Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Students 1
sweeney@njit.edu
Richard Sweeney
973-596-3208
August 26, 2013
Understanding & Engaging Today’s College
Students
A Live Focus Group
Powerpoint (Revised 8/26/2013) available at:
http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/
Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
2
Agenda
1:30 - 1:45pm Research about college
students. No students
present.
1:45 - 2:15pm Live focus group of incoming
freshmen
2:15 - 2:30pm Q & A from faculty instructors
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
3
Our Goals Today
1. Learn some of the expectations, characteristics
and behaviors of incoming freshmen.
2. Learn what freshmen instructors could do to
better engage students and improve learning
success.
More Choices
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
4
“The manic commercialization of Internet content
arguably began with the initial public offering of
Netscape in August 1995.” p. 1379
Mowery, David C. and Timothy Simcoe. “Is the Internet a US invention?—
an economic and technological history of computer networking?”.
Research Policy. 31:8-9 (2002) p1369-1387.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
5
“The manic commercialization of Internet content
arguably began with the initial public offering of
Netscape in August 1995.” p. 1379
Today’s typical college freshman was
born in 1995 when the Internet began.
Mowery, David C. and Timothy Simcoe. “Is the Internet a US invention?—
an economic and technological history of computer networking?”.
Research Policy. 31:8-9 (2002) p1369-1387.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group
sweeney@njit.edu
Richard Sweeney
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
973-596-3208
Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group
sweeney@njit.edu
GI Gen
Richard Sweeney
Silent
Boomers
973-596-3208
Gen X
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
Millennials iGen?
8
Generations
Birth Years
Ages in 2012
GI Generation
1901 - 1924
89 - 102
Silent Generation
1925 – 1945
68 – 88
Baby Boomers
1946 – 1964
49 – 67
Generation X
1965 – 1979
34 – 48
Millennials
1980*- 1994*
19 - 33
iGen? Gen Z?
Gen Wii? Etc.
*1995 – Present
0 – 18
*Experts differ on start & end date of Millennial generation
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
9
New names for the next generation?
iGen?
Gen Z?
Gen Wii?
Multi Gen?
Homeland Gen?
Gen Me?
Post Gen?
Horovitz, Bruce. “Generation Whatchamacallit; The naming game
about tomorrow's youth.” USA Today May 7, 2012.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.libdb.njit.edu:8888/hottopics/lnacademic/?
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group
sweeney@njit.edu
Richard Sweeney
973-596-3208
Workforce 2013
1946
1990
GI Gen
Silent
Assumption:
Boomers
entry age: 23
Gen X
Millennials iGen?
retirement age: 67
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
Bridging the Generation Gap: A Millennial Focus Group
sweeney@njit.edu
Richard Sweeney
973-596-3208
Workforce 2023
1956
2000
GI Gen
Silent
Assumption:
Boomers
entry age: 23
Gen X
Millennials iGen?
retirement age: 67
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
Millennials In
Workforce
Millennials Not
12In
12
Workforce
College
Board
Born
1979Born 1986-1994
U.S. Births in
Thousands
Data from Web
1985
Under 23 yrs old
Boomers
Generation X
Millennials
23 yrs & older
5,000
1946
4,500
1965
14 Years
1978
1979
16 Years
1977
2008
1994
1994
2000
1982
Avg. 3,993
Avg. 3,832
3,415
Avg. 3,415 3,415
3,500
Births
3,415
3,000
Workforce 2008
2,500
Years
Huge Generation
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
19
74
19
72
19
70
19
68
19
66
19
64
19
62
19
60
19
58
19
56
19
54
19
52
19
50
19
48
2,000
19
46
Births in 1,000s
4,000
1964
19 Years
Number of High School Graduates,
1992-2022: New Jersey
120,000
100,000
80,000
2008
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
American Indian/ Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black non- Hispanic
Hispanic
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
White non- Hispanic
Non-Public Total
Source: WICHE/The College Board
14
“Using descriptors from the 16PF subscales, we found that
Millennial students are more warm and outgoing (Warmth),
more abstract than concrete (Reasoning), more adaptive and
mature (Emotional Stability), more dutiful (Rule
Consciousness), more socially bold and adventuresome
(Social Boldness), more sensitive and sentimental
(Sensitivity), more self-doubting and worried (Apprehension),
more open to change and experimenting (Openness to
Change), and more organized and self disciplined
(Perfectionism) compared to Generation X medical students.”
p. 574
Nichole J Borges et al. “Comparing Millennial and Generation X
Medical Students at One Medical School. Academic Medicine; 81.6
(2006): 571-576
Personality Test
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
15
“Furthermore, we found Millennial medical students to be
less solitary and individualistic (Self Reliance) than their
Generation X counterparts.” 574
Note: this study looked only at medical schools students:
Generation X
“Cuspars”
Millennials
born 1965 - 1980
born 1975 – 1980 (Gen X Subset)
born 1981 - 1989
Nichole J Borges et al. “Comparing Millennial and Generation X
Medical Students at One Medical School. Academic Medicine; 81.6
(2006): 571-576
Personality Test
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
16
“Millennial students scored higher than Generation X
students on the needs for Achievement and Affiliation.
Thus, our study findings may substantiate the
contentions of population theorists that, compared
with previous generations, Millennials have greater
needs to belong to social groups and to share with
others, stronger team instincts and tighter peer
bonds, and greater needs to achieve and succeed.” p. 574
Nichole J Borges et al. “Differences in motives between Millennial
and Generation X medical students.” Medical Education; (2010) 44:
570-576
Personality Test
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
17
“These three analyses show remarkably similar yearly
increases in college students’ narcissistic traits, with
students in more recent years scoring higher than
their predecessors.
The results clearly support the generational differences
model. The larger cultural changes in parenting, education
family life, and the media toward greater individualism have
apparently affected the personality traits of individuals.” p.
103
Twenge, Jean M and Joshua D. Foster. “Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Personality
Traits Among American College Students, 1982-2009”. Social Psychological and Personality
Science January 2010 vol. 1 96-106. accessed
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/4330/npitimeupdatespps.pdf
88/15/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
18
“It is possible, however, that some of the same cultural
influences that have increased self-esteem have also
increased narcissism (e.g., school programs with themes
such as ‘‘I am special’’).” p. 104
Sense of entitlement?
Twenge, Jean M and Joshua D. Foster. “Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Personality
Traits Among American College Students, 1982-2009”. Social Psychological and Personality
Science January 2010 vol. 1 96-106. accessed
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/4330/npitimeupdatespps.pdf
88/15/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
19
“First, introductory classes are disproportionately important to
students' development of academic taste, and hence, their
persistence in academic fields. These classes should quite
literally be thought of as introductions‒ greetings‒ in which faculty
either welcome students in warmly, or slam the door in their faces,
as the case may be. Second, the overall organization of faculty in a
college curriculum can have important consequences to students'
evaluations of academic fields, and to some extent, their
evaluation of the entire college itself as a worthwhile experience.
Single, poorly designed and run courses can ruin a student's year,
while great ones can stay with students long after they graduate.
Negative effects should be minimized, and positive ones
maximized. Third, A few great teachers have a disproportionate
and positive effect on students.” p. 27
Chamblis, Dan and Christopher G. Takacs. “Faculty Gatekeepers and Academic Taste in
Undergraduate Students’ choice of Major”. Paper presented to American Sociological
Society 8/10/2013. accessed http://www.themss.org/StudentPaperComp2013/G004_paper.pdf
88/15/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
20
“NEW YORK -- Why are some majors more popular than others with
undergraduates? Is it the perception that they lead to good (well paying)
jobs? Are certain fields naturally more attractive to new undergraduates?
Will students respond to tuition incentives to pick (or bypass) some
fields?
Maybe it’s much more simple: Undergraduates are significantly more
likely to major in a field if they have an inspiring and caring faculty
member in their introduction to the field. And they are equally likely to
write off a field based on a single negative experience with a professor.”
Jaschik, Scott. “Majoring in a Professor”. Inside Higher Ed. 8/12/2013 accessed
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/12/study-finds-choice-major-most-influenced-qualityXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
intro-professor88/15/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
21
“Almost all (99%) students surveyed reported having at least
one digital device, and while laptops were the most common
(93%), many students now own their own smart phones
(78%) and tablets (35%). This is a significant increase from
our 2011 survey when only 47% of students said they owned
a smart phone and 7% reported owning a tablet.”
“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College
Students’
Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-surveyon-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devicesand-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
22
“A majority (68%) of students use three or more devices
every day”
“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College
Students’
Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-surveyon-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devicesand-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
23
“47% of students say they check their devices every 10
minutes, up from 38% of students in 2011”
“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College
Students’
Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-surveyon-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devicesand-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
24
“59% of students say they are more likely to bring a laptop
or tablet to class while only 41% prefer to bring a textbook”
“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College
Students’
Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-surveyon-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devicesand-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
25
“Almost all students surveyed (90%) admitted they don’t
always complete the required reading in time for class. Of
those students, a majority (53%) report they would be more
likely to complete that reading if the material was available
digitally and could be viewed on mobile devices.”
“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College
Students’
Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-surveyon-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devicesand-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
26
“88% of students say they have used a mobile device for last
minute studying before a test, up from 79% of students surveyed
in 2012
79% of students felt that technology such as mobile devices,
digital textbooks, e-readers and tablets saved them time when
studying and learning
Of those students, 64% say technology saves them two or
more hours every day.”
“CourseSmart’s Third Annual Survey on Education and Technology Reveals College
Students’
Growing Dependence on Mobile Devices and Digital Course Materials”. July 22
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2013. Accessed at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coursesmarts-third-annual-surveyon-education-and-technology-reveals-college-students-growing-dependence-on-mobile-devicesand-digital-course-materials-216426861.html 88/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
27
“Blended-learning environments are the norm; students say
that these best support how they learn.
Even with varying levels of sophistication among blended
learning experiences, the vast majority of students in our
research (70%) said that these are the environments in
which they learn the most.”
Dahlstrom,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO;
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, September 2012, Available from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
28
Dahlstrom,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO;
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, September 2012, Available from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
29
Dahlstrom,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO;
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, September 2012, Available from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
30
Dahlstrom,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO;
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, September 2012, Available from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
31
Dahlstrom, Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Information
Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO;
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
32
Dahlstrom, Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO;
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
33
Dahlstrom, Eden. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
Information Technology, 2012 (Research Report). Louisville, CO;
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, September 2012, Available from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
34
“Study time for full-time students at four year
colleges in the United States fell from
twenty-four hours per week in 1961 to
fourteen hours per week in 2003, and the
decline is not explained by changes over
time in student work status, parental education,
major choice, or the type of institution
students attended..” p. 1
Babock,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Phillip and Mindy Marks. “Leisure College, USA: The Decline in
Student Study Time 2012. Education Outlook. American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research, No. 7 August 2010, Available from
http://www.aei.org/files/2010/08/05/07-EduO-Aug-2010-g-new.pdf
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
35
“Only a small fraction of the change
in study time can be accounted for
by changes in work hours. p. 6
“Further, students do not
appear to have reduced study time to
work for pay. Students appear to be
studying less in order to have more
leisure time.” p. 4
Babock,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Phillip and Mindy Marks. “Leisure College, USA: The Decline in
Student Study Time 2012. Education Outlook. American Enterprise
Institute
p. 6 for Public Policy Research, No. 7 August 2010, Available from
http://www.aei.org/files/2010/08/05/07-EduO-Aug-2010-g-new.pdf .
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
36
“Young cell owners are among the most active users of their
mobile devices, and cell owners between the ages of 18 and
29 also stand out from their elders when it comes to their
experiences with their phones. Specifically, young cell
owners are much more likely than older adults to use their
phone for entertainment or to relieve boredom (70% of 18-29
year old cell owners have done this in the preceding 30
days), to have trouble doing something when their phone is
not available (42% have experienced this) and to use their
phone as a way to avoid interacting with others (30%).”.
Lenhart,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Amanda,. “How Americans Use Their Cell Phones”. Pew Internet
& American Life Project 8/15/2011
Accessed at http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Cell-Phones/Section-1.aspx 2/13/2011
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
“Studies of student behavior and attitudes show that a
majority of students violate standards of academic integrity
to some degree, and that high achievers are just as likely to
do it as others. Moreover, there is evidence that the problem
has worsened over the last few decades.
CHEATING
Experts say the reasons are relatively simple: Cheating has
become easier and more widely tolerated, and both schools
and parents have failed to give students strong, repetitive
messages about what is allowed and what is prohibited.”
Perez-Pena, Richard. “Studies Find More Students Cheating, With High
Achievers No Exception”. New York Times. September 7, 2012 Accessed
at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/education/studies-show-more-studentscheat-even-high-achievers.html?_r=0 2/15/2011
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
“Studies of student behavior and attitudes show that a
majority of students violate standards of academic integrity
to some degree, and that high achievers are just as likely to
do it as others. Moreover, there is evidence that the problem
has worsened over the last few decades.
Experts say the reasons are relatively simple: Cheating has
become easier and more widely tolerated, and both schools
and parents have failed to give students strong, repetitive
messages about what is allowed and what is prohibited.”
