Recognizing College Students of Today: Generational Shifts Prompt Pedagogical Shifts

Abstract

As educators strive to continually improve the learning potential of the students in our classrooms, it is wise to evaluate traits of the students that may influence the effectiveness of the pedagogical methods employed. To this end, this essay introduces the reader to descriptions of today’s college students that identify this cohort as unique in learning style as well as life experience from all previous generations. An assessment method was used to investigate the degree to which current students identify with these generational stereotypes. The method and results of the assessment are discussed, and suggestions for adopting new pedagogical strategies for teaching these students are offered. The essay concludes with suggestions for future research into the pedagogical methods that may better serve this cohort of students. In February of 2006, a Basic Course Director’s Conference was held in Fargo, North Dakota. The keynote address, delivered by Dr. Mark Taylor, M.S.W. Ed.D.(Director of Guidance Services at Arkansas State University-Beebe), focused on the presence of a new generation of students on campuses since the turn of the millennium and how the presence of these students in the classroom precipitates a need for change in current pedagogy practices. Shortly following this conference, in an issue of Spectra (April 2006), an article appeared titled “How do we communicate with ‘Millennials?’” Millennials, a name coined by Howe & Strauss (1991), is but one name being used to describe this new generation of students; more recently other names, such as Generation NeXt, Gen Y, and Gen M, have been used to refer to these same individuals. Although the names have changed, the importance of the characteristics of this generation of students should not be overlooked. Discussion of the characteristics of students (born in 1980 or later) in college classrooms today is warranted for a number of reasons. First, this new generation of students has been identified as notably different learners from previous generations (McGlynn, 2005; Oblinger, 2003; Taylor, 2004). Second, if educators aim to increase critical thinking skills and improve learning outcomes among these students, then teachers need to actively address the characteristics that make these students unique with regard to previous generations (Gardiner, 1994; Oblinger, 2003; Taylor, 2004). And, third, the seriousness of this topic needs to be 1 Cvancara and Treinen: Recognizing College Students of Today: Generational Shifts Prompt Published by Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato, 2007 CTAMJ Summer 2007 39 disseminated among a wider audience to prompt educators to discuss the pedagogical strategies that may be most successful with this new generation of learners. The overall goal of this essay is to focus the attention of educators on characteristics associated with this generation of students relevant to pedagogy in secondary and post-secondary classrooms. To this end, the reader is introduced to characteristic traits of this new cohort, and offered pedagogical strategies that may enhance learning within the classroom environment. The essay closes with suggestions for further investigations on this topic. Recognizing a New Generation of Students With the onset of the 21 century, a distinct new generation of students was predicted to hit college campuses nationwide. This cohort of students has grown up in a period of national economic prosperity and government security, and is often identified as being doted on by parents whom often included them in family decision-making processes (Oblinger, 2003; Tucker, 2006). Verhaagen (2005) argues this generation has the potential to outshine all previous generations through their courage, character, determination, innovation, and vision. Yet, problems with these descriptions arise when attempts are made to connect specific characteristics of this new generation to student learning and behavior practices in the classroom (e.g., Raines, 2002; Taylor, 2006). Intra-generational differences are becoming more apparent due to a seeming divide in the cohort, resulting in identifiable subgroups. When linked to pedagogy, educators should be aware of the various generational subgroups to fully comprehend the role these groups are playing in the adaptation of new pedagogical techniques within our discipline today. Comparing Generational Subgroups: Millennial vs. Generation NeXt During his 2006 presentation in Fargo, Dr. Taylor compared the characteristics associated with the predicted “Millennial” and currently realized “Generation NeXt” student population and drew the following conclusions. To distinguish between the Millennials and Generation NeXt students, it is important to keep in mind that each label refers to the same generational cohort of students; however, the associated characteristics appear to be polar opposites. While Millennial students were expected to be extremely focused on grades and performance (Raines, 2002; Tucker, 2006), Generation NeXt students are less studious than previous generations and particularly noted for reporting greater levels of boredom and tardiness in class and for perceiving themselves as better students than their college grade performance would indicate (Taylor, 2005, 2006). While it was anticipated that the Millennials would be willing to conform to convention, and respect norms and institutions (Raines, 2002; Tucker, 2006), the Generation NeXt students are noted for high levels of incivility, low levels of conventional conformity and civic activity, and weak association with traditional social structures (Taylor, 2005, 2006). While the Millennials were predicted to be more interested in math and science, the Generation 2 Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal, Vol. 34, Iss. 1 [2007], Art. 4 https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/ctamj/vol34/iss1/4 40 CTAMJ Summer 2007 NeXt students are not showing great interest in math, science, or the humanities (Taylor, 2005, 2006). Lastly, while the Millennials were predicted to seek a secure, predictable environment, the Generation NeXt students are noted to seek environments that allow for their individual freedom involving personal behavior and choices (Taylor, 2005, 2006). Conversely, characteristics shared by both Millennial and Generation Next students include a close relationship with parents, technological sophistication, ethnic diversity, and a majority of females over males (Jayson, 2006; Taylor, 2006; Tucker, 2006). Examining the differences between Millennial and Generation NeXt subgroups. In light of the comparison between Millennial and Generation NeXt students, Taylor (2006) offered some theories as to why these subgroups may have formed. Social and economic contextual factors, Taylor argued, have heavily contributed to the generation’s characteristics. For example, in his keynote address at the conference, Taylor argued that traditionally-aged students’ critical thinking skills and attitudes regarding education have been more influenced by personal opinion and consumer interest, than by the traditional religious or scientific values influential in previous generations. From a postmodern perspective, he argued Generation NeXt students may see reality as individually and socially constructed, which has the effect of prioritizing opinion and personal preference over truth and absolute meaning in daily decision-making. From a sociological perspective, Taylor argued Generation NeXt students have been witness to dynamic social shifts, such as large numbers of mothers joining the workforce, an equal occurrence of divorce and marriage, a shift of parental role-models to include daycare and educational staff members, and, as a group, have experienced an increasing reliance on television for social information and entertainment. Taylor argued all of these contextual factors are at work shaping the characteristics of Generation NeXt students entering college today. Interestingly, Taylor’s perspective is not always represented in the work written up on this new generation (Raines, 2002; McGlynn, 2005; Oblinger, 2003). As convincing as Taylor’s (2004, 2006) argument is, it is with care that any generalization should be applied to a group of students. Keeping this in mind, it is important to acknowledge the potential for this new generation of students to have differing motivations and goals regarding their post-secondary educations. As a result, a classroom may consist of a combination of Millennial and Generation NeXt students. What seems most important, then, is to devise ways for identifying the types of students present in the classroom and also how to best teach to the mix that one finds. Fostering More Learning via New Teaching Strategies Previous college generations were often taught through lecture-driven teaching methods, referred to today as passive teaching strategies (Gardiner, 1994). Although current pedagogy practices espouse a need for active strategies to replace these passive methods (Bain, 2004; Fink, 2003; Weimer, 2002), it is even more vital that attention be drawn to this pedagogical shift in light of the interpreted difference in characteristics of the subgroups of the new student 3 Cvancara and Treinen: Recognizing College Students of Today: Generational Shifts Prompt Published by Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato, 2007 CTAMJ Summer 2007 41 generation. Thus, being able to identify what type of student is sitting in the classroom, in addition to accurately implementing a relevant teaching method, is essential to enhancing learning outcomes among the college students of today. As a result, educators may need to investigate the generational stereotypes that are being used to characterize students today by asking students questions such as: RQ1: What is your overall reaction to the label “Gen