Millennial Students: Myths vs Realities

Millennial Students: Myths and Realities

Michael K. Barbour
Instructional Technology

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

Generational Boundaries
• GI Generation “Greatest Generation”
– Born between 1901 and 1924
• Silent Generation
• Baby Boomers
• Generation X
• Today’s Student

Historical Influences
Boomers: 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

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

“…today's
teens are
recasting the
image of
youth from
downbeat
and alienated
to upbeat
and
engaged.”

Today’s Student: Which Fit Your Students?
Gamers Digital Natives Socially Disdain Previous
Conscious Generations
High Expectations Spoiled Rotten Respect Value Diversity
Intelligence
Expect Incomes Experiential Optimistic and Family Oriented
Exceeding Parents Learners Positive

Collaborative Nomadic Inclusive Have More Friends
Healthy Lifestyle Clueless Direct More Liberal
Achievement Media Patriotic More Conservative
Oriented Consumer

Value Balanced Multi-tasker Confident Entitled
Lives

Today’s Student
• Generation Y
• Echo
• Net Generation
• Neomillennials
• Generation NeXt
• Millennials
• Generation Me
• Digital Natives
• Generation txt

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
http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper104/ReevesITForumJan08.pdf

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

Millennials
• Based upon survey
research

• Sample from Fairfax,
VA

Howe, N., & Strauss, W.
(2000). Millennials rising:
The next great generation
New York: Vintage
Books.

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).

“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.”

• 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

Twenge, J. M. (in
press). Generational
changes and their
impact in the
classroom: Teaching
Generation Me.
Medical Education.

“When asked
about problems
facing their
generation,
many millennials
respond that the
biggest one is
the poor
examplethat
adults set for
kids.”p. 36

Oblinger, D. (2003). Understanding the new student.
EDUCAUSE Review, 38(3), 36-42.

“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.”

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.

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

Do
today’s
students
really
want to
learn?

Focus on undergraduate education
• 2009: 645 colleges and universities

NSSE results
• Work
expectations
for students:
–10-15 hrs
in class
–25-30 hrs
studying

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

NSSE results
Percentage 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

NSSE Time
On
Task

Student High
faculty Academic
Interaction Challenge

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2007). Trends in Higher Education:
Volume 1 – Enrolment. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved on March 13, 2009 from
http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/trends_2007_vol1_e.pdf

What Else Do We Know?

http://www.decliningbydegrees.org/

The most
“shocking”
discovery is the
“non-aggression
pact” between
instructors and
students.


http://www.ivorytowerblues.com/

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.

Grade Inflation

http://gradeinflation.com/

Source: Canadian Council on Learning. Survey of Canadian Attitudes towards Learning, 2006

Do today’s students care about learning?

Schools today are
beset by a new
generation of
learners whose
skills and
expectations derive
from growing up on
the net.

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

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0506/rs/ers0506w.pdf

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.

Two Key Points
• Introducing
technology alone is
never enough.
• Big gains in learning
come when new
technologies are
combined with new
ways of teaching.

Keeping
pedagogy
ahead of
technology
is an
ongoing
struggle.

This is especially true in education!

What should
we expect
our students
to learn in
the 21 st

Century?

“Lecturing still
absorbs more than
half to two thirds of
various departments’
teaching practices…
These traditional
forms of teaching
seem to have been
relatively untouched
by the enormous
investment in
technologies.”

Traditional Learning Domains

• Cognitive

• Affective

• Psychomotor

Psychomotor
Domain Non-discursive
Communication

Skilled Movements

Physical Activities

Perceptual Skills

Basic Fundamental Movement

Reflex Movement

Affective
Domain

Characterization
by Value Set

Organization

Valuing

Responding

Receiving

Cognitive
Domain What
Evaluation we
say
Synthesis
we
value
Analysis

What Application
we
teach Comprehension
and
test Knowledge

Let’s face it.

Assessment
drives
learning.

If it hasn’t
been
assessed,
it hasn’t
been
learned.

Unfortunately,
we have all
too often
neglected
the
conative
domain.

History of the Conative Domain

Orexis: (Greek)
Striving; desire;
the conative
aspect of mind

Conative Domain
• Will
• Desire
• Level of effort
• Drive
• Striving
• Mental energy
• Self-determination
• Intention

Cognitive – Affective – Conative
• To know • To feel • To act
• Thinking • Feeling • Willing
• Thought • Emotion • Volition
• Epistemology • Esthetics • Ethics
• Knowing • Caring • Doing

Assistant Professor
Wayne State University, USA
mkbarbour@gmail.com
http://www.michaelbarbour.com

Millennial Students: Myths vs Realities

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Millennial Students: Myths vs Realities

Similar to Millennial Students: Myths vs Realities (20)

More from Michael Barbour

More from Michael Barbour (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Millennial Students: Myths vs Realities