Download - Generational Differences in Using Online

8/12/2019 Generational Differences in Using Online

1/12

Human Systems Management 26 (2007) 99109 99

IOS Press

Generational differences in using online

learning systems

James L. Stapleton a, H. Joseph Wen b,, Dave Starrett c and Michelle Kilburn d

aDepartment of Accounting and MIS, Harrison College of Business, Southeast Missouri State University,

Cape Girardeau, MO 63701, USAbDepartment of Accounting and MIS, Harrison College of Business, Southeast Missouri State University,

Cape Girardeau, MO 63701, USA

c Center for Scholarship in Teaching & Learning, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau,MO 63701, USAd Southeast Online Programs, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701, USA

Abstract. The purpose of this study was to investigate generational differences in using online learning systems. The factors

examined in this study were perceived satisfaction, perceived learning, online technology environment, interaction, student mo-

tivation and self-management. A total of 966 usable responses were analyzed. A number of generational differences were found.

Comparatively speaking, Millennials are more likely to perceive that technical capabilities of the online system reduce learning,

have more interaction with students, have less interaction with instructors, are more comfortable with online course discussions,

and are less likely to have an online learning plan. However, contrary to profiles of these generations common in the literature, re-

sults suggested that the perceived satisfaction, learning, and motivation of these generations are more homogeneous than different.

Keywords: Web-based learning systems, generational differences, millennials, perceived satisfaction, perceived learning

James L. Stapletonis an assistant pro-fessor of Business and Marketing Edu-cation in the department of Accountingand Management Information Systems,Harrison College of Business at South-east Missouri State University. He holdsa Ph.D. from Southern Illinois Univer-sity, an MBA and M.S., Ed. from South-ern New Hampshire University, and aB.S. in Organizational Management andLeadership from Friends University. Hiscurrent research interests include web-based education, instructional technol-ogy, group dynamics, workplace and

student team effectiveness, and the convergence of teaching andlearning styles.

*Corresponding author. Department of Accounting and MIS, Har-

rison College of Business, Southeast Missouri State University,

Cape Girardeau, MO 63701, USA. Tel.: 573-651-2908; E-mail:

[email protected].

H. Joseph Wen is a Chairperson andProfessor of Management InformationSystems at SoutheastMissouri State Uni-versity and a join research professorat National Cheng Kung University inTaiwan. He holds a Ph.D. from Vir-ginia Commonwealth University. He haspublished over 150 papers in academicrefereed journals, book chapters, ency-clopedias and national conference pro-ceedings. He has received over six mil-lion dollars research grants from variousState and Federal funding sources. Hisareas of expertise are Internet research,

electronic/mobile commerce, IT/business strategy, and software de-velopment.

David is Dean of the School of Univer-sity Studies and Director of the Centerfor Scholarship in Teaching and Learn-ing at Southeast Missouri State Univer-sity. David has taught online and di-rects the faculty development programon incorporating technology into teach-ing and learning. He has presented over130 papers, workshops and sessions inthe area of teaching with technology.David is Executive Director of theCoun-cil for the Administration of General andLiberal Studies, is a Senior Associatewith the TLT group, co-authors the Na-

tional Teaching and Learning Forum TECHPED column, and is aContributing Editor for Campus Technology.

0167-2533/07/$17.00 2007 IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved


2/12

100 J.L. Stapleton et al. / Generational differences in using online learning systems

Michelle Kilburn is the Director ofSoutheast Online Programs at South-east Missouri State University. Onlinecourses generate about 10% of the credithours at Southeast. She received herEd.D. in Education Leadership from theUniversity of Missouri Columbia. Asan administrator at Southeast, she hasexperience working with multi-milliondollar grants, coordinating services foronline students, developing programs,marketing, and promotion. Her areasof expertise are online learning, educa-tional leadership, and higher educationadministration.

1. Introduction

From now until 2014, according to the National

Center for Education Statistics, enrollments in pub-

lic and private degree-granting institutions are ex-

pected to increase by 1520% to 19.120.0 million stu-

dents [34]. Enrollments for students 18 to 24 years old

are expected to increase by 16% between the years of

2002 and 2014 and 5% for students who are 35 years

old and over. The increases will bring total projected

enrollment in traditional students to 11.5 million and

3.3 million in non-traditional students.

Distance education is a growing enterprise. Oncerecognized as having only a very minor role in post-

secondary education, distance education has become

a considerable alternative for course delivery [14]. In

fact, 3 million higher education students enrolled dur-

ing the 20002001 academic year selected from more

than 127 000 distance education courses [23]. It was

estimated that 85% of colleges and universities in the

United States would offer distance education oppor-

tunities by the end of 2002 [11]. Allen and Seaman

[1] reported that since 2002, public institutions offer-

ing online courses had climbed to 90%. Perhaps more

compelling is the anticipation that by the year 2010,

50% of all learning, by public and private sources, will

be done at a distance [23].

Online courses are also referred to as web, web-

based, Internet, Internet-based, and computer-based.

These terms are recognizably interchangeable and lack

significant distinction. Online courses are responsible

for the majority of distance education courses offered

today; enrollment in online courses is rapidly increas-

ing. Online enrollment in 2004 was expected to in-

crease at a substantial rate of 24.8%, up from 19.8%

in 2003 [1]. In fact, it was predicted that enrollment in

online courses for fall 2004 would climb to 2.6 million,

an increase of 700 thousand students over fall 2003 ac-

tual enrollment.What explains the rapid growth in online course

enrollment? Easton [15] provided a set of three cor-

responding higher education issues that can actually

be said to have contributed to the increased enroll-

ments in distance education: (a) advances in computer

technology, (b) changing student demographics, and

(c) continued cost containment requirements. Much of

the growth in distance education has been accelerated

by changing demographics and needs of students in

higher education, particularly those employed profes-

sionally [57].

Although Chen and Hoshower [8] cited a shortage

of research on student perspectives, various student de-

mographic factors have been used to analyze the re-

lationship between students characteristics and their

online learning effectiveness [29]. In general, age and

gender have been identified as two of the factors that

cause learning effectiveness [7,12,25,55].

Compounding current issues and challenges in

higher education are the demands of a new and unique

population of learners converging upon higher educa-

tional institutions [50]. Recognition of the arrival of

a new generation of learners and their unique charac-

teristics and needs, leads to classification and discus-

sion of student populations into age groups based onthe time period in which one was born. As indicated in

Table 1, Oblinger and Oblinger [37] developed a sys-

tem that classifies and describes current living genera-

tions as Matures (19001946), Baby Boomers (1946

1964), Generation X (19651982), and Net Genera-

tion/Millennials (19821991).

Generational classification varies depending upon

the demographer. For instance, Howe and Strauss [24]

classified the generations as: Baby Boomers (1943

1960), Gen-X (19611981) and Millennials (1982

present). While discrepancies were found, the litera-

ture consistently classified Millennials, members of the

Net Generation and newest generation of learners in

higher education institutions, as born in 1982 or after.

Manning et al. [31] stated that Millennials have dif-

ferent characteristics from any generation before them,

requiring colleges and universities to understand these

unique characteristics and determine if/how they must

alter operations. The extant literature provides sev-

eral discussions of the unique characteristics that de-

scribe Millennials [6,17,24,32,35,37,50,53]. Tapscott

[53] described Millennials by identifying 10 broad cul-

tural themes that are prominent in the Net Generation.

These themes included:


3/12

J.L. Stapleton et al. / Generational differences in using online learning systems 101

Table 1

Generation classification and description

Birth dates Matures Baby Boomers Generation X Net Generation

19001946 19461964 19651982 19821991

Description Greatest

generation

Me generation Latchkey

generation

Millennials

Attributes Command and

control

Optimistic

Workaholic

Independent

Skeptical

Hopeful

Determined

Self-sacrifice

Likes Respect for

authority

Responsibility

Work ethic

Freedom

Multitasking

Public activism

Latest technology

Family Can-do attitude Work-life balance Parents

Community

involvement

Dislikes Waste Laziness Red tape Anything slowTechnology Turning 50 Hype Negativity

Note: FromEducating the Net Generation, D. G. Oblinger and O. L. Oblinger (Eds.), 2005, Boulder,

CO: EDUCAUSE.

Fierce independence: sense of autonomy derived

from being an active information seeker and cre-

ator of information and knowledge

Emotional and intellectual openness: value the

openness of the online environment, like anonymity,

and communicate through numerous tools

Inclusion: view the world in a global context and

move toward greater inclusion of diversity

Free expression and strong views: assertive and

confident resulting from access to information

Innovation: constantly trying to push technology

to its next level and interested in using technology

to solve real problems

Preoccupation with maturity: strive to be more

mature than their predecessors

Investigations: curious and seek discovery

Immediacy: views the world as 247 and de-

mands immediate and efficient processing

Sensitivity to corporate interest: savvy consumers

that want to try before they buy

Authentication and trust: Net savvy individualsaware of need to validated information

Millennials were described by Howe and Strauss

[24] as individuals who:

Gravitate toward group activity

Identify with parents values and feel close to

their parents

Believe its cool to be smart

Are fascinated by new technologies

Are racially and ethnically diverse; one in five has

at least one immigrant parent

Are focused on grades and performance

Are busy with extracurricular activities

Prensky [50] used the distinction of digital natives

and digital immigrants to differentiate students in the

past from the traditional-age college students of today.

The compelling distinction was digital natives (Millen-

nials) grew up with technology; they live in a digital

world. Digital immigrants (generations prior to Mil-lennials) view technology as a recent innovation; they

grew up in an analogue world. Millennials are fasci-

nated with new technologies, desire group activities

and interaction, emphasize extracurricular activities,

and are motivated by grades and achievement [24].

Oblinger and Oblinger [38] identified several attributes

of Millennials (see Table 2) they claimed require spe-

cial attention because of the potential impact on higher

education.

At the same time that colleges and universities are

graduating their first Millennials, most campuses are

experiencing an influx of nontraditional students [38],

increased utilization of information technology, and

amplified dependence and enrollment in online course

delivery. Predicted to be Americas first generation to

exceed 100 million [24], the large number of Millen-

nials entering colleges and universities presents chal-

lenges and opportunities for higher education [31].

These converging factors should compel higher educa-

tors [22] to understand the attributes and learning char-

acteristics of Millennials in order to meet their needs.

To measure the effectiveness of distance education,

researchers generally investigate student outcomes, at-

titudes, and overall satisfaction [40]. If the student is


4/12


Table 2

Attributes of Millennials

Digitally Literate Grew up with widespread access to technology

Intuitively uses a variety of IT devices

More visually literate than previous generations

More likely to use the Internet for research than the library

Connected As long as theyve been alive, the world has been a connected place

While highly mobile, they are always connected

Able to utilize a range of digital devices to maintain connection

Immediate Expect to receive immediate responses and information

Multitask, sometimes performing tasks simultaneously

Place more emphasis on speed than accuracy

Experiential Prefer to learn by doing rather than being told what to do

Perhaps because of video games, they learn well through discovery

Able to retain information and use it creatively

Social Prolific communicators, they gravitate towards social interaction

Striking openness to diversity, differences, and sharing

Prefer to collaborate with others to learn

viewed as a customer, then the students satisfaction

with the course is critical [54]. Student satisfaction

was defined as the students perception pertaining to

the college experience and perceived value of the ed-

ucation received [2]. Some believe student satisfaction

should receive more focus in the distance learning en-

vironment [5]. Richards and Ridley [43] suggested fur-

ther research is necessary to study factors affecting on-line course student enrollment and satisfaction. Stu-

dent satisfaction is an important intermediate outcome

[2] because it influences the students level of motiva-

tion [10] and perceived learning.

The primary objective of this study was to inves-

tigate generational differences in using online learn-

ing systems. Using the extant literature, we deter-

mined that differences in students perceptions may

exist because of the age of the student. More specif-

ically, previous studies indicated that students per-

ceived satisfaction and learning in online courses var-

ied based upon generation. Furthermore, literature in-

dicated that the online technology environment, inter-

action, and student self-management and motivation

are factors that influenced students perceived satisfac-

tion and learning in online courses.

2. Literature review

The critical factors influencing students perceived

satisfaction and learning in online courses are differ-

ent from the traditional face-to-face course environ-

ment. Bollinger [4] indicated that the factors contribut-

ing to satisfaction and learning in the online environ-

ment are technological aspects, the course Web site,

and virtual relationships and interaction because online

learners typically do not form face-to-face relation-

ships with one another; therefore, Bollinger encour-

aged researchers conducting studies with online stu-

dents to include these factors into the investigation of

student satisfaction. Worley [57] warned that technol-ogy is not the only important consideration of distance

education evaluation. More emphasis should be placed

on learning tasks, learner characteristics, student moti-

vation, and the instructor.

2.1. Perceived satisfaction and learning

Oblinger and Oblinger [38] identified student satis-

faction with online learning as the most commonly in-

accurate assumption about online learning. There is a

common assumption that Millennials are more satis-

fied with online courses because they are digital na-

tives. Since Millennials spend so much of their time

online, it seems reasonable to expect that they would

have a strong preference for online courses. The re-

verse is actually true, as illustrated by a study from

the University of Central Florida. Manning et al. [31]

found that older students (Matures and Baby Boomers)

are much more likely to be satisfied with online courses

than Millennials. Results from their study indicated

that only 26% of Millennials reported being satis-

fied with online courses as compared to 55% of Baby

Boomers and 63% for Matures.


5/12


These findings were consistent with an earlier study

conducted at the SUNY Learning Network [46] in-volving 1406 online students, half of the students en-

rolled in that term, that responded to a survey that as-

sessed student satisfaction and perceived learning in

online courses. A single age group, those 3645, re-

ported the highest level of learning, participation, and

satisfaction. There was a strong positive correlation be-

tween students reporting higher satisfaction and per-

ceived learning. Shea concluded that age may be a

proxy for several other attributes of successful online

learners, such as motivation.

Hartman et al. [22] discussed findings from the Re-

search Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness (RITE) atthe University of Central Florida, a group that regu-

larly conducts formative and summative surveys of stu-

dents online learning experiences. RITE analyzed re-

sponses from 1489 students, about 30% of their total

online students. One construct assessed was learning

engagement including among other factors students

overall satisfaction and ability to utilize technology

in learning. Findings indicated that older learners re-

ported higher positive learning engagement. Millenni-

als reported 73% of the maximum rating as compared

to 85% for Baby Boomers. Open-ended responses

from Millennials indicated that they were overall dis-appointed because of the lack of immediacy in their on-

line courses and because faculty interaction, especially

responsiveness lagged behind their expectations.

Other studies indicated a general lack of interest

among Millennials to abandon the classroom in fa-

vor of online courses. In a study conducted by Jones

and Madden [26], only 6% of Millennial students took

online courses for college credit, and of those only

half (52%) thought the online course was effective.

Half of the Millennials who took an online course per-

ceived they learned less from the online course than

they would have from a face-to-face course.Oblinger and Oblinger [37] claimed that low satis-

faction and interest in online courses by Millennials

was a result of their desire to be connected with peo-

ple and to be social, and the differences in expectations

of higher education from older groups. They found the

following:

Millennials said they came to college to work with

faculty and other students, not to interact with them

online. Older learners tend to be less interested

in the social aspects of learning; convenience and

flexibility are much more important (p. 2.11).

The extant literature indicated that students overall

perceived satisfaction and learning in online coursesdiffered depending upon generation. More specifically,

Millennials were less satisfied and perceived less learn-

ing in online courses than older Generation X, Baby

Boomer, or Matures students. Thus, we hypothesized:

H1: There is a difference in overall satisfaction in

online courses reported between Millennials

and Generation X, Baby Boomer, or Mature

students.

H2: There is a difference in perceived learning in

online courses reported between Millennials


students.

2.2. Online technology environment

Mason and Bacsich [30] declared that familiarity

with the technology environment is critical for the

online student. Since technology is the fundamental

basis for distance education, concerns related to stu-

dent satisfaction and learning are abundant. Both Wor-

ley [57] and Easton [15] believed research conducted

to improve implementation and evaluation of technol-

ogy, especially for online courses, is meager. Drennan,

Kennedy, and Pisarski [13] found that student satisfac-tion in online courses is influenced by positive percep-

tions toward technology. Likewise, students who expe-

rience frustrations with technology in an online course

report lower satisfaction [9,21].

These are consistent with findings from a study con-

ducted at the SUNY Learning Network [46] involv-

ing 1406 online students, half of the students enrolled

in that term, that responded to a survey that assessed

student satisfaction and perceived learning in SLN on-

line courses. Students who reported that technical dif-

ficulties impeded their learning reported lower levels

of learning overall. Shea concluded that technical dif-

ficulties can and do impede online students ability to

learn.

A common misconception is that Millennials, since

they are digital natives raised with technology, prefer a

high level of technology integration in college classes.

It is believed that these students possess unprece-

dented levels of skill with information technology;

they think about and use technology very differently

from earlier student cohorts [27]. In a study by the

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR),

using both quantitative and qualitative data, 4374 stu-

dents (from 13 institutions, majority of students were


6/12


Millennials) preferences for the amount of technology

used in courses were analyzed. Inconsistent with com-mon perception, Kvavki found that Millennials pre-

ferred only a moderate use of technology in the class-

room. Least preferred (2.2%) were courses delivered

extensively online. Nearly 26% of the students pre-

ferred limited or no use of technology.

Manning et al. [31] indicated that there is an in-

creasing gap between most higher education institu-

tions IT environment and the technologies Millenni-

als commonly use. The quality and interactivity of web

sites commonly used by younger students typically ex-

ceed the functionality of most course webs. This gap

can lead to dissatisfaction with technical capabilities.

There is also a misconception that older generations

are the least satisfied with online course technology.

Manning found that only 61.3% of Millennials were

satisfied with technical capabilities of online courses

as compared to 61.3% of Generation X, 76.9% of Baby

Boomers, and 80.6% of Matures students. These find-

ings indicated students expectations of online course

technical capabilities increase from older to younger

generations.

The extant literature indicated that technical diffi-

culty and students perceived learning were related in

online courses. Furthermore, Millennials were less sat-

isfied with technical capabilities in online courses thanGeneration X, Baby Boomer, or Matures. Thus, we hy-

pothesized:

H3: There is a difference in the perception that tech-

nical capabilities reduced perceived learning

in online courses reported between Millenni-

als and Generation X, Baby Boomer, or Mature

students.

2.3. Interaction

Learning is a social activity [53]; it is most effective

when students are engaged and interactive. Moore [16]

identified three forms of interactivity in online courses

as (a) interaction between participants and learning

materials, (b) interaction between participants and tu-

tors/experts, and (c) interactions among participants.

Swan [51] noted that frequent instructor interac-

tion with students was one of the factors that con-

tributed to effective online courses. Fredericksen, Pick-

ett, Pelz, Swan, and Shea [19] found that instructor-

student interaction was the most significant contributor

to perceived learning. Studies conducted by the SUNY

Learning Network have repeatedly found that students

positive perception of interaction with their instructors

correlates strongly with perceived learning and satis-faction [19,47,49].

A second factor that contributed to effective online

courses was dynamic interaction between students and

their peers [51]. Graham and Scarborough [20] con-

firmed the findings noting that 64% of the students they

surveyed claimed having access to a group of other

students was important. The SUNY Learning Network

studies also have repeatedly found that students in on-

line courses who reported the highest levels of inter-

action with peers also reported the highest levels of

satisfaction and perceived learning [19,47,49]. Wu and

Hiltz [58] found that required discussions in online

courses improved students perceived learning.

Eom, Wen, and Ashill [16] analyzed two forms of

interaction and found that a high level of perceived in-

teraction between the instructor and students and be-

tween students and students lead to a high level of user

satisfaction. However, higher levels of interaction did

not lead to increased learning outcomes.

Millennials are less inclined to enroll in online

courses, perhaps because they expect to be part of

a community, to collaborate, and interact [36]. They

crave interactivity whether it is with a computer, a

professor, or a classmate [22]. Picciano [41] found a

relationship between students perceived learning fromonline courses with the quantity of discussion taking

place. Hartman confirmed the findings by citing inves-

tigations at the Research Initiative for Teaching Effec-

tiveness at the University of Central Florida. The sec-

ond construct analyzed interaction value allowed

online students to evaluate their experience in regard

to ease, quality, and quantity of interaction with stu-

dents and faculty. Comparison of generations indicated

highest level of satisfaction with only 50% of Millen-

nials, as compared to 56% of Generation X, and 63%

of Baby Boom students. Thus, we hypothesized:

H4: There is a difference in the quantity of student

to student interactions reported between Mil-

lennials and Generation X, Baby Boomer, or

Mature students.

H5: There is a difference in the quantity of student

to instructor interaction reported between Mil-

lennials and Generation X, Baby Boomer, or

Mature students.

H6: There is a difference in the level of comfort

in participating in discussion reported between

Millennials and Generation X, Baby Boomer,

or Mature students.


7/12


2.4. Student motivation and self-management

Which students are best suited for distance educa-

tion or online courses? Palloff and Pratt [39] warned

that success in online courses may not be achieved all

students. Belanger and Jordan [3] stated that online

learners needed to be motivated, organized, and com-

mitted. In other words, they must become responsible

for their own learning.

Online courses may be more challenging than face-

to-face courses because they have more transactional

distance [42]. This separation requires more self-man-

agement independently determining a study plan and

sticking to it. Online students unable to self-manage

may suffer from procrastination. Previous studies [52,56] found links between poor study habits and de-

creased learning in online courses. Richardson and

Price [44] found study habits were also related to stu-

dents perception of course effectiveness. In addition

to self-management, motivation has been linked to suc-

cess [18,28], and satisfaction [16] in online courses.

Numerous studies indicated that older students out-

performed traditional-aged students in online courses

[7,12,55]. Easton [15] claimed that among other per-

sonal characteristics, nontraditional students tended to

be more highly-motivated and self-disciplined. Thus,

we hypothesized:H7: There is a difference in the motivation expe-

rienced from online coursework reported be-

tween Millennials and Generation X, Baby

Boomer, or Mature students.

H8: There is a difference in self-management suc-

cess that is the ability to develop a study plan

and stick to it reported between Millennials


students.

3. Method

The eight hypotheses were tested using a quantita-

tive survey of satisfaction and learning outcome per-

ceptions of students who have taken at least one online

course in the fall semester of 2005 at a large Midwest

university in the United States. This study surveyed

students enrolled in asynchronous online courses with

no campus face-to-face meetings. An electronic invi-

tation was sent to students to seek their participation

in the study as they logged into to their classes. Par-

ticipation was voluntary and students could skip the

survey by clicking on the cancel button. There were

1017 unduplicated responses from the survey. ANOVA

is employed to examine the generational differences of

these outcomes and student satisfaction.The survey instrument was built using Flashlight

Online, which is developed and hosted by WashingtonState University. Flashlight Online contains over 500items that have been tested for face validity by hav-ing more than 40 different surveys created from theitem bank and pilot tested at five institutions. Approx-imately 2000 respondents completed these surveys.They have demonstrated a consistent Cronbachs alphaof 0.850.90. Since Flashlight Online is an item bank,comprehensive validity and reliability are not knownsince both depend so much on the order of the ques-tions in a static instrument. However, the items adopted

in this study have acceptable content validity becausethey were reviewed by experts from five pilot institu-tions.

4. Findings

In this study, 1017 unduplicated responses were re-ceived from the survey. Nine hundred sixty-six usableresponses were analyzed. Demographics of the sub-jects are shown in Table 3. The results of this studyfound some differences in students perceptions of on-line learning between Millennials and other genera-tions. Table 4 shows the results of ANOVA-tests. Fiveout of the eight hypotheses examined indicated signif-icant generational differences (p < 0.05). Except forperceived satisfaction (H1), perceived learning (H2),and student motivation (H7), all other hypotheses online technology environment (H3), interactions (H4,H5, and H6), and self-management (H8) were sup-ported.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that Millennials and othergenerations in online learning settings differed in per-ceived satisfaction. The results in Table 2 indicatethat there was no significant difference in perceivedsatisfaction (F = 0.566, p = 0.638). In Hypothe-

sis 2, we predicted that Millennials and other genera-tions differed in perceived learning. However, no dif-ference was found in perceived learning (F = 2.357,

p = 0.070). Hypothesis 3 predicted that Millennialsand other generations differed in the perception thattechnology reduced learning. The results supported thehypothesis (F =5.202,p =0.001). Millennials weremore likely than other generations to perceive that on-line learning technology reduced learning. Hypothe-sis 4, 5, and 6 predicted that Millennials and othergenerations differed in student-to-student interactions,student-to-instructor interactions, and the level of com-fort participating in course discussions. The results


8/12


Table 3

Demographics of the subjects

Demographic Characteristics Category Frequency Percent

Gender Male 290 30.0%

Female 676 70.0%

Generation Millennials 601 62.2%

Generation X 208 21.5%

Baby Boomers 151 15.6%

Veterans 6 0.6%

Academic Standing Freshman 38 3.9%

Sophomore 26 2.7%

Junior 97 10.0%

Senior 267 27.6%

Graduate 393 40.7%

Others 145 15%

Table 4

ANOVA results

Perceived online learning systems F value Pr > |F|

H1: Perceived Satisfaction 0.566 0.638

(means: Millennials = 2.22; Gen-X= 2.17;Boomers= 2.08; Vets = 2.17)

H2: Perceived Learning 2.357 0.070


H3: Online Technology Environment 5.202 0.001***


H4: Student-to-Student Interactions 2.927 0.033**


H5: Student-to-Instructor Interactions 7.433 0.000***


H6: The Level of Comfort in Participating in Discussion 3.575 0.014**


H7: Student Motivation 2.265 0.079


H8: Student Self-management 4.186 0.006***


**Significant at p


9/12


5. Discussions

The purpose of this study was to investigate gen-

erational differences in using online learning systems.

To begin the discussion, we first review the three gen-

erational differences that were identified in the study

and possible sources of these differences. Firstly, the

findings indicated that Millennials participating in this

study had significantly stronger perceptions that on-

line learning technology reduced learning in online

courses. As depictions in the popular press would pre-

dict, technological expectations of online courses were

significantly higher for Millennials than other gener-

ations. Millennials are not merely technology-savvy,they are approaching their lives differently as they inte-

grate digital technologies such as computers, the Inter-

net, instant messaging, cell phones, iPods, and e-mail

seamlessly throughout their daily activities. This gen-

eration expects access to learning systems 24/7 and ex-

pects class Websites to operate effectively. Millenni-

als are also used to accessing commercial websites that

are designed with high-quality graphics and creative

interactive components. In this generation, everything

comes with a toll-free number or web address and they

think technology should be free and functional. If not,

they are inclined to discontinue visitation to the web-site and dismiss its content. In this educational context,

they believed the technology reduced learning.

Secondly, Millennials had significantly more inter-

actions with fellow students and were significantly

more comfortable in course discussions than other gen-

erations. This result could stem from Millennials con-

nected and collaborative life styles. As discussed in the

literature, Millennials want to collaborate with others,

online, in their time, in their place, and doing things

that matter. They constantly communicate through e-

mail, text messaging, and wireless voice communica-

tions. Millennials enjoy meeting with their classes on-

line and collaborating through the use of various social

connectivity utilities provided by websites like Face-

book and MySpace. Also discussed in the literature,

Millennials expect constant and meaningful commu-

nication with online instructors. The findings of this

study indicated that Millennials had fewer interactions

with instructors than any other generation; a finding

which may be confounded by the variability of inter-

actions initiated or required by instructors of courses

represented in this study. Older students may also be

more comfortable initiating interaction with instructors

versus Millennials.

Finally, self-management was the third generational

difference identified. Compared with other genera-tions, Millennials tended to have a hard time planningtheir own online schedule and sticking to it. The sourceof this difference identified in the study may be dueto the fact that Millennials generally do not prefer towork in the traditional 8am5pm world. Millennialshave grown up using technology to socialize, learn, andsolve problems with information from the World WideWeb, which happens to be available at any hour of theday. Their biggest frustrations center around not beingable to use the tools they need, how they want, whenthey want, and where they want.

The study results also suggested that Millennials

and other generations may be more homogeneous thanwe predicted in their overall perceptions about onlinelearning systems. No significant difference was foundbetween Millennials and other generations regardingperceived satisfaction, perceived learning, and moti-vation toward online learning systems. One possibleexplanation for this is that generational differences inperceptions related to contributing factors of effective-ness did not manifest into differences in perceptions ofoverall quality. For instance, as long as students hadsufficient interaction with classmates and the instruc-tor, and the course utilized adequate technology, mo-tivation was not affected and overall perceived satis-

faction and learning did not reflect generational differ-ences. In other words, Millennials and other genera-tions believe learning in online courses is not solely amatter of technological factors. Better technology doesnot equate directly to better learning.

In summary, the three group differences identified inthe study provide minimal support for popular stereo-types of Millennials and other generations in onlinecourses concerning overall perceived learning and sat-isfaction. While the current study advanced knowledgeof differences between Millennials and other genera-tions of learners currently inhabiting college and uni-versity campuses, a potential weakness may lie in the

homogenous nature of the sample. Participants wereself-selected students at a Midwestern university, lim-iting the generalizability of the findings. An additionallimitation could be found in the inadequate attentiongiven to the differences between the in-house devel-oped online learning system utilized and other com-mercial e-learning systems.

6. Conclusion

The results of the current study provide insight to ed-ucators into differences among current generations of


10/12


online students. The study found Millennials and other

generations may have more in common than originallyanticipated. The lack of a coherent pattern of differ-

ences in the perceived satisfaction and perceived learn-

ing of Millennials and other generations has implica-tions for both research and practice. In practice, the

normative advice to design a generationally savvy on-line learning system is based on assumptions that cur-

rently lack support, and online teaching based on those

views may be misguided. What appears to be more im-portant than isolated focus on utilizing advanced tech-

nology is a balanced integration of technology with ap-propriate pedagogical strategies. While additional re-

search is needed, popular stereotypes of generational

differences between Millennials and other generationsof online learners may not be a good single-factor pre-

dictor of perceived student satisfaction or learning.

References

[1] I.E. Allen and J. Seaman,Entering the Mainstream: The Qual-

ity and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2003

and 2004, Sloan-C, MA, 2006.

[2] A.W. Astin,What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Re-

visited,Jossey-Bass, CA, 1993.

[3] F. Belanger and D.H. Jordan,Evaluation and Implementation

of Distance Learning: Technologies, Tools and Techniques,Idea Publishing Group, PA, 2000.

[4] D. Bolliger, Key factors for determining student satisfaction

in online courses, International Journal on E-Learning 3(1)

(2004), 6167.

[5] P.M. Biner, R.S. Dean and A.E. Mellinger, Factors underly-

ing distance learner satisfaction with televised college-level

courses, The American Journal of Distance Education 8(1)

(1994), 6071.

[6] J.S. Brown, Growing up digital: How the web changes work,

education and the ways people learn, Change 32(2) (2000),

1020.

[7] S. Carr, As distance education comes of age, the challenge is

keeping the students, Chronicle of Higher Education 46(23)

(2000), 3941.

[8] Y. Chen and L.B. Hoshower, Assessing student motivation

to participate in teaching evaluations: An application of ex-

pectancy theory,Issues in Accounting Education13(3) (1998),

531548.

[9] S.M. Chong, Models of asynchronous computer conferencing

for collaborative learning in large college classes, in: Elec-

tronic Collaborators: Learner-centered Technologies for Liter-

acy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse, C.J. Bonk and K.S. King,

eds, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, 1998, pp. 157182.

[10] A.G. Chute, M.M. Thompson and B.W. Hancock, The

McGraw-Hill Handbook of Distance Learning, McGraw-Hill,

New York, 1999.

[11] J.K. Dennis, Problem-based learning in online vs. face-to-face

environments, Education for Health16(2) (2003), 198209.

[12] A.H. Digilio, Web-based instruction adjusts to the individual

needs of adult learners,Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems12(4) (1998), 2628.

[13] J. Drennan, J. Kennedy and A. Pisarksi, Factors affecting stu-

dent attitudes toward flexible online learning in management

education, The Journal of Educational Research 98(6) (2005),

331340.

[14] F. Dwyer and N. Li, Distance education complexities: Ques-

tions to be answered, International Journal of Instructional

Media27(1) (2000), 2528.

[15] S.S. Easton, Clarifying the instructors role in online distance

learning,Communication Education52(2) (2003), 87105.

[16] S.B. Eom, H.J. Wen and N. Ashill, The determinants of stu-

dents perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in univer-

sity online education: An empirical investigation,Decision Sci-

ences Journal of Innovative Education4(2) (2006), 215235.

[17] J. Frand, The information-age mindset: Changes in students

and implications for higher education, EDUCAUSE Review

35(5) (2000), 1524.

[18] K. Frankola, Why online learner drop out, Workforce 80(1)

(2001), 5360.

[19] E. Fredericksen, A. Pickett, W. Pelz, K. Swan and P. Shea, Stu-

dent satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses:

Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network,

in:On-Line Education, Volume 1: Learning Effectiveness and

Faculty Satisfaction, J. Bourne, ed., Center for Asynchronous

Learning Networks, Tennessee, 2000, pp. 736.

[20] M. Graham and H. Scarborough, Enhancing the learning en-

vironment for distance education students,Distance Education

22(2) (2001), 232244.

[21] N. Hara and R. Kling, Students distress with a Web-based

distance education course: An ethnographic study of partici-

pants experiences, Center for Social Informatics, available at

http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/wp00-01.html, 2000.

[22] J. Hartman, P. Moskal and C. Dziuban, Preparing the academy

of today forthe learner of tomorrow, in:Educating the Net Gen-

eration, D.G. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger, eds, EDUCAUSE,

Colorado, 2005, 6.16.14.

[23] L.B. Holcomb, F.B. King and S.W. Brown, Student traits and

attributes contributing to success in online courses: Evaluations

of university online courses, The Journal of Interactive Online

Learning2(3) (2004), 117.

[24] N. Howe and W. Strauss, Millennials Rising: The Next Great

Generation, Vintage Books, 2000, New York.

[25] O.J. Jegede and J. Kirkwood, Students anxiety in learning

through distance education, ERIC Document Reproduction,

Service No. ED 360476, 1992.

[26] J. Jones and M. Madden, The Internet goes to college:

How students are living in the future with todays technol-

ogy, Pew Internet and American Life Project, available at

http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp, 2002.

[27] R.B. Kvavik, Convenience, communications, and control: How

students use technology, in: Educating the Net Generation,

D.G. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger, eds, EDUCAUSE, 2005, CO,

pp. 7.17.20.

[28] R. LaRose and P. Whitten, Re-thinking instructional immedi-

acy for web courses: A social cognitive exploration,Communi-

cation Education49(2000), 320338.


11/12


[29] J. Lu, C. Yu and C. Liu, Learning style, learning patterns, and

learning performance in a WebCT-based MIS course, Informa-tion & Management40(2003), 497507.

[30] J. Macdonald, Developing competent e-learners: The role of as-

sessment,Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education29(2)

(2004), 215225.

[31] T. Manning, B. Evverett and C. Roberts, The millennial

generation: The next generation in college enrollment, Cen-

tral Piedmont Community Colleges Center for Applied Re-

search, available at http://www.league.org/services/millennial_

generation.html, 2004.

[32] S. Merritt, Learners of thefuture, paper presentedat theFaculty

Development Institute sponsored by Villanova University and

the National League for Nursing, available at http://www17.

homepage.villanova.edu/stephen.merritt/VUNRLOF060902.

htm, 2002.

[33] T.W. Miller and F.B. King, Distance education: Pedagogy andbest practices in the new millennium,Internal Journal of Lead-

ership in Education6(3) (2003), 283297.

[34] National Center for Education Statistics, Projections of educa-

tion statistics to 2014, available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/

projections/sec_2b.asp), 2005.

[35] D.G. Oblinger, Boomers, Gen-Xers, and millennials: under-

standing the new students, EDUCAUSE Review 38(4) (2003),

3747.

[36] D.G. Oblinger and B.L. Hawkins, The myths about students,

EDUCAUSE Review40(5) (2005), 1213.

[37] D.G. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger, Introduction, in: Educating

the Net Generation, D.G. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger, eds,

EDUCAUSE, Colorado, 2005, pp. 2.12.20.

[38] D.G. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger, Is it age or IT: Firststeps toward understanding the Net Generation, in: Educat-

ing the Net Generation, D.G. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger, eds,

EDUCAUSE, Colorado, 2005, pp. 2.12.20.

[39] R.M. Palloff and K. Pratt,Building Learning Communities in

Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Classroom, Jossey-

Bass, CA, 1999.

[40] R. Phipps and J. Merisotis, Whats the difference? A review of

contemporary research on the effectiveness of distancelearning

in higher education,Change31(3) (1999), 1217.

[41] A. Picciano, Developing an asynchronous course model at

a large, urban, university, Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks12(1) (1998), 114.

[42] J. Romano, T.L. Wallace, I.J. Helmick, L.M. Carey and L. Ad-

kins, Study procrastination, achievement, and academic mo-

tivation in web-based and blended distance learning, Internet

and Higher Education8(2005), 299305.

[43] C.N. Richards and D.R. Ridley, Factors affecting college stu-

dents persistence in online computer-managed instruction,

College Student Journal31(1997), 490495.

[44] J.T. Richardson, A. Morgan and A. Woodley, Approaches to

studying in distance education, Higher Education 37 (1999),

2355.

[45] C.L. Scanlan, Reliability and validity of a student scale for

assessing the quality of Internet-based distance learning,Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 6(3)

(2003).

[46] P. Shea, Factors influencing student satisfaction and per-

ceived learning in an ALN, in: Presented at the 1999 In-

ternational ALN Conference, available at http://www.sloan-

c.org/conference/proceedings/1999/, 1999.

[47] P. Shea, E. Fredericksen, A. Pickett, W. Pelz and K. Swan,

Measures of learning effectiveness in the SUNY learning net-

work, in: On-Line Education, Volume 2: Learning Effective-

ness, Faculty Satisfaction, and Cost Effectiveness, J. Bourne

and J. Moore, eds, Sloan Center for OnLine Education, MA,

2001, pp. 3154.

[48] T. Shea, L. Motiwalla and D. Lewis, Internet-based distance

education The administrators perspective,Journal of Educa-

tion for Business77(2) (2001) 112117.

[49] P. Shea, K. Swan, E. Fredericksen and A. Pickett, Student sat-

isfaction and reported learning in the SUNY learning network,

in: Elements of Quality Online Education, J. Bourne and J.

Moore, eds, Sloan Center for OnLine Education, MA, 2001,

pp. 145156.

[50] D. Skiba and A. Barton, Adapting your teaching to accommo-

date the Net Generation of learners, The Online Journal of Is-

sues in Nursing11(2) (2006).

[51] K. Swan, Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting stu-

dent satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online

courses,Distance Education22(2) (2001), 306331.

[52] R. Taraban, W.S. Maki and K. Rynearson, Measuring study

time distributions: Implications for designing computer-basedcourses, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Com-

puters31(1) (1999), 263269.

[53] D. Tapscott,Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Genera-

tion, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998.

[54] T. Tricker, M. Rangecroft, P. Long and P. Gilroy, Evaluating

distance education courses: The student perception, Assess-

ment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26(2) (2001), 165

177.

[55] S.Y. Tucker, Assessing the effectiveness of distance education

versus traditional on-campus education, ERIC Document Re-

production, Service No. ED 443378, 2000.

[56] B.W. Tuckman, Academic procrastinators: Their rationaliza-

tions and web-course performance, paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,2002.

[57] R.B. Worley, The medium is not the message,Business Com-

munication Quarterly63(3) (2000), 93103.

[58] D. Wu and S. Hiltz, Predicting learning from asynchronous on-

line discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks

8(2) (2004).


12/12