Higher Education: Psychology and Language & Literature Disciplines

Alani Orantes-Verduzco
Writing 2
February 21, 2024
 1

Challenges faced by students, ranging from technological competencies to language

acquisition are distinct effects found in higher education. With the changes in teaching methods

for students due to the social-economic issues, there are implications on the development of

learning for students in the education system now. The following articles focus on the adversities

that occur among students in higher education and are evaluated through the use of disciplines.

Observing two disciplines, Psychology and Language & Literature, there is a difference in how

each discipline presents its research through the use of jargon, methodologies, and overall

findings. Discipline 1: Psychology actively focused on the limitation of digital competence in

students in higher education through the demonstration of tables, a quantitative methodology,

and exploration of a broader topic with emotional implication in the outcomes post COVID-19,

while Discipline 2: Language and Literature narrowed their research on the teaching approaches

for non-English speakers in higher education with the use of a qualitative methodology,

structural analyzation, and limited data findings .While the topics in each discipline are vastly

different from each other they both focus on students achieving a higher level of education and

their involvement in the knowledge gaps in the system.

Discipline 1: Psychology presents itself with various forms of jargon. With its use of

jargon in the article, the reader is limited to its findings if they are not the intended audience. In

instances with a Psychology discipline there is an intended audience of scholarly individuals and

is usually presented with its various forms of academic language for its respective field. In

Discipline 1: Psychology, there is a use of terminology when evaluating the impact of digital

competence amongst students in higher education. Uses of terminology and abbreviations such

as digital competence (Digcomp) and others like WHO and ICT are in the text to demonstrate the
 2

field of expertise and research throughout the article.1 Although there is a use of language

throughout the text that presents itself to its discipline, there is an explanation and definition to

the jargon used in the text. For instance, “Digital competence is defined as a set of required

knowledge, skills and attitudes when using digital technologies to effectively optimize our

everyday life.”2 When introducing the idea of Digcomp, the structure of the article allowed for

the following paragraph to go into detail and further explain “new terminology" to its audience.

This method was followed throughout the text, allowing an outside audience of the discipline to

understand the effects of digital competence post-COVID-19 for individuals in higher education.

While Discipline 2: Language and Literature presented their research on the approaches of

university teachings for non-English speakers, the use of jargon was different compared to

Discipline 1: Psychology. The overall article had little to no elaboration of its use of jargon for its

field, establishing a broader audience with no prior background of its research in the Language

and Literature discipline. Abbreviations used in the text were solely used to not have

repetitiveness, like “Non-Native English Speaking [referred to](NNES),”3 because the main

focus of the article would be on these individuals, making it more concise to abbreviate

throughout the article. This structure is followed throughout the article allowing for its research

to bring in a broadened audience. This differs in comparison to discipline 1 where the use of its

terminology needed further explanation within their study, limiting its audience to individuals

with a psychology background or understanding of digital competence. Although the overall

language of each article did not differ in the level of complexity, there were notable differences

in the jargon and layout for each respective discipline. The two articles' demonstration of jargon
1
Yu Zhao, “Digital Competence in Higher Education: Students' Perception and Personal Factors,” MDPI,
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12184
2
Yu Zhao,“Digital Competence in Higher Education," 2.
3
Haitham A. Althubaiti and Hassan S. Alqurashi, “The Impact of Teaching Approaches on Students’ English
Language Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study of a Saudi University.” Arab World English Journal.
https://awej.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/1.pdf
 3

or lack of, gave insight of the importance of the structure and differences each discipline has in

presenting their material.

There are differences presented in the methodology used in both Discipline 1:

Psychology and Discipline 2: Language and Literature. While Discipline 1: Psychology used a

quantitative methodology, Discipline 2: Language and Literature used a qualitative methodology.

Their approaches to their methodology vastly differed between the two disciplines; Discipline 1:

Psychology observed a sample of 5164 students from all majors in the first and fourth year of

their studies.4 This approach allowed for an examination of digital competence across various

academic disciplines and stages of higher education. Through the use of a self-evaluation from

the students, the article was able to present the results with the use of tables, while observing the

potential influencing factors such as gender and age. The authors acknowledged the limitations

of their study but overall ensured a thorough understanding of the digital competence within their

specific field. In comparing Discipline 2: Language and Literature the article samples 20

participants in an interview and holds in-classroom observations.5 The researchers conducted

interviews to gather perspectives on university teaching methods and in-classroom observations

to assess the use of their teaching methods. The teaching practices, “implemented by the NES

lecturers, in contrast to the NNES lecturers,” are evaluated in the text to further the

understanding on the reason a qualitative methodology was taken by the researchers.6 This

qualitative approach provided a detailed understanding of the experiences and preferences of

non-English speaking students at its university. While both disciplines took different approaches

to their methodology both chose narrow research locations, universities; Discipline 1 focused on

4
Yu Zhao, “Digital Competence in Higher Education.”
5
Haitham A. Althubaiti and Hassan S. Alqurashi, “Teaching Approaches on Students’ English Language Learning
in Higher Education.”
6
Haitham A. Althubaiti and Hassan S. Alqurashi, “Teaching Approaches on Students’ English Language Learning
in Higher Education,” 6.
 4

a Gansu Agricultural University, and Discipline 2 was based at Saudi University. This narrowed

the area of study for both articles. While the methodology approach reflects the objectives of

each discipline, it demonstrates the knowledge gaps in higher education. Discipline 1:

Psychology aimed for a broad understanding by surveying a large and diverse student

population, whereas Discipline 2: Language and Literature concentrated on the experiences of a

smaller group of students within its university. The quantitative methodology found in Discipline

1: Psychology is understandable from the large sample size of students, to assess the

relationships between variables. The qualitative methodology found in Discipline 2: Language

and Literature is used for a smaller sample size of students to evaluate patterns observed in

higher education.

Being that each research article used their methodologies and data to concisely analyze

their universities, their overall findings differed. Each article intended to answer a multitude of

questions that were closely related to their research. But in comparing the analysis of their

research there appeared to be differences in the ability to expand further on their research. With

the knowledge of the sample size in the research that the data presented, Discipline 2: Language

and Literature was limited in comparison to Discipline 2: Psychology. In Discipline 1:

Psychology, the article’s discussion communicates that “various studies have investigated the

acquisition of digital competence, teachers’ digital competence perception, and examined the

relationship between different dimensions.”7 The variety of studies that have investigated the use

of digital competence and how each study has introduced new findings to each other's research

which has allowed continuing to explore outside of their university.8 This also introduced an

intended audience of academic scholars, emphasizing to individuals in higher education the

7
Yu Zhao, “Digital Competence in Higher Education,"13.
8
Yu Zhao, “Digital Competence in Higher Education.”
 5

conversion of the gender limitations, and the further research that is needed to accurately

represent when students face difficulties in the use of technology. Their overall findings,

although restricted to a university, have introduced new material to a broader topic and through

their research analyzed a positive level of digital competence. But “many students need to

improve their level of competence when creating digital content and programming, as well as

parts of their problem-solving skills when facing technical problems and the understanding of

technological trends.”9 While looking at the findings of Discipline 2: Language and Literature,

one could argue that the details of its findings have limited its audience to its university with its

exclusivity of 20 students and designated classrooms. Significant effects of their approaches on

the student's language learning have overall found the difference in two methods taught in its

university and response from students with these two teaching methods.10 The effects of the

number of students in each class, classroom expectations, and in classroom activities have all

contributed to the negative response of NNES students.11 Their findings have demonstrated the

overall implications of NNES students in its universities. The research sheds light on the

preferences of students within the university regarding language learning approaches. As

teaching methods evolve in response to the changes in the education system, the examination of

these challenges becomes more evident in students. However, the detailed examination of

teaching methods and their impact on language learning provides insight for educators within

that specific academic setting. Both these articles have provided a lens in the gap in the

education system within their findings and the changes that are necessary in providing a

well-rounded education for students that seek higher education. While they have both executed

9
Yu Zhao, “Digital Competence in Higher Education,"13.
10
Haitham A. Althubaiti and Hassan S. Alqurashi, “Teaching Approaches on Students’ English Language Learning
in Higher Education.”
11
Haitham A. Althubaiti and Hassan S. Alqurashi, “Teaching Approaches on Students’ English Language Learning
in Higher Education,” 7.
 6

their research for their respective field, their findings and evaluation of their data has shown the

approach each discipline takes in executing a thorough analysis of their findings. Discipline 1:

Psychology has shown to give an expanded understanding of its topic while Discipline 2:

Language and Literature has only shown a limited ability to expand on its research due to its

secluded sample of students.

Although the articles differed in topics, their analyses unfolded within their discipline,

addressing knowledge gaps in education.Discipline 1: Psychology has been shown to structurally

present itself for a wide audience in its overall research while thoroughly analyzing a mass

amount of individuals. Contributing not only to the understanding of digital competence but also

engaging in a broader academic conversation. Discipline 2: Language and Literature has

analyzed the difficulties NNES students face at their university and how the range of teaching

methods has affected those who are non-English speakers. In the lack of understanding from

educators that some students may have gaps in their knowledge and the unpreparedness that

derives from the classroom setting. The findings are more localized, providing in-depth insights

into the preferences of students at the specific university where the research was conducted.

While both disciplines effectively identify knowledge gaps in higher education, they do so

through distinct lenses and methodologies depicting the differences in the way each discipline

structures their research article. These interdisciplinary insights contribute not only to their

academic discourse but also to academic scholars in the differences in language, methodologies,

and findings between both disciplines, Psychology and Language and literature, with their

approaches that address the challenges students in higher education face.

 7

References

Althubaiti, Haitham A., and Hassan S. Alqurashi. 2022. “The Impact of Teaching Approaches on

Students’ English Language Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study of a Saudi

University.” Arab World English Journal.

https://awej.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/1.pdf

Zhao, Yu. 2021. “Digital Competence in Higher Education: Students' Perception and Personal

Factors.” MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12184