Supporting Digital Natives to Learn Effectively with Technology Tools

International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 9(1), 51-59, January-March 2013 51

Supporting Digital Natives to Learn Effectively with Technology Tools Jared Keengwe, Department of Teaching and Learning, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA David Georgina, College of Education, Minnesota State University, Mankato, Mankato, MN, USA

ABSTRACT Majority of learners in our classrooms are digital natives or Millennials – a category of learners who tend toward independence and autonomy in their learning styles. The primary challenges then facing instructors include: How do digital natives learn and how do you teach them? The answers to these questions will help instructors to: (a) identify and develop learning instructional offerings that are appropriate to their cognitive learning patterns, and (b) find strategies that focus on millennials’ interest and use of technology. This article highlights the need to integrate active student-centered strategies into classroom instruction to support digital natives to learn effectively with technology. Keywords:

Constructivism, Digital Natives, Learning Styles, Millennials, Net Generation, Student Learning

INTRODUCTION Educational technologies have become so pervasive on our campuses today that students and faculty cannot ignore them. Growing investments in technology (Cuban, 2001; Oppenheimer, 2003) coupled with the increasing access to technology resources characterizes digital native in our campuses. Today’s youth are exposed to digital technology in many aspects of their day-to-day existence – this has a profound impact on their personalities, including their attitudes and approach to learning. The Millennials have a strong connection to the Silent Generation’s upbeat and trusting

attitude (Coomes & DeBard, 2004). The Millennials are loved and protected child who have been encouraged to believe in themselves in all that they do (DeBard, 2004). Millennials trust their parents and grew up central to their parents’ sense of purpose; contrast to Baby Boomers, 40 percent of whom thought they’d be better off without their parents (Howe & Strauss, 2007; Strauss, 2005). Millennials will make up 75 percent of all higher education enrollment by the year 2012 (Coomes & DeBard, 2004, citing Center for Educational Statistics, 2002). There are different attributes that differentiate the millennials from the baby-boom and X generations: they are sheltered and protected

DOI: 10.4018/jicte.2013010105 Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

52 International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 9(1), 51-59, January-March 2013

in ways that previous generations were not; they have a conventional/ traditional point of view; they are pressured and feel more stress at this age than previous generations; they like to work in teams rather than as individuals; they are considered as belonging to an entire group that is achieving and individuals must keep pace with the group; they are much more confident, with a sense of empowerment, than previous generations (Howe & Strauss, 2000). The Millennials prefer to learn in collaborative learning environment and exhibit a preference for teamwork incorporating cooperative learning and constructivist principles (Sweeney, 2006). Further, they prefer to learn in flexible, personalized and customized schedules, in environment that makes learning interesting; in structured environments; in environment that uses technology to enable them to be more productive and connected; in environment in which individuals are respected and all members of the group are supported; in environments that is goal and achievement orientated (Sweeney, 2006). Millennials expect immediacy in all that they do and want accurate information on their accounts, class schedules and grades in real-time (Strauss, 2005). Additionally, they expect to buy “what, where and how they learn” (Carlson, 2005). The Millennial learners possess sophisticated knowledge of and skills with information technologies. As a result of their upbringing and experiences with technology, digital natives have particular learning preferences or styles that differ from earlier generations of students (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008) This generation of learners is distinctly different in their characteristics and learning expectations. This generation of students is the most racially and ethnically diverse group in history and are “fully accepting of diversity and typically do not perceive the same divides as earlier generations. In general, they are extremely independent, due to a combination of day care, single parenting, divorced, and working parents (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008, p.1). Further, they are blunt, highly expressive, looking for and expecting instant gratification, easily bored, team oriented, crav-

ing the spotlight, and expecting to be rewarded for their efforts. Outside of school, a majority of digital natives are using a variety of social networking media technologies, including the following: TV, computer, Internet, Playstation, digital cell phones, iPods, and more (Cox-Holmes & Lodde, 2006). They are also typically able to have better access of information in their home environments, yet not always prepared on how to protect themselves from potential Internet predators.

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING DIGITAL NATIVES As much as evidence shows that there is a majority who fall into the categorization, or generalizations, of being considered part of the millennial generation or called digital natives, there are also some concerns for many within this population who may be falling through the cracks of this entire generation. According to Bennett, Maton, and Kervin (2008): Such generalizations about a whole generation of young people thereby focus attention on technically adept students. With this comes the danger that those less interested and less able will be neglected, and that the potential impact of socio-economic and cultural factors will be overlooked. It may be that there is as much variation within the digital native generation as between the generations (p.779). Unlike the previous generations, digital natives are more comfortable creating and constructing their own knowledge rather than being instructed. The student-centered approach is based on the understanding that students learn more when they take responsibility for their own learning (Henson, 2004). Further, the instructor assumes a new role of guiding, mediation, modeling, and coaching active learners (Sharp, 2006). Pierson and McNeil (2000) recommend the “purposeful creation of collaborative, authentic, and content-focused

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


learning environments where future teachers are empowered to develop content, pedagogy, and technology strategies concurrently, as a critical factor in the design of preservice teacher education programs” (p. 9). Active learning includes hands-on tasks and authentic activities that include experiential learning, collaborative learning, context-based learning, and computer-based learning. Authentic learning values learner-centeredness; the learning tasks revolve around learning experiences that are connected to real-world situations. Students should be encouraged to work with information to derive meaning and understanding, form new mental representations of the material, and construct and reconstruct new knowledge based on their experiences. Active learning occurs by exposing students to primary sources within a situated context, and encouraging students them to see relationships (Brooks & Brooks, 2001). Teaching as a learner-centered process focuses on an individual’s transformative development (Hinchliffe, 2001). The aim of learner-centered education is to enable learners to get along “without” their teachers. The role of the teacher changes from a ‘Sage on the Stage’ to a ‘Guide on the Side.’ The shift toward learner-centered teaching is a change in emphasis that will cause teachers to rethink how they teach and assess their teaching toward the goal of realistic appraisal of student learning. Anderson and Becker (2001) argue that “constructivist-oriented teachers use computers in more varied ways, have greater technical expertise in the use of computers, use computers frequently with students, and use them in more powerful ways” (p. 55). Tools are extensions of our human capability (Forcier & Descy, 2002). Technology can assist teachers in their instruction to meet individual student needs, and allow for a student-centered learning environment, aligning standards, allowing for testing and diagnosis, allowing teachers to manage classes and other duties more efficiently and letting teachers pursue career growth opportunities more easily (Education Commission of the States, 2001).

If used appropriately, technology tools have potential to enhance classroom instruction (Keengwe, 2007). Further, the power of technology to support learning lies not so much in just the technology, as in what teachers do with the available technologies. Although instructors play a significant role when teaching with technology, the primary concern in technology use is for teachers to go beyond technical competence to provide students with pedagogical uses and critically analyze their effective use in various contexts (Bush, 2003). Specifically, instructors must place their technical competence within broad educational goals or desired pedagogical frameworks. Bush argues that important overriding uses of instructional technologies should be considered when considering infusing technology into the classroom that include, increasing students’ knowledge of the subject concepts and pedagogy, creating opportunities for professional and pedagogical practice, and developing critical strategies to support students in their professional practice and in the use of educational technologies. A critical issue related to technology use is that computer technology should not drive instruction (Jonassen, 2000). Rather, instruction should drive the technological tools being used. The most effective way to benefit from technology is to integrate it into the curriculum as opposed to integrating curriculum into the technology. Harris (2000) observes that technology will be a significant tool to recreate learning in the 21st Century. However, educators will need to experience a paradigm shift in their vision for technology in education. Further, they need to change their beliefs in learning processes. Harris (2000) acknowledges that, “The tremendous technology potential will only be realized if we can create a new vision of how technology will change the way we define teaching and how we believe learning can take place.” (p. 1) Bringing constructivism into the classroom means that instructors will have to embrace a new way of thinking about how digital natives learn. The typical teaching model in most class-



rooms is direct instruction. However, the digital natives are comfortable expressing themselves digitally and are active learners who want to create their own content. Effective teaching implies that instructors strive to encourage students to use active techniques to create more knowledge and then to reflect on what they are doing. Grabe & Grabe (2008) note that, “it seems reasonable that teachers will be more likely to help their students learn with technology if the teachers can draw on their own experiences in learning with technology” (p.4).

PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES 21st century skilled teachers understand that even millennial students enter our courses with varying skill levels in technology integration, academic paper writing, and product creations. Most of the technology skills associated with millennial learners are tied to social media such as Web 2.0 tools—blogs, twitter, podcasts, wikis, and social networking sites like Facebook. Constructivist teachers need to provide students with the technology-tool pedagogical training necessary to this generation of learners. To effectively facilitate teaching requires skills that transcend the content pedagogy and moves our center of learning outward—towards the student’s personal technology skill level and content knowledge. Managing a social constructivist approach to teaching and learning requires that the student makes decisions about how the learning product is aligned within assignment parameters and how best to personalize the product for their own use. By creating challenges (learning opportunities) embedded within the individualized-learner processes, our goal is for students to “wrestle” with creating ideas, designs, prototypes, products. These struggles are actually purposeful challenges (manufactured through the assignment parameters) and they reveal aspects of the “how to” approach that teacher candidates can then translate into product-based assignments specific to teaching their own students. By creating a learning situ-

ation in which the learner must come to their own understanding of an assignment, we hope to allow more moments of personal discovery and “aha” realizations that can then be translated into a model of practice for their k-12 students. Addressing the challenges for increasing individual technology skill levels may require teacher intervention and assistance, or it may be addressed with pairing the lower technologyskilled students with those of higher technology skills. We rely upon small group work for the first few weeks of class, thereby allowing students to assist each other’s technology competencies and group learning abilities. The following two assignments taken from an Introduction to Educational Technology course are intended to illustrate pedagogical approaches towards teaching digital natives.

Assignment One: Google Docs—a Two-Part Assignment Assignment Parameters: This exercise will use Google Docs to create a technology list with suggestions for use of various technology tools (See exemplars in content).

Part One: Individual Contribution The tool used will link to your digital game for learning. Use this forum for discussion. • • • •

You are to focus on how to use the digital game for students with special needs. (show/share and example) Provide a link to the digital game. Provide a paragraph describing how you would use this in teaching and learning. Why is it an effective use of technology (why you chose it) – Use your Tech posts for the Best Practices/ Lesson ideas section of the Professional Development Project

Part Two: Group Contribution Each group will have a group facilitator who will assist in the management of the Google document and help organize the final product.



• •

•

Choose a facilitator (refer to group roles in the content section of D2L) The completed document (should resemble a resource page) will be uploaded into the D2L Dropbox and will contain the names of the members of the group. The group will self-evaluate the document and grade the product based upon these criteria: Individual contribution; Organization of product; Timeliness; Technology chosen; and Description of technology use following part one parameters.

The instructor will compile the products of the three Google docs and load them into the student forum for access and review. This approach may also cause some frustration for the teacher candidates with lower technology skills. However, this is the same frustration that their students feel when working with new software. It is important to point out these events as the students voice their frustration. Thus, identifying with the problems associated with increasing technology skill levels should be an area of emphasis for new technology learners. Integrating specific digital tool categories requires an individualized approach to learning—differentiation with technology. In this course, we have to measure and assess both technology skill user levels and content integration abilities (the products created). To aid instructors’understanding of student technology skill levels, we administer a self-perception Technology Skills survey and formative discussion forums (online and face to face). These are two basic means of garnering student technology skill levels and content integration abilities. This process also allows for a greater understanding of student user levels, from which the instructor can revise course materials and assignments that facilitate an increase in knowledge transfer in those areas. We have also found that that by applying the pre/post data to this course, one is able to more aptly detect the overall effectiveness of the alignment among course learning objects, technology, course materials, and assessments.

Assignment Two: Wiki Fun-Posting for Your Wiki is During Week Ten--Seek, Find, Create •

• • •

• •

•

Find a Wiki site and create a framework (think of it as an outline) for a wiki that you can use for instructional purposes…do not worry about completing pages You may use for any purpose—classroom assistive technologies, resources, lesson plans, parent information... Please set up the wiki with multiple pages (topic headers like parents, lessons, games...) Here are few sites from which to review and choose: ◦◦ G o o g l e s i t e s : h t t p : / / t i n y u r l . com/3q3fp2t ◦◦ Wiki spaces http://www.wikispaces. com/ ◦◦ Wet Paint: http://www.wetpaint. com/; and ◦◦ Wikidot: http://www.wikidot.com/ Post, show and tell your Wiki—post your wiki link (from your professional work or from another course) Create a video tour for your peer (You may use any image capture software or video software (Jing, Novio, Camtasia, power point with voice over….). Describe your site design, purpose and how you can use it in your educational profession.

Table 1 is a sample rubric that teachers can use for the assignment described above.

CLASSROOM IMPLICATIONS The ubiquitous presence of technologies in school libraries, laboratories, and classrooms implies the need for competent faculty who can teach well with these technology tools. More specifically, there is need for instructors to assess the needs of the digital natives to enhance their learning. For instance, the technologies familiar to the digital natives such as



Table 1. Sample integrative technology rubric CRITERIA

LEVEL 1

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 4

Demonstrates an ability to collaboratively improve instructional strategies using a technology enhanced learning environment.

The candidate provides little or no evidence of their ability to improve Collaborative instructional strategies using a technologyenhanced learning environment. There is no collaboration or active learning.

The candidate provides limited evidence of their ability to improve collaborative instructional strategies using a technologyenhanced learning environment. There is some collaboration and technology integration focuses on active learning at least half of the time.

The candidate provides clear evidence of their ability to improve collaborative instructional strategies using a technology-enhanced learning environment. Strategy focuses on active learning. There is collaboration and technology integration considers individual differences/learning styles.

The candidate provides clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of the candidate’s ability to improve collaborative instructional strategies using a technology-enhanced learning environment. Technology integration focuses on active learning. There is collaboration and technology integration considers individual differences/learning styles.

Demonstrates the knowledge of how to merge the theoretical and the practical application of technology integration into the classroom.

The candidate provides little or no evidence of the ability to merge the theoretical and the practical application of technology integration. Instructional design techniques are not followed

The candidate provides limited evidence of merging the theoretical and the practical application of integrating technology into the classroom. Proper instructional design techniques are followed at times.

The candidate provides clear evidence of the candidate’s ability to merge the theoretical and the practical application of integrating technology into the classroom. Proper instructional design techniques are followed.

The candidate provides clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of their ability to merge the theoretical and the practical application of technology integration into the classroom. Proper instructional design techniques are followed consistently.

Demonstrates understanding the ethical standards when using technology in the classroom.

Candidate provides little or no evidence of understanding the ethical standards involved in technology. There is no understanding of fair use, intellectual property or copyright as it pertains to technology

The candidate provides a limited understanding of the ethical standards involved in technology. There is limited understanding of fair use, intellectual property or copyright as it pertains to technology

The candidate provides clear evidence of an understanding of the ethical standards involved in technology. An understanding of air use, intellectual property or copyright as it pertains to technology is demonstrated.

The candidate provides clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of an understanding of the ethical standards involved in technology. A clear, consistent, and convincing understanding of fair use, intellectual property or copyright as it pertains to technology is demonstrated.

Demonstrates the ability to work with collaboratively using technology

The candidate provides little or no evidence of collaborating with the instruction through technology.

The candidate provides limited evidence of collaborating with the instruction through technology.

The candidate provides clear evidence of collaboration with the instruction through technology.

The candidate provides clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of collaboration with the instruction through technology.

Demonstrates the ability to think about technology reflectively and analytically

The candidate provides little or no evidence of thinking about technology reflectively and analytically. The candidate sees technology as the solution.

The candidate provides a limited understanding about the technology reflectively and analytically. The candidate sees technology as part of the solution to instruction.

The candidate provides clear evidence of understanding technology reflectively and analytically. The candidate sees technology as a tool to achieve instructional goals.

The candidate provides clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of understanding technology reflectively and analytically. The candidate provides clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that technology is just one tool used to achieve instructional goals.

Educational Technology Rubric from Minnesota State University, Mankato 2009



text messaging, blogging, podcasting could be incorporated into their classroom instruction. Lectures dominate college classrooms, but in order to reach out and really educate the digital natives, instructors might require a different approach to teaching. Instructors will need to provide more flexibility in their curriculum as well as integrate digital media, online collaborations, and virtual learning communities into their teaching. Such approaches could result in an interactive and open-ended authentic type of learning that could benefit the digital natives. The digital media is causing educators and students alike to shift to new ways of thinking about teaching and learning such as active learning. Active learning is concerned with what students do with information, not how much information the teacher and learning environments can provide (Grabe & Grabe, 2008). The question then is how to support the digital natives learn effectively in the classroom. The digital natives access to information is more interactive and nonsequential, and expect result immediately. Therefore, instructors should be trained to create intellectually powerful and technology rich learning environments for students while maintaining sound pedagogical practices (Anderson & Becker, 2001). Generally, the digital natives are more adaptable and quicker to adapt to the emerging technologies – the tools are part of their lifestyles. Indeed, there are fewer challenges and more opportunities in working with digital natives. Instructors could benefit from interactions with this generation of learners or they can ignore them. Considine, Horton, and Moorman (2009) suggest that teachers should “help all students to analyze and evaluate each media message for text, context, and impact to produce more knowledgeable, creative, and cooperative citizens for the Global Village” (p.10). Instructors should strive to maintain positive student-teacher interaction and relationships (Bain, 2004; Weimer, 2002) in the classroom. Millennials prefer a variety of active learning methods, as opposed to a more traditional lecture-only format. To this end, instructors must make some changes in order

to provide opportunities for the Millennials to succeed. Millennials are a very promising generation: they want to learn; they accept and appreciate diversity; they are team-oriented; they are confident in who they are; they believe in giving to others; and they believe that life is always improving (Moore, 2007).

CONCLUSION As technology advances, educators need to recognize the changing learning patterns of their learners. The digital natives, for instance, prefer quick results and find life easier by using “google,” rather than a dictionary. Traditional methods of searching information have worked in the past, but using what students know best will help better prepare students for the work force and keep students actively involved in the classroom. Instructors should be encouraged to structure learning environments that model expert behavior to students in constructivist uses of technology-based teaching and learning in their disciplines (Vrasidas & McIsaac, 2001). Instructors need to recognize that computers are not ends in themselves. Additionally, instructors need to gain technology skills but they will be most successful helping their students when they do not act as experts but as guides (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999). The ultimate goal of teaching is to guide learners to think critically, to learn how to solve-problems, and to create knowledge. Technology is not a substitute for good instruction. Instructors who are successful in teaching such as “constructivist-oriented teachers use computers in more varied ways, have greater technical expertise in the use of computers, use computers frequently with students, and use them in more powerful ways” (Anderson & Becker, 2001, p. 55). Instructors have a responsibility to provide a learning environment that meets the needs of their students. Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) note, “Whether the Net Generation is purely a generational phenomenon or whether it is associated with technology use, there are a number of implications for colleges and universities



(p.2.10). Instructors will need to incorporate, for instance, blogs, iPods, and video games in their pedagogy as well as learn to accept divided attention spans. It is important to accommodate the unique learning styles of the digital natives – one with their ears “plugged” and would not be motivated to listen to hour-long lectures!

REFERENCES Anderson, R., & Becker, J. (2001). School investments in instructional technology. Teaching, Learning, and Computing Report, Report 8. Retrieved from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_8/ startpage.htm Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008, September). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. Retrieved April 24, 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x. Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. Bush, J. (2003). Beyond technical competence: Technologies in English language arts teacher education (A Response to Pope and Golub). Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 2(4). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss4/ english/article2.cfm. Carlson, S. (2005, October 7). The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/ printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v52/ i07/07a03 Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009, March). Teaching and reading the millennial generation through media literacy. [Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.]. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6), 471–481. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.6.2. Coomes, M., & DeBard, R. (2004, Summer). A generational approach to understanding students. New Directions for Student Services: Serving the Millennial Generation, 106, 5–16. doi:10.1002/ss.121.

Cox-Holmes, E., & Lodde, E. (2006, January). Beyond analog to ministry in a digital world. [Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.]. Clergy Journal, 82(3), 10–13. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DeBard, R. (2004, Summer). Millennials coming to college. New Directions for Student Services: Serving the Millennial Generation, 106, 33–45. doi:10.1002/ss.123. Education Commission of the States. (2001, August). Investing in K-12 technology equipment: Strategies for state policymakers. Retrieved from http://www. ecs.org/clearinghouse/23/39/2339.doc Forcier, R. C., & Descy, D. E. (2002). The computer as an educational tool: Productivity and problem solving (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.. Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2008). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Harris, P. (Summer, 2000). Using technology to create a new paradigm for a learner-centered educational experience. Technos Quarterly, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.technos.net/tq_09/2harris.htm Henson, K. T. (2004). Constructivist teaching strategies for diverse middle-level classrooms. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hinchliffe, G. (2001). Education or pedagogy? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(1), 133–148. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.00208. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). Millennials go to college. Great Falls, VA: LifeCourse Associates. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructive perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Jonassen, H. D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students’ perceptions of computer technology to improve student learning. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 169–180. Moore, A. (2007). They’ve never taken a swim and thought about jaws: Understanding the millennial generation. College and University Journal, 82(4), 41–48.



Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation (Eds.). Retrieved from http://www. educause.edu/educatingthenetgen Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom and how learning can be saved. New York, NY: Random House. Pierson, M. E., & McNeil, S. (2000). Preservice technology integration through collaborative action communities. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 1(1). Retrieved from http:// www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentpractice/ article1.htm. Sharp, V. (2006). Computer education for teachers: Integrating technology into classroom Teaching (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sweeney, R. (2006, December 22). Millennial behaviors & demographics. Retrieved from New Jersey Institute of Technology Library: library1. njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/Millennials/ArticleMillennial-Behaviors.doc U S Department of Education. (2000). The power of the internet for learning: Final report of web-based education commission. Retrieved from http://www. ed.gov/offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport/index.html Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. (2001). Integrating technology in teaching and teacher education: Implications for policy and curriculum reform. Educational Media International, 38(2/3), 127–132. doi:10.1080/09523980110041944. Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Strauss, W. (2005, September). Talking about their generations. School Administrator, 62(8), 10–13.

Jared Keengwe is currently an Associate Professor of educational technology at the University of North Dakota. His primary research interests are focused on computer technology integration and constructivist pedagogical approach to teaching and learning. Dr. Keengwe’s research has resulted in more than 100 publications in refereed journals and conference proceedings. He is also the co-editor of two scholarly reference textbooks: Adult Learning in the Digital Age: Perspectives on Online Technologies and Outcomes and Virtual Mentoring for Teachers: Online Professional Development Practices. David Georgina is currently coordinator and instructor for the online graduate educational technologies program at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Dr. Georgina is a certified Online Course Reviewer with Quality Matters. His research areas include digital technology pedagogical integration, online pedagogical design, and game theory. Dr. Georgina obtained his PhD in Education—Teaching & Learning in Higher Education with a focus on Technology Integration and Instructional Design. His focus on pedagogy/andragogy Dr. Georgina is derived from a socially mediated constructivist approach to teaching and learning.
