Pe cep ions on collabo a ion, ime
managemen and meaning ulness
Millennials’ inno a ions in he subjec
eache educa ion p og amme
Ma i a Mäkinen, Johanna Annala and Jy i Lindén
This chap e p esen s he highligh s o cu en s uden eache s’
pe cep ions o he subjec eache educa ion p og amme (STEP).
The s udy akes inspi a ion om he ‘weak signals’ sen by ecen
s uden eache coho s, which ha e begun o ques ion he adi ions
o eache educa ion mo e in ensely han e e be o e. He e and
elsewhe e (e.g. Boggs & Szabo 2011), many eache educa o s ha e
conside ed s uden eache s’ ideas o de eloping he STEP o be an
emba assing and unexpec ed s a e o a ai s. Howe e , we a gue ha
s uden eache s ep esen one o he key g oups ha mus be hea d
Ee o Ropo & Rii a Jaa inen (eds),
Subjec Teache Educa ion in T ansi ion: Educa ing Teache s o he Fu u e
Tampe e: Tampe e Uni e si y P ess, 25–45.
h p://u n. i/URN:ISBN:978-952-359-016-8
26
Ma i a Mäkinen, Johanna Annala and Jy i Lindén
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
in o de o main ain he e iciency o eache educa ion when acing
21s cen u y challenges.
By seeking new ways o lis en o and unde s and hese eache s’
oices, eache educa o s can diminish misunde s andings based on
in ui i e and aci gene a ional di e ences. Consequen ly, his chap e
aims o deepen he unde s anding o s uden eache s’ pe cep ions o
eache educa ion, pa icula ly in ega ds o STEP, h ough he lens
o gene a ion heo ies (Edmunds & Tu ne 2005; Kuppe schmid
2000; Mannheim 1952; S auss & Howe 1991).
While he li e a u e o en discusses gene a ional di e ences,
esea che s ha e ca ied ou ela i ely li le empi ical esea ch in
he educa ional sciences. The li e a u e is pa icula ly sca ce when
i comes o in eg a ing he pe spec i es o oday’s s uden eache s.
Also no able is he ac ha mos esea ch on gene a ional di e ences
has been conduc ed in he US. Fo example, Boggs and Szabo (2011)
app oached he phenomenon no ma i ely by de eloping cou sewo k
ac i i ies as a means o help p e-se ice p ima y eache s examine
and unde s and hei wo k habi s, a i udes and belie s om a
gene a ional pe spec i e. This app oach also aimed o help he
s uden eache s wo k amiably wi h in-se ice eache s du ing he
s uden - eaching expe ience.
Bon empo (2010) explo ed he needs o Millennials (Howe &
S auss 2000) in K–12 school se ings by iden i ying he ac o s ha
mo i a e hem o emain in eaching jobs. The s udy was inspi ed
by he ac ha hal o all eache s lea e he p o ession wi hin he
i s i e yea s. Rod iguez and Hallman (2013) explo ed he ways in
which he millennial hemes o globaliza ion and shape shi ing we e
p esen in p ospec i e eache s’ lea ne biog aphies.
This chap e con ibu es o he li e a u e abou Millennials, also
known as ‘Gene a ion Y’ (Hu s & Good 2007). Mos o oday’s
s uden eache s we e bo n a e 1980 and a e he e o e cha ac e ized
as membe s o he Millennial gene a ion. In he ollowing sec ions,
we s a by b ie ly depic ing he con ex and p ocedu es o he s udy.
Pe cep ions on collabo a ion, ime managemen and meaning ulness
27Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
We con inue by in oducing he main ideas o gene a ion heo y,
pa ing he way o an unde s anding o he subsequen sec ions
whe e we p esen he highligh s o he s uden eache s’ pe cep ions.
Acco dingly, we discuss hese pe cep ions in andem wi h gene a ion
heo y and p e ious indings abou Millennials in he con ex o
Finnish p e-se ice eache educa ion.
B ie in oduc ion o he s udy o
s uden eache s’ pe cep ions
Con ex
The s udy (Mäkinen, Lindén, Annala & Wiseman, 2018) in oduced
in his chap e was conduc ed in he STEP (2014). The STEP is
p o ided by he Uni e si y o Tampe e in coope a ion wi h he
School o Educa ion (SE), Teache T aining School (TTS) and
Disciplina y Facul ies (DF). The STEP p ima ily aims o educa e
eache s specializing in pa icula subjec s o seconda y and bo h
gene al and oca ional uppe seconda y schools. The p og amme
is in ended o be cong uen wi h he OECD model (OECD 2005) in
which disciplina y subjec s a e s udied alongside educa ional heo ies
and eaching p ac ice. In addi ion, he STEP cu iculum ollows he
Eu opean Teache Educa ion Cu icula (Eu opean Commission
2007), consis ing o gene al pedagogy, p ac ice in schools and subjec
didac ics.
The s a membe s who each in he p og amme a e gene al
educa ionalis s, eache educa o s and supe ising eache s. Focused
on he didac ics o one o mo e school subjec s, he eache educa o s
di e om gene al educa ionalis s (c . T ygg ason 2012). Supe ising
eache s supe ise he eaching p ac ices, which a e pe o med a he
TTS. The STEP is implemen ed in disciplina y g oups in acco dance
wi h school subjec a eas: ma hema ics and science, languages and
28
Ma i a Mäkinen, Johanna Annala and Jy i Lindén
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
social sciences. Acco dingly, he eache quali ica ion equi es a
mas e ’s deg ee in he DF o he s uden s’ majo s.
P ocedu e
Me hod. The s udy u ilized an in e p e a i e phenomenological
app oach (IPA), which is based on Heidegge ’s (1927/1962) and
Gadame ’s (1960/1975) philosophical wo ld iews, and on he
concep ha people c ea e meaning om li e expe iences, and hei
pe spec i es eme ge as hey ela e o pa icula imes and places.
In acco dance wi h IPA, we de i ed he in e p e a ions om he
esponden s’ sha ed li e expe iences and ela ionships wi h hei
pee s, eache educa o s, and and supe ising eache s.
Responden s and da a. The s udy was conduc ed in he o m o
semi-s uc u ed in e iews by ec ui ing a small g oup o olun ee s
(10 emales and 3 males) who ep esen ed each disciplina y g oup.
By limi ing he ocus o his small g oup o olun ee s, we we e able
o hone in on a nuanced iew o hei indi idual eali ies. All o he
esponden s we e bo n in he 1980s. A he ime o he in e iews, he
esponden s’ ages anged om 25–32 yea s, so hey o med a small
gene a ion uni (c . Mannheim 1952) ega ding hei li e expe ience.
The in e iew p ocess comp ised opics conce ning each esponden ’s
expe iences while s udying in he STEP; he challenges and esou ces
each s uden was equi ed o manage depending on hei pe sonal
si ua ion. Gi ing he in e iewees eedom o answe any way hey
chose was bene icial because hey el com o able enough o iden i y
he issues ele an o hem.
E hics. Ou e hical esponsibili y o he esponden s was also a
se ious conside a ion in how he da a we e collec ed, ea ed and
in e p e ed. The email con ac s and in e iews we e conduc ed by wo
esea ch assis an s who we e no amilia wi h he STEP o wi h he
s uden eache s being in e iewed. Th ough con inuous collec i e
e lec ions and esea che iangula ion, we ensu ed ha no one
Pe cep ions on collabo a ion, ime managemen and meaning ulness
29Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
imposed hei own expec a ions when analysing and in e p e ing he
da a. To mi iga e he po en ial o ou own assump ions a ec ing he
esul s, we used b acke ing in acco dance wi h Munhall (1994).
Analysis. The da a we e la en con en analysed using an abduc i e
esea ch s a egy i s in oduced by Pei ce (1966). Fo he p esen
pu poses, abduc ion e e s o he p ocess o o ming a plausible
explana ion o he phenomenon. The analysis consis ed o ou s ages.
In he i s s age, he ansc ip s we e examined ho oughly o gain
an o e all amilia i y. In he nex s age, he basic uni was iden i ied
as a iew ha an in e iewee had adop ed. These uni s we e hen
b oken in o wo ypes: uni s based on he in e iew opics and uni s
ha eme ged h ough se e al eadings o he ansc ip s. In he hi d
s age, we mapped ou he in e iewees’ pa e ns based on he uni s
cons uc ed in he p eceding phase. Finally, we selec ed and classi ied
he speci ic pe inen passages ha esembled he cha ac e is ics o
he Millennials sugges ed in ea lie esea ch.
Gene a ion heo ies
Mannheim’s (1952) iews on gene a ion lay a basis o examining how
cu en s uden eache s i in wi h he eache educa ion. Mannheim
de ined gene a ion as a g oup o people bo n and aised in he same
gene al ch onological, social, and his o ical con ex . He emphasized
ha bo h he gene a ional loca ion and he o ma i e expe iences
du ing you h a e key de e minan s o a pa icula gene a ion.
Gene a ional loca ion e e s o de ini e modes o beha iou , eelings,
and hough s, and o ma i e expe iences in ol e pa icipa ion in
he social and in ellec ual clima e o hei ime and place (c . Pilche
1994).

30
Ma i a Mäkinen, Johanna Annala and Jy i Lindén
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
Coupling o gene a ion and coho
I is impo an o no e ha Mannheim (1952) used gene a ion o mean
coho , which e e s o people wi hin a delinea ed popula ion who
expe ience he same subs an ial e en s wi hin a gi en pe iod o ime.
In ac , Mannheim’s de ini ion is seminal because i conside s bo h
ch onological and socio-his o ical app oaches o de ining coho s.
The ch onological app oach e e s o a coho bo n a a pa icula ime
ha sha es common ansi ions h oughou he li e-cou se, while he
socio-his o ical app oach de ines gene a ion as a coho who sha es a
collec i e consciousness o memo y (Edmunds & Tu ne 2005).
Mo eo e , Mannheim’s heo y conside s he di e ences bo h
be ween and wi hin gene a ions. Ac ual gene a ions a e o med by he
collec i e expe ience o majo e en s o aumas while gene a ional
uni s e e o g oups wi hin he same gene a ion ha cope wi h hei
expe iences in di e en and speci ic ways (Edmunds & Tu ne 2005).
This implies ha he e a e sub-cul u es ha o m h ough a smalle
g oup o people wi h simila loca ions and expe iences.
Mannheim’s desc ip ion has been suppo ed and expanded
by se e al esea che s. Fo example, Kuppe schmid (2000)
de ines gene a ion as a g oup o people who sha e bi h yea s and
expe iences as hey mo e h ough ime oge he , in luencing and
being in luenced by a a ie y o c i ical ac o s. The speci ic imespan
o each gene a ion has been es ima ed o co e app oxima ely 20 o
25 yea s. In sum, he coho heo is s a gue ha g owing up a abou
he same ime and expe iencing e en s a abou he same poin in
one’s de elopmen ine i ably leads o simila alues, opinions, and
li e expe iences o people wi hin each coho (Edmunds & Tu ne
2005; Kuppe schmid 2000; S auss & Howe 1991). Al hough di e en
schola s use di e en da es, he majo i y o he li e a u e ag ees ha
he Millennial gene a ion’s bi h yea s span he pe iod om 1980 o
1999 (Kuppe schmid 2000).
Pe cep ions on collabo a ion, ime managemen and meaning ulness
31Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
The gene a ional app oach has also ecei ed c i ique. In
sociological gene a ion esea ch, Donnison (2007) poin s ou wo
majo de iciencies. Fi s , gene a ion esea ch has been limi ed o
ce ain (Wes e n) cul u es. Second, he o ien a ions, quali ies and
needs o Millennials a e mos ly examined om he ins i u ional
and cul u al pe spec i es o p e ious gene a ions. Donnison (2007)
poin s ou ha in his case he in e p e a ions may e lec mo e he
p e ious gene a ions’ encul u a ion in o he sociocul u al con ex o
he 1980s and 1990s han he gene a ion which hey y o desc ibe. In
psychological and educa ional esea ch, he c i ique is o en a ge ed
a he analy ic wo h o he gene a ion concep and i s p oblema ic
models o explana ion (e.g. Helspe & Enyon 2009). Admi edly, one
o he bigges issues in esea ching gene a ions is ha he impac s
o age, cul u al pe iod and gene a ion a e logically in e wined
and, acco dingly, i is ex emely di icul o examine jus one o
hose sepa a ely (Pu honen 2002). Mo eo e , in popula discussion
he psychobabble s e eo ypes o Millennials domina e wi h no
connec ion o esea ch.
