Understanding the Drivers of Project-Based Learning Effectiveness and Implementation in Academic English: Self-Efficacy and Technology as Key Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine the factors influencing teachers' willingness to implement Project-Based Learning (PBL) in academic English courses. Specifically, it explores the impact of teachers' familiarity with PBL, their perceived benefits, and institutional support on their perceptions of PBL's effectiveness and their willingness to adopt it. The study also investigates the role of teachers' self-efficacy as a mediator and access to technology as a moderator in these relationships. A quantitative research design was employed, utilizing a survey questionnaire to collect data from academic English course teachers at T University in China. The sample consisted of 250 teachers, selected through purposive sampling. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with SmartPLS was used to analyze the data and test the proposed relationships between the variables. The findings revealed that teachers' familiarity with PBL, perceived benefits, and institutional support significantly influenced their perceptions of PBL's effectiveness and their willingness to implement it. Teachers' self-efficacy was found to mediate these relationships, while access to technology moderated the effect of self-efficacy on both perceived effectiveness and willingness to implement PBL. These results highlight the importance of teacher perceptions and institutional support in the successful adoption of PBL. This study contributes to the understanding of the factors that shape teachers' willingness to implement PBL, particularly in the context of academic English courses. By addressing the mediating and moderating roles of self-efficacy and technology, it provides valuable insights for educational institutions aiming to foster innovation in teaching practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".