Article

International Journal of Educational

Pre-­Service English-­as-­a-­ Reform

2021, Vol. 30(3) 183–203
© The Author(s) 2021
Foreign-­Language Article reuse guidelines:
​sagepub.​com/​journals-­​permissions
Teachers’ Views on Their ​DOI: ​10.​1177/​1056​7879​2110​15947
​journals.​sagepub.​com/​home/​ref
Experiences of Project
Preparation for Young
Learners: “I Felt Like a Real Teacher”

Gülten Koşar1 ‍ ‍

Abstract
This study targets unveiling junior pre-­service English-­as-­a-­foreign-­language teach-
ers’ (N = 80) perceptions of the process they went through as preparing projects
for young learners and their views about the effect of project-­based learning on
teaching English to young learners. The data gathered from a qualitative survey and
semistructured interviews were analyzed using an inductive content analysis. The re-
sults indicated that while the participants encountered a number of difficulties in the
preparation process, they believed the use of project-­based learning could promote
young learners’ English language learning, and preparing projects for young learners
made them feel like a real teacher.

Keywords
English language learning, initial English language teacher training programs, pre-­
service English-­as-­a-­foreign-­language teachers, project-­based learning, teaching
English to young learners

1
Department of English Language Teaching, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey

Corresponding Author:
Gülten Koşar, Department of English Language Teaching, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Tayfur
Sökmen Kampüsü, Alahan-­Antakya, Hatay 31060, Turkey.
Email: ​gencoglugulten@​gmail.​com
184 International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)

Introduction
Project-­based learning (PBL) is regarded as an approach that promotes student learn-
ing by virtue of delegating responsibility to students for their own learning. The liter-
ature review reveals the existence of a considerable amount of research on PBL
(Diffily, 2002; Duke et al., 2016; Helle et al., 2006; Mosier et al., 2016; Polman, 2004;
Seman et al., 2018; Williams, 2017). Krajcik and Shin (2014) point out that PBL
enables learning through engaging students in real-­life activities, implementing ideas,
and solving problems. Accentuating the probable contribution of PBL to equipping
students with 21st-­century skills, the roles to be performed by teachers and students in
applying PBL are highlighted by Bell (2010) in its definition: PBL “is a student-­driven,
teacher-­facilitated approach to learning” (p. 39). According to Laur (2013, p. 2), PBL
fosters learning by offering “authentic-­like opportunities” to students. PBL might be
apprehended better through the medium of identifying the differences between it and
conventional teaching practices, which is spotted by Maida (2011) as the active stu-
dent participation in the process of knowledge construction in PBL.
PBL has been a topic appealing to several researchers investigating it from a variety
of perspectives such as integrating technology into it and project-­based computer-­
assisted language learning (Chanlin, 2008; Debski & Gruba, 1999), and its facilitative
effect on promoting creative thinking (Chen et al., 2019) and meaningful learning
(Miller & Krajcik, 2019). In light of the insufficiency of classroom-­based teaching for
language learning and the overwhelming necessity of out-­of-­class learning (Richards,
2015), the importance of PBL becomes evident as it entails out-­of-­class learning as
well as the in-­class one.
There is no research in the literature examining pre-­service English-­as-­a-­foreign-­
language teachers’ (PSEFLTs) perceptions of the project preparation process after get-
ting them to prepare projects for young learners and of the effect of PBL on enhancing
young learners’ English language learning (ELL). Therefore, the study investigates
PSEFLTs’ viewpoints on the process they went through as preparing projects for young
learners and on the probable influence of PBL on young learners’ learning. The find-
ings presented in this study are likely to extend the existing literature on PBL by
exploring the topics stated in the preceding sentence and to encourage policy makers
and pre-­service English language teacher educators to incorporate the teaching of PBL
into the initial English language teacher education program.

Literature Review
PBL is cooperative learning, because as was posited by Jolliffe (2007), students scaf-
fold each other’s learning in cooperative learning. Considering the premises underly-
ing social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), a strong connection between it and PBL
could be established. Interaction with others, who could be the teacher and/or class-
mates, for learning to take place is underscored in social constructivism, which is also
of crucial importance for the implementation of PBL.
Koşar 185

How PBL is applied exerts an enormous influence upon its effectiveness. The liter-
ature review done by Kokotsaki et al. (2016) demonstrated that “modern digital tech-
nology, group processes of high quality, teachers’ ability to effectively scaffold
students’ learning and provide guidance and support, the balance between didactic
instruction with in-­depth inquiry methods and well-­aligned assessment” were the fac-
tors contributing to the effective implementation of PBL. PBL accelerates and endorses
student learning; additionally, it helps increase teacher self-­efficacy because an associ-
ation could be formed between enhanced student learning and higher levels of teacher
self-­efficacy (Choi et al., 2019). The skills that students develop by engaging in PBL
might not be constrained to the learning environment in which they are acquired;
rather, they could be expanded to prospective learning settings, as was demonstrated
in the study by Dohn and Wagner (1999).
A new paper by Greenier (2020) has proposed 10Cs as a framework for PBL, spe-
cifically offered for second language learning. 10Cs involves coaching, concept gen-
eration, confrontation, comprehension, creation, critique, change, culmination,
collaborative reflection, and composition. The framework covers a range of phases
from the guidance provided by the teacher to the individual and group brainstorming,
from creation of the project to critiquing it, and from performing the end-­product to
reflecting on it. One of the substantial benefits of PBL is the likelihood of increasing
the collaboration between the students and the teacher, and enabling students to gain a
sense of achievement (Mitchell et al., 2009). The favorable outcomes produced by
PBL were reported in the study by Doppelt (2003) aside from the responsibilities del-
egated to the teacher and students in it. The results showed that the roles of the teacher
in PBL were aiding students in their learning via creating a comfortable learning envi-
ronment instead of solely serving as the source of information, and those of students
were bearing responsibility for their own learning. The findings also revealed that PBL
helped underachieving high schoolers build self-­ esteem and boost their
self-­confidence.
One of the studies investigating students’ perceptions of PBL was carried out by
Gibbes and Carson (2014), the findings of which revealed that even though most of
the participants stated they had had positive experiences of project-­based second or
foreign language learning, there were participants expressing their negative experi-
ences of project-­based language learning. The points made by the participants stat-
ing their negative experiences of project-­based language learning included the
discrepancies between what they had desired to learn from the projects and what
they learned. Thus, it was suggested that a precise guidance on how to make the
most of project-­based language learning and on how to make decisions about the
topic of their projects should be provided. Despite the existence of the study partic-
ipants in Beckett’s study (2002) articulating their positive experiences of project-­
based language learning, the majority of the participants viewed PBL negatively,
stemming from participants’ not understanding the relevance of some of the manda-
tory tasks to the project and the discomfort they felt at the notion of student-­centered
learning.
186 International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)

The influence of PBL on tertiary-­level students’ achievement level was the topic
under scrutiny in the research by Gratchev and Jeng (2018), which reported the absence
of the significant effect of project-­based assignment on participants’ academic perfor-
mance. Moreover, the results indicated participants’ reluctance to welcome PBL as
they preferred traditional methods of teaching. Contrarily, the quasi-­experimental
research by Kaldi et al. (2011) reported the effectiveness of PBL in acquiring content
knowledge and developing skills of working in groups. Furthermore, the participants
taught according to PBL approach no longer appreciated traditional teaching methods.
The contribution of implementing PBL to the teaching of translation was depicted in
the research by Li et al. (2015). The findings in that study revealed that students of the
translation department perceived their experiences of PBL as effective in broadening
their knowledge of the topic and developing their teamwork, collaboration, and com-
munication skills. The perceptions of college-­level students regarding the integration
of technology into PBL in the English for Academic Purposes course were investi-
gated in the research by Miller et al. (2012). The results indicated that participants had
positive experiences of technology-­integrated PBL, in that it not only developed their
language skills but also technical ones. Similar findings were demonstrated in the
Mioduser and Betzer’s (2007) study, which found that PBL expanded participating
high-­achieving high schoolers’ formal and technological knowledge, which was higher
than that of the control group.
The differences in the development of the knowledge of English idioms arising
from how the instruction was offered were investigated in a study undertaken by
Mohamadi (2018). The results in that study demonstrated that PBL and electronic PBL
groups outperformed the control group in which students were taught the selected
idioms through being subjected to their equivalents in the mother tongue and an exam-
ple of each. The results also showed that the retention rate was higher in the PBL group
in comparison to that of the electronic PBL group. In a similar vein, Pacheco et al.’s
(2019) research showed that the academic performance of the students instructed with
reference to PBL was higher in comparison to that of the students taught in line with
traditional teaching methods. The impact of PBL on establishing a learning environ-
ment promoting student learning was scrutinized in an experimental study by Hugerat
(2016). The results of the study illustrated that the students who were taught science in
compliance with PBL strategies deemed their classroom environment more satisfying
and enjoyable in comparison with the perceptions of the students taught by traditional
methods. Furthermore, they viewed their relationship with their teachers as more pos-
itive and deemed them more supportive.
Teachers’ views on the effectiveness of PBL were examined in the research conducted
by Parsons et al. (2010), the results of which showed that teachers implementing PBL in
literacy instruction believed it increased student learning, engagement and autonomy, and
collaboration among students while “classroom management,” time constraints, “the need
for increased human and physical resources,” and “teacher restraint” were stated among
the obstacles encountered as employing it. The study conducted by Lam et al. (2010)
demonstrated the support lent by schools to teachers for their autonomy and competence
Koşar 187

increased their motivation to implement PBL and to persist in applying it, which suggests
the pivotal role to be performed by contextual factors in encouraging teachers to imple-
ment PBL. In addition, teachers may need to receive training in why and how to implement
PBL, as was demonstrated in the paper produced by Li (2012). The study revealed that
kindergarten teachers tended to conduct teacher-­led teaching although they conceived PBL
to be beneficial to kindergarten children’s learning. The study by Tsybulsky et al. (2020)
investigated the impact of implementing PBL on pre-­service teachers and reported that
PBL helped them raise their awareness of their strengths and weaknesses in teaching and
to enhance the development of their teaching and learning skills.
This study seeks answers to the below research questions.

1. What are PSEFLTs’ perceptions regarding the role of PBL in teaching English
to young learners?
2. What are PSEFLTs’ perceptions of the project preparation process they went
through when preparing projects for young learners?

Methodology
Research Design, Context, and Procedure
A qualitative research design was employed in this study to provide details of PSEFLTs’
perceptions with regard to their experiences of preparing projects to promote young learn-
ers’ ELL rather than generalizing the findings to a wider population (Silverman & Marvasti,
2008). Collecting data on people’s perceptions is among the features of qualitative research
(Miles & Huberman, 1994), which was another reason for designing this study as qualita-
tive research.
In the context of this study, the Teaching English to Young Learners (TEYLs) I course
is offered to PSEFLTs in the fall term of the third academic year. Though its content is
determined by the Higher Education Board, the lecturers teaching the course can tailor it.
The topics assumed to be covered within the framework of TEYLs I course, as stated in the
curriculum for English language teaching undergraduate programs (Higher Education
Board [HEB], 2018), are as follows:

• Differences between young and adult language learners

• Young learners’ learning styles
• Young learners’ learning strategies
• Misconceptions about young language learners
• The use of visual materials
• Developing ELL activities
• The evaluation and adaptation of materials
• The selection and sequencing of linguistic items to be taught
188 International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)

Table 1. The Content of the Sessions.

Sessions Content
Session 1 What PBL is and why it could be beneficial for TEYLs.
Session 2 How PBL could be planned and its evaluation could be carried out.
Session 3 Two examples of projects planned for young learners.
Session 4 Two examples of projects planned for young learners.

Note. PBL = project-­based learning; TEYL = Teaching English to Young Learners.

The topics of PBL and why and how to implement it in young learner classes do not
exist in the curriculum. But the lecturer, who is also the researcher of this study, added
them to the content of the course. Four sessions, each lasting for 50 min, were held on
training the PSEFLTs in the use of PBL in TELYs. Table 1 illustrates the content of the
training on an hourly basis.
As could be seen in Table 1, the first two sessions were conducted with the view of
helping PSEFLTs raise their awareness of the importance of PBL in TEYLs and the
stages to be undertaken as planning, carrying out, and evaluating projects. The last two
sessions were conducted to assist them in advancing their understandings of PBL by
virtue of working on four example projects planned and were for young learners.
Following the completion of the sessions, the participants were grouped (four partici-
pants in each group) and asked to prepare projects for young learners in 3 weeks and
to make a presentation on their projects in the classroom. The participants were given
the chance to choose their group members. The researcher provided support to the
participants, as needed, in the selection of the topics for their projects and/or the activ-
ities to be included in them.
The topics chosen for the projects were animals, fruit and vegetables, colors, travel,
weather conditions, seasons, clothes, music, sports, and numbers. Since there were 20
groups in this study, more than one group prepared a project with the same topic; none-
theless, the activities they designed for their projects were different from each other. At
the end of the 3 weeks given to prepare projects, each group made a presentation to
introduce their project to the lecturer and their classmates. The lecturer provided oral
feedback to each group on their project and called upon other PSEFLTs in the class-
room to comment on the presented projects. The projects were graded over 20 with an
analytic rubric. The scores that groups received on their projects comprised 20% of
each group member’s final exam score. Following the completion of the presentations,
a qualitative survey, about which information is provided under “Data Collection
Tools and Analysis,” was distributed to all the participants, who were given 30 min to
respond to it. Then, semistructured interviews were conducted.
Koşar 189

Participants
The study participants were 80 junior PSEFLTs enrolled in the TEYLs I course. While
20 participants were male, the rest were female. The average age of the participants, in
the selection of whom convenience sampling was used, was 21.8. Before conducting
the qualitative survey, the participants were informed about the purpose of the study
and their consent was obtained. Participants’ names will not be mentioned throughout
this study to protect their confidentiality.

Data Collection Tools and Analysis

Qualitative survey. A qualitative survey consisting of four questions was carried out
after the PSEFLTs had prepared and presented their projects. The first, third, and fourth
questions in the survey were asked to find answers to the first research question of
what PSEFLTs’ views on the place of PBL in TEYLs are, and the second question was
added to the survey to explore their experiences of preparing projects for young learn-
ers; that is to say, it was created in an attempt to seek answers to the second research
question. To ensure the validity of the questions that were produced after reading the
related literature on PBL, they were emailed to two teacher educators having been
training PSEFLTs. One of the teacher educators had been teaching TEYLs I and II
courses for more than 8 years when this study was conducted. Considering the com-
ments of the teacher educators on the questions, necessary changes in their wording
were made so that they would be clearer to the PSEFLTs. Afterwards, before finalizing
the survey, it was sent out to ten third-­year PSEFLTs, other than the participants of the
present study, to warrant that the questions were clear enough for the PSEFLTs.
The questions asked in the survey were:

1. What do you think about the place of PBL in TEYLs?

2. You have already prepared a project. How would you evaluate your experiences
of preparing it?
3. Would your students like your project if you used it in your teaching? Why?
4. Will you be an English teacher implementing PBL when you start to teach?
Why?

Inductive content analysis was performed by two coders, one of whom was the
researcher, with a view to analyzing the data obtained from the survey. As is suggested
by Creswell (2012), the coders read the surveys to gain a general understanding of the
participants’ responses. Then, open coding, which is “the process of breaking down,
examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data” (Strauss & Corbin,
1990, p. 61), was done individually by the coders. Afterwards, the coders checked the
list of codes they made independently and reduced the number of codes to avoid
redundancy. A reiterative process was undertaken in the content analysis because the
coders went back to the data set while reviewing the codes and reread it repeatedly to
190 International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)

reach a consensus on them. Thereafter, the themes were developed from the codes. To
illustrate how inductive content analysis was conducted, Table 2 displays the codes,
descriptions, examples, and the themes produced from the codes.

Semistructured Interview. A semistructured interview was carried out with ten

PSEFLTs purposefully chosen from among the participants stating they had encoun-
tered problems in the project preparation process to gain a thorough understanding of
the faced problems. The date and time of the interviews were determined according to
the convenience of the participants. The questions in the interview were created after
reading all the participants’ responses to the questions in the survey. For instance, there
were participants stating a number of difficulties they encountered in the process of
preparing their projects in their responses to the second question. To learn about the
kinds of difficulties they experienced, the second interview question, given below,
was produced. The purpose of conducting the interviews was backing up the findings
obtained from the surveys. After producing the questions, they were sent to the teacher
educators, about whom information was presented under the subheading of qualitative
survey, to ensure their validity. The questions asked in the interviews were:
1. What do you think about the relationship between implementing PBL and pro-
moting young learners’ ELL?
2. What sort of difficulties did you face while working with your group members
to prepare your projects?

An interview protocol (Creswell, 2012) was kept for each interview, lasting for
approximately 10 min. Interview protocols involved information about the date of the
interview, the name of the interviewee and the responses given by them. Extracts are
taken from the interviews to support the findings obtained from the data in the
surveys.

Findings
PSEFLTs’ Perceptions of the Role to Be Played by PBL in TEYLs
Participants’ responses to the first, third, and fourth questions in the survey were used
to unearth PSEFLTs’ perceptions of the place of PBL in TEYLs. The analysis of par-
ticipants’ responses to the first research question of what the PSEFLTs thought about
the contribution of PBL to TEYLs demonstrated that all the participants believed that
PBL had a beneficial effect on promoting young learners’ ELL. The themes that devel-
oped from the content analysis are enhancing young learners’ ELL, promoting self-­
regulated learning and enabling meaningful learning.

Enhancing Young Learners’ ELL. The statements of the participants in the survey indi-
cated that they maintained that PBL could foster young learners’ ELL because learn-
ing was likely to be fun when it was stimulated by implementing it. The participants
Table 2. PSEFLTs’ Views of the Role to Be Played by PBL in TEYLs.
Koşar

Themes Codes Description Example

Enhancing young learners’ ELL Practice speaking Practicing speaking during the YLs can practice speaking when they
completion of the activities in are working on a project.
the project
Practice listening Practicing listening during the Students can get the chance to
completion of the activities in practice listening when they are
the project doing the activities.
Practice writing Practicing writing during the Young learners are provided lots of
completion of the activities in opportunities to practice writing.
the project
Practice reading Practicing reading during the Young learners need to practice
completion of the activities in reading to complete their projects.
the project
Recycle grammar Reviewing the learned grammar Project-­based learning can enable
rules young learners to recycle the
grammar rules the teacher taught.
Review words Reviewing the newly learned Young learners can review the words
words they have learned.
Fun The impact of using games and PBL is fun for young learners because
songs on making learning fun songs and games are integral
parts of it.
Learning styles Appealing to different learning Learning is boosted in PBL because
styles activities which appeal to students
with different learning are used.
Promoting self-­regulated learning Reduces teacher-­reliance Less dependency on the teacher Project-­based learning reduces
teacher reliance in young learner
classes.
191

(Continued)
 192

Table 2. Continued
Themes Codes Description Example
Responsibility Taking responsibility for learning Young learners take responsibility for
and completing the project completing the activities in the
project.
Planning Planning done by young learners Young learners will engage in
to complete the project planning to complete their
through making decisions projects.
about the activities and the
project as a whole
Self-­monitoring Checking one’s own Young learners self-­monitor their own
understanding learning while they are working on
the project.
Self-­evaluation Evaluating one’s own learning Young learners self-­evaluate their own
performance.
Enabling meaningful learning Active Student participation in the Project-­based learning makes young
activities comprising the learners active.
project
Prior knowledge Use of prior knowledge to do the Young learners need to activate their
activities and to complete the prior knowledge when they are
project carrying out the activities.
Cross-­curricular activities Associations between the Young learners work on cross-­
subjects in the curriculum curricular activities in a project.
For example, they can use the
skills they have developed in arts
and crafts lessons.
(Continued)
International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)
 Koşar

Table 2. Continued
Themes Codes Description Example
New situations Using what is learned in new Young learners can use what they
situations have learned in a project in
the future and maybe in other
subjects.

Note. ELL = English language learning; PBL = project-­based learning; PSEFLTs = pre-­service English-­as-­a-­foreign language teachers; TEYL = Teaching English to
Young Learners.
193
194 International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)

accentuated that since games and songs, which are liked by young learners a lot, were
involved in the activities in projects, their learning could be enhanced. Additionally,
bringing to the forefront the possibility of appealing to different learning styles, the
participants stated that young learners’ ELL could be maximized. It was also high-
lighted by the PSEFLTs that PBL might serve as an agent to increase young learn-
ers’ attention span through addressing diverse learning styles. One of the participants
stated in her survey:

I believe PBL can help us increase young learners’ short attention span because we can
appeal to all students with different learning styles. For example, we can use total phys-
ical response activities which are loved by physical learners, we can use colorful mate-
rials that can attract visual learners, and we can read stories which can attract read/write
students. (Survey, PSEFLT-56)

According to the participants, PBL could enhance the development of young learn-
ers’ ELL by involving them in the learning process. PSEFLT 21 stated in the survey:
“Young learners are supposed to perform leading roles in preparing activities and com-
pleting them.” As well as the roles to be played by students, it was stated in the semi-
structured interviews that teachers were responsible for providing support to young
learners in preparing their projects, presenting end-­products, and evaluating both the
effectiveness of PBL in promoting their ELL and their performance on carrying out
their projects.

I think PBL can help young learners enhance their ELL because they are active in PBL.
Compared to young learners, teachers are less active and they just support students
when they need help. Most of the work is done by students. (Semistructured interview,
PSEFLT-11)

The participants also emphasized in the interviews that PBL could foster young
learners’ ELL by stimulating the improvement in four language skills and in learning
grammar and vocabulary. The participants highlighted in their responses that the skills,
which they believed were neglected in EFL learning, were prioritized in PBL.

Speaking, listening, and writing skills are generally ignored in EFL learning, and they
were ignored in my past educational life, too. My teachers got me and my classmates
to practice reading, and memorize grammar rules and words they wrote on the board
but none of the skills is ignored in PBL. Students can develop their speaking, listen-
ing, and writing skills by completing the activities and producing their end-­products.
(Semistructured interview, PSEFLT-75)

Promoting Self-Regulated Learning. The participants stated that considering the great
responsibility taken over by students in preparing activities and completing them,
PBL could be postulated to be an approach that presumably promoted self-­regulated
Koşar 195

learning in that young learners had a say in determining the topic of the project and in
the other phases till its completion. For this reason, the participants asserted PBL could
stimulate self-­regulated learning.
The interviewees accentuated that students could assess their own progression in
PBL by either keeping a diary, filling in checklists, or in the talks they would have with
their teachers about the performance they put in their projects. The extract below is
from an interview protocol.

Young learners play a central role in all the phases of PBL and they can assess themselves
both as doing the activities and after the exhibition of the end-­product. Because of this,
students engaging in PBL with their teachers could be perceived to be self-­regulated
learners. (Semistructured interview, PSEFLT-5)

Enabling Meaningful Learning. The PSEFLTs stated in the surveys that PBL stimulated
meaningful learning because young learners were active in the process of preparing
and conducting activities. Moreover, it was understood from participants’ responses
that they believed young learners could expand the skills they would have developed
by the completion of the project to different situations in the future. The extract from
one of the participants’ survey typifies other participants’ opinions on the impact of
PBL on enabling meaningful learning for young learners.

Young learners may develop their language skills, social skills, and intellectual skills by
preparing and completing projects. I believe they can use those developed skills in other
learning settings. For example, when collaborating with their group members, they can
develop their skills of working in groups, which is an important skill for all people. In
their working lives, they will also need to work in groups. Furthermore, they will develop
their English-­speaking skills and other language skills which they will need to use in their
future educational and professional lives. (Survey, PSEFLT-62)

The answers given to the third question in the survey were used to gain deeper
insights into PSEFLTs’ views on the effect of PBL on promoting young learners’ ELL.
All the PSEFLTs wrote down that if they had integrated the projects they had prepared
into their teaching, their students would have liked them. The content analysis of the
responses led to the development of the theme of engaging projects would be liked by
young learners.

Engaging Projects Would Be Liked by Young Learners. The participants in their answers
stated that because they selected engaging and interesting topics and activities,
their students would have been motivated to actively contribute to the projects. The
196 International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)

statements from one of the participants’ survey exemplify other participants’ concep-
tions of why their projects would have been liked.

We prepared a project, the topic of which was animals, for 7–8-­year-­old-­young learners.
We chose the topic of animals because young learners like learning about animals. I
strongly believe that the activities we used in our project would appeal to young learners
as they integrated songs, games, drawing and coloring. (Survey, PSEFLT-25)

The fourth question was added to the survey to learn about if they would enrich
their instructional practices by applying PBL in the future and the reasons for it. The
answers of the participants revealed that all of them would implement PBL in their
teaching, and two themes emerged from the content analysis: the likelihood of improv-
ing young learners’ English proficiency and professional satisfaction. The explana-
tions to be provided for the theme of the likelihood of improving young learners’
English proficiency are virtually the same as the ones having already been presented
in the findings with respect to the first question in the survey. Therefore, only the
theme of professional satisfaction will be given under a separate subheading.

Professional Satisfaction. The participants, the answers of whom led to the develop-
ment this theme, stated that they would implement PBL as it could help them derive
great satisfaction from the teaching profession. It was highlighted that young learners
would participate more in English lessons owing to enjoyable and appealing activities
to be used in projects and would also do their best to prepare them. It was, therefore,
emphasized that teachers would gain professional satisfaction from their students’
active participation.

I will implement PBL in the future. Reading about PBL, analyzing the projects planned
for young learners and preparing a project with my groupmates have made me realize that
young learners will participate in lessons more if I get them to engage in a project. This
will definitely make me happy. What can a teacher want more? I will be a teacher. It will
help increase my job satisfaction. (Survey, PSEFLT-34)

PSEFLTs’ Experiences of Preparing Projects for Young Learners

The participants had both positive and negative experiences of preparing projects for
young learners, which produced the below-­stated themes of not free of negative expe-
riences and “I felt like a real teacher.”

Not Free of Negative Experiences. Participants’ statements indicated that they had
encountered a number of difficulties in preparing engaging projects. The major reason
behind the difficulties was the major challenge that the PSEFLTs faced in producing
interesting activities conducive to the selected age group. In addition, they aimed to
Koşar 197

create a coherent whole in their projects, yet forging a link among the activities was
not easy to achieve. The participants also stated that preparing a project took a lot of
time, and they had been assigned other duties in the other courses they had taken, and
as a result, they could not demonstrate their true performance as preparing projects for
young learners.

Finding interesting and fun activities was really difficult. It became more difficult when
two members of my group did not attend to our meetings regularly and did not meet their
duties on time. We could have prepared better activities if everyone in our group had done
their best. (Survey, PSEFLT-41)

The participants mentioned in the interviews that they had to work collaboratively
to prepare their projects; nonetheless, working in a group was not easy. To exemplify,
PSEFLT 22 said in the interview: “Each group member’s responsibility was allocated
at the beginning of the project, but some of them did not fulfill their responsibilities.”

“I Felt Like a Real Teacher”. The participants stated in the surveys that the readings
they had done when planning their activities had resulted in learning more about what
could and should be done to teach English to young learners. Moreover, they noted
that they had searched a lot about what topic to choose and about the activities they
would design, which enhanced the development of their knowledge of TEYLs and
developed their teaching skills in general. It was revealed by the content analysis that
all the energy and effort the PSEFLTs put into preparing their projects made them feel
like a real teacher.

Our topic was weather conditions and I have learned a lot about how English teachers
teach them to young learners. I and my group members found materials that have been
used to teach weather conditions and adapted the ones we wanted to use in our project.
We read about how to adapt materials we selected. I also read about the ways of moti-
vating young learners. While working on our project, I felt like a real teacher. (Survey,
PSEFLT-11)

Discussion
The present research demonstrated that the PSEFLTs held positive views on the effect
of PBL on promoting young learners’ ELL. In a similar vein, the study by Parsons
et al. (2010) reported that the teachers having implemented PBL believed in its posi-
tive effect on enhancing student learning. While exclusively PSEFLTs’ positive per-
ceptions of PBL were revealed in this study, the literature also entails a number of
studies the findings of which indicated that implementing PBL enhanced students’
language learning (Kaldi et al., 2011; Li et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2012; Mohamadi,
2018; Wilhelm et al., 2008). PSEFLTs’ positive perceptions with regard to
198 International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)

implementing PBL are highly significant in that this could be perceived as the projec-
tion of how they will teach English after their graduation: either by just following the
coursebook or incorporating PBL into their teaching.
In addition, the findings showed that PBL could encourage young learners’ self-­
regulation of their own learning. By the same token, the research by Parsons et al.
(2010) suggested that PBL stimulated student autonomy. In addition, active student
involvement in the learning process in PBL is maintained in its definitions provided by
Bell (2010) and Maida (2011), which correlates closely with the finding that the
PSEFLTs believed that young learners could become self-­regulated learners as an out-
come of engaging in PBL. The possibility of increasing students’ self-­regulated learn-
ing skills may be regarded as promising in that students taking control of their own
learning and evaluating it could be deemed as a desired situation in teacher-­centered
learning settings. We need to promote self-­regulated learning as it is unequivocally
crucial not only for students’ educational lives but also for their future professional
lives. For this reason, developing young learners’ self-­regulation learning skills might
serve as a key to their success both in their higher education and professional lives.
Moreover, the findings revealed that the PBL approach was believed to stimulate
meaningful learning. Similar to the perceptions of the PSEFLTs regarding the positive
impact of PBL on promoting meaningful learning, the research by Miller and Krajcik
(2019) reported that PBL stimulated meaningful learning. The skills acquired and/or
improved as working actively on a project are likely to be extended to the settings
other than the one in which they are developed. In other words, what is learned by
virtue of implementing PBL is not constrained to the finite time and the environment
in which it is learned, which is enormously important for meaningful learning to take
place. Likewise, the research by Dohn and Wagner (1999) reported the likelihood of
using what was learned as applying PBL in other contexts.
The findings showed that the study participants thought their students would have
liked their projects if they had implemented them in their teaching as they stated that
their projects’ topics and the activities they had generated were appealing to young
learners. Their explanations as to why their students would have enjoyed their projects
suggested the credence they gave to their abilities to prepare engaging projects for
them. Another important finding was obtained from analyzing participants’ clarifica-
tions on why they would be teachers implementing PBL in young learner classes. It
was the professional satisfaction they could draw from getting students to develop
their language skills. It is the increased level of student participation that can make
teachers gain job satisfaction, which is extremely significant for teacher motivation.
Given that the more motivated teachers are, the greater the performance they would
deliver in the classroom, applying PBL might be deemed to be a factor strengthening
English language teacher motivation.
The participants also stated their experiences of preparing their projects, the analy-
sis of which led to the production of two themes. They faced difficulties in finding
interesting and suitable topics and designing fun activities. In view of participants’
experiences, it would not be meaningless to argue that preparing projects is a
Koşar 199

challenging task, which could assist them in developing their teaching skills.
Furthermore, it was mentioned that it was difficult to work in a group. Experiencing
this difficulty could have them foresee the problems that their prospective students are
likely to run into with working in a group and make them attempt to produce solutions
to them. Aside from the negative experiences, participants’ statements demonstrated
that they also had positive experiences, such as the ones making them feel like a real
teacher. Preparing a project that was conducive to young learners helped the PSEFLTs
develop their language and social skills and made them feel like a real teacher; that is
to say, it made them prepare for the requirements of real teaching. Similarly, the study
by Mitchell et al. (2009) indicated the sense of achievement gained not only by stu-
dents but also teachers through implementing PBL. Similar results were demonstrated
in the study by Tsybulsky et al. (2020) because the research participants regarded their
experiences of PBL as a medium for developing their learning and teaching skills by
raising their awareness of their strengths and weaknesses in teaching. Taking stock of
the debates about whether or not pre-­service teacher education is adequate to equip
PSEFLTs with the skills and knowledge needed to surmount the obstacles they may
come across in the first a couple of years of teaching, such a feeling might be important
to them.

Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Further

Research
This study aimed at uncovering PSEFLTs’ views on the impact of PBL on young learn-
ers’ ELL and their perceptions concerning their experiences of preparing their proj-
ects. However, the participants did not put the projects into practice. They can apply
the projects they prepared when they begin to do their teaching practicums and/or
when they commence to teach. Then, it could be possible to gain a deeper insight into
the effect of implementing PBL on fostering young learners’ ELL and into PSEFLTs’
perceptions of it. In addition, further studies could be undertaken to investigate the
differences in practicing and student EFL teachers’ perceptions of the role of PBL in
TEYLs, which could develop a clear understanding about the interrelationship, if any,
between teachers’ approaches toward applying PBL in TEYLs and their years of
teaching experience. Moreover, further research could be conducted to broaden the
extant limited literature on using PBL to teach English to adult learners.

Implications for Initial English Language Teacher Training

Programs
Considering participants’ positive and negative experiences of preparing their proj-
ects, initial English language teacher preparation programs need to be fine-­tuned by
placing more emphasis on offering more opportunities to PSEFLTs for engaging in
hands-­on work because it makes them feel like a real teacher, as was demonstrated in
the findings. One important point to bear in mind is the problems with group work,
200 International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)

which was experienced by almost half of the participants. Teacher educators could get
PSEFLTs to work more in groups as a part of course requirements; in doing so, they
can learn to deal with the problems about working in a group. PSEFLTs practicing
working in groups and acquiring the skills of overcoming group-­related difficulties
may transfer these skills to their prospective students who will also prepare and carry
out projects in groups.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID ID
Gülten Koşar ‍ ‍https://​orcid.​org/​0000-​0002-​4687-​4382

References
Beckett, G. H. (2002). Academic language and literacy socialization through project-­based
instruction. Journal of Asian-­Pacific Communication, 15(1), 191–206.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-­based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​00098650903505415
Chanlin, L. J. (2008). Technology integration applied to project‐based learning in science. Inno-
vations in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 55–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
14703290701757450
Chen, S.-Y., Lai, C.-F., Lai, Y.-H., & Su, Y.-S. (2019). Effect of project-­based learning on devel-
opment of students’ creative thinking. International Journal of Electrical Engineering &
Education, 11, 1–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0020720919846808
Choi, J., Lee, J.-H., & Kim, B. (2019). How does learner-­centered education affect teacher self-­
efficacy? The case of project-­based learning in Korea. Teaching and Teacher Education,
85(3), 45–57. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​tate.​2019.​05.​005
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research methods. Pearson.
Debski, R., & Gruba, P. (1999). A qualitative survey of tertiary instructor attitudes towards
project-­based call. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(3), 219–239. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1076/​call.​12.​3.​219.​5715
Diffily, D. (2002). Project-­based learning: Meeting social studies standards and the needs of
gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 40–59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4219/​gct-​2002-​69
Koşar 201

Dohn, H., & Wagner, K. D. (1999). Strategies and methods of teaching in contemporary higher
education with reference to project work. Innovations in Education and Training Interna-
tional, 36(4), 285–291. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​1355800990360404
Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementation and assessment of project-­based learning in a flexible
environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 255–272.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/​A:​1026125427344
Duke, N. K., Halvorsen, A.-L., & Strachan, S. L. (2016). Project-­based learning not just for stem
anymore. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(1), 14–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0031721716666047
Gibbes, M., & Carson, L. (2014). Project-­based language learning: An activity theory analysis.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 171–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
17501229.​2013.​793689
Gratchev, I., & Jeng, D.-S. (2018). Introducing a project-­based assignment in a traditionally
taught engineering course. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(5), 788–799.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03043797.​2018.​1441264
Greenier, V. T. (2020). The 10Cs of project-­based learning TESOL curriculum. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 27–36. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17501229.​2018.​
1473405
Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-­based learning in post-­secondary educa-
tion – theory, practice and rubber sling Shots. Higher Education, 51(2), 287–314. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10734-​004-​6386-5
Higher Education Board (HEB). (2018). https://www.​yok.​gov.​tr/​Documents/​Kurumsal/​egitim_​
ogretim_​dairesi/​Yeni-​Ogretmen-​Yetistirme-​Lisans-​Programlari/​Ingilizce_​Ogretmenligi_​
Lisans_​Programi.​pdf
Hugerat, M. (2016). How teaching science using project-­based learning strategies affects
the classroom learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 19(3), 383–395.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10984-​016-​9212-y
Jolliffe, W. (2007). Cooperative learning in the classroom. Paul Chapman Publishing.
Kaldi, S., Filippatou, D., & Govaris, C. (2011). Project-­based learning in primary schools:
Effects on pupils’ learning and attitudes. Education, 39(1), 3–13.
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-­based learning: A review of the lit-
erature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1365480216659733
Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, S. (2014). Project-­based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 275–298). Cambridge University Press.
Lam, S.-F., Cheng, R. W. Y., & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to
implement project-­based learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 487–497. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/​j.​learninstruc.​2009.​07.​003
Laur, D. (2013). Authentic learning experiences. Routledge.
Li, D., Zhang, C., & He, Y. (2015). Project-­based learning in teaching translation: students’
perceptions. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(1), 1–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
1750399X.​2015.​1010357
Li, Y. L. (2012). The negotiated project-­based learning: Understanding the views and practice
of kindergarten teachers about the implementation of project learning in Hong Kong. Edu-
cation, 40(5), 473–786.
202 International Journal of Educational Reform 30(3)

Maida, C. A. (2011). Project-­based learning: A critical pedagogy for the twenty-­first century.
Policy Futures in Education, 9(6), 759–768. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2304/​pfie.​2011.​9.​6.​759
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications.
Miller, E. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2019). Promoting deep learning through project-­based learning:
A design problem. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1),
1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s43031-​019-​0009-6
Miller, L., Hafner, C. A., & Fun, C. N. K. (2012). Project-­based learning in a technologically
enhanced learning environment for second language learners: Students’ perceptions.
E-­Learning and Digital Media, 9(2), 183–195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2304/​elea.​2012.​9.​2.​183
Mioduser, D., & Betzer, N. (2007). The contribution of project-­based-­learning to high-­achievers’
acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 18(1), 59–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10798-​006-​9010-4
Mitchell, S., Foulger, T. S., Wetzel, K., & Rathkey, C. (2009). The negotiated project approach:
Project-­based learning without leaving the standards behind. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 36(4), 339–346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10643-​008-​0295-7
Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of project-­based learning and electronic project-­
based learning on the development and sustained development of English idiom knowl-
edge. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(2), 363–385. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12528-​018-​9169-1
Mosier, G. G., Bradley-­Levine, J., & Perkins, T. (2016). Students’ perceptions of project-­based
learning within the new tech school model. International Journal of Educational Reform,
25(1), 2–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​105678791602500101
Pacheco, M. A. D. L., Florez, D. G., Aguado, C. M. D. O., & Solano, H. L. (2019). Does
project-­based learning work in different local contexts? A Colombian Caribbean case study.
Educational Review, 71, 1–20.
Parsons, S. A., Metzger, S. R., Askew, J., & Carswell, A. R. (2010). Teaching against the grain:
One title i school’s journey toward project-­based literacy instruction. Literacy Research
and Instruction, 50(1), 1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19388070903318413
Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-­based learning environments. Cog-
nition and Instruction, 22(4), 431–466. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​s1532690Xci2204_3
Richards, J. C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom.
RELC Journal, 46(1), 5–22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0033688214561621
Seman, L. O., Hausmann, R., & Bezerra, E. A., & Bezarre, E. A. (2018). On the students’ per-
ceptions of the knowledge formation when submitted to a project-­based learning environ-
ment using web applications. Computers & Education, 117(4), 16–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/​j.​compedu.​2017.​10.​001
Silverman, D., & Marvasti, A. (2008). Doing qualitative research: A comprehensive guide. Sage
Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.
Tsybulsky, D., Gatenio-­Kalush, M., Abu Ganem, M., & Grobgeld, E. (2020). Experiences of
preservice teachers exposed to project-­based learning. European Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation, 43(3), 368–383. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02619768.​2019.​1711052
Koşar 203

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Harvard University Press.
Wilhelm, J., Sherrod, S., & Walters, K. (2008). Project-­based learning environments: Challeng-
ing preservice teachers to act in the moment. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(4),
220–233. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3200/​JOER.​101.​4.​220-​233
Williams, S. (2017). Investigating the allocation and corroboration of individual grades for
project-­based learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53(1), 1–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/​j.​stueduc.​2016.​10.​009

Author Biography
Gülten Koşar is working as an assistant professor in English Language Teaching
Department at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University. Her research concentrations include
second language learning, teaching language skills, pragmatics, in-­service and pre-­
service English language teacher education, and last but not least teaching English to
adult and young learners.