Communication Preferences of Postsecondary Learners: Are Net Gen Learners Really that Different?
Post on 11-May-2015
1846 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Communication Preferences of Postsecondary Learners: Are Net
Gen Learners Really that Different?
Adnan Qayyum, Mark Bullen, Tannis Morgan
CNIE 2009, Ottawa
Background to Study
• Qualitative study conducted at BCIT
• Communication preferences not related to age
• Survey to explore themes that emerged from qualitative study
• Included questions related to generational characteristics
5/13/2009 2
Net Generation Hype
5/13/2009 3
Net Generation Claims
• Generalizations about the generation
• Implications– For education– For business
5/13/2009 4
Generalizations about Generation
• Immersion in digital technology makes them fundamentally different than other generations– Technologies used– How they use technology
• Profound impact“today’s students think and process information
fundamentally differently than their predecessors. These differences go further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize” – Prensky, 2001
5/13/2009 5
Generalizations about Generation
• Sophisticated users of digital technology
• Different relationship with information and media
• Think and learn differently
• Different expectations of school, work and life
5/13/2009 6
Generalizations about Generation
• Expert multitaskers• Need immediate feedback• Prefer teamwork, collaboration• Experiential learners• Social• Ambitious• Career-oriented• Freedom• Customization
5/13/2009 7
Implications for Education
• Shift from architecture of presentation to architecture of participation– Collaborative learning– Multimedia– Interactive learning– Expect to be entertained– Personalized learning– Digital game-based learning
5/13/2009 8
Validity of Claims
• Claims not based on sound research– Proprietary research– Anecdotal– Speculation taken out of context– Biased samples
• Reviews of research do not support claims
• Good research tends to contradict many of the claims
5/13/2009 9
Contradictory Evidence
Source Comments
Ipsos-Reid Survey, November 2007,
• 2,313 Internet users in Canada• teens spend less time than their
elders online; they are also more conservative in their use of the technology
5/13/2009 10
Contradictory Evidence
Source Comments
Kennedy et. Al. (2006) • Survey of 2588 students at three Australian universities
• Use of collaborative, Web 2.0 technologies low.
“To accept the claims of some of the commentators on the changes needed in universities to cater for this generation of students without undertaking further research is likely to be a substantial mistake.”
5/13/2009 11
Contradictory Evidence
Source Comments
University of Guelph (2008) • Survey of 2706 students• Reluctant to mix personal and
academic use of computers• May not use technology the way we
expect them to• Use of online social networks for
academic use is low
5/13/2009 12
Contradictory Evidence
Source Comments
Bennett, S. , Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008).
• Review of literature• not a homogeneous generation
with technical expertise and a distinctive learning style.
• variations within the generation may be more significant to educators than similarities.
5/13/2009 13
Contradictory Evidence
Source Comments
Reeves, T. & Oh, E. (2007). • Review of Literature“Most of the popular literature on
the subject...appears to rest on limited data, almost always conducted by survey methods characterized by a lack of reliability and validity data."
5/13/2009 14
Contradictory Evidence
Source Comments
Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2008)
• Study• students’ shifting expectations and
patterns of learning and technology use not a grounds for making radical changes to higher education.
5/13/2009 15
Contradictory Evidence
Source Comments
University College of London (2008)
• Comprehensive study of the information-seeking behaviour of the Net Generation (post 1992)
• Poor information literacy• Fail to critically evaluate information
found on Internet• Lack effective search skills
5/13/2009 16
BCIT Study
• Communication preferences of students
• Two part study– Part 1: interviewed 69
students– Part 2: Survey (442 students
in 14 courses)• Questions based on Net
Gen literature and Part 1 of study
• Self-reporting
5/13/2009 17
Net Gen Characteristics
Item Level of Agreement Significance
Digitally literate High Not significant
Connected Moderately high Small relationship
Multitasking Moderately high Small relationship
Experiential learning
Moderately high Not significant
Structured learning Moderately high Not significant
5/13/2009 18
Net Gen Characteristics
Item Level of Agreement Significance
Group work Low Small relationship
Social Moderately high Not significant
Goal oriented Moderate Not significant
Preference for text Moderate Small relationship
Community minded Moderate Not significant
5/13/2009 19
Communication with Peers
Mode Level of Use Significance
BCIT email Moderate Not significant
Personal email Moderately high Not significant
Instant messaging Moderate Small relationship
Text message (phone) Moderately high Small relationship
Facebook/ MySpace Moderate Small relationship
Talking via phone Moderately high Small relationship
Talking in person High Small relationship
WebCT Low Small relationship
5/13/2009 20
Communication with Instructors
Mode Level of Use Significance
BCIT email Moderate Not significant
Personal email Moderate Not significant
Instant messaging Low Not significant
Text message (phone) Low Not significant
Facebook/ MySpace Low Not significant
Talking via phone Low Not significant
Talking in person High Not significant
WebCT Low Small relationship
5/13/2009 21
Implications
• Students have a basic level of comfort with many ICTs - not related to generation– Limited toolkit (email,
texting, cell phones)• Driven by ubiquity, self-
organizing capabilities, type of communication it provides (distance/proximity), practicality
– Infrastructure, program specific technologies and software more valued
5/13/2009 22
Implications
• Group work• not highly preferred, even though
students are highly social and consider themselves to be highly connected because of ICTs
• Students spend 7-8 hours, 5 days/week on campus
• Heavy course load• Ability to communicate and
collaboration is not the problem• Motivation for group work?
Appropriateness of group work?
5/13/2009 23
Implications
• Generation does not explain technology use or learning preferences– Context matters--nature of programs, program
design
• BCIT Net Gen students not significantly different than non Net Gen students
5/13/2009 24
Concluding Remarks
• Ask the right questions– Who are our learners?– How are today’s learners
different from (or the same as) faculty/administrators?
– What learning activities are most engaging for learners?
– Are there ways to use IT to make learning more successful?
5/13/2009 25
Concluding Remarks
• Social vs. educational use of technology
• Educators need to be much more critical
• Value of academic research– Academic, government, proprietary research
• Need to differentiate between generational differences and social change
5/13/2009 26
For More Information
http://netgennonsense.blogspot.com
Adnan.qayyum@sympatico.caMark_Bullen@bcit.caTannis_Morgan@bcit.ca
5/13/2009 27
References
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.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K., & Qayyum, A. (2008). The Net Generation in Higher Education: Rhetoric and Reality. Accepted for publication in the Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology. http://www.box.net/shared/fxqyutottt
Frand, J. (2000). The Information-Age Mindset: Changes in Students and Implications for Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Review, September/October 2000, 15-24.
Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York: Random House.
5/13/2009 28
References
Kennedy et. Al. (2007). The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference, Singapore. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
Kvavik, R.B. (2005). Convenience, Communications, and Control: How Students Use Technology. In D.G. Oblinger & J.L Oblinger (Eds.) Educating the Net Generation, pp. 7.1-7-20. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning. Unpublished paper. http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/anoush/documents/DigitalNativesMythOrReality-MargaryanAndLittlejohn-draft-111208.pdf
5/13/2009 29
References
Oblinger, D.G. & Oblinger, J.L. (Eds) (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5)
Prensky, M. (2001b ). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II; Do They Really Think Differently? On the Horizon, 9(6).
Reeves, T. & Oh, E. (2007). Generational Differences. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 295-303.
Seely-Brown, J. (2002). Growing Up Digital. USDLA Journal, 16(2).
5/13/2009 30
References
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown Up Digital: How The Net Generation is Changing Your World. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
University College London (2008). Information Behaviour of the Research of the Future. http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/googlegen.pdf
5/13/2009 31
top related