MILLENNIS ON CAMPUS Book Review

MILLENNIALS ON CAMPUS:
USING THE TRAITS OF A GENERATION TO IMPROVE HIGHER EDUCATION

by
Stephanie Kidd

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of in Higher Education Administration
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX
March 2014

© 2014 by Stephanie Kidd
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

MILLENNIALS ON CAMPUS:
USING THE TRAITS OF A GENERATION TO IMPROVE HIGHER EDUCATION by Stephanie Kidd

March 19, 2014

Approved:
Ronald Hutkin, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Mark Johnson, Ph.D., Committee Member
Elizabeth Johnston, Ed.D., Committee Member

Accepted and Signed:
Ronald Hutkin, Ph.D.

Date

Mark Johnson, Ph.D.

Date

Elizabeth Johnston, Ed.D.

Date

Accepted and Signed:

Accepted and
Signed:

Jeremy Moreland, Ph.D.
Executive Dean, School of Advanced Studies
University of Phoenix

__________________
Date

ABSTRACT
With the release of their book Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, Neil Howe and William Strauss defined a new generation of Americans with a combination of traits that set them apart from previous generations.
Defined as special, sheltered, selfconfident, pressured, achieving, conventional, and team-oriented, the Millennial
Generation entered the collegiate environment starting in 1999, and higher education faculty and administrators must acknowledge a crucial need to understand strategies to support success in the classroom using the learner’s new cultural characteristics. This phenomenological qualitative study was conducted to gather the lived experiences of 12
Millennial college learners from a small proprietary college in the Midwest, and use the themes that emerged from that research to create suggestions for changes to the current
American collegiate system. Themes from this research include: (a) Millennials are special to their parents; (b) Millennials have self-confidence; (c) Millennials are pressured to achieve; and (d) Millennials are impacted by technology.

v

DEDICATION
I have had the pleasure of working in education for most of my adult
life.
Teaching, coaching, and dreaming with young people is something I think I will always do. This dissertation is for those young people who impacted my life so deeply with their laughter and tears, their struggles and dreams, their successes and failures. I spoke with dozens of college students about their experience in higher education, and each one opened up and shared stories with me that helped me to gain insight into what it is like to be a young person in college today. This study is dedicated to all of those students, young and old, who helped me to better understand the college student of today. I hope that this research can help to make their higher education experience even better.

vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My dissertation committee and my dissertation chair have been a great support throughout this process. They have coached and mentored me, and helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks to my committee members, Elizabeth Johnston,
Ed.D. and Mark Johnson, Ph.D., and a special thanks to my dissertation chair Ronald
Hutkin, Ph.D., who stepped up at the last minute to take over as committee chair. Dr.
Hutkin was patient and friendly, and always willing to read and re-read the same chapters. I know I can be a handful, and these folks were willing to push me along so that I could find success at the end of my journey.
I would like to extend a sincere and very heart-felt thanks to my original committee chair Dr. Ron Black, who supported me throughout this journey until he resigned from the University. Without his encouragement, this dissertation might still be an idea. From patting me on the back to pushing me along to listening to me cry tears of frustration, Dr. Black was a true mentor and friend throughout this process, and I am so grateful for his support.
Thanks, too, to the brave students who allowed me to interview them and were willing to share their very personal stories with me. I know the questions I asked often led to memories of childhood struggles and personal family issues, and I am so pleased that these 12 students were willing to include me in on their collegiate adventures.
Throughout this process, my family was a grounding force for me. The doctoral road is a long one, with numerous stops along the way. To my mother and father, my sisters, and my grandmother: thank you for your love and support while I made this dream come true.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Background ......................................................................................................................... 2
Statement of Problem .......................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of Study ................................................................................................................. 4
Significance of Problem ...................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 5
Significance of the Study to Leadership ................................................................. 6
Nature of the Study ............................................................................................................. 6
Overview of Method ............................................................................................... 7
Overview of Design Appropriateness ..................................................................... 7
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 10
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 10
Special ................................................................................................................... 11
Sheltered ............................................................................................................... 12
Confident………………………………………………………………………... 12
Team-Oriented ...................................................................................................... 13
Conventional ......................................................................................................... 13
Pressured ............................................................................................................... 14
Achieving .............................................................................................................. 14
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 15
Assumptions...................................................................................................................... 15
Scope and Limitations....................................................................................................... 16

viii
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................... 19
Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals ........................................... 19
Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 20
Coverage ............................................................................................................... 20
Synthesis ............................................................................................................... 21
Opposition to Howe & Strauss ............................................................................. 25
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 38
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 39
CHAPTER 3: METHOD .................................................................................................. 40
Research Method and Design Appropriateness ................................................................ 41
Method .................................................................................................................. 41
Design ................................................................................................................... 41
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 42
Population ......................................................................................................................... 42
Sampling Frame ................................................................................................................ 43
Informed Consent.............................................................................................................. 43
Confidentiality .................................................................................................................. 43
Geographic Location ......................................................................................................... 44
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 44
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 44
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 47

ix
Autonomy ............................................................................................................. 48
Beneficence and Non-Maleficence ....................................................................... 49
Justice.................................................................................................................... 49
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 50
Triangulation ......................................................................................................... 50
Coding ................................................................................................................... 51
Procedures, the Intent of the Study, and Potential Risks .................................................. 52
Withdrawal Procedure .......................................................................................... 54
Contacting the Researcher .................................................................................... 54
Maintaining Privacy and Guaranteeing Confidentiality ....................................... 55
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 55
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................................... 57
Data Collection Process .................................................................................................... 58
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 59
Data Coding and Analysis ................................................................................................ 59
Modified van Kaam Method ................................................................................. 60
Study Participants ............................................................................................................. 61
Participant 1 .......................................................................................................... 63
Participant 2 .......................................................................................................... 63
Participant 3 .......................................................................................................... 63
Participant 4 .......................................................................................................... 64
Participant 5 .......................................................................................................... 64
Participants 6 and 7 ............................................................................................... 64

x
Participant 8 .......................................................................................................... 66
Participant 9 .......................................................................................................... 66
Participant 10 ........................................................................................................ 66
Participant 11 ........................................................................................................ 66
Participant 12 ........................................................................................................ 66
Findings............................................................................................................................. 66
Themes ......................................................................................................................... 66
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 82
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 84
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 85
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 85
Interpretations and Recommendations of Findings by Theme 86
Theme 1: Helping Millennials Feel Special................................................................. 86
Theme 2: Continuing Trends of Self-Confidence ........................................................ 89
Theme 3: Helping Millennials Understand Pressure ................................................... 90
Theme 4: Advancing Technology for Millennials ....................................................... 93
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 95
Implications....................................................................................................................... 97
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 98
Leadership Voice ............................................................................................................ 100
Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 101
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 104
Appendix A: Interview Questions .................................................................................. 111

xi
Appendix B: Informed Consent: Participants 18 Years of Age and Older ..................... 113
Appendix C: Interview Questionnaire ............................................................................ 115
Appendix D: Permission to Use Premises ...................................................................... 116
Appendix E: Interview and Research Questions Matrix................................................. 117
Appendix F: Demographics of Study Participants.......................................................... 119

v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Beginning in 1991, American sociologists Neil Howe and William Strauss conducted a series of research projects to help the world understand the Millennial
Generation, the newest generation in the United States. The Millennial Generation, born between 1982 and 2000, immediately follows Generation X, and in 1999 the first of its members entered the world of higher education. Millennials, as a whole, are more affluent, better educated and more ethnically diverse than any previous generation (Junco
& Mastrodicasa, 2007). The Millennial Generation’s collective behavior and social habits appeared to baffle sociologists until Howe and Strauss explained them further in their first book published in 1991.
Howe and Strauss (2000) predicted the Millennials would “Rebel by behaving not worse, but better. Their life mission will not be to tear down old institutions that don 't work, but to build up new ones that do” (Howe & Strauss, 2000, p. 14). In their numerous publications, they claim their predictions were true; this generation sees the world in a new way and their behaviors support this theory (Howe & Strauss, 2000, 2003,
2007). The research is considered the standard and basis for all other research on this generation, and often is cited in current research.
Howe and Strauss’s research defined this generation with seven basic traits
(Howe & Strauss, 2000). These traits, unique to this generation alone, define this group of young people according to basic behaviors based both on the way in which they are raised and the given circumstance of their time. This specific list of seven generational characteristics helps to identify members of the Millennial Generation: special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving (Howe & Strauss,

2

2000). Since the introduction of these seven traits in 2000, they have become the standard by which the generation is measured and evaluated (Carlson, 2005).
While Howe and Strauss’s seven traits are a model for how this generation behaves, the traits are generalizations that may or may not apply to all its members.
Many members of the Millennial Generation can identify with at least one of these seven traits, but Howe and Strauss acknowledge that not every member of the generation will identify with each of these seven traits, and some members might not identify with any of the seven traits (Howe & Strauss, 2003).
Since the 2000 publication of their book Millennials Rising: The Next Great
Generation and the publication of Millennials in College in 2003, Howe and Strauss have received mixed response. While some researchers claim the way that Howe and Strauss define this generation is, at least in part, inaccurate, most researchers continue to reference the seven traits created by Howe and Strauss. Howe and Strauss drew from a wide variety of sources to create their seven traits for the generation, including Internet user groups, government agencies, and their own research studies using 655 high school students at Washington D.C. public high schools (Howe & Strauss, 2003). While it would be impossible to define an entire generation of people according to only seven traits, the traits represent a large majority of the members of this generation, and all members of the generation must deal with those members who do present the traits
(Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007).
Background
The first Millennial learners entered the collegiate environment starting in 1999, and higher education faculty and administrators must acknowledge a crucial need to

3

understand strategies to support success in the classroom based on the unique characteristics that define this new generation of learners. Their distinct generational characteristics make them unique in the collegiate classroom, and to help them find academic success higher education researchers must first better understand how they learn (VanFossen, 2005).
Heralded as being completely different from any previous generations, the
Millennials bring a completely new set of problems to the classroom. Never before have college students been so connected to their peers. With the constant ability to check in with friends and family, higher educators must battle for the attention of students who are distracted by email, text message, instant messages, Facebook, Twitter, and streaming music and videos—all from a cell phone kept discretely below the desk and out of the view of faculty members. With the gap of knowledge between generations growing,
Millennial college students often understand information technology better than their faculty members. In a 2002 survey, 20% of college Millennials stated they began using computers between the ages of five and eight years, and most felt skilled in balancing multiple media outlets at once (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007). These students can watch television, text a friend, and search the Internet simultaneously, struggling to maintain an interest in a college classroom where faculty members simply lecture for three hours and expect students to take notes.
Statement of the Problem
While research has been conducted on how the Millennial Generation is defined and how they have found academic success, limited research has been conducted on how they feel their generational traits have impacted their academic experiences (Carlson,

4

2005). There is a gap in the research that includes the perceptions of these students as related to their classroom experience in the higher education environment (Carlson,
2005). Educational policy and decisions makers, college instructors and administrators agree that generational differences create a general problem for educational success
(Carlson, 2005). The specific problem in this study was higher education leaders have limited insight into the attitudes, behaviors, motivations, and value systems of Millennial
Generation college students, and without specific insight they are unable to adapt current teaching models or support systems to best accommodate for this generation and its unique traits (Carlson, 2005). This qualitative study gathered data from college students in order to provide higher education leaders the needed information to effectively define the Millennial Generation and offer insight on how the seven traits will affect the
Millennial student’s academic success.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore the perceptions emerging from lived experiences of Millennial students in higher education concerning Howe and Strauss’s seven characteristics that define them as a generation, and how higher education leaders can use those traits to influence the student’s higher education experience. With more than 11 million Millennial Generation college students in 2006 (Howe & Strauss, 2006), there is a clear need to gather as much information as possible about these college students. The Review of Literature will explain how current research is conflicting concerning how to best approach this generation with both teaching methodology and structural changes to higher education.

5

With a thorough understanding of the seven characteristics of the Millennial
Generation—special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, achieving—educators can better understand who Millennial students are and how these characteristics impact student success (Howe & Strauss, 2000). By asking members of this generation a series of questions, it may be possible to better understand how the upbringing of this unique generation can impact their educational experiences.
Significance of the Problem
Significance of the Study
While there has been limited research about the Millennial Generation that explores their thoughts or feelings about the seven traits established by Howe and
Strauss, there has been a great deal of statistical data gathered about the generation. The generation is comprised of individuals who were born between 1982 and 2000.
Millennials represent 26% of the total American adult population, and 30% of the
American Internet-using population (Taylor & MacNeil, 2005). Current research shows that 27% of Millennial men, and 24% of Millennial women have Bachelor’s Degrees
(Taylor & MacNeil, 2005). Millennials marry later in life than Generation X and Baby
Boomers—men at 27, women at 25—and in 2005, 71% of Millennial students between the ages of 13-17, listed earning a college degree as their most important life goal (Taylor
& MacNeil, 2005).
While research has been conducted on both how this generation is defined and how they have found academic success, limited research has been conducted on how they feel their generational traits affected their academic experience (Carlson, 2005). There is a gap in the research including the perceptions of these students as related to their

6

classroom experience in the higher education environment (Carlson, 2005). American collegiate faculty members should take notice of this generation of college students and acknowledge higher education may need to adapt in order to accommodate who they are and what they need in the classroom (Carlson, 2005). Higher education leaders have made changes to the college classroom according to what they think this generation of college students need, but without more insight into the experiences of this generation in a higher education environment, it is impossible for higher education leaders to know if what they are doing will be successful (Carlson, 2005). “Institutions that miss out on trends that are developing among their traditional-aged students may severely impact the status and stature of an institution in the long-term” (Denmark Porter, 2007, p.3). While details about Millennials are based on the quantitative data already been collected, very little is known about how they feel about this information, and what to do with the data in order to assist them in the classroom.
Significance of the Study to Leadership
In order to best accommodate for Millennial Generation students in the classroom, higher education leaders need a better understanding of what they need, and how what they need is unique from previous generations of collegiate students (Howe & Strauss,
2007). The gap in this research means that current college students could be missing out on the ideal ways for them to be successful in the college classroom. Higher education leadership needs to have a base level of knowledge in order to create anything new and effective for these students, and until the research exists that can combine their generational traits to how they feel about these traits within the framework of college life,

7

there is no way for higher education officials to create new programming (Howe &
Strauss, 2007).
Nature of the Study
Overview of Method
The study employed a qualitative research methodology while utilizing a phenomenological design. The intent was to explore the shared, lived experiences of
Millennial Generation college students and the seven traits that define them as a generation. Qualitative research is best used to gain insight into the attitudes, behaviors, value systems, concerns, motivations, aspirations, cultures and lifestyles of the study group (Patton, 2002). The qualitative method best served this study because it allowed the research questions to be examined with depth, detail, and openness, and without preconceived variables or categories (Patton, 2002). The qualitative nature of this study allowed for study participants to share information in a way that might not be capable with a quantitative study. While a quantitative study could provide statistical data that could be useful to understand some aspects of this generation, only qualitative data can provide the insight related to the lived experiences of the Millennial learners in the study.
Overview of Design Appropriateness
A phenomenological design was used with the goal of learning the study participants’ innermost thoughts, feelings, and perceptions through a series of interviews.
Because the research gap includes the perceptions of these students, a phenomenological research study allowed the research questions to be answered. Phenomenology concerns itself with exploring a phenomenon from all sides, until its true essence can be determined. This exploration allows for vivid and complete descriptions of experiences

8

(Moustakas, 1994). Using first-person descriptions of life experiences, phenomenological analysis utilizes four distinct steps: the epoche, phenomenological reduction or bracketing, imaginative variation, and synthesis of meaning and essences
(Moustakas, 1994).
Epoche, according to Moustakas, is a Greek word that means to abstain or stay away from. In phenomenological research, the researcher must refrain from judgment or bias throughout the research process. Epoche is also a part of the reduction step, allowing the researcher to look at all data as equally important. Phenomenological reduction requires the researcher to look at the data in its purest form, bracketing out any assumptions (Patton, 2002).
During the third step, imaginative variation, themes gathered from the various frames of reference during the bracketing phase are examined, enhanced and expanded
(Patton, 2002). This allows for textual description of the themes. “The textual portrayal is an abstraction of the experience that content and illustration, but not yet the essence”
(Patton, 2002, p. 486). The researcher also will discover in this step any underlying factors which could allow understanding for how the phenomenon came to be what it is
(Moustakas, 1994).
The final step in phenomenological analysis is the “intuitive integration of the fundamental textual and structural descriptions into a unified statement of the essences of the experience of the phenomenon as a whole” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 100). These four steps, along with the use of the van Kaam analysis method modified by Moustakas, allow for a systematic collection of data to support a phenomenological data analysis.

9

Interviews are the typical method of investigation for a phenomenological study
(Moustakas, 1994). Twelve intensive interviews were conducted with Millennial college students: undergraduate students, graduate students, and college graduates from colleges from a medium sized city in the Midwest. Each participant met for a 90-minute session facilitated by the researcher. These sessions were audio recorded for later reference.
Each participant was asked for their demographic information: name, age, family situation, higher education experience, etc.
A series of interview questions were used to understand how the characteristics of
Millennial learners play a role in their education. The way in which these students were raised effects how they view school and how they view their success within this environment, and by asking questions of the student, information may be leveraged for the success of the students and future college students from this generation.
Understanding aspects of life outside of the generation labels of these students that might affect their success in college—the age, gender, high school GPA, parents’ highest level of college—also is important. Initial planning included the insight that large trends cannot be established when processing the information gathered from the case study. Interviews included a small number of students, and therefore sweeping generalizations cannot be made. There can be the tendency for researchers to make generalities from interviews, and it was important for this research study to avoid this in the analysis phase. The qualitative, phenomenological study may help find new and innovative ways to reach out to Millennial learners in the classroom, based on how they do or do not identify with Howe and Strauss’s seven traits and how these traits impact their classroom experiences.
10

Research Questions
The qualitative phenomenological study explored the Millennial Generation and their experience in the world of higher education. The research questions for this study are: R1. How do the seven traits of the Millennial Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by Millennial Generation college students?
R2. How might higher education leaders use the perceived associations of
Millennial Generation college students with the seven traits to influence
Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner?
The interview included a series of questions concerning each of the seven traits in an attempt to gain insight about each of the traits and how the traits affect the students’ classroom experiences. The interview questions are located in Appendix A.
Additional questions were included to allow students the chance to discuss other aspects of their lives that have impacted their learning. These aspects included: parental involvement, socio-economic status, education level of their parents, field of study, high school experience, high school GPA, and participation in AP
courses.
Conceptual Framework
The focus of the conceptual foundation of the study was the lived experiences of the Millennial Generation students in a higher education classroom. The focus of the phenomenological study was to gain access to the innermost thoughts, feelings and perceptions emerging from the lived experiences of the study participants, as related to their experience in higher education according to the seven traits of their generation as defined by Howe and Strauss (2000, 2003, 2006). The interview featured questions

11

related directly to each of the seven traits, and follow-up questions to gain more insight into the thoughts and feelings of the students.
The seven traits of the Millennial Generation, as defined by Howe and Strauss
(2000, 2003), were explored in the lived experiences of the study participants. The conceptual framework explored these seven traits as they relate to the experiences of the participants in the study. A comparison was conducted that compares the definitions of these traits with the impact of these traits in the higher education classroom, according to the shared stories from the 12 interview participants.
Strauss and Howe (2000, 2007) created their seven traits after a series of polls with both students and faculty. The seven traits they use to define the Millennial
Generation were established after Strauss and Howe conducted interviews and focus groups 202 students from the class of 2000 and 655 faculty members in a series of research polls conducted in Fairfax County, VA (Howe & Strauss, 2007).
As defined by Howe and Strauss in their research conducted in 2000, this generation is defined by the following traits: special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured and achieving. The following is a further explanation of each of those traits.
Special
The Millennial Generation is made to feel as though they are special, a generation of children whose parents planned for them (Holliday & Li, 2004). These are the children of late Baby Boomers and early Generation Xers, many of whom are a part of a structured family plan (Wilson, 2005). Their parents often waited until they achieved the right level of financial security before choosing to have children (Holliday & Li, 2004).

12

These are students who have been told by their parents their entire lives that they are special, celebrating milestones with praise, and substantial amounts of positive feedback
(Howe & Strauss, 2000). Their school experiences have been the feature of hundreds of popular films including American Pie, Can’t Hardly Wait, High School Musical and
Mean Girls, and TV shows including Lizzie McGuire, Gossip Girl, and Malcolm in the
Middle. Reality TV has placed them in the spotlight with shows like The Real World, The
Hills and Road Rules. The media obsessed over the high school class of 2000, leading these students to feel as though they are collectively vital to the country and to their parents’ sense of purpose (Howe & Strauss, 2006).
Sheltered
This generation was raised in a world that allowed them to feel protected and sheltered. Legislation passed during their lifetimes supports this—child seatbelt laws, movie ratings, and stricter rules for underage drinking (Holliday & Li, 2004). “Baby on
Board” bumper stickers were created for this generation (Howe & Strauss, 2000). During their lifetime, child safety rules and regulations for the home and for travel were created, while post-Columbine high schools often feature security cameras and metal detectors
(Howe & Strauss, 2006). These learners are sheltered, protected by their parents, and expectant of faculty and staff to shelter and nurture them (Howe & Strauss, 2003).
Confident
The Millennials were raised by parents who taught them that “if they can dream it, they can be it” (Howe & Strauss, 2000). They have a strong connection to their parents, and together with their parents, they are hopeful for the future (Wilson, 2005).
Additionally, they are assertive, with high levels of willingness to express their strong

13

opinions (Howe & Strauss, 2003). In direct opposition to the prior generation,
Generation X, Millennial teens have faith that they can achieve the American Dream, and that their children will also be able to achieve it (Howe & Strauss, 2003).
Team-Oriented
As a generation, the Millennials were raised working in teams. They had structured play dates as children, and many played team sports throughout their childhood and adolescence (Holliday & Li, 2004). Their school experience prior to college included a large amount of teamwork and team projects (Wilson, 2005). They have tight peer groups, and rely on this group as a definition of who they are and how they fit into the social structure of school (Howe & Strauss, 2000). Teamwork is a strength for this generation, as many of them spent time in their youth playing team sports and participating in after-school activities like Boy and Girl Scouts or school clubs
(Howe & Strauss, 2003). From television shows geared toward team activity, such as
Barney and Friends, to an increase in interest in the collegiate Greek system, this generation has developed both tight peer groups and team instincts (Howe & Strauss,
2006).
Conventional
They are conventional, trusting of government, mainstream in culture, willing to follow rules (Howe & Strauss, 2000). These are the children of Baby Boomers and
Generation Xers, who struggled through upheaval in their own generations and often have now chosen to settle into a more conventional lifestyle. Because they feel close to the very-involved parental units, the Millennial often identify with the values and belief systems of their parents. As a generation they tend to be rule-followers—if given rules,

14

they tend to want to follow the rules, and they have an overwhelming respect for authority figures (Holliday & Li, 2004). In a Gallup survey in 1997, nine out of ten teens reported being close to their parents and also personally happy, while 94-percent agreed with the statement “I can always trust my parents to be there when I need them” (Howe
& Strauss, 2006, p. 18).
Pressured
More than previous generations, collegiate education is the norm for this group.
For many, it was not a question of whether or not to go to college, but instead which college to attend (Howe & Strauss, 2000). They are pushed to attend college and to succeed academically, and they often look to study in fields that can secure them a job that is high-paying (Howe & Strauss, 2000). As they apply to college with essays concerning their personal hardships and their involvement in community service, the reputation of these students matter more than ever (Howe & Strauss, 2003).
Achieving
This generation was a part of more mandatory testing than any other generation, and because of this researchers can study their academic success. The Millennials are on track to become to smartest and most educated generation in American history, based largely on the availability of standardized education and standardized testing to measure their success (Holliday & Li, 2004). Surveys show that they enjoy math and science courses best at the collegiate level, and enjoy spending their free time with their friends and peers (Howe & Strauss, 2006). Their involved parents push them to score well— they are a generation where a 4.0 might not be the best GPA at the school if some students take honors classes and earn above a 4.0 (Howe & Strauss, 2000).

15

Definition of Terms
In addition to the definitions of each of the seven terms associated with the
Millennial Generation, other terms also should be defined. For the purposes of this study, the Millennial Generation includes those born from 1982 to 2000. Throughout the study, the Millennial Generation also is referred to as Millennials. The research for this study included only American members of the Millennial Generation.
Many of the cited works include a vernacular that is crucial to understand in order to successfully study this topic. There is a series of terminology related to the social media that is actively defined in this research. This includes words such as: Facebook,
Twitter, MySpace, tweeting, blogging, texting, and sexting. These terms, and those similar to this list, are crucial in order to have a thorough understanding of a huge aspect of what defines this generation: social media and constant communication.
There are a large number of terms, both academic and social, with which it is important for a researcher to be familiar so that a successful research project can be created. Howe and Strauss created their own seven traits for this generation. The researchers used these terms throughout these articles, and the students they interviewed often used this vernacular in interviews and focus groups.
Assumptions
A number of assumptions were made in order for this study to be conducted, including a number of assumptions about the study participants. The assumption was made that participants in the study answered all questions honestly and to the best of their ability. Questions in the interview were personal, and it would have been easy for study participants to hide the truth and only give partially true answers. It was assumed that

16

they were willing to share all of the truth and provide in-depth answers to the most personal questions.
Assumptions also were made about my own skills as a researcher. It was assumed that my own bias as the researcher was limited in both the collection and the analysis of the collected data. Researchers can make connections with those they interview, and for this study it was assumed that I would ask the same questions the same way every time so that there was no bias in the collection of data. Additionally, it was assumed that I could limit my own bias while analyzing that data.
The qualitative, phenomenological design is assumed to have allowed the researcher to effectively answer the research questions. The study is only effective if the interview questions answer the research questions, so it is assumed that this study was designed in a way that allowed that to happen.
Scope and Limitations
This study was limited to 12 Millennial Generation potential college students or graduates from a proprietary school in an urban area in the Midwest. A semi-structured interview was used to gather the perceptions of the participants. Once all interviews were complete, an analysis of the interview results was conducted.
Limitations in this study included the potential honesty or dishonesty of the 12 subjects, as well as the possible bias of the study participants according to their experiences possibly impacting the way in which they view higher education. The sample population of the study was selected by convenience. The study may not apply to a larger population. The size of the sample and the reliability of the survey instrument may limit the validity while the study results may be subject to other interpretations.

17

Because the interviewer is an instrument in a phenomenological study, the interviewer can serve as a limitation. The interviewer’s own bias or ability to analyze data without bias could limit the results of the study.
Delimitations
The study was limited to 12 Millennial Generation potential college students or graduates from the same proprietary school in an urban area in the Midwest. The school provides training for a specific trade that might make the study participants have more in common than traditional college students might. The smaller number of potential participants impacts the ability of the results of the study to be generalized. The study limited itself to interview questions related directly to the seven traits that define the
Millennial Generation, although there are other possible traits and commonalities of this generation of students.
Chapter Summary
The gaps in research concerning how higher education leaders used the seven traits that define the Millennial Generation in order to impact the higher education experience of Millennial Generation college students are addressed in Chapter 2. While
Howe and Strauss have written much about how these seven traits accurately define the generation (2000, 2003, 2007), little research has been conducted to determine how the traits might be used in order to suggest changes or improvements could be made to the current higher education system based on how the Millennial Generation students and graduates feel about them.
Through the use of a semi-structured interview, 12 Millennial Generation college students and graduates had the chance to share their experiences with the seven traits as

18

they directly related to the higher education environment. The results of these interviews were used to help create suggestions for higher education leaders to help Millennial
Generation college students to find success in higher education. Chapter 2 focuses focus on a review of the literature on the Millennial Generation and their experience in higher education. 19

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature includes an overview of prior research in the field of
Millennial Generation higher education. The research that supports the generational definitions of Howe and Strauss and the research that opposes the views of Howe and
Strauss will be presented. Current research relating proposed changes in higher education to accommodate for Millennial Generation students will be explored.
Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals
This comprehensive literature review includes searches of scholarly books, peerreviewed journal articles, dissertations and research documents found in the University of
Phoenix Library databases, ProQuest and EBSCOHost. Searches using Web search engines provided non-peer reviewed resources, and books and articles were provided through public library interlibrary loan services. Additional sources of research came from all publications from Howe and Strauss (1991, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2008), which were used for this study as the base definition for the Millennial Generation.
Initial title searches for data concerning Millennial Generation college students included searches using basic words and phrases such as: a) Millennial Generation; b)
Generation Y; c) Millennials; d) Generation Me; and e) generational theory. Once this basic research was reviewed, additional research topics were explored, including:
Millennial Generation traits, and Millennial Generation combined with the following terms: students, learning, higher education, and college.
Peer-reviewed and non-scholarly articles, documents, and journals covered the following primary subjects: Millennial Generation, generational theory, higher education, student development theory. From these subjects, additional subjects were searched in

20

order to find ample amounts of pertinent literature. The researcher gathered a large amount of information, including 115 peer-reviewed articles, 201 related articles and research documents, and 18 books.
Because of the nature of the study and its relationship to the generation theories of
Howe and Strauss, all works by these authors were considered germinal research. While they are considered the foremost experts on the Millennial Generation, since the publications of their first books on Millennial Generation college students, other scholars have disagreed with their generational definitions. This literature reviews covers the major proponents and opponents of Howe and Strauss.
Literature Review
Coverage
A number of both qualitative and quantitative studies provide both theoretical and statistical data that may offer some insight into the Millennial Generation (Elam, Stratton,
& Gibson, 2007). These studies were conducted across the country by a wide array of researchers—book authors, college professors, doctoral students, private research companies. The students who were studied were enrolled at public and private schools, two-year and four-year programs, graduate programs and doctoral programs Some completed college; some did not. Some chose not to attend college at all. The existing research covers a broad span of issues as related to this generation (Elam, Stratton, &
Gibson, 2007).
The majority of the research conducted on Millennial students was completed by
Howe and Strauss (2000, 2003, 2006). The research studies they completed and compiled into a series of books often referenced by current researchers. It was Howe and

21

Strauss who created the seven traits that define this generation, and their quantitative research studies support the creation of these seven traits (2000, 2003, 2006). Much of the research in this field has included interviews, case studies and focus groups. While there have been some studies completed on the subject, very little research was completed on the perceptions of the Millennial Generation, and how they feel their generation was impacted by traditional education (Elam, Stratton & Gibson, 2007).
Synthesis
The first major research on the Millennial Generation was conducted by Howe and Strauss (2000, 2003). Using a series of focus groups, surveys and polls with members of the class of 2000, their research helped to define the seven traits of the
Millennials, and helped scholars understand both how this generation was formed and what they have in common. These seven traits—special, sheltered, confident, teamoriented, conventional, pressured, achieving—will be the basis of the questions for this dissertation. Howe and Strauss’s research offers the following facts about this generation:
1. In 1975, there were approximately 11 million students enrolled in the American collegiate system; in 2006, there were 17 million (Howe & Strauss, 2006).
2. 70% of the Millennial Generation will attend college (Howe & Strauss, 2006).
3. As of 2002, non-whites and Latinos accounted for only 37% of the 21-or-under population (Howe & Strauss, 2006).
4. In a 1999 poll of Generation X students, 82% said they would date outside their race (Howe & Strauss, 2006).

22

5. Millennial students in 1997, as compared to 1981, spent 38% more time each week in school, 58% more time studying and 86% more time in organized sports
(Howe & Strauss, 2006).
6. Millennial students in 1998, as compared to 1973, are twice as likely to have a mother with a college degree (Howe & Strauss, 2006).
7. When asked questions about who they admire most in a survey of 14-year-olds given in 1999, 79% of those surveyed said their parents while only 13% said athletes (Howe & Strauss, 2006).
Other important studies in the field include research concerning the student success of the Millennial Generation in both traditional and online classes. Hunter and
McCurry (2009) studied the effects of technology in the classroom in order to see how
Millennial Generation nursing students would be impacted by both a use of technology and a lack of technology as a learning tool in the same class (Hunter & McCurry, 2009).
Hunter and McCurry developed a study that examined two University of MassachusettsDartmouth classroom experiences, both of which offered a new technology for students.
Students in two classes in the fall of 2008 used Electronic Instruction, an online tool that allowed students to turn in assignments, take tests and research online (Hunter &
McCurry, 2009). Following each course 140 students were surveyed to see what impact the Electronic Instruction had on their student experience.
Hunter and McMurray found the majority of students appreciated the new technology (Hunter & McCurry, 2009). The objectives of the study were to: increase active student participation; obtain instantaneous student evaluative feedback; increase student opportunity for clarification and linking of key concepts; increase active

23

engagement of every student; use instantaneous evaluative feedback for content reinforcement; evaluate student comprehension through integrated testing; determine efficacy of PRS technology with student nurses; evaluate ease of use of selected PRS system; and provide pilot study data for future implementation within the undergraduate nursing program (Hunter & McCurry, 2009). This research can help to shape questions about learning styles and preferences in use of technology in the classroom for students in a study.
Holliday and Li (2004) explored college students and the use of Internet sources to research academic assignments. Using a survey of over 2,400 students at a school on the east coast, the research finds that the Millennial Generation increasingly turns to the internet rather than the physical library as a primary source for information (Holliday &
Li, 2004). This type of research becomes important for this study as interview questions about the use of research tools for students, and how they might perceive their ability to effectively research for college are created.
Albrecht’s article creates ideas for how Millennial students can achieve more success based on teaching strategies that encourage students to attend class more frequently (Albrecht, 2006). More technology was discovered to be used in the classroom, the more students attended class (Albrecht, 2006). Additionally, classes that used facilitation and Socratic Method for open discussion had better attendance than lecture-style classes (Albrecht, 2006). These ideas may be used to generate research questions concerning the learning style preferences of Millennial students.
Davidson’s research looked at specific examples of how new technology is impacting the workplace and the school environment (Davidson, 2007). The author

24

focused on social media and the role it plays with younger employees and students, and how new technologies in the classroom are changing the way in which today’s students are presented information. The qualitative study includes narrative interview responses from Millennial students concerning how they feel about social media and the impact it plays on their experience in both class and at work (Davidson, 2007). This study will help to formulate questions that address the role of social media in the classroom.
The University of Arizona (U of A) started a four-year research study in 2006 to better understand trends in racial diversity among Millennial Generation college students.
The Millennial Student Project was created in order to understand student attitudes, behaviors and experiences with diversity, with a focus on diversity in the collegiate setting (University of Arizona, 2009). Through a series of surveys, UofA researchers collected data from 4,500 undergraduate students, and interviewed 60 students each of their four years at UofA for further information concerning diversity issues (University of
Arizona, 2009). These interviews are an example of a case study of a specific set of students at one specific college, and the follow-up system that UofA used allowed them to find trends from when students first joined UofA to their graduation. Of the initial
4,500 students, 10 students each year were selected to participate in a video diary that documented stories about and samples of diversity issues in their lives (University of
Arizona, 2009). The college provided the students with a video camera, and instructed them to document their own experiences with diversity, at home, in class, and in public
(University of Arizona, 2009). These video documents helped to provide a narrative for each person who was a part of the study, a way for the student to use his or her own voice to provide real-world examples of personal situations. This project provides a unique

25

view into the lives of Millennial students, and it can help to shape questions about the students and their experience with diversity.
Opposition to Howe & Strauss. While most researchers seem simply to take
Howe and Strauss’s research at face value, others have conducted their own research and come to alternate conclusions about this generation. Opponents to Howe and Strauss’s theories claim that in order to believe in generational theory it is necessary to believe that an entire group of people are fundamentally unlike those born before them, and alike to those born during the same based merely on their birth date (Hoover, 2009). This type of generational theory is the basis for Howe and Strauss’s research; each generation responds to its predecessors by making a change and moving on with the cycle (Hoover,
2009). And while Howe and Strauss often are accepted as the foremost experts on generation theory, some researchers simply do not believe their theories, or feel as though
Howe and Strauss have misidentified some of the most important traits of the generation.
Researcher Oblinger created her own defining traits for the Millennials, writing that they are best defined by the fact that they:
“1) gravitate toward group activity; 2) identify with their parents values and feel close to their parents; 3) spend more time doing homework and housework and less time watching TV; 4) believe it is ‘cool to be smart;’ 5) are fascinated by new technologies; 6) are racially and ethnically diverse; and 7) often (one in five) have at least one immigrant parent” (Oblinger, 2003, p. 38).
While Oblinger does not argue that Howe and Strauss are incorrect, she simply shifts the focus away from their seven traits and writes instead about her own defining characteristics of the generation. She instead argues that more important than any

26

defining traits, is this generation’s distinct learning style. She cites examples of “learning preferences toward teamwork, experiential activities, structure, and the use of technology” (p. 38), and focuses on generation-wide skills in multi-tasking, positivity, collaboration and goal setting.
Other critics of Howe and Strauss note that while generational theory might have some validity, its singular approach does not take into account the following: socioeconomic level, parent education level, or even region of the country, all of which could impact the way students relate to the seven traits created by Howe and Strauss (Hoover,
2009). To ignore these issues to is to ignore a huge sub-set of Millennial Generation students, all of whom could require a completely different set of traits in order for them to be included in the generational theory. These types of concerns have led some researchers to think that generation theory is “a benign form of bigotry, in which you flatten out diversity. This is debilitating to the job of trying to work with young people”
(Hoover, 2009, para. 57).
Howe and Strauss argue that the Millennial Generation demonstrate seven traits as a generation based on who they are, how they were raised, and the time in which they grew up. The following is a brief summary of the existing literature from scholars who offer conclusions about the Millennial Generation that differ from those of Howe and
Strauss and who offer alternative generational traits for the Millennial Generation. Each of Howe and Strauss’s traits are stated, and opposing views from scholars are presented.
Trait 1 - Special. Howe and Strauss contend that the Millennial Generation was raised by “helicopter” parents who supported them, helping them to feel as though their own talents and gifts were unique and special only to them. Howe and Strauss often refer

27

to practice of handing out trophies to all members of an athletic team, as opposed to just the winning team (Howe & Strauss, 2009), or the practice of celebrating all childhood milestones with parties and praise (Howe & Strauss, 2003). Millennial Generation students could grow accustom to this praise, and could begin to expect frequent positive feedback from parents, teachers and coaches (Howe & Strauss, 2003).
Because their parents are involved in their lives, and in their college decisionmaking process, many colleges are now catering to the parents of Millennial generation potential students (Howe & Strauss, 2003). Colleges are creating special links on websites just for parents, and are encouraging parents to be more involved in the ultimate decision of where Millennials will attend college (Elan, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007). Some colleges have even created additional activities for parents-only during college visits and
Orientation sessions with a focus on financial aid, campus academics, athletics, housing, cultural opportunities, and student wellness programs (Elan, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007).
In the classroom Millennials are extremely relational, and they appreciate when their professors show the same interest in them as their parents showed them as children.
They seem to be more willing to achieve learning outcomes when faculty members take the time to connect with them on a more personal level (Bart, 2011). As a group, they feel it is their duty to solve the problems of the world that their parents have created, and they feel empowered to do this by the consistent positive reinforcement they receive from adults (Howe & Strauss, 2009).
While Howe and Strauss cast this trait in a positive light, not all researchers see it this way. In a survey of more than 15,000 Millennial Generation students conducted from
1987 to 2006, the self-esteem movement defined by Howe and Strauss took on new

28

meaning (Twenge, 2006). The survey included statements like: “I think I am a special person,” “I can live my life any way I want to” and “If I ruled the world, it would be a better place” (Twenge, 2006, p. 78). Students responded overwhelmingly positively to these questions, and over time, the percentage of students who scored high has increased
(Twenge, 2006). Twenge argues that while Howe and Strauss see this as a positive trait, in fact it could be dangerous. Twenge writes that not all children can be gifted, and a false sense of confidence can lead to students who might take failure too hard. She argues that this much sense of specialness can backfire when students leave the home of their parents and attempt to make it on their own, in essence failing because they have been taught that they will always win (Twenge, 2006).
Trait 2 - Sheltered. Howe and Strauss write that as a generation, Millennials are sheltered from the world and nurtured by their parents. With parents who advocated on their behalf and spared them from unpleasant experiences, this is a generation of young people who may not have learned to advocate for themselves. As college students,
Millennials may expect faculty members of administrators to shelter, protect and nurture them, and might even assume higher education staff with solve problems on their behalf
(Howe & Strauss, 2003). Millennials in a college setting might have grown accustom to the somewhat aggressive nature their parents take in advocating for them (Murray, 1997).
The aggression stems from behavior patterns in the parental generation, many of whom waited until they were in their late 20s and had achieved financial security before having children (Murray, 1997). These parents treat parenting as a serious matter and tend to be very actively involved in the education of their children, critically evaluating schools, coaches, teachers, and the curriculum (Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007).

29

Twenge wrote parents of Millennials may feel they are sheltering their children, but the technological shrewdness of this generation means they know how to work around the shelter (Twenge, 2006). Young people who have their Facebook pages monitored by parents simply create a second page, hidden from parents, so they can chat with members of the opposite sex or post photos they do not want their parents to see
(Twenge, 2006). When overprotective parents keep young people from buying street drugs or alcohol, they will simply abuse prescription drugs their parents keep in home medicine cabinets (Twenge, 2006). Parents often feel they have a good sense of what their children are doing, but their sheltering is not successful due to the ingenious of the generation. Trait 3 - Confident. Howe and Strauss paint a picture of this generation as motivated, goal-oriented and confident in themselves and in their future (2003). An optimistic group, this generation has high levels of belief in their sense of purpose, driven by the support of their parents. They believe in civic duty and have a sense of volunteerism (Gleason, 2008). As a whole, they expect college to launch them to greatness and allow them to incite the change they believe they are responsible for implementing (Howe & Strauss, 2003).
According to a survey from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program at the
University of California at Los Angeles—which has conducted a survey of incoming freshman since 1966—college students today “are not significantly busier, more confident, or more positive than they were in recent decades” (Hoover, 2009, para. 27).
Today’s young people lack confidence not only in their own abilities to be successful, but also in their abilities to influence their own success (Twenge, 2006). Instead they tend to

30

believe the world is “run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it” (Twenge, 2009, p. 139). When it comes to their own success, Twenge wrote about the belief of “getting a good job depends mainly on being at the right place at the right time” (2006, p. 139). They lack confidence in their own skills because ultimately they do not think their skills matter as much as circumstance.
Trait 4 - Team-oriented. According to Howe and Strauss, Millennials are group-oriented rather than individualists. Throughout their elementary and secondary education, Millennials often worked together on team or group projects, receiving shared group grades (Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007). As young people, they were encouraged to cooperate and collaborate with their peers and were raised to have an expectation that everyone should do his or her share of the work.
As a group, each individual might sacrifice his or her own identity to be a part of the whole. While they seem to form a tight-knit group within their own generation, they might also exclude those who belong to other generations. They are in constant contact with their peers through cell phone calls, text messaging and social media websites like
Facebook (Gleason, 2008). As a group, they are focused on service and volunteerism
(Howe & Strauss, 2003).
While Howe and Strauss claim that Millennials prefer to work in teams because they like to be part of a group that can share ideas and collaborate, Bourke and Mechler
(2010) found different motivations in their research. Their study led them to believe that
Millennials were less likely to choose teamwork based on Howe and Strauss’s reasoning, and more likely to choose team projects because authority figures stress the importance of teamwork in the workplace. They contended identifying the generation as Team-

31

Oriented is misleading as, “Millennials are more likely to be self-oriented and participate in team settings because they perceive these behaviors as expected of them” (Bourke &
Mechler, 2010, p. 2-3).
Researchers find that the self-absorbed mentality of this generation demonstrates makes it impossible for them to be truly team-oriented (Twenge, 2006). Millennials were taught by over-indulgent parents to put their own needs first and to focus on “feeling good about themselves” (Twenge, 2006, p. 7). Twenge (2006) cited a decline in military enlistment numbers as an example of Millennials focusing on themselves and not on the good of the country or an overwhelming sense of team. Twenge (2006) wrote there “is no evidence that today’s young people feel much attachment to duty or group cohesion.
Young people have been consistently taught to put their own needs first and to focus on feeling good about themselves” (Twenge, 2006, p.7).
Trait 5 - Achieving. Howe and Strauss presented that Millennials are a generation with a rising GPA but a declining crime rate (2003). Their focus on good grades, school involvement, community outreach and extracurricular activities results in better grades and more academic success. Millennials see college as a way to land a high-paying job, in order to choose a career track early on in their studies. As a generation they focus more on professional growth than on personal development, and they excel in math and science, whereas the Baby Boomers found success in art and humanities (Howe & Strauss, 2003). As a group, they might not see the value of lifelong learning, and might instead focus on college as a means to an end (Gleason, 2008).
While research from Howe and Strauss indicated that the Millennial Generation would be achieving in both academics and careers, but Bourke and Mechler’s research

32

demonstrates otherwise (Bourke & Mechler, 2010). The research indicated external locus of control increased significantly with this generation, and this increase means the generation may be less ambitious than its predecessors. An individual with an internal locus of control believes himself to be the cause of his own success or failure, while an individual with an external locus of control believes that outside forces determine his success or failure (Bourke & Mechler, 2010). Bourke and Mechler contend that this generation cannot be considered achieving because previous academic studies have shown that an “external locus of control relates to low academic achievement, impaired self-regulation, and depressive symptoms” (2010, p. 4). They claim, instead, that this generation has new ways to measure achievement, and so they appear to be achieving.
Twenge (2006) argued the generation is less successful than its predecessors, but is instead simply overly encouraged by parents. The author argued Howe and Strauss added to this sense of over-optimism in their books with chapter titles such as “You Can
Be Anything You Want to Be” (Howe & Strauss, 2006). “Childhoods full of constant praise, self-esteem boosting and unrealistic expectations” (Twenge, 2006, p. 7) do not prepare this generation for the real world of competitive job markets and a dwindling economy, and the generation is therefore not prepared to handle the truth. They have not been successful as adults (Twenge, 2006).
While Howe and Strauss predicted the Millennial Generation will be more academically successful than any of their predecessors (Howe & Strauss, 2009), studies have shown the opposite to be true. A national survey published by the National
Endowment for the Arts in 2004 found reading among all age groups from 1982 to 2002 declined, with the largest decline in those ages 18 to 24 (NEA, 2004). Additional survey

33

data shows that students in 2008 read less and absorb fewer facts than their predecessors
(Bauerlein, 2008).
Trait 6 - Pressured. Howe and Strauss contended Millennial Generation students are pressured by their parents to succeed, and therefore place a great deal of pressure of them. As a generation, they may struggle with time management and handling free time because so much of their childhoods were full of structured activity in school and at home. Their parents pushed them into extracurricular activities, chauffeuring their children from one event to the next, and planning each day so that as many activities as possible could be squeezed into every hour (Elam, Stratton, & Gibson,
2007).
These students are pushed hard to achieve, to avoid risks, and to take advantage of all opportunities presented to them. As a generation, they take on too much, participate in too many activities, create too many projects and then assume others should allow them flexibility to negotiate schedule conflicts. They have more homework than any previous generation, and more than 60% of them report they are sleep deprived (Gleason,
2008). Three out of four Millennials work more than 31 hours a week while taking college courses, and over half of them report that they worry about money (Gleason,
2008). They report high levels of both stress and anxiety (Gleason, 2008).
One new study reports that the average stress level for the Millennials is 5.4 on a scale of one to ten, with one as “little to no stress” and ten as “a great deal of stress.” The same study reported only a 4.9 in its 2012 results (Chehade, 2013). They feel that multitasking is a successful way to save time, but not understand that it could result in a poor quality of work (Howe & Strauss, 2003).

34

In opposition to Howe and Strauss’s theory, higher education administrator
Palmer Muntz explained “today’s college students are sharp kids, average kids, and kids with weaknesses, all with hopes and worries, floating day to day through teenage life”
(Hoover, 2009, para. 33). Muntz included the statistical data in Howe and Strauss’s research may be skewed, with the sample students somehow corrupting the findings
(Hoover, 2009).
Trait 7 - Conventional. Howe and Strauss (2003) contend that Millennials are conventional, respectful of authority, civic-minded and supportive of the government. As a generation, Millennials are mainstream, with clothing, music and cultural markings that do not make them stand out. They value the thoughts and opinions of their parents, and are more in line with the values of their parents than previous generations. They believe in social rules, and fear being considered non-conformist (Howe & Strauss, 2003). They have better manners than any previous generation, and are respectful of adults and authority (Gleason, 2008). They are more modest and much less sexually active than popular culture suggests through images in the media (Gleason, 2008). Millennials were raised in a non-authoritarian manner, and because of this, they are more likely to support course policies when faculty members give them a specific rationale for assignments and projects (Bart, 2011).
The research of Bourke and Mechler (2010) opposed the view that the generation is conventional and will make decisions in a way that relates to morality and tradition.
Bourke and Mechler’s research on locus of control led them to conclude that the generation is not truly conventional in decision-making, but instead lacks the “sense of duty or responsibility to others in order to go forward with a moral action” (Bourke &

35

Mechler, 2010, p. 4). This external locus of control can cause an individual to feel as though individual actions are ineffective because external forces ultimately impact the success of failure for any given situation, and so the individual might be less likely to
“exercise moral agency in any given situation” (2010, p. 4).
While Howe and Strauss (2003) stressed this generation seems to support the conventional values of its parents, Twenge (2006) argued Millennials are making decisions based on a fostered self-absorption that has led them down a moral-less path.
Using premarital sex as the primary example, Twenge explained Millennials cannot be conventional because they are too concerned with instant gratification and status
(Twenge, 2006). The author stated research shows more young people are having sex at earlier ages and with a higher number of partners than in any previous generation, and the attitude towards sex has become laid-back with young people who seem able to emotionally disconnect with the physical choices they make (Twenge, 2006). None of this, according to Twenge (2006), supports the idea that this is a generation of convention. With the creation of their seven defining traits for Millennial Generation, Howe and Strauss also created a series of guidelines for successfully educating the generation
(2007). The guidelines are based on the assumption that the seven defining characteristics are the most appropriate and accurate ways to define the Millennial
Generation. These guidelines include the following suggestions for classroom success:
1. Show students that you care and share your passion. Howe and Strauss contended that Millennial students will connect best with faculty members

36

who can demonstrate they are “real people” who are passionate about the work they do (Howe & Strauss, 2007).
2. Make rules you will enforce. Because Millennials generally respect rules and appreciate fairness, it becomes important for faculty members to know which rules are worthy of enforcement, and which are rules for the sake of having rules (Howe & Strauss, 2007).
3. Talk less. Millennials are taught that they are special, and the more they have the chance to express themselves in the classroom the more they will learn.
Ask more questions and lecture less often. Allow silence in the classroom while students think of answers, and avoid the temptation to provide answers
(Howe & Strauss, 2007).
4. Set high expectations. A generation of pressured over-achievers, Millennials probably can do more in the classroom than is expected of them. When standards are in place pushing this generation, they can achieve more than previous generations (Howe & Strauss, 2007).
5. Do not forget group work. With so much focus on teamwork and group learning, Millennials can excel when working with peers. If given the chance, they can learn valuable skills for the future when teamed together for projects, papers and presentations (Howe & Strauss, 2007).
6. Create narratives. Millennials love stories, and stories provide a way for students to connect with material. With the use of narrative in the classroom,
Millennials might be able to view academic subjects with a frame of reference other than their own sheltered lives (Howe & Strauss, 2007).

37

7. Use technology appropriately. Millennials are the most technically-savvy generation in history, and one of the best ways to get and keep their attention is to use technology in the classroom (Howe & Strauss, 2007).
8. Connect content with practice. Millennials ask “so what?” and if educators fail to provide this crucial part of the lesson, students will disengage.
Millennials are overwhelmed daily with a massive amount of information from media, and only the information that has meaning is fully processed
(Howe & Strauss, 2007).
9. Think outside the box. Education is only one small part of the Millennial student’s day and sometimes it takes something new and exciting to encourage this student to engage in learning. Try new teaching methods, new lesson plans, new student development models. Chances are that at least one student will connect with each idea an educator tries (Howe & Strauss, 2000).
10. Connect with students as individuals. Millennials have a story to tell, and for the majority of them, the story is varied and full of activities. Faculty members who learn about each individual student and find ways to connect with them on a personal level will find more success in the classroom (Howe
& Strauss, 2000).
If Howe and Strauss (2000) correctly identified generalities of this generation, then these thoughts on academic success make sense. Howe and Strauss, in essence, took their seven traits and created a teaching model to support the traits. Publications from
Howe and Strauss focus on practical tips for educators that work with Millennial

38

students, whether K-12 or in higher education. The seven traits are the same for all students in this generation, regardless of where each student might fall in current grade level. If Howe and Strauss created a list of traits that are not accurate, then their teaching guidelines are also inaccurate. Opponents of Howe and Strauss argued the seven traits did not focus on the correct characteristics for this generation, and therefore the education guidelines created by Howe and Strauss are ineffective (Twenge, 2010). If
Twenge is correct, and Millennials are not any more academically successful than their predecessors, then challenging them in the classroom with abnormally high expectations could be disastrous (Twenge, 2006). Her research shows that Millennials are not testing any higher than Generation X, therefore undeserving of higher expectations in the classroom (Twenge, 2006). If she is also correct that Millennials lack the self-esteem
Howe and Strauss write about, then academic failure in the classroom could set this generation back even further (Twenge, 2006). Twenge contended Millennials feel powerless to affect the status quo, and therefore lack any confidence in their own abilities. If this is true, then high expectations set by faculty members in the classroom could seem unattainable by Millennials. If instead of enjoying teamwork Millennials prefer to work on their own due to their selfish nature and lack of confidence in their peers (Twenge, 2006), a team-based classroom environment could frustrate students and impact the relationships between faculty members and students.
Conclusion
While Howe and Strauss are widely accepted as the foremost experts on the
Millennial Generation, it is important to note that more recent research has begun to

39

oppose the original projections made about Millennials. While the seven traits created by
Howe and Strauss still are held by some to be the ideal ways in which to describe this group, other definitive traits have been established, and should be examined when creating new theories in student affairs. Howe and Strauss may have identified seven traits that help to define the Millennial Generation, but traits created by other researchers also might be applicable to this group of learners, and the ideal suggestions for higher education administrators most likely combine both the seven traits from Howe and
Strauss and the possibilities from more recent research. As long as opposing research exists, there will continue to be a wide array of interpretations concerning who this generation is and how to best support them in the higher education environment.
Chapter Summary
While there has been a significant amount of research conducted on the Millennial
Generation, the scope of this research is limited. Howe and Strauss emerged as the industry experts on the subject, and many researchers simply took their seven traits as truth, creating their own research studies around the traits created by Howe and Strauss.
More recently, some researchers such as Twenge (2006), argued Howe and Strauss
(2000) created a limited set of generational characteristics when in fact many Millennial
Generation members might have opposing characteristics. If this is true, the higher education structure that assumes the seven traits of Howe and Strauss are accurate might need to change. Chapter 3 will outline a planned phenomenological study that explored the thoughts and feelings of Millennial Generation college students concerning their experience in higher education according to the seven traits defined by Howe and Strauss
(2000).

40

CHAPTER 3: METHOD
The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore the perceptions emerging from lived experiences of Millennial students in higher education concerning Howe and Strauss’s (2000) seven characteristics defining them as a generation, and how higher education leaders can use those traits to influence the
Millennial student’s higher education experience. Study participants were interviewed about their experiences in the college environment, according to the seven traits of the
Millennial Generation, as defined by Howe & Strauss (2000).
The exploration of the seven identified traits of members of the Millennial
Generation, how they impacted the experience of higher education students, and how higher education administrators could use knowledge of the seven traits to make changes to higher education improving the experience of Millennial Generation college students was conducted in the study. The research questions were:
R1. How do the seven traits of the Millennial Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by Millennial Generation college students?
R2. How might higher education leaders use the perceived associations of
Millennial Generation college students with the seven traits to influence
Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner?
Interview questions dealt directly with the two issues, framed according to each of the seven traits. The questions were created to better understand the lived experiences of the study participants, according to their experiences with each of the seven generational traits. Interview questions are located in Appendix A. Additional questions were included to allow students the chance to discuss other aspects of their lives that impacting

41

their learning. These aspects include but are not limited to the following: parental involvement, socio-economic status, education level of their parents, field of study, high school experience, high school GPA and participation in AP courses. Interview questions and research questions are aligned in the Interview and Research Question Matrix (See
Appendix E).
Research Method and Design Appropriateness
Method
A qualitative research design was used to gather data to explore the shared, lived experiences of Millennial Generation college students and the seven traits that define them as a generation. Although a quantitative study could have led to the gathering of data related to the research questions, in order to answer the research questions, qualitative research was used.
Qualitative research is best used to gain insight into the attitudes, behaviors, value systems, concerns motivations, aspirations, cultures, and lifestyles of the study group
(Patton, 2002.) As explored in Chapter 1, the qualitative method best served this study because it allowed the research questions to be examined with depth, detail, and openness, and without preconceived variables or categories (Patton, 2002). In order for research questions to be answered, qualitative data needed to be collected from study participants. Design
In addition to the qualitative method, the phenomenological design also allowed for the research questions to be answered successfully. This qualitative, phenomenological study consisted of interviews with 12 current or previous college

42

students from the Millennial Generation, using a modified van Kaam method of analysis of phenomenological data (Moustakas, 1994, p. 120–121). The intent of the study was to understand how possible identification with Howe and Strauss’s (2000) seven traits may have impacted the college experience of each participant. Each participant was interviewed in order to share his or her story and in order for the researcher to better understand how the participant feels about how the traits played a role in college experience. Other qualitative research designs were not selected because a phenomenological study was best-suited in order to answer the specific research questions of this study. Interviews allowed study participants to answer questions openly and honestly while a panel discussion might have led some participants to hesitate about answering honestly in front of other participants.
Research Questions
The qualitative phenomenological study explored the Millennial Generation and their experience in the world of higher education. The research questions for this study were: R1. How do the seven traits of the Millennial Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by Millennial Generation college students?
R2. How might higher education leaders use the perceived associations of
Millennial Generation college students with the seven traits to influence
Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner?
Population
The population of the study was Millennial Generation college students. Defined by their year of birth, members of the Millennial Generation were born from 1982 to

43

2000. The study focused on Millennials who attended or are attending college. Twelve participants from the same Midwest urban area were selected and interviewed for the project. Participants were selected based on their eligibility according to study guidelines and their availability for interview during the summer of 2012.
Sampling Frame
The sample for this study came from eligible students from the potential student population at a small proprietary school in an urban area in the Midwest (See Appendix
D). Because the researcher worked at the college at the time of the study, the Campus
President granted access to the potential student population.
Eligible participants were identified according to their date of birth, and their interest in enrolling in a collegiate program. All referrals for the study were sent by the
Admissions Department. Some study participants enrolled in the school and began to attend classes during the duration of the study. Others chose not to enroll.
Informed Consent
All study participants signed the Informed Consent Form (see Appendix B). The form introduced the researcher, and explained the details of the research study to each participant. The form included details about the interview process and the goals of the research study. It also explained ways in which the participants could choose to end their participation in the study, as well as how all data for the study would be stored. All study participants were at least 18 years of age at the time of the study.
Confidentiality
Because study participants might have been less likely to share personal information if they thought their answers and personal information would not be kept

44

confidential, the researcher used pseudonyms in writing the research. All research material was written in a way to keep research participants true identities private.
All interview notes and recordings were kept in a locked filing cabinet during the study, and will be kept in this locked location until three years after the publication of this study. At that time all notes and recordings will be destroyed using methods of permanent destruction.
Geographic Location
Interviews were conducted at a small proprietary college in an urban area in the
Midwest. All interviews were held in the same academic office, located in an area between the student and administrative portions of the building.
Data Collection
Data were collected through a series of one-on-one interviews with 12 study participants. All participants filled out the Interview Questionnaire (Appendix C) before the interview. Interview questions included general inquiries related to college experience, as well as questions specific to the seven generational traits defined by Howe and Strauss. Each participant was asked all the questions on the list of interview questions (Appendix A).
Interviews for this study were conducted on site at a small proprietary college in an urban area in the Midwest. Each interview was held in the office of the researcher.
Only the researcher and the study participant were present at each interview. No pilot study was conducted for this research study.
Instrumentation

45

A qualitative research method and a phenomenological research design were chosen. The phenomenological design allowed for the researcher to explore the shared experiences of the 12 study participants through a semi-structured interview procedure.
The task of the researcher is to create a comfortable climate in which the participant will respond thoroughly and truthfully (Moustakas, 1994). In order to achieve a comfortable climate, all interviews were conducted face-to-face at a small, Midwest college campus. The study used a semi-structured interview format with open-ended questions. (See Appendix A)
The interview included a series of questions concerning each of the seven traits in an attempt to gain insight about each of the traits and how the traits affect the students’ classroom experiences. Interview questions were designed to allow participants to share stories about their collegiate experiences, based on their perceptions of their seven generational traits. Interview questions were designed to align directly with the research questions, and they were used as the primary manner in which to gather data from the study participants. Each question queried participants about a possible connection with one of the seven traits, either providing a way to discuss the personal connection with the trait or the chance to discuss how the trait connected the participant’s educational experiences. The connection of each interview question to the two research questions and the seven traits can be seen in the Interview and Research Question Matrix
(Appendix E).
Additional questions were included to allow students the chance to discuss how higher education leaders have influenced their learning. These aspects include but were not limited to the following: parental involvement, socio-economic status, education level

46

of their parents, field of study, high school experience, high school GPA and participation in AP courses. Answers to these questions sometimes led to follow-up questions to gain clarity and understanding of the experiences of the participants.
All researchers begin a research project with an agenda (Sokolowski, 2000). The agenda includes gathering the information necessary to answer the research questions.
The researcher puts a great deal of time and energy into the design of the research project, and it would be impossible for the researcher to be completely objective during the interview process, but through bracketing any assumptions the researcher should be able to limit his or her bias and maintain a sense of objectivity (Sokolowksi, 2000).
Bracketing allows the researcher to be aware of his or her own bias, and suspend beliefs so that every aspects of the research project may be considered “precisely as it is intended by intentionality in the natural attitude” (Sokolowski, 2000, p. 49). Researchers can then work to consider each aspect of the study as it is intended to be considered for the research. A researcher’s own bias must be set aside from the study in order for the researcher to effectively interview study participants without injecting that bias into the study. The researcher’s beliefs are set aside and are bracketed outside of the interview so the bias can be dealt with during the interview process.
The researcher may use field notes to guarantee that all elements of the interview are notated properly (van Manen, 1990). Notes taken in the field should include the answers to the questions—although it is important to note that the actual answers also should be tape recorded—but also should include observations about the participant’s emotional and physical reactions to the questions (van Manen, 1990). The researcher’s field notes might be the only way certain elements of the answers are notated. The

47

recording device will capture the actual words, but the emotional response of the participant must be documented as well. If a researcher simply wrote down the words used to answer the question, it would be possible to miss other important parts of the answer, like a smile or tears or laughter. The particular look on the participant’s face as he or she answers could be important. The speed at which the participant answers could be telling to the research study as well. These elements could be more telling that the actual words used to answer the questions.
In addition to a focus on the behavior of the researcher, bias also was minimized with a focus on the four major ethical considerations for phenomenological research: autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence, justice, and vulnerability (Hewitt, 2007).
All four considerations focus on the rights of the study participants and the need for the interviewer to maintain the dignity of the study participants.
Validity and Reliability
Qualitative researchers look for authenticity in research, with research subjects who share a sincere, reasonable, and balanced description of a lived experience. Validity in qualitative data refers to the ability to transfer the data from the initial study to other settings. For this study, the assumption was made that study participants shared stories that were true and valid, to the best of their knowledge.
The study increased validity in a number of ways, largely by using the interview as a means to gather information. Interview questions were created in a manner that built answers from one to the next, thus encouraging participants to be truthful in their answers. This also allowed for the researcher to confirm truthfulness from one answer to the next. Interviewing is the most appropriate method of phenomenological designs

48

because it allows for the collection of shared lived experiences (Moustakas, 1994). The researcher ensured the participant felt answers were valid by speaking answers back to participants and allowing them the chance to clarify or expand upon answers. The researcher used follow-up questions for any interview questions that needed more indepth answers in order to gain understanding. This gave the participants a chance at complete truthfulness, as the research could clarify any answers that were unclear or not aligned with previous answers to other questions.
The researcher further validated the study by refraining from any preconceived notions of the study phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994), and by strictly adhering to the van
Kaam method of phenomenological analysis, as modified by Moustakas.
To ensure the current study was reliable, the interviewer used the same collection of interview questions with all study participants, thus allowing for interview answers to be compared and contrasted according the study participants shared, lived experiences.
The same person, using the same list of questions, conducted all 12 interviews, and also transcribed all 12 interviews.
Autonomy
Autonomy refers to the right one has for control over both self and actions
(Hewitt, 2007). In dissertation research, autonomy is addressed when the study participant signs paperwork that guarantees his or her rights will be upheld throughout the interview process. For this study, participants signed the Informed Consent Form
(Appendix B). The researcher also signs this paperwork, as it is possible that extremely empathetic interviewers could become too emotionally involved in the research questions as well. Autonomy allows the study participant the promise that interview questions will

49

not cause extreme duress or discomfort due to their intrusive nature (Smith, Flowers, &
Larkin, 2009).
Beneficence and Non-Maleficence
In phenomenological research beneficence and non-maleficence refer to the relationship that can develop between the researcher and the study participant (Hewitt,
2007). This relationship and the empathy that may develop due to it could influence the success or failure of the interview (Clark, 2006). The interviewee might be more willing to share if there is a strong relationship with the researcher, or less willing to share if what he or she has to share might be embarrassing. In the ideal situation, there is a balance (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). The interviewee trusts the interviewer enough to tell the truth, but does not develop so close a relationship that he or she would be hesitant to reveal anything perceived as negative. The relationship should instead be professional and friendly, so that the participant does not feel too much pressure to answer questions either way. For this research study, the researcher will seek out participants who are willing to share stories and who are honest. This means participants should most likely not be close friends of the researcher, as close friends might not be willing to share information that could portray them in a negative manner.
Justice
Justice in research means the researcher must maintain impartiality, and must let the study participants know what to expect in the interview process (Hewitt, 2007). The researcher must also be aware of the relationship that could develop between the interviewer and the study participant. Research questions rely on participants to share personal experience. These experiences may be charged with emotion, and it is crucial

50

that the participant be placed into a setting where trust is present. The participant is much more likely to answer truthfully and completely if he or she feels the researcher will use the story accurately and in the way it is intended to be used. For this research study, study participants should feel confident that their stories will be used both anonymously and in the manner agreed upon by both the participant and the researcher. Justice is best obtained by using study participants who are unknown to the researcher prior to the study. Masking and coding of research data will be used to maintain a level of security that allows the participant to move past the vulnerable nature of the research study. To analyze interview data appropriately, the researcher must be “free of preconceptions, beliefs, and knowledge of the phenomenon from prior experience and professional studies” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 22). The researcher must suspend his or her own views according to a moral, cultural, scientific, or empirical judgment about the phenomenon, and must suspend beliefs of the natural attitude (Husserl, 1970).
Data Analysis
Reflecting upon collected data from a phenomenological research study is different from the type of reflection that might happen in a quantitative research study.
Phenomenological writing “does not present the reader with a conclusive argument or with a determinate set of ideas, essences, or insight” (van Manen, 2002, p. 238). Instead it allows the reader to find greater understanding through the sharing of stories, possibly encouraging the reader to become engaged with the research topic (van Manen, 2002).
Triangulation
For this study, narrative stories collected in the interview process were triangulated with data collected by researchers for previous studies. Triangulation is a

51

researcher’s ability to validate the data collected in a phenomenological research project by comparing the results to other studies that used different methods to collect data
(Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). Triangulation is the researcher’s way to explore the study topic from the view of more than one person who has experience with the topic.
This might mean looking at the topic from the point of view of the person who experienced the phenomenon as well as from the point of view from people who witnessed the phenomenon (Elliott, Fischer, & Rennie, 1999).
Denzin described four different types of triangulation methods for research including: a) data triangulation; b) investigator triangulation; c) theory triangulation; and
d) methodological triangulation (Denzin, 2006). Data triangulation included the validation of time, space and people while investigator triangulation validates data by using more than one researcher (Denzin, 2006). When conducting theory triangulation the researcher uses more than one theoretical system to interpret the data, while methodological triangulation uses numerous methods to gather data including interviews, observations, questionnaires, and documents (Denzin, 2006).
Coding
The collection of data from interviews was presented in a collection of narratives, each carefully analyzed to see themes within the interview text. When a researcher approaches data to analyze it for thematic elements, there are a number of approaches that may be used, including data coding. The data collected for this study were coded manually according to interview transcripts. First interview transcripts were scanned for words and short phrases that jumped out at the researcher. These areas of the text were marked for later examination and possible use for direct quotation in data analysis. Data

52

were coded according to direct narrative. The codes established through this process were joined together with common codes so that categories can be created. Categories helped the researcher to determine an overarching theme in the data. The following is a brief analysis of how this coding process was conducted.
The data collected for the research study consisted of transcripts of interviews with 12 members of the Millennial Generation. The language came directly from study participants. Pre-coding of this data included the researcher’s diligent study of the language used by all study participants. Quotes or passages from study participants, those “codable moments worthy of attention” (Saldana, 2009, p. 16), were highlighted and studied further later when the researcher was ready to actually code the data. These marked sections became the quoted data for the research data analysis, or helped the researcher determine what topics to look for when coding the data later.
Once the researcher completed the pre-coding, the text was reread for clarity so the coding process could begin. Coding allows the researcher to pull from the text commonalities from different study participants (Saldana, 2009). The pre-coding conducted first gave the researcher an idea of what the coding topics might be.
While the pre-coding helps to establish the codes, the codes help to establish the categories. For this research data, the codes combined to form categories related to the seven generational traits from Howe and Strauss (2000). The researcher began to analyze the data according to theme and concepts, once the categories were created. This gave the researcher the opportunity to truly look for answers to the research question.
Procedures, the Intent of the Study, and Potential Risks

53

When research involves human subjects, there are rules and regulations that must be followed. Study participants will want to know the details of the study and how their study information will be kept private and confidential before they are willing to commit to the study (Rudestam & Newton, 2007).
Before any study participants can commit to the research study, it was important for all participants to have a thorough understanding of the procedures used in the study, as well as the intent and potential risks of the study (Rudestam & Newton, 2007).
Participants learned these details by reading the Informed Consent Form (Appendix B) which was collected at the interview. The letter explained the purpose, significance, and intent of the study, as well as samples of the study’s research questions. The letter explained the role each study participant plays in the study by sharing his or her experiences as a college student. The letter stated clearly there was no reimbursement for participation in the research study. Because this researcher planned to ask study participants to share their perceptions, feelings and thoughts about generational issues tied to their higher education experience, it was crucial that each participant feels comfortable and willing to share; this was best achieved by full understanding of the research project and its intent.
The form also told participants the specifics of the study procedures, including listing details of the risk involved and explanation of the ways in which the participant’s name, school and personal identifiers will be kept confidential throughout the research study process. Potential risks for a study could include possible emotional, psychological, physical, social, economic, or political difficulties or harm that might ensue from participating (Rudestam & Newton, 2007). Participants were asked to sign

54

two copies: One copy and return it to the researcher and a second copy and maintain it for their records.
In order for the researcher to have some basic background information about each study participant, participants also completed the Interview Questionnaire (Appendix C).
This form was completed prior to the interview, and was used as a basis for specific questions. It also gathered some basic demographic data to be used by the researcher to determine overall facts about the 12 study participants.
Withdrawal Procedure
The Informed Consent Form also told study participants that their participation is voluntary, and they could withdraw at any time during the study. A participant could withdraw in person, by telephone or through e-mail. If a participant withdrew before the interview was conducted, all documented personal information would be shredded and not used in the study. If the participant withdrew from the study after the interview, but before the research was written and presented to the committee, all research gathered and documented personal information would be shredded or destroyed and not used in the study. This includes written material submitted on behalf of the study participants, but also includes audio recordings from the interview, and notes made by the researcher throughout the research process.
Contacting the Researcher
The researcher’s contact information was included in the Informed Consent Form
(Appendix B). Participants were given the researcher’s work and cell numbers, and both work and personal e-mail addresses. Participants were encouraged to call or e-mail if they had any questions about the Informed Consent Form or the Interview Questionnaire.

55

The researcher reserved the right to contact the study participants by telephone or e-mail if additional questions arise after the interviews are complete.
Maintaining Privacy and Guaranteeing Confidentiality
Maintaining the privacy of each study participant was crucial to the study.
Participants may be less likely to share their true feelings and thoughts if they think their responses to interview questions will not be kept confidential. In order to maintain this privacy and confidentially, the researcher used pseudonyms in writing the research.
Notes taken by the researcher from the interview used this same system of pseudonyms.
Audio tapes of the interviews were stored in a locked location, and all computer files were saved on a computer without Internet connection. No one but the researcher had access to the notes from the interview, audio tapes of the interview or the research in general, until it was presented to committee for approval. All materials from the interviews including written material submitted on behalf of the study participants, audio recordings from the interview, and notes made by the researcher throughout the research process will be kept in a locked location until five years after the publication of this research. At that time, all data will be destroyed by permanent destruction means.
Chapter Summary
Using a series of 12 interviews, the researcher collected data that can help in determining more about the collegiate experience of each study participant. By organizing and analyzing the collected stories, the researcher was able to learn more about the way in which the traits that define the Millennial Generation may have played a role in the college experience of each study participant. All data were coded in order to identify trends in the shared experiences of the participants, and the trends were then

56

examined in order to create future recommendations for higher education administrators.
Chapter 4 will outline the actual collection of data from the interviews.

57

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore the perceptions emerging from lived experiences of Millennial students in higher education.
Perceptions were based on Howe and Strauss 's (2000) seven characteristics that define
Millennials as a generation, and how higher education leaders can use those traits to influence the Millennial Generation higher education experience. This specific list of seven generational characteristics helped to identify members of the Millennial
Generation. Millennial Generation traits include the following: special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving (Howe & Strauss,
2000).
The information presented in Chapter 4 is based on the results of this qualitative phenomenological study. Only three of Howe and Strauss’s generational traits were overwhelmingly present in the majority of participants: special, self-confident, and pressured. The majority of participants did not relate with the following traits: sheltered, achieving, team-oriented, and conventional. An additional fourth theme includes the use of technology, both in and outside of the classroom.
The research questions for this study were: a) How do the seven traits of the
Millennial Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by Millennial
Generation college students?, and b) How might higher education leaders use the perceived associations of Millennial Generation college students with the seven traits to influence Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner? These research questions shaped the Interview Questions (see Appendix A) that were created to explore each study participant’s experience with the seven traits as they relate to higher

58

education. The goal was to fully understand each study participant’s collegiate experience, and help form connections to relationships they have with the seven traits that define them.
Data Collection Process
The 12 participants in the study were interviewed in a private office at a small proprietary college in an urban city in the Midwest in August, September, and October of
2012. Interview times varied, but all interviews were conducted during the business day,
Monday through Friday. The interview process included a number of steps. Each participant was given a copy of the Informed Consent Form (see Appendix B) to sign voluntarily, and each participant was given an Interview Questionnaire (see Appendix C) which included contact information and basic family data. All participants were briefed on the nature of the study, the interview process, and the two research questions, as well as some basic background knowledge on the Millennial Generation and the generation’s seven defining traits. Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Each study participant was asked each question (Appendix A), and was given the chance to share his or her higher education story. The interview questions gave each participant the opportunity to share his or her lived experiences regarding each of the seven generational traits. Follow-up questions included but were not limited to the following topics: parental involvement, socio-economic status, education level of their parents, field of study, high school experience, high school GPA, and participation in AP courses. At the end of the interview, participants were asked if they had anything further to share. Interviews ranged in length from 30 to 90 minutes. Each interview was audio

59

recorded, and then later transcribed to ensure data accuracy. For the purposes of this study, the 12 participants were labeled P1-P12.
To reduce the possibility of bias from the researcher, the researcher adhered to epoche during the interview process and set aside all judgment or preconceived notions about the research subject. All previous experiences, perceptions, preferences, and feeling towards the phenomenon were set aside (Moustakas, 1994).
Research Questions
This section reiterates the research questions which guided this study. The first research question addressed the way in which Millennial Generation college students feel they are impacted by the seven traits used to define them as a generation. The second research question sought to understand how higher education officials might use this knowledge to better serve this group of students both in and outside of the classroom.
R1. How do the seven traits of the Millennial Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by Millennial Generation college students?
R2. How might higher education leaders use the perceived associations of
Millennial Generation college students with the seven traits to influence
Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner?
Data Coding and Analysis
In order to answer the research questions under a qualitative framework, a phenomenological analysis was conducted with the data from the transcribed interviews of the 12 study participants. The focus of the study was to identify the shared, lived experiences of the 12 study participants as related to their experience as Millennial
Generation college students. In order to identify their experiences, the seven-step method

60

created by van Kaam and modified by Moustakas (1994) was used. The seven steps of the modified van Kaam method included: (a) listing and preliminary grouping; (b) reduction and elimination; (c) clustering; (d) final identification on themes; (e) generation of individual textural descriptions; (f) construction of individual structural descriptions; and (g) the creation of textural-structural descriptions.
Modified van Kaam Method
The seven steps of the modified van Kaam method (Moustakas, 1994) were used to create the thematic categories based on the answers of the 12 study participants. These themes reflected the shared, lived experiences of the 12 study participants and their perceptions of the seven traits of their generation and the relationship of those themes to their collegiate experiences.
Step one of the modified van Kaam process was the listing and preliminary grouping of all answers from the 12 participants that were relevant to their experiences as
Millennial Generation college students. This was accomplished by examining the transcribed interviews to code the text of the interviews of the participants.
The second step of the analysis was the reduction and elimination of the invariant constituents, those coded answers which were not necessary to the research. Necessity was determined using two criteria: a) Does it contain a moment of the experience that is a necessary and sufficient constituent for understanding it? and b) Is it possible to abstract and label it? If the invariant constituent met these two criteria, they were considered horizons of the experiences of the 12 study participants.
The third step of the data analysis required clustering and thematizing of the invariant constituents using theming labels. Four overall themes were established during

61

this step. Millennials felt special, self-confident, and pressured, and felt a connection to technology. Three themes tied directly to the seven traits of the Millennial Generation, and one theme emerged separate from the seven traits. These four themes represented the overall core of answers given by the 12 study participants.
The fourth step of the modified van Kaam method (Moustakas, 1994) allowed the invariant constituents and the themes to be validated. This process was completed by examining the invariant constituents according to a) when they were actually expressed according to the transcripts of the interviews, and b) when they were compatible if not stated directly.
The fifth step allowed for the researcher to find textural examples of when each of the four themes were mentioned by the study participants, while the sixth step allowed for this to be done in a more concise matter as the researcher summarized the information of the individual textural description and used imaginative variation to discuss the relevant experience of each of the 12 study participants. The steps gave voice to the four themes, as specific text examples were listed for each theme.
The seventh step of the data analysis allowed the researcher to construct a composite textural-structural description to embody the shared, lived experiences of the
12 study participants effectively. These composite descriptions allowed the two research questions to be answered completely, as they allowed for the collected data to be presented as a whole, in a structured and sharable manner.
Study Participants
For this study, 12 participants were interviewed concerning their lived experiences in higher education. Study participants were members of the Millennial

62

Generation, meaning they were born since 1982, and were recommended for this study by the Department of Admissions at a small proprietary college in urban an area in the
Midwest. Some study participants were current members of the student community at the time of the research; others were potential students at the time of the research. All study participants had some experience in higher education.
All study participants are members of the Millennial Generation, born between
1982 and 2000. The study participants ranged in age from 20 to 30 years old. All student participants live in or around the same urban area in the Midwest. Some live there as temporary residents in order to attend school. Others are long-time residents. All study participants were originally recommended for the study by the Department of Admissions at the same small proprietary school, based on a request for enrollment information into courses offered by the college. For some of the participants, this meant a request for information about the programs offered by the school. For others it meant a request of information on the continuing education hours offered to the community.
To establish themes and connections in the data, transcripts of each of the 12 interviews were analyzed. Basic commonalities between the study participants were based on a number of aspects: age, geography, level of education, family situations.
Because interview questions were grouped according to the seven traits, the thematic analysis focused on these traits. All 12 participants (100%) expressed they were impacted by at least one of the seven traits of their generation, and all participants recalled at least one experience where the trait affected their educational experience. The participants spoke openly about being both positively and negatively influenced by their

63

parents, family values, socio-economic status, academic success, siblings, and a wide variety of other items which tied back to the influence of the seven traits.
The 12 study participants included seven females and five males, ranging in age from 20 to 30-years-old. The participants were born in various places across the country, but at the time of the study all currently lived in an urban area in the Midwest. The participants had varying levels of education. The highest level of education was held by
P2, who works as Doctor of Chiropractic. The lowest level of education is held by P12, who was just beginning a Diploma program at the time of the study. Seven participants were married. Four study participants were unmarried, while one was divorced. This data is outlined in Appendix F: Demographics of Study Participants.
Participant 1
P1 is a 29-year old single female from a small town in the Midwest. She grew up in a home with her brothers and parents, but her parents have since divorced. Her mother holds an Associate’s Degree, and her father did not attend school past high school. She attended a small state school, and holds a degree in counseling. She works in financial management at a small, private college in the Midwest.
Participant 2
P2 is a 30-year-old married male who grew up in a small town in the Midwest.
P2’s parents were still married, and neither furthered education past high school. P2 works as a Chiropractic Physician and as an adjunct faculty member at a local trade school. Participant 3

64

P3 is a recently divorced 23-year-old female who lives alone in an urban area in the Midwest. P3 was raised by her mother, who did not attend school past high school, and she did not know anything about her father. She was currently taking courses at a professional school to earn her Doctor of Pharmacy degree, and she currently works as a student pharmacist.
Participant 4
P4 is a 29-year-old married female, and at the time of her interview, she was pregnant with twins. She was raised in the Midwest, and her parents were still married and lived in the home in which P4 was raised. Her mother graduated from college, and her father has a PhD. P4 works as an account manager for a local company specializing in wedding consultations. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree in marketing from a local, private college.
Participant 5
P5 is a 24-year-old male, originally from a small town in the Midwest. His mother, who raised him, did not attend college. He had regular visits with his father, who completed a Bachelor’s Degree. P5 works in billing for a large insurance company.
Participants 6 and 7
P6 and P7 are siblings, and they were each interviewed separately. P6 is a 20year-old single male, and P7 is his 24-year-old married sister. They were raised in a home with their married parents and eight other siblings. They were home-schooled by their mother, who holds a Bachelor’s Degree. P6 holds about 50 college credits from a small community college, and P7 holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Fisheries and Wildlife from a large state-school.

65

Participant 8
P8 is a 28-year-old female from a small town in the Midwest. She currently lived alone in an urban area in the Midwest. P8 holds a theatre degree from a state school, and works for a non-profit theatre organization. She was raised by her parents, who were still married, and grew up with a large, blended family of biological and adopted siblings.
Participant 9
P9 is a 26-year old male who grew up on the East coast. He holds both
Bachelor’s Degrees and a dual law degree and MBA from a Catholic college in the
Midwest. His parents were divorced, and he was raised by his mother and stepfather.
His mother works as a nurse. He did not know the details of his father’s education, but his stepfather works as a lawyer.
Participant 10
P10 is a 21-year-old student at a small private school in the Midwest. She was raised in an urban area in the Midwest, where she lived with her mother, step-father, and siblings. Her father was abusive, and P10 spoke about how that abuse impacted her life.
Religion also played a key role in her life, and she talked about the major influence her grandfather had over her belief system.
Participant 11
P11 is a 30-year-old single male who was raised in a small town in the Midwest by his brother after his parents divorced when he was very young. He works as a bartender. Participant 12

66

P12 is a 22-year-old single female who was raised in a large family. She not only lived with her siblings and parents, but also her aunts, uncles, and cousins. She holds a part-time job in customer service at retail chain and serves on the Student Council at her college. Her parents were still married, and her mother completed high school. Her father did not attend school past sixth grade. Both English and Spanish are spoken in her home. Findings
The successful completion of the seven steps of data analysis resulted in four overall themes concerning how the study participants perceived the seven traits of the
Millennial Generation were present in their experiences as college students.
Themes
Themes and connections were formed by evaluating all 12 interviews according to each of the seven traits. The participants formed obvious connections as they discussed four major themes:
1) Feeling special to their parents,
2) Being raised to have self-confidence,
3) Being pressured to achieve, and
4) Feeling influenced by technology in education.
The participants did not overwhelmingly agree with all seven of Howe and Strauss’s
(2000) themes. While they identified with feeling special, self-confident, and pressured, they did not identify with sheltered, achieving, team-oriented, or conventional.
Theme 1: Millennials are special to their parents. All 12 research subjects stated they were made, in some way, to feel special by their parents. Although the

67

subjects come from a wide variety of family structures and socio-economic backgrounds, each had a specific way that his or her parents singled out the subject and made the subject feel special in the family. This feeling of specialness was sometimes based on individual time spent with parents and sometimes based on acknowledgement of particular skills in athletics or academics. Whatever the method, 12 of 12 (100%) of the subjects identified that their parents did make them feel special, although some families made it more of a priority than others.
P1 recalled that her parents were an active part of her childhood when they
“Watched my boundaries, making sure that I made it to work on time, that I was showing up to things, that I was being good.” P1, the oldest sibling, said her parents “Always held me to a higher standard. They expected me to keep busy, to stay out of trouble … to go out and work and earn a living.”
P1 and P2 both talked about a sense of “crash and burn” in college, when suddenly there was no one to take attendance and make sure they went to class every day.
They each had to evaluate their choices and make more of an effort to be independent from their parents. P2 spoke about the conventional roles his parents played in his life.
His mother stayed home and his father worked. He said she did not even work part-time until he and his siblings were out of the house, and she got a job to “kill the time.” As a child, his parents made time to attend all his sporting events, including travelling with him when he made the competitive travelling basketball team. He said that as far as he could remember, they “never missed a game.” While P2 was in college, he came home every weekend and his mother did his laundry for him.

68

P3 is an only child and said she was made to feel special by both her parents and her grandparents because she was “so smart and well-behaved.” She talked about being very close to her grandparents, who often watched her while her parents were working, and how that relationship with them elevated her to a higher level than her cousins.
Because she was an only child, she said she “did not have anyone to compete against,” so she simply competed against herself, by setting goals for herself and celebrating when she did better than she had before. The better she did, the more her family recognized her success and she continued to feel even more special in her family.
P4 is the youngest of six children, and she said she did not have a great relationship with her parents while she was young. While she did say that her parents made her feel special by taking part in the activities she enjoyed most, she also said they did not do a great job of consistently singling her out among her siblings.
P5 said that his parents raised him with the motto “pursue your dreams,” and he feels like that helped him to feel special as a child. When he started taking college classes, he said his family showed him a great deal of support. On his father’s side of the family, there are very few college graduates, so obtaining his college degree is something unique to his family. He said he knows his family will see him as even more special and successful once he completes his degree.
Siblings P6 and P7 come from a family with 10 children, and they both said they were made to feel special as children, and that the feeling carried over into their young adulthood. P6 talked about family dinners when each child would share an accomplishment of the day. Because they were home-schooled, each child had the chance for individual time with both parents, and this added to each child feeling special.

69

P7 said she remembers doing “Mommy and Daddy Dates,” where her parents would single out one child to come along for errand running or grocery shopping. She said this made each of them feel special because they each got that one-on-one time with both parents. P8’s blended family required her parents to focus on making each child feel special. She is one of six children, and all of her siblings were adopted. She is the only biological child in her family. She said that alone made her feel special in her family, but it also made each of her siblings feel special. She said they spoke often of each child’s story, where they all came from, and how they joined the family. She said her parents were very good at helping each child find what he or she was best at, and then encouraging success in that subject or activity.
P9 was raised by his mother and stepfather, and because he was an only child he was often made to feel special by them. He said his parents divorced due to his biological father’s alcoholism, and that his mother and his stepfather provided him with extra support when he was young to help compensate for that. He said his mother sometimes made him feel “too special,” and when he was ready to leave home and look at schools he chose one far away from her so that he could have the chance to establish himself as an adult away from her.
P10 said her parents made her feel special when she was younger by carving out time to spend with her alone. She went fishing with her stepfather or went shopping with her mother. The time with her parents gave her the chance to talk about herself and what she was going through, and she said she always felt like her parents knew what she was

70

going through at school and with her friends. As a young adult, this “singling out” continues, as they still celebrate her good grades with a family dinner or a night out.
P11 said he gives credit to his older brother for feeling special when he was growing up. He said he and his brother are still very close, and they rely on each other for the type of encouragement most people would probably get from their parents. His father traveled with the military throughout most of P11’s childhood, and his mother
“was left to raise the kids.” Because she did not always “remember to make her kids feel special,” he and his brother learned to be supportive of each other.
P12 said she feels blessed to have parents who did such a good job of making her feel special and loved as a child. She said she had plenty of time with each parent, and so did her siblings. P12 said she felt like it was easy to do well in school because she felt like her parents simply expected it of her, so she grew up believing she could do it. She credits her positive attitude and overall sense of ease with people to her parents.
For this study, 100% (12 of 12) of participants identified they were made, in some way, to feel special while they were growing up. While their parents and family members chose different ways to recognize the study participants, each family did make an effort to recognize their children.
Theme 2: Millennials have self-confidence. Interview questions about selfconfidence revealed that most subjects feel they were raised to express confidence.
Individual subjects were influenced by their parents in different ways, but 75% (9 of 12) reported their parents helped them to believe they could be successful in school, athletics, and extra-curricular activities. Parents who took a special interest in the activities of their children seem to have influenced their self-esteem, and parents who modeled positive

71

self-esteem also appear to have had a large influence on their children. The three students who said they do not feel their parents made an effort to encourage them to be self-confident said they still feel confident; they simply believe that confidence came from a source outside of the family.
P1 said she felt like her parents were pretty laid back during her childhood, and allowed her to be fairly confident. She said she always felt like they were very supportive, so even if she “made a major mistake” they would still love her. She talked about making poor choices in high school with drugs like marijuana, and when her parents discovered what she had been doing, they disciplined her but did not make her feel like a family outcast. She said, “They loved me. I always knew they loved me.”
She said this let her know that even if she disappointed them, they would still be proud of who she was and how she turned out, and this gave her the confidence to take healthy risks. P2 said that he never lacked self-confidence as a young person, and he credits his mother for that. He also credits this over-confidence with the “crash and burn” reality of college. He said he did not have to study much in high school to get good grades. He said he could stay up late the night before and cram for a test, and then still wake up the next morning, go to school and do well academically. This over-confidence collided with the reality of college life, when suddenly instructors did not take attendance. He learned his lesson after first term, and adjusted both his study and sleeping habits for the next term so that he could continue to earn the good grades he had grown accustom to in high school. 72

P3 said while she does not feel she was raised to have self-confidence, she found her confidence in her success with academics and athletics, and her parents reinforced that by praising her success. She said that her parents never made the point to tell her to believe in herself, but the fact that they believed in her, led her to have the confidence to believe in herself.
In her house growing up, P4 said she thinks her parents actually worked against her achieving self-confidence. She enjoyed performing in theatrical productions in high school, but when she told her parents she wanted to start auditioning for plays in college, they were not supportive. She said she did not pursue theatre as a college major, in part, because she remembers hearing her parents speak poorly about her older sister, who was not successful auditioning for plays in college. She said she knew “it just was not really an option.” P4 said it was not until she was finished with college and working that she really began to have self-confidence, and that this confidence came from positive reinforcement from people outside of her family. She says her husband now supports her aspirations, and this has helped to raise her self-confidence. She talked about how important it will be for her to raise her own children to be confident, and to believe that their parents have faith in their ability to achieve.
P5 said self-confidence was a popular topic in his house. His parents tried to instill in him that he should be himself, and not let other people “judge him or get him down.” He said he learned at a young age that it was “just fine” if he was different from his classmates, and he was confident that he would find a place to fit in. He said that while high school was hard for him socially, he has found his place as a young adult, and he feels much more confident about himself and his abilities now.

73

P6 said his parents excelled in positive reinforcement, and that allowed him to gain self-confidence. He talked about being taught “anything worth doing is worth doing well,” and said that has stayed with him. It influenced how he did school work as a child, and influences him now as an adult. He said he feels confident that his parents will support him, whatever he chooses to do, and they will positively respond to whatever he chooses to do with his life professionally.
P7 had a different experience in the same family. She said that as a female, she was not raised to have the same confidence that her brothers were encouraged to have.
She said her parents were very supportive of her academically, and they expressed a great deal of confidence in her academic skills and her ability to think critically; however, she said they did not show the same support in her ability to make good choices in her personal life. She cited examples in buying clothing with her parents as a teenager.
When she would try on jeans, the rule was that her father had to be able to “grab a fist full of denim,” and if he could not, then the jeans were too tight. She said she did not own a bikini until she moved out of the house, and when she did buy a bikini, she felt obligated to tell her parents. She was quick to say that coming from a family like this has taught her what she will want to do with her own children, but has also taught her what she knows she will not do. She explained, “I want my daughters to dress modestly, but I want them to also learn they have something that is worth treating well, and it is a fine line.” She said she feels confident now, about both her intelligence and her body, but it took a while for her to “work it all out.”
P8 said that while she feels she is self-confident as an adult, she does not feel it is a direct reflection of her parents. She does not recall being coached by her parents to

74

have confidence, but she did say there was an overall mentality that all the kids should
“be proud of what you can do or who you are.”
P9 studied martial arts as a young person, and he said that much of his selfconfidence came from that training. He also said that he did very well academically, and his achievement made him feel good about himself in the classroom. He said he scored as the top student in his class beginning in elementary school and maintained good grades throughout high school. His parents rewarded him for that success, but it also set into motion an expectation for him to continue with that success in college.
P10 stated very directly while she was raised by her parents to have high selfesteem and self-confidence, she does not feel she currently has either. P10 acknowledged there is an absolute disconnect between those two statements, and she blames her poor choices in a few key relationship throughout high school for her current lack of selfconfidence. She said that her inability to “evaluate people for who they really are” makes her doubt herself. P10 said this doubt led to an abusive relationship, which has since led her to doubt her ability to see people for who they really are. She said she is aware that this is an issue, and she is making an effort to be more like the self-confident girl she was before the bad relationship. She stated she is trying to put herself “out there with the college” by actively engaging in the new collegiate environment. She said she does not want to be “just a girl who goes to class, does her homework and graduates,” but rather she wants to be a part of the community.
P11 said he feels like he is self-confident now, but he is not sure how he gained that confidence. His parents are both in the Army, and he said he thinks that the selfconfidence they both have simply “wore off” onto him. He said he got into school

75

knowing he could be successful, even though he only knows one other person who works in his future field, his cousin. He never doubted his ability to make it work out because he is confident that he can pretty much do whatever he sets out to accomplish.
P12 said her self-confidence comes from her parents, but in a way that she described as “backwards.” Her father was physically abusive to her mother when P12 was very young, but she said she remembers it. She said she made a decision at a very young age that she was going to respect herself enough and believe in herself enough that she simply would not let anyone hurt her. She made the choice “not to be like Mom in that way.” She said, “It stuck.” She has confidence now that she can do well in school or make friends easily simply because she decided she could. As a college student, she said that manifests itself in her ability to easily talk with classmates or present projects in class, and she feels very confident speaking with the leaders at the college.
For this study, 75% (9 of 12) of the participants identified their parents played a role in their self-confidence. While each family helped the study participants to learn to be self-confident in different ways, the study participants were influenced by their parents. Theme 3: Millennials are pressured to achieve. Although not all subjects were consistently successful throughout their academic careers, most subjects revealed that their parents, families, and friends put a great deal of pressure on them to achieve academically. Many participants said they put a good deal of pressure on themselves to achieve. P1 discussed pressure to achieve academically, and that she knew there was an expectation for her to set an example for her younger brothers. She said she knew she

76

“…had to go to college. I knew that in order for me to be anywhere successful like I wanted, that I needed to go get a degree.… That pressure came from within, and it still does.” She said she continues to put pressure on herself to achieve, sometimes to be more successful than her brothers, sometimes to be more successful than she was in her past. P2 said he did not feel particularly pressured to be “the best” at anything that he did, but there was definitely a sense of pressure to be active and involved. He said,
“There is a pressure to do well but not to go above and beyond.” He played sports and took piano lessons as a child, and he said that, for him, college was not an option. It was an expectation. His father’s sister paid for his collegiate education, and also paid for the education of his siblings and cousins. After he graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree and chose to go on to professional school, he said his parents were supportive.
P3 said she was pressured to do well in school, while her male cousins were pressured more with athletics. She added to the pressure from her parents and grandparents by placing pressure on herself. Once she started pharmacy school, there was an additional level of pressure. Her parents did not complete as much school as she has already finished, and she said she takes pride in being the first to earn a Doctorate in her family.
P4 attended a private, Catholic school for her undergraduate degree. She talked about being the youngest of six children, and feeling pressure to attend that same college as her siblings. Her father also attended that school. She said that it was not even “part of the thought process” to consider attending a school other than the one she chose. As a college student, she felt pressure again from her parents to study something which could

77

help her “get a job and make some money.” She said her parents pressured her to think about college practically, as opposed to thinking about college as a place where she might develop personally or professionally.
P5 talked about the different kinds of pressure he felt from both his parents. His described his mother as “very conservative. She watches Pat Graham every morning, and says her prayers every night.” He said he feels like she wanted him to “be the best at everything.” He said he felt like it was not enough for her if he “just graduated from college.” He felt like she wanted him to “graduate with honors and win awards.” He said that put a good deal of pressure on him to achieve academically. He said his father placed a different kind of pressure on him. His father regarded college as a “means to an end. He just wanted me to graduate. Period.” P5 said his father, who is more educated than his mother, talked about a college degree in any discipline as a way to open doors, and so his father simply placed pressure on P5 to complete a degree. For his father, it did not matter as much what P5 studied or even how good his grades were, he simply needed to graduate so he would have opportunities.
P6 said his parents pressured him to achieve, and that the pressure was because they could see that he “had potential.” He said as a child he was gifted in math concepts and construction, like his father who works as an engineer, and his parents pushed him to excel in those subjects. As a college student, when he skips class or does not finish an assignment, he feels that same pressure from himself. He said he does not want to let them down, so he has, in part, made their goals his goals.
P7 said she did not feel pressured so much as she felt encouraged by her parents to achieve. She also said her siblings might feel differently. Because she did well

78

academically, she did not need as much pressure. She said her siblings were pushed more “because of their learning styles or their lack of drive.” She said there was an expectation for all 10 children to attend college, but she also said her parents set an example that “in an ideal family, Mom does not work because Dad is providing for the family.” Academic success was a huge deal for P8 and her siblings. She said she almost never missed class, and her parents expected her to get good grades once she had established at a young age that she could score high. She talked about getting a ‘C’ on her report card when she was young, and how much she felt like she had disappointed her parents. Her dad asked her if she had done the best she could have done, and when she said no, he told her that it was “not acceptable.” She said she was raised with the mindset that the final grade was not as important as the knowledge that she had done her best, and once her parents knew what her best was, they held her to that standard. She said they also acknowledged that with six children, some would have strengths in some subjects and weaknesses in others.
P9 said that he always felt very pressured about both his academic and athletic success, and most of that came from his stepfather’s father. He said, “My grandfather always used to say to me ‘You are nothing without a dollar in your pocket,’ and that made me feel like I needed success to get money.” He said for him, success meant academic success, so has started to equate good grades with a future paycheck. As a young man, he said he loved to watch Meet the Press, and he especially admired its host,
Tim Russert. One day his stepfather told him Tim Russert had a law degree, and so P9 started to question that. He said it started as a thought, “Should I go to law school?” and

79

then transformed into the positive mantra, “I could go to law school,” until it began a daily affirmation, “I will go to law school.” He found himself in law school, and now, as a lawyer who also holds an MBA. He placed all that pressure on himself because he thought he needed to in order to be successful, but he said now he finds that he places pressure on himself over immaterial items, like how quickly he can complete his chores and errands. He said he has learned to be most effective with his time when he is very busy, and now that school is finished, he has more free time so he feels he is not as effective with his time.
P10 said the pressure from her parents was not as focused on her academic achievement but more on how she developed as a person. Her fairly conservative parents coached her to “be a good person and make smart choices” based largely on their religious beliefs. When she started taking college classes, that pressure manifested itself in her personal desire not just to do well academically, but also to make a name for herself on campus. She said she became a leader in her class, not only scoring well on exams but also joining Student Council and volunteering her time with campus activities.
She said her parents continue to be pleased with her social development.
With two military parents, P11 said pressure was a part of his home. Because his parents both traveled for the military, the pressure depended on which parent was in the country at the time. Because both parents worked, he and his brother felt pressured to take care of the house, and he felt pressure from his father to excel in sports. He felt some pressure to join the military because it was something that had worked for both his parents. He said that pressure morphed into the idea that he should find what was right for him, and he said that led him to his current field of study.

80

P12 said the pressure from her parents came mostly with the catchphrase “Do better than we did.” She was raised by Mexican-American parents, and they did not have the chance to go to college or move beyond entry-level jobs. P12 said there was an overwhelming pressure when she was growing up to “make something” of herself and find a way to be successful in a career. She knew she had to go to college because she would be the first one in her family to attend school past high school. She said she
“wants to be an inspiration for the family.” She said she puts pressure on herself to do well in school so that she might encourage her younger brothers and sisters to go to college as well.
Pressure to achieve was common among study participants. While not all 12 study participants were active in sports, pressure to be successful in athletics was present for a number of participants. All study participants identified feeling pressured to achieve academically.
Theme 4: Technology impacts Millennial education. The final theme from this research included a response from participants concerning what they thought made them different from previous generations. This theme is not tied to one of Howe and Strauss’s
2000) seven generational traits, but instead is an overarching theme established through conversations about differences from generation to generation.
Participants cited the use of technology as something separating them from their parents and from previous generations. They discussed technology in the classroom and the use of technology in standardized tests, both of which were not readily available to generations before them. P8 and P9 both mentioned plagiarism as something that has changed in academics since the Internet, citing examples of friends or classmates who

81

found research papers online and handed them in as their own. P2 also discussed technology as a faculty member, mentioning online sites he can use to submit papers to a
“plagiarism checker” to ensure his students’ work is indeed their own. P4 said he feels
“Technology has changed the college experience” because students today have to “think and study differently than their parents did.”
Many of them gave examples from social media websites; Facebook, Twitter,
MySpace, Instagram, Pinterest, Spotify, and spoke about their parents not knowing how to use or even set up accounts. P1 talked about how “cute” she thinks it is that her parents are on Facebook, and P2 told a story about his mother’s inability to use Facebook properly. He said, “She does not know how to instant message, so she will just post really personal things directly on someone’s page and then sign her name. She must think it is a private message. It is fairly embarrassing.”
P4 said that the way in which people meet each other has changed through technology, as websites like match.com and eharmony.com allow potential mates to meet online before they meet in person. She said she and her husband initially met through
Myspace. Every participant said they knew someone who had met a partner through online dating or through use of social media, and P1 said she feels the “stigma” of online dating has really gone away “since so many people get together that way these days.”
P10 said she feels like her generation shares too much information on social media websites, because those sites have been around their “entire lives” and “everyone has a Facebook page now, so why would you not want to be a part of that?” P10, P11 and P12 all mentioned taking a college class which included lessons about safety with social media, and what it might mean for each of them as a future professional to have an

82

inappropriate Facebook page for clients to see. P10 said she went back and looked at her
Facebook page after that class, and she made the choice to “get rid of some friends and clean up some photos.”
P12 spoke extensively about how technology drives the media into consumerism, and is commonly geared toward her generation. She said she knows what is trendy based on the ads that show up on her Facebook page, and she pays more attention to those ads than to what her friends are wearing or what music they talk about.
Technology in and outside of the classroom was present for all study participants.
Communication through social media, cell phones, and e-mail were common for all participants, while computer use and Internet research were a classroom trend for participants. Chapter Summary
The qualitative phenomenological research conducted for this study provided 12
Millennial Generation potential college students with the chance to discuss their experience in higher education and as members of their generation. General information surrounding each of the 12 participants was included in Chapter 4, as well as an explanation of the overall themes and connections made from the interviews.
Participants reinforced three of the seven traits established by Howe and Strauss:
Millennials are made to feel special; Millennials have self-confidence; and Millennials are pressured to achieve. Participants also identified a forth theme, that technology has made a huge impact on their educational experiences. Participants shared an overall opinion that technology played a key role in their educational experience, both in and out of the classroom. It is important to note that the majority of participants did not identify

83

with the other four traits from Howe and Strauss: sheltered, achieving, team-oriented, and achieving. While some participants connected with aspects of these traits, the data indicated that, for this study, these traits were not overwhelmingly present in these study participants. Participants spoke both positively and negatively about their childhoods and family experiences, sharing how they felt their educational experiences were influencing factors. As suggested by Moustakas (1994), direct quotes from the interview are included. Chapter 5 will present the study 's conclusions and recommendations for further research on this subject.

84

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Millennial Generation college students, born from 1982 to 2000, began to enter higher education in 2000, and while much research has been conducted about this generation and its characteristics, little research has been conducted to understand how this generation’s characteristics might influence its experiences in the world of higher education. With the goal of achieving further understanding of Millennial Generation college students, the following research questions were created: a) How do the seven traits of the Millennial Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by
Millennial Generation college students?, and b) How might higher education leaders use the perceived associations of Millennial Generation college students with the seven traits to influence Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner? This study included 12 interviews with Millennial Generation college students, with questions shaped around the seven traits that define this generation (Howe & Strauss, 2000).
Millennial Generation traits include the following: special, sheltered, confident, teamoriented, conventional, pressured and achieving (Howe & Strauss, 2000).
The phenomenological study produced three themes tied directly to the seven traits defined by Howe and Strauss (2000), and a fourth theme not connected to the seven traits. These themes are: Theme 1: Millennials are special to their parents; Theme 2:
Millennials are self-confident; Theme 3: Millennials are pressured to achieve; and Theme
4: Technology impacts Millennial education.
Chapter 5 connects these four themes to the literature review and provides a broader meaning to these themes. Chapter 5 offers recommendations to higher education administrators about the implication of these four themes and offers suggestions to use

85

these themes to the benefit of Millennial Generation college students both in and outside of the classroom. Recommendations for further research also are given.
Limitations
Limitations to the current study included a purposeful sampling of the 12 selected participants, all of whom were connected to the same small, proprietary school in the same urban area in the Midwest. All participants were selected from a school with limited program options as opposed to a broad selection of degree options that could attract a wider array of students. Participation in the study was limited to only these 12 individuals, thus the study may not be generalizable to Millennial Generation college students across the country.
Research Questions
This study looked to answer two important research questions concerning
Millennial Generation college students: a) How do the seven traits of the Millennial
Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by Millennial Generation college students?, and b) How might higher education leaders use the perceived associations of Millennial Generation college students with the seven traits to influence
Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner?
Research Question 1 was answered through a phenomenological research study that included interviews with 12 Millennial Generation college students. Interview answers led to four themes. As outlined in Chapter 4, using the modified van Kaam method for data analysis (Moustakas, 1994) the four overall themes were established through this phenomenological research study. The data were listed, grouped, and

86

reduced into a series of constant components or invariant constituents which were then clustered, labeled and validated into four overall thematic categories.
Each of the four established themes provided insight into the shared, lived experiences of the 12 study participants in relation to their perceptions of the higher education experiences. Each of these themes were examined in Chapter 4. The themes are the best answer to Research Question 1: How do the seven traits of the Millennial
Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by Millennial Generation college students? These themes provide insight into how three of the seven traits from
Howe and Strauss (2000) influenced the lives of the study participants, according to their perceptions of their collegiate experiences.
As it is clear that the higher education system should develop strategies to meet the needs of Millennial students, as providing effective services for these students will impact academic success., recommendations concerning each theme and how it might be used by higher education administrators will be discussed in Chapter 5. These recommendations look to answer Research Question 2: How might higher education leaders use the seven traits to influence Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner?
Interpretation & Recommendations of Findings by Theme
Theme 1: Helping Millennials Feel Special
If it is indeed true that members of the Millennial Generation are made to feel special by their parents (Howe & Straus, 2000, 2007, 2008), the world of higher education can use this knowledge to better engage these students both in and outside of

87

the classroom. This theme furthers the research conducted by Howe and Strauss (2008), and adds to the body of knowledge regarding how Millennials are made to feel special.
Based on the stories that documented the lived experiences of the 12 participants in this study, Millennials come from families where children are singled out and allowed to feel supported for who they are and what they do. If this is true about the majority of these college students, then Student Services and Academic Departments could help make the transition from high school to college easier on these students by continuing to single them out and make them feel special as they begin college.
A number of study participants said that they struggled during their first semester of college because there was no one to support them individually or they were not held accountable for class attendance or completion of assignments. If colleges were to create a first-semester program focusing on individual support of students as they transitioned from high school to college, students might feel more of the one-on-one attention they were used to from their younger years. A system like this could verify attendance for first-term students, and provide a faculty advisor for students so that each new student had an identified resource for questions about academic support, community resources, and general college programs. If this program included an actual one-credit class that met weekly, faculty advisors could provide students with different resources each week, so that every student was aware of the vast number of resources that are available for them on campus. The class could features presentations from Academic Deans, Directors of Student Services, representatives from Financial Aid, the Dean of Students or even more experienced upperclassmen. In order to encourage attendance and participation, students could be required to pass this one-credit class before they could move on with

88

second semester courses. Based on this study, participants were not lacking knowledge of “how the world works,” they were simply missing out on the one-on-one attention the received from their parents when they lived at home.
Parental involvement also could aid in the successful transition from high school to college. If college students knew their parents would be an active part of this firstsemester course, perhaps the transition could go more smoothly. If parents were informed of the success or lack of success of their children, college students could feel more supported on the front end. This support could be a required part of the freshman year, and perhaps families could choose to continue to participate past that year. The transition from high school to college can be a challenging one, and colleges have the opportunity to make that transition a little less rocky if they provide the right support from the front-end.
Colleges can use this sense of “specialness” in recruitment of college students, involving parents in the college decision-making and recruitment activities. Students who are made to feel special by their parents might appreciate the chance to have parents involved in New Student activities like Welcome Week or Freshman Preview, where both students and their parents could stay on campus to experience college life before the actual college year begins.
Once in class, these students might need more feedback from teachers, as they have been an active part of the “No Child Left Behind” program that allowed for individual attention from faculty. Perhaps college administrators could encourage firstsemester freshman to have one-on-one time with faculty members to receive feedback directly on papers and projects. This one-on-one time could allow the students to feel

89

singled out by their instructors, and could provide them with the “specialness” they assume will be a part of their collegiate environment.
Howe and Strauss suggest faculty members should talk less and ask more questions (2007), allowing Millennial student to express their ideas in the classroom. If student have been coached throughout their education to feel special, then having the chance to speak their own truths could continue this trend. Additionally, Howe and
Strauss suggest faculty members allow Millennials the chance to tell their own stories using narratives as a way to connect with the classroom material (2007). This practice also allows Millennials to connect with their classmates and their faculty members as individuals, something Howe and Strauss suggest will create more engaged students who will achieve more academically (2007).
Theme 2: Continuing Trends of Self-Confidence
Nine of 12 participants (75%) stated their parents raised them to have selfconfidence and this self-confidence continued in the college environment. Higher education administrators and faculty can reinforce this trend by continuing to positively reinforce both academic and personal success of students.
In recruitment, Millennial college students focused on their self-confidence might need to hear about future possibilities available to graduates who make the right decision in a college program. Administrators could create programs that allow for previous students to speak about the choices they made while on campus, focusing on successes and providing potential students the chance to see what their continued academic success could mean for them.

90

Once they become college students, this positive reinforcement could be achieved during a first-semester program for new students. In a small classroom environment, faculty members have the chance to get to know students better. New students have the chance to listen more to students as they express concerns and share successes. While this kind of relationship could develop in a traditional class, students might be more willing to share failures or ask for help in a smaller setting among their peers. Large classes consisting of both brand new college students and fourth-year students might not be the best environment for students with concerns to get the help they need. A student who begins college with self-confidence, however, can continue to achieve that same level of self-confidence if given the chance to speak his or her mind, ask questions and be connected with needed resources at the college or in the community. If given additional opportunities to meet one-on-one with faculty advisors, students might feel confident to ask for help.
Self-confidence can be reinforced by faculty members who set high expectations and then encourage students who meet the high standards. Strauss and Howe suggest faculty set the bar high, as Millennials possess the ability to achieve when pushed (2007).
Additionally, self-confident students are likely to get behind activities like pep rallies and award ceremonies. Celebrating the success of these students is likely to reinforce their confidence, so administrators should consider awards for academics and school involvement. For a generation that is used to receiving an award simply for participating, singling out individuals for various successes will continue to be important in college life.
Theme 3: Helping Millennials Understand Pressure

91

The participants in this study all said they felt pressure from their parents to achieve, in academics, sports or both. While for some this pressure helped them to be successful, for others it led to unnecessary stress deterring them from success. In a firstsemester program, faculty members could further explore ideas such as pressure from family to achieve. If students understand where there pressure comes from, they might better understand how to turn it into something positive rather than something stressful.
In the study, P12 talked about feeling pressured by her immigrant parents to be the first of her family to graduate from college. There was an expectation she would be able to do better than both her parents had and to have “a career and not just a job.”
While this pressure sometimes inspired P12, she also said it was a lot of stress to carry around. If she better understood where that pressure began, she might be able to see it more as inspiring than stressful.
Most of the study participants were able to piece a story together to explain the family situation that led them each to feel pressure from their parents. P5’s father is from the rural south, and all of his family works manual labor jobs. His father wanted him to graduate from college so that he would not have to do something so physical to pay his bills and provide for his family. P9’s stepfather wanted him to be able to support his family without needing to work more than 40 hours a week. He pushed P9 into law school so that he would have enough education to be a decision-maker in his career, and perhaps set his own hours. These participants understood where the pressure came from, and so they were able to see it as something positive. Not all Millennial Generation college students can think this critically. If a student does not understand the family

92

history behind the pressure, he or she might simply see it as pressure, and that can cause stress. A class designed specifically to assist students with the transition into college could include curriculum regarding the student’s story. Each student could be encouraged to examine his or her own family story: socio-economically, spiritually, and culturally. Each student would have to chance to understand what it means to his or her specific family for the student to do well academically. This might help more students understand the root of family pressure, which could in turn make that pressure something positive, helping students form connections with peers in a similar situation, which would provide additional support system for students.
Strauss and Howe suggest faculty members push students to achieve by setting high expectations in the classroom and encouraging students to work on team projects, which can allow them to push themselves to work harder (2007). Group work also gives students the chance to express themselves and their ideas, something at which this group can excel when given the chance (2007).
On campus, students should be encouraged to relax and manage stress. This could be accomplished by providing areas on campus for students to simply connect and unwind—coffee shops, fitness centers, TV rooms. Physical activity should also be encouraged as a way to manage stress. Many schools offer free gym memberships for students on campus, and extra-curricular clubs and intramural sports can offer additional physical activity to students. In the classroom, pressure could lead to academic dishonesty, and faculty members should address this directly. Grades are important, but students should also be encouraged to understand the aspects of collegiate life not tied

93

directly to grades. In a freshman seminar course, they might be asked to discuss what other values a college degree might have in order to be encouraged to focus on building friendships, giving back to the community, developing values.
Theme 4: Advancing Technology for Millennials
Howe and Strauss discuss the tech-savvy Millennial Generation college student
(2008), suggesting that Millennials will know more about technology than their professors. Results of this study add to that body of knowledge, as almost all study participants discussed a desire for technology in the classroom (11 of 12).
If it is true that Millennial Generation college students are more skilled with technology than previous generations, then perhaps higher education community members should embrace this and find staff members with the skills to keep up with these new students. With an average college faculty age of over fifty, today’s college leaders likely finished their own degrees in the 1970s (Oblinger, 2003). The college experience higher education leaders had certainly will and should be different from the experiences of today’s college students.
Participants spoke about how technology is currently used in the classroom, but perhaps there are ways to increase this use. Colleges could provide students with tablets to make note-taking or test-taking easier. Faculty members could connect with students on Facebook as a better means of communication or text or email more often and call students less. If Millennial Generation college students are so tech-savvy, then higher education faculty and administrators might need to adjust the current system to connect with students on their level. Higher education misses an opportunity to engage students in a meaningful way relying on outdated methods both in and outside of the classroom.

94

As more and more students take entire college courses online at some schools, other schools miss the mark by continuing to provide only traditional classroom experience. If the school is not apt to provide a course online, online technology still could be embraced. Perhaps hybrid courses that provide some classroom learning as well as some online learning are the ideal new model. If these students are indeed as technologically savvy as research indicates, then it only makes sense for higher education administrators to embrace this and use it to help these students find success.
Student Services resources also could become more technologically advanced.
Colleges could provide online support for students through the use of 24-hour online tutoring or even 24-hour technical support. Tutoring programs could utilize cell phone technology with texting services for tutors. Student can get immediate responses from text messaging or online instant messaging from tutors. Online technical support help would ensure that students get quick answers to solve problems.
Additional technical advancements can be embraced by faculty members who could be embraced to communicate with students on their level and through their mediums. Faculty could email more in addition to offering regular office hours. Grades could be sent through email or online services. And colleges could develop cell phone applications to give students access to financial aid, transcript requests and other concerns that used to send students to the college campus to talk to someone in-person.
On the other side, it is also true that this generation includes a large population of firstgeneration college students (Gleason, 2008). In order to support these students, colleges should provide technological support at a more basic level. This means not only beginning courses in computers for students who have little to no experience with such

95

technology, but also a system that can lead student comfort with cutting-edge technology, interactive web services, and a system that includes virtual communities in and outside of the classroom.
Conclusions
Based on the results of this qualitative phenomenological study, only three of
Howe and Strauss’s traits were overwhelmingly present in a large majority of participants. Participants related most with the traits: special, self-confident, and pressured. Participants concluded that their generation differs greatly from previous generations based on their use and understanding of technology, in particular technology related to computers and Internet-use.
The majority of participants did not relate to four of Howe and Strauss’s traits: sheltered, conventional, team-oriented, and achieving. While some participants identified with these traits, most did not. Participants said they had childhood experiences including traits defined as opposite to these traits. Only two of the participants identified that they were sheltered as young people, or that they identified with conventional beliefs. Both P6 and P7 discussed being raised by very conservative parents, and they both agreed that the role their Christian religion played in the home influenced their beliefs as young adults now. P7 was married at the age of 23, and she talked about a need to be able to balance her future career and her roles as a future mother. She said she and her husband want to have children, but probably not as many as the 10 children in her family as she was raised. She said she is still getting used to the ability to make decisions for herself, without relying on her parents for approval or permission. She said she went against her parents’ wishes and had her ears pierced at age sixteen. When she later had

96

an additional piercing in one ear, she said she called her mother beforehand and asked her what she would think about it. Her mother expressed disapproval, but P7 got the piercing anyway. She called her mom and told her about it, and her mother responded with surprise. P7 said her mother said, “Didn’t we talk about this a few weeks ago? And I told you no?” P7 said she told her mother she was not looking for approval or permission, but simply wanted her mother to know what she had done.
Other participants gave examples of how their parents seem to have the decision not to shelter them. P10 said, “I think the shelter broke.” She said she was exposed to sex, violence, abuse and bad language at a very young age, “Everything was out in the open. There was no sheltering,” she said. Other participants echoed P10’s thoughts. All participants, except for P6 and P7, said there were limited rules on dating and sex in the house, and a few said the policy was more like “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Only P6 and P7 described their childhood homes as conventional, and only P7 described her current lifestyle as conventional. Other participants shared family stories they said they felt made their families unconventional. P3, P5 and P11 are the children of divorced parents who have remarried and formed new, blended families. P8 is the only biological child of her parents. Her siblings are all adopted from Asian countries. P9was raised by his mother and stepfather, but they never actually married. He said his mother is now “wedding-shy” after being married to P9’s father, an alcoholic. Despite the lack of an actual marriage, P9 considers the man who raised him to “just like a father,” and P9 refers to him as his stepfather. Before moving to the Midwest, P12 was raised in a house with her extended family of aunts, uncles, and cousins.

97

All participants, aside from P7, said they felt their current lifestyles were not conventional. Many have lived with dating partners before marriage. Most do not regularly attend church or identify strongly with a religious belief system. Some said they had experimented with drugs or alcohol. Almost all said they had participated in sexual intercourse outside of marriage.
The participants had varying levels of achievement as both young people and as college students. Some, but not all, achieved academically. Only a few were especially skilled in athletics. Both P1 and P2 mentioned that because they did not need to study too much in high school, they struggled in the first semesters of college with academics.
The additional theme derived from this study relates to use of technology both in and outside of the classroom. All 12 participants said they felt that their understanding of and use of technology separated them from previous generations, and allowed them to experience education in a new and different way from previous generations. Participants sited common examples like use of Power Point for lectures, and more specific examples like using computers for standardized testing. All 12 participants (100%), including the two participants who were home schooled, said they felt they had better understanding of technology than their parents, and all 12 participants (100%) said they almost always felt confident using technology in classroom assignments.
Implications
Two research questions were the focus of this study: a) How do the seven traits of the Millennial Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by
Millennial Generation college students?, and b) How might higher education leaders use

98

the perceived associations of Millennial Generation college students with the seven traits to influence Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner?
The study consisted of only 12 participants. While a study on such a small scale cannot represent the whole of Millennial Generation college students, the implications of the study results still are important. If Howe and Strauss defined the Millennial
Generation in way that is not accurate or with seven traits that are not universal to the generation, then higher learning professionals should be aware. The methods of presenting information in the higher education classroom need to possibly be adjusted due to a more accurate description of the Millennial Generation. The ways in which students are tested should also possibly adjust. The biggest implication, as determined by the results of this study, is that higher education administrators and instructors might need to adjust the way in which they interact with Millennial Generation learners.
Recommendations for Future Research
The topic of Millennial Generation college students should continue to be studied.
Millennial Generation college students entered the college environment as early as 2000, but they will continue to enter higher education until 2018, only accounting for students who transition traditionally straight from high school into college. There is a possibility members of the Millennial Generation can continue their college education indefinitely, as they return to school for advanced degrees, take time off for family obligations, or experience any of a number of non-traditional paths that lead people to take college classes in a non-traditional way. Higher education administrators need to have a firm understanding of who these students are and how they can best find success in the higher education classroom.

99

Because this understanding is crucial to the success of these students, the recommendation is a larger research study should be conducted. A similar study on a larger scale would allow for more validity in study results. Students should be selected from across the country, from a wide array of collegiate programs including community colleges, trade schools, four-year state schools, and private schools. Student should major in a wide array subjects that span business, the humanities, arts and sciences, and professional schools. Students should vary in age, covering those born in every year from 1982 to 2000. If these additional items were added to a larger study, the results would be more valid and more applicable to the generation as a whole.
If a study like this was sponsored and coordinated by a large organization like the
Department of Education, study results could be published and shared with all higher learning professionals. The results could even be built into the curriculum of faculty advising courses across the country. If the study included both qualitative and quantitative data, it would provide more insight for higher education officials. The stories shared in interviews give personal meaning to the data collected with surveys.
The stories give the statistics a voice, and help higher education officials understand that there are real students who can be impacted by this kind of program development at the collegiate level.
Additional recommendations include a study for higher education faculty and administrators, to determine what colleges are doing now for this generation of learners, and what they think is effective and ineffective. Until the higher education community examines the current ways in which it attempts to support this generation of learners in a unique way, there is no way for changes to be made to the current system. A large study

100

for all colleges could include a quantitative study using a survey to obtain data. Faculty members, Academic Deans, Program Chairs, and Directors of Student Support Services could be surveyed to relay the current practices in and out of the classroom, so that it could be determined if schools are currently doing anything specific for these students, or they are simply assuming that the old ways of helping students find success will be effective with this new generation of learners. Additional research with this group could include a qualitative study to give faculty members, Academic Deans, Program Chairs, and Directors of Student Support Services the chance to share details about their current methods of addressing this learning group in and out of the classroom. While a quantitative study would allow higher education officials the chance to know how many schools really are creating programming for these students, a qualitative study would give a voice to these programs.
Leadership Voice
The University of Phoenix, School of Advanced Studies (UOP, SAS, 2013) uses the following mission statement:
“The mission of the School of Advanced Studies is to develop leaders who will create new models that explain, predict and improve organizational performance.
These leaders are scholar-practitioners who conduct research as a foundation for creative action, influence policy decisions, and guide diverse organizations through effective decision-making” (p. 2)
The Higher Education Administration and its faculty, program coursework, and teamlearning environment made it possible for this study to be completed. Feedback throughout the program allowed for students to gain the research and writing skills to

101

create a research study of this magnitude, as well as the confidence to carry through with the study. Throughout the doctoral program this researcher became passionate about
Millennial Generation college students and how to best serve them in the higher education community. Numerous faculty members encouraged this passion with critical feedback on research papers and team projects that led to the literature review in this dissertation. In order for the college students of today to become the leaders of tomorrow, they must be able to find success academically that will allow them to grow both personally and professionally. The results of this research study add to the current body of knowledge about this generation of students, but, more importantly, provide insight into the shared experiences these students have in the higher education classroom. With a better understanding of who these students are and how they experience higher education, higher education administrators can better provide for them both in and out of the classroom. After a successful education, the students can transition into the work force and help support their individual communities.
Summary and Conclusions
Millennial Generation college students entered the world of higher education, and in order for them to achieve academic success, higher education administrators will need to adapt current methods to embrace this unique group of students. With a generation defined as special, sheltered, self-confident, conventional, pressured, achieving and teamoriented (Howe & Strauss, 2000), higher learning officials have insight into the minds of college students. In order to best serve these students in the classroom, higher education leaders need to understand how these seven traits are a part of the collegiate experience,

102

and how they might best leverage these traits in order for Millennial Generation students to find the most success.
Millennial Generation students are not of the same generation as their faculty, staff or administration, and their social and cultural dynamics are unique from the Silent
Generation, Baby Boomers and Generation Xers. Higher education leaders should understand that what is generally true for college staff may not be true for these students.
Classroom strategies that led to success for Generation X might not be successful for this group, and higher education leaders must prepare to adjust current models to help this group find success.
The phenomenological research study aimed to answer two research questions:
R1. How do the seven traits of the Millennial Generation define the higher education experience as perceived by Millennial Generation college students?
R2. How might higher education leaders use the perceived associations of
Millennial Generation college students with the seven traits to influence
Millennial Generation college students in a positive manner?
Through the use of a semi-structured interview with 12 members of the Millennial
Generation, four themes were identified, three of which connect Millennial Generation students to traits suggested by Howe and Strauss. Millennial Generation students feel special, pressured to achieve and have self-confidence. Additionally these students feel technology plays a role in their classroom experience. This particular study revealed that
Millennial Generation students did not strongly identify with the traits sheltered, conventional, achieving, or team-oriented. This research reinforces and adds to the body of knowledge about this generation and the traits that define them.

103

Due to an overwhelming connection to the traits special, self-confident, and pressured, college leaders have the opportunity to support these students in a unique way that focuses on how they identify as a group. With one-on-one mentoring from experienced college students, and guidance from faculty members, students can continue to feel special as they transition into the world of higher education. Partnering with
Millennial Generation parents could allow college administrators to leverage the strong relationship these students have their parents. With a more nurturing relationship with college leaders, they can continue to feel confident about their abilities, and can place a healthy amount of pressure on themselves to continue to be successful. If they make plans to use this knowledge to benefit students, Millennial Generation college students can see more success in and outside of the classroom.

104

REFERENCES
Albrecht, M. (2006). How to get Millennials to class. Proceedings of the Marketing
Management Association, 21-22. Retrieved from http://circle.ubc.ca/.
Alch, M. L. (2000). Get ready for a new type of worker in the workplace: The Net generation. SuperVision, 61(4), 3-7.
Armstrong, J. (2004). When should you use a focus group? Retrieved from http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/paperpdf/FocusGroup.pdf. Bart, M. (2011). The Five R’s of Engaging Millennial Students. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/the-five-rs-ofengaging-millennial-students/. Bauerlein, M. (2008). The Dumbest Generation: How the digital age stupefies young
Americans and jeopardizes our future. London: Penguin Books.
Bourke, B. (2010). A new me generation? The increasing self-interest among Millennial college students. Journal of College & Character, 11(2). DOI: 10.2202/19401639.1034.
Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital. Change, 32(2), 10–11.
Carlson, S. (2005). The Net Generation Goes to College. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 52(7), A34.
Chehade, D. (2013). Stress builds up for Millennial Generation, college students.
Retrieved from http://www.theshorthorn.com/news/stress-builds-up-formillennial-generation-college-students/article_658bb81c-7176-11e2-947e0019bb30f31a.html.

105

Coomes, M., & DeBard, R. (2004). Serving the Millennial generation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davidson, C. N. (2007). We can 't ignore the influence of digital technologies. Education
Digest, 73(1), 15-18.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for the neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty.15.1 - 15.22 in Educating the
NetGeneration. Oblinger, D. G. and Oblinger, J. L. eds., an EDUACAUSE eBook.
Denmark Porter, C. (2007). Collegiate Expectations. Lonview, TX: College Strategies
Books. ISBN 978-0615150500.
Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Edison, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
ISBN 9780-202308401. (5th edition).
Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2007). Welcoming a new generation to college:
The millennial students. Journal of College Admission, 20-25.
Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229. DOI: 10.1348/014466599162782.
Fokrum, S. The Millennial milieu: A study of instructional strategies. Ph.D. dissertation,
Capella University, United States -- Minnesota. Retrieved from Dissertations &
Theses: Full Text.
Fraud, J. (2000). The Information-age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education, EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5). 15-24.
Garner, J. B. (2007). A brief guide for teaching Millennial learners. Marion, IN: Triangle
Publishing.

106

Gleason, P. (2008). Meeting the Needs of Millennial Students. In Touch Newsletter.
Retrieved from http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/students2/intouch/archives/200708/vol16_no1/01.htm.
Holliday, W., & Li, Qin. (2004). Understanding the millennials: updating our knowledge about students. Reference Services Review, 32(4), 356-366. DOI
10.1108/00907320410569707.
Hoover, E. (2009, Oct 11). The Millennial muddle. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Millennial-Muddle-How/48772/
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. Retrieved from http://www.lifecourse.com. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America 's future, 1584 to
2069. New York: William Morrow & Company. ISBN 978-0-688-11912-6.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1997). The fourth turning: What the cycles of history tell us about America’s next rendezvous with destiny. New York: Broadway Books.
ISBN 978-0767900-46-1.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New
York: Vintage Books. ISBN 9780375707193.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). Millennials & K-12 schools: Educational strategies for a new generation. Great Falls: LifeCourse Associates. ISBN 978-0-9712606-5-8.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007, July 1). The next twenty years: How customer and workforce attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2007/07/the-next-20-years/ar/1. 107

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2008). Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new generation on campus (2nd ed.). Great Falls: LifeCourse Associates. ISBN 987-0971260-61-0.
Hunter, S., & McCurry, M. (2009). Innovative approaches for success with millennial learners and the Google generation: Using personal response system technology to enhance student nurse learning in large size classrooms. Retrieved from http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/itc/Hunter_McCurry%20Final_FY09.pdf. Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental
Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Chicago, IL:
Northwest University Press.
Junco, R., & Mastrodicasa. (2007). Connecting to the net.generation: What higher education professionals need to know about today’s students. Washington dc:
NASPA PRESS.
Krathwohl, D. R., & Smith, N. L. (2005). How to prepare a dissertation proposal:
Suggestions for students in education and the social and behavioral sciences.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Levine, A. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today 's college student.
Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2007). Proposals that work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

108

Murray, N. D. (1997). Welcome to the future: The millennial generation. Journal of
Career Planning & Employment, 57(3): 36-42.
National Endowment for the Arts. (2004, June). Reading at risk: A survey of literary reading in America research division report #46. National Endowment for the
Arts. Retrieved from http://www.nea.gov/pub/readingatrisk.pdf.
Nicholas, A. (2008). Preferred learning methods of the Millennial generation. Retrieved
September 1, 2010 from http://escholar.salve.edu/fac sta_ pub/18.
Nicholas, A. J., & Lewis, J. K. (2008). “Millennial Attitudes Toward Books and
EBooks.” The International Journal of the Book, 5(2), 81-92.
Oblinger, D. (2003, July). Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the new students. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0342.pdf
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Raines. C. (2002). Managing Millennials. Retrieved from http:// www.generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm. Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Stephens, D. (2009). A correlational study on parental attachment and moral judgment competence of millennial generation college students. Ph.D. dissertation, The
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, United States -- Nebraska. Retrieved from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (AAT 3350011).

109

Swanson, D. (2009). Reflections on Teaching: North Central Sociological Association
2009 John F. Schnabel Lecture: i Teach. Sociological Focus, 42(3), 212-221.
Retrieved from SocINDEX with Full Text database. DOI
10.1080/00380237.2009.10571352.
Taylor, S., & MacNeil, N. (2005). Understanding the Millennial student. MASFAA
CONFERENCE 2005. Retrieved from http:// www.msmasfaa.org/docs/conference/2005/Sessions/ Millennial_Student_Mississippi.ppt.
Twenge, J. (2006). Generation me: Why today 's young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled--and more miserable than ever before. Los Angeles, CA: Free
Press.
University of Arizona Millennial Project Begins Longitudinal Study on Diversity. (2006).
Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(4), 16.
University of Phoenix School of Advanced Studies (UoP, SAS). (2013). SAS Fact Book,
2013. Phoenix, AZ: University of Phoenix.
VanFossen, M. L. (2005). A family affair: A study regarding the impact of parental involvement on the personal development of traditional first-year college students. Ph.D. dissertation, Saint Louis University, United States -- Missouri.
Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (AAT 3211642). van Manen, M. (Ed.). (2002). Writing in the dark: Phenomenology studies in interpretive inquiry. London, Ontario, Canada: Althouse Press.
Wilson, N. (2005). Teaching Millennial students. Retrieved September 1, 2010 from http://www.uwsp.edu/education/facets/links_resources/ 110

Millennial%20Specifics.pdf.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. California: Sage Publications.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers and nexters in your workplace. New York: AMACOM
Books.

111

Appendix A: Interview Questions

Interview questions will include but are not limited to the following list of questions:
1. In what way did your parents make you feel “special” while you were growing up? 2. How did this feeling carry over into your college experience?
3. How do you feel your parents sheltered you while you were growing up?
4. How did this change once you started college?
5. Were you raised to have self-confidence? In what way?
6. How did this confidence affect your college experience?
7. Tell us about your experience working in teams as a child. Sports? School activities? 8. How did this experience help you to adjust to the college world?
9. Explain your parents’ belief system. Do you agree with their beliefs?
10. Political? Religious?
11. How did this change when you started college?
12. What kind of pressure did your parents put on you to succeed as you were growing up?
13. Did you keep this same pressure on yourself when you started college?
14. What were the expectations of your college education?
15. Was it an option or an expectation?
16. How did you choose your school?

112

Additional questions were included to allow students the chance to discuss other aspects of their lives that have impacted their learning. These aspects will include but are not limited to: parental involvement, socio-economic status, education level of their parents, field of study, high school experience, high school GPA and participation in AP courses. 113

Appendix B: Informed Consent: Participants 18 years of age and older

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX
Informed Consent: Participants 18 years of age and older
Dear ____________________________
My name is Stephanie Kidd and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a
PHD in Higher Education Administration. I am conducting a research study entitled
Millennials on Campus: Using the Traits of a Generation to Improve Higher Education.
The purpose of the research study is to explore the shared lived experiences of Millennial
Generation students in higher education.
Your participation will involve being part of a small sampling of people who will be asked questions related to the topic. You will be asked questions that will allow you to speak freely about your experience as a college student. The interviews will be set up at your convenience and they will require at least 30-40 minutes of your time. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself.
The results of the research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party.
In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you. Although there may be no direct benefit to you, a possible benefit of your participation is that the results may provide school leaders with substantiation for the underrepresentation of Hispanic teachers in this system. If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at (402) 7062722 or [phone], or email me at [e-mail].
As a participant in this study, you should understand the following:
1. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time without consequences.
2. Your identity will be kept confidential.
3. Stephanie Kidd, the researcher, will explain the parameters of the research study and all of your questions and concerns will be addressed.
4. If the interviews are recorded, you must grant permission for the researcher,
Stephanie Kidd, to digitally record the interview. You understand that the

114

information from the recorded interviews may be transcribed. The researcher will structure a coding process to assure that anonymity of your name is protected. 5. Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. The data will be held for a period of three years and then destroyed.
6. The research results will be used for publication.
“By signing this form you acknowledge that you understand the nature of the study, the potential risks to you as a participant, and the means by which your identity will be kept confidential. Your signature on this form also indicates that you are 18 years old or older and that you give your permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.”

Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________

Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date _____________

115

Appendix C: Interview Questionnaire

116

Appendix D: Permission to Use Premises

117

Appendix E: Interview and Research Question Matrix
Interview Questions

Research
Questions

Traits

1. In what way did your parents make you feel “special” while you were growing up?

R1

Special

2. How did this feeling carry over into your college experience?

R2

Special

3. How do you feel your parents sheltered you while you were growing up?

R1

Sheltered

4. How did this change once you started college?

R2

Sheltered

5. Were you raised to have selfconfidence? In what way?

R1

Self-Confident

6. How did this confidence affect your college experience?

R2

Self-Confident

7. Tell us about your experience working in teams as a child.
Sports? School activities?

R1

Team-Oriented

8. How did this experience help you to adjust to the college world?

R2

Team-Oriented

9. Explain your parents’ belief system. Do you agree with their beliefs? R1

Conventional

10. Political? Religious?

R1

Conventional

11. How did this change when you started college?

R2

Conventional

12. What kind of pressure did your parents put on you to succeed as you were growing up?

R1

Pressured &
Achieving

118

13. Did you keep this same pressure on yourself when you started college? R2

Pressured &
Achieving

14. What were the expectations of your college education?

R2

Pressured &
Achieving

15. Was it an option or an expectation? R2

Pressured &
Achieving

16. How did you choose your school?

R1

Pressured &
Achieving

17. Additional questions were included to allow students the chance to discuss other aspects of their lives that have impacted their learning. These aspects will include but are not limited to: parental involvement, socioeconomic status, education level of their parents, field of study, high school experience, high school GPA and participation in
AP courses.

R2

All traits

119

Appendix F: Demographics of Study Participants
Code

Sex

Age

Marital
Status

Profession

P1

F

29

Single

P2

M

30

Married

Higher
Education
Department
Director
Chiropractor 0

P3

F

23

Divorced Student
Pharmacist

0

P4

F

29

Married

2

P5

M

23

Single

P6

M

20

Single

0

P7

F

24

Married

0

P8

F

28

Single

P9

M

26

P10

F

P11
P12

Account
Manager
Insurance
Biller

No. of
Highest
Children Level of
Education
0
Bachelor’s
Degree

0

0

Single

Non-Profit
Specialist
Lawyer

21

Single

Student

0

M

30

Single

Bartender

0

F

22

Single

Sales
Associate

0

0

Doctor of
Chiropractic
Current
Doctor of
Pharmacy
student
Bachelor’s
Degree
High
School
Some
college
Bachelor’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
MBA and
JD
Some college Some college Some college Marital
Status of
Parents
Divorced

Married
Never
Married

Married
Never
Married
Married
Married
Married
Divorced,
Mother
remarried
Divorced
Married
Married