IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijilea/v23y2018i3p304-317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing learning motivation and learning style between natural science and social science students in higher education

Author

Listed:
  • Triyanto
  • Rif'ati Dina Handayani

Abstract

This study aim to assess and analyse the extent of motivation and learning styles between students of natural science and social science. This study was carried out by survey research method using online questionnaire. The sample consists of 320 students from Faculty of Education in University of Jember and Sebelas Maret University. The questionnaire used to measure students learning motivation, was the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) and inventory of learning styles (ILS), was used to measure student learning styles. Data gathered were analysed descriptively and inferentially using the SPSS package. Result from the descriptive analysis found that there is a significant difference between science and social science students in learning motivation and learning styles. There was also a positive relation between learning motivation and learning styles. The results of this study give useful information for improving the teaching and learning process of teachers and students, because the effective teaching and learning requires flexibility, creativity and responsibility in order to provide an instructional environment to respond to the learner's individual needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Triyanto & Rif'ati Dina Handayani, 2018. "Comparing learning motivation and learning style between natural science and social science students in higher education," International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 23(3), pages 304-317.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijilea:v:23:y:2018:i:3:p:304-317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=91089
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijilea:v:23:y:2018:i:3:p:304-317. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=57 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.