Content area
Competencies essential for thriving and competing globally in the 21st century include creative thinking, critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration, and communication (often referred to as the 4Cs). This study explores the effectiveness of Project-Based Learning (PBL), Electronic Project-Based Learning (E-PBL), and traditional learning methods on enhancing students’ 4Cs. A total of 90 Iranian EFL intermediate learners were selected based on their performance on the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) and assigned to different research groups. The development of skills in the PBL and E-PBL groups was assessed using a 21st-century skills questionnaire. This research employed a quantitative methodology with a pre-test and post-test design across three groups. The results indicate that there was no significant difference in the improvement of critical thinking and creativity skills between the PBL and E-PBL groups. However, students in the traditional pedagogy group exhibited significantly lower performance compared to their counterparts in the PBL and E-PBL groups. In terms of collaboration and communication skills, all three groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements, with the PBL group showing the most progress, followed by E-PBL, and lastly, traditional pedagogy. Thus, this study confirms that PBL and E-PBL have distinctively effective potential for enhancing EFL students’ 21st-century skills and their components related to the 4Cs.
Introduction
The cultivation of 21st-century skills requires students to acquire a broad range of competencies to effectively compete in the global landscape. The Partnership for 21st Century Learning [1] defines these competencies as essential abilities students must master to succeed in work and life. Its framework categorizes these competencies into three primary domains: life and career skills, learning and innovation skills and knowledge, media and technology skills as illustrated in Fig. 1. Among these, the Learning and Innovation Skills—commonly known as the 4Cs (Critical Thinking, Communication, Collaboration, and Creativity)—are considered fundamental to student success in education and beyond [1].
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
Partnership for 21st century learning framework [1]
Despite the emphasis on the necessity of acquiring these competencies, a review of 21st-century skills framework reveals a notable gap: the absence of teaching methodologies that actively engage students in the learning process [2, 3]. While the importance of communicative, collaborative, creative, and critical thinking skills is widely recognized, traditional pedagogical approaches often fail to provide the interactive and experiential learning opportunities needed for their development [2, 4].
Project-Based Learning (PBL) and its digital counterpart, Electronic-Project-Based Learning (e-PBL), are recognized as learner-centered approaches that effectively promote the 4Cs of 21st -century education [5, 6]. Both research and educational practices have demonstrated that these approaches provide valuable opportunities for students to cultivate these crucial skills in engaging and meaningful environments [7, 8]. For instance, students’ critical thinking skills are enhanced as they tackle real-world problems, analyze data, and make informed decisions in both PBL and e-PBL [7, 9]. The authenticity of projects encourages learners to ask questions, assess evidence, and apply their knowledge in a critical manner [10]. Collaboration and communication are inherently integrated into both strategies, as students collaborate in teams to complete projects, share responsibilities, and learn effective cooperation skills [11]. PBL focuses on direct and face-to-face teamwork, while e-PBL familiarizes learners with remote collaboration—an increasingly essential skill in the global workplace [12]. Furthermore, PBL enhance learners’ verbal and written communication skills along presentations and group discussions [13, 14]. In contrast, e-PBL utilizes digital tools such as emails, chats, video calls, and collaborative documents to promote various forms of communication, educating learners with digital literacy [15]. Additionally, students’ creativity is stimulated through the design and implementation of innovative solutions to complex challenges. Whether utilizing physical materials in PBL or multimedia resources in e-PBL, learners engage in creative thinking and problem-solving tasks [16, 17].
However, PBL and e-PBL share a common pedagogical framework that emphasizes engaging students in authentic and inquiry-based tasks, they exhibit significant differences. With PBL, students are required to attend a lecture hall or in face-to-face classroom settings where students achieve instant feedback, immediate clarification, physical resources, and direct social interaction [18]. With e-PBL, on the other hand, learners simply need to log on to the internet from their home or work. Digital settings facilitate collaboration and content delivery by integrating digital tools in teaching and learning process by using social media networks (e.g. Facebook groups, Twitter, WhatsApp groups) and video conferencing applications (e.g. Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet) [16]. Moreover, within e-PBL, learners are supplemented with online materials and tools for conducting various stages of project process -from planning to reflection—by fostering creativity and personalized learning experiences [19, 20]. Integrating digital resources to facilitate inquiry, collaboration, and communication beyond the classroom [21]. Studies have highlighted the effectiveness of e-PBL in enhancing higher-order thinking skills, creativity, and student engagement [6]. However, challenges such as technological limitations, inadequate internet connectivity, and the absence of face-to-face interaction may hinder its effectiveness [22, 23].
This comparison allows educators and researchers to pinpoint which method is most effective for developing 4Cs skills. For instance, PBL might enhance interpersonal communication and teamwork through in-person interactions, while e-PBL could better equip students for digital collaboration and virtual communication skills that are essential in the technology-driven world. Also, getting a grasp on the differences can be helpful for instructors in crafting better instructional design. Teachers can adapt their strategies to meet the unique needs of their students, taking into account the resources available and the learning environment—whether that’s face-to-face, online, or hybrid. To sum it up, looking at PBL and e-PBL through the lens of the 4Cs gives us valuable insights on how to enhance student learning outcomes and equip learners for success in both their academic and the real world contexts.
Literature review
Project-based learning and 4Cs
Project-based learning (PBL), grounded in the constructivist theories of Dewey [24] and Vygotsky [25], fosters active learning by positioning students as problem-solvers who engage over extended periods to investigate meaningful questions and devise solutions [26]. In the student-centered environment of PBL, the teacher serves as a facilitator, while students assume responsibility for their learning, making decisions, addressing problems, and presenting their findings [27]. Research has consistently indicated that learners involved in PBL demonstrate increased motivation, deeper content knowledge, and enhanced academic performance [28, 29]. This teaching approach inherently fosters the growth of 21st -century skills, especially the 4Cs—critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity [30]—which are considered as essential for students’ success in education and the workforce [1]. In the same vein, Thio et al. [5] highlights that PBL is inherently aligned with the cultivation of the 4Cs: students work and collaborate in teams, communicate and share their findings, critically analyze problems, and provide innovative solutions. These competencies are strengthened through authentic tasks, reflective practices, and feedback from peers.
Research have shown that PBL can foster student engagement and improve critical thinking abilities [31, 32] that compel students to analyze intricate problems, justify decisions, and reflect on processes [33]. Razali et al. [34] discovered that PBL environments improve science literacy and critical thinking competencies via organized discussions, teamwork and collaboration. PBL in classroom context provides immediate peer interaction and teacher feedback. This dynamic approach is crucial for helping students clarify their thinking and address any misunderstandings right on the spot [35]. As highlighted by Arabloo et al. [36] engagement in authentic projects motivates students to tackle tasks with a strategic mindset and challenge their assumptions. Moreover, recent research conducted in classroom settings indicates that when students engage in organized, authentic project activities, their critical thinking skills exhibit significant enhancement in comparison to those in more conventional teaching methods [37].
Furthermore, communication and collaboration are essential skills cultivated through PBL approaches, especially when carried out in classroom settings where students participate in face-to-face dialogues, discussions, and presentations [38]. Students can further develop these ideas or opinions. Once they have gathered some ideas and consistently provide opportunities for others to share their opinions or ideas [39]. Within PBL, the abundance of both verbal and non-verbal signals improves message clarity and facilitates language adaptation for audiences [40]. Nahar and Machado [41] noted that students participating in project groups exhibited increased accountability and conflict resolution abilities compared to those who worked alone or in less interactive environments. The physical presence of peers in the classroom fosters trust, empathy, and social regulation—crucial components of successful collaboration as noted by Hashim et al. [42].
Also, creativity and innovative skill thrives in PBL pedagogy as students are encouraged to design, invent, and investigate solutions without fixed outcomes [26]. In these settings, learners participate in concrete, frequently interdisciplinary activities that necessitate innovative strategies and experimentation [43]. According to Wijayati et al. [17], students enrolled in project-based courses that focused on real-world issues and artistic or technical creation exhibited significantly enhanced creativity scores over time. The classroom atmosphere facilitates this by allowing for immediate brainstorming, visual prototyping, and spontaneous peer inspiration—factors that are often less effective in online learning [44]. PBL in face-to-face context also promote a sense of psychological safety, enabling students to take creative risks and collaboratively refine their ideas [45].
E-project-based learning and 4Cs
As education progressively shifts into digital platforms, Electronic project-based learning (E-PBL) has surfaced as an effective approach for cultivating 21st-century skills, particularly the 4Cs [3]. In e-PBL, students participate in authentic tasks within a virtual environment, frequently collaborating in teams and taking active roles in learning process [20]. However, the absence of physical presence may present certain challenges, well-structured online PBL experiences can still promote profound engagement, self-regulation, and significant skill enhancement [8]. Recent research indicates that when learners receive support through structured frameworks, clear expectations, and digital collaboration tools, they excel in these settings and acquire the competencies necessary for the contemporary world [46, 47]. E-project-based learning environments promote critical thinking among students by involving them in tasks that necessitate analysis, evaluation, and problem-solving [6]. These environments typically feature asynchronous discussions, reflective activities, and structured feedback, providing learners with the opportunity to engage with information on a deeper level [48]. Tathahira [46] discovered that students participating in online science projects enhanced their argumentation and reasoning abilities due to the additional time allocated for reflection and research. Likewise, Lu et al. [49] observed that PBL aligned with online learning encourages metacognitive thinking, particularly when students are asked to justify their choices and revisit previous concepts during virtual discussions [50]. The adaptability of online platforms enables students to tackle problems from various perspectives and make well-informed, deliberate decisions.
However, online communication may not offer the same immediacy and extensively as face-to-face interactions, it affords students significant opportunities to enhance their digital literacy and written communication skills [28]. In e-PBL, learners often need to articulate their thoughts clearly through various mediums such as discussion boards, video presentations, collaborative documents, and recorded feedback [18, 51]. These online environments not only assist students in expressing their ideas but also foster confidence in virtual communication. In consistent with, Valtonen et al. [47] noted that students participating in online collaborative projects demonstrated improvements in their ability to communicate ideas effectively, adjust their tone for diverse audiences, and engage thoughtfully with their peers.
PBL within online contexts strongly emphasizes collaboration, frequently necessitating that learners collaborate across different time zones and schedules [18]. This environment instructs students on how to manage group dynamics in a remote context, utilize digital tools for connectivity, and collectively address challenges despite being physically apart. Nguyen et al. [52] pointed out that collaborative platforms like Google Workspace and Microsoft Teams facilitate effective online project work, enabling students to co-create documents, provide feedback, and monitor progress. Significantly, online collaboration fosters increased independence and accountability, as students are required to take the initiative to remain engaged and organize their responsibilities [53].
Additionally, creativity in e-PBL flourishes when students are afforded the opportunity to experiment with digital tools, tackle open-ended challenges, and showcase their work through multimedia formats [54]. Online settings frequently broaden the limits of conventional classrooms by providing students with access to a more extensive range of resources, platforms, and audiences. As noted by Kim [18] students engaged in online creative projects have reported a boost in confidence when it comes to exploring original concepts and crafting digital artifacts. These virtual environments also foster a low-pressure setting for brainstorming and revising, which encourages students to take risks and enhance their ideas [54]. The capability to produce videos, podcasts, infographics, or interactive presentations enables students to convey their creativity in various and significant ways [55].
The present study
A review of different frameworks related to 21st -century skills reveals that, although significant emphasis is placed on the necessity of acquiring communicative, collaborative, creative, and critical thinking competencies (4Cs), there is a notable absence of teaching methods that demand greater engagement from learners. With the progression of learner-centered educational strategies and the technological advancements permeating all facets of human existence, particularly in education, further research is essential to explore the potential benefits of more learner-centered methodologies and technology-enhanced education in fostering the development of the 4Cs.
This research aims to explore the impact of project-based learning (PBL) and electronic project-based learning (EPBL) on the enhancement of 21st -century skills, specifically the 4Cs. To fulfill this objective, the research is structured as follows. Initially, it provides a concise overview of the recent developments in project-based learning and the facilitating role of information and communication technology in education, while also outlining its theoretical dimension. Subsequently, the study examines the design of both project-based learning and electronic project-based learning, enabling an analysis of their comparative effects on learning and the development of 4Cs skills. Collectively, the findings will illuminate how 4Cs skills can facilitate learning through the application of effective teaching methodologies. The study is guided by the following aims.
Do Project-Based Learning (PBL) and Electronic-Project-Based Learning (e-PBL) have differentially effective potential for EFL students’ 4Cs skills?
Method
Participants and setting
From among 140 Iranian EFL participants which were selected by non-probability convenient sampling method from Azad Universities in Karaj and Tehran province, 90 participants were reached according to their proficiency level rated through OPT (Oxford Placement Test). Forty-Two of participants (46.67%) were aged from 19 to 24 years, 31 (34.44%) were aged from 25 to 29 years and 17 (18.89%) were older than 30 years of age. In terms of education level, 61 (67.78%) participants had a bachelor’s degree, 29 (32.22%) had a master’s degree. In terms of participants’ field of study, 18 students’ major (20%) were TEFL, 53 students’ major (58.89%) were English Translation and 19 learners’ major (21.11%) were English Literature. Finally, in terms of gender, 11 (12.22%) were male and 79 (87.78%) were female participants. While this gender distribution may appear imbalanced, it reflects the natural composition of the population from which the sample was drawn. However, this bias may affect the generalizability of the findings, especially regarding aspects such as collaboration and communication styles, which can occasionally display gender-related variations. Given that all participants had computer literacy and accessed internet and computer to be assigned into electronic PBL group, then, all participants randomly were assigned into the research groups: Experimental Group 1 (PBL), Experimental Group 2 (E-PBL) and Control Group (traditional classroom). However, to assuring computer literacy, a briefing session was conducted for students participating in e-PBL groups to instruct them on the utilization of the e-forum for research purposes. Each group were including a 10-session PBL and e-PBL courses whose demographic information is presented in the following Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants in the experimental phase of this study
Participant’s characteristics | Frequency | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Control group | Age range | 19–24 | 16 |
25–29 | 8 | ||
30 | 6 | ||
Degree | B.A. students | 21 | |
M.A. students | 9 | ||
Major of study | TEFL | 5 | |
Translation | 18 | ||
Literature | 7 | ||
Gender | Male | 5 | |
Female | 25 | ||
Experimental group 1 (PBL) | Age range | 19–24 | 12 |
25–29 | 12 | ||
30 | 6 | ||
Degree | B.A. students | 21 | |
M.A. students | 9 | ||
Major of study | TEFL | 6 | |
Translation | 17 | ||
Literature | 7 | ||
Gender | Male | 4 | |
Female | 26 | ||
Experimental group 2 (e-PBL) | Age range | 19–24 | 14 |
25–29 | 11 | ||
30 | 5 | ||
Degree | B.A. studentsM.A. students | 1911 | |
Major of study | TEFL | 7 | |
Translation | 18 | ||
Literature | 5 | ||
Gender | Male | 2 | |
Female | 28 |
Instrument
Twenty-first-century skills questionnaire
Kelley et al. [56] proposed a self-reporting questionnaire of 21st -century skill to measure students’ assessment of their own abilities in creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. It consisted of a total of 30 items loaded across the four factors or subscales (collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking). There was a final total of nine items for collaboration. The communication and creativity categories both consisted of five items. While critical thinking consisted of 11 items. Five-points Likert scale is used with these options: Strongly Disagree (Skills), Disagree (Skills), Neutral (3), Agree (4) and Strongly Agree (5). The consistency analyses based on Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities shows a strong consistency among subscales as follows: Collaboration, α = 0.826; Communication, α = 0.749; Creativity, α = 0.751; and Critical Thinking, α = 0.876.
Project writing tasks
Numerous types of writing project tasks were defined and introduced by the teacher to work on in both the classroom and online learning environment. These projects as a sequence picture story, travel brochure, work-related project like job advertisement, newspaper-based activities such as local news story and creating a poster of a language institute should be carried out based on project-based processes to get a final work for each group of students. Each of these writing projects not only reflects genuine real-world contexts that students may face in their personal, academic, or professional lives, but the diversity of projects also encompasses a variety of genres (e.g., expository, persuasive, narrative, and informative), enabling participants to engage with different writing conventions. To ensure that the selected writing projects were of a similar difficulty level, we assessed their readability using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) scores [57]. This metric evaluates text complexity based on word and sentence length, providing a standardized measure of readability. By comparing FRE scores across the selected projects (60 as standard readability for early-stage learners), we confirmed that they were appropriately matched in terms of linguistic difficulty.
Online video communication platform
The online platform of Google Meet as video communication service was used in order to indicate the students’ interaction while carrying out writing project activities. Each session has carried out with only one project writing task and took 30 to 45 min to complete. Through Google Meet, teacher can virtually meet with individual students or with entire classes to teach a lesson, share educational materials, and communicate important information with students in real time. As well, the platform is readily available and designed for ease of use. The favorable perception of Google Meet may stem from the convenience and adaptability it provides, along with its ability to enhance interaction and participation among students. Additionally, Google Meet could enhance its functionalities to allow instructor to track student engagement during virtual classes and offer immediate feedback [58].
In the context of classroom and learner management, beyond the primary functionalities of live streaming and attendance tracking offered by Google Meet, supplementary features could be incorporated. These may include breakout rooms, whiteboards, and polling tools, which would assist educator in managing their online classrooms with greater efficiency.
Data collection procedure
After participation selection, a pretest of 21st century skills questionnaire was administered to ensure no preexisting difference among groups in terms of creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration. Traditional and PBL groups were filled out the pencil-paper format questionnaire while an online questionnaire utilizing the Google Forms platform was carried out and distributed via email or other social media accompanied by a brief overview of the purpose of the study and a description of the instrument for the e-PBL group. Students were given enough time to answer and also opportunities to edit their responses. However, the potential for anonymity in online questionnaire may be greater, this can result in decreased data reliability especially when participants lack motivation or engage in playful manipulation of their identities, leading to answers that do not reflect their true beliefs or thoughts. In contrast, the paper-and-pencil format allows participants to adjust their responses to align with their previous answers.
Then, the participants were informed that the data collected from the questionnaires would be utilized for research purposes and would be kept confidential.
The participants of PBL and e-PBL purposively were assigned to groups of three mixed ability participants, to reflect real-world classroom conditions and a more authentic learning environment, who were allocated based on their friendship and interest and carried out five writing projects in 10-sessions treatment within PBL and e-PBL contexts. The participants of PBL group were asked to take part in project-based learning pedagogy in face-to-face classes. The participants of e-PBL group were required to have an account on a website introduced by the researcher (www.meet.google.com) and take part in 10-sessions project-based learning within online video communication service. Traditional group were also asked to only utilize textbooks as the primary instructional materials in the classroom contexts. The instructor plays the central role in content delivery found in the textbooks, whereas students often passively receive the information instead of actively participating in the learning process. All groups were taught and mentored by an experienced and qualified instructor in project-based learning who conduct the numerous workshops in this field. Through the treatments sessions, instructor explained how the writing project tasks should be carried out and different project sample are represented in class. After getting the topics, learners both in PBL and e-PBL groups started to brainstorm and plan ideas in group and collaboratively compared, contrasted and shared their discoveries and created the first draft and designed the framework. However, creation of ideas allowed each group member to contribute and resulted in a diverse range of thoughts. It helped learners critical thinking promotion through the discussions. Learners added images from the internet, magazine and books to their writings to develop their creativity. Furthermore, learners’ writing performance were undergone peer reviewing in a face-to-face and virtual environment. Finally, the last drafts were taken to instructor as their product. After treatment sessions, the questionnaire was taken by all the participants again. The Fig. 2 represents the flowchart of data collection procedure.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 2
Data collection flowchart
Data analysis procedure
To know the effect of project-based learning, e-project-based learning and traditional pedagogies to student’s 4Cs, data were analyzed using ANOVA Tests via SPSS software (version 29). Initially, descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) of pretest and posttest were calculated for each variable across the three groups. To assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed, with all values exceeding the acceptable threshold of 0.70. To confirm the suitability of the data for parametric testing, the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were examined. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and Levene’s Test was used to evaluate the homogeneity of variances.
A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to identify significant differences among the three instructional groups on each of the four variables. When significant differences were observed, Scheffé’s post-hoc test was employed to determine the specific nature of the between-group differences. A significance level of p < .05 was used for all statistical tests.
Results
To investigate if Project-Based (PBL) and e-Project-Based Learning (e-PBL) have differentially effective potential for EFL students’ 21st -century-skills, the researcher ran a series of ANOVA Tests since it was proved that all data sets included were normal. Furthermore, all pretest and posttest scores of PBL, e-PBL, and control group could be considered reliable enough as their Cronbach’s Alpha reliability indices are either above or very close to 0.7, announced to be the cut point above which a data set is reliable [59].
Moreover, homogeneity of the groups was the other preliminary data check done. The mean scores of the pretests of the 21st-century-skills are 86.07, 84.30, and 81.27 for the PBL, e-PBL, and control groups, does not show much variance. The significant value which is 0.050 and equals the standard value (α = 0.05; p = α), homogeneity of the groups could be guaranteed.
Then, descriptive statistics of the three groups’ pretest and posttest of critical thinking, collaboration, communication, creativity, and 21st century skills are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of pretest and posttest of three groups
Group | Mean | Std. deviation | N | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Critical | Pretest | PBL | 31.33 | 3.304 | 30 |
e-PBL | 30.53 | 3.048 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 29.47 | 3.381 | 30 | ||
Total | 30.44 | 3.302 | 90 | ||
Posttest | PBL | 37.13 | 1.925 | 30 | |
e-PBL | 41.13 | 3.203 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 30.40 | 3.169 | 30 | ||
Total | 36.22 | 5.259 | 90 | ||
Collaboration | Pretest | PBL | 25.93 | 2.532 | 30 |
e-PBL | 25.03 | 1.771 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 24.40 | 1.589 | 30 | ||
Total | 25.12 | 2.082 | 90 | ||
Posttest | PBL | 36.07 | 2.420 | 30 | |
e-PBL | 31.03 | 4.642 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 24.60 | 1.589 | 30 | ||
Total | 30.57 | 5.659 | 90 | ||
Communication | Pretest | PBL | 14.57 | 1.832 | 30 |
e-PBL | 14.37 | 1.650 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 14.10 | 1.373 | 30 | ||
Total | 14.34 | 1.623 | 90 | ||
Posttest | PBL | 22.17 | 1.315 | 30 | |
e-PBL | 20.33 | 1.688 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 14.20 | 1.495 | 30 | ||
Total | 18.90 | 3.736 | 90 | ||
Creativity | Pretest | PBL | 14.23 | 1.695 | 30 |
e-PBL | 14.37 | 1.847 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 13.30 | 1.784 | 30 | ||
Total | 13.97 | 1.820 | 90 | ||
Posttest | PBL | 19.00 | 1.486 | 30 | |
e-PBL | 20.10 | 1.605 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 13.37 | 1.650 | 30 | ||
Total | 17.49 | 3.353 | 90 | ||
Total | Pretest | PBL | 86.07 | 8.212 | 30 |
e-PBL | 84.30 | 5.961 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 81.27 | 5.172 | 30 | ||
Total | 83.88 | 6.800 | 90 | ||
Posttest | PBL | 114.37 | 4.327 | 30 | |
e-PBL | 112.60 | 6.328 | 30 | ||
Ctr | 82.57 | 5.289 | 30 | ||
Total | 103.18 | 15.607 | 90 |
As indicated in Table 2, the mean scores of the pretest and posttest of critical thinking of the three groups demonstrate a good deal of change in all the three groups with the e-PBL group having the most improvement, followed by PBL, and then control group. That is, there was a change from 31.33 to 37.13 in PBL group, from 30.53 to 41.13 in e-PBL group, and from 29.47 to 30.40 in control group. Comparing the pretest and posttest mean scores of learners’ creativity, e-PBL is the group with the most improvement, followed by PBL, and the least improvement is related to the control group since the changes are from 14.37 to 20.10, from 14.23 to 19.00, and from 13.30 to 13.37 respectively.
However, the mean scores of the pretest and posttest of collaboration proved a good deal of change in PBL and e-PBL groups but not in the control group. That is, there was a change from 25.93 to 36.07 in PBL group, from 25.03 to 31.03 in e-PBL group, and from 24.40 to 24.60 in control group. Moreover, the change in the pretest and posttest of communication of the three groups shows improvement in all groups. However, PBL had the most progress since its mean score enjoyed a change from 14.57 to 22.17 followed by e-PBL group having a change from 14.37 to 20.33 and finally the control group shifting from 14.10 to 14.20 from the pretest to the posttest. Moreover, since the three groups’ pretest scores were not much different, their posttest mean scores are somehow different.
Finally, the mean scores of the pretest and posttest of 21st-century-skills of the three groups was a good amount in all the three groups with the PBL and e-PBL groups having almost similar improvement and control group experiencing less progress. The change in PBL group was from 86.07 to 114.37, in e-PBL group was from 84.30 to 112.60, and in control group was from 81.27 to 82.57. Comparing the groups pretest mean scores, that are very close to each other, with the posttest mean scores, which are different, the conclusion would be that there was not much variability on the pretest of the three groups while their posttest scores were almost diverse.
The results of a Repeated-Measures Two-Way ANOVAs, reported below, show the statistical significance of the progresses explained.
Table 3. Tests of within and between subjects effects of pretest and posttest of 21st century of three groups
Effect | Value | F | Sig. | Partial eta squared | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Critical | Pretest-Posttest | Pillai’s Trace | 0.783 | 313.463 | 0.000 | 0.783 |
Group | 40.607 | 0.000 | 0.483 | |||
Pretest-Posttest * Group | Pillai’s Trace | 0.627 | 73.121 | 0.000 | 0.627 | |
Collaboration | Pretest-Posttest | Pillai’s Trace | 0.727 | 231.572 | 0.000 | 0.727 |
Group | 77.101 | 0.000 | 0.639 | |||
Pretest-Posttest * Group | Pillai’s Trace | 0.598 | 64.840 | 0.000 | 0.598 | |
Communication | Pretest-Posttest | Pillai’s Trace | 0.817 | 387.944 | 0.000 | 0.817 |
Group | 115.297 | 0.000 | 0.726 | |||
Pretest-Posttest * Group | Pillai’s Trace | 0.690 | 96.931 | 0.000 | 0.690 | |
Creativity | Pretest-Posttest | Pillai’s Trace | 0.832 | 431.539 | 0.000 | 0.832 |
Group | 60.414 | 0.000 | 0.581 | |||
Pretest-Posttest * Group | Pillai’s Trace | 0.710 | 106.548 | 0.000 | 0.710 | |
Total | Pretest-Posttest | Pillai’s Trace | 0.904 | 816.311 | 0.000 | 0.904 |
Group | 118.430 | 0.000 | 0.731 | |||
Pretest-Posttest * Group | Pillai’s Trace | 0.803 | 177.511 | 0.000 | 0.803 | |
The within-subjects factor (i.e. Pretest-Posttest) in Table 3 signposts the significant value of 0.000, It means there was a significant difference between the participants’ performance from the pretest to the posttest of critical thinking, collaboration, communication and creativity. The size of this effect was large as it is 0.783, 0.727, 0.817 and 0.832 in critical thinking, collaboration, communication and creativity. The between-subjects effect’s significant value, which is 0.000 and smaller than the critical value (p = .000; α = 0.05; p < α), is an indication of the point that the three groups’ performance was noticeably different from each other on either the pretest or posttest. The size of this effect was again large according to its Partial Eta Squared, which is 0.483, 0.639, 0.726 and 0.581 respectively for critical thinking, collaboration, communication and creativity skills. The information, presented in Pretest-Posttest * Group row reveals that there was a significant difference between the amount of discrepancy in the performance of the members of the three groups from the pretest to the posttest of critical thinking, collaboration, communication and creativity. That is, the three groups had different amounts of improvement from the pretest to the posttest, and the degree of this difference was large according to the effect size, which is 0.627, 0.598, 0.690 and 0.710.
The within-subjects factor of 21st century is reported as 0.000, It means there was a significant difference between the participants’ performance from the pretest to the posttest of 21st century. The size of this effect was because it is 0.904. According to their between-subjects effect, the significant value for which is 0.000 and smaller than critical (p = .000; α = 0.05; p < α), the three groups’ performance was noticeably different from each other on either the pretest or posttest. The size of this effect was large according to its Partial Eta Squared, which is 0.731. The significant value of the Pretest-Posttest * Group, which is 0.000 and lower than the standard (p = .000; α = 0.05; p < α), discloses a noteworthy difference between the performance of the members of the three groups from the pretest to the posttest. It means the three groups had dissimilar extents of improvement from the pretest to the posttest, and the degree of this difference was large according to the effect size, which is 0.803. Table 4 below shows the three groups’ performance on their posttest.
Table 4. Scheffe post-hoc test on posttest of 21st century of three groups
(I) Group | (J) Group | Mean difference (I-J) | Std. error | Sig. | 95% confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower bound | Upper bound | ||||||
Critical thinking | PBL | e-PBL | − 1.60 | 0.677 | 0.067 | − 3.29 | 0.09 |
Ctr | 4.30 | 0.677 | 0.000 | 2.61 | 5.99 | ||
e-PBL | Ctr | 5.90 | 0.677 | 0.000 | 4.21 | 7.59 | |
Collaboration | PBL | e-PBL | 2.97 | 0.524 | 0.000 | 1.66 | 4.27 |
Ctr | 6.50 | 0.524 | 0.000 | 5.19 | 7.81 | ||
e-PBL | Ctr | 3.53 | 0.524 | 0.000 | 2.23 | 4.84 | |
Communication | PBL | e-PBL | 1.02 | 0.290 | 0.003 | 0.29 | 1.74 |
Ctr | 4.22 | 0.290 | 0.000 | 3.49 | 4.94 | ||
e-PBL | Ctr | 3.20 | 0.290 | 0.000 | 2.48 | 3.92 | |
Creativity | PBL | e-PBL | − 0.62 | 0.381 | 0.276 | − 1.57 | 0.33 |
Ctr | 3.28 | 0.381 | 0.000 | 2.33 | 4.23 | ||
e-PBL | Ctr | 3.90 | 0.381 | 0.000 | 2.95 | 4.85 | |
Total | PBL | e-PBL | 1.77 | 1.312 | 0.408 | − 1.50 | 5.03 |
Ctr | 18.30 | 1.312 | 0.000 | 15.03 | 21.57 | ||
e-PBL | Ctr | 16.53 | 1.312 | 0.000 | 13.27 | 19.80 | |
Regarding the critical thinking and creativity element, the significant difference between the performance of the participants of PBL and e-PBL groups with traditional learning group (p = .000; α = 0.05; p < α) was proved whereas there was not such a variation between PBL and e-PBL groups (p = .067 and p = .276; α = 0.05; p > α) for critical thinking and creativity on their posttest. Therefore, the three groups performed substantially different from each other on their posttest.
There was a substantial variance between the performance of the participants of PBL, e-PBL, and Ctrl groups’ collaboration and communication factor on their posttest since all their significant values are 0.000 and smaller than standard (p = .000; α = 0.05; p < α) in collaboration. As a result, the three groups performed substantially different from each other on their posttest.
The difference between the PBL and e-PBL groups’ performance on their posttest of 21st century was.408 and higher than standard (p = .408; α = 0.05; p > α) while the control group performed markedly different from both PBL and e-PBL groups. Hence, the three groups performed substantively different from each other in their posttest. Figures 3 and 4 below illustrate the three groups’ performance from the pretest to the posttest of all the components and also 21st century.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 3
Students’ 4Cs skills among PBL, E-PBL and traditional group
In Fig. 3, it can be observed that the three groups did not progress the same throughout the treatment sessions, and performed almost differently. That is, both PBL and e-PBL performed considerably better at the end with e-PBL group having a better improvement. Control group, on the other hand, did not improve a lot and considerably different from the other two groups. Based on their critical thinking skills, learners in e-PBL group with mean score of 10.6 were much better than PBL (5.8) and traditional groups (0.93). However, collaboration skill of PBL group (10.14) had the highest amount of improvement followed by e-PBL group and finally the control group with mean score of 6 and 0.2 respectively. Consistently, PBL learners outperformed e-PBL and traditional groups in sequence with mean score of 7.6, 5.96 and 0.10 in their communication skills. Finally, students’ creativity within e-PBL group (5.73) and PBL group (4.77) surpassed the traditional group (0.07).
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 4
Differences between pretest and posttest of 21st-century-skills of three groups
The conclusions came at about the 21st-century-skills are schematically illustrated in Fig. 4. In this figure, it can be observed that the three groups performed almost alike on their pretest. However, the control group did not change similar to the PBL and e-PBL groups throughout the study, and performed differently at the end. That is, both PBL and e-PBL performed considerably better at the end. Control group, on the other hand, did not improve a lot and did considerably different from the other two groups.
Discussion
This study examined the effects of PBL and e-PBL pedagogies on the development of the 4Cs as the 21st-century skills. The result of this study on positive impact of PBL compared to traditional pedagogy on 4Cs is consistent with the research finding of Saimon et al. [2]. A possible reason is that traditional pedagogy is teacher-centered that utilizes textbooks as the primary instructional materials. In this model, the teacher delivers lectures to convey the concepts or principles contained within the textbooks, while students tend to passively absorb the information rather than actively engage with it. In contrast, PBL adopts a student-centered approach. In this framework, teachers guide students in exploring the project topic, as well as in the design, production, explanation, and presentation of their findings. Throughout this process, teachers honor students’ perspectives, actively listen to their input, and create opportunities for self-directed decision-making and innovation. Consistently, Song et al. [9] indicated PBL compared to traditional teaching methods, provides students with greater opportunities for exploration and ample time to reflect and inquire the 4Cs. Through collaborative peer interactions, PBL transforms theoretical scientific concepts into practical experiences, thereby enhancing the depth of learning while simultaneously boosting students’ self-esteem and sense of achievement.
The study indicated a notable enhancement in the creativity of learners, as students in the experimental groups were encouraged to think creatively by exploring multiple approaches to address everyday problems presented in their project tasks. Similarly, Firda and Sunarti [60] also emphasized that when students are afforded the opportunity to generate ideas and devise solutions to real-life challenges, it fosters their creative abilities. However, learners’ creativity with e-PBL pedagogy are increased rather than PBL. The result of this study is aligned with Tathahira [46] who discovered that learners’ engagement in online projects can be developed their argumentation and reasoning abilities due to the additional time allocated for reflection and research. Also, Zhang and Ma [61] believed that its reason relies on the use of digital technologies. The primary factor contributing to this phenomenon is the creation of products that arise from the fusion of digital advancements with traditional projects, resulting in innovative and practical offerings that are well-suited to contemporary needs. The development and investigation of digital-based projects serve as valuable resources for students, enhancing their learning materials and content. Likewise, Connolly and Burn [62] noted that online platforms develop creativity in writing works due to freedom and playfully engaging environment.
In addition, the findings of this study on improving students’ critical thinking skill are in line with the research carried out by Sattar and Nawaz [37]. The complexity and challenges presented by the projects necessitated that students engage in design, problem-solving, decision-making, and investigative activities, thereby enabling them to refine their critical thinking skills. Likewise, Tathahira [46] demonstrated through his research that collaborative group and peer activities fostered an environment where students could cultivate open-mindedness, value diverse opinions, and engage in the exchange, debate, and challenge of ideas among themselves. Nevertheless, the results of this study revealed that learners exhibited enhanced critical thinking skills in online learning settings compared to traditional face-to-face PBL classes. Similarly, Pahl [63] noted that projects conducted in an online learning context enable students to actively develop new skills and gain fresh experiences as part of their educational journey in the digital environment.
Furthermore, students’ communication and collaboration skills were enhanced by the ongoing learning processes, as they were required to gather information from a variety of sources, including both print and electronic media. It also necessitated that students effectively exchange ideas and information among their peers to achieve success. The interaction encountered in an online learning environment lacks interactional perspectives of the face-to-face classroom settings. There are significant differences, particularly in terms of communication and collaboration, which are hindered by the lack of real-time interaction. The study conducted by Stockleben et al. [64] similarly highlighted the deficiency of non-verbal communication in online collaborative and communicative environments, emphasizing the necessity for alternatives that offer emotional cues. In harmony with, the research finding of Tangney et al. [65] suggested that in a physical environment, the arrangement of the room and the access to technology are intentionally structured to promote sharing and collaboration. however, transitioning to an online modality diminishes the extent to which these interactions occur. Haythornthwaite [66] also highlighted the challenges associated with the transient nature of many collaborations in online learning environments. Participants are often assembled into groups for brief periods to achieve specific objectives, such as facilitating a discussion or finalizing a project at the end of the semester. By the same token, Curtis and Lawson [67] posited that students encountered challenges in communicating with individuals they were not well acquainted with. These challenges stemmed from delays inherent in the communication process, which was asynchronous rather than occurring in real-time.
Subsequently, the ongoing pedagogies promoted the learner’s 4C skills, PBL played a more effective role compared to e-PBL. A possible reason is related to technical issue as a major problem in the implementation of e-PBL. It is essential for both teachers and students to ensure a reliable internet connection when engaging in projects, particularly during video conference meetings. A weak connection can result in disconnections from the meeting, leading to missed sessions and hindering the teacher’s ability to monitor progress effectively. Additionally, online communication may lead to misunderstandings due to the absence of non-verbal cues. To mitigate these challenges, the instructor should foster a safe and supportive atmosphere that encourages active participation from all students [68]. Instances of awkwardness have been observed during the implementation of e-PBL, particularly when students fail to respond during synchronous learning sessions. The teacher must adopt an assertive approach to ensure student engagement, as some may be passively observing. Other challenges were also founded including managing time effectively and addressing students’ reluctance to advance in their work.
Pedagogical implications of 4C skills
The results of this study provide important insights into how 4Cs skills through PBL and e-PBL varies. The findings have important implications for developing teaching practices generally in EFL context and supporting implementation of 21st century skills.
Communication
One approach to enhancing students’ communication skills, as noted by Sword [69], involves fostering a safe learning atmosphere characterized by supportive relationships. When students perceive a sense of support, they are more inclined to articulate their thoughts and ideas during class discussions, embrace challenges, and seek assistance when necessary. Furthermore, increasing opportunities for teamwork and group discussions can contribute to a more inviting classroom environment. Engaging in small group activities including debates, presentations, and peer feedbacks enables students to exchange their ideas more readily, adapt to diverse audiences and refine their communication abilities [1]. Consistent with, educators should incorporate multimodal literacy practices, including academic writing, cross-cultural dialogues and digital storytelling to develop effective communication, ensuring students can convey ideas across various platforms [70]. Similarly, Kolk [71] and Pardede [4] proposed methods for nurturing learners’ communicative skills through technology-enhanced learning environments, which facilitate communication across various media for different purposes and audiences.
Collaboration
Establishing a classroom learning environment that encourages students to express their ideas and receive feedback from peers is essential for fostering collaboration. One effective approach to promote meaningful collaboration is the implementation of complex learning activities that necessitate positive interdependence among students. This can be achieved through challenging projects that require students to collaboratively identify a problem and devise a solution [17]. It is important to emphasize that activities that enhance students’ appreciation for collaboration should align with their interests and relate to real-world contexts [71]. Consequently, to cultivate collaboration skills, educators should facilitate an environment where learners can engage in group work, ensuring that the tasks are relevant and engaging for all participants. Additionally, collaboration can be fostered through project-based learning (PBL) and group tasks, which promote teamwork, shared responsibility, and social learning. This approach aligns with Vygotsky’s [25] sociocultural theory, that highlights the importance of knowledge construction through social interaction.
Critical thinking
To foster the learners’ critical thinking skills, educators can establish an environment that encourages students to participate in activities requiring classification, prediction, justification, and evaluation of various issues [71, 72]. Moreover, the teachers must move beyond rote memorization by incorporating metacognitive strategies, such as reflective journals and argument mapping, helping students analyze information, engage in reasoning tasks, evaluate evidence, and make judgments in real-world and inquiry-based learning scenarios [9, 33].
Creativity
A safe learning environment significantly contributes to the enhancement of students’ creative abilities. As noted by Kolk [71], the development of creativity necessitates a safe space where individuals can devise innovative solutions, exercise their autonomy, take calculated risks, and engage with issues pertinent to their real-life situations. Consequently, fostering creativity within the classroom demands the implementation of open-ended tasks that not only encourage risk-taking and divergent thinking, but also enable learners to approach problem-solving from various angles while ensuring alignment with their interests [73]. PBL serves as an inquiry-based approach that empowers students to express their creativity in meaningful, engaging, and relevant ways, providing both the freedom and structure necessary for creative exploration [74].
Conclusion
The results of the analyses related to the research question revealed that regarding the critical thinking and creativity factors as well as the 21st-century-skills, there was not a significant amount of difference in the improvement of the participants in PBL and e-PBL groups whereas the students in traditional pedagogy performed significantly poorer than the other two groups. In the case of the collaboration and communication factors, all the three groups made significantly different amounts of improvement with the PBL pedagogy having the most progress, followed by e-PBL, and finally traditional pedagogy. Therefore, it was proved that PBL and e-PBL had differentially effective potential for EFL students’ 21st -century-skills and its 4Cs components.
Limitations and further research
Several limitations need to be noted regarding the present study. First, since the scope of this study is extremely wide in which writing skill should be done under the concentration of project-based learning by different types of projects, it has limitations in time constraints considering that the projects need sufficient time to perform which affect the result of the study. Need to mention that e-projects require various technological equipment while some of participants are not in the same speed of internet for communication and collaboration of group work tasks. In addition, it constrains the teachers in providing the required experiences of PBL. Accessibility of the most qualified teachers through the experience of project-based pedagogy is another limitation of this study. We also acknowledge that self-assessment questionnaire of 21st -Century Skills are subject to social and self-perception biases. However, using only one instructor for both PBL and e-PBL keep teaching consistent, it may have introduced systematic biases as the instructor may favored at delivering one pedagogical approach over another.
The primary objective of the current study was to examine the impact of PBL pedagogy on the enhancement of the 4Cs skills. However, additional research is necessary to explore other skills pertinent to the 21st century. It is also advisable to conduct a mixed methods study that assesses the impact of PBL on the development of the 4Cs, utilizing a sufficiently large sample size to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. Furthermore, it is recommended that future research measure the effects of PBL on the development of the 4Cs across various educational stages, incorporating different forms of instructional technology. Finally, a longitudinal study is suggested to track a sample of administrators and professional educators to evaluate how the development of the 4Cs through PBL within the educational context influences long-term success.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the reviewers of this article who, through their insightful advice, they helped us to improve our work.
Author contributions
The authors, Zohreh Jelodari, Zohre Mohammadi Zenouzagh, and Mohammad Hashamdar altogether designed the model of learning adaptability, analyzed and interpreted the student data, and reached a conclusion regarding this research.
Funding
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethical approval
The authors obtained ethical approval from the Research Committee at the Islamic Azad University, Iran, and was conducted in accordance with ethical research practices.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for publication
Participants consented to publication as part of their consent to participate during the online questionnaire study.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. P.21. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Framework for 21st Century Learning Definitions. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2019. http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf).
2. Saimon, M; Lavicza, Z; Dana-Picard, T. Enhancing the 4Cs among college students of a communication skills course in Tanzania through a project-based learning model. Educ Inform Technol; 2023; 28,
3. Wulansari, RE; Nabawi, RA; Safitri, D; Kiong, TT. The effectiveness of project-based learning on 4Cs skills of vocational students in higher education. J Tech Educ Train; 2022; 14,
4. Pardede, P. Integrating the 4Cs into EFL integrated skills learning. J Engl Teach; 2020; 6,
5. Thio, AT; Budiningsih, CA; Dewi, RP. Effective Project-Based learning strategies to enhance critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration skill. Wacana Akademika: Majalah Ilmiah Kependidikan; 2025; 9,
6. Rati, NW; Arnyana, IBP; Dantes, GR; Dantes, N. HOTS-Oriented e-Project-Based learning: improving 4C skills and science learning outcome of elementary school students. Int J Inform Educ Technol; 2023; 13,
7. Williamson, E. The effectiveness of Project-Based learning in developing critical thinking skills among high school students. Eur J Educ; 2023; 1,
8. Zen Z, Ariani F. Academic achievement: the effect of project-based online learning method and student engagement. Heliyon. 2022;8(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11509.
9. Song X, Razali AB, Sulaiman T, Jeyaraj JJ. Effectiveness of online project-based learning on Chinese EFL learners’ critical thinking skills and reading comprehension ability. Think Skills Creat. 2025;101778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101778.
10. Prabowo J. The effectiveness of teaching writing for introvert and extrovert students using Project-Based learning: A study at the english department, teacher training and education. PROCEEDING AISELT. 2024;9(1). https://doi.org/10.30870/aiselt.v9i1.30148.
11. Sirait, JV; Amnie, E. Analysis of students’ collaboration skills through Project-Based learning model. Gagasan Pendidikan Indonesia; 2023; 4,
12. Warr M, West RE. Bridging academic disciplines with interdisciplinary project-based learning: challenges and opportunities. Interdisciplinary J Problem-Based Learn. 2020;14(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28590.
13. Sirisrimangkorn, L. Improving EFL undergraduate learners’ speaking skills through Project-Based learning using presentation. Adv Lang Literary Stud; 2021; 12,
14. Purwianingsih, W; Lestari, DA; Rahman, T. Profile of communication skills of students in groups with the application of blended learning using project-based learning model. Indonesian J Multidiciplinary Res; 2023; 3,
15. Owens, AD; Hite, RL. Enhancing student communication competencies in STEM using virtual global collaboration project based learning. Res Sci Technological Educ; 2022; 40,
16. Gunawan G, Sahidu H, Harjono A, Suranti NMY. The effect of project based learning with virtual media assistance on student’s creativity in physics. Cakrawala Pendidikan. 2017;287812. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v36i2.13514.
17. Wijayati N, Sumarni W, Supanti S. Improving student creative thinking skills through project based learning. KnE Social Sci. 2019;408–21. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i18.4732.
18. Kim, Y. The problem/project-based learning (PBL/PjBL) at online classes. Int J Adv Cult Technol; 2021; 9,
19. Ginusti, GN. The implementation of digital technology in online Project-based learning during pandemic: EFL students’ perspectives. J-SHMIC: J Engl Academic; 2023; 10,
20. Yuliansyah, A; Ayu, M. The implementation of project-based assignment in online learning during covid-19. Engl Lang Teach Learn; 2021; 2,
21. Yustina, Y; Syafii, W; Vebrianto, R. The effects of blended learning and project-based learning on pre-service biology teachers’ creative thinking through online learning in the covid-19 pandemic. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia; 2020; 9,
22. Mohamadi, Z. Comparative effect of project-based learning and electronic project-based learning on the development and sustained development of english idiom knowledge. J Comput High Educ; 2018; 30,
23. Amin, S; Shahnaz, M. Benefits and challenges of online Project-Based learning: students and the lecturer’s perceptions. Jurnal Kependidikan Penelitian Inovasi Pembelajaran; 2023; 7,
24. Dewey J. An as experience. Education. 1938;6.
25. Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Volume 86. Harvard University Press; 1978.
26. Eswaran U. Project-based learning: Fostering collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. In Enhancing education with intelligent systems and data-driven instruction (pp. 23–43). IGI Global. 2024. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2169-0.ch002
27. Morrison, J; Frost, J; Gotch, C; McDuffie, AR; Austin, B; French, B. Teachers’ role in students’ learning at a project-based STEM high school: implications for teacher education. Int J Sci Math Educ; 2021; 19, pp. 1103-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10108-3]
28. Al-Bahadli, KH; Al-Obaydi, LH; Pikhart, M. The impact of the online Project-Based learning on students’ communication, engagement, motivation, and academic achievement. Psycholinguistics; 2023; 33,
29. Spires, HA; Himes, MP; Krupa, E. Supporting students’ science content knowledge and motivation through Project-Based inquiry (PBI) global in a cross-school collaboration. Educ Sci; 2022; 12,
