RECONCEPTUALIZING LEARNING MEDIA AS COGNITIVE–PEDAGOGICAL SYSTEMS: MULTIMODAL ENGAGEMENT OF GENERATION Z STUDENTS IN HEALTHCARE MARKETING EDUCATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51574/illea.v2i2.5198Keywords:
Learning media, Generation Z, Multimodal learning, Cognitive engagement, Health administration educationAbstract
Background: The increasing digitalization of higher education has positioned learning media as a central component of instructional design, particularly among Generation Z learners who exhibit strong multimodal and self-regulated learning behaviors. Despite widespread use of printed modules and presentation slides, limited research has examined how these media function as integrated cognitive systems within health administration education.
Purpose: This study explores how Generation Z students interpret, use, and combine learning media formats (modules, slides, and blended use) within a Healthcare Marketing course, focusing on their role in shaping cognitive engagement, understanding, and learning strategies.
Methods: A qualitative descriptive–interpretive design was implemented using in-depth interviews, optional focus groups, and document review. Data were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis to identify patterns of media use, pedagogical meaning, and contextual interaction.
Results: Students consistently positioned modules as the primary source of conceptual depth and academic reliability, while slides functioned as cognitive scaffolding tools that supported attention and comprehension during lectures. A dominant finding was the emergence of a sequential blended strategy, where students used slides during class and modules for post-class elaboration. Learning effectiveness was further mediated by environmental conditions and instructional delivery, indicating that media cannot be separated from context.
Conclusion: Learning media in Generation Z cohorts operate as an integrated cognitive system rather than discrete tools, requiring alignment between media design, instructional delivery, and learning environment. This study contributes to instructional design literature by demonstrating that effective health education must move beyond single-media approaches toward structured multimodal integration grounded in cognitive and contextual realities.Abstrak diketik dengan dua Bahasa secara berurutan, yaitu Indonesia dan Inggris.
References
Bates, T. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (2nd ed.). BCcampus.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
Chicca, J., & Shellenbarger, T. (2018). Connecting with Generation Z: Approaches in nursing education. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 13(3), 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2018.03.008
Cilliers, E. J. (2017). The challenge of teaching Generation Z. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 188–198.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction (4th ed.). Wiley.
Cook, D. A., et al. (2013). Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions. JAMA, 310(21), 2253–2264.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (2015). Understanding student learning. Routledge.
Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Nonauditory effects of noise. Psychological Bulletin, 98(1), 57–68.
Freeman, S., et al. (2014). Active learning increases performance. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Frenk, J., et al. (2010). Health professionals for a new century. The Lancet, 376(9756), 1923–1958.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Routledge.
Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63, 564–569.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory for education. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.
Kotler, P., Shalowitz, J., & Stevens, R. (2019). Strategic marketing for healthcare organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., et al. (2005). Student success in college. Jossey-Bass.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
McCrindle, M. (2014). The ABC of XYZ. McCrindle Research.
Means, B., et al. (2013). The effectiveness of online learning. US Department of Education.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326.
Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Learning spaces. EDUCAUSE.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Radcliffe, D., et al. (2009). Learning spaces in higher education. University of Queensland.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 12–20.
Schwieger, D., & Ladwig, C. (2018). Reaching Gen Z. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(3), 295–305.
Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey-Bass.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
Tufte, E. R. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Graphics Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation. Routledge.
