Perceptions on collaboration, time management and meaningfulness : Millennials’ innovations in the subject teacher education programme

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 .