Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 27 no. 3 (2024)

Generation Alpha Students’ Behavior as Digital Natives and their Learning Engagement

Francis Thaise A. Cimene | Michelle Mamburao | Queenlyn Plaza | Hosana Q. Nitcha | Mohaymen Somalipao | Elvie Jun Raña | Evangelene Baseo | Queenie Elizabeth Siao | Almerah Mauna | Danielle Rey Cimene

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Characterized by early Internet exposure, Gen A's learning preferences and behavioral patterns are different from previous generations. The study aimed to investigate the impact of learning styles and teaching styles on the learning engagement of Generation Alpha students. It sought to (1) determine their learning styles, (2) assess their teachers’ teaching styles, (3) examine their learning engagement, (4) whether there is a significant difference in the learning engagement when grouped according to learning styles, and (5) examine if there is a significant difference in the learning engagement when grouped according teaching styles. Using a descriptive-comparative research design, the data was obtained from 100 Gen A students. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, and ANOVA. Results revealed that Gen A students utilize the visual learning style the most, are more Behaviorally Engaged, and perceive the Facilitator or Activity Style as the most used by teachers. ANOVA results conclude that there is a statistically significant difference in student engagement among different learning style groups. Visual learners exhibit significantly higher engagement than others. Teaching styles also have a significant influence on student engagement with the Facilitator and Delegator styles resulting in higher engagement. The study concluded that both learning styles and teaching styles have significant influence on students' engagement. Additionally, teacher training programs should prioritize addressing diverse learning styles to optimize engagement and learning. Thus, recognizing the influence of teaching styles on student engagement can lead to more dynamic and inclusive learning environments for a new generation of learners.



References:

