Teaching Generation NeXt: A Pedagogy for Today's Learners

A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional Improvement

26th Edition. 2010 The Higher Learning Commission. All rights reserved.
Teach|ng Cenerat|on NeXt:
A Pedagogy for Today's Learners
Mark Taylor
Faculty struggle to effectively teach our traditionally aged students from Generation NeXt. They are dif-
ferent, and different kinds of learners, than anyone higher education has experienced in the past, and
there is ample evidence of a growing divide and mismatch between faculty and students in teaching and
learning (Coates 2007; Schroeder 2004). Our students' academic preparation and expectations, consumer
orientation, esteem and importance issues, and use of technology are challenging traditional educational
practices (Taylor, 2005, 2006; Twenge 2006). "Old school methods, especially the all too common lecture
on content to passive learners, are proving less and less successful in bringing students to appropriate
learning and developmental outcomes (Bok 2006; Shulman 2005a, 2005b; Tagg 2004; U.S. Department of
Education 2006). Workplace readiness outcomes are often poor and are coming under increased scrutiny
(Grossman 2005; Hersch and Merrow 2005; Levine 2005; Taylor 2007).
This generation of digital natives has caught educators fat-footed (Prensky 2001a, 2001b; Tapscott
2009). Pedagogies of activity and engagement, especially those that use recently available Web- and
technology-based tools and resources, can be more effective but are often not gaining signifcant levels
of use in most schools. Few schools, beyond making online course management systems available, have
truly leveraged students' digital preferences and available online-anytime resources toward learning goals.
Most classrooms still resemble those described by Lion Gardiner, who states that the college experience
for most students comprises a loosely organized, unfocused curriculum with undefned outcomes, classes
that emphasize passive listening, lectures that transmit low-level information, and assessments of learn-
ing that demand only the recall of memorized material or low-level comprehension of concepts (1998).
Unfortunately, lecture-based classes transmitting low-level information might actually reduce students'
ability to think critically and are still the norm at most colleges.
f the traditional methods are not bringing about the traditional results with these learners, better approaches
must be considered. This paper addresses the disconnect between today's learners and current common
teaching practices, and describes a comprehensive, effective, practical, and accessible teaching and
learning model grounded in increasing student activity, engagement, and use of technology to improve
relevant learning outcomes.
|mprove 8tudents' Future 0r|entat|on
Class content, the uses students have for that content, and the skills students are expected to develop
should relate to students' goals. Today's consumer-oriented, outcome-oriented students are engaged at
the affective level only if they can see a future utility, beneft, or relevance from their learning. Helping
students see themselves in, and better identify with, future vocational and professional roles can thus
connect learning to meaning. A future orientation also can improve student persistence as students better
see educational success as necessary for them to reach future goals.
Teaching Generation NeXt: A Pedagogy for Today's Learners
A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional Improvement
26th Edition. 2010 The Higher Learning Commission. All rights reserved.
|dent|fy 6|ass Coa|s
Many faculty members who spend signifcant amounts of time delivering and assessing content-level
or knowledge-level learning can beneft from identifying and articulating class goals around the utility of
content and the values of these uses and skills. Students are more likely to learn content and applications
if they see what they can do with the information and skills, why these uses matter to them and others,
and how these applications can beneft them. Faculty can then use active techniques to allow students
the opportunity to link the class goals to their personal goals. Linking class and student goals can improve
compliance as well as learning outcomes for these more discerning students. "No information without
application should be the credo in all classes.
|mprove 8tudent Understand|ng of 6|ass Expectat|ons
People expect what has worked for them in the past to work for them in the future. Students expect the
level of academic effort they showed in high school to lead to success in college, which is rarely the case
except for the most advanced high school graduates or in the least demanding college classes. Many
classroom, compliance, and learning issues can be understood as a failure to make academic expectations
clear. Faculty are well advised to not assume that students understand college academic expectations in
general, or for their class in particular, and to take time early in the semester to make class expectations
clear. Rewards (in the form of points) and consequences (in the form of penalties, lost points or learning
opportunities) should be spelled out for both the mechanical expectations, such as preparation, attendance,
and participation, and for the learning outcomes.
Hove 6ontent Learn|ng 0ut of 6|ass
Too much time in most classes is spent delivering content; time that can be better spent helping students
actively identify the uses of the content, learn skills, or identify why the learning matters to them. This
model moves faculty from the traditional pedagogy of delivering content in class and expecting students to
apply it out of class, to moving the content out of class and facilitating the application of content under the
guidance of the professor during class. n this digital age, most information at the content level is available
and can be readily accessed by students out of class as a component of class preparation. n addition to
the traditional textbook, which is now often self-augmented with CD, DVD, and online learning resources,
sites like YouTube.com, merlot.org, and the online university portals at iTunes offer a wealth of resources.
Government, professional, and not-for-proft organizations, as well as subject-specifc sites, can offer online
content to replace the traditional lecture delivery and are often more current and highly connected with
real-world applications. Students may be more likely to access tech-sophisticated sites (as opposed to
studying the textbook, which they are traditionally and anecdotally loath to do), as anytime learning on the
Web via online resources better matches their digital learning styles, and the ability to view or listen to the
explanation multiple times can help learners who need repetition (Coates 2007; Prensky 2001a, 2001b).
nstructors may believe that it is their responsibility to explain course material, not just identify where it is
available. Creating customized out-of-class content has never been easier for faculty, or more appropri-
ate for students, even for highly complex and technical topics and subjects. Creating an MP4 recording,
placing a voice-over narrative on presentation software, or making a voice recording that students can
listen to using their iPods can offer students the beneft of the instructor's best explanation without using
valuable class time. n sum, class time is too valuable to spend delivering content, which is, or can be,
available elsewhere.
Teaching Generation NeXt: A Pedagogy for Today's Learners
A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional Improvement
26th Edition. 2010 The Higher Learning Commission. All rights reserved.
6reate the Necess|ty of Prepar|ng for and Attend|ng 6|ass
Scheduled class meetings are the central part of the educational process and the most signifcant learn-
ing opportunities for students, yet they are often dreaded by students who may describe them as boring.
Faculty are not encouraged to offer points for attendance, but instead to award points for class preparation,
which can only be obtained by attendance. Enticing students to prepare for class may be easier if that
preparation is more attractive and meaningful to the learner: students may more likely watch a podcast
than read the text. nstructors must make assignment expectations very clear (not "watch this video, but
instead "answer these ten questions) and clarify the benefts of preparation (points, more effective learn-
ing) and costs of the lack of preparation (loss of points, inability to move into activity portion of the class
or participate in group work), and they must be willing to clarify, but not to deliver, the content to greatly
increase the likelihood that meaningful class preparation becomes normative student behavior.
Checking that each student has prepared for a class meeting by completing the specifc assignment be-
comes a central class dynamic, and it must be the frst, necessary domino in student success every day
in every class by establishing each student's readiness to participate in other class activities. This can be
accomplished before class time by requiring students to e-mail the assignment to the instructor, comment
on a blog or wiki, or respond to questions on class management system software; or it can be accomplished
at the start of each class session by having students show the instructor the completed assignment when
they enter the class, or having students take a quiz. This is an excellent use of a classroom response
system, which can even record the quiz results for automatic grading. The use of these "clickers in the
classroom is proving a powerful tool in increasing student engagement, even in very large classes (Bruff
2009; Caldwell 2007; Duncan 2005).
|ncrease 6|assroom Learn|ng Act|v|ty and Engagement
f there is a truism in higher education, it is that student activity increases learning (Pascarella and Terenzini
1991, 2005). The case for moving from the teaching model of delivery to an active model of facilitating
learning has been made frequently and convincingly, though apparently not persuasively (Barr and Tagg
1995; Gardiner 1998; O'Banion 1999). People have known for a long time that college students learn more
when they're actively engaged in learning via hands-on practice and other means, but many professors
don't want to and don't have to adopt these methods (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991, 2005). Higher-order
and lasting learning will never be effectively reached by passive students who spend class time listening
to faculty deliver content.
n the model described here, class content at the knowledge level is moved out of class to free class time
for active learning to help students move to the higher learning and process levels of skills and values,
behavioral applications, and the affective level of caring, or Bloom's application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation levels (Bloom et al. 1956, 186193). There is a wealth of literature available on active learn-
ing techniques in and appropriate to every subject area. While the techniques will look different across
subjects, the processes are very similar (Manzur 1997). To help students understand content, let them
actively teach it to another person. To help students learn a skill, let them actively practice it, with someone
observing for accuracy. To help students come to care, value, or see worth in a subject or skill, let them
actively identify how it will beneft them in the future and actively articulate this belief in beneft to another
person. "No passive students should be the expectation during class time.
Teaching Generation NeXt: A Pedagogy for Today's Learners
A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional Improvement
26th Edition. 2010 The Higher Learning Commission. All rights reserved.
|mprove Assessments and Accountab|||ty
As instruction moves from the traditional faculty delivery-of-content process to a student-construction-
of-learning model, instructors also need to move from a reliance on summative assessments of learning
outcomes to assign grades to ongoing formative efforts to monitor and measure the effcacy of instruction
and students' movement toward learning outcomes. This movement from assessment of learning to as-
sessment for learning is replacing traditional outcomes testing and leading to a deeper, more lasting, and
higher-level learning, and to students' ability to make meaningful application of their learning. Classroom
response systems are proving very useful in helping monitor ongoing and emerging student understanding
and learning, their effectiveness limited only by faculty creativity and their use generally liked by digitally
oriented students (Bruff 2009; Caldwell 2007; Duncan 2005). Low-tech techniques like ungraded quiz-
zes and private response opportunities can be effective as well. Any ungraded anonymous opportunity
to allow all students to let instructors know their ongoing understandings or skills, or lack thereof, will be
appreciated by students and helpful to the willing instructor.
Formal graded assessments of student learning are moving from testing the traditional regurgitation of
content to more meaningful summative assessments of deeper, more lasting, and higher-level learning,
and of the ability of students to make meaningful application of their learning. Though much more diffcult
than developing and grading traditional objective tests, these more meaningful measures offer faculty
powerful feedback on their methods and deeper learning opportunities for students.
mproving the outcomes of higher education is becoming required by all of higher education's constituen-
cies: accreditors, employers, governments, funders, parents, and the public at large. t is hoped that the
model described here will contribute to meeting this increased accountability through recognizing and
appreciating traits of our learners, leveraging technology, and increasing student activity, all to the ends
of helping students identify personally relevant uses for academic content, develop meaningful skills, and
come to value their learning. As faculty teaching the learners from Generation NeXt, as well as the other
students we serve, we must use the best available resources and methods to help develop successful
graduates and lifelong learners equipped to contribute to and beneft from the domestic and international
world of the third millennium.
References
Barr, R. B., and J. Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education.
Change 27 (November/ December):1225.
Bloom, B., et al. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classifcation of educational goals. Hand-
book II: Affective domain. New York: Longmans Green.
Bok, D. 2006. Our underachieving colleges. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bruff, D. 2009. Teaching with classroom response systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Caldwell, J. 2007. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBELife
Sciences Education 6(Spring):920.
Coates, J. 2007 Generational learning styles. River Falls, W: LERN Books.
Duncan, D. 2005. Clickers in the classroom. San Francisco: Pearson.
Teaching Generation NeXt: A Pedagogy for Today's Learners
A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional Improvement
26th Edition. 2010 The Higher Learning Commission. All rights reserved.
Gardiner, L. 1998. Why we must change: The research evidence. NEA Higher Education Journal,
Spring:7188.
Grossman, L. 2005. Grow up? Not so fast/"Twixters. Time, January 24, 4353.
Hersch, R. H., and J. Merrow, 2005. Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk. New York Palgrave
Macmillan.
Levine, M. 2005. Ready or not, here life comes. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Manzur, E. 1997. Peer instruction: A users manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
O'Banion, T. 1999. Launching a learning-centered college. Mission Viejo, CA: League for nnovation in
the Community College.
Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. 1991. How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty
years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
. 2005. How college affects students, vol. 2: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prensky, M. 2001a. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5):16.
. 2001b. Digital natives, digital immigrants: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon 9(6):110.
Schroeder, C. 2004. New studentsnew learning styles. http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Academia/
KierseyLearningStyles.html.
Shulman, L. S. 2005a. Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus 134(3):5265.
. 2005b. Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal education. Spring:1825.
Tagg, J. 2004. Why learn? What we may really be teaching students. About Campus, March-April:210.
Tapscott, D. 2009. Grown up digital. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, M. 2005. Generation NeXt: Today's postmodern studentmeeting, teaching, and serving. n A
collection of papers on self-study and institutional improvement, 2005, 2, 99107. Chicago: The Higher
Learning Commission. (Available as download at www.taylorprograms.com.)
. 2006. Generation NeXt comes to college: 2006 updates and emerging issues. n A collection of
papers on self-study and institutional improvement, 2006, 2, 4855. Chicago: The Higher Learning Com-
mission. (Available as download at www.taylorprograms.com.)
. 2007. Generation NeXt goes to work: ssues in workplace readiness and performance. n A collec-
tion of papers on self-study and institutional improvement, 2007, 2, 4855. Chicago: The Higher Learning
Commission. (Available as download at www.taylorprograms.com.)
Twenge, J. M. 2006. Generation me: Why today's young Americans are more confdent, assertive, en-
titledand more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press.
U.S. Department of Education. 2006. A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education.
Report of the Commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling. Washington, DC: Author.
Mark Taylor is an Adjunct Professor at Arkansas State University-Beebe in Little Rock.