Advertisement

Generational Differences and the Integration of Technology in Learning, Instruction, and Performance

  • Eunjung Oh
  • Thomas C. Reeves

Abstract

Generational differences have been widely discussed; attention to and speculation on the ­characteristics of the Millennial Generation are especially abundant as they pertain to the use of educational technology for education and training. A careful review of the current popular and academic literature reveals several trends. First, whether based on speculation or research findings, discussion has focused on traits of the newer generations of students and workers and how their needs, interests and learning preferences can be met using new media, innovative instructional design and digital technologies. Second, generally speaking, although in the past few years there have been more critical and diverse perspectives on the characteristics of the Millennial Generation reported in the literature than before, more substantive studies in this area are still necessary. This chapter discusses trends and findings based upon the past 10 years’ literature on generational differences, the Millennial Generation, and studies and speculations regarding school and workplace technology integration that is intended to accommodate generational differences. There is still a lack of consensus on the characteristics of the newer generation sufficient to be used as a solid conceptual framework or as a variable in research studies; thus, research in this area demands an ongoing, rigorous examination. Instead of using speculative assumptions to justify the adoption of popular Web 2.0 tools, serious games and the latest high tech gear to teach the Millennial Generation, approaches to integrating technology in instruction, learning, and performance should be determined by considering the potential pedagogical effectiveness of a technology in relation to specific teaching, learning and work contexts. Clearly, today’s higher education institutions and workplaces have highly diverse student bodies and work forces, and it is as important to consider the needs of older participants in learning with technology as it is to consider those of the younger participants. Recommendations for future research and practices in this area conclude the chapter.

Keywords

Generational differences The millennial generation Technology integration 

References

  1. Bauerlein, M. (2008). The dumbest generation: How the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future (Or, don’t trust anyone under 30). New York, NY: Tarcher.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the digital natives debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. *Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.Google Scholar
  4. Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning Technology, 37(1). Retrieved from http://www/cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/550
  5. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  6. Caruso, J. B., & Kvavik, R. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control and learning. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0506/ekf0506.pdf
  7. Charsky, D., Kish, M. L., Briskin, J., Hathaway, S., Walsh, K., & Barajas, N. (2009). Millennials need training too: Using communication technology to facilitate teamwork. TechTrends, 53(6), 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coinsidine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reading the Millennial Generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(6), 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & Zúñiga, H. G. D. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenberg, M. (2008). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(2), 39–47.Google Scholar
  12. Elmore, T. (2010). Generation iY: Our last chance to save their future. Norcross, GA: Poet Gardener Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Goldberg, B., & Pressey, L. C. (1928). How do children spend their time? The Elementary School Journal, 29(4), 273–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanewald, R. (2008). Confronting the pedagogical challenge of cyber safety. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Head, A., & Eisenberg, M. (2010). Truth be told: How college students evaluate and use information in the digital age (Project Information Literacy Progress Report). Seattle, WA: University of Washington’s Information School. Retrieved from http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2010_Survey_FullReport1.pdf
  16. Howe, N., & Nadler, R. (2012). Why generations matter: Ten findings from LifeCourse Research on the Workforce. Retrieved from http://www.lifecourse.com/services/generations-in-the-workforce/white-paper.html
  17. *Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  18. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York: William Morrow & Company.Google Scholar
  19. International Society for Technology in Education. (2011, December 22). NETS for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-student-standards-2007.aspx
  20. Jackson, M. (2009). Distracted: The erosion of attention and the coming dark age. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 693–719). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. *Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Gray, K., Waycott, J., Judd, T., et al. (2009). Educating the net generation: A handbook of findings for practice and policy. Retrieved from http://www.netgen.unimelb.edu.au/outcomes/handbook.html
  24. Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35(3), 207–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2010). The m-factor: How the ­millennial generation is rocking the workplace. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, C. A., & Tulgan, B. (2002). Managing the generational mix. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.Google Scholar
  27. McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Mishna, F., Cook, C., Saini, M., Wu, M.-J., & MacFadden, R. (2011). Interventions to prevent and reduce cyber abuse of youth: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(5), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net Gen. Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE.Google Scholar
  30. *Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.Google Scholar
  31. *Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  32. *Reeves, T. C., & Oh, E. (2007). Generation differences and educational technology research. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 295–303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ribble, M. S., Bailey, G. D., & Ross, T. W. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6–11.Google Scholar
  35. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2 media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds: A Kaiser Family Foundation study. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf
  36. Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the igeneration and the way they learn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Stout, H. (2010, October 15), Toddlers’ favorite toy: The iPhone. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/fashion/17TODDLERS.html?pagewanted=all
  38. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  39. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. *Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before . New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. *Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Word (Version 2010) [Microsoft Office 2010]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft.Google Scholar
  44. Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the class of veterans, boomers, x-ers, and nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: AMACON.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Foundations, Secondary EducationJohn H. Lounsbury College of Education, Georgia College & State UniversityMilledgevilleUSA
  2. 2.Learning, Design, and Technology, College of EducationThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations