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:
- 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.
- Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. MCB University Press, 2001. Accessed 31 October 2019.
- 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.
- 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.
- Promoting active learning. Standford: Teaching Commons. Accessed 4 November 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment to the Educational Theory and Practice blog. It will be submitted for review and approval. Only those comments that substantially enhance the value of the blog site will be released and posted.