Digital Learning Theories and Models for Engaging Generation Alpha

Digital Learning Theories and Models for Engaging Generation Alpha

Generation Alpha represents the future and provides a prism through which we might see the next decade and beyond. Generation Alpha now populates our elementary schools, but over the next ten years, the eldest will pass through adolescence and adulthood (Yurtseven & Karadeniz, 2020). However, while being born exclusively in the 21st century, these young people influence the purchase decisions of their millennial family members and are early users of technology (Arifah et al., 2021). Generation Alpha is the most assimilable, educated, and prosperous generation in history. Furthermore, while teaching these digital integrators, schools should establish a conducive learning atmosphere (Tootell et al., 2014). Growing up during a pandemic, a recession, a mental health crisis, an experiment with remote work, and a technology revolution will define the Alphas as a generation and have a lasting impact on whom they become via their schooling and subsequent employment. This literature review investigates how to engage Generation Alpha students successfully and evaluates three digital learning theories and models to optimize the impact of technology and improve their learning.

The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on Digital Education

The global COVID-19 pandemic has altered how schools operate. It has enabled schools to make greater use of technology than ever before. Ko and Amundson (2022) provide the following description of this insight: “The COVID-19 school closures offered states and local school districts an opportunity to reimagine education — to tailor it to meet students’ needs, support teachers and aid their professional development, keep schools safe, and better support families” (p.13). There is no denying the significance of education. It significantly impacts society and the upcoming generation of scholars, leaders, and workers. During the global COVID-19 lockdown, educational content became significantly more digitally focused, and this trend shows no sign of abating. It has drastically altered the way we teach and learn. Students have greater access to technology thanks to various emerging digital tools and platforms. As education has become increasingly reliant on technology, schools have had to modify their approaches to learning and equip their faculty and staff with the most advanced technologies (Meyer & Saraf, 2021). The steep learning curve created by technological advancements for educators is one of the most significant obstacles most educators face. Educators may find it simpler to instruct and engage students in teaching and learning activities using technological media (Tafonao et al., 2020). However, fostering a student’s desire to study is not simple. Especially Generation Alpha students, whose daily lives are intertwined with technology. Educators now have a new problem in carrying out their tasks, as learners in the digital age find it difficult to accept dogmatic and outmoded teaching methods (Tafonao et al., 2020). To equip students with the ability to think critically, productively, and creatively, educators must improve their mastery of technology as a learning medium in response to these difficulties (Tafonao et al., 2020; Yurtseven & Karadeniz, 2020). As Prensky (2001) identifies “digital natives” as technology users, we must design “digital native” techniques for all subjects, at all levels, with the assistance of students, notably Generation Alpha.

Rationale

Every aspect of society has been impacted by the COVID-19 epidemic, including education. Educators and school districts were compelled to rapidly adopt emergency digital upskilling while transitioning from traditional face-to-face learning pedagogies to remote virtual platforms. This forced remote teaching and learning, which Dhawan (2020) sees as paving the way for the introduction of digital learning, represents a paradigm shift in how educators deliver quality education. Through these experiences, teachers had to embrace technologies to aid them in their effectiveness in teaching online. Teachers need to continue with the trends of changing technologies to allow them to keep learning and improving their teaching practices.

Gen Alpha will be the most educated generation, but they will redefine what “effective teaching” looks like (Soly et al., n.d). First, they will value skills over degrees, real-world simulations, and on-the-job training over classroom instruction, and they will want highly individualized and engaging training (Soly et al., n.d.; Yurtseven & Karadeniz, 2020). Prensky (2001) articulates this well: “Our students have undergone a significant transformation; the students of today are not the ones for whom our educational system was intended.” These days, all of our students are “native speakers,” or “digital natives,” of the digital language of computers, video games, and the Internet (Prensky, 2001; Tootell et al., 2014). Education has been evolving for quite a while. According to Meyer and Saraf (2021), emerging technologies are anticipated to solve common classroom issues such as student participation and engagement, data tracking, and student achievement. Prensky (2001) asserts that modern educators must learn to communicate in their students’ language and style. This does not imply altering the significance of what is essential or the value of critical thought (Prensky, 2001; Yurtseven & Karadeniz, 2020).

This presents a crucial opportunity to address this as we move into the future. In a knowledge-based economy, every worker will need extensive knowledge (Allison & Kendrick, 2015). This is problematic for traditional K-12 education because students need to prepare to meet technological demands or to keep up with the rate of technological change. To do so successfully at all K-12 levels, the education system must embrace change. New technologies can be applied to education to empower students to validate their knowledge using technology (Ackgul & Frat, 2020).

Who is Generation Alpha, and what are their characteristics?

The Alpha Generation consists of those born after the Z generation. The Alpha Generation is the first generation comprised of people born in the 21st century (Çiğdem Apaydin & Kaya, 2020). This generation consists of individuals born between 2010 and 2025. The Alpha Generation consists of infants, newborns, and those who have not yet been born (Çiğdem Apaydin & Kaya, 2020; Yurtseven & Karadeniz, 2020). The Alpha Generation begins learning at a younger age than previous generations and becomes the most educated generation (Çiğdem Apaydin & Kaya, 2020). The entertainment and education of this age rely heavily on screens; moreover, it will become apparent over time what type of codes may be created for global decision-makers about screen exposure. Generation Alpha plays, interacts, and learns in diverse ways; they value making their own decisions and expect their teachers to consider their individual needs (Yurtseven & Karadeniz, 2020). Moreover, this generation values incorporating digital devices into the learning environment (Arifah et al., 2021).

According to recent research cited by Turk (2017), playing digital games has improved their visual and cognitive abilities in hand-eye coordination. Interestingly, Alpha children flourish in their learning by actively engaging in experiments, cooperative learning, and problem-solving activities (Tootell et al., 2014; Tafonao et al., 2020). According to the research of Yurtseven and Karadeniz (2020), Generation Alpha shares the following traits:

1. They are eager to ask questions during classroom discussions. They are extroverts and demanding students.
2. During the learning process, they employ the ability to reason logically. With this strategy, they surpass limitations, go beyond the information provided, and clarify problems in their minds.
3. They are skilled at drawing inferences, which requires detective-like reasoning.
4. They are strategic thinkers, which increases their decision-making ability.
5. Their metacognition enables them to plan their actions and monitor their learning process.
6. They are inventive, as evidenced by the originality and novelty of their products.
7. YouTubers influence them. Compared to toys or pets, they place a greater emphasis on technology. They have grown up using Siri, Google Assistant, and Alexa, so they are technically proficient.

As evidenced by its shared characteristics, Generation Alpha has unique viewpoints, attitudes, and expectations compared to earlier generations. Examining the best practices for educational design may help gain knowledge about how to educate the current generation for the future (Yurtseven & Karadeniz, 2020).

Utilization Of Technology Within The Classroom

Since technology provides instant access to knowledge, its presence in the classroom is crucial. Smartphones, computers, and tablets are already ubiquitous in the lives of both students and instructors, particularly in early childhood education. It is legitimate to analyze the classroom usage of electronic gadgets to provide age-appropriate learning opportunities for students of all ages, including Generation Alpha (Lunevich, 2022). Utilizing many types of technology in the classroom produces actively engaged individuals accomplishing learning objectives. In addition, the inclusion of technology enables personalized instruction to meet the diverse needs of students as individual learners within a broader classroom setting (Nanjundaswamy et al., 2021). The following empirical studies were conducted to provide light on how educators, administrators, and pre-service teachers use technology to engage students in their learning, particularly among Generation Alpha.

Generation Alpha at the Intersection of Technology, Play, and Motivation

In this article, Tootell et al. (2014) examine the relationship between play and technology by using the cutting-edge gamification strategy in early childhood education. The natural link between play and technology is becoming increasingly important in early childhood education. This article makes linkages for guiding principles in embracing more technology-focused play options for Generation Alpha by raising awareness of the early years’ adoption of technology into guiding frameworks and then investigating the composition of gaming aspects.

Tootell et al. (2014) demonstrate how the technological frameworks for early childhood education in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia differ. Their analysis concluded that linked play and child-centered instruction must be incorporated into the early childhood curriculum. Likewise, they observed that teacher interactions in play-based activities must be included since they play an essential role in the dynamic interaction between students, educators, and framework material. There has been a paradigm shift in the design of user interfaces for computer devices, specifically regarding how users provide input (Tootell et al., 2014). In essence, the article argues that Generation Alpha’s technological focus is a crucial component of their existence, especially in how educators engage them using technology. Tootell et al. (2014) state that educators must have a solid understanding of gamification to connect with students on a deeper level and provide them with learning experiences aligned with future career opportunities.

