Transcript The Net Generation - Information technology

The Net
Generation
Facts and E-Lusions
1
Presenters
• Ms. Patricia Cuocco – Senior Director
ITS
• Dr. Stephen Daigle – Sr. Research
Associate – ITS
• Dr. Gordon Smith – Director. Library
Initiatives - ITS
2
What We Will Discuss
• How CSU got into the measurement business
• What we know about the “net gen”
• What CSU data tells us about our students
and technology and faculty vs. Student
perceptions
• Illusions about the “net gen”
• How to use all of this to help students
3
How Did CSU Get in This?
• We needed $$ for infrastructure (lots of
it – ¼ billion $ for 23 campuses over 5
yrs.)
• Money comes with strings
• The string was accountability
• Data collection, surveys are part of the
annual reporting process
4
Who’s Who
• Baby Boomers – 1946 to 1961
• Generation X – 1961 to 1981
• Generation Y – 1981 – 1995 (at least) –
aka Net Generation
5
Net Generation Facts
• Students are:
–
–
–
–
–
Digital
Connected
Experiential
Immediate
Social
• (Thanks to Diana Oblinger)
6
Media Exposure
•
•
•
•
10,000 hours video games
200,000 emails
20,000 hours TV
10,000 hours
cell phone
• Under 5,000 hours reading
•
Copyright Diana Oblinger – permission granted for educational use only
7
Net Gen
• Digital Natives – can’t imagine life
without it • Always connected; hundreds of names
on their buddy lists
• Multi – taskers – at least electronically
• Want activity rather than lecture
• Like team work
8
How They’re Different
•
•
•
•
Accept their parents views
Rely on parental guidance
Not as independent
Happiest in groups
9
What They Accept (and
Expect)
• Pervasiveness of technology
• Immediate feedback
• Convenience – academic and
administrative
• Faculty are the experts
• Faculty SHOULD use technology
effectively and efficiently
10
Observations – Oblinger &
ECAR
•
NET GEN: CONNECTED;
CONVENIENCE; INTERACTIVE;
SOCIAL
•
FACULTY: DEFERENCE AND
DISCONNECT
11
STEVE DAIGLE
12
ECAR Findings - 1
• OVERALL, BELL-SHAPED CURVE: STUDENTS PREFER
MODERATE AMOUNT OF IT
• OLDER STUDENTS PREFER MORE IT IN COURSES
• IT FOR COMMUNICATION OR LEARNING? LITTLE OF
BOTH?
• CORE VERSUS SPECIALIZED TECHNOLOGIES
• IT AS SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT TRANSFORMATIVE: BOLT ON?
• LMS: CONTROL, PREDICTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY,
FACULTY-CENTRIC
• CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS KEY TO DEVELOPING
SKILLS
13
ECAR Findings - 2
• Students who perceive their instructors
to be effective users of IT in the course
report:
– More engagement in the course
– More interest in the subject matter
– Better understanding of complex concepts
14
CSU Survey Methodology
• STUDENTS
– 400,000; 23 CAMPUSES
– 3,000 SAMPLE; 2001, 2003, 2005
– STRATIFY: CAMPUS, CLASS LEVEL,
ETHNICITY, DISCIPLINE
• FACULTY
– 12,000 FULL TIME
– 3,000 SAMPLE: 2000, 2002, 2004
– STRATIFY: CAMPUS, RANK, DISCIPLINE
15
CSU Survey Content
Students
Faculty
Importance
Access
Use
Satisfaction
16
Access - Connected
• In 2005, 87 percent of students access the
campus network from off-campus, a dramatic
increase from 2001 when only one-half did
so. Four out of five of these students used a
high speed internet connection (DSL or
cable). Eighty-five percent report using the
campus wireless network and their
satisfaction with it received a 7.5 rating.
17
Importance, Use, Satisfaction
18
Student & Faculty IT Use –
Agreement
• Almost all students use the Web or other Internet
resources, and they appear to like them as well, as
measured by the generally high satisfaction ratings
for such technologies in 2001, 2003 and 2005.
Moreover, faculty satisfaction ratings of the
pedagogical effectiveness of learning materials on
the Web, e-mail, and the Internet generally all show
significant increases in the past four years. For
example, mean satisfaction ratings for use of the
Web increased from 6.89 in 2000 to 7.99 in 2004.
19
On-line Instruction Disconnect
• Student and faculty views are strongly at variance
regarding the importance of “anytime, anyplace”
access to instruction. In 2001, 2003 and 2005
students agreed strongly that access to online
instruction was very important (mean scores over
8.00). Three faculty surveys since 2000 produced
importance ratings of only 5.80, 5.07, and 5.67, the
lowest average ratings of any item in the surveys.
On the other hand, students reported taking very few
online courses (few are actually offered) and found
them only marginally satisfactory when compared to
traditional classroom learning.
20
GORDON SMITH
21
What is ICT Literacy?
• Ability to use digital technology,
communication tools, and/or networks to
access, manage, integrate, evaluate,
create, and communicate information
ethically and legally in order to function
in a knowledge society
22
Why Measure ICT Literacy?
• ICT is changing the very nature and value of
knowledge and information and impacts the
way we live, learn, and work
• ICT literacy is not simply a mastery of
technical skills, but is the application of
technical skills in an information society
• There is a lack of information about the ICT
literacy of students, and debate about how
best to address this issue in academic
23
curriculum
Current Higher Education
Partners
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The California State University
Oklahoma State University
Portland State University
Purdue University
University of California, Los Angeles
University of Louisville
University of Memphis
University of Washington
24
ICT Literacy: a Bridge Between
Information and Communication
Technology Literacy
–Can I find information on the web?
–Can I create a persuasive presentation?
Technical Literacy
Database
Word
Presentation
Processing
• Can I bold a word?
• Can I open a database?
Information Literacy
Access
Evaluate
Use
• Can you find information?
• Can you evaluate
25
authority?
Proficiency Model
Defin
e
Access
ICT
Literac
y
Manag
e
Integrat
e
Evaluat
e
Cognitive
Ethical
Technical
Create
Communicate
26
Basic Design Features
•
•
•
•
Interactive tasks using simulated software
Delivered via the web in a 2-hour test
Tasks of varying lengths (4-, 15-, and 30-min)
Automatic scoring, with multiple scorable
elements per task
• Evidence-based design
• Valid and reliable
27
Web Search
Copyright © 2005 by Educational Testing
Service. All rights reserved. ETS and the
ETS logo are registered trademarks of
Educational Testing Service.
28
Database Search
Copyright © 2005 by Educational Testing
Service. All rights reserved. ETS and the
ETS logo are registered trademarks of
Educational Testing Service.
29
Database Results
Copyright © 2005 by Educational Testing
Service. All rights reserved. ETS and the
ETS logo are registered trademarks of
Educational Testing Service.
30
Copyright © 2005 by Educational
Testing Service.
31
Define/Access
The DEFINE/ACCESS performance scale involves behaviors related to formulating a research statement and using
such a statement to find and retrieve information from a variety of sources. Among others, these sources might
include web pages, databases, discussion groups, email, or on-line descriptions of print media. Tasks contributing to
this scale include those requiring examinees to ask questions in order to clarify an ambiguous assignment or need;
formulate a tight, well-defined research question; think of and combine search keywords to satisfy the requirements
of a particular research task; efficiently browse one or more resources to locate pertinent information; and decide
what types of resources might yield the most useful information for a particular need.
Low
Middle
High
Generates or selects research
questions or statements
regarding an information need
that are:
Generates and recognizes
research questions or
statements of information needs
that are:
Generates and recognizes
research questions or
statements of information needs
that are:
 Related to an information goal
 Reasonably specific (e.g.,
event,
issue, aspect, person, time
period)
 Largely essential to the
information need
 Rarely indicative of key
concepts
and terms
 Targeted at an information
goal
 Reasonably specific (e.g.,
event,
issue, aspect, person, time
period)
 Largely essential to the
information need
 Somewhat indicative of key
concepts and terms
 Targeted at an information
goal
 Appropriately specific (e.g.,
event, issue, aspect, person,
time period)
 Essential to the information
need
 Indicative of key concepts and
terms
Example: When faced with an
ambiguous course assignment, selects
queries to submit to “professor” that are
off-topic or fail
to further define the assignment
Example: When faced with an
ambiguous course assignment, selects
queries that are on-topic,
but do not efficiently clarify the
assignment
Example: When faced with an
ambiguous course assignment, selects
queries that elucidate the assignment
Copyright © 2005 by Educational
Testing Service.
32
Conclusions About ICT
• IT skills do not translate to ICT literacy
• Need to raise faculty awareness
• Instructional interventions need to be
designed, implemented and evaluated
33
Summary
34
How Do We Help Our
Students
•
•
•
•
Faculty are the Key
Don’t be fooled by “media savvy”
Don’t assume they love technology
Do challenge them with creative,
experiential learning
• Try teamwork; encourage independence
35
How To Help Our Students
• Higher Education can not help students
to learn with information technology
unless faculty know how to use IT as
more than a BOLT-ON.
• Unbundling
36
Discussion
• Your observations
• Your challenges
• Other insights
37
Find Us
• http://its.calstate.edu
• Measures of Success:
http://its.calstate.edu/documents/Data_Co
llection/I_Reports_MOS/Measure_of_S
uccess.shtml
ICT – http://www.calstate.edu/LS/
38