Replacing ‘conventional’ teaching with learning technology in an introductory course On Fast Fracture: A comparative study

Abstract

This research paper investigates a way of evaluating an educational intervention, and compares the learning outcomes of a Computer Aided Learning (CAL) package with a conventional lecture. It has been suggested that uses of comparative studies in the evaluation of technology-based educational interventions are not productive, as there is a belief that the situation is too complex. However, this paper proposes that there is value in comparative studies by developing innovative, ethical ways which allow educators to gain greater insight into the students' perceptions of a teaching intervention, and its actual effect. It also attempts to test the hypothesis that the CAL package could replace the lecture without disadvantaging student learning. This study compares a CAL package with a lecture, both introducing the concept of Fast Fracture. It found a significant improvement in performance on a content-related quiz amongst the control and the experimental groups. It also found that the students significantly increased their confidence in being able to fulfil the objectives of the teaching session regardless of grouping. It was concluded that there was no evidence that replacing the lecture with a CAL package would disadvantage the students' learning.