University of Windsor - Teaching to Today’s Student

675 views
558 views

Published on

Barbour M. K. (2009, March). Teaching to today’s student. Presentation for the Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
675
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

University of Windsor - Teaching to Today’s Student

  1. 1. Millennial Students: Myths and Realities Michael K. Barbour Instructional Technology
  2. 2. Generational differences:the theory that people bornwithin an approximately 20year time period share acommon set of characteristicsbased upon the historicalexperiences, economic andsocial conditions,technological advances andother societal changes theyhave in common
  3. 3. Generational Boundaries• GI Generation “Greatest Generation” – Born between 1901 and 1924• Silent Generation – Born between 1925 and 1945• Baby Boomers – Born between 1946 and 1964• Generation X – Born between 1965 and 1980• Today’s Student – Born between 1981 and 2000
  4. 4. Historical InfluencesBoomers: Gen X: Today’s Student:• Civil Rights • Fall of Berlin Wall • School shootings• Sexual Revolution • Watergate • Oklahoma City• Cold War • AIDS • Internet• Space travel • Desert Storm • 9/11• Assassinations • Energy Crisis • Iraq
  5. 5. This Generation’s Numbers• 60 million - largest group since the Baby Boomers (72 million)• 3 times larger than Generation X• Teen population is growing at twice the rate of the rest of America• Made up 37% of U.S. population in 2005
  6. 6. “…todaysteens arerecasting theimage ofyouth fromdownbeatand alienatedto upbeatandengaged.”
  7. 7. Today’s Student: Which Fit Your Students?Gamers Digital Natives Socially Disdain Previous Conscious GenerationsHigh Expectations Spoiled Rotten Respect Value Diversity IntelligenceExpect Incomes Experiential Optimistic and Family OrientedExceeding Parents Learners PositiveCollaborative Nomadic Inclusive Have More FriendsHealthy Lifestyle Clueless Direct More LiberalAchievement Media Patriotic More ConservativeOriented ConsumerValue Balanced Multi-tasker Confident EntitledLives
  8. 8. Today’s Student• Generation Y• Echo• Net Generation• Neomillennials• Generation NeXt• Millennials• Generation Me• Digital Natives• Generation txt
  9. 9. Generational Differences and Training• Thomas Reeves (University of Georgia) completed a funded literature review on generational differences• Most generational differences in the literature were based on no or flawed researchReeves, T. C. (2008). Do generational differences matter in instructional design? Paperpresented to ITForum. Retrieved on March 13, 2009 fromhttp://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper104/ReevesITForumJan08.pdf
  10. 10. Echo generation
  11. 11. Net Generation• Children of baby boomers• Digital technology has had a profound impact on their personalities, including their attitudes and approach to learning• Generation gap has become a generation lap http://www.growingupdigital.com
  12. 12. Millennials• Based upon survey research• Sample from Fairfax, VAHowe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation New York: Vintage Books.
  13. 13. Digital Natives• Common in the media• No systematic research• Makes unfounded assumptions about access to digital technologyPrensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants – Part II: Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9(6).
  14. 14. “Todays young peoplehave been raised to aimfor the stars at a timewhen it is more difficultthan ever to get intocollege, find a good job,and afford a house. Theirexpectations are very highjust as the world isbecoming morecompetitive, so theres ahuge clash between theirexpectations and reality.”
  15. 15. • In 2002, 74% of high school students admitted to cheating whereas in 1969 only 34% admitted such a failing. (p. 27)• In 1967, 86% of incoming college students said that “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” was an essential life goal whereas in 2004 only 42% of GenMe freshmen agreed. (p. 48)• In 2004, 48% of American college freshmen reported earning an A average in high school whereas in 1968 only 18% of freshmen reported being an A student in high school. (p. 63)• In the 1950s, only 12% of young teens agreed with the statement “I am an important person” whereas by the late 1980s, 80% claimed they were important. (p. 69) Jean M. Twenge
  16. 16. Twenge, J. M. (inpress). Generationalchanges and theirimpact in theclassroom: TeachingGeneration Me.Medical Education.
  17. 17. “When asked about problems facing their generation, many millennials respond that the biggest one is the poor examplethat adults set for kids.”p. 36Oblinger, D. (2003). Understanding the new student.EDUCAUSE Review, 38(3), 36-42.
  18. 18. “The number onething to realize withthe Millennials isthat as a whole theyreflect much moreparentalperfectionism thanany generation inliving memory.Colleges anduniversities shouldknow that they arenot just getting akid, but they arealso getting aparent.”
  19. 19. What Else Do We Know?
  20. 20. Another Common Myth: The Master Multitasker• Memory encoding and memory retrieval weaker in teens when attention is dividedNaveh-Benjamin, M., Kilb, A., & Fisher, T. (2006). Concurrent task effects on memory encodingand retrieval: Further support for an asymmetry. Memory & Cognition, 34(1), 90-101.
  21. 21. Other Multitasking Studies• Herath, P., Klingberg, T., Yong, J., Amunts, K., & Roland, P. (2001). Neural correlates of dual task interference can be dissociated from those of divided attention: an fMRI study. Cereb. Cortex 11, 796 – 805. – longer time• Fisch, S. (2000). A capacity model of children’s comprehension of educational content on television. Media Psychology, 2(1), 63-91.• Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediate message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70. – simultaneous tasks limit memory• Just, M. A., Kellera, T. A., &Cynkara, J. (2008). A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak . Brain Research, 1205, 70-80. – less likely to remember