  1. AAP. (2016). American Academy of Pediatrics Announces New Recommendations for Children’s Media Use. [Press release]. https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Announces-New-Recommendations-for-Childrens-Media-Use.aspx
  2. Abulhul, Z. (2021). Teaching Strategies for Enhancing Student’s Learning. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i3.22
  3. Afzal, A., & Rafiq, S. (2022). Impact of Teachers’ Instructional Techniques on Student Involvement in Class: A Case Study. UMT Education Review, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.32350/uer.52.10
  4. Anderson, A., Brown, B., & Jones, J. (2021). Teaching styles and student engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review.
  5. Ariastuti, M. D., & Wahyudin, A. Y. (2022). Exploring Academic Performance and Learning Style of Undergraduate Students in English Education Program. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.33365/jeltl.v3i1.1817
  6. Arora, A., & Jha, A. K. (2020). Understanding pattern of online gaming addiction among Indian teenagers. Our Heritage, 68(1), 13190-13100.
  7. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  8. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331.
  9. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.
  10. Boyd, D. (2014). It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press.
  11. Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom. Jossey-Bass.
  12. Brown, T., Zoghi, M., Williams, B., Jaberzadeh, S., Roller, L., Palermo, C. & Holt, T. A. (2009). Are learning style preferences of health           science students predictive of their attitudes towards e-learning?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4).
  13. C, E., & Jr., G. (2020). Students’ learning styles and preferred teaching styles in Philippine Classroom. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(04), 2725–2734. doi:10.37200/ijpr/v24i4/pr201380
  14. Çakiroğlu, N., Güler, M., Atabay, M., & Güler, M. (2019). Connections Between Learning Styles and Perceived Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning: An Experimental Study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 48(4), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519844509
  15. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. Wiley.
  16. Courtney, S. A. (2023). Supporting teachers’ practices: A teacher educator-embedded professional development model.
  17. Davis, C., & Smith, T. (2019). Impact of authoritarian teaching styles on student engagement. Journal of Educational Research.
  18. Debczak, M. (2024). Everything You Need to Know About Generation Alpha - The Children of Millennials. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/652245/generation-alpha-facts.
  19. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
  20. Department of Education. (2019). DepEd Order No. 021, S. 2019: Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/DO_s2019_021.pdf
  21. Dhamija, A., & Dhamija, D. (2020). Impact of Innovative and Interactive Instructional Strategies on Student Classroom Participation. In Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series (pp. 20–37). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9304-1.ch002
  22. Dipasupil, S. R., Lee, H. J., & Ham, J. H. (2019). Students Perception on the Level of Classroom Engagement at a Korean University. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning/International Journal: Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(20), 182. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i20.11469
  23. Fernández-García, C. M., Rodríguez-Álvarez, M., & Viñuela-Hernández, M. P. (2021). University students and their perception of teaching effectiveness. Effects on students’ engagement. Revista De Psicodidáctica, 26(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2020.11.006
  24. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
  25. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice. Basic Books.
  26. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2018). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. Jossey-Bass.
  27. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2018). Reliability analysis. In IBM SPSS statistics 25 step by step (pp. 249-260). Routledge.
  28. Haider, M. M., Zaid, R., & Shah, S. A. (2023). Effects of Teacher Teaching Approaches on Students Engagement and Comprehension at University Level. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 3(2), 1151–1161. https://doi.org/10.54183/jssr.v3i2.362
  29. Halif, M. M., Hassan, N., Sumardi, N. A., Omar, A. S., Ali, S., Aziz, R. A., Majid, A. A., & Salleh, N. F. (2020). Moderating Effects of Student Motivation on the Relationship between Learning Styles and Student Engagement. Asian Journal of University Education/Asian Journal of University Education, 16(2), 93. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i2.10301
  30. Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). The Competencies of Effective Online Learning Facilitators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 27(3), 383-406.
  31. Harris, L., Dargusch, J., Ames, K., & Bloomfield, C. (2020). Catering for ‘very different kids’: distance education teachers’ understandings of and strategies for student engagement. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(8), 848–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1735543
  32. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.
  33. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence?. British educational research journal, 36(3), 503-520.
  34. Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2019). Zero to Eight: Young Children and Their Internet Use. LSE.
  35. Hsin, C. T., & Cigas, J. (2013). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental neuropsychology, 38(7), 513-528.
  36. Inayat, A., & Ali, A. Z. (2020). Influence of Teaching Style on Students’ Engagement, Curiosity and Exploration in the Classroom. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 7(1), 87. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v7i1.2736
  37. Kilag, O. K. T., & Sasan, J. M. (2023). Unpacking the Role of Instructional Leadership in Teacher Professional Development. Advanced Qualitative Research, 1(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.31098/aqr.v1i1.1380
  38. Kizer, J. G. (2024, March 14). These are the actual age ranges for millenials, Gen Z, Gen Alpha and more. Aol. Retrieved June 20, 2024, from . https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/these-are-the-actual-age-ranges-for-millennials-gen-z-gen-alpha-more/ar-BB1k0448
  39. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
  40. Leo, F. M., Pulido, J. J., Sánchez-Oliva, D., López-Gajardo, M. A., & Mouratidis, A. (2022). See the forest by looking at the trees: Physical education teachers’ interpersonal style profiles and students’ engagement. European Physical Education Review, 28(3), 720–738. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x221075501
  41. Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical Reflections on the Benefits of ICT in Education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 9-24.
  42. Makuachukwu, S. (2023). A Study on the Effects of Professional Development on Teacher Leadership Skills. Journal of Asian Multicultural
  43. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Mohler, P., Dorer, B., de Jong, J., and Hu, M. (2016). https://ccsg.isr.umich.edu/chapters/adaptation/
  45. Naiker, M., Wakeling, L., Cook, S., Peck, B., Johnson, J. B., & Brown, S. (2022). Student Engagement Amongst Regional Australian Undergraduate Students. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v22i3.31688
  46. Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors. Jossey-Bass.
  47. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
  48. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2016). Born Digital: How Children Grow Up in a Digital Age. Basic Books.
  49. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK.
  50. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
  51. PwC. (2017). Growing up with the Alphas: Generational study. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about/office-locations/south-africa/assets/growing-up with-the-alphas-generational-study.pdf
  52. Raja, R., & Nagasubramani, P. C. (2018). Impact of modern technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(S1), 33.
  53. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
  54. Reeve, J. (2013). Questionnaire Engagement. https://www.scribd.com/document/273128035/Questionnaire-Engagement-Reeve
  55. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2022). Agentic Engagement. In: Reschly, A.L., Christenson, S.L. (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.100
  56. Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2015). Becoming a High Expectation Teacher: Raising the Bar. Routledge.
  57. Ruqaishi, S. A. A. A. (2022). Factors Influencing Teachers’ Engagement. International Journal of Education, 14(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v14i1.18366
  58. Singh, I. (2023). Pedagogical Advancements through Teacher Professional Development: Impacts on Classroom Instruction and Student Attainment. Global International Research Thoughts, 11(1), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.36676/girt.2023-v11i1-17
  59. Smith, D. N. (2018). Teachers' perceptions of student engagement in a hybrid learning environment (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
  60. Styx, X. (2024). Learning Style Questionnaire and Teaching Style Questionnaire. Undergraduate thesis. https://www.academia.edu/35036562/Learning_Style_Questionnaire_and_Teaching_Style_Questionnaire
  61. Veiga, F. H., Reeve, J., Wentzel, K., & Robu, V. (2014). Assessing students’ engagement: A review of instruments with psychometric qualities. In I Congresso Internacional Envolvimento dos Alunos na Escola: Perspetivas da Psicologia e Educação (pp. 38-57).

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic