Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study investigates gender and disciplinary differences in self-directed study strategies with digital tools among university students. Grounded in Activity Theory (AT), Gender Similarities Hypothesis, and Self-Determination Theory, the research explores how students from STEM and non-STEM fields interact with digital and paper-based materials during individual study sessions. A mixed-methods design was employed, combining eye-tracking data with qualitative interviews. Forty students (mean age: 21.5; equally distributed by gender and disciplinary field) participated in 15 min study sessions using the Pupil Invisible eye-tracker. Fixation durations and heat maps were analyzed through RStudio (Version 2024.04.2+764r), while semi-structured interviews explored students’ motivations, study habits, and perceptions of strategy effectiveness. A theory-driven codebook was developed to analyze interview data, incorporating cognitive, emotional, socio-cultural, and metacognitive dimensions. Results indicate that the disciplinary field plays a more decisive role than gender in shaping study strategies. Female STEM students alternated between digital and paper tools, while non-STEM females used digital tools more continuously. Among males, non-STEM students favored paper, whereas STEM students engaged more with digital materials. Interview data confirmed intra-gender variation and emphasized the influence of context, autonomy, and study planning. The integration of eye-tracking and qualitative inquiry effectively captured both behavioral patterns and students’ perspectives. Findings suggest the need for inclusive, flexible educational practices that respect diverse learning preferences and disciplinary cultures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cavallaro et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: