Practices of knowledge-acquisition, communication and interaction with others have changed substantially with the advent of new, growing, and widespread information and communication technologies. Especially among the younger generations, students' dispositions toward learning are shifting toward a need for greater visual and sound stimuli, faster speed in access to information and reward, shorter attention spans, engagement in multiple tasks while communicating, and greater individual agency in learning. These practices are increasingly prevalent among university students, raising challenges to conventional ways of teaching, particularly excessive reliance on lecturing. Based on the review of existing scholarly and popular literature, this article explores the main characteristics of a new generation of university students in the context of U.S. society, relates these traits and habits to knowledge-acquisition in university settings, and draws several implications for teaching.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramovitzR. (2008, 6 January). Trend guru knows whys and hows of Gens X and Y. San Francisco Chronicle, p. F5.
2.
ArataniL. (2007, 26 February). Teens Can Multitask, But What Are Costs? Washington Press, p. AO1.
BakerD.KnipeH.CommingsE.CollingsJ.GamsonDBlairC.LeonJ. (2007). The Fall and Rise of American Primary School Mathematics: A Content analysis and Cognitive Assessment of Textbooks from 1900 to 2000.University Park: The Pennsylvania State University, draft.
5.
BlockC.PressleyM. (eds.) (2002). Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices.New York: The Guilford Press.
6.
BoydD. (2007). Why Youth Love Social Network Site: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.BuckinghamIn D. (Ed.). Youth, Identity, and Digital Media (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
7.
BradshawT.NicholsB. (2004, June). Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Readiing in America. Research Division Report No. 46. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts.
8.
CareyJ. (2008). Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms.Review of Research in Education, 32 (1), 241–267.
9.
CIBER. (2008, 11 January). Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future. Report Commissioned by the British Library and the Joint Information System Committee. London: CIBER, University College of London. http://library20.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=515108%3AblogPost%3A72083. Retrieved 28 February 2008.
10.
CoiroJ. (2003). Reading Comprehension in the Internet: Expanding our Understanding of Reading Comprehension to Encompass New Literacy.The Reading Teachers, 56 (5), 458–464.
11.
EDITORIAL BOARD. (2008, 22 January). Shopping for class, online. The Stanford Daily, pp. 4 and 12.
KamilM.LaneD. (1998). Researching the Relation between Tehnology and Literacy: A agenda.ReinkingIn D.MckennaM.LabboL.KiefferR. (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and Technology. Transformations in a Post-Typographic World (pp. 323–341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
KllduffD. (2008, 6 January). Turn on, tune in, wear a bracelet. San Francisco Chronicle, p. E3.
18.
KirschnerP.SwellerJ.ClarkR. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential and Inquiry-Based Teaching.Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75–86.
19.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (2006). New Literacies. Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning. 2nd ed. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
20.
LeuD.KinzerC. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication.Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (1), 108–127.
21.
LeuD.KinzerC.CoiroJCammackD. (2004). Toward a Theory of New Literacies Emerging from the Internet and Other Information and Communication Technologies.RuddellIn R.UnrauN. (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 1508–1611). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
LucianaM.ConklinH.HooperC.YargerR. (2005). The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control in adolecents.Child Development, 76 (3), 697–712.
25.
MarchJ. G. (2008). Quiet Corners.Palo Alto: Bonde Press.
26.
MarzialiC. (2007, 24 September). Reconsidering Scholarship in a Digital Age. USC Chronicle.
27.
McluhanM. (1962). The Gutenberg Galazy: The making of typographic man.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
28.
Mills-SennP. (2007, 16 November). Keeping “Generation Y” on the Job. NFIB.http://www.nfib.com/object/ IO_35332.html. Retrieved 7 January 2008.
29.
MorganJ. (2005, 10 February). Who are the Gen Y Students? Inside Chico State.http://www/csuchico.edu/pub/ inside/archive/05_02/pause.html. Retrieved 8 January 2008.
PostmanN. (1995). The End of Education. Redefining the Value of School.New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
32.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–6. Retrieved 4 March 2007.
33.
PurvesA. (1998). Flies in the Web of Hypertext.ReinkingIn D.MckennaM.LabboL.KiefferR. (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and Technology. Transformations in a Post-Typographic World (pp. 235–251). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
Rand (2002). Reading Study Group. Reading for Understanding. Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
35.
Rockler-GladenN. (2006). Generation Y College Students. All about the technology savvy demographic born 1977–1997.Suite101.com.http://www.suite101.com/writer_articles.cfm/naomirg. Retrieved 18 August 2006.
36.
RoseJ. (2008). Designing training for Generation Y.Suite101.comhttp://trainingped.suite101.com/ article.cfm/designing_training_for_gen_y. Retrieved 8 January 2008.
37.
RubinsteinJ.MeyerD.EvansJ. (2001). Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21 (4), 763–797.
38.
StromquistN. (Ed.) (2007). The Professoriate in the Age of Globalization.Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
39.
Sutherland-SmithW. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen.The Reading Teacher, 55 (7), 662–669.
TwengeJ. (2006). Generation Me. Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—and More Miserable Than Ever Before.New York: Free Press.
42.
YanS. (2006, 8 December). Undertanding Generation Y. The Oberlin Review.http://www.oberlin.edu/stupub/ocreview/ 2006/12/08/features/Understanding_Generation_Y.html. Retrieved 5 January 2008.
