If you haven’t already, be sure to check out the June/July issue of Innovate magazine at (subscription is free and the articles are well worth the read). Be sure to read the first two articles by Donald Phillip and Sarah Lohnes/Charles Kinzer. Both articles argue the merits (or lack thereof) of assuming that the Net Generation (aka Millennials) is pushing education and educators into a more technology-rich learning environment. Phillip argues that they are, suggesting that
As N-Gen student’s exposure to interactive media changes their perception of how education should proceed, schools will need to move from the former model of classrooms that are analogs of broadcast media to a more interactive model of learning.
This new, more interactive model of learning makes ample use of what Phillip refers to as “thinking prosthetics,” or the computer. In Phillip’s ideal classroom, the student is the co-discoverer in the learning process with the professor heavily supported by a variety of integrated technologies.
Lohnes and Kinzer disagree, based on a small quantitative study they conducted recently at a Northeastern university. While these authors concur that the N-Gen student is highly connected during his or her leisure time, “the Net Generation’s general expectations regarding leading-edge technology have not fully impacted its expectations about the use of technology to support learning.” In other words, N-Gen students seem well capable of contextualizing technology, keeping leisure use separate from (and perhaps more desireable than) learning use.
No matter which philosophy you adopt, the articles give cause for pause. Where are we going in our teaching environments and are we “jumping the gun” with how we employ educational technology in the liberal arts classroom? Maybe we are at the beginning of the N-Gen push for more educational technology, as Lohnes and Kinzer suggest, or maybe we are further down the path as Phillip suggests. In the end, it really doesn’t matter. The use of ed tech should always be based on sound instructional design decisions, not on real or perceived student pressure.
At Cedarville, we are always pushing the high tech envelope, and have for many years. We are a high tech campus with high tech expectations for professors in traditional courses and online courses. As we approach this generation of students, we cannot assume that technology in learning environments is something that they have adopted en masse. Instead, the instructional design process should help define when technology should be used and how it should be communicated to students to ensure the most effective learning environment. Check out the articles in Innovate; they will make you think.
0 Responses to “Point, counterpoint and where do we go from here?”