Teaching physics in Vietnam: Integrating constructivist and sociocultural learning principles with ICT

The research goal is to investigate the implementation of a theoretical pedagogic model for integrating constructivist and sociocultural learning principles with ICT for the teaching of physics in the Vietnamese context.

The research questions are:

In what ways does the application of the pedagogic model increase interaction within the learning environment?
Does the application of the pedagogic model enhance students’ critical thinking skills?
Does the application of the pedagogic model improve students’ physics test results?

Research design

Quasi-experimental research was used in this study. The student-centred approach, supported by ICT and underpinned by sociocultural views, was implemented by a lecturer in an undergraduate optics course of a physics department within a school of education at a university in Vietnam. The course was delivered over 16 weeks (one semester), including one week for orientation and one week for the examination.

With the support of the researcher, the lecturer designed teaching strategies and learning tasks for his students. The classes were divided into small groups, with about five students in each. Students formed their groups and chose members by themselves. The lecturer required the groups to research optics topics and present the topics in front of the class using Microsoft PowerPoint (MS PP).

The content of the optics course was covered in a book of readings. This book of readings had been designed by the lecturer and evaluated by a faculty committee. It was then revised and used as a textbook for optics courses provided by the faculty. The optics content of the course was organised into 10 topics, including an optional topic, as follows:

The research questions are:

Topic 1: Introduction.

Topic 2: Interference.

Topic 3: Diffraction.

Topic 4: Geometry Optics.

Topic 5: Polarisation.

Topic 6: The Transmission of Light.

Topic 7: Thermal Radiation.

Topic 8: Quantum Optics.

Topic 9: Non Linear Optics.

Each small group was asked by the lecturer to research an optics topic that would be discussed in the next class. The students then divided the work among group members and used a range of sources for the information (for example, textbooks, books and online resources). Each group then organised the information into MS PP slides and designed a presentation to explain the optics topic in the coming class.

It was compulsory for each group to have their learning material for each topic in the form of MS PP slides ready before each class. In class the lecturer asked students from each of the groups to explain the optics topic to the whole class. The lecturer and class then asked the presenting group questions, which was followed by a discussion on the optics topic. The lecturer also supported the students’ optics learning through a series of questions and explanations.

Students’ learning was supported by a learning management system (LMS). This LMS allowed students to upload and share their learning material, including MS PP slides, and communicate and have discussions online, both in their small groups and with the whole class. The main learning activities that occurred using the LMS included:

groups of students developing the information that they needed for their presentations
students submitting their optics presentations and sharing the presentations
students’ forum discussions with the guide of the teaching assistant
links directing students to optics websites.

There were two groups of students involved in the research: Group 1 and Group 2. Most of the students were in the second year of their university programmes. Students enrolled in the groups based on their study timetables. This allocation might result in differences in optics knowledge between the two groups - however, the differences could be identified by the pre-test on optics.

The CSI model was implemented in both groups, with one difference in the application:

Group 1 used an online LMS for its optics study
Group 2 did not use an online LMS for its optics study.

Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed in this research. The four data collection instruments used were optics tests, critical thinking skills test, questionnaires, and interviews to collect and triangulate the data. Tests consisted of a pre-test and a post-test on optics and critical thinking skills. The students were administered questionnaires at the beginning and end of the semester. Unstructured interviews with groups of students were conducted, mainly at the end of the semester.

Table 1. Data collection and analysis methods address research questions

Research questions	Data collecting and analysing methods
1. In what ways does the application of the pedagogic model increase interaction within the learning environment?	Interview.
2. Does the application of the pedagogic model enhance students’ critical thinking skills?	CCTST: t-test, Cohen’s d. Questionnaire: descriptive statistics and graph.
3. Does the application of the pedagogic model improve students’ physics test results?	Optics test: t-test, Cohen’s d. Interview.

An overview of the data collection method, the analysis and the research questions is provided in Table 1. T-test and Cohen’s d were used to analyse data for the tests and some parts of questionnaires, while descriptive statistics and graphs were used for most questions in the questionnaires (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011; Muijs, 2004; Walliman, 2006). The interviews were coded. The codes were categorised into nodes (Cohen et al., 2011). Finally, the conclusion was developed and the research questions were discussed.

Quality assurance

Different quantitative methods were used to measure and investigate the effects of the CSI model on the students’ learning, as well as assist triangulating and supplementing the data. Furthermore, a qualitative data collection method – interview – was also used in this phase of the research to help enrich and triangulate the data.

Interview

Five student focus group interviews were performed. Of about 90 students who participated in this research, 36 students were interviewed. Student focus group interviews were employed in this case in order to encourage students to engage in a rich discussion about the topic/question in groups. In this way, diversified perspectives on a topic/question might be presented and discussed deeply among students during the interviews. One of the drawbacks of focus group interviews is that while some students dominated the discussions, others did not talk much. To overcome this drawback, the researcher encouraged the students who did not have the chance to present their ideas by directing questions to them.

NVivo software, which supports qualitative data analysis, was used to analyse the interview data. Each interview was divided into small segments comprising one or more sentences. A segment was then coded into free nodes (open codes) that reflected the content of the segment. At the beginning of this coding process, a block of text was coded independently by two researchers. The codes (nodes) were then compared, and a discussion between the two researchers was generated in order to improve the coding process.

California Critical Thinking Skill Test

To assess students’ critical thinking skills, this research used the California Critical Thinking Skill Test (CCTST) purchased from Insight Assessment. The test, containing 34 multiple-choice questions, assesses critical thinking skills that are measured through the scores of five individual scales: analysis & interpretation, inference, evaluation & explanation, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The reliability and validity of the test were ensured. Internal consistency reliability of CCTST KR 20 ranges from 0.78 to 0.82 (reliable).

Three kinds of validity of the CCTST were ensured by the research group at Insight Assessment. Content validity was addressed by designing the test items based on definitions and descriptions of critical thinking skills and subskills from research of the American Philosophical Association. Construct validity was reassured by considering many aspects, such as excluding social class and sex-role contexts, reviewing by independent researchers, and proving the increase of learners’ CCTST scores after attending critical thinking courses and training programmes. There are two types of criterion validity: predictive validity and concurrent validity. Predictive validity is defined if the test can predict theoretical expected outcomes - the CCTST scores significantly positively correlate with predicted graduate performance. Concurrent validity refers to the extent to which the test agrees with other tests - the CCTST scores strongly correlate with the scores of other critical thinking and higher order reasoning tests (for example, GRE total score: r = 0.719, p<0.001 and GRE analytic: r = 0.708, p<0.001). The staged process of translating the test into Vietnamese is also pertinent to the validity of the Vietnamese version of the test. The process of translating the test contained six stages:

Translation of the test into Vietnamese.
The Vietnamese translation of the test was reviewed by three Vietnamese lecturers.
Independent translation of the Vietnamese version back into English.
Revisions to the Vietnamese version of the test requested by Insight Assessment.
Revision of the Vietnamese version.
Approval by Insight Assessment of the final version.

Physics test

The optics test is a norm-referenced lecturer-developed test that is used each semester when this class is taught. The test was designed by the optics lecturer based on the course outline in order to: (1) evaluate students’ optics knowledge and understanding; and (2) compare a student’s performance before attending the optics course with their performance after attending the course. There are 40 multiple-choice items in the test, which cover the domain of optics content provided in the course. The same optics test paper was used for the pre-test and post-test.