LESSONS LEARNT WHEN DEVELOPING A TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATED INTERVENTION FOR FIRST YEAR PHYSICS STUDENTS

There is an expectation that lecturers should integrate technology in tertiary education to deal with 21st-century competencies such as critical and creative thinking, communication, collaboration and conflict resolution. However, limited interventions with integrated technology are available in physics topics. One of the reasons could be that in science faculties the focus is more on content (what to teach) and less on pedagogy (how to teach). Lecturers need to integrate technology when designing lessons. The design process comprises design thinking which is described as a reasoning process (Koh, Chai, Benjamin & Hong, 2015) and needs to be included as a strategy when designing technology-integrated lessons.

A design-thinking framework for a technology integrated lesson was developed by Koh et al (2015) to support 21st-century learning. The properties of this framework are critical dimensions for 21st-century learning, the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model and the design-thinking process. This framework was used when the technological integrated intervention was developed. Lessons were learnt from this process and could inform future interventions.

An exploratory case study research design guided the research. Two lecturers and 117 students (two groups) from the University of Technology in South Africa took part in the study. Although this university is not equipped with the latest technology it was decided to design an intervention with the available technology. Lecturer 1 was part of the design process of the intervention and the presenter for the pilot study and the one group of the main study. Lecturer 2 was the presenter of the second group of the main study. The reason for using two lecturers was to illustrate that developed teaching interventions need to be created in such a way that any lecturer will be able to benefit from it and use it.

The developed fluid mechanics technology integrated intervention was presented three times to different groups (the pilot and groups one and two for the main study), and lasted two and a half hours each. The effectiveness of the interventions was evaluated by comparing the results of the tutorial and post-test of the two main study groups. An observation schedule (Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol, (RTOP)) and a questionnaire were completed where lecturers reflected on their own teaching.

The lessons learnt after the analysis of the data are that the way in which technology is used has an impact on learning. How a lecturer uses technology tools to represent and make meaning of the content knowledge is crucial. The designer plays a critical role in the design process when intervention materials are developed and implemented. Consequently, if another lecturer has to implement an already designed intervention and his/her personal beliefs are not in line with the design decisions, it would impact on the learning of the students.
As design thinking is not an easy process as reflected in the design and redesign process, a data base could be provided specifying which videos and simulations are relevant to a specific topic and highlight content, advantages and disadvantages of each. The flexibility of what to use as well as the lecturer’s competency in using the technological tool that relates with his/her belief then rests with the lecturer.