Using a Next-Gen Platform and Deeply Digital Curricula to Support Alpha and iGen Learners and Their Teachers

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonest.206

Keywords:

Deeply-digital curricula, Student engagement, STEM, Alpha generation, iGen

Abstract

Current curricula and pedagogy need to change to effectively support the learning needs of the Alphas and iGens. The Alpha Generation, children born after 2012, known as the “digital-first” generation, have grown up on hand-held, digital screens not watching television or reading paper-based books. Similarly, the iGens, also known as Gen Zs, university students born between 1995 and 2012, are the first generation to spend their entire adolescence in the age of the smartphone. "With social media and texting replacing other activities, iGen spends less time with their friends in person” (Twenge, 2017). The COVID disruption further pushed the Alphas and iGens onto screens for social interaction and learning. Returning to paper-and-pencil curricula and pedagogy does not serve the needs of these generations. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2010) issued a prescient report describing the potential for deeply-digital curricula to “provide a richer and more engaging experience through interactive components, videos, simulations, hyperlinks …” (p. 77). Alphas' and iGens' deeply-digital experiences outside of school have them expecting deeply-digital learning experiences inside of school. Toward addressing the learning needs of Alphas in Kindergarten through sixth grade and iGen university students, we have been studying how deeply-digital, highly-interactive curricula plus digitally-motivated, pedagogical practices can increase their engagement and achievement in both in-class and remote learning environments.

References

Akinyemi, A.F., Rembe, S., Shumba, J., Adewumi, T.M. (2019). Collaboration and mutual support as processes established by communities of practice to improve continuing professional teachers’ development in high schools, Cogent Education, 6(1). DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2019.1685446

Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 52(3), 215-241. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024312321077.

Bećirović, S. (2023). Digital Pedagogy: The use of digital technologies in contemporary education. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Bobek, E., Tversky, B. (2016). Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cognitive research: Principles and implications, 1(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6

Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2023). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182.

Ferguson, S. (2020). Attrition in Online and Face-to-Face Calculus and Precalculus Courses: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Educators Online, 17(1), n1.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Hyacinthe, V. (2020, December 22). Sign up now: Digital curriculum is here to stay. Kiddom Webinar. Retrieved from https://blog.kiddom.co/digital-curriculum-is-here-to-stay/

Kay, R., & Greenhill, V. (2021). The impact of technology-integrated pedagogy on student engagement and digital literacy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1225-1247.

Laal, M., Ghodsi, M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning, Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 486-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091

Mahan, K.R. (2020). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language Integrated learning (CLIL), The Language Learning Journal. DOI:10.1080/09571736.2019.1705879

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2020). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 886-888). SAGE Publications.

O'Reilly, J., & Hickey, D. T. (2022). Personalized learning in the digital age: Meeting the needs of digitally-native learners. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 93-104.

Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology (49), 345-375.

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (U.S.) & United States Executive Office of the President. (2010). Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Math (STEM) for America’s Future. Washington D.C. 117 pp.

Twenge, J.M. (2017). iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. New York, NY: Atria. pp. 342.

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271-296. DOI:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

WestEd. (2008). Evaluating online learning: Challenges and strategies for success. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

What is Generation Alpha? (2020, November 4). The Annie E. Casey Foundation Blog. Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/blog/what-is-generation-alpha/

Downloads

Published

2024-06-10

Issue

Section

Technology

How to Cite

Using a Next-Gen Platform and Deeply Digital Curricula to Support Alpha and iGen Learners and Their Teachers. (2024). International Journal on Engineering, Science and Technology, 6(2), 216-225. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonest.206