Generational Differences and Its Impact on Teaching and Learning

by Hannah Daniel, PharmD, PGY-1 Pharmacy Practice Resident, University of Mississippi Medical Center

People from different generations routinely interact in higher education today and generational differences impact the learning environment. Members of Generations Y, also known as Millennials, and Z make-up the majority of the health professional students with most faculty members being members of earlier generations, primarily Generation X and Baby Boomers. The learning environment is significantly different for each generation. Millennials are accustomed to instant gratification, technologically advanced learning, and interactive activities aimed at providing lots of stimulation to stay engaged. Generation Z is accustomed to even higher levels of digital technology and connectedness, which will potentially lead to greater expectations for customized instruction for each student.¹ With so much focus on technology and the need for constant stimulus, faculty members are challenged to teach in ways that are quite different from the ways they were taught. Marc Prensky in his essay about the differences between digital natives and digital immigrants makes an intriguing point: “Today’s students are no longer the people our education system was designed to teach.²” Current literature suggests we should be adapting to the learner; however, it is unclear if learning outcomes are improved.  This raises an important question:

“Should teachers make adjustments in their teaching methods to accommodate students from a different generation?”

To understand some of the generational differences between students and faculty, one can compare leadership style preferences between generations. In 2018, the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (APJE) published an article about leadership styles reflecting generational differences in the academy. The four leadership styles they described included:

• Classic entrepreneur: Competitive and opportunistic
• Modern missionary: Looks for significance and meaning to promote impact
• Problem solver: Focuses on concrete results; values top-down experiences and a “take-charge” approach
• Solution finder: Modest and humble

Baby Boomers, those primarily exposed to male and military leaders, tend to lean towards a problem solver style. On the other hand, Millennials have a tendency to lean towards a modern missionary or solution finder style.³ The difference in styles also reflects learning styles. Baby Boomers thrive on concrete information and structure while Millennials strive for more hands-on and less structured approaches.

The majority of current faculty were taught in a traditional and passive manner.  They were encouraged to read the material and to take notes in class. Although these methods of learning are effective, today’s students struggle to learn in this environment due to a strong desire for hands-on and more interactive methods. Some programs have transitioned away from teacher-centered approaches to more learner-centered methods, such as problem-based learning, to adapt to a new generation of learners. A major reason to adapt teaching methods is premised on the idea that “successful students are those that are engaged during the learning process,” which means using strategies that motivate your students. One study conducted at Creighton University in Nebraska compared pre-test scores vs. post-test scores and average time spent on a case between an interactive computer-based case and a standard paper-based approach. While students assigned to the computer-based case group scored slightly higher on their pre-test and post-test and spent less time on the case, none of these results were significant.¹

However, not all students in the same generation share the same learning preferences. Some students learn best in traditional ways while others learn best when interactive methods are employed. Thus, it can be argued that adapting teaching styles to match students’ preferences is not infeasibility or wise. Moreover, exposing students to different learning methods will challenge them, leading to better educational outcomes, and teaching them to be more adaptable. In a study conducted at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Pharmacy, students on rotation and preceptors completed the validated Pharmacist’s Inventory of Learning Styles (PILS) questionnaire to identify their dominant learning styles. The investigators found that, although this information helped guide the preceptors to challenge students, it did not impact student or preceptor performance — even when the preceptor adapted his/her teaching methods to better align with the student’s preferred learning style.⁴ Even though this study did not specifically address classroom-based instruction, it provides some insights regarding the use of individualized instruction using the student’s preferred learning style as well as their non-preferred styles.

It seems clear there must be a compromise between students and educators. Educators should not be expected to change their entire way of teaching.  Similarly, students should not be expected to change their entire way of learning. Educators can incorporate active learning strategies into their traditional lectures to increase motivation and engagement. By adding versatility to their teaching repertoire, educators will be able to reach a wider range of students.¹ Examples of active learning that can be incorporated into a lecture include the following:

• Problem-solving exercises
• Think-pair-share
• Short demonstrations followed by a class discussion

It is also useful, after lecturing for 20-30 minutes, to pause for five to ten minutes, allowing students to work together in pairs or groups to recall, clarify, and elaborate on the material before moving forward. Another way to engage students is to ask five to ten questions related to the most pertinent material from the previous class session to stimulate recall before the start of class.⁵

There are generational differences between students and educators, leading to different learning preferences. Although impractical for educators to tailor their teaching methods to each student’s learning style, it is important for all, students and educators alike, to acknowledge the changing dynamics between generations and be open to all styles of learning. Again, “successful students are those that are engaged during the learning process,” but responsibility for engagement does not fall solely on the educator. Educators should not make major adjustments to what they do but rather find common ground. Students should be open to different ways of learning to challenge themselves and increase their adaptability.

References:

1. Pick A, Begley K, Augustine S. Changes in teaching strategies to accommodate a new generation of learner: A case study. Pharm Educ. 2017;17(1):95–99.

2. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. MCB University Press, 2001. Accessed 31 October 2019.
3. Boyle CJ, Gonyeau M, Flowers SK, et al. Adapting Leadership Styles to Reflect Generational Differences in the Academy. Am J of Pharm Educ. 2018;82(6): Article 6886. doi.org/10/5688/ajpe6886.
4. Robles J, Cox C, Seifert C. The impact of preceptor and student learning styles on experiential performance measures. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(7): Article 128. doi:10/5688/ajpe767128.
5. Promoting active learning. Standford: Teaching Commons. Accessed 4 November 2019.