Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney August 26, 2013 Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Students A...

Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney

August 26, 2013August 26, 2013

Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Understanding & Engaging Today’s College StudentsStudents

A Live Focus GroupA Live Focus Group

Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License..

1Understanding & Engaging Today’s College StudentsUnderstanding & Engaging Today’s College [email protected] [email protected] RRichard Sweeneyichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208

Powerpoint (Revised 8/26/2013) available at:

http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/




1:30 - 1:45pm Research about college Research about college

students. No students students. No students present.present.

1:45 - 2:15pm Live focus group of incomingLive focus group of incoming

freshmenfreshmen

2:15 - 2:30pm Q & A from faculty instructorsQ & A from faculty instructors

Agenda

2


1. Learn some of the expectations, characteristics and behaviors of incoming freshmen.

2. Learn what freshmen instructors could do to better engage students and improve learning success.

3

More ChoicesMore Choices

Our Goals Today


“The manic commercialization of Internet content arguably began with the initial public offering of Netscape in August 19951995.” p. 1379

4

Mowery, David C. and Timothy Simcoe. “Is the Internet a US invention?—an economic and technological history of computer networking?”. Research Policy. 31:8-9 (2002) p1369-1387.


“The manic commercialization of Internet content arguably began with the initial public offering of Netscape in August 19951995.” p. 1379

5

Mowery, David C. and Timothy Simcoe. “Is the Internet a US invention?—an economic and technological history of computer networking?”. Research Policy. 31:8-9 (2002) p1369-1387.

Today’s typical college freshman was born in 1995 when the Internet began.


Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group [email protected] [email protected] Richard Sweeneyichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208



MillennialsMillennialsGen XGen XBoomersBoomersSilentSilentGI GenGI Gen iGen?iGen?


8

Generations Birth Years Ages in 2012

GI GenerationGI Generation 1901 - 19241901 - 1924 89 - 10289 - 102

Silent Generation Silent Generation 1925 – 19451925 – 1945 68 – 8868 – 88

Baby BoomersBaby Boomers 1946 – 1964 1946 – 1964 49 – 6749 – 67

Generation X Generation X 1965 – 1979 1965 – 1979 34 – 4834 – 48

MillennialsMillennials 1980*- 1994*1980*- 1994* 19 - 33 19 - 33

iGen? Gen Z? iGen? Gen Z? Gen Wii? Etc.Gen Wii? Etc.

*1995 – Presen*1995 – Present 0 – 180 – 18

*Experts differ on start & end date of Millennial generation*Experts differ on start & end date of Millennial generation


Horovitz, Bruce. “Generation Whatchamacallit; The naming game about tomorrow's youth.” USA Today May 7, 2012. http://www.lexisnexis.com.libdb.njit.edu:8888/hottopics/lnacademic/?

New names for the next generation?

iGen? Gen Z?

Gen Wii? Multi Gen?

Homeland Gen?Gen Me?

Post Gen?

9



MillennialsMillennialsGen XGen XBoomersBoomersSilentSilentGI GenGI Gen

Workforce 2013 1946 1990

Assumption: entry age: 23 retirement age: 67

iGen?iGen?



MillennialsMillennialsGen XGen XBoomersBoomersSilentSilentGI GenGI Gen

Assumption: entry age: 23 retirement age: 67

Workforce 2023 1956 2000

iGen?iGen?


U.S. Births in Thousands

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Years

Bir

ths

in 1

,00

0s

Births

Boomers Generation X Millennials

1946 1964 1965 1978 1979 1994

1977 1994

19822000

19 Years 14 Years 16 Years

Avg. 3,415

3,415

Avg. 3,832

3,415

Avg. 3,993

3,415

Millennials In Workforce

Born 1979-1985

23 yrs & older

Huge GenerationHuge Generation

Millennials Not In Workforce

Born 1986-1994

Under 23 yrs old

Workforce 2008

12

2008

College Board College Board Data from WebData from Web

12


Number of High School Graduates, 1992-2022: New Jersey

Source: WICHE/The College Board

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian/Pacific Islander Black non- Hispanic Hispanic White non- Hispanic Non-Public Total

2008


Nichole J Borges et al. “Comparing Millennial and Generation X Medical Students at One Medical School. Academic Medicine; 81.6 (2006): 571-576

“Using descriptors from the 16PF subscales, we found that Millennial students are more warm and outgoing (WarmthWarmth), more abstract than concrete (ReasoningReasoning), more adaptive and mature (Emotional StabilityEmotional Stability), more dutiful (Rule Rule ConsciousnessConsciousness), more socially bold and adventuresome (Social BoldnessSocial Boldness), more sensitive and sentimental (SensitivitySensitivity), more self-doubting and worried (ApprehensionApprehension), more open to change and experimenting (Openness to Openness to ChangeChange), and more organized and self disciplined (PerfectionismPerfectionism) compared to Generation X medical students.” p. 574

14

Personality TestPersonality Test


Nichole J Borges et al. “Comparing Millennial and Generation X Medical Students at One Medical School. Academic Medicine; 81.6 (2006): 571-576

“Furthermore, we found Millennial medical students to be less solitary and individualistic (Self Reliance) than their Generation X counterparts.” 574

Note: this study looked only at medical schools students:

Generation X born 1965 - 1980“Cuspars” born 1975 – 1980 (Gen X Subset)Millennials born 1981 - 1989

15



Nichole J Borges et al. “Differences in motives between Millennial and Generation X medical students.” Medical Education; (2010) 44: 570-576

“Millennial students scored higher than Generation Xstudents on the needs for Achievement and Affiliation.Thus, our study findings may substantiate thecontentions of population theorists that, comparedwith previous generations, Millennials have greaterMillennials have greaterneeds to belong to social groups and to share withneeds to belong to social groups and to share withothers, stronger team instincts and tighter peerothers, stronger team instincts and tighter peerbonds, and greater needs to achieve and succeedbonds, and greater needs to achieve and succeed.” p. 574


16


“These three analyses show remarkably similar yearly increases in college students’ narcissistic traitsincreases in college students’ narcissistic traits, with students in more recent years scoring higher thantheir predecessors.

The results clearly support the generational differencesmodel. The larger cultural changes in parenting, education The larger cultural changes in parenting, education family life, and the media toward greater individualism havefamily life, and the media toward greater individualism haveapparently affected the personality traits of individuals.apparently affected the personality traits of individuals.” p. 103

Twenge, Jean M and Joshua D. Foster. “Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Personality Traits Among American College Students, 1982-2009”. Social Psychological and Personality Science January 2010 vol. 1 96-106. accessed http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/4330/npitimeupdatespps.pdf 88/15/2013

17


“It is possible, however, that some of the same cultural influences that have increased self-esteem have also increased narcissism (e.g., school programs with themes such as ‘‘I am special’’).” p. 104

Twenge, Jean M and Joshua D. Foster. “Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Personality Traits Among American College Students, 1982-2009”. Social Psychological and Personality Science January 2010 vol. 1 96-106. accessed http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/4330/npitimeupdatespps.pdf 88/15/2013

18

Sense of entitlement?Sense of entitlement?


“First, introductory classes are disproportionately important to introductory classes are disproportionately important to students' development of academic taste, and hence, their students' development of academic taste, and hence, their persistence in academic fields. persistence in academic fields. These classes should quite literally be thought of as introductions‒ greetings‒ in which faculty either welcome students in warmly, or slam the door in their faces, as the case may be. Second, the overall organization of faculty in a college curriculum can have important consequences to students' evaluations of academic fields, and to some extent, their evaluation of the entire college itself as a worthwhile experience. Single, poorly designed and run courses can ruin a student's year, while great ones can stay with students long after they graduate. Negative effects should be minimized, and positive ones maximized. Third, A few great teachers have a disproportionate A few great teachers have a disproportionate and positive effect on studentsand positive effect on students.” p. 27

Chamblis, Dan and Christopher G. Takacs. “Faculty Gatekeepers and Academic Taste in Undergraduate Students’ choice of Major”. Paper presented to American Sociological Society 8/10/2013. accessed http://www.themss.org/StudentPaperComp2013/G004_paper.pdf 88/15/2013

19


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“NEW YORK -- Why are some majors more popular than others with undergraduates? Is it the perception that they lead to good (well paying) jobs? Are certain fields naturally more attractive to new undergraduates? Will students respond to tuition incentives to pick (or bypass) some fields?

Maybe it’s much more simple: Undergraduates are significantly more likely to major in a field if they have an inspiring and caring faculty member in their introduction to the field. And they are equally likely to And they are equally likely to write off a field based on a single negative experience with a professorwrite off a field based on a single negative experience with a professor.”

Jaschik, Scott. “Majoring in a Professor”. Inside Higher Ed. 8/12/2013 accessed http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/12/study-finds-choice-major-most-influenced-quality-intro-professor88/15/2013

20



“Almost all (99%) students surveyed reported having at least one digital device, and while laptops were the most common (93%), many students now own their own smart phones (78%) and tablets (35%). This is a significant increase from our 2011 survey when only 47% of students said they owned a smart phone and 7% reported owning a tablet.”

“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College Students’ Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22

2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-survey-on-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devices-and-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013

21



“A majority (68%) of students use three or more devices every day”



22



“47% of students say they check their devices every 10 every 10 minutesminutes, up from 38% of students in 2011”



23



“59% of students say they are more likely to bring a laptop or tablet to class while only 41% prefer to bring a textbook”



24



“Almost all students surveyed (90%) admitted they don’t always complete the required reading in time for class. Of those students, a majority (53%) report they would be more likely to complete that reading if the material was available digitally and could be viewed on mobile devices.”



25



“88% of students say they have used a mobile device for last minute studying before a test, up from 79% of students surveyed in 2012

79% of students felt that technology such as mobile devices, digital textbooks, e-readers and tablets saved them time when studying and learning

Of those students, 64% say technology saves them two or more hours every day.”



26



“Blended-learning environments are the norm; students say that these best support how they learn.

Even with varying levels of sophistication among blended learning experiences, the vast majority of students in our research (70%) said that these are the environments in which they learn the most.”

Dahlstrom, Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO; EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, September 2012, Available from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.

27


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDahlstrom, Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO; EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, September 2012, Available from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.

28



29



30


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDahlstrom, Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO; http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.

31


Dahlstrom, Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO; http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.

32


Dahlstrom, Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO; EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, September 2012, Available from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.

33



“Study time for full-time students at four yearcolleges in the United States fell fromtwenty-four hours per week in 1961 tofourteen hours per week in 2003, and thedecline is not explained by changes overtime in student work status, parental education,major choice, or the type of institutionstudents attended..” p. 1

Babock, Phillip and Mindy Marks. “Leisure College, USA: The Decline in Student Study Time 2012. Education Outlook. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, No. 7 August 2010, Available from http://www.aei.org/files/2010/08/05/07-EduO-Aug-2010-g-new.pdf

34



“Only a small fraction of the changein study time can be accounted forby changes in work hours. p. 6

“Further, students do notappear to have reduced study time towork for pay. Students appear to bestudying less in order to have moreleisure time.” p. 4

p. 6

Babock, Phillip and Mindy Marks. “Leisure College, USA: The Decline in Student Study Time 2012. Education Outlook. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, No. 7 August 2010, Available from http://www.aei.org/files/2010/08/05/07-EduO-Aug-2010-g-new.pdf .

35



“Young cell owners are among the most active users of their Young cell owners are among the most active users of their mobile devices, and cell owners between the ages of 18 and mobile devices, and cell owners between the ages of 18 and 29 also stand out from their elders when it comes to their 29 also stand out from their elders when it comes to their experiences with their phonesexperiences with their phones. Specifically, young cell owners are much more likely than older adults to use their phone for entertainment or to relieve boredom (70% of 18-29 year old cell owners have done this in the preceding 30 days), to have trouble doing something when their phone is not available (42% have experienced this) and to use their phone as a way to avoid interacting with others avoid interacting with others (30%).”.

Lenhart, Amanda,. “How Americans Use Their Cell Phones”. Pew Internet & American Life Project 8/15/2011Accessed at http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Cell-Phones/Section-1.aspx 2/13/2011

36


Perez-Pena, Richard. “Studies Find More Students CheatingCheating, With High Achievers No Exception”. New York Times. September 7, 2012 Accessed

at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/education/studies-show-more-students-cheat-even-high-achievers.html?_r=0 2/15/2011

“Studies of student behavior and attitudes show that a majority of students violate standards of academic integrity to some degree, and that high achievers are just as likely to do it as others. Moreover, there is evidence that the problem evidence that the problem has worsened over the last few decadeshas worsened over the last few decades.

Experts say the reasons are relatively simple: Cheating has become easier and more widely tolerated, and both schools and parents have failed to give students strong, repetitive messages about what is allowed and what is prohibited.”

CHEATINGCHEATING


Perez-Pena, Richard. “Studies Find More Students CheatingCheating, With High Achievers No Exception”. New York Times. September 7, 2012 Accessed

at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/education/studies-show-more-students-cheat-even-high-achievers.html?_r=0 2/15/2011

“Studies of student behavior and attitudes show that a majority of students violate standards of academic integrity to some degree, and that high achievers are just as likely to do it as others. Moreover, there is evidence that the problem evidence that the problem has worsened over the last few decadeshas worsened over the last few decades.

Experts say the reasons are relatively simple: Cheating has become easier and more widely tolerated, and both schools and parents have failed to give students strong, repetitive messages about what is allowed and what is prohibited.”


“However, the Millennial Generation is also highly also highly sensitive to criticism and reluctant to speak if they feel sensitive to criticism and reluctant to speak if they feel uninformed or are unsure of how their comments will be uninformed or are unsure of how their comments will be receivedreceived. Faculty need to be aware of the unique opportunities and also the vulnerabilities associated with the Millennial Generation when planning classroom discussions.” p. 6

Roehling, Patricia Vincent et al. “Engaging the Millennial Generation in Class Discussions”. College Teaching. 59:1-6, 2011


Tips for Creating an Atmosphere Conducive to

Active Classroom Discussions•DO

1. Work to develop a comfortable classroom atmosphere

at the very beginning of the semester while norms for participation are being established.

2. Engage in exercises in which students get to know each other, increasing their level of comfort with their classmates.

3. Show respect for all opinions, even those that diverge from your own.



“Tips for Creating an Atmosphere Conducive to

Active Classroom Discussions•DO

4. Set ground rules for civil discussions.

5. Moderate difficult discussions.

6. Show enthusiasm for the subject matter.”

p. 6



“DO NOT•1. Let a student feel isolated or unsupported in a discussion.•2. Argue or openly disagree with a student during a discussion.•3. Ask questions or engage in discussions in which there is only one correct answer.•4. Create an authoritarian classroom atmosphere.”

p. 6




“ .”

Bloom, Benjamin S. “The Sigma Two Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring”. Educational Researcher. Vol. 13 No. 6 Jun-Jul 1984Accessed at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf 8/13/2013

43

“It has taken almost a decade and a half to develop the Mastery Learning (ML) strategy to a point where large numbers of teachers at every level of instruction and in many countries can use the feed-back-corrective procedures to get the 1 sigma effect (the average ML average ML student is above 84% of the studentsstudent is above 84% of the students under conventional instruction even with the same teacher teaching both the ML and the conventional classes).p. 5



“ .”


44

“However, the most striking of the findings is that under the best learning conditions we can devise (tutoring), the average student is 2 sigma above the average control student taught under conventional group methods of instruction. The tutoring process demonstrates that most The tutoring process demonstrates that most of the students do have the potential to reach this high of the students do have the potential to reach this high level of learninglevel of learning.” p. 11

The average tutored student does the same as the 98% of The average tutored student does the same as the 98% of those taught traditionally in the classroom. those taught traditionally in the classroom.


Boersma, John. “THE TWO SIGMA SOLUTION”. Accessed at http://adaptcourseware.com/the-two-sigma-solution/ 2/15/2011



“ .”


46

“What is Master Learning? In traditional classrooms, student progress through the class regardless of achievement. In mastery learning classrooms, students must fully understand (demonstrate mastery of) the material before moving onto the next topic.”

…The average student under mastery learning was about one standard deviation above the average of the control class.” The average mastery learning student does better than 84% The average mastery learning student does better than 84% of those taught traditionally in the classroom. of those taught traditionally in the classroom.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKrempeaux, Charles Iliya. “One-On-One Tutoring Can Improve Student's

Performance By 2 Standard Deviations”. Accessed at http://changelog.ca/quote/2012/09/23/tutoring_two_sigma 2/15/2011

47



“ .”


48

“Teachers are frequently unaware of the fact that they are providing more favorable conditions of learning for some students than they are for other students. General- ly, they are under the impression that all students in their classes are given equality of opportunity for learning.” p. 11


and Now…

onto our Incoming Freshmen Focus Group…..


August 26, 2013August 26, 2013

Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Understanding & Engaging Today’s College StudentsStudents

A Live Focus GroupA Live Focus Group

Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

50Understanding & Engaging Today’s College StudentsUnderstanding & Engaging Today’s College [email protected] [email protected] RRichard Sweeneyichard Sweeney 973-596-3208 973-596-3208





Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney August 26, 2013 Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Students A...

Documents

Transcript of Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney August 26, 2013 Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Students A...