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!

Multi Generational Learning

View more presentations from jclarey. (tags: generations learning)

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 21^st 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
http://www.cheeps.com/karlmaton/pdf/bjet.pdf

Anoush Margaryan and Allison Littlejohn
Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning.
December 11, 2008
http://chartingthelabyrinths.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/are-digital-natives-a-myth-or-reality-students%E2%80%99-use-of-technologies-for-learning/

OUR NEXT FREE WEBINAR:
Using Second Life for Workplace Learning

Tom Werner
Registration
Description:
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.

Tonia writes about a the digital/native immigrant concept and suggests we should speak more in terms of digital maturity. Her thoughts arise out of frustration around the rate of adaptation of various age groups. She asks, “is this concept of natives and immigrants absurd or just a [too] broad generalization?” My take is that partitioning people is like one-size fits all shirt – it fits no one. However, I am glad that I can claim maturity in at least one area of my life. ; )

More on generational learning and design…

Sarah Boehle interviewed David Blair, Aetna’s learning head of curriculum design, about their study of five generational groups (Silent Generation, ages 62-77; Baby Boomers, ages 52-61; Late Baby Boomers, ages 43-51; Generation X, ages 31-42; and Generation Y, ages 18-30) and their reactions to training. Blair noted that most training designers at Aetna are Baby Boomers (so training seemed to reflect that groups experiences). Changes they made to appeal to a multi-generational mix of employees included more games, simulations, performance support tools, choices, stories as objectives, and the use of Thiagi Group’s Four-Door approach to e-learning (registration required). See Blair’s tips for designing their courses with multiple generations in mind at the end of the article.

And another take on generational issues comes from Sarah White who surveyed ( I can’t see the sample size and suspect it’s just an informal survey) 26-30 year olds in healthcare, manufacturing, consulting, and they service industry (small business and mid size) and concluded

“1/3 of the boomers seem to be checked out and coasting through until retirement, 1/3 seem to be putting in the effort and continuing on like they aren’t retiring in the next 10 years, and 1/3 seem to be clinging on to everything so tightly they will never retire because it may give one of those snotty nose Gen Y’ers a chance to succeed.”

This is accurate based on my own experience. White says Gen Y’ers should “approach the boomers differently so you don’t come off like a know it all.” I imagine hope this is a “how to” for dealing with coasters or cling-ons. (I’m pretty sure they’re not reading this so I’m OK picking on them). I’m a “continuing on” boomer. A digitally mature snotty nose boomer who thinks Aetna’s design practices are just good sound instructional design.

Warning: this post is full of digressions, contradictions, and tangents. (I’m just saying…)

I read an older Pew Publication recently on the behavior and traits of 18-25-year-old U.S. Americans (born 1981 and 1988) for some research I’m currenly doing on “generational learning styles” (don’t get me going on that – I’m a mess about it!). Although the report is a year old, I don’t think much has changed in the past year as far as this study goes.

Interesting when I look at these findings based on my own experiences as an 18-25 year old American in 1982-1987 (although some of what I remember is probably blocked out, lost due to blacking out, or forgotten entirely). To give you context, I was born on the same day and year as Kirk Hammett, from Metallica. I’m part of the Generation Jones – between the X’s and the boomers or, as I like to call it, the Marcia, Marcia, Marcia generation.

Here’s Generation Next, the subject of the study:

• Half send or receive text message over the phone daily (double 26-40-year olds). [My text messages were written on paper and roughly said, "I'll be home at dark" (for my parents) or (for my friends/enemies) were passed in class or left in lockers. I frequently used emoticons on my actual face - the one-eyebrow-up was my hallmark. I would say half of my generation used 'text messaging' with the technology known as a pen.]
• Four-in-ten have created personal profiles on social networking sites. [My social network site was the bottom of the driveway where I hung out with neighborhood friends. Nobody's parents would take us anywhere and they didn't want us in the house either. The information I shared with my friends then was similar to the open-book information I now display for the world. So only 8-10 people listened to my inane crap then and now slightly more. Suckas.]
• Eight-in-ten say new technology makes people lazier. I had to hide to be lazy. If I was caught lazing around, I was given a job to do. Technology was a clothespin out on the clothesline. I’m reminded of a recent conversation with my 20 year-old nephew and his suggestion that he thought technology would take us to the point where we did not need arms or legs. Not that he didn’t want arms and legs, but that he wanted to live in a world where he didn’t have to use them if he didn’t want to. I have agreed that the new technology of my generation – the dryer – made people lazier.]
• Half say immigrants to the U.S. strengthen the country. [I am a first generation Scottish-American. My parents are immigrants so I can''t really comment on this other than to say I believe it is true - then and now. Plus then, I would've gotten smacked on the side of the head if I didn't think it was true. My own kids today get a lot more information on diversity in general.]
• Are generally less critical (and less cynical) of government regulation and business. [I speak cynicism fluently as do many friends my age and many of my kids friends. Workin' for the man. Workin' for the man. 18 or 40 we're all workin' for the man. Only the super-cyncial admit to being cynical in a survey.]
• Are in close contact with their parents. [See first bullet point “ I'll be home at dark." This is an interesting dynamic. We've probably all read stories about the helicopter parent who called their kid's boss at work to question a poor performance review. I'm not sure what, if any, impact this has on workplace learning but I think it may. My feeling is that there is a need for greater performance support.]
• Half have gotten a tattoo, dyed their hair an untraditional color, or have body piercing on body parts other than the ear (1/3rd have tattoos). Tattoos in the 70s-80s were primarily found on the skin of those in the military, bikers (Harley style), rock stars, and those in prison. [Brian Jackson lists five reasons people get tattoos today - loved ones, religious, military service, mistake, just for fun. I'd add anger, celebration of an event, love of pain, and love of art. But this is generation "me" or generation "look at me" we're talking about so permanent markings doesn't surprise me. Does anyone else see a demand here for more laser surgeons in the future? The looming talent shortage (if you buy it) along with this trait are why conservative HR depts. scramble to update policies about appearance. No tattoos is replaced with 'only tasteful tattoos.' I'd like to be on that committee...]
• 1/3rd follow what’s going on in the government and public affairs. [I have to admit, they do a better job at this than I did. Government was a parent thing. Now kids have to get community hours to fulfill graduation requirements for high school. We only did community service if we got caught doing something illegal.]
• Twice as likely (than older generations) to name a family member, teacher, or mentor as hero. [I would've named someone famous I think. Probably some rock star. Perhaps I would've named a family member if I had been more close. The Jones Generation are a bunch of basement kids.]
• More comfortable with globalization and new ways of doing work. [I think so. I still thought then that it was good to have one, stable job. How long have you been in your current job? I don't even know what my job will look like 5 years from now.]
• Top goals: fortune and fame. [I'm reminded of a cartoon: how to be a famous blogger (1) become famous, (2) become a blogger, (3) become a famous blogger. (And, accept advertising for the fortune part.)]
• Feel that educational and job opportunities are better for them today than for the previous generations but are concerned with getting into and graduating from college. [It's not hard to get into an online college. But it often is hard to get into many f2f colleges. However, there are more and more online education opportunities every year. They are not restricted by space. I think this creates opportunities. I don't think I dared to flunk out of college because I would've gotten smacked on the side of the head again. And, lost my funding. I think my generation felt the same way - that I had better opportunities then the previous generation.]
• 86% use the Internet at least occasionally (nearly all college grads do while 77% of non-college graduates do). (Gen X=91%, Baby Boomers=73%, Seniors 46%) [I do wonder though about losing the ability to think deeply. When everything is at your fingertips, why remember? What does it mean not to have to try to remember who played Jed Clampett on the Beverly Hillbillies? Or what the heck the lyrics to Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song were? What does that do to your brain?]

(BTW that’s Buddy Ebsen and “on we sweep with threshing oar,
Our only goal will be the western shore! Ah, ah!)

Regarding generational differences and learning, I’m really not convinced that we need to create different instructional strategies any more than we need to create different instructional strategies to address learning styles. To me, it’s an issue of individual experiences, context, and preferences.

Most people, regardless of age, want to chit chat with their friends, get a little rebellious, and share their background & interests with others. And, I think they understand that most technology might make them lazier.

While I recognize different characters and traits of a group bound by a time period in a particular part of the world, I’m not convinced generational differences mean that much when designing instruction. The fact that the net gen texts all the time so therefore needs immediate feedback doesn’t change the non-texters also might need immediate feedback. Yes, we may need to address abilities (for all learners) but I think it’s more about the need to focus on how to teach and learn. If technologies are used to make that easier and better, then we do it. In short, I’m not seeing a lot of research in this area that doesn’t suggest the entire issue of generational learning styles is hype.

I know only fellow 40+ers have hung in to the end of this post. There weren’t enough pictures for the 18 year olds ; )

You know how they are…