Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Across Generations: Defining Pedagogical Characteristics of Generation X, Y, and Z Allied Health Teachers Using Q-Methodology

  • Original research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study identified the characteristics of allied health teachers across three generations. Using Q-methodology, a tripartite of characteristics as reflected by the three domains of learning emerged, namely, “the competence-centered teacher,” “the empathetic teacher,” and “the innovative teacher.” Teachers across the three generations were described to be “competence-centered” since all believe to be well-qualified at their jobs. On the other hand, Generation Y teachers were described to be “empathetic” that show tough love to their students, whereas Generation Z teachers were branded as “innovative” due to their efficiency in using technology and their effective teaching strategies. Lastly, Generation X teachers were described to be the flexible generation being able to manifest all three characteristics of allied health teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anne M, Romanes J (2018) Differences among generational groups of teachers in a public school district in their practice of 21st century teaching-learning skills.

  2. Balc A, Bozkurt S. Job expectations of generation X and Y teachers in Turkey. World Appl Sci J. 2013;21:599–614. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.21.4.1405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balch G, Brown SR. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. J Mark Res. 1982;19:162. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baltrinic ER, Moate RM, Hinkle MG, et al. Counselor educators’ teaching mentorship styles: a Q methodology study. Prof Couns. 2018;8:46–59. https://doi.org/10.15241/erb.8.1.46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beck CR. Matching teaching strategies to learning style preferences. Teach Educ. 2001;37:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730109555276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Billings D. Teaching learners from varied generations. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2019;35:104–5. https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-20040501-06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Byrd K. Creating innovators: the making of young people who will change the world. Manag Decis. 2013;51:453–4. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741311301920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chicca J, Shellenbarger T. Connecting with Generation Z: approaches in nursing education. Teach Learn Nurs. 2018;13:180–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2018.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Guzman A, Pablo LA, Prieto RJ, Purificacion VN, Que JJ, Quia P. Understanding the persona of clinical instructors: the use of students’ doodles in nursing research. Nurse Educ Today. 2008;28:48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2007.02.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dougherty I, Clarke A. Wired for innovation: valuing the unique innovation abilities of emerging adults. Emerg Adulthood. 2018;6:358–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696817739393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Evans KH, Ozdalga E, Ahuja N. The medical education of Generation Y. Acad Psychiatry. 2016;40:382–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-015-0399-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Factor EMR, de Guzman AB. Explicating Filipino student nurses’ preferences of clinical instructors’ attributes: a conjoint analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;55:122–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fauth B, Decristan J, Decker AT, Büttner G, Hardy I, Klieme E, et al. The effects of teacher competence on student outcomes in elementary science education: the mediating role of teaching quality. Teach Teach Educ. 2019:86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102882.

  14. Fishman AA. How generational differences will impact America’s aging workforce: strategies for dealing with aging Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers. Strateg HR Rev. 2016;15:250–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/shr-08-2016-0068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gibson SJ, Porter J, Anderson A, Bryce A, Dart J, Kellow N, et al. Clinical educators’ skills and qualities in allied health: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2019;53:432–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ito M, Horst H, Bittanti M, et al. Living and learning with new media: summary of findings from the digital youth project. Digit Media. 2008;34:56–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01107.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaplan LS, Owings WA. Teacher quality and student achievement: recommendations for principals. NASSP Bull. 2001;85:74–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650108562809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Knoeppel R, Logan J, Keiser C (2005) Measuring teacher quality: continuing the search for policy-relevant predictors of student achievement. In: ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED526999. Accessed 15 Jul 2019.

  19. Kuivila H-M, Mikkonen K, Sjögren T, Koivula M, Koskimäki M, Männistö M, et al. Health science student teachers’ perceptions of teacher competence: a qualitative study. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;84:104210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kunter M, Klusmann U, Baumert J, Richter D, Voss T, Hachfeld A. Professional competence of teachers: effects on instructional quality and student development. J Educ Psychol. 2013;105:805–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Le Deist FD, Winterton J. What is competence? Hum Resour Dev Int. 2005;8:27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000338227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. MacKellar L (2014) Paul Taylor, The next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the looming generational showdown. Popul Dev Rev 40:570–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2014.00706.x.

  23. Maulana R, Helms-Lorenz M, van de Grift W. A longitudinal study of induction on the acceleration of growth in teaching quality of beginning teachers through the eyes of their students. Teach Teach Educ. 2015;51:225–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Morbach JK. Characteristics of an appropriate instructor student relationship in allied health: University of Nebraska - Lincoln; 2015.

