How e-Learning Platforms Are Addressing Project-Based Learning: An Assessment of Digital Learning Tools in Primary Education

Abstract

The integration of project-based learning (PBL) in primary education has proven effective in fostering students’ critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving abilities. When implemented through eLearning platforms, PBL can be enhanced by digital environments that combine pedagogical and technological characteristics supporting interactive learning, personalization, and continuous formative assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the pedagogical-technological characteristics of e-learning platforms relevant to the implementation of PBL in Lithuanian primary education. A multi-stage Delphi study was conducted involving 22 primary school teachers experienced in applying educational technologies and project-based learning. In the initial stages, the research team developed and validated a PBL-oriented evaluation instrument, followed by an expert-based selection and in-depth assessment of eight e-learning platforms available for Lithuanian educational practice. The findings revealed substantial differences in how platforms support the main phases of the PBL process. The highest evaluations were given to LearnLab and SMART Lumio, which demonstrate a balanced integration of pedagogical and technological characteristics aligned with PBL logic, whereas content-oriented platforms such as Moodle showed limited adaptability. The final Delphi round generated expert-informed recommendations for enhancing platform design and pedagogical functionality. The study contributes to the understanding of how e-learning platforms can operationalize project-based learning principles and provides an empirically grounded framework for improving technology-enhanced PBL in primary education.

1. Introduction

As EdTech develops, implementation of e-learning platforms (virtual learning environments/tools) is rapidly evolving especially in primary and secondary schools [1,2,3]. Such platforms provide opportunities for student-centered, collaborative, and knowledge-creating learning methods and promote deeper learning [3,4,5] (pp. 715–725). The pedagogical-technological capabilities of these platforms (learning process management, integrated educational content creation, scaffolding communication and promoting community, learning analysis, etc.) can support teachers in implementing PBL [3]. These platforms can help the student collect and visualize information, collaborate, plan and implement PBL, present learning results in various formats [2]. However, studies of e-learning platforms that reveal their possibilities and created value for the learning process are still in their “infancy” stage [2,3], and there is a lack of research on how they can contribute to the implementation of primary education sustainability [6].

In scientific literature, PBL is defined as a pedagogical method that effectively fosters essential 21st-century skills [7] through engaging students in solving real-world problems [8,9,10,11]. It is regarded as a form of active, student-centered learning, often contrasted with other variants such as problem-based, action-based, and inquiry-based learning [12,13]. Within this article, PBL is broadly interpreted as encompassing project-based, problem-based, research-based teaching, and activity-based learning to achieve synergy ([14] (pp. 159–176), [15]). In addition, the article analyzes the connections between PBL and Deeper Learning by highlighting its alignment with key features like comprehensive content integration, relevance to students’ interests, autonomy, responsibility for self-directed activities, collaboration, and reflection [16]. This approach is gaining international recognition [17,18] and is relatively new in Lithuania [5] (pp. 715–725). This article is also based on scientific studies demonstrating the positive effects of PBL on students’ academic performance, especially in primary schools (e.g., [19,20,21]). It also aims to promote a competency-based approach to primary education, supporting inclusive education [22]. Furthermore, the article emphasizes that PBL helps develop students’ soft skills such as independence [23,24], problem-solving, and engaging in constructive research activities [25], as well as goal setting [15], collaboration [24], communication, reflection [10,26], and critical thinking [27].

The article explores the alignment between project-based learning (PBL) and the sustainability of primary education through the use of e-learning. Recent studies have highlighted the growing potential of e-learning platforms in primary education, particularly in supporting teacher training and professional development [17,28,29].

E-learning platforms offer a range of functionalities that assist teachers with instructional, administrative, and management tasks, while also enabling the integration of PBL methodologies [3]. These platforms support the creation of PBL-based content, encouraging students to engage actively through problem-solving and project work.

The synergy between PBL and e-learning has been examined across various disciplines, including photography [30], writing [31], physics [32], and electrical engineering [33]. Research indicates that combining PBL with e-learning enhances students’ knowledge acquisition, practical skills, and autonomy [32,34]. Tools such as e-portfolios are commonly used to facilitate assessment and reflection within PBL frameworks [34].

Moreover, integrating PBL with approaches like the flipped classroom has been shown to enrich the learning experience [35]. However, implementing PBL through e-learning platforms presents challenges, including the need for reliable remote laboratories, comprehensive staff training, and robust quality assurance mechanisms [36]. Success in online PBL environments is influenced by factors such as the learning context, student motivation, and effective team collaboration [37,38].

To further expand access and engagement, mobile learning (m-learning) has been explored to provide diverse resources for primary school PBL [39]. Emerging technologies like generative AI are also being considered for their potential to enhance PBL experiences in primary education [40].

Given the pedagogical potential of e-learning platforms, a growing body of research underscores their critical role in implementing PBL, which is rooted in constructivism and connectivism learning theories.

The scholarly literature emphasizes that modern e-learning platforms have evolved from content-delivery systems into interactive learning ecosystems that integrate multiple functions, including content creation and sharing, assessment, feedback, communication, and collaboration [41]. This transformation reflects a paradigmatic shift from knowledge transmission toward constructivist and connectivist learning, in which the learner becomes an active co-creator of knowledge and technologies serve as mediators of the learning process. Therefore, in this study, e-learning platforms are defined as comprehensive, multi-component digital ecosystems that integrate content management, collaboration, communication, assessment, reflection, and analytics functions [3].

As e-learning platforms integrate diverse tools for content creation, collaboration, assessment, and analytics, they are increasingly recognized as learning ecosystems that can effectively support teachers in designing and implementing PBL in a flexible, engaging, and scalable manner. For instance, these platforms can enhance collaboration and communication [42] (pp. 531–538), allow for the customization of learning experiences [43], improve accessibility and flexibility [44] (pp. 449–452), facilitate project management and progress tracking [45], and promote the application of practical, real-world skills [46] (pp. 145–150). However, the emergence of these e-learning platforms has introduced several challenges [2,3]). First, although many platforms claim to support PBL, they vary substantially in their underlying design logic, functional capabilities, and mechanisms intended to facilitate PBL practices and development. This variability can make it difficult for educators to determine which platform best aligns with their instructional needs and educational objectives. Second, teachers require specific competencies and new pedagogical approaches to effectively integrate these e-learning platforms into PBL implementation. The diversity of platform features means that educators must be familiar not only with PBL methodologies but also with the technological dimensions of the platforms themselves. This need for additional training and adaptation may pose a significant barrier. Moreover, the proliferation of PBL-oriented e-learning platforms presents challenges for teachers when selecting the most appropriate platform for their target learners, such as primary school pupils. Differences in platform affordances and target age groups necessitate careful consideration of whether the chosen platform meets learners’ developmental and educational needs. Third, although EdTech developers strive to improve technological solutions, they often lack a deep understanding of the pedagogical challenges associated with PBL. As a result, platforms may be technologically sophisticated yet pedagogically ineffective.

Despite the widespread use of e-learning platforms in primary education, the extent to which they effectively support the principles of project-based learning (PBL) remains unclear. This study aims to systematically evaluate the alignment between e-learning platforms and PBL criteria using the Delphi method. The research addresses three key questions: (1) What are the main criteria for assessing the compatibility of e-learning platforms with PBL? (2) How do current e-learning platforms align with these criteria, as evaluated by experts? (3) Which platforms are considered most suitable for PBL by teacher experts? The study identifies evidence-based criteria for evaluating e-learning platforms and assesses their compatibility with PBL. The findings provide practical insights for educators, supporting the selection and use of e-learning tools to foster engaging, student-centered digital learning environments in primary education.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design of the Process

The Delphi method [47] was employed in this study as a structured expert consensus approach to systematically evaluate the pedagogical and technological potential of e-learning platforms to support Project-Based Learning (PBL) in Lithuanian primary education. The research design comprised four iterative stages, combining expert-based evaluation, reflection, and instrument validation to ensure both methodological rigor and contextual relevance.

In the preparatory stage, the research team formulated the research question and identified expert teachers (n = 22) with practical experience in integrating digital technologies and e-learning platforms into PBL. These teacher-experts participated in all subsequent stages of the Delphi process.

The first stage focused on developing an initial set of evaluation criteria for e-learning platforms. The criteria were formulated by the research team based on [3] and other key PBL literature, defining the pedagogical-technological characteristics essential for PBL implementation (e.g., collaboration, reflection, formative assessment, adaptability). The preliminary list of criteria was reviewed by the teacher-experts to ensure conceptual clarity and practical relevance. Using these criteria, researchers and experts jointly conducted a screening of approximately 50 e-learning platforms available through the Lithuanian Education Portal (emokykla.lt), selecting ten platforms for further analysis.

During the second stage, the research team refined both the platform list and the evaluation instrument. This phase involved developing and piloting a structured instrument for the assessment of e-learning platforms according to eleven evaluation categories aligned with the phases of the PBL model. Teacher-experts piloted the instrument, provided feedback, and validated its structure for further use.

The third stage consisted of a research workshop with teacher-experts, which included a structured discussion on the concept of PBL and its application in digital learning environments. Following this, experts conducted an in-depth evaluation of the selected e-learning platforms using the validated instrument. Experts were allowed to skip evaluations for platforms they had no experience with and to propose additional platforms that, in their view, aligned with PBL principles. Based on this feedback, the platform SMART Lumio was added for further evaluation, resulting in a final list of eight platforms.

Finally, in the fourth stage, the collected data were analyzed and synthesized. A summary of findings was presented to the expert panel for validation and interpretation, allowing for iterative feedback and refinement of conclusions. This process led to a final consensus on the pedagogical-technological characteristics that most effectively support the implementation of PBL in primary education.

2.2. Sampling

The study employed a purposeful sampling approach, a non-probability method chosen to identify information-rich cases relevant to the research aim [48]. The sample consisted of 22 teacher-experts, primarily from primary education, although several participants also taught in lower secondary grades. All experts had prior experience in using educational technologies and e-learning platforms to facilitate project-based learning (PBL) activities. Their digital pedagogical experience included working with various digital tools (e.g., Kahoot!, Padlet, Slido), e-learning platforms (e.g., LearnLab, Eduten Playground, Khan Academy), and learning management systems (e.g., Google Classroom).

Participants were selected based on specific inclusion criteria: a minimum of two years of teaching experience, demonstrated use of e-learning platforms in their pedagogical practice, and participation in professional development related to digital pedagogy or PBL methodology. All selected teachers were actively engaged in project-based or inquiry-based teaching activities at the time of the study. Such a purposeful sampling strategy ensured the inclusion of participants with sufficient expertise to provide informed, experience-based insights aligned with the research objectives [49].

As this study focuses on the implementation of Project-Based Learning (PBL) through e-learning platforms in primary education, most participants (n = 17) were primary school teachers, while the remaining experts were subject teachers (e.g., IT and other disciplines) who also taught their subjects in primary classes.

Regarding teachers’ experience with PBL, the majority reported familiarity and practical use of this approach in their teaching. Six teachers indicated being perfectly familiar with PBL, seven very familiar, six somewhat familiar, and only three reported limited or no experience with the method.

In terms of experience with e-learning platforms, most experts were highly experienced users. Ten teachers reported using e-learning platforms very frequently in their teaching, eight frequently, and none rarely. The average teaching experience among the participants was 15.7 years, indicating a well-qualified and experienced expert group.

2.3. Data Collection

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected throughout the four stages of the Delphi study, combining expert evaluations, structured discussions, and written feedback. The main data collection instrument was a questionnaire-based evaluation tool developed by the research team to assess the pedagogical-technological characteristics of e-learning platforms supporting PBL. The instrument was derived from the main themes identified in the literature [3] and structured into eleven evaluation categories aligned with the phases of the PBL process.

Teacher-experts reviewed and refined the tool to ensure clarity, practical relevance, and contextual adequacy for Lithuanian primary education. The instrument was subsequently piloted and validated during the second Delphi stage. In the third stage, data were collected during expert workshops through a combination of quantitative ratings (using a five-point Likert scale) and qualitative comments reflecting teachers’ experiences, interpretations, and examples of platform use in PBL. This mixed-method data collection approach ensured both statistical comparability and contextual depth in the evaluation process.

2.4. Data Analysis

The data collected through the four stages of the Delphi study were analyzed using a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques to ensure reliability and depth of expert evaluations. The analytical process followed the iterative logic of the Delphi method, integrating numerical synthesis of expert ratings with qualitative interpretation of their insights.

2.4.1. Descriptive and Comparative Analysis

Quantitative data obtained from the expert questionnaire were summarized using descriptive statistics (weighed mean values, standard deviations, and frequency distributions) to identify patterns in expert evaluations across different pedagogical-technological categories. This allowed the identification of e-learning platforms most closely aligned with the principles of project-based learning (PBL).

2.4.2. Qualitative Content Analysis

Open-ended expert comments were analyzed thematically to reveal key insights regarding the strengths, limitations, and improvement needs of each platform. Qualitative data provided contextual explanations for quantitative scores, enriching the interpretation of findings and allowing triangulation between data types.

2.4.3. Synthesis and Expert Validation

During the final Delphi stage, synthesized results were presented to the expert panel in a structured discussion format. The experts reviewed the summarized findings, reflected on inconsistencies, and jointly validated the interpretation of results and final recommendations. This iterative feedback loop ensured that the conclusions accurately represented collective expert judgment on the pedagogical and technological potential of e-learning platforms for PBL implementation in primary education.

2.5. Ethical Concerns

Throughout the study, attention was given to prevent any harm to the participating teachers. The two primary ethical considerations were obtaining informed consent and ensuring confidentiality.

Throughout the study, particular attention was given to ethical compliance and the protection of participants’ rights. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all participants provided informed consent prior to data collection.

Two primary ethical principles were emphasized: informed consent and confidentiality. Teachers were informed about the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any stage without any consequences, and the ways in which their data would be used. To ensure confidentiality, no personal identifiers were collected, and all responses were anonymized during data processing and analysis. The expert feedback and discussion materials were stored securely and used solely for research purposes.

The study design, data collection, and reporting processes were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Klaipeda University.

2.6. Process of Inclusion of e-Learning Platforms to Be Presented in the Evaluation

2.6.1. Overview and Evaluation of e-Learning Platforms Available for Primary Education in Lithuania (Preparatory and Pilot Delphi Study Stages)

The eSchool portal provides a list of digital learning platforms, which includes 50 different eLearning platforms suitable for the primary school purpose. To examine which of the tools listed could be used in the design and implementation of project-based learning, we assessed each tool according to the defined criteria for project-based learning platforms [3]. Main criteria included such as (1) ability to use the platform to design learning, i.e., teachers can create driving questions, integrate learning content and elements from general education program for primary years, establish learning objectives, outline the project structure; e-learning platform is flexible and can be adapted to different subjects and age groups; (2) availability of various presentation forms in the e-platform to help students to present and share their findings through (i.e., posters, visual displays, slides, digital presentations, written reports); (3) availability of assessment tools to evaluate students achievement at different stages of the project; (4) possibility for teachers to communicate and collaborate with each other, and accessibility to technical support from the developers of the platform, teachers can involve external stakeholders. These criteria align with the key principles and implementation indicators of project-based learning.

Out of the 50 e-learning platforms available for primary years teachers on eSchool website and five chosen by the research team, only ten met the criteria for project-based learning platforms. Those are listed in

Table 1. Project-based learning platforms.

Platform	PBL Design and Planning	Adaptability/Flexibility	Presentation and Sharing	Assessment and Monitoring	Ecosystem Integration
Visuomeninis—ugdymas 1–4 klasėms	✓	✗	✗	✗	✗
OPIQ	✓	✓	✗	✗	✓
Classtime	✗	✓	✗	✓	✗
Vedliai	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗
SKRIWARE Academy	✓	✓	✗	✗	✗
Google Classroom	✗	✓	✓	✓	✗
LearnLab	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Atutor	✗	✓	✗	✗	✓
Moodle	✓	✓	✓	✓	✗
Editai	✓	✓	✗	✗	✓

Legend: ✓—Feature supported, ✗—Feature not supported. Note: Platform website links are provided for reference: Visuomeninis ugdymas 1–4 klasėms—https://vu1-4.smp.emokykla.lt/#1-klase, accessed on 5 October 2025; OPIQ—https://emokykla.lt/skaitmenines-mokymo-priemones/priemone/369, accessed on 8 June 2025; Classtime—https://www.classtime.com/lt, accessed on 5 October 2025; Vedliai—https://www.vedliai.lt/#programos-bup, accessed on 8 June 2025; SKRIWARE Academy—https://academy.skriware.com/, accessed on 8 June 2025; Google Classroom—https://edu.google.com/workspace-for-education/products/classroom/, accessed on 5 October 2025; LearnLab—https://learnlab.net/en/, accessed on 8 June 2025; Atutor—https://atutor.ca/, accessed on 8 June 2025; Moodle—https://moodle.com/, accessed on 8 June 2025; Editai—https://editai.co/produktas/, accessed on 8 June 2025.

.

The seven platforms (Visuomeninis ugdymas 1–4 klasėms; “OPIQ”; “Vedliai”; “SKRIWARE ACADEMY”; “Learnlab”; “Moodle”; “Editai”) could be used to design and plan project activities. The e-learning platform—“Visuomeninis ugdymas 1–4 klasėms” covers all social education topics from general education program for primary years. The tool presents the theoretical content in an attractive and colorful way, complemented by numerous illustrations, audio and video clips. The tool allows students to work independently on the selected learning material and carry out tasks based on it. Teachers, meanwhile, can demonstrate chosen material on the platform by selecting the appropriate topic. The tool contains 52 themes of global relevance that can be applied to students’ project activities, in particular during selection of the project topic or driving question. By using “OPIQ” e-learning platform, both teachers and students can use various resources available on the platform, such as digital textbooks. All the resources on the platform are aligned with the updated general education program for primary years, especially its section—achievement framework. These resources can be useful for creating driving questions or for finding information on a selected project topic. Students can also carry out various tasks from digital textbooks without teacher’s assistance and develop research, problem-solving and critical thinking skills that are essential during project-based learning. However, it is important to note that only one free digital resource is available to each user on this platform. Additional digital resources require the purchase of appropriate licenses. “Vedliai” is an international award-winning start-up that develops innovative classroom content to stimulate students’ creativity and offers digital exercises that support children’s diverse needs. The platform’s exercises are designed to enhance primary school students’ digital skills. However, beyond fostering students’ digital literacy, it also cultivates skills relevant to STEAM and project-based learning. Additionally, the start-up offers mentoring support for teachers and aligns with the PBL ecosystem’s principles, which focus on optimizing the teaching process. To access the platform, teachers must acquire a license. “SKRIWARE ACADEMY” platform enables teachers to design diverse learning experiences that foster student engagement, creativity, and critical thinking. Notably, the platform also offers educators methodological resources, recommending various tools and e-learning platforms to support the development of key student competencies essential for project-based learning. It is worth nothing that the content of the platform is in English. “Learnlab” platform help teachers explore various ideas, including project-driving questions, objectives and project structure by using integrating toolbox for engaging learning. Its features support collaboration, reflection, and formative assessment, making it a valuable resource for guiding students through project-based learning. However, a significant limitation of Learnlab in the context of primary education is its lack of integration with general education curricula. Teachers cannot directly embed content from national primary school programs, which may hinder its use for aligning PBL activities with mandated learning outcomes. “Moodle” could be distinguished as a flexible and accessible platform for designing and planning project-based learning, offering a range of tools, such as forums, wikis, assignment submissions, and collaborative workspaces. Teachers can structure project timelines, provide instructional materials, and facilitate student interaction through its customizable features. However, while Moodle excels in managing and organizing project workflows, it does not integrate curriculum requirements or learning outcomes in a structured manner. This limitation requires teachers to manually align projects with specific curriculum standards, which may lead to inconsistencies or additional workload in ensuring that projects meet required learning objectives. “EditAi” stands out as for its functionality in terms of integrating Lithuanian curriculum requirements into project-based learning. This integration ensures that any project being developed will meet not only the requirements co-created by pupils and teachers, but also the formal requirements of the curriculum. By using this platform, teachers can create a variety of project ideas, combine them with their subjects, choose the type of project or tools to implement it. However, it is important to note that the platform is currently paid.

Out of ten, nine platforms (“OPIQ”, “Classtime”, “Vedliai”, “SKRIWARE ACADEMY”, Google classroom; Learlab, Atutor, Moodle, Editai) can be adapted to different subject areas and to different ages of students. This aspect is essential since in a transdisciplinary PBL environment, students draw on knowledge and skills from various disciplines to develop comprehensive solutions to real-world problems.

Three platforms (Google Classroom, Learnlab, Moodle) have tools for students to present their findings or projects, ensuring their ability to reflect, communicate and share their findings with peers and teachers. Google Classroom facilitates collaboration through Google Drive integration, allowing students to create and share documents, presentations, and videos, while its discussion stream and Google Meet enable peer feedback and live presentations. LearnLab provides interactive learning spaces with adaptive features, including CoLab tools and whiteboards that foster engagement through data-driven feedback. Moodle supports structured sharing through forums, blogs, wikis, and the Workshop module, which enables peer assessment. What is more, its BigBlueButton integration allows live presentations with screen sharing option. While each platform enhances student collaboration and presentation in different ways, teachers can select the most suitable one based on their instructional needs and project requirements.

“Classtime” platform is an innovative educational tool that enhances PBL by facilitating collaboration, communication, and engagement among students and providing teachers with tools for conducting formative assessment. This platform provides a range of features that support the implementation of PBL in various educational contexts. One of the significant advantages of Classtime is its ability to provide real-time feedback to students. This feature is crucial in PBL, where ongoing assessment is necessary to guide students’ learning processes. By using, “Classtime” teachers can create unique assessments that align with their project goals, ensuring that the learning experience is relevant and meaningful. Classtime’s analytics tools allow teachers to track student progress and engagement levels, enabling them to adjust their teaching strategies as needed to support student learning effectively. These platforms (Google Classroom, Learnlab, Moodle) assist teachers in conducting formative assessment activities. Google Classroom, LearnLab, and Moodle offer various tools for teachers to conduct formative assessments during project-based learning activities. “Google Classroom” allows teachers to use quizzes in Google Forms and provide real-time feedback through comments on shared documents. “LearnLab” enables teachers to monitor their students’ progress with its adaptive analytics. By using Learnlab teachers can provide instant feedback through collaborative discussions or structured peer assessments. “Moodle” offers teachers formative assessment tools, such as forums for ongoing discussions, quizzes for conducting quick knowledge checks, and rubrics in assignments to guide students during project-based learning activities. Each platform supports continuous monitoring and feedback, enabling teachers to assess student learning effectively throughout the project.

Four platforms (“Vedliai”, Atutor, Editai) provide teachers with instructional materials to support the implementation of project-based learning. “Vedliai” is designed to enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning activities. The available modules for educators on the platform include Innovative Lessons, Online Safety I, Online Safety II (scheduled for release in autumn 2025), and AI Experience (Exploring AI in the Classroom). These modules aim to equip teachers with tools to design innovative learning experiences, educate students on online safety protocols, and integrate AI applications into both educational and project-based learning contexts. By using the Atutor platform teachers can get familiar with a wide range of lesson ideas and methodological tools aid at helping them successfully implement project-based learning and develop a wide range of student skills. EditAI platform allows teachers to share their projects and obtain ideas from the best examples of projects created by teachers from all over the world. What is more, technical support is also quickly available on these platforms.

Of the 50 e-learning platforms analyzed on the eSchool portal and five added to the list by researchers, only ten partially met the criteria for project-based learning platforms. For instance, Visuomeninis ugdymas 1–4 klasėms, OPIQ, Vedliai, and SKRIWARE ACADEMY offer functionalities for planning and designing project-based learning and utilizing digital resources; however, their capabilities remain limited. OPIQ restricts access to free textbooks, while Visuomeninis ugdymas 1–4 klasėms is confined to topics related solely to public education.

In contrast, Classtime stands out for its ability to monitor student progress and facilitate interactive activities such as quizzes and team competitions, yet its primary focus is on assessment rather than comprehensive project-based learning. Vedliai and SKRIWARE ACADEMY provide additional features that foster creativity, STEAM competencies, and project-based learning skills, but access to these tools is constrained by licensing requirements and, in some cases, the predominance of English-language content.

LearnLab meets all the criteria for an effective project-based learning platform by offering integrated tools for collaboration, reflection, formative assessment, and project structuring, making it a comprehensive choice for guiding students through the PBL process.

Although analyzed platforms support elements of project-based learning, only one (Learnlab) fully meets all the necessary criteria, such as seamless system integration, multimedia adaptability, or the flexibility to accommodate a wide range of educational subjects. This underscores the need for educators to leverage multiple platforms in combination to effectively implement project-based learning.

Of the ten platforms analyzed in depth, three—EditAI, Visuomeninis ugdymas 1–4 klasėms, and SKRIWARE Academy- were not selected for subsequent stages of the study because they did not meet several essential criteria for implementing Project-Based Learning (PBL), particularly with respect to functionality for collaboration, reflection, assessment, and project structuring.

Following the presentation of the preliminary analysis and the final shortlist during the research workshop, teacher-experts proposed adding SMART Lumio to the subsequent Delphi stage for in-depth expert evaluation. This platform was not listed in the National Education Portal (Emokykla.lt) catalog; it entered the study at the initiative of teacher-experts based on their practical experience and routine use in primary classrooms. Teachers justified this proposal as follows: Widespread classroom use in Lithuania. Interactivity and collaboration. Formative assessment integration. Flexible content authoring and adaptation. Technological accessibility and sustainability.

In light of these arguments, teacher-experts recommended the inclusion of SMART Lumio in the next Delphi stage to compare its pedagogical–technological potential with the other shortlisted platforms and to assess how interactive and collaboration-focused functions might strengthen PBL implementation in primary education.

Thus, although SMART Lumio did not appear in the Emokykla.lt list and was not part of the original set of ten analyzed platforms, it was incorporated—at the suggestion of teacher-experts—into the subsequent Delphi stage as a widely used, practically relevant tool. Experts highlighted its interactivity, collaboration and reflection functions, and pedagogical suitability for the PBL process; as such, SMART Lumio represents an empirically meaningful addition that enriches the depth and contextual validity of the study.

Final shortlist for in-depth evaluation: Moodle, Classtime, Google Classroom, Vedliai, LearnLab, Opiq, ATutor, and SMART Lumio. Selected jointly by researchers and teacher-experts, these platforms represent diverse types of digital learning environments—from open LMS/VLE systems to interactive content-authoring and collaboration tools—thereby enabling us to identify pedagogical and technological solutions that most effectively support the stages of PBL and to elucidate links between platform functionality and the design of deep learning experiences.

2.6.2. Development of an Instrument for Assessing the Pedagogical-Technological Characteristics of e-Learning Platforms in the Context of PGM and Its Expert Evaluation (Second Stage of the Delphi Study)

In the second stage of the Delphi study, the main objective was to develop and validate an instrument enabling the systematic evaluation of the pedagogical and technological characteristics of e-learning platforms in the context of Project-Based Learning (PBL). This stage was grounded in a theoretical analysis that identified key interrelations between the stages of PBL and the functional components of e-learning platforms, allowing the evaluation structure to be conceptualized according to the core principles of PBL. To ensure both theoretical validity and practical applicability, the evaluation categories and criteria were formulated based on relevant scientific literature, international research, and the specific needs of the national educational context. The drafted instrument was then reviewed by teacher-experts, who assessed it in terms of content relevance, clarity, practical usability, and pedagogical coherence. Their feedback and recommendations contributed to refining the wording of the evaluation categories, testing the instrument in real classroom settings, and empirically confirming its suitability for subsequent stages of the Delphi study.

This stage involved delineating specific evaluation criteria for e-learning platforms to determine their suitability for PBL. For an e-learning platform to effectively support PBL, it must incorporate features that facilitate every stage of the process. Consequently, the evaluation criteria were systematically organized into distinct categories aligned with the sequential stages of PBL implementation.

The stages of PBL typically include:

• Initiation: Identifying a real-world problem or challenge that is relevant and engaging for students. This stage involves setting the context and goals for the project [19].
• Planning: Students create a project plan, which includes defining the scope, creating a work breakdown structure, and identifying the critical path. This stage often involves input from subject matter experts to ensure realistic and meaningful project activities [50].
• Research and Investigation: Students conduct research, gather information, and explore various solutions to the problem. This stage emphasizes inquiry, exploration, and the synthesis of information [19].
• Execution: Students implement their project plans, which may involve designing, constructing, and testing prototypes or solutions. This stage is characterized by hands-on activities and collaboration [50].
• Reflection and Iteration: Students reflect on their work, receive feedback, and make necessary revisions. This iterative process helps improve the quality of the project and deepens learning [19,50].
• Presentation and Evaluation: Students present their final projects to an audience, which may include peers, teachers, and external stakeholders. Evaluation criteria often include the quality of the solution, the process followed, and the skills demonstrated [19,50].

Based on the foundational principles of PBL, the identified stages of PBL implementation, and insights from other researchers [3], the criteria for evaluating e-learning platforms were divided into 11 categories (Figure 1).

Using theoretical deduction and backward analysis based on the six-stage PBL model, thematic evaluation categories were formulated to reflect pedagogical, technological, and functional adaptability dimensions. Each category corresponds to a specific PBL logic and is grounded in contemporary educational research and the practical application of PBL in digital environments. For example, the initial two PBL stages (“Initiation” and “Planning”) were combined into a single evaluation category (Problem Formulation) (see Figure 2). This category evaluates whether the platform supports key tasks of the initial PBL phase, such as presenting a meaningful driving question, describing the project task, providing relevant context, and involving students in early discussion. These two stages were merged due to overlapping technological functionalities. Many digital tools used for idea generation and discussion—such as forums or chat rooms—proved to be universally applicable across several PBL phases, including learning design, collaborative research, and group decision-making. Consequently, communication and collaboration tools were treated as transversal components (Categories 6 and 7) that span all stages of the PBL process. This structure avoids redundancy and emphasizes the need for integrated technological solutions throughout the full PBL cycle, from initial engagement to final reflection. Categories 2 and 3 focus on the fact that activities, content, and assessment are constructively aligned with preparatory phase. Activity Design and Planning (Category 2) assess the platform’s ability to support structured learning sequences, allowing teachers to define the flow, duration, and assessment of learning activities. Adaptability and Differentiation (Category 3) reflect the platform’s capacity to personalize the learning experience based on learners’ needs, pace, and styles—thereby supporting inclusive and flexible learning pathways. Categories 4 and 5 correspond to the core execution phase of PBL. Content Creation and Presentation (Category 4) capture the ability to develop and deliver multimodal content tailored to different learning preferences. Integration and Data Management (Category 5) evaluates whether the platform allows seamless interoperability with institutional systems and provides secure, meaningful data use for instructional decision-making. Categories 8 and 9 target the assessment phase. Monitoring and Analytics (Category 8) evaluates the availability of real-time tracking, data dashboards, and learner activity visualization. Assessment and Feedback (Category 9) focus on the platform’s ability to support diverse assessment formats, timely feedback, and reflective learning, consistent with the paradigm of assessment for learning. Particular attention is warranted for Categories 10 and 11. Although not directly linked to individual PBL stages, they provide essential systemic support. Category 10 (PBL Community and Ecosystem) was introduced to reflect the broader educational environment that supports teacher collaboration, professional learning networks, and links to career education. This horizontal layer reinforces the sustainability and scalability of PBL implementation. Meanwhile, Category 11 (Usability, Accessibility, and Compliance) addresses the technical and ergonomic aspects that condition real-world use. Even the most advanced pedagogical features may remain unused if a platform is not user-friendly, accessible across devices, or aligned with legal and institutional requirements (e.g., GDPR). This category therefore functions as a foundational layer, ensuring that technological solutions are not only theoretically effective but also practically implementable in real classroom settings.

Figure 2 illustrates the mapping of 11 e-learning platform evaluation categories onto the sequential stages of project-based learning (PBL). The diagram is structured to indicate that each category aligns with one or more specific PBL stages, thereby demonstrating how these platform characteristics support different phases of the learning process.

In this study, each evaluation criterion—defined as a specific parameter or attribute used to assess the e-platform—was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. On this scale, a score of 1 indicated that the criteria were entirely absent, whereas a score of 5 signified its full implementation. Moreover, experts—possessing specialized knowledge in the domain of e-platforms—were afforded the option to select “Cannot answer” if they were not sufficiently familiar with a particular feature. Totally 42 criteria were identified (see

Table 2. Evaluation criteria elaborated to assess the platforms suitability for PBL also for the primary education context.

Platform Criteria Category	Key Criteria (Condensed)
1. Problem Formulation	1.1 Problem Design—Ability to define and structure project problem statements.
2. Activity Design and Planning	2.1 Instructional Design—Tools for lesson planning and design of learning activities.
3. Adaptability and Differentiation	3.1 Adaptability—Flexibility across subjects, age groups, and contexts; 3.2 Differentiation—Support for adaptive and individualized learning tasks.
4. Content Creation and Presentation	4.1–4.8 Content Development—Tools for authoring, multimedia integration, curriculum alignment, competency mapping, scaffolding, and presentation.
5. Integration and Data Management	5.1–5.3 Integration—Compatibility with external tools and support for content/data portability.
6. Collaboration and Group Work	6.1–6.3 Collaboration—Real-time teamwork, group management, and resource sharing.
7. Communication Tools	7. Communication—Built-in chat, forums, and video functions for teacher–student interaction.
8. Monitoring and Analytics	8.1–8.3 Analytics—Individual and group progress tracking; integrated learning analytics.
9. Assessment and Feedback	9.1–9.8 Assessment—Rubrics, competency-based, subject-specific, summative, formative, peer, and self-assessment tools.
10. PBL Community and Ecosystem	10.1–10.3 Support—Access to teacher resources, professional communities, and career linkages.
11. Usability, Accessibility, and Compliance	11.1–11.9 Usability—Interface quality, training, accessibility, scalability, affordability, privacy, and secure access.

).

The complete framework, including all individual criteria and evaluation items, is provided in

Table A1. The complete framework including all individual criteria and evaluation items.

Platform Criteria Category	Criteria
1. Problem Formulation	1.1 Problem Design: Does the platform enable a teacher to formulate a well-defined project problem statement?
2. Activity Design and Planning	2.1 Instructional Design: Does the platform empower the teacher to independently plan and design learning activities and lessons, thereby shaping the teaching–learning process?
3. Adaptability and Differentiation	3.1 Adaptability: Is the platform sufficiently adaptable to accommodate diverse subjects, age groups, and educational contexts?
	3.2 Differentiation: Does the platform support differentiated content and task design to address individual students’ learning needs?
4. Content Creation and Presentation	4.1 Content Authoring Tools: Does the platform provide robust tools for creating educational content (e.g., assignments, presentations, videos)?
	4.2 Multimedia Integration: Does the platform facilitate seamless integration of multimedia resources for both teachers and students?
	4.3 Curriculum Alignment: Is the platform aligned with the updated general curriculum?
	4.4 Competency Mapping: Does the platform correlate educational content with the competencies being developed?
	4.5 Outcome Alignment: Does the platform link content to clearly defined learning outcomes?
	4.6 Scaffolding Features: Does the platform incorporate effective scaffolding tools to support student learning?
	4.7 Interactive Design Tools: Does the platform offer capabilities for mind-mapping, interactive design, or creation of dynamic content?
	4.8 Presentation Support: Does the platform allow students to present their projects directly via integrated presentation functionalities?
5. Integration and Data Management	5.1 Tool Compatibility: Is the platform compatible with and integrable with other tools (e.g., Google Drive, Microsoft Office, or other LMSs)?
	5.2 Content Portability: Does the platform support the import and export of educational content?
	5.3 Data Portability: Is it possible to import and export training data seamlessly?
6. Collaboration and Group Work	6.1 Real-Time Collaboration: Does the platform facilitate synchronous collaboration (e.g., real-time document editing, brainstorming)?
	6.2 Group Management: Does the platform allow the creation and efficient management of student groups?
	6.3 Resource Sharing: Can files, links, or multimedia documents be effortlessly shared within groups?
7. Communication Tools	7. Communication: Does the platform offer built-in communication features (e.g., chat rooms, discussion boards, video conferencing) to foster interactions among teachers and students, as well as among peers?
8. Monitoring and Analytics	8.1 Individual Progress Tracking: Does the platform enable tracking of individual student progress?
	8.2 Group Progress Monitoring: Does the platform facilitate monitoring of group progress?
	8.3 Learning Analytics: Are comprehensive learning analytics tools integrated into the platform?
9. Assessment and Feedback	9.1 Evaluation Rubrics: Does the platform provide the capability to create or integrate evaluation rubrics?
	9.2 Competency-Based Assessment: Is the platform capable of supporting assessments based on the competencies being developed?
	9.3 Subject-Specific Assessment: Does the platform support assessments tailored to specific subject areas?
	9.4 Summative Assessment Tools: Does the platform offer tests or other instruments to measure students’ progress and performance?
	9.5 Formative Feedback: Can teachers deliver direct, formative feedback on student work through the platform?
	9.6 Peer Evaluation: Is there an opportunity for teams or groups to conduct peer evaluations?
	9.7 Self-Assessment: Does the platform facilitate opportunities for student self-assessment?
	9.8 Reflective Practices: Does the platform support reflective activities that allow students to critically review their learning process?
10. PBL Community and Ecosystem	10.1 Teacher Support Resources: Does the platform offer support resources to help teachers design effective PBL activities?
	10.2 Community Engagement: Can teachers join both local and external professional communities?
	10.3 Career Development Linkages: Does the platform provide connections to students’ career development opportunities?
11. Usability, Accessibility, and Compliance	11.1 User Interface: Is the platform’s user interface intuitive and user-friendly for both teachers and students?
	11.2 Training and Support: Are comprehensive guides, tutorials, or customer support services available?
	11.3 Multi-Device Accessibility: Does the platform function seamlessly across various devices (e.g., computers, tablets, smartphones)?
	11.4 Scalability: Can the platform efficiently scale to accommodate an increasing number of users and larger projects?
	11.5 Developer Feedback: Is there a mechanism for users to provide feedback directly to the platform developers?
	11.6 Cost-Effectiveness: Is the platform economically viable and affordable for educational institutions?
	11.7 Availability of Free Versions: Are free or trial versions available for educational use?
	11.8 Privacy Compliance: Does the platform adhere to relevant data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR, COPPA) to safeguard student data?
	11.9 Secure Access: Does the platform provide secure authentication methods for both teachers and students?

(Appendix A). For clarity and brevity, Table 2 presents a condensed version that categorizes the evaluated platforms according to key stages of project-based learning (PBL) in primary education. This table highlights essential pedagogical, technical, collaborative, and analytical dimensions, ensuring conceptual consistency and improving readability.

3. Results

The evaluation scores of the e-learning platforms included in the research workshop are presented in

Table A2. Aggregated results from the evaluation of the e-learning platforms. The weighted average is used. As weigh the expert confidence level/experience was used. Two columns (in regard Opiq and Atutor) are highlighted in italic as they were assessed only by one highly experienced expert.

Criteria	Moodle	ClassTime	Classroom	Vedliai	LearnLab	SMART	Opiq	Atutor
1.1 Problem Design	4.3	2.5	4.1	4.0	4.3	4.6	5	5
2.1 Instructional Design	4.6	3.4	4.3	3.4	4.7	4.8	5	5
3.1 Adaptability	4.3	5.0	4.2	4.6	4.7	4.6	3	5
3.2 Differentiation	4.0	5.0	3.9	4.1	3.8	4.6	3	5
4.1 Content Authoring Tools	4.7	5.0	4.5	3.7	4.8	4.5		5
4.2 Multimedia Integration	4.8	5.0	4.2	3.8	4.8	4.5	4	5
4.3 Curriculum Alignment	1.4	1.0	1.8	4.3	4.4	5.0	1	3
4.4 Competency Mapping	1.6	1.0	2.5	4.3	4.4	5.0	1	3
4.5 Outcome Alignment	3.0	4.0	3.3	3.0	4.4	5.0	2	4
4.6 Scaffolding Features	2.5	5.0	3.7	4.0		4.8		5
4.7 Interactive Design Tools	3.2	2.5	3.9	3.4	5.0	5.0	5	5
4.8 Presentation Support	3.6	1.0	4.8	3.7	3.3	3.9
5.1 Tool Compatibility	3.3	2.5	4.5	2.9	2.0	3.6
5.2 Content Portability	4.5	3.1	4.3	4.0	4.8	5.0	5	5
5.3 Data Portability	4.6	5.0	4.4	3.5	5.0	5.0		5
6.1 Real-Time Collaboration	1.5	5.0	4.0	3.3	5.0	3.0	5	5
6.2 Group Management	4.5	2.5	4.0	4.8	2.9	4.0		5
6.3 Resource Sharing	4.3	5.0	4.2	4.5	4.4	5.0		5
7. Communication	3.8	1.0	3.8	2.4	5.0	4.0		5
8.1 Individual Progress Tracking	4.0	5.0	3.0	3.8	2.5	4.6	1
8.2 Group Progress Monitoring	3.6	2.5	3.0	3.7	1.0	4.6	1
8.3 Learning Analytics	3.3	5.0	2.9	2.9	3.0	5.0		3
9.1 Evaluation Rubrics	3.0	1.0	3.0	3.0	5.0	5.0		5
9.2 Competency-Based Assessment	2.1	1.0	3.1	2.8	5.0	4.0
9.3 Subject-Specific Assessment	3.1	1.0	3.6	3.1	5.0
9.4 Summative Assessment Tools	4.4	4.4	4.2	2.5	5.0	5.0	5	5
9.5 Formative Feedback	4.5	5.0	4.4	3.2	1.9	5.0	4
9.6 Peer Evaluation	3.4	1.0	2.9	2.6	1.5	5.0
9.7 Self-Assessment	2.2	2.5	2.8	2.8	1.0	4.8
9.8 Reflective Practices	3.5	2.5	3.7	3.3	3.0	4.6		5
10.1 Teacher Support Resources	3.6	4.0	4.0	4.8	4.3	4.6	4	5
10.2 Community Engagement	2.8	4.0	3.6	4.2	3.1			5
10.3 Career Development Linkages	1.4	1.0	2.7	3.7	1.0
11.1 User Interface	3.4	4.4	4.4	4.6	4.0	5.0	2	5
11.2 Training and Support	3.7	4.0	4.1	4.4	2.3	5.0	3	5
11.3 Multi-Device Accessibility	4.6	4.4	4.5	4.8	4.7	4.4	3	5
11.4 Scalability	4.4		4.5	4.6	5.0	5.0		5
11.5 Developer Feedback	3.8	4.0	4.1	4.8	1.5	5.0	4
11.6 Cost-Effectiveness	4.3	4.0	4.3	4.3	3.5	2.0
11.7 Availability of Free Versions	3.8		4.3	1.4	4.3	3.5		5
11.8 Privacy Compliance	4.2	5.0	4.2	4.8	5.0			5
11.9 Secure Access	4.2	5.0	4.8	4.9	5.0	5.0	4	5
Totally	3.6	3.4	3.8	3.7	3.8	4.6	3.3	4.8

(Appendix B) and visualized in Figure 3. The Table A2 summarized the platforms evaluation results across multiple criteria: overall performance; problem design; instructional design; adaptability and differentiation; content authoring tools and multimedia; curriculum alignment and competency mapping; assessment tools; User Interaction and Resource Features; Training, Support, and Accessibility; Compliance and Security. The reliability analysis produced Cronbach’s alpha of 0.9742, indicating excellent internal consistency among the items. Furthermore, when assessing agreement among experts, the dataset shows that averaging ratings across all subjects yields high consistency, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.8578. This strong level of agreement confirms that aggregated scores offer a robust and dependable measure for evaluation. For analytical clarity, these criteria were reclassified into four overarching evaluation dimensions:

• Pedagogical design (problem and instructional design; adaptability, and differentiation);
• Technical—functional aspects (tool compatibility, collaboration, and resource sharing);
• Assessment—analytical aspects (learning analytics and assessment practices);
• Support and usability (teacher support; accessibility, and system reliability).

Figure 3. Radar charts comparing the scores across the four evaluation dimensions for platforms (a) Pedagogical Design dimension (b) Technical–Functional Aspects dimension (c) Assessment–Analytical Aspects dimension (d) Support and Usability dimension.

Figure 3. Radar charts comparing the scores across the four evaluation dimensions for platforms (a) Pedagogical Design dimension (b) Technical–Functional Aspects dimension (c) Assessment–Analytical Aspects dimension (d) Support and Usability dimension.

3.1. Pedagogical Design

This dimension, encompassing problem and instructional design, adaptability, and differentiation. The results illustrate that SMART and Learnlab outperform other platforms, achieving average scores above 4.5, particularly excelling in instructional design and content authoring. Classtime, while demonstrating high evaluation results in adaptability (5.0), scores lower in problem and instructional design, indicating limited design depth and differentiation capacity.

3.2. Technical and Functional Aspects

This dimension captures tool compatibility, content and data portability, collaboration, and resource sharing. SMART, Atutor and Opiq achieve the highest scores (around 4.8–5.0), suggesting technical consistency and cross—platform functionality. SMART and Learnlab also performed well, suggesting rather stable technical ecosystem. Moodle and Classtime presented rather moderate results, due to a low level of resource—sharing and collaboration capabilities.

3.3. Assessment and Analytical Aspects

This category reflects the extent to which platforms support formative and summative assessment, integration of learning analytics and students’ progress tracking. SMART, Atutor and Vedliai leads in this category scoring (4.8–5.0) across key areas such as summative assessment and data—driven insights. Noticeably, Atutor showed strong analytics support (4.50). In contrast, Opiq, Classtime and Vedliai produced mean score (2.75–3.00), indicating weaker integration of learning analytics and feedback mechanisms.

3.4. Support and Usability

This dimension combines teacher support, accessibility, scalability, and security. Results reveal overall strong performance of Atutor, SMART and Vedliai for support comprehensive teacher support features, user—friendly design and system reliability. Meanwhile, Moodle and Classtime indicate slightly lower results in accessibility and interface adaptability.

3.5. Comparative Analysis of the Results Regarding Described Evaluation Dimensions

The comparison of these dimensions is summarized and illustrated through boxplot diagram (Figure 4), which represents the weighted average evaluation scores (on a 0–5 scale) across all platforms. As a weight the expert confidence level was used. According to the boxplot in Figure 3:

• Pedagogical Design shows relatively high and consistent scores across platforms, with SMART slightly outperforming others.
• Technical-Functional Aspects has a narrow range, indicating similar performance among platforms.
• Assessment-Analytical Aspects exhibits the widest spread, with SMART significantly higher than others.
• Support and Usability varies moderately, with SMART and Vedliai leading.

Figure 4. Boxplot diagram comparing the distribution of scores across the four evaluation dimensions for platforms. The scores given by each expert were weighted regarding their indicated confidence/experience level.

Figure 4. Boxplot diagram comparing the distribution of scores across the four evaluation dimensions for platforms. The scores given by each expert were weighted regarding their indicated confidence/experience level.

The key insights for Pedagogical Design dimensions are as follows: SMART leads with the highest score (≈4.58), showing strong instructional design and adaptability. LearnLab and Moodle follow closely (≈4.38 and 4.05), indicating solid pedagogical features. ClassTime is weaker here (≈3.98), mainly due to lower instructional design compared to adaptability. The implication here to be formulated is that SMART and LearnLab are best suited for environments prioritizing flexible and well-structured learning design.

For Technical–Functional Aspects dimension SMART again performs best (≈4.40), excelling in compatibility and resource sharing. Classroom is strong (≈4.30), suggesting good integration and collaboration tools. ClassTime and Moodle are moderate (≈3.95), while Vedliai and LearnLab hover around 4.0. The implication would be SMART and Classroom are ideal for technically demanding setups requiring robust collaboration and portability.

Regarding Assessment–Analytical Aspects dimension SMART dominates (≈4.68), offering comprehensive analytics and assessment tools. Classroom and Moodle are mid-range (≈3.48 and 3.33), while ClassTime is weakest (≈2.88). LearnLab shows mixed performance (≈3.28), strong in summative but weak in formative feedback. Implication here follows SMART is the clear choice for data-driven learning and competency-based evaluation.

And for Support and Usability dimension SMART and Vedliai lead (≈4.43 and 4.28), providing excellent teacher support and accessibility. Classroom and Moodle are solid (≈4.10 and 3.98). LearnLab slightly lags (≈3.78), and ClassTime is comparable to Moodle (≈3.93). So, SMART and Vedliai offer the most reliable and user-friendly experience for educators and learners.

The overall patterns from the radar chart comparison come out as SMART consistently outperforms across all dimensions, making it the most balanced and advanced platform; LearnLab and Vedliai are strong contenders, especially for pedagogical design and usability; ClassTime excels in adaptability but falls short in assessment and technical robustness; Moodle remains a stable, mid-range option with good pedagogical and usability features but weaker analytics.

Figure 5 depicts the top 3 platforms that appear to be SMART, Classroom and LearnLab and compares them in the aggregated criteria groups. It shows that, for example, LearnLab being a leader for communication gives its position to SMART in assessment and etc.

It shows that SMART demonstrated the most consistent results, scoring highest in nearly all categories—particularly in planning (4.75), assessment (4,72), and collaboration (4.67)—indicating strong pedagogical and functional integration. Learnlab performs quite similarly, scoring excellent in communication (5.00) and content development (4.38), but showing rather low results in monitoring (2.75) and ecosystem (3.11), suggesting limitations in performance tracking and system interconnectivity. Classroom maintains moderate results, with strongest performance in integration with other tools (4.46) and general requirements (4.44).

Overall, the results indicated SMART as the most pedagogically comprehensive and technically solid solution, while Learnlab is valued for strong communication and adaptability features. Classroom represents a solid baseline of functionality at a general education level but with less analytical depth.

Additionally, Table A2 in Appendix B compares educational platforms included in the research workshop for assessment across several criteria. Regarding each criteria the platforms are compared as follows:

• Overall Performance: The total performance scores for the platforms range from 3.4 (ClassTime) to 4.6 (SMART), with an overall average score of 3.8.
• Problem Design: Platforms like SMART perform best (4.6), while ClassTime scores significantly lower (2.5).
• Instructional Design: SMART again excels with a score of 4.8, while ClassTime is at the lower end (3.4).
• Adaptability and Differentiation: ClassTime scores highest in adaptability (5.0), but overall differentiation scores are notably lower across platforms, with SMART performing well (4.6).
• Content Authoring Tools and Multimedia Integration: Both areas see high scores for SMART and ClassTime (5.0), indicating strong content creation capabilities.
• Curriculum Alignment and Competency Mapping: These areas have low scores for several platforms, particularly ClassTime and Classroom. However, SMART excels with a score of 5.0 in both categories.
• Assessment Tools: Platforms like SMART and Vedliai score well in summative assessment tools, while some areas like competency-based assessment show variability.
• User Interaction and Resource Features: Platforms generally perform well in resource sharing and group management, with SMART and ClassTime leading.
• Training, Support, and Accessibility: Training and support scores show a generally satisfactory performance across most platforms, with some variability related to multi-device accessibility.
• Compliance and Security: Platforms show strong performance in privacy compliance and secure access, with SMART and Vedliai achieving high scores.

From where SMART stands is the leading platform overall, with strong scores across various criteria, particularly in content authoring, curriculum alignment, and privacy compliance. ClassTime shows potential in adaptability but needs improvement in several other areas to be competitive.

Two columns in Appendix B Table A2 (in regard Opiq and Atutor) are highlighted in italic as they were assessed only by one highly experienced expert. Opiq and Atutor we do not compare them to other platforms evaluated by larger number of experts.

3.6. Formulation and Expert Validation of Recommendations (Fourth Stage of the Delphi Study)

In the fourth stage of the Delphi study, the focus was placed on developing and validating expert recommendations based on the results of the previous evaluation phases. The aim of this stage was to reach a consensus on the priority directions necessary to ensure more effective implementation of Project-Based Learning (PBL) in digital environments and to identify actionable recommendations for e-learning platform developers, teachers, and education policymakers. The same 22 teacher-experts who had participated in the earlier evaluation stages took part in this phase. The research workshops were organized as consensus sessions, during which the experts, divided into mixed groups, analyzed the previous stage’s findings and discussed the factors that most strongly determine the success of PBL implementation, as well as the systemic changes required across different levels of education. The sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Three major thematic axes were identified: (1) improvement of technological solutions, (2) strengthening of pedagogical practice, and (3) systemic and policy-level conditions for PBL development.

First, experts emphasized that most existing platforms primarily support teaching rather than learning, as they lack features promoting inquiry, reflection, and co-creation. Consequently, they recommended that developers expand platform functionality to include tools that foster student reflection, collaborative inquiry, and creative output, as well as better integration with national data systems and learning analytics modules to enable data-informed decision-making.

Second, in terms of pedagogical practice, experts highlighted that even technologically advanced platforms cannot guarantee the quality of PBL without appropriate pedagogical moderation. Teachers should be encouraged to combine multiple tools to cover all PBL phases—content creation, collaboration, reflection, and assessment—and to engage in experimentation and professional reflection. The creation of teacher professional networks and communities of practice was also identified as crucial for sharing successful strategies and examples of innovative PBL implementation.

Finally, at the systemic and policy level, experts agreed that the sustainable integration of PBL in digital environments requires coordinated institutional and political support. They emphasized the need to embed PBL and digital pedagogy competencies into teacher education and professional development programs and to promote cross-sector partnerships among schools, EdTech developers, and researchers to co-create evidence-based solutions.

The consensus reached during this final stage revealed that e-learning platforms can become powerful enablers of PBL only when their technological design aligns with pedagogical logic, teachers receive sustained methodological and professional support, and the education system provides conditions for collaborative, evidence-informed partnerships between practice, research, and technology sectors. The experts concluded that the effective implementation of PBL in digital learning environments represents not merely a technological challenge but a transformation of pedagogical culture—where technology serves as a space for meaning-making, collaboration, and the strengthening of learner agency.

4. Discussion

Project-Based Learning (PBL) combined with e-learning platforms can greatly enhance the educational experience in primary education. By integrating hands-on, collaborative projects with digital tools, educators can create engaging and effective learning environments. Ref. [3] identified four main categories of PBL platforms: learning management platforms, content provider, communication and community facilitator, and service provider. Our research has shown that it is necessary to expand the functionality of e-learning platforms for PBL. Here is how PBL and e-learning platforms can be utilized in primary education:

Integrating Project-Based Learning with e-learning platforms in primary education provides a comprehensive approach that fosters engagement, collaboration, and essential skill development. By utilizing these platforms, educators can create an enriching learning environment where students actively participate in their education, preparing them for future academic challenges and real-world experiences.

