Learning Motivation and Preferred Learning Methods Among the New Generation of
University Students
Author: Pei-Ching Chao (Center of Teacher Education, Fu Jen Catholic University), Gregory S. Ching (Graduate Institute of Educational Administration and Policy, National ChengChi University), Ching-Jun Cheng (Master Program in Crime Prevention, Providence University), Shih-Ling Lin (Graduate Institute of Education, Providence University), Hsin-Chih Lin (nstitute of Educational Administration and Evaluation, University of Taipei), Shih-Min Liu (Department of Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University)
Vol.&No.:Vol. 69, No. 3
Date:September 2024
Pages:195-224
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202409_69(3).0007
Abstract:
Motivation and Purpose
A new generation of young people is entering tertiary institutions. These people have distinct traits and values and tend to exhibit limited interest in learning. For this population, motivation for learning is a crucial topic because it stimulates fundamental engagement in learning activities, sustaining them until successful outcomes are achieved. Taiwan’s tertiary institutions are being affected by Taiwan’s low birth rate, international competition, globalization, mobility issues, and a lack of learning motivation among students. Learning motivation is a key factor in determining whether students can adapt to higher education. Students are willing to learn when they are exposed to an engaging teaching method or when their motivation is stimulated. This study argues that the characteristics of a given subject area must be considered when developing strategies for motivating learning or implementing teaching.
The research objectives of this article are as follows:
(1) To assess the importance and implementation levels of various motivational factors for the new generation of young people and to further understand the differences between importance and implementation levels;
(2) To explore the differences in the motivational factors within various fields and areas of study; and
(3) To explore the differences in preferred teaching methods within various fields and areas of study and to compare preferences between students from different localities.
Literature Review
Most scholars agree that within each generation, academic goals, interests, skills, and core ideas are influenced by changes in the social environment and technological advancements. In general, the various generations can be divided into four groups: Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z. The current study focuses on Generation Z.
According to the literature, teachers should encourage Generation Z students to take an active role in their learning. Notably, they do not want to passively accept knowledge and information, and they are easily distracted. Therefore, teachers must identify methods to attract their attention. However, learning content must be appropriately challenging (i.e., neither excessively difficult nor easy), otherwise Generation Z students will feel frustrated and bored. Finally, these students want to apply what they learn in their daily lives.
Additionally, they expect teachers to adapt their teaching methods and activities in accordance with the learning levels of students. As a result, these students are often dissatisfied with traditional methods of knowledge delivery, preferring teachers who present curriculum knowledge in a systematic and specific manner. They particularly prefer interactive teaching methods, such as small group cooperative learning, thematic research, games and competitions, interviews, and the integration of technology into the teaching process.
The Ministry of Education applied the SCED-F 2013 framework to classify academic subjects by intrinsic attributes. This study analyzes differences in motivational factors and preferred teaching methods between students. The International Standard Classification of Education was used to categorize students.
Methodology
A questionnaire was developed on the basis of a literature review and six focus group interviews. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated. Respondents were asked to evaluate the importance and level of implementation of various initiatives, as well as their preferred methods of teaching. Generation Z individuals born between 1996 and 2012 who had attended a tertiary institution were enrolled in this study.
The questionnaire was administered in two stages. The first stage involved an online questionnaire. The sampling method was based on Ministry of Education statistics, which were used to select colleges and universities in accordance with the distribution of university students across northern, central, southern, and eastern Taiwan and the outlying islands of Taiwan. Respondents were then selected in accordance with the distribution of students enrolled in various fields of studies within these institutions. In the second stage, paper-based questionnaires were administered. Teachers or students from relevant departments with low student proportions were contacted to assist in the distribution of these questionnaires.
In total, 1,119 questionnaires were collected in the second stage, with 999 deemed valid. Invalid questionnaires comprised those with age inaccuracies, consecutive identical responses, or missing responses on an entire side of the questionnaire. The results were analyzed by performing the paired-samples t-test, multivariate analysis of variance, and multiple group latent class analysis.
Results
The learning motivation of the respondents was characterized by an interactive and practical approach, which can be leveraged to enhance their motivation for learning. The key elements of learning motivation include practical interaction, systematic presentation, tailoring to students’ needs, and the expectation of tangible results. Most of them perceived these factors as relevant and significant. However, the level of implementation was mediocre and ordinary, with the scores on the importance of these factors being notably higher relative to those on their implementation.
A significant difference in implementation level was identified across disciplines. Specifically, implementation levels were significantly higher in the field of humanities and social sciences. By contrast, the level of outcome expectations was higher in the field of science and technology. The implementation level among participants from different study localities was not significantly different.
The respondents preferred a combination of lectures and projects as well as lectures and group work. Humanities and social sciences students preferred games, competitions, and outdoor activities, whereas science and technology students preferred lectures by teachers, project work, case studies, and problem-solving activities. The study revealed that teaching needs varied across disciplines and that students’ preferences did not significantly differ among localities.
Recommendations
(1) Because of the distinct habits of the younger generation, implementing learning motivation factors that they value to effectively promote learning engagement is crucial. (2) The intrinsic characteristics of each discipline must also be considered when developing teaching activities. (3) Future research can examine the differences between awareness and implementation or expand the analysis by including additional samples or variables.
Keywords:subject area, teaching methods, district, new generation, motivation
《Full Text》
References:
» More
- Scopelliti, R.(2020)。新世代影響力:年輕人如何成為引領未來趨勢、改變社會運作的力量?(翁尚均,譯)。時報出版。(原著出版於2019年)
- Scopelliti, R. (2020). Youthquake 4.0: A whole generation and the new industrial revolution (S.-J. Wong, Trans.). China Times. (Original work published 2019)】
- 何希慧、彭耀平(2016)。臺灣與中國大陸深圳地區大學生學習動機與學習成效發展之比較:以學習模式為中介變項。教育實踐與研究,29(1),139-171。
- Ho, S.-H., & Peng, Y.-P. (2016). A comparative study on the relationship between learning motivations and outcomes of college students in Taiwan and Shenzhen region of mainland China: Learning modes as mediators. Journal of Educational Practice and Research, 29(1), 139-171.】
- 邱皓政(2010)。量化研究與統計分析:SPSS/PASW資料分析範例解析(五版)。五南。
- Chiou, H.-J. (2010). Quantitative research and statistical analysis: SPSS/PASW data analysis examples (5th ed.). Wu-Nan Book.】
- 邱皓政(2023)。潛在異質性分析:潛在結構模式與進階應用。五南。
- Chiou, H.-J. (2023). Analysis of latent heterogeneity: Latent structural modeling and beyond. Wu-Nan Book.】
- 洪榮昭、王志美、葉貞妮、吳鳳姝(2020)。遊戲自我效能、遊戲興趣、認知負荷與地理桌遊的遊玩自信心提升之相關研究。教育科學研究期刊,65(3),225-250。https://doi.org/10.6209/ JORIES.202009_65(3).0008
- Hong, J.-C., Wang, C.-M., Ye, J.-N., & Wu, F.-S. (2020). The relationship among gameplay self-efficacy, gameplay interest, cognitive load, and self-confidence enhancement in geography board games. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 65(3), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202009_65(3).0008】
- 張春興(1996)。教育心理學。東華。
- Chang, C.-H. (1996). Educational psychology. Tunghua.】
- 張聖淵、詹勳從(2019)。高中生持續參與遊戲意圖之研究:以3D摩托車數位遊戲為例。教育科學研究期刊,64(3),31-53。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0002
- Chang, S.-Y., & Jan, S.-T. (2019). High school students’ continual participation in game intentions: A case study of 3D motorcycle digital gaming learning. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(3), 31-53. https:// doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201909_64(3).0002】
- 教育部(2017)。中華民國學科標準分類編製說明。https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/bcode/ 10609_1%E7%B7%A8%E8%A3%BD%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E.pdf
- Ministry of Education. (2017). Standard classification of academic subjects in Republic of China. https:// stats.moe.gov.tw/files/bcode/10609_1%E7%B7%A8%E8%A3%BD%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E.pdf】
- 教育部(2021a)。109學年大專校院概況統計—按縣市別分。https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ ED4500/News_Content.aspx?n=82CAED1A33B4CD83&sms=DBDDB8DC17D0D8C4&s=569D0FF10480BD4E
- Ministry of Education. (2021a). 2020 statistics of higher education institutions. https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ ED4500/News_Content.aspx?n=82CAED1A33B4CD83&sms=DBDDB8DC17D0D8C4&s=569D0FF10480BD4E】
- 教育部(2021b)。大專校院畢業生人數—按領域、等級與性別分。https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ ed4500/cp.aspx?n=DCD2BE18CFAF30D0
- Ministry of Education. (2021b). Number of higher education institutions graduates. https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ ed4500/cp.aspx?n=DCD2BE18CFAF30D0】
- 教育部(2021c)。大專校院學科三分類(人文、社會、科技)之歸納表。https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ ed4500/cp.aspx?n=283412AE33AC4D71
- Ministry of Education. (2021c). Summary table of three categories of higher education subjects (Humanities, Social Sciences, Science and Technology). https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed4500/cp.aspx?n=283412AE33AC4D71】
- 郭秋永(2009)。改造運動:政治哲學與政治科學。東吳政治學報,27(3),1-64。https://doi.org/ 10.6418/SJPS.200909.0001
- Kuo, C.-Y. (2009). Perestroika movement: Political philosophy and political science. Soochow Journal of Political Science, 27(3), 1-64. https://doi.org/10.6418/SJPS.200909.0001】
- 郭倩琳、莊宇慧(2018)。Kahoot於教學的運用與成效。護理雜誌,65(6),13-19。https://doi.org/ 10.6224/JN.201812_65(6).03
- Kuo, C.-L., & Chuang, Y.-H. (2018). Kahoot: Applications and effects in education. The Journal of Nursing, 65(6), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.6224/JN.201812_65(6).03】
- 陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2009)。多變量分析方法:統計軟體應用(五版)。五南。
- Chen, C.-C., Cherng, B.-L., Chen, S.-F., & Liu, T.-C. (2009). Multivariate analysis methods: Statistical software applications (5th ed.). Wu-Nan Book.】
- 陳怡方(2017)。高等教育轉型的人類學反思:以社會實踐課程的經驗為例。臺灣人類學刊,15(2),147-184。
- Chen, Y.-F. (2017). Reflections on the transformation of higher education in contemporary Taiwan: A study on the courses of social practice. Taiwan Journal of Anthropology, 15(2), 147-184.】
- 陳偉瑀、黃素芬(2004)。不同學習成就學生在學習動機及學習策略之差異。大專體育學術專刊,93年度,152-162。https://doi.org/10.6695/AUES.200405_93.0017
- Chen, W.-Y., & Huang, S.-F. (2004). A study of the difference of students’ learning achievement in learning motivation and learning strategy. Archives of University Education and Sports, 93, 152-162. https://doi.org/ 10.6695/AUES.200405_93.0017】
- 趙珮晴、余民寧、莊俊儒(2023)。高中興趣喜好能否預測大一學習表現:以一所私立大學為例。台灣教育研究期刊,4(4),115-146。
- Chao, P.-C., Yu, M.-N., & Ching, G. (2023). Could high school students’ interest predict future university performance? A Case study of a private university in Taiwan. Journal of Taiwan Education Studies, 4(4), 115-146.】
- 錢正之(1999)。教育理論演進對CAI設計與教學的影響—以科學教育為例。課程與教學,2(4),27-42。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.199910.0027
- Chien, C.-C. (1999). The impact of educational theory change on CAI design and implementation: A case in science education. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 2(4), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.199910.0027】
- Bohndick, C., Rosman, T., Kohlmeyer, S., & Buhl, H. M. (2018). The interplay between subjective abilities and subjective demands and its relationship with academic success. An application of the person-environment fit theory. Higher Education, 75(5), 839-854. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-017-0173-6
- Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: Examining the role of person-organisation and person-job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 138-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.538978
- Borah, M. (2021). Motivation in learning. Journal of Critical Reviews, 8(2), 550-552.
- Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., & Han, S. J. (2018). Generation Z’s sustainable volunteering: Motivations, attitudes and job performance. Sustainability, 10(5), 1400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051400
- Deschênes, A.-A. (2020). Satisfaction with work and person-environment fit: Are there intergenerational differences? An examination through person-job, person-group and person-supervisor fit. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 24(1), 60-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-02-2020-0025
- Edgar, S., Carr, S. E, Connaughton, J., & Celenza, A. (2019). Student motivation to learn: Is self-belief the key to transition and first year performance in an undergraduate health professions program? BMC Medical Education, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1539-5
- Feldman, K. A., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1999). Major field and person-environment fit. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 642-669. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649169
- Gilbert, B. G., Mathis, D. P., Henry, B., Gibbs, A., & Lee, V. (2022). “The Professor I Like!” Generation z students and their teachers. ABNFF Journal, 1(3), 22-28.
- Graczyk-Kucharska, M., & Erickson, G. S. (2020). A person-organization fit model of generation Z: Preliminary studies. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 16(4), 149-176. https://doi.org/10.7341/20201645
- Kimberlee, R. M. (2019). Engaging generation Z: A case study on motivating the post-millennial traditional college student in the classroom. US-China Foreign Language, 17(4), 157-166. https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2019.04.002
- Lv, L., & Hu, J. (2021). Understanding teacher authority. Journal of Education and Development, 52(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.20849/jed.v5i2.916
- McCrindle, M. (2015). Generation Z digital. http://generationz.com.au/digital/
- Mosca, J. B., Curtis, K. P., & Savoth, P. G. (2019). New approaches to learning for generation Z. Journal of Business Diversity, 19(3), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v19i3.2214
- Muhammad, A. J., Arrington-Slocum, A., & Hughes, L. (2021). Capstone courses and major projects for enhancing generation Z career readiness through general higher-education classroom curriculum. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 21(7), 63-75. https://doi.org/ 10.33423/jhetp.v21i7.4487
- Nandhakumar, R. (2019). A study on the learning pattern of generation-z (Gen-Z) and their perception on curriculum, course deliverance and infrastructure. International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, 9, 625-634.
- Nicholas, A. J. (2020, November). Preferred learning methods of generation Z [Paper presentation]. Northeast Business and Economics Association 46th Annual Conference, Rhode Island, U.S.A.
- Rothman, D. (2016). A tsunami of learners called generation Z. https://mdle.net/journal/ A_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf
- Selvi, S. T., & Saranya, G. (2020). Here is generation Z: Work attitude and characters of newer generation. Dogo Rangsang Research Journal, 10(6), 44-50.
- Shatto, B., & Erwin, K. (2017). Teaching millennials and generation Z: Bridging the generational divide. Creative Nursing, 23(1), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1891/1078-4535.23.1.24
- Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Pearson.
- Veluchamy, R., Bharadwaj, M. V., Vignesh, S., & Sharma, G. (2016). Personal and professional attitudes of generation z students: Students’ talent management. International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications, 9(37), 471-478.
- Wang, M., Peng, J., Cheng, B., Zhou, H., & Liu, J. (2011). Knowledge visualization for self-regulated learning. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 28-42.
APA Format | Chao, P.-C., Ching, G.-S., Lin, S.-L., Lin, H.-C., & Liu, S.-M. (2024). Learning Motivation and Preferred Learning Methods Among the New Generation of University Students. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 69(3), 195-224
https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202409_69(3).0007 |
---|