Generation Y: Educational Considerations

The majority of Generation Y-ers come from parents who are members of the latter half of the Baby Boom Generation. This article provides a brief synopsis of personality traits from each generation within the twentieth century, with a particular emphasis on Generation Y. A succinct overview of Generation Y's educational and parental influences is provided, as well as the manifestation of adult characteristics such as narcissism, multitasking, open-mindedness, and technological expertise and the ramifications of such traits. Furthermore, educational implications are broached regarding the merging of Generation Y's qualities against academic institutional values.

Keywords Baby Boom Generation; Generation X; Generation Y; Higher Education; Mature Generation; Narcissism; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); Student Populations; Technological Influences

Overview

There have been many historians, scholars, and political experts who have substantiated the existence of collective traits that are shared by any given generation, including sociologists Mannheim (1936) and Feuer (1962). Likewise, Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset (Esler, 1974) spoke on behalf of this matter by purporting that people's values, interests, repulsions, and hindrances often follow patterns similar to others within the same generation, as is depicted in the following passage:

At one time I pictured a generation as a caravan within which man moves a prisoner, but at the same time, a voluntary one at heart, and content. He moves within it faithful to the poets of his age, to the political ideas of his time, to the type of woman triumphant in his youth, and even to the fashion of walking which he employed at twenty-five. From time to time he sees another caravan pass with a strange and curious profile; this is the other generation. Perhaps celebrations on a feast day may bring the two together, may blend them; but as the hour of normal living approaches the somewhat chaotic fusion divides the two organic groups. Each individual mysteriously recognizes each other by a peculiar pattern of odor (Esler, 1974, p. 6).

In the twentieth century, there has been a significant amount of research highlighting the divergent standards found between each generation (Kipnis, 2004; Norum, 2003; Patterson, 2007; Sujansky, 2004). Although discrepant names have been used to categorize these generations (e.g., "Generation Y," "Millenial Generation") as well as differentiation among some experts regarding the onset of each generational bracket, for purposes of this article the following names and timeframes have been assigned accordingly:

• Matures, born between 1900–1946;

• Baby Boomers, born between 1946–1964;

• Generation X, born between 1965–1982;

• Generation Y: born between 1982–1991 (Skiba & Barton, 2006).

Characteristics that have been attributed to each generation reflect various social, political, economic, and entertainment ideals. For example, influences that shaped Matures included the Depression, the New Deal, World War II, and the GI Bill, whereas the Baby Boomers reaped the benefits of an affluent economy within the precincts of suburban life as they dabbled with sexual, substance, and musical experimentation (Smith & Clurman, 1997). Matures were instilled with the value that diligence, reverence, and adhering to authority figures yielded favorable results, while Baby Boomers were encouraged to rebel against such established norms (Weston, 2006).

Members of Generation X, on the other hand, saw the introduction of many societal patterns that remain evident at the present time, including the advent of technological innovations (e.g., computers, video games), and modern-day conveniences such as microwaves. As children, Generation X-ers experienced high rates of parental divorce and were exposed to female role models who pursued advanced educational degrees and adopted professional identities that had been previously reserved for men. The inception of the "latchkey" phenomenon originated within this generation, whereby single mothers worked extended hours at the office and left unsupervised children at home to fend for themselves. Lonely, these Generation X-ers found solace among peers who were undergoing similar arrangements and thus formulated strong friendship networks that often superseded their family relations. This, among other relationship-oriented trends within a depressed economy, contributed to a conglomeration of Generation X traits that include cynicism, laziness, and apathy (Holtz, 1995).

The focal point of the current article is that of the subsequent generation, Generation Y. Other names that are often affiliated with this group include the Millennium Generation, referencing the timeframe in which many members of this generation graduated from high school, and Generation Net, alluding to the substantial use of technology found among such individuals (Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999).

Background of Generation Y

The majority of Generation Yers come from parents who are members of the latter half of the Baby Boom Generation, otherwise regarded as the "Me" generation (Weston, 2006) based upon the cultural endorsement that encouraged their self-growth, expressiveness, increased educational opportunities, and material gain. These Baby Boom parents delayed family and child-rearing endeavors, partly so that they could nurture their personalized developmental interests and professional strides. When the time drew near for them to give birth to the current generation, i.e. Generation Y, they approached their parental duties with tremendous enthusiasm (Hira, 2007).

Baby Boom parents were often criticized for indulging their children with lavish amounts of attention and praising them for being exceptional and unique. During their younger years, these Baby Boomers were encouraged to voice their opinions on relevant social issues such as Vietnam War involvement, the Civil Right movement, and women's equality. As parents in the 1980s, these Baby Boomers re-directed their "cause" as they channeled their energies toward advocating on behalf of their children. Baby Boom parents rallied behind their offspring as they displayed "Baby on Board" signs in their car windows and donned bumper stickers that passionately proclaimed their children's honor roll status.

Some experts speculate that the motives behind the fervent Baby Boom parenting techniques and material indulgences served as a guise to mask their underlying feelings of guilt surrounding excessive involvement in the workforce, since two-parent households continued to be a societal norm. However, in contrast to the latchkey movement that categorized many Generation X-ers, Baby Boom parents ensured that their Generation Y children were closely monitored, enrolling them in daycare centers to provide custodial supervision during the day as well as a variety of other organized group associations that offered skill (e.g., piano lessons) or sport development, as well as hobby maintenance. Generation Y-ers were highly involved with such extracurricular affiliations since the goal of many Baby Boom parents was to expose their children to a broad range of activities. Whether or not these Generation Y-ers demonstrated a natural proclivity for such endeavors, they were oftentimes rewarded with trophies or certificates that emphasized their effort and participation rather than whether or not they possessed any skill.

Concurrent Shifts in Public Education

During this time period, there were significant paradigm shifts within public education such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that mandated the standardization of school curricula (Ogden, 2007). Proponents of NCLB felt that teachers would be held accountable for their instructional methods, and students would exit high school with consistent educational frames of reference. Critics of NCLB feared that such a uniform approach to schooling was mechanistic and the promotion of rote memorization discouraged the development of creativity and abstract thought (Arce, Luna, Borjian, & Conrad, 2005).

Paradoxically, schools at this time sought to adhere to each student's individualized needs through the advent of Individualized Educational Programs (i.e., IEP) (Tennant, 2007) and involvement in various programs that focused on behavioral modification and/or learning disabilities. The pervasiveness of certain diagnoses, including attention-deficit related disorders (i.e., ADD and ADHD) was rampant (McGinnis, 1997). This contrasted with previous generations of students that were required to adapt to the institutional norms that dictated conduct and learning styles and often overlooked those with special-education needs.

During their formative years, Generation Y youth were confronted with many large-scale acts of violence including the Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine High School shootings, and the tragic events that took place on September 11th, 2001 (Weston, 2006). Pervasive media coverage on these events familiarized Generation Y-ers with many of the details, dynamics, and contributing factors surrounding such episodes.

Further Insights

Generation Y Characteristics

As Generation Y students are entering college and/or the labor force, many of their personal qualities have been scrutinized by professors, supervisors, and older-generation colleagues who seek to understand their distinctive personality blueprints. There are many traits embodied by this group, one of which is the possession of strong family ties (Leo, 2003; Murray, 2004). Perhaps this is a by-product of the intense parental involvement that was bestowed upon them throughout their upbringings, or possibly it is a result of the existence of societal violence (e.g., September 11th) that served as a platform to encourage open discussions between Generation Y-ers and their Baby Boom parents about their fears and vulnerabilities, thus forging meaningful bonds. Indeed, the impenetrable connection that Generation Y holds toward their parents can be illustrated by their living arrangements, in that many of them reside with their parents for extended periods of time (Hira, 2007; Koss-Feder, 1998), whereas previous generations initiated more autonomy by moving out shortly after entering into adulthood and pursuing higher levels of self-sufficiency.

Attitudes toward Diversity

There are many positive attributes that are often associated with Generation Y-ers such as their open-minded attitudes toward ethnic, religious, and sexual-orientation diversity (Greene, 2003). This is partially due to the changing demographics of US culture, including an influx of immigration in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as the increased normalization and acceptance of people disclosing their gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e., GLBT) identities. Moreover, Internet accessibility has provided Generation Y with the opportunity to establish friendships with people on every continent. The Internet has also enabled this generation to anonymously seek information on alternative lifestyles or join support groups that offer validation for identities that may have been otherwise stigmatized ("Narcissistic," 2007).

Multi-taskers

Further attributes of Generation Y-ers are that they are more confident, optimistic, ambitious, and highly educated than their predecessors, Generation X. They possess a keen propensity to multi-task (Murray, 2004), which had been refined during their formative years when they were engaged in multiple activities as well as when they would perform tasks (such as homework) while simultaneously being "hooked up" to other modalities of communication (e.g., surfing the Internet, chatting online with friends, or watching television). Another derivative of the numerous engagements they undertook during their childhood is that they are natural collaborators who are able to strike a harmonious chord with peers during the process of group activities and projects (Skiba, 2005).

A Hint of Narcissism

One of the most prevailing negative characteristics that define Generation Y is narcissism, or the faulty assumption that they possess special qualities that significantly surpass others. One factor that perpetuates these augmented levels of self-inflation is the abundance of online website promotion on which people post "blogs" through various web pages (e.g., Tumblr, Facebook) that are solely designated to endorse their interests and thoughts as well as display complimentary pictures. YouTube is another website that allows individuals to post video clips of themselves, their friends, or their cinematic observations. These opportunities thrust users into the cyber spotlight, creating a pretense that their perspectives are exceptional, which are viewed by the nameless, faceless masses, akin to the amount of attention received by celebrities ("Narcissistic," 2007).

There are many sub-categorical traits that are oftentimes correlated with narcissism, including feelings of entitlement, self-absorption, and materialism. These terms also coincide with adjectives that frequently describe Generation Y, and the mannerisms through which they convey such traits are demanding and unapologetic (Hira, 2007).

Technological Reliance

As referenced earlier, one of the prevailing hallmarks of Generation Y-ers is their reliance on technological devices, including email, chat room membership, instant messaging, text messaging, as well as excessive cell phone usage, accessible media connectivity (e.g., iPods, MP3 players, tablets, etc.), and video games that are becoming progressively more interactive and violent (Carlson, 2005).

The ramifications of such technological consumption are profound and multifaceted. Individuals with such exposure are able to maneuver through life with a sense of immediacy (Wood, 2006), and if they desire data on any given topic (e.g., movie/restaurant ratings, bibliographies of former presidents, recent celebrity scandals) they have such information at their fingertips by retrieving facts through Internet access (Giordani, 2005) on various hand-held apparatuses. It is debatable whether this type of instantaneous knowledge acquisition is to the benefit or detriment of society; at what cost does convenience override traits such as patience, exertion, and process oriented or labor-intensive pursuits.

The significance of technology imposing upon written and oral communication is noteworthy. For example, the writing style conducive for text and instant messaging is much more condensed (Gorman, 2006) with certain cryptic acronyms that are universally understood (e.g., lol = laughing out loud; brb = be right back; jk = just kidding). The long-term effects of using such an abridged version of the English language promote a generation that has difficulty with written elaboration. Verbal communication among Generation Y-ers has taken on a new life force, in that it is more casual and contains frequent amounts of "filler" words that partially function as a means to fill lapses of time that were once reserved for pauses and moments of reflection. In a fictional account, Long (2001) projects the oral communication patterns held by Generation Y members in the year 2033 as they describe their lives in their 50s.

Additionally, nonverbal communication patterns between members of Generation Y have also been impinged upon in response to excessive technology usage. It is not uncommon to see groups of youngsters in large social circles networking with each other. However, upon closer scrutiny, it becomes evident that the interactive norms are much more cursory than in previous decades. As opposed to extending direct attention towards those in their immediate social group, many are in continual connection with their technological devices while only halfheartedly upholding conversations with those in close physical proximity (Grimm, 2001). For example, among a group of high school students socializing on campus, it would not be unusual for each individual to be texting then talking on their cell phones then downloading material onto their laptops while simultaneously discussing relevant social happenings. The future outcome of such impersonal interactions may lead to disastrous results ranging from the demise of appropriate nonverbal communication to an overall reduction of intimate relationships. Moreover, Generation Y-ers have larger friendship circles that extend beyond their neighborhoods, cities, states, or even countries, which are maintained via technology (Abram, 2007). The current emphasis is on breadth rather than depth.

Viewpoints

Academic Implications

Many members of the Generation Y cohort are narcissistic, entitled, diverse, ambitious, technologically savvy, reliant on technology that impedes the development of interpersonal communication yet collaborative on group projects, attached to their families, and necessitate expeditious results. Further qualities that have been observed by academics within an educational arena are that Generation Y-ers become readily bored, easily distracted, and expect to be gratuitously entertained (Arhin, 2003; Wood, 2006).

The manifestations of such generational personality characteristics within an academic setting have produced unique dynamics. Students prefer that professors integrate technology into the classroom so that they can receive visual stimulation that complements lecture material. Professors complain that students are disengaged (Trout, 2000). Lengthy lectures are indirectly boycotted by students through their facial expressions that reflect boredom, or through declining class attendance. In lieu of such didactic methods, students convey a predilection toward collaborating with their classmates through small-group discussions and projects. Reading textbooks, mulling over material, and reflecting on concepts are much too time-consuming; students crave "in a nutshell" information such as PowerPoint slides that are accessible via media-specific educational websites (Carlson, 2005).

Should Educators Adjust?

Should professors make modifications based upon the emerging demands of their students, or should students adjust to the demands placed on them by professors? Carlson (2005) wrote an article that included testimonials made by various instructors surrounding such a debate, including a Washington, DC, professor who stated,

"It's very common to hear people say, 'Here's the Millenial or the digital generation, and we have to figure out how they learn. Poppycock. We get to mold how they learn" (Carlson, 2005, 'Not So Different').

Other testimonials have depicted professors who have made reasonable requests upon their Generation Y students, only to receive an entitled response, which is oftentimes interpreted as offensive and rude by other generations. The following exemplifies such a discourse:

The professor was teaching in a computer lab and saw one of his students sending an email to someone during the lecture. The professor told him to pay attention. 'I'm listening,' the student said. 'Well, I would like you to turn and look at me,' the professor said. 'Why?' said the student. 'I have an A in your course, and I can repeat back what you said' (Carlson, 2005, 'A Cultural Shift').

Conversely, other experts suggest that professors should acquiesce to the changing times by acclimating to the needs of Generation Y (Skiba, 2006). Skiba and Barton (2006) recommend that present-day scholars should incorporate technology into higher education by holding lectures in rooms equipped with appropriate technologies such as Web cams. Likewise, they suggest that faculty should avail themselves to students through the use of texting as opposed to traditional face-to-face office hour appointments and by conducting lectures and arranging guest speaker appearances through the use of video conferences.

Another issue that college faculty face with Generation Y is active transactions with "helicopter parents," a term used to describe overly-involved, protective, and highly concerned Baby Boom parents who "hover" over their children and intervene in affairs that should no longer require their supervision and input (Farrell, 2007; Shellenbarger, 2007). Such parents might attempt to accompany their children on college admission interviews or call professors in order to investigate the wellbeing of their adult children's academic progress. Despite good intentions and/or concerns about the amount of financial investment these parents are dispensing toward the academic achievements of their Generation Y children, they are legally prohibited by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (Lum, 2006) from gaining access into their children's grades without their approval. This has proved to be a source of frustration for many college administrators, as well as Baby Boom parents, who seek to shield, solve and absorb themselves in the lives of their children.

Conclusion

In summary, there are several sociological and family-oriented facets that contribute to the distinction between Generation Y and their antecedents (i.e., Matures, Baby Boomers, and Generation X). At the same time, all of the aforementioned cohorts regularly merge together during various professional, educational, and personal exchanges. Indeed, it is likely that many Generation Y-ers have supervisors, professors, mothers and fathers-in-law, etc. that operate from different generational perspectives and it behooves society to understand that these qualities directly reflect their macro-level influences. More importantly, knowledge of such generational variations can be the platform that allows each group to compromise and make appropriate behavioral changes conducive to establishing cross-generational alliances.

Terms & Concepts

Baby Boom Generation: People who were born between the years 1946–1964.

Generation X: People who were born between the years 1965–1984.

Generation Y: People who were born between the years 1982–1991.

Mature Generation: People who were born between the years 1900–1946.

Narcissism: Some of the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder include a sense of entitlement, the belief that one is unusually important, as well as the desire for excessive adulation (American Psychiatric Association [DSM-IV-TR], 2000).

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The standardization of public school systems, which focuses on teacher accountability and national test standards.

Technological Influences: The technological devices that have influenced many of the Generation Y-ers in terms of entertainment, communication, and other efficient functional purposes (e.g., writing academic papers). These devices consist of cell phones, video games, and computer programs. Activities include surfing the Internet, emailing, blogging, and texting.

Bibliography

Abram, S. (2007). Millennials: Deal with them! Part II. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 24 , 55-58. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26881394&site=ehost-live

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Arce, J., Luna, D., Borjian, A., & Conrad, M. (2005). No child left behind: Who wins? Who loses? Social Justice, 32 , 56-71. Retrieved November 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19781748&site=ehost-live

Arhin, A. O. (2003). Encouraging alternative forms of self expression in the Generation Y student: A strategy for effective learning in the classroom. ABNF Journal, 14 , 121-122. Retrieved November 15, 2007 from the EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12835637&site=ehost-live

Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G., & Murphy, L. (2012). Environmental attitudes of Generation Y Students: Foundations for sustainability education in tourism. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 12, 44–69. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=72107096

Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation in the classroom. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52 , 34-37. Retrieved November 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18584684&site=ehost-live

Essler, A. (1974). The conflict of generations in modern history. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Farrell, E. F. (2007). Deans can't stand 'helicopter parents,' but they hover, too, when their kids apply. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 , B8-B9. Retrieved November 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25307537&site=ehost-live

Feuer, L. S. (1962). American travelers to the Soviet Union 1917-1932: The formation of a component of New Deal ideology. American Quarterly, 14, 119-149.

Grimm, M. (2001). Cutting the cord. American Demographics, 23 , 66-68. Retrieved November 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3921701&site=ehost-live

Giordani, P. (2005). "Y" recruiting: New generations inspires new methods. NACE Journal, 65 , 23-25. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17492783&site=ehost-live

Gorman, M. (2006). Do you speak digital? School Library Journal, 52 , 33. Retrieved November, 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22695466&site=ehost-live

Greene, E. (2003). Connecting with generation y. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 15 , 31- 34. Retrieved November, 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10393330&site=ehost-live

Hills, C., Ryan, S., Smith, D. R., & Warren-Forward, H. (2012). The impact of 'Generation Y' occupational therapy students on practice education. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 59, 156–163. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73821244

Hira, N. (2007). The baby-boomers' kids are marching into the workplace, and look out: This crop of twentysomethings is different. A field guide to generation y. Fortune, 155 , 38-44.

Holtz, G. T. (1995). Welcome to the jungle. The why behind "generation x." New York, NY: St. Martin's Griffin.

Kipnis, D. G. (2004). Educating generation x and generation y: Teaching tips for librarians. Medical References Services Quarterly, 23 , 25-33. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15914654&site=ehost-live

Knowlton, D. S. (2013). Navigating the paradox of student ego. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2013, 19–30. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90211439

Koss-Feder, L. (1998). Want to catch gen x? Try looking on the web. Marketing News, 32, 20.

Leo, J. (2003). The good-news generation. U.S. News & World Report, 135 , 60. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11195562&site=ehost-live

Long, R. (2001). Book proposals from the future. National Review, 53 , 43. Retrieved November, &&, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational

Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4793612&site=ehost-live

Lum, L. (2006). Handling 'helicopter parents.' Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 23 , 40-42. Retrieved November, 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23188035&site=ehost-live

Murray, J. P. (2004). Nursing: The next generation. Nursing Education Perspectives, 25 , 106. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13221051&site=ehost-live

Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. London: Routledge.

McGinnis, J. (1997). Attention deficit disaster. Wall Street Journal-Eastern Edition, 230 , 14.

Narcissistic, but in a good way. (2007). Advocate, 983, 6. Retrieved November, 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24505722&site=ehost-live

Neuborne, E. & Kerwin, K. (1999). Generation y. Business Week, 3616, 80-87. Retrieved November, 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1511522&site=ehost-live

Norum, P. S. (2003). Examination of generational differences in household apparel Expenditures. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 32 , 52-75.

Ogden, W. R. (2007). Mountain climbing, bridge building and the future of American education. Education, 127 , 361-368. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24928367&site=ehost-live

Patterson, C. (2007). The impact of generational diversity in the workplace. Diversity Factor, 15 , 17-22. Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26090412&site=ehost-live

Shellenbarger, S. (2007). Helicopter parenting: A breakdown. Wall Street Journal- Eastern Edition, 250 , D1-D1.

Skiba, D. J. (2006). Think spots: Where are your learning spaces? Nursing Education Perspectives, 27 , 103-104. Retrieved November, 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20476876&site=ehost-live

Skiba, D. J. & Barton, A. J. (2006). Adapting your teaching to accommodate the next Generation of Learners. The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11 . Retrieved November, 13, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21264988&site=ehost-live

Smith, J. W. & Clurman, A. (1997). Rocking the ages: The Yankelovich report on generational marketing. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Sternberg, J. (2012). ‘It's the end of the university as we know it (and I feel fine)’: The Generation Y student in higher education discourse. Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 571–583. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78066026

Sujansky, J. (2004). Leading a multi-generational workforce. Occupational Health & Safety, 73 , 16-18. Retrieved November, 16, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13000928&site=ehost-live

Tennant, G. (2007). IEPs in mainstream secondary schools: An agenda for research. Support for Learning, 22 , 204-208). Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27414497&site=ehost-live

Thaler, V. S. (2013). Teaching historical research skills to Generation Y: One instructor's approach. History Teacher, 46, 267–281. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85849859

Trout, P. (2000). Great(er) expectations. National Forum, 80 , 3-5.

Weston, M. J. (2006). Integrating generational perspectives in nursing. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11 . Retrieved November, 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21264985&site=ehost-live

Wood, G. (2006). Recognizing the generational divide: When x meets y at the tribal college. Tribal College Journal, 17 , 24-25. Retrieved November, 17, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Educational Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20990828&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Gravett, L. & Throckmorton, R. (2007. Bridging the generation gap: How to get radio babies, boomers, gen xers, and gen yers to work together and achieve more. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Press Inc.

Lancaster, L. C. & Stillman, D. (2003). When generations collide: Who they are. Why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Martin, C. A. (2001). Managing generation y. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.