Ref. [3] paid special attention to learning management on platforms. Our study also revealed that learning management platforms and collaboration tools are particularly important in primary education, as they facilitate project organization, help structure the learning process and monitor progress. This is consistent with the results obtained in our study, such as examples such as Google Classroom or Moodle. In addition, ref. [3] emphasized that PBL platforms can act as learning ecosystems that connect teachers, students, and even parents, which is particularly important in primary education. This suggests that in the future it would be useful to pay more attention to the possibilities of parental involvement in the children’s learning process on platforms. Ref. [3] noted that many PBL platforms are not yet sufficiently adapted to personalized learning. The platforms evaluated by our study participants, such as LearnLab and Opiq, are already focused on personalized learning, but when it comes to primary education, the question of how to facilitate the teacher’s work in developing educational content and using the possibilities of differentiation of educational content in a targeted manner, taking into account the different abilities and learning styles of children, still remains a very important issue. Therefore, in this context, future research could delve deeper into how primary school students respond to different digital learning tools and how they could be further adapted, for example, by incorporating gamification elements or augmented reality features. One of the main challenges in implementing PBL, as pointed out by [3], is project management and teachers’ readiness to use technology for project management. Project-based learning requires not only active student engagement and independent work, but also a structured pedagogical approach that allows teachers to effectively plan, manage and assess student learning. Although e-learning platforms can help implement PBL, they are not a sufficient tool in themselves—teachers must be able to use them appropriately, adapting them to national curricula, their own teaching strategies and educational objectives. Currently, Lithuania still lacks a systematic approach to the application of digital tools in project-based learning, so it would be useful to develop specialized teacher training on PBL and the use of platforms. This could be performed both in primary education teacher training programs and through in-service training courses for working educators. For example, practical seminars could be organized in which teachers would deepen their understanding of how e-platforms can be adapted for PBL for different ages, educational goals and learning scenarios. Ref. [3] also emphasized that educators need not only technical skills, but also a deep understanding of the PBL methodology. This means that teachers must be able to formulate problem questions, plan long-term activities, coordinate student group work, and develop authentic assessment strategies. In addition, it is important to develop teachers’ ability to critically evaluate digital platforms, analyze their functionality and applicability to specific educational situations and the implementation of PBL. To ensure that PBL is effectively implemented in primary education, it is necessary not only to include digital platforms, but also to strengthen teachers’ pedagogical competences. Training could be based on the application of the TPACK (technology, pedagogy and content knowledge) model in teacher education, which would help educators integrate technology into their teaching practices not as a separate element, but as an organic part of the learning process. It would also be useful to conduct research on how the use of different digital platforms affects student engagement, autonomy and learning outcomes in primary education, and what additional tools or learning strategies teachers need to effectively apply the PBL methodology.

The findings of this study highlight several emerging and potentially transformative trends in the use of e-learning platforms, particularly in their application to project-based learning (PBL). Digital tools and online learning environments are increasingly designed to be adaptive, personalized, and learner-centered, creating new opportunities for flexible, autonomous, and collaborative learning. This aligns with recent educational research, which underscores the shift from static content delivery to dynamic, student-driven learning pathways [51,52]. As PBL emphasizes real-world relevance, critical thinking, and sustained inquiry, the affordances of modern e-learning platforms provide critical scaffolds for students to engage deeply in these processes, enabling ongoing reflection, iterative design, and authentic collaboration [8,53].

One of the most significant developments is the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into educational platforms. AI-powered assistants can analyze learner behavior and performance data in real-time, offering personalized feedback, adaptive content sequencing, and timely support for both students and teachers. These tools not only help differentiate instruction but also empower educators with actionable insights to inform pedagogical decisions [54,55]. Studies have shown that AI-driven personalization enhances student engagement and achievement, particularly when embedded in inquiry- or project-based frameworks [55].

In parallel, there is a growing incorporation of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies in education, which allow for interactive, hands-on, and context-aware learning experiences. For instance, IoT-enabled sensors and devices can be used in STEM projects to collect real-world data, thereby linking abstract concepts to tangible applications ([56] (pp. 66–86), [57]). These capabilities are particularly powerful in PBL contexts, where students benefit from experimenting, problem-solving, and constructing knowledge in authentic, situated environments. IoT also supports cross-disciplinary integration—another core tenet of effective PBL—by merging digital literacy with environmental science, engineering, and data analytics [58].

Collectively, these trends suggest that the future of e-learning is not merely digital replication of traditional instruction, but rather the creation of intelligent, interconnected ecosystems that enhance the pedagogical impact of PBL. The convergence of AI, IoT, and learner-centered design represents a paradigm shift, supporting more inclusive, personalized, and experiential learning pathways. As such, educators, policymakers, and platform developers should prioritize the intentional integration of these technologies, ensuring they are grounded in pedagogical principles that support deep learning and equitable access.

In the context of project-based learning (PBL), future-oriented e-learning platforms are projected to evolve into comprehensive digital ecosystems that go beyond content delivery, offering advanced project management and collaborative learning functionalities. These platforms are increasingly expected to include integrated tools that facilitate task delegation, progress tracking, shared workspaces, peer feedback loops, and real-time communication, which are essential for supporting the iterative and collaborative nature of PBL [59,60]. Such features empower students to co-construct knowledge, manage complex timelines, and take ownership of their learning processes ensuring key competencies aligned with both 21st-century skills frameworks and constructivist pedagogies [61].

Moreover, the integration of rich multimedia content, including interactive videos, simulations, virtual labs, and augmented reality experiences, enhances students’ engagement in project work and fosters multimodal learning experiences [62,63]. These capabilities not only deepen conceptual understanding but also allow for authentic, learner-driven expression through diverse media formats, which is particularly effective in differentiated instruction and inclusive education settings.

Despite these promising developments, significant challenges persist. One of the primary obstacles is the misalignment between platform capabilities and national or regional curriculum standards, which can hinder systemic integration and create fragmentation in learning outcomes [64]. In addition, issues of accessibility and affordability continue to limit the equitable use of e-learning technologies, particularly in under-resourced schools or rural areas [7]. Furthermore, the lack of adequate teacher training and ongoing professional development remains a critical barrier. Teachers often report uncertainty about how to integrate digital tools meaningfully into PBL environments, and they require sustained support to shift their pedagogical practices accordingly [65,66].

Addressing these challenges is crucial for fully leveraging the pedagogical potential of e-learning platforms in supporting effective and scalable PBL implementation, especially in primary education, where foundational competencies and attitudes toward learning are shaped. As digital learning ecosystems continue to evolve, they open new possibilities for competency-based, inquiry-driven education, in which active participation, critical thinking, creativity, and real-world problem-solving are not peripheral, but central to curriculum and instruction [67].

Ultimately, the convergence of pedagogical innovation and technological advancement points toward a future where e-learning platforms are not merely supplemental tools, but core infrastructures for transformative learning. Realizing this potential will require systemic alignment among curriculum design, teacher capacity-building, infrastructure investment, and inclusive digital policy.

While this study provides valuable insights into the potential of e-learning platforms for supporting Project-based learning in primary education, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. Many of these limitations are like those identified by [3], which analyzed PBL e-learning platforms on a global scale. However, our research presents additional constraints related to context-specific factors, methodology, and scope.

First, we emphasize a limited geographic and educational context. The focus of our study on Lithuania may in a way restrict the generalizability of our research findings. While ref. [3] conducted a broader, international analysis of PBL e-learning platforms, our study examines a specific national context with unique curriculum standards and teacher practices.

Second, the Delphi method used in our study relies on expert teacher evaluations, which, while valuable, also introduce subjectivity. Even though experts were carefully selected based on their experience in PBL and e-learning platforms, their individual biases and familiarity with specific platforms may have influenced the evaluation. Ref. [3] based their evaluation on objective platform analyses and feature-based categorizations rather than expert opinions. Their approach allowed for a standardized comparison of platforms, whereas our study, relying on human judgment, introduces interpretative variations.

Third, the 11 evaluation criteria used in this study were developed based on [3], PBL literature, and other studies. While these criteria provide a comprehensive framework for assessing how well e-learning platforms support PBL, they may not capture all possible features that influence platform effectiveness. Additionally, we did not apply quantitative weighting to different criteria, meaning that some aspects of platform functionality may have been implicitly given more importance than others.

Moreover, ref. [3] acknowledged that most existing research lacks long-term evidence on how PBL e-learning platforms influence student success and deeper learning outcomes. Our research as well focuses on platform evaluation rather than long-term student learning outcomes. While we identify e-learning platforms that support PBL, we do not measure their actual impact on student engagement, academic performance, or skill development over time.