The so-called Generation Y, Learning and Digital Technologies: What’s Real and What’s Just Hype in a Fortunate Label

Prof. PhD Lorenzo CantoniNewMinE – New Media in Education LabUniversità della Svizzera italianaLugano - Switzerland

lorenzo.cantoni@usi.chwww.newmine.blogspot.com

A BRIEF INTRO

The University

The NewMinE lab

E-ethnography, eLearning in Tourism, ICT4D

Mapping the debate

Historic-sociological approach

(Howe & Strauss, 1991 and 2000)

Generation Y, Millennials, Next great generation

(Wilson & Gerber, 2008) Millennials

Socio-cognitive approach

(Prensky, 2001 and 2009) Digital nativesDigital wise

(Beck & Wade, 2006) Gamers(Palfrey & Gasser, 2008) Born Digital

Socio-pedagogical 

(Tapscott, 1997) NetGeneration(Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005) NetGeneration(Jukes & Dosai, 2003) Digital native learners(Rivoltella, 2006) Screen generation(Junko & Mastrodicasa, 2007) NetGeneration(Pletka, 2007) Digital learners(Pedrò, 2006) New millennium Learners(Prensky, 2010) Digital natives

CRITICAL VOICES

Schulmeister / Buckingham / Bennet, Maton & Kervin

“Generation” + over-generalizations + anecdotal evidence + technologies vs. usages + American-centrism + social panic + …

A plethora of recipe books / Prêt-à-porter solutions

Margaryan & Littlejohn, 2008

“The findings show that many young students are far from being the epitomic global, connected, socially-networked technologically-fluent digital native who has little patience for passive and linear forms of learning. ... Educators therefore cannot presume that all young students are “digital natives” who understand how to use technology to support and enhance their learning.”

TWO PROJECTS

Media diet

ICT and Learning practices/preferences

Local & limited

GenY @ work

2009 236 employees born after 1980

average age: 23.3 127 male: 53.8%, and 109 female: 46.2%

Six companies of the Canton Tessin (Switzerland) three banks, one consulting company, a provider of

industrial gas turbines, and a local newspaper

Quantitative and qualitative approach survey projective methodology

Learners’ voices @ USI-SUPSI

2010 University and University of Applied Science 562 students

12.6% out of 4,449 BA and MA students 318 female (56.6%), 244 male (43.4%). average age 24.5 years, median 23 different Faculties/Departments 56.2% from Switzerland, 24.9% from Italy, 12.5% from other

European countries, while 3.6% from Asia, 1.8% South America, 1.1% from North and Central America and Africa.

Questionnaire in Italian and English

A rich learning diet

Workers Students search engines (53.6%) classroom teaching (52.8%) individual study (42.9%)

individual f2f training (36.5%) specific websites/blogs (22.7%) eLearning platforms (19.3%) multimedia supports (18.0%) printed diction./enc. (17.2%) social networks (7.3%)

search engines (57,2%) classroom teaching (52,3%) individual study (50,8%)

wikipedia (35,4%) eLearning platforms (35,0%) specific websites/blogs (33,2%) individual f2f training (30,7%) printed diction./enc. (16,8%) multimedia supports (13,9%) social networks (8,6%)

Students: technologies used

For learning related activities, they use search engine (90.6%) portable computer (86.1%) USB memory stick (84.7%) text editor (77.6%) presentation editor (69.4%)

In your study, you use ICT to…ICT usages when studying Much Pretty

muchA

littleNever

Information gathering 63.6 29.1 5.8 1.4 Consult course materials 59.3 29.8 9.1 1.9 Download materials 55.2 30.0 10.3 4.5 Communicate with friends 49.2 30.8 14.7 5.4 Read the materials of a course 46.5 36.6 13.0 3.9 Write the assignment 42.6 36.2 16.7 4.5 Communicate with colleagues 39.7 40.7 16.3 3.3 Share materials 39.3 34.3 19.8 6.6 Prepare oral presentations 39.0 33.3 19.4 8.3 Manage information 37.2 43.8 14.9 4.1 Do an assignment individually 32.6 40.1 21.3 6.0 Rehearse before an exam 31.2 32.9 26.9 9.1 Plan a group work 28.7 37.4 25.8 8.1 Do an assignment collaboratively 27.3 44.4 22.7 5.6 Communicate with tutors and professors 18.2 40.1 35.3 6.4 Listen to course materials 17.6 26.2 27.3 28.9 Do self-assessment exercise 16.7 26.0 34.7 22.5 Buy online 14.0 17.4 27.9 40.7

Collaborative projects

Technologies used e-mail (92.0%) portable phone (75.0%) Instant messaging tools (e.g.: Skype, 32.4%) Chat (27.9%) Learning Management System (11.3%)

Male do use Instant messaging tools more than their female colleagues (40.6% vs. 26.0%)

Female students do use more USB memory sticks, text and presentations editors

Selecting a team mate: 25.0% male students and 19.8% female students do consider colleagues’ ICT competencies

Perception of eLearning

“eLearning is an important element in my courses” (51.0%)

“eLearning is one of the many important components in my courses” (43.2%)

ICT did improve… the way I do my homework (83.6%) the way I collaborate with my colleagues (76.6%) the way I study (76.2%) the way I attend to my hobbies and interests (72.2%) the way I stay in contact with relatives and friends (65.2%) the way in which I share my ideas and creations (58.0%)

An internal digital divide?

GenY@work 96 technologies presented by Lego models, 49

in the “private life”, 14 in the “workplace”, and 36 straddling both parts

Learners’ voices @ USI-SUPSI ICT daily use

query a search engine (79.3%) read/write e-mail (78.1%) watch a movie / listen to audio files (38.5%) read newsletters (36.6%) read newspapers (34.8%) create/update profile on social networks (30.9%)

A Lego map home vs. work

CONCLUSIONS

No simple direct eLearning recipes can be derived

eLearning as a context: every learning in the knowledge society

eLearning as a strategy

To have more and better eLearning, we do not necessarily need more ICT, we need to be aware of their role in the overall living experience of learners and teachers (context), and to activate them if and when needed (strategy).

Conclusion

Thank you!

Prof. PhD Lorenzo CantoniNewMinE – New Media in Education LabUniversità della Svizzera italianaLugano - Switzerland

lorenzo.cantoni@usi.chwww.newmine.blogspot.com