Perez-Pena, Richard. “Studies Find More Students Cheating, With High
Achievers No Exception”. New York Times. September 7, 2012 Accessed
at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/education/studies-show-more-studentscheat-even-high-achievers.html?_r=0 2/15/2011
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
“However, the Millennial Generation is also highly
sensitive to criticism and reluctant to speak if they feel
uninformed or are unsure of how their comments will be
received. Faculty need to be aware of the unique
opportunities and also the vulnerabilities associated with
the Millennial Generation when planning classroom
discussions.” p. 6
Roehling, Patricia Vincent et al. “Engaging the Millennial Generation in
Class Discussions”. College Teaching. 59:1-6, 2011
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
Tips for Creating an Atmosphere Conducive to
Active Classroom Discussions
• DO
1. Work to develop a comfortable classroom atmosphere
at the very beginning of the semester while norms for
participation are being established.
2. Engage in exercises in which students get to know each
other, increasing their level of comfort with their classmates.
3. Show respect for all opinions, even those that diverge from
your own.
Roehling, Patricia Vincent et al. “Engaging the Millennial Generation in
Class Discussions”. College Teaching. 59:1-6, 2011
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
“Tips for Creating an Atmosphere Conducive to
Active Classroom Discussions
• DO
4. Set ground rules for civil discussions.
5. Moderate difficult discussions.
6. Show enthusiasm for the subject matter.”
p. 6
Roehling, Patricia Vincent et al. “Engaging the Millennial Generation in
Class Discussions”. College Teaching. 59:1-6, 2011
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
“DO NOT
• 1. Let a student feel isolated or unsupported in a
discussion.
• 2. Argue or openly disagree with a student during a
discussion.
• 3. Ask questions or engage in discussions in which
there is only one correct answer.
• 4. Create an authoritarian classroom atmosphere.”
p. 6
Roehling, Patricia Vincent et al. “Engaging the Millennial Generation in
Class Discussions”. College Teaching. 59:1-6, 2011
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
43
“ .”has taken almost a decade and a half to develop the
“It
Mastery Learning (ML) strategy to a point where large
numbers of teachers at every level of instruction and in
many countries can use the feed-back-corrective
procedures to get the 1 sigma effect (the average ML
student is above 84% of the students under conventional
instruction even with the same teacher teaching both the
ML and the conventional classes).p. 5
Bloom,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Benjamin S. “The Sigma Two Problem: The Search for Methods of
Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring”. Educational
Researcher. Vol. 13 No. 6 Jun-Jul 1984
Accessed at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf
8/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
44
“ .”
“However,
the most striking of the findings is that under
the best learning conditions we can devise (tutoring), the
average student is 2 sigma above the average control
student taught under conventional group methods of
instruction. The tutoring process demonstrates that most
of the students do have the potential to reach this high
level of learning.” p. 11
The average tutored student does the same as the 98% of
those taught traditionally in the classroom.
Bloom,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Benjamin S. “The Sigma Two Problem: The Search for Methods of
Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring”. Educational
Researcher. Vol. 13 No. 6 Jun-Jul 1984
Accessed at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf
8/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
Boersma, John. “THE TWO SIGMA SOLUTION”. Accessed at
http://adaptcourseware.com/the-two-sigma-solution/ 2/15/2011
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
46
“What
“ .” is Master Learning?
In traditional classrooms, student progress through the
class regardless of achievement. In mastery learning
classrooms, students must fully understand (demonstrate
mastery of) the material before moving onto the next topic.”
…The average student under mastery learning was about
one standard deviation above the average of the control
class.”
The average mastery learning student does better than 84%
of those taught traditionally in the classroom.
Bloom,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Benjamin S. “The Sigma Two Problem: The Search for Methods of
Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring”. Educational
Researcher. Vol. 13 No. 6 Jun-Jul 1984
Accessed at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf
8/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
47
Krempeaux,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Charles Iliya. “One-On-One Tutoring Can Improve Student's
Performance By 2 Standard Deviations”. Accessed at
http://changelog.ca/quote/2012/09/23/tutoring_two_sigma 2/15/2011
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
48
“ .”
“Teachers
are frequently unaware of the fact that they
are providing more favorable conditions of learning for
some students than they are for other students. Generally, they are under the impression that all students in
their classes are given equality of opportunity for
learning.” p. 11
Bloom,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Benjamin S. “The Sigma Two Problem: The Search for Methods of
Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring”. Educational
Researcher. Vol. 13 No. 6 Jun-Jul 1984
Accessed at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf
8/13/2013
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
and Now…
onto our Incoming Freshmen Focus Group…..
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney
Understanding & Engaging Today’s College Students 50
sweeney@njit.edu
Richard Sweeney
973-596-3208
August 26, 2013
Understanding & Engaging Today’s College
Students
A Live Focus Group
Powerpoint (Revised 8/26/2013) available at:
http://library1.njit.edu/staff-folders/sweeney/
Please note that this document is copyrighted and licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Copyright 2013 Richard Sweeney