Exploring the Effects of Generational.Pdf

EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF GENERATIONAL DIVERSITY ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE IN HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Lindsay MacFarlane

Master of Education Nipissing University

2017

EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF GENERATIONAL DIVERSITY ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE IN HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS

LINDSAY MACFARLANE

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION

NIPISSING UNIVERSITY SCHULICH SCHOOL OF EDUCATION NORTH BAY, ONTARIO

S C H O O L O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S

M A J O R R E S E A R C H P A P E R /

C E R T I F I C A T E O F E X A M I N A T I O NT H E

S I S / D I S S E R T A T I O N

Certificate of Examination

(Co) Supervisor: Examiner(s):

Dr. Susan Elliott-Johns Dr. Olive Wahoush

Supervisory Committee:

Dr. Lorraine Carter

The Thesis by

Lindsay MacFarlane

Entitled

Exploring the Effects of Generational Diversity on Professional Communities of

Practice in Health Education Program

is accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Education

April 12, 2017 Dr. Christine Cho

Date Chair of the Examination Committee

(original signatures on file)

Abstract

This descriptive non-experimental study was designed to explore the existence and effects of generational diversity on Professional Communities of Practice in select health care programs in a

Northern Ontario community college. Through active and social participation in Professional

Communities of Practice, Practical Nursing, Paramedic, Dental Hygiene, Medical Laboratory

Assistant, and Medical Radiation Technology students begin to construct their identities in relation to their professional communities. The results of a twelve question Likert-scale survey revealed that some generational traits specific to certain cohorts, such as comfort with technology, learning styles, and leadership did exist within the sample. These traits were similar to findings of previous studies on generational diversity. The study also found that generational tensions such as a lack of professionalism and mutual respect were present, and may have an effect on the dynamics of learning within Professional Communities of Practice. Further research into the specific effects of generational diversity are recommended.

iii

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank my enthusiastic, patient, and extremely knowledgeable Research Supervisor Dr.

Susan Elliott-Johns and equally enthusiastic and knowledgeable second reader Dr. Lorraine

Carter who gently but efficiently guided me through the ethics review process, the submission of my research proposal, and thesis writing process. I wish to thank Confederation College’s Dean

Shane Strickland and Chair of the School of Health and Community Services Tania Pynn for their overwhelming support of my educational pursuits. To my colleagues in Practical Nursing, especially Dr. Debra Walker who never stopped encouraging and supporting me, and to my family for coping with all the ‘crazy,’ I say thank you!

Table of Contents

Title Page ...... ….i

Thesis Signature Page ...... …ii

Abstract ...... iii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... v

List of Tables and Figures...... viiii

Figures...... viiix

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background…………………………………………………..….....10

Changing Demographics in Post-Secondary Education ...... 10

Workplace Pressures and Educational Responses ...... 11

Generational Diversity ...... 11

Statement of the Problem ...... 12

Theoretical Framework ...... 13

Significance of the Study ...... 15

Research Questions ...... 16

Definition of Terms...... 17

Positionality of Researcher……………………………………………………………………17

Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………………….18

History of Community College Education in Ontario ...... 18

Collaborative Learning, Collaborative Practice, and Communities of Practice ...... 20

Generational Diversity and its Influence on Collaborative learning ...... 21

Generational cohorts ...... 24

Chapter 3: Research Methods……………………………………………………………………28

Re-statement of the Research Questions...... 28

Research design………………………………………………………………………………….28

Procedures ...... 32

Research Participants ...... 33

Survey responses...... 355

Privacy and confidentiality...... 355

Data Analysis ...... 366

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….36

Chapter 4: Findings………………………………………………………………………………37

Demographic Findings ...... 37

Question #1...... 37

Question #2...... 39

Question #3...... 40

Question #4...... 41

Question #5...... 42

Question #6...... 43

Question #7...... 44

Question #8...... 45

Question #9...... 46

Question #10...... 47

Question #11...... 48

Question #12...... 49

Summary of Findings ...... 50

Chapter 5: Findings ...... 52

Survey Results…………………………………………………………………………………...52

Participant Profile by Cohort………………………………………………………………….52

Learning Styles and Technology ...... 53

Leadership and Professionalism ...... 54

Communication ...... 57

Staying on Task...... 58

Collaborative Learning ...... 59

Primary Research Questions ...... 609

Significance of the Study ...... 61

Limitations ...... 63

Conclusion ...... 64

Summary ...... 64

References………………………………………………………………………………………..65

Appendix A – REB or ACC Letter of Certification and Final Report...... 74

Appendix B – REB Approval Form from Research Host...... 75

vii

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1 Gender by generational cohort………………………………………………. 38

Table 2 Learning style by generational cohort……………………………………….. 39

Table 3 Tech savviness by generational cohort…………………………... 40

Table 4 Likelihood of being a group leader………………………………. 41

Table 5 How each generational cohort feels about how professional their cohort

behaves in general…………………………………………………………… 42

Table 6 How each generational cohort feels about the professional behaviours of

other cohorts in class……………………………… 43

Table 7 How each generational cohorts feel about the professional behaviours of

other cohorts in public…………………………….. 44

Table 8 Opinions on communication within the cohort…………………...... 45

Table 9 Communication between cohorts……………………………………………. 46

Table 10 How generational cohorts feel about the ability of their cohort to stay on

task…………………………………………………………………………… 47

Table 11 How generational cohorts feel about other cohorts ability’ to stay on

task…………………………………………………………………………… 48

Figures

Figure 1 Distribution of generational cohorts in the student population……...... 37

Figure 2 Number of participants by generational cohort……………………...... 37

viii

Figure 3 Gender by generational cohort………………………………………... 38

Figure 4 Learning style by generational cohort………………………………… 39

Figure 5 Tech savviness by generational cohort……………………………… 40

Figure 6 Self-identified leader by generational cohort……………………….. 41

Figure 7 How generational cohorts feel about the professionalism of their own

cohort in general……………………………………………….. 42

Figure 8 How generational cohorts feel about the professional behaviours of

other cohorts during class time……………………………………… 43

Figure 9 How each cohort feels about the professional behaviours of other

cohorts in public……………………………………………………. 44

Figure 10 How well communication occurs within the cohort………………… 45

Figure 11 How generational cohorts feel about how other cohorts communicate

with them……………………………………………... 46

Figure 12 How generational cohorts feel about the ability of their own cohort to

stay on task……………………………………………………….. 47

Figure 13 How generational cohorts feel about other cohorts’ ability to stay on

task………………………………………………………………...... 48

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

This introductory chapter presents and defines the theory of generational diversity, and discusses the development of generational diversity in post-secondary education in Ontario community colleges. The research problem that led to this study, a statement of the significance of the study, and the theoretical framework of Communities of Practice are discussed.

Definitions of key terms and the research questions explored in the study are also presented.

Changing Demographics in Post-Secondary Education

Today, non-traditional students, namely, students who are older and/or did not pursue further education immediately after high school are entering the post-secondary system in

Ontario at a greater rate than ever in history (Andres & Finlay, 2004). This increase in non- traditional student enrolment and corresponding increase in the generational diversity of students in post-secondary institutions are the result of several factors. These factors include recognition that higher education is essential to employment opportunities and upward mobility (Andres &

Finlay, 2004). Higher education provides the individual with greater earning potential, improved health and longevity, and greater satisfaction with life, and is linked to social returns including safer communities, healthy citizens, greater civic participation, stronger social cohesion, and improved equity and social justice (Kerr, 2011). Government and other stakeholders are, therefore, providing more and more incentives for adults to return to school (Kerr, 2011).

Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) state that the historical mission of education has been to serve the youth of society. Unfortunately, lower birth rates over the past 20 years have resulted in declining enrolment of traditional learners entering post-secondary education directly from high school. The Government of Ontario has recognized that, to maintain and enhance its economic standing in the changing global economy, it must ensure that the

10 11 human capital needs of its society are met with a well-educated workforce (Kerr, 2011). As a result, community college classrooms are becoming more and more generationally diverse as older adults, called mature learners, are encouraged to enter or re-enter post-secondary education. Post-secondary education is an attractive option for people searching for employment, including new and better jobs (Murray, Smith, & Nelson, 2010). The workplace is changing and post-secondary institutions need to be in tune with this change.

Workplace Pressures and Educational Responses

In the workplace, an emphasis on job performance rather than seniority has resulted in relatively rapid upward movement of some young workers ahead of more experienced workers.

As a result, older adults are finding it necessary to return to the classroom for upgrading (Dirkx,

2002; Murray, Smith, & Nelson 2010). Colleges Ontario (2016) reported that 41% of college students were under the age of 21; 39% were between the ages of 21-25; 10% were between the ages of 26-30; 4% were between the ages of 31-35 years of age; and 6% were greater than 35 years of age. It is, therefore, possible that the post-secondary educator will have as many as four different generations of learners in one classroom. The educator's challenge is to establish learning environments that are stimulating and relevant for several age groups of learners.

Generational Diversity

Based on generational theory as proposed by McNamara (2005), each generation of students has experiences unique to its generational cohort. Generations differ not only in relation to age but also values, gender issues, cultural tensions, and ideas about team building and social hierarchy. O’Donovan (2009) states that “each generation is formed by its life experience and the reaction to the actions of the generation that preceded it” (p. 68). The result is that each generation of learners will have a different perspective on the meaning of education. It suggests

12 that differing generation will have different skills sets and varying expectations of the learning experience, and will have unique generationally-related challenges that test their commitment to learning.

Much has been written (Gravett & Throckmorton, 2007; Lancaster & Stillman, 2003;

Martin & Tulgan, 2006) about how to avoid the stress and conflict within the intergenerational workplace. In these studies, it is generally the older generation that is presented as the holder of experiential knowledge. By contrast, the younger generation is understood to lack experience and, therefore, it is expected to learn from the older generation. Very little research is available on workers or students who are novices in their professions and how they work together with others despite generational differences.

Research on generational diversity in the community college system has shown that differing age cohorts have very different motivations, barriers, attitudes, and values (Murray et al., 2010). However, there is little to no research on the intergenerational differences of learners who are learning something for the first time together such as occurs in most health programs and how these differences influence learning.

Statement of the Problem

The broad aim of this study was to examine the interrelationship of two theories: the theory of generational diversity and the theory of Communities of Practice. Walker and Avant

(2011) describe theory synthesis as the process of transforming research about a phenomenon of interest into an integrated whole. This process enables the researcher to bring pieces of knowledge together in a useful and coherent form and results in a more complex representation of the phenomenon than a single theory permits. By examining the relationship between generational diversity and communities of practice, there is an opportunity to add to the body of

13 knowledge pertaining to this social learning theory. Despite the prevalence of generational diversity in today’s post-secondary setting and the use of a Community of Practice model in this same setting, there is no comprehensive theory that brings these two realities together.

Theoretical Framework

Students enrolled in professional health programs in community college enter into

Professional Communities of Practice at the novice level. Communities of Practice is a social learning theory first developed by Etienne Wenger in 1998. Wenger’s theoretical framework of

Communities of Practice suggests that learning occurs through social participation while active participation in Communities of Practice enables the student to construct identity in relation to his or her community. A Community of Practice involves a group of individuals who share mutually defined practices, beliefs, and understandings over an extended time frame in the pursuit of a shared enterprise (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).

The dimensions of practice as the property of a community include mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998). For the health professions, this mutual engagement and joint enterprise is service to the public. The shared repertoire includes the concepts of ethical comprehensive care, knowledge of the human body and human relationships, and growth and development of the skills required of the profession. Mutual engagement means that membership is more than declaring allegiance or belonging to an organization, having a title, and personal relationships with others. Mutual engagement occurs when participants interact and engage while developing their professional identities. Through engagement, participants exchange ideas, information, and opinions and very directly influence each other’s understandings (Wenger, 1998).

Wenger (1998) states that a joint enterprise means that the community negotiates the conditions, resources, and demands that shape the practice. The Community of Practice arises in response to some outside mandate (such as the establishment of professional standards of practice) while the practice evolves as the community responds to the mandate. The shared repertoire of a Community of Practice involves routines and ways of doing things, gestures, and symbols that make the community unique. The way members express their membership to the community and how they express their personal identities becomes part of this shared repertoire.

Students in professional health programs in community college must learn the standards, skills, and ethics of their practices in order to graduate and work within their designated professions.

They learn to identify with a specific profession, adapt their behaviours to fit with the mandate of the profession, and recognize appropriate behaviours in fellow learners.

Amin and Roberts (2006) identifies four distinct types Communities of Practice. They are distinguished from each other by the type of knowledge they deal with. These communities are task/craft based communities, professional communities, expert or creative communities, and virtual communities.

Professional Communities of Practice are distinct from other communities due to codified, tacit, and embodied knowledge that is embedded in professional competencies. In professional communities, this knowledge is passed from expert to novice. For example, physicians teach medical students, teachers teach education students, and nurses teach nursing students.

Newcomers absorb knowledge through social interaction with and observation of the practices of other members of the community. In this way, novices progress from legitimate peripheral participation towards full participation shaping knowledge, developing professional

15 identities, and participating in incremental innovative activity as they learn (Amin & Roberts,

2006, p. 4).

The shared enterprise of a student-defined Community of Practice involves gaining and demonstrating competency in the performance of the standards of the profession. Although learning in a professional Community of Practice is about a relationship between an expert, a novice-based social interaction between students is equally important. Practice-based behaviours including “implicit relations, tacit conventions, subtle cues, untold rules of thumb, recognizable intuitions, specific perceptions, well-tuned sensitivities, embodied understandings, underlying assumptions, and shared world views” (Amin & Roberts, 2006, p.11) are acquired through social interaction and the use of a shared vocabulary, tools of the trade (Wenger, 1998), and professional conduct and teamwork. For the student in a professional health program at the community college level, these behaviours must be appropriate for, and be incorporated into, the standards and competencies required by the student’s profession.

Students whose identity and socialization are based on generational cohort may face challenges and conflicts within a Professional Community of Practice since such communities require member collaboration and citizenship. In other words, the community is a place where members value each other’s personal histories, characteristics, and learning needs. Johnson and

Romanello (2005) write that, when generational influences are acknowledged, there is greater understanding of how each participant perceives the world. This can lead to understanding and acceptance of the ways differing generations solve problems, think critically, establish goals, and develop boundaries.

Significance of the Study

Generational diversity and the subsequent tensions that may derive from this type of diversity could have an impact on engagement in learning in Professional Communities of

Practice. Generational diversity may also be a factor in an individual’s overall satisfaction with learning. Conversely, generational tensions in the learning environment may contribute to experiential learning in conflict resolution and problem solving and lead to stronger

Communities of Practice.

In this study, a survey tool was designed to identify generational tensions which may influence collaborative learning and the formation of cohesive, effective Professional

Communities of Practice. It was anticipated that the study would lead to ideas about how to incorporate knowledge of intergenerational diversity into pedagogical practices and improve the quality of the educational process for all students (Earle & Myrick, 2009). These outcomes could then lead to improved relations among participants in Professional Communities of Practice prior to graduation and independent practice. Successful implementation of Communities of Practice requires investigation of the theoretical, reflective, and practical experiences of learners

(Jakovljevic, Buckley, & Bushney, 2013).

Research Questions

The research questions investigated in this study were the following:

1. Does generational diversity exist in community college post-secondary professional

programs offered by the community college?

2. Do generational tensions such as a lack of respect and feelings of dissent due to a lack

of professionalism or engagement exist in these programs?

3. Does generational diversity have an impact on the participants’ ability to learn within

Professional Communities of Practice in community college professional health

programs offered by the community college?

Definition of Terms

Generational theory. According to Howe and Strauss (2000), the term generation refers to all the people who share birth years within a span of roughly twenty years. Because a particular age group grows up and comes of age during a particular period in history, they tend to share beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviours.

Generational cohort. The popular nomenclatures assigned to the different generations of the last 20 years include the following: the Matures, the Baby Boomers, the Gen Xers, and the

Millennials (Howe, & Strauss 2000). A further discussion of each cohort is offered later.

Generational diversity. Generational diversity is an aspect of diversity in which people of different generations work and learn together.

Communities of practice. A Community of Practice is a group of individuals who share mutually defined practices, beliefs, and understandings over an extended time frame in the pursuit of a shared enterprise (Wenger, 1998).

Positionality of the Researcher

It is important to declare that the researcher’s interest in this topic is informed by her professional practice. The researcher has worked many years as a nursing educator and experiences intergenerational diversity in the classroom. While this knowledge and experience were definite strengths, she was aware of potential for bias and dutifully maintained an ongoing relationship with her Supervisor and practiced reflexivity in order to mitigate the possibility of bias.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter provides a review of the literature that considers generational diversity in community colleges in Ontario. A brief history of the establishment of community colleges in

Ontario and a discussion of the purpose of education offered at this level are provided.

Collaborative learning as an important aspect of college-level learning and how generational diversity might influence collaborative learning is also discussed.

History of Community College Education in Ontario

In 1963, Ontario Education Minister William G. Davis proposed Bill 153 enabling legislation for the establishment and operation of a system of Colleges of Applied Arts and

Technology in Ontario. This expansion of the post-secondary system was regarded to be a necessary step in the economic development and sustainability of Ontario. Due to changing work patterns requiring advanced levels of knowledge and skills and a decline in the number of occupations requiring the low levels of education, a gap of prepared skilled workers had resulted.

This new level of education between secondary school and university was identified as a way to support diverse learners who were not university ready (Stannard, 1968). Although technical and vocational training had been available in Ontario before this time, it was limited to certain sectors such as mining, textiles and agriculture. To complicate matters, a population explosion had contributed to an unskilled labour force and unemployment (Stannard, 1968).

The Minister proposed that programs within the Colleges should be varied and comprehensive, offering courses less theoretical and more applied in nature than university courses. Programs and courses were designed for training technicians or technologists; for people who would be candidates for junior and middle management positions; for the semi- professional occupations such as paramedics; and for the distributive trades. Courses and

19 programs offered by the Colleges would also be based on the needs of the community in which the college was located (Stannard, 1968).

In keeping with the original vision for the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of providing “total education” rather than training (Stannard, 1968, p.44), the Colleges focused on providing three dimensions of education. The three dimensions were general education, employability skills, and vocational and professional education (George Brown College, 1994):

This multi-dimensional approach to post-secondary curriculum recognizes that

education, although certainly involving training for a profession, is more than

that. People have professional needs but they have personal and other needs as

well. The Colleges were meant to prepare students for careers, but they are also

meant to be more than training institutes (George Brown College, 1994).

By graduation, college students are required to be able to demonstrate essential employability skills. These skills include communication, numeracy, critical thinking and problem solving, information management, and personal and interpersonal skills (Ontario

Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, 2016).

Communication skills are defined as reading, writing, speaking, listening, and presenting skills. Graduates are expected to be able to communicate clearly, concisely, and correctly in written, spoken, and visual forms that meet the needs of the audience. They were also required to effectively respond to written, spoken, and visual messages (Ontario Ministry of Advanced

Education and Skills Development, 2016). Numeracy skills require the student to be able to understand and apply mathematical concepts and reasoning and to analyze and conceptualize using numerical data (Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, 2016).

Critical thinking and problem solving skills include skills involving analysis, synthesis, and evaluation when making decisions and solving problems as well as creative and innovative thinking (Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, 2016). Information management skills include skills to locate, select, organize, and document information using appropriate technology and information systems as well as skills to analyze, evaluate, and apply relevant information from a variety of sources (Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and

Skills Development, 2016). Personal skills include demonstrating personal responsibility, engaging in reflective practice, managing change, being flexible and adaptable, and taking responsibility for one’s own actions, decisions, and consequences (Ontario Ministry of Advanced

Education and Skills Development, 2016). Interpersonal skills require skills in demonstrating respect for diverse opinions, values, belief systems, and the contributions of others in addition to ability to interact with others in groups or teams in ways that contribute to effective working relationships and the achievement of goals. These skills include relationship management, conflict resolution, and display of leadership. Networking has also been recognized as an interpersonal skill (Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, 2016). In short, community colleges fill a unique niche in the Ontario educational system by providing comprehensive academic and high quality education that prepares graduates for employment in today’s competitive job market.

Collaborative Learning, Collaborative Practice, and Communities of Practice

The World Health Organization (2017) in its Framework for Action document stresses that collaboration within and between health systems is essential for ensuring healthy outcomes.

Health improves when health systems function collaboratively. Change in one system will effect change in another, and improvements in health care delivery can only occur when there is input

21 from all systems involved. A health care workforce that is available, competent, responsive, and productive is a health system that contributes to better health outcomes (World Health

Organization, 2017). Professional collaboration that involves sharing of knowledge and practice is a key characteristics of Professional Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998).

The foundational skills required for collaborative practice begin with collaborative learning. Collaborative learning situations such as group work help students build collegial relationships and professional identities (Burgess & Sawchenko, 2011; Fearon, McLaughlin, &

Eng, 2012). Peer collaboration leads to collaborative learning while collaborative learning leads to improvement in ability to communicate and solve common problems in a professional manner

(Nordentoft, & Wistoft, 2011). Ideal peer collaboration involves equality, mutual respect, and trust (Nordentoft, & a Wistoft, 2011). Peer collaboration and working in groups help the student develop some of the essential employability skills.

Learners in health programs in community colleges engage in Communities of Practice when they collaborate not only in learning communities with student colleagues and instructors but also with leaders and experts in their chosen professions who demonstrate and teach professional skills, behaviours, routines, and practices (Edmonds-Cady & Sosulski, 2012).

Professional identities are likewise developed in Professional Communities of Practice. Page

(2005) refers to the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes of a professional subculture as professional socialization. One of the roles of Communities of Practice is to provide an environment for professional socialization (Hara, 2009).

Generational Diversity and it’s Influence on Collaborative learning

In a study by Cabrera, Nora, Bernal, Terenzini, and Pascarella (1998), collaborative learning was found to predict gains in the cognitive level, the affective level, and with respect to

22 openness to diversity across all student populations. This finding has become increasingly important as community colleges have begun to experience increasing levels of cultural and generational diversity. Merriam et al (2007) point out that “[h]istorically, formal education, whether it be in public schools or postsecondary institutions, has had as its primary mission to serve youth” (p. 30). Unfortunately, lower birth rates over the past twenty years have resulted in lower numbers of younger students entering post-secondary education (Murray, Smith, &

Nielson, 2010). Society, states Merriam et al. (2007), “no longer has the luxury of waiting for its youth” (p. 5). However, more non-traditional students (students who do not enter post-secondary institutions directly from high school) including older students have entered post-secondary education, many for the first time. Colleges Ontario (2016) reports that, in 2014, 40% of enrolled students were younger than 21 years of age; 39% were between 21-25 years; 11% were between

26-30 years; 4% were between the ages of 31-35 years 4%; and 6% were older than 35 years old.

It is, therefore, possible for educators to have as many as four different generations of learners in one classroom. The resulting challenge is how to establish learning environments that are stimulating and relevant for all age groups of learners.

McNamara (2005) has proposed that each generation of students comes with the unique experiences of their generational cohort which include value differences, gender issues, cultural tensions, and problems with team building and active participation in general. O’Donovan (2009) states that “each generation is formed by its life experience and the reaction to the actions of the generation that preceded it” (p. 68). Each generation of learners has its own perspective on the meaning of education, different skill sets and expectations of their learning experiences, and different challenges that test their commitment to learning.

A great deal has been written (Gravett & Throckmorton, 2007; Lancaster & Stillman,

2003; Martin & Tulgan, 2006) about how to avoid the stress and conflict that come from an intergenerational workplace. Most of this work identifies the older generation as the holder of experiential knowledge while the younger generation is noted to lack experience. The latter group, therefore, learns from the other.

Much of the existing research into mixed-generation classrooms focuses on the individual adult, also known as non-traditional learner, and how this learner constructs meaning from the learning (Kasworm 2005; Kasworm 2010; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; Markle, 2015). Markle

(2015) investigated the factors that influence persistence among non-traditional students and found that persistence rates did not differ between adult males and adult females. However, the factors influencing persistence such as inter-role conflict did. Francois (2014) looked at the motivational orientations of non-traditional adult students and found that employment advancement, gaining credentials, and cognitive interest were their main motivators for perusing higher education. Neither of these studies looked at intergenerational relationships.

Kasworm (2010) studied the factors that contribute to the construction of the adult learner identity as it includes positional and relational identities. Positional factors include classroom engagement with faculty and younger and older students, the student’s goals and expectations of the learning environment, and his or her life roles outside of the classroom.

Relational factors include individuals who value the student and accepts the student as a person

(Kasworm 2005). In this work, relationships between students of other ages is important.

A study by Faust and Courtenay (2002) was one of the few that investigated the interactions of intergenerational classrooms. Their research found four factors that influenced participation in classroom activities and discussion by both traditional and non-traditional

24 learners. These factors include the physical structure of the classroom, the expectations and teaching style of the instructor, the established patterns of discussion, and the social climate of the classroom.

Little to no research exists on the intergenerational differences of learners who are learning together for the first time such as students in a health program. Also, very few studies were located that focus on generational theory as a source of tension or as a factor contributing to failure in collaborative learning. Most research on age-related differences refers to traditional students as those under the age of twenty-four, and adult learners as those over the age of twenty- four with no identification of generational differences between these two cohorts. Many researchers refer to the two groups as Traditional Students and Returning Adult Students (RAS)

(Faust, & Courtenay, 2002; Francois, 2014; Kasworm, 2005).

Mangold (2007) stated that, while we must practice caution in overgeneralizing or categorizing groups of people, certain characteristics are shared by a generational cohort. These characteristics are formed by exposure to common life experiences and key events in history that cause societal change, “This sharing of key life experiences has led to commonalities in values, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors and perceptions of the world” (Mangold, 2007, p. 21). Researchers including Kenner and Weinerman (2011) have stated that non-traditional learners and traditional learners differ in that they use different metacognitive strategies for meaning-making and learning.

Generational cohorts

Generational researchers such as Howe and Strauss (2000), Lankaster and Stillman

(2003), and Oblinger and Oblinger (2013) have all contributed to the development of generational theory. However, as Reeve and Oh (2008) have pointed out, a standardized

25 nomenclature to identify generations has not been developed due to differing ideas around cohort names and year span. There is, however, a general agreement around four main cohorts. These cohorts are: 1) the Matures, or Silent Generation; 2) the Baby Boomers; 3) the Gen Xers; and 4) the Millennials or also known as Gen Y or the Net Generation (Reeve & Oh, 2008).

A discrepancy exists in the identity of where, in history, the Baby Boomer generation begins and ends. According to Howe and Strauss (2000), the Baby Boomers were born between

1943 and 1960. Lancaster and Stillman (2002) and Oblinger and Oblinger (2013) put them between 1946 and 1964. A further distinction has been made by some researchers between people born on the edges of various generational spans who may be caught between two generations. This group has been described as the Cusper (Reeve & Oh, 2008). Because this researcher is a Cusper, the Baby Boomer year span used in this research is 1943-1960 and aligns with that identified by Howe and Strauss (2000).

The Baby Boomers cohort is identified as being optimistic and workaholic in nature.

Reeve and Oh (2008) have stated that they are used to being responsible and have a strong work ethic. They see technology as something convenient to have (Howe, & Strauss, 2000).

GenXers, those born between 1960 and 1980 (Howe & Strauss, 2000), comprise the latchkey generation that is known for multitasking. They defined the term work-life balance, and are reported to dislike hype and red tape (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2013).

The Net generation, also known as the Next Generation or the Millennials, was born between 1980 and 1990 (Howe & Strauss, 2000). They are described as hopeful and determined as well as very tech savvy, seeing technology as a necessity rather than a luxury. They are often very attached to their parents who are sometimes over involved. The Millennials are said to

26 despise anything slow while they are strong public activists. According to some researchers, they are also said to be more tolerant of diversity than any other cohort (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2013).

Many authors have contributed to the literature on learning styles of different generations

(Coomes & DeBard, 2004; Dede, 2005; Howe & Strauss, 2000). Others have studied the learning preferences of differing generations (Mangold, 2007; Walker, 2007) and how to engage students of differing generations (Holyoke & Larson, 2009). All of these researchers attribute generational exposures, trends, and common life events as influences on the way a generation learns.

Human resource management and development scholars and workplace climate researchers including Lancaster and Stillman (2003), McNamara (2005), Minnis, (2004) and

Raines (2003) have conducted extensive studies on generational differences in the work force and have found attitudes and behaviours are shaped by experiences, “The events in members’ lives and how they are perceived mould unique work attitudes” (McNamara, 2005, p. 1149). A significant source of conflict between generations that can be difficult to resolve revolves around work ethic and differing expectations (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Minnis, 2004, Raines, 2003).

Some generational researchers have focused on how individual cohorts learn, struggle, and thrive within learning communities. For example, Ransdell, Kent, Gaillard-Kenney and

Long (2011) studied the level of external locus of control, a marker of social reliance among learners of differing generational cohorts. They found that Baby Boomers have a greater external locus of control and, therefore, greater social reliance than younger cohorts. Interestingly, the study also found that older cohorts have better scores on knowledge transfer tasks than younger cohorts. The Ransdell et. al. (2011) study supports the idea of considering social learning for

27 improved knowledge transfer tasks. Social learning may be accomplished through collaborative learning in Communities of Practice (Ransdell, Kent, Gaillard-Kenney, & Long 2011).

Howard and Davies (2012) posit that mature students face greater economic, social, and cognitive risks than younger students and that these risks may prevent mature individuals from feeling able to integrate and identify with the existing student community. In other words, these risks may negatively affect the development of a social identity within the learning community.

Williams and Steary (2011) examined the mature students’ resiliency and ability to challenge world views. They stated that resiliency is required to cope not only with the challenges of education and confusing institutional protocols and practices, but with family and job commitments, financial constraints, and possibly little or no family support.

Absent from the literature are studies of how students from different generations who are also novices in their professional communities learn to work together given their differing world views; learn to develop a shared social and professional identity (Howard & Davies, 2012); and learn a shared repertoire of professional competencies (Amin & Roberts, 2006). Given this gap, the primary purpose of this research was to discover the challenges that exist for students of differing ages (or different generational cohorts) in creating Professional Communities of

Practice that enhance learning and promote experiential satisfaction (Wenger 1998). In particular, this research focused on the effects of generational diversity on Professional

Communities of Practice in community college professional health programs.

In the following chapter, Chapter 3, information about methodology, the involved population and sample, the research instrument, data gathering strategies and data analysis work is provided.

Chapter 3: Research Methods

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of generational diversity on

Communities of Practice among students enrolled in five post-secondary professional programs involving health offered by the same community college. This chapter presents information about the research design, involved population and sample, the survey instrument, recruitment methods, data collection, data analysis procedures, and measures taken to protect participants’ rights.

Re-statement of the Research Questions

The aim of the study was to learn about the effect that Generational Diversity has on

Communities of Practice in select professional health programs in a Northern Ontario

Community College. The research questions investigated were as follows:

1. Does generational diversity exist in community college post-secondary professional programs?

2. Do generational tensions such as a lack of respect and feelings of dissent, due to a lack of professionalism or engagement, exist in these programs?

3. Does generational diversity have an impact on participants’ ability to learn within Professional

Communities of Practice in professional health programs offered by the community college?

Research Design

The focus of this research was determined early in the researcher’s journey through the

Master of Education program. The reason for this is that the researcher has experienced the effects of generational diversity during her many years of teaching. The topic was also the focus of many written assignments in the researcher’s required courses. Through this process, it

29 became clear that this issue would be a good one to investigate since there were few studies on it ’s effects within post-secondary education. The opportunity to contribute to the body of knowledge on generational diversity was important to this researcher.

Informed by Creswell’s (2009) recommendations on study design and data collection, a quantitative survey design was selected to enable gathering of information in an efficient way from students in several programs. A survey design also facilitated data collecting from students who were on campus and off campus at the time of the study. Open text boxes were provided so that students could expand on their responses if they wished.

The first step in the research process, after the topic was selected and approved, was preparation of the ethics application and completion of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical

Conduct for Research involving Humans Course on Research Ethics (TCPS 2: CORE) (see

Appendix A). The next step was to submit the proposal to the Research Ethics Board (REB) at the participating Northern Ontario College (see Appendix B). Upon gaining approval from the college for the proposed study which included a survey to be sent out electronically to a sample of students from that college, the proposal was submitted to the Nipissing University Research

Ethics Board (REB) through the ROMEO portal. This submission included information about the purpose of the study; the proposed sample; the survey questions; the recruitment strategy; and survey distribution. The participant information letter was also included. Approval for the project was obtained and confirmed in a letter from the Ethics Board (see Appendix C).

The next step was to submit the research proposal to the research supervisor. The proposal included specific information regarding the purpose of the study, a brief literature review as justification, the research questions, the target population, the proposed sample, the

30 survey questions and methods of distribution, the recruitment process including the participant information letter (PIL), and analysis methods. This information had also been a part of the REB board submission.

This descriptive non-experimental study used a 19-question opinion-seeking Likert scale survey developed using LimeSurvey online software. The survey was intended to be no more than 20 questions to limit non-informative non-responses, and to restrict the time for completion of the survey to 15-20 minutes. The survey was designed to investigate participants’ feelings towards their own generational cohort as well as the other generational cohorts in their class.

Specific themes explored were professionalism, communication, and commitment to tasks.

Opinions on professional behaviour in public and private and opinions on the effective use of communication served to indirectly measure collegiality among and between generational cohorts. These themes were selected as factors that supported collegiality and collaboration within groups through consultations with peers and the researcher’s observations and experiences as a post-secondary educator and health care professional.

Certain constructs were utilized in the survey as indirect indicators of generational differences between participants (Creswell, 2009). These constructs included age, proficiency in the use of technology, views on leadership potential, and opinions on task commitment. Since this is a non-experimental study, the independent variables were not manipulated. Learning style was also chosen as a construct. This decision was supported by the research of Bourland (2009) and Howe and Strauss (2006) who have stated that the Millennial student prefers social interaction when learning. According to Dorcet (2008), Gen Xers tend to want to avoid conflict and will dissociate themselves from people who present them with conflict. Members of this older generation that generally grew up in situations of working families or within single-parent

31 families tended to prefer to work independently over other kinds of work. Independence (Dorcet,

2008) promotes self-protection and self-determination to become successful without being defeated by others.

Participants were asked questions about their ability to use technology, whether they considered themselves leaders, and whether they were social or independent learners. A free-text box following each question gave the participant an opportunity to expand on subjective experiences and interpretations of participation in Communities of Practice (Trochim 2006) from the perspective of generational cohort. It was expected that the free text boxes would add a rich dimension to the survey results.

The specific focus and content of questions were the outcome of the researcher’s knowledge of the literature and her lived experience with intergenerational diversity in the practical nursing classroom. Her experience as a health educator enabled her to be an informed researcher and was a strength in the study. This noted, the researcher also practiced reflexivity throughout the entire research process so as not to bring personal bias to the study. Further, she maintained a close relationship with her Supervisor who regularly challenged her in the case of perceived bias.

To ensure face and content validity of the survey questions, the researcher consulted with her Supervisor and other health educators at the College. Feedback provided during two research ethics submissions also served to focus and improve the questions. While a pilot of the actual survey might have been used to test the questions with actual students, testing the survey with actual students at the College would have diminished an already limited pool of prospective participants.

Lorenz and Barlatier (2007) have stated that exploratory and confirmatory statistical methods using survey data or internet-based data sources are particularly suitable for providing simplified and representative descriptions of the role of interpersonal ties as well as information on formal and inform practice within Communities of Practice. In this study, the purpose of the survey was to explore levels of purposeful collaboration with others in their given programs, and to identify generational identity themes.

As noted earlier, because the study involved human subjects, ethical review and approval was required prior to administration of the survey. Ethics approvals from the host College and the investigator’s university were obtained. Additionally, permission from the Dean of the

School of Health and Community Service to carry out the study was solicited and acquired.

The Manager of Strategic Development and Institutional Research of the Northern

Ontario College distributed a link to the electronic survey via each possible participant’s password protected email address. The Manager agreed to contact the participants via the email link twice prior to the end of the survey period to encourage participation. Three contacts were made by the Manager.

Hard copies of the survey results were exported from LimeSurvey and kept on the researcher's password protected computer. Results will be held in the researcher's office in a locked file cabinet to which only the researcher has access, for five years following completion of the study and defence.

Procedures

With assistance from a third party within the college with legitimate access to participant emails (the Manager of Strategic Development and Research), the survey link was distributed electronically to the study population (n=128). As there were only two missing responses, the

33 pattern of missing responses was not considered significant for this survey. The survey was left open for a period of three weeks. Three reminder emails were sent to the entire survey population during the three-week period. Most of the participants had moved into their final preceptorship, or field experience, and were no longer on campus for much of the time the survey was open and available.

Research Participants

Students from five professional programs from the School of Health and Community

Services of the Northern Ontario College in the final semester of their programs were chosen as participants in this study (n=128). The programs included the following: the Dental Hygiene

Program (n=20), the Medical Laboratory Technology Program (n=31), the Medical Radiation

Technology Program (n=14), the Paramedic Program (n=14), and the Practical Nursing Program

(n=49).

Each of these professional programs was identified as a Professional Community of

Practice based on cognitive foundation and knowledge type, physical and cognitive artifacts, formality and proximity relations, and social ties (Amin, & Roberts, 2006). The programs also represented a typical cohort of students in a Professional School within a small community college. The nature of each professional program represented in this study was essentially the same as the nature of professional programs in all Ontario community colleges. In each instance, there is a stringent list of professional entry-to-practice competencies that must be achieved prior to diploma granting. The entry-to-practice competencies were developed by the Ontario College of Training, Colleges and Universities.

A purposeful sampling technique was utilized to recruit participants: potential participants were required to be a particular stage in their programs, namely, final semester. This

34 window in their education was selected since they would have had time to develop and experience professional community over time. The researcher had access to the potential participants through her workplace, and this eliminated the need for travel and led to cost savings. While the possibility of bias and a limited sample size from one institution are acknowledged here (Jackson, 2016), the ability to conduct the study in the researcher’s place of work was critical to its conduct.

After consideration of the above, a decision was made to send the electronic survey link to the entire population of potential participants. According to Wells, Cavanaugh, Bouffard, and

Nobles (2012), internet-based and e-mail surveys are particularly well-suited for studying college student populations and represent viable administrative methods for efficiently collecting data.

Prior to the distribution of the survey link, the investigator had received permission from program coordinators to visit the different student groups and explain the purpose and method of the study and present the Participation Information Letter (PIL). A potential conflict of interest existed as one of the participant groups was composed of students taught by the investigator.

However, the course for which there may have been a conflict and possible power imbalance (the course involved Practical Nursing students) had been completed, and all marks had been entered prior to the distribution of the electronic survey. A colleague from another program who had no connection to the Practical Nursing students agreed to present the PIL on behalf of the researcher. As the researcher had no connection to potential participants in the other four programs (Paramedic, Medical Laboratory Assistant, Medical Radiation Technology, and Dental

Hygiene Program), information sessions for these students were conducted personally by the investigator.

Participants were advised in the information sessions that consent to participate was a part of the electronic survey and would be the first thing they would read if they chose to click on the survey link. Informed consent forms as part of the PIL were distributed, signed, and collected. A statement regarding inability to remove data or free text comments, once the participant had formally submitted the survey, was included in the PIL.

Survey responses. Despite Trespalacios and Perkins’ (2016) statement that neither the degree of personalization nor the length of the invitation impact the response rate, it is suggested that the fair rate of return for this survey (25.5%) may be related to the personal delivery and presentation of the PIL. The students were quite enthusiastic about the presentation, and the faculty were very supportive and accommodating of the request for personal delivery of the PIL.

As a result of this rate of return, some interesting findings were generated about the themes explored in the questions and about generational identity.

Privacy and confidentiality. Several steps were taken throughout the research process to ensure privacy and confidentiality of the participants’ identities and to protect the survey data.

The researcher was a faculty member who was responsible for awarding some of the participants’ grades. This situation was addressed by ensuring that participation in the survey was anonymous and that the sample was from a group broader than those directly under the supervision of the researcher. Recruitment to participate in the survey for this group was placed in the hands of a third party. The group of participants who were under the direct supervision of the investigator had finished their courses and marks had been distributed and recorded on the participants’ transcripts prior to distribution of the survey. Access to the survey results were password protected and data results were limited to the researcher and the research supervisor, second reader, and statistician. A detailed description of how and how long the data would be

36 kept, stored and used was included. The survey was distributed by a third party who had legitimate access to the students’ college email addresses. This was the Manager of Strategic

Development and Institutional Research who went under the identity of "liaison" in any correspondence with the population.

Data Analysis

At the end of the three-week availability period, the survey was closed. Responses to each question were quantified as per generational cohort. Through consultation with a professional statistician, it was determined that the best approach to the data analysis was to apply simple statistical measurements of the responses to each question. Tables and graphs representing the data were developed. Trends and themes were identified, correlated, and analyzed based on previous research in the areas of generational diversity, collaborative learning and Communities of Practice (Creswell,2009).

Conclusion

This chapter described the research process from topic selection to survey development, REB board approval and proposal submission. It further described the population and sample as well as methods of survey delivery and rate of return. Methods of data reporting and analysis were also presented. Information on privacy and confidentiality and the gathered data was included. Chapter Four will present the findings of the survey based on the responses of each generational cohort. Simple statistical analysis techniques including tables and figures will be used to present findings.

Chapter 4: Findings

Chapter Four presents the findings of this exploratory study in which the aim was to discover the effects of generational diversity on Communities of Practice among students enrolled in five professional programs offered by the School of Health and Community Services in a community college in Northern Ontario. Demographic data and results from the survey questions are reported here. Responses to the questions were analyzed and tabulated. Tables and charts are provided for visual comparisons.

Survey Results

Demographic Findings

Question #1. Please indicate which generational cohort you identify with based on your date of birth. The population surveyed (n-=127) included the following: all full-time practical nursing students in their 4th and final semester (n=49 students); all full-time paramedic students in their 4th and final semester (n= 20 students); all-full time dental hygiene students in their 4th and final semester (n=14 students); all full-time Medical Radiation Technology (MRT) students in their 2nd semester (n=14 students); and all full-time Medical Laboratory Assistant

(MLA) students in their final semester (n=31 students).

Based on information about the study population (n=128) provided by the Registrar, 91

(72%) belonged to the Millennial cohort; 42 (33%) belonged to the Generation X cohort; 4 (3%) belonged to the Baby Boomer group. Thirty-two students or 25.5% of the enrolled population in the five health programs (n=128) completed the survey.

37 38

Population distribution n=128 100

81 43 4 0 Millenials Gen X Baby Boomers

Column3

Figure 1. Distribution of generational cohorts in the study population

The number of participants who reported belonging to the Millennial cohort was 24 or

75%; 8 or 25% identified as Gen X participants. There were no Baby Boomer participants. The sample was reflective of the generational characteristics noted earlier.

Number of Participants by Generational Cohort 30

25 24

10 8

0 Millenials Gen X

Participants by generational cohort

Figure 2. Number of participants by generation cohort

Question #2. What is your gender? There was a significantly higher number of female participants than male participants. The Millennial group had, by percentage, the greatest number of female participants. Within the Gen X group (n-=8), 4(50%) were male and 4(50%) were female.

Table 1. Gender by generational cohort Cohort Female Male Millennials 19(79%) 5(21%) (n-=24) Gen X 4(50%) 4(50) (n=8)

Participant gender by generational cohort

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Millennial Gen X

Female Male

Figure 3. Gender by generational cohort

Question #3. What is your learning style? Participants in the Millennial cohort identified as an even mix of social and independent learners. The Gen X cohort reported a greater number of independent learners than social learners.

Table 2. Learning style by generational cohort Cohort Independent learner Social learner Millennials 12(50%) 12(50%) n=24 Generation X 7(87.5%) 1(12.5%) n=8 Total 19(59%) 13(41%) n=32 Learning style by generational cohort 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Millennials Gen X Independent Learner Social Learner

Figure 4. Learning style by cohort

Question #4. How tech savvy are you? The results of this survey question showed that less than half of the Millennial cohort felt that they were very tech savvy. Of the Gen X group, a greater number of participants reported very tech savvy than participants who reported only when needed. One Gen X participant identified as being digitally challenged (n = 8).

Table 3. Tech savviness by generational cohort Cohort Very Tech Savvy Savvy but only when needed Struggles with Digital Native Digital Immigrant Technology Digitally Challenged Millennials 10(42%) 14(58%) 0 n=24 Gen X 4(50%) 3(37.5%) 1(12.5%) n=8 Total 14 (44%) 17(53%) 1(3%) n=32

Tech Savviness by Generational Cohort 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Millennials Gen X Digital Native Digital Immigrant Digitally Challenged

Figure 5. Tech savviness by generational cohort

Question #5. How likely are you to be a leader of your group? The results of this question show a slight shift to the right (less likely to be a leader) by the Millennial cohort relative to the Gen X group. Although 25% of the Millennial cohort stated they would rarely be a group leader, nearly half of the Millennial cohort believed that they would likely be a leader.

More than 87% of the Gen X group stated that they were more likely to be a leader. No participant from this group chose rarely or never.

Table 4. Likelihood of being a group leader Cohort Extremely Quite Possibly Rarely Never No answer Likely Likely 5 4 3 2 1 Millennium 9(38%) 2(8%) 6(25%) 6(25%) 0 1(4%) n=24 Generation 2(25%) 5(62.5%) 1(12.5%) 0 0 0 X n=8

Self Identified Leader by Generational Cohort 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Millennials Gen X 4 3 2

Figure 6. Self-identified leader by generational cohort

Question #6. When you think of your classmates, in your opinion, how professionally do the members of your age group/generational cohort generally behave?

Based on the responses, there is a shift to the right (a more negative feeling about how the respondent’s own cohort generally behaves) within the Millennial cohort, possibly suggesting that more Millennials feel that their cohort behaves less professionally than they believe members of other cohorts do. Except for the two outliers, one of each end of the spectrum, the

Gen Xers selected more quite and moderately professional responses than other responses.

Table 5. How each generational cohort feels about how professional their cohort behaves in general.

Cohort Extremely Quite Moderately Slightly Not Professional Professional Professional Professional Professional Scale 5 4 3 2 1 Millennials 0 10(42%) 7(29%) 6(25%) 1(4%) n=24 Gen X 1(12.5%) 4(50%) 2(25%) 0 1(12.5%) n=8

How do generational cohorts feel about how professional their cohort behaves in general 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Millennials Gen X

4 3 2

Figure 7: How generational cohorts feel about the professionalism of their own cohort in general

Question #7. When you think of your fellow classmates, how professionally do the members of other age groups/generational cohorts behave in class? In the responses to this question, there is a shift to the left (a more positive response) for the Millennial cohort as compared to the responses of the Gen X group, meaning that Millennials feel more positively about the professional behaviours of their own cohort during class time. The Gen X group felt less positively regarding the professional behaviours of their group during class time.

Table 6. How each generational cohort feels about the professional behaviour of other cohorts in class Cohort Extremely Quite Somewhat Not Professional Professional Professional Professional Scale 5 4 3 2

Millennium 0 12(50%) 10(42%) 2(8%) n=24 Gen X 0 3(38%) 3(38%) 2(25%) n=8 How generational cohorts feel about the professional behaviour of other cohort during classtime 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Millennials Gen X 4 3 2

Figure 8: How generational cohorts feel about the professional behaviour of the other cohorts during class time

Question #8. When you think of your fellow classmates, how professionally do the

members of other age groups behave in public? There is a shift to the left (a more positive response) for the Millennial cohort as compared to the Gen X group, meaning that Millennials feel more positively about the professional behaviours of the other cohorts in public. Half of the

Gen X group reported that the other generational cohorts behave quite professionally in public.

The other half felt that the other cohorts behave somewhat or much less professionally in public.

Table 7. How generational cohorts feel about professional behaviours of other cohorts in public

Cohort Extremely Quite Moderately Somewhat Not Professional Professional Professional Professional Professional Scale 5 4 3 2 1 Millennium 1(4%) 14(58%) 6(25%) 3(13%) 0 n=24 Gen X 0 3(43%) 1(14%) 3(43%) 0 n=7 How generational cohorts feel about the professional behaviours of the other cohorts in public

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Millennials Gen X

4 3 2

Figure 9: How each cohort feels about the professional behaviours of other cohorts in public

Survey Question #9. In your opinion, how well do other members of your age group/generational cohort communicate with each other? Within the Millennial group, 63% felt the communication between Millennials was quite or extremely good. The Gen X group members were not as positive about the communication between Gen Xers. The majority of the

Gen X cohort felt communication was only slightly good within the cohort.

Table 8. Opinions on communication within the cohort Cohort Extremely Quite Moderately Slightly Not Well Well Well Well Well Scale 5 4 3 2 1 Millennium n=24 5(21%) 10(42%) 7(29%) 2(8%) 0 Gen X n=8 1(12.5%) 3(37.5%) 4(50) 0 0 How well generational cohorts communicate with each other

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Millennials Gen X 5 4 3 2

Figure 10: How well communication occurs within the cohort

Survey Question #10. In your opinion, how well do members of other age group/generational cohorts communicate with you? A shift to the left for the Gen X group

(more positive) shows that members of this group felt that other generational cohorts communicate well with them. This finding contrasts with their negative opinions about the professional behaviours of the younger cohort.

Table 9. Communication between cohorts

Cohort Extremely Quite Moderately Slightly Not Well Well Well Well Well Scale 5 4 3 2 1 Millennium 2(8%) 14(58%) 6(25%) 2(8%) 0 n=24 Gen X 3(37.5%) 3(37.5%) 1(12.5%) 0 1(12.5%) n=8

How generational cohorts feel about how other cohorts communicate with them 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Millennials Gen X 5 4 3 2

Figure 11. How generational cohorts feel about how other cohorts communicate with them

Question #11. How well do members of your age group/generational cohort stay on task? For the Millennial cohort, there is a shift to the right (less positive opinions) regarding the ability of their own cohort to remain on task. For the Gen X cohort, there is a shift to the left

(more positive opinions) regarding the ability of their own generational cohort to remain on task.

Table 10. How generational cohorts feel about the ability of their cohort to stay on task

Cohort Extremely Quite Moderately Slightly Not Well Well Well Well Well Scale 5 4 3 2 1 Millennium 1(4%) 10(42%) 10(42%) 2(8%) 1(4%) n=24 Gen X 0 6(75%) 2(25%) 0 0 n=8

How generational cohorts feel about the ability of their own cohort to stay on task

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Millennials Gen Xers

4 3 2

Figure 12. How generational cohorts feel about the ability of their own cohort to stay on task

Question #12. How well do members of other age group/generational cohorts stay on task? The Gen X group indicated that the Millennials do not stay on task while the Millennials indicated that the Gen Xers stay on task well.

Table 11. How generational cohorts feel about other cohorts’ ability to stay to task

Cohort Extremely Quite Moderately Slightly Not Well Well Well Well Well Scale 5 4 3 2 1 Millennium 1(4%) 11(48%) 10(43%) 1(4%) 1(4%) n=24 Gen X 0 4(50%) 2(25%) 2(25%) 0 n=8 How do generational cohorts feel about the ability of other cohorts to stay on task?

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Millennials Gen X

4 3 2

Figure 13. How generational cohorts feel about other cohorts’ ability to stay on task

Summary of Findings

Current enrolments in community colleges in Ontario show that Millennials represent

66% of the total student population (Colleges Ontario, 2016). The Millennial cohort in this study represented the majority at 75% of the survey responders.

A number of generational characteristics were identified. The Millennial participants identified equally as social and independent learners, while the Gen X participants identified more as independent learners.

The Millennial cohort in this study felt they were only moderately tech savvy. The Gen X cohort was split on their opinions about their computer savviness with only one participant identifying not savvy at all.

When asked about leadership potential, almost half of the Millennial cohort identified that they were extremely to quite likely to be the leader in their group. More Gen Xers felt they would quite likely be or possibly be a leader. Only the Millennial group identified that they were rarely a leader.

In the responses dealing with behaviors that may influence collaborative learning including professionalism, communication, and persistence to tasks, tensions between the

Millennial and Gen X groups presented which could have an influence on collaboration.

Millennials felt their cohort behaved less professionally in general. Gen Xers felt their cohort behaved professionally in general. This finding may be associated with the circumstance that

Gen Xers have more life experiences than Millennials.

The questions on the professional behaviours of other cohorts in public and in classroom situations were designed to gain insight into whether there was a difference of opinion in these two very different settings. In both cases, the Millennials felt that the Gen Xers were quite professional while the Gen Xers felt the Millennials were less professional both in class and in public.

In the data addressing communication, both Millennials and Gen Xers indicated that communication within and between groups was good. Since good communication is essential for collaborative learning and teamwork to occur, this was a positive result.

Regarding staying on task, there was a negative opinion expressed by the Millennial cohort regarding their cohort’s ability to stay on task. The Gen X group also felt that the

Millennials group did not stay on task.

Chapter Five will discuss the above findings. Possible explanations of the findings and how they align with, or differ from, other researchers' findings will be considered. Study limitations and implications as well as recommendations for future research and practice will be explored.

Chapter 5: Findings

In Chapter Five, the findings of this exploratory study are discussed. The student participants were enrolled in one of five programs within the School of Health and Community

Services of a community college in Northern Ontario.

The methodology used in the study was quantitative. A 5-point Likert scale electronic survey was developed in software called LimeSurvey. The survey was distributed to participants via student emails by a third party. It included five demographic questions and eleven exploratory opinion-seeking questions.

Age, proficiency in the use of technology, views on leadership, opinions on task commitment, and learning style constructs were utilized as indicators of generational differences.

Opinions on professional behaviour in public and private, and opinions on the effective use of communication served as indicators of collegiality between generational cohorts.

Each question in the survey was followed by a free-text comment box. This feature provided the participant the opportunity to expand on subjective experiences and interpretations of participation in Professional Communities of Practice from the perspective of generational cohort. While the chance to share comments was not used extensively by the participants, the software did associate a participant’s comments on a specific question with his or her generational cohort. The following pages offer a discussion of the survey findings and the three research questions that shaped the study in the overall.

Survey Results

Participant Profile by Cohort

Of the total population (n=127) provided by the Registrar, 81 (64%) belonged to the

Millennial cohort; 42 (33%) belonged to the Generation X cohort; and 4 (3%) belonged to the

Baby Boomer group. The survey had a return of 32 participants or 25.2% of the enrolled population in the five professional health programs. The number of survey participants that reported being of the Millennial cohort was 24 of 32 or 75%; 8 of 32 or 25% were Gen X participants. No Baby Boomers completed the study. Participants were not specifically asked which program they belonged to, as it would have been possible to deduce their identities due to the relatively small numbers of certain generations in the five programs. It was expected the number of Millennials would be higher than the number of Gen X participants based on the population.

There was a significantly higher number of female participants than male participants.

This is particularly the case in the Millennial group. This finding is not unexpected as health care occupations continue to be female dominated (Statistics Canada, 2010). The Gen X cohort (n=8) was equally divided between males and female. This finding of slightly higher male participation was not expected. According to the Registrar at the study site, there were a greater number of females over 30 years of age than males registered across the five health care programs.

However, in the Dental Hygiene program, there were more males registered during the research period, an occurrence which may have contributed to this unexpected result.

Learning Styles and Technology

A result of particular interest was that the Millennials reported being an even mix of social and independent learners. This result is consistent with Bourland (2009) and Howe and

Strauss (2006) who report that Millennial students prefer social interaction when learning. The

Gen X cohort in the study described themselves as independent learners which is also consistent

54 with the literature. According to Dorcet (2008), Gen Xers tend to want to avoid conflict and will dissociate themselves from people who present them with conflict. Many members of this generation grew up with working parents or came from single-parent families. Therefore, it should not be surprising that they tend to prefer to work independently. Independence promotes the characteristics of self-protection and self-determination required to become successful without being defeated by others (Dorcet, 2008).

The results pertaining to the use of technology are interesting with less than half of the

Millennial cohort reporting that they were very tech savvy. These results were surprising since most research identifies Millennials as the most tech savvy generation to date (Howe & Strauss

2006; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2013). This result may be due to a failure by the researcher to define the term “tech savvy.” For a Millennial who grew up in the digital world, tech savvy may mean being able to navigate more advanced technological applications such as computer programming.

The Gen X participants who are also said to be Digital Immigrants may not have been as familiar with technology as Millennials and may have interpreted tech savvy as daily use of technology.

The term savvy may also have different meanings based on a generational perspective. The Gen

X cohort was split on its opinions about computer savviness with one participant identifying not savvy at all. This was not an unexpected result.

Leadership and Professionalism

The results pertaining to leadership showed that the Millennial cohort considered itself to be less likely to be leaders than the Gen X group. However, nearly half of the Millennial cohort believed that they would likely be leaders, which may indicate that they are self-confident in their abilities (Howe & Strauss, 2006). Being special, confident, and ambitious, states Wilson and Gerber (2008), can easily move towards excessive competitiveness and self-absorption.

When asked about how professionally the members of the participant’s generational cohort generally behaves, the Millennials reported they believe their cohort behaves less professionally than other cohorts. Monaco and Martin (2007) suggest that Millennials lack professional boundaries due to the influence of social media and this behaviour is recognized by other

Millennnials. Also, the Millennials in this study may have been particularly critical of their

Millennial colleagues since anonymity was a condition of the survey. This idea fits with the

Millennial profile developed by Howe and Stauss (2000) and the Pew Research Centre (2015) indicating that Millennials do not hesitate to be critical of themselves and that they tend to be self-absorbed. Additionally, enrolment in health programs at the community college level means the participants are graded on their professionalism, thus making them more attuned to professional and unprofessional behaviours (Howe, & Strauss, 2000).

Except for two outliers, the Gen Xers selected more quite professional and moderately professional responses to describe how their generation behaves in general. Gen Xers are likely to have more life experience and, therefore, more practice at being professional (Howe &

Strauss, 2000).

In one of the free text responses, a Millennial student noted the following:

People of older generations or those of younger generations are at this

stage in life, pursing further education, by choice and they seem to understand

life in more ways than those of my generation do. In this sense they are wiser

and more mature, calmer in new situations and overall more professional

because they want to be here and they seem to know why they are here

I would suggest it is because of this understanding and this drive that

other generations in my classes seem more professional, due to greater

life experience and a firm grasp on their goals. (Millennial Participant, personal

communication, May 3, 2016)

The above insights may be an example of increased intra-cohort tolerance. Research has shown that, as people age, there is a change in sociopolitical attitude towards greater tolerance rather than conservativism (Danigelis, Hardy, & Cutler, 2007).

The finding that the Millennials felt that the other generational cohorts behave more professionally in class coincides with claims by Michler and Davenport (1984) and Bourland

(2009). These researchers have stated that Millennials find Gen X students to be harder working, more attentive, and more motivated to achieve good grades than Millennials.

The finding that the Gen X cohort did not feel the Millennial group behaved very professionally aligns with a study by Bourland (2009) who found that Millennials have a sense of entitlement, a lack of work effort, and disrespect for others. A Gen X participant who completed the survey said the following of Millennials, “They seem to be all over the place, social media takes up a lot of time with them” (Gen X Participant, personal correspondence, May

4, 2016). A sense that one cohort works harder than another cohort could be strong grounds for tension and a possible threat to collaboration and the formation of effective communities of practice.

The questions on the professional behaviours of other cohorts in public and in classroom situations were designed to gain insight into whether there was a difference of opinion in these

57 two very different settings. The Millennials felt the Gen Xers were quite professional in both class contexts and in public, but the Gen Xers felt the Millennials were less professional in class and in public. In both circumstances, the negative opinions of the Gen Xers towards the

Millennials’ professional behaviours may be a source of tension and have an effect on collaboration. However, while not all experiences in communities of practice are positive, they. do lead to growth and learning (Lave, & Wenger 1991). Part of the general development of young adults is the professional socialization that occurs during formal education (Austin,

Simpson, & Reynen, 2005).

Communication

In the data pertaining to how well generational cohorts communicate within the cohort, the Millennial cohort expressed a more positive opinion than the cohorts did. This finding may indicate satisfaction with the way Millennials communicate with each other. Both Millennials and Gen Xers felt that communication between groups was good. As good communication is essential for collaborative learning, this was a positive result.

Comparing the findings on intra-cohort communication with intra-cohort professionalism, a difference is evident. The Millennials seem to feel that they communicate well with each other, but, overall, they do not feel that Millennials behave very professionally. This may mean that, for Millennials, the ability to communicate well does not equate with professionalism. Communication at this stage in their education may be considered just a social skill rather than both a professional and a social skill. However, professional communication is essential for the health care professional who must work and provide care in a patient centred profession. (Guclu, 2016). Professional communication for the Millenial student is a new and

58 developing skill, and he or she may not yet differentiate social communication from professional communication.

The Gen X group reported less positive opinion regarding intra-cohort communication

This may be a result of being less social and more independent learners. Howe and Strauss

(2000) point out that Gen Xers prefer less socialization and more independent work situations.

Poor communication between Gen Xers may also be the reason why they indicated they were more independent workers.

In the results dealing with how well members of other generational cohorts communicate with them, the Gen X participants felt that the Millennials communicate well with them, despite their opinions about the professionalism of the younger cohort. This finding may be with associated the preference for social learning among Millennials (Howe & Strauss, 2000;

Oblinger & Oblinger, 2013). Being able to communicate well and feeling that good communication is possible may indicate that teamwork, collaboration, and functional communities of practice are possible.

Staying on Task

The Millennial cohort indicated a less positive opinion about the ability of their own generational cohort to remain on task. By contrast, the Gen X cohort indicated a more positive opinion about the ability of their own generational cohort to remain on task. These findings coincide with research suggesting that, for the older participant, being successful as a student requires a person to be highly invested and engaged (Kasworm, 2005). Additionally, Millennials may have more difficulties with staying on task than others because they have a low tolerance for boredom (Wilson & Gerber, 2008).

While the Gen X group felt that the Millennials do not stay on task, the Millennials believed the Gen Xers did stay on task well. These findings coincide with research which shows that, for the older participant, or the Gen X participant, being successful requires being highly invested and engaged (Kasworm, 2005).

Collaborative Learning

When surveyed about behaviors that may influence collaborative learning including professionalism, communication, and persistence to tasks, the results showed tensions between generations. Millennials felt their cohort behaved less professionally in general. Although research indicates that they have a high regard for themselves and their group, they also tend to be more critical of themselves (Howe & Strauss, 2006). Each Professional Community of

Practice that these students belong to as novices requires a high level of professional behaviour or a code of conduct. At this stage of their education, when they are about to head out into the working world, Millennials may have picked up on a lack of growth in this regard by some of their own cohort. This assessment of each other may negatively influence collaborative learning.

Gen Xers felt their cohort behaved professionally which is reflected in the Gen X profile. Gen

Xers have more life experiences than Millennials and these experiences contribute to the development of particular behaviours.

Primary Research Questions

This study was designed to investigate the following questions:

1. Does generational diversity exist in post-secondary professional health programs offered by community colleges?

2. Do generational tensions such as a lack of respect and feelings of dissent due to a

60 lack of professionalism or engagement exist in these programs

3. Does generational diversity have an impact on the participants’ ability to learn within the respective professional Communities of Practice in community college post-secondary professional health programs?

Each of the research questions listed above will be discussed in relation to the survey findings.

Question 1. Does generational diversity exist in community college post-secondary professional health programs?

The information on enrollment provided by the community college indicated that three generations were represented in the five professional health programs targeted. Survey returns, however, included only two different generational cohorts: The Millennial cohort and the

Generation X cohort. Based on survey results, a number of diverse generational traits such as comfort with technology, learning styles, and leadership emerged.

Question 2. Do generational tensions such as a lack of respect and feelings of dissent due to a lack of professionalism or engagement, exist in these programs?

Survey responses suggested tension between Millennials and Gen Xers in the areas of perception of professional behaviour within the classroom and in the public as well as ability to remain on task. In each area, the Gen X group expressed negative opinions about the Millennial group although the Millennial group did express some negative opinion about their own cohort in the area of perceived professional behaviour generally. Not addressed in the survey is whether either cohort felt that their perceptions would prevent them from working and learning collaboratively. In the future, a more comprehensive mixed method study with focus groups might yield insight into this question.

Question 3. Does generational diversity have an impact on the participant’s ability to learn within the respective professional Communities of Practice in community college post- secondary professional health programs?

Although the current study did identify some generational tensions between cohorts, it did not answer the question of whether generational diversity has an impact on learning within professional Communities of Practice. The survey questions were somewhat general in nature, identifying only the feelings and opinions the participant had towards other cohorts. They did not include a direct question regarding a respondent’s ability to learn with and from other generations, and therefore, a conclusion could not be made in this regard. Also, responses to the free text portions of the study, which were expected to reveal rationale for some of the survey answers, did not materialize as had been anticipated. Future research, specifically, a mixed method study with hetero- and homogeneous groups of generational cohorts may result in enriched data and further insights in this regard.

Significance of the Study

The social learning theory of Communities of Practice suggests that people learn through social interaction (Lave & Wanger, 1991). Students in professional college programs, such as the practical nurse, paramedic, dental hygienist, medical laboratory assistant, and medical radiation technologist are all novices in their respective Professional Communities of Practice. Although all of these health related professions are centred on service to the public, they have their own tacit knowledge and routines; further, they have professional standards of practice, specialized terminology, and policies and procedures, and possibly specific or specialized populations which they serve. Health care educators are in the very important position of ensuring that graduates from these programs enter into the greater Community of Practice with the appropriate

62 knowledge, skills, and attitudes required by these professions. Although the study did not reveal specific findings around the effects of generational diversity on learning together, the findings may offer insights into the ways health educators should structure cooperative learning groups to enhance collaborative learning within these Professional Communities of Practice. Collaborative learning groups have proven to be effective in enhancing learning by building self-esteem, social skills, problem solving skills, flexibility, and tolerance, conflict management, problem solving skills, knowledge, and idea sharing (Gilles, 2004; Gokhale, 1995; Lei, Nuestermeyer, &

Westmeyer, 2010), all of which are significant employability skills. Students who are finding their health professional identities within Professional Communities of Practice may benefit from the generational diversity community colleges provide. In turn, recognition of diversity contributes positively to the learning process by providing students opportunities to learn from each other’s experiences and skills (Gokhale, 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Students in post-secondary education programs may actually benefit from well thought out instructor established collaborative learning groups when generational diversity is a variable.

Students who participate in instructor-developed collaborative learning groups within

Professional Communities of Practice, as opposed to ad hoc developed groups, are found to stay more on task in sharing ideas and information. They are found to listen to each other better and encourage engagement by other members (Gilles, 2004). The importance of establishing effective collaborative learning groups within Professional Communities of Practice in relation to health care (particularly in the generationally diverse student population of northern Ontario

Community Colleges) cannot be underestimated. Educators who anticipate that generational tensions in Professional Communities of Practice may be present can encourage problem solving and tolerance, both of which are important employability skills. An important goal for the

63 educator is to prepare the student to enter an increasingly age diverse workforce. Purposefully exposing the learner to diverse learning experiences can only enhance his or her ability to work effectively in teams and in inter-professional contexts.

Limitations

Several limitations were realized during the writing of this thesis. The timing of the survey’s release was unfortunate since students were leaving the campus for their consolidation experiences. By contrast, this circumstance did reduce the risk of researcher contact and influence. A greater number of returns may have been possible if the students had been on campus and not out in the field for consolidation. Too much time may have lapsed between the information sessions, the signing of the PILs, and the release of the survey link via email. Some of the survey questions were too general and may have been misinterpreted by the participants.

For example, there may have been confusion regarding what tech savvy meant or what form of communication was being surveyed. Terms like interpersonal communication and comfort with technology may have needed to be more specific. In the questions soliciting opinions on professional behaviour, the term “slightly professional” was not appropriate given its negative connotation. The term slightly professional may also have been too positive. The term less professional instead of slightly professional may have better represented the intent of the question.

The population for this study was limited to professional Communities of Practice in five health care education programs in a Northern Ontario Community College. As a result, generalizations to other groups within the Ontario College system cannot be made.

Conclusion

Overall, the study did show that generational diversity and generational tensions exist within health Professional Communities of Practice in a northern Ontario community college.

Educators will benefit from recognizing the existence of generational diversity within

Professional Communities of Practice, and anticipating that generational tensions may affect collaboration, collaborative learning, and team work. Structuring groups to capitalize on generational diversity may provide opportunities for personal growth by helping students develop tolerance and acceptance, both of which are highly desirable employability skills.

Future research that investigates the effects of generational diversity on Communities of

Practice focusing on satisfaction with learning and collaboration is recommended. Qualitative research using focus groups of homogenous and heterogeneous generational groups will provide richer insight into the impact of generational diversity on Professional Communities of Practice.

Further research into how to capitalize on generational diversity with a focus on mentoring between generations would likewise be relevant.

Summary

The demands of today’s workplace for well qualified, highly educated workers, combined with declining enrollment of traditional learners, is driving demographic change within Ontario community colleges. Generational diversity is, therefore, an important area of study. This study has made a limited but significant contribution to the study of generational diversity in Professional Communities of Practice in a northern Ontario community college.

References

Amin, A., & Roberts, J. (2006). Communities of practice? Varieties of situated learning. EU

Network of Excellence Dynamics of Institutions and Markets in Europe (DIME).

Durham University: UK.

Andres, L, & Finlay, F. (Eds.). (2004) Student affairs: Experiencing higher education (pp. 1–13).

Vancouver: UBC Press.

Austin, Z., Simpson, S., & Reynen, E. (2005). "The fault lies not in our students, but in

ourselves": Academic honesty and moral development in health professions

education--Results of a pilot study in Canadian pharmacy. Teaching in Higher

Education, 10(2), 143-156.

Bourland, S. W. (2009). Attitudes of faculty and students toward traditional and non-traditional

students and the intergenerational postsecondary classroom. Retrieved from:

http://moxy.eclibrary.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304996819?accou

ntid=12792

Burgess, J., & Sawchenko, L. (2011). Community of practice: A nurse practitioner collaborative

model. Nursing Leadership, 24(2), 99-112.

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Bernal, E. M., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1998).

Collaborative learning: Preferences, gains in cognitive & affective outcomes, and

openness to diversity among college students. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper. Retrieved

from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED427589.pdf

Colleges Ontario. (2016). Student and graduate profiles. 2016 environmental scan.

Retrieved from:

http://collegesontario.org/research/2016_Environmental_Scan/CO_EnvScan_2016_PRO

FILES_WEB.pdf

Coomes, M. & DeBard, R. (2004). A generational approach to understanding students. In

New directions for student services: Understanding the millennial generation (no.

106, pp. 5–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Creswell, J. (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.

Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Danigelis, N. L., Hardy, M., & Cutler, S. J. (2007). Population aging, intracohort aging, and

sociopolitical attitudes. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 812-830. Retrieved from

http://moxy.eclibrary.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/218831984?accou

ntid=12792

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(1), 7-

12.

Dirkx, J. M. (2002). Generational difference and the problem of identity in the adult education

and community college classroom. Retrieved from:

https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/433/Dirkx,%2520J..pdf?sequence=1

Dorset, G. J. (2008). The new American workplace-Generational diversity from four

participating cohorts offering challenges, obstacles, and opportunities for success.

Retrieved from

http://moxy.eclibrary.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/89279729?accoun

tid=12792

Earle, V. & Myrick, F. (2009) Nursing pedagogy and the intergenerational discourse. Journal of

Nursing Education, 48(11), 624-30. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20090716-08.

Edmonds-Cady, C., & Sosulski, M. R. (2012). Applications of situated learning to foster

communities of practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(1), 45-64. Retrieved from

http://moxy.eclibrary.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/962427542?acco

ntid=12792

Faust, D.F., & Courtenay, B.C. (2002). Interaction in the intergenerational freshman class: What

matters. Educational Gerontology, 28. doi: 10.1080/03601270290081362

Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H., & Eng, T. Y. (2012). Using student group work in higher

education to emulate professional communities of practice. Education and Training,

54 (2-3), 114-125.

Francois, E. J. (2014). Motivational orientations of non-traditional adult students to enroll in a

degree-seeking program. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource

Development, 26(2), 19-35. doi:10.1002/nha3.20060

George Brown College (1994). The Generic Skills Subcommittee Final Report to the Academic

Plan Steering Committee. General Education Task Force. Retrieved from:

https://archive.org/details/ERIC_ED376862

Gokhale, A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. JTE, 7(1).

doi:10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2

Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during

small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 197-213.

Gravette, L.& Throckmorton, R. (2007). Bridging the generational gap. New Jersey: Career

Press.

Guclu, S. (2016). An experimental study towards young adults: Communication skills education.

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 63, 279-292. Retrieved from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.63.16

Holyoke, L. & Larson, E. (2009). Engaging the adult learner generational mix. Journal of

Adult Education, 38(1), 12-21.

Howard, C. & Davies, P. (2012). Attracting mature students into higher education: the impact

of approaches to learning and social identity. Journal of Further and Higher

Education, 37(6), 750-768.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York,

NY: Vintage.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2006). Millennials and the pop culture. New York: LifeCourse.

Hara, N. (2009). Communities of practice: Fostering peer-to-peer learning and informal

knowledge sharing in the work place. Springer: Bloomington IN.

Jackson, C., (2017). Convenience sampling in statistics: Definition and limitations. Retrieved

from: http://study.com/academy/lesson/convenience-sampling-definition-and-

limitations.html

Jakovljevic, M., Buckley, S., & Bushney, M. (2013). Forming communities of practice in

higher education: A theoretical perspective. Proceedings from Knowledge and Learning

International Conference 2013. Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263891940_Forming_communities_of_practice

_in_higher_education_a_theoretical_perspective

Johnson, S. & Romanello, M. (2005). Generational diversity: Teaching and learning

approaches. Nurse Educator, 30(5), 212-216.

Kasworm, C. (2005). Adult student identity in intergenerational community college classroom.

Adult Education Quarterly, 56(1). doi: 10.1177/0741713605280148

Kasworm, C. E. (2010). Adult learners in a research university: Negotiating undergraduate

student identity. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(2), 143-160.

Kenner, C. & Weinerman. J. (2011). Adult learning theory: applications to non-tradition college

students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2). Retrieved from:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10790195.2011.10850344

Kerr, A. (2011). Adult learners in Ontario postsecondary institutions. Toronto: Higher

Education Quality Council of Ontario. Queens Printer for Ontario.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning, legitimate peripheral participation. University

of Cambridge Press. Cambridge, UK.

Lancaster, L. & Stillman, D. (2003). When generations collide: Who they are, why they clash,

how to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: Harper Business.

Lei, S., Nuestermeyer, B., & Westmeyer, K. (2010). Group composition affecting student

interaction and achievement: Instructors’ perspectives. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 37(4), 317-325.

Lorenz, E., & Barlatier, P. (2007). Report on methods for studying communities of practice. EU

Network of Excellence. Dynamics of Institutions and Markets in Europe (DIME).

Retrieved from: http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/Lorenz_Barlatier.pdf

Mangold, K. (2007). Educating a new generation: Teaching baby boomer faculty about

millennial students. Nurse Educator, 32(1), 21-23.

Markle, G. (2015). Factors influencing persistence among non-traditional university students.

Adult Education Quarterly, 63(3). doi: 10.1177/0741713615583085

Martin, C., & Tulgan, B. (2006). Managing the generational mix: From urgency to

opportunity. Amerhurst, MA: HRD Press Inc.

McNamara, S. (June 2005). Association of Operating Room Nurse Journal 8(6), 1149-

1152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2092(06)60377-3

Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., & Baumgartner, L. (2007) Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive

guide. (3rd ed.). Wiley & Sons, Inc. San Francisco, CA.

Mishler, C., & Davenport, M. (1984). Faculty and student attitudes toward the mixed-age college

class. Retrieved from: http://moxy.eclibrary.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com

/docview/63370625?accountid=12792

Minnis, B. W. (2004). Variables that contribute to the recruitment and retention strategies for

generation X nurses (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). Available from

the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health database (UMI No. AAI3150354).

Monaco, M., & Martin, M. (2007). The millennial student: A new generation of

learners. Athletic Training Education Journal, 2(2), 42-46.

Murray, W., Smith, L., & Nielson K. (2010). Exploring motivational and learning differences

with mature students in post-secondary education. Collected Essays on Teaching and

Learning, Vol III. Retrieved from:

http://celt.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/CELT/article/view/3261

Nordentoft, H. M., & Wistoft, K. (2011). Collaborative learning and competence development

in school health nursing. Health Education, 112(5), 448-464.

Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (2013). Is it age or IT?: First steps toward understanding the net

generation. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/research-and-

publications/books/educating-net-generation/it-age-or-it-first-steps-toward-

understanding-net-generation

O' Donovan, E. (2009). Managing generational diversity. District Administration. 45(8).

Retrieved from:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS

earch_SearchValue_0=EJ857444&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ85744

Ontario College of Training, Colleges, and Universities. (2015). College Diploma and

Certificate Program Standards. Postsecondary Education Partner’s Gateway.

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from

http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/pepg/audiences/colleges/progstan/intro.html

Ontario Ministry of Advance Education and Skills Development. (2016). Building the

Workforce of Tomorrow: A Shared Responsibility. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Retrieved from: https://files.ontario.ca/hsw_rev_engaoda_webfinal_july6.pdf

Page, G. (2005). Professional socialisation of valuers: What the literature and professional bodies

offer. International Education Journal, 5(5), 105-116. Retrieved from:

http://www.prres.net/Papers/Page_Professional_socialization_of_valuation_students.pdf

Pew Research Center. (2015). Generations in a mirror: How they see themselves.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/03/most-millennials-resist-the-millennial-label/2/

Raines, C. (2003). Connecting generations: The sourcebook for a new workplace. Menlo Park,

CA: Crisp Publications.

Ransdell, S., Kent, B., Gaillard-Kenney, S., & Long, J. (2011). Digital immigrants fare better

than digital natives due to social reliance. Br itish Journal of Educational Technology,

42(6), 931-928.

Reeves, T. C., & Oh, E. (2008). Generational differences. Handbook of research on educational

communications and technology, 3, 295-303. Retrieved from:

file:///C:/Users/lmacfarl/Downloads/ER5849x_C025.fm%20(2).pdf

Stannard, S. (1968). Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology in the Province of Ontario,

Canada. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

Statistics Canada (2010). Trends in the Age Composition of College and University

Students and Graduates. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81004-

x/2010005/article/11386-eng.htm#a

Trespalacios, J., & Perkins, R. (2016). Effects of personalization and invitation email length on

web-based survey response rates. Techtrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve

Learning, 60(4), 330-335. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0058-z

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Research methods knowledge base (2nd ed). Retrieved from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/

Walker, K. (2007). Fast-track for fast times: Catching and keeping generation Y in the nursing

workforce. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession,

24(2), 147-158.

Walker L.O., & Avant, K.C. (2011). Strategies for theory construction in nursing. (5th ed.).

Toronto: Prentice Hall.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice – Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge

University Press. New York.

Wells , W., Cavanaugh, M. R., Bouffard, J. A., & Nobles M.R. (2012). Non-response bias with a

web-based survey of college students: differences from a classroom survey about

carrying concealed handguns. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(3), 455-476.

Willians, J. & Steary, K. (2011). I feel like I’m being hit from all directions: enduring the

bombardment as a mature-aged learner returning to formal learning. Australian Journal

of Adult Learning, 51(1), 119-142.

Wilson, M. and Gerber, L.E. (2008). How generational theory can improve teaching: Strategies

for working with the “Millennials.” Currents in Teaching and Learning, 1(1). Retrieved

from:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.4665&rep=rep1&type=pdf

World Health Organization. (2017) Everybody’s Business – Strengthening Health

Systems to Improve Health Outcomes. Retrieved from:

http://www.who.int/healthsystems/strategy/everybodys_business.pdf

Appendix A – REB or ACC Letter of Certification and Final Report

April 05, 2016

Mrs. Lindsay MacFarlane Schulich School of Education Nipissing University

File No: 100951 Expiry Date: April 05, 2017

Dear Lindsay,

It is our pleasure to advise you that the Research Ethics Board (REB) has reviewed your protocol titled 'Exploring the Effects of Generational Diversity on Communities of Practice in Post- Secondary Education' and has granted ethical approval. Your protocol has been approved for a period of one year.

Modifications: Any changes to the approved protocol or corresponding materials must be reviewed and approved through the amendment process prior to its implementation.

Adverse/Unanticipated Event: Any adverse or unanticipated events must be reported immediately via the Research Portal.

Renewal/Final Report: Please ensure you submit an Annual Renewal or Final Report 30 days prior to the expiry date of your ethics approval. You will receive an email prompt 30 days prior to the expiry date.

Wishing you great success on the completion of your research.

Sincerely,

Dana R. Murphy, PhD Chair, Research Ethics Board

Please note: If you encounter any issues when working in the Research Portal, please contact our system administrator via

Appendix B – REB Approval Form from Research Host