1. Exploring the Neo/millenial student Coming changes in student demographics, technologies and learning behaviours. How will we respond? Bob Sharpe Wilfrid Laurier University

2. Changes in Ontario’s Learning Landscape Larger class sizes, rising student/faculty ratios A more diverse student population with a range of nonacademic employment and domestic commitments, learning and physical disabilities, second language limitations A younger first-year cohort

3. A significant shift in the attitude of students towards less responsibility for their own learning Technological innovation and a shift towards efficiency in modes of course delivery Distinctive learning behaviours associated with the changing generations. Changes in Ontario’s Learning Landscape /2 Sharpe, Bob. 2005. “Changes in Student Learning Behaviours”, Working Paper Series by Academic Colleagues, Volume Four, Council of Ontario Universities, COU No. 781, 8 pages. http://www.cou.on.ca/http://www.cou.on.ca/

4. Generations Although somewhat arbitrary, the concept of the generation is a useful and integrative way of thinking about the cumulative changes in our teaching and in styles of student learning. It has least 3 dimensions:  Demographics  Technologies  Attitudes and behaviours (Generational associations are certainly culturally, and contextually specific.)

5. Generations of Learning Styles Great Generation Baby-boomers Generation X Net or Millenial Generation Neo-Millenial

6. Traditional Producer mentality Very limited computer access Tolerant of nonengaging pedagogical techniques Millenial Consumer mentality Ubiquitous computer access Intolerant of nonengaging pedagogical techniques McGuire and Williams, 2002. The Millenial Learner: Challenges and Opportunities. To Improve the Academy. Vol. 20: 185-1996. Contrasting Learning Styles

7. Information Mindset Frand (2000) suggests that a distinctive information-age mindset “…is common among students growing up in the globally connected, service- and information-intense, digitally based culture.” He characterises this mindset in terms of “broad observations of change”, “ways of doing things”, and “subliminal needs”. Frand, Jason. 2000. The Information-Age Mindset: Changes in Students and Implications for Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 35, no. 5: 15-24.

8. “broad observations of change” Computers Aren’t Technology  Computers are part of the infrastructure of the public realm, technology is software and devices for personal enhancement Internet is better than TV  Internet is interactive and customizable Reality No Longer Real  Digital communications and virtual representations can be as consequential and meaningful as personal interactions and physical realities Doing Rather Than Knowing  The ability to deal with complex and often ambiguous information will be more important than simply knowing a lot of facts or having an accumulation of knowledge

9. “how people do things” Nintendo over chess  Trial and error the predominant mode of reasoning Multitasking Way of Life  No longer a single computer workstation, but a mobile, integrated set of personal information synthesizers Typing Rather Than Handwriting  More need for digital input and graphic forms of expression than personal handwriting and sketching

10. “subliminal needs” Staying Connected  Personal devices allow continuous connection Zero Tolerance for Delays  An expectation that it is possible for an immediate response Consumer/Creator Blurring  The sampling of information from the Internet and its remixing to produce new forms of expression.

11. Neomillenial Technologies access to distant experts and archives, enabling collaborations, mentoring relationships, and virtual communities-of practice. This interface is evolving through the Internet2.0 Multi-user virtual environments (MUVE) interfaces, in which participants’ avatars interact with computer-based agents and digital artifacts in virtual contexts. mobile wireless devices provide location-based services and “augmented reality” interfaces and “smart objects’ as we move through the real world. Dede, Chris. 2004. Planning for “Neomillennial” Learning Styles: Implications for Investments in Technology and Faculty.

12. Neomillenial Learning Styles fluency in multiple media and in simulation-based virtual settings communal learning involving diverse, tacit, situated experience, with knowledge distributed across a community and a context as well as within an individual; a balance among experiential learning, guided mentoring, and collective reflection; Dede, Chris. 2004. Planning for “Neomillennial” Learning Styles: Implications for Investments in Technology and Faculty.

13. Neomillenial Learning Styles /2 expression through non-linear, associational webs of representations; and co-design of learning experiences personalized to individual needs and preferences. Dede, Chris. 2004. Planning for “Neomillennial” Learning Styles: Implications for Investments in Technology and Faculty.

14. How will we respond? Do we see evidence of neo/millenial students at Laurier? How are students using technology in their everyday practices? To what extent will our students learn how to use the new technologies? Do we want to attract these students? What expectations does this create for the classroom? Are student expectations of technology and faculty practices in alignment? Should they be? How much?

15. How will universities support the learning behaviours of the neo/millenial student? How will they ensure that they balance better pedagogy with the use of technological innovations to:  effectively transfer information  provide opportunities for ‘deep learning’ - the exercising higher order, integrative, and reflective skills  foster the development and transformation of personal identity, – a holistic education How will we respond /2?

16. How will we respond /3? To what extent will ‘sampling’ and ‘remixing’ information from the Internet replace independent research, critical thinking and coherent writing? What impact does a consumer vs. a producer mentality have on the classroom experience? Student commitment to learning and studying? Expectations of faculty? Are we dis/engaging students with our practices?

17. THANK YOU