Challenges and capacity needs for adoption of Project-Based Learning in English language teaching in Telangana Government High Schools, India.

Introduction

Traditionally, English Language Teaching (ELT) in Indian schools is characterised by textbook-based teaching and testing and more focus is given on content-based instruction rather than on communicative competence and higher order thinking skills. However, recent educational reform has supported new approaches to learning, such as the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasizes competency-based, learner-centred and experiential learning that encourages critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and purposeful language learning.

In this regard, the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Telangana, organised a Capacity Building Programme for Government High School English teachers in May, 2025. The training programme aimed to enhance teachers’ pedagogical skills in the following areas:

Reflective teaching

Interactive classroom practices

Interpersonal skills focusing on Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing (LSRW) in an integrated way

Contextual grammar

Formative assessment

ICT integration

Project-Based Learning (PBL)

Continuous Professional Development

Despite the government’s strong policy stance for adopting learner-centred pedagogies, very little empirical evidence can be found to account for the awareness of teachers of English, classroom practices and readiness to adopt Project-Based English Language Teaching (PBELT) in Telangana. To determine effective capacity-building initiatives and to ensure competency-based English language instruction is successfully implemented, it is important to understand teachers’ perceptions and professional development needs.

Thus, the current study aims to explore the pedagogical orientations, classroom practices, awareness of PBELT and professional development need of 106 Government High School English teachers who attended SCERT’s capacity building programme. A structured questionnaire was used to gather data and explore teacher perceptions, practices, and readiness to use learner-centred approaches in English language classrooms.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Conceptual Foundations of Project-Based Learning (PBL)

Learning is rooted in a child’s experiences and in their social interactions [4,18]. With Project-Based Learning (PBL), students are encouraged to be actively involved in learning through activities, inquiry and problem solving to build knowledge. PBL is a method of instruction that allows students to be involved in projects in which they have to ask questions, learn on their own and work together with others [17]. Within language learning, PBL can be used in language education and is compatible with a communicative and task-based approach and helps to improve students’ language learning abilities and cognitive development.

2.2 Project-based English Language Teaching (PBELT)

Project-Based English Language Teaching (PBELT) can help students to be more motivated and improve their language by using language in meaningful projects for authentic purposes [1]. In the same vein, project work in the learning process enhances fluency, accuracy and motivation of the learners, thus it proves to be an effective tool in second language acquisition (SLA) [16]. Moreover, PBELT advocates the holistic development of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills in an authentic learning.

2.3 Teacher Readiness and Awareness

Teachers’ knowledge and readiness to adopt innovative practice is the key to successful educational change [8]. Similarly,Teachers’ awareness of the new pedagogical approaches is not enough; they also need to have pedagogical knowledge and skills to effectively implement the pedagogical approaches in the classroom [6]. The overall findings of these observations are important in understanding the readiness of teachers for implementing PBELT.

2.4 Policy Alignment: NEP 2020 and Experiential Learning

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 also emphasizes competency-based, experiential and learner-centred learning, which is very similar to the PBELT approach. The policy highlights the four criteria of 21st century learning: critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity (Government of India,2020). Therefore, the policy is a framework for enacting PBELT in Indian classrooms.

2.5 PBELT Perceived Benefits

Project-based learning has a profound effect in improving the communicative competence and the motivation of the students [7]. PBL is important in promoting teamwork, innovation and critical thinking, which will equip learners to make a difference in the real world [2]. However, teachers tend to prioritise language outcomes above other, more general skills, and therefore do not always make full use of the teaching potential of PBL [10].

2.6 PBELT and Collaborative Learning

Through cooperative learning, peer interaction, social skills, and academic achievement were increased [12]. Students collaborate in project activities to communicate in realistic situations and engage in discussion, negotiation and knowledge construction. Organised group work has also proved to have positive effect on learning outcomes especially in language classroom. [15].

2.7 Implementation problems of PBELT

Some barriers were identified in implementation of project-based learning such as large class sizes, lack of teacher preparation, and classroom management issues [6]. Likewise, Time management and assessment are among the common problems faced by teachers in implementing the project [20]. The present study’s findings are similar to those found in this study, where it was found that large class sizes and lack of sufficient professional training were the major problems that encountered the implementation of PBELT.

2.8 Research Gap

The literature has been rich with the descriptions of the advantages and theoretical underpinning of PBL and PBELT, but few studies have researched on:

Perceptions and conceptual understanding of PBELT by teachers in Government schools;

The application of NEP 2020 via PBELT in real classroom environments; and

Discrepancies between perceived benefits and classroom practice in rural and resource-limited settings.

The aim of the present study is to fill these gaps through empirical evidence of the awareness, policy support, perceived advantages and challenges in implementing the PBELT among the Government High School English teachers in Telangana.

3. Objectives of the Study

The present study was carried out with the following objectives:

1. To review the existing practices in the classroom for Government High School English teachers in Telangana.

2. To evaluate teacher’s conceptual knowledge and awareness about the learner-centred approach in English language teaching this is based on Project-Based English Language Teaching (PBELT).

3. To determine the problem in applying the interactive and project based teaching model in English language classroom.

4. To determine the willingness of the teachers to use the Project Based Learning (PBL) as a learner centred teaching method.

4. Research Methodology

4.1 Procedure

The study used a descriptive survey technique in order to look at government high school English teachers’ perceptions, classroom practices and readiness to adapt the Project Based English Language Teaching (PBELT). The data collection was done using an online structured questionnaire in the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Telangana Capacity Building Programme held in May 2025. The survey was open for 4 days (May12-15).

Ethical clearance was accessed before data collection and all participants were told about the purpose of the study, voluntary participation, confidentiality and anonymity. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before they completed the questionnaire.

There were 106 responses received from Government High School English teachers from various districts of Telangana that were valid. Collected data were analysed by descriptive statistics.

4.2 Sample

The sample of the study consists of 106 English teachers of Government High Schools from different districts of Telangana who attended the SCERT Capacity Building Programme in May 2025. The participants were Government High Schools of various geographical regions of the State and they voluntarily responded to the online questionnaire (Google form).

4.3 Data Collection Tool

Data was gathered using a structured questionnaire which would provide information on teachers’ perception, classroom practices, awareness about PBELT and their professional development needs. Most of the questions on the questionnaire were of the “Likert” type.

The questionnaire included the following section:

  • Section A: Demographic Information
  • Section B: Perceptions of English Language Teaching (ELT)
  • Section C: Classroom Practices (LSRW Skills, Contextual Grammar, and Interactive Questioning)
  • Section D: Assessment Practices
  • Section E: ICT Integration
  • Section F: Professional Development Needs

4.4 Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentage) were used to analyse the quantitative data obtained from the questionnaire. The results are presented by using figures and interpreted based on the awareness of teachers to Project-Based English Language Teaching, the teacher’s perception of the policy implementation, the perceived benefits, the collaborative practices and the challenges faced by teachers in implementing Project-Based English Language Teaching in Government High Schools.

5. Findings

The key findings of the study were:

1. High awareness of PBELT: The result indicated that the teachers who were involved in the study had high awareness of PBELT. The majority (62.2%) of the respondents said they were very familiar with the concept while the rest of the teachers (37.8%) responded that they were somewhat familiar with PBELT. No one said he or she was not familiar with the approach.

2. Positive perception of policy alignment: Majority of respondents felt that PBELT was closely aligned with the objectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. There was a very strong agreement (74.1% agree and 22.2% strongly agree) that PBELT supports competency-based, learner-centred and experiential learning, which the policy fosters.

3. Perceived benefits of PBELT: Most of the teachers related to the benefits of PBELT as language fluency (80.3%), followed by collaboration (11.0%) and creativity (8.7%). This suggests that teachers mainly identified the language outcomes of PBELT.

4. Preference for collaborative project design: 100% of the respondents said that they prefer implementing PBELT through collaborative project work. This discovery is an indicator of the teachers’ awareness that cooperation is an essential part of project-based learning.

5. Implementation challenges: Teachers reported as greatest challenges, large class size (70.0%) and lack of professional training (30.0%). Based on these findings, it can be seen that the use of PBELT in English learning in government high school still needs to be developed through ongoing teacher training and institutional support.

From the overall results, it can be concluded that the Government High School English teachers who attended the SCERT Capacity Building Programme had a positive perception about PBELT and had seen the relevance of PBELT in the current education reforms. Meanwhile, the results indicate that there is a need for continuous training and enabling school organization to enhance teachers’ classroom practice of project-based approach.

6. Discussion

The results of this study show that the English teachers of the government high school who attended the SCERT Capacity Building Programme (CBT) had a generally positive attitude to Project-Based English Language Teaching (PBELT). Teachers’ familiarity with PBELT and their perception of the relevance of learner-centred, competency-based, and experiential approaches in English language teaching, as per the objectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, indicate that learners’ interest in English learning is being nurtured. The results align with NEP 2020 policy focus which calls for a learner-centred pedagogies where learners are encouraged to think critically, collaborate, be creative and have meaningful learning experience.

While teachers had positive perceptions of PBELT, the results also suggest that teachers were mostly linked to the enhancement of language fluency, with less attention paid to other educational aspects of PBELT, such as collaboration and creativity. This trend indicates that teachers see the high value of PBELT in the language domain, and a more focused attention on the impact of PBELT on twenty first century skills might be necessary in teacher education programs and in-service teacher training. This is consistent with previous research findings that report teachers may focus more on the language outcomes than the more general skills when using PBL.

The unanimous preference for collaborative project design is in line with teachers’ understanding of collaboration as an inherent quality of PBELT, and it confirms to the constructivist view of learning through social interaction and construction of shared knowledge. The lack of items that reflect a preference for either student-led or teacher-led approaches should not be interpreted with great certainty, however, but might rather be a result of how the respondents understood the question in the questionnaire.

The results also show that there is a theory-to-practice gap. Teachers are highly aware of and positively perceive PBELT, but they cited large class sizes and inadequate professional development as the biggest obstacles to implementation in the classroom. The results of this study indicate that conceptual acceptance is not enough for successful implementation. Professional development and structural factors continue to play a key role in moving teacher positive attitudes to effective classroom implementation.

The discussion should also be understood within the context of the scope of the study. The respondents were teachers who were involved in a SCERT Capacity Building Programme and the findings cannot be extrapolated to all Government High School teachers of English in the state of Telangana. Despite this, the research findings yield valuable insights into teachers’ awareness, perceptions and implementation challenges, which can serve as a basis for teacher education courses as well as teacher policy support for PBELT.

7. Recommendations

Project-Based English Language Teaching (PBELT) in Government High Schools is recommended based on the findings of the present study as follows:

Increase teacher professional development

    Mechanisms for professional development should include hands-on learning on how to implement PBELT, with a focus on project design, classroom management, assessment practices and the integration of learner-centred instructional practices.

    To promote a comprehensive understanding of PBELT

    The teacher orientation programmes should focus on the wider educational benefits of PBELT such as collaboration, creativity, critical thinking and communication, as well as on language development. This would help teachers see that PBELT is a method which helps in the development of the students in all aspects

    Explore Classroom and Structural Limitations

    Educational authorities should take policy action to enable good practice in the implementation of PBELT, taking account of some of the challenges these present, such as large class sizes, and promoting flexible grouping solutions when appropriate. These would help enable students to participate effectively in project-based activities.

    Provide Resource and Support systems.

    Teachers should be provided with model lesson plans, project templates, assessment rubrics, digital resources, and banks of activities that can be used to plan and implement PBELT effectively in the English language classroom.

    Promote Reflective and Learner-Centred Teaching Practices

    Teachers should be encouraged to practice reflective teaching and ensure that teacher – student guidance and autonomy are well balanced when implementing the project. This can encourage the active involvement of learners and effective facilitation of project work.

    Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation will be in place to support the development and monitoring of the project.

    Mechanisms need to be established to monitor and evaluate the implementation of PBELT in schools. Feedback, observations and reflective review procedures can help continuous improvement and effective implementation of project-based teaching.

    8. Conclusion

    This study has provided empirical evidence that English Language Teaching (ELT) teachers in Government High Schools, who participated in the SCERT Capacity Building Programme, had a high level of awareness of Project Based English Language Teaching (PBELT) and felt that PBELT matches the learner centric and competency-based principles of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The results showed that teachers mainly saw PBELT as a good way to improve language fluency, with not as much focus on the language learning ability’s contribution to collaboration, creativity or other twenty-first-century skills.

    The study also found a theory-practice gap as teachers’ perceptions of PBELT were positive, while practical problems were identified in terms of the number of students in a class and the need for further professional development. These findings indicate that conceptual awareness is not enough to effectively implement project based approaches. Policy intentions need to be translated into classroom practice and sustained professional development programmes, institutional support and favourable classroom conditions are essential to this.

    In conclusion, PBELT has proven to be a promising learner-centred approach in English language teaching in Government High Schools. However, its successful implementation requires ongoing capacity building, policy support and pedagogically informed classroom practices. Future studies could focus on long-term implementation of PBELT in different school environments, as well as assessing how its use affects students’ language skills, collaborative work, creativity, and learning.

    References

    1. Beckett, G. H., & Miller, P. C. (Eds.). (2006). Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future. Information Age Publishing.
    2. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
    3. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
    4. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
    5. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
    6. Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K–12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1005
    7. Fragoulis, I. (2009). Project-based learning in the EFL classroom. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n3p113
    8. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
    9. Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Education.
    10. Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5(1).
    11. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.F3
    12. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
    13. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816832.020
    14. Maida, C. A. (2011). Project-based learning: A critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education, 9(6), 759–768. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2011.9.6.759
    15. Slavin, R. E. (2011). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (10th ed.). Pearson.
    16. Stoller, F. L. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in second and foreign language education. In G. H. Beckett & P. C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 19–40). Information Age Publishing.
    17. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation.
    18. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
    19. Yalcin, S. A. (2020). The learning paradigm of project-based learning: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.1.1
    20. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting Project-Based Science: Challenges for Practice and Policy. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461870
    Post Views: 158
    Tags: , , , ,