copyright 2013 richard sweeney podcast april 11, 2014 understanding & engaging today’s college...

37
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney Podcast April 11, 2014 Podcast April 11, 2014 Understanding & Engaging Today’s Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Students College Students Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License . . 1 Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Students Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Students [email protected] [email protected] R R ichard Sweeney ichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208

Upload: steven-pope

Post on 01-Jan-2016

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Podcast April 11, 2014Podcast April 11, 2014

Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Understanding & Engaging Today’s College StudentsStudents

Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License..

1Understanding & Engaging Today’s College StudentsUnderstanding & Engaging Today’s College [email protected] [email protected] RRichard Sweeneyichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

1. Learn some of the expectations, characteristics and behaviors of Millennial students.

2. Learn what instructors could do to better engage Millennial students and improve learning success.

Note: This is one of two podcasts for faculty with the send concentrating on feedback from NJIT students.

2

More ChoicesMore Choices

Our Goals:

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

3

Generations Birth Years

# Generation Birth Years

Ages in 2014

GI GenerationGI Generation 1901 - 19241901 - 1924 2424 90 - 11390 - 113

Silent Generation Silent Generation 1925 – 19421925 – 1942 1818 72 – 8972 – 89

Baby BoomersBaby Boomers 1943 – 1960 1943 – 1960

1818 54 – 7154 – 71

Generation X Generation X 1961 – 1981* 1961 – 1981*

2121 33 – 5333 – 53

MillennialsMillennials 1982*- 2004*1982*- 2004* 2323 10 - 32 10 - 32

iGen? Gen Z? iGen? Gen Z? Gen Wii? Etc.Gen Wii? Etc.

*2005 – *2005 – PresenPresent*?

9 (So far)9 (So far) 0 – 90 – 9

*From Howe-and-Strauss (Experts differ on start & end date of Millennial & iGen generation)*From Howe-and-Strauss (Experts differ on start & end date of Millennial & iGen generation)

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Horovitz, Bruce. “Generation Whatchamacallit; The naming game about tomorrow's youth.” USA Today May 7, 2012. http://www.lexisnexis.com.libdb.njit.edu:8888/hottopics/lnacademic/?

New names for the next generation?

iGen? Gen Z?

Gen Wii? Multi Gen?

Homeland Gen?Gen Me?

Post Gen?

4

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group [email protected] [email protected] Richard Sweeneyichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208

MillennialsMillennialsGen XGen XBoomersBoomersSilentSilentGI GenGI Gen iGen?iGen?

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group [email protected] [email protected] Richard Sweeneyichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208

MillennialsMillennialsGen XGen XBoomersBoomersSilentSilentGI GenGI Gen iGen?iGen?

Col

le

ge

e1

8-22

19961992

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group [email protected] [email protected] Richard Sweeneyichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208

MillennialsMillennialsGen XGen XBoomersBoomersSilentSilentGI GenGI Gen iGen?iGen?

Workforce 2014 1947 1991

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group [email protected] [email protected] Richard Sweeneyichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208

MillennialsMillennialsGen XGen XBoomersBoomersSilentSilentGI GenGI Gen iGen?iGen?

Workforce 2024 1957 2001

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

U.S. Births in Thousands

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Years

Bir

ths

in 1

,00

0s

Births

Boomers Generation X Millennials

1946 1964 1965 1978 1979 1994

1977 1994

19822000

19 Years 14 Years 16 Years

Avg. 3,415

3,415

Avg. 3,832

3,415

Avg. 3,993

3,415

Millennials In Workforce

Born 1979-1985

23 yrs & older

Huge GenerationHuge Generation

Millennials Not In Workforce

Born 1986-1994

Under 23 yrs old

Workforce 2008

9

2014

College Board College Board Data from WebData from Web 9

High GrowthStatic

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Nichole J Borges et al. “Comparing Millennial and Generation X Medical Students at One Medical School. Academic Medicine; 81.6 (2006): 571-576

“Using descriptors from the 16PF subscales, we found that Millennial students are more warm and outgoing (WarmthWarmth), more abstract than concrete (ReasoningReasoning), more adaptive and mature (Emotional StabilityEmotional Stability), more dutiful (Rule Rule ConsciousnessConsciousness), more socially bold and adventuresome (Social BoldnessSocial Boldness), more sensitive and sentimental (SensitivitySensitivity), more self-doubting and worried (ApprehensionApprehension), more open to change and experimenting (Openness to Openness to ChangeChange), and more organized and self disciplined (PerfectionismPerfectionism) compared to Generation X medical students.” p. 574

10

Personality TestPersonality Test

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Nichole J Borges et al. “Comparing Millennial and Generation X Medical Students at One Medical School. Academic Medicine; 81.6 (2006): 571-576

“Furthermore, we found Millennial medical students to be less solitary and individualistic (Self Reliance) than their Generation X counterparts.” 574

Note: this study looked only at medical schools students:

Generation X born 1965 - 1980“Cuspars” born 1975 – 1980 (Gen X Subset)Millennials born 1981 - 1989

11

Personality TestPersonality Test

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Nichole J Borges et al. “Differences in motives between Millennial and Generation X medical students.” Medical Education; (2010) 44: 570-576

“Millennial students scored higher than Generation Xstudents on the needs for Achievement and Affiliation.Thus, our study findings may substantiate thecontentions of population theorists that, comparedwith previous generations, Millennials have greaterMillennials have greaterneeds to belong to social groups and to share withneeds to belong to social groups and to share withothers, stronger team instincts and tighter peerothers, stronger team instincts and tighter peerbonds, and greater needs to achieve and succeedbonds, and greater needs to achieve and succeed.” p. 574

Personality TestPersonality Test

12

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

“These three analyses show remarkably similar yearly increases in college students’ narcissistic traitsincreases in college students’ narcissistic traits, with students in more recent years scoring higher thantheir predecessors.

The results clearly support the generational differencesmodel. p. 103

Twenge, Jean M and Joshua D. Foster. “Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Personality Traits Among American College Students, 1982-2009”. Social Psychological and Personality Science January 2010 vol. 1 96-106. accessed http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/4330/npitimeupdatespps.pdf 88/15/2013

13

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

“It is possible, however, that some of the same cultural influences that have increased self-esteem have also increased narcissism (e.g., school programs with themes such as ‘‘I am special’’).” p. 104

Twenge, Jean M and Joshua D. Foster. “Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Personality Traits Among American College Students, 1982-2009”. Social Psychological and Personality Science January 2010 vol. 1 96-106. accessed http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/4330/npitimeupdatespps.pdf 88/15/2013

14

Sense of entitlement?Sense of entitlement?

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

“First, introductory classes are disproportionately important to introductory classes are disproportionately important to students' development of academic taste, and hence, their students' development of academic taste, and hence, their persistence in academic fields. persistence in academic fields. These classes should quite literally be thought of as introductions‒ greetings‒ in which faculty either welcome students in warmly, or slam the door in their faces, as the case may be. Second, the overall organization of faculty in a college curriculum can have important consequences to students' evaluations of academic fields, and to some extent, their evaluation of the entire college itself as a worthwhile experience. Single, poorly designed and run courses can ruin a student's year, while great ones can stay with students long after they graduate. Negative effects should be minimized, and positive ones maximized. Third, A few great teachers have a disproportionate A few great teachers have a disproportionate and positive effect on studentsand positive effect on students.” p. 27

Chamblis, Dan and Christopher G. Takacs. “Faculty Gatekeepers and Academic Taste in Undergraduate Students’ choice of Major”. Paper presented to American Sociological Society 8/10/2013. accessed http://www.themss.org/StudentPaperComp2013/G004_paper.pdf 88/15/2013

15

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“NEW YORK -- Why are some majors more popular than others with undergraduates? Is it the perception that they lead to good (well paying) jobs? Are certain fields naturally more attractive to new undergraduates? Will students respond to tuition incentives to pick (or bypass) some fields?

Maybe it’s much more simple: Undergraduates are significantly more likely to major in a field if they have an inspiring and caring faculty member in their introduction to the field. And they are equally likely to And they are equally likely to write off a field based on a single negative experience with a professorwrite off a field based on a single negative experience with a professor.”

Jaschik, Scott. “Majoring in a Professor”. Inside Higher Ed. 8/12/2013 accessed http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/12/study-finds-choice-major-most-influenced-quality-intro-professor88/15/2013

16

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“Almost all (99%) students surveyed reported having at least one digital device, and while laptops were the most common (93%), many students now own their own smart phones (78%) and tablets (35%). This is a significant increase from our 2011 survey when only 47% of students said they owned a smart phone and 7% reported owning a tablet.”

“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College Students’ Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22

2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-survey-on-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devices-and-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013

17

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“A majority (68%) of students use three or more devices every day”

“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College Students’ Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22

2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-survey-on-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devices-and-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013

18

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“47% of students say they check their devices every 10 every 10 minutesminutes, up from 38% of students in 2011”

“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College Students’ Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22

2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-survey-on-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devices-and-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013

19

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“Almost all students surveyed (90%) admitted they don’t always complete the required reading in time for class. Of those students, a majority (53%) report they would be more likely to complete that reading if the material was available digitally and could be viewed on mobile devices.”

“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College Students’ Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22

2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-survey-on-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devices-and-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013

21

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDanielson, Jared, Vanessa Preast, Holly Bender, Lesya Hassall. “Is the effectiveness of lecture capture related to teaching approach or content type? ”. Computers and Education. . 72, March (2014), Pages 121-131

“Students were most likely to view captured lectures in courses that moved quickly, relied heavily on lecture, were perceived as highly relevant to their future success, and contained information not available in other formats. A A greater percentage of students than faculty greater percentage of students than faculty perceived lecture capture as beneficial to perceived lecture capture as beneficial to learninglearning. ”

Experiential / InteractiveExperiential / Interactive

22

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXShah, Samit, Arthur G. Cox, Martin M. Zdanowicz. “Student perceptions of the use of pre-recorded lecture modules and class exercises in a molecular biology course”. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning,  5:6. November–December 2013, Pages 651-658

“One hundred percent of the students participating in the survey indicated that the pre-recorded modules and classexercises helped enhance their learning, and that the hybrid course design effectively combined active and passive learning methods. Over 95% of the students indicated that the course design helped them to learn the material more effectively at all levels of Bloom’s taxonomy compared to a traditional lecture-based course. ”

Experiential / InteractiveExperiential / Interactive

23

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXForeman, Joel. “Next-Generation Educational Technology Versus the Lecture.” Educause ReviewEducause Review. 38.4 (2003) 12-22. 38.4 (2003) 12-22

“Even if the lecturer is charismatic, holding the attention of several hundred students for an entire lecturelecture of fifty minutes or longer is impossibleis impossible.” p.15

Experiential / InteractiveExperiential / Interactive

24

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“88% of students say they have used a mobile device for last minute studying before a test, up from 79% of students surveyed in 2012.”

79% of students felt that technology such as mobile devices, digital textbooks, e-readers and tablets saved them time when studying and learning

Of those students, 64% say technology saves them two or more hours every day.”

“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College Students’ Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22

2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-survey-on-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devices-and-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013

25

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

““Blended-learning environments are the norm; students say Blended-learning environments are the norm; students say that these best support how they learn.that these best support how they learn.

Even with varying levels of sophistication among blended learning experiences, the vast majority of students in our research (70%) said that these are the environments in these are the environments in which they learn the most.”which they learn the most.”

Dahlstrom, Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO; EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, September 2012, Available from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.

26

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“Study time for full-time students at four yearcolleges in the United States fell fromtwenty-four hours per week in 1961 tofourteen hours per week in 2003, and thedecline is not explained by changes overtime in student work status, parental education,major choice, or the type of institutionstudents attended..” p. 1

Babock, Phillip and Mindy Marks. “Leisure College, USA: The Decline in Student Study Time 2012. Education Outlook. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, No. 7 August 2010, Available from http://www.aei.org/files/2010/08/05/07-EduO-Aug-2010-g-new.pdf

33

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“Only a small fraction of the changein study time can be accounted forby changes in work hours. p. 6

“Further, students do notappear to have reduced study time towork for pay. Students appear to bestudying less in order to have moreleisure time.” p. 4

p. 6

Babock, Phillip and Mindy Marks. “Leisure College, USA: The Decline in Student Study Time 2012. Education Outlook. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, No. 7 August 2010, Available from http://www.aei.org/files/2010/08/05/07-EduO-Aug-2010-g-new.pdf .

34

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Perez-Pena, Richard. “Studies Find More Students CheatingCheating, With High Achievers No Exception”. New York Times. September 7, 2012 Accessed

at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/education/studies-show-more-students-cheat-even-high-achievers.html?_r=0 2/15/2011

“Studies of student behavior and attitudes show that a majority of students violate standards of academic integrity to some degree, and that high achievers are just as likely to do it as others. Moreover, there is evidence that the problem evidence that the problem has worsened over the last few decadeshas worsened over the last few decades.

Experts say the reasons are relatively simple: Cheating has become easier and more widely tolerated, and both schools and parents have failed to give students strong, repetitive messages about what is allowed and what is prohibited.”

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Millennials want instructors to be:•Approachable

•Caring

•Supportive

•Compassionate,

•Funny,

•Honest,

•Motivational

•Role model

•Hard working

•Dedicated

•Understandable

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

“However, the Millennial Generation is also highly also highly sensitive to criticism and reluctant to speak if they feel sensitive to criticism and reluctant to speak if they feel uninformed or are unsure of how their comments will be uninformed or are unsure of how their comments will be receivedreceived. Faculty need to be aware of the unique opportunities and also the vulnerabilities associated with the Millennial Generation when planning classroom discussions.” p. 6

Roehling, Patricia Vincent et al. “Engaging the Millennial Generation in Class Discussions”. College Teaching. 59:1-6, 2011

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

“DO NOT•1. Let a student feel isolated or unsupported in a discussion.•2. Argue or openly disagree with a student during a discussion.•3. Ask questions or engage in discussions in which there is only one correct answer.•4. Create an authoritarian classroom atmosphere.”

p. 6

Roehling, Patricia Vincent et al. “Engaging the Millennial Generation in Class Discussions”. College Teaching. 59:1-6, 2011

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“ .”

Bloom, Benjamin S. “The Sigma Two Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring”. Educational Researcher. Vol. 13 No. 6 Jun-Jul 1984Accessed at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf 8/13/2013

44

“However, the most striking of the findings is that under the best learning conditions we can devise (tutoring), the average student is 2 sigma above the average control student taught under conventional group methods of instruction. The tutoring process demonstrates that most of the students do have the potential to reach this high level of learning.” p. 11

The average tutored student does the same or better than The average tutored student does the same or better than 98% of those taught traditionally in the classroom. 98% of those taught traditionally in the classroom.

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Boersma, John. “THE TWO SIGMA SOLUTION”. Accessed at http://adaptcourseware.com/the-two-sigma-solution/ 2/15/2011

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“ .”

Bloom, Benjamin S. “The Sigma Two Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring”. Educational Researcher. Vol. 13 No. 6 Jun-Jul 1984Accessed at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf 8/13/2013

46

“What is Master Learning? In traditional classrooms, student progress through the class regardless of achievement. In mastery learning classrooms, students must fully understand (demonstrate mastery of) the material before moving onto the next topic.”

…The average student under mastery learning was about one standard deviation above the average of the control class.” The average mastery learning student does better than 84% The average mastery learning student does better than 84% of those taught traditionally in the classroom. of those taught traditionally in the classroom.

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKrempeaux, Charles Iliya. “One-On-One Tutoring Can Improve Student's

Performance By 2 Standard Deviations”. Accessed at http://changelog.ca/quote/2012/09/23/tutoring_two_sigma 2/15/2011

47

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“ .”

Bloom, Benjamin S. “The Sigma Two Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring”. Educational Researcher. Vol. 13 No. 6 Jun-Jul 1984Accessed at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf 8/13/2013

48

“Teachers are frequently unaware of the fact that they are providing more favorable conditions of learning for some students than they are for other students. General- ly, they are under the impression that all students in their classes are given equality of opportunity for learning.” p. 11

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

Podcast April 11, 2014Podcast April 11, 2014

Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Understanding & Engaging Today’s College StudentsStudents

Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

To study this Powerpoint:

49Understanding & Engaging Today’s College StudentsUnderstanding & Engaging Today’s College [email protected] [email protected] RRichard Sweeneyichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208