Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

K-12 Teaching in the Twenty-First Century MOOC - Teaching Today's Student


Published on

Barbour, M. K. (2013, November). Teaching today's student. A webinar presentation to the K-12 Teaching in the Twenty-First Century massive open online course by the Michigan Virtual University,

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

K-12 Teaching in the Twenty-First Century MOOC - Teaching Today's Student

  1. 1. Teaching Today's Student Michael Barbour Sacred Heart University
  2. 2. Generational differences: the theory that people born within an approximately 20 year time period share a common set of characteristics based upon the historical experiences, economic and social conditions, technological advances and other societal changes they have 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 2005
  4. 4. Historical Influences Boomers: Gen X: Today’s Student: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Civil Rights Sexual Revolution Cold War Space travel Assassinations Fall of Berlin Wall Watergate AIDS Desert Storm Energy Crisis School shootings Oklahoma City Internet 9/11 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. “…today's teens are recasting the image of youth from downbeat and alienated to upbeat and engaged.”
  7. 7. Today’s Student: Which Fit Your Students? Gamers Digital Natives Socially Conscious Disdain Previous Generations High Expectations Spoiled Rotten Respect Intelligence Value Diversity Expect Incomes Experiential Exceeding Parents Learners Optimistic and Family Oriented Positive Collaborative Nomadic Inclusive Have More Friends Healthy Lifestyle Clueless Direct More Liberal Achievement Oriented Media Consumer Patriotic More Conservative Value Balanced Lives Multi-tasker Confident Entitled
  8. 8. Do today’s students really want to learn?
  9. 9. Focus on undergraduate education • Participating Institutions: 621 colleges and universities participated in NSSE 2013. 1,554 have participated since 2000. • Student Participation: 371,284 students completed NSSE in 2013. Approximately 4 million
  10. 10. What Else Do We Know?
  11. 11. What Else Do We Know? The most “shocking” discovery is the “non-aggression pact” between instructors and students.
  12. 12. What Else Do We Know?
  13. 13. 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.
  14. 14. Grade Inflation
  15. 15. Today’s Student • • • • • • • • • Generation Y Echo Net Generation Neomillennials Generation NeXt Millennials Generation Me Digital Natives Generation txt
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Millennials • Based upon survey research • Sample from Fairfax, VA Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation New York: Vintage Books.
  18. 18. Digital Natives • Common in the media • No systematic research • Makes unfounded assumptions about access to digital technology Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants – Part II: Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9(6).
  19. 19. 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 research Reeves, T. C. (2008). Do generational differences matter in instructional design? Paper presented to ITForum. Retrieved on March 13, 2009 from
  20. 20. “Today's young people have been raised to aim for the stars at a time when it is more difficult than ever to get into college, find a good job, and afford a house. Their expectations are very high just as the world is becoming more competitive, so there's a huge clash between their expectations and reality.”
  21. 21. • 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
  22. 22. Twenge, J. M. (2009). Generational changes and their impact in the classroom: Teaching Generation Me. Medical Education, 43(5), 398-405.
  23. 23. “When asked about problems facing their generation, many millennials respond that the biggest one is the poor example that adults set for kids.” p. 36 Oblinger, D. (2003). Understanding the new student. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(3), 36-42.
  24. 24. “The number one thing to realize with the Millennials is that as a whole they reflect much more parental perfectionism than any generation in living memory. Colleges and universities should know that they are not just getting a kid, but they are also getting a parent.”
  25. 25. What Else Do We Know?
  26. 26. Another Common Myth: The Master Multitasker • Memory encoding and memory retrieval weaker in teens when attention is divided Naveh-Benjamin, M., Kilb, A., & Fisher, T. (2006). Concurrent task effects on memory encoding and retrieval: Further support for an asymmetry. Memory & Cognition, 34(1), 90-101.
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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 maturity
  29. 29. 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.
  30. 30. Two Key Points • Introducing technology alone is never enough. • Big gains in learning come when new technologies are combined with new ways of teaching.
  31. 31. Your Questions and Comments
  32. 32. Director of Doctoral Studies Sacred Heart University, USA