30. Trilling B, Fadel C. 21st century skills: learning for life in our times. Wiley; 2009.
31. Pang, Y. The role of web-based flipped learning in EFL learners’ critical thinking and learner engagement. Front Psychol; 2022; 13, 1008257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1008257]
32. Sari, EDP; Trisnawati, RK; Agustina, MF; Adiarti, D; Noorashid, N. Assessment of students’ creative thinking skill on the implementation of Project-Based learning. Int J Lang Educ; 2023; 7,
33. Sasson, I; Yehuda, I; Malkinson, N. Fostering the skills of critical thinking and question-posing in a project-based learning environment. Think Skills Creativity; 2018; 29, pp. 203-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.08.001]
34. Razali, SN; Ahmad, MH; Noor, HAM. Implications of learning interaction in online project based collaborative learning. J Comput Theor Nanosci; 2020; 17,
35. Morais, P; Ferreira, MJ; Veloso, B. Improving student engagement with Project-Based learning: A case study in software engineering. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana De Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje; 2021; 16,
36. Arabloo, P; Hemmati, F; Rouhi, A; Khodabandeh, F. The effect of technology-aided project-based english learning on critical thinking and problem solving as indices of 21st century learning. J Mod Res Engl Lang Stud; 2021; 9,
37. Sattar F, Nawaz M. Developing computational thinking in STEM education with drones. In 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1–5). IEEE. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125117
38. Saenab S, Yunus SR, Saleh AR, Virninda AN, Sofyan NA. Project-based learning as the atmoshphere for promoting students’ communication skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1028, p. 012026). IOP Publishing. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1028/1/012026
39. Aljuwaiber, A. Technology-based vs. face-to-face interaction for knowledge sharing in the project teams. Int J Project Organisation Manage; 2019; 11,
40. Menggo, S; Pramesti, PDMY; Krismayani, NW. Integrating project-based learning in Preparing students’ interpersonal communication skills on speaking courses in Indonesia. Int J Learn Teach Educational Res; 2023; 22,
41. Nahar, L; Machado, C. Inquiry-based learning in bangladesh: insights into middle and high school students’ experiences and 21st century skill development. Disciplinary Interdisciplinary Sci Educ Res; 2025; 7,
42. Hashim, AM; Aris, SRS; Chan, YF. Promoting empathy using design thinking in project-based learning and as a classroom culture. Asian J Univ Educ; 2019; 15,
43. Chang, TS; Wang, HC; Haynes, AM; Song, MM; Lai, SY; Hsieh, SH. Enhancing student creativity through an interdisciplinary, project-oriented problem-based learning undergraduate curriculum. Think Skills Creativity; 2022; 46, 101173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101173]
44. Ananda, LR; Rahmawati, Y; Khairi, F. Critical thinking skills of chemistry students by integrating design thinking with STEAM-PjBL. J Technol Sci Educ; 2023; 13,
45. Han, S; Liu, D; Lv, Y. The influence of psychological safety on students’ creativity in project-based learning: the mediating role of psychological empowerment. Front Psychol; 2022; 13, 865123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865123]
46. Tathahira T, Englisia. J Lang Educ Humanit. 8(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v8i1.6636.
47. Valtonen, T; Hoang, N; Sointu, E; Näykki, P; Virtanen, A; Pöysä-Tarhonen, J; Häkkinen, P; Järvelä, S; Mäkitalo, K; Kukkonen, J. How pre-service teachers perceive their 21st-century skills and dispositions: A longitudinal perspective. Comput Hum Behav; 2021; 116, 106643. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jchb2020106643]
48. Beneroso, D; Robinson, J. Online project-based learning in engineering design: supporting the acquisition of design skills. Educ Chem Eng; 2022; 38, pp. 38-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.09.002]
49. Lu, SY; Lo, CC; Syu, JY. Project-based learning oriented STEAM: the case of micro–bit paper-cutting lamp. Int J Technol Des Educ; 2022; 32,
50. Kalemkuş, F; Bulut-Özek, M. The effect of online project-based learning on metacognitive awareness of middle school students. Interact Learn Environ; 2024; 32,
51. Greenhow, C; Chapman, A. Social distancing Meet social media: digital tools for connecting students, teachers, and citizens in an emergency. Inform Learn Sci; 2020; 121,
52. Nguyen, HL; Luong, DH; Hoang, PH; Almonte-Acosta, SA; Umali, EG; Puertoc, JN; Le, AV. The transversal competencies of Vietnamese primary students and the relationship with online learning activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int Electron J Elementary Educ; 2022; 14,
53. Saad, S; Morat, BN; Abdullah, A; Farani, Y. Empowering ESL learners: unleashing autonomy through Project-Based learning. Int Journal Adv Res Future Ready Learn Education; 2024; 35,
54. Alfathan A, Kurniasari I. Enhancing Creative Writing Skills in Foreign Language Learners Through Innovative Learning Strategies. J Educ Innov Curric Dev. 2024;2(3), 112–118. https://journals.iarn.or.id/index.php/educur/article/view/445
55. Fabre-Merchán P, Andrade-Molina C, Bastidas-Amador G, Castro-Castillo G. Developing 21st Century Skills through Project Based Learning and Multimodal Presentations. In INTED2020 Proceedings (pp. 3970–3977). IATED. 2020. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2020.1098
56. Kelley, TR; Knowles, JG; Han, J; Sung, E. Creating a 21st century skills survey instrument for high school students. Am J Educational Res; 2019; 7,
57. Flesch, R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol; 1948; 32,
58. Vo, T; Dung, CTP; Tong, NLB; Vy, VTM. Using Google Meet in teaching english at university: an insight from lecturers’ perspectives. J Engl Lang Teach Appl Linguistics; 2023; 5,
59. Dörnyei Z, Taguchi T. Questionnaires in second Language research: construction, administration, and processing. Routledge; 2009.
60. Firda, SU; Sunarti, T. The learning implementation of project based learning (PjBL) to analyze students’ 4 C skills ability. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu Dan Pembelajaran Matematika Dan IPA IKIP Mataram; 2022; 10,
61. Zhang, L; Ma, Y. A study of the impact of project-based learning on student learning effects: A meta-analysis study. Front Psychol; 2023; 14, 1202728. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1202728]
62. Connolly, S; Burn, A. The story engine: offering an online platform for making ‘unofficial’creative writing work. Literacy; 2019; 53,
63. Pahl C. Bringing Activity into E-Learning–the Development of Online Active Learning and Training Environments. Adv Princ Effect E-learn. 2007;116.
64. Stockleben, B; Thayne, M; Jäminki, S; Haukijärvi, I; Mavengere, NB; Demirbilek, M; Ruohonen, M. Towards a framework for creative online collaboration: A research on challenges and context. Educ Inform Technol; 2017; 22, pp. 575-97.
65. Tangney, B; Sullivan, K; Lawlor, J. Online collaborative PBL–The Bridge21 approach. Computers Educ Open; 2024; 7, 100224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100224]
66. Haythornthwaite, C. Facilitating collaboration in online learning. J Asynchronous Learn Networks; 2006; 10,
67. Curtis, DD; Lawson, MJ. Exploring collaborative online learning. J Asynchronous Learn Networks; 2001; 5,
68. Benson R, Brack C. Online learning and assessment in higher education: A planning guide. (First ed.) Woodhead Publishing Limited. 2010. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265014989
69. Sword R. Effective Communication in the Classroom: Skills for Teachers. HUB. 2020. https://www.highspeedtraining.co.uk/hub/communication-skills-for-teachers/
70. Jenkins, SC; Harris, AJ; Lark, RM. When unlikely outcomes occur: the role of communication format in maintaining communicator credibility. J Risk Res; 2019; 22,
71. Kolk M. Create a 21st Century Classroom: Combining the 3 R’s and the 4 C’s. Tech4Learning, Inc. 2022. https://creativeeducator.tech4learning.com/2016/articles/create-a-21st-century-classroom
72. Erdogan, F. Effect of cooperative learning supported by reflective thinking activities on students’ critical thinking skills. Eurasian J Educational Res; 2019; 19,
73. Robinson K, Aronica L. Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Penguin books; 2016.
74. Johnson C. Strengthening Special Education Students Skills Through Project-Based Learning in Mathematics. Learning to Teach Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies Through Research and Practice. 2021;10(Skills). https://openjournals.utoledo.edu/index.php/learningtoteach/article/view/478
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.