Applied Linguistics Research on Project-based Learning

I like the whole doing aspect: Language teachers’ evaluations of project-based learning Michael Garnett December 9, 2010 LING 8640: Applied Linguistics Research, Fall 2010 Professor Kathleen Bailey

Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHERS’ EVALUA EVALUATIONS TIONS OF PBL

Abstract

This study explores the experience and knowledge of project-based learning (PBL) of novice language teachers, experienced language teachers and language teachers-in-training. The research questions are: (1) What experience do language teachers have with PBL? (2) Why do language teachers adopt, or not adopt, a PBL approach? (3) Is there a difference in the evaluations of PBL among language teachers who have varying amounts of practical experience, when it comes to adopting a PBL approach? The research design falls under Grotjahn’s Grotjahn’s (1983) mixed methods paradigms paradigms of exploratory-interpretive and exploratory-quantitative-statisti exploratory-quantitative-statistical cal designs. d esigns. Questionnaires and interviews were used to elicit data about the teachers’ evaluations of and experience with PBL, as well as data about the contexts they taught in and about their beliefs on language learning and teaching. Findings are based on data collected from 51 language teachers from mixed backgrounds. Quantitative data elicited by the questionnaire was analyzed using an analysis of variance, and although no significant differences were discovered among the groups, qualitative data elicited by the questionnaire and interviews found that language teachers have varying experiences with and perceptions of adopting a PBL approach based on the contexts in which they teach. Keywords: Keywords: project-based learning, project work, teacher and student opinions, language teacher development

2


3

Background

Project-based learning (PBL) “is fast becoming a buzz term in the realm of education and in language teaching” (Dooly & Masats, 2008, p. 28). You You might hear people talking about PBL in the hallways of your children’s schools, or in the offices of their teachers. The re-emergence of the idea that experiential learning is an effective model for learning has boosted PBL’ PBL’s popularity (Lundeberg, Coballes-Vega, Coballes-Vega, Standiford, Langer, Dibble, 1997). Advocates of PBL have even created models for school reform whose central ce ntral component of instruction is PBL (Ravitz, 2010). Interestingly, Interestingly, though recent studies show the effectiveness of PBL in general education (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2008; Walker & Leary, Leary, 2008) and its effectiveness and positive qualities in language teaching (Bennet & Dunne, 1992; Kitao & Kitao, 2001; Kitao, 2002), PBL, as a teaching approach, “is often met with skepticism, especially by novice language teachers” (Dooly and Masats, 2008, p. 29). This is true, even though PBL is not some new concept (Dooly & Masats, 2008) and has been shown to be quite effective in general education and second language education (Ravitz, 2010). This discordant situation raises an interesting question for language teache rs who are curious about PBL, or for teacher trainers who need to educate language teachers on the application of a PBL approach. After observing an English as a second language (ESL) teacher struggle with PBL, Eyring (1997) asked, pointedly, pointedly, “Is project work worth it?” (p. 1). Current research shows that if you are a general education teacher, most likely your answer to the question would be yes, but if you are a language teacher, your answer would be much less predictable. Research shows that general education teachers “enjoy this unconventional way of teaching,” whereas the few available a vailable studies on language teacher evaluations of PBL show mixed results (Beckett, 2002, p. 81). Language teachers, as a whole, have yet to evaluate PBL as positively


4

as general education teachers. Even though research on language teacher’s evaluations of PBL is minimal, and frequently anecdotal, enough studies show the negative evaluations of PBL by language teachers to suggest that further study of teacher evaluations of PBL is needed (Beckett, 2002). For example, when faced with difficulties while adopting a PBL approach, the language teachers in Beckett (2002) and Eyring (1989, 1997) felt frustrated with PBL throughout the course, while other studies (e.g., Beckett, 1999; Gardner, 1995; and Hilton-Jones, 1988) show language teachers positively evaluating and adopting PBL. Beckett (2002) asks, “What could have contributed to this discrepancy?” (p. 62). A reason for the difference could be attributed to the fact that the teachers in Eyring’s Eyring’s (1989, 1997) studies had never adopted a PBL approach before and those in Beckett’s (1999) studies had years of experience with project work and were in a learning community that greatly supported PBL. Susan, one of the novice teachers who participated, was insecure about her ability to organize the project (Eyring, 1989). On the other hand, Ms. Brown and Ms. Jones, the teachers in Beckett’s Beckett’s (1999) study, study, were excited to be able to integrate the four skills, foster critical thinking and problemsolving skills, and promote independent and cooperative learning skills. Another reason for the dissonance might be attributed to the evaluations of PBL by the students in the studies. Beckett (2002) asks whether the expectations expec tations and negative attitudes of students affect their language teachers’ perception perception of PBL. Although students’ evaluations of PBL might have an effecton effect on teacher’s evaluations of PBL, their evaluations are beyond the scope of this research proposal. This study will only focus on language teachers’ views, experiences, and evaluations eva luations of PBL. Few studies have explored why some language teachers are skeptical about PBL (Beckett, 2002). The purpose of this study is to shed some light on language teachers’ perceptions perceptions of PBL. By


5

exploring the views and experience of language teachers, we will gain a deeper understanding of the reasons some language teachers look at PBL skeptically, skeptically, and will better understand the difficulties teachers encounter when adopting a PBL approach. Because this study is exploratory in nature, it will identify questions that need to be answered by future research, as well as make recommendations for future research on PBL in language education. The research questions are: 1.

What experience experience do do novice novice language language teachers, teachers, experienced experienced language language teacher teachers, s, and and language teachers-in-training have with PBL?

2.

Why do novice novice language language teacher teachers, s, experien experienced ced language language teachers, teachers, and language language teachersteachersin-training adopt, or not adopt, a PBL approach?

3.

Is there there a differen difference ce in the evaluati evaluations ons of PBL between between novice novice language language teacher teachers, s, experienced language teachers, and language teachers-in-training, when it comes to adopting, or not adopting, a PBL approach? For the purposes of this study, a novice language teacher is teacher is someone who has less than three

years of full-time experience language teaching. An teaching. An experienced language teacher is teacher is someone who teacher-in-training is someone has more than three years of full-time experience, and a language teacher-in-training is who has less than one year of full-time experience and is enrolled in a teacher-development program (e.g., masters program, certificate course, or other professional development course). Furthermore, PBL encompasses the various characteristics and for the purposes of this study, the definition of PBL configurations of project work that Stoller (1997) describes. Her description synthesizes the common characteristics of PBL definitions presented by language educators and researchers over the past thirty years. For a full list of references, see Stoller (1997), page 4. In essence, PBL includes project work that (1) “focuses on content learning rather than on specific language targets;” (2) “is


6

student centered;” (3) “is cooperative rather than competitive;” (4) “leads to the authentic integration of skills and processing of information from varied sources, mirroring real-life tasks;” (5) “culminates in an end product that can be shared with others, giving the project a real purpose;” (6) “has both a process and product orientation, and provides students with opportunities to focus on fluency and accuracy at different project-work stages” (Stoller, (Stoller, 1997, p. 4). The following literature review on PBL in language teaching frames the rationale for this study and emphasizes why answering the research questions above is important. Following the literature review, review, the research design and results of the study are presented before a discussion of their implications for language teacher educators and language teachers who are interested in PBL. Literature Review

Although research on PBL has steadily increased during the past twenty years, in the beginning, much of it focused on describing its characteristics because “no two teachers implement PBL in the same way” (Ravitz, 2010, p. 293). In the late eighties and during the nineties, studies of PBL were primarily centered on general education and eventually moved unto language education (Beckett, 2002; Stoller, 2006). The majority of research involved general educ ation contexts in the hard sciences, mathematics, and social sciences (Beckett, 2002; Ravitz, 2010). Though research on project-based learning was rare in language education, systematic research on teacher evaluations of PBL was even rarer (Beckett, 2002; Stoller, 2006). As a result, examining the experience language teachers have with PBL, as well as their views about PBL, is an important research activity (Lundeberg et al., 1997). For the purpose of this study, study, I will not include an in-depth analysis of the literature on PBL in general education contexts. Instead, I will focus on the few studies that connect language learning, language teacher evaluations of PBL, and the adoption of a PBL approach.


7

Interestingly, Interestingly, these studies of PBL cover a variety of language teaching contexts. For an in-depth discussion about the viability of PBL as a language teaching approach, see Stoller (2006). As stated above, much of the early literature on PBL in language education focuses on defining and exemplifying PBL approaches. Sheppard and Stoller (1995) define PBL as a multi-step activity that has the following characteristics: (1) it involves “a sequence of multi-skill activities;” (2) it focuses “on a theme of interest rather than a specific language task;” (3) it entails “student involvement, collaboration, and responsibility;” (4) it entails “students working together to achieve a common purpose and a concrete outcome;” and (5) it “requires students to work over several days or weeks, both inside and outside the classroom, in collaboration with native and/or nonnative speakers of the target language” (1995, p. 10). Furthermore, Sheppard and Stoller (1995) state that a PBL approach is effective for English for specific purposes (ESP) settings (i.e., a business English course) because it promotes authentic language use, encourages learners to focuses on language at a discourse level (as opposed to a sentence level), provides authentic tasks, and is learner-centered. In line with earlier literature that described and defined PBL (e.g., Fried-Booth, 1982, 1986; Haines, 1989; as cited in Sheppard & Stoller, 1995), Sheppard and Stoller (1995) present an eightstep framework for developing a project in language courses that is based on a synthesis of recommendations made by various researchers. For a full list of citations, see Sheppard & Stoller (1995). The steps are (1) define a theme; (2) determine the final outcome; (3) structure the project; (4) identify language skills and strategies; (5) gather information; (6) compile and analyze information; and (7) present final product (Sheppard & Stoller, Stoller, 1995). Furthermore, Sheppard and


8

Stoller (1995) provide a list of suggestions, or “Rules of Thumb,” to help teachers maximize the impact of project work in their classrooms, particularly in ESP settings. The rules of thumb include advice such as “always consider the sstudents’ tudents’ long-term language needs,” “consider the linguistic linguistic skills that students will have to employ in these contexts,” contexts,” “consider what is feasible,” “do a lot of planning”, and “teachers should not abandon the idea of a project altogether if ideal circumstances are not available” (Sheppard & Stoller, 1995, p. 4). 4 ). Most importantly, importantly, Sheppard and Stoller (1995) point out that project work is not appropriate for all ESP settings and caution teachers who are in schools where teachers lack support from their curriculum, administration, school insurance plan, or schedule. Moreover, Sheppard and Stoller (1995) emphasize that teachers need to be flexible and must be comfortable with temporarily relaxing their control over their students, in order to completely assume the role of a facilitator, facilitator, rather than being the only font of knowledge in the classroom. Both points are useful for my current study, because they suggest teacher’s evaluations of PBL might be affected by factors external to their views of what constitutes good language teaching and learning, and also might be affected by internal factors. Stoller (1997) is a follow-up to Sheppard and Stoller (1995) and updates the project development framework presented earlier by situating PBL in a new context: the content-based language classroom. As noted above, Stoller (1997) presents a refined definition of project work, which encompasses various characteristics and configurations of PBL. Two examples of the many possible configurations of project work include production include production projects (which involve student creation of products like radio programs, written reports or banquet menus) and research projects (which entail the gathering of information from library or internet research). For the complete list of project types, see Stoller (1997), page 6. Furthermore, Stoller (1997) emphasizes the adaptability of PBL,


9

stating that “whatever the configuration, projects can be carried out intensively over a short period of time or extended over a few weeks, or a full semester; they can be completed by students individually, individually, in small groups, or as a class; and they can take place entirely within the confines of the classroom or can extend beyond the walls of the classroom into the community or with others via different forms of correspondence” (p. 6). Stoller (1997) also presents an updated set of practical guidelines for sequencing and developing a project, which was initially developed as an eight-step process in Sheppard and Stoller (1995). After testing testing and applying the original model various times, Stoller decided to fine-tune it by rearranging some of the original steps in order to provide language teachers an easier model to manage (1997). Step 4, Identify 4, Identify language skills and strategies, strategies, from Sheppard and Stoller (1995) is spread out to Steps 4, 6, and 8 in Stoller (1997). The goal in Stoller (1997), as before, is to guide teachers and students in their development of project work that facilitates content learning, and more importantly, importantly, provides “opportunities for explicit e xplicit language instruction at critical moments in the project” (p. 6). By reorganizing and reemphasizing the language intervention steps in the Sheppard and Stoller (1995) model, Stoller (1997) further develops the “immediate applicability and relevance” of language instruction in PBL (Stoller, (Stoller, 1997, p. 7). Alan and Stoller (2005) build on Sheppard and Stoller’s Stoller’s (1995) and Stoller’ Stoller ’s (1997) models and suggestions, taking PBL even further than an ESP or content-based learning setting, by applying it to an English as a Foreign language (EFL) setting in Turkey. Turkey. Alan and Stoller (2005) also emphasize the fact that PBL differs greatly from one educational context to another, just like Stoller (1997). Furthermore, unlike Stoller (1997) and Sheppard and Stoller (1995), Alan and Stoller (2005) cite the difficulties that some teachers face when adopting a PBL approach, by referencing Beckett


10

(2002) and Eyring (1997). What makes Alan and Stoller (2005) stand out, in in comparison to other studies on PBL, is its discussion discussion of under-exploited under-exploited project work and its outline of “features that maximize the potential benefits” of PBL (p. 11). Under-exploited project work refers work refers to weak interpretations of project work. For example, a language teacher may take a few communicative activities that help students get to know one another better through conversation, and label them as projects. The weak interpretation of project work in this situation becomes apparent as soon as the students, given the chance, decide to talk to their friends, and end up completing the unelaborated tasks superficially without much collaboration. Another example is the valuing of PBL as “merely a source of entertainment” and as “a break from routine classroom activities” (Alan & Stoller, 2005, p. 11). In such situations, students may be more fixated on the visual attractiveness of their projects instead of its content and language aspects, and the teacher may reinforce that wrong direction by assessing the projects p rojects “according to their visual appeal, ignoring students’ gains in language and content learning” (Alan & Stoller, 2005, p. 11). Alan and Stoller’s (2005) focus on under-exploited project work seems to be trying to preempt the difficulties language teachers face when adopting a PBL approach. This is in contrast to previous research (e.g., Beckett, 1999; Gardner, 1995; Hilton-Jones, 1988; Sheppard & Stoller, 1995; Stoller, 1997) that primarily focused on the positive aspects of PBL. Alan and Stoller’s Stoller’s (2005) emphasis of their specific recommendations for language teachers can be seen as an example of a growing trend in the literature on PBL in language education, which seeks to help language teachers deal with the difficulties of adopting a PBL approach. For example, Stoller (1997) only mentioned teacher development or challenges in applying PBL while explaining the possible application of


11

their project work model in teacher development courses: “The language intervention steps (IV, (IV, VI, and VIII) are optional in teacher education courses, depending on the language proficiency and needs of the teachers-in-training” (p. 7). More recently, recently, language education literature that focuses on PBL is increasingly reaching out to diverse language teaching settings and is focused on facilitating teacher development and application of PBL. For example, Alan and Stoller (2005) present a list of features of project work that are synthesized from studies that successfully applied PBL in language teaching c ontexts. These features, which Alan and Stoller argue maximize the benefits of PBL, include (1) structuring projects to “maximize language, content, co ntent, and real-life skill learning;” (2) combining “teacher guidance, teacher feedback, student engagement, and elaborated tasks with some degree of challenge;” (3) multidimensionality and a “focus on real-world subject matter that can sustain the interest of students;” (4) “ student collaboration and, at the same time, some degree of student autonomy and independence;” (5) an accommodation of “a purposeful and explicit focus on form and other aspects of language;” and (6) a “process and product” orientation, with “an emphasis on integrated skills and end-of-project reflection” (2005, p. 11). Like the other studies mentioned previously, previously, Alan and Stoller (2005) also provide a case study as an example exa mple of how to apply PBL in a particular educational setting. Other extras that facilitate teacher development are provided by Alan and Stoller (2005) in their appendices, which make recommendations for EFL teachers and materials writers who want to mix a PBL approach into their curricula. See Alan & Stoller (2005), for their project planning checklist. Beckett and Slater (2005) take recommending best practices to another level, when talking about applying PBL in various language learning settings. They’re study is in tune with Beckett’s Beckett’s


12

(1999, 2002) observation that language languag e teachers’ evaluations of the benefits of PBL are partly influenced by students’ perception perception of the value of PBL. For example, Beckett (1999, 2002) showed how students’ negative evaluations of PBL were incongruent with their teacher’s teacher ’s positive evaluations of PBL, and as a result, the teacher felt increasingly frustrated by her students’ absenteeism and lack of participation. Furthermore, Beckett and Slater (2005), like Alan and Stoller (2005), are concerned with facilitating the ease with which language teachers successfully apply PBL in their educational setting. They show their concern by presenting their own project model, the Project Framework. Their model is different than Sheppard and Stoller’s (1995) and Stoller’s (1997) models because it is specifically designed and presented as a “cultural tool to help socialize students into a new way of thinking about language and language learning” (Beckett & Slater, 2005, p. 108). The goal is to open a dialogue between language teachers and their students, in order to facilitate successful project work. Along the same lines, Dooly and Masats (2008) focus on the teacher development needs of their readers, as well as providing an example of how to adopt PBL in an EFL setting, like Alan and Stoller (2005), but with a twist. The participants in the sample case study were Spanish EFL teachers from Barcelona, Spain, who were learning about PBL by doing PBL for the first time. In an experiential way, way, Dooly and Masats (2008) focus on persuading language teachers to become knowledgeable about and gain experience with PBL. Furthermore, Dooly and Masats (2008) state that even though PBL is becoming more popular, it is still not taught enough in teacher development programs at the Masters level. This issue raises an interesting point. If language teachers become more exposed to the literature on PBL in language education, would they be more likely to evaluate PBL positively?


13

Perhaps the answer lies in studies like Eyring (1997) , which exemplify the reservations some language teachers have about PBL. For instance, in Eyring (1997), PBL was new to the language teacher and a number of her frustrations stemmed from her worries about planning and keeping her students’ negative criticisms and lack of motivation from affecting her. But Eyring (1997) seems only to be particularly relevant for novice teachers or those who have little knowledge and experience with PBL. Perhaps studies like Lundeberg et al. (1997), which partially focus on language teacher and student evaluations of PBL and partially focus on presenting definitions and examples of PBL, provide a better insight as to why some teachers are still skeptical about PBL. Lundeberg et al. (1997) describes the tensions between language teacher and student perceptions of how PBL should be realized in the classroom, and summarize their findings by stating that the “teachers’ beliefs were ahead of their practice” (p. 80). In other words, they understood the importance behind the theory of PBL, but had a lot more to learn about the application of PBL. Interestingly, Interestingly, Lundeberg et al. (1997) argue that even though language teachers expressed misgivings about PBL (i.e., about the difficulty in assessing student work and maintaining student interest in project work), the outcome of the projects succeeded in meeting the course goals. What is evident about studies like Beckett (2002), Eyring (1997), and Lundeberg et al. (1997) is that in order to gain a better understanding of why some language teachers continue to be skeptical about PBL, research needs to continue to focus on language teachers views and experiences with PBL, and not just on describing and justifying PBL theoretically and empirically. empirically. To fully answer the research questions, it will be important to understand the challenges that language teachers face when adopting a PBL approach, especially when adoption is due to some administrative reform or other external factor (Dooly & Masats, 2008; Eyring, 1989, 1997).


14

Research shows that changing a teacher’s established beliefs and practices is difficult (Bailey, (Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 2001; Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Agee, 1998; Kennedy, 1998) . Similarly, Similarly, the preexisting knowledge and assumptions about teaching of teachers-in-training come from their own learning experiences (Pajares, 1992) and those learning experiences help determine how teachers think about language learning and teaching (Bailey, Curtis & Nunan, 2001). In other words, teacher trainers have to account for the latent teaching beliefs of their teachers-in-training so that they can get them to adopt new approaches, such as PBL. By answering the research questions, this study will give teacher trainers a better understanding of the challenges they may face when promoting the adoption of a PBL approach. It will also give language teachers, in general, a picture of what they may expect to find when applying PBL. Research Design

In order to answer the research questions, this study mixes data collection and analysis methods by using a hybrid design of qualitative and quantitative methods. According to Grotjahn’s (1987) framework of research paradigms, this study falls under two mixed methods paradigms of exploratory-interpretive and exploratory-quantitative-statistical . The label exploratoryinterpretive refers to research designs that are non-experimental, data collection methods that are qualitative, and data analysis methods that are interpretive. The study falls under this first paradigm because I collected qualitative data with a questionnaire (see Appendix A for the questionnaire) and six follow-up interviews. The label exploratory-quantitative-statistical refers to research designs that are non-experimental, data collection methods that are quantitative, and data analysis methods that are statistical. The study falls under this second paradigm because I collected quantitative data with the questionnaire following a design adapted from Thorpe (2004)


15

and Christison and Bassano (1995) that uses range s rather than discrete Likert scales (see Appendix A for the questionnaire). Furthermore, I analyzed the results using an analysis of variance (ANOVA), (ANOVA), a statistical procedure that is used when comparing more than two groups (Mackey & Gass, 2005). Moreover, I chose a non-experimental design because I wanted to explore language teachers’ attitudes towards PBL, in light of their knowledge and experience with PBL. The study does not seek to assert or refute hypotheses ab out how best to adopt a PBL approach, or to compare two or more approaches about adopting a PBL approach. In other words, the study falls under the ex post facto class, class, criterion groups design of research designs because its participants were chosen due to pre-existing qualities (e.g., being a language teacher or language teacher-intraining with or without PBL experience) and it does not seek to test a pedagogical treatment. Participants

As defined above, participants in this study were divided among the three groups, novice language teachers, experienced language teachers and language teachers-in-training. In total, 51 language teachers responded to the questionnaire and six of those teachers were chosen for the follow-up interviews. They were chosen in a non-random fashion, through convenience and snowball sampling procedures. Convenience sampling refers to the act of choosing “the most available and/or accessible subjects in a population” and snowball sampling refers to the act of attracting prospective participants through ‘word-of-mouth,’ from a participant to prospective participant (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 352). Language teachers who participated in this study were contacted via email and in person. The majority of participants were enrolled in a Master’s program in T Teaching eaching English to Speakers of


16

Other Languages (MA (MATESOL) TESOL) at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Furthermore, the geographical distribution of the participating language teachers teache rs included the United States, China, Syria, Oman, and Thailand. Their full-time teaching experience ranged from zero to forty-two years. A majority of participants had less than four years of full-time language teaching experience. In total, there were eight novice language teachers, twelve experienced language teachers, and twentyfive language teachers-in-training. Elicitation Materials

The questionnaire used in this study (see Appendix A) elicited qualitative and qua ntitative data about the language teachers’ evaluations of PBL and their experience with PBL. The questionnaire also elicited data about the contexts the participants have taught in, as a s well as data about their language learning and language teaching beliefs. The design of questions qu estions 11-33 on the questionnaire were inspired by the questionnaires in Thorpe (2004) and by the advice given in Christison and Bassano (1995). The interview questions (see Appendix B) elicited qualitative data that provided an indepth look into the participants’ evaluations of and experience with PBL. The interviews also allowed me to gain a more detailed history of the participants’ language teaching experience than the questionnaire, as well as a better understanding of their language learning and language teaching beliefs. Data collection methods

The questionnaire was emailed to teachers at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS), as well as to alumni and former colleagues in Aleppo, Syria, Lexington, Kentucky, Kentucky, and Bangkok, Thailand. Permission to use each participants’ responses was obtained in the form of a


17

signed consent. Following a raised “sample re-sample procedure,” participants first filled out a structured questionnaire and then six of those participants were selected for semi-structured followup interviews (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 319). Those six participants were chosen for interviews on the basis of their responses and their distribution among the three language teacher groups. Initially, Initially, two language teachers from each group were chosen, but due to uncontrollable circumstances, one of the novice language teachers could not be interviewed in time for the research report. As a result, I interviewed one novice language teacher, two experienced language teachers, and three language teachers-in-training in order to cover a range of experience and evaluations ev aluations of PBL. The interviews lasted 15 minutes each and were transcribed. One interview was conducted over the internet using Skype, and the rest were conducted in person, with the proceedings audio recorded using the Apple software GarageBand. After all the data were collected, I analyzed the results following the procedures described in the next section. Data analysis procedures

Descriptive statistics (e.g., measures of dispersion and measures of central tendency) are reported below for the quantitative quan titative data elicited by the questionnaire. Furthermore, in order to answer the third research question, “Is there a difference in the evaluations of PBL between novice language teachers, experienced language teachers, and language teachers-in-training, when it comes to adopting, or not adopting, a PBL approach?” an analysis of variance (ANOVA) (ANOVA) was calculated among the three language teacher groups for questions 11, 16, and 20-25 from the questionnaire. Qualitative data elicited by the questionnaire was used as background information and as a source for selecting participants for a follow-up interview. interview. As stated above, participants were chosen for the interviews based on certain criteria, one of which was the quality qu ality of their experience with PBL as a


18

language teacher and as a student. For example, one participant chosen for an interview wrote that they had very little experience as a teacher with PBL, but extensive experience as a student with PBL. In contrast, another participant chosen for an interview had very little experience with PBL as a student, but extensive experience ex perience with PBL as a teacher. Choosing to interview both participants allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the varying evaluations of PBL by language teachers. Moreover, following the grounded theory approach of Lincoln and Guba (1985), qualitative data elicited by the semi-structured interviews were transcribed and organized into themes. In other words, analytical categories arose from the qua litatively collected data elicited by the interviews, and the data were not set into pre-existing categories. ca tegories. These These data were were condensed using a five-step method adapted from Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber (1998). For example, the data were first read several times until patterns emerged. Second, initial and global impressions of the data were put into writing. Third, themes, or special foci, were selected from these initial impressions. Fourth, the themes, or special foci, were highlighted using colored markers on the whole transcribed data set. Fifth, each theme, or special foci, was followed throughout the data set and conclusions co nclusions were drawn and presented below. below. Of course, taking the grounded approach does not mean that I did not have pre-existing questions about the data. Prior to the analysis, I was interested in comparing language teachers’ beliefs about PBL with the existing literature. I was also interested in seeing if any of the participants were motivated to adopt a PBL approach because of published research or other sources of input (e.g., conference presentations or graduate coursework). Moreover, I wanted to see if language teachers’ decisions decisions to adopt a PBL approach was related to the advice or experience of a


19

professor, colleague, or peer, or whether adopting a PBL approach was a result of having experienced PBL as a learner in the past. The following section summarizes the results of the quantitative and qualitative data collected from the questionnaire and interviews. The set of data are presented in reference to the research questions. Following the summary of results, the findings will be discussed in light of the the research questions and in the interest of language teacher educators and language teachers who are interested in PBL. Results Quantitative Data for Research Question 1

The questionnaire elicited quantitative data that helps answer the first research question, “What experience do novice language teachers, experienced language teachers, and language teachers-in-training have with PBL?” In the Brief Language Teaching History section of the questionnaire, participants were asked whether they had ever assigned project work as a teacher or completed project work as a student. 11 participants reported that they only completed a project assignment as a student, nine of them being language teachers-in-training and two being novice language teachers. 31 participants responded that they completed a project assignment as a student and that and that they had assigned project work to their students in the past. Of those responses, 16 were from language teachers-in-training, ten from experienced language teachers, and five from novice language teachers. Of the 43 participants who experienced PBL as a student, 22 participants reported that they gained experience as a student with project work as a result of their enrollment in graduate degree seeking, teacher education program (i.e., like MIIS’s MIIS’s MATESOL MATESOL program). In other words, 52% of participants who experienced PBL as a student, did so in a graduate degree seeking,


20

teacher development program. Furthermore, 15 participants did not report that they experienced PBL in a graduate degree seeking, teacher education program, even though they are known to be currently registered at MIIS’s MIIS’s MATESOL MATESOL program and have completed project assignments as part of their coursework. Furthermore, four participants reported that their experience with PBL was as a teacher, and not as a student. Of those responses, three were from experienced language teachers and one from a language teacher-in-training. Only two participants reported that they had no experience with PBL, neither as a teacher nor as a student, and they were a language teacher-in-training and a novice language teacher. Seven participants reported that they had had a positive experience with PBL as a teacher and as a student, and that their positive experiences with PBL as a student led them to adopt a PBL approach as a language teacher. teacher. Of those responses, four were from language teachers-intraining, two from novice language teachers, and one experienced language teacher. Qualitative Data for Research Question 2

The questionnaire and semi-structured interviews elicited qualitative data that helps an swer the second research question, “Why do novice language teachers, experienced language teachers, and language teachers-in-training adopt, or not adopt, a PBL approach?” Although the questionnaire was not designed to elicit responses that directly answer the second research question, 12 participants used question 34 to report their reasons for adopting or not adopting a PBL approach. Conversely, Conversely, the semi-structured interview was designed to directly answer research question 2. Because the interviews were semi-structured, the participants’ responses mirrored mirrored the questions. The participants talked about the contexts of their experiences with PBL, what they base their knowledge of PBL on, the payoffs and drawbacks of adopting a PBL approach, and how their


21

language learning and language teaching beliefs interact with their perception of PBL. Using a grounded approach, the responses given to the interview questions and question 34 on the questionnaire were categorized into the following themes (from most salient to least salient): (1) adopting a PBL approach is context dependent and PBL is not applicable in every situation (i.e., the immediate and expanded learning environment, the learner’s needs and goals, and the students’ skills, attitudes, and knowledge affect the decision to use PBL), (2) language teachers are challenged by the need to properly scaffold learning opportunities and conduct learner training in order to make PBL successful, (3) language teachers need to structure project work so it meets students’ diverse needs, interests, and learning styles, (4) language languag e teachers need to make sure that project work is interesting and fun for their students, (5) language teachers believe that they are not familiar enough with PBL to try it. Excerpts from the interviews and the responses to question 34 34 are presented below in the discussion section. Qualitative and Quantitative Data for Research Question 3

The questionnaire elicited qualitative data that helps answer the third research question, “Is there a difference in the evaluations eva luations of PBL between novice language teachers, experienced exp erienced language teachers, and language teachers-in-training, when it comes to adopting, or not adopting, a PBL approach?” 12 Participants’ written responses to question 34 and the Brief Language Teaching History provide some insight. As reported above for research question 2, the qualitative data collected from theses two sections of the questionnaire fall within five main themes. The qualitative data suggest that there is no difference in the evaluations of PBL among the three participant groups. This result is based on the fact that each of the five main themes that arose from the data includes contributions from each group, relatively equally. Because there were only eight participants who fit


22

the novice language teacher group, their group represented a slightly smaller proportion of the responses. For example, for theme 2, about the challenges of scaffolding and learner training, five responses were from language teachers-in-training, four from experienced language teachers, and two from novice language teachers. All the other themes have similar distributions, and no theme categories exclude responses from any of the participant groups. The questionnaire also elicited quantitative data that helps answer the third research question. Questions 11, 16, and 20-25 in the questionnaire were designed to directly answer research question 3 (see Appendix A for the questions). An analysis of variance, v ariance, using Microsoft Excel’s Excel’s Single Factor ANOVA ANOVA calculation, was conducted for each of the above questions in order to find out whether there was a significant difference between the three groups or participants. Because of the non-critical nature of the research question, the alpha level was set at .05%. The results of the ANOVA calculations for questions 11 and 16 are presented in Table 1 and 2 below, and the ANOVA ANOVA calculation results of questions 20-25 are presented in Appendix C in order to save space in the report for the discussion section. Table 1 ANOVA Calculations for Question 11 SUMMARY Groups

Count

Novice LTs

Sum

Average

Variance

8 3.954 0.494275 0.1411343

Experienced LTs

12 5.205 0.433783 0.0870388

LTs-in-Training

29 12.27 0.423111

0.075731

ANOVA Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.031955865

Within Gr Groups

4.065835449

46 0.088388

Total

4.097791314

48

F

P-value

F crit

2 0.015978 0.1807709 0.835217 3.199582


23

Table 2 ANOVA ANOVA Calculations for Question 16 SUMMARY Groups

Count

Novice LTs

Sum

Average

Variance

8 3.082 0.385196 0.0879834

Experienced LTs

13 3.581 0.275476 0.0614345

LTs-in-Training

27

9.16 0.339253 0.0897181

ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total

SS 0.065325461 3.68576855 3.7510940113

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

2 0.032663 0.3987833 0.673484 3.204317 45 0.081906 47

As Table Table 1 and 2 show, there is not a significant difference between the three language teacher groups (i.e., the observed F-value is well below the critical F-value in both calculations), and Appendix C shows that the ANOVA ANOVA calculations for questions 20-25 show the same results of no significant difference when the F-value is compared c ompared to the critical F-value. In the section below, the resulting data are interpreted and discussed, and limitations to the study are discussed. Discussion

As the first set of results show for research questions 1, there seems to be no large apparent difference among the groups when it comes to the kind of experience language teachers have had with PBL. It is interesting that 52% of the participants reported that a graduate TESOL program influenced their experience with and knowledge of PBL. As Dooly and Masats (2008) argue, graduate programs are an effective means of getting language teachers to practice and learn the intricacies of adopting a PBL approach. As one language teacher-in-training who recently completed a project-based p roject-based learning workshop for their MATESOL MATESOL degree reported, “I suppose I never assigned project work because this teaching was prior to my MIIS experience and I’d never


24

heard of project-based learning.” It is also interesting that 31 participants reported that they had experienced PBL as a student and as a teacher, and that of those responses, 23% directly link their positive experiences with PBL as the reason for their adoption of a PBL approach as a teacher. These results seems to support Dooly and Masat’s Masat’s (2008) argument that language teacher ’s established beliefs on language learning and teaching are influenced by their experiences as students. Moreover, this result seems to support Sheppard and Stoller’s (1995) finding that language teachers established language learning and teaching beliefs affect their perception of PBL. Of course, it is interesting that not more than 23% of participants attributed their adoption of PBL to their positive experiences as students. Part of the reason may be because some participants attributed their adoption of a PBL approach to their observation of PBL working in their colleagues’ classrooms. It seems that more information is needed about how language teacher’s teacher ’s prior experience influences their decision to adopt a PBL approach. For example, only one teacher-in-training attributed part of their decision to adopt a PBL approach on their reading of current PBL literature. Such results seems to support Dooly and Masat’s Masat’s (2008) finding that teachers adopt PBL and learn more about PBL as a result of doing do ing it, rather than as a result of reading about it. Furthermore, as Lundeberg et al. (1997) and Beckett (2002) show, it is difficult to merely gauge language teachers’ evaluations of PBL on their past experiences. It is important to understand the challenges PBL offers language teachers in different contexts, and what language teachers perceive to be the rewards and drawbacks of adopting a PBL approach. As the themes found in the qualitatively gathered data show, language teachers are primarily concerned with the fact that adopting a PBL approach is context dependent and that PBL is not applicable in every situation. “The fact is, there is no universal truth in regards to learning


25

anything...The context is the key,” as one participant reported. Participants shared their concerns that PBL was difficult to apply with low proficiency students, students with special needs, and students who are culturally biased against cooperative learning. Also, participants reported that PBL is difficult to apply in schools that are overly concerned co ncerned with high-stakes testing results and traditional teaching practices. These findings suggest that Stoller’s work to exemplify exe mplify PBL in various teaching contexts, such as ELF, ESP, and ESL (Sheppard & Stoller, 1995; Stoller, 1997; Alan & Stoller, 2005; Stoller, 2006), is important, because teachers need to see their own context in the literature for it to be relevant to their own teaching decisions. Furthermore, as the themes found in the qualitative data show, language teachers are also concerned with the challenge of needing to properly scaffold learning opportunities and conduct learner training, as well as the need to structure project work so it meets students’ diverse needs, interests, and learning styles. As Eyring (1997), Lundeberg et al. (1997), and Beckett (2002) show, language teachers need a variety of support and guidance on their planning and execution of project work, depending on their own unique lack of knowledge and experience as language teachers. Furthermore, teachers are concerned with assigning projects that are interesting for themselves and their students because they perceive project work to be a sustained activity that requires lots of classroom time and attention from their students. Part of the challenge to make PBL interesting is highlighted by the fact that seven of the 12 participants pa rticipants who reported qualitative data believe that they are not familiar enough with PBL to try it. This finding suggests that Beckett and Slater (2005) and Alan and Stoller’s (2005) work to provide language teachers with a variety of ideas for project work, as well as a framework to follow, is important. Of the language teachers who were interviewed, those who adopted a PBL approach reported that meeting their students’ language


26

learning goals and needs was a high priority, and I believe that Beckett and Slater’s (2005) project framework provides the guidance they seek. As one participant said, “Please give me some tips on how to start and finish a school year with English as a second language learners where it’s not just English improvement I am hoping for but content and critical c ritical thinking skills as well.” Such teachers seek advice because, as they report, they have little experience applying PBL. The qualitative data gathered for this study seems to provide more answers to the research questions than the quantitative data gathered for research question 3. The quantitative data returned insignificant differences between the groups of language teachers. It seems that regardless of the amount of full-time teaching experience language teachers have, it is the quality of their teaching experiences and the quality of their experiences as students that affect their decision to adopt a PBL approach. Of course, a reason the analysis of variance did not find a significant relationship between the groups is that I did not have enough novice and experienced language teachers who participated. The largest group, language teachers-in-training was more than the two other groups combined. Another limitation of the questionnaire may be that it did not elicit enough quantitative, contextual information about the learning environment where teachers have worked (e.g., the learners’ levels levels and ages, class sizes, and geographical and sociocultural considerations). In light of these considerations, it is apparent that working within a mixed methods paradigm offers researchers insights where ‘pure’ paradigms might offer limited results. Because the little qualitative data that was gathered was so rich and varying in terms of themes discussed, and because the qualitative data seems to have offered the best explanations for the perceptions language teachers have of PBL, it seems that future research will have to include more interviews in order to


27

gain a better understanding of what encourages or discourages language teachers to adopt a PBL approach. Furthermore, as Beckett and Slater (2005) advice, and as all participants interviewed reported, the experiences their students have with project work affect language teacher’ teacher ’s perceptions of PBL. As a result, future studies on the perceptions and experience of language languag e teachers with PBL will benefit from including data from language learners. Conclusion

Although no significant results were found with the statistical analysis, the results of this study suggest some implications for teacher educators and for language teachers who are curious about PBL. It is apparent that a great percentage of language teachers, regardless of amount of fulltime experience teaching a language, have experienced PBL as a student and as a language teacher. More than the number of years someone has taught, their choices to adopt a PBL approach seem to be connected to the context of their language teaching. If teacher educators wish to promote PBL among their teachers-in-training, it seems that they need to assist in the planning, structuring, and executing of PBL. Also, as Lundeberg et al. (1997) suggest and a few participants reported, language teachers may benefit greatly from learning about PBL by actually doing it in a project based, language teacher professional development course or workshop. For language teachers who are curious about PBL, it seems that project work is worth it when language teacher’ teacher ’s efforts are supported and guided by their colleagues or superiors, and their students’ needs and goals are met.


28

References

Agee, J. (1998). Negotiating different conceptions about reading and teaching literature in a preservice literature class. Research class. Research in the Teaching of English, English, 33: 33: 85-121. Alan B., & Stoller, F. F. (2005). Maximizing the benefits of project work in foreign language Forum, 43(4): 43(4): 10-21. classrooms. English classrooms. English Teaching Forum, Bailey, Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing (2001). Pursuing professional development: The self as source. source. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Beckett, G.H. (1999). Project-based (1999). Project-based instruction in a Canadian secondary school's ESL classes: Goals and evaluations. evaluations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Beckett, G. H. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction.TESL instruction.TESL Canada Journal , 19(2), 19(2), 52-66. Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. T. (2005). The Project framework: A tool tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108-116. Bennett, N., & Dunne, E. (1992). Managing classroom groups. groups. London: Stanley Thornes. Christison, M. A., & Bassano, S. (1995). Action research: Techniques Techniques for collecting data through surveys and interviews. The CATESOL Journal , 8(1), 89-103. Dooly, Dooly, M., & Masats, D. (2008). Russian dolls: Using projects to learn about projects. GRETA, GRETA, 16 (1-2), (1-2), 27-35. Eyring, J.L. (1989). Teacher experience and student responses in ESL project work instruction: A case study. study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles. Eyring, J.L. (1997). Is project work worth it? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 838). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED407838.pdf. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED407838.pdf.


29

Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. T. J. (1990). Transforming Transforming future teachers’ ideas about writing instruction. Curriculum Studies, Studies, 22(3), 22(3), 277-289. Fried-Booth, D. L. (1982). Project work with advanced classes. ELT Journal , 36 (2), (2), 98- 103. Fried-Booth, D. L. (1986). Project work . New York: Oxford University Press. Gardner, D. (1995). Student produced video documentary provides a real reason for using the target language. Language language. Language Learning Journal , 12, 12, 54-56. Grotjahn, R. (1987). On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In C. Faerch & G. Casper (Eds.), Introspection (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 54-81). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Haines, S. (1989). Projects (1989). Projects for the EFL classroom: Resource material for teacher s. Walton-onThames Surrey, UK: Nelson. Hilton-Jones, U. (1988). Project-based (1988). Project-based learning for foreign students in an English-speaking environment (Report environment (Report No. FL017682). Washington DC: US Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 301054) Kennedy, Kennedy, M. (1998). Learning (1998). Learning to teach writing: Does teacher education make a difference? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kitao, K., & Kitao, S. K. (2001). Student-constructed web pages for intercultural understanding. Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Foreign Language Education and Technology, Technology, Kobe, Japan (p. 1-9). Kyoto, Japan: Doshisha University. University. Kitao, K. (2002). Web-based students’ projects: Teaching Teaching awareness of culture and writing. In S. Petersen & M. Kruse (Eds.), The changing face of CALL: Emerging technologies,


30

emerging pedagogies. Proceedings of the 6th Annual JALT CALL SIG Conference, Gunma, Japan (pp. 51-57). Gunma, Japan: Kanto Gakuen University. University. Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber T. T. (1998). Narrative (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation. interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y.S., Y.S., & Guba, Guba , E. G. (1985). Naturalistic (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Lundeberg, M. A., Coballes-Vega, Coballes-Vega, C., Standiford, S. N., Langer, L., & Dibble, K. (1997). We think they're learning: Beliefs, practices, and reflections of two teachers using project-based Education, 8(1), 59-81. learning. Journal learning. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, Mackey, Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. design. New York, NY: Routledge. Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring (2009). Exploring second language classroom research. A comprehensive guide. guide. Boston, MA: Heinle. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ Teachers’ beliefs beliefs and educational educ ational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, Research, 62(1): 62(1): 307-332. Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing instruction with project-based learning. Peabody learning. Peabody Journal of Education, Education, 85, 85, 290-312. Sheppard, K., & Stoller, F. F. L. (1995). Guidelines for the integration of student projects into ESP Forum, 33(2), 33(2), 10-15. classrooms. English classrooms. English Teaching Forum, Forum, Stoller, Stoller, F. L. (1997). Project work: A means to promote language content. English content. English Teaching Forum, 35(4), 35(4), 2-9, 37. Stoller, Stoller, F. F. L. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in second and foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett & P. C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based (Eds.), Project-based second and


foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 19-40). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2008). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning , 3, 44-58. Thorpe, J. (2004). Coal miners, dirty d irty sponges, and the search for Santa: Exploring options in teaching listening comprehension through TV news broadcasts. Unpublished manuscript, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, California. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2008). A problem based learning meta-analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning , 3(1), 12-43.

31


32

Appendix A Questionnaire

Statement of Understanding I understand that the researcher is conducting a study about language teachers’ teache rs’ attitudes regarding project-based learning. I agree to p articipate in this study and allow my responses to be used in research about teacher opinions. By signing below, I indicate my agreement to participate in this study and I understand that my identity will be p rotected by the use of a pseudonym. pseud onym. Signature:_________________________________ ___________ Date: ________________

Please answer every question to the best of your ability

Name:______________________ Age:____ Nationality:________________ Gender _________ Which languages are you fluent and accurate in? ______________________________________

Brief Language Teaching History

Language taught:

Years

Months

Example: _________ Spanish: Spanish:

__3_

__7_

Setting

_ Seminole Seminole Middle School _____________ __ Davie, Florida, USA ________________

_______________:

____

____

__________________________________ __________________________________

_______________:

____

____

__________________________________ __________________________________

_______________:

____

____

__________________________________ __________________________________


33

As a teacher, have you ever assigned project work for your students?

Yes ___ No ___

If yes, what kind? If no, why?_______________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ As a student, have you ever completed a project assignment?

Yes ___ No ___

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

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

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

Yes __

No__

2. What do you you think it it means? means? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 3. Have you ever encountered the term cooperative learning ?

Yes __

No__

4. What do you think it means? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 5. Have you ever encountered the term experiential learning ?

Yes __

No__


34

6. What do you think it means? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 7. Have you ever encountered the term learner autonomy? autonomy?

Yes __

No__

8. What do you think it means? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

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

Yes __

No__

10. What do you think it means? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Directions: Please type a single slash mark ( / ) on the horizontal continuum ( __ ) to indicate your opinion. For example:

Compared to the United States, Japan is very big [____________________________________________/________] very small

-----------------------------------------------------------------11. How familiar are you with project-based with project-based learning ? very familiar [____________________________________________________]not familiar

12. How familiar are you with cooperative learning ? very familiar [____________________________________________________]not familiar

13. How familiar are you with experiential learning ? very familiar [____________________________________________________]not familiar


14. How familiar are you with learner autonomy? autonomy? very familiar [____________________________________________________]not familiar

15. How familiar are you with learner-centered teaching ? very familiar [____________________________________________________]not familiar

16. How much do you like assigning project work? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle 17. How much do you like lecturing? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle

18. How much do you like encouraging your students to work in groups? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle 19. How much do you like encouraging your students to work individually? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle 20. How much would an easy-to-follow guideline help you to adopt a project-based learning approach? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle 21. How much would having extra time help you to adopt a project-based learning approach? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle 22. How much would support from your administration encourage you to adopt a project-based learning approach? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle

35


36

23. How much would support from other teachers encourage you to adopt a project-based learning approach? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle 24. How much would support from the community encourage you to adopt a project-based learning approach? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle 25. How much would a professional development program help you to adopt a project-based learning approach? very much [____________________________________________________] verylittle 26. How comfortable are you with giving control of the floor (i.e., talking time) to your students? very [____________________________________________________] [______________________________ ______________________] very comfortable uncomfortable 27. How comfortable are you with lecturing less to your students? very [____________________________________________________] [______________________________ ______________________] very comfortable uncomfortable 28. How comfortable are you with using more group work with your students? very [____________________________________________________] [______________________________ ______________________] very comfortable uncomfortable 29. How comfortable are you with changing course during a lesson (e.g., moving from a planned vocabulary list activity to an unplanned reading activity)? very [____________________________________________________] [______________________________ ______________________] very comfortable uncomfortable 30. How comfortable are you with giving your students more choices in the content, or subject matter, they learn? very [____________________________________________________] [______________________________ ______________________] very comfortable uncomfortable


37

31. How comfortable are you with giving your students more choices in the kinds of o f activities given them for a lesson? very [____________________________________________________] [______________________________ ______________________] very comfortable uncomfortable 32. How comfortable are you with letting your students work independently? very [____________________________________________________] [______________________________ ______________________] very comfortable uncomfortable 33. How comfortable are you with planning everything that will occur in a lesson? very [____________________________________________________] [______________________________ ______________________] very comfortable uncomfortable 34. Would Would you like to comment on any of the issues raised above? If so, please type your comment below. Include the item number you are referring to. _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________


Appendix B Interview Questions (15 Minutes)

1. In your questionnaire, you seemed seemed to have _ experience with PBL. Tell Tell me more about the learning and/or teaching environment surrounding your experience with PBL. a. What do you base base your knowledg knowledgee of PBL on? on? b. Tell me more about your experience with PBL. PBL. 2. In your questionnaire, you said said that you have/have not adopted a PBL approach. Tell me more about why you have adopted/have not adopted a PBL approach. a. What are the payoffs payoffs and/or drawbacks of adopting a PBL approach. 3. What are your language learning and language teaching beliefs, and how do you think those beliefs affect your perception of PBL?

38


39

Appendix C ANOVA ANOVA Calculations for Questionnaire Ques tionnaire Questions 20-25 Anov Anova: a: Sing Single le Fact Factor or

Ques Questi tion on 20

SUMMARY Groups

Count

Novice LTs

Sum

Average

Variance

8 1.840379404 0.230047425 0.0448740711

Experienced LT LTs

13 2.5976114934 0.199816269 0.024465107

LTs-in-Training

27 5.315275472 0.196862055 0.034501249


SS

df

Between Gr G roups

0.006999695

Within Groups

1.504732254

Total

1.5117319493

Anov Anova: a: Sing Single le Fact Factor or


MS

F

P-value

F crit

2 0.003499847 0.104665222 0.900844579 3.204317292 45 0.033438495 47

SUMMARY Groups

Count

Novice LTs

Sum

Average

Variance

8 2.3303523035 0.2912940379 0.0847217514

Experienced LTs

13 3.6833735538 0.2833364272 0.0551694727

LTs-in-Training

28 7.2153168158 0.2576898863 0.0670681202


SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.0101827427

Within Groups

3.0659251769

46 0.0666505473

Total

3.0761079196

48

F

P-value

F crit

2 0.0050913713 0.0763890403 0.92657298 3.1995817059



40


SUMMARY Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Novice LTs

8 2.585907859 0.323238482 0.058940598

Experienced LTs

12 2.850703783 0.237558649

LTs-in-Training

28 6.432961484 0.229748624 0.071022292

0.05378529

ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups

SS

df

0.05589736

MS 2

0.02794868 0.430447035

Within Groups

2.921824269

45 0.064929428

Total

2.977721628

47


F

P-value

F crit

0.652867311 3.204317292


SUMMARY Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Novice LTs

8 3.001626016 0.375203252 0.084353628

Experienced LT LTs

13 2.8611258138 0.2200866011 0.026661327

LTs-in-Training

28 6.386764352 0.228098727 0.0486895311

ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups

SS 0.15047002

df

MS 2

F

P-value

F crit

0.07523501 1.555400396 0.2220029611 3.199581706

Within Groups

2.225028658

46 0.048370188

Total

2.375498678

48



41


SUMMARY Groups

Count

Sum

Novice LTs

Average

8 3.279674797

Variance

0.40995935 0.1163867722

Experienced LT LTs

13 3.774889282 0.290376099 0.073053781

LTs-in-Training

28 9.1158976313 0.325567773 0.069126018


SS

df

MS

Between Gr G roups

0.072108723

Within Groups

3.557755257

46 0.077342506

Total

3.629863979

48


F

P-value

F crit

2 0.036054361 0.466164899 0.630335128 3.199581706


SUMMARY Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Novice LTs

8 2.407859079 0.300982385 0.044210309

Experienced LTs

13 3.822176569 0.294013582

LTs-in-Training

28 6.135107784 0.2191109923 0.037760995

0.0617735

ANOVA Source of Variation Between Gr G roups

SS 0.07242226

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

2 0.0362111298 0.804574772 0.453471905 3.199581706

Within Groups

2.070301023

46 0.045006544

Total

2.142723283

48

Applied Linguistics Research on Project-based Learning

Recommend Documents