See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/296672247

THE EFFECT OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AGAINST STUDENTS’

ENGAGEMENT

Article in International Journal of Development Research · February 2016

CITATIONS READS

28 3,496

4 authors, including:

Faridah Salam Mramlah Mailok

institute of teacher education tuanku bainun campus Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
4 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ubaidullah Nor Hasbiah

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
35 PUBLICATIONS 146 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mramlah Mailok on 03 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at http://www.journalijdr.com
International Journal of
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

ISSN: 2230-9926 International Journal of Development Research

Vol. 6, Issue, 02, pp. 6891-6895, February, 2016

Full Length Research Article

THE EFFECT OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AGAINST STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT
1,*Faridah Salam, 2Ramlah Mailok, 2Norhasbiah Ubaidullah and 3Umar Ahmad
1Institute of Teacher Education Tuanku Bainun Campus, 14 000 Bukit Mertajam, Penang, Malaysia
2Faculty of Arts, Computing and Creative Industry, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris 35900,
Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia
3Institute of Teacher Education Penang Campus, Bukit Coombe, 11700 Penang, Malaysia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: This research was conducted to study the effects of project-based learning approach in terms of
Received 18th November, 2015 students' engagement in classroom of Information Communication Technology (ICTs). The study
Received in revised form involved two sets of the modules, namely project-based learning with scaffolding and existing
09th December, 2015 approaches. Both modules are used as a guide in the implementation of the project for the
Accepted 11th January, 2016 Computer Hardware topic. The study was based on a quasi-experimental approach using
Published online 29th February, 2016 nonequivalent control groups design to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching approaches on
students’ engagement. In this study, 47 students from two (2) different schools in Kerian district,
Key Words: Malaysia were recruited. They were divided into two groups, namely the treatment group (n = 27)
Project-Based Learning, and a control group (n = 20). Hypotheses were tested using the independent t test at significance
Student Engagement, level of p < .05. Procedures of Partial eta-squared and r were used to calculate the effect sizes to
Scaffolding,
measure the strengths of the relations between variables. The results indicated that there were
Quasi-Experimental.
significant differences in students’ engagement. These findings indicate that the application of
project-based learning is effective in supporting student learning in ICT in raising the level of
engagement among them.

Copyright © 2016 Faridah Salam et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

INTRODUCTION Studies show that students who less engagement in school

have low achievement and likely to leave school with
According to international assessments, Programme for inadequate qualifications (PISA, 2003). The effort to improve
International Students Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in and strengthen the education system is made to ensure that
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the students has equipped with knowledge, skills, effective
gap between the education system in Malaysia and other communication, ability to use Information Technology (IT),
countries is widening (Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013- think creatively and critically, and act rationally (RMK-10,
2025 (PPPM), 2012). If the level of education is not upgraded 2012). Therefore, more emphasis is given to student
to international standards and school achievement gap is not participation in various activities in order to foster their
reduced, Malaysia will be left behind and lose its personal development (10th MP, 2012). Studies on student
competitiveness in the future (Tenth Malaysia Plan (RMK-10, engagement in the classroom environment is based on
2012). Besides students’ performance assessment, PISA also engagement of emotional, behavioral and cognitive (National
carries out assessments the level of student engagement in Center for School Engagement (NCSE, 2006). Because of
school environment. The level of student engagement in the rapid changes in the development and advancement of IT, the
classroom is an important aspect in assessing education (Lutz, content of the curriculum for the ICT subjects is revised and
Guthrie, and Davis, 2006) because it is significantly correlated updated by the Ministry of Education (MOE) by focusing on
with the level of student achievement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, the knowledge of software applications and computer
and Paris, 2004; PISA, 2003). hardware (Curriculum Development Centre (PPK), 2006a). In
order to achieve the objectives of ICT curricula, teachers must
*Corresponding author: Faridah Salam, play a role in the classroom to help students develop skills for
Institute of Teacher Education Tuanku Bainun Campus, 14 000 Bukit
living in a society based on knowledge and technology (Vega
Mertajam, Penang, Malaysia.
and Brown, 2013). Teachers can create active learning
environments that engage students to collaborate with each
6892 Faridah Salam et al. The effect of project-based learning against students’ engagement

other, particularly in the developing and designing a quality the approaches that enable students who are learning at all
product. Through collaborative activities may encourage levels to engage in learning activities actively (Baran and
students to interact with each other to form a consensus in Mak, 2010). In fact, with the project approach, students can
decision-making (Anghileri, 2006). Teachers also need to help improve their attitudes level toward learning (Thomas, 2000).
and support student learning by providing various forms of However, according to Barron et al. (1998), it is difficult to
scaffolding (Anghileri, 2006; Chang and Sun, 2009; Henning, maintain student engagement during implementation of the
Verhaegh, and Resing, 2011; Zhang, 2011). The emphasis on project.
student-centered learning activities is to build the student
knowledge with the help of social interaction with teachers Objective
and peers which is exists only in a constructivist learning
environment (Wang, 2008). Among the learning approaches The main focus of this study is to investigate the effect of the
that based on constructivist theory of social development is PjBL approach on students’ engagement while conducting the
PjBL approach. Therefore, PjBL approach is expected to add project.
value to existing approaches and make it as one of the
alternative approach (Chinowsky, Brown, Szajman, and Hypothesis
Realph, 2006) in a classroom environment. PjBL is considered
a good platform to foster the skills of meaningful learning and Mean of student engagement among treatment groups that
a high order thinking (Acar, 2013; Blumenfeld et al. 1991; using PjBL with scaffolding and control groups that using an
Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, and Soloway, 1997). PjBL is existing approach is the same.
characterized by social constructivism which states that
collaborative learning allows students to learn from each other, MATERIALS AND METHODS
built the right knowledge, and meant. (Robinson, 2013; Wang,
2008). Study Design

Issue When pure experimental designs cannot be controlled by a

researcher for a number of reasons such as the current group
The old model of schooling that involves learning passively that has been set, when treatment is not determined from a
are not appropriate for preparing students for life in today's group, or when there is no control group or comparison group
world (Educational Technology Division (BTP), 2006). that is suitable then, researchers may choose to use a quasi-
Passive learning occurs when students are only involved in experimental design (Best and Kahn, 2006; Creswell, 2008;
activities like listen, ask questions, and answered questions Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009; Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2010; Gay,
posed by the teacher (Minter, 2011). Meanwhile, the answers 1987; Gay, Mills, and Asian, 2009; McMillan, 2008). This
given by them depend on the source of the information study design is commonly used in the field of education,
obtained from their teachers (Minter, 2011). Therefore, psychology, and sociology research (Campbell and Stanley,
teachers need to shift from passive to active learning or 1963; McMillan, 2008; McMillan and Schumacher,
student-centered learning (Biggs and Tang, 2011) so that 2006).Quasi-experimental approach using none equivalent
students can adapt a new knowledge with existing knowledge control group designs is most widely used in the fields of
to build a new knowledge in their minds with the help of education research (Campbell and Stanley, 1963;Cibik and
social interaction with teachers and other students (PPK, Yalcin, 2012; Cook and Campbell, 1979; McMillan, 2008).
2001). According to the constructivism learning theory,
knowledge cannot be taught, but must be built by the students Questionnaire
themselves (Mcleod, 2007). PjBL approach is a model for
classroom activity that shifts away from the usual classroom According to Fredricks et al. (2004) and Hanndelsman et al.
practices of short, isolated, teacher-centered lessons. (2005), most studies that examined the engagement in the
context of the classroom is through question naires by the
The characteristic of project approach is long-term, teacher or the student. The question nairecontainsa series of
interdisciplinary, student-centered, and integrated with real- statements about the degree of acquisition of the students can
world issues and practices.It is a method that fosters see and accomplish in specific areas. The question
intellectual tasks to explore complex issues. It promotes naireconsists of 42 questions that was obtained and adapted
understanding, which is true knowledge. In project approach, from the National Center for School Engagement (NCSE),
activities are in a meaningful ways. It is more to, how adults which measures the level of engagement encompasses three
are asked to learn and demonstrate knowledge (BTP, 2006). dimensions; emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. The next
PjBL approach as an alternative approach, the right choice, procedure is to have the validity and reliability of
and the appropriate application in the field of education questionnaire items. Cronbach alpha values used to test the
(Chinowsky et al., 2006; Gulbahar and Tinmaz, 2006; Guthrie, internal consistency of the instrument (Creswell, 2008). The
2008), to provide students with 21st century skills (Bell, 2010; reliability of the questionnaire are shown in Table 1. The value
Kravitz, Hixson, English, and Mergendoller, 2011; Vega and of α is at a good level. In conclusion, the coefficient of
Brown, 2013). In the classroom environment, project approach reliability is acceptable because according to research
can increase student engagement because projects activity practitioners in the social sciences is at least.60 (Khera, 2006).
allows students to take responsibility, asking questions, make In the quasi-experimental design, the comparison should be
decisions, analyze, think critically, create, and make a made is between the pre and post scores from a question naire
presentation (Stripling et al., 2009). PjBL approach is one of of engagement for each group, namely the experimental group
6893 International Journal of Development Research, Vol. 06, Issue, 02, pp.6891-6895, February, 2016

and the control group. The goal is to determine whether there Based on Table 4, it was found that the level of significance of
are significant differences between the scores before and after Levene test is .60, while the value is greater than.05.The
treatment by an appropriate statistical test. output shows that there are differences between the two groups
in terms of the engagement level (t (45) =-2.10; p=.04). Due to
RESULTS the probability of obtaining the observed sample results if the
null hypothesis is true.04 then, the null hypothesis is rejected.
The hypothesis of the mean difference for a variable of the two The findings were statistically significant. Therefore, it is
populations (treatment group and the control group) is the concluded that the level of student engagement among
independent t test. Table 2 shows that the distribution of the treatment and control group is different. The difference
data is normal to the Shapiro-Wilk test, p>.05. This test is two- between the mean value is d = -.63 and the effect size of r =
tailed because of differences in the sample in any direction .30. Further, Cohen’s effect size value (d =.63) suggested a
will reject the null hypothesis. Based on Table 3, the results moderate to high practical significance.
showed that there was no significant difference in the mean
(M) score with a standard deviation (SD) of the students in the DISCUSSION
experimental group with students in the control group.
The results show that there are differences in the level of
Table 1.Coefficient of reliability engagement between students in the treatment group and a
control group. The study showed that the Pj BL approach has
Location Sample Size Alfa Cronbach (α) value related to positive learning outcomes (Fredricks et al., 2004).
School A 27 .869 Pj BL also a teaching approach that foster students to
School B 18 .854 participate actively in the process of learning (Jody, 2012;
School C 15 .821 Chu, Minasian, and Xiaoke, 2012; Chun-Ming, Gwo-Jen, and
Wen, 2012; Fernandes et al., 2014; Verma et al., 2011).
Table 2. Normality test Hardjito (2010), found that the scaffolding is a suitable
practice to engage students in their learning. He also found
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
that each student participate actively in the learning process
Statistic df p Statistic df P
because they do not just listen passively, but engage in
.073 47 .200* .974 47 .368
different activities (Hardjito, 2010), like discussion, planning,
gain information, and the process to produce the project
Table 3. Independent Sample t Test Before Treatment
(Aiedah and Audrey, 2012). Apparently, the intervention
conducted on PjBL approach, which systematically integrates
Teaching Approach N Mean (SD) t Sig.
PjBL with Scaffolding 27 162.52(14.836) -9.00 .373
a scaffolding as a teaching strategy has an impact on the level
Existing PjBL 20 171.00(11.987) of engagement of ICT within the experimental group. The
Total 47 findings of previous studies have shown that the PjBL
p>.05 approach (Filippatou and Kaldi, 2011;Yamand Rossini, 2010)
Table 4. Independent Sample t Test After Treatment
and the implementation of scaffolding in the learning process
(Lu et al., 2010; Lutzetal., 2006; Rymaz and McLarney, 2011;
Equal Variances Assumed Schweiter, 2010; Simons and Klein, 2006) have the potential
Levene Test: to raise the level of student engagement. To be successful in
F .286 planning, teachers need to have knowledge and skills about the
Sig. .596 process of implementation of the PjBL and how to integrate
t test:
t -2.098 the scaffolding as a teaching strategy. They also need to
df 45 encourage the students who prefer to work in a traditional
Sig. (2-tailed) .042 learning environment that only involve very little effort
Mean Difference -8.481 (Fredricks et al., 2004), for greater efforts to complete the
Std. Error difference 4.043
95% CI: assignment by participating actively (Aiedah and Audrey,
Lower Limit -16.625 2012). Teachers also need to encourage all students to be
Upper Limit -.338 equally involved in project learning activities (BTPN, 2007).
Note. CI= Confidence Interval A clear explanation of the process of implementation,
objectives and benefits of the project work was able to
The mean score for students in the pretest in the experimental overcome the problems of students with less attention and
group and the control group was (M = 167.70, SD = 10.89) cooperation in the group (BTPN, 2007).
and (M = 170.70, SD = 11.79), t = -9.00 p> .05, respectively.
Therefore, fail to reject the null hypothesis and can be Conclusion
concluded that there was no significant difference in the
degree of engagement of the two groups before treatment. This In conclusion, PjBL is still in the development stage, but there
finding further suggests that students in both groups were is no research or empirical data that can be said that the PjBL
homogeneous in terms of their level of previous engagement. as an alternative approach compared to other learning
Table 3 also shows that the mean reported for the treatment approach. Based on information obtained in recent years, it is
group and the control group was 162.52 and 171.00, clear PjBL can be an effective approach to improving the level
respectively. Research hypothesis states that the two groups of student engagement. Therefore, it can be concluded that an
have different mean. It is true based on the output displayed. effective approach to learn knowledge and skills is to apply
6894 Faridah Salam et al. The effect of project-based learning against students’ engagement

the scaffolding as a teaching strategy in PjBL approach in Students towards Physics. Gazi University Journal Of
promoting the learning environment. Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 32(1), 185-203.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D. T 1979. Quasi-experimentation:
REFERENCES design and analysis issues for field settings. Rand
Cresswel, J.W. (3rd ed.). 2008. Educational Research:
Acar, G. 2013. The Effect of Project-Based Learning on Planning conducting and evaluating quantitative and
Students' Motivation. International Journal Of Academic qualitative research. Perason: Merill Prentice Hall.
Research, 5(2), 82-86. doi:10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5- dunia. http://www.moe.gov.my/ userfiles/ file/
2/B.11 RMK10bab5%2014_6_10.pdf
Aiedah A.K. and Audrey L. K.C. 2012. Application of Project- Fernandes, S., Mesquita, D., Flores, M. and Lima, R. M. 2014.
Based Learning in Students’ Engagement in Malaysian Engaging students in learning: findings from a study of
Studies and English Language. Journal of project-led education. European Journal Of Engineering
Interdisciplinary Research in Education (JIRE), 2(1), 37- Education, 39(1), 55-67. doi:10.1080/ 03043797.
46. Retrieved from http://www.myjurnal.my/ 2013.833170
filebank/published_article/25666/03.pdf Filippatou, D. and Kaldi, S. 2011. The Effectiveness of
An initiative of the Colorado Foundation for Families and Project-Based Learning on Pupils with Learning
Children Retrieved from Difficulties Regarding Academic Performance, Group
http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionReg Work and Motivation. International Journal Of Special
istry/Admin/Resources/Resources/QuantifyingSchoolEng Education, 25(1), 17-26.
agementResearchReport.pdf Fraenkel, J.R and Wallen, N.E. (7th Ed.). 2009. How To
Anghileri, J. 2006. Scaffolding practices that enhance Design And Evaluate Research In Education. Boston:
mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Mc. Graw. Hill, Inc.
Education, 9(1), 33–52. doi:10.1007/s10857-006-9005 Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J.and Paris, A. 2004.
Bahagian Teknologi Pendidikan (BTP). September, 2006. For Indicators of Positive Development Conference
Project-Based Learning Handbook. Kuala Lumpur: March 12-13. Development, 1–49.
Baran, M. and Maskan, A. K. 2010. The effect of project- Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. and Borg, W.r. ( 10th Ed.). 2010.
based learning on pre-service physics teachers’ Applying educational research: how to read, do, and use
electrostatic achievements. Cypriot Journal of research to solve problems of practice. Boston: Pearson
Educational Science, 5, 243–257. Education, Inc.
Barron, Brigid J. S., Schwartz, Daniel L., Vye, Nancy J., Gay, L.R. 1987. Educational research: competencies for
Moore, Allison, Petrosino, Anthony, Zech. Linda, analysis and applications. Colombus: Merrill.
Bransford, J. D. 1998. Doing with Understanding : Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E. and Asian, P.A. (9th Ed.) 2009.
Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project-Based Educational research: competencies for analysis and
Learning. Learning, 7(3). applications. New Jercey: Merrill.
Bell, S. 2010. the Future Project-Based Learning for the 21st Gülbahar, Y. and Tinmaz, H. 2006. Implementing Project-
Century : Skills for. Leadership, 83(March, 2012), 39–43. Based Learning And E-Portfolio Assessment In an
doi:10.1080/00098650903505415 Undergraduate Course. Journal of Research on
Best, J.W. and Kahn, J.V. (10tC Ed.). 2006. Research in Technology in Education, 5191, 309–327.
education. USA: Pearson Education, Inc. Guthrie, C. 2008. Towards Greater Learner Control : Web
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (4th Ed.). 2011. Teaching for quality Supported Project-Based Learning. Journal of
learning at university: The society for research into higher Information Systems, 21(1), 121–131.
education. England: McGraw Hill. Hanndelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N. and Annette,
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, A., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., T. 2005. Student Course Engagement. The Journal of
Guzdial, M. and Palinscar, A. 1991. Motivating Project Educational Research, 98(3), 184–191.
Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Hardjito, D. 2010. The Use of Scaffolding Approach to
Learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(383), 369-398. Enhance Students ’ Engagement in Learning Structural
Campbell, D. T. And Stanley, J. C. 1966. Experimental and Analysis. International Education Studies, 3(1), 130–136.
quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Henning, J. R., Verhaegh, J. and Resing, W. C. M. (2011).
Houghton Miffin Company. electronic series completion task. Educational andChild
Chang, W.L. and Sun, Y.C. 2009. Scaffolding and web Psychology, 28(2), 85–100.
concordancers as support for language learning. Computer Jackson, S. 2012. Project-based learning. Retrieved from
Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 283–302. http://www.scholastic.ca/education/teaching_tip/february2
doi:10.1080/09588220903184518 012.html
Chinowsky, P. S., Brown, H., Szajnman, A. and Realph, A. Learning — MarineTech Project. Learning, (September),
2006. Developing Knowledge Landscape through Project- 25–32.
Based Learning. Issues in Engineering, (April), 118–125. Lu, J., Lajoie, S. P. and Wiseman, J. 2010. Scaffolding
Chu, R. H., Minasian, R. A. and Xiaoke, Y. 2012. Inspiring problem-based learning with CSCL tools. International
student learning in ICT communications electronics Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
Chun-Ming, H., Gwo-Jen, H. and Iwen, H. 2012. A Project- 5(3), 283–298. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6
based Digital Storytelling Approach for Improving Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., and Davis, M. H. 2006. Scaffolding
Çibik, A. and Yalçin, N. 2012. The Effect of Project Based for Engagement in Elementary School Reading
Learning Supported with Analogies on Attitudes of
6895 International Journal of Development Research, Vol. 06, Issue, 02, pp.6891-6895, February, 2016

Instruction. The Journal of Educational Research 100(1), Schwieter, J. W. 2010. Developing Second Language : Writing
3-20. Through Scaffolding In The ZPD : A Magazine Project
Mcleod, S. A. 2007. Simply Psychology: Vygotsky. Retrieved For An Authentic Audience, 7(10), 31–46.
fro http://www.simplypsychology.org/vugotsky.htm Simons, K. D. and Klein, J. D. 2006. The Impact of
McMillan, J. H. (5th ed.). 2008. Educational Research: Scaffolding and Student Achievement Levels in a
Fundamentals for the consumer. Boston: Pearson Problem-based Learning Environment. Instructional
Allyin and Bacon. Science (pp. 41–72). doi:10.1007/s11251-006-9002-5
McNally College Pub. Co. Stripling, B., Commitante, A. and Abrahams, C. 2009. Project
Minter, M. K. 2011. Learner-Centered ( LCI ) Vs . Teacher- Based Learning: Inspiring Middle School Students to
Centered ( TCI ) Instruction : A Classroom Engage in Deep and Active Learning. New York:
Management Perspective. Journal of Business Chambers Streert.
Education, 4(5), 55–63. Students' Learning Motivation, Problem-Solving Competence
MOE. and Learning Achievement. Journal Of Educational
National Center for School Engagement (NCSE). (2006). Technology and Society, 15(4), 368-379.
Quantifying School Engagement: Research Report. Thomas, J. W. 2000. A Review Research on Project-Based
Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia (PPPM) 2013-2025. Learning . Retrieved October 11, 2011, from
2012. Pendidikan Prasekolah hingga Lepas Menengah. autodesk.com: http://www.autodesk.com/foundation
(atas talian) http://www.moe.gov.my/cms/ through a new integrated project-based learning approach.
upload_files/articlefile/2013/articlefile_file_003107.pdf International Journal Of Electrical Engineering
Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA). Education, 49(2), 127-135. doi:10.7227/IJEEE.49.2.3
(2003). PISA Measures of Students Engagement. OECD. Vega, A. and Brown, C. 2013. The Implementation of Project-
Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum (PPK). (2001). Pembelajaran Based Learning. National Forum of Educational
Secara Konstruktivisme. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia Administration and Supervision Journal, 30(2), 4-29.
(KPM). Verma, A. K., Dickerson, D. and McKinney, S. 2011.
Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum (PPK). 2006. Huraian Engaging Students in STeM careers with Project-Based
Sukatan Pelajaran ICT. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia Wang, Q. 2008. A generic model for guiding the integration of
(KPM). ICT into teaching and learning, 45(4), 411–419.
Rancangan Malaysia ke-10 (RMKe- 10). 2012. Bab 5. doi:10.1080/14703290802377307
Membangun dan mengekalkan modal insan bertaraf Yam, L. H. and Rossini, P. 2010. Implementing Project-Based
Ravitz, J., Hixson, N., English, M. and Mergendoller, J. 2011. Learning Approach in Introductory Property Cource. 16th
Using project based learning to teach 21. Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (pp. 1-19). Wellington,
Robinson, J. 2013. Project-based learning: improving student New Zealand: University of South Australia.
engagement and performance in the laboratory. Analytical Zhang, Y. 2011. Supporting Adult Learners ’ Use of Reading
and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 405(1), 7-13. Strategies through Effective Literac Scaffolding, 7(2), 7–
doi:10.1007/s00216-012-6473-x 8.
Rymarz, R. and McLarney, G. 2011. Gerard McLamey. The
Journal of Adult Theological Educatio, 8(1), 53–64.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/JATE.v8il.53 ISSN

*******

View publication stats