  22. 22. Dotoday’sstudentsreallywant tolearn?
  23. 23. Focus on undergraduate education• 2009: 645 colleges and universities• 2008: 774 colleges and universities• 2007: 610 colleges and universities• 2006: 557 colleges and universities• 2005: 529 colleges and universities• 2004: 473 colleges and universities• 2003: 437 colleges and universities• 2002: 367 colleges and universities• 2001: 321 colleges and universities• 2000: 276 colleges and universities
  24. 24. NSSE results• Work expectations for students: –10-15 hrs in class –25-30 hrs studying
  25. 25. NSSE results• School Work Reality: –17% study 5 hrs per week or less –26% 6-10 hrs –22% 11-15 hrs –16% 16-20 hrs –9% 21-25 hrs –4% 26-30 hrs –4% >30 hrs
  26. 26. NSSE resultsPercentage of professor who think that their students come to class fully prepared Percentage of students Percentage of professors 0-10 13 11-20 28 21-40 24 41-60 15 61-80 11 81-90 2 91-100 - Can’t say 7
  27. 27. NSSE Time On Task Student High faculty AcademicInteraction Challenge
  28. 28. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2007). Trends in Higher Education:Volume 1 – Enrolment. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved on March 13, 2009 fromhttp://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/trends_2007_vol1_e.pdf
  29. 29. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2007). Trends in Higher Education:Volume 1 – Enrolment. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved on March 13, 2009 fromhttp://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/trends_2007_vol1_e.pdf
  30. 30. What Else Do We Know?http://www.decliningbydegrees.org/
  31. 31. What Else Do We Know?The most “shocking” discovery is the “non-aggression pact” between instructors and students.
  32. 32. What Else Do We Know? http://www.ivorytowerblues.com/
  33. 33. The traditional standard for an average performance was a C, but students now expect Bs for putting out a modicum of effort that produces mediocre work, and As if they do any more than this. Failure is a thing of the past in many schools.
  34. 34. Grade Inflation http://gradeinflation.com/
  35. 35. Grade Inflation http://gradeinflation.com/
  36. 36. Grade Inflation http://gradeinflation.com/
  37. 37. Source: Canadian Council on Learning. Survey of Canadian Attitudes towards Learning, 2006
  38. 38. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2007). Trends in Higher Education:Volume 1 – Enrolment. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved on March 13, 2009 fromhttp://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/trends_2007_vol1_e.pdf
  39. 39. Source: Canadian Council on Learning. Survey of Canadian Attitudes towards Learning, 2006
  40. 40. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2007). Trends in Higher Education:Volume 1 – Enrolment. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved on March 13, 2009 fromhttp://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/trends_2007_vol1_e.pdf
  41. 41. Do today’s students care about learning?
  42. 42. Schools today arebeset by a newgeneration oflearners whoseskills andexpectations derivefrom growing up onthe net.
  43. 43. Today’s Students &Technology• Today’s students’ technical knowledge is broad, but shallow• Skills differ by academic program; deepest in engineering and business• Technical fluency does not equal maturityhttp://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0506/rs/ers0506w.pdf
  44. 44. Two Key Points• Introducing technology alone is never enough.• Big gains in productivity come when new technologies are combined with new ways of doing business.
  45. 45. Two Key Points• Introducing technology alone is never enough.• Big gains in learning come when new technologies are combined with new ways of teaching.
  46. 46. Keepingpedagogyahead oftechnologyis anongoingstruggle.
  47. 47. This is especially true in education!
  48. 48. What shouldwe expectour studentsto learn inthe 21 stCentury?
  49. 49. “Lecturing stillabsorbs more thanhalf to two thirds ofvarious departments’teaching practices…These traditionalforms of teachingseem to have beenrelatively untouchedby the enormousinvestment intechnologies.”
  50. 50. Traditional Learning Domains• Cognitive• Affective• Psychomotor
  51. 51. PsychomotorDomain Non-discursive Communication Skilled Movements Physical Activities Perceptual Skills Basic Fundamental Movement Reflex Movement
  52. 52. AffectiveDomain Characterization by Value Set Organization Valuing Responding Receiving
  53. 53. CognitiveDomain What Evaluation we say Synthesis we value AnalysisWhat Applicationweteach Comprehensionandtest Knowledge
  54. 54. Let’s face it.Assessmentdriveslearning.
  55. 55. If it hasn’tbeenassessed,it hasn’tbeenlearned.
  56. 56. Source: Canadian Council on Learning. Survey of Canadian Attitudes towards Learning, 2006
  57. 57. Unfortunately,we have alltoo oftenneglectedtheconativedomain.
  58. 58. History of the Conative DomainOrexis: (Greek)Striving; desire;the conativeaspect of mind
  59. 59. Conative Domain• Will• Desire• Level of effort• Drive• Striving• Mental energy• Self-determination• Intention
  60. 60. Cognitive – Affective – Conative• To know • To feel • To act• Thinking • Feeling • Willing• Thought • Emotion • Volition• Epistemology • Esthetics • Ethics• Knowing • Caring • Doing
  61. 61. YourQuestions andComments
  62. 62. Assistant Professor Wayne State University, USA mkbarbour@gmail.comhttp://www.michaelbarbour.com

×