Communication Preferences of Postsecondary Learners: Are Net Gen Learners Really that Different?

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

• 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

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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