Advertisement

Students’ Learning Approaches: Are They Changing?

  • Estelle TaylorEmail author
  • Kobus van Aswegen
Conference paper
  • 416 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 730)

Abstract

Some researchers believe that not much has changed in terms of how students prefer to study, whilst others believe that tertiary institutions have to adapt to a new generation of students. The aim of this paper is to determine if the learning approaches of students are changing. This will be done by comparing the learning approaches of students in 2016, with that of students of 10 years ago (2006). Questionnaires were distributed electronically to students in 2006, and again in 2016. It appears that learning approaches of these students have not changed much. Computer anxiety has increased, as well as the number of students unsure of their own chances of success. There is a decrease in students preferring to solve problems themselves rather than using available solutions, and more students prefer to work under supervision. These results show that it is essential that teaching and learning are designed according to the needs of the specific group of students it is meant for, not a mythical ‘new generation’ student.

Keywords

Learning approaches Changes 

References

  1. 1.
    Bullen, M., Morgan, T.: Digital learners not digital natives. La Cuestión Universitaria 7, 60–68 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Qayyum, A.: Digital learners in higher education: generation is not the issue. Can. J. Learn. Technol. / La Revue Canadienne de l’Apprentissage et de la Technologie 37(1), 1–24 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elam, C., Stratton, T., Gibson, D.D.: Welcoming a new generation to college: the millennial students. J. Coll. Admission 195, 20–25 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang, R., Yang, J.: Digital learners and digital teachers: challenges, changes, and competencies. In: Spector, J.M., Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D.G., Isaías, P. (eds.) Competencies in Teaching, Learning and Educational Leadership in the Digital Age, pp. 47–56. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30295-9_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., Healing, G.: Net generation or digital natives: is there a distinct new generation entering university? Comput. Educ. 54(3), 722–732 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolikant, Y.B.-D.: Digital natives, better learners? Students’ beliefs about how the internet influenced their ability to learn. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(6), 1384–1391 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lai, K., Hong, K.: Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: do generational differences exist? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46(4), 725–738 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., Vojt, G.: Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Comput. Edu. 56(2), 429–440 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morgan, H.: Maximizing student success with differentiated learning. Clearing House J. Educ. Strat. Issues Ideas 87(1), 34–38 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oh, E., Reeves, T.C.: Generational differences and the integration of technology in learning, instruction, and performance. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 819–828. Springer, Newyork (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Srinivasan, R.: Emerging shifts in learning paradigms – from millenials to the digital natives. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 11(5), 3616–3618 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taylor, E.: n Model van die Faktore wat die Sukses van Onderrigleer van Tegnologie-gebaseerde Onderwerpe beïnvloed. Doctoral dissertation, North-West University, South Africa (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uygarer, R., Uzunboylu, H., Ozdamli, F.: A piece of qualitative study about digital natives. Anthropologist 24(2), 623–629 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.North-West UniversityPotchefstroomSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations