This article presents and discusses findings of project-based (language) learning and teaching (PBLT) research published in English between 2002 and 2024. The purpose of our qualitative research synthesis (QRS) is to identify the macro and micro contexts, research foci, theoretical and methodological orientations, technology use as well as benefits, challenges, and regional understanding of PBLT in East and Southeast Asia as reported in the studies analysed for this QRS. Our goals for conducting the QRS study are to offer generalizable findings of 21 years of PBLT research to guide future PBLT research and to inform PBLT pedagogy in East and Southeast Asia. The findings of our QRS contribute to the advancement of the emerging qualitative research synthesis in the TESOL field in general and of PBLT research and practice in particular.
AlexanderP.A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90, 6–23.
2.
BakarN.I.A.NoordinN.RazaliA.B. (2019). Improving oral communicative competence in English using project-based learning activities. English Language Teaching, 12, 73–84.
3.
BangunI.V.AlfaifiA. (2021). Business English telecollaboration in project-based language learning: Indonesian and Saudi Arabian contexts. In ThomasM.YamazakiK. (Eds.), Project-based language learning and CALL: From virtual exchange to social justice (pp. 57–81). Equinox.
4.
BeckJ.BeckettG.BordbarjavidiF.GaribA.GuskaroskaA.SollierN.YangJ.ZawadzkiZ. (2021). Maximizing technology use in project based learning: Looking back and moving forward. EUROCALL 2021. [Virtual]
5.
BeckJ.BeckettG.H.YangJ.LestariF.LimH.J. (2022). Technology-enhanced project-based language learning studies in East and Southeast Asia: Implications for CALL and global contexts [paper presentation]. CALICO. [Virtual].
6.
BeckettG.H. (1999). Project-based instruction in a Canadian secondary school’s ESL classes: Goals and evaluations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
7.
BeckettG.H. (2025). A paradigm shift for language education: Project-based language learning and teaching. Routledge.
8.
BeckettG.H.SlaterT. (2005). The Project Framework: A tool for language and content integration. The English Language Teaching Journal, 59, 108–116.
9.
BeckettG.H.SlaterT. (2018). Project-based learning and technology. In LiontasJ.I. (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Wiley-Blackwell.
10.
BeckettG.H.SlaterT. (Eds.). (2020). Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment: Key approaches, technology tools, and frameworks. Routledge.
11.
BeckettG.H.SlaterT.MohanB.A. (2020). Philosophical foundation, theoretical approach, and gaps in the literature. In BeckettG.H.SlaterT. (Eds.), Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 126–162). Routledge.
12.
BeckettG.H.HemmingsA.MaltbieC.WrightK.ShermanM.SersionB. (2016). Urban high school student engagement through CincySTEM iTEST projects. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 995–1007–13.
13.
BellS. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39–43.
14.
CarterG.ThomasH. (1986), ‘Dear Brown Eyes’: Experiential learning in a project-orientated approach. ELT Journal, 40, 196–204.
15.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
16.
ChenM.HirchR. (2020). A research-based framework for assessing technology-infused PBLL. In BeckettG.H.SlaterT. (Eds.), Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 224–243). Routledge.
17.
ChongS.W.PlonskyL. (2021). A primer on qualitative research synthesis in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 55, 1024–1034.
18.
CondliffeB. (2016). Project-based learning: A literature review [working paper]. MDRC.
19.
CubanL. (1993/2017). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890–1980 (2nd ed.). Longman.
EngeströmY. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward configuration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 23–39.
23.
EyringJ.L. (1989). Teacher experience and student responses in ESL project work instruction: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
24.
FangX.WarschauerM. (2004). Technology and curricular reform in China: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 301–319.
25.
FordA.KlugeD. (2015). Positive and negative outcomes in creative project-based learning: Two EFL projects. ACADEMIA: Literature and Linguistics, 98, 113–154. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236155591.pdf (accessed January 2025).
26.
FossP.CarneyN.McDonaldK.RooksM. (2009). Project-Based Learning activities for short-term intensive English programs. The Philippine ESL Journal, 1, 57–76.
27.
GaribA. (2023). ‘Actually, it’s real work’: EFL teachers’ perceptions of technology-assisted project-based language learning in Lebanon, Libya, and Syria. TESOL Quarterly, 57, 1434–1462.
28.
Gras-VelázquezA. (Ed). (2020). Project-based learning in second language acquisition: Building communities of practice in higher education. Routledge.
29.
GreenierV.T. (2020). The 10Cs of project-based learning TESOL curriculum. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14, 27–36.
30.
GuP. (2002). Effects of project-based CALL on Chinese EFL Learners. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 195–210.
31.
GuoY. (2006). Project-based English as a foreign language education in China. In BeckettG.H.MillerP.C. (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 143–158). Information Age Publishing.
32.
GuoY.BeckettG.H. (2007). The hegemony of English as a global language: Reclaiming local knowledge and culture in China. Convergence, 40, 117–132. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ813701 (accessed January 2025).
33.
HafnerC.A.MillerL. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning and Technology, 15, 68–86. Available at: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/hafnermiller.pdf (accessed January 2025).
34.
HallidayM.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
35.
KesslerM.SolheimI.ZhaoM. (2020). Can task-based language teaching be ‘authentic’ in foreign language contexts?: Exploring the case of China. TESOL Journal, 12, 1–16.
36.
KhanhN.V. (2015). Towards improving ESP teaching/learning in Vietnam’s higher education institutions: Integrating project-based learning into ESP courses. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 1, 227–232.
37.
KimM.K. (2015). Students’ and teacher’s reflections on project-oriented learning: A critical pedagogy for Korean ELT. English Teaching, 70, 73–98.
38.
KrausH.A. (2009). Generating depth and engagement: The development of a project-based curriculum. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 4, 30–38.
39.
KubotaR.McKayS. (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The role of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 593–619.
40.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
41.
LeeM.K.W.KwanC. (1997). The use of problem-based learning in medical education. Journal of Medical Education, 1, 11–20.
42.
LiA.PengT. (2018). Observing ‘myself’ in the video: Fostering reflective practice in oral presentation training. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9, 138–144.
43.
LiY.WangL. (2018). An ethnographic exploration of adopting project-based learning in teaching English for academic purposes. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 15, 290–303. Available at: https://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v15n22018/li.pdf (accessed January 2025).
44.
LiangJ.XieF.GaoM. (2020). Beyond exams: Research-based dynamic, technology mediated, project-based framework for meaningful language learning in a secondary EFL setting in China. In BeckettG.H.SlaterT. (Eds.), Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 263–282). Routledge.
45.
LiuX. (2019). A case study of university instructors’ perceptions and teaching practices of critical thinking in China. University of Calgary. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/2vdkv7bk (accessed January 2025).
46.
MacaroE.HandleyZ.L.WalterC. (2012). A systematic review of CALL in English as a second language: Focus on primary and secondary education. Language Teaching, 45, 1–43.
47.
MillerL.HafnerC.A.FunC.N.K. (2012). Project-based learning in a technologically enhanced learning environment for second language learners: Students’ perceptions. E–Learning and Digital Media, 9, 183–195.
48.
MishraP.KoehlerM.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Board, 108, 1017–1054.
49.
MohamadA.TamerY. (2021). A review of literature on project-based learning inside language education. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching, 6, 79–105.
50.
MohanB. (1986). Language and content. Addison Wesley.
51.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD.G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of International Medicine, 151, 264–269.
52.
MossD.Van DuzerC. (1998). Project-based learning for adult English language learners (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED427556). National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education.
53.
MurphyP.K.KnightS.L.DowdA.C. (2017). Familiar paths and new directions: Inaugural call for manuscripts. Review of Educational Research, 87, 3–6.
54.
NgC.H.CheungY.L.ZhangW.JangH. (2020). Researching project-based learning: A critical review and a look ahead at form and function in writing. In BeckettG.H.SlaterT. (Eds.), Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 126–162). Routledge.
55.
OchsE. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge University Press.
56.
PetersenC.NassajiN. (2016). Project-based learning through the eyes of teachers and students in adult ESL classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 72, 13–39.
57.
PrabhuN.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
58.
RiaziM.ShiL.HaggertyJ. (2018). Analysis of the empirical research in the journal of second language writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 41–54.
59.
SawamuraS. (2014). Assessment in project-based language learning: Annotated bibliography. Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 8, 44–49.
60.
ThomasM. (2017). Project-based language learning with technology. Routledge.
61.
ThomasM.ReindersH. (Eds.). (2015). Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia. Bloomsbury.
62.
ThomasM.YamazakiK. (2021). Introduction: Projects, pandemics and the repositioning of digital language learning. In ThomasM.YamazakiK. (Eds.), Project-based language learning and CALL: From virtual exchange to social justice (pp. 1–18). Equinox.
63.
van LierL. (2006). Foreword. In BeckettG.H.MillerP.C. (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. xi–xvi). Information Age Publishing.
64.
WangH.S.XuW.S. (2011). Experimenting English. College English Books 1–4. Higher Education Press.
65.
WangS. (2020). Project-based language learning in China: A literature review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11, 66–72. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/276317857.pdf (accessed January 2025).
66.
YangJ.BordbarjavidiF.GoodaleE.SollierN. (2022, March). What can corpus linguistics offer project-based language learning? [Paper presentation]. TESOL International Convention and English Language Expo. [Virtual].
