with other skills, and the practical application of English. Negative feedback included comments on insufficient time for speaking English and instruction being too difficult to understand. The project group outperformed the non-project group on a post-course standardized English test in listening comprehension, vocabulary, and overall score, but not in reading or writing.

Activity Theory Activity theory can be described as a tool for understanding networks of subjects, activities, and activity systems (Engeström 2001), derived from Vygotsky’s understanding of instrumental activity connecting human beings both with the external world and with one other. While material tools mediate human activity and external objects, psychological tools, including signs, symbols, and language, are internally oriented, and transform psychological processes into higher mental functions (Vygotsky 1997). Vygotsky's concept of mediated activity was elaborated on by Leontiev and others to form Activity Theory, which holds mediated activity as the central unit of analysis. Leontiev (1978) credited Vygotsky for the idea of 'analysing activity as a method of scientific human psychology', and argued that the object of an activity is what most differentiates it from other activities; the object of an activity is its true motive (p. 62). Engeström (1987), Cole (1988), Wertsch (1991), and Nardi (1996), inter alia, have applied Activity Theory to social environments. Engeström in particular extended the theoretical aspects of Activity Theory to include entire activity systems, graphically represented the theory in the triangle and applied it to a variety of work and learning contexts. Engeström viewed Vygotsky's idea of mediation as the first wave of Activity Theory, and Leontiev's contribution as the second wave (Engeström 2001,

134). He created an often-cited visual representation of Leontiev's model, which is the uppermost part of the triangle seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The activity theory triangle (Engeström 2001, 135; 2008, 257)

The uppermost triangle, involving the subject, object, tools and signs, is the central point of mediation. Human activity cannot be reduced to only the uppermost triangle, since it is not individual in nature, but rather takes place in a given community governed by certain rules and divisions of labour (Engeström 1987). The uppermost triangle is the tip of the iceberg of collective activity (Engeström 1990, 72). The triangle also explains the role of actions in carrying out the activity toward certain outcomes. In work or learning environments, the outcomes of activity are often prescribed (Engeström 2008, 258) and therefore may come into tension with the subject's object or motive. Engeström (2001) articulated the need for a third wave of Activity Theory, which involves at least two interacting activity systems with a shared object (p. 136). He developed another diagram to illustrate the interacting activity systems (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Two interacting activity systems (Engeström 2001, 136)

Engeström argues that five principles apply to Activity Theory in its third wave. He argues (1) that the unit of analysis must be the 'collective, artefact-mediated and objectoriented activity system,' so that all actions are understandable only in the context of the entire activity system (Engeström 2001, 136). He also specifies (2) the principle of 'multivoicedness,' wherein all actors of the activity system reflect 'multiple points of view, traditions and interests' (ibid.). The (3) principle of historicity stated that activity systems are transformed over time and can only be understood against their own history (ibid.). Engeström argues (4) that in activity systems, contradictions, which are 'historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems,' are the source of change (ibid., 137). These contradictions can force individuals to reconceptualise the object and motive of the activity, which creates (5) expansive transformation within the activity system (ibid.). Engeström's five principles, and the presence of contradictions in particular, feature prominently in recent practical applications of Activity Theory. In the field of education, Activity Theory has been employed by researchers to analyse data recorded in classrooms and to design change when contradictions become apparent (Roth & Lee 2007). While work on the theoretical dimensions continues, there has also been a growth in using Activity Theory as a guiding methodology (e.g. McAvinia 2011).

3. Methodology Research Context The Language Modules are an institution-wide language programme designed and delivered by the Centre for Language and Communication Studies at Trinity College Dublin (Carson 2010). They enable non-specialist undergraduate students to study a language as part of their degree, either for credit or as an extra-curricular course. At the time of our project (2010/2011), 191 students were enrolled in 17 modules, learning seven languages (French, German, Italian, Irish, Korean, Spanish, Turkish) across four proficiency levels (A1 – B2). Students from each Faculty in the University are eligible to enrol in a language module of their choice. Classes are therefore composed of students from diverse academic disciplines. The top three disciplines at the time of this study were Medicine, Natural Sciences and Psychology, with a large contingent of visiting (Erasmus) students. Class sizes vary according to the popularity of the target language and the proficiency level, from six to twenty students. Classes run weekly for two hours throughout both terms of the academic year, and are taught by native-speaker teachers with added input from native-speaker language assistants, who are recruited from the TCD student body. The emphasis is on spoken and written communication, which serves as both the target and method of learning; use of the target language is encouraged and maintained across the levels, particularly beyond the A1/A2 proficiency levels. The development of transferable skills and language learning through language use are key objectives, as well as the programme's aim to foster language learner autonomy. Classes are organized around a project-based curriculum which places ownership of learning onto the students themselves as they plan, research and deliver group and individual projects in four week cycles. Students work in groups of three or four, although smaller classes often feature pair-work. Classes select from a menu of

possible projects. Teachers may select the type of project in advance, or through discussion with the class. The project menu includes: a debate on a controversial issue; an academic seminar to be delivered in class; a theatre project presenting a new or rewritten piece of drama; a website design project; a tourist brochure project. Each project is accompanied by a pack of documents containing learning objectives derived from the Common European Framework of Reference at the relevant proficiency level, instructions for the completion and delivery of the project, a project cover-sheet to record roles, responsibilities and attendance, and a self-assessment form to be submitted on completion of the project. Topics for the projects are student-selected according to their interests and courses of study. Topics selected during the current study included The Stem Cell Controversy (French, B2); An Emergency Hospital Visit (Korean, A1); Childhood Obesity (Spanish, B1); An Educational Visit to South Tyrol (German, A1). Each project requires learners to form groups, choose a topic area, define responsibilities, find authentic texts to utilize, produce individual written work (to be commented on by the teacher and assistants), practice and perform the group oral presentation, submit written work, and receive/generate feedback. Assessment comprises of the group and individual projects, and a year-end test which employs a dictation exercise and four C-tests. Selfassessment is also encouraged and utilized in the modules in a systematic way. The Language Modules receive regular plaudits for their innovative approach to fostering learner autonomy and emphasising authenticity in materials and task design (Rüschoff 2010). They are unique in providing non-language-major students with a way to develop and integrate communicative language and transferable skills into their repertoires (Voss 2010), and their attention to research and development (Carson 2010) leads to constant re-appraisal of curricular organisation. Previous research in this

programme has identified some challenges, e.g. variation in the 'accuracy and depth of grammatical information' in learners' written assignments (Voss 2010); periods of concerted effort only preceding assessment rather than continuous and sustainable progress (Schroedler 2010), and lack of sufficient time devoted to private study in students’ own opinion (ibid.). Whilst regular end-of-module feedback is elicited from students, such surveys tend to be a rather blunt instrument in revealing that some students enjoy, and are indeed passionate about, project work, whilst other students find it a frustrating approach to language learning, and express preferences for a textbookled classroom. Research projects such as our Activity Theory analysis therefore form a vital part of the programme’s research and development focus, and contribute to our understanding of how language curricula may be enhanced to meet such challenges.

Research Design This study employed a questionnaire and an extended semi-structured learner interview. An in-class questionnaire was administered to gather data on experiences of projectbased learning. The questionnaire asked learners four open-ended questions including (1) why they were taking the language module, (2) what their experience with project work in the module has been, (3) whether they saw project work as an effective way to learn a language and why/why not, and (4) why they would/would not take another project-based language learning class in the future. Learners also rated their motivation levels in the module on a Likeart scale, and gave a yes/no response to whether they thought they were making good progress in the module. Personal data gathered by the questionnaires included learners' age bracket, gender, prior language learning experience, and the language module they were presently taking. Questionnaires were distributed to instructors of seventeen CLCS language modules. The instructors distributed questionnaires to their students at the end of class in March 2010, by which

stage all students would have completed at least two group projects. The inclusion of an extended learner interview allowed us to triangulate questionnaire data to a certain extent. In our original design, focus groups were planned to allow follow-up of topics elicited by the questionnaire. Due to a lack of possible participants (probably due to the pressures of the examination term), only one learner was interviewed, in an extended one-hour interview which was transcribed in full. Questions were not designed with specific reference to Activity Theory and instead sought to give learners an opportunity to reflect on their language class. Statements from the questionnaire responses and the transcribed interview were grouped and analysed according to six Activity Theory triangle actors: Object and Outcomes, Subject, Division of Labour and Rules, Tools, and Community, as seen in Table 1. This categorization enabled us to analyse responses more precisely according to the particular areas of tension they reflected.

Table 1. Statement categories of learner responses on project work Category Object and outcomes

Subject Division of labour

Explanation The object of an activity is what learners want from it; the outcomes of the activity are projects The subjects of the activity are the learners The roles and responsibilities in group work

Example I found the group projects good I wanted to keep up and improve my level of French Everyone put in their share of work

Rules

The rules that apply to learners' It requires a lot of activity motivation and research on your own

Tools

The tools, external and internal, that mediate learners' activity The learners' community outside of the modules: college, work

Community

I think my projects are generally constructed in English and then translated I'm currently 3rd year and my subject has a very heavy work load

A total of 95 out of 191 students in the language modules returned a questionnaire, a 50% response rate. The sample reflected responses from 12 language modules in six different languages (French, Irish, Italian, German, Korean, Turkish). The participants of the questionnaires were of three different proficiency levels (A1, B1, B2). The range of language modules represented ensures that the responses reflect more than one particular class and instructor. There were 45 female respondents, 46 male, and two undisclosed. The age distribution included 66 respondents aged 16-20, 28 respondents aged 21-25, and one aged 56-60. Prior language experience varied greatly, with responses from one to eight other languages. All of the participants had previously learned at least one other language (Irish is an obligatory subject in the Irish secondary sector); 50% had already learned two languages, 38% had previously learned three or four other languages. Our study employed Activity Theory both as a theoretical framework and methodological approach. The central object of activity in the Language Modules may be defined as the acquisition of the target language. However, each student has a different motive, and therefore object, for their activity. In this context, the projects that learners collaborate on during the module are outcomes, which are fulfilled by a number of goal-directed actions. These actions include 'researching materials, exploring the Internet, consulting dictionaries and reference grammars, editing, fine-tuning texts' and presenting to the class (CLCS 2011). What makes the Language Modules unique from an Activity Theory perspective is that unlike other learning methods, the students' assigned outcomes leave room for variation and choice, increasing the likelihood of outcomes aligning with the students' own motives and overarching objects.

The actions that subjects engage in are affected by the other actors in the activity system: the tools, the rules, the community, and the division of labour. Tools mediate the actions and activity of the subject: dictionaries, exams, technology that allows for reference as well as for organising group work. The rules that the subjects operate under include broader university regulations (e.g. plagiarism), specific language classroom rules as established by the instructor (e.g. the prohibited use of machine translation, the requirement of a vocabulary list to accompany each project), and any additional rules the groups create for themselves. Often, the same instruments may be both rules and tools. The community is the greater college community to which learners belong. The division of labour is decided upon in each group, and since the groups change for each project, all subjects are exposed to a number of group configurations, with potentially different divisions of labour.

4. Findings This section presents the learner responses to the four open-ended questionnaire items, as well as the relevant interview statements, related to their reasons for taking the module and their experiences with/opinions of project work. Statements are categorized according to Object and Outcomes, Subject, Division of Labour, and Rules. While our study (Gibbes 2011) reported on all six actors, the Tools and Community actors are omitted in this article as statements related to these were limited, and are subsumed within the four actors described below.

Object and Outcomes The object of the activity in the Language Modules is defined as the acquisition of the target language, which is the motive for taking the modules, although learners' motives may vary from this general one. The projects of the modules are outcomes which

theoretically align with the object of the activity. Of 142 statements about the object and outcomes of activity, 54% were positive, 31% were negative, and 15% were mixed reviews expressing both positive and negative features of project work. The positive reviews portrayed projects as effective motivators, practical for language learning, and conductors for peer-learning.

i I found the group projects good because it was a good way of learning the language while also allowed me to research and learn about French culture and news

yes, as it involves presentations at the end of the project, which means that you have to understand and present your project instead of just typing aimlessly

The learners mentioned non-linguistic benefits of project work: meeting new people, working as a group, understanding the target language culture, alongside linguistic benefits such as learning vocabulary, speaking the language, and going beyond grammar. For these learners, the object of taking a language module was not purely linguistic and as a result they felt their outcomes reflected their objects. Many learners who gave positive reviews also brought up the less formal, more engaging nature of project work and several learners also mentioned other skills they got a chance to develop through project work.

i

The coding of statements is as follows: participant ID number (1-95), gender (question mark if not indicated) and age (16-20, 21-25, 56-60), proficiency level (A1, A2, B1, B2) and language (French, German Irish, Italian, Korean, Turkish), and questionnaire item answered (Q8-10).

yes. Allows you to develop language, personal skills and speaking skills. Enjoyable and as a result you learn more.

It gives you good presentation, communication and interpersonal skills, as well as getting to practice speaking Irish.

Negative reviews tended to focus on linguistic objectives. Learners said that project work did not improve their fluency, that it kept their language at a stagnant level, that they were able to take a lot of shortcuts instead of actually learning the language, and that 'a lot of time and effort was spent with little reward.' This could mean that the outcomes of project work did not correspond with the participants' objects of activity. The negative comments primarily addressed the themes of target language use and the difficulty of project work. One way the outcomes of project work can support the linguistic outcome of fluency is through communication in the target language. Speaking in the target language is encouraged in all modules, and even the A1/A2 level operates around 80% target language use (Carson 2010). However, the rule cannot practically be enforced at all times, so learners must see its value to adhere to it. Several learners stated that the use of target language was not achieved in their group work.

I think that if I was immersed into a situation where all communication was through the language I was learning it would be more beneficial,

The comment above indicates that the learner did not view the module as an immersion opportunity, where all of his communication could be in the target language. This is despite being in a B2 proficiency class, where all communication is expected to be in the target language and where this is an achievable target for learners given their language competence. It seems that the learner, as subject of his activity, did not see how his actions which were aimed at the outcomes of projects could ultimately align with his greater object of activity. Another participant echoed the previous comment in suggesting that other students also disregarded the rule of speaking in the target language.

I don't think it is ideal as sometimes people don't try to speak the language during discussions and sometimes we go off topic.

She proposed this as a reason why PBL is not an effective language learning method, but it could be argued that in cases where subjects do follow the rule and make it one of their goals to stay in the target language, the object of the activity aligns closer with the outcomes of the projects. Several learners cited the difficulty of expected outcomes as the reason they did not enjoy PBLL, a result articulated in previous studies (Beckett 2002; Moulton & Holmes 2000). In the comment below, the A1 learner suggests that the outcomes were beyond their linguistic abilities.

I disliked it sometimes because our language skills weren't competent enough to tackle the tasks.

Several learners thought that project work would be more effective in classes of higher proficiency. They felt that, at A1 level, the outcomes were not what they really needed, which to them was learning the basics, getting sufficient input, and guidance. For some subjects, the object of activity seemed to be focused on different skill areas or linguistic objectives: speaking, reading, writing, listening. As mentioned previously, negative reviews of project work tended to focus primarily on linguistic objectives, while positive reviews also mentioned transferable skills as well as class atmosphere, formality, and interaction. Isolating the statements that relate only to linguistic objectives as the objects of activity, we can see patterns and contrasts in the opinions given. Of 70 statements relating to particular linguistic objectives and the extent to which they were fulfilled through project work, 49% were positive, 39% were negative, and 12% were mixed. The objective of enhancing spoken production involved positive and negative statements about project work. Some learners felt that the outcomes they achieved in the course did not specifically improve their spoken or communicative abilities.

[ … ] Didn't really improve spoken German.

Such comments were from participants in B2 level classes who did not feel that spoken language or communicative skills, as objects of activity, were targeted by the outcomes of project work. This contrasts with comments below, from an A1 and a B1 German participant respectively, which suggest that communicative proficiency was in fact developed in the module through the outcomes of project work.

I liked it. It was a helpful way to learn about conversational German.

I liked it – it encouraged me to speak to people in German rather than just reading it and writing it!

Contrasting reactions to communicative proficiency as an object of their activity being met by the projects as outcomes may differ for a number of reasons, but in the data, the proficiency levels seem closely related. Lower proficiency levels (A1 and A2) were more receptive to project work than the higher proficiency levels (B1 and B2). Opinions were divided on the contribution of project work to vocabulary acquisition, although the positive comments outweighed the negative. Negative statements indicated that some learners felt they acquired vocabulary that was too ‘specific’:

ID43M16-20B2F-Q10> [ … ] I find that the vocabulary that I acquire is very specific and will only be useful for me in specific situations.

Some felt that they gained a broad range of vocabulary through researching topics, and saw the acquisition of vocabulary as an advantage.

yes, you are able to increase your vocab on areas of your own interest.

The linguistic objective that was most frequently mentioned was grammatical competence. Unlike the previous two objectives, where the positive statements outnumbered the negative, of 21 grammar-related statements, 72% were negative, while 14% were positive and another 14% were mixed. Negative statements expressed that grammar was not a focus in the modules, and that learners did not feel the outcomes of their activity assisted in the acquisition of the overall object of activity. Learners are explicitly informed in the programme’s advertising materials that the course does not offer isolated grammar teaching; however, most of the negative statements articulated a desire for more grammar-focused tuition.

[ … ] There is a lack of focus on grammar which I badly need.

The mixed reviews suggested that a balance between project work and a greater focus on grammatical features would be welcomed by learners.

No, I would combine project work with grammar. I could put into practice the grammar I have learnt.

[ I would continue with PBLL ] for another while, but I also like structured grammar lessons to have some go-to material as well.

Subject This section presents data on learners as the subject of the activity of language learning. It examines the learners' stated reasons for taking the modules, and predicate statements

on motivation. Positive comments suggested that project work was motivating as a language learning method.

[ … ] It can be useful motivation

It's more motivating than formal lectures

Negative comments indicated high expectations or demands which the learners felt they could not meet.

[ … ] self motivation difficult on top of current course work-load.

I don't like it all the time. It requires a consistent level of motivation. Often people aren't really in the mood to participate.

It is interesting to note that the negative comments seen above reflected learners' own motivations in the module, while the positive comments seemed to highlight the motivating feature of project work, rather than the learners' own motivations.

Division of Labour The division of labour, or the roles and responsibilities of subjects collaborating in activity, was relevant to the learners as all projects involved working as a group. Learners chose their own groups, and assigned responsibilities without external imposition. Of the 30 learner statements related to group work, 36% were negative, 30% were positive, 17% expressed mixed feelings and 17% reflected concerns of

learners before attending their module. Learners who gave favourable reviews of group work seem to have mastered the division of labour in an equitable way that left all group members satisfied.

so far it's been a very positive experience. Everyone put in their share of work, and there have been very little problems.

generally, it has been a good experience. Everyone worked as a team, and we learnt a lot.

Positive elements mentioned included a shared workload, less pressure, ease of generating ideas, interaction, fun and engagement. These are all elements that were present in groups that were functioning effectively. Learners who gave negative feedback seem to have encountered problems with division of labour, resulting in unequal work load, unproductive groups, and stress. Attendance and dropping out of the course were issues that affected some groups. Some learners felt that their group members relied on others to get them through projects, and they were often not working as a group.

it didn't really feel like group work. We spent most of our time working on our own.

This seems to indicate that in some groups, learners divided up tasks and did not liaise with one another, but simply worked alone towards the outcome. In groups where the division of labour was not equitable, the experience of project work was affected as a

result. Several learners expressed the desire to have worked alone on the projects; this option is feasible within the current curriculum structure.

Rules The rules that the subjects operate under include broader university regulations, specific language classroom rules as established by the instructor, and any additional rules the groups create for themselves. This section will focus on learner autonomy and topic selection. The ‘backbone’ of the Language Modules is the emphasis on learners taking responsibility for their own learning, which is guided by the principles of language learner autonomy (Little 2007). Some learners saw the reliance on self as a benefit to their learning,

I do think that the project based approach is an excellent idea in that it puts individuals in control of their own learning.

It encourages you to go off and learn independent of the teacher.

For others, it required a level of motivation and effort that they felt they did not possess.

no, it felt like we were just given homework to do. I was hoping to be taught more.

'I feel like I need to be made to do things… I find myself not really putting in the work necessary to really attain any sort of grasp of the language […]'(interview)

From an Activity Theory perspective, actions must be directed at the goals necessary in fulfilling the object of activity. If learners do not feel motivated enough to carry out purposeful actions relating to the outcomes (projects), or the object (learning the language), then they are not engaged in that activity (language learning). Instead they may be engaged in another activity, such as fulfilling the requirements for course credit. One of the ways learners exercise their autonomy in the modules is by selecting their own topics for projects in groups. This should ensure closer alignment between the projects as outcomes and the learners' overarching objects or motives for their activity. Learner feedback indicates that this freedom of choice was appreciated by some, but resented by others. Those who were in favour of selecting their topics thought it gave them the opportunity to pursue subjects of interest to them.

yes, it puts you in a predictable situation and makes you articulate about subjects you actually have an interest in.

Negative comments indicated that the learners felt compelled to choose topics related to their own courses – medical topics for medicine students and so on.

I found the projects to be too specific. We were instructed to do projects based on the courses we were studying at college which meant that I learned many medical words but did not really improve my general French.

The purpose of learners choosing their own topics is to bring the outcomes of the Language Modules (projects) closer to the objects of activity (learners' motives). If

learners are not interested in the topics of their projects, then the projects contribute less to the overall object of the activity.

5. Discussion Overall, 58% of learners reported positive experiences with project-based language learning, citing its engaging nature, and the development of both linguistic and nonlinguistic skills as reasons; while 18% reported mixed experiences, and 24% reported negative experiences of this approachii. The current study (N=95) reported higher percentages of positive feedback than Beckett's (2002) study of learner evaluations of project work (N=73), where 18% of learners reported positive experiences of projectbased second and foreign language learning. This final section addresses four areas of contradictions that became evident in our analysis, between (1) the subject, object and community; (2) the division of labour, object, and outcomes; (3) the tools, object and outcomes; and finally, (4) the rules, tools, and object.

Contradictions between Subject – Object – Community

ii

These figures are taken from learners' responses to the question, "What was your experience of doing a group project in this language module? Did you like it? Why, or why not? "

Figure 3. Contradictions between subject, object, community of activity

Learners expressed tension between their desire to acquire the target language, the object of their activity, and their commitments to their primary course work and greater college community. Some learners felt that the time and effort required to carry out the actions toward projects was greater than what they were prepared to commit. A number of other learners also commented on the time-consuming nature of project work, which was a criticism found in previous research (Beckett 2005; Hutchinson 1991). The demanding workload in the Language Modules is a necessity given the limited number of contact hours and the need for study outside of class. It could be the case that the learners who felt unprepared to dedicate sufficient time to the projects did not have proficiency in the target language as the object of their activity, and were instead motivated to act by other objects such as course credit or simply a lack of more interesting alternative optional courses, as expressed by the learners themselves in the questionnaire when giving their reasons for taking a language modules. Their actions, therefore, would be directed toward these other objects of activity, which did not align with the outcomes of project work. The tensions apparent in the experiences of these undergraduates emphasize the complexity of their choices and preferences, all of which must be framed within an understanding of their wider university (scholarly and social) experience, and chime with what Ushioda (2009) describes as the ‘person-in-context’ view of the learner.

Contradictions between Division of Labour – Object – Outcomes

Figure 4. Contradictions between division of labour, object, outcomes of activity

These contradictions are even more strongly nuanced in a group context. A contradiction emerged in the interaction of the division of labour with objects of activity of the different subjects, and the outcomes of collective activity. Learners who reported negative experiences with group work on the projects said that 'some people [were] not reliable,' which resulted in groups where 'the work load wasn't shared equally.' Some groups were also plagued by irregular attendance and course drop-out. For some learners, 'relying on others caused unnecessary stress.' These issues relate to the different objects of activity of the group members. One example of a possible source of discrepancy in group members' commitment is course credit, wherein some of the learners were taking the modules for credit and others as an extra-curricular option. A second tension in the division of labour as it affected the outcomes of activity was that some groups seemed ill-equipped to work collaboratively. As one learner stated, 'it didn't really feel like group work [because] we spent most of our time working on our own.' Several learners expressed a desire for individual, rather than group, projects. This inability to engage collectively could be caused by differing levels of commitment to the modules, or external pressures or commitments to the community, or

it could indicate a lack of experience by subjects of the activity in the equitable division of labour, or the proper functioning as a group. Nearly 70% of the respondents of the study were aged 16-20, which means they only recently left secondary school. It is possible that they had only limited experience in collaborative work, and therefore experienced tensions in the division of labour in the modules. Fragoulis (2009) similarly found that problems of collaboration were caused by the learners' unfamiliarity with group work. If this was the case in the Language Modules as well, then the need for collaborative project work and the modules' emphasis on non-linguistic skills including group work is reaffirmed, as the equitable division of labour and ability to collaborate are essential to nearly all work environments. Van Lier’s (2000) exploration of the ecology of the classroom presents a view of group work as an affordance which will ultimately enhance learning, but which is initially met with suspicion, and indeed even hostility, from learners who are unfamiliar with collaborative tasks. Ultimately, the challenge is to capture and comprehend a mode of working which seems to be simultaneously difficult and beneficial for the students involved.

Contradictions between Tools – Object – Outcomes

Figure 5. Contradictions between tools, object, outcomes of activity

Several contradictions relating to the tools mediating activity, the object of activity, and the outcomes of activity are apparent in the data. The constructs of spoken language, vocabulary, and grammar can be viewed as both tools utilised by the subjects in their actions, and as linguistic objectives which for some learners are the object of the activity. Whether as tools or object, these constructs, and grammar in particular, were perceived by some learners as lacking in the modules. Many expressed a desire for 'more grammar-based classes', a feeling articulated by learners in other studies of PBLL (Beckett 2002). Several learners thought the vocabulary acquired was 'very specific and [would] only be useful [ … ] in specific situations.' Other learners thought that the grammar they acquired or utilised on the projects were very project-specific, and therefore stated that PBLL 'only informs the student about project-related terms and grammar.' Such comments suggest that these learners wanted to explicitly target linguistic objectives as their object of activity, rather than using them constructively in the creation of projects. A second contradiction emerged in the tools required to fulfil the outcomes of the activity. This relates to the perceived difficulty of the outcomes, or projects. Some learners commented on the difficulty of the work as a reason they did not enjoy PBLL. This comment has been commonly cited by other learners in PBLL courses (Beckett 2002; Moulton & Holmes 2000). Some A1 learners in particular stated that the outcomes expected in the modules were excessively challenging for learners of their proficiency level, resulting in tensions in the activity system as subjects perceived the outcomes of activity to be out of their reach. Out of such tensions, innovation can emerge. The interview participant stated that her group possessed insufficient

knowledge of vocabulary or grammar to construct dialogues for the project, which led the group to make use of external tools such as web browsers to construct the dialogue through trial and error. Their perceived linguistic deficiencies led her group members to engage in actions which ultimately contributed to the collective and individual objects of their activity.

Contradictions between Rules – Tools – Object

Figure 6. Contradictions between rules, tools, object of activity

The final area of tension is between the rules governing the activity, the tools mediating the activity, and the object of activity. One contradiction is the use of target language as a rule and also as a tool to master; as a tool it can bring the subjects closer to attaining the object of their activity. While some learners reported the benefits they saw from conducting their group work in the target language, others stated that they 'tend[ed] to discuss the subject in English.' One B2 learner admitted that he composed his written work for the projects in English before translating it into the target language. This disregard for the rule of target language use meant that subjects could not operationalise target language use as a tool to complete their actions, which is a missed opportunity as

it could bring them closer to reaching the object of their activity. Once again, if the object of activity is not enhanced proficiency in the target language, then subjects may resist the rule because it doesn't seem relevant to them.

Conclusion

The nature of an Activity Theoretical approach is that the research provides insights about contradictions and tensions within the domain under scrutiny, where “equilibrium is an exception and tensions, disturbances and local innovations are the rule and the engine of change” (Cole and Engeström, 1993, 8). In the present study, this tendency to shine a light on such tightly interwoven issues that are otherwise difficult to unpick was seen as a valuable means of understanding the apparent contradictions in student feedback – why do some students enjoy project work so much, whilst others seem frustrated by it? The contradictions expressed in the results of the study can offer some insight into potential improvements to the Language Modules as well as future areas of investigation. The biggest source of tension emerged from learners' individual objects of activity, some of which did not align with the outcomes of project work. Of course learners will continue to be guided by motives other than the attainment of target language proficiency, and will continue to have other competing motives for their other activities in and out of college. However, more clarity can be provided for students before they enrol on the nature of the programme, and on how to get the most out of project work, for example, by selecting topics in a language module which closely align with topics studied in their main discipline, or related to student’s own extracurricular activities. Whilst information is provided on the website and in the course booklet, (including expectations of the learners, attendance, and the need for private study time), more targeted information on how to get the most out of a language module is clearly

necessary. Previous PBLL researchers have concluded that a greater emphasis should be placed on outlining the benefits of project work to the learners (Moulton & Holmes 2000; Beckett 2005). The course booklet already states several non-linguistic benefits, including collaborative working strategies and presentation skills, but this may not be the appropriate location for this information, and the benefits as they are currently outlined should be, at the very least, revised and expanded in line with the findings of this study. The benefits (linguistic and non-linguistic) of project-based work, as well as potential pitfalls, should be explained to learners at various stages of the course, drawing on the feedback obtained in this study and perhaps in the words of fellow learners rather than the programme directors/instructors. There is certainly scope for a ‘testimonial’ approach, where students’ reflections on the affordances and the challenges of project work throughout the module are recorded and shared, including tips for successful project completion such as clearly delineated roles, the importance of having a timeline for project outcomes. Project-based learning is growing in popularity and frequency in the language classroom and in other academic disciplines at university level. Whilst students may be somewhat agnostic about its benefits or challenges at the outset, in this research project they clearly articulate both positive and negative experiences, sometimes simultaneously. The challenge for such a programme is to listen to students’ voices, and to make targeted changes in the way that projects are presented and implemented. Activity Theory elucidates the relationship between consciousness and activity (Nardi, 1996), and the present study indicates its potential to uncover and describe how individuals and groups work through tasks. Ushioda (2009) argues for an understanding of motivation that is essentially relational rather than causal, “fluid and complex systems of social relations, activities, experience and multiple micro- and macro-

contexts” (p. 220). Our present study confirms the importance on focussing on real learners and real stories: experiences, reasons, choices, and even last resorts. Our hope is that through digging into the activities and the intentions of this group of students as they accomplish language-learning projects, we will be able to implement student-led, socially-situated, change and innovation. The onus is now on the programme to evolve and meet the needs of its learners.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and contributions to this article, and the learners who took the time to participate in the study.

