Perceptions Of Millennial Student Learning: The Future Faculty Perspective

In order to promote student learning, instructors must understand who is in their classroom and how those students learn. Currently, many engineering courses are composed of “Millennial” students. This term is used by academics, university administrators, and industry leaders in the United States to describe the generation born between 1982-2002. 1 In recent years, this generation has created quite a stir among practitioners in higher education and industry. Since the seminal work of Howe and Strauss (2000), many have wondered how Millennials will change higher education and the workforce. 1,2 One limitation of Millennial research is that it fails to empirically engage the perspectives of those who teach Millennials. Thus, researchers know little about how instructors think about Millennial students and the implications that these perceptions have for teaching and learning. Concurrently, research in engineering and engineering education has focused on curricular reforms and instructional methods for preparing the Engineer of 2020. 3,4 Specifically, the learning outcomes for the Engineer of 2020 affirm the complexities of a changing workforce and need for innovative and adaptive problem-solving. Within the engineering context, there is limited research that merges these curriculum outcomes with the benefits and challenges associated with teaching the Millennial generation. To merge these two concurrent trends in postsecondary and engineering education, our study provides a qualitative analysis of how future faculty perceive Millennial engineering students at a large research university. The engineering graduate students who participated in this study are experienced graduate student instructors and were selected based on three criteria: 1) they have a demonstrated commitment to engineering education, 2) they participate regularly in reflective conversations about teaching and learning, and 3) they are uniquely situated, in terms of age and professional status, allowing them to comment on the opportunities and challenges related to teaching Millennial undergraduates in various engineering disciplines. This study poses the following research questions: ≠ What knowledge do future engineering faculty and industry leaders have about the Millennial generation? ≠ How--if at all--do future engineering faculty think Millennial students will affect their teaching? To answer these questions, we have used the following methods. First, we conducted an exhaustive review of the literature on Millennial students, and identified three striking characteristics of Millennial students (i.e., their preferences for collaborating with peers, connecting with one another, and creating for social change). Second, we followed up this literature review by reporting survey and focus group data collected from the select sample of engineering graduate students. Specifically, the survey includes demographic information about the cohort including birth year, gender, race/ethnicity, and semesters of teaching experience. In addition, we asked participants in the study to reflect on their familiarity with the term P ge 15948.2 "Millennial Generation." Finally, we followed up with focus groups to explore their initial thoughts on teaching Millennial students in the context of others to determine how these ideas are extended (or amended) during the group interaction. In this paper, we summarize how future faculty members define the Millennial generation and their perspectives on teaching Millennial engineering students technical knowledge and skills (e.g., science, math, problem solving, etc.) and profession skills (e.g., ethics and communication). We contrast these findings with the literature on “best practices” in teaching, ABET criteria, and attributes for the Engineer of 2020. Implications for teaching, learning, and future faculty development will be discussed. Overview of Engineering Curriculum Developments The quality of engineering education and the ability to recruit a U.S. engineering workforce has been a growing concern among engineers in university and industrial settings. In the 1990’s, ABET, the engineering accreditor of postsecondary degree-granting programs, revamped the program outcomes and assessment criteria to improve quality by implementing the Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000). 5 Beginning in 2001, all accredited engineering programs were required to demonstrate that their graduates possess the following eleven skills (known as a-k): ≠ Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering; ≠ Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data; ≠ Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs; ≠ Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams; ≠ Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems; ≠ Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; ≠ Ability to communicate effectively; ≠ Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context; ≠ Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning; ≠ Knowledge of contemporary issues; and ≠ Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. 5 This model reflects an outcomes assessment approach to accreditation as opposed to the former input or prescriptive model. 6 Research comparing engineering student experiences prior to EC2000 with those students who were educated after the installation of EC2000, showed that employers found the students to have comparable fundamental technical skills, while gaining professional skills needed in industry (e.g. communication, teamwork, etc.). 5 In addition to the calls for improvements in the accreditation process, the National Science Foundation expressed concerns about developing and educating the engineer of 2020. 3,4 Both calls respond to the need to recruit and retain talented students to supply the U.S. workforce. The attributes of the engineer of 2020 include: strong analytical skills, practical ingenuity; creativity; communication; business and management; leadership; high ethical standards and professionalism; dynamism, agility, resilience, flexibility; and lifelong learners. 3 The national initiatives shaping the future of engineering education raise a number of important questions: How should engineering educators teach today’s students to develop these skills? P ge 15948.3 How do these attributes prepare students for a globally competitive and rapidly-changing technical environment? How are engineering educators recruiting, retaining, and developing diverse students to maintain U.S. global competitiveness in an era where the number of engineering degrees granted to domestic students is declining? These questions are fundamental to the work of engineering educators and engineering educational researchers. At universities like the University of Michigan (U-M), recent curriculum plans have been developed to help faculty think about reshaping and revamping the curriculum to best train and develop undergraduate students for the 21 st century. 7 In an attempt to understand how to recruit and retain Millennial engineers, Chubin et al. (2008) analyzed data from the Academic Pathways Study to describe the Millennial generation’s— students born between 1982-2002—knowledge of engineering prior to college, their motivation for choosing engineering, and their perceptions of their needed and gained skills. 8 Chubbin recommends, “To retain talented students in engineering programs, educators must develop innovative ways to engage students and expose them to skills and knowledge beyond the university setting” (p. 253). 8 In light of this work, engineering instructors must understand who Millennials are and their learning needs in order to design and implement innovative and engaging pedagogies. Who are the Millennial Generation? Millennials (also known as Gen Y, Net Gen, etc.) were born between 1982 and 2002 1,9 and account for approximately 80-100 million U.S. Americans depending upon when one defines the beginning and end of the Millennial generation. 10,11 Millennials are considered the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in the history of the United States in that one in five has a parent who is an immigrant. 1 However, research on Millennials tends to focus on the similarities within the group. In their seminal book, Millennials Rising, Howe and Strauss’s (2000) offer seven characteristics to describe this generation based on shared historical experiences, demographic statistics, and anecdotal data (e.g. special, confident, conventional, sheltered, team-oriented, achieving, and pressured). 1 In addition to these qualities, Millennials’ technological capabilities is a prevalent theme in the Millennial generation literature. 12,13,14,15 For example, Taylor (2005) coined the term “technoliterate” to express the technological capacities of Millennials. 12 Similarly, Prensky (2001) uses the phrase “digital natives” to imply that Millennials have been enculturated into a society that is increasingly comfortable with and dependent upon digital technologies (e.g., laptops, iPods, smart phones, gaming systems, etc.). 13 As digital natives, Millennials accept technology and the rapid rate of technological change as simple facts of life. Thus, Millennials have been said to be more adept at responding to technological change and more creative in using technology. 13,16,17 While it is difficult to refute that Millennials have had a very different experience with wireless and computing technologies, instructors should not assume that all students share the same desire to learn using specific technologies, have the same access to technology throughout their lives, and are aware of the latest technological developments. 18,19 Moreover, Millennials are described as having a desire to “multi-task.” 21 Multi-tasking may be seen as