Learners of a New Generation

Chapter

Abstract

To identify educational practices that will best facilitate the development of expertise, we must first understand the learner. Student cohorts in post K-12 education are generally composed of learners from multiple generations. Learning cohorts from previous generations who were accustomed to a limited range of educational resources acclimated to learning through primarily aural and read/write modalities. The educational environment for millennial generation learners has been dominated by technology. As a result a variety of learning styles, not apparent in previous generations, have become common. These learning styles are incidental to novel resources to which learners now have access. Strategies designed to promote successful knowledge acquisition for learners of any style should incorporate a variety of the ever-increasing array of available innovative educational paradigms and digital resources. In addition to resources, other factors that should be considered in the design of strategies which can influence the success of next generation learning include their (1) tendency to learn via real-world applications, (2) unfamiliarity with educational technology, (3) weakness in information literacy, (4) need for frequent feedback, and (5) predilection to work in teams. A multifactorial approach to facilitate the development of expertise will best support individual scholarly effort and preparation for lifelong learning.

References

  1. 1.
    Strauss W, Howe N. Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company; 1991. p. 279–335.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keeter S, Taylor P. Millennials: A portrait of generation next. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. 2009. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf
  3. 3.
    Howe N, Strauss W. Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new generation on campus. Great Falls, VA: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers; 2003. p. 51–63.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oblinger D. Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the new students. Educause Review. 2003;38:37–47. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0342.pdf
  5. 5.
    Twenge JM. Generational changes and their impact in the classroom: Teaching generation Me. Med Educ. 2009;43:398–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoover E. The millennial muddle: How stereotyping students became a thriving industry and a bundle of contradictions. Chronicles of Higher Education. 2009;56: Oct 11. http://chronicle.com/article/The-Millennial-Muddle-How/48772
  7. 7.
    DiLullo C, Morris HJ, Kriebel RM. Clinical competencies and the basic sciences: An online case tutorial paradigm for delivery of integrated clinical and basic science content. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:238–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Endowment for the Arts. To read or not to read: A question of national consequence, research division report #47. 2007;99. http://www.nea.gov/research/ToRead.pdf
  9. 9.
    Fleming ND, Mills C. Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. Improve the Academy. 1992;11:137–47.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. 2004:174. http://www.academia.edu/1597391/Learning_Styles_a_systematic_and_critical_review
  11. 11.
    Young T. How valid and useful is the notion of learning style? A multicultural investigation. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2010;2:427–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ozuah PO. First, there was pedagogy and then came andragogy. Einstein J Biol Med. 2005;21:83–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gillani BB. Using the web to create student-centered curriculum. In: Cole RA, editor. Issues in web based pedagogy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 2000. p. 161–82.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prensky MH. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate. 2009;5(3):1–9. http://www.wisdompage.com/Prensky01.html
  15. 15.
    Margaryana A, Littlejohn A, Vojt G. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital. Comput Educ. 2011;56:429–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kvavik RB, Caruso JB. Convenience, connection, control, and learning. Students and Information Technology, 2005: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR), Boulder, CO. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0506/ecm0506.pdf
  17. 17.
    Kennedy GE, Judd TS, Churchward A, Gray K, Krause K-L. First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australas J Educ Technol. 2006;24:108–22.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dye MW, Green CS, Bavelier D. Increasing speed of processing with action video games. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009;18:321–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dye MW, Green CS, Bavelier D. The development of attention skills in action video game players. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47:1780–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheyne JA, Carriere JS, Smilek D. Absent-mindedness: Lapses of conscious awareness and everyday cognitive failures. Conscious Cogn. 2006;15:578–92.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Foerde K, Knowlton BJ, Poldrack RA. Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:11778–83.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Erickson KI, Colcombe SJ, Wadhwa R, Bherer L, Peterson MS, Scalf PE, Kim JS, Alvarado M, Kramer AF. Training-induced functional activation changes in dual-task processing: An fMRI study. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:192–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ophir E, Nass C, Wagner AD. Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:15583–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Watson JM, Strayer DL. Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010;17:479–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1984. p. 256.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Biggs JB, Collis KF. Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York, NY: Academic; 1982. p. 245.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karpicke JD, Zaromb FM. Retrieval mode distinguishes the testing effect from the generational effect. J Mem Lang. 2010;62:227–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zaromb FM, Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. Comprehension as a basis for metacognitive judgements: Effects of effort after meaning on recall and metacognition. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010;36(2):552–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006;1(3):181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. Test enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long term retention. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3):249–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Driscoll A, Wood S. Developing outcomes-based assessment for learner-centered education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC; 2007. p. 1–18.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Biggs J, Tang C. Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press; 2007. pp. 64–91 and 163–95.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harden RM, Crosby JR, Davis MH, Friedman M. AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based education: part 5—from competency to meta-competency: a model for the specification of learning outcomes. Med Teach. 1999;21(6):546–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weiler A. Information-seeking behavior in generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. J Acad Librarian. 2004;31:46–53.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    CIBER Group, University College London. CIBER briefing paper: Information behavior of the researcher of the future. London: University College London; 2008. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf
  36. 36.
    Considine D, Horton J, Moorman G. Teaching and reading the millennial generation through media literacy. J Adolesc Adult Lit. 2009;52:471–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hargittai E, Fullerton L, Menchen-Trevino E, Yates TK. Trust online: Young adults’ evaluation of web content. Int J Commun. 2010;4:468–94.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gershon I. The Breakup 2.0: Disconnecting over new media. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 2010. p. 123–65.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Richardson W, Mancabelli R. Personal learning networks. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press; 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bio-Medical SciencesPhiladelphia College of Osteopathic MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations