From the conclusion above, this section will provides some suggestions for further study of Project- Based Learning. As it can be seen that teaching speaking requires appropriate activities. Teacher has to make great effort to prepare materials, good instructions and plans for students to follow and learn. Students can enjoy benefits of the Project- Based Learning if they are instructed thoroughly, facilitate and support frequently. Therefore, to obtain the success in study, it is still a challenge for teacher to always find out interesting, practical and applicable new strategies and activities for students support learners‟ learning achievement.
The findings give teacher opportunities to be creative, flexible and innovative in teaching. This would require teacher to spend more time in developing more diverse content, method of teaching and activity organization, distribute consultation, and support to students. This means teacher has to take a variety of roles in teaching to complete the mission of a teacher, be a good facilitator, counsellor and mentor.
There are many ways to implement the projects, a teacher should try and adapt new types of projects for students to explore the language and raise their language ability. For example, in addition to drama, journal and game shows, teacher can try
new formats of projects such as movie, news, weather forecasts to give students more opportunities to explore their language and gain specific knowledge from doing practical projects like these ones.
Meanwhile, teacher needs to have a good understanding of the students in her class. Knowing students‟ strength, background and desires are also helpful for teacher to assign appropriate projects to students that may help to develop their strength and competence.
There will appear obstacles during the project implementation which may discourage students as technology skill, learning - time management, disagreement among group members, teacher needs to get ready and available to gather this information and solve the problems in order not to let them fall behind the schedules and peers.
Teacher also should not deliver so hard projects to students which take them a lots of time and stressful so that they can not learn and make improvement for their learning. This is important to teacher to recognize to maintain the learning interest and passion among students.
REFERENCES
Bell, J. (1993). Doing your research project, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Bell S. Project-based learning for the 21st century: skills for the future. Clearing House
Blumenfeld, (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3&4), 369-398.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2000(a). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching;
Fourth Edition. New York: Longman.
---.2000(b). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. White Plains, New York: Pearson Education
Brown, H. D. (2003). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices.
White Plains, NY: Longman
Cameron, Lynne. 2001. Teaching Languages to Young Learners. New York:
Cambridge University Press
Creswell, John W. 2014. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: SAGE
Fried-Booth, D. L. (1997). Project work. (8th Ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press F. Stoller, (1997) Project work: A means to promote language content, English
Teaching Forum Online, 35(4), 1997
Gokhan Baş, G. and Beyhan, ệ. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students‘ achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education
Grant, Michael M. 2002. ―Getting A Grip On Project-Based Learning: Theory, Cases and Recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal. 5, (1), 1-3.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001.The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Hubbard, R.S. and Power, B.M. (1993) The Art of classroom inquiry. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Hugg, R And Wurdinger, S. (2007). A practical and progressive pedagogy for project based service learning. International Journal Of Teaching And Learning In Higher Education 2007, 19(2), 191-204. Retrieved from http://www.iset1.org/ijtlhe/.
Hutchinson, Tom. Introduction to Project Work. 1991. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Linse, C. T. 2005. Practical English language teaching: Young learners. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mertler, C. A. (2001). Using performance assessment in your classroom. Unpublished manuscript, Bowling Green State University
McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, David. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology; A Textbook for teachers.
Prentice Hall International English Language Teaching.
---.1999. Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston. Heinle & Heinle Publisher. ---. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. NY:McGraw-Hill.
---. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press
O„Malley, J. Michael & Lorraine Valdez Pierce. 1996. Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners: Practical Approaches for Teachers. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Patton, A. (2012). Work That Matters: The Teacher’s Guide to Project-Based Learning. The Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA:
Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Simpson, J. (2011). Integrating project-based learning in an English language tourism classroom in a Thai university institution. Doctoral Thesis, Australian Catholic University
Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology & Learning, 23, 20-27
Stoller, Fredricka L. 1997. Project work: A means to promote language content. In J.
C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 107-118). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A Review of Research on PBL.
http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL.Research.pdf. July 17 2012.
Thomas, J. W. & Mergendoller, J. R. (2000). Managing project-based learning:
Principles from the field. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans
UR, P. (2000). A course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wurdinger, S., Haar, J., Hugg, R., & Bezon, J. (2007). A qualitative study using project-based learning in a mainstream middle school. Improving Schools, 10(2), 150-161
Zane, Thomas W. 2011. How to Create Your Oral/Verbal Communications Scoring Rubrics, A step by step Approach. Salt Lake Community College.
Available at http://www.slcc.edu/assessment/docs/VerbalOral_Com_Rubric.pdf, accessed in June 2015
APPENDIX
Appendix 1 : Project – Based Learning Groups Appendix 2 : The Result of Pre-test and Post-test
A. Pre- test of Experimental group B. Post- test of Experimental group C. Pre – test of control group D. Post- test of Control group
Appendix 3 : The Analytic rubric for the Oral Presentation Project (filled by the teacher )
Appendix 4 : The survey narrative Appendix 5 : The survey result
Appendix 6: The interview direction and results
Appendix 1 : Project – Based Learning Groups
No Group project Theme Group member
1 Journal Travelling Phan Thi Khanh Hoa
Trinh Thi Thanh Huong Tran Thi Huong
Bui Ngoc Huong
2 Game-show Don‟t let money
fall
Bui Thi Yen
Doan Thi Thanh Nhan Tran Khanh Huyen Chu Phuong Anh
3 Drama Tourism and
culture
Le Thi Thuong Nguyen Thi Lan Anh Cao Thu Huong
Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao
4 Journal History Do Thi Kim Thoa
Nguyen Khanh Huyen Nguyen Thi Phuong Bui My Trinh
5 Game-show Who wants to be a
millionaire
Truong Thi Le Quynh Duong Thu Ha
Dang Quynh Giang Nguyen Thi Hanh
6 Game show Ring the bell Vu Trong Quyen
Bui Anh Tuan Nguyen Hai Tam Tran Phuong Thao To Thi Xuan Hau
7 Journal Around the world Do My Trinh
Bui Thi Minh Huyen
Nguyen Thi Quyen Pham Thi Oanh
Pham Thi Thuy Trang
Appendix 2. The result of Pre- test and post- test A.Pre- test scoring rubric ( Control group)
No Full name Comprehension Pronunciation Vocabulary Grammar Fluency Total
1 Đặng Diệu Thùy 2 2 1 1 1 7
2 Trần Thanh Hòa 2 1 1 2 1 7
3 Nguyễn Thị Huyền Thương 2 2 1 1 3 9
4 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy 2 2 2 2 2 10
5 Chu Thùy Linh 1 2 1 2 2 8
6 Ngô Thị Trang 1 1 2 2 2 8
7 Nguyễn Thị Thơm 2 2 2 2 2 10
8 Nguyễn Thị Vy 1 2 1 1 2 7
9 Chu Thị Ngọc Lâm 1 2 1 2 2 8
10 Vương Thúy Thúy 2 3 2 1 1 9
11 Hoàng Nhật Lê 2 2 3 2 3 12
12 Nguyễn Thị Minh 1 1 2 2 2 8
13 Nguyễn Thị Vui 1 2 2 1 2 8
14 Tăng Thị Vân 1 1 2 3 2 9
15 Phạm Thị Kim Tuyến 2 2 3 2 3 12
16 Trần Hồng Hạnh 1 2 2 2 2 9
17 Trần Thị Phương Thảo 2 2 1 1 2 8
18 Trương Khánh Ninh 3 2 3 1 3 12
19 Nguyễn Thị Trung Anh 3 2 2 3 3 13
20 Lăng Thị Mơ 2 1 1 2 1 7
21 Lê Thị Hiền 3 2 2 2 2 11
22 Vũ Nhật Anh 3 3 2 3 2 13
23 Vũ Thị Nga 1 2 2 2 3 10
24 Nguyễn Thị Nhật Lệ 2 1 2 2 2 9
25 Đinh Ngọc Bích 1 2 1 2 1 7
26 Phạm Thị Lệ 1 1 2 2 2 8
27 Dương Thị Thạch Thảo 2 1 1 1 2 7
28 Nguyễn Thị Xinh 2 2 3 2 2 11
29 Nguyễn Khánh Ly 3 3 2 2 2 12
30 Dương Thị Thu Hằng 2 2 2 1 2 9
CATEGORIES
Comprehension Pronunciation Vocabulary Grammar Fluency
4 Very good 0 0 0 0 0
3 Good 5 3 4 3 6
2 Average 14 19 16 18 19
1 Poor 11 8 10 9 5
0 very poor 0 0 0 0 0
Mean : 9.27
Minimum score :
Maximum score :
Standard Deviation : 1.93
B. Pre- test scoring rubric (Experimental group)
No Full name Comprehension Pronunciation Vocabulary Grammar Fluency Total
1 Đặng Quỳnh Giang 1 2 1 1 1 6
2 Trần Thị Thảo 1 2 2 1 2 8
3 Phạm Thị Oanh 2 1 1 2 1 7
4 Nguyễn Thị Quyên 2 2 1 2 1 8
5 Đỗ Thị Trinh 2 2 2 2 2 10
6 Tô Thị Xuân Hậu 2 2 2 3 2 12
7 Trần Thị Hương 2 2 2 2 2 10
8 Phan Khánh Hòa 3 2 1 2 1 9
9 Trịnh Thị Hương 2 2 2 1 1 8
10 Bùi Ngọc Hương 2 1 1 2 2 8
11 Đỗ Thị Thoa 2 2 2 2 2 10
12 Bùi Thị Trinh 2 2 2 2 2 10
13 Nguyễn Thị Phương 2 2 2 2 2 10
14 Chu Thị Phương Anh 2 1 2 1 2 8
15 Nguyễn Khánh Huyền 2 2 2 2 2 10
16 Dương Thị Hà 3 3 3 3 2 14
17 Trương Thị Quỳnh 2 2 2 2 3 11
18 Nguyễn Thị Hạnh 2 2 2 2 2 10
19 Bùi Thị Minh Huyền 2 3 3 2 2 12
20 Phạm Thùy Trang 2 1 1 1 2 7
21 Vũ Trong Quyền 3 3 2 2 3 13
22 Nguyễn Hải Tâm 2 2 2 1 3 11
23 Hà Anh Tuấn 2 1 2 1 2 8
24 Bùi Thị Yến 2 1 2 1 1 7
25 Đoàn Thị Thanh Nhàn 1 1 1 1 2 6
26 Trần Khánh Huyền 2 2 2 2 2 10
27 Lê Thị Thương 2 1 2 1 1 7
28 Cao Thu Hương 3 3 3 2 2 13
29 Chu Thị Lan Anh 2 1 1 1 2 7
30 Nguyễn Thị Phương Thảo 1 2 1 1 2 7
CATEGORIES
No. Criteria Comprehension Pronunciation Vocabulary Grammar Fluency
4 Very good 0 0 0 0 0
3 Good 4 4 3 2 3
2 Average 22 17 18 16 20
1 Poor 4 9 9 12 7
0 Very poor 0 0 0 0 0
Mean :9.23
Minimum score :
Maximum score :
Standard Deviation : 2.18
C. Post- test scoring rubric (control group)
No Full name Comprehension Pronunciation Vocabulary Grammar Fluency Total
1 Đặng Diệu Thùy 2 1 1 1 1 6
2 Trần Thanh Hòa 1 1 1 1 1 5
3 Nguyễn Thị Huyền Thương 2 1 1 1 1 6
4 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy 3 2 3 2 2 12
5 Chu Thùy Linh 2 3 2 2 1 10
6 Ngô Thị Trang 1 2 1 1 2 7
7 Nguyễn Thị Thơm 3 3 2 2 2 12
8 Nguyễn Thị Vy 2 2 2 3 2 11
9 Chu Thị Ngọc Lâm 1 2 2 1 2 8
10 Vương Thúy Thúy 3 2 2 2 3 12
11 Hoàng Nhật Lê 2 2 2 3 2 11
12 Nguyễn Thị Minh 2 2 1 2 1 8
13 Nguyễn Thị Vui 1 1 2 2 2 8
14 Tăng Thị Vân 2 2 2 2 3 11
15 Phạm Thị Kim Tuyến 3 3 2 3 2 13
16 Trần Hồng Hạnh 2 2 3 1 2 10
17 Trần Thị Phương Thảo 2 2 2 1 2 9
18 Trương Khánh Ninh 2 1 2 2 2 9
19 Nguyễn Thị Trung Anh 3 3 3 2 3 14
20 Lăng Thị Mơ 2 2 2 1 2 9
21 Lê Thị Hiền 2 2 2 3 3 12
22 Vũ Nhật Anh 3 3 3 2 3 14
23 Vũ Thị Nga 2 2 3 2 2 11
24 Nguyễn Thị Nhật Lệ 2 2 3 1 2 10
25 Đinh Ngọc Bích 1 1 1 2 2 7
26 Phạm Thị Lệ 1 1 1 1 2 6
27 Dương Thị Thạch Thảo 2 2 1 1 2 8
28 Nguyễn Thị Xinh 2 3 2 2 2 11
29 Nguyễn Khánh Ly 3 2 3 3 2 13
30 Dương Thị Thu Hằng 2 2 2 2 3 11
CATEGORIES
Comprehension Pronunciation Vocabulary Grammar Fluency
4 Very good 0 0 0 0 0
3 Good 7 6 7 5 6
2 Average 17 17 15 14 19
1 Poor 6 7 8 11 5
0 Very poor 0 0 0 0 0
Mean : 9.8
Minimum score :
Maximum score :
Standard Deviation : 2.50
D. Post- test scoring rubric (experimental group)
No Full name Comprehensio
n
Pronunciatio n
Vocabular y
Gramma
r Fluency Total
1 Đặng Quỳnh Giang 2 2 2 2 1 9
2 Trần Thị Thảo 2 2 1 1 2 8
3 Phạm Thị Oanh 2 1 2 2 2 9
4 Nguyễn Thị Quyên 2 3 2 2 3 12
5 Đỗ Thị Trinh 2 1 2 2 3 10
6 Tô Thị Xuân Hậu 2 2 3 3 3 13
7 Trần Thị Hương 2 2 2 1 2 9
8 Phan Khánh Hòa 2 3 2 3 2 12
9 Trịnh Thị Hương 2 2 3 2 2 11
10 Bùi Ngọc Hương 2 2 2 2 3 11
11 Đỗ Thị Thoa 3 2 3 3 2 13
12 Bùi Thị Trinh 2 3 3 2 3 13
13 Nguyễn Thị Phương 2 2 2 2 2 10
14 Chu Thị Phương Anh 2 2 2 2 1 9
15 Nguyễn Khánh Huyền 2 2 2 2 3 11
16 Dương Thị Hà 3 3 3 2 3 14
17 Trương Thị Quỳnh 3 3 2 3 2 13
18 Nguyễn Thị Hạnh 2 2 2 3 2 11
19 Bùi Thị Minh Huyền 2 3 3 3 2 13
20 Phạm Thùy Trang 2 2 1 1 2 8
21 Vũ Trong Quyền 3 3 3 3 3 15
22 Nguyễn Hải Tâm 3 3 3 2 2 13
23 Hà Anh Tuấn 2 2 2 2 2 10
24 Bùi Thị Yến 1 2 2 2 2 9
25 Đoàn Thị Thanh Nhàn 2 2 2 2 3 11
26 Trần Khánh Huyền 3 3 3 2 2 13
27 Lê Thị Thương 2 2 2 1 2 9
28 Cao Thu Hương 3 3 3 3 3 15
29 Chu Thị Lan Anh 2 2 1 2 2 9
30 Nguyễn Thị Phương Thảo 1 1 2 2 2 8
CATEGORY
Comprehensio n
Pronunciatio n
Vocabular y
Gramma
r Fluency
4 Very good 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Good 7 10 10 8 11 0
2 Average 21 17 17 18 17 0
1 Poor 2 3 3 4 2 0
0 Very poor 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean : 11.03
Minimum score :
Maximum score :
Standard deviation : 2.11
Appendix 3: The analytic rubric for the oral presentation project ( filled by teacher) A. Presentation content
Categories / content Very good Good Average Poor
Introduction content Introduced topic, explained the purpose of presentation in clear way capturing attention
Introduced presentation in clear way.
Started with an introduction to the topic, but it did not covey all the main points of the presentation
Did not clearly introduce purpose of presentation
Content All information was
relevant and appropriate
Most
information relevant; some topics needed improvement.
Information was valid but some was not.
Information was not relevant to the assignment.
Organization Contained a clear central message and purposeful organizational pattern (e.g., chronological order , problem solution, analysis of parts, etc.)
Central
message was clear; sections of presentation vary in explicit organizational
Central message is not clearly and/or easily identifiable by audience;
sections may be in need of further
Does not contain central message or identifiable
organizational pattern.
pattern. organization and clarity.
Transitions Used effective, smooth transitions that indicated transitions in presentation topic or focus
Included
transitions to connect key points but speakers often used fillers such as um, ah, or like
Included some transitions to connect key points but most speakers‟
over reliance on fillers is distracting
Presentation was confusing and disjointed with a lack of structure
Conclusion Clear and accurate
conclusion which
summarize the whole main idea of the presentation
Concluded main points but contain minor unclear idea.
Ending the
presentation but with some errors, the conclusion may not be clear enough
Repeat the key words in the conclusion. Do not focus on the main points.
B. Physical presentation and delivery
Categories/
level
Very good Good Average Poor
Length Time used efficiently (8 minutes)
Within 2 minutes less than allotted time or 2 minutes longer.
Spent less than 6 minutes. Substantially longer or shorter than the time
agreed in the
assignment Vocal
qualities
Presenter spoke clearly and articulately with strong and voice and loud volume that audience can hear the presentation easily.
Most members spoke in clear voice, but voices of some members drop in volume at times.
Group members had difficulty in speaking clearly and loud enough for audience. Some members pronounce incorrect which make it difficult for audience to hear.
Voices of speaker were soft and monotone. It did not go smoothly and articulately and caused difficulties for audience to hear.
Eye contact Speakers maintained eye contact with audience and seldom return to notes.
Speakers maintained eye contact most of the time, but frequently returned to notes.
Sometimes speakers
Speakers showed some eye contact, but not maintained;
and at least half the time, speakers read from notes or looked around.
Speakers read all or most of report with no eye contact.
did not see the audience but other places
Gestures Confident manner, gestures of all members added to style, and hands were used to describe or emphasize.
Confident manner;
some members might need to add or subtract gestures to emphasize points.
Most members stood still or did not have much posture or gesture besides speaking
Speakers just stood still and spoke by heart or looked at the note most of the time.
Appendix 4: The survey narrative Item
number
Concepts Questions Strongly
disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Undecided (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
1 Speaking
assessment
Project Based Learning allowed students to speak English with appropriate vocabulary based on the topic
2 Speaking
assessment
Project- Based Learning wllowed students to speak English with good pronunciation
3 Project Based Learning
Project- Based learning activities allowed students opportunities to work autonomously and involve interaction and communication 4 Activities Project Based Learning provided
students with a variety of different topics which are practical and useful to boost their knowledge.
5 Students improved their grammar structures and speaking fluency through a range of tasks that they took while taking project.
6 Project Based Learning activities
The situations students encountered during the project implementation help them to develop critical thinking and defense ability.
7 Project Based learning motivation
Project Based Learning motivate students‟ attendance, growth in self- reliance and positive thinking in learning English.
8 Life- social skill
Project Based Learning helped students develop complex skills such as problem solving, collaborating and flexibility
9 Language
skill
Project Based learning enhanced students‟ language skills ( reading, writing, listening)
10 Effectiveness of project based
learning
Students who took part in project take greater responsibility for their own learning than during more traditional classroom activities.
Appendix 5: The survey 2 result Students
Item number
Score
Mean
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 4 43 4.3
2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 43 4.3
3 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 47 4.7
4 5 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 4 5 43 4.3
5 5 4 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 44 4.4
6 2 5 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 5 41 4.1
7 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 43 4.3
8 4 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 42 4.2
9 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 45 4.5
10 5 5 4 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 45 4.5
11 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 45 4.5
12 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 46 4.6
13 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 2 5 43 4.3
14 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 46 4.6
15 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 46 4.6
16 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 45 4.5
17 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 45 4.5
18 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 46 4.6
19 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 5 4 45 4.5
20 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 46 4.6
21 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 43 4.3
22 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 41 4.1
23 5 4 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 5 40 4.0
24 5 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 4 5 44 4.4
25 5 3 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 41 4.1
26 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 46 4.6
27 5 3 4 5 3 5 5 4 3 5 42 4.2
28 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 43 4.3
29 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 46 4.6
30 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 45 4.5
Score 134 131 131 130 135 133 129 130 129 138 Mean 4.43 4.37 4.37 4.33 4.5 4.43 4.30 4.33 4.33 4.6
Appendix 6. The interview direction and result Interview questions direction and results
Phuong: Hi everyone, My name is Phuong. Once again, Thanks for coming. As you know I am teaching our class by using Project Based Learning technique. Now I would like to interview you some questions for my research project. I hope all of you will have great time and enjoy my interview. Are you ready?
Students: yes
Phuong : What were the differences of learning English by using project Based Learning and your previous way of learning in class?
ST1: In this class, we had to communicate a lots therefore, you must be good at pronunciation and grammar.
ST2: This class required a lots of hard work and cooperation, we also had to read a lots. Writing is a difficult skill since it related to grammar.
Phuong: Do you often speak at home?
ST2 + ST2+ ST3: No, we dont Phuong: Why?
ST2: Because we dot have any one to speak English with
ST3: We don‟t speak at home because no one in my neighbour can speak English Phuong: What do you find most difficult about this way of learning?
ST 1: I feel that some students did not like to work in group and it was difficult to create the best result
ST2: It too quite a lot of time to prepare and design and I did not have time for other subject
ST3: You need to be active and responsible for your study because time is limited, if you did not work hard on it, You left behind
Phuong : how do you learn speaking at home?
ST1: I often read questions and answers from the book ST2: I spoke with my friends sometimes
ST3: I spoke with myself and sometimes I record my voice
Phuong : Did the project based learning help you to improve your speaking skill?
ST1:Yes, it helped me improve my fluency and pronunciation since I had to ask my