Content uploaded by Arlene Nicholas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arlene Nicholas
Content may be subject to copyright.
Salve Regina University
eScholar@Salve Regina
Faculty and Staff - Articles & Papers Faculty and Staff
1-1-2008
Preferred Learning Methods of the Millennial
Generation
Arlene Nicholas
Salve Regina University, nicholaa@salve.edu
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Staff at eScholar@Salve Regina. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty
and Staff - Articles & Papers by an authorized administrator of eScholar@Salve Regina. For more information, please contact verbeeko@salve.edu.
Nicholas, Arlene, "Preferred Learning Methods of the Millennial Generation" (2008). Faculty and Staff - Articles & Papers. Paper 18.
http://escholar.salve.edu/fac_staff_pub/18
Learning Preferences of Millennial College Students
The Millennial generation is the most computer literate generation to enter the
workforce. Also known as the Net Generation, those born from 1981- 2001 have
been raised in an era of instant access. Their learning and communication style is
through multi-media. The common method of contact is text messaging and
instant messaging as well as cell phones. Learning has even moved into web-
based tools such as web-ct, online courses, online journals and i-pod downloads.
The different environment of this technologically enhanced generation will be
important to understand for their learning in school as well as the workplace.
The attitudes of Millennial generation students from a small private college
were measured regarding the style of learning they use, prefer and which method
has resulted most successfully in their acquiring and retaining knowledge. Their
views give an illustration of the outlook of this generation.
Anyone who has stood in front of a classroom of Millennial, or any
students, has been concerned with if and how his or her pupil is learning the
material. There may even be a question if the student is truly taking notes on the
shielded, black box that sits on his or her desk or simply checking on the plans
among friends for the evening’s activities. Trying to stimulate the learning
process for the generation that grew up with the Internet is a challenge.
Millennials
Millennials are the generation born 1981 – 1999 (Lancaster & Stillman,
2002). Millennials have been called entitled and empowered due, in part, to their
inclusion in decision making since childhood (Coomes & DeBard, 2004;
Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). According to Lancaster and Stillman (2002), the
Millennials’ personalities reflect the influence of the skeptical Gen Xers (their
closest cohort) which has merged with the input of the Baby Boomer parents and
the Millennials’ own pragmatism resulting in their being described as ‘realistic’.
They have a more global orientation and understand the need for interconnectivity
in the worldwide market (Alch, 2000).
Millennial Generation
Generational theorists explain that those who were raised during comparable
events and environmental conditions, including technological change, will have
related outlooks (Marías, 1970; Smith & Clurman, 1997). Millennials are part of
a generation that has experienced metal detectors at places of learning, the
impeachment of a president, real-time war and reality television (Pelton & True,
2004). MTV, (music television), which premiered in 1981, has been around all of
their lives (Coomes & DeBard, 2004). Millennials have been raised during years
of exceptional wealth in the United States. According to generational consultant
and researcher Cam Marston (2005), the Millennials “feel entitled to life’s
rewards without paying their dues” (p. 93). Their experiences in school and
society, however, have been guarded and strict. They have had less free time than
any other generation as many Millennials shifted from supervision at school to
adult supervised activities (Howe & Strauss, 2000). They are said to have
“helicopter parents” who hover over them (the over-involved Boomer parent)
(Sacks, 2006).
Techno-literate
The Millennial cohort has been described as techno-literate, techno-savvy,
technologically fluent and even dependent on technology (Lewis, 2003; McGhee,
2006; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). In a nationwide survey of 1,171 college
students, 97% of these Millennials owned cell phones and over two-thirds had
sent text-messages on them. Over half of the students in the study said that
“instant messaging was their top choice of communication” (McCasland, 2005,
p.8). They download podcasts and music, can take photos with their phones and
text message one another in their created messaging language (McCasland, 2005).
Millennials are said to be experiential, engaging, and interactive (Skiba, 2006).
Millennials have a “curious blend of collaboration, interdependence and
networking to achieve their ends” (Alch, 2000 p. 4) and their technology seems to
bring them and keep them together. Instant messaging, text messaging and chat
rooms may be essential to the urban and suburban Millennial connectivity (Cox,
2004). Their style is high-tech and highly networked and Millennials “will want
to be able to work quickly and creatively, and they want to do it their way”
(Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000, p. 143). Their creativity and investigation
with electronic media, free expressions, strong views and the need for
independence without restraint are noted facets of their generation (Alch, 2000).
Millennials’ Teamwork and Technology
Millennials’ most widely used form of collaboration is through their cell
phones and text messaging (McCasland, 2005). The experiences of connectivity
through text messaging, instant messaging, blogging (Web logs, My Space) and
video gaming are familiar to most Millennials. Socializing for Millennials has
become a comfortable fit through technology. Camera phones, e-mail, instant
messaging and chat rooms keep friends connected. Daniel Drath, vice president
for Teenage Research Unlimited (TRU), noted that many ‘buddies’ on their
‘buddy list’ (chat mail contacts) have never been met in person (Cox, 2004).
Millennials are accustomed to relating and collaborating with others through
technology. This form of group collaboration and being a team player (Howe &
Strauss, 2000), are some of the abilities and traits of Millennials along with their
technical savvy. They like teamwork, but they prefer to collaborate and work in
teams with their generational peers (Lancaster & Stillman, 2000; Skiba, 2006)
Millennials have been recruited from trade schools, high schools and
colleges for their “technical abilities” (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002, p. 207). They
are touted as possibly the best workforce to come as “they combine the teamwork
ethic of the Boomers with the can-do attitude of the Veterans [Traditionalists] and
the technological savvy of the Xers” (Hicks & Hicks, 1999, p. 302). Also
described as self reliant and independent, Millennials are known for their ability
to create with technology as well as use it to gather and share information
(Marston, 2005; Martin, 2005). Millennials expect communication via
technology and “may be intolerant of those who are technologically challenged”
(Murray, 2004, p. 106).
Millennials and Learning
Considering the characteristics of the Millennial generation, there is some
concern about the effects on their learning process. “Many young people today
are accustomed to watching TV, talking on the phone, doing homework, eating,
and interacting with their parents all at the same time” (Frand, 2000). Routine
multitasking behavior may have shortened their attention span and caused them to
lack critical thinking skills and introspection (Murray, 1997). Although there may
be concern for Millennials’ analysis of material, there is confidence in their usage
of media that can be a tool for learning. Constance Yowell, MacArthur
Foundation’s director for digital media, learning and education, noted that digital
technology, “a peer-driven learning” is very familiar to this generational cohort as
“young people are way ahead of the adults in understanding how to use these
tools” (Trei, 2006, p.2). Yowell asks “in 10 to 15 years, will kids coming into
public education be thinking, behaving or acting differently, or expecting different
things because they’ve been engaged in digital media?” (Trei, 2006, p.1).
According to the foundation’s statistics, they will be, as nearly seventy-five
percent of young people use instant messaging and eighty-three percent play
video games (Trei, 2006) – a certain indication of changed attitudes towards
learning and interaction.
Research Question
This paper will address the questions regarding the learning preferences of the
Millennials. What are Millennials preferences of learning methods? Which
teaching format is preferred? How do they try to improve their learning?
Survey Method
Students of a small, private New England university were invited to participate
in an online survey through an e-mail invitation. Approximately 400 students
received an email inviting them to take part in the survey. The survey response
rate was over 25%. Of the 106 surveys returned, 102 were Millennials and used
for this study. The response rate was less for some items that were skipped/missed
but all surveys used included the demographic data of the respondents. The survey
instrument included some items adapted from a previous study by Messineo,
Gaither, Bott & Ritchey (2007) that focused on college students’ preferences of
learning class material, specifically for active learning in large classes. Additional
created items included locations of studying and attitudes toward Service
Learning work that is not a part of this paper.
Results
Of the 102 respondents, 74 were female and 18 were male. This disparity is
not surprising considering the demographics of the school; only about 30% of
students are male.
In response to the question “What study methods help you to better understand
a course topic?” students show that writing notes is done more than typing.
Typing does have some usage. See chart A.
What study methods help you to better understand a course topic?
Strongly
agree Agree Dis
agree
Strongly
disagree
Respo
nse
Count
Hand written notes in
lecture classes
37.3%
(38)
54.9
% (56)
3.9%
(4) 3.9% (4) 102
Typing notes in class 14.7%
(15)
37.3
% (38)
38.2
% (39) 9.8% (10) 102
Adding notes in class
to printed PowerPoint
slides
26.5%
(27)
52.0
% (53)
13.7
% (14) 7.8% (8) 102
Typing notes in class
in PowerPoint slides 7.8% (8) 26.5
% (27)
52.9
% (54)
12.7%
(13) 102
Reading the material
before class
29.4%
(30)
56.9
% (58)
10.8
% (11) 2.9% (3) 102
Reading the material
after class
27.5%
(28)
55.9
% (57)
13.7
% (14) 2.9% (3) 102
Listening to recorded
lectures 2.9% (3) 18.6
% (19)
48.0
% (49)
30.4%
(31) 102
Chart A
In response to the question “What types of electronic resources do you use for
your assignments?” web sites including personal, corporate, government,
educational and professional were rated as frequently used. Wikipedia1 and
Google (the highest rating of 98%) were also “frequently” used. See chart B.
1 Can be edited by others with incorrect information “Use with caution: The perils of
Wikipedia.” CNN.com/technology, November 7, 2007
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/02/perils.wikipedia/
What types of electronic resources do you USE for your assignments?
Frequently Seldom Don't
Use
Never
heard of
Response
Count
E-books (Ebrary,
NetLibrary, Credo,
etc.)
6.9% (7) 36.3%
(37)
43.1%
(44)
13.7%
(14) 102
E-journals
(Ebsco Academic
Premier, JSTOR,
Wilson)
22.5% (23) 46.1%
(47)
24.5%
(25)
6.9%
(7) 102
E-newspapers
(Proquest,
LEXIS/NEXIS, etc.)
18.6% (19) 42.2%
(43)
32.4%
(33)
6.9%
(7) 102
Audio books 0.0% (0) 19.6%
(20)
69.6%
(71)
10.8%
(11) 102
Web sites
(personal) 64.7% (66) 26.5%
(27)
7.8%
(8)
2.0%
(2) 102
Web sites
(corporate) 80.4% (82) 18.6%
(19)
2.0%
(2)
1.0%
(1) 102
Web sites
(educational,
governmental,
professional)
87.3% (89) 11.8%
(12)
0.0%
(0)
1.0%
(1) 102
Blogs/wikis 15.7% (16) 26.5%
(27)
55.9%
(57)
3.9%
(4) 102
Google 98.0%
(100) 1.0% (1) 0.0%
(0)
1.0%
(1) 102
Wikipedia 57.8% (59) 25.5%
(26)
16.7%
(17)
1.0%
(1) 102
Alerts/RSS 3.9% (4) 17.6%
(18)
44.1%
(45)
34.3%
(35) 102
Social web
applications
(Discussion boards,
YouTube, etc.)
32.4% (33) 35.3%
(36)
33.3%
(34)
2.0%
(2) 102
Chart B
Some items were compared to a previous study by Nicholas and Lewis (2007)
of the same population of students (N = 74). For example, the use of E-journals,
45% frequently used, 30% seldom used E-journals, 17% never used E-journals,
and 8% had never heard of E-journals, and E-newspapers, 30% frequently used,
37% seldom used E-newspapers, 24% never used E-newspapers, and 9% had
never heard of E-newspapers (Nicholas & Lewis, 2007) were compared.
In this study, less usage of E-journals (22.5%) and E-newspapers (18.6%) was
reported then in the 2007 study, but more awareness of their presence (“had never
heard of” E-journals 6.9% and E-newspapers 6.9%) was shown in the present
study.
However, there were more “frequently used” Personal web sites, 58%, (2007),
64.7% (2008); Corporate web sites, 66.3% (2007) 80.4% (2008); and
Educational/governmental/professional web sites, 87.3% (2008), 82% (2007).
Although “frequently used” Blogs/wikis, 24% (2007), 15.7% (2008); had
decreased, awareness had increased (“had never heard of” 10%, 2007, 3.9%
2008).
Increased percentages were noted for “frequently used” Google, 87.1% (2007)
98% (2008); Wikipedia, 51% (2007), 57.8% (2008); and Social web applications
such as Facebook/MySpace/YouTube, 22.8% (2007) 34.2% (2008).
An additional item reiterated the preferences of Google and “other” search
engines over library resources when asked how an information search was started
(see Chart C).
When you begin an information search, what is your starting point?
Always Most often Sometim
es Rarely Never
Respon
se
Count
Library online
databases
19.5% (16) 20.7% (17) 32.9%
(27)
17.1%
(14)
9.8%
(8) 82
Library (in
person)
12.2% (10) 13.4% (11) 36.6%
(30)
22.0%
(18)
15.9%
(13) 82
Google
69.5% (57) 25.6% (21) 3.7% (3)
0.0% (0)
1.2%
(1) 82
Other search
engine
26.8% (22) 26.8% (22) 24.4%
(20)
12.2%
(10)
9.8%
(8) 82
Government
websites
4.9% (4) 28.0% (23) 36.6%
(30)
19.5%
(16)
11.0%
(9) 82
Company
websites
12.2% (10) 23.2% (19) 30.5%
(25)
25.6%
(21)
8.5%
(7) 82
Other online
sites such as
Hoovers
2.4% (2) 4.9% (4) 22.0%
(18)
30.5%
(25)
40.2%
(33) 82
Chart C
Google was again the most used starting point followed by “other.” As
Wikipedia was not included, it is possible that “other” included Wikipedia which
one respondent wrote in as an answer.
Preferences of Learning Course Material
For the item regarding preferences of learning course material, the majority of
the 91 respondents strongly agreed (42.9%) and agreed (42.9%) with preferring
PowerPoint slides along with lectures. Collapsing strongly agree and agree
categories and stongly disagree and disagree categories, other learning method
results were:
I learn from video clips that relate to class material.
86.8% agreed, 13.2% disagreed
I like a mixture of activities (lecture, group, work, discussion, problem solving) in
a large class 91.3% agreed, 8.7% disagreed
Having to solve problems in class helps me learn the course material
92.3% agreed, 6.8% disagreed
I am interested and willing to do work that will help me to learn the course
material but is not graded. 60.2% agreed, 39.8% disagreed
I prefer lecture as the format of class instruction
62.6% agreed 47.3% disagreed
I consider class discussion in small groups with other students to be a valuable
way to learn the course material. 63.6% agreed, 16.4% disagreed
Working with other students on an in-class activity helps me feel more prepared
to participate in class discussions. 72.5% agreed, 27.5 % disagreed
I think doing group work in class is a valuable way to learn material.
72.3% agreed, 27.8% disagreed
I prefer multiple-choice exams compared with essay exams.
84.6% agreed 15.4% disagreed
I think frequent quizzes over the reading or assignments are a good idea.
80.2% agreed, 19.8% disagreed
I prefer to have more frequent exams and a variety of ways to earn grades.
90.1% agreed, 9.9% disagreed
Interestingly, solving problems in class, a mixture of course material and
prefering frequent exams with a variety of ways to earn grades ranked in the 90th
percentile. Although the lowest ranking (60.2%) of the items was for doing
undgraded work to help learn the material, it was still the majority. Lecture
format (62.6%) was still a majority but not as highly ranked as others.
How important methods of study were perceived to improve their learning of
course material was asked by the following item (see Chart D).
Importance of the effectiveness for improving knowledge of course material
Very
Important Important Somewhat
Important Unimportant Response
Count
Case
analysis
23.2%
(19)
46.3%
(38) 26.8% (22) 3.7% (3) 82
Take
home tests
30.5%
(25)
48.8%
(40) 14.6% (12) 6.1% (5) 82
In class
tests
35.4%
(29)
52.4%
(43) 9.8% (8) 2.4% (2) 82
Multiple
choice
selection
tests
42.7%
(35)
45.1%
(37) 11.0% (9) 1.2% (1) 82
Essay 19.5% 45.1% 29.3% (24) 6.1% (5) 82
answer tests (16) (37)
Short
papers
32.9%
(27)
47.6%
(39) 17.1% (14) 2.4% (2) 82
Long
term papers
13.4%
(11)
29.3%
(24) 40.2% (33) 17.1% (14) 82
Individual
researched
presentation
26.8%
(22)
35.4%
(29) 23.2% (19) 14.6% (12) 82
Team
presentation
20.7%
(17)
37.8%
(31) 22.0% (18) 19.5% (16) 82
Individual
case study
18.3%
(15)
32.9%
(27) 30.5% (25) 18.3% (15) 82
Team
case study
9.8%
(8)
39.0%
(32) 32.9% (27) 18.3% (15) 82
Chart D
Other than long term papers, all the other methods described ranked as
important.
Web-Based Material
Of the 70 students that responed “yes” to the question “Have you taken a
course that used WebCT or other online data (ex. instructor’s home page)?”, 26%
(19) answered it “improved my learning of the material,” 15.1% (11) answered
they “did not learn as well”, and the majority 58.9% (43) answered, “about the
same.” This could be the result of the efforts of the student using the material
and/or the design and method if the material itself.
Limitations
Although large enough to make generalizations about attitudes, the sample
size of Millennials may reflect a distinguishable attitude of a population from a
private school in the northeast United States. The sample also only included those
Millennials in the advanced stages of education, an opportunity not available for
all Millennials. Within this co-hort, there are still some “have nots” regarding the
access to technology, tutors, and/or travel (Brownstein 2000). The study also only
reached those with Internet access. Web based surveys may not get the responses
from those who are not comfortable with technology (Shannon, Johnson, Searcy
& Lott, 2002). It should also be noted
Conclusions
The results of this study indicates there many uses of technology, such as
typing notes in class and searching online, of Millennials. It is still interesting to
note that in a school that laptops are required of students, it is a small percentage
that bring them to class for typing notes. This could be the due to the burden of
carrying a computer to class or the typing skill of the user. As for research, the
low percentage of scholarly research sites is a concern. In the 2007 study, 87.1%
of Millennial students used Google frequently, and 35.1% thought Google a more
useful tool than those provided by the library and 51% frequently used Wikipedia
for assignments. (Nicholas & Lewis). The usage of these methods increased in
this study to 98% who frequently used Google and 57.8% who frequently used
Wikpedia for assignments.
Learning methods will have to continually adapt to engage and educate this
generation. Their interest in multi-media is shown by their answer of favoring
PowerPoint's in classes. But does that just add entertainment and prevent
discussion or problem solving? There was indication that these respondents did
value group work, problem solving and case analysis. But does the preference of
more testing indicate short term memory and not retaining the knowledge for
future needs and analysis?
Future Research
There are a number of opportunities for future research about this generation
and their learning preferences. Certainly, a larger sample could be used and
yearly comparisons could yield more information. An assessment of learning
could be measured. Comparison with other generations and faculty attitudes as
well as the personality of the participants and gender differences could be
discerned.
There is more usage of MUVE multi user virtual environment’ for students’
experiential learning options. This ‘bicentric' perspective that engages both an
exocentric frame of reference, (FOR) -- viewing from the outside -- and an
egocentric FOR perspective of the inside gives students a psychological
immersion (Dede, 2005). This kind of learning is one that should be investigated.
Web sites such as Virtual u (http://www.virtual-u.org) may become more popular
with learning methods. Just as E-learning has shown a cost savings for workplaces
(Macpherson, 2004), educational institutions may recognize a benefit both
financially and in student learning through new technological methods. Educators
and managers will have to adapt to new means of engagment to attract and retain
the Millennial students and workforce.
Work Cited
Alch, M.L. (2000). Get ready for a new type of worker in the workplace: The net
generation. SuperVision 61(4), 3-7.
Coomes. M. D., & DeBard, R. eds. (2004). Serving the millennial generation.
San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
Davidson, C. N. (2007). “We can't ignore the influence of digital technologies.”
Education Digest, 73(1), 15-18.
Dede, C. (2005). “Planning for the neomillennial learning styles: Implications for
investments in technology and faculty.”15.1 - 15.22 in Educating the Net
Generation. Oblinger, D. G. and Oblinger, J. L. eds., an EDUACAUSE
eBook.
Elam, C., Stratton, T. & Gibson, D. D. (2007). “Welcoming a new generation to
college: The milliennial students.” Journal of College Admission, 20 -25
Frand, J.L. (2000). “Information age mindset: Changes in students and
implications for higher education.” Educause Review, 35, 16 -24.
Githen, R. P. (2006). “Cautions: Implementing interpersonal interaction in
workplace e-learning.” TechTrends, 50(5), 21-27.
Hawtrey, K. (2007). “Using experiential learning techniques.” Journal of
Economic Education, 38(2), 143- 152.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Manochehri, N. & Young, J. I. (2005). “The impact of student learning styles with
web-based learning or instructor-based learning on student knowledge and
satisfaction.” The Quarterly review of Distance Education, 7(3), 313-316.
Marías, J. (1970). Generations: A historical method. translated by H.C. Raley,
Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Marston, C. (2005). Motivating the “what’s in it for me?” workforce: Managing
across the generational divide. Cam Marston.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What
managers need to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 37(1), 39-44.
McCasland, M. (2005). Mobile marketing to millennials. Young Consumers,
Quarter 2, 8-15.
Messineo, M. Gaither, G. Bolt, J. & Ritchey, K. (2007) “Inexperienced versus
experienced students’ expectations for active learning in large classes.”
College Teaching, 55(3), 125-133.
Murray, J. P. (2004). Nursing: The next generation. Nursing Education
Perspectives, 25(3), 106.
Newlin, M. H., Lavooy, M. J. & Wang, A. Y. (2005). “An experimental
comparison of conventional ans web-based instructional formats.” North
American Journal of Psychology, 7(2) 327-336.
Nicholas, A.J. & Lewis, J.K. (2008), “Millennial Attitudes Toward Books and E-
Books.” The International Journal of the Book, 5(2), 81-92.
Pelton, L. E., True, S. L. (2004). Teaching business ethics: Why gen y? Marketing
Education Review, 14(3), 63-70.
Shannon, D. M., Johnson, T. E., Searcy, S. & Lott, A. (2002). Survey
professionals using electronic surveys. ERIC Digests, EDO-TM-02-02 4
pages.
Skiba, D. J. (2006). The Millennials: Have they arrived at your school of nursing?
Nursing Education Perspectives, 25(6), 370-371.
Smith, J. W., & Clurman, A. (1997). Rocking the ages: The Yankelovich report on
generational marketing. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Trei, L. (November 15, 2006). “Researchers study how technology shapes the
ways in which students learn.” Stanford Report. Retrieved December,
2007 http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/november15/barron-
111506.html
Trotter, A. (2007). “Projects probe new media’s role in changing the face of
learning.” Education Week, 27(14), 10-10.
University College London (UCL) CIBER Group. (2008). Information Behaviour
of the Researcher of the Future (CIBER Briefing paper; 9). London.
Zemke, R. Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing
the clash of veterans, baby boomers, xers, and nexters in you workplace.
New York: American Management Association.