• I wanted to involve the students in some real ESP (computer science) work. This was a hands-on approach to relevant issues of my curriculum.
• A project may give the students the perception of using English for a real purpose.
• The preparation for the real work is a good exercise in organisational skills, and the English teacher should take his fair share of this burden too.
• Students appreciate being involved in practical activities: it's a much desired diversion from routine.
• If the same time had been devoted to traditional class activities, I don't think their English would have improved more. So, even if not all were actively involved in "writing" or "speaking" in English (group work has a price to pay!), most did write and speak for a purpose.

The fact that all the parts got finished gave a sense of fulfilment to the class. Nothing can be more frustrating than an unfinished job, it is something the students (yes, the students, not only the teacher) perceive as a waste of time. Therefore, better aim at an unpretentious goal than go for the big thing and never get it done.

The  objective, therefore, was not to teach new language. It was rather like sitting back (metaphorically) and see how well the students could use the language they had already acquired.

It must be noticed that, due to the way the activity was organized, individual performance assessment was somewhat neglected; instead most of the observation was focused on the performance of the whole class, or groups.

As all teachers know, generally speaking classes show three levels of proficiency, that correspond to three groups of people: the low , the  middle and the high achievers. As a rule, we realize this situation by observing and testing students individually.
In a project though, this situation can be noticed from a different perspective. In fact, depending on how students are grouped for specific tasks, individual pupils may show more involvement than they normally do when in the classroom. 

Shocking, isn't it?

Shocking but true. All the nice theories and implementations of computer-aided language learning that have been produced since the 60's had a major flaw: they were based on the principle that the computer could be used as a tutor. Later theories, in the 80's, made the computer both a tutor and a tool. But from the point of view of teaching innovation this didn't change anything at all.

Surely computers are more "productive" and effective than a teacher: they are faster and more energetic than teachers when it comes to produce activities, procedures, and exercises. In this respect, they can be useful, now and then. But the true innovative theory of the recent years is still the communicative approach. And computers, so far, are not genuinely communicative. 

So, what good can they be for the English class? From the point of view of a communicative approach, they can be exploited for a number of purposes:

• They often represent a novelty for the class and therefore they help raising the motivation factor, thus fostering the willingnes to communicate;
• They are standard tools in ordinary life, as such they should be used as proper tools according to the task that is to be performed (e.g. writing = word processor; calculating = spreadsheet; etc.);
• Internet - the most powerful communication tool available for the language teacher. It can bring to the class foreign speakers, news, facts from any place in the world.
  Internet and its applications  - World Wide Web, e-mail, IRC (chat), videocams - can turn into a real thing all the simulations and "role-plays" we set up in the class.