938702

research-article20202020
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244020938702SAGE OpenAlmulla

Original Research

SAGE Open

The Effectiveness of the Project-Based

July-September 2020: 1­–15
© The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/2158244020938702
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020938702

Learning (PBL) Approach as a Way to journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Engage Students in Learning

Mohammed Abdullatif Almulla1

Abstract
The prevalence of project-based learning (PBL) has increased significantly, contributing to serious discussions about its advent.
PBL’s critics doubt whether accentuating the practice supports teachers in using a technocratic method in education, instead
of promoting instruction that is responsive to students’ ideas. Thus, this study aims to develop on using the effectiveness
of the PBL approach, as a way to engage students in learning as well as to incorporate literature on the PBL method for
educational purposes. The research hypotheses therefore measure the influence of the PBL method on collaborative learning,
disciplinary subject learning, iterative learning, and authentic learning, which, in turn, engage students in learning. To achieve
the research purpose, a questionnaire was employed as the main method of collecting data and dispensed to 124 teachers
who were using the PBL approach. Structural equation modeling (SEM), a quantitative research method, was employed to
obtain the findings. A significant relation was found between the PBL method and collaborative learning, disciplinary subject
learning, iterative learning, and authentic learning, which, in turn, produced student engagement. The results show that the
PBL technique improves student engagement by enabling knowledge and information sharing and discussion. Thus, the PBL
approach is highly recommended for educational use by students and should be encouraged in universities.

Keywords
project-based learning (PBL), structural equation modeling (SEM), student engagement in learning

Introduction utmost importance in such a learning perspective: Instruction

Whereas most project-based learning (PBL) literature con-
centrates on curricula, our goal is to build a framework
focused on teaching practice. This effort is based on studies
by some teacher educators who have attempted to ensure that
teachers can advance practices in ambitious directions, so
that all students, particularly those who were previously
underserved by schools, can experience opportunities for
rich learning (e.g., Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman et al.,
2009). Anyon (1980) asserted that upper track students, in
particular, or those in elite environments, are expected to
have such opportunities. Improving PBL-related practices
among teachers could help put an end to the rule of rote
learning and test prep schooling, which pervade many
impoverished schools. Many terms have been proposed by
educational researchers to characterize learning and learning
methods that focus on students’ sensemaking such as “learn-
ing for understanding,” “intellectually ambitious learning,”
and “authentic pedagogy” (Smith et al., 2001). Whereas such
terms refer to subtle differences in technique, most indicate
that students’ developing ideas should be elicited, consid-
ered, and explored by teachers. Responsiveness is of the
is not provided or given by the teacher; rather, it is negotiated
between students and teachers collaboratively and develops
as ideas of students emerge and grow (Kavanagh & Rainey,
2017; Reisman et al., 2018). Accordingly, the PBL approach
has been referred to by some scholars as a type of teacher
education that focuses on educational experience and the
preparation of teachers to follow instruction (Ball & Forzani,
2009; Grossman et al., 2018). Supporters of this approach
are willing to short circuit the implementation difficulties
that arise as beginner teachers navigate the “two worlds” of
education universities and K–12 schools, as Feiman-Nemser
and Buchmann (1985) have stated, by accepting responsibil-
ity for endorsing teachers to follow the practice. Various PBL
techniques have been presented by scholars, some of which
1
King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia
Corresponding Author:
Mohammed Abdullatif Almulla, Department of Curriculum and
Instruction, Faculty of Education, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa 31982,
Saudi Arabia.
Email: maalmulla@kfu.edu.sa

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
foreground practices or characteristics of specific effective
routine activities in learning such as modeling or discussion
facilitation (Ball & Forzani, 2009), whereas others fore-
ground practices or teachers’ learning experience design that
engage beginners in approximating learning, with the aim of
advancement (Schutz et al., 2019; Von Esch & Kavanagh,
2018). There are indications among such approaches that the
PBL approach to working with experienced and beginner
teachers may affect the instruction that novices enact in the
field (Kavanagh & Rainey, 2017; Reisman et al., 2018).
Although the PBL approach is suitable for all students, a
single educational practice is not suitable all of the time
(Grossman et al., 2019). Therefore, our framework is focused
on educational goals. The background and goal of a lesson
and the larger purposes for learning must be taken into
account in instructional decisions, when a practice is enacted
at a specific moment with a specific group of students. As
affected stakeholders have begun to call for the PBL method
(American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
2010), discussion of the advantages in teacher instruction
have become prevalent as well (Philip et al., 2019). PBL
opponents claim that such practices including predetermined
routines can undermine the underlying assumptions of con-
versational and responsive education (Kennedy, 2016).
However, no comprehensive research has been conducted on
the experiences of students and teachers as participants in
PBL processes throughout, specifically with respect to par-
ticipants’ experiences and personal insights into occurrences,
situations, and phenomena (Tsybulsky & Muchnik-Rozanov,
2019). Hence, this study aims to develop a model to analyze
the efficiency of applying a PBL approach as a method to
engage students in learning.
Concept of the PBL Approach
The PBL concept implies collaboration of two or more
teachers at a specific level when planning, implementing,
and/or evaluating a course (Carpenter et al., 2007), which
mainly involves the exchange of training expertise and
reflective conversation (Chang & Lee, 2010). It has been
shown that the PBL approach provides inexperienced teach-
ers with varied and valuable learning experiences and sup-
ports their professional and personal development
(Tsybulsky & Muchnik-Rozanov, 2019). Functioning within
a team allows teachers to share knowledge and skills in a
variety of subjects, leading to a transition from “expert
learner” to “expert.” Classroom collaboration enables teach-
ers and students to share a discovery process (Wentworth &
Davis, 2002). Specific topics can be addressed from a dis-
tinct perspective or with a pedagogical approach involving
teamwork that provides a very rewarding experience for
learners. Student teachers can benefit from the PBL tech-
nique (Simons & Baeten, 2016) through professional and
emotional support (e.g., Gardiner & Robinson, 2009),
increased professional learning (e.g., educational skills),
and personal development (e.g., a gain in confidence; King,
2006). They are able to review their practices during learn-
ing by interaction and exchange experiences, as Wassell and
LaVan have claimed (Wassell & LaVan, 2009). Despite
these, teachers working in groups achieve more in compari-
son with when they work alone, as a result of collaboration
(Gardiner, 2010). When receiving support from peers, teach-
ers achieve higher performance (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005).
The role of mentors is of the utmost importance in the PBL
process. For example, they encourage student teachers to
form professional relationships. Moreover, group and indi-
vidual feedback (Scantlebury et al., 2008) as well as support
for student teachers are provided by mentors (Carter &
Francis, 2001); however, peers are more frequently helpful
for student teachers than mentors (Hsu, 2005), who play a
less direct role in the PBL method process (Bullough et al.,
2003). In addition to its benefits, the PBL approach also has
its demerits. The increased workload of PBL (i.e., participa-
tory lesson planning, peer reflection) is rather time-consum-
ing for student teachers (Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Nokes
et al., 2008). Moreover, unfriendliness among group mem-
bers can lead to negative experiences for all participants
(Bashan & Holsblat, 2012; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009). As
students and teachers have become accustomed to working
alone, working with peers is usually an unfamiliar situation
that can lead to anxiety or difficulty (Bashan & Holsblat,
2012). In addition, student teachers dispute that their per-
sonal attainment in PBL may be less significant than in an
individual learning environment and that they could lose
confidence in their independent learning because of a lack
of individual experience (Gardiner & Robinson, 2009;
Kamens, 2007).
Theoretical Model
This study identified five main aspects of the PBL approach:
collaborative learning (CL), disciplinary subject learning
(DSL), iterative learning (IL), and authentic learning (AL),
which, in turn, produced student engagement. This study
developed 11 hypotheses to come up with a model of how
PBL can affect students’ engagement (Figure 1). The hypoth-
eses are as follows:
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant relationship between
PBL and CL.
Hypothesis 2: There is a significant relationship between
PBL and DSL.
Hypothesis 3: There is a significant relationship between
PBL and AL.
Hypothesis 4: There is a significant relationship between
PBL and student engagement.
Hypothesis 5: There is a significant relationship between
PBL and IL.
Hypothesis 6: There is a significant relationship between
CL and AL.
Almulla 3
Figure 1.  Research model and hypotheses.
Hypothesis 7: There is a significant relationship between
CL and student engagement.
Hypothesis 8: There is a significant relationship between
DSL and IL.
Hypothesis 9: There is a significant relationship between
DSL and student engagement.
Hypothesis 10: There is a significant relationship between
AL and student engagement.
Hypothesis 11: There is a significant relationship between
IL and student engagement.
PBL Approach
In spite of the fact that the PBL approach does not have a
precise definition, its proponents usually agree on some of its
basic features (Larmer & Mergendoller, 2015). The PBL
approach is a typical form of cooperative and research-based
learning technique, characterized by active student engage-
ment and comparative learning (Loyens et al., 2015).
Students who learn through the PBL method usually work
together to solve a specific problem, develop a product for a
specific audience, and then evaluate the project and develop-
ment process (Kokotsaki et al., 2016). The PBL approach is
an effective way to develop 21st-century capabilities by pro-
moting critical thinking as well as problem-solving, interper-
sonal communication, information and media literacy,
cooperation, leadership and teamwork, innovation, and cre-
ativity (Häkkinen et al., 2017). Studies examining the impact
of the PBL approach on student teachers have shown that the
PBL method improves problem-solving abilities (Mettas &
Constantinou, 2008) and academic performance (Baran &
Maskan, 2011), and influences a positive perception of the
learning profession (Lavy & Shriki, 2008). Moreover, for-
mative evaluation is beneficial for student teachers (Frank &
Barzilai, 2008) as it helps them to achieve a proper aware-
ness of their learning goals, which, as a result, can enhance
the learning experiences of students under their supervision
(Ljung-Djärf et al., 2014). These entail providing students
with the opportunity to work on a challenging problem,
engage in persistent issues, find valid answers, help with
project selection, think about trends, critique and reconsider
work, and create a generic product. However, these elements
were operationalized in different ways in our study by teach-
ers although they all incorporated such elements into their
PBL approach.
CL
Teachers do not provide knowledge; they negotiate it in
cooperation with students in a dialogic interaction as they
share and revise ideas (Al-Rahmi et al., 2017; Nystrand &
Gamoran, 1991). A PBL approach model developed by Dong
and Warter-Perez (2009) was adopted to address the specific
learning needs of underprepared minority students within the
urban context of this study. CL, the cornerstone of the PBL
approach (McGrath, 2004), not only requires knowledge
building but also explanation, mutual support, and order, or
non-adaptation, which pulls out related cognitive processes,
for example, acquiring knowledge, internalizing, or reducing
cognitive burden through teamwork activities (Al-Rahmi
et al., 2015b; Hron & Friedrich, 2003a). Participatory learn-
ing simplifies interactions among students and is capable of
4 SAGE Open
enhancing the quality of knowledge and developing the nec-
essary skills (Al-Rahmi, Yahaya, Aldraiweesh, et al., 2019;
Bouta & Retalis, 2013). A combination of PBL and CL leads
to positive results for students (Chu et al., 2011). Various
studies have demonstrated improvement in the quality of stu-
dent learning and the capability of working together by coop-
erative project-driven activities (Kapp, 2009). The PBL
collaborative approach has the capacity to create learning
conditions that expand the skills and knowledge required for
the 21st century, and the characteristics of the learning envi-
ronment have an important role to play in achieving this
(Wolff, 2003). Wolff (2003) presented design characteristics
of the environment of an optimal collaborative PBL approach
at the academic level in a National Research Center for
Career and Technical Education report.
DSL
The study results demonstrated that a disciplinary, participatory
PBL approach encourages students’ willingness to develop
their information technology (IT) and collaborative skills and
integrate them with science, validating previous work (Hron &
Friedrich, 2003). A disciplinary, collaborative PBL approach
has been proven to be an efficacious way to improve students’
IT skills (Bagheri et al., 2013), integration of technology into
science, and cooperative skills (Imafuku et al., 2014). A goal of
the PBL approach is to learn concepts of fundamental disciplin-
ary subjects in the context of real-life issues students face in
their daily lives (Rogers et al., 2011). Furthermore, several stu-
dents reported that they not only studied the chosen scientific
topics for their websites but also improved their IT skills
through their disciplinary projects, which corresponds to the
studies of Matovinovic and Nocente (2000) and Morales et al.
(2013). As learning is more than just knowledge transfer, there
are different relationships between research and learning that
vary across disciplines (Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Al-Rahmi,
Yahaya, Alamri, et al., 2019; Colbeck, 2004). The PBL envi-
ronment shifts the focus of learning from “true and unquestion-
able” responses to the process of convergence to solutions; they
create a dynamic environment in which power, authority, and
control are inevitably shared between teachers, students, and
disciplinary practices (Rogers et al., 2011).
AL
Engaging students in valid disciplinary and discourse activi-
ties, in which they participate instead of simply being recep-
tive, is part of creating meaningful learning experiences
(Moje, 2015). Based on these cultural and social assumptions
about the nature of learning, learning responsively entails that
students will participate authentically in the activities of the
classroom instead of playing a pre-written role in a teacher-
made script (Hammer et al., 2012). To facilitate education
that is inviting and responsive to students’ ideas, students
must perform authentic, meaningful tasks that encourage
them to generate new ideas, share those ideas, develop one
another’s thinking, and assess their own and their colleagues’
academic thoughts (Moje, 2015). Current practice in learning
approaches mainly refers to approximations of training, a
term coined by Grossman et al., (2009) to characterize meth-
ods of simulating certain professional practice features prior
to deploying them in a fully valid classroom context.
In particular, for abilities such as student responsiveness,
the presence of real students provides learning opportunities
that cannot be simulated in less credible environments, where
students are not present. The PBL approach and learning are
basically situated to produce usable and powerful knowledge
assisted by authentic environments and tasks (Brown et al.,
1989). Conversely, typical learning environments usually
include decontextualized difficulties and “canned” experi-
ments that deprive students of working on valid problems,
using real science tools and techniques (Spitulnik et al., 1995).
In general, authenticity corresponds to a willingness to ensure
that the importance of a student’s classroom work reaches
beyond the walls of the classroom; practitioners involved in
PBL firmly believe that learning should be meaningful and
valuable outside the classroom (Grossman et al., 2019).
IL
In PBL environments, students primarily learn by creating
knowledge and meaning through repetitive questioning,
active learning, reflection, and sharing (Blumenfeld et al.,
1991). Activities in the PBL approach include repetitive
cycles of data gathering, meaning-making, reflection, and
testing of results by examining evidence; doing experiments;
using reason and logic; receiving input from peers and teach-
ers; and revising as necessary (Mergendoller et al., 2006). To
support the repetitive nature of the PBL concept in the class-
room, students should also assist in giving, receiving, and
using peer feedback (Grossman et al., 2019). Teachers can
simplify the PBL process by conducting formative evaluation
and providing repetitive cycles of feedback and revision dur-
ing inquiry, creation, and production (Kolodner et al., 2003).
Brinko (1993), who studied the effectiveness of feedback col-
lected from students to advance learning, claimed that “feed-
back is more effective when it is considered as a process, not
a one-time quick fix” (p. 47) (indicating the need for repeti-
tive filtering) and that “feedback is more effective when it is
descriptive, rather than evaluative” (p. 179). It is probable
that students receive a great deal of feedback but do not have
the interest or ability to use it effectively. For this reason, as
part of the PBL approach, teachers assess not only learners’
perceptions of content but also their ability to use feedback
for reflection and repetition (Grossman et al., 2019).
Student Engagement in Learning (SEL)
Although many teachers encourage the sharing of students’
ideas and discussion about content, according to research on
Almulla 5
classroom practice, classrooms are typically places where
the teacher talks, and students listen (Bain, 2006). This
teacher-based approach assumes that the teacher’s task is to
transfer knowledge to a passive learner who receives this
knowledge (Jackson, 1986). Another assumption, based on a
deep sociocultural study, is that learning takes place during
social participation in cultural and historical activities and
discourses of particular practice communities (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 2003). The PBL approach is based on
the belief that students in school are competent simulators
with a wide range of resources to create meaning and that
productive activity provides new insights to which teachers
can respond in productive ways (Lampert et al., 2013).
Learning any practice, whether it is law or medicine, involves
learning activities usually intended not just for one person
but for a community of professionals, which has been
improved over time by others (Lampert, 2010). Gómez-
Pablos et al. (2017) noted that the PBL approach is one of the
best academic options because it represents a student-based
learning process that considers the interests of students and
encourages them to participate actively in the learning pro-
cess, which should be considered a research process goal. A
major PBL principle presented by Bilbao et al. (2018) is that
it offers the best learning opportunities, compared with the
direct learning method, at present, by contributing to the
development of essential skills, interaction, and learning of
course materials.
Research Method
Many universities have encouraged the PBL approach,
including King Faisal University (KFU). Thus, this study’s
research goal is to develop, through an empirical investiga-
tion of PBL, a model to examine the effectiveness of using
this approach as a method to engage students in learning. Five
factors were taken into account to measure the PBL approach:
CL, DSL, IL, and AL, which in turn produces student engage-
ment; therefore, teachers were given questionnaires. The
questionnaire consisted of two main groups of factors. The
first comprised the independent factors of PBL: CL, DSL, IL,
and AL. The second represented the dependent factor, SEL.
The participants were teachers involved in PBL. A structured
questionnaire with a 5-point Likert-type scale was prepared
and administered to a larger sample (23 items). The popula-
tion was selected through a simple random sampling size
technique (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). Two experts checked
the face and content validity to validate the questionnaire, and
a 5-point Likert-type scale, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = dis-
agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree,
was used to assess students’ ratings of various items. Of the
data collected from KFU, 124 questionnaires were entered
and tabulated in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS), which was the main tool for analyzing student
responses to the various questionnaire items. Specifically,
structural equation modeling (SEM-AMOS) was used for the
analysis. Based on Hair et al. (2012), SEM-AMOS was per-
formed in two phases. The purpose of the first phase was to
calculate the structure and convergence and discriminate the
validities of the measurement model, whereas the second
aimed to examine the structural model.
Measurement Instruments
The construct items were adapted, with the intention of
achieving a satisfactory result in terms of content validity.
The research consisted of two main parts. The designed pur-
pose of the first part was to collect teachers’ demographic
information such as age and gender and to discern the fre-
quency of respondents using the PBL approach to engage
students in learning. The second part adjusted the factors as
follows: For the PBL approach, six items were adapted from
Grossman et al. (2019); for collaborative, disciplinary sub-
ject, iterative, and AL, three items were considered for each
factor, which were also adapted from Grossman et al. (2019);
and for SEL, five items were adapted from Grossman et al.
(2019) and Al-Rahmi, Aldraiweesh, et al. (2019).
Sample Characteristics
A total of 124 questionnaires were used for the analysis (65
male respondents [52.4%] and 59 female respondents
[47.6%]). Twenty-one respondents (16.9%) were aged from
25 to 30 years, 29 (23.4%) were aged from 31 to 35 years,
19 (15.3%) were aged from 36 to 40 years, 21 (16.9%) were
aged from 41 to 45 years, 20 (16.1%) were aged from 46 to
50 years, and 14 (11.3%) were older than 51 years of age.
In terms of education level, 29 (23.4%) respondents had a
bachelor’s degree, 24 (19.4%) had a master’s degree, 28
(22.6%) had a PhD degree, 24 (19.4%) were associate pro-
fessors, and 19 (15.3%) were full professors. Finally, in
terms of faculty, 13 (10.5%) were from the Faculty of Art
and Humanities, 41 (33.1%) were from the Faculty of
Education, 34 (27.4%) were from the Faculty of
Management, and 36 (29.0%) were from the Faculty of
Computer Science.
Data Analysis and Results
The related factors affected cooperation and communication
in learning, taking into consideration Cronbach’s reliability
coefficient of .947. This study evaluated discriminant valid-
ity based on three criteria: variable index value below 0.80
(Hair et al., 2012), average variance extracted (AVE) value
assumed to be equal to or more than 0.5, and AVE square
considered bigger than the inter-construct correlations (IC)
related to the factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As a result,
the items and factors of the construct’s investigation showed
factor loading of 0.7 or higher, which is acceptable for
Cronbach’s alpha, and a composite confidence value of 0.70
or more (Hair et al., 2012; see Table 1).
6 SAGE Open

Table 1.  Goodness of Model Fit and Reliability.

Type of measure Acceptable level of fit Measurement model Structural model

RMR Near to 0 (perfect fit) .033 .032
IFI Value should be = or >0.90. .0932 .0941
NFI Value should be = or >0.90. .0943 .0954
RFI Value should be = or >0.90. .0961 .0957
CFI Value should be = or >0.90. .0921 .0946
TLI Value should be = or >0.90. .0972 .0966
RMSEA Value <0.10 means a good fit, and .037 .041
<0.05 indicates a very good fit.

Factors (AVE) Composite reliability Cronbach’s α

Project-based learning (PBL) .599 .927 .906
Collaborative learning (CL) .612 .940 .899
Disciplinary subject learning (DSL) .659 .893 .887
Iterative learning (IL) .607 .891 .911
Authentic learning (AL) .672 .900 .928
Student engagement in learning (SEL) .618 .914 .931

Note. RMR = root mean square residual; IFI = incremental fit index; NFI = normed fit index; RFI = relative fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI =
Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; AVE = average variance extracted.

Analysis of Measurement Model
In this research, SEM-AMOS was used as the main statisti-
cal technique for analyzing the results, based on confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) in AMOS 23. This model uses
convergent validity, one-dimensionality, consistency, and
discriminant validity. Furthermore, Hair et al. (2012) sug-
gested that model evaluation should be conducted with the
highest probability estimation procedure, using suitable fit-
ting strategies, for instance, chi-square, normed chi-square,
normed fit index (NFI), relative fit index (RFI), Tucker–
Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental
fit index (IFI), parsimonious goodness-of-fit index (PGFI),
root mean square residual (RMR), and root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA). The fitting profiles used
for the model evaluation are summarized in Table 1, and
Figure 2 presents the measurement model.
Validity and reliability of the measurement model.  Discrimi-
nant validity scrutinizes the level of understanding, includ-
ing different indicators related to various concepts
(Bagozzi et al., 1998). Based on the AVE values obtained,
all values exceeded 0.50 (cutoff) with a p value of .001,
indicating agreement of discriminant validity for all struc-
tures studied (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Furthermore, Hair
et al. (2012) explained that the relationship of elements
among structures cannot be more than the square root of
the mean variance share in one of the structures. The
obtained composite reliability values are shown, and they
are obviously within the recommended value range of 0.70
or above. In addition, the Cronbach’s alpha values are in
the range of the advised value of 0.70 or higher, and the
AVE values are 0.50 or higher, as recommended. This
demonstrates that the total factor loading surpasses 0.50,
which is of utmost importance, thus satisfying the recom-
mendations of Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Hair et al.
(2012; see Figure 2 and Table 2).
Structural Model Analysis
All results are presented for SEL through PBL, CL, DSL, IL,
and AL, using path modeling analysis. The findings are also
compared in the hypothesis test discussion (see Figure 3 and
Table 3).
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 3, the results demonstrate
a significant connection between the PBL approach and CL
(β = .279, t = 8.719, p < .001), showing a positive and sig-
nificant correlation for the first hypothesis (H1). In other
words, in this sample, all respondents considered that the
PBL approach enhanced CL. The next effect is between the
PBL approach and DSL and shows a positive and significant
correlation for the second hypothesis (H2; β = .084, t =
3.009, p < .001); in this sample, all respondents considered
that the PBL approach affects DSL. The relationship between
the PBL approach and AL (β = .344, t = 9.814, p < .001)
indicates a positive and significant correlation for the third
hypothesis (H3); that is, in this sample, all respondents con-
sidered that the PBL approach affected AL. Furthermore, the
relationship between PBL and SEL (β = .332, t = 8.923, p
< .001) shows a positive and significant correlation for the
fourth hypothesis (H4); in this sample, all respondents con-
sidered that the PBL approach enhanced SEL. Moreover, the
relationship between the PBL approach and IL (β = .154,
t = 5.382, p < .001) indicates a positive and significant cor-
relation for the fifth hypothesis (H5); in this sample, all
Almulla 7

Figure 2.  Measurement model.

Table 2.  Discriminant Validity.

Variables PBL CL DSL IL AL SEL

Project-based learning (PBL) .832  
Collaborative learning (CL) .438 .910  
Disciplinary subject learning (DSL) .540 .503 .893  
Iterative learning (IL) .491 .461 .458 .900  
Authentic learning (AL) .397 .394 .430 .451 .887  
Student engagement in learning (SEL) .487 .442 .395 .385 .402 .907

Bold values refers to more than .700.

respondents considered that the PBL approach affected IL.
Added to the above result, the relationship between CL and
AL (β = .213, t = 6.110, p < .001) indicates a positive and
significant correlation for the sixth hypothesis (H6); in this
sample, all respondents considered that CL affected AL.
Similarly, the relationship between CL and SEL (β = .430, t
= 10.438, p < .001) shows a positive and significant correla-
tion for the seventh hypothesis (H7); in this sample, all
respondents considered that CL enhanced SEL. Based on
Table 3, the relationship between DSL and IL (β = .424, t =
10.019, p < .001) indicates a positive and significant corre-
lation for the eighth hypothesis (H8); in this sample, all
respondents considered DSL to affect IL. Similarly, the rela-
tionship between DSL and SEL (β = .241, t = 8.118, p <
.001) shows a positive and significant correlation for the
ninth hypothesis (H9); in this sample, all respondents consid-
ered DSL to enhance SEL. The relationship between AL and
SEL (β = .203, t = 7.991, p < .001) shows a positive and
significant correlation for the 10th hypothesis (H10); in this
sample, all respondents considered AL to affect SEL. Finally,
the relationship between AL and SEL (β = .414, t = 9.952,
p < .001) indicates a positive and significant correlation for
the 11th hypothesis (H11); in this sample, all respondents
considered IL to affect SEL.
Factors Analysis Results
The results demonstrated that most teachers partly agree or
strongly agree that the PBL approach had a positive effect on
CL. Thus, this study describes the PBL approach in which
teachers consider that CL enhances SEL, which 37.9% agree
and 41.1% strongly agree (see Figure 4).
The outcomes also demonstrated that most teachers
partly agree or strongly agree that the PBL approach had a
8 SAGE Open

Figure 3.  Structural model and hypotheses testing.

Table 3.  Hypotheses Testing.

Hypotheses Independent Relationship Dependent Estimate SE CR P Results

H1 PBL CL .279 .031 8.719 *** Supported
H2 PBL DSL .084 .033 3.009 *** Supported
H3 PBL AL .344 .038 9.814 *** Supported
H4 PBL SEL .332 .032 8.923 *** Supported
H5 PBL IL .154 .037 5.382 *** Supported
H6 CL AL .213 .031 6.110 *** Supported
H7 CL SEL .430 .036 10.438 *** Supported
H8 DSL IL .424 .035 10.019 *** Supported
H9 DSL SEL .241 .030 8.118 *** Supported
H10 AL SEL .203 .032 7.991 *** Supported
H11 IL SEL .414 .034 9.952 *** Supported

Note. CR = critical ratio or t-value; PBL = project-based learning; CL = collaborative learning; DSL = disciplinary subject learning; AL = authentic
learning; SEL = student engagement in learning; IL = iterative learning.
***p < .001.

positive effect on DSL. Thus, this study describes the PBL Similarly, the outcomes also demonstrated that most
approach as the degree to which teachers consider that DSL teachers partly agree or strongly agree that the PBL approach
enhances SEL, which 45.2% agree and 25% strongly agree had a positive effect on AL. Thus, this study describes the
(see Figure 5). PBL approach as the degree to which teachers consider that
Almulla 9

Figure 4.  Measuring collaborative learning in PBL.

Note. PBL = project-based learning.

Figure 5.  Measuring disciplinary subject learning in PBL.

Note. PBL = project-based learning.

AL enhances SEL, which 50% agree and 27.4% strongly
agree (see Figure 6).
The outcomes also demonstrated that most teachers partly
agree or strongly agree that the PBL approach had a positive
effect on IL. Therefore, this study describes the PBL approach
as the degree to which teachers consider that IL enhances
SEL, which 40.3% agree and 20.2% strongly agree (see
Figure 7).
The outcomes also demonstrated that most teachers partly
agree or strongly agree that the PBL approach had a positive
effect on SEL. Therefore, this study describes the PBL
approach as the degree to which teachers consider that SEL
is enhanced by collaborative, disciplinary subject, iterative,
and AL, which 34.7% agree and 27.4% strongly agree (see
Figure 8).
Furthermore, the outcomes also demonstrated that most
teachers partly agree or strongly agree that the PBL approach
had a positive effect on CL, DSL, IL, AL, and SEL. Therefore,
this study describes the PBL approach as the degree to which
teachers consider that CL, DSL, IL, and AL enhance SEL,
which 41.9% agree and 12.1% strongly agree (see Figure 9).
Discussion and Implications
The present study aims to create a new paradigm for how the
PBL approach can enhance CL, DSL, IL, and AL, which, in
10 SAGE Open
Figure 6.  Measuring authentic learning in PBL.
Note. PBL = project-based learning.
Figure 7.  Measuring iterative learning in PBL.
Note. PBL = project-based learning.
turn, can engage students in learning in higher education
institutions. This study was a groundbreaking attempt to
employ the PBL approach with college students. According
to the proposed model, the relations among the 11 hypothe-
ses and the PBL approach were examined with these factors:
CL, DSL, IL, AL, and SEL (see Figure 2). Given the study
goals, the application of the PBL approach among university
students is underlined and argued to shed light on the signifi-
cance of CL, DSL, IL, and AL, which in turn engage students
in learning. Thus, the PBL approach prepares students for the
difficulties and rich situations of everyday life that can be
addressed to achieve this goal (Häkkinen et al., 2017;
Kokotsaki et al., 2016; Larmer & Mergendoller, 2015).
The results of this study indicate that teachers’ under-
standing develops through the PBL approach, which may
positively influence SEL. Therefore, teachers are capable of
using the PBL approach to improve the educational informa-
tion of learning through CL, DSL, IL, and AL, which in turn
engage students in learning. Therefore, the findings revealed
that the PBL approach has a positive impact on CL, DSL, IL,
AL, and student engagement. In addition, students of the uni-
versity were helped by the PBL approach in exploring and
sharing information (Chu et al., 2011; Dong & Warter-Perez,
2009; Lampert et al., 2013). Therefore, advantageous results
are yielded by the perception of the PBL approach as stu-
dents engaged in learning are highly inclined to improve
Almulla 11
Figure 8.  Measuring student engagement in learning in PBL.
Note. PBL = project-based learning.
Figure 9.  Measuring PBL.
Note. PBL = project-based learning.
their academic performance (Bilbao et al., 2018; Gómez-
Pablos et al., 2017; Lampert, 2010). Furthermore, the results
of this study showed that the PBL approach is an essential
element of the lives of many young students and teachers of
the younger generation. For example, the approach improves
the learning environment of students by ensuring that they
can manage their studies efficiently. The interaction that
exists in the PBL approach is helpful in accomplishing aca-
demic goals and maintaining the relation between students
and teachers through CL, DSL, IL, and AL, which in turn
engage students in learning.
The PBL approach also encourages students to engage in
authentic works and tasks profoundly and actively (Lampert
et al., 2013) and to find novel solutions that utilize more
resources more broadly as well as knowledge sharing, col-
laboration, and SEL (Gómez-Pablos et al., 2017; Lampert,
2010). In addition, with this technique, learners have the
opportunity to formulate their own learning requirements
and eventually become autonomous and engaged learners
who can solve problems (Bilbao et al., 2018). Thus, the PBL
approach provides students with a sense of connection to the
course material and their peers. Consequently, the current
educational environment would be enhanced through the
design of a PBL approach linking student assignments as
well as prior course tasks, which in turn engage students in
learning. Complete support is provided for all the hypotheses
of this study in the statistical analyses presented in this arti-
cle. The hypotheses and research models confirmed the
many advantageous aspects of the PBL approach through
CL, DSL, IL, and AL, which in turn engage students in learn-
ing. Moreover, the CL, DSL, IL, AL, and SEL factors of the
PBL approach were also validated based on the results of this
12 SAGE Open
research. The results are in accordance with those of prior
related research, supporting the idea that the PBL approach
can be completely effective through CL, DSL, IL, and AL,
which in turn engage students in learning (Al-Rahmi et al.,
2015a, 2018; Bain, 2006; Frank & Barzilai, 2004; Grossman
et al., 2019; Imafuku et al., 2014; Loyens et al., 2015; Moje,
2015; Wolff, 2003).
Many experts in the field have documented this finding
(Grossman et al., 2019; Loyens et al., 2015), describing the
PBL approach as “constructivist.” For example, it is clearly
emphasized by Savery and Duffy (1996) as “one of the best
exemplars of a constructivist learning environment” (p. 135).
Besides, in many disciplines, it is important to understand
the design of higher education courses, such as online learn-
ing and massive open online course and practices and tasks
based on constructivism that eventually lead students to col-
laborate and engage in learning (Al-Rahmi et al., 2015a;
Al-Rahmi, Aldraiweesh, et al., 2019; Russell, 2009), based
on the results of the current PBL approach research model to
improve CL, DSL, IL, and AL, which, in turn, engage stu-
dents in learning. Therefore, universities should encourage
teachers to use the PBL approach. They should also make
students aware, by utilizing this approach in the learning pro-
cess, of the various advantages they can gain by using the
PBL approach to considerably improve their educational
achievements. The current study presents two pieces of
empirical evidence of the PBL approach: the first being the
use of CL, DSL, IL, AL, and SEL, and the second being CL,
DSL, IL, AL, which in turn engage students in learning (refer
to the hypotheses in Table 3). According to the findings of
this study, two implications are recognized:
•• The use of a PBL approach in learning and the learn-
ing process supports students by addressing their
questions, which is the role that teachers must play.
•• Teachers in higher education institutions and universi-
ties need to be encouraged to train students in utilizing
a PBL approach, by understanding that CL, DSL, IL,
AL are considered significant for the PBL approach,
which, in turn, engages students in learning.
Conclusion and Future Work
The results indicated that CL, DSL, IL, and AL engage stu-
dents in learning. Thus, the findings of this research approve
the acceptability of all hypotheses. The results for all hypoth-
eses were significant, indicating that there exists a favorable
attitude among students and teachers toward employing the
PBL approach in learning. Therefore, future work should
consider establishing guidelines for teachers to incorporate
the PBL approach in different areas of learning and learning
processes. Future efforts should also reflect the opinions of
teachers as well as other higher education stakeholders
regarding the PBL approach for use in academic environ-
ments. It is recommended to explore constraints and
facilitating actions in future work, given that different points
of view from different regions and cultures of the world will
undoubtedly improve the research. Future work may also
provide more insights into how to deal with this issue in uni-
versities in different educational settings.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
author acknowledges the Deanship of Scientific Research at King
Faisal University for the financial support under Nasher Track
(Grant No. 186322).
ORCID iD
Mohammed Abdullatif Almulla https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7846-8098
References
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Aldraiweesh, A., Yahaya, N., Kamin, Y. B., &
Zeki, A. M. (2019). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs):
Data on higher education. Data in Brief, 22, 118–125.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Ahmed, I. A.,
Zeki, A. M., & Saged, A. A. (2017). Social media use, col-
laborative learning and students’ academic performance: A
systematic literature review of theoretical models. Journal
of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 95(20),
5399–5414.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015a).
Exploring the factors that affect student satisfaction through
using e-learning in Malaysian higher education institutions.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 299–310.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015b). Using
social media for research: The role of interactivity, collabora-
tive learning, and engagement on the performance of students
in Malaysian post-secondary institutes. Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences, 6(5), Article 536.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Alamri, M. M., Aljarboa, N. A.,
Kamin, Y. B., & Moafa, F. A. (2018). A model of factors
affecting cyber bullying behaviors among university students.
IEEE Access, 7, 2978–2985.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Alamri, M. M., Aljarboa, N. A.,
Kamin, Y. B., & Saud, M. S. B. (2019). How cyber stalk-
ing and cyber bullying affect students’ open learning. IEEE
Access, 7, 20199–20210.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Aldraiweesh, A. A., Alamri, M.
M., Aljarboa, N. A., Alturki, U., & Aljeraiwi, A. A. (2019).
Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation dif-
fusion theory: An empirical investigation on students’ inten-
tion to use E-learning systems. IEEE Access, 7, 26797–26809.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2010,
March). The clinical preparation of teachers: A policy brief.
Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work.
Journal of Education, 162(1), 67–92.
Almulla 13
Bagheri, Z. S., El Sawi, I., Schemitsch, E. H., Zdero, R., &
Bougherara, H. (2013). Biomechanical properties of an
advanced new carbon/flax/epoxy composite material for bone
plate applications. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of
Biomedical Materials, 20, 398–406.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Nassen, K. D. (1998). Representation
of measurement error in marketing variables: Review of
approaches and extension to three-facet designs. Journal of
Econometrics, 89(1–2), 393–421.
Bain, R. B. (2006). Rounding up unusual suspects: Facing the
authority hidden in the history classroom. Teachers College
Record, 108(10), 2080–2114.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the
challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
60(5), 497–511.
Baran, M., & Maskan, A. (2011). The effect of project-based learn-
ing on pre-service physics teachers electrostatic achievements.
Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 243–257.
Bashan, B., & Holsblat, R. (2012). Co-teaching through modeling
processes: Professional development of students and instruc-
tors in a teacher training program. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 20(2), 207–226.
Bilbao, J., Varela, C., Rebollar, C., Bravo, E., & García, O.
(2018). Selecting assessments for problem based learning.
International Journal of Education and Learning Systems, 3,
129–133.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial,
M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning:
Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational
Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.
Bouta, H., & Retalis, S. (2013). Enhancing primary school children
collaborative learning experiences in maths via a 3D virtual
environment. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4),
571–596.
Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve
teaching: What is effective? The Journal of Higher Education,
64(5), 574–593.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition
and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Bullough, R. V., Jr., Young, J., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M.
W., Erickson, L., .  .  .Welling, M. (2003). Teaching with a peer:
A comparison of two models of student teaching. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 19(1), 57–73.
Carpenter, D. M., Crawford, L., & Walden, R. (2007). Testing the
efficacy of team teaching. Learning Environments Research,
10(1), 53–65.
Carter, M., & Francis, R. (2001). Mentoring and beginning teach-
ers’ workplace learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 29(3), 249–262.
Chang, L. C., & Lee, G. C. (2010). A team-teaching model for
practicing project-based learning in high school: Collaboration
between computer and subject teachers. Computers &
Education, 55(3), 961–969.
Chu, S. K. W., Tse, S. K., & Chow, K. (2011). Using collab-
orative teaching and inquiry project-based learning to help
primary school students develop information literacy and
information skills. Library & Information Science Research,
33, 132–143.
Colbeck, C. L. (2004, March 17–19). A cybernetic systems model
of teaching and research production: Impact of disciplinary
differences [Paper presentation]. International Colloquium
on Research and Teaching: Closing the Divide? Marwell
Conference Centre, Winchester. www.solent.ac.uk/r&t
Dong, J., & Warter-Perez, N. (2009). Collaborative project-based
learning to enhance freshman digital design experience
[Conference session]. Proceedings of the American Society for
Engineering Education (ASEE) Conference, Washington, DC.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985, April). On what is
learned in student teaching: Appraising the experience. Annual
Meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher
Education, Chicago, IL.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Frank, M., & Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assess-
ment in a project-based learning course for pre-service science
and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 29(1), 41–61.
Frank, M., & Barzilai, A. (2008). Using principles of the instruc-
tional systems design approach for implementing open-source
learning management system in higher education. The Open
Education Journal, 1(1), 1–8.
Gardiner, W. (2010). Mentoring two student teachers: Mentors’
perceptions of peer placements. Teaching Education, 21(3),
233–246.
Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. S. (2009). Paired field placements:
A means for collaboration. The New Educator, 5(1), 81–94.
Gómez-Pablos, V. B., del Pozo, M. M., & Muñoz-Repiso, A. G. V.
(2017). Project-based learning (PBL) through the incorporation
of digital technologies: An evaluation based on the experience of
serving teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 501–512.
Grossman, P., Dean, C. G. P., Kavanagh, S. S., & Herrmann, Z.
(2019). Preparing teachers for project-based teaching. Phi
Delta Kappan, 100(7), 43–48.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009).
Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289.
Grossman, P., Kavanagh, S. S., & Dean, C. P. (2018). The turn to
practice in teacher education. In P. Grossman (Ed.), Teaching
core practices in teacher education. Harvard Education Press.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An
assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equa-
tion modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Näykki,
P., & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-students for
twenty-first-century learning practices (PREP 21): A frame-
work for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strate-
gic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 25–41.
Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive
teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade class-
room. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education,
6(1), 51–72.
Hron, A., & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review of web-based col-
laborative learning: Factors beyond technology. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 70–79.
Hsu, S. (2005). Help-seeking behaviour of student teachers.
Educational Research, 47(3), 307–318.
Imafuku, R., Kataoka, R., Mayahara, M., & Suzuki, H. (2014).
