Empowering future physicists: the role of case technology in research competency development

Abstract

The research study concentrates on the incorporation of case technology to augment the enhancement of research competencies among future physicists. The study scrutinizes the influence of case technology on students’ research capabilities and their aptitude to apply theoretical knowledge to practical situations. The main objective was to identify the potential of case technologies as an innovative teaching method in the development of research competencies of future physicists and methods of their implementation in educational practice. To substantiate the effectiveness of case technology in the development of research activities, a pedagogical experiment was conducted based on the International Kazakh-Turkish University named after Khoja Akhmet Yassawi. Quantitative empirical evidence presented from one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a linear regression model tests disclosed that the levels of research competencies of the experimental group improved significantly. This study sheds light on the case technology potential for the research activities development that can be used in the professional training of future physics teachers. In conclusion, the incorporation of case technology into the cultivation of research proficiency for aspiring physicists presents a hopeful pathway towards augmenting their aptitudes and understanding. This approach not only cultivates the capacity for discerning analysis and logical reasoning but also fosters the cultivation of originality and inventiveness within the realm of physics. Harnessing the potential of case technology in the development of research competencies can furnish future physicists with the requisite tools they necessitate to thrive in an increasingly intricate and technology-driven milieu.

Keywords:

• Future physicists
• research competencies
• innovative approach
• case technology
• teaching methods

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Nick Rushby Rushby, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5PD, United Kingdom

SUBJECTS:

• Science Education
• Teachers & Teacher Education
• Research Methods in Education
• Education & Training
• Teacher Education & Training

Introduction

The progression of technology assumes a central function in influencing the trajectory of diverse disciplines, such as physics. Within this framework, the cultivation of research proficiency among aspiring physicists arises as a crucial dimension that necessitates consideration. Endowing future physicists with the requisite expertise and understanding to partake in research competencies will foster their scholarly advancement and prime them to confront the intricate predicaments of the forthcoming era. Empirical evidence of Sedra and Bennani (2020), Sultan et al. (2019), Galustyan et al. (2020) and others is devoted to the study of the competence-based approach in education, and the studies of Kulik et al. (2020), Wicker (2021) and others are devoted to the issues of competence and competencies of future teachers of vocational training. In these and other studies, the problem of forming the key competencies of future specialists is considered relevant; they are assigned a leading role in the success of human activity (Sołtysik et al., 2020). This explains the increased interest in this problem in the last decade. Negoescu et al. (2019) and Hadar et al. (2020) studied the formation of communication, social and other competencies of students. Scientists and teachers associate the need for the formation of research competencies of students with the nature of their future professional and pedagogical activity. Their works characterize the components of research competence and their relationships (Böttcher-Oschmann et al., 2021; Sołtysik et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021).

The development of research activities is a pressing issue, as evidenced by the study of pedagogical and scientific literature. Nevertheless, experts have differing opinions about the nature organisation and methods of forming these activities among students. Research, design, heuristic approaches, didactic games, including case technology, and the development of methods and means for the development of research activities are associated by scientists with the training of future teachers. The foundation of case technology lies in its ability to assess, identify, and make the best use of alternative solutions in an educational setting by simulating a specific real-world production scenario. From the inventors’ perspective, this technology helps students learn both new and objectively derived information in addition to scientifically known material. As a result, case technology’s potential allows for the integration of research and teaching activities, functioning as a true tool for developing future teachers’ research competencies (Almerich et al., 2020; Marrs et al., 2022).

The pedagogical potential of case technology in the formation of general and special competencies of students was revealed by Wohlin (2021), Rashid et al. (2019), Forrest-Lawrence (2019) and others. Lindgreen et al. (2021), Turnbull et al. (2021), and Takahashi and Araujo (2019) studied the use of case technology in the educational process. Innovative learning technologies based on the case study method were substantiated by Basri et al. (2020), Backes et al. (2021), and Wohlin (2021). Higher school teachers experience difficulties in developing research activities. These difficulties arise because many of them are not aware of the pedagogical potential of case technology in the development of research activities; they do not know the structure and content of cases and technologies. They are used for educational and research purposes. In this regard, the problem of providing future teachers of vocational training with research cases that model their future professional activities and provide them with the necessary information support is relevant (Rashid et al., 2019).

Aims and objectives of the study

This study aims to put forward an innovative approach to the development of future physicists’ research activities in terms of case technology. In pursuit of this purpose, the following objectives have been developed:

• To test and delineate the potential of the case technology for developing research activities for future physicists.

• To highlight the crucial role of case technology in developing the research competencies of future teachers.

• To determine the extant skills of students of education in relation to research competencies and skills.

Literature review

This section delineates the previously studied and extant literature pertinent to the professional training of future teasers and the need for innovative approaches and research competencies for future specialists such as physicists. It is asserted that significant changes occurring in the system of higher education, according to Kazakh researchers, are aimed at updating professional education, finding ways to form the activity position of a future specialist, developing his experience of a holistic vision of his future professional activity and readiness to solve new problems and tasks. Pedagogical education is considered a humanitarian one, ensuring the readiness of the graduate to interact with other people in the process of transmitting culture and exchanging cultural values (Forrest-Lawrence, 2019). In this regard, research competencies have been suggested as crucial for future physicists that can be validated via a comprehensive review of this study.

The competency-based approach is considered by scientists as a way to overcome the contradiction between the need to ensure the modern quality of education and the inability to solve this problem traditionally by further increasing the amount of information to be assimilated (Lindgreen et al., 2021; Takahashi & Araujo, 2019). The basic categories of the competency-based approach are the concepts of competence and competence. The first is associated with a certain type of professional activity that means ‘awareness, authority in any field’, while the second has the following meaning: the terms of reference, the rights of a person, body, the range of issues, and cases under someone’s control. Both terms have become widespread in pedagogical science relatively recently. They have not only general categorical features but also specific ones, and their content has been the subject of heated discussions in scientific circles.

According to Hidalgo (2020), ‘competence is an integral property of a person that characterizes her desire and ability (readiness) to realize her potential (knowledge, skills, experience, personal qualities, etc.) for successful activity in a certain area’ (Garay-Argandona et al., 2021; Turnbull et al., 2021). Common to all forms of education aimed at the development or formation of key competencies can be considered the transition from the one-sided activity of the teacher to independent learning, responsibility, and activity of the students themselves.

Consequently, there is a need to search for and master such forms of education, in which the emphasis is placed on the independent activity of students, contributing to the acquisition of experience in practical activities. This form includes the research activities of the students in various forms. The quality of this activity can be effectively considered through the research competence of university graduates in solving research problems. The development of research activities, as one of the main components of the professional competence of future physicists in vocational training, is becoming an important task in modern education. The need for students to master research competencies is due to the nature of the professional activity of a modern specialist.

According to Garay-Argandona et al. (2021), research competence is an integrative personality characteristic that implies the possession of methodological knowledge, research technology, recognition of their value, and readiness to use them in professional activities. Summarizing this point of view, we can assume that the research competence of a teacher is a characteristic of his personality, meaning possession of the skills and methods of research activities at the technology level in order to search for knowledge to solve educational problems, build the educational process in accordance with the values-goals of modern education, the mission of the educational institution, and desired educational outcome (Toquero, 2021). Research competence sets a range of tasks that must be solved and mastered. It also follows that research competence is not just scientific research knowledge, skills, and abilities that an educated person should possess; it is a deeper concept that characterizes his personal attitude to the subject of activity, the path by which he came to the result (Galustyan et al., 2020).

Analysis of the essence of research (Ramankulov et al., 2019, 2020) competence and its structure (Almerich et al., 2020) made it possible to identify the following components of research competence:

1. The theoretical component includes knowledge of the methodological apparatus of pedagogical research, the essence and technology of the main research methods, and the ability to set goals.

2. Diagnostic component: knowledge of research methods and the ability to use them to study the state of the problem under study, choose the necessary conditions for conducting an observation or experiment, and work with sources of information using diagnostic methods.

3. The projective–constructive component constitutes the qualities necessary for developing a research programme. In general terms, this is the ability to realize the goals of research activity and the ability to explain them, see and isolate problems, make assumptions about their resolution, put forward hypotheses and justify them, and plan one’s activities. In a narrower sense, the ability to classify existing or received data, master the skills of planning an experiment, and structure material.

4. The operational component consists of the knowledge, skills, and qualities necessary for conducting the research itself, including the ability to conduct a pedagogical experiment and the implementation and adjustment of the planned actions for the research programme.

5. The reflexive component is responsible for the development of reflexive processes and means the possession of knowledge and skills to analyze the results of activities, i.e. correlate the results achieved with the goal, the ability to interpret the data obtained, conduct self-evaluation of research activities, develop conclusions and guidelines for those who will use the results of the study in practice.

6. The communicative component involves knowing how to interact with participants in the research process; the ability to speak orally and in writing with the results of their research; the ability to work in a team; and the ability to present ideas clearly and persuasively.

According to Dvulichanskaya and Piasetsky (2017), trainees are required to have maximum independence. It should be noted that in groups with different levels of students’ knowledge, especially at the initial stage of studying the subject, it is advisable to use heuristic methods with the active participation of the teacher. The heuristic can be conversations, laboratory work, or tasks that involve students’ independent search for new knowledge. After discussing the work plan, the students in the team perform the experimental tasks on their own. If the work is done ‘in pairs’, each student individually solves their problems and thinks about their actions in the process of performing the experiment and solving theoretical tasks. Students also formulate the main conclusions independently (Indah et al., 2022; Ramankulov et al., 2015; Salmento et al., 2021; Sedra & Bennani, 2020; Sultan et al., 2019).

Research activity allows students to develop independence in decision-making, creative work skills, observation, imagination, and the ability to think outside the box and express and defend their own or group point of view (Kulik et al., 2020; Mukataeva et al., 2023; Wicker, 2021). Case study is a teaching technique that uses a description of real economic, social, domestic, or other problem situations (from the English case – 1) briefcase, suitcase, bag, folder (in our version – a package of documents for work students); 2) situation, case, incident, in some cases, a combination of them (in our version – a set of practical situations that should be studied by students) (Wicker, 2021).

According to Wohlin (2021), the essence of case technologies lies in the fact that students comprehend a real-life situation, the description of which reflects not only a practical problem but also actualizes a certain body of knowledge to be learned when solving the problem. In addition, the problem does not have unambiguous solutions (Negoescu et al., 2019). Scientists and teachers argue that the use of information technology in the educational process can improve the quality of support for scientific research by students at pedagogical universities and provide access to educational resources (Yedilbayev et al., 2023). Case technologies have such opportunities that allow for interactive interaction between teachers and students. Case technologies are complex educational technologies, teaching methods, and techniques. The basis of this technology is learning by solving specific problems-situations (cases). The basis of the technology is a set of cases containing information about a specific task or problem, based on which, through theoretical analysis and based on the obtained and existing knowledge, the task assigned to the student is solved (Hadar et al., 2020).

A distinctive feature of case technology is that it is considered a separate research strategy that uses a variety of methods. Sometimes in the literature, this technology is called a ‘case study’, implying that a student or a group of students concentrates on solving a problem that arises in educational or future professional activities at different levels of involvement. As Forrest-Lawrence (2019) and Wohlin (2021) point out, case technology acts as a way to form research thinking and update students’ creative potential (Kimo & Ayele, 2021).

The term ‘case’ used in the present study in relation to education has two semantic meanings: a set of teaching materials and a description of a real situation. The term ‘case’ is usually understood as ‘something containing something else’ such as a suitcase or a bookcase. In this sense, case analysis, according to Pessoa et al. (2020) and Wong (2017), means a frame of reference in which we describe a difficult life situation, whether it is the client’s or our own difficulties. In this case, the case is considered as a complex event that integrates a complex of simple events. Simultaneously, the problem underlying the case, as a rule, is hidden and disguised. Another homonymous word for the term ‘case’ is ‘incident’ or ‘event’ and comes from the Latin word ‘casus’, a form of the Latin verb ‘cadere’, meaning ‘to fall’. As experience shows, case technology can increase cognitive interest, improve understanding of educational material, and contribute to the development of research and communication skills in analyzing professional situations and making decisions on their resolution. As Forrest-Lawrence (2019) highlights, case technology is a specific kind of exploratory analytical technology, i.e. it consists of analytical procedures.

The frequent use of cases in the practice of vocational education highlights the problem of designing them in accordance not with intuitive approaches but with the principles of science. In this regard, two terms ‘design’ and ‘construction’ are distinguished in science. Designing is considered to be the process of creating a model, a project of a particular system, and designing is the creation of an operating design of this model. From the point of view of creating cases in the form of intellectual products, the terms are distinguished, understanding that design is a procedure for thinking about a case project, and design is the writing of a case itself, i.e. the embodiment of the project in the text, to which certain requirements are imposed.

The activity of a teacher in introducing case technologies into educational practice, according to experts, consists of two stages:

1. Case design which is a complex creative process that is implemented outside the classroom and consists of research, methodological, and constructive activities of the teacher.

2. Creation of a methodology for implementing a case in educational practice. Specialists who create cases are advised to be guided by several algorithms when designing cases. For example, Radkevych and Abiltarova (2021) suggests the following sequence of actions: the formation of the didactic goals of the case; definition of a problem situation; collection of information on the main points of the case; development of a model of a specific situation; choice of case genre; writing the text of the case; diagnostics of the correctness and effectiveness of the case and its correction; preparation of the final version of the case; introduction of the case into teaching practice and its publication; and preparation of guidelines for the use of the case. Another scheme of actions for creating a case is proposed by K. Meer: the formation of the didactic goals of the case; construction of a program map of the case, consisting of the main theses that need to be embodied in the text; search for an institutional system (educational institution, organization, department, etc.) that is directly related to the theses of the program map; collection of information in the institutional system regarding the theses of the program case map; construction or selection of a situation model that reflects the activities of the institute; choice of case genre; writing the text of the case; diagnosing the correctness and effectiveness of the case; preparation of the final version of the case; and introduction of the case into teaching practice.

Grant (2020) provides his perspective on the case design process. He proposes to divide the process of creating a case into 12 stages: the choice of an organization that should provide information about events at the enterprise, problems of the organization, activities and situations that arise between the subjects of the organization; choosing a topic for a case and formulating pedagogical goals; conducting an interview, which involves establishing contacts with the organization, identifying the purpose of the study, problems, who makes decisions, how the situation has developed, etc.; problem selection; the choice of the decision maker; development of a case plan, which consists of an introductory paragraph, a description of the learning objectives, a case diagram, a list of necessary data, a development schedule; writing the text of the case; reviewing and approbation of the case; temporary release; preparation of a methodological note; checking the case in class; case reissues (Basri et al., 2020; Kimo & Ayele, 2021).

To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no previous studies have attempted to investigate a similar area of research that demonstrates the novelty of this study. In extant literature, much emphasis has been placed on the crucial role of research activities for physics students. A gap exists in terms of the methods, content, and structure of research activities of future physicists. Thus, this gap in the extant literature has motivated researchers to conduct studies in this area and substantiate the effectiveness of case technology in the development of research activities for future physicists. In this regard, the present study intends to incorporate a novel approach to present case technology as an innovative approach to develop research activities for future physicists to facilitate the formation of the research competencies of future physicists and teachers.

Research hypotheses

The literature review highlight gaps in research on methods to develop research competencies for future physicists. Specifically, while the crucial role of cultivating research skills is emphasized approaches to structure curriculum and content to encourage active research engagement remains underexplored (Kim & Im, 2021; Solans-Domènech et al., 2019). However, the incorporation of case technology in education is suggested to enable students to apply theoretical knowledge to real-world scenarios and engage productively in analyzing and resolving complex situations (Elçi et al., 2019). Building on prior literature, this study aims to test the following overarching hypothesis:

H1: The use of case technologies in the classroom increases students’ research competencies.

This hypothesis is grounded in literature suggesting that case technology creates an enriching learning environment that facilitates higher-order analytical and critical thinking skills. It is expected that exposure to real-world case analyses will strengthen research competencies.

Additionally, based on studies showing that active, self-directed learning is key for meaningful research skill development (Carter et al., 2015; Wardoyo et al., 2020), two sub-hypotheses emerge:

H1a: Students receiving case technology training will demonstrate significantly higher gains in research competence compared with those taught via traditional pedagogies.

H1b: The use of case technologies has a significant positive effect on the cultivation of multifaceted research competencies.

Testing these hypotheses will provide valuable insight into innovative approaches to successfully equip future physicists with essential research abilities. This study seeks to address existing knowledge gaps in this domain through an empirical investigation of case technology-based learning.

Research method

The research design of this article includes five steps: 1) studying the content of the extant curricula used for the students, 2) using different teaching methods to develop research activities and vocational training based on case technology, 3) using an experiment to test the effectiveness of the vocational training, 4) generalizing, modeling, designing, comparing, analyzing, and synthesizing, and 5) conducting a survey and testing. To substantiate the effectiveness of the use of case technology in the development of research competencies for future physicists of vocational training based on the International Kazakh-Turkish University named after Khoja Ahmet Yasawi, a pedagogical experiment was conducted. The experiment was intended to test the effectiveness of research competencies based on case technology. The development of research competencies and their distribution by levels of development were determined using questionnaires, pedagogical observation, expert assessments, conversations, testing, etc.

The general scheme of the experimental work includes three main stages: ascertaining, forming, and controlling. To ensure the reliability of the data, the experimental and control groups participated in the experiment, which was trained according to the traditional system. Control sections were performed at the beginning and end of the experiment. The experiment was conducted in the 2021/22 academic year under natural conditions. The total number of students (with the speciality ‘6B01510-Physics’) participating in the experiment was 103 of which 52 students (26 male and 26 female) from the Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University were in the control group, and 51 (25 male and 26 female students) from NJSC South Kazakhstan state pedagogical university were in the experimental group. The ascertaining stage of the experiment included working with students in the fifth year of full-time education. During the ascertaining stage of the experiment, the following tasks were carried out: Identification of the level of development of research activities; Carrying out a comparative analysis of the development of research activities and determining the control and experimental groups; Distribution of students according to the levels of development of research activities; Determining the reference and real levels of development of research activities of future physicists in the experimental and control groups; Determination of the coefficient of possession of research competencies by students of the experimental and control groups.

The survey was conducted (Appendix Table 6A) to determine the students’ opinion about the development of their research competencies in general and, in particular, those that we have chosen for the experimental study. These include: Owning the technology of scientific research (OK-19); Organizing the educational and research work of students (PC-11); and being ready to participate in research into problems arising in the process of training workers (specialists) (PC-12). The choice of the above-listed research competencies is not accidental. The development of the components of these competencies (knowledge, skills and possession) may indicate the readiness of future physicists for vocational training for research activities. For these purposes, a survey (Appendix Table 6A) was conducted among graduate students in full-time and part-time education. Questions were included in the questionnaire to reveal the opinions of students about the formation of their theoretical, diagnostic, projective design, operational, reflective, and communicative skills. Students were asked to answer a questionnaire, allowing them to find out their opinions about their abilities. For example: ‘Do you know how to substantiate the relevance of research, identify the object and subject of research, or assess the level of formation of students’ creative abilities?’ These skills, from our point of view, play a key role in the development of research activities, and their presence indicates the readiness of students for research activities. For quantitative assessment, comparison of experimental data in the control and experimental groups, and determination of the effectiveness of the ascertaining stage of the pedagogical experiment, we introduce the coefficient of possession of the relevant skills K. Let’s define as a reference (P^S) the level of proficiency in research competencies, which is the maximum possible number of points that a respondent can score; realized (P^S)- the actual number of points scored by the participant of the experiment. The values of $P_{Э}^S$ and $P_p^S$ will be determined by the following formulas: $${\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{E}}^{\mathit{S}}=\sum _{\mathit{i}=1}^{\mathit{j}}{\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{\text{Ei}}}^{\mathit{S}}{\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{p}}^{\mathit{S}}=\sum _{\mathit{i}=1}^{\mathit{j}}{\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{\text{pi}}}^{\mathit{S}}$$ where j = l, … ,4 is the number of components of research competencies tested in the experiment. The coefficient of possession of research competencies for each component is defined as the ratio: $$К=\frac{P_p^S}{P_E^S}$$

To quantify the coefficient K for each component of research competencies (knowledge, skill, possession), we define a numerical indicator: I do not know – ‘0’; I partially own – ‘1’; I know – ‘2’; corresponding to the answers given in the questionnaire (Appendix Table 3A). For the real level $P_p^S$ characterizing a particular student, we take a number equal to the sum of the numbers in the corresponding column of the questionnaire table. The reference ($P_E^S$) level is equal to the maximum number of points that a student can score. In this study, $P_E^S$-100 (points).

Quantitative indicators of the coefficient K of the control and experimental groups will be determined for each component as follows: $$\mathrm{К}=\frac{\sum _{\mathit{i}=1}^{\mathit{j}}{\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{p}}^{\mathit{S}}}{\sum _{\mathit{i}=1}^{\mathit{j}}{\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{E}}^{\mathit{S}}}$$

The effectiveness of the educational process will be expressed in terms of the proximity of the coefficient K to unity, calculated before the beginning, during, and at the end of the experiment. By changing the coefficient K, one can determine the effectiveness of the impact of case technology on the development of research activities of future physicists.

Case technology

The creative aspects of case technology are diverse. They permeate both the case and the process of discussing it. Summarizing the available approaches, we can distinguish the following requirements for the development of creative cases: problematic and conflict situations: novelty, originality of the solution of the problem; pluralistic nature of analytical procedures; ability to search for several alternative solutions; quantitative and qualitative potential; complexity of the situation under study; and possibility of achieving results in different ways (Backes et al., 2021).

There is another approach that is more nuanced and impactful. This includes mapping out the methodical process needed to actually create practical, useful case studies. The case study materials should include the following:

1. Address a topic or question that is relevant and meaningful. It should feel pressing, not obscure or contrived.

2. Present information that is accessible but also challenging enough to feel rewarding to work through. Not babyish, not PhD

3. Align to the course learning goals and the educator’s vision for the skills they hope students take away.

4. Give enough background details and resources to dig into the case fully, but not overload on fluff that distracts from critical thinking.

5. Offer an authentic, real-world situation without heavy-handed judgments on key players or issues. Let the students develop their own perspectives.

Basically, design case studies to engage learners’ problem-solving superpowers. Curate a journey that sparks curiosity, makes students feel invested, and leads to their own complex understanding. The materials provide a clear direction without restricting creative thought.

Based on a study of the opinions of scientists who adhere to the case study methodology, Appendix Table 1A presents, in our interpretation, a list of requirements for the components of the case. Surveys and observations of scientists and our experience show that students prefer interesting, multifaceted cases, they want conflicts and problems to be present in them, and in choosing to analyze the situation, the majority of respondents are guided by discussion. This allows us to conclude that students need research activities, to which we also aim case technology (Appendix Table 1A).

Based on the analysis of the literature (Nykyporets et al., 2021) and our experience, the following stages of using cases in the preparation of students can be conditionally distinguished:

1. Preparatory (before the start of classes): used to specify the goal and situation, as well as to design a training session;

2. Introductory: involving students in the classroom in the analysis of the situation and explaining the methods of educational work;

3. Analytical, during which the situation is studied, the conditions for its occurrence and development, ways of solving, and a solution is developed;

4. Organizational and communicative, in the process of discussing solutions and their optimality, choosing one of them, developing recommendations for its implementation, and analyzing the consequences;

5. Reflective, individual, and group reflection of the results of analytical and communicative work is organized;

6. Final: execution of decisions and conclusions.

Based on the use of cases in educational practice in the physics – optics section, we presented in the form a sequence of actions and design stages (Appendix Table 2A).

We will give examples of developed cases on optics on new learning approaches.

The simplest types of light diffraction control

a) On thick black paper, we make a thin hole of 0.1 mm with a length of 25 mm. Now, we hold the paper at a distance of 25 cm from the source and look through the slit at the burning electric lamp. Then, we will notice coloured and brown stripes from the hole. Changing the width of the opening, we can see that the colours of the strip fluctuate. b) Squinting our eyes, we look at the lit electric lamp. Then, brown and coloured stripes will be visible.

с) Cut a nylon strip of black colour with a size of 40 × 60mm. Now, when we look at an electric lamp that burns through nylon fibres, we see coloured stripes. If you rotate the capron through the control growth, a change in the diffraction pattern will be observed.

An easy way to control the refraction of light

To demonstrate a simple way to control the refraction of light, we take a glass flask with a capacity of 50 cm³ and fill it with water. Now, if we apply sunlight to the side of the bulb, a solar wheel will appear on the opposite surface. In case of water ingress, the diameter of the solar wheel is smaller than that of the bulb. It can be indicated that the size of the solar wheel formed when various liquids were spilt inside the flask depends on the liquid label.

This phenomenon is explained by reflecting light

It is impossible to write an inscription on an ordinary white sheet and read it from the outer surface. On the reverse side of the sheet on which this inscription is written, the grease is well applied, and the inscription is visible and readable. The reason is explained by reflecting light. If the surface of the paper is not smeared, the light beam hitting the surface of the paper will be completely reflected, so we cannot read the inscription from the outer surface of the paper. Now, when oil is applied to the surface of the paper, the oil fills the void between the papers and changes the location of the paper fibres, as a result of which a certain part of the light falling on the surface of the letter breaks through the paper. From here, we can see and read the written inscription. During our course in optics, we compiled several such cases on each topic and used them.

Data analysis methods

To evaluate the impact of the case technology on students’ research competencies, two stages of quantitative analysis were designed. In the first stage, the students were divided into two experimental and control groups, and the research competencies test was taken from them. The case technology was then implemented in the experimental group, and no changes were made in the control group. At the end of the course, a retest was conducted to evaluate the research competencies of the students in the two experimental and control groups. Then, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was implemented to determine whether the score of students’ research competencies test, which is known as the K variable in this article, has a statistically significant difference in the two groups after the implementation of the case technology. If yes, the second stage of the quantitative test is performed.

This study used a linear regression model to assess the impact of the case technology training variable on students’ research competencies (K). Specifically, the model took the general form: $$\mathrm{Y}=\beta 0+\beta \text{1X1}+\epsilon$$ where Y represents the outcome variable of research competencies (K score), X1 is a binary variable indicating whether a student did (X1 = 1) or did not (X1 = 0) receive the case technology training, β0 is the regression intercept, β1 is the regression coefficient for the case technology predictor, and ε is an error term. This effectively models research competencies scores as a linear function of whether the case technology training or not, controlling for an average intercept in scores and normal errors in the model.

Results of hypothesis testing

A group of 103 students was selected. The level of possession of research competencies was revealed by testing. The test includes tasks that allow you to identify the level of development of the components of research competencies, particularly theoretical, diagnostic, design, operational, reflective, and communicative skills. Testing was conducted in both groups upon completion of the study of the first module of the discipline ‘Technology of Scientific and Pedagogical Research’. The results of testing the experimental group were compared with the results of diagnosing the development of research competencies in the control group, after which the final results are recorded in Appendix Table 4A.

According to the results of testing, the control (52 people) and experimental (51 people) groups of students were identified with approximately the same coefficient of development of research competencies: Кe = 0,58 and Кc = 0,60.

Depending on the points scored, the students of the control and experimental groups were distributed according to the levels of development of research competencies: 1) pre-threshold (from 0 to 50 points), 2) threshold (from 51 to 64 points), 3) basic (from 65 to 84 points), and 4) advanced (from 85 to 100 points).

Finding the bulk of the students in the experimental and control groups at the pre-threshold and threshold levels of the development of research competencies indicates the inefficiency of the organization of research work.

These and other circumstances, as substantiated in the previous sections, necessitated the introduction of new effective methods and technologies in the existing practice of organizing students’ research work. Therefore, we consider case technology. The pedagogical potential of case technology in the development of research competencies of future physicists of vocational training was revealed in early publications. For these purposes, we developed cases for ‘Optics’.

Based on the above, we moved to the formative stage (Appendix Table 5A) of the experiment, at which classes in the experimental group were conducted with the introduction of cases on the discipline under study into the educational process, and the control group worked according to the traditional methodology and the current standard programme. Cases in the educational process of students of the experimental group were introduced mainly in practical classes. Work in these classes is largely independent, which is an important condition for organizing training using case technology. Classes using cases according to the described learning technology were conducted under natural conditions. The educational process was conditionally divided into 6 main stages: 1) preparatory, 2) introductory, 3) analytical, 4) organizational and communicative, 5) reflective, and 6) final.

After the case technology training was given only to the experimental group students, both groups took the research competency K-score assessment again. The control group’s scores remained largely similar, only slightly increasing from 58 to 61. However, for the experimental group exposed to the case technology, their research competence marks increased substantially from an initial 60 up to 80. That is a considerable boost! To evaluate whether this notable improvement with the special case training was statistically significant or just random chance, an ANOVA test was run. The formal analysis would shed light on the true impact of educational intervention on advancing these critical research skills.

The results of the ANOVA test are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the F statistic is significant at the 95% confidence interval (p < .05). This means that there is a statistically significant difference in the value of K between the two control groups and the experimental group after the implementation of the case technology.

Table 1. The result of the ANOVA test.

Variable	Model	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	P
K	Between groups	25.23	4	6.31	3567.049	.012
	Within groups	604.12	178	3.39
	Total	629.35	182

To prove that this change in the level of research competencies (K score) of students is due to the implementation of the case technology, the present study used a regression model. For this purpose, the case technology variable was considered as an independent variable and K as a dependent variable. The results of the regression test, which are shown in Table 2, confirm that the case technology is a causal variable for K because its influence has been confirmed in the 95% confidence interval (p < .05). Since the R² corresponding to this causal relationship is equal to 0.25, it shows the importance of the case technology because it represents that this variable alone can explain 25% of the changes in the K variable.

Table 2. The result of the hypothesis test.

Hypothesis	Beta (standardized coefficients)	T	P	R	R^2	Std. error of the estimate	Status
Case Tech. → K	0.246	9.641	0.000	0.501	0.251	0.269	Confirmed

The results of the one-way ANOVA and linear regression analyses provided support for the principal hypothesis that using case technologies in the classroom setting enhances students’ research competencies (H1). Specifically, the experimental group exposed to case-based learning exhibited significantly greater gains in research competence scores (the K variable) than the control group taught via traditional pedagogies. The ANOVA confirmed a statistically significant difference in score changes between groups (p < .05), while the regression model attributed 25.1% of variance in the competence scores directly to the implementation of case technology. Additionally, the positive standardized regression coefficient (β = 0.246) for the binary case technology predictor aligns with sub-hypothesis H1a, suggesting that case technology training is associated with meaningful improvements in research ability. Overall, the quantitative findings endorse the educational value of case-focused learning in advancing multifaceted research skills, consistent with hypothesis H1b. Exposure to real-world situations appears to successfully translate into heightened analytical aptitudes. This empirical evidence highlights the promise of case technology integration as an impactful approach to empower future physicists with critical research competencies to excel in their field.

Findings and discussions

The findings of the survey highlighted the need for the development of innovative methods and tools for developing research activities for students of education. The survey demonstrated a need for the development of research activities for the students as they lacked sufficient research competencies and skills (because their K – research competence score – was in the threshold range) that are crucial for their future employability experience and professional practice as teachers. The findings of the survey indicated that the respondents of the surveyed group were not sufficiently prepared for the research work. The reason for the insufficient effectiveness of preparing future specialists for research work, as shown by a survey of teachers and students, is the ineffectiveness of the established practice of professional training of students that does not facilitate them in developing their research competencies. The curriculum content and training appear to be rather theoretical and lack active engagement with research work. It appears that the teachers tend to use the production of traditional forms and teaching methods that do not allow students to master research activities and skills independently. Furthermore, the problem can also be attributed to a lack of consistency in the organization of the scientific work of students; insufficient information and administrative support for RWOS; lack of integration of educational and scientific activities of students, etc. Thus, extant professional vocational training does not enable them to develop sufficient research competencies. The findings were found to be in line with the findings of the extant literature. This aligns with the findings of Malone et al. (2019), who investigated various higher education institutes in Kazakhstan and posited that students tend to lack understanding of research skills, which calls for the inclusion of case study pedagogy in the Kazakhstani curriculum that would redound the knowledge base of the students. Thus, the study not only highlighted the lack of research competencies on the part of the students but also highlighted the potential of the case study pedagogy, which falls within the scope of the present study and aligns well with the findings of the experiment.

Quantitative empirical evidence presented from the confirmation of the hypothesis of this research shows that the use of case technologies improves students’ research competences. This finding revealed that the use of case technology in the pedagogy and training of students can influence them to engage in active research work and critical thinking, which allows them to actively practise and develop their research competencies. Thus, the professional development and training of future physicists can be improved by including innovative case technology in the curriculum of higher education. Thus, the findings of the experiment support those of various past studies. As per Takahashi and Araujo (2019) and Forrest-Lawrence (2019), the use of a case study allows students to engage in in-depth research and investigation of the research phenomenon, allowing them to comprehensively study and incorporate critical thinking and research skills. Similarly, as per Wohlin (2021), the use of case study methodology allows students to incorporate empirical investigation of the research phenomenon. With this approach, students are required to incorporate various data collection tools and methods to investigate a real-life context comprehensively. Thus, on the basis of these findings, the present study proposes that students can take up an active role in their learning and research skill development instead of a passive role whereby information is delivered by the teacher. In a similar context, the use of advanced information and communication technology has also been found to contribute to the development and improvement of learning and vocational training of students (Backes et al., 2021; Basri et al., 2020; Nykyporets et al., 2021). Thus, in this recognition, the findings of the present study suggest combining case study design with advanced technology, case technology drawing on the strengths of both, the technology and case study design. Thus, the use of case technology can influence students to engage in in-depth research and investigation using advanced technology that prepares them for future teacher practice in the contemporary era.

Conclusions

Main findings of the study

This study sought to assess case technology’s efficacy for strengthening future physicists’ research competencies – an increasingly instrumental capability. Quantitative results robustly demonstrate the approach’s significant advantages. Students exposed to case-based learning showed meaningful improvements across competency dimensions such as analytical reasoning and critical thinking compared with traditional teaching methods. Specifically, the experimental group’s research proficiency scores increased markedly from 60 to 80 after the case technology intervention, whereas the control group’s scores only changed minimally. Formal hypothesis testing validated the value of case techniques for enriched physics scholarship training, addressing a pressing need. Subsequent efforts should leverage these insights to optimize the utilization of this impactful pedagogical framework. This study addresses the crucial yet complex issue of research competency cultivation for future physicists. While the importance is clear, the approaches remain disputed. This investigation showcases case technology’s immense yet underutilized potential to systematize skill-building.

Specifically, embedding real-world simulations within the curriculum may enable a more impactful development of analytical, critical, and creative thinking abilities. The multi-stage pedagogical framework offers a tailored solution that extends from preparatory engagement to reflective takeaways. Quantitative results provide robust evidence that case-focused training significantly enhances research proficiencies compared with traditional teaching methods. Students achieved higher competence levels, indicating readiness to meet modern scientific demands. Interactive, problem-centred learning bridges academic knowledge with practical application. This breeds proactive, high-functioning physics scholars equipped not only to consume information but also propel the field forward. Formal confirmation that competency-based case technology works signals a promising new training paradigm for other specialized domains.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The strengths of this study are embedded in its theoretical contributions to the extant literature and practical insights for partitioners. The findings and developed materials of the article can be used in the practise of higher pedagogical educational institutions and advanced training courses for teachers. They can be useful to the compilers of educational and methodological manuals aimed at the development of research activities for future physicists of vocational training. The findings can, thus, improve the professional training of teachers and future physicists. Despite the strengths of this study in terms of practical insights, the research is characterized by various limitations. A major limitation of the current study is a narrowed scope of the study as the findings are generated from the experiment and survey conducted at International Kazakh-Turkish University only. This directs attention towards the need for a wider study to substantiate the study and produce more generalizable findings.

Directions for future researchers

The findings obtained in this article allow for further theoretical developments related to the organization and conduct of research work and the development of research activities for future physicists of vocational training using case technology. The problem of the development of research activities in the context of multilevel higher pedagogical education requires further research. The question of the development of the indicated activities in future physicists of vocational training at the subsequent stages of education and the peculiarity of the algorithm for their formation in master’s degree graduates remain open.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University for supporting research.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Data availability statement

Data available within the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan under Grant No. AP14870844.

Notes on contributors

Serik Polatuly

Serik Polatuly, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Physics, Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University, Kazakhstan. He researches innovative methods of teaching physics, including methods of forming research competence in future physics specialists. At the same time, he leads seminars on such disciplines as Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism and Electromagnetic Theory.

Sherzod Ramankulov

Sherzod Ramankulov, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Physics, Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University, Kazakhstan. He researches effective teaching methods such as deep and comprehensive learning through extensive use of STEM technologies in teaching physics. He is the leader of grant projects on the topic of STEM-technologies implementation in education.

Indira Usembayeva

Indira Usembayeva, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Physics, Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University, Kazakhstan. She researches innovative methods of teaching physics as well as practical application of theoretical knowledge in physics in everyday life and future professional activities of students. In addition, she lectures on biophysics to medical students.

Danakul Kazakhbayeva

Danakul Kazakhbayeva, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, works as a professor at the Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Kazakhstan. She conducts research work on the problems of improving the content and methods of teaching physics at school, continuity in lifelong learning, creating methodological foundations for standardization of education in the Republic of Kazakhstan. In addition, she is one of the authors of the concept of education in the subjects of natural science and physics, the state standard of compulsory education in ‘Physics’, the author of the new generation textbooks ‘Physics and Astronomy’ for 7 and 9 grades.

Nurdaulet Shektibayev

Nurdaulet Shektibayev, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Physics, Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University, Kazakhstan. He studies the preparation of future physics teachers to solve practical problems by using the project method, problem-based and productive learning in lecture, practical, laboratory classes and independent work of students.

Bakytzhan Kurbanbekov

Bakytzhan Kurbanbekov, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Physics, Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University, Kazakhstan. He researches methods of organizing physics experiments using virtual reality (VR) technology for future physics teachers. In addition, he lectures on school experiment techniques in physics.

Elmurat Dosymov

Elmurat Dosymov, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Physics, Khoja Akhmet Yassawi International Kazakh-Turkish University, Kazakhstan. He researches STEAM and CLIL methods in physics teaching, and also researches methods of preparing students for the unified national physics testing in Kazakhstan.

Appendix A

Table 1A. Effective cases in the field of physics.

Case forms	Structural description of the physical cases
Problem situation in teaching physics phenomena	Sincerity, interest in solving physical problems, and vitality.
Physical condition	Complexity, secrecy, and analyzability.
Actions	Multivariance, reality, tension, and realizability
Solution to physical problems	Multivariance, ambiguity, and alternativeness
Result information	Evidence, diversity, and sufficiency.

Table 2A. Stages of designing a case on optics section of physics.

No	Actions during implementation of the case	Structural description of the physical cases
1	Search activity	Clarification of the content of the educational discipline (tasks of topics and sections); Determining the place of cases in the teaching system of educational discipline; studying what has been published on the proposed topic of the case; identifying the presence of a real problem that needs to be solved; conducting surveys of specialists (teachers, administrative workers, etc.); the study of educational documentation and products of pedagogical activity; Collection of information; determination of the type of case and its structure.
2	Constructive	Formation of pedagogical goals; definition of a problem situation; compilation of the content of the case; identification of conditions for the development of the situation; selection of analytical procedures; and development of methods for their applications.
3	Technological	Preparatory, introductory, analytical organizational and communicative, reflective, final.

Table 3A. Students’ self-assessments of the development of research activities of future physicists based on the survey results.

No	Skills	Distribution of students based on the survey results						Reference level (Пэ)	Realized level (Пp)	Formation coefficient (К)
		don’t own		partially own		own
		Number of students	Score in points	Number of students	Score in points	Number of students	Score in points
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1	Theoretical
1.1	Find sources for the theoretical substantiation of the research problem	40	0	40	40	20	25	100	65	0.65
1.2	Determine the purpose, objectives, object, and subject of the research; hypothesise; develop a problem	40	0	40	40	20	25	100	65	0.65
1.3	To identify criteria and indicators for diagnosing a pedagogical object	42	0	38	42	20	20	100	62	0.62
Averages								100	64	0.64
2	Diagnostics
2.1	Select diagnostic tools according to the tasks and research problem	52	0	39	39	9	26	100	65	0.65
2.2	Conduct diagnostic procedures; evaluate the level of formation of creative abilities of students	50	0	42	42	8	23	100	65	0.65
2.3	Use the design predictive and reflective methods for the analysis of prof.-pedagogical logical problems	52	0	39	39	9	26	100	65	0.65
Averages								100	65	0.65
3	Design and Engineering
3.1	Build the logic of scientific and pedagogical research; develop a procedure for testing the hypothesis and options for solving the problem	52	0	39	39	9	26	100	65	0.65
3.2	Define leading methods and methods of pedagogical search	52	0	39	39	9	26	100	65	0.65
3.3	Develop a programme and methodology for experimental work; design problematic professional situations; develop educational development projects and creative abilities of trainees	52	0	39	39	9	26	100	65	0.65
Averages								100	65	0.65
4	Operational
4.1	Develop a program research and implement it	40	0	40	40	20	25	100	65	0.65
4.2	Make the necessary adjustments during the implementation of research programmes	40	0	40	40	20	25	100	65	0.65
4.3	Capture data received in the process, implement research programmes, and process them	42	0	38	42	20	20	100	62	0.62
Averages								100	64	0.64
Final Indicators								100	65	0.65

Table 4A. Levels of development of research activities of future physicists based on the results of the first test (stating stage).

No	Skills	Groups
		Control											Experimental
		Preprogram		Threshold		Basic		Advanced		Reference level score	Implemented level, score	Coefficient Formation	Preprogram		Threshold		Basic		Advanced		Reference level score	Implemented level, score	Coefficient Formation
1	Theoretical	2	3	5	33	4	32	0	0	100	68	0.68	3	2	3	35	3	24	0	0	100	61	0.61
2	Diagnostic	2	3	5	33	2	32	0	0	100	68	0.68	3	2	3	35	3	24	0	0	100	61	0.61
3	Projective-design	2	3	3	30	2	23	0	0	100	56	0.56	3	3	2	22	3	34	0	0	100	59	0.59
4	Operational	2	3	3	30	2	23	0	0	100	56	0.56	3	3	2	22	3	34	0	0	100	59	0.59
Percentage of the number of students by level (%)		13.46		30.77		42.31		26.92		0					37.25		35.29		27.45		0

Table 5A. Levels of development of research activities of future physicists based on the results of the second testing (formative stage).

No	Skills	Groups
		Control											Experimental
		Preprogram		Threshold		Basic		Advanced		Reference level score	Implemented level, score	Coefficient Formation	Preprogram	Threshold		Basic		Advanced		Reference level score		Implemented level, score	Coefficient Formation
1	Theoretical	2	3	3	25	2	36	1	14	100	78	0.78	0	0	3	25	4	46	1	17	100	88	0.88
2	Diagnostic	2	3	3	25	4	43	0	0	100	71	0.71	1	2	3	27	4	43	1	13	100	83	0.83
3	Projective-design	1	2	4	33	3	34	0	0	100	69	0.69	0	0	2	17	5	50	1	14	100	81	0.81
4	Operational	1	1	4	31	4	42	0	0	100	74	0.76	1	1	3	24	6	58	0	0	100	82	0.82
	Percentage of the number of students by level (%)	13.46		40.38		42.31		3.85					3.92		29.41		58.82		7.4

Table 6A. Survey used to determine the students’ own opinion about the development of their research competences.

No	Question	Answer option	Mark
Do you have the following skills? Can you…
1	Substantiate the relevance of the study?	□ yes □ partially □ no
2	Formulate the object and subject of the research?	□ yes □ partially □ no
3	Formulate the purpose and objectives of the study?	□ yes □ partially □ no
4	Formulate of the hypothesis and expected results of the study?	□ yes □ partially □ no
5	Use methods of analysis and generalization of the pedagogical experience in the study?	□ yes □ partially □ no
6	Use methods of generalization of pedagogical experience in the study?	□ yes □ partially □ no
7	Develop a methodology for the experimental work of the study?	□ yes □ partially □ no
8	Process the research data and issue them?	□ yes □ partially □ no
9	Analyze information from the perspective of the problem being studied?	□ yes □ partially □ no
10	Generalize and highlight the main thing in the study? ?	□ yes □ partially □ no
11	Plan scientific research in accordance with the set research goals?	□ yes □ partially □ no
12	Motivate and stimulate the educational and research work of trainees?	□ yes □ partially □ no
13	Create organisational pedagogical, and didactic material conditions for the active educational and research work of students?	□ yes □ partially □ no
14	Develop the educational and research skills of future specialists?	□ yes □ partially □ no
15	Organize intellectual contests and scientific conferences for students?	□ yes □ partially □ no
16	Involve students in intellectual competitions and scientific conferences?	□ yes □ partially □ no
17	Build the logic of educational research?	□ yes □ partially □ no
18	Train future specialists in designing professional situations, tasks, and problems?	□ yes □ partially □ no
19	Train future specialists in modelling professional situations, tasks, and problems?	□ yes □ partially □ no
20	Train future specialists in the analysis of professional situations, tasks, and problems?	□ yes □ partially □ no
21	Train future specialists to solve professional situations, tasks, and problems?	□ yes □ partially □ no
22	Prepare a portfolio of educational and research achievements of future specialists?	□ yes □ partially □ no
23	Present a portfolio of educational and research achievements of future specialists?	□ yes □ partially □ no
24	Highlight the contradiction and its causes?	□ yes □ partially □ no
25	Formulate a problem and develop solutions to it?	□ yes □ partially □ no
26	Develop a pedagogical system of educational and research work of an educational institution?	□ yes □ partially □ no
27	Train future specialists to work with cases?	□ yes □ partially □ no
28	Make publications?	□ yes □ partially □ no
29	Highlight the contradiction and its causes?	□ yes □ partially □ no
30	Develop a pedagogical system of educational and research work for students?	□ yes □ partially □ no
31	Assess the level of formation of educational and research knowledge and skills of future specialists?	□ yes □ partially □ no
32	Provide individual training for gifted students for Olympiads, competitions, scientific and professional competitions, youth forums, and conferences?	□ yes □ partially □ no
33	Identify the problems of educational practice?	□ yes □ partially □ no
34	Reformulate pedagogical problems into types of research tasks?	□ yes □ partially □ no
35	Analyze pedagogical problems using methods of pedagogical experience?	□ yes □ partially □ no
36	Model professional situations in vocational training?	□ yes □ partially □ no
37	Identify problems in professional training?	□ yes □ partially □ no
38	Use sociometric methods to identify problems in intergroup and interpersonal interactions?	□ yes □ partially □ no
39	Use diagnostic methods to identify problems in intergroup and interpersonal interactions?	□ yes □ partially □ no
40	Use project methods to analyze professional and pedagogical problems?	□ yes □ partially □ no
41	Use predictive methods to analyze professional and pedagogical problems?	□ yes □ partially □ no
42	Use reflexive methods to analyze professional and pedagogical problems?	□ yes □ partially □ no
43	Design ways to solve professional problems?	□ yes □ partially □ no
44	Model problem situations in professional training for a case study?	□ yes □ partially □ no
45	Design the structure of case patents?	□ yes □ partially □ no
46	Train future specialists to analyze problem situations that arise during training?	□ yes □ partially □ no
47	Train future specialists to solve professional tasks and problems?	□ yes □ partially □ no
48	Stimulate the educational and research work of trainees?	□ yes □ partially □ no
49	Conduct individual training of trainees for reviews and scientific and professional competitions?	□ yes □ partially □ no
50	Train trainees to develop plans and scenarios for Olympiads, reviews, and scientific and professional competitions?	□ yes □ partially □ no
Total