Learning style and digital activity: an ecological study

In order to understand student engagement in higher education through the use of digital technologies, it is necessary to appreciate the broader use of differing technologies. Forty-eight first-year university students completed an online survey that queried patterns of digital activity across home, school and community contexts and that included rating scale items that measured learning style (i.e., active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, sequential-global). Results suggest that students vary widely in digital activities and that such variation is related to differences in learning style. For example, active learners were more likely than reflective learners to engage in digital activities in the community and users of some specific application, as opposed to non-users, were more likely to be verbal than visual learners. Implications for instructional applications of digital technology in higher education are presented.

[1]  Martin Ebner,et al.  Is Your University Ready For the Ne(x)t-Generation? , 2009 .

[2]  Genevieve Marie Johnson.  College Student Internet Use: Convenience and Amusement , 2007 .

[3]  Yun Yang,et al.  Emerging Web Technologies in Higher Education: A Case of Incorporating Blogs, Podcasts and Social Bookmarks in a Web Programming Course based on Students' Learning Styles and Technology Preferences , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[4]  Samuel S. Peng,et al.  University Students' Internet Use and Its Relationships with Academic Performance, Interpersonal Relationships, Psychosocial Adjustment, and Self-Evaluation , 2008, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[5]  G. Johnson.  Internet Use and Child Development: The Techno-Microsystem. , 2010 .

[6]  Chris Dede,et al.  Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles , 2005 .

[7]  Genevieve Marie Johnson,et al.  Student Alienation, Academic Achievement, and WebCT Use , 2005, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[8]  Sue Bennett,et al.  The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[9]  Laurel Evelyn Dyson,et al.  Directions for m-learning research to enhance active learning , 2007 .

[10]  Lisa Barrow,et al.  Technology's Edge: The Educational Benefits of Computer-Aided Instruction. NBER Working Paper No. 14240. , 2008 .

[11]  Michael Winikoff,et al.  Lessons in designing sustainable mobile learning environments , 2010 .

[12]  Shih-Ming Li,et al.  Internet function and Internet addictive behavior , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[13]  F. Kreuter,et al.  Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity , 2008 .

[14]  Richard P. Lanthier,et al.  Internet use and college adjustment: the moderating role of gender , 2004, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[15]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Internet Use, Social Skills, and Adjustment , 2004, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[16]  R. Felder,et al.  Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles* , 2005 .

[17]  Su-Yen Chen,et al.  College Female and Male Heavy Internet Users' Profiles of Practices and Their Academic Grades and Psychosocial Adjustment , 2010, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[18]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[19]  J. Burton,et al.  Behaviorism and Instructional Technology. , 2004 .

[20]  Genevieve Marie Johnson,et al.  Internet Use and Child Development: Validation of the Ecological Techno-Subsystem , 2010, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[21]  Marc Prensky,et al.  What Can You Learn from a Cell Phone? Almost Anything!. , 2005 .

[22]  Laura Gould,et al.  Relationship of word- and sentence-level working memory to reading and writing in second, fourth, and sixth grade. , 2010, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[23]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[24]  George D. Kuh,et al.  Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages* , 2006 .

[25]  Christopher R. Jones,et al.  Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[26]  G. Johnson.  Learning Style under Two Web‐Based Study Conditions , 2007 .

[27]  Steve Jones.  The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living in the Future with Today's Technology. , 2002 .

[28]  Kevin R. Guidry,et al.  Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[29]  Scott E. Caplan.  Relations Among Loneliness, Social Anxiety, and Problematic Internet Use , 2007, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[30]  K. Ecclestone,et al.  Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning , 2004 .

[31]  M. Syed,et al.  Internet Use and Well-Being Among College Students: Beyond Frequency of Use , 2007 .

[32]  Akin Efendioglu,et al.  Programmed instruction versus meaningful learning theory in teaching basic structured query language (SQL) in computer lesson , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[33]  G. M. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive processing differences between frequent and infrequent Internet users , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[34]  T. Judd,et al.  First year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? , 2008 .

[35]  G. Johnson.  College Student Psycho‐Educational Functioning and Satisfaction with Online Study Groups , 2006 .

[36]  F. Coffield.  Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review , 2004 .