Individuals are classified into categories quite regularly. Surveys and questionnaires can be one place where we are asked to identify with a group of individuals. Some categories may include: race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender, and age. However, do we identify with the group of individuals who make up these categories? Maybe to an extent; but lumping the group together may actually conflict with our individuality. For learning, our age may have an impact on our past experiences and how we identify with particular social, cultural, and historical events; however, could it be true that a person’s age may have an impact on the way they learn? Should a person’s age define how we create learning in the digital age?

Individuals who are born in the same year for a particular range of years are typically referred to as a generation of individuals. A generational group usually spans a period of twenty years. Depending on the author, the birth years and the name of the generational group can vary. Instructional Design Central (2018) defines instructional design as “the process by which learning products and experiences are designed, developed, and delivered”. The learning can include many different products including online courses, instructional manuals, video tutorials, learning simulations, and so many more (Instructional Design Central, 2018). In order to analyze the information available on generational differences and the possible impact on instructional design; a critical review of five papers from five different authors will help to shed some light on the discussions surrounding this topic.

In his literature review, Reeves (2008) focuses on the three generations that will predominately constitute the workforce over the next five to fifteen years. These groups are referred to as Baby Boomers (born 1943-1964), Generation X’ers (born 1960-1981), and what he refers to as the Net Gen (born 1978 – 2000).

The main point of the article suggests that there are those who believe that the newest generation (Net Gen) are “fundamentally different from previous generations in ways that require new approaches to teaching and learning” (Reeves, 2008, p.11) and those “who believe that how people learn is not fundamentally affected by generational membership” (Reeves, 2008, p.11). In terms of a formal literature review; Reeves’ (2008) opinion on the topic is clearly formed prior to reviewing the literature that he has chosen to review. When he indicates that there is a great deal of variance across the generations; suggesting that the year a person was born does not necessarily mean that they have the characteristics of that particular generation. This statement suggests that Reeves is in favour of the individual and that regardless of age; instructional design need not change based on generational differences. Although he agrees that the need for design principles are important and should be created across the generations; his conclusion still suggests that instructional design should be focused on the learners needs and those needs need not be defined by which generation they belong.

Contrary to the paper written by Reeves (2008), which avoids generalizing the different generations; Wolfson, Cavanagh, and Kraiger (2014) take a look at how technology-based instruction is changing training delivery; specifically to older workers. They claim that “older adults are slower to learn, they should be allowed to self-pace as they proceed through DVD’s, interactive videos, web-based learning programs, simulations, and so on” (Wolfson, Cavanagh, and Kraiger, 2014, p.33). The article suggests that instructional design should take a new approach and that new design principles should be considered given that their research is based on the cognitive changes that are associated with aging (Wolfson, Cavanagh, and Kraiger, 2014). They provide recommendations for instructional design and how technology-based instruction should be applied to older workers. However, they do not define who they mean by “older workers” (Wolfson, Cavanagh, and Kraiger, 2014, p.33). It seems as though they refer once to those who are the age of sixty-five but are these the individuals that will require this kind of training? Presumably, they would be reaching the age of retirement. Also, the references to this generation completely generalizes the group based on the needs of a few who may or may not experience a cognitive decline. The article does not prove one way or another if instructional design is impacted by different generational groups.

For Rudolph and Zacher (2015), their perspective on the classification of individuals based on the year they are born echoes Reeves (2014) individualistic approach to learning. They go so far as to say that “one reason that people hang onto the notion of generational differences is that generational groupings represent convenient categories for capturing and classifying complexities of age” (Rudolph and Zacher, 2015, p.256). The article describes intergenerational conflict in the workplace and their suggestion is that generational differences are a social construct which commonly provide age stereotypes (Rudolph and Zacher, 2015). Based on the influence of these social constructs a set of behavioural expectations are generated; these behaviours are often stereotypical such as the idea that the older generation has less digital literacy than some of the newer generations. In terms of this article, there is extensive discussion suggesting that research in this area could be difficult because of the stereotypical nature of the topic; however, they do suggest that it is necessary. The article makes a bold statement that may suggest ageism in terms of the intergenerational conflict in the workplace. Regardless of age, conflict happening in the workplace could be related to a host of other problems having nothing to do with generational groupings.

For Morris (2007), she actually calls out some of the evidence from the United Kingdom with regards to some of the fears that the older generation may experience when using technology. The other papers reviewed focused strictly on the United States. She discusses how these individuals are diverse in age and it is not an isolated issue within one particular generation. Many stigmas exist in terms of suggesting that because the newest generation grew up with computers that every one of those individuals not only has access to the internet or to a computer. The term “information literacy has been defined as the set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use the information” as cited in ACRL (2007). Morris relates this term to the usage of information and the internet. It would appear that looking at socioeconomic status is also important in terms of digital literacy. If users only have access to the internet in their workplace, they are less likely to have the same amount of practice using technology. An important take away from Morris (2007) is that the motivation for why older people are using the internet on a growing basis is to gain information on their hobbies and interests. Although recommendations are made for getting the older generation digitally literate; it is not exactly clear how many individuals she is speaking about. She does mention specialized training but again the focus seems to be on those older generations who are using the internet for leisure; there is no mention of exploring current generations in the workplace. In terms of training for IT, the article refers more to very basic computer and technology skills and not training programs in and of themselves. However, this does give us information to pause and think about motivational factors and generational differences.

The paper written by Twenge (2010) speaks of these motivational factors and to be able to “give managers a clearer picture of how to recruit, retain, and motivate the members of today’s multigenerational workplace” (Twenge, 2010, p.1). The article focuses on research conducted using a cross-section of generations. In terms of the generations, it does seem as though their motivations do change over time. Twenge agrees that literature on generational differences is diverse. As can be seen by the various papers that I have reviewed throughout this paper. Twenge also echoes some of the same insights as Reeves (2008). These are typically that it is very hard to determine that a particular group fits directly into the mold that may or may not be expected on them. Twenge (2010) suggests that “many people probably perceive generational differences as stronger than they actually are” (p.207). For Twenge (2010) “managers should also try to treat employees as individuals and not just members of their generation” (p.209). In terms of the on-going debate regarding generational differences and the impact this may have on instructional design; it would appear that this debate will continue. More research into the topic would certainly be helpful; however it would appear that maybe when designing the learning for different generational groups; considering their motivations for learning may assist in the transfer of knowledge to those particular groups.

            References

Instructional Design Central, LLC (2018). Instructional design definitions. Retrieved from https://www.instructionaldesigncentral.com/whatisinstructionaldesign

Morris, A. (2007). E-literacy and the grey digital divide: a review with recommendations. Journal of information literacy, 1(3), 13-28.Reeves, T. C., & Oh, E. (2008). Generational differences. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 3, 295-303.

Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2015). Intergenerational perceptions and conflicts in multi-age and multigenerational work environments. Facing the challenges of a multi-age workforce: A use-inspired approach, 253-282.

Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201-210.

Wolfson, N. E., Cavanagh, T. M., & Kraiger, K. (2014). Older adults and technology-based instruction: Optimizing learning outcomes and transfer. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 26-44.