Here are the slides from an online session I did yesterday on Multi-Generational Learning in the Workplace. This was the first time I presented on this topic and the first time I led a session using Saba’s Centra platform. Great questions, great crowd, no big tech issues. Cammy Bean took some notes and graciously posted them on her blog. Funny it was also the first time Cammy “heard” my voice (other than in it’s written form). (From her Tweet: listening to @jclarey She’s actually a real person! ) Cat’s out of the bag now!
I guess there were some people that couldn’t join because the registration number was exceeded so I’ll be presenting the session again in the near future and we’ll beef up the registration numbers for all of our future events. Also, we moved to a new server so you Mac folks should be able to play nicely with the platform.
I’ve promised a couple of things post-presentation, so look for them here shortly and add what I’ve missed in the comments section if you don’t see something you were interested in getting more info on:
- Additional details on Millennial’s and critical thinking and reflecting skills (future post)
- Bibliography (below)
In a nutshell, my main points:
- The “younger” generation (“millennials” born in the 80s-90s) are not [automatic] masters of technology and often use a limited range of technologies (i.e., Google, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia for homework, the school’s VLE/LMS, instant message, text, profile on a social networking service like Facebook or MySpace.)
- When the “younger” generation goes to work, their expectations are influenced more by prior educational experiences than use of technology outside an educational setting. (i.e., To learn, I sat in a classroom for years, so it would be normal to expect to sit in a classroom to learn at work. Because I watch YouTube videos, have a Facebook, and text doesn’t mean I expect you to use those to train me at work).
- The “younger” generation does not have a high level of use of collaborative knowledge creation tools (“2.0”) and don’t adopt radically different patterns of knowledge creation and sharing.
- Don’t ground transformation of education arguments around “younger” generations’ expectations and patterns of technology use. (Ground it in this: to address the changing nature in the way we all handle information (create it, retrieve it, interact with it), the way we communicate information, and the way we, as humans, interact with each other.)
- As IDs we need to use educational technology to gain wisdom FROM it and we need to enhance our capabilities of our understanding so we can use it IN our learning activities.
- Ditch the digital native / immigrant thing. It’s served its purpose – a catalyst for conversation.
- Regardless of age, heavy tech users have similar characteristics. (I therefore label myself a “Baby Boomer/ Gen X ‘cusper’ a.k.a. “Jones Generation,” with millennial tendencies possibly caused by high exposure to technology.” But “Janet” works too.)
- Your exposure to technology defines how tech savvy you are, not your age.
- While we can identify different traits of generations, we can’t – and should not – make broad brushstroke statements. There are simply too many variables (workplace culture, exposure to technology, socio-cultural differences, gender, geography, socio-ecomonic, etc.)
- Designing instruction based on a person’s age is not grounded in solid research.
- Keep your own bias in mind.
- My arguments primarily revolve around the knowledge worker – those who work with information.
- If you’re only ticket to getting resources is to ride the hype wave of “generational learning styles” then OK. (but don’t design instruction to it)
- Know the learning theories behind your craft damn it!
I mean really saying, “Janet, you’re ‘old’ (46), you go take that self-paced e-learning course where you just click the next button. And you, Marie, 28 year-old, you go create an avatar of yourself and enter our virtual world…” WTF! Don’t do this!
References all hodgepodge and not APA because I’m not getting graded for this post:
Baird, D.E. & Fisher, M. 2005-2006. Neomillennial User Experience Design Strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support “always on” learning styles. J. Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 34 (1) 5-32, 2005-2006.
Bonwell C.C & Eison, J.A., 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ERIC Digest, ERIC Digests. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/23/6e/bd.pdf
Brown, J.S. (2002). Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. Education at a Distance. USDLA Journal. http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid. (1989). “Situated cognition and the culture of learning.” Educational Researcher 18(1): 32-42.
Chinnery, G.M. (2008). You’ve got some GALL: Google-assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, February 2008, Volume 12, Number 1, pp. 3-11.
Codrington, G. (2008). Generation comparisons. ? @tomorrowtoday. Blog. http://www.tmtd.biz/2008/05/10/generation-comparisons/#more-1562
Debard, R. D. (2004). Millennials coming to college. In R. D. Debard & M. D. Coomes (Eds.). Serving the millennial generation: New directions for student services (pp. 33-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass in Reeves, T.C. (2006). Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology (EPIT).
Dede, C. (1996). Emerging Technologies and Distributed Learning. The American Journal of Distance Education.
Dede, C. (2006). Neomillennial Learning Styles: From Websites to Distributed-Learning Communities. Innovations in eLearning Symposium 2006. distance.nmsu.edu/faculty/presentations/dede01.ppt
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles. Educause Quarterly. http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/PlanningforNeomillennialL/39899
de Kort, L. (2004). White Paper: Generations at Work. Australian Institute of Management. http://www.aimnt.com.au/ntatwork/generations_at_work.pdf
Dzuiban, C. & Moskal, P. (2007). Assessing Student Success. Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness, University of Central Florida. http://www.educause.edu/aascu07
Dzuiban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2006). Higher Education, Blended Learning and the Generations: Knowledge is Power – No More. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftlc.ucalgary.ca%2Fdocuments%2Fchuck.doc&ei=0TTFSJbwNoeWec6b6fsH&usg=AFQjCNHugUwz10NMKeE7dVap5HUhNMlU1Q&sig2=FafgboQsE6OFfwZFNIaZmQ
Gee. J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have To Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goldman-Segall, R. (1998). Points of Viewing Children’s Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer’s Journey, Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1998.
Henry, J. (2007). Professor pans ‘learning style’ teaching method. Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/29/nteach129.xml
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books.
Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you: How today’s popular culture is actually making use smarter. New York: Riverhead Books in Reeves, T.C. (2006). Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology (EPIT).
Jonassen, D. H., McAleese, T. M. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1993). A Manifesto for a constructivist approach to technology in higher education. In Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.) The design of constructivistic learning environments: Implications for instructional design and the use of technology, Heidelburg, FRG: Springer-Verlag in Moallem, M. (2001). Applying Constructivist and Objective Learning Theories in the Design of a Web-Based Course: Implications for Practice. Educational Technology & Society. http://ifets.fit.fraunhofer.de/periodical/vol_3_2001/moallem.html
Jonassen, D. (1998). Designing Constructivist Learning Environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional theories and models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Klopfer, E. & Squire, K. (2004). Environmental Detectives—the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 56, Number 2. Springer Boston.
Lambropoulos, N. (2005). Neomillennial eLearning Environment for Open Universities at the Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Presentation.
McLester, S. (2007). Technology Literacy and the MySpace Generation. techLEARNING from Technology & Learning. http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=196604312
Moallem, M. (2001). Applying Constructivist and Objective Learning Theories in the Design of a Web-Based Course: Implications for Practice. Educational Technology & Society. http://ifets.fit.fraunhofer.de/periodical/vol_3_2001/moallem.html
Oblinger, D.G. (2007). Growing Up with Google. EDUCAUSE 2007 Conference Presentation. http://www.educause.edu/aascu07
Oblinger, D.G. (2007). The Next Generation of Courses. EDUCAUSE 2007 Conference Presentation. http://www.educause.edu/aascu07
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers, & Millennials: Understanding the New Students. July/August 2003. Educause review.
Oblinger, D. &Oblinger, J. (eds.) (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Educause. http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
Palfrey, J. & Gasser, Urs (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. NCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marcprensky.com%2Fwriting%2FPrensky%2520-%2520Digital%2520Natives%2C%2520Digital%2520Immigrants%2520-%2520Part1.pdf&ei=7j3FSMD_DYjkesrlvYkI&usg=AFQjCNEUHeiX8ghPYUPXKPWbM4xzAljIpg&sig2=pJTxWPUpcqm-4sMLe-K3_Q
Reeves, T.C. (2006). Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology (EPIT).
Reid, A. Writing in the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/669
Slator, B. M. and Associates. (2006). Electric worlds in the classroom: Teaching and learning with role-based computer games. New York: Teachers College Press in Reeves, T.C. (2006). Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design? Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology (EPIT).
Suave, E. (2007). Informal Knowledge Transfer. T&D. March 2007. www.learningcircuits.org/2007/0307sauve
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled – and More Miserable Than Ever Before. Free Press. New York, NY. http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-Assertive-Entitled/dp/0743276981/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207665559&sr=1-1
Wilen-Daugenti, T. (2007). The 21st Century Learning Environment: Next-generation strategies for higher education. Cisco internet Business Solutions Group, Global Education.
Wilson, B. & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching methods. Educational Technology Research and Development. Volume 39, Number 4, Springer Boston.
Developing the Generations: Is there a difference?
HR Spring Forum, May 7, 2007 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jobs.sc.gov%2FOHR%2F07hr-forum%2FDevelopingtheGenerations.ppt&ei=_S3FSPPgMqawevXa8IQI&usg=AFQjCNH_wGZAcwx4kMpLCzqLBgqZg3DGDw&sig2=pOJh5OLqb-xHIfZ1Hm4JRA
And, very recent publications:
Sue Bennett, Karl Maton, Lisa Kervin
The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence.
British Journal of Educational Technology
Vol. 39 No. 5 2008 p. 775-776
Anoush Margaryan and Allison Littlejohn
Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning.
December 11, 2008
OUR NEXT FREE WEBINAR:
Using Second Life for Workplace Learning
Overview of this important immersive environment, discuss its advantages and disadvantages for corporate training, and show examples. He will also point to key resources that are available for those starting to use Second Life in training.