A Mixed-Methods Study of Knowledge, Belief, and Practice Regarding Project-Based Learning of English Lecturers: A Case Study of a University in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of project-based learning (PBL) in English class has been growing in the Thai educational setting. However, a body of literature has revealed problems regarding Thai EFL teachers and their use of PBL. Hence, this convergent mixed methods research study aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively study the relationship among English teachers’ PBL knowledge, belief, and practice in the Thai university context. A total of 52 Thai EFL teachers from a language institute of an autonomous university participated in this study. All of them were asked to complete a PBL knowledge test and a questionnaire on PBL belief and practice. Subsequently, non-participatory observations and follow-up interviews were conducted to capture in-depth information on the beliefs and practices of 15 participants. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data, whereas frequency, mean, standard deviation, Pearson’s product moment correlation, and multiple regression were used to analyze quantitative data. The findings revealed glaring inconsistencies in participants’ knowledge, belief, and practice. Comprehensive knowledge of PBL was witnessed in the knowledge test. Positive belief about PBL was also reported. However, the observations and follow-up interviews revealed a pattern of recurring problems and factors negatively affecting the in-class application of PBL. The study suggests revisiting the three elements as well as the customization of teacher professional development to solve underlying problems and enhance the congruence of belief and practice regarding PBL in the Thai context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".