References

Beckett, Gulbahar H. 2002. Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL Canada journal 19, no. 2: 52-66.

Beckett, Gulbahar H. 2005. Academic language and literacy socialization through project-based instruction: ESL student perspectives and issues. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 15, no. 1: 191–206.

Carson, Lorna. 2010. Innovation and autonomy in an institution-wide language programme. In Language learner autonomy: Policy, curriculum, classroom, ed. B. O'Rourke and L. Carson, 151-170. Oxford: Peter Lang.

CLCS. 2010. Language modules: course programme. School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences. Dublin: University of Dublin, Trinity College.

Cole, Michael. 1988. Cross-cultural research in the sociohistorical tradition. Human Development 31: 137-151.

Cole, Michael and Yrjö Engeström. 1993. A cultural historical approach to distributed cognitions. In Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations, ed. G. Salomon, 1-46. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Dewey, John, and Evelyn Dewey. 1915. Schools of to-morrow. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.

Engeström, Yrjö. 1987. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Yrjö. 1990. Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Yrjö. 2001. Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theory reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work 14, no. 1: 133-156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747

Engeström, Yrjö. 2008. Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with computers 20: 256-259. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2007.07.003

Fragoulis, Iosif. 2009. Project-based learning in the teaching of English as a foreign language in Greek primary schools: From theory to practice. ELT journal 2, no. 3: 113-119.

Fried-Booth, Diana. 1982. Project work with advanced classes. ELT journal 36, no. 2: 98-103.

Fried-Booth, Diana. 2002. Project work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gibbes, Marina. 2011. Project-based language learning: an activity theoretical perspective. MPhil diss., University of Dublin, Trinity College.

Hedge, Tricia. 1993. Key concepts in ELT. ELT journal 47, no. 3: 275-277.

Hutchinson, Tom. 1991. Introduction to Project work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kilpatrick, William. 1918. The project method. Teachers college record 19: 319–334.

Leontiev, Aleksei. 1978. Activity, consciousness, personality. Trans. M. J. Hall. London: Prentice-Hall.

Li, Ke. 2010. Project-based college English: an approach to teaching non-English majors. Chinese journal of applied linguistics 33, no. 4: 99-112.

Little, David. 2007. Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in language learning and teaching 1, no. 1: 14-29.

McAvinia, Claire. 2011. Investigating the adoption of a university virtual learning environment: An Activity Theoretic analysis. PhD diss., University of Dublin, Trinity College.

Moulton, Margaret R. and Vicki L. Holmes. 2000. An ESL capstone course: Integrating research tools, techniques, and technology. TESOL Journal 9, no. 2: 23–29.

Nardi, Bonnie, ed. 1996. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and humancomputer interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Roth, Wolff-Michael and Yew J. Lee. 2007. Vygotsky's neglected legacy: culturalhistorical activity theory. Review of educational research 77, no. 2: 186-232. doi:10.3102/0034654306298273

Rüschoff, Bernd. 2010. Authenticity in language learning revisited: Materials, processes, aims. In Language learner autonomy: Policy, curriculum, classroom, ed. B. O'Rourke and L. Carson, 121-134. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Schroedler, Tobias. 2010. The challenges and limitations of language learner autonomy implementation: a case study of young adult beginner learners of German. Master's diss., Trinity College Dublin.

Tomei, Joseph, Glick, Christopher, and Mark Holst. 1999. Project work in the Japanese university classroom. The language teacher 23, no. 3: 5-8.

Ushioda, Ema. 2009. A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, ed. Z. Dörnyei and Ema Ushioda, 215-228. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

van Lier, Leo. 2000. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Sociocultural theory and second language learning, ed. James P. Lantolf, 245-259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vithal, Renuka., Christiansen, Iben, and Ole Skovsmose. 1995. Project work in university mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics 29, no. 2: 199–223.

Voss, Bernd. 2010. Language teaching in higher education and the TCD Language Modules. In Language learner autonomy: Policy, curriculum, classroom, ed. B. O'Rourke and L. Carson, 135-150. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Vygotsky, Lev S. 1997. The method of reflexological and psychological investigation. In vol. 3 of The collected works of Lev Vygotsky, ed. R. Rieber and J. Wollock, trans. R. van der Veer, 35-50. London: Plenum Press.

Wertsch, James. 1991. Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.