Expectations for training programmes today are very different from expectations for training programmes in the past, because today’s audiences are not only multigenerational, but the younger generations learn in distinctly different ways from older, more traditional audiences. To meet the needs of these multigenerational audiences, the Auburn University Food Systems Institute (AUFSI) has developed on-demand, online courses that offer a variety of ways for learners to interact with training materials. For example, a typical course may offer not only traditional text, but audio, video, simulations, and more. In addition, AUFSI has developed supporting educational tools such as interactive virtual tours and video games. This approach to creating courses is a response to the different levels of experiences of the generations as well as different expectations of how materials should be delivered. In order to be effective, training materials need to be designed to appeal to this multigenerational audience. Traditionalists (born before 1946) prefer face-to-face training programmes. Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) are more accepting of technology. Generations X (born 1965-1980), Y (born 1981- 2000) and C (born after 2000), however, expect to receive training at their convenience, to have it delivered electronically, and to be entertained as well as educated.
Balsabramanian N, Wilson B. Games and simulations. 2005.
2.
Battalio J. Success in distance education: do learning styles and multiple formats matter? The Amer. Jrnl. of Distance Education. 2009. p. 71–87.
3.
Beck J, Wade M. Got Game: How the Gamer Generation Is Reshaping Business Forever. Harvard Business School Press; 2004.
4.
Blackburn J. Differentiated learning modules for corporate training based on learning styles. Robert Morris University; 2009.
5.
Brown J, Duguid P. The social life of information. harvard business school press; 2000.
6.
Burgos D, Fernandez-Manjon B, Richards G. Special issue: electronic games and personalised elearning processes. Computers in Human Behavior. 2008. p. 2475–6.
7.
Caillois R, Barash M. Man, play, and games. University of Illinois Press; 1961.
8.
Cambiano R, De Vore J, Harvey R. Learning style preferences of the cohorts: generation x, baby boomers, and the silent generation. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning. 2001. p. 31–40.
9.
Chester E. Getting them to give a damn: how to get your front line to care about your bottom line. Kaplan Publishing; 2005.
10.
Clark R. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research. 1983. p. 445–59.
11.
Gee J. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillian; 2003. p. 1.
12.
Giedd J. The digital revolution and adolescent brain evolution. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012. p. 101–5.
13.
Healy J. Failure to connect: how computers affect our children’s minds-for better and worse. Simon & Schuster; 1998. p. 1.
14.
Holland W, Jenkins H, Squire K. Video game theory reader. Theory by De-sign. Routledge; 2003. p. 25–46.
15.
Holyoke L, Larson E. Engaging the adult learner generational mix. Journal of Adult Education. 2009. p. 12–21.
16.
Johnson S. Everything bad is good for you: How today’s popular culture is actually making use smarter. Riverhead Books; 2005.
17.
Kapp K. Bridging the boomer "unfolding gamer knowledge gap. Slideshare. 2006.
18.
Kriegel J. Differences in learning preferences by generational cohort: implications for instructional design in corporate web-based learning (Doctoral dissertation. 2013.
19.
Langton N, Addinall E, Ellington H, Percival F. The value of simulations and games in the teaching of science. European Journal of Education. 1980. p. 261–70.
20.
Mcguire D, Gubbins C. The slow death of formal learning: a polemic. Human Resource Development Review. 2010. p. 249–65.
21.
Mitchell A, Savill-Smith C. The use of computer and video games for learning. A review of the literature. 2004.
22.
Oblinger D. Simulations, games and learning. educause learning initiative. 2006.
23.
Oblinger D, Oblinger J, Lippincott J. Educating the net generation. 2005.
24.
Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon. 2001. p. 1–6.
25.
Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: do they really think differently? On the Horizon. 2001. p. 1–6.
26.
Prensky M. Don’t bother me, mom, i’m learning!: how computer and video games are preparing your kids for 21st century success and how you can help! Paragon house New York. 2006.
27.
Quinn C. Engaging learning: designing e-learning simulation games. John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
28.
Reeves T. Do generational differences matter in instructional design. 2006.
29.
Rideout V, Roberts D, Foehr U. Generation m: media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2005.
30.
Schooley C, Moore C, Driver E, Orlov L, Ragsdale J, Fossner L. Get ready: the millennials are coming. Forrester Research: Changing Workforce series. 2005.
31.
Schwartz K. Beyond grades: do games have a future as assessment tools? Retrieved from. 2014.
32.
Tallent-Runnels M, Thomas J, Lan W, Cooper S, Ahern T, Shaw S, et al. Teaching courses online: a review of the research. Review of Educational Research. 2006. p. 93–135.
33.
Twenge J, Campbell S. Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2008. p. 862–77.
34.
Wilson M, Gerber L. How generational theory can improve teaching: Strategies for working with the ’Millennials. Currents in Teaching and Learning. 2008. p. 29–44.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
