Incoming! Who will be on campus this year?

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    Favorites, Groups & Events

    Incoming! Who will be on campus this year? - Presentation Transcript

    1. INCOMING! Who will be on campus this year? Megan Poore
      • Statistics and expectations
      • ICT proficiency and literacy
      • Implications
      • Learning needs
      • The Net Generation
      COVERAGE
    2. SOME STATS: Incoming students Access University of Melbourne (2006) Mobile 93% Desktop 90% Broadband 73%
    3. Computer use University of Melbourne (2006) SOME STATS: Incoming students Emailing 94% Creating documents 88% Info searching 83%
    4. University of Melbourne (2006) Main activities on computers ‘ Overwhelmingly positive’ SOME STATS: Incoming students Study 94% Info Searching 93% Course admin 84% SMS 84% IM 75%
    5. University of Melbourne (2006) STUDENT EXPECTATIONS
      • International students use more tech
      • Engineering students more likely to use tech than Arts students
      • Reasons for use: convenience and control – not learning
    6. JISC (2007)
      • Preference for using technology
      • Ubiquitous internet is normal
      • Cautious about publishing their work for public scrutiny
      • Tech is not an end in itself
      • Face-to-face is seen as core
      STUDENT EXPECTATIONS
    7. JISC (2007)
      • Uncertain about how to map current learning experience onto uni study
      • Cannot see how ICT and learning can work together outside of school
      STUDENT EXPECTATIONS
      • Are personalised
      • Are visual
      • Have links to the community
      • Are rigorous
      • Use individualised feedback
      INFORMAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Pletka (2007)
      • Working with info
      • Creating and sharing info
      • Using ICT responsibly
      MCEETYA (2007) ICT PROFICIENCY
      • ‘ Challenging but reasonable ’ expectation
        • Year 6: 49%
        • Year 10: 61%
      MCEETYA (2007) ICT PROFICIENCY
      • Patterns:
        • Low socio-economic bkgnd
        • Indigeneity
        • Remote locality
        • Gender not an issue
      MCEETYA (2007) ICT PROFICIENCY
      • Findings
        • Communication is a frequent use
        • BUT
        • Less use of applications for creating , analysing , transforming information
      MCEETYA (2007) ICT PROFICIENCY
      • Skills gap between using media to create and how to create meaningful content
      CRITICAL CHALLENGE Horizon Report, EDUCAUSE (2007: 4-5)
      • Facility does not mean ICT literacy
      • Need to be careful about assumptions we make
      IMPLICATIONS MCEETYA (2007)
      • Competent or just confident ?
      • How to find the right info, then assess, validate, interpret, analyse, synthesise, critique, evaluate, put in context
      • The need to apply problem-solving and critical thinking skills
      Oblinger and Hawkins (2006) IMPLICATIONS
      • Renewed emphasis on collaborative learning
      • Growing expectations for higher ed to deliver services , content and media to mobile and personal devices
      Horizon Report, EDUCAUSE (2007: 4-5) IMPLICATIONS
      • You need to be ICT literate, too.
      IMPLICATIONS
      • What’s important will not change: good pedagogy is good pedagogy
      • Content: Shift away from rote learning and memorisation to creation of understanding and meaning
      IMPLICATIONS
      • Need to build ICT literacy through “ systematic teaching rather than incidental use ”
      • More personalised assessment
      LEARNING NEEDS MCEETYA (2007)
      • Dynamic
      • Experiential
      • Learning by doing
      • Problem-solving
      Pletka (2007) LEARNING NEEDS
      • Want to engage and be engaged
      • Learn through doing
      Veen and Vrakking (2006) LEARNING NEEDS
      • I am no longer the sole repository of information
      • BUT
      • I have to teach them how to
      YOUR NEW MINDSET
      • Assess
      • Critique
      • Validate
      • Analyse
      • Interpret
      • Synthesise
      • Evaluate
      • Research
      • Also called ‘millennials’, ‘Digital Natives’
      • In the UK, 1 in 3 children aged between 5 and 9 owns a mobile phone
      • Average age of first phone ownership is 8
      Vision (2005: 11) THE NET GENERATION
      • Parallel process and multi-task
      • Have ‘ hypertext minds’
      • Have always had Web 2.0 at home
      • Have little patience for step-by-step logic (or reasoning?)
      Prensky (2001) THE NET GENERATION
      • Information-rich
      • Non-linear and associative
      • Multi-media, visual and graphical
      • Immediate/instantaneous
      • Immersive and abundant
      • Relevant and meaningful
      INFORMATION FOR THE NET GEN Pletka (2007)
      • Community-oriented and team-based
      • Collaborative , co-operative, participatory
      • Communication-rich
      • Interactive and dialogical
      • Customised , personalised, individualised
      COMMUNITY, CHOICE COLLABORATION Pletka (2007)
      • Are active processors of information
      • Filter info all the time
      • Are used to getting info immediately
      • Are used to controlling info flows
      CHARACTERISTICS Veen and Vrakking (2006)
      • Get bored if the information flow is poor or too slow
      • Use non-linear resources
      • Do not complain of information overload!
      Veen and Vrakking (2006) CHARACTERISTICS
      • Absorb discontinuous information and make meaning of it
      • Cope with complexity
      • Increase or decrease their attention levels , depending on need
      COMPLEXITY Veen and Vrakking (2006)
      • Can work with sub-optimal knowledge
      • Make sense of bits
      • Accept uncertainty
      Veen and Vrakking (2006) COMPLEXITY
      • Are effective communicators
      • Prefer communicating through images
      • Use their networks
      • Are used to controlling communication
      • Are collaborative
      COMMUNICATION Veen and Vrakking (2006)
      • ‘ Net Gen’ communication is
        • Multimodal
        • Interactive
        • Creative and interpretive
        • Comes easily to them
      Johnson (2006: 73) COMMUNICATION
      • Trust
      • Openness
      • Access
      VALUES Veen and Vrakking (2006: 47)
      • Speak with an ‘ accent ’ – or a different language entirely!
      • Misunderstand the new ways in which the Neg Gen learns
      Prensky (2001) ‘ DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS’
      • We work in a linear fashion
      • We read the instructions first before using
      • We are used to working alone
      • We believe in doing things 'right '
      • We believe in doing things one thing at a time
      Veen and Vrakking (2006: 32 ) ‘ DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS’
      • Students are feeling as though they are ‘ powering down ’ when they enter the school gates
      Vision (2005: 4) NET GENERATION AT SCHOOL
    8. Source: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_24/b4038405.htm
      • Lecture-based
      • Isolating
      • Segmented
      • Uniform
      • Responsive-deficient
      • Didactic
      • Irrelevant
      INDUSTRIAL-AGE LEARNING Pletka (2007)
    9. EDUCAUSE. 2007. The Horizon Report . New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CSD4781.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2007 . JISC. 2007. Student expectations study: Findings from preliminary research. (Joint Information Systems Committee) http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/studentexpectationsbp.aspx . Accessed 12 February 2008. Johnson, Larry. 2006. The sea change before us. EDUCAUSE Review , March/April 2006: 72-3. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0628.pdf . Accessed 10 October 2007 MCEETYA. 2007. Information and Communication Technologies Literacy Years 6 and 10 Report 2005. http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAP_ICTL_2005_Years_6_and_10_Report.pdf. Accessed 12 February 2008 . Accessed 12 February 2008. Oblinger, Diane G. and Brian L. Hawkins. 2006. The myth about student competency. EDUCAUSE Review , March/April 2006: 12-3. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0627.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2007 . Accessed 12 February 2008. REFERENCES
    10. Pletka, Bob. 2007. Educating the Net Generation. How to engage students in the 21 st century. Santa Monica Press. Prensky, Marc. 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon , 9 (5): 1-6. University of Melbourne. 2006. First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really Digital Natives? http://www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/munatives/natives_report2006.pdf. Accessed 12 February 2008 . Veen, Wim, and Ben Vrakking. 2006. Homo Zappiens. Growing up in a digital age. London: Network Continuum. Vision. 2005. The future of mobile technology: learning ‘on the run’? Vision 1: 11-3. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/vision/VISION_01.pdf . Accessed 10 October 2007. REFERENCES
    11. www.meganpoore.com www.slideshare.net/meganpoore MORE INFO
    12. LICENCE

    + Megan PooreMegan Poore, 2 years ago

    custom

    1111 views, 0 favs, 1 embeds more stats

    Identifies NetGen attitudes to ICTs in their learni more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 1111
      • 1110 on SlideShare
      • 1 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 0
    • Downloads 6
    Most viewed embeds
    • 1 views on http://www.meganpoore.com

    more

    All embeds
    • 1 views on http://www.meganpoore.com

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories