Millennial Expectations, Constructivist Theory, and Changes in a Teacher Preparation Course

Timothy L. Carter: Arkansas Tech University

The Millennial Generation (born ~1982-2002) is now well represented in the university setting. This cohort has its own unique expectations that are in many ways aligned with constructivist propositions of learning. These Millennial expectations will likely necessitate changes in instructional approaches used in the university environment. This paper considers such changes that were made in a six-hour secondary education course, which serves as the methods and assessment course that all students, regardless of academic major, complete in one university’s secondary education program. By applying constructivist propositions and by considering Millennial Generation expectations, several revisions to this six-hour course were implemented.

he Millennial Generation (born ~1982-2002) networking opportunities with other novices and Thas entered and is now entering the university experts, immediate evaluative feedback, and a setting in large numbers. Like other generational continually-improving use of multiple tools and cohorts before it, the Millennial Generation has resources (Oblinger, 2003). Such expectations been shaped by a variety of influences (Howe for the learning environment coupled with the & Strauss, 2000; Oblinger, 2003; Raines, 2003). already strong consumer demands of our society Such influences include a shift to a child-centric are presenting universities with new and fairly society as evidenced by record numbers of parent- complex situations when attempting to recruit ing magazines, child safety products, amber alert and then retain the majority of this cohort until initiatives, educational tools, and extra-curricular graduation (Chronicle of Higher Education, activities (Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007; Howe, 2007; Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007; Lowery, 2005; Lowery, 2004). As noted by Howe and 2004; Merriman, 2007; Van Horn, 2006). Such Strauss (2000), parental involvement with this expectations have resulted in universities creat- generational cohort has increased to the point that ing stronger parent initiatives (Merriman, 2007), a new term, helicopter parenting, has been used to refined requirements for timely communication describe these parenting practices. Further influ- of faculty to students (Lowery, 2004), consider- ences involve the emphasis upon this generation ations involving the use of various technologies by advertisers and businesses simply due to the (Oblinger, 2003; Van Horn, 2006), and an exami- sheer size of the cohort (~76 to 82 million mem- nation of how instruction should occur within the bers), which rivals that of the largest generational classroom setting (Atkinson, 2004). cohort in history – the Boomer Generation (~80 million members) (Howe & Strauss, 2000). With these changes in generational expectations, it should be noted that educational experts As it relates to the university setting, the have been systematically developing and testing Millennials enter the university with expectations learning theories for over a century now that of streamlined communication environments, speak directly to many of these expectations.

SRATE Journal Winter 2008-2009, Vol. 18, Number 1 Page 25 One theoretical perspective of particular note The course titled Classroom Applications when attempting to teach this generational cohort of Educational Psychology examines theoretical is that of constructivism. According to Eggen and practical perspectives of learning, motiva- and Kauchak (2007), “constructivism can be tion, assessment, and management; applications described as a view of learning suggesting that of these perspectives to the classroom through learners create their own knowledge of the topics models and methods of instruction, manage- they study rather than having that knowledge ment strategies, and motivational tools; different transmitted to them by some other source” (p. assessment techniques, assessment interpreta- 235). Millennial Generation expectations appear tion, and planning based on these assessments; to be fairly well-aligned with key propositions of and various elements of teacher professionalism. constructivism, specifically emphasizing instruc- The course meets for three, 2-hour sessions each tional approaches. The Millennial cohort, due to week of the semester. It serves as the only theory, the effect of societal shaping influences on the methods, and assessment course that all second- generation, has come to expect and/or demand ary education program candidates must complete much of what educational theorists have long irrespective of their major. During the first years recommended. Consequently, the application of of teaching the course, the approach used was a constructivist approaches may need to be con- “conceptual” one following the definition of the sidered more intentionally to better educate this Salish I Research Project (Yager, 1997), which cohort. defined beliefs and actions used in this approach as those that, “tend to be teacher-centered, but The following discussion will examine how a also include hands-on activities, group work and university professor attempted to meet these Mil- discussion as ways of helping students to clarify lennial expectations and constructivist proposi- understanding of ideas” (p. 9). tions. Specifically, this discussion will examine changes that were implemented in one six-hour Initial Changes in Instruction – secondary education course to meet Millennial The Overview of Constructivist Theory expectations while applying constructivist methodologies. It should be noted that this discussion In this course, one particular topic (the over- of “constructivist” approaches follows the delin- view of constructivist theory) helped contribute eation of Null (2004) who suggests that research to a paradigm shift concerning how to better in constructivism can generally be separated instruct the Millennial Generation cohort and into epistemological/philosophical discussions, successfully apply constructivist methodologies. instructional approaches, and “prescriptive” train- For several semesters, when considering the ideas ings. This is in agreement with Glynn and Duit of Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey; the information (1995) who suggest using the term constructive was presented via direct instruction and lecture instead of constructivist to emphasize practical methods. Students were asked questions to make rather than philosophical perspectives of learn- certain they were taking notes and understanding. The emphasis here is upon practical and ing the presentations. After the presentation methodological changes that occurred in this each day over a period of several class sessions, course founded upon Millennial expectations students were asked to complete a short activity and that were informed by a constructive learn- to ensure they had learned the information. Such ing perspective. In this paper, the use of the term approaches involving lecture have been and are constructivist should be understood as being quite commonplace in university settings with synonymous with constructive or constructivist varied levels of student engagement (Atkinson, instructional approaches as defined by Glynn and 2004). Therefore, this approach followed the Duit (1995) and Null (2004). norm of university practice.

SRATE Journal Winter 2008-2009, Vol. 18, Number 1 Page 26 However, the approach did not apply the tally, this active role also connects well with the propositions of constructivist theory nor was expectations of the Millennial cohort. it meeting the expectations of the continually- increasing number of Millennial students attend- Therefore, to provide an environment to ing the course for several reasons. First, the better meet the propositions of constructivist approach being used did not allow the students learning approaches and Millennial expectations, to have a primary role in their construction of a change was made concerning how this informa- knowledge; a point of necessity that has been tion was presented. First, rather than continuing well-examined in educational research literature to do presentations using lecture methods accom- (Brandt & Perkins, 2000; Campbell, Campbell, & panied by some direct instruction approaches, Dickinson, 2004; Piaget, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). a website was used to introduce students to the ideas of constructivism (Ryder, 2008). This Second, as related specifically to Millennials, website, hosted and maintained by the University the teaching method used in this course did not of Colorado at Denver’s School of Education, consider this cohort’s expectations of the learning contains multiple links from a variety of experts environment. Specifically, this cohort has grown concerning definitions of constructivism and accustomed to learning environments in which articles written by educational researchers who multiple information sources are used and where specifically examine and/or apply this area of opportunities exist to interact with others in the expertise. Students were asked to read each of learning process. They have also learned that the definition links and one expert article. They multiple information sources are a common part then worked in teams of three to four members of learning and that one expert may not be the to create a definition of constructivism, state the only expert. Further, this cohort expects environ- types of constructivism, and list its major seminal ments where people are working together rather proponents. After this activity, students placed than alone and where the whole is truly greater this information on a flip-chart and shared it with than the sum of its parts. In fact, this generation their peers in the class. has been better networked than any generational cohort in history through the use of text messag- Following this step, students worked together ing, Internet usage, after school initiatives, com- as a class (using keywords that had appeared munity service efforts, team sports, cell phone across the definitions) to create a class definition use, instant messaging, and community-building of constructivism without the aid of the instruc- media tools (e.g., FaceBook, MySpace, etc.), and tor. Course sections’ definitions, although lacking the cohort, therefore, expects these aspects to be in some ways, did demonstrate that students were present in their learning environments (Baker developing an understanding of constructivism College, 2005; Chronicle of Higher Education, during this activity. For example, one class sec- 2007; Howe, 2005; Howe & Strauss, 2000; Low- tion’s definition stated, “Constructivism – a learn- ery, 2004; Oblinger, 2003; Van Horn, 2006). ing theory that is centered on the learner, who is actively constructing/connecting new knowledge Third, the teaching approach used in the with previous experiences. Learning is dependent course initially, even with very creative and on the social and cognitive contexts of the indi- informative presentations, many times placed the vidual.” Another class section’s definition stated, students in a passive rather than an active role. “Constructivism is a learning theory which states According to Brandt and Perkins (2000), Bruner that individuals actively and continually construct (1996), Piaget (1995), and Vygotsky (1978); a knowledge based on previous experiences and constructivist environment should place learners knowledge.” in an active role in the learning process. Inciden-

SRATE Journal Winter 2008-2009, Vol. 18, Number 1 Page 27 During the next class period, students read approach was used in the teaching of multiple a packet of information concerning Piaget, intelligences theory. Vygotsky, and Dewey (who they had previously identified as three proponents of this view). Guided by constructivist learning ideas and They then completed a matrix involving these Millennial cohort expectations, students created three theorists and their type of constructivist stand-alone multiple intelligences learning cen- belief, the core ideas of their respective theory, ters. Students created these centers as a small- and their unique explanation of how cognitive group effort using multiple resources and mate- development occurs. The students then provided rials provided by the instructor, their textbook, practical classroom applications based upon computer website resources, and from materials each of the respective constructivist theorist’s provided by the curriculum library and by peers. ideas (i.e., What would a classroom look like that Students randomly chose one of three topics was applying the ideas of Vygotsky? Of Piaget? concerning multiple intelligences. One involved Of Dewey?). Following this activity, students defining the theory itself along with the different completed a graphic organizer dealing with each intelligences. Another pertained to how multiple of the three theorists. They also listed unfamiliar intelligences could be applied to the planning and terminology on index cards for further clarifica- implementation of learning activities in the class- tion by the instructor, and they revisited their room. The final topic dealt with how multiple initial definitions of constructivism. intelligences could be used to design assessments (in addition to paper and pencil tests). In subsequent class periods, students analyzed written scenarios and video scenarios Students worked in small groups to design using the ideas of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Dewey. the centers as the instructor provided additional Finally, they completed the examination of the guidance. In the following class period, students topic of constructivism by creating their own sce- visited and interacted with each learning center narios where these ideas were being implemented. created by their peers. After this activity, unclear Throughout the remainder of the course, students terminology was addressed, and the instructor consistently reflected upon how their plans (or provided additional information to the students plans of another) applied or did not apply previ- concerning multiple intelligences theory. In addi- ously learned constructivist propositions. tion, students analyzed how the activity applied multiple intelligences theory and constructiv- Subsequent Changes in Instruction – ist theory propositions. In the subsequent class Facilitating the Learning of Multiple periods, students analyzed written and videotaped Intelligences Theory scenarios in which a teacher was implementing the theory in his or her classroom. As previ- Changing this approach to teaching about the ously mentioned with the ideas of constructivism, topic of constructivism and observing the results students revisited multiple intelligences theory for Millennial learners led to further changes throughout the remainder of the semester as they within the course. For example, the theory of learned about different instructional methods multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983) was ini- and models and as they planned their units and tially taught using direct instruction and lecture lessons. approaches similar in form to how the topic of constructivism had been previously taught. In each of the above learning situations, the Following the change concerning the approach instructor created and implemented plans, which to teaching students about constructivism and required active facilitation and provided opportu- after discussion with teaching colleagues, a new nities for students to work with original sources

SRATE Journal Winter 2008-2009, Vol. 18, Number 1 Page 28 instead of the instructor transmitting informa- students began to work more as a community tion as the sole source. As noted previously, of learners (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Eggen & such approaches apply aspects of constructivist Kauchak, 2007). This community of learners learning theory where the teacher is viewed as began to create a variety of products within the the expert in the classroom (Vygotsky, 1978) but class setting, which resulted in a rich diversity of who also serves the roles of facilitator, coach, informal assessment artifacts (e.g., graphic orga- and mentor (Brandt & Perkins, 2000; Feiman- nizers, brainstormed lists of applications, lists of Nemser, 2001; Piaget, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). In objectives across Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, addition, such activities allow the learners to be peer-checked lesson plans, peer evaluation com- actively engaged individually and socially with ments, written reflections, etc.) as they worked at multiple sources, the instructor, and each other in times in content area teams and at other times in the learning process, which are other important cross-content teams. These informal assessments applications of constructivist thoughts (Bruner, provided both support and opportunities for 1996; Piaget, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). immediate feedback to students and helped them prepare for their formal assessments, which they This approach to learning about multiple completed individually. intelligences theory also aligned with the previously discussed expectations of the Millennial Learning approaches coupled with these cohort concerning the classroom. There existed formative and informal assessment opportunities in this activity social interaction with multiple moved the environment more towards a student- sources of information being present (Howe & centered one. This student-centered environ- Strauss, 2000; Lowery, 2004). Additionally, the ment is defined in part by the Salish I Research instructor engaged with students in the learning Project (Yager, 1997), which states that, “Teach- process through active facilitation, scaffolding, ers’ actions in this category include: a) organiz- and guidance, which Millennials have come ing activities for students to gain experiences to expect due to their prior experiences. The that will lead to learning, b) asking questions of instructor, in this situation, considered these Mil- students to guide them in learning from activi- lennial experiences which have included strong ties, and c) using alternative forms of assessment aspects of structure, mentoring, and feedback to appraise students’ learning” (p. 9). By consis- from parents and/or guardians, educational sys- tently considering propositions of constructivism tems (e.g., detailed rubrics), and from consistent and Millennial cohort expectations, an environ- interactions with adults in various structured con- ment was created in which both the product and texts (e.g., sports activities, lessons, after-school process of learning were considered. Such an programs, homework help websites, etc.) (Elam, environment is supported by the work of a variety Stratton, & Gibson, 2007; Howe, 2005; Merri- of educational theorists (Brandt & Perkins, 2003; man, 2007). Bruner, 1996; Campbell, Campbell, & Dickin- son, 2004; Piaget, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978) and is Additional Changes – Further Revisions thought to better meet the needs of Millennials in Methods and Assessment as they enter the university and our schools of education (Baker College, 2005; Elam, Stratton, Consequently, such changes continued in & Gibson, 2007; Howe, 2005; Howe & Strauss, other content areas within the course and caused 2000; Lowery, 2004; Merriman, 2007). modification of assessment approaches as well. For instance, as approaches to instruction became Initial anecdotal evidence from student more constructive in nature and as they were reflections indicated that students were highly designed to better meet Millennial expectations, motivated by engaging in these sorts of learn-

SRATE Journal Winter 2008-2009, Vol. 18, Number 1 Page 29 ing approaches. For example, one student noted, Brandt, R. S., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). The evolv- “This activity allowed everyone in the class to ing science of learning. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), take charge of what we learned today. With this Education in a new era (pp. 159-183). Alex- personal involvement, every student came to andria, VA: Association for Supervision and have a better understanding of ‘constructivism’ Curriculum Development. as opposed to listening to a lecture.” Another Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cam- student stated, “This approach to learning allows bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. the students to come up with and have owner- Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. ship with their ideas or concepts.” Yet another (2004). Teaching and learning through mul- boldly suggested, “This is a useful approach for tiple intelligence (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & student learning because we have just proven that Bacon. students learn best by involving themselves in Chronicle of Higher Education. (2007). The the process of constructing new ideas, and if they almanac 2007-2008. The Chronicle of Higher do that, they will retain that information while Education, 44(1). applying it to life.” DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities: Best practices for In addition to such informal comments, enhancing student achievement. Reston, VA: formal teacher evaluations including self-report- Association of Supervision and Curriculum ing of the attainment of classroom objectives, Development. instructor effectiveness, and additional open- Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2007). Strategies ended responses indicated that students found the for teachers: Teaching content and thinking instruction to be effective and motivating in their skills (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn learning. In addition, subsequent assessments & Bacon. in the following semester (e.g., Internship Exit Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2007). Portfolio results, Student Internship Evaluations, Welcoming a new generation to college: The etc.) suggest that students applied the information millennial students. Journal of College Admis- learned in this way to their subsequent internship sions, 195, 20-25. experience. These results seem to indicate initial Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to success for changes in instructional approaches practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen based upon Millennial expectations and con- and sustain teaching. Teachers College structivist propositions. In the future, more data Record, 103, 1013-1055. should be collected to test these initial conclu- Glynn, S. M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science sions as the instructor continues to consider Mil- meaningfully: Constructing conceptual mod- lennial expectations and attempts to better apply els. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning constructivist propositions. science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 3-33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. References Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Atkinson, M. L. (2004). Advice for (and from) Howe, N. (2005). Harnessing the power of millen- the young at heart: Understanding the millennials. School Administrator, 62(8), 18-22. nial generation. Guidance and Counseling, 19, Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials ris- 153-157. ing: The next great generation. New York: Baker College. (2005). Teaching across genera- Vintage Books. tions. Retrieved February 25, 2005 from http:// Lowery, J. W. (2004). Student affairs for a new www.baker.edu/departments/etl/resources/ generation. New Directions for Student Ser- Teaching across Generations with notesv3.ppt vices, 106, 87-99.

SRATE Journal Winter 2008-2009, Vol. 18, Number 1 Page 30 Merriman, L. S. (2007). It’s your child’s education, not yours. Chronicle of Higher Educa- tion. 54(13), B20. Null, J. W. (2004). Is constructivism traditional? Historical and practical perspectives of a popular advocacy. The Educational Forum, 68, 180-188. Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-xers, and millennials: Understanding the new learners. Educause, 38(4), 37-46. Piaget, J. (1995). Sociological studies. New York: Routledge. Raines, C. (2003). Connecting generations: The sourcebook for a new workplace. Wichita Falls, TX: Crisp. Ryder, M. (2008). Constructivism. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from University of Colorado at Denver, School of Education Web site: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/ constructivism.html Van Horn, R. (2006). Technology: Generation ‘M’ and 3G. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 727, 792. Yager, R. E. (1997). Secondary science and math- ematics teacher preparation programs: Influ- ences on new teachers and their students: The final report of the Salish I Research Project. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, SAL- ISH I Research Project. Vygotsksy, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Author’s Note

Dr. Carter is an Associate Professor of Cur- riculum and Instruction at Arkansas Tech Univer- sity and is the Executive Secretary of the Arkan- sas Association of Teacher Educators.

SRATE Journal Winter 2008-2009, Vol. 18, Number 1 Page 31