New Millennium Learners

Chuck Dziuban

Patsy Moskal

University of Central Florida

DisruptiveInnovation!

• There’s one in YOUR future!!

• And another one right behind it!

Wayne Hodgins, 2007

A value-added model of technology-enhanced learning

TechnologyEnhanced

(E)

Faculty Initiative Institutional Initiative

Blended(M)

FullyOnline

(W)Access and

TransformationEnhancementEngagement

Learning Management

Systems

Web 2.0

Web 2.0

Web 2.0

Wikis

Blogs

Social NetworkingRSS

XHTML

Semantic Web

Podcasting

Audio

Video

tagging

Digg

ZudeDel.ico.us Technorati

FlickrWikipedia

YouTube

MySpace

FacebookSlideShare

PandoraSkype

Folksonomy

Ajax

Satisfaction

Student satisfaction in fully online and blended courses

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

39%

Fully online (N = 1,526)Blended (N = 485)

41%

11% 9%

Very Satisfied

UnsatisfiedSatisfied

Neutral

38%44%

9%

Very Unsatisfied

3% 5% 1%

Per

cent

The ambivalence dimension

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction

Ambivalence

Student satisfaction with technology-enhanced learning

• Convenience

• Reduced Logistic Demands

• Increased Learning Flexibility

• Technology Enhanced Learning

Reduced OpportunityCosts for Education

Students’ problems with technology-enhanced learning

• Reduced Face-to-Face Time

• Technology Problems

• Reduced Instructor Assistance

• Overwhelming

• Increased Workload

Increased OpportunityCosts for Education

Dimensions of Student Satisfaction

Ambivalence

Engagement

Responsiveness

Expectations

Commitment

Information Fluency

Smallest Space Analysis: Satisfaction Component Relationships

Information Fluency

Engagement

Ambivalence

Responsiveness

Commitment

Role Expectations

The Generations

Some characteristics of the generations

• Matures (prior to 1946)• Dedicated to a job they take on• Respectful of authority• Place duty before pleasure

• Baby boomers (1946-1964)• Live to work• Generally optimistic• Influence on policy & products

• Generation X (1965-1980)• Work to live• Clear & consistent

expectations• Value contributing to the

whole

• Millennials (1981-1994)• Live in the moment• Expect immediacy of

technology• Earn money for

immediate consumption

Net Generation: Marc Prensky – Learning Preferences

Gaming and Fantasy

Twitch Speed

Connections

Graphics

Multitasking

Active Learning

Technology is my Friend

Net Generation: Howe and Strauss – Lifestyle

Pressure

Conventional

Team Oriented

Special

Sheltered

Confident

Achievement

Net Generation: Twenge (Generation Me) – Lifestyle

Self Focused

Artificial Self Esteem

Life by Lottery

Cynical

Anything is Possible (unrealistic)

Yeah Right

Students who were very satisfied by generation (non ambivalent)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 55%

38%

26%

Boomer1946-1964

n=328

Generation X1965-1980

n=815

Millennial1981-1994

n=346

Per

cent

Because of the web I changed my approach to learning (non ambivalent)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cent

51%

37%

23%

Boomer1946-1964

n=328

Generation X1965-1980

n=815

Millennial1981-1994

n=346

0

20

40

60

80

100

Some/All Face-to-Face

Equal Mix Some/All Web

Per

cent

Classroom modality preferred by generations

Baby BoomerGen XMillennial

N= 1,149

p = .000

26% 24%

39%

15%11%

22%

59%65%

40%

26%21%

53%

14%

40%46%

17%

36%47%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Learn Best/BetterAlone

Learn Both Ways Learn Best/Betterw/ Others

Per

cent

Students’ description of whether they learn better alone or with others

Baby BoomerGen-X

Millennial

P= .000

N= 1,149

Student and faculty generations in blended and online learning

Faculty Student

Mature11%

Millennial1%

N=689 N=26,823

Gen X33%

Baby Boomer

55%

Mature1%

Baby Boomer

6%Gen X11%

Millennial84%

Student Evaluation of Instruction

Facilitation of learning

Communication of ideas

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Then...

The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .97 &

The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00

If...

A decision rule based on student evaluation responses and the probability of faculty receiving an overall rating of Excellent (n=1,280,890)

Respect and concern for students

A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 (n=1,280,890)

Overall If Rule 1College % Excellent % Excellent

Education 58.6 97.9Molecular & Microbio 49.9 97.6Health & Public Affairs 49.8 97.6Arts & Humanities 49.1 96.7Arts & Sciences 45.1 97.0Sciences 44.5 96.8Hospitality Management 44.1 96.6Business Administration 39.5 96.9Engineering 39.0 96.8

A comparison of excellent ratings by course modality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1 (n=1,171,664)

Blended 48.9 97.2

Online 47.6 97.3

Enhanced 46.8 97.5

F2F 45.7 97.2

ITV 34.2 96.6

Course Overall If Rule 1Modality % Excellent % Excellent

Information Fluency

•Avoiding Plagiarism•Citing Sources Using APA Style•Citing Sources Using MLA Style•Evaluating Web Sites•Creating a Search Strategy•Focusing an Information Search•Maximizing Google Scholar Searches•Recognizing a Research Study

Information Literacy Modules

Taleb: The Black Swan

Unpredicted9/11

Google

Harry Potter

Y2KUndetectable

Outliers

Back-Filled Narrative

Monumental Impact

Retrospective Prediction

Market crash

Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness

For more information contact:

Dr. Chuck Dziuban(407) 823-5478

dziuban@mail.ucf.edu

Dr. Patsy Moskal(407) 823-0283

pdmoskal@mail.ucf.edu

http://rite.ucf.eduhttp://www.if.ucf.edu/