  25. Muhammad Arifin H. The influence of competence, motivation, and organisational culture to high school teacher job satisfaction and performance. Int Educ Stud. 2015;8:38–45. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n1p38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Owings WA, Kaplan LS, Nunnery J, Marzano R, Myran S, Blackburn D. Teacher quality and troops to teachers: a national study with implications for principals. NASSP Bull. 2006;90:102–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506289023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Palardy GJ, Rumberger RW. Teacher effectiveness in first grade: the importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 2008;30:111–40. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708317680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. Horiz. 2001;9:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rivkin SG, Hanushek EA, Kain JF. Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica. 2005;73:417–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rusu C, Şoitu L, Panaite O. Theoretical and investigative approach. In: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences; 2012. p. 1017–21.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sanders WL, Horn SP (1998) Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. J Pers Eval Educ W L, Horn, S P (1998) Res Find from Tennessee Value-Added Assess Syst database Implic Educ Eval Res J Pers Eval 12:247–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008067210518.

  32. Schwartz SJ, Zamboanga BL, Luyckx K, Meca A, Ritchie RA. Identity in emerging adulthood: reviewing the field and looking forward. Emerg Adulthood. 2013;1:96–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shemmings D. “Quantifying” qualitative data: an illustrative example of the use of Q methodology in psychosocial research. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:147–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Smola KW, Sutton CD. Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. J Organ Behav. 2002;23:363–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Solomon H, Stephenson W. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. J Am Stat Assoc. 1955;50:1415. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Steffy BE, Wolfe MP. A Life-Cycle Model for Career Teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Rec. 2001;38:16–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2001.10518508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sy MP, Ohshima N, Roraldo MPNR. The role of Filipino occupational therapists in substance addiction and rehabilitation: a Q-methodology. Occup Ther Ment Health. 2018;34:367–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/0164212X.2018.1446206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Topping A, Bøje RB, Rekola L, Hartvigsen T, Prescott S, Bland A, et al. Towards identifying nurse educator competencies required for simulation-based learning: a systemised rapid review and synthesis. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35:1108–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Van Exel J, de Graaf G. Q methodology : a sneak preview. Soc Sci. 2005;2:1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wilson A. Book review: grown up digital: how the net generation is changing your world. Int J Mark Res. 2010;52:139–40. https://doi.org/10.2501/S1470785310201119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who helped in the completion of this project. To Dr. Jennifer Santillan, Dr. Jarrent Tayag, and Mrs. Dorothy Joy Macaranas for the technical support and insights for the improvement of the manuscript. To God be the glory!

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Allied Medical Professions, Angeles University Foundation, 2009, Angeles City, Philippines

    Alleluia Reyes, Marvey Velasquez, Aniceto Lemnel Cabuso, Jansenn Ray David & Nicole Tracy Manansala

  2. Professional Education Department, College of Education, Angeles University Foundation, 2009, Angeles City, Philippines

    Alleluia Reyes

  3. College of Nursing, Angeles University Foundation, 2009, Angeles City, Philippines

    Renato Galvan Jr.

  4. Department of Medical Technology, College of Allied Medical Professions, Angeles University Foundation, 2009, Angeles City, Philippines

    Annalyn Navarro, Mona Lisa Lacson & Raphael Enrique Tiongco

  5. Department of Pharmacy, College of Allied Medical Professions, Angeles University Foundation, 2009, Angeles City, Philippines

    Dinah Rose Soriano

Authors
  1. Alleluia Reyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renato Galvan Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annalyn Navarro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marvey Velasquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dinah Rose Soriano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aniceto Lemnel Cabuso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jansenn Ray David
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mona Lisa Lacson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nicole Tracy Manansala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Raphael Enrique Tiongco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alleluia Reyes or Raphael Enrique Tiongco.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study was duly approved for conduct by the Angeles University Foundation – Center for Research and Development Ethics Review Committee (ERC Ref No.: 205) under the project entitled “Bridging the generational gap: Determination of the preferred teacher characteristics of twenty-first century allied health students using a mixed-method approach.”

Informed Consent

All participants included were asked to sign an informed consent form. Participation is purely voluntary, and participants can withdraw at any time without potential loss of benefits. Individuals were also assured of utmost privacy and confidentiality in all phases of the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reyes, A., Galvan, R., Navarro, A. et al. Across Generations: Defining Pedagogical Characteristics of Generation X, Y, and Z Allied Health Teachers Using Q-Methodology. Med.Sci.Educ. 30, 1541–1549 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01043-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01043-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation