TESOL Quarterly - 2022 - Garib - Actually It S Real Work EFL Teachers Perceptions of Technology Assisted Project Based

15457249, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesq.3202 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [26/02/2023].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
“Actually, It’s Real Work”: EFL
Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology-
Assisted Project-Based Language
Learning in Lebanon, Libya, and Syria
ALI GARIB
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa, United States
Abstract
English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers in under-resourced con-
texts are prone to constraining factors influencing their interactive
and technological pedagogical choices. To cast light on this popula-
tion of EFL teachers’ technology-integrated interactive teaching prac-
tices, such as technology-assisted project-based language learning
(TAPBLL), this study examines EFL teachers’ perceptions of
TAPBLL before and after its implementation in Lebanon, Libya, and
Syria. Survey and interview data were collected from 25 EFL teachers.
The interviews were conducted via WebEx and Zoom between Fall
2020 and Spring 2021. The analysis of the data was guided by a phe-
nomenological approach and the author identified themes from the
participants’ responses. The findings reveal that all teachers in the
three contexts perceive TAPBLL as a desired teaching approach
although they encountered a number of challenges when attempting
to implement it. The findings provide implications for further
research and teacher professional development.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.3202
INTRODUCTION
P roject-based language learning (PBLL) as an instructional model

forges a link between classroom learning and real-world practices.
Pedagogical practices that involve PBLL resemble a group of learners
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, 0000 1

Ó 2022 The Author. TESOL Quarterly published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of TESOL International Association.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
15457249, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesq.3202 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [26/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
sent on a discovery mission. When learners engage in such practices,
they have ownership of their learning and are challenged to collabo-
rate, solve real-life problems, and build projects independently (Beck-
ett, 1999). The integration of technology into PBLL has proven to
enhance learning via the creation of “real-world digital contexts”
(Beckett, Slater, & Mohan, 2020, p. 220). Therefore, PBLL has the
potential to turn the real world into an actual classroom for learners
with the assistance of technology.
Accessibility to technology, such as portable devices, has positively
impacted the way teachers teach and communicate with their learn-
ers, making the integration of technology in language classrooms
more attainable, particularly in developing countries (Kukulska-
Hulme & Traxler, 2005). Beckett and Slater (2018b) add that the
ubiquity of technology brings PBLL and technology closer. Therefore,
technology-assisted project-based language learning (TAPBLL) can be
utilized for the benefit of language teaching and learning. According
to Beckett and Slater (2020), TAPBLL creates multimodal and
dynamic learning environments because it enables “students to learn
and articulate their learning linguistically and visually in collaboration
with their regional, national, and global peers . . . without limitations
of time and space” (p. 8). Thus, such an opportunity makes teachers’
integration of technology in PBLL more desirable. This has led to a
growing demand for teacher support in TAPBLL practices (Beckett
et al., 2020).
Thomas and Yamazaki (2021) explain that the COVID-19 pandemic
has been a wake-up call for teacher trainers and administrators to
reconsider teachers’ knowledge and utilization of technology in PBLL,
especially in under-resourced contexts of the developing world.
Because of unstable Internet connections and underdeveloped infras-
tructure in many developing countries, teachers could encounter more
challenges utilizing technologies in their teaching practices. To pro-
vide English as foreign language (EFL) teachers in under-resourced
contexts with adequate support for implementing TAPBLL, adminis-
trators and teacher trainers need to better understand how this popu-
lation of teachers would implement PBLL with technology. However,
there is still little evidence of teachers’ implementation of TAPBLL in
under-resourced contexts in the literature (Beckett & Slater, 2018a),
highlighting a potential area for further exploration.
To address this need, the present study explores EFL teachers’ per-
ceptions of TAPBLL before and after its implementation in under-
resourced contexts. The findings of this research can be a starting
point to better understand EFL teachers’ views of TAPBLL and how it
is reflected in their implementation of this approach.
2 TESOL QUARTERLY
Background of PBL and PBLL
Due to the diversity of practices under the umbrella term of project-

based learning (PBL), there is no consensus on what is or what is not
PBL (Thomas & Yamazaki, 2021; Wolpert-Gawron, 2015). Thus, several
definitions of PBL have been conceptualized (Table 1).
Given these definitions, this study defines PBL as an inquiry-based,
experiential teaching approach in which students actively engage in
the implementation of projects over extended periods of time in real-
life contexts, resulting in experiential learning from active engagement
on such projects.
PBL was brought into the field of language education in the 1960s
to be used as an alternative to the traditional, teacher-centered, behav-
iorist approach (Beckett, 1999; Legutke & Thomas, 1991). As an inter-
disciplinary constructivist approach, PBL has demonstrated
effectiveness in its implementation in language instruction (Musa,
Mufti, Latiff, & Amin, 2011). For example, after surveying 29 university
students in Malaysia, Musa et al. (2011) found that PBL facilitated the
participants’ language skills transfer to real-life contexts. According to
Beckett et al. (2020), PBL targets the learning process in general edu-
cation and also functions as the umbrella term for its subdivision:
PBLL.
The introduction of PBLL to second language education has estab-
lished a means of providing “learners space to explore their own self-
concept” (p. 243) and developing learners’ accountability (Legutke &
Thomas, 1991, p. 270). Consequently, PBLL promotes student-
centered teaching and learning principles (Hedge, 1993). However,
because such a learning environment can be influenced by teachers’
perceptions, it is valuable to explore how teachers perceive and imple-
ment PBLL.
TABLE 1
Various PBL Definitions
Authors PBL definitions

Thomas and Yamazaki The student-centered, project-based pedagogy that builds
(2021) learners’ real-world skills beyond the classroom
Beckett et al. (2020) The desired general education approach for teaching 21st-
century skills with projects
van Lier (2006) A nonfashionable, yet sophisticated project-based approach
with “deeper foundations of educational thought” (p.
xii) that is deserving of appreciation in education
Kilpatrick (1918) A guiding project-based instructional approach that fosters
life-long learning skills needed to cope with a changing
society
Note. PBL = project-based learning.
EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 3

Teachers’ Perceptions of PBLL
The constructivist learning environment that PBLL creates in language

classrooms invites teachers to reform their practices (Thomas, 2000). This
is because PBLL encourages the transformation of teachers’ roles from
providers of knowledge to facilitators of learning (Lee, Blackwell, Drake,
& Moran, 2014). While teachers’ roles in PBLL are mainly facilitating
learning through independent project-based inquiries, many teachers are
accustomed to being the sage-on-the-stage. Transitioning from a teacher-
centered to a student-centered approach can, therefore, be challenging.
Such a challenge could impact teachers’ implementation of PBLL (Blu-
menfeld, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 1994; Hertzog, 2007).
This pedagogical transition was exemplified by Hertzog (2007), in
which she examined U.S. teachers’ transition from traditional teaching
to interactive projects. The findings showed barriers that influenced
the implementation of projects, including meeting school curriculum
requirements and struggling to “give up control” (p. 553) in teaching.
Blumenfeld et al. (1994) explained that when teachers implement
PBLL for the first time, they tend to rely on their accustomed meth-
ods. Grant and Hill (2006) added that teachers’ transition into
student-centered approaches, such as PBLL, requires teachers’ aware-
ness and acceptance of this approach into their reformed practices. As
a result, teachers’ perceptions and knowledge (Baker, 2011) of their
roles can significantly shape their teaching.
Teachers’ facilitation of project work can be challenging unless they
receive adequate PBLL training (Hab ok & Nagy, 2016; Holm, 2011).
Tal, Krajcik, and Blumenfeld (2006), for example, examined teacher
practices with inquiry-based teaching and noted that teachers’ peda-
gogical knowledge and skills are predictors of successful PBL imple-
mentation. Lee et al. (2014) examined faculty members’
implementation of PBL at a U.S. university. The findings revealed sev-
eral challenges with PBL, including longer preparation time, align-
ment of projects with curriculum, teachers’ discomfort with assessing
projects, and need for technological resources. Additionally, Thomas
and Schneider (2021) called for technology-assisted teacher education
for interactive teaching, such as PBLL, because teachers’ utilization of
technology alone is insufficient. Thomas and Schneider (2021) argued
that teachers’ use of technology should be accompanied by knowledge
of integrating technology into teaching theories and practices, con-
firming Garrett’s (2009) claim that “technology, theory, and pedagogy
are inseparably interwoven” (p. 720). Teachers’ training on TAPBLL
can, therefore, be fundamental in supplementing successful integra-
tion of technology into PBLL.
4 TESOL QUARTERLY
Technology-Assisted PBLL
The lack of technology knowledge among the teacher population

has resulted in the limitation of the “scope, variety, and depth” of
their teaching with technology (Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin, &
Graham, 2014, p. 101). This limitation necessitates the establishment
of teacher training for the incorporation of technology (Tanak, 2018).
Therefore, teachers’ technology proficiencies outweigh the importance
of their sole utilization of technology tools in technology-assisted lan-
guage learning environments. This is because teachers’ pedagogical
knowledge of technology determines successful implementation of
TAPBLL (Hubbard, 2008). Additionally, teachers’ pedagogical knowl-
edge of technology is just as important for teaching their learners to
effectively use technology. The same can be said about TAPBLL,
because previous studies have shown the positive impact of incorporat-
ing technology on PBLL (Nami, 2021; Xie, 2021).
Some studies have integrated technology tools into TAPBLL and
reported creative student work that regular lessons could not provide.
Such tools included Internet searches (Mohamadi, 2018), PowerPoint
(Mali, 2017), and educational videos (Meyer & Forester, 2015). Carl-
son (2005) suggested that some learners may learn more effectively in
autonomous environments using social media apps. In this domain,
not only can students integrate technology in their learning, but this
integration can open doors for learning a wide range of 21st century
technology-related skills (Mishra & Kereluik, 2011). However, Thomas
and Schneider (2021) noted that the effectiveness of technological
tools is dependent on whether the tools are fraught with contextual
challenges, leading teachers to refrain from incorporating technology.
Such contextual challenges are common in developing countries,
where EFL teachers and students struggle with technology use
(Ja’ashan, 2020), underdeveloped infrastructure (Subekti, 2021), and
limited opportunities for interaction in the target language
(Perez, 2016).
Given the scarcity of English language interaction in EFL contexts,
social media platforms, such as Facebook, served as a bridge connect-
ing EFL learners for the purpose of learning communication
(Kim, 2011). A handful of empirical studies have examined the use of
WhatsApp in TAPBLL (Avci & Adiguzel, 2017; Ayaz, Ozkardas, & Oztu-
ran, 2019; Hafner, Li, & Miller, 2015). For example, Avci and Adigu-
zel (2017) examined the effect of collaboration within a WhatsApp
group by EFL learners at a university in Turkey. The study showed that
WhatsApp strengthened the learners’ sense of community and learn-
ing. Similarly, Hafner et al. (2015) explored the effect of social media

apps, including Facebook and WhatsApp, on science university stu-
dents’ English interaction outside the classroom in Hong Kong. The
findings revealed that using Facebook and WhatsApp created a sense
of community and enhanced language skills.
Besides the benefits of integrating technology into the implementa-
tion of TAPBLL, a few studies have reported challenges (Blumenfeld,
Fishman, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2000; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006;
Veletsianos, Beth, Lin, & Russell, 2016). For instance, Krajcik and Blu-
menfeld (2006) explained that the challenges of integrating technol-
ogy into PBLL include lack of teachers’ technology training and
limited accessibility to technological tools. Similarly, Blumenfeld
et al. (2000) explored science teachers’ implementation of TAPBLL in
the USA. The findings revealed that the scarce “acquisition, distribu-
tion, and maintenance of technology” complicated teachers’ use of
technology. Such challenges demonstrate a connection between teach-
ers’ technology knowledge and use, suggesting a need for investments
in technological resources and teacher development.
Challenges with TAPBLL could be indicative of either lack of access
to good Internet or teachers’ lack of training. Nami (2021), who exam-
ined EFL teachers’ implementation of technology-assisted writing pro-
jects in Iran, concluded that TAPBLL “cannot be fully professional
without adequately prepared language teachers” (p.118). After incor-
porating TAPBLL in an advanced Japanese language course at a US
college, Xie (2021) stressed that technology could be time-consuming
without teachers’ adequate technological knowledge. However, it is
noticeable that research on teachers’ challenges implementing
TAPBLL still remains limited in developing countries. This gap points
to the need for further exploration of teacher practices.
Overall, the integration of commonly used technologies, such as social
media and collaborative learning apps, can create effective learning envi-
ronments. Of interest to this study, Beckett and Slater (2020) called for
the utilization of digital pedagogies by teachers due to the underrepresen-
tation of technology in TAPBLL practices. Therefore, there is a growing
demand for teacher support in TAPBLL practices (Beckett & Sla-
ter, 2020). To respond to this demand, we need to better understand the
perceptions and implementation of TAPBLL by EFL teachers in order to
create effective professional development opportunities.
Significance of the Study

Based on the dearth of research on TAPBLL in developing coun-
tries, this study examines EFL teachers’ perceptions of TAPBLL before
and after its implementation. Teachers in under-resourced contexts
6 TESOL QUARTERLY
lack adequate resources to perform their teaching practices accord-
ingly (Jahanshahi, Gholami, & Rivas Mendoza, 2020). For instance,
Lebanon has gone through multiple phases of conflicts and instabili-
ties, which have limited opportunities for improvement. Similarly,
Libya and Syria have been witnessing civil wars, political and economic
crises, terrorism, and continuous demonstrations, all of which place
these countries’ educational systems on the brink of collapse. Quay-
nor (2012) adds that conflict-affected countries fail to maintain quality
education for their students, making such contexts worthy of further
exploration.
The implementation of TAPBLL is a growing body of literature
(Beckett & Slater, 2020; Thomas & Yamazaki, 2021), yet to date,
there has not been a study that has addressed EFL teachers’ percep-
tions of TAPBLL before and after its implementation in under-
resourced contexts. The current study makes novel contributions by
addressing challenges and benefits from implementing TAPBLL in
under-resourced contexts that are also under-researched and under-
represented in the literature. Using a phenomenological study
design, the participants’ perceptions of both pre- and post-
implementation were investigated, to explore how they viewed and
implemented TAPBLL. The study sought to explore the following
research questions:
1. What are EFL teachers’ perceptions of TAPBLL before imple-
menting projects in their classrooms?
2. What are EFL teachers’ perceptions of TAPBLL after imple-
menting projects in their classrooms?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
A qualitative phenomenological research approach was adopted for
this study. Phenomenological studies are utilized to demonstrate indi-
viduals’ reflections on their experiences, focusing on the description,
impact, and evaluation of such experiences (Giorgi, 1997). The data
analysis in this study followed the guiding research questions and the
analytical procedures commonly associated with phenomenological
studies by Creswell and Poth (2018). The study explores the phe-
nomenon of EFL teachers’ perceptions and experiences implementing
TAPBLL in their under-resourced contexts. A phenomenological
approach was most appropriate for this study because it provided the

opportunity to delve deeper into the exploration of EFL teachers’
practices with TAPBLL.
Participants and Setting
The author recruited EFL teachers that worked in a variety of edu-

cational settings, including middle school (n = 5), high school (n = 8),
and university language centers (n = 12) in Lebanon, Libya, and Syria.
The study examined this diverse population of participants to obtain
an understanding of teacher practices in under-resourced contexts.
The participants were recruited through the distribution of a survey
via Facebook groups and pages. Of all the survey respondents
(n = 96), 25 agreed to participate in the study (Table 2). After partici-
pating in the first interview, the 25 participants implemented one or
two project(s) and then participated in the second interview. In this
paper, all references to participants indicate the teachers involved in
the study, not their students.
The Lebanese EFL teachers were all females, with an average age of
32.33 years. The Libyan EFL teachers included eight females and
three males, with an average age of 26.09 years. The Syrian EFL teach-
ers included two females and three males, with an average age of
27.60 years (Table 3). Participation in this study was voluntary and no
compensation was provided. The participants’ recorded voice inter-
views were de-identified with pseudonyms.
Materials and Procedures
This study included two types of materials for data collection: a six-
question survey and two voice-recorded interviews. Additionally, the
teachers were given five prepared projects by the author which were
used to contextualize the findings. The following sections provide
more details about the materials used and the procedure followed in
this study.
TABLE 2
Number of Recruited Participants
Population Survey Interview 1 Interview 2

Lebanese 34 12 9
Libyan 52 14 11
Syrian 10 6 5
Total 96 32 25
8 TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE 3
Summary of Participants’ Demographic Survey Data (n = 25)
Age Gender General teaching experience
Min Max M F Min Max Mean SD

Lebanese teachers 24 40 0 9 2 16 9.00 5.56
Libyan teachers 22 33 3 8 1.5 12 5.00 3.39
Syrian teachers 23 38 3 2 1.5 23 2.50 9.36
Demographic Survey
A demographic survey was administered through Qualtrics, an

online tool for data collection (Appendix A). The purpose of this sur-
vey was to recruit participants and collect demographic information.
The survey summarized the purpose of the study in language that the
participants could easily understand, explained the confidentiality and
the voluntary nature of participation, linked the participants to the
consent form, elicited some demographic data, and invited the partici-
pants to participate in an audio-recorded interview.
Interviews. After completing the survey, participants were contacted

via email to participate in two semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured
interviews were most appropriate for this study because they allow inter-
viewers and interviewees to diverge and follow-up on a response in more
depth and provide participants with some guidance in a two-way interac-
tion format (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011), which is a missing ele-
ment in the one-way direction method, namely, reflections. Therefore,
semi-structured interviews were effective for enabling the author to delve
more deeply into the why, what, how, or when questions.
The first interview consisted of five open-ended questions
(Appendix B). The duration of the first interview ranged between 30 and
45 minutes, during which the EFL teachers were asked to reflect on their
understanding of TAPBLL and how projects can be designed, imple-
mented with technology, and evaluated. To contextualize the findings, at
the end of the first interview, the participants were invited to implement
one or more projects from a list of five prepared projects adapted from Sla-
ter and Beckett (2019) and Ribadeneira (September, 2020). The projects
were designed to be integrated into the teachers’ curriculum to create a
project-based learning environment. After the first interview, the author
emailed the participants the five documents of the projects for implemen-
tation. To facilitate the participants’ implementation of TAPBLL, each
project included a rubric, timesheet, simple instructions for the students
and for the teachers, and a list of recommended technology tools. Tech-
nology was a core element in these projects—yielding opportunities for

FIGURE 1. Data collection procedure.
student–student collaboration, teacher–student support, project design

and planning, and Internet-based resources. Teachers were given freedom
in selecting the technology tools that best served their contexts. Once the
participants implemented one of the projects, they participated in a sec-
ond interview to reflect on their experiences with TAPBLL. The second
interview consisted of nine open-ended questions (Appendix C), and the
duration of this interview ranged between 30 and 60 minutes. Figure 1
provides an illustration of the data collection procedure.
Data Analysis
This study invited the participants to reflect on their lived experiences

with TAPBLL. From a descriptive phenomenological perspective, the-
matic analysis provides “an understanding of patterns of meanings from
data on lived experiences” (Sundler, Lindberg, Nilsson, & Palmer, 2019,
p. 736). Therefore, a thematic approach was most appropriate to analyze
the data. Employing an inductive approach, the data from interview 1 was
used to examine EFL teachers’ views before implementing TAPBLL (i.e.,
RQ#1), and the data from interview 2 was utilized to explore EFL teach-
ers’ views after implementing TAPBLL (i.e., RQ#2). The analysis was con-
ducted by shading the data in a Microsoft Word document.
To reflect on how the participants experienced the phenomenon in
this study, the data analysis followed a number of recursive steps con-
sistent with Creswell and Poth (2018). Figure 2 outlines the five steps
of the data analysis procedure.
FIGURE 2. Data analysis steps.
10 TESOL QUARTERLY
The author familiarized himself with the interview data and high-
lighted emerging significant clusters of texts. Next, the author coded
these statements, grouped the emerging codes into categories, and
classified the categories, which became the subthemes, under the
final emerging themes (Figure 3). Every theme included three sub-
themes. Each subtheme consisted of 3–6 codes. The author analyzed
the transcripts of the interviews multiple times until no new themes
emerged.
FIGURE 3. Thematic analysis procedure.
FINDINGS
The findings are presented in two sections to answer the two RQs.
The first introduces the participants’ perceptions of TAPBLL before
its implementation. The second provides the participants’ views of
TAPBLL after implementation.

The findings of RQ1 indicated two broad themes: benefits and chal-
lenges. From these two themes, six subthemes emerged as shown in
Figure 4.
FIGURE 4. RQ1 themes and subthemes.
Benefits
As shown in Figure 4, on the positive end of the spectrum, the par-

ticipants’ perceptions about the benefits of TAPBLL focused on teach-
ers’ motives to gain knowledge and grow professionally, students’
learning autonomy, and authenticity in project work.
Motivation to gain knowledge and grow professionally. A majority

of (n = 20) teachers expressed that TAPBLL can be motivating to gain
more knowledge and an opportunity for professional growth. One tea-
cher, Amaar, commented that TAPBLL “grows my knowledge as a tea-
cher, and it adds more knowledge to my teaching because as teachers,
we need to learn new things.” Likewise, Zayna explained “ . . . projects
will provide me with more information . . . teachers will be up to date
because the problem of teachers nowadays is that . . . the students,
technology wise, are a step ahead of me.”
Zayna’s explanation sums up the cumulative benefits of the teach-
ers’ implementation of projects, highlighting the idea of being “more
up to date” with her students. Other comments along these lines
include the following:
12 TESOL QUARTERLY
• “ . . . you become more creative. It widens your knowledge; imag-
ination and you know the students more . . . ” (Chloe)
• “ . . . it would also give room for creativity for the students and
teachers as well . . . ” (Amjid)
• “ . . . from projects, I get new information myself, and every time
I do this . . . ” (Aula)
Students’ learning autonomy. A total of 14 participants emphasized

students’ roles in TAPBLL. They viewed TAPBLL as a desired teaching
approach because it can empower students with learning autonomy,
giving students a sense of ownership of their learning. For example,
Joana brought up the idea that TAPBLL can make students have their
own “choice and voice.” Mohand pointed out that teacher practices
involve leadership and democracy in TAPBLL:
I think that if I’m able to implement the project in a more democratic
way, I say this is to help the students choose the project, to help the
students implement it without much interference so that students can
interact, can lead . . .
According to Mohand, leadership and democracy are essential com-
ponents of project work. Similarly, Amjid explained that TAPBLL “ . . .
will allow students to learn by themselves instead of just spoon feeding
them. They will be more independent . . . ” These teachers’ initial per-
ceptions of learning autonomy in TAPBLL reflect their expectations
of the effect of project work on their students.
Authenticity in project work. Authenticity in TAPBLL emerged as a

theme in 15 participant interviews. For example, Sami explained that
the most important aspect of TAPBLL is its authenticity; that is, stu-
dents engage in “actually doing something that is not just systematic
to teach language, like grammar or vocabulary. It’s not like this. Actu-
ally, it’s real work.” Mohand added that “when students work on a pro-
ject, they feel different and special . . . they are actually doing
something authentic.” Chloe pointed out that authenticity in TAPBLL
is not limited to students’ work only, but also teaching becomes:
. . . authentic and down to earth more than just giving information
from the book . . . ‘open page blah and do this exercise’; they are just
acquiring it and they are forgetting the other day. But when they expe-
rience it in [a] project, they will not forget it.
Ehab explained that “ . . . I use authentic materials with my students.
They just go through the curriculum. So projects would be something new
to do . . . ” Ehab does not find authenticity in his teaching curriculum, but
expects it in TAPBLL. To compare the authenticity in TAPBLL to

schooling, Malak added that “I think this PBL will help students to be
exposed to the world . . . in school, it is not provided like this . . . ” These
teachers’ perception of authenticity in project work stems from the nature
of experiential learning in real-life contexts that TAPBLL fosters, as well as
the originality in the final products that students accomplish.
Challenges
Returning to Figure 4, from the interviews, three themes emerged
as the participants’ initial perceptions about the challenges of
TAPBLL: introducing PBLL to students, keeping a commitment to
curriculum, and assessing PBLL.
Teachers’ introduction of PBLL to students. One of the most recur-

ring challenges noted by the participants was the concern over introduc-
ing project work to their students. A majority (n = 23) of the teachers
noted that their students are mostly accustomed to traditional teaching
approaches. Thus, they reported that implementing TAPBLL could be
challenging. For example, Wajd explained that students’ reliance on
teachers was still valid because students “won’t collaborate . . . they need
the presence of the teacher . . . ” Similarly, Rula explained that the chal-
lenge of having students accept TAPBLL is cultural because:
no matter how you try to not intervene in their decision, they are kind
of copying you and they are repeating your ideas . . . It’s maybe a part
of our culture in Lebanon, the way the students are raised, they do not
know how to express their opinions. They always like to be a follower.
Mohand discussed how the culture of learning within TAPBLL is
regarded as an alien culture to the students in Syria and the Middle
East in general. These challenges draw attention to the cultural
boundaries for implementing TAPBLL. Other teachers have also dis-
cussed similar potential challenges:
• “ . . . it’s gonna be very strange for the students because they don’t
like doing new things . . . they can learn from the teacher so they
don’t need to look for information or do projects . . . ” (Wajid)
• “ . . . They are kind of used to traditional way of being taught
where everything they need to be taught is done inside the class-
room . . . ” (Aula)
Commitment to curriculum. Another challenge brought up by the

participants was commitment to the curriculum. Of all the 14 Leba-
nese and Syrian teachers, 10 reflected on their concerns over how to
14 TESOL QUARTERLY
incorporate TAPBLL into their existing teaching curriculum. For
instance, Rula stressed that she would “ . . . need to see if I can inte-
grate it with my lessons . . . ” Although Joana wanted to participate in
the study, she indicated that any TAPBLL work would be dependent
upon its ability to fit within the curriculum and she questioned
“ . . . can this go simultaneously with my tasks . . . [and] my lessons?
. . . ”.
In the Syrian context, Layla explained that if TAPBLL “was part of the
curriculum, then deadlines are needed . . . to be able to finish the course
curriculum on the time.” Mohand expressed willingness to implement
TAPBLL in his English-speaking course since TAPBLL would make stu-
dents “ . . . speak, and they don’t have a curriculum that I need to cover
. . . So, I have most space in class, so it can be accommodated.” These
teachers’ reluctance to utilize PBLL were indicative of how the teaching
curriculum is regarded as a top priority for the teachers.
Uncertainty assessing PBLL. Twenty-two teachers expressed con-

cerns about their uncertainty assessing students’ learning within PBLL.
For example, Wajd said that she would not use a rubric to assess her
students’ project work; instead, she would assess them based on how
they answered her questions by the end of the project. Amaar referred
to teachers’ subjectivity in their assessment and that they can be influ-
enced by “catchy” projects that may not involve the required level of
language. The teachers’ uncertainty over assessing PBLL suggests a
lack of understanding how to develop/utilize an objective assessment.
Zayna sums up the concerns that the teachers had towards PBLL
assessment adding “I’m not familiar really with it. I don’t know if there
would be a kind of rubric for that, but I think a rubric will not be fair.
Because all there are variables for this PBL.”
The teachers’ concerns over PBLL assessment center around the
different elements in project work, including, but not limited to, lan-
guage skills, presentation, technology use, and collaboration.
After using projects to teach students (RQ2), the EFL teachers
shared their perceptions about TAPBLL based on their experiences.
The six subthemes that were identified in the participants’ responses
emerged from two broad themes, as outlined in Figure 5.
Benefits
As illustrated in Figure 5, the benefits consisted of teachers’ percep-

tions of TAPBLL as an interactive teaching approach, students’ learn-
ing autonomy, and a lower workload.

FIGURE 5. RQ2 themes and subthemes.
Interactive teaching approach. After implementing TAPBLL, all

participants viewed it as a highly interactive teaching approach. For
example, Wala reflected on how she initially did not expect TAPBLL
to create an engaging environment, but after implementing it, Wala’s
stance changed: “it was interesting for the atmosphere in general. It
was really, really, really positive. Like, I wouldn’t expect it to be like
this, but it went very well. It was [an] amazing experience . . . for me
and for them.” Amjid explained that because of TAPBLL, his students’
engagement, motivation, and autonomy were enhanced drastically.
Amaar explained that TAPBLL “gives you actually the obligation of
creating more”, leading to learning through creation of projects. The
interactivity of TAPBLL is directly related to the nature of the learning
atmosphere that it creates.
Developing autonomous learners. Building students’ autonomy was

another related subtheme that emerged from the teachers’ responses.
The teachers (n = 23) highlighted that TAPBLL helped them equip
their students with independent learning skills. For example, Fatima
noted that the more students implement projects, “the better the stu-
dents’ level [of] autonomy becomes.” Christine compared the element
of autonomy in PBLL to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) by stating:
because students became more independent . . . it helps the students actu-
ally become their own teachers in a very creative way whereby they are the
ones who are going to dig more for the information . . . So, PBL is taking
another level on Bloom’s Taxonomy and reaching the higher level.
16 TESOL QUARTERLY
Christine viewed PBLL as a way to start at the upper levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy, where students begin learning through indepen-
dence in creation, leading to remembering, and understanding.
Less workload for teachers. In addition to the effectiveness of

TAPBLL on students’ learning, 18 teachers highlighted that project
work is an effective teaching approach in reducing their workload while
simultaneously creating influential learning environments. For example,
Wajd let her students do their work independently, which reduced her
workload, adding that “the students will work by themselves with them-
selves . . . . They will explore the language.”
Rula added that teachers’ role in TAPBLL is limited to facilitation
and monitoring students’ work. For example, she commented that “I
just gave the project to the students and [sat] back, and they did the
work . . . ” showing how teachers have less responsibilities in perform-
ing their teaching duties. Similarly, Joana noted that “as an effort as a
teacher, it was less because students are doing the work. You’re just
monitoring; you’re guiding; you’re facilitating their work.”
These findings are also indicative of the teachers’ transformation
from teacher-centered to student-centered teaching. Other comments
in line with these findings include:
• “ . . . teaching students a project . . . not all [the] work on the
teacher. It’s mostly on the students . . . ” (Malak)
• “ . . . using projects more is more impactful and less work on tea-
cher . . . ” (Mohand)
Challenges
A number of challenges also emerged from the teachers’ reflections

on their experiences. From the analysis, the author found three pre-
dominant subthemes, including power outages and educational tech-
nology, struggles introducing PBLL, and uncertainty assessing PBLL.
Power outages and educational technology. According to all of the

participants, technology in under-resourced contexts can be difficult to
use due to slow Internet connections, power outages, and the students’
unfamiliarity with technology. For example, Wajd explained that educa-
tional technology is a new concept, because, for Libyan students, “all tech-
nologies are related to entertainment mostly, not education.” Christine
added that the “the moment thunder strikes in our country, we are discon-
nected.” In these contexts, if there is no power, there is no educational
technology. As a result, technology use was fraught with challenges.

Samya noted that what discouraged her from integrating technology
into PBLL in Libya was the continuous power outages and Internet
connection issues, “ . . . electricity cuts. It’s actually happening on a
daily basis and Internet connection just blacks out . . . ”.
Such challenges could limit the number of tools at the teachers’ dis-
posal or make the teachers hesitant to incorporate technology.
Sami explained that although he worked at a university language
center, it lacked any type of simple classroom technologies:
they don’t have projectors in every place. They have no screens in any
place. Sometimes I don’t even have erasers in my class . . . So, we, by
no means, have any way to do some sort of visual aids, presentation, or
projects.
Consequently, these teachers’ options of integrating any technologies
for sharing or collaborating on projects were fraught with challenges.
However, the teachers persevered and tended to use mobile apps that
are accessible on a slow Internet connection. For example, Wala stated
that “everybody in the classroom [has] a smartphone and WhatsApp”,
adding that “accessibility is very important. And you can adjust methods
to it.” Sami emphasized that “we always have WhatsApp groups, and they
helped do the projects . . . by answering students’ questions and doing
the presentations . . . ” Chloe explained that WhatsApp was a helpful tool
because “it’s easy to be in contact with me during power off, and
because every student has a WhatsApp, some chose to upload their
videos on the WhatsApp group . . . ”, concluding with “of course, without
technology, the project wouldn’t be that much fun. The students
wouldn’t have delivered their ideas . . . or shared with me their posters
or the videos.” Accessibility to such technologies was key in implement-
ing TAPBLL. Additionally, the Syrian teachers encountered sanctions
placed on technology. For example, Amaar explained that “most tech-
nologies are unavailable and inaccessible in Syria because we’re facing
sanctions by international companies.” As a result, Mohand added that
“ . . . because of sanctions, we used VPN [Virtual Private Network] . . . ”
Despite the challenges, the participants persisted in finding alternative
solutions to integrate technology into the projects.
Struggles introducing PBLL. The cultural desire for privacy on vir-

tual platforms was a prominent challenge for teachers. All of the
teachers reflected on how their students refused to share their final
projects on public virtual platforms. This is because their students are
accustomed to completing learning activities within classrooms, posing
a concern for the teachers.
Generally, the participants noted that students were not motivated
initially about the idea of project work. For instance, Rula explained,
18 TESOL QUARTERLY
. . . the first challenge was, ‘are they going to like the idea?’ I was just
worried about it. And then when I started telling them so, not every
student liked the idea. At first, it was challenging to convince them . . .
The Syrian teachers had to change the use of technology due to cul-
tural reasons. All teachers skipped the video-uploading to YouTube to
avoid discouraging students from participation. Sami noted this by
pointing out that he lived in “a conservative country.” Because the
teachers realized that TAPBLL was a new concept to them and their
students, they found localizing this approach key or detrimental to its
implementation.
Uncertainty assessing PBLL. Besides teachers’ struggles introducing

their students to PBLL, 22 teachers felt uncertain about the method
of assessing their students’ projects. For example, Wajid did not “want
to follow any rubrics,” stating that it would be unfair to assess learners
through a rubric and wanted “their feedback to come naturally for
them.” Other participants, like Gaelle, avoided assessing her students’
projects because they “didn’t have much time to precisely evaluate
[the] students.” Moreover, Layla stated that “the projects are kind of
hard to mark because you need to take care of all the aspects that the
project contains.” Amaar discussed the element of teachers’ subjectivity
assessing projects and expressed the “need to train more.”
Adam explained that he found assessing projects “tricky, very tricky.
I chose not to do the whole evaluating. It was too challenging. It was
too difficult to do that.” The difficulty of assessing projects seems to
stem from the fact that “there’s too many aspects to consider, like
grammar and writing, speaking, fluency, giving the presentation. The
whole thing was too difficult.” Adam added that he “just gave them
feedback like tips, some pieces of advice” as an assessment. Amaar con-
cluded that “what I see as growth in my PBL implementation is the
assessment . . . I actually used my intuition.” Amaar is aware of his lim-
ited knowledge on assessing PBLL and thus regards it as an area of
growth. While 19 participants assessed the projects by providing brief
verbal feedback, the remaining 6 avoided assessment.
DISCUSSION
This study explored EFL teachers’ perceptions of TAPBLL in

under-resourced contexts. This study raises several major findings
related to the posed RQ1 and RQ2.
With regards to RQ1, all participants’ views of TAPBLL aligned with
Beckett and Slater’s (2020) definition of TAPBLL as an effective

approach. Additionally, the participants’ initial perceptions of TAPBLL
are in line with how previous literature defined PBLL: an approach
that promotes a deeper understanding (van Lier, 2006); fosters inde-
pendent thinking (Beckett, 1999); and motivates learners to take
charge of their learning beyond the classroom (Thomas & Yamaza-
ki, 2021).
The current findings indicate that commitment to the curriculum
was another possible challenge where the participants expressed reluc-
tance over implementing TAPBLL unless it was relevant to their “les-
sons and yearly plan” (Rula), aligning with the literature where
teachers struggled adjusting to TAPBLL due to their commitment to
the curriculum (Hertzog, 2007). The teachers’ reservations to imple-
ment TAPBLL due to its dependency upon its ability to fit within the
curriculum stems from a central issue: the teacher-centered curricu-
lum. Because the teachers were accustomed to traditional teaching,
their main focus was on the requirements of the teaching curriculum,
and less likely their students’ learning.
Many teachers noted that interactive teaching can be challenging
because TAPBLL is an alien approach (Mohand) in these contexts.
However, the teachers’ strict commitment to their curriculum exempli-
fies an absence of teacher agency. In addition to the paucity in the teach-
ers’ agency, their students’ learning mentality also exhibited a lack of
agency, for example, Rula explained that the issue with TAPBLL is cul-
tural because “the way the students are raised, they do not know how to
express their opinions. They always like to be a follower.” This lack of
agency in both the teachers and students’ attitudes can make empower-
ing students with autonomous learning hard to accomplish.
Moving to the participants’ perceptions of their lived experiences
with TAPBLL (RQ2), the findings confirm the teachers’ initial percep-
tions. This is because the participants’ initial perceptions about
TAPBLL were reflected in their actual experiences with project work.
Some of the participants’ perceived benefits overlap with findings
from previous literature that PBLL provides learners space for explo-
ration and autonomy in learning (Legutke & Thomas, 1991). The cur-
rent findings that TAPBLL created less workload for the participants
contradict with findings from other non-EFL research studies
(Brown, 2020; Chu, 2009), in which PBLL was perceived as a more
demanding and time-consuming teaching approach. This contradic-
tion raises the question whether the teachers fully supported the pro-
jects. Setting up projects and providing structures, feedback, and input
throughout the project process is indeed time consuming. It seems
quite possible that a “sink or swim” approach was adopted with little
support from the teachers, who “sat back and let students do the
work.”
20 TESOL QUARTERLY
Another finding was teachers’ perceptions of their roles in the imple-
mentation of the projects. While previous studies (Hab ok & Nagy, 2016;
Holm, 2011) discussed English as a second language teachers’ roles in
PBLL, this study looks closely at EFL teachers’ roles in under-resourced
contexts. The teachers’ reflections on their teaching roles were mirrored
in their belief that TAPBLL reduces teachers’ workload. However, it
seems more likely that less use of monitoring and input strategies leads
teachers to believe that the workload is less. Additionally, all participants
refrained from using a rubric to assess their students’ projects, leading
to a significant reduction in their workload with TAPBLL. It appears that
the teachers abandoned rigor in the assessment stage. This also speaks
to the notion that the projects may not have been adequately valued as a
part of the curriculum. One wonders whether the teachers simply ran
the projects as ‘add-ons’ that students complete in their spare time—if
they did, this is not how a project-based course is intended to be
designed. This finding provides a new future research direction for fur-
ther exploration. This is because teachers’ beliefs about their teaching
roles in TAPBLL can be further researched through direct observation
of teachers’ live practices.
Besides the participants’ positive reflections on their experiences
with TAPBLL, they also stressed the need for professional training.
This is due to the challenges they encountered introducing PBLL to
their students, assessing project work, and integrating technology in
underdeveloped educational settings that suffer from continuous
power outages. Such challenges forced the teachers to repurpose the
use of technology, leading them to adapt alternative methods, such as
WhatsApp, and making inaccessible technologies accessible via VPN.
This type of perseverance exemplifies: ‘where there is a will, there is a
way!’
Overall, the current participants’ relatively successful TAPBLL
implementation is indicative that TAPBLL is feasible in under-
resourced contexts. Although the “COVID-19 pandemic has amplified
. . . stresses and reinforced the vulnerability of language courses, pro-
grams and teachers who do not have access to appropriate resources
or IT support” (Thomas, 2021, p. 263), TAPBLL facilitated the teach-
ers’ practices by transcending temporal and spatial boundaries and
created interactivity for a disadvantaged population of teachers.
CONCLUSION
This study examined EFL teachers’ perceptions of TAPBLL before
and after implementing this approach in Lebanon, Libya, and Syria.
Overall, the implementation of TAPBLL has proven to be desirable

regardless of the context or resources available. The findings revealed
that despite all the contextual challenges, the majority of the teachers
perceived TAPBLL as an effective teaching approach before and after
the implementation of the projects. However, the teachers’ initial con-
cerns with assessing TAPBLL remained even after implementing this
approach, suggesting that this is an area that needs attention. Further-
more, these teachers’ perceptions and implementation of TAPBLL
indicated an inadequate knowledge of the approach and a lack of
instructional support, which suggest a need for teacher training in
TAPBLL. Professional development can help teachers foster an under-
standing of TAPBLL and aid in the decision-making process.
This study not only contributes to the understanding of EFL teach-
ers’ perceptions of TAPBLL in under-resourced contexts and how it is
reflected in their pedagogical practices, but it also provides insight
into preparing EFL language teachers to integrate TAPBLL. In conclu-
sion, supported by sufficient training, the implementation of TAPBLL
in under-resourced contexts can “actually be real work”, connecting
pedagogical practices with the real world.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank Dr. Gulbahar Beckett, Dr. Tammy Slater, Dr. Kimberly Becker, Dr.
Amanda Arp, Dr. Tim Kochem, Dr. Thomas Miller, Dr. John Levis, Dr. Carol Cha-
pelle, Dr. Sinem Sonsaat-Hegelheimer, Thomas Elliott, and Chris Nuttall for their
feedback and moral support. I also thank the editor and the three anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback on this manuscript. Addition-
ally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the teachers who partici-
pated in this study for their time and dedication. Open access funding provided
by the Iowa State University Library.
THE AUTHOR
Ali Garib is a doctoral student in the Applied Linguistics and Technology program
at Iowa State University. Ali holds an M.A. in Applied Linguistics from Arizona State
University and an M.A. in TESOL and Educational Technology from the University
of Manchester. Ali’s primary research interests span the areas of technology-assisted
project-based language learning (TAPBLL), CALL, MALL, and language teacher
professional development and practices in the developing and developed worlds.
REFERENCES
Avci, H., & Adiguzel, T. (2017). A case study on mobile-blended collaborative

learning in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(7), 45–58.
22 TESOL QUARTERLY
Ayaz, A., Ozkardas, S., & Ozturan, T. (2019). Challenges of English language
teaching in high schools in Turkey and possible suggestions to overcome them.
Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 41–55.
Baker, A. A. (2011). ESL teachers and pronunciation pedagogy: Exploring the
development of teachers’ cognitions and classroom practices. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd pronunciation in second language learning and teaching
conference. Sept. 2010 (pp. 82–94). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
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. Retrieved from www.shorturl.at/jzBDZ
Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2018a). Project-based learning and technology. In J.
Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118
784235.eelt0427
Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2018b). Technology-integrated project-based language
learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–8).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781405198431.wbeal1487
Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (Eds.). (2020). Global perspectives on project-based language
learning, teaching, and assessment: Key approaches, technology tools, and frameworks.
New York: Routledge.
Beckett, G. H., Slater, T., & Mohan, B. A. (2020). Philosophical foundation, theo-
retical approaches, and gaps in the literature. In G. H. Beckett & T. Slater
(Eds.), Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment:
Key approaches, technology tools, and frameworks (pp. 3–22). New York: Routledge.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay Co, Inc.
Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000).
Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-
embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35
(3), 149–164.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons
learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-
based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 539–551.
Brown, N. (2020). Practical solutions to manage staff and student workloads in project-
based learning courses. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 22(1), 20–25.
Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Edu-
cation, 52(7), A34.
Chu, K. W. S. (2009). Inquiry project-based learning with a partnership of three
types of teachers and the school librarian. Journal of the American Society for Infor-
mation Science and Technology, 60(8), 1671–1686.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revis-
ited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 719–740.
Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological
method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychol-
ogy, 28(2), 235–260.
Grant, M. M., & Hill, J. R. (2006). Weighing the risks with the rewards: Imple-
menting student-centered pedagogy within high-stakes testing. In R. Lambert &

C. McCarthy (Eds.), Understanding teacher stress in an age of accountability (pp. 18–
42). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.
Hab ok, A., & Nagy, J. (2016). In-service teachers’ perceptions of project-based
learning. Springerplus, 5(1), 1–14.
Hafner, C. A., Li, D. C., & Miller, L. (2015). Language choice among peers in
project-based learning: A Hong Kong case study of English language learners’
plurilingual practices in out-of-class computer-mediated communication. Cana-
dian Modern Language Review, 71(4), 441–470.
Hedge, T. (1993). Project work. ELT Journal, 47(3), 276–277.
Hertzog, N. B. (2007). Transporting pedagogy: Implementing the project approach
in two first-grade classrooms. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 530–564.
Holm, M. (2011). Project-based instruction: A review of the literature on effective-
ness in prekindergarten. River Academic Journal, 7(2), 1–13.
Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO
Journal, 25(2), 175–188.
Ja’ashan, M. M. N. H. (2020). The challenges and prospects of using e-learning
among EFL students in Bisha University. Arab World English Journal, 11(1),
124–137. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.11
Jahanshahi, A. A., Gholami, H., & Rivas Mendoza, M. I. (2020). Sustainable devel-
opment challenges in a war-torn country: Perceived danger and psychological
well-being. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(3), e2077.
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19,
319–335.
Kim, T. Y. (2011). Korean elementary school students’ English learning demoti-
vation: A comparative survey study. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(1),
1–11.
Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The tech-
nological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D.
Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational commu-
nications and technology (pp. 101–111). New York: Springer.
Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.),
The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–333). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (Eds.). (2005). Mobile learning: A handbook for
educators and trainers. New York: Routledge.
Lee, J. S., Blackwell, S., Drake, J., & Moran, K. A. (2014). Taking a leap of faith:
Redefining teaching and learning in higher education through project-based
learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2), 2.
Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom.
Harlow, UK: Longman.
Mali, Y. C. G. (2017). EFL students’ experiences in learning CALL through
project-based instructions. Teflin Journal, 28(2), 170–192.
Meyer, E., & Forester, L. A. (2015). Implementing student-produced video projects
in language courses. Unterrichtspraxis, 48(2), 192–210.
Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What is 21st century learning? A review and synthe-
sis. Presented at SITE 2011, Nashville, USA, March 7–11. Retrieved from www.
shorturl.at/bhmuP
Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of project-based learning and elec-
tronic project-based learning on the development and sustained development
of English idiom knowledge. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(2),
363–385.
24 TESOL QUARTERLY
Musa, F., Mufti, N., Latiff, R. A., & Amin, M. M. (2011). Project-based learning:
Promoting meaningful language learning for workplace skills. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 18, 187–195.
Nami, F. (2021). Project-based learning in online synchronous writing classrooms:
Enhancing EFL learners’ awareness of the ethics of writing. In M. Thomas & K.
Yamazaki (Eds.), Project-based language learning and CALL from virtual exchange to
social justice (pp. 105–126). Indonesia: Equinox Publishing.
Perez, N. P. (2016). Effects of tasks on spoken interaction and motivation in
English language learners. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 13,
34–55.
Quaynor, L. J. (2012). Citizenship education in post-conflict contexts: A review of
the literature. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, 7(1), 33–57.
Ribadeneira, A. (2020, September 15). Teaching with Alegrı a. Google Sites.
Retrieved from www.shorturl.at/nwH35
Slater, T., & Beckett, G. H. (2019). Integrating language, content, technology, and
skills development through project-based language learning: Blending frame-
works for successful unit planning. MEXTESOL Journal, 43(1), 1–14.
Subekti, A. S. (2021). Covid-19-triggered online learning implementation: Pre-
service English teachers’ beliefs. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Litera-
ture, and Teaching, 4(3), 232–248.
Sundler, A. J., Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., & Palm er, L. (2019). Qualitative thematic
analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. Nursing Open, 6(3), 733–739.
Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Urban schools’ teachers enact-
ing project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7),
722–745.
Tanak, A. (2018). Designing TPACK-based course for preparing student teachers
to teach science with technological pedagogical content knowledge. Kasetsart
Journal of Social Sciences, 41(1), 53–59.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Paper prepared for The
Autodesk Foundation, San Rafael, CA. Retrieved from www.shorturl.at/pzEZ7
Thomas, M. (2021). Epilogue: Critical project-based learning and moving forwards
in the post-pandemic university. In M. Thomas & K. Yamazaki (Eds.), Project-
based language learning and CALL from virtual exchange to social justice (pp. 263–
271). Indonesia: Equinox Publishing.
Thomas, M., & Schneider, C. (2021). Language teaching with video-based technologies:
Creativity and CALL teacher education. New York: Routledge.
Thomas, M., & Yamazaki, K. (2021). Project-based language learning and CALL from
virtual exchange to social justice. Indonesia: Equinox Publishing.
van Lier, L. (2006). Foreword. In G. H. Beckett & P. C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based
second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. xi–xvi). Green-
wich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Veletsianos, G., Beth, B., Lin, C., & Russell, G. (2016). Design principles for thriv-
ing in our digital world: A high school computer science course. Journal of Edu-
cational Computing Research, 54(4), 443–461.
Wolpert-Gawron, H. (2015, August 13). What the heck is project-based learning?
Edutopia. Retrieved from www.shorturl.at/aoDOY
Xie, K. (2021). Incorporating digital projects into an advanced Japanese
course: Effectiveness and implementation. In M. Thomas & K. Yamazaki (Eds.),
Project-based language learning and CALL from virtual exchange to social justice
(pp. 127–149). Indonesia: Equinox Publishing.

APPENDIX A Survey
By clicking below, you are agreeing to participate in this study. Make sure you understand what
the study involves before you agree. If you have questions about the study after you agree to
participate, you can contact the research team using the information provided above. You may
print a copy of this form for your records.
I certify that I am 18 years of age or over and consent to participate in this research
study.
Q1. Age
Q2. Gender
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
Q3. Nationality
Q4. How long have you been teaching English?
05. How many students do you usually have in your classroom?
Q6. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please add your email or any form of
contact (any preferred way to contact you) below for the next step of this research. This
information will remain confidential.
If you would like to continue participating in this study, the researcher will get in touch with you
to arrange for two audio-recorded interviews and assist you through the process of implementing
a project-based language provide their learning (PBLL) approach in your teaching by providing
you with the necessary materials.
Note: Participants who wished to continue in the study were prompted to provide their contact
info on a different survey to maintain confidentiality.
26 TESOL QUARTERLY
APPENDIX B Interview 1
“Before PBLL Implementation” Interview Questions

1. What do you know about project-based learning (PBL) as an
instructional model?
a. Where did you learn about PBL?
b. Describe what PBL planning and instruction looks like to you.
c. How would you or do you begin planning for a PBL pro-
ject? How would you or do you choose a project topic?
d. How would you or do you facilitate PBL during class time?
e. How would you or do you evaluate the work completed by
students in a PBL project?
f. How would you or do you know if you are successful using
this project by the end of class?
g. What kind of technology would you use with this type of
project for language teaching?
2. What would you think are some successes and challenges you
would have designing projects? Why or how are they challenges
or successes?
would have implementing projects? Why or how are they chal-
lenges or successes?
would have evaluating projects? Why or how are they challenges
or successes?
5. Is there some aspect of your teaching with projects that you
want to start doing to teach with PBL? If so, what do you see as
a growth area(s) for yourself? Why?
Follow-up Questions and Invitation to implement PBL:
• Would you be willing to implement a project for language learn-
ing and I will provide you with a framework for this project?
• How much time do you think will need to be spent for this pro-
ject?
• What kind of topics will your students choose to work on this
project?
• What would some of your teaching goals be for such projects?
• What kind of technology will you use for this project during the
pandemic? How will this technology help you achieve your
teaching goals?

APPENDIX C Interview 2
“After PBLL Implementation” Interview Questions

1. Which class level(s) have you chosen to do PBL with? Why this/
these specific class level(s)?
2. Describe the project you have modified, implemented, and eval-
uated (or that you will be using the next time you teach a class).
Follow-up questions on project implementation:
• How did you know, or what are some evidences that
made you think that students successfully completed the
PBL projects? What kind(s) of evaluation criteria did you
use to check students’ success? Why?
• How did you decide the length of time for the project?
• How were students held accountable for ongoing work? In
other words, what were some methods/measures/instru-
ments that you used to keep track of what students were
doing and being successful with their project work? Can
you share the instrument with me for a closer look?
• Did students work together in groups? If so, how and
when did you group them to ensure they were learning
successfully?
• Did you modify the suggested technology(ies) in the pre-
pared projects during implementation based on your
assessment of student learning and your teaching con-
text? If so, how and why?
3. What language form and function, content knowledge, and
skills were you addressing through the project (or will you
address) as a teaching goal? Why?
4. What did you do to make sure that the language form and func-
tion, content knowledge, and skills you addressed were success-
fully implemented? How do you know they were successful? Can
you provide some examples?
5. What technology worked best for you and your students in this
project? Why? What would have happened to your teaching and
project goals if technology tools you mentioned were not uti-
lized or no technology was utilized? Can you provide some
examples?
6. Can you share your thoughts on how or in what ways teaching
through PBL was different from your other ways of teaching
without PBL? Can you provide some examples?
28 TESOL QUARTERLY
7. Can you share some thoughts on what impact PBL, or learning
through project work, may have had on your students’ learning
of what you taught compared to learning the same things with-
out PBL? Can you provide some examples?
8. What went well for you and what did not? In other words, what
were some challenges and successes you have had implementing
this project?
9. How would you do projects differently?
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online ver-

sion of this article:
supinfoS1
supinfoS2
supinfoS3

TESOL Quarterly - 2022 - Garib - Actually It S Real Work EFL Teachers Perceptions of Technology Assisted Project Based

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESOL Quarterly - 2022 - Garib - Actually It S Real Work EFL Teachers Perceptions of Technology Assisted Project Based

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15457249, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesq.3202 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [26/02/2023].

P roject-based language learning (PBLL) as an instructional model

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, 0000 1

Due to the diversity of practices under the umbrella term of project-

Authors PBL definitions

Note. PBL = project-based learning.

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 3

The constructivist learning environment that PBLL creates in language

The lack of technology knowledge among the teacher population

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 5

Significance of the Study

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 7

Participants and Setting

The author recruited EFL teachers that worked in a variety of edu-

Materials and Procedures

Population Survey Interview 1 Interview 2

Age Gender General teaching experience

Min Max M F Min Max Mean SD

A demographic survey was administered through Qualtrics, an

Interviews. After completing the survey, participants were contacted

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 9

student–student collaboration, teacher–student support, project design

This study invited the participants to reflect on their lived experiences

FIGURE 2. Data analysis steps.

FIGURE 3. Thematic analysis procedure.

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 11

FIGURE 4. RQ1 themes and subthemes.

As shown in Figure 4, on the positive end of the spectrum, the par-

Motivation to gain knowledge and grow professionally. A majority

Students’ learning autonomy. A total of 14 participants emphasized

Authenticity in project work. Authenticity in TAPBLL emerged as a

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 13

Teachers’ introduction of PBLL to students. One of the most recur-

Commitment to curriculum. Another challenge brought up by the

Uncertainty assessing PBLL. Twenty-two teachers expressed con-

As illustrated in Figure 5, the benefits consisted of teachers’ percep-

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 15

Interactive teaching approach. After implementing TAPBLL, all

Developing autonomous learners. Building students’ autonomy was

Less workload for teachers. In addition to the effectiveness of

A number of challenges also emerged from the teachers’ reflections

Power outages and educational technology. According to all of the

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 17

Struggles introducing PBLL. The cultural desire for privacy on vir-

Uncertainty assessing PBLL. Besides teachers’ struggles introducing

This study explored EFL teachers’ perceptions of TAPBLL in

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 19

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 21

Avci, H., & Adiguzel, T. (2017). A case study on mobile-blended collaborative

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 23

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 25

Q4. How long have you been teaching English?

05. How many students do you usually have in your classroom?

“Before PBLL Implementation” Interview Questions

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 27

“After PBLL Implementation” Interview Questions

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online ver-

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TAPBLL 29

You might also like