What Learning Environments Best Address 21st-Century Students’ Perceived Needs at the Secondary Level of Instruction?

Abstract

The purpose of a recent study was to determine what learning environments best address the needs of 21st-century students at the secondary level. This study concluded that the presence of a positive 21st-century learning environment is related to student satisfaction and student-teacher relationships. While the majority of the literature on 21st-century students concerns technology, this study found that students were not as concerned with technology as they were with autonomy, relevance, and connectedness.

Keywords

twenty-first-century students learning environments student-teacher relationships

Introduction

Twenty-first-century students have always had instant access to virtually unlimited information via the Internet and have been included as a major player in decision making about their upbringing. Additionally, students in the 21st century have access to approximately one petabyte of data with the click of a mouse or the tap of a screen, giving them access to more information than is contained in the Library of Congress (Dresang, 2005). These factors set the stage for a very different type of learner than schools have been accustomed to serving, hence schools will have to adapt to these students in order for them to succeed. These students are “technoliterate, techno-savvy, technologically fluent and even dependent on technology” (Nicholas, 2008, p. 28). Nicholas (2008) further found that students prefer working in a social setting and solving problems at school.

Students who have grown up in the digital 21st century have an expectation for speed. As computers have become increasingly faster with more memory and access has become more available via wireless networks, students have become accustomed to and have come to expect speed. For the 21st-century student, e-mail is not a viable option; they prefer instant messaging and texting. An additional aspect that speaks to the desire for speed is the shortened attention span and the affinity to multitasking displayed by 21st-century students (Matulich, Papp, & Haytko, 2008).

To complicate matters further for teachers of 21st-century students, there has been an ever-increasing emphasis on teaching 21st-century skills, including skills that demand creativity, innovation, communication, collaboration, teamwork, critical thinking, decision making, research fluency, and problem solving (Larson & Miller, 2011). The 21st-century student will expect the 21st-century learning environment to provide opportunities for the above, creating a different role for the teacher. In the 21st-century learning environment, effective teachers and students will work together to solve educational problems and generate appropriate outcomes (Larson, Miller, & Ribble, 2010).

Educational institutions are charged with providing optimal educational opportunities. The purpose for many is to open avenues for students and promote the potential of students, benefitting society as a whole. This charge includes the responsibility of educational institutions to not only ensure the capacity for success of the students served but of the organization as well (Hoyle, Samek, & Valois, 2008). As the caretakers of such an important endeavor, it is of the utmost importance that educational institutions continue to adapt to the needs of students as society changes. The response to the perceived inelasticity of educational institutions and the magnitude of the responsibility placed on educational institutions often leads to attacks when the outcomes of education are perceived to be substandard (Galloway & Lasley, 2010), emphasizing the importance of the ability to adapt for educational institutions. The tenuous relationship with public perception is further exacerbated by the gradualist paradigm of education. Educators prefer time to study change and to allow progress to occur at a slow steady pace (Franklin, 2011). Unfortunately, society is progressing much more quickly than many educators would prefer.

Galloway and Lasley (2010) label current educational practices such as teacher-centric lecture and classrooms designed for students to tell and grade as anachronistic and ill-suited for 21st-century students. They further assert that school life, including the activities of the teacher and student, must change in order to keep pace with the changing landscape caused by the informational age in which students now live. Schlechty (2011) asserts that teachers are to be “designers of experiences for students” (p. 3) if classrooms are to be engaging and successful. Where traditional secondary classrooms are teacher centric and students are passive receptors of information, a great change of paradigm will be needed to address the changes we see as a result of the social aspects of the 21st-century student and the influx of technology (Tapscott, 2009). Teachers see technology as a tool where students see technology as an integral part of everyday life (Dresang, 2005; Prensky, 2008). Regardless of the level of technology in the environment, learning should not be a passive act. Learning and retention occur at higher levels when students engage in active learning (Franklin, 2011). It will be the responsibility of the teacher to ensure that learning is not passive and that the specific idiosyncratic needs of 21st-century students are met in the learning environment.

With the abundance and overwhelming presence of technology in 21st-century students’ lives, educational institutions will be able to benefit from technology-based activities which occur outside the classroom, allowing for more class time focused on content (Kolb, 2011). Another benefit of technology-based activities is that they speak to the needs of 21st-century students, who prefer not to have learning confined to the classroom, but want to have the freedom to be able to learn at any time and in any place (Kolb, 2011; Rosen, 2011).

Galloway and Lasley (2010) assert that teachers must have the pedagogical knowledge and skills to be able to maximize students’ growth in academic areas, the likes of which is more the exception than the rule in current public school environments. Franklin (2011) adds that learning is not what is in need of change; delivery of instruction must change. As 21st-century students enter learning institutions, elementary school through postsecondary teachers will have to adapt their styles of teaching to reach this new type of student; meaning that as 21st-century students, who live in a complex, media-rich, high-tech environment enter schools, educators must address not only what technology means in the classroom but also what students do with technology and what it does to them (Considine, Horton, & Moorman, 2009). Older generation teachers perceive 21st-century students as lacking patience and possessing intolerance for frustration, resulting in lesser developed information-seeking skills and a propensity to take the path of least resistance when researching or searching for information (Benoit, 2004). When coupled with the need for a change in teaching paradigm, this pedagogical lack of vision results in 21st-century students missing much of the richness of the educational experience as well as opportunities to obtain critical learning strategies (Dresang, 2005) and further exacerbates the differences between teachers and students.

It is imperative that schools adapt the learning environment in order to reach 21st-century students. It will be necessary for teachers to undergo a paradigm shift as to what constitutes productive class time and how 24-hour access may be utilized to help students reach their potential, including the expectations that students have an increasingly active role in education and classroom life and that they utilize knowledge and skills to not only solve problems but to develop a sense of meaningful questioning that encompasses a broad range of academic interests (Galloway & Lasley, 2010). This new classroom life will be a transition from the information age in which we now live to what Gibson (2009) describes as the interaction age. The job market will be evolving at an increasing rate, therefore students must be prepared to be adaptive and to be able to think, not just recall lessons (Marx, 2006).

The Gaps in Research

While there is ample research that explores student achievement, there is little that explores students’ perceptions of learning environments within the context of the unique needs of 21st-century students at the secondary level. The lack of research on student perceptions of the learning environment and the effect on learning necessitates learning about which learning environments best address the needs of 21st-century students (Flutter, 2006).

Prensky (2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2006, 2008) and many others discuss the state of 21st-century students and their preferences, focusing on mainly elementary students and qualitative data. Other studies (Ituma, 2011; Matulich et al., 2008; Milne, 2007; Nicholas, 2008; Skiba, 2005; Stewart, 2009; Syh-Jong, 2011; Trigwell & Ashwin, 2006) focus on graduate students’ perceptions of different aspects of the educational experience, including the environment.

The few studies that approach the needs and perceptions of secondary school students focus on the use of technology or the physical space in which students are learning (Flutter, 2006; Gunn & Hollingsworth, 2010; Sadik & Reisman, 2004; Strom, Strom, Wing, & Beckert, 2010). This study attempted to fill the gap in the research that exists pertaining to secondary students’ perceptions of the learning environment and which aspects of the learning environment suit them best by gathering quantitative and qualitative data on students’ opinions about the learning environment, perceived satisfaction, and student-teacher relationships. The goal of this study was to provide researchers and educators with specific information about secondary students’ perceived needs and a basis for further inquiry resulting in the improvement of the educational experience for secondary students.

Theoretical Framework

This study explored 21st-century students at the secondary level and their perceptions of the learning environment as those perceptions affect achievement and student satisfaction through the lens of motivation and self-determination theory (SDT). Ryan and Deci (2000), in their discussion of SDT, theorize that human motivation is based on three basic needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Competence is described as the need to be effective when interacting with the environment. A competent student will strive for more challenging learning experiences in an effort to further his or her effectiveness. Relatedness is a need to have attachments with others, which allows students to feel emotionally connected and safe in an environment. A related student is interpersonally involved in warm, personal relationships. Autonomy is the need to express behavior from within and to be self-endorsed in actions. An autonomous student has a high sense of choice and is able to initiate actions with great volition (Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009).

SDT is further described as the capacity of students to manage learning through motivation and setting ambitious goals for themselves (Doll, Spies, LeClair, Kurien, & Foley, 2010). Darner (2009) expands the discussion of SDT to include the quest for higher levels of knowledge, which allows individuals to make better sense of the world around them. Higher levels of knowledge represent cognitive structures that are continuously modified as students are exposed to new experiences, as in new learning environments. Individuals want to make sense of their surroundings and they do so through cognitive structures. If the situation is contradictory to the student’s cognitive structure, and the conflict can be resolved, students will modify their cognitive structures to integrate the new knowledge into their understanding, much akin to Prensky’s (2001a) concept of neuroplasticity. The assimilation of knowledge is satisfying, therefore driving curiosity and the desire to continue to learn (Darner, 2009). Darner further asserts that assimilating more challenging situations increases satisfaction, therefore supporting curiosity and gravitation toward what he calls optimal challenges.

Additionally, Pink (2009) discusses SDT through his definition of Motivation 3.0. Pink (2009) begins his discussion of motivation by defining what he terms as Type X behavior and Type I behavior. Type X behavior is what traditionally is thought about behavior being fueled by extrinsic motivation. Type I behavior is motivated more intrinsically; autonomy and efficacy are the fuel.

Motivation 3.0 (Pink 2009) is not merely about autonomy, but about efficacy as well. Arnone, Reynolds, and Marshall (2009) discuss 21st-century students and the need not only for technical skills but also for the students’ value of those skills. Students are not only going to have to be adept at navigating the information that is presented to them each day, they are going to have to feel confident that they are able to navigate well. Increasing efficacy is one of the main needs described by Booth (2011) in her study about adolescents and needs in the classroom. Booth (2011) described four major themes in her study: physical, safety, academic, and esteem needs. Physical and safety needs are those needs met by the physicality of the school day. In addition to those needs, students wanted higher academic standards, not only for themselves but for their teachers as well. Many students expressed the desire to be active learners, emphasizing the need for engagement. Additionally students expressed a need to be respected and how a perceived lack of respect detracted from their learning. Arnone et al. (2009) add that students’ self-perception was significantly correlated to social and emotional aspects of the students’ experiences in school.

Purpose of the Study

By exploring 21st-century students’ perceptions and needs, it was anticipated that this study would provide teachers of 21st-century students with insights toward improving learning environments for secondary students. The attention spans of 21st-century students are shorter than previous generations of students, they multitask more, and they are accustomed to having 24-hour access to information. They are socially oriented and benefit from collaborative learning opportunities (Matulich et al., 2008; Niles, 2011). Additionally, 21st-century students’ immersion in technological communication and access to information has given them a sense of competency that is inconsistent with their actual skill and knowledge; as Considine et al. (2009) have stated, “hands on is not the same as heads on” (p. 472). Increased access to information has also enhanced the perception of control over one’s own learning in 21st-century students (Tingen, Philbeck, & Holcomb, 2011). Additionally, Kumar and Vigil (2011) assert that students’ proficiency with technology cannot be assumed merely because they are immersed in casual, informal use. Tingen et al. (2011) purport that the Internet allows 21st-century students to control their own learning through websites, and exploration of the information available to them every day.

Educational institutions have the responsibility for educating all students with the goal of students reaching their full potential. Students of the 21st century live and learn in a much different world than many educational institutions are currently providing; therefore, present educational systems face a difficult choice between individualistic teacher-centric traditional methods, which are fast becoming irrelevant, and adapting to new collaborative, team-centered methods that will bridge the generational gap and connect how students live and learn to the educational setting (Holubová, 2010).

The teacher in the classroom remains the most important factor in the struggle to educate 21st-century students (Franklin, 2011). Gentry, Steenbergen-Hu, and Choi (2011) discuss how teacher enthusiasm, feedback, and content knowledge are key elements in motivating students. They further assert that positive and supportive teacher-student relationships that promote high expectations for both the teacher and the student shape student attitudes toward school. Further evidence is provided by Istance (2010) in the discussion concerning principles of an effective learning environment. He states that teachers must be attuned to the learners’ motivations and are key players in the emotion in the classroom. He continues by emphasizing the necessity for clarity of expectations, appropriate organization of the learning space and methods, and the importance of active assessment strategies, all of which are under the direct control and influence of the classroom teacher. Although there are many instances where technology can help support learners needs, if the teacher is unable to develop a relationship and deliver sound pedagogical interaction with the student, technology cannot and will not bridge the gap (Laguardia & Pearl, 2009).

Research Questions

The study addressed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What learning environments best support the needs of 21st-century students at the secondary level?

Research Question 2: What relationships exist between students’ perceptions of the learning environment, satisfaction, and achievement?

Research Question 3: What relationships exist between students’ perceptions of the learning environment, teacher-student relationships, and achievement?

Population and Sample Description

The district utilized for this study is a large, suburban district in southeast Texas that serves approximately 39,000 students through 26 elementary schools (Grades prekindergarten-5), 10 intermediate schools (Grades 6-8), five comprehensive high schools (Grades 9-12), and three alternative schools (one early-college high school, one alternative high school, and one disciplinary placement school). The district has a long history of success indicated by a high rate of student achievement on state standardized tests and SAT scores that have consistently ranked above national and state averages. The district has a reputation for innovation and excellence, as well as an increasing diversity among the students who attend, attributes which make it an appropriate setting for the purposes of this study. The sample for this study was a purposive convenience sample consisting of students in Grade 11 who attend comprehensive high schools in the district. There were 2,778 students in Grade 11 at the time of the study, approximately 1,395 of who responded to the questionnaire utilized in this study, for a response rate of approximately 50%.

Grade-11 students were selected as the sample for this study because Grade 11 is a critical year in the lives of public school students. Blakemore and Choudhury (2006) note that adolescents show improvement from the ages of 11 to 17 years in the areas associated with selective attention, working memory, and problem solving. Additionally they discuss the possibility of improvement of other high level functions including self-awareness and the ability to understand others by applying beliefs and other attributes to those other than themselves, indicating that Grade-11 students possess a level of maturity that allows them to appropriately discuss metacognition and learning as well as reflect on and assess their school experiences more objectively than younger students. De Luca et al. (2003) discuss findings that indicate 15- to 19-year-olds have superior executive functioning over all other age groups they examined, including other school-aged subjects. Executive functioning is defined as the processes that are utilized in making responsible decisions, including the following four domains: attention control, information processing, cognitive flexibility, and goal setting (Anderson, 2002). Furthermore, Anderson (2002) agrees with De Luca et al. (2003) that executive functioning capacities develop rapidly throughout childhood into adolescence, stating that the increments of growth in the capacities of subjects slowed markedly after the ages of 15 to 17 years, the age range that encompasses most students in Grade 11. Grade-11 students also have the unique perspective of having 3 years of experience on which to reflect, including being completely involved in the public school experience with hindsight to intermediate and elementary years. Students in Grade 11 also have the benefit of being suitably removed from the interference of looking forward to graduation and the university experience, giving students in Grade 11 a unique perspective on the student condition. The increased executive functioning of adolescents in Grade 11 coupled with their unique perspective increases the notion that the results of this study will be generalizable to other secondary students.

Student academic achievement provided a frame of reference for differentiation in the analysis of the data collected. For the purposes of this study, a student’s categorical level of academic achievement was determined by using the student’s grade point average, which was defined numerically through student grade point average (GPA) on a weighted 5.0 scale.

Research Design

The research for this study utilized a mixed methods design. This mixed methods study incorporated quantitative and qualitative data to triangulate the data collected on student perceptions of the learning environment as related to achievement levels, student-teacher relationships, and satisfaction with the learning process.

This study utilized a questionnaire to gather quantitative data on student perceptions followed by semistructured interviews with focus groups of differing achievement levels (low, middle, and high). Triangulation using the quantitative questionnaire data and the qualitative interview data served as a vehicle for cross-validation of the results. Weaknesses in the data sets were identified by utilizing triangulation and both quantitative and qualitative data (Jick, 1979). In addition to triangulation, complementarity, or seeking to clarify or enhance findings of one method with the other, as well as development of the data of one method by the other (Bryman, 2006) were utilized in this mixed methods study. Furthermore, integrating what Harrits (2011) terms the scientific objective perspective with the “interpretive perspective” (p. 160) a more complete perspective was gained from the data as the limitations of objective quantitative data were complemented with the more subjective qualitative data and vice versa. In order to obtain a more complete picture as to the opinions and reasons behind the qualitative data it was imperative that interviews be conducted and qualitative data collected and analyzed. As Cresswell and Plano Clark (2011) assert, the questions sometimes are not readily apparent from quantitative data alone so to remedy the situation a qualitative approach can be added. Thus, the qualitative data provided depth to the objective quantitative data collected from the questionnaires.

Operational Definitions

Twenty-First-Century Learning Environment

The learning environment served as an independent variable in this study and consisted of the elements described in the literature of a 21st-century classroom. For the purposes of this study, 21st-century classroom elements included the following: debriefing, flexible learning spaces, availability of a virtual environment, multimedia materials, and networking and collaboration opportunities (Kelly, McCain, & Jukes, 2009; Lacinski, 2008; McCain, 2005; Prensky, 2001c; Tapscott, 2009). Responses to the items pertaining to these categories on the questionnaire provided a dichotomous variable of a perception of the presence of a 21st-century learning environment or there is a lack of perception of a 21st-century learning environment. Responses were categorized by indications of the presence of a 21st-century learning environment. Responses of three or above were considered to indicate the presence of a 21st-century learning environment, responses of two or below were considered to indicate the lack of presence of a 21st-century learning environment.

Student Achievement

Student achievement served as an independent variable in this study. Student achievement level was defined numerically through student GPA. Student achievement was divided into three levels: high, middle, and low. High academic achievement was considered as students who have a GPA above 3.5; middle academic achievement was considered as students who have a GPA including 2.0 up to but not including 3.5; and low academic achievement was considered as students who have a GPA below 2.0 on the weighted 5.0 scale. The GPA of the participants was populated into the survey data using the student data information system from district.

Student Satisfaction

Student satisfaction served as a dependent variable in this study. Student satisfaction was defined by how highly the student regards the education he or she received in the teacher’s class based on the following three basic needs of SDT as discussed by Ryan and Deci (2000): competence, relatedness, and autonomy. In other words, student satisfaction rating was meant to measure how well the teacher educated 21st-century students as reported by results on the questionnaire.

Student-Teacher Relationship

The student-teacher relationship served as a dependent variable defined by how well the student felt “known” by the teacher (Divoll, 2010). The student-teacher relationship was defined as involving the level of respect, trust, caring, and fairness that exists in the interactions between students and teachers. The strength of this relationship manifests in students who feel more valued and respected by the teacher being more committed to learning and better able to cope with adversity (Doll et al., 2010). Student-teacher relationship was measured by responses to questions on a questionnaire adapted from the student questionnaire developed and discussed by Divoll (2010).

Instrumentation

A paper-and-pencil questionnaire was developed to measure the effects of the learning environment on 21st-century students’ needs, perceptions of satisfaction in school, teacher-student relationship, and academic achievement (see Appendix A). The questionnaire was given to students in an advisory class. Although the questionnaire was given in a class and each student was handed a questionnaire to complete, participation was voluntary and therefore not all Grade-11 students in the district participated. Fowler (2009) asserts that self-administered instruments yield more accurate answers on sensitive questions than open-ended surveys or interviews. Because students’ perceptions of teachers and learning environments are personal, and possibly controversial, a closed ended, self-administered questionnaire format was utilized. Closed questions provided ordinal data, increased reliability of both respondents’ answers and the interpretation of the data, as well as helped better facilitate the data gathering process (Fowler, 2009). The survey instrument was in the form of a questionnaire with Likert-type scale responses that builds on the survey utilized by Divoll (2010) in measuring classroom relationships in reference to student/teacher relationships. Divoll’s instrument was adapted by adding items that address student satisfaction and identifies aspects of the 21st-century classroom such as debriefing, flexible learning spaces, availability of a virtual environment, multimedia materials, and networking and collaboration opportunities (Kelly et al., 2009; Lacinski, 2008; McCain, 2005; Prensky, 2001c; Tapscott, 2009).

Procedures

Principals were asked for assistance in providing time for all students in Grade 11 to participate in the study as well as permission to speak to focus groups of students on subsequent dates following the initial survey.

Once all students were placed in achievement categories, students were selected for invitation to participate in the appropriate focus group. The principal and lead counselor were asked for assistance in identification of extenuating circumstances that might prohibit a student from participation in the focus group activity, therefore creating groups of students for each level who would participate freely. Once selected, each student received a letter containing permission to participate, agreement to participate, confidentiality, and option to withdraw statements concerning participation in the focus groups.

Data Collection

The quantitative data were analyzed for trends in each of the areas of learning environment, student satisfaction, and student-teacher relationship. Based on the analysis of the quantitative data from the questionnaire, questions for each of the areas were developed for the focus groups interviews. The focus groups consisted of 3 to 10 students, and were of homogeneous membership as determined by student achievement level and school attended. The goal was to have each group large enough to facilitate sufficient interaction between the members but not be so large that too many voices prohibit fully exploring the opinions of the groups (Lichtman, 2010).

Focus groups were selected from two high schools; the highest achieving high school and the lowest achieving high school, as indicated by school ratings obtained from the Academic Excellence Indicator System established by the Texas Education Agency (2011). Three focus groups were formed at each of the two high schools, totaling six groups for participation in the study. From each school, focus groups were homogeneously formed based on student achievement level (high achievement level, middle achievement level, and low achievement level), as indicated by student GPA.

Each group was interviewed at the high school from which the group was selected. The interviews were conducted in the same room for each of the groups from the two schools with a duration ranging from 45 minutes to 1 hour and 45 minutes. The semistructured interview consisted of standard questions developed from the analysis of the quantitative data (see Appendix B). Additional opportunity to gather data in the interview came from spontaneous conversations that arose throughout the course of the interviews. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for coding.

Data Analysis

Research Question 1 was answered by a qualitative data analysis. Focus group interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. Initial analysis of qualitative data commenced with open coding that lead to emergent trends in the code. Analysis followed the constant comparative method whereby coding was done with reference to the four concepts of the study: learning environment, student achievement, student satisfaction, and teacher-student relationship. All data and coding was reviewed through peer review in which two outside researchers provided insight to the validity of the coding.

The protocol for the interviews was derived from participants’ responses on the student questionnaire with respect to the following three concepts: the presence of a 21st-century learning environment, student satisfaction, and student-teacher relationship. For the purposes of this study, a 21st-century learning environment was defined as a learning environment in which the following aspects were present: debriefing, flexible learning spaces, availability of a virtual environment, multimedia materials, and networking and collaboration opportunities (Kelly et al., 2009; Lacinski, 2008; McCain, 2005; Prensky, 2001c; Tapscott, 2009). Student satisfaction was defined as how highly the student regards the education received in the teacher’s class based on the aspects of SDT: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Student-teacher relationship was defined as the level of respect, trust, caring, and fairness that exists in the interactions between students and teachers. The strength of this relationship is based on the value and respect felt by students and the teacher’s commitment to learning as well as ability to handle adversity in the classroom (Doll et al., 2010).

The student questionnaire contained 24 questions that addressed the presence of a 21st-century learning environment, 7 questions concerning student satisfaction, and 21 questions focused on student-teacher relationship. Preliminary analysis of the student responses yielded a 13-question protocol for the semistructured focus group interviews.

Research Question 2 was answered through quantitative data analysis. Following the completion of the questionnaire, the student responses were scanned into the district’s student data system. The data from the questionnaires and the student achievement data were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and a two-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in student satisfaction as related to the state of the learning environment and student achievement. The two-way factorial ANOVA allows for analysis of the three variables concurrently to determine if there is an effect on student satisfaction by each independent variable, the state of the learning environment and the level of achievement, and if the independent variables, learning environment and achievement, interact with respect to student satisfaction as well (Salkind, 2008).

Research Question 3 was answered in the same fashion. An additional two-way factorial ANOVA was performed to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in student-teacher relationship as related to the state of the learning environment and student achievement. The two-way factorial ANOVA allows for analysis of the three variables concurrently to determine if there is an effect on student-teacher relationship by each independent variable (the state of the learning environment and the level of achievement) and if the independent variables (learning environment and achievement) interact with respect to teacher-student relationship as well (Salkind, 2008).

Data Preparation

Quantitative data from the questionnaire were grouped into the following three categories based on the research questions: twenty-first-century learning environment, student satisfaction, and teacher-student relationship. The questionnaire answer documents were scanned into the district’s student data system from which a spreadsheet of student responses was generated. Student responses were quantified by converting the letter response to a corresponding numeric value (A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4). The data were then separated into the above three categories and a mean score was generated for each category. As a result of the small sample size for the low achievement group and the instability of small samples in ANOVA, the low achievement data were excluded from the analysis, changing the matrix from a 3 × 2 to a 2 × 2.

Additionally, GPA was categorized into three categories based on the following delineations: high (above 3.5), middle (2.0-3.499), and low (below 2.0). Students whose GPA fell into the high category were given a GPA score of 3, students whose GPA fell into the middle category were given a GPA score of 2, and students whose GPA fell into the low category were given a GPA score of 1. Mean scores for 21st-century learning environment were also categorized into two categories. Scores 2.5 and above were considered to indicate the presence of a 21st-century learning environment and given a categorical value of 1, and scores below 2.5 were considered to indicate that a 21st-century learning environment was not present and given a categorical value of 0. The student GPA scores, learning environment values, the mean scores for student satisfaction, and teacher-student relationship were entered into SPSS. A two-way factorial ANOVA was performed twice; once to assess whether or not a relationship exists between students’ perceptions of the learning environment, satisfaction, and achievement for Research Question 2; and then again to assess whether or not a relationship exists between students’ perceptions of the learning environment, teacher-student relationships, and achievement for Research Question 3.

A preliminary analysis of the quantitative data allowed for the development of the focus group interview protocol, the questions for which were based on the same three categories of 21st-century learning environment, student satisfaction, and teacher-student relationship. All interviews were recorded and transcribed followed by a constant comparative analysis validated by peer review.

Summary, Implications, and Conclusions

Summary of Findings

The literature consistently shows that 21st-century students differ from prior generations of learners in many ways, including the methods by which students approach learning (Considine et al., 2009; Dresang, 2005; Franklin, 2011; Matulich et al., 2008; Nicholas, 2008; Niles, 2011; Prensky, 2001c; Schaber, Wilcox, Whiteside, Marsh, & Brooks, 2010; Tapscott, 2009). Galloway and Lasley (2010) assert that a paradigm shift is necessary for teachers if they are to help 21st-century students reach their full potential including the expectations for an increasingly active role in classroom life and utilization of knowledge and skills to solve problems and develop a sense of meaningful questioning that encompasses a broad range of academic interests. This study examined what learning environments best address the perceived needs of 21st-century students at the secondary level.

Collectively the quantitative data from the questionnaire and the qualitative data from the interviews revealed three major themes with regard to 21st-century students’ perceived needs and the learning environment.

Research Question 1

Research Question 1 (What learning environments best support the needs of 21st-century students?) was answered by analyzing the qualitative data obtained through the focus group interviews. Qualitative analysis of the interview data revealed three major themes regarding student satisfaction and student-teacher relationship. Each theme is discussed below.

Autonomy

Analysis of the qualitative data from the key aspects of the study (presence of a 21st-century learning environment, student satisfaction, and teacher-student relationship) revealed that students perceived an autonomous state of class as enjoyable. Students felt that when teachers provided the elements of a 21st-century learning environment in class, students were provided with a greater amount of choice and authority over the learning process. Through debriefing, flexible learning spaces, virtual environments, multimedia materials, and collaboration opportunities students saw opportunities to become more autonomous. Repeatedly, it was stated that being allowed to have choice, whether the choice was about where to sit, with whom to work, or when to have access to classroom materials (as in 24-hour access), was important to students of all achievement levels.

Previous research supports this finding. Prensky (2008) discusses the importance of giving students a voice in their learning and how letting students have a voice encourages engagement in the classroom. Students become more engaged when they feel they are in charge of making a difference in their education (Doll et al., 2010). Doll et al. (2010) further identify students as “autonomously engaged” (p. 204) when they are able to set personal goals and given the ability to self-regulate in order to achieve those goals. Furthermore, Strom et al. (2010) suggest that students felt more autonomous with 24-hour access and therefore had higher achievement when given the opportunity to work at any time in any place.

Relevance

Analysis of the qualitative data from the key aspects of the study (presence of a 21st-century learning environment, student satisfaction, and teacher-student relationship) revealed that students perceived relevance of material, presentation, and teacher competence as critical to satisfaction and student-teacher relationship. Students felt that teachers who were competent in both curriculum and presentation added to the value of the class, therefore making it more satisfying to the student. Students also expressed a respect for teachers who were excited and enthusiastic about the material, many saying that content did not matter; presentation and student-teacher relationship were key factors in engagement and student enjoyment of the class.

Gentry et al. (2011) assert that passion, humor, and high expectations are aspects of exemplary teachers as identified by 21st-century students. Additionally, Tapscott (2009) explains that 21st-century students do not fit the old model of teacher-centric discussions; rather they prefer to discover and find relevance in their learning through a partnership with the teacher. Indeed, if teachers are to be designers of engaging experiences for students, the focus should be on relevant activities and meaningful exercises in which the relevance to the student is the key aspect for both educator and student (Schlechty, 2011).

Connection

Analysis of the qualitative data from the key aspects of the study (presence of a 21st-century learning environment, student satisfaction, and teacher-student relationship) revealed that students perceived connection in the form of two-way conversations, respect, care, teacher knowledge of the student, and teacher willingness to share personally with the class as key aspects of a positive learning experience. Students overwhelmingly mentioned respect, care, and conversation in interviews as being aspects of a motivating environment. Students added that teachers who spent time getting to know students and individual learning styles were much better teachers. Those who did not make the effort were seen as just teaching “because of a job.” Many added that teachers who are not afraid to share some personal information about themselves are seen as more open to getting to know about students as well.

Laguardia and Pearl (2009) report that many 21st-century students are bored in the classroom due to a perception of irrelevant curriculum or simply that the teachers do not seem to care. Gentry et al. (2011) assert that students find teachers who care about students and take a personal interest in them to be exemplary teachers; thus, teaching 21st-century students requires more personalization than ever before (Galloway & Lasley, 2010).

Research Question 2

Research question 2 (What relationships exist between students’ perceptions of the learning environment, satisfaction, and achievement?) was answered by conducting a two-way ANOVA.

A 2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship student achievement and the presence of a 21st-century learning environment have with student satisfaction. The analysis indicated significant main effects for achievement, and the presence of a 21st-century learning environment, as well as a significant interaction between achievement and the presence of a 21st-century learning environment. Although there were significant results for the two variables and interaction between them, the variance explained by the presence of a 21st-century learning environment (24%) was much larger than the variance explained by student achievement (4%) and the interaction between the presence of a 21st-century learning environment and achievement (1%). Therefore, the learning environment has the greatest impact on student satisfaction for this sample of students.

These findings are consistent with the literature. Istance (2010) discusses the importance of an effective learning environment and how all aspects of effectiveness must be present in order for the environment to maintain its effectiveness. Divoll (2010) supports the importance of the learning environment as defined as a “classroom community” (p. 4) in promoting student satisfaction.

Research Question 3

Research question 3 (What relationships exist between students’ perceptions of the learning environment, teacher-student relationships, and achievement?) was answered by conducting a two-way ANOVA.

A 2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effects student achievement and the presence of a 21st-century learning environment have on student-teacher relationships. The analysis indicated significant relationships between student achievement and student-teacher relationships as well as a significant relationship between the presence of a 21st-century learning environment and student-teacher relationship. The analysis also indicated a significant interaction between achievement and the presence of a 21st-century learning environment. In analyzing the relationships between the presence of a 21st-century learning environment and student-teacher relationship, student achievement and student-teacher relationship, and the interaction of student achievement and the presence of a 21st-century learning environment, 25% of the variance in student response can be attributed to the presence of a 21st-century learning environment as opposed to only 4% for student achievement and 1% for the interaction between the two independent variables. As in Research Question 2, the presence of a 21st-century learning environment has the greatest impact on student-teacher relationship.

The focus of Divoll’s (2010) study was to discover how a relationship-driven classroom community can improve the learning experience for students. The results of this study support his findings in that the learning environment plays a key role in student-teacher relationships and the learning experience. Furthermore, teacher enthusiasm, and feedback, as well as communication between the student and teacher are all motivators for students (Gentry et al., 2011; Holubová, 2010).

Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice

The discussion that follows addresses potential implications for theory, research, and practice. Each will be addressed separately below.

Theory

The theoretical framework for this study centers on SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000), in which it is theorized that human motivation revolves around the three basic needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy through which students have the capacity to manage learning and set goals for themselves (Doll et al., 2010). SDT is additionally supported through a description offered by Pink (2009) as Motivation 3.0, in which autonomy and efficacy, including respect and self-perception, drive motivation as opposed to extrinsic rewards.

The results of this study support the concepts of SDT as students expressed a need for autonomy, relevance, and connection. Additionally the quantitative data indicated that the presence of a 21st-century learning environment (an environment that provides for student autonomy, competence, and relatedness through student-teacher relationships) is significantly related to student satisfaction and student-teacher relationships and therefore has an impact on both.

Research

Prior research regarding 21st-century students has primarily been concerned with students of elementary age or students who are already in postsecondary educational institutions. Prior research also has been primarily on how technology affects 21st-century students and their teachers in the learning environment. This study has contributed to the current body of research by studying students at the secondary level as well as finding that technology, while important, is not necessarily as strong as the student-teacher relationship in which students and teachers trust one another to be partners in learning.

Future research might include studying a sample that would be more generalizable across all secondary students. This study was solely about students in Grade 11; therefore, future studies could include students from a larger range of grade levels. Additionally, no attention was paid to gender, race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, all of which are important and should be investigated further by future studies. Future research might also include urban, suburban, and rural districts for a better cross-section of students’ perceived needs in the learning environment furthering the breadth of the study as this study was done in one suburban school district in southeastern Texas. Finally, a longitudinal study of students’ perceived needs as they grow might show a difference in perception as students age, which would also add to the literature.

Practice

This study concluded that the presence of a 21st-century learning environment is related to student satisfaction and student-teacher relationships. It was further concluded that the elements of a 21st-century learning environment that had the greatest effect (autonomy, relevance, and connection) were those that are fostered in a strong student-teacher relationship.

Galloway and Lasley (2010) declare that teacher-centric lecture and other 20th-century educational practices are anachronistic and ill-suited for 21st-century students. This study supports their findings and suggests that teachers take the time to get to know students, share the learning process with their students, and design meaningful relevant lessons that will allow students to utilize strengths and realize educational goals.

Implications for School Leaders

The conclusions of this study influence the practices of school leaders as they are the architects and guardians of school culture and have the responsibility to build professional capacity in school personnel. School culture is a complex task involving many facets, lending the opportunity for educational leaders to involve the educators in the task of transformation (Leithwood et al., 2007). Once teachers begin to feel a sense of professional efficacy in the three themes outlined in this study, they will begin to impact student achievement. As Childs-Bowen, Moller, and Scrivner (2000) suggest, the charge of educational institutions is to increase student achievement, therefore educational leaders must invest energy into building capacity of educators rather than the traditional managerial concerns. By creating a culture that promotes a positive learning environment, educational leaders can increase teacher capacity and therefore increase student capacity and achievement (Ross & Gray, 2006). Furthermore, by understanding the importance of the themes of autonomy, relevance, and connection, educational leaders have the opportunity to transform education into a collaborative, enjoyable experience for teachers and students by building a culture that celebrates these themes.

It is of paramount importance to educational leaders to understand the preferences and needs of 21st-century learners as they are not only the generation with which educators must interact everyday in schools and classrooms, but they also comprise the vast majority of new teachers coming into the workforce, further emphasizing the need for educational leaders to understand the preferences of this group. Green and Roberts (2012) assert that greater than 80% of new employees did not view loyalty in terms of longevity, as opposed to their older counterparts, of whom more than 90% agreed that loyalty was equivalent to the desire to stay for the long term with one employer. With the increased tendency toward mobility in the workforce, recruitment and retention of quality personnel becomes an issue with which educational leaders must concern themselves. By addressing autonomy, relevance, and connection culturally, educational leaders have the capacity to create an attractive environment for 21st-century learners in the form of employees as well as students. Additionally, Lai (2011) emphasizes Ryan and Deci’s SDT as important in creating an attractive environment in which to work.

The cultural shift toward emphasizing autonomy, relevance, and connection in the classroom must be accompanied by the same emphasis within interactions between the adults in the educational environment. By modeling the values and desired behavior when interacting with faculty and staff members the educational leader further supports the mission of creating a 21st-century learning environment for students. Furthermore, such modeling shows employees that the leader is committed to the mission (Green & Roberts, 2012).

Educational leaders, by promoting collaboration and team-centered methods, can demonstrate the very skills necessary for cultural transformation to a 21st-century learning environment. By implementing practices that encourage autonomy of teachers by allowing for more participative leadership educational leaders provide a framework to which teachers can refer when attempting to transform their classrooms. Davis, Eickelmann, and Zaka (2013) discuss not only the importance of leaders but also the effect leaders have on teachers in the classroom. They assert that visionary, distributive leaders have great impact through the influence of teachers, implying that educational leaders who allow autonomy through distributive leadership provide more opportunity for change to occur in the culture of the educational environment. Educational leaders model relevance by staying knowledgeable, passionate, and having high expectations for themselves as well as the faculty and staff. Passion from the educational leader will manifest itself in the culture of the school and therefore into the classrooms. Two-way communication by taking the time to listen to adults on campus, getting to know each teacher on a personal level, and modeling the willingness to be open and vulnerable with teachers promotes connectedness within the faculty and creates a culture where retention of personnel might be less difficult.

Educational leaders, by attending to and emphasizing the three themes discussed in this study can have an impact on recruiting, retaining, communicating, and shaping the educators in their charge. By increasing the achievement and capacity of educators through autonomy, relevance, and connectedness, educational leaders affect the achievement and capacity of students.

Conclusions

The purpose of this recent study was to determine what learning environments best address the needs of 21st-century students at the secondary level. By investigating the perceptions of 21st-century students and connections to the learning environment, this study found that students’ satisfaction is related to the presence of a 21st-century environment as is the student-teacher relationship.

As discussed, many traditional secondary classrooms are teacher centric, creating students as passive receptors of information (Galloway & Lasley, 2010). Tapscott (2009) asserts that institutions will need to adjust and change paradigms in order to address the changes we see in students in the 21st century. Moreover, Franklin (2011) asserts that regardless of the level of technology in the environment, learning is not passive; learning and retention occur at higher levels when students are actively involved in the process. He further adds that learning is not what is in need of change, delivery of instruction must change.

While the majority of the literature on 21st-century students concerns technology and the changes students have undergone due to the nearly constant exposure to information communication technology, social networking, and instant information, this study found that students were not as concerned with technology as they were with the autonomy, relevance, and connectedness. Students were very vocal about the use of technology in the classroom, but it was usually under the guise of choice, or the ability to learn the way they liked to learn. Most important to the student was the relationship with the teacher as the relationship fosters everything from a sense of partnership in learning, to a feeling of connectedness and confidence in the teacher. The autonomy afforded to students through a respectful, connected, relevant relationship with the teacher supplied the elements of the 21st-century learning environment that the students felt were most needed. One student noted during interviews, “I feel like all of your questions just basically come down to relationships between the teachers and students.”

Regardless of the subject, curriculum, or level of technology in the classroom, the connection with the teacher is the key to engaging students in a way that will help them find education satisfying.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

J. Brett Lemley earned an EdD degree from the University of Houston–Clear Lake. He is currently the principal of Clear Horizons Early College High School in Clear Creek Independent School District. His research interests focus on student learning environments, including student-teacher interaction and the self-efficacy gained through student satisfaction with the educational experience.

Gary Schumacher received a PhD degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He currently is an assistant professor at the University of Houston–Clear Lake. His research interests include school planning models, teacher appraisal systems, and human resources management. He previously was the superintendent for the Monona Grove School District (Madison, Wisconsin).

Winona Vesey received a PhD from the University of Texas at Austin. She specializes in applied statistics, testing, standard setting, and high school reform. She currently is an associate professor at the University of Houston–Clear Lake. She is currently developing instructional materials in educational measurement and statistics for K-12 teachers and administrators.

References

Anderson

(2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8, 71-82. doi:10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724

Arnone

Reynolds

Marshall

(2009). The effect of early adolescents’ psychological needs satisfaction upon their perceived competence in information skills and intrinsic motivation for research. School Libraries Worldwide, 15(2), 115-134.

Benoit

M. B.

(2004). The dot.com kids and the demise of frustration tolerance. Alliance for childhood. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED485735.pdf

Blakemore

Choudhury

(2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 296-312.

Booth

(2011). This “they” believe: Young adolescents reveal their needs in school. Middle School Journal, 42(3), 16-23.

Bryman

(2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113. doi:10.1177/1468794106058877

Childs-Bowen

Moller

Scrivner

(2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 27-34.

Considine

Horton

Moorman

(2009). Teaching and reaching the millennial generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 471-481.

Cresswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Darner

(2009). Self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 39-49.

11.

Davis

Eickelmann

Zaka

(2013). Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 438-450. doi:10.1111/jcal.12032

12.

De Luca

C. R.

Wood

S. J.

Anderson

Buchanan

Proffitt

T. M.

Mahony

Pantelis

(2003). Normative data from the Cantab. I: Development of executive function over the lifespan. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 242-254. doi:10.1076/jcen.25.2.242.13639

13.

Divoll

(2010). Creating classroom relationships that allow students to feel known (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=open_access_dissertations

14.

Doll

Spies

R. A.

LeClair

C. M.

Kurien

S. A.

Foley

B. P.

(2010). Student perceptions of classroom learning environments: Development of the classmaps survey. School Psychology Review, 39, 203-218.

15.

Dresang

E. T.

(2005). The information-seeking behavior of youth in the digital environment. Library Trends, 54, 178-196.

16.

Flutter

(2006). “This place could help you learn”: Student participation in creating better school environments. Educational Review, 58, 183-193. doi:10.1080/00131910600584116

17.

Fowler

F. J.

(2009). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Franklin

(2011). Mobile learning: At the tipping point. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology–TOJET, 10(4), 261-275.

19.

Galloway

Lasley

I. J.

(2010). Effective urban teaching environments for the 21st century. Education & Urban Society, 42, 269-282.

20.

Gentry

Steenbergen-Hu

Choi

(2011). Student-identified exemplary teachers: Insights from talented teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 111-125. doi:10.1177/0016986210397830

21.

Gibson

S. E.

(2009). Enhancing: Intergenerational communication in the classroom: Recommendations for successful teacher-student relationships. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30, 37-39.

22.

Green

D. D.

Roberts

G. E.

(2012). Impact of postmodernism on public sector leadership practices: Federal government human capital development implications. Public Personnel Management, 41, 79-96.

23.

Gunn

T. M.

Hollingsworth

(2010). Preparing students, teachers, and administrators for the knowledge age through district and school based initiatives. International Journal of Learning, 17(5), 1-10.

24.

Harrits

(2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 150-166.

25.

Holubová

(2010). Improving the quality of teaching by modern teaching methods. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 25, 58-66.

26.

Hoyle

T. B.

Samek

B. B.

Valois

R. F.

(2008). Building capacity for the continuous improvement of health-promoting schools. Journal of School Health, 78, 1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00259.x

27.

Istance

(2010). A new international OECD project on learning: “Innovative learning environments.” International Journal of Learning, 16(12), 479-485.

28.

Ituma

(2011). An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus based university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12, 57-68. doi:10.1177/1469787410387722

29.

Jang

Reeve

Ryan

R. M.

Kim

(2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644-661.

30.

Jick

T. D.

(1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

31.

Kelly

F. S.

McCain

Jukes

(2009). Teaching the digital generation: No more cookie-cutter high schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

32.

Kolb

(2011). Adventures with cell phones. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 39-43.

33.

Kumar

Vigil

(2011). The net generation as preservice teachers: Transferring familiarity with new technologies to educational environments. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27, 144-153.

34.

Lacinski

(2008). A case study investigation of student perceptions of learning in a redesigned research university classroom environment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Theses and Dissertations database. (AAT 3335273)

35.

Laguardia

Pearl

(2009). Necessary educational reform for the 21st century: The future of public schools in our democracy. Urban Review, 41, 352-368. doi:10.1007/s11256-008-0115-9

36.

Lai

(2011). Employees’ perceptions of the opportunities to utilize their competences: Exploring the role of perceived competence mobilization. International Journal of Training & Development, 15, 140-157. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00376.x

37.

Larson

Miller

Ribble

(2010). 5 considerations for digital age leaders: What principals and district administrators need to know about tech integration today. Learning & Leading With Technology, 37(4), 12-15.

38.

Larson

L. C.

Miller

(2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47, 121-123.

39.

Leithwood

Mascall

Strauss

Sacks

Memon

Yashkina

(2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 37-67.

40.

Lichtman

(2010). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Marx

(2006). Sixteen trends, their profound impact on our future: Implications for students, education, communities, countries, and the whole of society. Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service.

42.

Matulich

Papp

Haytko

(2008). Continuous improvement through teaching innovations: A requirement for today’s learners. Marketing Education Review, 18(1), 1-7.

43.

McCain

(2005). Teaching for tomorrow: Teaching content and problem-solving skills. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

44.

Milne

A. J.

(2007). Entering the interaction age today. Educause Review, 42(1), 13-31.

45.

Nicholas

(2008). Preferred learning methods of the millennial generation. International Journal of Learning, 15(6), 27-34.

46.

Niles

(2011). Meeting the needs of the 21st century student. Community & Junior College Libraries, 17, 47-51.

47.

Pink

D. H.

(2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

48.

Prensky

(2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816

49.

Prensky

(2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424843

50.

Prensky

(2001c). Digital game-based learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.

51.

Prensky

(2006). Don’t bother me mom-I’m learning! St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.

52.

Prensky

(2008, May 22). Young minds, fast times: The twenty-first-century digital learner how tech-obsessed iKids would improve our schools (Edutopia.org, the George Lucas Education Foundation). Retrieved from http://www.nipissingu.ca/faculty/stephent/pdf/03.Prensky-Young.Minds,Fast.Times-The.Twenty-First-Century.Digital.Learner.pdf

53.

Rosen

L. D.

(2011). Teaching the igeneration. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 10-15.

54.

Ross

J. A.

Gray

(2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 29, 798-822.

55.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68.

56.

Sadik

Reisman

(2004). Design and Implementation of a web-based learning environment: Lessons learned. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5, 157-171.

57.

Salkind

N. J.

(2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

58.

Schaber

Wilcox

K. J.

Whiteside

Marsh

Brooks

(2010). Designing learning environments to foster affective learning: Comparison of classroom to blended learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 4(2), 1-18.

59.

Schlechty

P. C.

(2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

60.

Skiba

D. J.

(2005). The millennials: Have they arrived at your school of nursing? Nursing Education Perspectives, 26, 370-371.

61.

Stewart

(2009, Spring). Lessons from teaching millennials. College Teaching, 57, 111-118.

62.

Strom

Wing

Beckert

(2010). Adolescent learning and the internet. Education Digest, 75(6), 10-16.

63.

Syh-Jong

(2011). Assessing college students’ perceptions of a case teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge using a newly developed instrument. Higher Education, 61, 663-678. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9355-1

64.

Tapscott

(2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

65.

Texas Education Agency. (2011). Academic Excellence Indicator System. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/

66.

Tingen

Philbeck

Holcomb

L. B.

(2011). Developing classroom web sites for 21st century learning. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47, 88-90.

67.

Trigwell

Ashwin

(2006). An exploratory study of situated conceptions of learning and learning environments. Higher Education, 51, 243-258. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6387-4