1. Who are your students?

2. Outline  Student development theory  Millennial, post-millennial, etc.  GU students specifically

3. Student Development theory

4. Nancy Schlossberg’s Theory of Mattering and Marginality (1989) When people begin a new experience they can feel uneasy about their ability and what their role is or should be in that experience.  Marginality results in self-consciousness. Self- consciousness results in the inability to perform up to one’s capabilities.  When people believe that they matter, marginality diminishes. Students succeed when they are appreciated by others and receive positive attention.

5. Nancy Schlossberg’s Theory of Mattering and Marginality (1989)  Mattering includes:  Attention: being noticed  Importance: believing one is cared about  Ego Extension: belief that someone else will be proud of their successes or sympathize with their failures  Dependence: being needed  Appreciation: feeling that one’s efforts are appreciated by others

6. Discussion  How does this relate to our interactions with our own students? How can we make students feel like they matter in the classroom/lab/office hours?

7. Chickering & Reisser’s Seven Vectors of Development (1993) 1. Achieving competence 2. Managing emotions 3. Moving through autonomy toward interdependence. 4. Developing mature interpersonal relationships. 5. Establishing identity. 6. Developing purpose. 7. Developing integrity.

8. Who are these people and what are their values?

9. Consulting companies  Industry devoted to figuring out young people  Institutions (education and otherwise) rely on these consultants to understand what it is that a particular generation cares about and ultimately will want to BUY!

10. Discussion  How would you describe the students that you have encountered so far at Gonzaga? What are some of their positive and negative traits?

11. Millennials?  Born after 1981; come into early adulthood around 2000  Traits  Special, confident, sheltered, team-oriented, achieving, pressured, conventional  Defined by technology  Parented by “helicopter parents” – educated, overly concerned, BOLD!  Millennials are aware of the term and don’t like it!

12. Get rid of the terms like “Millennials”!  Santilli argues that we should define the period between adolescence and young adulthood as “emerging adulthood” while still acknowledging changes in generations (marrying later, putting off becoming parents).  Five essential qualities of emerging adulthood: identity exploration, instability, self-focus, feelings of transition, and openness to possibilities  Santilli also acknowledges the match/overlap between the Jesuit education model and emerging adulthood

13. Sweeping generalizations aren’t a good idea  Singham is amazed that the same professors and educators who quickly stereotype students in terms of generation are the same professors who display great sensitivity when it comes to gender and ethnic stereotypes  Singham argues that what we think we know about students prevents us from actually getting to know them!

14. Okay, so who are our students?

15. Changes from 1990 to 2010 199019952000200520082010 Number of freshman surveyed260560604784922920 Father – BA or higher51%67%72%74%71%74% Mother – BA or higher49%58%63%68%70%75% A+, A, or A- high school avg49%64%70%67%64%72% “very good” chance of B avg at GU 56%62%61%65%61%86% B- or lower high school avg11%3%4%1%2%0.4% GU Division of Student Life Research Notes, Spring 2011, Number 5

16. Reasons for choosing GU 199019952000200520082010 Very good academic reputation66%80%76%77%80%76% Offered financial assistance57%64%59%62%65%71% Graduates get good jobs50%55%60%59%61%62% Religious affiliation24%30%25%27%26%24% Good reputation for social activities 13%28%31%42%50%57% GU Division of Student Life Research Notes, Spring 2011, Number 5

17. When asked to “rate yourself compared to peers”, percentages of GU freshman who considered that they were above average or in the Top 10% 199019952000200520082010 Academic ability76%85%82%83%79%88% Emotional health54%65%55%60%61%66% Leadership ability55%68%67%69%66%74% Self-confidence socially42%54%50%53%52%58% Writing ability46%57%56%51%57%58% GU Division of Student Life Research Notes, Spring 2011, Number 5

18. Activities during senior year in high school GU Division of Student Life Research Notes, Spring 2011, Number 5 199019952000200520082010 Performed volunteer work80%89%92%96% Tutored another student62%63%60%61%59%70% Drank beer60%45%54%50%43%37% Drank wine/liquor61%55%57%55%48%38% No hour per week partying22%19%23%20%35%46%

19. Life goals that are essential or very important 199019952000200520082010 Be very well off financially63%60%62%64%69%75% Become involved in cleaning up environment 38%24%18%26%36%28% Develop a meaningful philosophy of life 41%33%51%55%61%60% Promote racial understanding48%38%30%39% 37% Raise a family68%71%72%79%80%84% GU Division of Student Life Research Notes, Spring 2011, Number 5

20. “One of the most important tasks of the academic advisor is mediating the dissonance between student expectations and the realities of the educational experience.” Wes Habley

21. Percentage of respondents saying that there is a “very good chance” that they will: AllArtsScienceBus.Eng.Health Change major15%27%6%14%0%6% Change career choice17%28%14% 4%6% Work to help pay for college expenses49%50%54%44%42%54% Participate in volunteer or community service50%56%46%42%38%62% Study abroad48%55%43%52%14%44% Be satisfied with college experience71% 73%70%74%67% GU Division of Student Life Research Notes, Spring 2008, Number 3

22. Other places where dissonance might occur: 68% of incoming male students and 75% of incoming female students had a high school GPA of A- or above. Only 36% studied 11 or more hours per week in High School. (Nationwide, college students report studying an average of only 13 – 14 hours per week, about half what their professors think is necessary to keep up.) GU Division of Student Life Research Notes, Spring 2011, Number 3

23. Reported grade point averages of seniors, overall and in the major: AllArtsScienceBus.Eng. Overall, A- or above43% Overall, B or B+48%47%52%48% Major, A- or above55%67%37%50%28% Major, B or B+37%29%57%37%47% GU Division of Student Life Research Notes, Spring 2008, Number 1

24. Percentage of senior respondents saying that they spent 11 or more hours per week on: AllArtsScienceBus.Eng. Studying or doing homework38%34%56%27%69% Socializing with friends48%47%36%57%49% Exercising or sports14%12%9%20%16% Partying15%12%9%24%20% GU Division of Student Life Research Notes, Spring 2008, Number 1

25. Expectations versus reality  Eight percent of college seniors are “proficient” at level 3 math, up from 5 percent of freshmen.  Eleven percent of college seniors are “proficient” at level 3 writing.  Six percent of college seniors are “proficient” in critical thinking, 77 percent are “not proficient”.  Less than 13 percent of college students achieve basic competence in a language other than English Less than 34 percent of college students earn credit for an international studies class; of those who do, only 13 percent take more than four classes.  Less than 10 percent of college students participate in study abroad programs. Academic Profile, Educational Testing Service (2003–04); Clifford Adelman, “‘Global Preparedness’ of Pre-9/11 College Graduates: What the U.S. Longitudinal Studies Say,” Tertiary Education and Management 10 (2004): 243.

26. Who are your students?

27. References for Student Development Theories  Schlossberg, Nancy K. “Mattering and Marginality: Key Issues in Building Community” New Directions for Student Services, 1989, 48, pp. 5-15.  Chickering, Arthur & Reisser, Linda (1993). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.  Skipper, Tracy L. (2005). ”Chapter 2: Psychosocial Theories of Student Development” in Student Development in the First College Year: A Primer for College Educators Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First- Year Experience and Students in Transition.

28. References for Millennials  Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2000) Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, New York: Random House, Inc.  Santilli, Nicholas (2010) “Don’t Call Us Millennials!” in Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education: Vol 37, Article 6.  Singham, Mano “More Than ‘Millennials’: Colleges Must Look Beyond Generational Stereotypes” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 2009.  Hoover, Eric “The Millennial Muddle” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 2009.