I like the whole doing aspect: Language teachers’ evaluations of project-based learning

Michael Garnett

December 9, 2010

LING 8640: Applied Linguistics Research, Fall 2010

Professor Kathleen Bailey

Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 2

Abstract

This study explores the experience and knowledge of project-based learning (PBL) of novice

language teachers, experienced language teachers and language teachers-in-training. The research

questions are: (1) What experience do language teachers have with PBL? (2) Why do language

teachers adopt, or not adopt, a PBL approach? (3) Is there a difference in the evaluations of PBL

among language teachers who have varying amounts of practical experience, when it comes to

adopting a PBL approach? The research design falls under Grotjahn’s (1983) mixed methods

paradigms of exploratory-interpretive and exploratory-quantitative-statistical designs.

Questionnaires and interviews were used to elicit data about the teachers’ evaluations of and

experience with PBL, as well as data about the contexts they taught in and about their beliefs on

language learning and teaching. Findings are based on data collected from 51 language teachers

from mixed backgrounds. Quantitative data elicited by the questionnaire was analyzed using an

analysis of variance, and although no significant differences were discovered among the groups,

qualitative data elicited by the questionnaire and interviews found that language teachers have

varying experiences with and perceptions of adopting a PBL approach based on the contexts in

which they teach.

Keywords: project-based learning, project work, teacher and student opinions, language teacher

development
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 3

Background

Project-based learning (PBL) “is fast becoming a buzz term in the realm of education and in

language teaching” (Dooly & Masats, 2008, p. 28). You might hear people talking about PBL in the

hallways of your children’s schools, or in the offices of their teachers. The re-emergence of the idea

that experiential learning is an effective model for learning has boosted PBL’s popularity

(Lundeberg, Coballes-Vega, Standiford, Langer, Dibble, 1997). Advocates of PBL have even

created models for school reform whose central component of instruction is PBL (Ravitz, 2010).

Interestingly, though recent studies show the effectiveness of PBL in general education (Strobel &

van Barneveld, 2008; Walker & Leary, 2008) and its effectiveness and positive qualities in language

teaching (Bennet & Dunne, 1992; Kitao & Kitao, 2001; Kitao, 2002), PBL, as a teaching approach,

“is often met with skepticism, especially by novice language teachers” (Dooly and Masats, 2008, p.

29). This is true, even though PBL is not some new concept (Dooly & Masats, 2008) and has been

shown to be quite effective in general education and second language education (Ravitz, 2010). This

discordant situation raises an interesting question for language teachers who are curious about PBL,

or for teacher trainers who need to educate language teachers on the application of a PBL approach.

After observing an English as a second language (ESL) teacher struggle with PBL, Eyring (1997)

asked, pointedly, “Is project work worth it?” (p. 1).

Current research shows that if you are a general education teacher, most likely your answer

to the question would be yes, but if you are a language teacher, your answer would be much less

predictable. Research shows that general education teachers “enjoy this unconventional way of

teaching,” whereas the few available studies on language teacher evaluations of PBL show mixed

results (Beckett, 2002, p. 81). Language teachers, as a whole, have yet to evaluate PBL as positively
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 4

as general education teachers. Even though research on language teacher’s evaluations of PBL is

minimal, and frequently anecdotal, enough studies show the negative evaluations of PBL by

language teachers to suggest that further study of teacher evaluations of PBL is needed (Beckett,

2002). For example, when faced with difficulties while adopting a PBL approach, the language

teachers in Beckett (2002) and Eyring (1989, 1997) felt frustrated with PBL throughout the course,

while other studies (e.g., Beckett, 1999; Gardner, 1995; and Hilton-Jones, 1988) show language

teachers positively evaluating and adopting PBL. Beckett (2002) asks, “What could have

contributed to this discrepancy?” (p. 62).

A reason for the difference could be attributed to the fact that the teachers in Eyring’s (1989,

1997) studies had never adopted a PBL approach before and those in Beckett’s (1999) studies had

years of experience with project work and were in a learning community that greatly supported

PBL. Susan, one of the novice teachers who participated, was insecure about her ability to organize

the project (Eyring, 1989). On the other hand, Ms. Brown and Ms. Jones, the teachers in Beckett’s

(1999) study, were excited to be able to integrate the four skills, foster critical thinking and problem-

solving skills, and promote independent and cooperative learning skills. Another reason for the

dissonance might be attributed to the evaluations of PBL by the students in the studies. Beckett

(2002) asks whether the expectations and negative attitudes of students affect their language

teachers’ perception of PBL. Although students’ evaluations of PBL might have an effect on

teacher’s evaluations of PBL, their evaluations are beyond the scope of this research proposal. This

study will only focus on language teachers’ views, experiences, and evaluations of PBL.

Few studies have explored why some language teachers are skeptical about PBL (Beckett,

2002). The purpose of this study is to shed some light on language teachers’ perceptions of PBL. By
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 5

exploring the views and experience of language teachers, we will gain a deeper understanding of the

reasons some language teachers look at PBL skeptically, and will better understand the difficulties

teachers encounter when adopting a PBL approach. Because this study is exploratory in nature, it

will identify questions that need to be answered by future research, as well as make

recommendations for future research on PBL in language education. The research questions are:

1. What experience do novice language teachers, experienced language teachers, and

language teachers-in-training have with PBL?

2. Why do novice language teachers, experienced language teachers, and language teachers-

in-training adopt, or not adopt, a PBL approach?

3. Is there a difference in the evaluations of PBL between novice language teachers,

experienced language teachers, and language teachers-in-training, when it comes to

adopting, or not adopting, a PBL approach?

For the purposes of this study, a novice language teacher is someone who has less than three

years of full-time experience language teaching. An experienced language teacher is someone who

has more than three years of full-time experience, and a language teacher-in-training is someone

who has less than one year of full-time experience and is enrolled in a teacher-development program

(e.g., masters program, certificate course, or other professional development course). Furthermore,

for the purposes of this study, the definition of PBL encompasses the various characteristics and

configurations of project work that Stoller (1997) describes. Her description synthesizes the

common characteristics of PBL definitions presented by language educators and researchers over

the past thirty years. For a full list of references, see Stoller (1997), page 4. In essence, PBL includes

project work that (1) “focuses on content learning rather than on specific language targets;” (2) “is
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 6

student centered;” (3) “is cooperative rather than competitive;” (4) “leads to the authentic

integration of skills and processing of information from varied sources, mirroring real-life

tasks;” (5) “culminates in an end product that can be shared with others, giving the project a real

purpose;” (6) “has both a process and product orientation, and provides students with opportunities

to focus on fluency and accuracy at different project-work stages” (Stoller, 1997, p. 4). The

following literature review on PBL in language teaching frames the rationale for this study and

emphasizes why answering the research questions above is important. Following the literature

review, the research design and results of the study are presented before a discussion of their

implications for language teacher educators and language teachers who are interested in PBL.

Literature Review

Although research on PBL has steadily increased during the past twenty years, in the

beginning, much of it focused on describing its characteristics because “no two teachers implement

PBL in the same way” (Ravitz, 2010, p. 293). In the late eighties and during the nineties, studies of

PBL were primarily centered on general education and eventually moved unto language education

(Beckett, 2002; Stoller, 2006). The majority of research involved general education contexts in the

hard sciences, mathematics, and social sciences (Beckett, 2002; Ravitz, 2010). Though research on

project-based learning was rare in language education, systematic research on teacher evaluations of

PBL was even rarer (Beckett, 2002; Stoller, 2006). As a result, examining the experience language

teachers have with PBL, as well as their views about PBL, is an important research activity

(Lundeberg et al., 1997). For the purpose of this study, I will not include an in-depth analysis of the

literature on PBL in general education contexts. Instead, I will focus on the few studies that connect

language learning, language teacher evaluations of PBL, and the adoption of a PBL approach.
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 7

Interestingly, these studies of PBL cover a variety of language teaching contexts. For an in-depth

discussion about the viability of PBL as a language teaching approach, see Stoller (2006).

As stated above, much of the early literature on PBL in language education focuses on

defining and exemplifying PBL approaches. Sheppard and Stoller (1995) define PBL as a multi-step

activity that has the following characteristics: (1) it involves “a sequence of multi-skill

activities;” (2) it focuses “on a theme of interest rather than a specific language task;” (3) it entails

“student involvement, collaboration, and responsibility;” (4) it entails “students working together to

achieve a common purpose and a concrete outcome;” and (5) it “requires students to work over

several days or weeks, both inside and outside the classroom, in collaboration with native and/or

nonnative speakers of the target language” (1995, p. 10). Furthermore, Sheppard and Stoller (1995)

state that a PBL approach is effective for English for specific purposes (ESP) settings (i.e., a

business English course) because it promotes authentic language use, encourages learners to focuses

on language at a discourse level (as opposed to a sentence level), provides authentic tasks, and is

learner-centered.

In line with earlier literature that described and defined PBL (e.g., Fried-Booth, 1982, 1986;

Haines, 1989; as cited in Sheppard & Stoller, 1995), Sheppard and Stoller (1995) present an eight-

step framework for developing a project in language courses that is based on a synthesis of

recommendations made by various researchers. For a full list of citations, see Sheppard & Stoller

(1995). The steps are (1) define a theme; (2) determine the final outcome; (3) structure the project;

(4) identify language skills and strategies; (5) gather information; (6) compile and analyze

information; and (7) present final product (Sheppard & Stoller, 1995). Furthermore, Sheppard and
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 8

Stoller (1995) provide a list of suggestions, or “Rules of Thumb,” to help teachers maximize the

impact of project work in their classrooms, particularly in ESP settings.

The rules of thumb include advice such as “always consider the students’ long-term

language needs,” “consider the linguistic skills that students will have to employ in these contexts,”

“consider what is feasible,” “do a lot of planning”, and “teachers should not abandon the idea of a

project altogether if ideal circumstances are not available” (Sheppard & Stoller, 1995, p. 4). Most

importantly, Sheppard and Stoller (1995) point out that project work is not appropriate for all ESP

settings and caution teachers who are in schools where teachers lack support from their curriculum,

administration, school insurance plan, or schedule. Moreover, Sheppard and Stoller (1995)

emphasize that teachers need to be flexible and must be comfortable with temporarily relaxing their

control over their students, in order to completely assume the role of a facilitator, rather than being

the only font of knowledge in the classroom. Both points are useful for my current study, because

they suggest teacher’s evaluations of PBL might be affected by factors external to their views of

what constitutes good language teaching and learning, and also might be affected by internal factors.

Stoller (1997) is a follow-up to Sheppard and Stoller (1995) and updates the project

development framework presented earlier by situating PBL in a new context: the content-based

language classroom. As noted above, Stoller (1997) presents a refined definition of project work,

which encompasses various characteristics and configurations of PBL. Two examples of the many

possible configurations of project work include production projects (which involve student creation

of products like radio programs, written reports or banquet menus) and research projects (which

entail the gathering of information from library or internet research). For the complete list of project

types, see Stoller (1997), page 6. Furthermore, Stoller (1997) emphasizes the adaptability of PBL,
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 9

stating that “whatever the configuration, projects can be carried out intensively over a short period

of time or extended over a few weeks, or a full semester; they can be completed by students

individually, in small groups, or as a class; and they can take place entirely within the confines of

the classroom or can extend beyond the walls of the classroom into the community or with others

via different forms of correspondence” (p. 6).

Stoller (1997) also presents an updated set of practical guidelines for sequencing and

developing a project, which was initially developed as an eight-step process in Sheppard and Stoller

(1995). After testing and applying the original model various times, Stoller decided to fine-tune it by

rearranging some of the original steps in order to provide language teachers an easier model to

manage (1997). Step 4, Identify language skills and strategies, from Sheppard and Stoller (1995) is

spread out to Steps 4, 6, and 8 in Stoller (1997). The goal in Stoller (1997), as before, is to guide

teachers and students in their development of project work that facilitates content learning, and

more importantly, provides “opportunities for explicit language instruction at critical moments in

the project” (p. 6). By reorganizing and reemphasizing the language intervention steps in the

Sheppard and Stoller (1995) model, Stoller (1997) further develops the “immediate applicability

and relevance” of language instruction in PBL (Stoller, 1997, p. 7).

Alan and Stoller (2005) build on Sheppard and Stoller’s (1995) and Stoller’s (1997) models

and suggestions, taking PBL even further than an ESP or content-based learning setting, by applying

it to an English as a Foreign language (EFL) setting in Turkey. Alan and Stoller (2005) also

emphasize the fact that PBL differs greatly from one educational context to another, just like Stoller

(1997). Furthermore, unlike Stoller (1997) and Sheppard and Stoller (1995), Alan and Stoller (2005)

cite the difficulties that some teachers face when adopting a PBL approach, by referencing Beckett
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 10

(2002) and Eyring (1997). What makes Alan and Stoller (2005) stand out, in comparison to other

studies on PBL, is its discussion of under-exploited project work and its outline of “features that

maximize the potential benefits” of PBL (p. 11).

Under-exploited project work refers to weak interpretations of project work. For example, a

language teacher may take a few communicative activities that help students get to know one

another better through conversation, and label them as projects. The weak interpretation of project

work in this situation becomes apparent as soon as the students, given the chance, decide to talk to

their friends, and end up completing the unelaborated tasks superficially without much

collaboration. Another example is the valuing of PBL as “merely a source of entertainment” and as

“a break from routine classroom activities” (Alan & Stoller, 2005, p. 11). In such situations, students

may be more fixated on the visual attractiveness of their projects instead of its content and language

aspects, and the teacher may reinforce that wrong direction by assessing the projects “according to

their visual appeal, ignoring students’ gains in language and content learning” (Alan & Stoller,

2005, p. 11).

Alan and Stoller’s (2005) focus on under-exploited project work seems to be trying to

preempt the difficulties language teachers face when adopting a PBL approach. This is in contrast to

previous research (e.g., Beckett, 1999; Gardner, 1995; Hilton-Jones, 1988; Sheppard & Stoller,

1995; Stoller, 1997) that primarily focused on the positive aspects of PBL. Alan and Stoller’s (2005)

emphasis of their specific recommendations for language teachers can be seen as an example of a

growing trend in the literature on PBL in language education, which seeks to help language teachers

deal with the difficulties of adopting a PBL approach. For example, Stoller (1997) only mentioned

teacher development or challenges in applying PBL while explaining the possible application of
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 11

their project work model in teacher development courses: “The language intervention steps (IV, VI,

and VIII) are optional in teacher education courses, depending on the language proficiency and

needs of the teachers-in-training” (p. 7). More recently, language education literature that focuses on

PBL is increasingly reaching out to diverse language teaching settings and is focused on facilitating

teacher development and application of PBL.

For example, Alan and Stoller (2005) present a list of features of project work that are

synthesized from studies that successfully applied PBL in language teaching contexts. These

features, which Alan and Stoller argue maximize the benefits of PBL, include (1) structuring

projects to “maximize language, content, and real-life skill learning;” (2) combining “teacher

guidance, teacher feedback, student engagement, and elaborated tasks with some degree of

challenge;” (3) multidimensionality and a “focus on real-world subject matter that can sustain the

interest of students;” (4) “ student collaboration and, at the same time, some degree of student

autonomy and independence;” (5) an accommodation of “a purposeful and explicit focus on form

and other aspects of language;” and (6) a “process and product” orientation, with “an emphasis on

integrated skills and end-of-project reflection” (2005, p. 11). Like the other studies mentioned

previously, Alan and Stoller (2005) also provide a case study as an example of how to apply PBL in

a particular educational setting. Other extras that facilitate teacher development are provided by

Alan and Stoller (2005) in their appendices, which make recommendations for EFL teachers and

materials writers who want to mix a PBL approach into their curricula. See Alan & Stoller (2005),

for their project planning checklist.

Beckett and Slater (2005) take recommending best practices to another level, when talking

about applying PBL in various language learning settings. They’re study is in tune with Beckett’s
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 12

(1999, 2002) observation that language teachers’ evaluations of the benefits of PBL are partly

influenced by students’ perception of the value of PBL. For example, Beckett (1999, 2002) showed

how students’ negative evaluations of PBL were incongruent with their teacher’s positive

evaluations of PBL, and as a result, the teacher felt increasingly frustrated by her students’

absenteeism and lack of participation. Furthermore, Beckett and Slater (2005), like Alan and Stoller

(2005), are concerned with facilitating the ease with which language teachers successfully apply

PBL in their educational setting. They show their concern by presenting their own project model,

the Project Framework. Their model is different than Sheppard and Stoller’s (1995) and Stoller’s

(1997) models because it is specifically designed and presented as a “cultural tool to help socialize

students into a new way of thinking about language and language learning” (Beckett & Slater, 2005,

p. 108). The goal is to open a dialogue between language teachers and their students, in order to

facilitate successful project work.

Along the same lines, Dooly and Masats (2008) focus on the teacher development needs of

their readers, as well as providing an example of how to adopt PBL in an EFL setting, like Alan and

Stoller (2005), but with a twist. The participants in the sample case study were Spanish EFL

teachers from Barcelona, Spain, who were learning about PBL by doing PBL for the first time. In an

experiential way, Dooly and Masats (2008) focus on persuading language teachers to become

knowledgeable about and gain experience with PBL. Furthermore, Dooly and Masats (2008) state

that even though PBL is becoming more popular, it is still not taught enough in teacher development

programs at the Masters level. This issue raises an interesting point. If language teachers become

more exposed to the literature on PBL in language education, would they be more likely to evaluate

PBL positively?
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 13

Perhaps the answer lies in studies like Eyring (1997) , which exemplify the reservations

some language teachers have about PBL. For instance, in Eyring (1997), PBL was new to the

language teacher and a number of her frustrations stemmed from her worries about planning and

keeping her students’ negative criticisms and lack of motivation from affecting her. But Eyring

(1997) seems only to be particularly relevant for novice teachers or those who have little knowledge

and experience with PBL. Perhaps studies like Lundeberg et al. (1997), which partially focus on

language teacher and student evaluations of PBL and partially focus on presenting definitions and

examples of PBL, provide a better insight as to why some teachers are still skeptical about PBL.

Lundeberg et al. (1997) describes the tensions between language teacher and student perceptions of

how PBL should be realized in the classroom, and summarize their findings by stating that the

“teachers’ beliefs were ahead of their practice” (p. 80). In other words, they understood the

importance behind the theory of PBL, but had a lot more to learn about the application of PBL.

Interestingly, Lundeberg et al. (1997) argue that even though language teachers expressed

misgivings about PBL (i.e., about the difficulty in assessing student work and maintaining student

interest in project work), the outcome of the projects succeeded in meeting the course goals.

What is evident about studies like Beckett (2002), Eyring (1997), and Lundeberg et al.

(1997) is that in order to gain a better understanding of why some language teachers continue to be

skeptical about PBL, research needs to continue to focus on language teachers views and

experiences with PBL, and not just on describing and justifying PBL theoretically and empirically.

To fully answer the research questions, it will be important to understand the challenges that

language teachers face when adopting a PBL approach, especially when adoption is due to some

administrative reform or other external factor (Dooly & Masats, 2008; Eyring, 1989, 1997).
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 14

Research shows that changing a teacher’s established beliefs and practices is difficult (Bailey,

Curtis, & Nunan, 2001; Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Agee, 1998; Kennedy, 1998) . Similarly,

the preexisting knowledge and assumptions about teaching of teachers-in-training come from their

own learning experiences (Pajares, 1992) and those learning experiences help determine how

teachers think about language learning and teaching (Bailey, Curtis & Nunan, 2001). In other words,

teacher trainers have to account for the latent teaching beliefs of their teachers-in-training so that

they can get them to adopt new approaches, such as PBL. By answering the research questions, this

study will give teacher trainers a better understanding of the challenges they may face when

promoting the adoption of a PBL approach. It will also give language teachers, in general, a picture

of what they may expect to find when applying PBL.

Research Design

In order to answer the research questions, this study mixes data collection and analysis

methods by using a hybrid design of qualitative and quantitative methods. According to Grotjahn’s

(1987) framework of research paradigms, this study falls under two mixed methods paradigms of

exploratory-interpretive and exploratory-quantitative-statistical. The label exploratory-

interpretive refers to research designs that are non-experimental, data collection methods that are

qualitative, and data analysis methods that are interpretive. The study falls under this first

paradigm because I collected qualitative data with a questionnaire (see Appendix A for the

questionnaire) and six follow-up interviews. The label exploratory-quantitative-statistical refers

to research designs that are non-experimental, data collection methods that are quantitative, and

data analysis methods that are statistical. The study falls under this second paradigm because I

collected quantitative data with the questionnaire following a design adapted from Thorpe (2004)
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 15

and Christison and Bassano (1995) that uses ranges rather than discrete Likert scales (see

Appendix A for the questionnaire). Furthermore, I analyzed the results using an analysis of

variance (ANOVA), a statistical procedure that is used when comparing more than two groups

(Mackey & Gass, 2005).

Moreover, I chose a non-experimental design because I wanted to explore language

teachers’ attitudes towards PBL, in light of their knowledge and experience with PBL. The study

does not seek to assert or refute hypotheses about how best to adopt a PBL approach, or to

compare two or more approaches about adopting a PBL approach. In other words, the study falls

under the ex post facto class, criterion groups design of research designs because its participants

were chosen due to pre-existing qualities (e.g., being a language teacher or language teacher-in-

training with or without PBL experience) and it does not seek to test a pedagogical treatment.

Participants

As defined above, participants in this study were divided among the three groups, novice

language teachers, experienced language teachers and language teachers-in-training. In total, 51

language teachers responded to the questionnaire and six of those teachers were chosen for the

follow-up interviews. They were chosen in a non-random fashion, through convenience and

snowball sampling procedures. Convenience sampling refers to the act of choosing “the most

available and/or accessible subjects in a population” and snowball sampling refers to the act of

attracting prospective participants through ‘word-of-mouth,’ from a participant to prospective

participant (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 352).

Language teachers who participated in this study were contacted via email and in person.

The majority of participants were enrolled in a Master’s program in Teaching English to Speakers of
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 16

Other Languages (MATESOL) at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Furthermore, the

geographical distribution of the participating language teachers included the United States, China,

Syria, Oman, and Thailand. Their full-time teaching experience ranged from zero to forty-two years.

A majority of participants had less than four years of full-time language teaching experience. In

total, there were eight novice language teachers, twelve experienced language teachers, and twenty-

five language teachers-in-training.

Elicitation Materials

The questionnaire used in this study (see Appendix A) elicited qualitative and quantitative

data about the language teachers’ evaluations of PBL and their experience with PBL. The

questionnaire also elicited data about the contexts the participants have taught in, as well as data

about their language learning and language teaching beliefs. The design of questions 11-33 on

the questionnaire were inspired by the questionnaires in Thorpe (2004) and by the advice given

in Christison and Bassano (1995).

The interview questions (see Appendix B) elicited qualitative data that provided an in-

depth look into the participants’ evaluations of and experience with PBL. The interviews also

allowed me to gain a more detailed history of the participants’ language teaching experience than

the questionnaire, as well as a better understanding of their language learning and language

teaching beliefs.

Data collection methods

The questionnaire was emailed to teachers at the Monterey Institute of International Studies

(MIIS), as well as to alumni and former colleagues in Aleppo, Syria, Lexington, Kentucky, and

Bangkok, Thailand. Permission to use each participants’ responses was obtained in the form of a
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 17

signed consent. Following a raised “sample re-sample procedure,” participants first filled out a

structured questionnaire and then six of those participants were selected for semi-structured follow-

up interviews (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 319). Those six participants were chosen for interviews on

the basis of their responses and their distribution among the three language teacher groups. Initially,

two language teachers from each group were chosen, but due to uncontrollable circumstances, one

of the novice language teachers could not be interviewed in time for the research report. As a result,

I interviewed one novice language teacher, two experienced language teachers, and three language

teachers-in-training in order to cover a range of experience and evaluations of PBL. The interviews

lasted 15 minutes each and were transcribed. One interview was conducted over the internet using

Skype, and the rest were conducted in person, with the proceedings audio recorded using the Apple

software GarageBand. After all the data were collected, I analyzed the results following the

procedures described in the next section.

Data analysis procedures

Descriptive statistics (e.g., measures of dispersion and measures of central tendency) are

reported below for the quantitative data elicited by the questionnaire. Furthermore, in order to

answer the third research question, “Is there a difference in the evaluations of PBL between novice

language teachers, experienced language teachers, and language teachers-in-training, when it comes

to adopting, or not adopting, a PBL approach?” an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated

among the three language teacher groups for questions 11, 16, and 20-25 from the questionnaire.

Qualitative data elicited by the questionnaire was used as background information and as a source

for selecting participants for a follow-up interview. As stated above, participants were chosen for the

interviews based on certain criteria, one of which was the quality of their experience with PBL as a
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 18

language teacher and as a student. For example, one participant chosen for an interview wrote that

they had very little experience as a teacher with PBL, but extensive experience as a student with

PBL. In contrast, another participant chosen for an interview had very little experience with PBL as

a student, but extensive experience with PBL as a teacher. Choosing to interview both participants

allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the varying evaluations of PBL by language teachers.

Moreover, following the grounded theory approach of Lincoln and Guba (1985),

qualitative data elicited by the semi-structured interviews were transcribed and organized into

themes. In other words, analytical categories arose from the qualitatively collected data elicited

by the interviews, and the data were not set into pre-existing categories. These data were

condensed using a five-step method adapted from Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber (1998). For

example, the data were first read several times until patterns emerged. Second, initial and global

impressions of the data were put into writing. Third, themes, or special foci, were selected from

these initial impressions. Fourth, the themes, or special foci, were highlighted using colored markers

on the whole transcribed data set. Fifth, each theme, or special foci, was followed throughout the

data set and conclusions were drawn and presented below.

Of course, taking the grounded approach does not mean that I did not have pre-existing

questions about the data. Prior to the analysis, I was interested in comparing language teachers’

beliefs about PBL with the existing literature. I was also interested in seeing if any of the

participants were motivated to adopt a PBL approach because of published research or other sources

of input (e.g., conference presentations or graduate coursework). Moreover, I wanted to see if

language teachers’ decisions to adopt a PBL approach was related to the advice or experience of a
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 19

professor, colleague, or peer, or whether adopting a PBL approach was a result of having

experienced PBL as a learner in the past.

The following section summarizes the results of the quantitative and qualitative data

collected from the questionnaire and interviews. The set of data are presented in reference to the

research questions. Following the summary of results, the findings will be discussed in light of the

the research questions and in the interest of language teacher educators and language teachers who

are interested in PBL.

Results

Quantitative Data for Research Question 1

The questionnaire elicited quantitative data that helps answer the first research question,

“What experience do novice language teachers, experienced language teachers, and language

teachers-in-training have with PBL?” In the Brief Language Teaching History section of the

questionnaire, participants were asked whether they had ever assigned project work as a teacher or

completed project work as a student. 11 participants reported that they only completed a project

assignment as a student, nine of them being language teachers-in-training and two being novice

language teachers. 31 participants responded that they completed a project assignment as a student

and that they had assigned project work to their students in the past. Of those responses, 16 were

from language teachers-in-training, ten from experienced language teachers, and five from novice

language teachers. Of the 43 participants who experienced PBL as a student, 22 participants

reported that they gained experience as a student with project work as a result of their enrollment in

graduate degree seeking, teacher education program (i.e., like MIIS’s MATESOL program). In other

words, 52% of participants who experienced PBL as a student, did so in a graduate degree seeking,
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 20

teacher development program. Furthermore, 15 participants did not report that they experienced

PBL in a graduate degree seeking, teacher education program, even though they are known to be

currently registered at MIIS’s MATESOL program and have completed project assignments as part

of their coursework.

Furthermore, four participants reported that their experience with PBL was as a teacher, and

not as a student. Of those responses, three were from experienced language teachers and one from a

language teacher-in-training. Only two participants reported that they had no experience with PBL,

neither as a teacher nor as a student, and they were a language teacher-in-training and a novice

language teacher. Seven participants reported that they had had a positive experience with PBL as a

teacher and as a student, and that their positive experiences with PBL as a student led them to adopt

a PBL approach as a language teacher. Of those responses, four were from language teachers-in-

training, two from novice language teachers, and one experienced language teacher.

Qualitative Data for Research Question 2

The questionnaire and semi-structured interviews elicited qualitative data that helps answer

the second research question, “Why do novice language teachers, experienced language teachers,

and language teachers-in-training adopt, or not adopt, a PBL approach?” Although the questionnaire

was not designed to elicit responses that directly answer the second research question, 12

participants used question 34 to report their reasons for adopting or not adopting a PBL approach.

Conversely, the semi-structured interview was designed to directly answer research question 2.

Because the interviews were semi-structured, the participants’ responses mirrored the questions. The

participants talked about the contexts of their experiences with PBL, what they base their

knowledge of PBL on, the payoffs and drawbacks of adopting a PBL approach, and how their
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 21

language learning and language teaching beliefs interact with their perception of PBL. Using a

grounded approach, the responses given to the interview questions and question 34 on the

questionnaire were categorized into the following themes (from most salient to least salient): (1)

adopting a PBL approach is context dependent and PBL is not applicable in every situation (i.e., the

immediate and expanded learning environment, the learner’s needs and goals, and the students’

skills, attitudes, and knowledge affect the decision to use PBL), (2) language teachers are

challenged by the need to properly scaffold learning opportunities and conduct learner training in

order to make PBL successful, (3) language teachers need to structure project work so it meets

students’ diverse needs, interests, and learning styles, (4) language teachers need to make sure that

project work is interesting and fun for their students, (5) language teachers believe that they are not

familiar enough with PBL to try it. Excerpts from the interviews and the responses to question 34

are presented below in the discussion section.

Qualitative and Quantitative Data for Research Question 3

The questionnaire elicited qualitative data that helps answer the third research question, “Is

there a difference in the evaluations of PBL between novice language teachers, experienced

language teachers, and language teachers-in-training, when it comes to adopting, or not adopting, a

PBL approach?” 12 Participants’ written responses to question 34 and the Brief Language Teaching

History provide some insight. As reported above for research question 2, the qualitative data

collected from theses two sections of the questionnaire fall within five main themes. The qualitative

data suggest that there is no difference in the evaluations of PBL among the three participant groups.

This result is based on the fact that each of the five main themes that arose from the data includes

contributions from each group, relatively equally. Because there were only eight participants who fit
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 22

the novice language teacher group, their group represented a slightly smaller proportion of the

responses. For example, for theme 2, about the challenges of scaffolding and learner training, five

responses were from language teachers-in-training, four from experienced language teachers, and

two from novice language teachers. All the other themes have similar distributions, and no theme

categories exclude responses from any of the participant groups.

The questionnaire also elicited quantitative data that helps answer the third research

question. Questions 11, 16, and 20-25 in the questionnaire were designed to directly answer

research question 3 (see Appendix A for the questions). An analysis of variance, using Microsoft

Excel’s Single Factor ANOVA calculation, was conducted for each of the above questions in order

to find out whether there was a significant difference between the three groups or participants.

Because of the non-critical nature of the research question, the alpha level was set at .05%. The

results of the ANOVA calculations for questions 11 and 16 are presented in Table 1 and 2 below, and

the ANOVA calculation results of questions 20-25 are presented in Appendix C in order to save

space in the report for the discussion section.

Table 1
ANOVA Calculations for Question 11

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Novice LTs 8 3.954 0.494275 0.1411343
Experienced LTs 12 5.205 0.433783 0.0870388
LTs-in-Training 29 12.27 0.423111 0.075731

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.031955865 2 0.015978 0.1807709 0.835217 3.199582
Within Groups 4.065835449 46 0.088388

Total 4.097791314 48
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 23

Table 2
ANOVA Calculations for Question 16

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Novice LTs 8 3.082 0.385196 0.0879834
Experienced LTs 13 3.581 0.275476 0.0614345
LTs-in-Training 27 9.16 0.339253 0.0897181

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.065325461 2 0.032663 0.3987833 0.673484 3.204317
Within Groups 3.68576855 45 0.081906

Total 3.7510940113 47

As Table 1 and 2 show, there is not a significant difference between the three language

teacher groups (i.e., the observed F-value is well below the critical F-value in both calculations),

and Appendix C shows that the ANOVA calculations for questions 20-25 show the same results of

no significant difference when the F-value is compared to the critical F-value. In the section below,

the resulting data are interpreted and discussed, and limitations to the study are discussed.

Discussion

As the first set of results show for research questions 1, there seems to be no large apparent

difference among the groups when it comes to the kind of experience language teachers have had

with PBL. It is interesting that 52% of the participants reported that a graduate TESOL program

influenced their experience with and knowledge of PBL. As Dooly and Masats (2008) argue,

graduate programs are an effective means of getting language teachers to practice and learn the

intricacies of adopting a PBL approach. As one language teacher-in-training who recently

completed a project-based learning workshop for their MATESOL degree reported, “I suppose I

never assigned project work because this teaching was prior to my MIIS experience and I’d never
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 24

heard of project-based learning.” It is also interesting that 31 participants reported that they had

experienced PBL as a student and as a teacher, and that of those responses, 23% directly link their

positive experiences with PBL as the reason for their adoption of a PBL approach as a teacher.

These results seems to support Dooly and Masat’s (2008) argument that language teacher’s

established beliefs on language learning and teaching are influenced by their experiences as

students. Moreover, this result seems to support Sheppard and Stoller’s (1995) finding that language

teachers established language learning and teaching beliefs affect their perception of PBL.

Of course, it is interesting that not more than 23% of participants attributed their adoption of

PBL to their positive experiences as students. Part of the reason may be because some participants

attributed their adoption of a PBL approach to their observation of PBL working in their colleagues’

classrooms. It seems that more information is needed about how language teacher’s prior experience

influences their decision to adopt a PBL approach. For example, only one teacher-in-training

attributed part of their decision to adopt a PBL approach on their reading of current PBL literature.

Such results seems to support Dooly and Masat’s (2008) finding that teachers adopt PBL and learn

more about PBL as a result of doing it, rather than as a result of reading about it. Furthermore, as

Lundeberg et al. (1997) and Beckett (2002) show, it is difficult to merely gauge language teachers’

evaluations of PBL on their past experiences. It is important to understand the challenges PBL offers

language teachers in different contexts, and what language teachers perceive to be the rewards and

drawbacks of adopting a PBL approach.

As the themes found in the qualitatively gathered data show, language teachers are primarily

concerned with the fact that adopting a PBL approach is context dependent and that PBL is not

applicable in every situation. “The fact is, there is no universal truth in regards to learning
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 25

anything...The context is the key,” as one participant reported. Participants shared their concerns

that PBL was difficult to apply with low proficiency students, students with special needs, and

students who are culturally biased against cooperative learning. Also, participants reported that PBL

is difficult to apply in schools that are overly concerned with high-stakes testing results and

traditional teaching practices. These findings suggest that Stoller’s work to exemplify PBL in

various teaching contexts, such as ELF, ESP, and ESL (Sheppard & Stoller, 1995; Stoller, 1997;

Alan & Stoller, 2005; Stoller, 2006), is important, because teachers need to see their own context in

the literature for it to be relevant to their own teaching decisions. Furthermore, as the themes found

in the qualitative data show, language teachers are also concerned with the challenge of needing to

properly scaffold learning opportunities and conduct learner training, as well as the need to structure

project work so it meets students’ diverse needs, interests, and learning styles. As Eyring (1997),

Lundeberg et al. (1997), and Beckett (2002) show, language teachers need a variety of support and

guidance on their planning and execution of project work, depending on their own unique lack of

knowledge and experience as language teachers.

Furthermore, teachers are concerned with assigning projects that are interesting for

themselves and their students because they perceive project work to be a sustained activity that

requires lots of classroom time and attention from their students. Part of the challenge to make PBL

interesting is highlighted by the fact that seven of the 12 participants who reported qualitative data

believe that they are not familiar enough with PBL to try it. This finding suggests that Beckett and

Slater (2005) and Alan and Stoller’s (2005) work to provide language teachers with a variety of

ideas for project work, as well as a framework to follow, is important. Of the language teachers who

were interviewed, those who adopted a PBL approach reported that meeting their students’ language
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 26

learning goals and needs was a high priority, and I believe that Beckett and Slater’s (2005) project

framework provides the guidance they seek. As one participant said, “Please give me some tips on

how to start and finish a school year with English as a second language learners where it’s not just

English improvement I am hoping for but content and critical thinking skills as well.” Such teachers

seek advice because, as they report, they have little experience applying PBL. The qualitative data

gathered for this study seems to provide more answers to the research questions than the

quantitative data gathered for research question 3.

The quantitative data returned insignificant differences between the groups of language

teachers. It seems that regardless of the amount of full-time teaching experience language teachers

have, it is the quality of their teaching experiences and the quality of their experiences as students

that affect their decision to adopt a PBL approach. Of course, a reason the analysis of variance did

not find a significant relationship between the groups is that I did not have enough novice and

experienced language teachers who participated. The largest group, language teachers-in-training

was more than the two other groups combined. Another limitation of the questionnaire may be that

it did not elicit enough quantitative, contextual information about the learning environment where

teachers have worked (e.g., the learners’ levels and ages, class sizes, and geographical and socio-

cultural considerations).

In light of these considerations, it is apparent that working within a mixed methods

paradigm offers researchers insights where ‘pure’ paradigms might offer limited results. Because the

little qualitative data that was gathered was so rich and varying in terms of themes discussed, and

because the qualitative data seems to have offered the best explanations for the perceptions language

teachers have of PBL, it seems that future research will have to include more interviews in order to
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 27

gain a better understanding of what encourages or discourages language teachers to adopt a PBL

approach. Furthermore, as Beckett and Slater (2005) advice, and as all participants interviewed

reported, the experiences their students have with project work affect language teacher’s perceptions

of PBL. As a result, future studies on the perceptions and experience of language teachers with PBL

will benefit from including data from language learners.

Conclusion

Although no significant results were found with the statistical analysis, the results of this

study suggest some implications for teacher educators and for language teachers who are curious

about PBL. It is apparent that a great percentage of language teachers, regardless of amount of full-

time experience teaching a language, have experienced PBL as a student and as a language teacher.

More than the number of years someone has taught, their choices to adopt a PBL approach seem to

be connected to the context of their language teaching. If teacher educators wish to promote PBL

among their teachers-in-training, it seems that they need to assist in the planning, structuring, and

executing of PBL. Also, as Lundeberg et al. (1997) suggest and a few participants reported,

language teachers may benefit greatly from learning about PBL by actually doing it in a project-

based, language teacher professional development course or workshop. For language teachers who

are curious about PBL, it seems that project work is worth it when language teacher’s efforts are

supported and guided by their colleagues or superiors, and their students’ needs and goals are met.
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 28

References

Agee, J. (1998). Negotiating different conceptions about reading and teaching literature in a

preservice literature class. Research in the Teaching of English, 33: 85-121.

Alan B., & Stoller, F. (2005). Maximizing the benefits of project work in foreign language

classrooms. English Teaching Forum, 43(4): 10-21.

Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The self as source.

Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Beckett, G.H. (1999). Project-based instruction in a Canadian secondary school's ESL classes:

Goals and evaluations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.

Beckett, G. H. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL Canada

Journal, 19(2), 52-66.

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2005). The Project framework: A tool for language, content, and skills

integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108-116.

Bennett, N., & Dunne, E. (1992). Managing classroom groups. London: Stanley Thornes.

Christison, M. A., & Bassano, S. (1995). Action research: Techniques for collecting data through

surveys and interviews. The CATESOL Journal, 8(1), 89-103.

Dooly, M., & Masats, D. (2008). Russian dolls: Using projects to learn about projects. GRETA,

16(1-2), 27-35.

Eyring, J.L. (1989). Teacher experience and student responses in ESL project work instruction: A

case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles.

Eyring, J.L. (1997). Is project work worth it? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED 407 838). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED407838.pdf.

Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 29

Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Transforming future teachers’ ideas about writing

instruction. Curriculum Studies, 22(3), 277-289.

Fried-Booth, D. L. (1982). Project work with advanced classes. ELT Journal, 36(2), 98- 103.

Fried-Booth, D. L. (1986). Project work. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gardner, D. (1995). Student produced video documentary provides a real reason for using the

target language. Language Learning Journal, 12, 54-56.

Grotjahn, R. (1987). On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In C. Faerch & G.

Casper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 54-81). Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Haines, S. (1989). Projects for the EFL classroom: Resource material for teachers. Walton-on-

Thames Surrey, UK: Nelson.

Hilton-Jones, U. (1988). Project-based learning for foreign students in an English-speaking

environment (Report No. FL017682). Washington DC: US Department of Education. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 301054)

Kennedy, M. (1998). Learning to teach writing: Does teacher education make a difference? New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kitao, K., & Kitao, S. K. (2001). Student-constructed web pages for intercultural understanding.

Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Foreign Language Education

and Technology, Kobe, Japan (p. 1-9). Kyoto, Japan: Doshisha University.

Kitao, K. (2002). Web-based students’ projects: Teaching awareness of culture and writing. In S.

Petersen & M. Kruse (Eds.), The changing face of CALL: Emerging technologies,
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 30

emerging pedagogies. Proceedings of the 6th Annual JALT CALL SIG Conference, Gunma,

Japan (pp. 51-57). Gunma, Japan: Kanto Gakuen University.

Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and

interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lundeberg, M. A., Coballes-Vega, C., Standiford, S. N., Langer, L., & Dibble, K. (1997). We think

they're learning: Beliefs, practices, and reflections of two teachers using project-based

learning. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(1), 59-81.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research. A

comprehensive guide. Boston, MA: Heinle.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62(1): 307-332.

Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing

instruction with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 290-312.

Sheppard, K., & Stoller, F. L. (1995). Guidelines for the integration of student projects into ESP

classrooms. English Teaching Forum, 33(2), 10-15.

Stoller, F. L. (1997). Project work: A means to promote language content. English Teaching Forum,

35(4), 2-9, 37.

Stoller, F. L. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in second and

foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett & P. C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 31

foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 19-40). Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing.

Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2008). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of

meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Problem-based Learning, 3, 44-58.

Thorpe, J. (2004). Coal miners, dirty sponges, and the search for Santa: Exploring options in

teaching listening comprehension through TV news broadcasts. Unpublished manuscript,

Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, California.

Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2008). A problem based learning meta-analysis: Differences across

problem types, implementation types, disciplines and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary

Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 12-43.

Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 32

Appendix A

Questionnaire

Statement of Understanding

I understand that the researcher is conducting a study about language teachers’ attitudes
regarding project-based learning. I agree to participate in this study and allow my responses to be
used in research about teacher opinions. By signing below, I indicate my agreement to participate
in this study and I understand that my identity will be protected by the use of a pseudonym.

Signature:____________________________________________ Date: ________________

Please answer every question to the best of your ability

Name:______________________ Age:____ Nationality:________________ Gender _________

Which languages are you fluent and accurate in? ______________________________________

Brief Language Teaching History

Language taught: Years Months Setting

Example:
_________Spanish: __3_ __7_ _Seminole Middle School_____________

__Davie, Florida, USA________________

_______________: ____ ____ __________________________________

__________________________________

_______________: ____ ____ __________________________________

__________________________________

_______________: ____ ____ __________________________________

__________________________________
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 33

As a teacher, have you ever assigned project work for your students? Yes ___ No ___

If yes, what kind? If no, why?_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

As a student, have you ever completed a project assignment? Yes ___ No ___

If yes, what kind? If no, why?_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Directions: Please answer the yes/no questions by writing an X in the appropriate space ( X ).
Please define each term to the best of your ability, but there is no need to spend too much time
doing it. This is not a test.

1. Have you ever encountered the term project-based learning? Yes __ No__

2. What do you think it means?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

3. Have you ever encountered the term cooperative learning? Yes __ No__

4. What do you think it means?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

5. Have you ever encountered the term experiential learning? Yes __ No__
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 34

6. What do you think it means?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

7. Have you ever encountered the term learner autonomy? Yes __ No__

8. What do you think it means?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

9. Have you ever encountered the term learner-centered teaching? Yes __ No__

10. What do you think it means?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Directions: Please type a single slash mark ( / ) on the horizontal continuum ( __ ) to indicate
your opinion. For example:

Compared to the United States, Japan is

very big [____________________________________________/________] very small

------------------------------------------------------------------

11. How familiar are you with project-based learning?

very familiar [____________________________________________________] not familiar

12. How familiar are you with cooperative learning?

very familiar [____________________________________________________] not familiar

13. How familiar are you with experiential learning?

very familiar [____________________________________________________] not familiar

Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 35

14. How familiar are you with learner autonomy?

very familiar [____________________________________________________] not familiar

15. How familiar are you with learner-centered teaching?

very familiar [____________________________________________________] not familiar

16. How much do you like assigning project work?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

17. How much do you like lecturing?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

18. How much do you like encouraging your students to work in groups?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

19. How much do you like encouraging your students to work individually?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

20. How much would an easy-to-follow guideline help you to adopt a project-based learning
approach?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

21. How much would having extra time help you to adopt a project-based learning approach?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

22. How much would support from your administration encourage you to adopt a project-based
learning approach?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 36

23. How much would support from other teachers encourage you to adopt a project-based learning
approach?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

24. How much would support from the community encourage you to adopt a project-based learning
approach?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

25. How much would a professional development program help you to adopt a project-based
learning approach?

very much [____________________________________________________] very little

26. How comfortable are you with giving control of the floor (i.e., talking time) to your students?

very [____________________________________________________] very

comfortable uncomfortable

27. How comfortable are you with lecturing less to your students?

very [____________________________________________________] very

comfortable uncomfortable
28. How comfortable are you with using more group work with your students?

very [____________________________________________________] very

comfortable uncomfortable

29. How comfortable are you with changing course during a lesson (e.g., moving from a planned
vocabulary list activity to an unplanned reading activity)?

very [____________________________________________________] very

comfortable uncomfortable

30. How comfortable are you with giving your students more choices in the content, or subject
matter, they learn?

very [____________________________________________________] very

comfortable uncomfortable
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 37

31. How comfortable are you with giving your students more choices in the kinds of activities
given them for a lesson?

very [____________________________________________________] very

comfortable uncomfortable

32. How comfortable are you with letting your students work independently?

very [____________________________________________________] very

comfortable uncomfortable

33. How comfortable are you with planning everything that will occur in a lesson?

very [____________________________________________________] very

comfortable uncomfortable

34. Would you like to comment on any of the issues raised above? If so, please type your
comment below. Include the item number you are referring to.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 38

Appendix B

Interview Questions (15 Minutes)

1. In your questionnaire, you seemed to have _ experience with PBL. Tell me more about the

learning and/or teaching environment surrounding your experience with PBL.

a. What do you base your knowledge of PBL on?

b. Tell me more about your experience with PBL.

2. In your questionnaire, you said that you have/have not adopted a PBL approach. Tell me more

about why you have adopted/have not adopted a PBL approach.

a. What are the payoffs and/or drawbacks of adopting a PBL approach.

3. What are your language learning and language teaching beliefs, and how do you think those

beliefs affect your perception of PBL?

Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 39

Appendix C

ANOVA Calculations for Questionnaire Questions 20-25

Anova: Single Factor Question 20

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Novice LTs 8 1.840379404 0.230047425 0.0448740711
Experienced LTs 13 2.5976114934 0.199816269 0.024465107
LTs-in-Training 27 5.315275472 0.196862055 0.034501249

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.006999695 2 0.003499847 0.104665222 0.900844579 3.204317292
Within Groups 1.504732254 45 0.033438495

Total 1.5117319493 47

Anova: Single Factor Question 21

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Novice LTs 8 2.3303523035 0.2912940379 0.0847217514
Experienced LTs 13 3.6833735538 0.2833364272 0.0551694727
LTs-in-Training 28 7.2153168158 0.2576898863 0.0670681202

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.0101827427 2 0.0050913713 0.0763890403 0.92657298 3.1995817059
Within Groups 3.0659251769 46 0.0666505473

Total 3.0761079196 48
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 40

Anova: Single Factor Question 22

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Novice LTs 8 2.585907859 0.323238482 0.058940598
Experienced LTs 12 2.850703783 0.237558649 0.05378529
LTs-in-Training 28 6.432961484 0.229748624 0.071022292

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.05589736 2 0.02794868 0.430447035 0.652867311 3.204317292
Within Groups 2.921824269 45 0.064929428

Total 2.977721628 47

Anova: Single Factor Question 23

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Novice LTs 8 3.001626016 0.375203252 0.084353628
Experienced LTs 13 2.8611258138 0.2200866011 0.026661327
LTs-in-Training 28 6.386764352 0.228098727 0.0486895311

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.15047002 2 0.07523501 1.555400396 0.2220029611 3.199581706
Within Groups 2.225028658 46 0.048370188

Total 2.375498678 48
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUATIONS OF PBL 41

Anova: Single Factor Question 24

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Novice LTs 8 3.279674797 0.40995935 0.1163867722
Experienced LTs 13 3.774889282 0.290376099 0.073053781
LTs-in-Training 28 9.1158976313 0.325567773 0.069126018

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.072108723 2 0.036054361 0.466164899 0.630335128 3.199581706
Within Groups 3.557755257 46 0.077342506

Total 3.629863979 48

Anova: Single Factor Question 25

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Novice LTs 8 2.407859079 0.300982385 0.044210309
Experienced LTs 13 3.822176569 0.294013582 0.0617735
LTs-in-Training 28 6.135107784 0.2191109923 0.037760995

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.07242226 2 0.0362111298 0.804574772 0.453471905 3.199581706
Within Groups 2.070301023 46 0.045006544

Total 2.142723283 48