Preferred technological learning packages: A new intervention in physics instructional delivery
Main Article Content
Abstract
Educational technology continues to reshape instructional delivery, yet whether secondary students meaningfully benefit from choosing their own delivery medium remains underexamined. This study introduces Preferred Technological Learning Packages—a construct synthesizing Self-Regulated Learning, the Technology Acceptance Model, and Personal Learning Environment principles—and examines physics students' format preferences and perceived academic impact. Using a descriptive survey design, data were collected from a purposive sample of 37 secondary school physics students in Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria, who were given four-week autonomous access to Audio, PowerPoint, Video, and Conventional Lecture formats covering Mechanics and Wave equations. Results show the Video Package was most preferred (35.2%), followed by PowerPoint (29.7%) and Audio (13.5%), with 78.4% of students favoring a digital format overall. A 13-item perceived-impact scale (α=0.81) yielded a grand mean of 3.44, exceeding the 2.50 benchmark, with the strongest agreement on cognitive-processing items (exam preparation, reduced malpractice risk) and social-constructivist items (autonomy, skill acquisition). Findings reflect favorable student perceptions. Secondary schools with adequate infrastructure may benefit from offering parallel digital pathways alongside conventional instruction.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
References
OECD, Education at a Glance 2019. in Education at a Glance. OECD Publishing, 2019. doi: 10.1787/f8d7880d-en.
T. Consoli, M.-L. Schmitz, C. Antonietti, P. Gonon, A. Cattaneo, and D. Petko, “Quality of technology integration matters: Positive associations with students’ behavioral engagement and digital competencies for learning,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 7719–7752, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13118-8.
B. De Wever, R. Hämäläinen, M. Voet, and M. Gielen, “A wiki task for first-year university students: The effect of scripting students’ collaboration,” Internet High. Educ., vol. 25, pp. 37–44, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.002.
D. M. R. Ahmadi, “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review,” Int. J. Res. English Educ., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 115–125, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.29252/ijree.3.2.115.
D. Larsen-Freeman and M. Anderson, Techniques and principles in language teaching, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, 2011.
A. O. Onojah, S. O. Afolabi, O. O. Obielodan, A. A. Onojah, and O. E. Babalola, “University Students’ Demeanour Towards the Utilization of Electronic Resources for Learning,” AU-HIU Int. Multidiscip. J., vol. 2, pp. 32–41, 2022.
F. E. Babalola, S. J. Fakoyede, F. B. Ojobola, M. A. Ayodeji, S. K. Ekundayo, and D. O. Alabi, “Evaluating the effectiveness of multimedia integration in enhancing physics instruction in secondary schools,” Discov. Educ., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 46, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00871-2.
E. N. Ozaslan and Z. Maden, “The use of power point presentations at in the department of foreign language education at middle east technical university,” Middle East. African J. Educ. Res., vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 60–75, 2013.
M. R. Abdulrahman, A. K. Soetan, A. O. Onojah, and A. M. Aderoju, “Development of a Mobile Application for Learning Basic Technology Concepts in Upper-Basic Schools,” IJIET (International J. Indones. Educ. Teaching), vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 248–261, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.24071/ijiet.v8i2.4531.
R. Luo and Y. Zhou, “The effectiveness of self‐regulated learning strategies in higher education blended learning: A five years systematic review,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 3005–3029, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1111/jcal.13052.
D. I. Pratiwi and B. Waluyo, “Autonomous learning and the use of digital technologies in online English classrooms in higher education,” Contemp. Educ. Technol., vol. 15, no. 2, p. ep423, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.30935/cedtech/13094.
A. S. Al-Adwan, N. Li, A. Al-Adwan, G. A. Abbasi, N. A. Albelbisi, and A. Habibi, ““Extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to Predict University Students’ Intentions to Use Metaverse-Based Learning Platforms”,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 15381–15413, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11816-3.
S. Alserhan, T. M. Alqahtani, N. Yahaya, W. M. Al-Rahmi, and H. Abuhassna, “Personal Learning Environments: Modeling Students’ Self-Regulation Enhancement Through a Learning Management System Platform,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 5464–5482, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3236504.
B. A. Nan Cenka, H. B. Santoso, and K. Junus, “Using the personal learning environment to support self-regulated learning strategies: a systematic literature review,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1368–1384, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2120019.
D. Kay and J. Kibble, “Learning theories 101: application to everyday teaching and scholarship,” Adv. Physiol. Educ., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 17–25, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1152/advan.00132.2015.
P. A. Ertmer and T. J. Newby, “Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective,” Perform. Improv. Q., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 43–71, 2013, doi: 10.1002/piq.21143.
J. D. Greenwood, A conceptual history of psychology: Exploring the tangled web. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
D. Liu, “The effects of segmentation on cognitive load, vocabulary learning and retention, and reading comprehension in a multimedia learning environment,” BMC Psychol., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 4, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s40359-023-01489-5.
R. Schumacher and E. Stern, “Promoting the construction of intelligent knowledge with the help of various methods of cognitively activating instruction,” Front. Educ., vol. 7, p. 979430, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.979430.
J. Piaget, Science of education and the psychology of the child (D. Coltman, Trans.). Orion Press, 1970.
E. Ç. Özkan, “Scaffolding as Teachers’ Guidance Role in the Context of Constructivist Learning Approach,” J. Educ. Issues, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 399, May 2022, doi: 10.5296/jei.v8i1.19690.
J. Piaget, The construction of reality in the child. Routledge, 2013.
A. Bandura, Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, 1977.
A. Bandura, Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, 1986.
A. Bandura, “Observational learning,” in Encyclopedia of learning and memory, 2nd ed., J. H. Byrne, Ed., Macmillan, 2003, pp. 482–484.
J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, 1991. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355.
L. Bigozzi, C. Tarchi, C. Fiorentini, P. Falsini, and F. Stefanelli, “The Influence of Teaching Approach on Students’ Conceptual Learning in Physics,” Front. Psychol., vol. 9, p. 2474, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02474.
D. W. Kritt, Ed., Constructivist Education in an Age of Accountability. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-66050-9.
I. Ikhsanudin, B. Subali, H. Retnawati, and E. Istiyono, “Estimation of Cronbach reliability based on sample size, gender, and the grades,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 13, no. 2, p. 759, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v13i2.24895.
W. Li, J. Yu, Z. Zhang, and X. Liu, “Dual Coding or Cognitive Load? Exploring the Effect of Multimodal Input on English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Vocabulary Learning,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, p. 834706, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.834706.
M. Kankaraš and S. Capecchi, “Neither agree nor disagree: use and misuse of the neutral response category in Likert-type scales,” Metron, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 111–140, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s40300-024-00276-5.
I. Hussey, T. Alsalti, F. Bosco, M. Elson, and R. Arslan, “An Aberrant Abundance of Cronbach’s Alpha Values at .70,” Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 25152459241287124, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1177/25152459241287123.