Abstract

Generations Y and Z are constantly associated with new technologies, so it causes them to think and process information in a different way than their predecessors.. It is extremely hard to state clearly how many benefits and how many problems modern technology brings to the process of learning. On the other hand, technological development cannot be stopped. Therefore, it is necessary to learn about technology and to accept it without negating other factors influencing modern education, like psycho- social and cultural factors. A good academic lecturer should be aware of this close relationship between new technologies and the way in which modern students are learning. The main goal of this article is to try to build a model of an individual style of academic lecturer teaching at the end of the second decade of the 21st century. In version 2.0, the individual lecturer workshop consists of a) the personality of the lecturer and his/her adaptive skills, b) motivation and attitude, c) knowledge and skills in social competences, d) the quality of interpersonal communication (face-to-face, indirect communication), e) the image of an ideal lecturer, f) tangible and virtual elements of the image, and g) technology used in teaching. The contemporary lecturer creates his/her own style of teaching during classes. Firstly, he/she should adjust the tools for transferring knowledge to the students and their perceptive abilities. Secondly, he/she ought to help them in the final settlement of truth and the reliability of sources of knowledge.

Keywords: individual style of academic teaching, teaching at the higher education level, generation Z, trends and innovations in learning

References

• Adair, J. (2000). Anatomia biznesu. Motywacja, Warsaw: StudioEMKA.
• Bauerlein, M. (2001). The dumbest generation: how the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future. New York: Tarcher/Penguin.
• Bauman, Z. (2006). Płynna nowoczesność. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Literackie.
• Beckman, K., Bennett, S., Lockyer, L. (2013). Understanding students' use and value of technology for learning. Media and Technology, vol. 39, 346-367. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2013.878353.
• Bereźnicki, F. (2009). Zagadnienia dydaktyki szkoły wyższej. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo WSH TWP.
• Berk, R.A. (2010). How do you leverage the latest technologies, including Web 2.0 tools, in your classroom? International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1-13. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.3712&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
• Busso, D., Pollack, S. (2014). No brain left behind: consequences of neuroscience discourse for education. Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 40, 168-186. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2014.908908.
• Day, C. (2008). Nauczyciel z pasją. Jak zachować entuzjazm i zaangażowanie w pracy. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
• Cole, J., Suman, M., Schramm, P., Lunn, R. et al. (2015). The 2015 Digital Future Report. Surveying the Digital Future. Year Thirteen. Retrieved from: http://www.digitalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2015-Digital-Future-Report.pdf.
• enGauge 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age, (2003). Retrieved from: https://pict.sdsu.edu/engauge21st.pdf.
• Filipiak, E. (2012). Rozwijanie zdolności uczenia się. Z Wygotskim i Brunerem w tle. Sopot: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
• Fransen, J. (2012). Teaming up for learning: Team effectiveness in collaborative learning in higher education. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268981454_Teaming_up_for_learning_Team_effectiveness_in_collaborative_learning_in_higher_education.
• Hon Wah, L., Chi-Hung, J. (2013). What Can Cognitive Neuroscience Do to Enhance Our Understanding of Education and Learning? Journal of Neuro science and Neuro engineering, vol. 2, 393-399. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257186003_What_Can_Cognitive_Neuroscience_Do_to_Enhance_Our_Understanding_of_Education_and_Learning.
• Jankowski, M. (2013). Grywalizacja - wykorzystanie elementów gier do modyfikowania zachowań ludzi. Nauki Społeczne, 2(8), 139-155. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2MCtYqd.
• Juszczyk, S. (2012). Neuronauki w edukacji: nowe możliwości w procesie nauczania-uczenia się. Chowanna 2, 39-57. Retrieved from: http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Chowanna/Chowanna-r2012-t2/Chowanna-r2012-t2-s39-57/Chowanna-r2012-t2-s39-57.pdf.
• Nęcki, Z. (2000). Komunikacja międzyludzka. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Antykwa.
• Piecuch, A. (2016). Nowe media, nowe problemy. Dydaktyka Informatyki, 11, 109-116. DOI: 10.15584/di.2016.11.14
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon University Press, Vol. 9, No. 5, 2-15. Retrieved from: http://www.albertomattiacci.it/docs/did/Digital_Natives_Digital_Immigrants.pdf.
• Pervin, L.A. (2005). Psychologia osobowości. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
• Rozmus, A. (2010). Wykładowca doskonały. Podręcznik nauczyciela akademickiego. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.
• Sajdak, A. (2013). Paradygmaty kształcenia studentów i wspierania rozwoju nauczycieli akademickich. Cracow: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
• Sajduk, B. (2015). Nowoczesna dydaktyka akademicka. Cracow: Wyższa Szkoła Europejska im. ks. Józefa Tischnera w Krakowie.
• Sheehy, K., Bucknall, S. (2008). How is technology seen in young people's visions of future education systems? Learning, Media and Technology, 33, 101-114. DOI: 10.1080/17439880802097642.
• Szpunar, M. (2017). Imperializm kulturowy internetu. Cracow: IDMiKS UJ.
• Szpunar, M. (2012). Nowe-stare medium. Internet między tworzeniem nowych modeli komunikacyjnych a reprodukowaniem schematów komunikowania masowego. Warsaw: IFiS PAN.