Educating the Net Generation - Educause

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 1 1.1 Educating the Net Generation Introduction Diana Oblinger EDUCAUSE James Oblinger North Carolina State University It started with our children. Trying to get them to study without the TV and radio was rarely successful. (We succeeded—temporarily—when the house had been struck by lightning and almost all the household electronics were “fried.”) Trying to concentrate with the stereo on drove us crazy, but didn’t seem to have any impact on them. None of our dire predictions about poor grades materialized. We probably rented as many games from Blockbuster as we did videos. At one point we thought we’d better find out what these games were all about. They let us try a game—something to do with Grand Prix auto racing. We both drove the car right into the wall. One dose of humiliation was enough to convince us that our visualspatial skills would be no match for theirs, no matter how much we practiced. The youngest used to arrive home after school and shout, “Hi, Mom, I’m home. Are you on the Internet?” Those were the days of dial-up, of course. I had to get offline so he could get on. He wouldn’t go outside with his friends until he’d checked e-mail and chatted with his online pals. It seemed odd, but to many parents, the teenage years are just that—odd. Sometimes we’d ask them about information technology. We’ve gotten used to seeing the semi-surprised look on their faces when we’d ask what seem to be reasonable questions about technology. They were polite enough not to say, “Are you serious?” but we could tell they thought that by looking at them. And, like many parents, when it comes to getting consumer electronics information—a new cell phone plan, for example—we’d ask the kids to figure it out for us. You don’t need to ask who set up the VCRs, remote controls, and DVD players in our house, do you? Many of you have probably had similar experiences with your children, nieces or nephews, or even grandchildren. These situations often lead us to say, “That’s not how it was when I was growing up.” ©2005 Diana Oblinger and James Oblinger
But it all started to make more sense on Sundays. On Sunday nights we have the tradition of getting the family together for dinner. We thought we could use these occasions to help the children hone their critical thinking, powers of persuasion, and appreciation of the world around them. Well, perhaps we did. But we are the ones who learned the most. We learned about technology. Even our least technologically inclined son could tell us things about graphics and images that we didn’t know. He has a digital literacy that eludes us. We heard about experiential learning. Each one of the kids has talked about wanting—and needing—hands-on experiences to learn. At first we thought it was due to all those hours with LEGOs when they were young. We now think it is something more significant. We learned many other things as well. What we assumed was impatience is something they consider immediacy—responses are supposed to be fast. The list goes on and on. The relevance of what we were hearing applies to more than parenting, though. We probably speak for most educators when we say that not only do we not really understand our children, but we don’t really understand our students the way we’d like to. This is a book for educators. Those who have chosen to be educators are generally dedicated to students. But, sometimes we don’t quite understand what we are seeing. We hope this book will help educators make sense of the many patterns and behaviors that we see in the Net Generation but don’t quite understand. The first chapter surveys much of the literature in an effort to distill a picture of Net Generation learners—students who were born in the 1980s and later. Although no two individuals are alike, the characteristics help establish the contrast between generations. While we at colleges and universities routinely collect demographic information on our learners, we may not be asking the questions that will help us design and deliver programs that are optimal for current learners. Having Baby Boomers talk about the Net Generation is not nearly as good as listening to learners themselves. Greg Roberts from the University of Pittsburg– Johnstown, along with Ben McNeely and Carie Windham, both from North Carolina State University, help us understand the Net Gen perspective on technology and higher education. Their insights help us appreciate that even our definitions of technology are different. They also emphasize the importance of interactivity and learning-by-doing. Joel Hartman, Patsy Moskal, and Chuck Dziuban from the University of Central Florida have experience with different generations of learners in online, blended, Introduction 1.2
Page 2 and 3: Educating the Net Generation Diana
Page 4 and 5: Chapter 10: Support Services for th
Page 8 and 9: and face-to-face situations. Their
Page 10: and higher education. We consider t
Page 13 and 14: simply the way things are done. Eri
Page 15 and 16: socializing mechanism. Not only is
Page 17 and 18: work—you can always get ahold of
Page 19 and 20: Nontraditional Learners At the same
Page 21 and 22: ensures that most individuals gradu
Page 23 and 24: Personal does not always mean “in
Page 25 and 26: Digital Natives accustomed to the t
Page 27 and 28: � What learning activities are mo
Page 29 and 30: 20. Jones, op. cit. 21. Online Comp
Page 31 and 32: Acknowledgments The authors would l
Page 33 and 34: expect from such a broad group; the
Page 35 and 36: faculty members’ technology knowl
Page 37 and 38: definition of technology is customi
Page 40 and 41: CHAPTER 4 Using Technology as a Lea
Page 42 and 43: eats, using a computer, sound-editi
Page 44 and 45: But the same “tinkering” practi
Page 46 and 47: the first day of kindergarten. Busi
Page 48 and 49: While usability has gotten better a
Page 50 and 51: CHAPTER 5 The Student’s Perspecti
Page 52 and 53: est have just entered the workforce
Page 54 and 55: This acceptance of and emphasis on
Page 56 and 57:
player, and the busy sidewalks outs
Page 58 and 59:
Multimedia Turn on the nightly news
Page 60 and 61:
Instead of quizzes and tests, we we
Page 62 and 63:
“Cash? I have a debit card. Or co
Page 64 and 65:
and more on using e-mail and Web si
Page 66 and 67:
CHAPTER 6 Preparing the Academy of
Page 68 and 69:
led to the kind of global village o
Page 70 and 71:
A challenge for campus planners is
Page 72 and 73:
to go into debt. They populate high
Page 74 and 75:
63 percent for the Boomers, 56 perc
Page 76 and 77:
Excellent Teaching From our explora
Page 78 and 79:
9. Howard Rheingold, Smart Mobs: Th
Page 80:
Patsy Moskal is the faculty researc
Page 83 and 84:
� With what levels of skill are t
Page 85 and 86:
Table 1. Activities and Hours Spent
Page 87 and 88:
Table 2. Levels of Skills Attained
Page 89 and 90:
even if that answer is wrong. 9 Mar
Page 91 and 92:
Table 3. Preferences for Technology
Page 93 and 94:
Table 4. Effect of IT on Class Acti
Page 95 and 96:
improved learning and to use them a
Page 97 and 98:
When combining the percentage of st
Page 99 and 100:
In 1997, Michael Hooker proclaimed,
Page 101 and 102:
12. The scale for this question was
Page 103 and 104:
diverse focus groups, students repo
Page 105 and 106:
� At the most basic level, educat
Page 107 and 108:
computational power have also enabl
Page 109 and 110:
how the process of communication ab
Page 111 and 112:
tual understanding. 18 Typically, c
Page 113 and 114:
their own data. Learner-constructed
Page 115 and 116:
Significant Research Challenges As
Page 117 and 118:
people in cyberspace might experien
Page 119 and 120:
now in face-to-face encounters with
Page 121 and 122:
24. See . 25. See . 26. See . 27. F
Page 124 and 125:
CHAPTER 9 Curricula Designed to Mee
Page 126 and 127:
educate a much larger, more diverse
Page 128 and 129:
Examples of products of this early
Page 130 and 131:
According to the Greater Expectatio
Page 132 and 133:
and newspaper articles. At the end
Page 134 and 135:
Blended Instruction As faculty beco
Page 136 and 137:
In light of this, higher education
Page 138 and 139:
10. See Arthur W. Chickering and Ze
Page 140 and 141:
CHAPTER 10 Support Services for the
Page 142 and 143:
The Net Generation brings a special
Page 144 and 145:
The units responsible for student s
Page 146 and 147:
clearinghouse; the lending institut
Page 148 and 149:
� Inappropriate uses of technolog
Page 150 and 151:
� Direct service to consumers—U
Page 152 and 153:
For the first three years, progress
Page 154 and 155:
student service centers that combin
Page 156 and 157:
tradition. It took a concerted effo
Page 158 and 159:
CHAPTER 11 Faculty Development for
Page 160 and 161:
complish their work and play, that
Page 162 and 163:
Early FDI programs focused more on
Page 164 and 165:
� Teaching strategies that can su
Page 166 and 167:
while simultaneously amplifying com
Page 168 and 169:
In the first part of the GEDI cours
Page 170 and 171:
GEDI participants explore the use o
Page 172 and 173:
12. Donald Z. Spicer, Peter B. DeBl
Page 174 and 175:
CHAPTER 12 12.1 Educating the Net G
Page 176 and 177:
habits of Net Gen students, such as
Page 178 and 179:
from novices. Experts have a deep a
Page 180 and 181:
Obviously not all forms of learning
Page 182 and 183:
Scenarios If we could implement thi
Page 184 and 185:
the room’s rows of paired tables
Page 186 and 187:
Figure 4. Technology in the Library
Page 188 and 189:
Scenario 3: From the Information Co
Page 190 and 191:
Figure 8. Media Studio effective. T
Page 192 and 193:
Table 2. Aligning Net Gen Character
Page 194 and 195:
for her permission to use some of t
Page 196 and 197:
CHAPTER 13 Net Generation Students
Page 198 and 199:
choices about how to access informa
Page 200 and 201:
students’ mental model is one foc
Page 202 and 203:
literacy skills. The report’s aut
Page 204 and 205:
used the service instead of phoning
Page 206 and 207:
tion commons, developed jointly by
Page 208 and 209:
digital information. By blending th
Page 210:
13.15 About the Author Joan K. Lipp
Page 213 and 214:
Alternative ventures targeting toda
Page 215 and 216:
sort of paralysis that makes it dif
Page 217 and 218:
to change—and can change—in the
Page 219 and 220:
emy’s sense of time, and thus the
Page 221 and 222:
Table 1. Cultural Values Traditiona
Page 223 and 224:
A focus on learning activity may ne
Page 225 and 226:
� Develop a culture of evidence.
Page 227 and 228:
holds master’s and doctoral degre
Page 229 and 230:
communities of practice. This inter
Page 231 and 232:
information about the dollhouse and
Page 233 and 234:
environments and augmented realitie
Page 235 and 236:
Figure 1. Talking with an Agent Fig
Page 237 and 238:
opportunities for reflection via bi
Page 239 and 240:
the real world and the information
Page 241 and 242:
Neomillennial Learning Styles Based
Page 243 and 244:
If we accept much of the analysis a
Page 245 and 246:
Cognition Finding information Seque
Page 247 and 248:
5. Marilyn Salzman, “VR’s Frame
Page 249 and 250:
Wynne Harlen and Craig Altobello, A
Page 251 and 252:
attention spans 2.5, 2.13, 5.6, 5.1
Page 253 and 254:
D e p a r t m e n t o f A e r o n a
Page 255 and 256:
future faculty 1.4, 11.1, 11.9, 11.
Page 257 and 258:
leadership 1.4, 5.3, 9.3, 9.10, 9.1
Page 259 and 260:
O obsolescence 10.8 OCLC 2.18, 13.4
Page 261 and 262:
Silberman, Steve 6.4, 6.12 simulati
Page 263 and 264:
Vassar College 12.13, 13.12, 13.15
show all

Educating the Net Generation - Educause

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?