Food for thought: The value of generational theory in medical education

In the article “Avocado toasted: Mythbusting ‘Millennials,’ ‘Generation Z,’ and generational theory,” ¹ Dr. Schnapp and colleagues “challenge the myth of learner generations” and question the benefit of grouping learners together by age. The truth of the matter is that individuals born at a similar moment in time do have shared attributes. Geopolitical events and exposure to certain media and technology during formative years have been shown to produce trends in generational cohorts. ² An understanding of these trends can be a powerful tool when leveraged properly. In this way, generational theory has been used to the benefit of employers, advertisers, politicians, and educators. Medical education is no exception.

The authors rightly point out the limitations of generational theory in that it does not account for the individuality of learners. ¹ Predicting what any one individual will do has never been the point of generational studies. Neither is the creation of stereotypes, which seems to be the primary focus of the authors' criticism. No one should expect any specific individual will behave a certain way because they are a part of a particular generation. However, trends are important: Any two individual members of Generation Z will have differing levels of comfort and reliance on technology, but it can be expected that a classroom full of Gen Z students will, as a whole, spend more time in front of device screens and on social media than their Gen X educators. Gen Z learners are accustomed to being able to access any information at any time growing up in the age of smartphones and search bars and definitively read less print text than any generation before them. ³ Surely we should accept that this will inform the way they will most effectively learn.

So what is the value of generational theory, specifically in regard to medical education? An understanding of generational trends provides an opportunity for growth as an educator. In fact, the “Re‐Frames” suggested in Figure 1 of “Avocado toasted” ¹ are the exact conclusions one would draw if applying generational studies to the situations posed by the authors. For example, cross‐generational research has shown that Gen Z learners actually have a greater desire for feedback and respond well to immediate, highly specific feedback. ⁴ , ⁵ , ⁶ Incorporation of new technology and utilizing innovative and engaging content is the appropriate response to challenges created by generational changes in learning styles. The authors' recommendation that “clinical education should focus on identifying and embracing the ways technology can enhance education and clinical practice” ¹ are the words of someone who understands the dynamic needs of our newest generations.

The authors of “Avocado toasted” successfully identify the ways in which generational theory is misapplied. Using the terms “Millennial” or “Gen Z’er” in a derogatory context is not appropriate, and assuming motivations based on a person's age is an approach doomed to failure. However, it is unwise to disregard a useful tool, which generational theory has been shown to be, just because some choose to stereotype or underestimate the value of generational trends. In contrast to what the authors suggest, generations of learners are “unique populations with special interests and needs.” ¹ Medical educators can ensure they continue to be effective teachers and mentors by opening their minds to generational theory as an opportunity for interpersonal growth and development.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author reports no conflict of interest.