Students’ experiences in interdisciplinary problem-based learn-
ing: A discourse analysis of group interaction. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2), 1–19.
14 SAGE Open
Jackson, P. W. (1986). The practice of teaching. Teachers College
Press.
Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collab-
orative student teaching experience for preservice teachers.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(3), 155–166.
Kapp, E. (2009). Improving student teamwork in a collaborative
project-based course. College Teaching, 57(3), 139–143.
Kavanagh, S. S., & Rainey, E. (2017). Learning to support adoles-
cent literacy: Teacher educator pedagogy and novice teacher
take up in secondary English language arts teacher preparation.
American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 904–937.
Kennedy, M. (2016). Parsing the practice of teaching. Journal of
Teacher Education, 67(1), 6–17.
King, S. (2006). Promoting paired placements in initial teacher
education. International Research in Geographical &
Environmental Education, 15(4), 370–386.
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based
learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3),
267–277.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J.,
Holbrook, J., . . . Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning
meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science class-
room: Putting learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample
size for research activities. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice:
What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2),
21–34.
Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou,
A. C., Beasley, H., . . .Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it com-
plex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of
ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3),
226–243.
Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2015). Gold standard PBL:
Essential project design elements. Buck Institute for Education.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lavy, I., & Shriki, A. (2008). Investigating changes in prospective
teachers’ views of a “good teacher” while engaging in comput-
erized project-based learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 11(4), 259–284.
Ljung-Djärf, A., Magnusson, A., & Peterson, S. (2014). From doing
to learning: Changed focus during a pre-school learning study
project on organic decomposition. International Journal of
Science Education, 36(4), 659–676.
Loyens, S. M., Jones, S. H., Mikkers, J., & van Gog, T. (2015).
Problem-based learning as a facilitator of conceptual change.
Learning and Instruction, 38, 34–42.
Matovinovic, D., & Nocente, N. (2000). Computer technology in
an authentic science project. Computers in the Schools, 16,
109–119.
McGrath, D. (2004). Strengthening collaborative work: Go beyond
the obvious with tools for technology-enhanced collaboration.
Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(5), 30–33.
Mergendoller, J., Markham, T., Ravitz, J., & Larmer, J. (2006).
Pervasive management of project-based learning. In C. Evertson
& S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management:
Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 583–615).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mettas, A. C., & Constantinou, C. C. (2008). The technology fair:
A project-based learning approach for enhancing problem
solving skills and interest in design and technology education.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
18(1), 79–100.
Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with
adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard
Educational Review, 85(2), 254–278.
Morales, T. M., Bang, E., & Andre, T. (2013). A one-year case
study: Understanding the rich potential of project-based learn-
ing in a virtual reality class for high school students. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 22, 791–806.
Nokes, J. D., Bullough, R. V., Jr., Egan, W. M., Birrell, J. R., &
Hansen, J. M. (2008). The paired-placement of student teach-
ers: An alternative to traditional placements in secondary
schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2168–2177.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, stu-
dent engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the
Teaching of English, 25, 261–290.
Philip, T., Souto-Manning, M., Anderson, L., Horn, I., Andrews,
D. J. C., Stillman, J., & Varghese, M. (2019). Making jus-
tice peripheral by constructing practice as “core”: How the
increasing prominence of core practices challenges teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 251–264.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118798324
Reisman, A., Kavanagh, S. S., Monte-Sano, C., Fogo, B., Simmons,
E., & Cipparone, P. (2018). Facilitating whole-class discus-
sions in history: A framework for preparing teacher candidates.
Journal of Teacher Education, 69(3), 278–293.
Rogers, M. A. P., Cross, D. I., Gresalfi, M. S., Trauth-Nare, A. E.,
& Buck, G. A. (2011). First year implementation of a project-
based learning approach: The need for addressing teachers’ ori-
entations in the era of reform. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 893–917.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development.
Oxford University Press.
Russell, D. (2009). Group collaboration in an online problem based
university course. In O.-S. Tan (Ed.), Problem-based learning
and creativity (pp. 173–192). Cengage Learning Asia.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem-based learning: An
instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G.
Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies
in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Educational Technology.
Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. (2008). Coteaching
as a model for preservice secondary science teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 967–981.
Schutz, K., Danielson, K., & Cohen, J. (2019). Approximations in
English language arts: Scaffolding a shared teaching practice.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 81, 100–111. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.004
Simons, M., & Baeten, M. (2016). Student teachers’ team teach-
ing during field experiences: An evaluation by their mentors.
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(5), 415–440.
Smith, J. B., Lee, V. E., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Improving
Chicago’s schools: Instruction and achievement in Chicago
elementary schools. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publica-
tions/instruction-and-achievement-chicago-elementary-schools
Almulla 15
Spitulnik, J., Struder, S., Finkel, E., Gustafson, E., & Laczko, J.
& Soloway. (1995, October). Toward supporting learners
participating in scientifically-informed community discourse
[Paper presentation]. Computer Support for Collaborative
Learning Conference, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Tsybulsky, D., & Muchnik-Rozanov, Y. (2019). The development of
student-teachers’ professional identity while team-teaching sci-
ence classes using a project-based learning approach: A multi-
level analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 48–59.
Von Esch, K., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2018). Preparing mainstream
classroom teachers of English language learner (EL) students:
Grounding practice-based designs for teacher learning in theo-
ries of expertise development. Journal of Teacher Education,
69(3), 239–251.
Walsh, K., & Elmslie, L. (2005). Practicum pairs: An alternative
for first field experience in early childhood teacher education.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 5–21.
Wassell, B., & LaVan, S. K. (2009). Revisiting the dialogue on
the transition from coteaching to inservice teaching: New
frameworks, additional benefits and emergent issues. Cultural
Studies of Science Education, 4(2), 477–484.
Wentworth, J., & Davis, J. R. (2002). Enhancing interdisciplinar-
ity through team teaching. In C. Haynes (Ed.), Innovations in
interdisciplinary teaching (pp. 16–37). Oryx Press.
Wolff, S. J. (2003). Design features of the physical learning envi-
ronment for collaborative, project-based learning at the com-
munity college level. National Research Center for Career and
Technical Education, University of Minnesota.