Millennials and Gen Z still prefer live training, study finds
Riia O’Donnell Feb. 13, 2018
Although by a narrower margin for millennials and Gen Z, the numbers in the Wainhouse study shows that the personal touch hasn’t been replaced in workplace learning.
more on instructional design in this IMS blog
Report: Millennials and Generation Z are Changing Media Habits
By Richard Chang 07/17/17
These findings come from a March 2017 survey by content provider and streaming solutions company Fullscreen and market research firm Leflein Associates, which polled 1,173 American internet users from ages 13 to 34.
younger internet users, the so-called Generation Z (ages 13 to 17), are moving away from text-based content online, as well as television, while increasing their time with video and social media.
More on Gen Z in this IMS blog
more on Millennials in this IMS blog
Don’t Call Me a Millennial — I’m an Old Millennial
the Census Bureau’s definition (born 1982–2000) or Pew’s (about 1981–1997).
In 2015, for example, Juliet Lapidos — born the same year I was — may have put it best in a column for the New York Times headlined “Wait, What, I’m a Millennial?” “I don’t identify with the kids that Time magazine described as technology-addled narcissists, the Justin Bieber fans who ‘boomerang’ back home instead of growing up,” she writes.
Old Millennials, as I’ll call them, who were born around 1988 or earlier (meaning they’re 29 and older today), really have lived substantively different lives than Young Millennials, who were born around 1989 or later, as a result of two epochal events that occurred around the time when members of the older group were mostly young adults and when members of the younger were mostly early adolescents: the financial crisis and smartphones’ profound takeover of society. And according to Jean Twenge, a social psychologist at San Diego State University and the author of Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—and More Miserable Than Ever Before, there’s some early, emerging evidence that, in certain ways, these two groups act like different, self-contained generations.
Millennials, we hear over and over again, are absolutely obsessed with social media, and live their entire social lives through their smartphones. I tweet too much, sure, but I’ve never blasted a ’gram (did I say that right?); even thinking about learning how to Snapchat makes me want to take a long, peaceful nap
“The Job-Hopping Generation,” says Gallup — and are much more likely, relative to previous generations when they were in their 20s, to live at home and to put off family formation for a long time.
last week Pew released some numbers suggesting millennials aren’t any job-hoppier than Generation X was at the same age.
this article was written in 2004
Weiler, A. (2005). Information-Seeking Behavior in Generation Y Students: Motivation, Critical Thinking, and Learning Theory. Journal Of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46-53.
The research indicates that only a very small percentage of the general population prefer to learn by reading.
members of “Generation Y,” the generation born between 1980 and 1994.
The first model for study of information-seeking behavior in the general population was developed by James Krikelas in 1983. This model suggested that the steps of information seeking were as follows: (1) perceiving a need, (2) the search itself, (3) finding the information, and (4) using the information, which results in either satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
A second model developed by Carol C. Kuhlthau of Rutgers University stresses a process approach with an emphasis placed on cognitive skills; as they increase, so does information-seeking effectiveness. This model is one of the few that was developed based on actual research and not simply on practical experience.
Eisenberg and Berkowitz proposed a model based on the “Big Six Skills”—task definition, information seeking, implementation, use, synthesis, and evaluation. Their model is flexible and nonlinear in the same way that hypertext is, allowing for different areas and avenues to be explored out of sequence. In addition, seekers can go back to refine and reidentify the information need, implementing new strategies.
Critical thinking is a process that is widely acknowledged in the literature to be crucial to the learning process, to cognitive development, and to effective information seeking.
A more effective lesson on Internet information then, rather than specifically dwelling on “good” and “bad” Web sites, would be to present actual examples and to raise questions rather than giving answers, opening the student up to the next level intellectual development, “multiplicity.” Multiplicity is the ability to acknowledge that the world contains knowledge that the student cannot yet classify as right or wrong, knowledge which requires further study and thought (the so-called “gray area”).
Behavior Theory, first developed by B. F. Skinner in the 1950s, uses the concepts of “positive” and “negative” reinforcement to control behavior. This theory explains learning behavior very simply: Reward students who perform well, and punish students who do not.
The “Control Theory” of behavior was developed by William Glasser. The theory states that, rather than being a response to outside stimulus, behavior is determined by what a person wants or needs at any given time, and any given behavior is an attempt to address basic human needs such as love, freedom, power, etc.
The Myers–Briggs Personality Analysis test, developed by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs, was developed using Jung’s theory of personality types in an effort to determine what type any given individual is. The personality type then determines the learning style of a given individual.
Gardner’s theory relates more directly to intelligence rather than to personality. Gardner states that intelligence is comprised of a group of different abilities, which originate in the stages of development each person passes through as they grow to adulthood. He identifies seven such intelligences—verbal–linguistic, logical–mathematical, visual–spatial, body–kinesthetic, musical–rhythmic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal—but he suggests that there are probably more.
Information seeking is a highly subjective process, one which students approach with prior knowledge, strongly held opinions, and differing levels of cognitive development. From the research it is apparent that, aside from personal preconceptions, issues of time and levels of difficulty in obtaining information are usually of more concern to students than issues of accuracy. It is still unclear, however, whether this is because they are not concerned about the accuracy unless their instructor is, or because they are assuming most information is by nature accurate.
More on Generation Z and Generation Y in this IMS blog:
A Digital Future: K-12 Technology by 2018
The recently-released New Media Consortium Horizon Report details six up-and-coming technologies in the next five years for K-12 classrooms.
Horizon #1: In the next year, or less.
Mobile learning. Cloud computing.
Horizon #2: Within two to three years.
Learning analytics. Open content.
Horizon #3: Within four to five years.
3D printing. Virtual laboratories.
Presented on the NMC K-12 Horizon Report over the weekend at the Alliance for International Education Conference held at Yew Chung International School of Shanghai: http://www.slideshare.net/davidwdeeds/aie-2015-china-conference-using-the-nmc-k12-horizon-report
Levine, A. (2012). Generation on a Tightrope: A Portrait of Today’s College Student
(1 edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. as reported in the IMS blog of:
Rosenfeld, E., & Loertscher, D. V. (2007). Toward a 21st-Century School Library Media Program. Scarecrow Press.
Jeff Feiertag, & Zane L. Berge. (2008). Training Generation N: how educators should approach the Net Generation. Education + Training
(6), 457–464. http://doi.org/10.1108/00400910810901782 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/00400910810901782
Malone, K. (2007). The bubble‐wrap generation: children growing up in walled gardens. Environmental Education Research
(4), 513–527. http://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581612 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504620701581612
some of the changes in childhood environmental behaviours I explore children and parent relationships, in particular, the phenomena of ‘bubble‐wrapping’ children to appease the anxieties of some middle class parents.
Ivanova, A., & Ivanova, G. (2009). Net-generation Learning Style: A Challenge for Higher Education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies and Workshop for PhD Students in Computing
(pp. 72:1–72:6). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1731740.1731818 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1731818
Ivanova, A., & Smirkarov, A. (2009). The New Generations of Students and the Future of e – Learning in Higher Education. Presented at the International Conference on e – Learni ng and the Knowledge Society – e – Learning’09. Retrieved from http://www.iit.bas.bg/esf/docs/2009/thenewgenerationsstudentsfuturee-learninghigheredu.pdf
Montana, P., & Petit, F. (2008). MOTIVATING GENERATION X AND Y ON THE JOB AND PREPARING Z. GLOBAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
(2), 1–30. http://www.theibfr.com/ARCHIVE/GJBR-V2-N2-2008.pdf
McCrindle, M. (n.d.). Understanding Generation Y
. The Australian Leadership Foundation. Retrieved from http://emoneco.net/info_docs/UnderstandingGenY.pdf
Igel, C., & Urquhort, V. (2012). Generation Z, meet cooperative learning. Middle School Journal
(4), 16–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41432109?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Levickaite, R. (2010). Generations X, Y, Z: how social networks form the concept of the world without borders (the case of Lithuania)/Y, X, Z kartos: pasaulio be sienu idejos formavimas naudojantis socialiniais tinklais (Lietuvos Atvejis). LIMES
(2), 170. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA250135086&v=2.1&u=stcloud_main&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w&asid=934b505505fbc57b849a3fb9eefe7871
Lynch, K., & Hogan, J. (2012). How Irish Political Parties are Using Social Networking Sites to Reach Generation Z: an Insight into a New Online Social Network in a Small Democracy. Irish Communication Review
. Retrieved from http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=buschmarart
Parker, K., Czech, D., Burdette, T., Stewart, J., Biber, D., Easton, L., … McDaniel, T. (2012). The Preferred Coaching Styles of Generation Z Athletes: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Coaching Education, 5(2), 5–97.
Greydanus, D. E., & Greydanus, M. M. (2012). Internet use, misuse, and addiction in adolescents: current issues and challenges. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health
(4), 283–289. http://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh.2012.041
more on Generation Z in this IMS blog
Based on the literature regarding games, gaming, gamification, game-based learning, and serious games, several clear trends emerge:
- Gaming and gamification in the sense of game-based learning is about using games and game-like tactics in the education process, for greater engagement and better learning outcomes. However, this is only the first level of such initiative. The second and higher level is about involving students in the game-building and gamification of the learning process (as per Vygotsky’s Zone of…) thus achieving student-centered and experiential learning.
- When hosting games and gaming in any library, “in-person” or electronic/online games are welcome but not sufficient to fulfill their promise, especially in an academic library. Per (1), an academic library has the responsibility to involve students and guide them in learning how to engage in the building process required in true game-based learning.
- Game-based learning, gaming and gamification in particular, in educational (academic library) settings must consider mobile devices and the BYOD movement in particular as intrinsic parts of the entire process. Approaching the initiative primarily by acquiring online “in-person” games, or game consoles has the same limited educational potential as only hosting games, rather than elevating the students to full guided engagement with game-based learning. If public relations and raised profile are the main goals for the academic library, such an approach is justified. If the academic library seeks to maximize the value of game-based learning, then the library must consider: a. gaming consoles, b. mobile devices as part of a BYOD initiative and c. cloud-based / social games, such as MineCraft, SimCity etc.
- Design for game-based learning, gaming and gamification in educational (academic library) settings must include multiple forms of assessment and reward, e.g. badges, leaderboards and/or certificates as an intrinsic part of the entire process. Merely hosting games in the academic library cannot guarantee true game-based learning. The academic library, as the forefront of a game-based learning initiative on campus, must work with faculty on understanding and fine tuning badges and similar new forms of assessment and reward, as they effectively implement large scale game-based learning, focused on the students’ learning gains.
Recommendations for LRS
- In regard to LRS, the gaming and gamification process must be organized and led by faculty, including housing and distributing the hardware, software and applications, when needed.
- The attached paper and the respective conclusions summarized in four points demand educational and experiential background, which is above the limits of the LRS staff. In addition, the LRS staff has clearly admitted that the pedagogical value of gaming and gamification is beyond their interest. This recommendation is not contradicting to the fact and opportunity for LRS staff to participate in the process and contribute to the process; it just negates the possibility of staff mandating and leading the process, since it will keep the gaming and gamification process on a very rudimentary level.
- The process must be further led by faculty with a terminal degree in education (Ph.D.) and experience in the educational field, since, as proved by the attached paper and 4 point conclusion, the goal is not a public-library type of hosting activities, but rather involving students in a pedagogically-sound creative process, with the respective opportunity for assessment and future collaboration with instructors across campus. This recommendation is not contradicting the fact and opportunity for LRS library faculty to participate actively in the process and contribute to the process. It just safeguards from restricting the process to the realm of “public-library” type of hosting activities, but failing to elevate them to the needs of an academic campus and connecting with instructors across campus.
- This conclusions adhere to and are derived from the document recommended by the LRS dean, discussed and accepted by LRS faculty in 2013 about new trends and directions in academic libraries, namely diversification of LRS faculty; breaking from the traditional library mold of including faculty from different disciplines with different opinions and ideas.
library approach to information literacy. or WHAT IS information literacy?
is it the 90-ish notion of standing up in front of bored class and lecturing them how important is to use the online databases, which the university subscribe for
52% of teens use YouTube or other Social Media sites for a typical research assignment in school:
slide 29 out of 56:
Should information literacy be about digital literacy? Geo-spatial knowledge?
Should information literacy include videos? Games?
Should information literacy be multiliteracy? Transliteracy?
This is what Gen Z will expect from information literacy in particular, from library and education in general:
Putting the World In Their Hands: Augmented Reality in the Classroom
The wink of an eye, the simple one-finger tactile swipe down — these are the sights, sounds, and kinesthetic gestures that are changing the context of modern learning.
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/wearable-computers/http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2014/02/12/the-case-against-wearables/ (Google Glass)