Millennial Expectations, Constructivist Theory, and Changes in a Teacher Preparation Course
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 second- ary 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 expecta- tions, 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 meth- odologies. 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 understand- ing. 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