Generational Influences on Teaching and Learning

Abigail M. Klutts, PharmD

PGY2 Ambulatory Care Resident

University of Maryland School of Pharmacy

A recent study published in Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning attempts to determine whether different perceptions exist with regard to generational categories among APPE (advanced pharmacy practice experiences) students and their preceptors. Wingate University School of Pharmacy students and their preceptors were assigned generational categories according to birth year, as follows: Veteran (1929-1945), Baby Boomer (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1980), and Millennial (1981-1996). They completed a six question generational survey to evaluate themselves and their counterparts regarding views on teaching and learning style, career purpose, communication style, technology, outlook on life, and the student preceptor relationship. Each question had four options that anonymously corresponded with one of the generational categories. Table 1 below provides a list of questions, responses, and corresponding generational categories.¹

       

The results show that students were categorized as Generation X (n=7, 8%) or Millennial (n=80, 92%) while preceptors were categorized as Baby Boomer (n=12, 18%), Generation X (26, 38%), or Millennial (n=30, 44%). No one was categorized as Veteran, although this descriptor was the second most commonly selected survey choice among both students and preceptors. Across all questions, students and preceptors frequently made choices that did not correspond with their personal generational category. Of note, for all six questions, preceptors selected identical categories about their students for which the student self-identified. Where student and preceptor responses aligned were upon self-reflection about preferred learning style (process-oriented; Veteran), career purpose (“I work to make a difference”; Millennial), and outlook on life (“I am grateful”; Veteran), which may be more indicative of their pharmacy career choice instead of true generational differences.¹ This study has several limitations including minimal external validity, small sample size, and recall and selection bias. However, it brings to light an interesting conversation about generational influences on teaching and learning; a field of study that is generally lacking in the literature.

If generational differences influence relationships among teachers and learners, it is important to identify how and find ways to overcome any present barriers. It would be ideal for a teacher from Generation X, for example, to provide the same educational experience to all students despite their personal generational identities. An article by Don Levonius², a consultant for talent development, highlights some of the ways that generational needs differ and how to accommodate their particular learning preferences. He claims that the Veterans, or “Silent Generation,” as he calls them, value hard work and slow, steady progress as a result of seeing their parents struggle through the Great Depression. They respect authority and stick to the task at hand rather than speaking up. As a result, they prefer instructor led lectures, predictability, and time to practice skills independently. Baby Boomers are described as “internally focused yet extrinsically motivated” which explains their strong self-efficacy and pride in working long hours. These learners require collaborative discussion and inclusive decision-making. Generation X marks a shift in attention away from children, as families evolved into two parent working households or single parent households. The resulting learners are self-directed and value work-life balance instead of working long hours like their parents did. Thus, effective learning activities are fun, prove their relevance, and allow individual discretion to complete tasks in various ways. Finally, Millennials, otherwise called “Generation Y” or “Echo-Boomers,” were born to financially stable Baby Boomers who carved out time to work from home and save for their education. They are described as achievement oriented and technologically savvy, preferring activity-based group work, individualized feedback, and technology incorporated into the classroom.²

While the above examples are, in part, opinion based and rooted in stereotypes that may not apply to everyone, they help explain how and why teaching strategies have changed over time. As workplaces evolve to accommodate changing market needs, learners must also be equipped to work in these new settings. Thus, it is important for teachers to avoid getting attached to one way of teaching that serves one point in time. Luckily, current teaching methods incorporate numerous types of learning activities to accommodate the various needs of learners, whether they be generational needs or otherwise. As seen by the results of the survey above, students and preceptors frequently identified with answers that did not correspond with their personal generational categories. Here is yet another example of the complexity of a learner. We use stereotypes to better understand a group while acknowledging that individuals exist who veer from the suspected course.

I challenge teachers, including myself, to consider generational differences when conducting an audience analysis prior to teaching a new class. While learning activities may be catered to a particular generational category, we know that variances exist and may require altering as the course progresses. Of course there is more to consider than generational category alone. In the research example above, students and preceptors showed preference toward a process-oriented learning preference which may be a result of career choice, as pharmacists overall tend to be process-oriented. Therefore, learning activities should be better suited for pharmacy students than otherwise. As three primary takeaways, we should be aware of generational differences as one aspect of a learner, include a variety of learning experiences that target different types of learners, and finally make sure that the learning experiences provided are well suited to raising exceptional pharmacists who are prepared for an evolving healthcare landscape.

References:

1.   Smith SM, Coleman M, Dolder CR. Evaluation of generational influences among 4th year pharmacy students and experiential preceptors. Curr Pharm Teach Learn [Internet]. 2019 Sept [cited 2019 Oct 4];11(9):888-94. Available from: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1877129718303708?token=29F922C07CC7CADB480F12D37E105D043AFE8AEFEC8A557AEE4FC8E3C2593065A9EA3C104C20DCE516601B69EAE951F2

2.   Levonius D. Generational differences in the classroom [Internet]. 2018 Jun [cited 2019 Oct 4]. Available from: https://www.td.org/newsletters/atd-links/generational-differences-in-the-classroom