You are here:

Toward Improving Preservice Teachers’ Intention to Use Technology in their Future Classroom: Examining the Effect of Project-based Learning on Students’ Attitude Change

, , Arkansas Tech University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Washington, D.C., United States ISBN 978-1-939797-32-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of project-based learning (PBL) on changing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology in their future classroom. By utilizing theory of planned behavior (TPB), the researchers used a mixed method to identify the strength of the effect that PBL has on preservice teachers’ attitudinal beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control leading to change in their intention to use technology. Participants were 36 preservice teachers enrolled in one graduate section and two undergraduate in a required technology integration course in a Midwest university. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to develop a model predicting preservice teachers’ use of technology in future classrooms. The results of the predictor model was able to account for 55% of the variance in students’ intention and was statistically significant. The results also found that students’ perceived proficiency is a significant predictor to use technology in future classroom. Furthermore, the PBL method improved students’ perceived self-efficacy, perceived proficiency and intention compared to beginning of the semester. Students seem to favor this learning method and indicated that PBL environment gave them sense of control to create personalized projects, manage and support their learning goals, communicate their questions and progress with others and connecting the projects they worked on to their own context and experience.


Ibrahim, M. & Callaway, R. (2018). Toward Improving Preservice Teachers’ Intention to Use Technology in their Future Classroom: Examining the Effect of Project-based Learning on Students’ Attitude Change. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1518-1527). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Ahmad, A., & Rainyee, R.A. (2014). Which is the better predictor of employee turnover intentions: Job satisfaction or organizational commitment? A literature review. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 6(1), 2.
  2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior Action control (pp. 11-39): Springer.
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
  4. Ajzen, I. (2014). Constructing a TpB Questionnaire: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. Revised version, 2006.
  5. Armitage, C.J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta analytic review. Journal of social psychology, 40(4), 471-499.
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
  7. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
  8. Burner, T. (2014). The potential formative benefits of portfolio assessment in second and foreign language writing contexts: A review of the literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 139-149.
  9. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think: Courier Corporation.
  10. Fraser, R.T., Johnson, K., Hebert, J., Ajzen, I., Copeland, J., Brown, P., & Chan, F. (2010). Understanding employers’ hiring intentions in relation to qualified workers with disabilities: Preliminary findings. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 20(4), 420-426.
  11. Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach: Springer.
  12. Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M.M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089-1113.
  13. Hasni, A., Bousadra, F., Belletête, V., Benabdallah, A., Nicole, M.-C., & Dumais, N. (2016). Trends in research on project-based science and technology teaching and learning at K–12 levels: a systematic review. StudieS in Science education, 52(2), 199-231.
  14. Jamal, A.-H., Essawi, M., & Tilchin, O. (2014). Accountability for Project-Based Collaborative Learning. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 127-135.
  15. Kalyoncu, R., & Tepecik, A. (2010). An Application of Project-Based Learning in an Urban Project Topic in the Visual Arts Course in 8th Classes of Primary Education. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(4), 2409-2430.
  16. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  17. Montano, D.E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. Health behavior: Theory, research and practice(
  18. Nilson, L.B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors: John Wiley& Sons.
  19. Papanikolaou, K., & Boubouka, M. (2010). Promoting collaboration in a project-based e-learning context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 135-155.
  20. Schwalm, J., & Tylek, K.S. (2012). Systemwide Implementation of Project-Based Learning: The Philadelphia Approach. Afterschool Matters, 15, 1-8.
  21. Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4.
  22. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact