Skip to main content

The Preferred Learning Styles of Generation Z: Do They Differ from the Ones of Previous Generations?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Digital Transformation and Human Behavior

Abstract

A new generation, named Generation Z (born after 1996), is currently in education and it will soon approach the job market. Knowing how they engage in learning is critical to design effective learning experiences both in academia and at work. However, being the newest generation, it is also the least studied one, especially in academic research. With this paper we aim to explore Gen Zers’ preferred learning styles and to compare them with the ones of previous generations. We collected data from 870 Italian MSc students and Executive Education participants to assess their learning styles using Kolb’s learning style inventory. We found that Gen Zers have higher preferences towards the assimilating learning style (combining abstract conceptualization and reflective observation), while Baby Boomers and Gen X prefer the accommodating style (combining active experimentation and concrete experience). There results conflict with the common stereotypes—mainly based on qualitative evidence—about the youngest generation, which see them as a generation that needs to engage in a highly informal, interactive and experience-based learning. Implications for theory and practice follow.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—and completely unprepared for adulthood (and what this means for the rest of us). New York: Unabridged.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carstens, A., & Beck, J. (2005). Get ready for the gamer generation. TechTrends, 49(3), 22–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2017). Generation Z: Educating and engaging the next generation of students. About Campus Enriching the Student Learning, 22(3), 21–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jones, V., Jo, J., & Martin, P. (2007). Future schools and how technology can be used to support millennial and generation-Z students. In C. H. Kim (eds.), Proceedings of 1st International Conference of Ubiquitous Information Technology, Dubai.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caporarello, L., Giovanazzi, A., & Manzoni, B. (2019). (E)Learning and what else? Looking back to move forwards. In: A. Lazazzara, R. Nacamulli, C. Rossignoli, & S. Za (eds.), Organizing for digital innovation. Lecture Notes in information systems and organisation (Vol. 27). Springer, Cham.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Spires, H.A. (2008). 21st century skills and serious games: Preparing the N generation. In L. A. Annetta (eds.), Serious educational games (pp. 13–23). Sense Publishing, Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2013). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory 4.0: A comprehensive guide to the theory, psychometrics, research on validity and educational applications. Hay Resources Direct, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), 139-S157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Magni, F., & Manzoni, B. (2019). L’enfasi sui Millennial ci fa trascurare gli altri. Harvard Business Review Italia, April, pp. 8–11 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lai, K. W., & Hong, K. S. (2015). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 725–738.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigenerational employees: Strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager, 19, 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rothman, D. A. (2016). Tsunami of learners called generation Z. Maryland Public Safety Online Journal, 1(1). https://www.mdle.net/Journal/A_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf. Last accessed 15 May 2019.

  16. Gerber, S., & Scott, L. (2011). Gamers and gaming context: Relationships to critical thinking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 842–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rothman, D. A. (2016). Tsunami of learners called generation Z. Maryland Public Safety Online Journal, 1(1). https://www.mdle.net/Journal/A_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf. Last accessed 16 May 2019.

  18. Gerber, S., Scott, L., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2005). Instructor influence on reasoned argument in discussion boards. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(2), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Beck, C. J., & Wade, M. (2004). Got game: How the gamer generation is reshaping business forever. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Greydanus, D. E., & Greydanus, M. M. (2012). Internet use, misuse, and addiction in adolescents: Current issues and challenges. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(4), 283–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Palmer, E. (2011). Visual learning styles among digital natives, Department of Computer Graphics Technology Degree Theses. Paper 2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Colbert, A., Yee, N., & George, G. (2016). The digital workforce and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 731–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M. T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53, 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. West Midland Family Center. (Cartographer). (2015). Generational Differences Chart. https://www.wmfc.org/uploads/GenerationalDifferencesChart.pdf. Last accessed 04 2019.

  26. Igel, C., & Urquhart, V. (2012). Generation Z meet cooperative learning. Middle School Journal, 43(4), 16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hendel-Giller, R., Hollenbach, C., Marshall, D., Oughton, K., Pickthorn, T., Schilling, M., & Versiglia, G. (2010). The neuroscience of learning: A new paradigm for corporate education. The Martiz Institute White Paper (pp. 1–19).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Karl, M. (2007). Gadgets, games, and gizmos for learning: Tools and techniques for transferring know how from boomers to gamers. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Levine, J. (2006). Gaming and libraries: Intersection of services. Library Technology Reports, 42(5), 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Corti, K. (2006). Games-based Learning; a serious business application. Informe De Pixel Learning, 36(4), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Peciuliauskiene, P. (2014). E-learning and motivation for learning physics at school: the case of generations Y and Z. In DIVAI 2014: 10th International Scientific Conference on Distance Learning in Applied Informatics (pp. 441–451). Štúrovo, Slovakia

    Google Scholar 

  32. Barnes, K., Marateo, R. C., & Ferris, S. P.(2007). Teaching and learning with the net generation. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(4).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Williams, J., & Chinn, S. J. (2009). Using web 2.0 to support the active learning experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 165–174.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sarkar, N., Ford. W., & Manzo, C. (2017). Engaging digital natives through social learning. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 15(2).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bencsik, A., Horváth-Csikós, G., & Juhász, T. (2016). Y and Z generations at workplaces. Journal of Competitiveness, 8(3), 90–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wolfson, N. E., Cavanagh, T. M., & Kraiger, K. (2014). Older adults and technology based instruction: Optimizing learning outcomes and transfer. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13, 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Reeves, T. C. (2006). Do generational differences matter in instructional design? https://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper104/ReevesITForumJan08.pdf. Last accessed 15 May 2019.

  38. Koh, C. (2015). Understanding and facilitating learning for the net generation and twenty-first-century learners through motivation, leadership and curriculum design. In C. Koh (ed.), Motivation, Leadership and Curriculum Design: Engaging The Net Generation and 21st Century Learners (pp. 1–10). Springer Science+Business Media, Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Csobanka, Z. E. (2016). The Z Generation. Acta Technologica Dubnicae, 6(2), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cilliers, E. J. (2017). The challenge of teaching Generation Z. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 188–198.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Panahandeh, E., Khoshkhoonejad, A., Mansourzadeh, N., & Heidari, F. (2015). On the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ multiple intelligences and their learning styles. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(4), 784–791. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0504.14. Last accessed 13 May 2019.

  42. Logan, K., &Thomas, P. (2002). Learning styles in distance education students learning to program. In Proceedings of 14th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Brunel University, pp. 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Montreal, Canada: Paper presented at The American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Passarelli, A. M., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Using experiential learning theory to promote student learning and development in programs of education abroad. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. Hemming Lou (eds.), Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they are not, and what we can do about it (pp. 137–161). Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Brown, J. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work. Education, and the Ways People Learn, Change, 52(2), 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6, 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Keyes, K. M., Utz, R. L., Robinson, W., & Li, G. (2010). What is a cohort effect? Comparison of three statistical methods for modeling cohort effects in obesity prevalence in the United States, 1971–2006. Social Science & Medicine, 70(7), 1100–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Keller, T., & Tergan, S. O. (2005). Visualizing knowledge and information: An introduction. In S. O. Tergan, T. Keller, (eds.), Knowledge and information visualization—searching for synergies, LNCS (Vol. 3426). Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jurenka, R., Stareček, A., Vraňaková, N., & Caganova, D. (2018). The learning styles of the generation group Z and their influence on learning results in the learning process, pp. 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETA.2018.8572186. Last accessed 01 May 2019.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatrice Manzoni .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Manzoni, B., Caporarello, L., Cirulli, F., Magni, F. (2021). The Preferred Learning Styles of Generation Z: Do They Differ from the Ones of Previous Generations?. In: Metallo, C., Ferrara, M., Lazazzara, A., Za, S. (eds) Digital Transformation and Human Behavior. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 37. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47539-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics