This document discusses factors that affect 21st century students' learning and implications for educators. It examines how students today have grown up in a different environment than past generations due to technology, war, economic struggles, and heightened anxiety. Their ethics and morality have changed as success is now achieved by any means necessary. Media and technology consume students' lives and attention, making it harder for teachers to engage them. However, simulations and video games could update teaching methods and motivate students by relating lessons to their interests. The document suggests ways for educators to adapt their approaches to better understand and teach today's students.

1. The Twenty-First Century Student:
A Study of Various Factors that Affect the Learning of This Generation of Students,
and Implications for the Twenty-First Century Educator
Daniel Palmer
Western New England University
In completion as a partial requirement for an independent study conducted by Dr.
Carol Samuelson

2. Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Ethics and Morality 4
Media and Technology 8
Role/Involvement of Parents 14
Conflict Resolution 18
Self Preservation 23
Motivation 27
Responsibility and
Independence
32
Standardized Testing 37
Suggestions for Teachers to
Adapt
43
References 52
2

3. Today’s Student Post 9/11
The students of the twenty-first century differ greatly from the students of past
generations. They live lives that are overtaken by many forms of technology. Due to the
advancement of technology and other significant factors, today’s students have grown up
in a very different time; a time of war, economic struggle and instability, emotional
vulnerability, heightened anxiety and stress. With all of these environmental factors
affecting the development of today’s students, teachers now have a harder time dealing
with students’ academic honesty, attention during class, and motivation to do their work.
Thought processes and behaviors have changed, priorities have adapted, and success is to
be achieved by any means necessary. This mentality, and the corresponding actions made
by the American government for the past decade and a half has had an obvious affect on
students’ ability to resolve a diverse range of conflicts. Today’s media and technology are
becoming apparent issues in the school systems, especially regarding students’ morality
and ethical behaviors. The media also has a huge role in this generation’s self-esteem
regarding one’s own image and self-preservation. Students of this generation are not
motivated for the same reasons that past generations’ students have been motivated for;
there are a few reasons this could be. One could look at the parents to see their role and
involvement in their student’s educational life. One could turn to the role standardized
testing plays to observe how these high-stakes tests help or hinder the student’s
educational life. One could focus on the students themselves and examine how
responsible they are with the independence they increasingly receive as they get older.
3

4. Ethics and Morality
The moral and ethical choices the students of today make vary greatly from the
moral and ethical choices made by past students, even just a generation ago. The students
of today do not seem to see anything wrong with lying to get ahead, and cheating to
ensure success. However when we live in a world where we are taught that everything is
a competition, would one really expect anything different? “Egoism has replaced
idealism for many college students” (Levy & Rakovski, 2006). The convenience and easy
use of technologies and media is also a very major role in the new generations’ view of
ethical conduct. In this day and age, it is incredibly easy to research whatever question or
query one may have traversing their mind on their cell phones or computers. It seems that
people want the younger generation to have access to as many resources as they can, but
when students use these resources that have been given to them they are accused of
cheating or chastised by adults who never had the privilege to use these resources, and
never had the opportunity to experience the power of these research tools.
About two generations ago began the push for everyone to go to college, but
before that only a handful of young adults would even have the opportunity to attend an
institute of higher education. Today however, there is so much pressure put on students to
not only complete their basic education, which is considered to be elementary school
through high school, but also to complete higher education as well, which is considered
to be college and beyond. With all of this pressure and curriculums becoming more and
more intense, it should be no surprise that the morals and ethical decisions students make,
educationally speaking, are changing. “I would be willing to cheat on a test if it would
help me get into college” (Gomez, 2001). Even though policies on academic honesty
4

5. have not changed, if anything have become more stringent, students would still be willing
to cheat if it would help them achieve their end goal. Many students who are caught
cheating have justifications as to why they thought it was reasonable to cheat. “Among
justifications cited are irrelevance of content to individual needs, fear of losing
scholarship funding, and desire to maintain a high grade point average” (Nelson, Nelson
& Tichenor, 2013). It seems as though students have prioritized succeeding above
academic honesty. Students may find some of the courses that colleges require in order to
graduate irrelevant because the course has nothing to do with the student’s major. In that
respect, the student would rather focus their time and mental capacity on the courses that
are relevant to their major. Scholarship funding is immensely important particularly to
the students of today since the cost of higher education these days is ridiculously
expensive. Most of today’s students rely on their scholarship in order to continue their
schooling. Most scholarships are based off the student’s grade point average, so when
faced with the decision to cheat to keep their grade point average up or lose their
scholarship, it is no surprise that students will choose dishonesty and be perfectly content
with their decision.
Many psychologists believe that there has been too much pressure on the students
to succeed, and not enough examples of ethical behavior leading the way to success. “It is
clear that higher education must give student exposure to ethics a greater priority,
beginning with ethical decision making in students’ lives in their academic communities”
(Smyth, Davis & Kroncke, 2009). In Students’ Perceptions of Business Ethics: Using
Cheating as a Surrogate for Business Situations, Smyth and colleagues are worried about
today’s students who cheat in college today using the same unethical behavior in the
5

6. business world when they join the workforce. The authors did notice that the younger
underclassmen, being freshman and especially sophomores, cheat more than their
upperclassmen, being juniors and seniors, or graduate student counterparts. Nevertheless,
on average half of the upperclassmen and graduate students had still admitted to cheating
at least once in college.
After reviewing a number of studies, the data is consistent throughout several of
the studies, observing that about 50% of college students have admitted to cheating at
least once in college. Regardless of the extensive cheating acknowledged, 90% of the
students reported fear of punishment if caught cheating (Grimes, 2002; Smyth & Davis,
2004; Smyth et al., 2009; Graham, 1994). Behavior analysts would interpret this data and
proclaim that the punishment for cheating is not putting an end to cheating, but rather
reinforcing the students to not get caught in the act of cheating. With that being said,
maybe there is not enough reinforcement for students to organically create their own
ideas and only reinforcement to get the assignment, exam, project, etc. done by any
means necessary.
Smyth, Davis, and Kroncke believe that “There must be efforts made to expose
students to the problems of unethical behavior, consequences of making unethical
decisions, and long-run impact that unethical attitudes can have in the global economy
and on society as a whole” (Smyth et al., 2009). While the immediate consequences of
making unethical decisions within the students’ environment are made known to the
students, the problems of unethical behavior outside their collegiate environment, and the
long-run impact that unethical attitudes can have on a societal and global scale are not
made known. If the integrity of students’ ethical behavior is to be developed these aspects
6

7. of ethics and the outcomes of unethical behavior should be taught, but behavior analysts
would not think it wise to use scare tactics to do so, like how the immediate
consequences of unethical behavior has been taught in the past. As the data shows,
scaring the students does not stop them from cheating; it only stops them from being
caught.
In addition to the further explanation of the ramifications of unethical behavior,
further specifications of what is considered cheating may be in order. Understanding
Today’s Students Academic Dishonesty discusses that after conducting their study they
are unsure if the students’ understanding of what constitutes academic misconduct
correlates with what academicians considers academic misconduct. “Is unauthorized
discussion about tests or quizzes considered cheating? If it is not explicitly stated to
refrain from such activity, is discussion considered authorized?” (Nelson et al., 2013).
They also suggest revisiting the definition of academic honesty and possibly revising it to
fit today’s student. It is known that students learn from textbooks and materials, they
learn better when taught the information by an educator, but the information is absorbed
best when taught by or discussed with another student. Discussion regarding tests,
quizzes, homework, and the like should not be considered dishonesty. If that was the case
technically study groups should be banned. It is understood that sharing the answers to
tests, quizzes, homework and the like is academic dishonesty, however when it is also
understood that today’s student will take advantage of the opportunities to succeed that
are provided to them, it is up to the educator to distribute different assignments,
especially tests and quizzes, to different classes. “It is the responsibility of the faculty to
clearly state guidelines for ethical student behavior and to consistently enforce the
7

8. standards that are set forth” (Nelson et al., 2013). Usually teachers will go over the
academic honesty policy for their institution once in the beginning of the course, and then
never revisit them again unless there was an instance of dishonesty. Consistency is key
for learning. Reminding students of the entire policy every time and assignment or test is
given is not necessary nor recommended, since students will eventually tune out the spiel.
However, going over the section of the policy that has to do with the activity that day is a
good reinforcer for the students. So before a test, it is imperative that teachers briefly, but
firmly remind the students that discussing answers is not allowed. Another instance
where a reminder is suggested is before handing out the homework, simply remind the
students that the assignment is to be done individually. Some form of reminder along
those lines is suggested for teachers, just to remind the students of the rules and to let
them know that as the educator you will be taking notice of the honesty put forth in the
assignment, test, or what have you.
The fault of today’s students’ unethical behaviors should not solely lie on the
shoulders of the student; educators and faculty share in some of the blame. Between
everything students see in the media, to simply not understanding the full ramifications of
unethical and immoral behaviors, something needs to be done by the teachers and
administrators alongside the students to come to a consensus of what acceptable versus
unacceptable behavior.
Media/Technology
Today, the media surrounds literally every component of the average individual’s
life. From computers, to cell phones, to tablets, even refrigerators have touch screen TV’s
nowadays. With all of these various ways to keep oneself in the loop and entertained, the
8

9. job of a teacher is getting harder and harder. Now teachers have to compete against the
media for the attention of their students. Not only is it a competition for the attention of
their students, but also for the academic honesty, and time of their students. Now that cell
phones have become such a powerful resource for research it is incredibly easy to just
cheat and look up answers for an exam, and do something else more entertaining during
the time they would be studying or paying attention in class. “Although they understand
and utilize the internet as a place for productive work and research, students – like many
of us – also go online to step away from responsibilities, relax, and play” (Workman,
2008). One problem is that more often that not students are now using the internet or
various other media resources to escape responsibilities and relax rather than utilizing the
resources for work and research. This is not to say that students do not make use of the
internet for academic use, students have become commendable researchers with the aid
of the Internet and the various forms of technology they have at their fingertips. The
internet is especially useful for individuals who cannot socialize or complete research like
more able-bodied individuals can. For example, the internet allows “…medically ill
children to remain in contact, connect with others, and access information about their
illnesses even when most social interactions would be limited because of hospitalization
(Battles & Wiener, 2002; Bush, Huchital, & Simonian, 2002). The problem is not with
these individuals, however. The problem lies within the amazing capabilities of these
technologies students have ascertained, and the new ways of cheating that have come
along with those technologies.
Since students have become so exemplary with their technologies, the big issue is
keeping their academic honesty in check. Some psychologists do not believe that the
9

10. dishonesty of today’s students is their fault. “…99% of students consider themselves to
be either very honest or honest…” (Levy et al., 2006). These psychologists believe that
educators should not be surprised by not only the dishonesty of the students, but their
notion that they are not being dishonest. Today’s students have grown up seeing
dishonesty in many areas of life and have now come to believe that some types of
dishonesty are reasonable in order to succeed. “Financial actions such as ponzi schemes,
insider trading, and officials using the resources and authority of their offices
inappropriately are examples of improprieties that are all too often reported in the news”
(Nelson et al., 2013). While the students comprehend that these schemes and unethical
actions that they see in the media are not acceptable, rarely do they see anybody being
commended for their ethical and acceptable actions. So the question is, how are today’s
students supposed to know how to behave when they have no real life role models who
behave in an acceptable manner in the media?
One way to transform the thoughts and notions about ethical behaviors of today’s
student is to update the way they are taught. Part of the appeal of the people in the media
is that they are taking advantage of the newest technologies that are out. While schools
obviously cannot afford the newest and best technologies, they can do better than paper
and pencil in 2013. To help students understand the difference between utilizing the
technologies of today versus taking advantage of the technologies of today, students
should be taught with updated materials, such as virtual video game simulations.
Most students find homework assignments boring and monotonous. This is not a
new breakthrough; homework has had this reputation for the entirety of its existence.
Unfortunately, homework assignments are key in the learning process. Repetition is the
10

11. name of the game, and homework is the tool used to play. Teachers understand that
students learn best when the material is put in a context the students can relate to. Video
games have revolutionized homework assignments, making students want to do their
homework, which is unheard of. “Recently, the first video game [has been] developed to
support cognitive–behavioral therapy by offering attractive electronic homework
assignments…” (Brezinka, 2007, 2008). Creating assignments that are attractive to
students is an essential step to molding individuals that love whatever career they choose,
and individuals that love to be productive. The common expression comes to mind, ‘If
you love what you do, you never work a day in your life’. This mentality is constructed
early in an individual’s life. One does not go his or her entire educational career loathing
the curricula and then one day find an actual career they want to work extra hard at. That
ethic and mentality to desire to be industrious comes from good teachers that taught that
student’s curriculum in a way the student easily understood, and in a way that left the
student yearning for more.
Not only could video games and simulations be used for the everyday student, in
reality they are more often used for clinically ill patients or students with disabilities of
one kind or another. “Games to enhance social skills training for children with
developmental disorders also exist” (Mineo, Ziegler, Gill & Salkin, 2009). Using an
‘avatar’, which is basically a virtual person, the individual can play this video game and
learn appropriate communication methods. “Through interactions with the virtual
environment, the player may rehearse learned social and problem-solving skills”
(Ceranoglu, 2010). This is especially marvelous for learning social skills because
students can practice their skills without the negative effects of embarrassment and
11

12. humiliation. Practicing social skills to begin with was a very difficult task to achieve, but
practicing social skills without embarrassment and humiliation as a consequence of
failure was basically unheard of. This tool is also amazing for teaching students problem-
solving skills. Instead of the typical paragraph on paper explaining a problem Sally has
with a chipmunk stealing her apples and trying to imagine how many apples she has left,
now students can see, hear, and virtually engage themselves in the problem. By
stimulating multiple senses, a student can more effectively internalize the problem and
come to a solution more efficiently.
Video games also help in the context of psychotherapy. “Reports concurred that a
therapeutic relationship emerged more quickly when video games were used, in contrast
with traditional therapy with children” (Ceranoglu, 2010). Video games allow
psychotherapists to more easily observe various skills their patient has since the patient
does not have to build trust with the therapist before unveiling the deficiencies in their
skill sets. Therapists can then use that information to modify behavior or reinforce skills
that the individual needs to work on. The therapist can evaluate an array of skills,
including “…cognitive skills (visuospatial skills, executive functions, etc.), frustration
tolerance, and affective regulation of a child during video game play” (Ceranoglu, 2010).
Video games also aid in reducing white coat hypertension (aka white coat syndrome),
which physically is simply when an individual’s blood pressure rises when they see a
doctor (Cicetti, 2012). However, psychologically can mean withholding certain
information from the doctor, or therapist in this case, giving answers according to what
the individual believes the therapist wants to hear, or reluctance to build therapist-patient
trust. Video games help reduce this syndrome because the patient can somewhat
12

13. unknowingly display their various skills and deficiencies engaging in an activity that they
feel comfortable doing, instead of prying questions from the therapist.
Video games have made quite the impression on the medical field as well. With
the complexity and quality of technology advancing exponentially, individuals training in
the medical field are making great use of video games. “It has gone from a focus on
learning with cadavers and mannequins to the use of computer-generated 3-D interactive
software to teach technical skills in medicine” (Kato, 2010). Before the medical
profession made use of video games, training for medical students could be hindered
because the lack of cadavers. Sure, they could use mannequins that have been modified
with plastic organ pieces, but that is but a small improvement from the household board
game “Operation”. With today’s technology, students can practice on a three-dimension
diagram and make as many mistakes as necessary until they get it right. If a student made
a mistake with a real organ or cadaver, chances are they would have needed to get a new
organ or cadaver. As well as practicing with these video games, medical students can
now have an enlarged three-dimensional view of a strand of virus, or bacteria. This has
never been able to be accomplished before the use of computers and video games.
The medical profession has found many ways to make use of this technology for
both patients and practitioners. For patients, they have found that video games have
positive effects for reducing nausea in pediatric cancer, managing anxiety, managing
burn pain via distraction, dealing with asthma, dealing with diabetes, managing bladder
and bowel dysfunction, dealing with remission in pediatric cancer patients, as well as
physical therapy and physical fitness. For practitioners, they use video games to practice
surgical skills, learn how to properly care for cancer patients, learn about breast health,
13

14. and various simulations, specifically for burn center practitioners (see Kato, 2010 for
more detail on all of these uses).
There are so many various forms of media and technology in this day and age.
Since it is still so new, there are negative side effects that still must be dealt with, such as
keeping students academically honest. However, by revolutionizing the medical practice,
transforming therapy sessions, and updating the traditional educational system, there are
just too many positive effects technology brings to the table to deny its daily use. Instead
of penalizing students for using their new technologies to their advantage, learn from the
students.
Role/Involvement of Parents
Previous generations had the issue of a lack of parental involvement. After years
of programs, informational assemblies, scare tactics, and badgering; some parents are
now too involved with their student’s educational life. This is not to say that parental
involvement is a bad thing; “Parental involvement boosts a child's perceived level of
competence and autonomy, offers a sense of security and connectedness, and helps to
internalize the value of an education and performance” (Young, Austin & Growe, 2013).
Parental involvement is actually one of the most, if not the most influential aspect of a
student’s educational experience. With that being said, it does not take much deviation in
either direction (lack of parental involvement or too much parental involvement) to
negatively affect a student’s educational experience. Two terms psychologists use to
describe the overwhelming involvement of today’s parents are helicopter parenting, and
steamroller parenting.
A parent is known as a helicopter parent if they “hover” over their student, paying
14

15. extremely close attention to their student’s experiences and dilemmas, never letting their
student grow by letting them solve their own problems (Larson, 2013). Being involved
and helping out with any experience or issue one’s child may have is not a problem, it is
definitely encouraged. But being so overwhelmingly involved to the point where the
child no longer has privacy, is the problem. This creates anxiety in the student, and
animosity towards the parent.
Similarly, a parent is known as a steamroller parent if they are super controlling,
insensitive to the feelings of others, and always have to be right and have their way
(Larson, 2013). This kind of parent really only cares about the success of their student,
not the wants or needs of their student, or anybody else’s student for that matter. Children
with steamroller parents tend to view them less as parents, and more like dictators. These
kinds of parents do not prepare their child for the real world. Rather, they hinder their
success in the real world. This is because the parent creates a kind of dependency that the
child is roped into that makes the child dependent on other people solving their problems.
“Dependence does not help the children learn responsibility…Children who grow and
develop along with independence become more responsible adults. A child, who has been
given independence, will be more ready to accept responsibility” (Barsade, 2000). That is
why it is important to let one’s student be responsible for his or her own actions, and not
do things for them every step of the way through their education. That is not to say let
one’s child fend for his or herself. It is the thin line between prompting the student’s
mind to come to the answer he or she learned in school, versus just straight up telling the
student the answer. By guiding the student’s mind in the right direction towards
producing the answer, and not telling the student the answer, the student is being taught
15

16. to think for himself or herself and not rely on someone to complete their work for them.
This, in turn, develops into responsibility in the students, and is the correct way to be
involved as a parent without being overly involved or abrasive.
Both types of parents cause problems for their students once they mature and
enter the real world. On the other hand, some parents are not involved enough in their
student’s education, which also causes problems in both the short-term and long-term for
the student. This could be due to the lack of parental involvement when they were
students, or the lack of a clear definition of what decent parental involvement entails.
Some other specific reason Young, Austin, and Growe have found for the lack of parental
involvement include: “parents not knowing how to help a child academically; lack of
encouragement from the teachers; parents are only contacted when something is wrong;
and teacher treatment of parents” (Young et al., 2013). A parent not knowing how to help
their child academically is unfortunately typical of ethnic-minority families, language-
minority families, as well as low resource families. Since the parents in these types of
families did not have the opportunity to experience an education like their child is now
experiencing, it is difficult for them to follow along with what their student is learning,
let alone help them through any questions their student might have. However not all
faults should be laid upon the shoulders of the parents, the teachers of the student and the
administrators of the establishment the student attends have a lot to do with the lack of
parental involvement as well. Teachers need to encourage the parents to be involved in
their student’s education. Yes, this is a big responsibility for the teachers, because now
the teachers are not only teaching the students the curriculum, but they are also teaching
the parents how to be an involved parent. However this is a necessary step in order to see
16

17. maximal progress in the student’s education.
Another big issue that parents face is that usually they are only contacted when
something is wrong. When teachers or administrators only contact the parents when
something is wrong, that fabricates a negative image in the parent’s mind of not only the
educational establishment in which their student attends, but also a negative image of
their student. Teachers should contact parents on a regular basis as to avoid the
fabrication of a negative image, and to avoid the negative influence of the parents on their
student. It is understood that contacting hundreds of parents is extremely labor intensive
for the educator, but administrators and secretaries can share this burden. Contacting on a
regular basis could mean daily, weekly, or monthly contact, depending on the severity of
the student’s needs. Since contact is mostly for the students who need extra attention and
assistance, parents of the students who are doing well could be sent a universal update
rather than a personalized update. Another influential factor of parental involvement is
how the teacher treats the parents. If the teacher talks to the parents in a demeaning
manner, then the parent is going to avoid contact with that teacher. This unfortunately
also means avoiding involvement in any assignments the teacher may assign to their
student. On the other hand, if a teacher treats the parents with respect and helps them
understand what is being taught to their student and how to be involved in their student’s
education, then parents will want to help their child however they can. Studies show that
when parents, teachers, and administrators work cooperatively, parental involvement in
the child’s education increases. It is necessary to have all three components; parents,
teachers, and administrators; in order for maximal parental involvement. The task of
motivating the parents to become more involved cannot be left solely up to the teacher, or
17

18. an administrator, and cannot be simply expected from a parent who has never dealt with
aiding the education of their child.
Parenting is by no means an easy task. There are a lot of ways a parent could mess
up, especially regarding their child’s education. A parent cannot be too involved, like that
of a “steamroller” or “helicopter” parent, nor can they be too uninvolved. Parents need to
learn that line between the too that is just right, and work with their child’s teachers and
administrators to maximize their child’s education.
Conflict Resolution
Conflict resolution is an incredibly useful and necessary life-long skill that this
generation’s students seem to lack. After being raised in a time of war, surviving various
terrorists attacks on our own homeland, and seeing how our government has reacted to all
of this, the new generation seems to think there are only two options when it comes to
resolving conflict. One can either face conflict and fight for what they believe in, or run
from conflict to possibly face it another day. Few think about peacefully, thoughtfully,
and logically approaching conflict with the intention to actually compromise and resolve
conflict. “…one in 10 students report having been threatened or injured on school
property…” (Simon, Barrios, Lowry, Eaton, & Brener, 2004). This ratio has only grown
since 2004 since very little is being done about the issue of bullying or how this
generation deals with conflict. This generation has been taught to stand up for themselves
and not let people walk all over you. Often times that virtue that has been instilled
manifests itself in an extreme manner, whether it be aggressive actions or arguments.
Students are taught to stand up for themselves, but the same people teaching them this
principle fail to teach the students the appropriate manner in which to stand up for one’s
18

19. self. Now it seems that more students of today are confrontational in ways that do not
solve anything, but more often exacerbate the situation. These teachings are very
apparent when it comes to authoritarian figures. If the authoritarian figure does
something that does not please the people, that figure will most certainly be hearing it
from the people.
An interesting study conducted by Cary J. Roseth, Anthony D. Pellegrini,
Danielle N. Dupuis, Catherine M. Bohn, Meghan C. Hickey, Caroline L. Hilk and Annie
Peshkam goes back to the origins of this generations’ confrontational ways by observing
pre-schooler’s conflict resolution skills. Roseth and colleagues claim that one of the main
reasons this generation seems to be lacking sufficient conflict resolution skills is because
“…teacher intervention may disrupt the conflict-peacemaking cycle, and so doing
preclude preschoolers’ development of constructive conflict relationships” (Roseth,
Pellegrini, Dupuis, Bohn, Hickey, Hilk & Peshkam, 2008). They say that by intervening
in the full conflict-peacemaking process, which includes reconciliation, the full cycle
does not have the opportunity to occur, thus halting the process during the conflict and
leaving “unfinished business”, per say, between the individuals that were in conflict. The
findings of this study actually show that aggression increases when a teacher intervenes
too much; “Results confirmed…that classrooms high in preschoolers’ aggressive
competition also [are] high in teacher intervention” (Roseth et al., 2008). This could be
because the students know that at a point the teacher will intervene, so they need to
expedite the process by engaging the individual physically. By halting the process the
individuals in conflict will continue to be in conflict until a “…mutually satisfactory
outcome — as opposed to a teacher-imposed outcome — is realized” (Roseth et al.,
19

20. 2008). Imposing an outcome for the individuals in conflict, such as punishing them, does
not let them reconcile and come to an outcome themselves, thus taking away the
opportunity for those individuals to learn the skill of reconciliation. Those individuals
then only learn to remain in conflict until someone else stops the conflict, and no one is
going to do that for them once they become adults. However, even though “…results
show that reconciliation is likely with or without teacher intervention” (Roseth et al.,
2008), and that reconciliation is innately a part of the conflict process due to evolution
(Aureli et al., 2002), behavior analysts would argue that an example of proper
reconciliation must still be publicized for the individuals in conflict. Teacher intervention
that is exercised in order to provide an example of proper reconciliation is encouraged,
but not every time. If a teacher intervenes every time a conflict breaks out to show proper
reconciliation, then the individuals will still learn to wait for someone to stop the conflict.
“Preschoolers were more likely to separate after teacher intervention but, once separated,
were also more likely to reconcile and re-establish friendly affiliation” (Roseth et al.,
2008). Separate is not synonymous with punishment, such as a “time-out”. Separating
means out of earshot and eyesight so the individual cannot reignite the conflict again
once separated. In addition to teaching reconciliation, emotional control and proper ways
to calm down must be taught as well. These skills are important to develop for that time
when the individuals are separated.
The lack of proper conflict resolution skills does not only exist within the pre-
schools, however. It has long been present, but denied in the graduate school environment
as well. Julie L. Brockman, Antonio A. Nunez and Archana Basu explain that the reason
conflict has been denied in the past is because faculty at graduate programs do not see
20

21. conflict manifesting itself since students often turn to avoidance as a means of escaping
the conflict. Students turn to avoidance so often because they perceive the faculty as the
“gatekeepers” of the disciplines, creating a power gap (Brockman, Nunez & Basu, 2010).
This causes a problem because now not only is the faculty unaware or simply deny that
they are causing conflict, but the students are “…largely unaware that options other than
confrontation, avoidance, or accommodation exist” (Brockman et al., 2010). Both
students and faculty go on engaging in unhealthy relationships because neither party
knows proper conflict resolution.
Confrontation is usually the least utilized strategy in terms of the ways to resolve
conflict students know about. This approach is usually the least utilized because of the
tremendous power students perceive their teachers to wield. Students believe that if they
are to confront a faculty during conflict they will undoubtedly lose. What students do not
understand is that confronting the conflict does not have to be abrasive to either party,
and can be done in a civilized manner. This lack of confrontation usually leaves the
faculty in the dark about conflict.
Students seem to actively avoid conflict, using avoidance as a preventative
strategy as well as a way to handle conflict once it has already transpired. This method
hurts the student-faculty relationship, creating a larger gap between the two parties. This
gap affects the teachers since they cannot truly know their students. Knowing the students
is incredibly important for a teacher because then the teacher can use various education
tactics and techniques for maximal student learning. This affects students since they are
not receiving the best education that they could potentially be receiving.
The last method of the three options of resolving conflict students know about is
21

22. accommodation. This is when students simply give in to whatever the teacher or faculty
wants them to do. Besides “…accommodation [being] the path of least resistance”
(Brockman et al., 2010), students will usually do what the teacher says because they
perceive the teacher to be omnipotent and omniscient. Students believe that if the teacher
tells them something as fact or tells them to do something they should just do it and
believe it, no questions asked. As one student said during Brockman, Nunez & Basu’s
study regarding accommodation “I just decided that he’s probably right, so I’m just not
going to argue with him” (Brockman et al., 2010). This comes from a long line of
education that taught the students to obey and believe one’s elders and authority figures.
These virtues are correct in some contexts, but not in all.
One method that was suggested to the students in the study was getting support
from others. If something sounds wrong with what the teacher claims or what the teacher
tells students to do then ask another faculty member, or several faculty members about it.
One student in the study commented, “...see what the other people think and get as many
opinions as possible...because one person might not come up with the best idea, but more
people’s opinions will give you a better resolution” (Brockman et al., 2010). The more
information one can gather, the more knowledgeable that individual will be, and then the
better off that individual will be when it comes to making a decision regarding resolving
conflict.
Resolving conflict is one skill this generation seriously lacks. It is not an easy
skill to obtain, but somehow somewhere along the way, educating children in resolving
conflict has been lost. The necessary lifelong skill of conflict resolution needs to be
taught and developed from a young age, and progressively honed as the child advances
22

23. through his or her educational career.
Self Preservation
One’s appearance and image has always been important and thoroughly
contemplated, however the media of today has brought one’s image under the spotlight
for scrutiny in a whole new way. Now that the appearance of celebrities is broadcasted
across the world people think that’s how one needs to dress or look to fit in. While this
phenomenon was present in past generations, the low self-esteem of this generation was
not. The combination of the two now makes image very important, because where there
are people who have low self-esteem there are bullies, and nobody wants to get ridiculed
or bullied. Students of today are much more concerned about what is cool or what the
new fashion fad is rather than learning algebra. This is not a fault of the teachers, but it is
a tough obstacle that teachers must either overcome or adapt to.
Especially in the youth of students, when individuals are much more vulnerable,
one’s self-image and the preservation of that image takes precedent over school. Meaning
that if a student is in class with a bully who usually picks on the student, the student is
going to be less concerned with the lesson that day and more concerned about what is
going to happen to him or her after class. It is not always a bully that affect learning
however, cliques or ‘the cool crowd’ affects learning as well. If a student is in class and is
seen as not cool by his or her peers, the student will most likely be less concerned with
the lesson and more concerned wondering if the cool kids are making fun of him or her.
Besides bullying or anxiety caused by being out of the in-crowd, there is another
phenomenon that students utilize to protect their self-esteem and self-image. This
phenomenon is known as self-handicapping. It is not a new occurrence, students have
23

24. been self-handicapping for decades, but the rate of self-handicapping has not decreased
any. Self-handicapping is defined as "An attributional strategy for protecting one's self-
esteem by calling attention to the existence of external causes for potential failure"
(Pillow, colfa.utsa.edu). In essence self-handicapping is when a student blames an
external variable for work they produce that may be seen as insufficient by their teacher
or classmates as to avoid demeaning the student’s self-image, specifically the student’s
intelligence, ability, or work ethic. Examples of self-handicapping could range from, ‘My
dog was barking all night so I had trouble concentrating when I was doing my
homework’, to, ‘I do not have a good browser on my computer so I could not find any
good information for my paper’; both examples end with something along the lines of
‘This is not my best work’. Students employ self-handicapping when faced with
unexpected or incomprehensible success, when anxiety is high, and when there is a high
level of task importance (Pillow, colfa.utsa.edu). Self-handicapping is a one-way
occurrence though, meaning that students only self-handicap to protect themselves rather
than enhancing their image. After a study conducted at the University of Utah, Frederick
Rhodewalt, Carolyn Morf, Susan Hazlett, and Marita Fairfield found that students use
self-handicapping “…in a self-protective manner after failure (discount) but will not use
their handicaps in a self-enhancing fashion after success (augment)” (Rhodewalt, Morf,
Hazlett & Fairfield, 1991). Even though there is significantly less research done about
self-handicapping and self-esteem, this shows that students self-handicap when they are
not confident in the work they have produced. Even though self-handicapping may not be
utilized as a measure of self-enhancement, that does not mean that students do not try to
use techniques to enhance their image or abilities. Interestingly, Rhodewalt and
24

25. colleagues discovered a contrast when they studied individuals with high self-esteem
versus individuals with low self-esteem. They noticed that students with high self-esteem
did not embrace the opportunities to utilize self-handicapping as much as the students
who had low self-esteem did. The students with high self-esteem embraced the
opportunities to self-enhance rather than self-protect.
Rhodewalt and colleagues noticed that people with high self-esteem “…will take
risks to claim desirable traits” (Rhodewalt et al., 1991). In contrast, people with low self-
esteem “…are characterized as a cautious, self-protective style of self-presentation…
[that]…like to maintain a positive self-view but are eager to avoid humiliation or
embarrassment” (Rhodewalt et al., 1991). Rhodewalt and colleagues basically observe
that people with high self-esteem gamble embarrassment and humiliation in order to
represent themselves the way they want to be characterized, while people with low self-
esteem keep their guard up against embarrassment and humiliation in order to represent
themselves the way they want to be characterized. Thus far this data has been in context
of self-handicapping, however there are different ways an individual can protect one’s
self-image.
Another technique of self-preservation is called defensive pessimism, and is
defined as “…steeling themselves for failure and by setting lower and safer standards
against which to be judged” (Martin, Marsh & Debus, 2001). Individuals that employ
defensive pessimism reflect upon their trepidations of failure and set lower, more easily
achievable goals for themselves. This process, in turn, leaves the individuals feeling more
commanding of their situation and relieves some of the apprehension of their possible
failure. What is interesting is that, contrary to self-handicapping, where individuals will
25

26. purposely not practice or not put effort in so they have an excuse why they did not
perform well; performance is often subsequently unimpaired with the increase in effort
that accompanies defensive pessimism (Norem & Cantor, 1986). In a way, defensive
pessimism is an internal method of dealing with the anxiety caused by external stimuli, in
this case performance assessments of one variety or another, by making the stimuli less
complicated and less difficult to overcome. However even though this method reduces
the individual’s anxiety and creates more reachable goals, it is the anxiety of failure that
makes these individuals perform well. “When participants' defensive expectations were
disrupted (by encouraging them to be optimistic), there was a significant decline in their
performance” (Martin et al., 2001). Even though this technique lets individuals be more
in control of their situation, this technique is actually incredibly unhealthy. People that
use this method are consistently anxious and fearful of failure, and that is what drives
their success. Plenty of studies have been conducted regarding the ramifications anxiety
and general pessimism has on an individual’s short-term and long-term health, both
mentally and physically. Julie Norem and Nancy Cantor conducted a three-year
longitudinal study on defensively expectant students (students that would expect failure).
Norem and Cantor observed that, compared to optimists, not only did defensively
expectant students have lower grade-point averages, but they reported “…experiencing
more global life stress, more psychological symptoms, and less satisfaction with their
lives” (Norem et al., 1990). The difference between students who breakdown their
situation in order to prepare for it, is that those students think about failure in order to
prepare themselves just in case, organize themselves accordingly, but expect success.
Students who are defensive pessimists expect failure from the beginning, even though
26

27. they usually succeed. “It is not negative thinking that leads to poor performance…it is
when negative expectations are formed that performance suffers” (Goodhart, 1986).
Defensive pessimists continually overhype failure to the point that they are terrified of
failure. They do this to themselves due to the method of preparation they utilize. The
problem beyond the consequences on their health is what happens when defensive
pessimists actually do fail. When they expect failure and then fail they create a kind of
hopelessness in themselves that affects future assessments or work both in school and in
the workplace. Defensive pessimists create a self-fulfilling prophecy for themselves that
they cannot escape after years of building the prophecy and their mentality up.
This generation is very concerned with their self-image, and the preservation of
that image. However with bullying at the worst its ever been, and media manipulating the
perception of what people should be like versus accepting an individual for who they are,
students are having difficulty finding their own image. More needs to be done throughout
the educational system in teaching students proper self-preservation, and self-acceptance.
Motivation
In the twenty-first century everybody wants the fastest, most efficient, quick and
easy everything. Everything from the fastest computer, or the most efficient car, the
quickest cell phone, or the easiest meal to make. People in this generation missed out on
learning the virtue of patience. People have been told over and over to keep their eyes on
the prize, to the point where now people have their eyes solely on the prize and do not
think about the steps it takes to get there. Students want nothing more than to have a good
job that they are good at, and that pays well; but they are not thinking about the amount
of schooling and the kind of grades they need in order to get that perfect job. That kind of
27

28. underestimation is becoming more and more apparent as colleges and universities
become harder and harder to get into, and jobs once one has completed their higher
education become scarcer.
This generation has been taught since elementary school how to research other
people’s ideas, but there has not been as many teachings regarding formulating one’s
own ideas. So when Crone and MacKay state “Today’s students often ask what to do
before thinking through their own plans” (Crone & MacKay, 2007), its because this
generation has been taught to research and then formulate solutions, not the other way
around. And in a world where everything is exponentially speeding up, motivating a
student to do all that work researching and critically thinking about something they are
not that interested in is going to be a tough task. Every student has heard of the saying
‘learn from your own mistakes’, but when mistakes cost time and effort that the students
of today just do not have, asking what the next step is seems like the best action to keep
moving forward. To today’s student, making your own mistakes and learning from them
does not make nearly as much sense as just asking someone who has already made the
mistake and learned from it, especially when mistakes often lead to unwanted treatment
such as bad grades or getting yelled at. In a way students are using exactly what they
have been taught, to research before taking action.
Looking at the comprehension scores across the disciplines in the United States, it
is not hard to tell that the educational system is way outdated. Something is just not
clicking with today’s students and getting them truly motivated to learn. Sure they are
motivated enough to pass the class, get through high school and schooling, but the goal
of a good teacher should never be to teach a class where the students just want to get
28

29. through the class alive, and preferably with a passing grade. This is troublesome because
the lack of the students’ motivation means lack of the students’ effort, which equals the
low test scores America sees throughout it’s educational system. “It is true that cognitive
ability and knowledge are capacities that depend on the motivation of the individual to be
expressed” (Duckworth, 2009). It is not that each generation after the golden age of
education in the 1950’s are getting less and less intelligent, it is that each generation after
the golden age of education are becoming less and less motivated because the educational
system is becoming less and less fit for the students. Much of America has changed,
except a few programs, one of which is the system in which we educate our future leaders
of the country, company presidents, parents, and so on. One would think that program
would get a little more attention. Today’s students are not motivated to learn. They are
pushed forward by the fear of the negative outcomes that could result in not getting
educated, but not nearly as much by what there is to look forward to. Students go to
school so they will not have to work at McDonalds their whole life, so they do not have
to use food stamps, or on a more local level and more to the point, they go to school so
they will not get punished in some manner. Students are fearful of punishment from all
angles; friends, teachers, parents, principals, and employers. Students do not want to get
made fun by their peers for getting a bad grade, they do not want to fail a course, they do
not want to endure whatever punishment their parents see fit, they do not want to get
kicked out of school for poor grades or being deemed as needing special attention, and
they do not want to lose their job due to lack of education or poor education. The reason
that scaring students into performing well is not a viable way to actually make students
perform well is because fear releases the potent hormone hydrocortisone (aka cortisol),
29

30. which causes stress and anxiety. These powerful emotions caused by cortisol cloud the
mind, and create very uncomfortable environments. That uncomfortable environment
becomes the school setting since the student’s fear and anxiety becomes linked to the
school setting. So instead of turning the school setting into an immediate stress-inducing
establishment, schools should put less focus on what happens if a student makes a
mistake or fails, and more focus on what happens when a student succeeds. That is not to
say the educational system should lessen consequences or not make it obvious as to what
happens if one were to make a mistake or fail, schools should just bring attention to these
facts less often and focus of the good rather than the bad. What psychologists have
noticed is that students surrounded by all of these negative consequences have lower self-
esteem, which only makes them want to achieve less. “Previous research has found that
individuals with low self-esteem respond to negative feedback with decreased
motivation” (Brockner, Derr, & Laing, 1987; Schrauger & Sorman, 1977). If educators
and administrators want to motivate their students, and want their students to want to
succeed, they need to start focusing on the positive aspects of learning from making
mistakes rather than focusing on the negative aspects of making the mistake in the first
place. Students are well aware that making a mistake is a setback and not how one
advances. What this generation is not as aware of, and what has been not nearly taught as
much, is how to see the silver lining. Every mistake or impediment has a silver lining,
and the educational system should be the ones to show students that during the time of
their lives when mistakes should be made rather than learning that value later in life when
mistakes usually worse and are less embraced by all.
The biggest issue with bringing so much attention to a student who makes a
30

31. mistake is that when a student fails, failure directly attacks that student’s self-worth since
failure is an attribution of that student’s ability. “…failure holds implications for students'
self-worth because failure is interpreted as being indicative of low ability, and low ability
is then equated with low self-worth” (Covington 1984, 1992). Individuals are highly
motivated to protect their self-worth. That motivation is something that will be
intrinsically present in an individual, especially the typical self-conscious student,
whether failure is focused on or not. Some teachers believe that students will not be
motivated to succeed if they are not humiliated by their failure, which is complete non-
sense. Students will be motivated to succeed when their success is what brings attention
to them rather than their failure. Bringing attention to one’s failure only creates unhealthy
methods of study and techniques of preparation in that individual, such as self-
handicapping and defensive pessimism. These techniques that spawn from the
humiliation of failure only produce poorly performing individuals who progressively
perform more and more poorly over time.
Schools are starting to positively motivate students by giving them attention in the
way of bestowing awards with high esteem for hard work and good grades, but an award
with such esteem will only motivate so many students. Since there are only a few awards
granted, students know that not every student can get the award, so some believe there is
no point in attempting to receive it. There should be more rewards given to motivate the
majority of students and not just the top five or ten percent of the class; whether that be
other various academic awards, tickets to an event the school is hosting, monetary
compensation in the form of gift cards, or something as simple as candy. Just some kind
of incentive that is available for all of the students to compete for. “…among individuals
31

32. with low IQ scores, performance on IQ tests could be increased up to a full standard
deviation by offering incentives such as money or candy, particularly on group-
administered tests and particularly with individuals at the low-end of the IQ spectrum”
(Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, ter Weel, 2008). While this may sound a little
materialistic, at the end of the day the student will remember the hard work he or she put
into the goal of winning the incentive, and the amusement he or she had as a result of
their hard work. This teaches the student delayed gratification, and that hard work pays
off.
Motivating students to succeed sounds like it should be common sense, after all
who does not want to succeed? But the educational system has put too much emphasis on
the wrong aspects of education, namely failure, which affects student motivation.
Changing the way success and failure is dealt with as well as the techniques educators
use to motivate students, can change the entire outlook of education for a student, as well
as their outlook on succeeding.
Responsibility and Independence
It seems as though the students of today would rather let someone else take
responsibility for their actions if they make a mistake rather than accept the
consequences. This is probably because the consequences for making mistakes are so
extreme it is much easier just to walk away from the whole ordeal. “School systems
punish for behavioral issues even though research clearly indicates that many school
attempts to help at-risk students often backfire and actually become contributing factors
toward forcing students out of school” (Barr & Parrett, 1995). Punishment for undesirable
behavior with no instruction of desirable behavior to replace the undesirable behavior is
32

33. what created at-risk students to begin with. So school systems that punish the at-risk
students for undesirable behavior are putting themselves at-risk of forcing more of their
students out of their system. From the beginning, today’s students have been taught
contradicting statements: that it is ok to make mistakes, but if you do make a mistake you
will be punished without mercy. How does responsibility fit into a system like that?
Punishing a student for making a mistake does not teach the student to take responsibility
for their actions, it just teaches them to not get caught next time they make a mistake.
This generates students who do not understand the purpose of not engaging in
inappropriate behavior, such as cheating on a test, beyond avoiding getting in immediate
trouble. “Students must realize that when others cheat and are rewarded with higher grade
point averages, this may diminish the likelihood that honest students will be accepted into
future programs and thus also diminish opportunities for future employment” (Nelson,
Nelson & Tichenor, 2013). When the consequence for cheating is presented in that way,
in a way where there would be no juvenile fear of getting in trouble, a student could come
to a mature and responsible understanding of why it is unethical to cheat on a test. It is
understood by behavior analysts, however, that learning is most affected by consequences
that immediately follow behavior so the individual can link the consequence to the
behavior. With that being said, students are only aware of the immediate consequence of
the behavior, which would be cheating in this context, and not the long-term
consequences. By teaching students not only the short-term consequences but also the
long-term consequences, school systems can develop their students’ responsibility. Since
long-term consequences are less effective at affecting behavior, results will not be seen
immediately. But consistently illuminating the long-term consequences of unethical
33

34. behavior will reshape the way the students think, thus changing the way they behave.
This method of consistent association has proven for thousands of years. Aristotle
formalized this technique in his law of frequency: The more often two things or events
are linked, the more powerful that association will be (Seacat, 2013). If a teacher were to
make it a personal routine to go over the long-term consequences of unethical behavior
everyday, then the association between the long-term consequences and unethical
behavior will become exponentially stronger, as long as the routine remains intact.
Another problem that faces this generation is the fact that students seem do not
seem to be overly concerned with the well being of society. This concern grows with age,
but if the students are to make an even greater difference as they age social responsibility
must be taught. This is especially important in this day and age when global warming is
such a large and pressing issue facing not only an individual student’s society, but also
the world we all live in. Doris Brodeur of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
defines social responsibility as “…a duty every individual or organization has to perform
so as to maintain a balance between the economy and ecosystem” (Brodeur, 2013).
Students do not know where to start to increase their society’s well being. This is
something that used to be taught at a young age, but seems to have been lost over time.
Now students believe that as long as they are doing well, then society will do well. This is
true in part, but the ideology still has the individual put first before society. Brodeur
reports that engaging in social responsibility can be passive, “by avoiding engaging in
socially harmful acts” (Brodeur, 2013), which most students consider being adequately
responsible, as well as active, “by performing activities that directly advance social
goals” (Brodeur, 2013), which most students do not engage themselves in. However
34

35. Brodeur notes, “passive social responsibility is not sufficient” (Brodeur, 2013). More
needs to be done to progress one’s society than simply avoiding the engagement of
unethical or harmful behaviors. What truly needs to be taught starting from pre-school or
kindergarten is empathy and compassion. These are the main traits needed for active
social responsibility; empathy for others who are suffering, and compassion for others
who are suffering. Empathy will teach students to put themselves in the suffering
individual’s shoes, so to speak, and imagine what it would be like to live the physical life
of the suffering person. Compassion will teach students to feel the pain of the suffering
individual, and imagine what it would be like to live the emotional life of the suffering
person. Once students have this incredibly influential power, becoming an active, socially
responsible member of their society will not be difficult. Schools were on the right track
to teaching these values when they would post plaques of ‘The Golden Rule’: do unto
others, as you would like others to do unto you. However over the years those plaques
have vanished from the walls, replaced by posters for other various values, but none that
truly situate ethical and responsible behavior into perspective for a student.
One technique that can be used to help turn the posters with various values and
‘The Golden Rule’ into reality is service learning. Brodeur describes service learning as
“…a pedagogy that integrates academic learning with service that meets human needs”
(Brodeur, 2013). Service learning applies what students learn in the classroom to real life
applications. Usually the services provided are for underserved people, such as the poor.
It is one thing to learn from a textbook or online video about how other people are
helping the poor, and completely another to actually be the people who are helping the
poor. The enlightening experience lets students feel what it is like to work for a selfless
35

36. cause, and to just help other people by using the knowledge they have that others do not.
One example of service learning is The Global Soap Project, headed by humanitarian
relief expert Derreck and Sarah Kayongo. “The Global Soap Project raises awareness
about the lack of sanitation and its consequences in many parts of the world”
(globalsoap.org). Two skills that service learning endows students with that other
traditional classroom learning styles cannot do by themselves are awareness skills and
process skills. Too often American students are naïve and ignorant to events and
atrocities that happen around the world. As Americans we are very privileged to live the
lives we do and take a lot of what we have for granted, such as a simple commodity like
soap. Service learning allows students to develop their awareness of various issues that
faces less fortunate people around the world, and within their own community. Becoming
aware of what is happening around you is a major factor of being a responsible and
independent member of society. The other foremost skill service learning presents
students with is process. Many people, not just students, want to help the less fortunate in
some way or another but do not because they do not know where to start or how to help.
Service learning provides students with knowledge on how to take that first step to
helping others. It gives them an idea of the issues that face their community and their
world, and the process of how to change it. By providing students with the knowledge of
process and teaching them how to take that initial step to do their part in improving issues
affecting their greater community, students will become more responsible and
independent members of society.
Responsibility and independence are two incredibly difficult traits to teach a
student, let alone an entire student body. However by modifying the way students are
36

37. taught, in combination with modifying what is taught can make this difficult task a little
easier.
Standardized Testing
Standardized testing has been utilized by the American educational system for
decades. A standardized test is an examination of students across the country using the
same exact test. This is done so schools can compare themselves to other schools, so
states can see how they are doing compared to other states, and so the nation can see how
line up on the global level. What most people never understood is that students were told
since childhood how they are all different, how everyone is unique, but they all have to
take a test that assumes they are all the same. The traditional standardized tests hinder the
development of a student’s creativity because of its lack of emphasis on creativity.
Journalist Peter Sacks argued that standardized tests:
“…forced students to de-contextualize their knowledge and skills (and that
the) superficial nature of most multiple-choice tests neither permitted
students to think deeply and creatively, nor to engage with problems at a
level of abstraction closer to real problems and situations” (Sacks, 1999).
Even though creativity is an vital facet of a successful personality, after years and years
of following formulas, models, and procedures, the students of today have had their
creative juices sucked dry. This is why most class projects are boring, because this
educational system has put so much focus on methodical thinking, and almost none on
creative thinking. Many have suggested that some kind of creative test that assesses the
students’ creativity or social intelligence, for example, should be implemented to
supplement the traditional standardized intelligence-based tests. However some have
stated reasons, others call excuses, why this would not be easy to generate. With that
being said, time and time again history has shown that rarely is the easy way the correct
37

38. way.
Angela Duckworth at the University of Pennsylvania explains that what are
known as noncognitive traits, such as sociability, kindness, or conscientiousness, are
propensities, or patterns of behavior. In contrast, cognitive traits are short for cognitive
ability and knowledge, and are often referred to as capacities. Duckworth explains that it
is difficult to create a test that measures propensities because unlike capacities, “which
are amenable to measurement by performance tasks in which motivation is maximized,
… propensities are only measurable by integrating observations of an individual’s
behavior over long periods of time” (Duckworth, 2009). Since few people are able to
accurately report a specific individual’s behavior, and more so those reports being totally
subjective, a test in which propensities are assessed will be extremely time consuming to
create (Duckworth, 2009).
Even though a test of this nature would be difficult and time-consuming to create,
one could not imagine that the current tests that assess intelligence and cognitive ability
were much easier to create when the idea to generate them was thought up. Many
psychologists and educators of all fields feel that a supplementary assessment gauging
propensities, such as creativity, would be very beneficial. “Creativity is also considered
crucial to both local and global economic success” (Florida, 2002). Students have felt a
kind of unfairness regarding standardized testing for a long time. There are many issues
high-risk tests have, especially across different ethnicities and genders. One of many
great facts that James Kaufman and Mark Agars determined about testing creative
achievements is that “…measures of creativity show few differences across gender or
ethnicity”, which means that “…testing contexts that incorporate less stereotypically
38

39. threatening tasks may reduce test anxiety in underperforming groups” (Kaufman &
Agars, 2009). So the addition of some kind of creative achievement assessment would
reduce ethnicity bias that has typically been found with the traditional high-risk tests.
Standardized tests are meant to predict how well a student will do in school, and in his or
her career, yet these tests’ only predictors are one’s intelligence, cognitive ability such as
problem solving, and knowledge of select disciplines, namely various mathematics and
sciences. These predictors do not capture an individual student’s entire intelligence, and
leaves a lot undiscovered regarding the student’s true potential. More so, beyond not
capturing an individual’s entire intelligence, traditional high-risk tests do not always
capture an individual’s true intelligence. For example, “A smart child unable to sit still
during an exam or uninterested in exerting much effort can produce spuriously low scores
on an IQ test” (Borghans et al., 2008). Not all who score poorly on standardized tests are
unintelligent; some simply have not been hooked into putting in the effort. This is not
only a problem for the smart student who receives a poor score that misrepresents that
student, but it is a problem for the validity of the average of those tests scores. Like the
educational system as a whole, standardized tests need to be modified for the students of
this generation who have low attention spans, and an even lower tolerance for boredom.
This is even more of a reason to include some kind of assessment that evaluates
personality traits because, as vain as it may sound, people love talking about themselves.
This is especially true for students since they are at an age where they are still finding
things out about themselves and learning who they are. This addition of an assessment of
personality traits, such as an assessment of the student’s creative intelligence, will
compensate for the poor performance of the traditional section of the test. With that kind
39

40. of check and balance in place, experts who review the tests could speculate that the
student was not motivated to put a lot of effort into the traditional section of the
assessment, rather than assume that the student had low intelligence. Kaufman, along side
a different colleague, Ronald Beghetto, learned that “People who are creative, in addition
to being happier and in better physical health, are also more likely to be a successful
entrepreneur, to rise in a company, to persevere, and to produce better dissertations”
(Kaufman & Beghetto, 2010). The addition of this single predictor would not only reduce
ethnicity bias, but also more accurately depict who will succeed outside of school.
There are so many variables that affect the accuracy of the traditional predictors,
such as low motivation, bad memory, and in particular test anxiety, which cause
physiological reactions that manifest themselves as physical, emotional, and
cognitive/behavioral symptoms. These symptoms vary, depending mainly on the
student’s emotional stability. Physical symptoms can include excessive perspiration,
increased heart rate, shaking, inability to sit still for long periods of time, dry mouth,
nausea, and fainting. Emotional symptoms can include depression, low self-esteem,
anger, and feeling hopeless. Cognitive/behavioral symptoms can include negative self-
talk, trouble concentrating, racing thoughts, “blanking out” on answers even though the
individual may have studied thoroughly, fidgeting, and even in extreme cases can include
substance abuse and dropping out of school to avoid test-taking all together (Cherry,
2013).
Despite these verified variables that unquestionably influence the calculations of
traditional predictors, experts who have been using the traditional predictors on
standardized tests claim that predictors based on personality traits rather than cognitive
40

41. traits are less effective at predicting the main aspects of a student that the predictors
calculate. Experts claim that the traditional predictors based on cognitive traits calculate
“…schooling, occupational choice, wages, health behaviors, teenage pregnancy, and
crime…” (Borghans et al., 2008) more accurately than predictors based on personality
traits could. In reality this is not true. A study conducted by James Heckman, Jora
Stixrud, and Sergio Urzua (2006) confirms that the predictive power of the personality
traits that they examined and tested equals or exceeds the predictive power of cognitive
traits. This could possibly be because students taking a test that uses predictors based on
personality traits exhibit fewer, less intense symptoms caused by test anxiety, or have an
easier time getting motivated to put the cognitive effort into answering the questions.
Students may have less test anxiety and increased motivation when taking a test using
predictors based on personality traits because students would be much more confident in
answering the questions since they would be answering questions about themselves. This
would not only give the experts reviewing the tests a more accurate score on the first test
an individual takes, but it would give whoever sees the test scores a better understanding
of who the individual who took the test is, and not just the individual’s cognitive ability.
The predictive power of a predictor based on one personality trait in particular
was mentioned over and over again by Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, and ter Weel
(2006). This personality trait was emotional stability. They defined emotional stability as:
the degree to which a person experiences the world as threatening and beyond his or her
control. Over the course of their article they mentioned many important facets of an
individual’s life that individual’s emotional stability could predict. Borghans and
colleagues opined that emotional stability was a “potent and general predictor of job
41

42. performance” (Borghans et al., 2008), and is “more predictive of job performance across
professions” (Borghans et al., 2008) than other predictors based on personality traits and
cognitive traits. As well predicting job performance, emotional stability also accurately
predicts an individual’s wages. An aspect of the study they carried out was offering
incentives for superior test performance. During this part of the study, they observed that
individuals with high emotional stability exhibited less of an emotional response to
making an error. Yet the most interesting fact, and practical, in terms of using this
predictor as an addition to the traditional predictors, regarding individuals with high
emotional stability Borghans and colleagues discovered was that “IQ test scores do not
accurately reflect maximal intellectual performance for individuals low in the personality
traits related to conscientiousness and emotional stability” (Borghans et al., 2008).
Meaning that if a predictor based on emotional stability was supplemented to the
traditional predictors, the predictor based on emotional stability could partially
compensate for a low test score and help explain why an individual did not perform well.
Overall, this single personality trait can tell a lot about an individual in the present, and
can accurately predict several integral facets of that individual’s future life.
High-stakes tests are a necessary feature of this educational system. However
simply testing one’s intelligence does not accurately predict one’s future, nor does it
accurately reflect one’s intelligence in its entirety. Standardized tests need to be
reconstructed to test both cognitive abilities as well as personality traits to maximize
accuracy. This change will be beneficial to the students taking the tests, the educational
institutes that will be looking at those students, the future educators that will be teaching
those students, and the future employers of those students.
42

43. How Teachers Should Adapt
It seems as though everyone understands that teaching this generation is much
different from teaching previous generations, but everyone is doing so from a passive
position. Not much is changing in the average educator’s repertoire and they are
wondering why their methods are not working, while simultaneously acknowledging that
this generation is different. Because of the many media streams that constantly update
this generation, and the amount of various technologies today’s student has access to, this
generation does not have the attention span past generations did. Today’s student is not
used to waiting for information, waiting for a phone call to connect, waiting for a meal to
cook; delayed gratification is one virtue that has not been instilled nearly as deeply as in
the past. “Because of their interest in working in groups and their low tolerance for
boredom, the traditional lecture may not be as effective with the Millennial generation as
it was with previous generations” (Roehling, 2011). Educators and students alike have
noticed that this generation has a tendency to doodle, talk, or even fall asleep in class if
the teacher’s lesson does not enthuse the students. If it does not grab their attention
immediately and keep their attention, they will find something that does. Lecturing the
students is not a viable way to teach a classroom anymore. Due to the increased media
and technology, more students are visual and hands-on learners rather than auditory
learners. Interactive powerpoints are great and often times keep the students’ attention for
just long enough to get most of the points across, but good teachers are not looking for
‘just enough’ to get by. Today’s students need interaction in order to learn best, so to
fulfill this need classroom activities are necessary. This may seem elementary, and one
would be exactly correct. When these students who are now in high school and college
43

44. were in elementary school their school day would be filled with classroom activities that
helped them fully engage in the learning process. Then when they grew up and went to
high school educators are wondering why they are bored in class. It is because from a
young age students have been taught that learning should be fun. Sure there would be a
good portion of in-class work days, but at least once or twice a week there was some kind
of activity that transformed the material on paper the students’ learned into an activity
that solidified that material for the student. That is where the real understanding of the
material took place. So contrary to what seems to be popular belief of upper level
educators, day after day of traditional lecturing is not fun. Adding an activity that
connects 2D to 3D, worksheet to workplace, textbook to reality, is fun. That is how an
educator will hook the attention of today’s student and keep their attention, and it is how
they need to be taught in order for them to succeed.
Another issue facing today’s student is academic honesty. It seems that this
generation has no remorse for cheating if it will aid them on the path to success. The
problem is not that the students do not weigh the consequences, they analyze the
situation, evaluate the information given, and will still proceed with unethical behavior.
To a behavior analyst the problem does not lie with the student. The educators and
administrators must turn to themselves, because the real problem lies within them.
Something that used to click for past generations has not, and is not clicking with this
generation of students. Yes, it is in part due to the manner in which today’s student was
raised, their exposure to the media and worldwide issues, the world they have been
brought up in, but none of those things can be changed. What can be changed is the way
educators teach them, and the way educators implement the academic dishonesty
44

45. policies.
“The key to successfully changing the systemic problems of cheating in
education is early and consistent communication of what constitutes cheating,
clearly detailing its cost and effects, and then fair and consistent penalties for
those who fail to conform to acceptable standards of behavior” (Nelson et al.,
2013).
This may sound like exactly what has been applied in the past, but it is not. Rarely do
educators clearly detail the cost and effect of academic dishonesty in the real world; the
real world meaning outside of the educational environment when students are finished
with their academic careers and have moved on to their vocation. Teachers will use scare
tactics on students so they will not do it in their classroom, saying ‘You will be expelled
if caught cheating’ or ‘You will receive a zero on this assignment if caught copying’, but
that is only going to reinforce the students to not get caught in the act. What has worked
on this generation is linear, logical thinking and explanation. Explaining that if they do
not properly and honestly learn the material now then they will most likely fail later in
that class, as well as further on down the road in the more advanced classes. Another
method is to not be an unaware educator and to think like a cheating student. With that
method in mind, one could attempt looking up the answers to one’s own test as if one
were a student who had not studied, and see what comes up. The bigger point to be made
about teaching academic honesty to students is the consistency and relevance to the
current material and assignments. It is suggested that teachers consistently remind their
students of the consequences of academic dishonesty, but do not make the consequences
out to be a death sentence. Only remind the students of the aspects of the policy that are
relevant to that particular assignment, as in not to go over the policy in its entirety for
every test or assignment. On top of all of these ways to make the students understand that
45

46. cheating and dishonesty are unacceptable in not only the educational setting, but the
workplace as well, is to lead by example. “The faculty and administration must lead by
example and follow these agreed-on definitions in their own behaviors” (Nelson et al.,
2013). With the increasing accessibility today’s students have to news and information
from around the world comes exposure to real world dishonesty. Students see professors
and administrators forging credentials, schemes done by corporations that tear people’s
money right from their hands, husbands and wives being unloyal to each other,
pharmaceutical companies handing out placebos to patients instead of their actual
medications, food companies using mystery fillers and stuffers in their provisions; and
still with all of these examples of unethical behavior they are exposed to students are
expected by nature to behave ethically. Where are the examples of the real life ‘good
guys’ and heroes? Where are the people who behave ethically and are rewarded for it?
All that this generation notices is that the ‘bad guys’, for lack of a better term, get the
attention, and as any behavior analyst will proclaim, attention is a big motivator
especially for this generation. Only one phrase comes to mind when searching for these
examples of ethical behavior, ‘Nice guys finish last’. If we want today’s student to
behave ethically, in the classroom and outside of the classroom, we need examples of
‘nice guys’ finishing first.
Another way teachers must transform America’s education system is in they way
students learn. Competitive learning and individualistic learning has been the style of
educating this generation, and it is apparent. This generation has students who are over-
competitive, supercilious, unsocial, confused, and overwhelmed because, in part, of the
use of competitive and individualistic learning. When students compete against each
46

47. other in a classroom activity, for example, where whoever raises their hand with the
correct answer wins, students begin to dislike each other because of the competition.
Nobody likes to lose, and when students are forced into a situation where there is only
one winner, the environment becomes hostile. This is especially true when the
competition is over grades. Unlike what teachers believe or want to believe, the
competition is not contained to their classroom. Students can become standoffish to other
classmates because one person won and the other lost, and can create an awkwardly
unsocial classroom. When students are made to do work by themselves day after day can
become confused if they do not understand the material or fall behind, thus making them
overwhelmed in school. Students can ask the teacher for assistance, but a shy student who
believes that they are the only one who does not understand the material may rather keep
to himself or herself instead of potentially getting embarrassed. There will always be that
barrier between student and teacher. What has been proven to a more effective way of
learning is cooperative learning. Cooperative learning also promotes teamwork, positive
socialization, and more elaborate, better quality answers. “Educational researchers find
three main outcomes of cooperative learning approaches in the classroom: (i) increased
effort to achieve, (ii) positive relationships, and (iii) more mature decision-making”
(Brodeur, 2013).
When working in a cooperative classroom, rather than a competitive or
individualistic classroom, students have inspiration to achieve. Students will exert more
effort into their work because they are working as a team and feel that, on a basic level, it
is only fair to carry their own weight in the group. Beyond the basic level, working in a
group is simply fun. It turns potentially uninteresting, difficult material into fascinating,
47

48. manageable material. Working in groups lets students bounce the material off one
another so they can come to a collective understanding of the material, and smooth out
any kinks a student may have.
Unlike competitive learning, which promotes competitive relationships,
cooperative learning promotes cooperative relationships. These relationships also spill
outside of the classroom into the educational system in its entirety, and into multiple
facets of the student’s life.
“The more positive the relationships among students and between students
and faculty, the lower the absenteeism and dropout rates and the greater the
commitment to group goals, feelings of personal responsibility to the group,
willingness to take on difficult tasks, motivation and persistence in working
toward goal achievement, satisfaction and morale, willingness to endure pain
and frustration on behalf of the group, willingness to defend the group against
external criticism or attack, willingness to listen to and be influenced by
colleagues, commitment to each other’s professional growth and success, and
productivity” (Johnson & Johnson, 2011).
The fact that so many issues the American educational system and it’s workforce faces
today can be influenced for the better by changing the way students learn is astonishing.
Besides aiding in the obvious and prominent issue of America’s drop out rates,
cooperative learning aids in selflessness for a cause. This means that students would be
more willing to become more active members of causes much greater than themselves in
school, and once they are out of school. This means that students would be more
productive employees. This means students would be more open to constructive criticism
and suggestions. This means students would be more concerned with and involved in not
only their own growth and success, but also the growth and success of their peers. This
simple change in the way the classroom environment conducts its learning can potentially
redevelop this generation’s students, and future generation’s students to make a kinder,
48

49. more hospitable, and more cooperative world.
Lastly on the list of outcomes cooperative learning produces, more mature
decision-making. Students mature through experience, and through relationships. If a
student is taught nothing but competitive relationships not only in school but in the media
as well, then their decisions will be based on winning rather than succeeding. While
winning promotes an environment where there must be a loser, or losers, succeeding
promotes an environment where everyone grows and everyone wins, per say. “The more
cooperative the learning experiences students are involved in, the more mature their
cognitive and moral decision-making, and the more they will tend to take other people’s
perspectives into account when making decisions” (Brodeur, 2013). Working in
cooperative groups lets students experience how others think and thought processes.
Students rarely get to experience this when they are engaged in a competitive
environment since letting the other students know how one thinks or the process to which
he or she got their answer could give an advantage to the other students in the
competition. In an individualistic environment students obviously do not get to
experience the thought process of other students because they are, by definition of
individualistic learning, confined to their own thought process. By experiencing how
others think one could learn how to put himself or herself into someone else’s shoes. In
that respect, empathy is sort of a bi-product of cooperative learning. By being a more
empathetic decision-maker, students could then make decisions that are potentially less
harmful to others, and in another respect, produce better quality work since students take
their colleagues perspectives into account.
One aspect of being a teacher that is often difficult is knowing when to intervene
49

50. during a conflict. Conflict could be defined in a physical manner or a verbal manner.
Teachers may want to intervene when they think that the conflict is escalating too much,
but that may not be the best idea. Competitive conflict is usually the case in the school
setting. Competing for a certain toy in terms of pre-schoolers, or competing for grades or
just in gym class in terms of older students. Often times the first thing teachers will do
when they intervene during a conflict is separate the individuals. This is not always the
best idea since it takes away more opportunities for reconciliation. “Teachers may want
to adopt a ‘wait-and-see’ approach to children staying together after competitive conflict
involving aggression” (Roseth et al., 2008). Just because the individuals that were in
conflict stay together does not automatically mean that the conflict will escalate. No
doubt that it could, but it does not automatically mean it will. Friends who have
arguments or quarrels and stay together will often times reconcile sooner since they value
their friendship more than they value the argument or quarrel. Intervention should not be
the initial instinct, rather, wait and carefully observe what transpires during the conflict
and what the outcome of the conflict is. Approaching the individuals after all is said and
done to talk about both the positive aspects and the negative aspects of the individuals’
behavior is encouraged. Positive aspects meaning which behaviors the individual
engaged in that were correct, resolving behaviors; and negative aspects meaning which
behaviors the individual engaged in that were incorrect, exacerbating behaviors. While a
teacher may want to intervene during a verbal argument, “…teachers may want to
intervene only when harm is imminent” (Roseth et al., 2008). This will prevent teachers
stripping opportunities for natural reconciliation from the individuals, as well as
educating them that physical aggression is not the answer, if it comes to that.
50

51. Teachers need to constantly adapt to the newer generations. As much as educators
and administrators have adapted to teach today’s students, more needs to be done. More
needs to be done in terms of how they teach today’s student and how they learn, teaching
academic honesty, teaching responsibility, and dealing with classroom conflict.
References
Aureli, F., Cords, M. & van Schaik, C.P. (2002). Conflict resolution following aggression
51

52. in gregarious animals: a predictive framework. — Anim. Behav. 64: 325-343.
Barr, R. & Parrett, W. (1995)- Hope at last for at-risk youth. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Barsade, S.G., 2000. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion in groups. Working paper.
New Haven, CT: Yale University press
Battles, H. B., & Wiener, L. S. (2002). STARBRIGHT World: Effects of an electronic
network on the social environment of children with life- threatening illnesses.
Children’s Health Care, 31, 47–68.
Bell, S. (2011). They Need to Know Us and We Need to Know Them: Preparing Today’s
Students for Tomorrow’s Reference. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.
wildpac.wne.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d09ec334-97ac-42d4-9b7f-
68444df228ae%40sessionmgr104&vid=15&hid=117
Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Ter Weel, B. (2008). The Economics
and Psychology of Personality Traits.
Brezinka, V. (2007). Treasure Hunt—A psychotherapeutic game to support cognitive–
behavioural treatment of children. Verhaltensthera- pie, 17, 191–194.
Brezinka, V. (2008). Treasure Hunt—A serious game to support psycho- therapeutic
treatment of children. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 136, 71–76.
Brockman, J. L., Nunez, A. A., & Basu, A. (2010). Effectiveness of a Conflict Resolution
Training Program in Changing Graduate Students Style of Managing Conflict with
their Faculty Advisors. Innovative Higher Education 35:277–293
Brockner, J., Derr, W. R., & Laing, W N. (1987). Self-esteem and reactions to negative
feedback: Toward greater generalizability. Journal of Research in Personality, 21,
318-333.
52

53. Brodeur, D. R. (2013). Mentoring Young Adults in the Development of Social
Responsibility. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 13-25.
Bush, J. P., Huchital, J. R., & Simonian, S. J. (2002). An introduction to program and
research initiatives of the STARBRIGHT Foundation. Children’s Health Care, 31,
1–10.
Ceranoglu, T. A. (2010). Video Games in Psychotherapy. Review of General Psychology,
14(2), 141-146.
Cherry, K. (2013). Test Anxiety Symptoms - What Are the Symptoms of Test Anxiety.
Retrieved November 12, 2013, from
http://psychology.about.com/od/mentalhealth /a/test-anxiety-symptoms.htm
Cicetti, F. (2012, February 7). What Is White Coat Syndrome? | Causes of High Blood
Pressure | LiveScience. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from
http://www.livescience.com/36138-white-coat-syndrome-blood-pressure.html
Crone, I., & MacKay, K. (2007). Motivating Today’s College Students. Retrieved from
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.wildpac.wne.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=
d09ec334-97ac-42d4-9b7f-68444df228ae%40sessionmgr104&vid=15&hid=117
Diamantes, T. (n.d.). Recent Court Rulings Regarding Student Use of Cell Phones in
Today's Schools. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.wildpac.wne.edu/
ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d09ec334-97ac-42d4-9b7f-68444df228ae%40
sessionmgr104&vid=13&hid=117
Duckworth, A. L. (2009). (Over and) Beyond High-Stakes Testing. American
Psychologist, 279-280. Retrieved from http://http://0-web.ebscohost.com.wildpac.
wne.edu/ ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=89823cb4-3b36-40a7-8cf6-707551842
53

54. 3fb%40sessionmgr115&vid=20&hid=123
Fairchild, E. E. (2009). Christian Privilege, History, and Trends in U.S. Religion.
Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.wildpac.wne.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?sid=d09ec334-97ac-42d4-9b7f-68444df228ae%40sessionmg
r104&vid=17&hid=117
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.
Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (2008). Alabama Elementary Principals' Perceptions of
Bullying. Retrieved from http://0-
web.ebscohost.com.wildpac.wne.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d09ec334-
97ac-42d4-9b7f-68444df228ae%40sessionmgr104&vid=20&hid=117
Graham, M. A., Monday, J., O’Brien, K., & Stef- fen, S. (1994). Cheating at small
colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of
College Student Develop- ment, 33, 255–260.
Grimes, P. W. (2002, January). Honesty in aca- demics and business: A cross-cultural
evalu- ation of student attitudes. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Allied
Social Science Associations, Atlanta, GA.
Gomez, D.S. (2001). Putting the Shame Back in Student Cheating. Education Digest,
67(4), 15
Goodhart, D. E. (1986). The effects of positive and negative thinking on performance in
an achievement situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 117-
124.
Gould, J. A. (2011). Does it Really Take a Village to Raise a Child (Or Just a Parent?):
An Examination of the Relationship Between the Members of the Residence of a
54