Examining a PJBL perception instrument with engineering students: a mixed-methods study

Purpose This paper aims to examine whether a commonly used PJBL student-perception instrument retains its expected construct structure (learning, motivation, performance) when applied in a higher-education context, and to identify implementation factors shaping student experience. Design/methodology/approach A convergent mixed-methods design combined a short Likert survey adapted from prior work with an open-ended item. Response quality was screened and assessed dimensionality using correlation inspection and factor-analytic evidence; qualitative comments were analysed using thematic analysis, and results were integrated at interpretation. Findings When examined factor-analytically, the hypothesised three-factor structure was not supported. Responses clustered into two provisional dimensions reflecting (1) individual academic engagement and (2) team-collaborative satisfaction, with the latter rated higher. Qualitative themes converged with the quantitative pattern: criticism centred on assessment governance and individual workload/learning depth, while team experience was predominantly positive. Research limitations/implications The confirmatory and exploratory analyses used the same modest sample (N = 81) from a single course, so the two-dimensional structure is provisional and requires cross-validation in larger, independent samples. Single-coder qualitative analysis limits interpretive triangulation. Practical implications Course teams should maintain dialogic, high-accountability activities, redesign assessment governance to reduce single-point failure and improve inter-instructor consistency and align workload with credit value. Researchers using short classroom perception instruments should incorporate response-quality screening. Originality/value The exploratory study provides cross-context psychometric evidence for PJBL perception measurement, demonstrates a practical response-quality screening approach, and offers actionable implications for course design and assessment governance.