Howe e , despi e his c i ique, we belie e ha when used as a lens,
gene a ion is a po en ial concep in sociological esea ch o educa ion.
I p o ides a amewo k o unde s and meanings o collec i e
expe iences and discou ses by e lec ing hose wi h sha ed o ma i e
expe iences. As Co s en (1999, 258) pu s i , membe s o gene a ion
a e no connec ed by common ac o s, bu hey a e also linked o one
ano he by he eeling o he ac ha hey a e linked.
Millennials’ o ma i e expe iences
Di e ences be ween gene a ions a e a ibu ed o he powe ul
in luences o he en i onmen wi hin he socializa ion yea s.
These in luences deeply impac he de elopmen o an indi idual’s
pe sonali y, alues, and expec a ions (Macky e al. 2008). The
expe iences ha e lec majo shi s in he sociocul u al en i onmen ,
32
Ma i a Mäkinen, Johanna Annala and Jy i Lindén
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
such as highly salien e en s ha one gene a ion expe iences, majo
changes in li es yles, auma ic e en s, majo socioeconomic e en s,
and ad ancemen s in echnology, a e he mos signi ican (Cennamo
& Ga dne 2008). The e o e, due o he his o y and he cul u e o he
1990s and he 2000s, he Millennial gene a ion has dis inc o mal
expe iences. Edmunds and Tu ne (2005) a gued ha beginning
in he 1970s, he gene a ional coho s should be conside ed global
because “while gene a ions and gene a ional change ha e adi ionally
been unde s ood in na ional e ms, he e a e easons o suppose ha
globally expe ienced auma ic e en s may acili a e he de elopmen
o global gene a ions” (Edmunds & Tu ne 2005, 564).
The ea ly yea s o he Millennials can be cha ac e ized as being
shel e ed and insecu e. The mos signi ican globally igh ening
e en s in hei ea ly yea s we e he h ea s o iolence, e o ism,
and na u al disas e s. These include se e e school shoo ings in
No h Ame ica, Ge many and Finland in he 1990s and 2000s; he
Sep embe 11 e o is a acks (2001) and o he h ea s o e o ism;
he Mad id ain bombings (2004); he No way a acks (2011); he
sinking o he Bal ic e y Es onia (1994); he Asian sunami (2004);
and he en i onmen al h ea s, especially ega ding clima e change.
Majo poli ical e en s we e also impo an , such as he Cold
Wa (1985–91), he b eak-up o Eas Eu ope in he ea ly 1990s,
and he all o he Be lin Wall (1990). Also in luen ial ha e been
he socioeconomic global ansi ions, such as he ise o co po a e
mul ina ional capi alism, sha e ma ke collapses, sus ained ecessions,
pe ading unemploymen a es, and loss o job secu i y h ough he
1980s–1990s due o es uc u ings, p i a iza ions and mo e ecen ly
o sho ing (Macky e al. 2008). In Finland, he Millennials ha e
expe ienced he in luence o he o e hea ing o he Finnish economy
ha inally u ned he coun y in o a se e e ecession he beginning
o he 1990s by en ailing a deep dep ession and a huge inc ease in he
unemploymen a e om 3 o 18 pe cen . In 1995, Finland joined he
Eu opean Union.
Pe cep ions on collabo a ion, ime managemen and meaning ulness
33Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
Despi e he di icul ci cums ances, his age g oup has been
e e ed o as “Gen Sunshine” and “Gen Me,” which e lec he socie al
in luences du ing hei o ma i e yea s (Hun ley 2006; Twenge 2006,
2009). The desc ip ions a e ela ed o a socie al cul u al shi in which
pa en hood became a choice. Acco ding o Twenge (2006), his
gene a ion expe ienced con inuous p aise and encou agemen , which
ein o ced hei s eng hs and he de elopmen o hei sel -es eem.
Simila ly, Mye s and Sadaghiani (2010) and B oadb idge e
al. (2007) sugges ha Millennials ha e been aised o e all wi h
dedica ion, app o al, and a i ma ion. This posi i e disposi ion may
con ibu e o aluing high achie emen and a s ong sense o ai ness
and equali y. Concu en ly, di o ces and single pa en amilies ha e
become mo e equen (Cennamo & Ga dne , 2008). In Finland, nea ly
a hi d o ma iages (32%) esul ed in di o ce in 1980, bu 45%–53% o
ma iages ha e ended in di o ce since 1990 (S a is ics Finland 2012).
Fu he mo e, child en a e equen ly exposed o d ugs, iolen ideo
games, and sexually-cha ged ad e ising in e e y de eloped coun y.
Thei o ma i e yea s included a apid e olu ion o in o ma ion
and communica ion echnologies (Chelliah & Cla ce 2011; Mye s
& Sadaghiani 2010). They we e bo n in an e a in which he In e ne
was es ablished (in he ea ly 1980s). Hence, hey a e labelled as
echno sa y “Ne Gene a ion” (Tapsco 1998) and “Digi al Na i es”
(P ensky 2001). Technology and online social ne wo ks a e in eg al
pa s o Millennials’ social and pe sonal li e and iden i y cons uc ion
(Macon & A ley 2009). Howe e , al hough many s udies ha e
emphasized he ole o echnology in hei li e (Howe & S auss 2000;
Nimon 2007), esea che s seem o disag ee on whe he o no he
digi al li es yle and he use o echnology a e as powe ul ac o s in
iden i y cons uc ion as hey a e a gued o be.
40
Ma i a Mäkinen, Johanna Annala and Jy i Lindén
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
Despi e his ambi alen desi e o lexibili y and s abili y, he
esponden s sha ed a use ul pe spec i e ha should be conside ed
when c ea ing a mo e s uden -cen ed lea ning en i onmen . As
Benne and Ma on (2010) no ed, s uden s a e inc easingly sha ing
hei li e expe iences using social media. The nego ia ions o exis ence
and iden i y a e also inc easingly aking place online, which is
changing he dynamics o p esence and a endance. The e o e, new
ways o building up a li e na a i e a e highly in luen ial no ma i e
expe iences o he Millennial gene a ion. In his case, s able s udy
p og amme s uc u es in lexible en i onmen s may be an e ec i e
app oach o engaging s uden eache s in ac i e and dynamic lea ning
p ocesses.
Fu he mo e, he esponden s sha ed hei need o he STEP
o ul il hei expec a ions o meaning ulness. They challenged he
au ho i ies (supe ising eache s and eache educa o s) o ecognize
and empowe hei ull po en ial, which is in line wi h he indings by
Wong and Wong (2007). They bo h admi ed and c i icized he cul u al
habi s in he p og amme. Thei le els o us in he ela ionships
we e in cons an lux. The indings indica e ha he esponden s
need o iden i y he au hen ici y (c . K ebe 2013) o he ac i i ies
in he eache educa ion. In addi ion, hey pe cei ed eaching as an
in e pe sonal ca ee and iewed he o ma ion o good ela ionships
wi h pupils and colleagues as he mos impo an esponsibili y o
eache s.
The s uden eache s in ol ed in he s udy ook an ac i e ole
in challenging some o he adi ions and cul u al p ac ices o
hei educa ion. The esul s led o an in e p e a ion o he co e
o eache educa ion as cha ac e ized by ecip ocal pa icipa ion
c ea ed h ough he con inuous in e ac ion o he s uden eache s,
supe ising eache s, and eache educa o s. The e o e, we sugges
ha he no ion o social p ac ice (Hedegaa d e al. 1999) ha builds
on he connec ion be ween he p ac ices o he p og amme and he
social na u e o he s uden eache s should be a d i ing o ce in he

Pe cep ions on collabo a ion, ime managemen and meaning ulness
41Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
design and implemen a ion o eache educa ion p og ammes. This
pe spec i e is in p o ound con as o he de ici iew ha has been
applied o Millennials, which associa es au hen ici y wi h na cissism
and sel -cen e edness. Chicke ing e al. (2006) linked au hen ici y
o ca ing and socially esponsible p ac ices, which seemed o be
a common alue among Millennials. The e o e, by conside ing
hese s uden eache s’ ini ia i es and oices, i is possible o upda e
ini ial eache educa ion p og ammes o suppo hei p o essional
de elopmen .
42
Ma i a Mäkinen, Johanna Annala and Jy i Lindén
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
Re e ences
Adam, B. 1995. Timewa ch. The Social Analysis o Time. Camb idge: Poli y
P ess.
Boggs, M., & Szabo, S. 2011. Illumina ing pa hways h ough igo , espec ,
ele ance, and ela ionships: Sca olding c oss-gene a ional
unde s andings. Del a Kappa Gamma Bulle in, 77(2), 27–35.
Bon empo, B. 2010. Gene a ion Y S uden -Teache s’ Mo i a ional Fac o s:
Re en ion Implica ions o K-12 Educa ional Leade s. P oQues LLC,
Disse a ion, No h-Cen al Uni e si y.
B oadb idge, A., Maxwell, G., & Ogden, S. 2007. Expe iences, pe cep ions
and expec a ions o e ail employmen o Gene a ion Y. Ca ee
De elopmen In e na ional, 12(6), 521–544.
Chelliah, J., & Cla ke, E. 2011. Collabo a i e Teaching and Lea ning:
O e coming he Digi al Di ide? On he Ho izon, 19(4), 276–85.
Chicke ing, A. W., Dal on, J. C., & S amm, L. 2006. Encou aging au hen ici y
and spi i uali y in highe educa ion. San F ancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cennamo, L., & Ga dne , D. 2008. Gene a ional di e ences in wo k alues,
ou comes and pe son-o ganisa ion alues i . Jou nal o Manage ial
Psychology, 23(8), 891–906.
Co s en, M. 1999. The ime o gene a ions. Time & Socie y, 8(2–3), 249-272.
Donnison, S. 2007. Unpacking he Millennials: A Cau iona y Tale o
Teache Educa ion. Aus alian Jou nal o Teache Educa ion, 32(3).
Edmunds, J., & Tu ne , B. S. 2005. Global Gene a ions: Social Change in he
Twen ie h Cen u y. B i ish Jou nal o Sociology, 56(4), 559–78.
Eu opean Commission. 2007. Imp o ing he quali y o eache educa ion.
Communica ion om he Commission o he Council and he
Eu opean Pa liamen . B ussels: Au ho .
Gadame , H.G. 1975/1960. T u h and me hod. New Yo k: Con inuum (J.
Weinsheime , D. G. Ma shall, T ans.) (O iginal wo k Wah hei und
Me hode published 1960).
Heidegge , M. 1962/1927. Being and ime. San F ancisco: Ha pe Collins (J.
Macqua ie & E. Robinson, T ans.) (O iginal wo k Sein und Zei
published 1927).
Pe cep ions on collabo a ion, ime managemen and meaning ulness
43Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
Hedegaa d, M., Chaiklin, S., & Jensen, U.J. 1999. Ac i i y Theo y and Social
P ac ice: An In oduc ion. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaa d & U.J.
Jensen (eds.) Ac i i y Theo y and Social P ac ice: Cul u al-His o ical
App oaches. Aa hus: Aa hus Uni e si y P ess, 12–30.
Helspe , E.J. & Eynon, R. 2010. Digi al na i es: whe e is he e idence? B i ish
Educa ional Resea ch Jou nal, 36(3), 503–520.
Howe, N., & S auss, W. 2000. Millennials ising: The nex g ea gene a ion.
NY: Vin age Books.
Hun ley, R. 2006. The wo ld acco ding o y: Inside he new adul gene a ion.
Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Kuppe schmid , B.R. 2000. Mul igene a ional employees: s a egies o
e ec i e managemen . The Heal h Ca e Manage , 19(1), 65–76.
K ebe , C. 2013. Au hen ici y in and h ough eaching in highe educa ion:
The ans o ma i e po en ial o he schola ship o uni e si y eaching.
New Yo k and London: Rou ledge.
Lee, H. & Liebenau, J. 1999. Time in O ganisa ional S udies: Towa ds a new
esea ch di ec ion. O ganiza ion S udies, 20(6), 1035–1058.
Le eb e, H. 1991/1974.The P oduc ion o Space. Ox o d: Basil Blackwell.
Lichy, J. 2013. Towa ds an in e na ional cul u e: Gen Y s uden s and SNS?
Ac i e lea ning in highe educa ion, 13(29), 101–116.
Macky, K., Ga dne , D., & Fo sy h, S. 2008. Gene a ional di e ences a
wo k: In oduc ion and o e iew. Jou nal o Manage ial Psychology,
23(8), 857–861.
Macon, M., & A ley, J. B. 2009. “Can’ we all jus ge along?” A e iew o
he challenges and oppo uni ies in a mul igene a ional wo k o ce.
In e na ional Jou nal o Business Resou ce, 9, 90–94.
Mannheim, K. 1952. Essays on he Sociology o Knowledge. London:
Rou ledge and Kegan.
Munhall, P. 1994. Re isioning phenomenology: Nu sing and heal h science
esea ch. New Yo k: NLN Publica ions.
Mye s, K., & Sadaghiani, K. 2010. Millennials in he wo kplace: A
communica ion pe spec i e on Millennials. O ganiza ional
ela ionships and pe o mance. Jou nal o Business and Psychology,
25(2), 225–238.
44
Ma i a Mäkinen, Johanna Annala and Jy i Lindén
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
Mäkinen, M., Lindén, J., Annala, J., & Wiseman, A. 2018. Millennial
gene a ion p ese ice eache s inspi ing he design o eache
educa ion. Eu opean Jou nal o Teache Educa ion. doi.o g/10.1080
/02619768.2018.1448776.
Ng, E.S., & Gosse , C.W. 2013. Explo a ion o i wi h he Millennial
Gene a ion. Public Pe sonnel Managemen , 42(3), 337–358.
Nimon, S. 2007. Gene a ion Y and highe educa ion. The o he Y2k? Jou nal
o Ins i u ional Resea ch in Aus alasia, 13(1), 24–41.
Nowo ny, H. 1994. Time. The Mode n and Pos mode n Expe ience.
Camb idge: Poli y P ess.
OECD. 2005. Teache s Ma e : A ac ing, De eloping and Re aining E ec i e
Teache s. Pa is: Au ho .
Pei ce, J.E. 1966. Selec ed W i ings. New Yo k: Do e Publica ions.
Pilche , J. 1994. Mannheim’s Sociology o Gene a ions: An Unde alued
Legacy. B i ish Jou nal o Sociology, 45(3), 481–495.
P ensky, M. 2001. Digi al Na i es, Digi al Immig an s. On he Ho izon, 9(5),
1–6.
Pu honen, S. 2002. Sukupol ikäsi een kolme ulo u uu a (Th ee
dimensions o he concep o gene a ion). Sosiologia, 39(1), 4–17.
Rod iguez, T. L. & Hallman, H.L. 2013. Millennial Teache : A S o ied
Landscape o Di e si y in “New Times”, Mul icul u al Pe spec i es,
15 (2), 65–72.
Shulman, L. S. 1987. Knowledge and eaching: ounda ions o he new
e o m. Ha a d Educa ional Re iew, 57(1), 1–22.
S a is ics Finland. 2012. Numbe o ma iages and di o ces 1965–
2011. Re ie ed om h p://www.s a . i/ il/ssaa y/2011/
ssaa y_2011_2012-04-20_ ie_001_en.h ml (Ap il 29 h 2016.)
S auss, W., & Howe, N. 1991. Gene a ions: The his o y o Ame ica’s u u e,
1584 o 2069. New Yo k: William Mo ow & Company.
Tapsco , D. 1998. G owing up digi al: The ise o he Ne gene a ion. New
Yo k: McG aw Hill.
Taylo , C. 1991. The e hics o au hen ici y. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d
Uni e si y P ess.
T ygg ason, M-T. 2012. Pe cep ions o iden i y among Finnish uni e si y-
based subjec eache educa o s. Eu opean Jou nal o Teache
Educa ion, 35(3), 289–303.
Pe cep ions on collabo a ion, ime managemen and meaning ulness
45Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
Twenge, J. M. 2006. Gene a ion Me: Why oday’s young Ame icans a e mo e
con iden , asse i e, en i led–and mo e mise able han e e be o e.
New Yo k: F ee P ess.
Twenge, J.M. 2009. Gene a ional changes and hei impac in he class oom:
Teaching Gene a ion Me. Medical Educa ion, 43(5), 398–405.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. 2008. Gene a ional di e ences in
psychological ai s and hei impac on he wo kplace. Jou nal o
Manage ial Psychology, 23(8), 862–877.
Wong, H., & Wong, R. 2007. Teache s, he nex gene a ion. ASCD Exp ess.
Moun ain View, CA: Associa ion o Supe ision and Cu iculum
De elopmen .