The purpose of a recent study was to determine what learning environments best address the needs of 21st-century students at the secondary level. This study concluded that the presence of a positive 21st-century learning environment is related to student satisfaction and student-teacher relationships. While the majority of the literature on 21st-century students concerns technology, this study found that students were not as concerned with technology as they were with autonomy, relevance, and connectedness.
AndersonP. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8, 71-82. doi:10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724
2.
ArnoneM.ReynoldsR.MarshallT. (2009). The effect of early adolescents’ psychological needs satisfaction upon their perceived competence in information skills and intrinsic motivation for research. School Libraries Worldwide, 15(2), 115-134.
BlakemoreS.ChoudhuryS. (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 296-312.
5.
BoothM. (2011). This “they” believe: Young adolescents reveal their needs in school. Middle School Journal, 42(3), 16-23.
6.
BrymanA. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113. doi:10.1177/1468794106058877
7.
Childs-BowenD.MollerG.ScrivnerJ. (2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 27-34.
8.
ConsidineD.HortonJ.MoormanG. (2009). Teaching and reaching the millennial generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 471-481.
9.
CresswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DarnerR. (2009). Self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 39-49.
11.
DavisN.EickelmannB.ZakaP. (2013). Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 438-450. doi:10.1111/jcal.12032
12.
De LucaC. R.WoodS. J.AndersonV.BuchananJ.ProffittT. M.MahonyK.PantelisC. (2003). Normative data from the Cantab. I: Development of executive function over the lifespan. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 242-254. doi:10.1076/jcen.25.2.242.13639
DollB.SpiesR. A.LeClairC. M.KurienS. A.FoleyB. P. (2010). Student perceptions of classroom learning environments: Development of the classmaps survey. School Psychology Review, 39, 203-218.
15.
DresangE. T. (2005). The information-seeking behavior of youth in the digital environment. Library Trends, 54, 178-196.
16.
FlutterJ. (2006). “This place could help you learn”: Student participation in creating better school environments. Educational Review, 58, 183-193. doi:10.1080/00131910600584116
17.
FowlerF. J. (2009). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
FranklinT. (2011). Mobile learning: At the tipping point. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology–TOJET, 10(4), 261-275.
19.
GallowayC.LasleyI. J. (2010). Effective urban teaching environments for the 21st century. Education & Urban Society, 42, 269-282.
GibsonS. E. (2009). Enhancing: Intergenerational communication in the classroom: Recommendations for successful teacher-student relationships. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30, 37-39.
22.
GreenD. D.RobertsG. E. (2012). Impact of postmodernism on public sector leadership practices: Federal government human capital development implications. Public Personnel Management, 41, 79-96.
23.
GunnT. M.HollingsworthM. (2010). Preparing students, teachers, and administrators for the knowledge age through district and school based initiatives. International Journal of Learning, 17(5), 1-10.
24.
HarritsG. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 150-166.
25.
HolubováR. (2010). Improving the quality of teaching by modern teaching methods. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 25, 58-66.
26.
HoyleT. B.SamekB. B.ValoisR. F. (2008). Building capacity for the continuous improvement of health-promoting schools. Journal of School Health, 78, 1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00259.x
27.
IstanceD. (2010). A new international OECD project on learning: “Innovative learning environments.”International Journal of Learning, 16(12), 479-485.
28.
ItumaA. (2011). An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus based university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12, 57-68. doi:10.1177/1469787410387722
29.
JangH.ReeveJ.RyanR. M.KimA. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students?Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644-661.
30.
JickT. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
31.
KellyF. S.McCainT.JukesI. (2009). Teaching the digital generation: No more cookie-cutter high schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
32.
KolbL. (2011). Adventures with cell phones. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 39-43.
33.
KumarS.VigilK. (2011). The net generation as preservice teachers: Transferring familiarity with new technologies to educational environments. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27, 144-153.
34.
LacinskiT. (2008). A case study investigation of student perceptions of learning in a redesigned research university classroom environment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Theses and Dissertations database. (AAT 3335273)
35.
LaguardiaA.PearlA. (2009). Necessary educational reform for the 21st century: The future of public schools in our democracy. Urban Review, 41, 352-368. doi:10.1007/s11256-008-0115-9
36.
LaiL. (2011). Employees’ perceptions of the opportunities to utilize their competences: Exploring the role of perceived competence mobilization. International Journal of Training & Development, 15, 140-157. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00376.x
37.
LarsonL.MillerT.RibbleM. (2010). 5 considerations for digital age leaders: What principals and district administrators need to know about tech integration today. Learning & Leading With Technology, 37(4), 12-15.
38.
LarsonL. C.MillerT. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47, 121-123.
39.
LeithwoodK.MascallB.StraussT.SacksR.MemonN.YashkinaA. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 37-67.
40.
LichtmanM. (2010). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
MarxG. (2006). Sixteen trends, their profound impact on our future: Implications for students, education, communities, countries, and the whole of society. Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service.
42.
MatulichE.PappR.HaytkoD. (2008). Continuous improvement through teaching innovations: A requirement for today’s learners. Marketing Education Review, 18(1), 1-7.
43.
McCainT. (2005). Teaching for tomorrow: Teaching content and problem-solving skills. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
44.
MilneA. J. (2007). Entering the interaction age today. Educause Review, 42(1), 13-31.
45.
NicholasA. (2008). Preferred learning methods of the millennial generation. International Journal of Learning, 15(6), 27-34.
46.
NilesP. (2011). Meeting the needs of the 21st century student. Community & Junior College Libraries, 17, 47-51.
47.
PinkD. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
48.
PrenskyM. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
49.
PrenskyM. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 2: Do they really think differently?On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424843
50.
PrenskyM. (2001c). Digital game-based learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
RosenL. D. (2011). Teaching the igeneration. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 10-15.
54.
RossJ. A.GrayP. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 29, 798-822.
55.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68.
56.
SadikA.ReismanS. (2004). Design and Implementation of a web-based learning environment: Lessons learned. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5, 157-171.
57.
SalkindN. J. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
SchaberP.WilcoxK. J.WhitesideA.MarshL.BrooksD. (2010). Designing learning environments to foster affective learning: Comparison of classroom to blended learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 4(2), 1-18.
59.
SchlechtyP. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
60.
SkibaD. J. (2005). The millennials: Have they arrived at your school of nursing?Nursing Education Perspectives, 26, 370-371.
61.
StewartK. (2009, Spring). Lessons from teaching millennials. College Teaching, 57, 111-118.
62.
StromP.StromR.WingC.BeckertT. (2010). Adolescent learning and the internet. Education Digest, 75(6), 10-16.
63.
Syh-JongJ. (2011). Assessing college students’ perceptions of a case teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge using a newly developed instrument. Higher Education, 61, 663-678. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9355-1
64.
TapscottD. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
TingenJ.PhilbeckL.HolcombL. B. (2011). Developing classroom web sites for 21st century learning. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47, 88-90.
67.
TrigwellK.AshwinP. (2006). An exploratory study of situated conceptions of learning and learning environments. Higher Education, 51, 243-258. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6387-4