Furthermore, they introduce the concept of innate drive, undeniably a factor for Generation Alpha in technology-based play. In summary, early childhood educators must be prepared to participate by increasing their knowledge of the early adoption of technology and the potential influence of gamification aspects (Tootell et al., 2014).

Learning Media and Technology: Generation Z and Alpha

The focus of this article is to investigate the teaching and learning technologies and media used by Generation Z and Alpha. This study was inspired by the author’s observation of the current status of educators, in which Generation Z and Alpha learners are tough to teach. Despite the author’s identification of various obstacles, it must be emphasized that educators have no excuse for not adopting technology as a teaching tool. The author uses qualitative research to examine Learning Media and Technology: Generation Z and Alpha. Tafonao et al. (2020) employ a variety of credible print and online sources to support the research as part of their analytical strategy. According to the conclusions of this study, this technology medium has the potential to standardize student learning perspectives, enhance interaction, accelerate the teaching and learning process, foster positive attitudes toward education, and meet the challenges of the digital age. Therefore, by identifying the solution to this analysis, the gap between instructors and students may be adequately bridged.

This empirical paper’s overarching theme is the concept of media, or technological media, and its relevance in engaging Generation Alpha. The authors contend that students are enthusiastic about learning, that learning outcomes are undeniably higher, and that learning objectives may be efficiently reached (Tafonao et al., 2020). The writers then explore the media types students are exposed to, particularly Generation Z and Alpha. The authors describe media as “instruments” (email, SMS, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Twitter) (Tafonao et al., 2020). As a byproduct of Generation Z and Alpha raised in a highly digitally aware environment, teachers find themselves “attracting the attention of students throughout the teaching and learning process” (Tafonao et al., 2020). Thus, they invite the reader to recognize that “the world of education must attempt to map the unique profiles of learners and build learning patterns based on their requirements so that there is no gap between the two” (Tafonao et al., 2020). According to their inquiry problem, “educators are needed to enhance their teaching techniques in understanding technology as a learning medium to prepare students who can think critically, productively, and creatively” (Tafonao et al., 2020). The authors highlight that some educators do not adequately employ digital media for several reasons; list the six reasons below:

1. The use of technological media is deemed problematic.
2. Utilizing complex media is a waste of effort.
3. There currently needs to be more technological instructional media in schools.
4. The amount of digital media expertise among instructors needs to be higher.
5. They are used to taking pleasure in lectures.
6. The absence of recognition from superiors.

Based on these beliefs about technological media held by the majority of educators, the authors assert, “Educators have no other reason not to learn as a means of upgrading themselves to be accountable for their professionalism as an educator or teacher when engaging Generation Z and Alpha” (Tafonao et al., 2020).

An Analysis of the Preschool Teachers’ Views on Alpha Generation

This study tries to establish the characteristics of students from the alpha generation from the perspective of preschool educators. In this regard, the study examined whether there were differences between Generation Alpha students and Generation Z students regarding certain factors. In addition, the class management approaches used by both generations and the evolution of parent profiles were compared. The group was comprised of twelve teachers from private pre-kindergarten institutions in Antalya. With a qualitative research design, content analysis was performed for data analysis in this study. The study results suggested more unfavorable traits in the alpha generation than good ones. Alpha Generation had characteristics such as being more inquisitive, rule-free, fidgety, active, and self-centered than the Z Generation; they also possessed high self-esteem and were more emotionally and cognitively aware (Çiğdem Apaydin & Kaya, 2020). Alpha Generation was more private and independent in communication than the Z Generation. It was found that preschool teachers use the reconstructive approach for the Alpha Generation and the conventional approach for the Z Generation regarding classroom management techniques (idem Apaydin & Kaya, 2020). The study results also suggested that parents of the Alpha Generation were more conscientious and sympathetic than parents of the Z Generation. However, it was shown that the parents of the Alpha Generation had an unfavorable opinion of preschool teachers (Çiğdem Apaydin & Kaya, 2020).

Based on Çiğdem Apaydin & Kaya (2020), the researchers started their investigation by studying 12 female preschool educators. It was established that the mean age of the participants was 29.2 years. The average tenure of teachers was determined to be roughly 9.08 years. In their data collection, they used a semi-structured individual interview form. The five questions on their interview form were straightforward, specific, open-ended, and focused on the topic. The first section of the interview form consists of questions about the participant’s demographic information, while the second consists of questions about the topic. Furthermore, the researchers guaranteed validity and reliability to assess the investigation’s quality and evaluate the performance of the proposed method, approach, or measurement instruments. The researchers could draw positive and negative conclusions about Generation Alpha based on their findings. According to Apaydin & Kaya (2020), participants see Generation Alpha as technologically dependent, egotistical, and violent. While at the same time, Apaydin & Kaya (2020) reported that participants’ favorable reactions included high levels of perception, tapping out to music, good use of numbers, and being cautious and emotional. The findings also suggested that the Alpha Generation is susceptible to improvement in communication skills, such as social rivalry, difficulties speaking with peers, demonstrating leadership instead of collaborating, and displaying restricted attitudes regarding reverence for personal space. After the research, therefore, participants expressed that Alpha Generation expected to use visual, aural, and kinesthetic classroom management methods. In addition, they considered that these kids were more easily distracted (Apaydin & Kaya, 2020). Based on their research, the examiners determined that there is a clear difference between Generation Z and Alpha and that each generation has individual characteristics, beliefs, and actions. Apaydin & Kaya (2020) reported that researchers categorized the Z Generation as individuals with a synthetic and transitory viewpoint, a resistance to change, acceptance of what they have, and a focus on the now. Apaydin & Kaya (2020) conclude that Generation Alpha bears favorable qualities such as a propensity for aggression, egocentrism, and limited social communication, as well as bad behaviors such as increased perceptive levels, tapping out to music, and the effective use of numbers.

Conclusions/Criticism

All three empirical investigations provided crucial insights regarding Generation Alpha in the classroom, relationships between teachers and students, and learning frameworks. In their first research, Tootell et al. (2014) emphasized that educators are under pressure to think critically and creatively in the classroom, which presents extra obstacles. There is a generational divide between current educators and their students. Most current educators were born during the silent or baby boom eras (see Table 1). According to Prensky (2001), those who were not born in the digital age are called “Digital Immigrants.” He goes on to state that digital immigrants have to adapt to their environment; they always retain, to some degree, their “accent,” that is, their foot in the past (Prensky, 2001). According to Prensky (2001), the term “accent” refers to the numerous distinctions and tactics a digital immigrant takes while using technology or “traditional ways of doing things,” such as printing their email or having someone else print the email. Prensky (2001) emphasizes that digital immigrant teachers presume that students are the same as they have always been and that the same approaches that worked for them as students would work for their current students. However, this assumption is no longer accurate. Today’s students are unique. This presents an important topic that must be addressed in future quantitative research on Post-COVID digital immigrants to determine what new tendencies have evolved as these educators fully embrace technology and innovation in the classroom.

In addition, the other research articles revealed how Generation Alpha interacts with technology in the classroom and their views, beliefs, and values. In Çiğdem Apaydin & Kaya's (2020) study, they examined teachers’ interactions with Generation Alpha preschoolers and expressed their opinions. The framework of their research might be utilized to compare public and private schools in the United States. In addition to extending the study to include additional primary school grades and producing a diverse sample of educators comprised of more men, people of color, and those with teaching experience, future research might provide considerable insight into patterns comparing international and American schools.

Methods for instructing Generation Alpha

All educational theorists — behavioral, cognitive, or constructivist — agree that actively allowing students to participate in functions and procedures that personalize their education is an effective strategy to promote learning. This is significantly different from modern classes and even more post-COVID in comparison. Despite being digital natives, students in early education must have the opportunity to engage in their learning actively. Educators must identify the proper theoretical frameworks and instructional methodologies for teaching Generation Alpha in educational settings. The following three approaches to learning are practices that can help educators think on their feet and reinvent their pedagogical practices.

The RAT Model

Hughes et al. (2006) present an assessment framework titled RAT (Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation) that can be utilized with preservice and in-service teachers to improve critical decision-making regarding technology integration in K-12 classrooms. Dr. Joan Hughes’ RAT Model enables teachers to self-evaluate their technology integration in the classroom (Hughes et al., 2006). According to the RAT Model, digital technology can be utilized in the classroom as a replacement, an augmentation, or a transformation. Listed below is a further dissection of the RAT framework according to Hughes et al. (2006).

Figure 1

The RAT Model Framework

Note. Based on the work of (Hughes et al., 2006).

• Replacement refers to the application of technology that does not affect instructional practices. Technology is merely an alternative method for achieving the same educational goal.
• Amplification occurs when the fundamental nature of a task remains unchanged, but the application of technology improves efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity.
• Transformation occurs when technology “invents in novel and inventive ways aspects of instruction, learning, or curriculum.”

Although these categories are applicable, amplification and transformation are more effective than replacement. Teachers are encouraged to use the RAT Model to evaluate and reflect on their technology integration in the classroom.

The Application of the RAT Framework in Technology

At the same time, Hughes et al. (2006) point out that teachers should not concentrate on just one type of digital technology or digital tool. Simply listing the digital applications in use does not contribute to the field’s understanding of technology’s role(s) in education. Therefore, they stress that “teachers need evaluative frameworks for assessing and guiding their accomplishments with technology integration” (Hughes et al., 2006). The following are instances of employing the RAT model to effectively incorporate technology into a high school English classroom, as outlined by Hughes et al. (2006):

Replacement

Hughes et al. (2006) provided an excellent illustration of the use of replacement in the classroom; they utilized the following:

For example, an English teacher had students recognize parts of speech by highlighting or underlining examples within text typed into a word processing file. This activity resembled circling the correct word with a pencil on a worksheet. In this case, the technology used functioned exactly like a worksheet. The teacher’s instructional method (introducing the parts of speech and assigning an activity to practice identifying them) remained identical. The students’ learning processes were unchanged; they still selected the correct answer and worked individually. The content goals within the curriculum (the ability to identify parts of speech in sentences) were steadfast (p.1616).

Amplification

Based on the situation of an English instructor in high school circling the right parts of speech with a pencil. The teacher’s educational style would remain the same, but it would be necessary to evaluate the impact of adding a digital tool that increases student involvement. For instance, the English teacher might consider going beyond conventional word processing and use Google Slides, PowerPoint, Prezi, or another presentation tool that students may utilize to demonstrate their understanding of the components of speech. In this scenario, the teacher uses technology to enrich her lesson and guarantees that her students are actively engaged via a digital tool.

Transformation

The Technology as Transformation category relates to the use of technology that transforms the instructional method, the learning processes of students, and the subject matter itself (Hughes et al., 2006). Here, the educator transforms their lectures into something the students would only have imagined feasible with technology. Instead of creating a solar system model, why not have students use Amazing Space or HubbleSite? Have students finish the Hour of Code and construct their websites. Students may create movies, cartoons, and animated images to show their comprehension of the concept taught while learning to use technology for more than just social networking and video gaming.

Connectivism Learning Theory

When building educational environments, behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism are the primary learning theories most often used. However, these concepts were created when technology had little effect on education. Technology has altered how we live, connect, and learn over the last two decades. The prerequisites for learning and the theories articulating learning principles and methods should reflect the underlying social settings. George Siemens and Stephen Downes developed a theory for the digital age, connectivism, which acknowledges the importance of technology in the learning process (Duke et al., 2013). This theory suggests that good learning may occur through digital channels such as social media, forums, videos, and blogs. According to Duke et al. (2013), connectivism, according to George Siemens and Stephen Downes, occurs when a person turns to digital technology to address an issue. This may involve Googling a subject, messaging a buddy, or browsing for trending social media material. Connectivism Learning Theory suggests that using digital technology aids in problem-solving and, thus, enhances knowledge of a subject. According to Duke et al. (2013), George Siemens established Connectivism Learning Theory by outlining eight guiding concepts:

1. Learning and knowledge rest in a diversity of opinions. Diverse perspectives from many sources enhance students’ comprehension.
2. Learning is a process of connecting. When students develop connections with their peers, they have access to new skills, concepts, and ideas they may not have otherwise.
3. Learning may reside in non-human appliances. Students may keep information digitally via an application, social media post, or video. A community of learners may similarly save information in a database or forum.
4. The capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known. According to Siemens, our capacity to learn what we will need in the future is more crucial than our current knowledge.
5. Nurturing and maintaining connections are needed to facilitate continual learning. Collaborative social contact brings students together and creates a sustainable atmosphere for learning.
6. The ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. Students must learn how to construct a bridge between points A and B. This bridge represents a new educational opportunity.
7. Accurate, up-to-date knowledge is the intent of all Connectivist Learning. When students collaborate, their comprehension is continuously reinforced and updated.
8. Decision-making is itself a learning process. What students know today may change tomorrow. If up-to-date information is the intent of connectivism, they must accept that their knowledge will need to evolve as new understandings present themselves continuously.

Connectivism implementation in the classroom

Connectivism sounds fantastic in principle, and everyone utilizes digital technology, so it is logical to apply it to educational environments. This theory may be implemented in various ways as long as digital and social learning channels are used. This notion may be used in an educational context, for example, gamification. As Tootell et al. (2014) acknowledged play's relevance in early childhood education as a vital component for engaging students via technology, they emphasized the significance of gamification as a means of capturing Generation Alpha’s interest.

Simply said, gamification is a learning strategy that utilizes game elements, such as points, challenges, and levels, to motivate students to study and satisfy their need for rewards (Duke et al., 2013). Connectivism is supported by gamification, which rewards students for engaging in ordinary learning tasks, such as reading an article or completing a learning module, by making them interactive. It is also a method for providing real-time feedback, fostering cooperation, and recognizing student successes Tootell et al. (2014). To make learning a more involved experience, gamification transforms assignments and activities into competitive games. Educators may utilize several learning-based applications and instructional technologies to incorporate gamification into the classroom. An example is Duolingo, an online language-learning application that teaches learners via game-like courses. Teachers can monitor their student’s progress, and students can receive “points” for completing classes. A few further examples are apps such as Brainscape, Virtual Reality House, and Gimkit.

Collaborative learning

In their study titled What is Collaborative Learning, Goodfell, Smith, and MacGregor define the concept clearly and comprehensively (1994) (Smith & MacGregor, 1992; Talmo et al., 2022). Collaborative Learning Theory is founded on the concept of Collaborative Learning, a style of education in which students and teachers acquire knowledge from one another (Talmo et al., 2022). Teachers who use collaborative learning methodologies often see themselves less as expert information transmitters and more as expert designers of intellectual experiences for students or coaches of a more spontaneous learning process (Smith & MacGregor, 1992; Talmo et al., 2022). The following are assumptions that Talmo et al. (2022) make regarding learning:

• Learning is social at its core. Students can learn from one another by discussing their present knowledge and working together to solve issues.
• Learning is an active process. The most effective learning occurs when students apply knowledge in relevant ways.
• Learning depends on its subject matter’s context. When students apply new material as they acquire it, they get the most from it.
• Learners come from a wide range of knowledge backgrounds. Students provide a distinct viewpoint on learning settings, which provides other students and instructors with fresh information.

Implementing the Collaborative Learning Theory in the Classroom

Teachers may use Collaborative Learning Theory to enhance their teaching practices. However, they will need to delve into its techniques to put it into reality (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Many of these themes work well in online learning but may also be applied in everyday teaching (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). The following method illustrates how the Collaborative Learning Theory can be implemented in the classroom.

Problem-focused learning

According to Smith & MacGregor (1992), learners integrate their knowledge to address a problem through problem-based learning. The social element of this side-by-side cooperation affords individuals the opportunity to acquire new skills, viewpoints, and information from their peers. Collaborative Learning Theory’s key concepts of learning as an active process and learning in context are reflected in this approach. When students work together to solve an issue utilizing new knowledge, they develop abilities in decision-making, dispute resolution, and application of their learning subject (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). For instance, students are grouped to examine how different forces operate. They can work and cooperate using Google, an e-book, or a YouTube video that illustrates this subject. Simultaneously, students employ their strengths in their interactions to assist one another in their problem-focused research, thus contributing to the group’s collective strength. Additionally, problem-based learning will assist students in retaining the knowledge they acquire throughout their research. Active kinds of learning, such as problem-focused learning, are more successful than passive types of learning, according to scientific studies (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Students see and copy one another during active learning, engaging their neural pathways (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Smith & MacGregor (1992) state that the most effective collaborative classrooms inspire teachers and students. Most genuinely, the collaborative learning process exemplifies what it means to question, learn, and comprehend in concert with others. Collaborative learning requires responsibility, perseverance, and sensitivity, but the outcome may be a community of learners where everyone is welcome to join, contribute, and develop (p. 9).

Implications

Considering the pervasiveness of technology and its overpowering presence in all parts of Generation Alpha’s life, it will be crucial for Alphas to develop the necessary soft skills and social skills via grounded experiences and interpersonal connections. In the classroom, students gain crucial competencies like managing their behavior, communicating with others, creating objectives, and building mental habits. As this generation of students advances through schooling, it is projected that most Alphas will seek some higher education and continue to place a premium on skill development above material knowledge (Yurtseven & Karadeniz, 2020). 65% of today’s primary school pupils will work in occupations that do not yet exist (Yurtseven & Karadeniz, 2020). Consequently, higher education institutions must grow and adapt when new occupations and sectors arise. Rather than the usual emphasis on general-purpose degrees, Alphas will seek out experiential learning, relevant activities, and industrial relationships. As the occupations of Alphas alter and grow, access to continuing education and skill development will become more important to enable lifetime learning.

More research should be done on this topic, explicitly engaging more students in elementary school. Future studies need more quantitative and qualitative research on how technical skills are currently being taught in the classroom. In addition, future studies should focus on pre-service and in-service teachers' education and professional development, which will help them be successful instructors while educating Generation Alpha. Simultaneously, the study population should be heterogeneous in age, demography, parental education, and years of teaching experience. There is a need for a deeper understanding of how educators feel about Generation Alpha and how to best assist them in engaging their students. Concurrently, an examination of the Generation Alpha workforce of 2030, in which a greater proportion of educators will be digital natives.

References

Acıkgul Fırat, E. & Fırat, S. (2020). Web 3.0 In Learning Environments: A Systematic

Review.Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22 (1),148–169. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.849898

Alamri, H., Lowell, V., Watson, W., & Watson, S. L. (2020). Using personalized learning as an instructional approach to motivate learners in online higher education: Learner self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 322–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728449

Allison, M., & Kendrick, L. M. (2015). Toward Education 3.0: Pedagogical Affordances and

Implications of Social Software and the Semantic Web. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, 2015(144), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20167

Arifah, M. N., Munir, M. A., & Nudin, B. (2021). Educational Design for Alpha Generation in the Industrial Age 4.0: 2nd Southeast Asian Academic Forum on Sustainable Development (SEA-AFSID 2018), Jogjakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.210305.026

Smith, L. B., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is Collaborative Learning. Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education, 11.

Çiğdem Apaydin, & Kaya, F. (2020). AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON ALPHA GENERATION. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3627158

Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018

Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Connectivism as a Digital Age Learning Theory. 10.

Fischer, G., Lundin, J., & Lindberg, J. O. (2020). Rethinking and reinventing learning, education, and collaboration in the digital age — From creating technologies to transforming cultures. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 37(5), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-04-2020-0051

Franco, C. de P. (2013). Understanding digital natives’ learning experiences. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 13(2), 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982013005000001

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take Now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671

Hussain, F. (2013). E-Learning 3.0 = E-Learning 2.0 + Web 3.0? IOSR Journal of Research

& Method in Education, 3(3), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0333947

Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing Technology Integration: The RAT — Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation — Framework. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 5.

Jha, A. K. (2020). Understanding Generation Alpha [Preprint]. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/d2e8g

Ko, A., & Amundson, K. (2022, May). The Role of Technology in Reimagining School.

NASBE — National Association of State Boards of Education.

https://www.nasbe.org/the-role-of-technology-in-reimagining-school‌

Lee-McCarthy, K., Joosten, T., Harness, L., & Paulus, R. (n.d.). Digital Learning Innovation Trends. 34.

Lunevich, L. (2022). Critical Digital Pedagogy: Alternative Ways of Being and Educating, Connected Knowledge and Connective Learning. Creative Education, 13(06), 1884–1896. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.136118

McCrindle, M. (2014). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global generations.

Meyer, S. D., & Saraf, V. (2021). From Web3 to Ed3-Reimagining Education in a

Decentralized World. https://ed3.mirror.xyz/0U3QG8-4K6CD_ltU6SJyKN3-uBD3x6nEFs-YeShzYmk

Murgatrotd, S. (2020, March). COVID-19 and Online learning, Alberta, Canada.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31132.85120

Nanjundaswamy, C., Baskaran, S., & Leela, M. H. (2021). Digital Pedagogy for Sustainable Learning. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i3.3881

Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge Growth in Teaching with Technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.44.3.c

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon (MCB University Press), Vol. 9(5), 6.

Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on

teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 133–141.

Sarker, M. N. I., Wu, M., Cao, Q., Alam, G. M., & Li, D. (2019). Leveraging Digital Technology for Better Learning and Education: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 9(7), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.7.1246