Volume 2: How Things Have Changed

Welcome back! In last week’s blog, we began an interesting new discussion about the modern generation of medical graduate students and how they have “learned how to learn” remarkably differently than many instructors. We’re not just talking about the differences between students born in 1980 and students born in 2000, but the differences between in those born in 1980, and those born in 1992, 1996, or 1999, or 2002; that is to say, students who have developed their learning styles as technology exploded in the fast-moving Information Age. The way students access and therefore remember information has entered unprecedented rapid change.

A brief consideration of what came before

While working on this blog, I thought about how my education - my “learning how to learn” - was different from that of my parents’ generation, or even further back. Many of us over a certain age had grandparents who were not educated beyond primary school, and their education consisted of the three Rs:  reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic. Plus, much of this was taught by rote. It’s not impossible, but it seems unlikely, that in a one-room schoolhouse in the Midwest, an instructor took the time to discover which of their twelve students between the ages of 6 and 15 was a visual versus an auditory learner.

Looking through a history of education in the United States, the mid-20th-century changes in education had to do with the specialized training of teachers, the introduction of a wider variety of subjects, and broader inclusion, meaning that a free education was made available to a greater variety of students. Teaching tools expanded to include electrical learning aids like filmstrips and overhead projectors. Many of us were exposed in our early years to the introduction of educational television: the first Sesame Street generation. Psychology informed us of how the brain worked and how people learned, and those techniques were brought into classrooms. Such discoveries were integral in our childhood learning environments. 

However, when it came to graduate education, I’m not sure much changed from the introduction of the printing press until computers were standard: students went to lectures and read many lengthy, complex textbooks. Then, around 1994, things began to change, and fast.

How today's medical grad students think differently

Let’s proceed by pinpointing what we mean when we say that these “new age” generations of students think differently. Their exposure to information from childhood forward was sometimes remarkably different from ours. Raised alongside digital technology, today's medical graduate students process and interact with knowledge through fundamentally different mental frameworks that frequently leave their instructors puzzled.

Their instant-access mentality reshapes medical learning at its core. While previous generations built their practice on memorized knowledge banks, contemporary medical students develop information retrieval and navigation expertise. They prioritize understanding interconnected systems over factual retention. This shift represents more than a study habit; it reflects a different approach to acquiring medical knowledge.

Collaboration flows naturally through their educational experience. These students gravitate toward team-based approaches in physical classrooms and virtual spaces. They bring collective intelligence to medical challenges, having been socially shaped by platforms that value shared problem-solving. Their comfort with group dynamics starkly contrasts with the individual-focused learning of previous medical education models.

Visual information processing dominates their learning preferences. Dense, text-focused lecturers struggle to engage minds accustomed to absorbing information through visual and interactive formats. Their thinking operates in multimedia dimensions—medical concepts become most accessible when presented through sight and experience rather than words alone.

Traditional evaluation methods create friction with these students' expectations. Having developed alongside technologies that provide immediate response, they seek continuous, specific feedback rather than occasional comprehensive assessments. I have noticed this especially in email communication: Have you experienced the impatience of students who cannot understand why it might take an hour or more for you to respond to their messages? Their thought patterns align with ongoing improvement cycles instead of preparation for isolated high-pressure examinations.

Perhaps most striking is their relationship with medical authority. Where previous students generally accepted hierarchical knowledge structures, today's learners question established wisdom, not out of disrespect but because verification is embedded in their information-gathering habits. They respond to evidence-based reasoning rather than tradition-based assertions. In short, they question everything. 

Conclusion

So, that is how modern students differ from “the old school.” Now, the question is, what do we do about it? How can we impart metacognitive learning to students who are conditioned to constantly accessible information and may never have needed to “learn how to learn” anything?

Faculty educated in different eras face genuine struggles connecting with these students. The separation extends beyond technological familiarity into divergent worldviews about how medical knowledge should be obtained, evaluated, and applied in an age where information exists in abundance rather than scarcity.

Next week, we’ll look at techniques that allow “the old school” to relate to and teach “the new age.”