The Normal Lights

Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Intergenerational Communication
among Faculty and Students in
Higher Education
Roxanne T. Bongco
[email protected]

Khristina Anne D. Ama

Bataan Peninsula State University

Orani, Bataan, Philippines

Abstract This research illustrated the dynamics

of intergenerational communication between faculty
and students in a Philippine university. Adopting a
contextualized age-period-cohort model (APC), this
multiple case study involves four cases of multigenerational
faculty interactions with students. Faculty cases were first
selected through purposeful maximal sampling before
student participants were selected. Semi-structured
individual interviews, online communication analysis,
and qualitative surveys were used to obtain an in-depth
understanding of the IG communication in each case, with
emphasis on their purpose for communication, encoding,
and decoding of the message. Within-case analyses
provided rich description of each case and cross-case
analysis generated lessons across cases. Findings show
that age, cohort, and period, influence the online learning
communications. Faculty and students are consciously
adjusting their communication styles to what they
perceive to be “acceptable” to convey meaning. However,
perceptions of what is acceptable could be based on faulty
assumptions. The paper recommends a shift from “student
diversity” to “education diversity” to capture the full
dynamics of generational diversity in the academe.

Bongco, R.T. & Ama K.A. (2023). Intergenerational communication among faculty and students in higher
education . The Normal Lights, 17(1), pp. X–X
Corresponding Author: [email protected]
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Keywords: Generation, higher education, intergenerational,

multiple case study

Introduction

Two of the important contexts in present-day education

are intergenerational diversity (IG) and Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) developments. They
have changed education in many ways by presenting
new directions and spaces for learning. Intergenerational
diversity as a reality today presents opportunities and
challenges (Boysen, Daste, & Northern, 2016; Lofgren
et al., 2013; Polat & Kazak, 2014;). This reality is further
heightened as the pandemic forces education to shift
to online modes (Sun, Tang, & Zuo, 2020). IG diversity
opens opportunities for intergenerational learning, or IGL
(Novotný & Brücknerová, 2016; Polat & Kazak, 2015).
Nonetheless, it also presents challenges in that the diversity
in perspectives, styles of interaction, and work could lead
to conflicts (Tay, 2011).

IG diversity has also been observed in communication

styles (White et al., 2018) and online practices (Tamme &
Siibak, 2012). For instance, citing Boyd’s work, Swist et al.
(2015) explained how young people and adults have different
experiences with privacy. Where the older generations believe
that everything is private unless they opt to make it public,
the younger generation believes that everything is potentially
public. Hence, they must choose to make things private.

With the present situation in education where

multigenerational higher education faculty and students are
forced to engage in communication through online platforms,
IG communication styles have the potential to complicate the
learning environment in online platforms, which is already
fraught with so many challenges due to some limitations in

2
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

available cues, leading to misunderstandings (Dickinson,

2017; Edwards, 2017).

Hence, an understanding of IG diversity in online

communication practices is imperative. While there is
already a plethora of local and foreign studies that scrutinize
IG diversity (Delelis et al., 2018; Geeraerts et al., 2018;
Tengco-Pacquing et al., 2019), much of this literature
tends to focus on a single effect of IG diversity. However,
according to the Pew Research Center (2015) and Alwin and
McCammon (2003), various effects are actually at play in IG
diversity. Differences among generations are influenced by
the overlapping and interacting effects of age, period, and
cohort (APC). Age pertains to a person’s place in the life
cycle. Period pertains to the social, political, technological,
medical, and economic events that have a lasting impact on
all generations. Finally, cohort refers to groups that share
identity due to the influence of significant events during the
impressionable years of their lives.

Cohort is among the most popular layers of IG

diversity that are being highlighted in existing IG literature.
However, most of these studies were situated in a foreign
context, adopting mainstream cohort labels. This is in spite
of the differences of Filipino contexts (Bongco, 2020) not
only in terms of social, economic, and political events, but
also in terms of culture (Macapagal et al., 2013). In fact,
the findings of Salvosa and Hechanova (2020) and Bongco
(2020) show that there are no Baby Boomers or Generation
X in the Filipino generations, which could be due to culture,
particularly, the Filipino’s strong family values.

Locally, there is already a large body of literature

identifying generational differences in styles, with a focus on
age effects (Librero, 2020; Ota et al., 2007). Furthermore, the
period effect of the postmodern world on teacher's authority
in education suggests that it is no longer clear who holds the

3
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

authority in the classrooms (Lü & Hu, 2021). However, it is

not clear how this period effect interacts with the Filipino
values of obedience and respect for the elders (age effect).

These gaps in the literature highlight the need for

a contextualized understanding of IG diversity in order
to develop a context and research-based interventions to
promote inclusive IG online learning communications. This
is particularly crucial now that flexible learning is here to stay,
as there will be no going back to the full traditional mode of
delivering higher education in the Philippines, according to
the Commission on Higher Education Chairman, J. Prospero
De Vera III (Hernando-Malipot, 2021).

The purpose of the present study was to provide an

in-depth description of IG communication among diverse
cases of multigenerational higher education learners and
faculty to provide a contextualized understanding of
Filipino generations. Specifically, it aimed to describe
IG online communication in terms of purpose for
communication, encoding of the message, and decoding
of the message. In the midst of generational stereotypes
due to the overgeneralization of findings from IG studies,
this study models the application of the contextualized age-
period-cohort (APC) for a more grounded understanding
of generations in different cultures. This contextualized
understanding is crucial for educational systems across the
globe to develop generationally inclusive programs that are
truly anchored in the realities of their own generations.

Framework of the Study

This intergenerational diversity study is anchored on

Strauss and Howe’s (2007) theorizing of the Generational
Diagonal, Alwin and McCammon’s (2003) Intergenerational
Differences, and the Pew Research Center’s (2015) Age–

4
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Period-Cohort (APC) Model for intergenerational diversity.

Strauss and Howe go beyond Manheim’s description of
generation’s focus on cohorts to suggest that generational
characteristics are the result of era and age. Similarly, Alwin
and McCammon (2003) described IG differences as the result
of age and cohort effects. The Pew Research Center took
it further by looking at IG diversity as an influence of the
overlapping and interacting effects of age, period, and cohort
effects (APC).

However, as McCrindle (2014) claims, there would

still be variations among generations due to different factors.
This could be brought about by varied contexts, which could
influence how a group within one generation experienced
a defining event of that generation. This calls for caution
against overgeneralizing findings.

As such, this study looks at IG diversity as a result

of the overlapping and interacting effects of the participants’
APC. In relation to the context of the Filipino generations,
local cohort categories were used based on the findings of
Salvosa and Hechanova (2020) and Bongco (2020).

This study specifically classified age generations

using Erik Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development
(e.g., young adult, middle-aged, late adult). Cohort generations
were identified using the terms political generation, and
millennial and Gen Z technology generations. This is in
consideration of the findings and analysis of Salvosa and
Hechanova (2020), the Pew Research Center (2015), and
Bongco (2020). Specifically, generations are those who were
born in 1982 or earlier. This cohort is a combination of the
mainstream categories of Baby Boomers and Gen X. No
distinction between the Boomers and Gen X was identified
in local literature due to contextual factors such as family
values. Meanwhile, the Millennial-technology generation
was born between 1983-1996. Generation Z- technology was

5
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

born in 1997 and later. Finally, the period takes into account
the educational realities amid the pandemic in the academic
year 2020-2021, which is characterized by the use of online
learning modalities for learning delivery.

Methodology

This study employs a qualitative multiple case study. The

design offers strong and reliable evidence, and allows
the researchers to have a deeper understanding of the
topic under study (Brink, 2018). The study focuses on
the multigenerational faculty and students at HEI in the
Philippines.

Cases Selection
Purposeful maximal sampling was employed in the selection
of cases to provide the maximum variation of IG diversity in
the academe. The four cases are as follows:

Case 1: Online communications between male, young

adult Millennial (technology generation) faculty and
Gen Z students

Case 2: Online communications between female,

middle-aged Millennial (technology generation)
faculty and Gen Z students

Case 3: Online communications between female,

older adult (political generation) faculty and
Millennial and Gen Z students

Case 4: Online communications between male,

middle (political generation) faculty and Millennial
and Gen Z students

Originally, the intention of the case selection was

focused on the cohort-based generations and sex of the

6
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

participants. Nonetheless, the actual cases that were identified

reflected diversity in terms of age, thus adding a layer of
generation for more meaningful analysis.

Participants and Inclusion Criteria:

Participant selection was done through the social network
to ensure anonymity and voluntary participation. The
identification of faculty for each case was the primary
consideration in recruitment. Once the faculty for each case
had been identified, they were asked for a list of classes that
they were teaching. They did not recommend the student
participants for the study to ensure student anonymity and
avoid possible relational conflicts.

Student participants were selected using the following

inclusion criteria: (1) they were enrolled in a course under the
selected faculty; and (2) they belonged to a different cohort in
relation to the faculty. Due to criteria number 2, Cases 1 and
2 only had Gen Z students, and Cases 3 and 4 had Millennial
and Gen Z student participants. This captures the dynamics
of communication when there is an IG difference between
faculty and students. A total of 36 faculty and students
participated in the study, as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1
Summary of Participants per Case and Sex

Case Faculty Students Total

Female

Female
Male

Male

Case 1 1 0 4 4 9
Case 2 0 1 4 4 9
Case 3 0 1 4 4 9
Case 4 1 0 4 4 9
TOTAL 2 2 16 16 36

7
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Data Gathering

Qualitative data were gathered through three data sources:

(1) semi-structured interviews; (2) online communication
analysis; and (3) a qualitative survey questionnaire. All
instruments used for data gathering were validated through
expert validation and pilot testing. The relevance of guide
questions was established through expert validation
involving eight professionals in the fields of research, higher
education, and psychology. Meanwhile, clarity, level of
difficulty, and administration requirements were checked
through pilot testing.

Semi-structured interviews with 20 participants were

facilitated in order to get a glimpse of how the participants
make sense of their experiences in online learning
communications. The main part of the interview (after
establishing rapport and preliminaries) ran for an average of
32 minutes and 8 seconds.

Meanwhile, to observe the actual exchange among

the students and faculty across generations, the study
analyzed the participants’ online communications. This was
done by requesting screenshots of the participants’ online
communication with the other parties during the first four
months of the Second Semester of Academic Year 2020-2021
(January- April 2022). This period covers communications
using any online tool, such as Messenger or email, that the
participants are willing to share. A total of 39 screenshots
were accepted for further analysis after initial screening.

Finally, an open-ended qualitative questionnaire was

developed to further confirm and clarify the initial findings
from the interview and online communications analysis.
Questions were provided in English and Filipino for ease of
understanding.

8
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Validation and Data Analysis

To establish the truthfulness of the data gathered through
interviews, member-checking of transcripts was facilitated
prior to further data analysis. To minimize the risk of losing
meaning in translation due to varied styles of language use
(Devlin, 2018; White et al., 2017), transcripts were analyzed
verbatim (Filipino-English). Initial coding generated 77 open
descriptive codes, such as canceling generational differences
and being cautious. Through categorization, these codes were
grouped into five categories, including challenges, medium,
behaviors, encoding, and strategies. The significance of each
of the codes and categories varied for each case. An emphasis
was placed on within-case analysis to provide an in-depth
illustration of IG communication in each of the cases.
Nonetheless, cross-case analysis provided encompassing
lessons learned. Finally, the whole analysis applied the APC
model for IG diversity, which recognizes that IG diversity is
the result of the overlapping and interacting effects of age,
period, and local cohort.

Table 2
Cross-case Analysis through Coding

Code Categories Themes

Cancelling Generation Challenges Generational Distance as an
Differences advantage and disadvantage
Exhausting
Technology Skills Bigger generational gap could
Limitations make understanding more
Unmet Expectations difficult due to differences.
Responsive However, students tend to be
Supportive to students given more consideration for
Instruction Behavior online communication lapses of
Giving consideration older faculty. They have higher
expectations from younger
Respectful Encoding
faculty, whom they believe
Setting of Expectations Strategies to be more adept at using
Student teaches faculty technology.

9
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Access Issues Challenges More manageable issues

Feeling of No Control
Frames of Reference IG communication issues
Insufficient response on online platforms are less
Misunderstanding severe because all parties
No Response consider that failure might
Uncertainty be due to technology or their
Accidental issues generational gaps, rather than
Need for virtual actual behavior.
presence
Interactions Behavior
Repeated explanations
Group support
Different words Encoding
Short and impersonal
Cooling down Strategies
Initiating Dialogue
Consultation
Asking peers
Seeking feedback
Non-verbal cues
Research
Reflection
Negotiation of meaning
Delayed Responses Challenges Adjustment of Generational
Timing Styles
Levels of expertise
All parties are conscious of
their differences and willing to
make adjustments in terms of
media to and communication
styles.
Email Medium
GC
Google Classroom
Messenger
Video Conferencing Apl
SMS
SNS
Mediation Behavior
Attempt to overcome
generation gaps
Confidence in
Communication
Cautious

10
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Do not interrupt mode

Message Flood
Making suggestions
Privacy
Nurturing
Persistence
Adjustment Encoding
Formal
Like reaction
Ease of understanding
Heart react
Familiarity
English
Filipino
Emojis
Full Info
Variation in
communication style
and spelling alterations
Casual
Compromise Strategies
Learns from child
Pakikiramdam
Conflict avoidance

Results

This multiple case study is an attempt to describe the IG

diversity in online communications among higher education
faculty and students. The succeeding paragraphs illustrate the
IG communication among multigenerational participants in
each case.

Case 1: Online Learning Communications of Male

Young Adult Millennial (Technology Generation)
Faculty with Generation Z Students
In terms of purpose, faculty’s main reason for engaging in
online communications with students is to give instructions
about tasks and activities. Meanwhile, students initially

11
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

thought that it would be easy for them to communicate with

the young adult, Millennial faculty. Students tried to engage
in non-course related and less formal conversations with
the faculty. However, because the faculty established that
he intended to maintain professional communications, the
students followed his lead and limited their communications
with the faculty to making suggestions about course work,
clarifying information or instructions, and airing concerns. As
1B lamented. “Actually, ironic nga po kung sasabihin. Kasi
kung sasabihin si Sir no example na po kasi siyang bata dun
sa faculty. Siya po yung sana yung nakakausap namin kahit
casual lang po na kwentuhan ganiyan pero hindi po ganun
yung case. So expected niya po kasi pormal. (It is a little
ironic. Sir 1 is close in age. Yet he expects us to always be
formal. We only answer his questions. We only give him the
responses that he expects.). Students’ attempt to communicate
with the young adult Millennial faculty using their own styles
of communication is indicative that the students see group
differences with the faculty as insignificant until the faculty
gives emphasis to them. The clarification of expectations by
the young faculty still elicits a feeling of discontent among
the students, who appear to expect closer bonds with him as
compared to the older faculty.

Of the four cases, the young adult Millennial faculty

used the widest range of tools to connect with students. It
is observed that most of the tools that he adopted support
asynchronous communications. Nonetheless, students still
find his communication attempts lacking because his Gen Z
students crave more synchronous communication through
video conferences.

The male Millennial faculty member maintains a

formal tone in his communications with students. Their
formal communication usually pertains to the use of the
English language. He also uses thumbs up or heart reactions
to the students’ messages. Nonetheless, it is evident that the

12
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

content of the communication by the faculty also displays

consideration and concern for students. For instance, in the
screenshot of the conversation with 1E, he offered to mediate
with an evaluator on the students’ behalf. Furthermore, he
expressed concern for the students who offered to redo their
webinar and tried to offer easier alternatives for them (1H).
Nonetheless, this content of concern and support appears to
be overshadowed by the student’s intimidation over the use
of formal language and English through which the messages
were conveyed. Evidently, this is a complication caused by
the online communication medium. Due to the absence of
other cues to interpret the tone of the message, the students
are likely to find short e-mails from the faculty as cold and
uncaring.

Meanwhile, because the students are cautious of

misunderstandings, they follow the lead of the faculty in
using respectful and formal communications. Students tend
to believe that formal English is the safest form of language
to minimize misunderstandings. Participant 1A said, “Mostly
po in English po yung language ko. (I mostly use English.)”
These were also observed in the choice of language of
students in the online communication analysis. A sample of
observed communication from P3A is provided:

Dec 9 at 10:20 am

Professor: Online tayo maya 1pm (We will meet

online later at 1 PM)

Participant: Noted mam

Moreover, students are considerate of the timing of

their communications to show recognition of the faculty’s
personal lives.

The faculty also engages in introspection. He takes

the initiative to seek feedback from random students. When

13
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

students air concerns about communication, he consults

colleagues and reflects on his communication practices. In
misunderstandings, faculty take the time to cool down and
process information through introspection and consultation
before continuing with the communication act. This way, he
would not have to interact with students when he is at the
height of his emotions.

Meanwhile, the Gen Z students adjust their

communication to the expectations in Case 1. They admit
that they find it hard to read the meaning behind the tone.
Participant 1A said, “Medyo mahirap pong idetermine yung
tone niya… (It is difficult to determine his tone.)” In such
cases, students turn to their peers for help or do personal
research to decode the message. Asking the faculty is not
the first course of action. In misunderstandings, the students’
most common recourse is to introspect.

Case 2: Online Learning Communications of

Female Middle-aged Millennial (Technology
Generation) Faculty with Generation Z Students
The primary purpose of the faculty’s engagement in online
communication is to respond to students’ queries and
concerns. Meanwhile, students’ purposes for communicating
with the faculty include the need to clarify information or
instructions, air concerns, or make suggestions. It was also
observed that some students are officially identified as serving
as mediators for the general class’ concerns.

The faculty’s accommodation of the needs and

concerns of students is very much observed in the data from
faculty and students across sources. The faculty uses a variety
of tools to communicate with students. She is confident in her
communication with the students because her kids familiarize
her with the needs and styles of the new generation. The
most remarkable characteristic of her online communication,
however, is the nurturing quality that conveys concern and

14
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

support for the students. She addressed them as “anak (child)”

(2B, 2C, 2F, 2G). She is also generous in using emoticons in
her messages and using heart and like reactions.

Due to the nurturing style of online communications

of the faculty and their familiarity with her in-person, students
are more comfortable communicating with her. Nonetheless,
students still have uncertainties and maintain caution in
communications. They adjust and send respectful messages,
which could be formal or casual. Because the faculty herself
uses emoticons, students also feel free to use the same in
encoding their messages. They also employ minimal spelling
alterations and varied reaction buttons. Students share that
the use of these emoticons is important for them because they
find it difficult to convey emotion in online messages (P 2C).
Sometimes, if they are uncertain, they will use emoticons to
diffuse the atmosphere in online communications.

Because most of the communications initiated

by students are aimed at seeking clarifications or airing
concerns, the faculty’s response is anticipated. Nonetheless,
students sometimes get delayed responses. This could be due,
however, to the unfamiliar words, which the faculty admits
require her to pause for a while to process the information
better. Similarly, faculty also get delayed responses in online
communications. She expressed frustration over the students’
silence during video conference meetings. Nonetheless, their
messages come later (after the synchronous session) in the
form of chats. This is in spite of the students’ high level of
comfort with the faculty and their recognition of the effect
of their online presence on boosting the confidence of their
faculty (2B).

In decoding the messages, the faculty conducts

research and seeks compromise with students for better
understanding. During misunderstandings, her recourse is
to reflect on her communication act. The online platform

15
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

also provides the advantage of giving her time to cool

down, so she would not have to reply to the student at the
height of emotion.

Meanwhile, students appear to find it easier to decode

the meaning of the middle-aged Millennial faculty because
emoticons and synchronous sessions give them more non-
verbal cues. Even when it is often perceived as unacceptable
in formal communications, this could be seen as a possible
alternative to the missing body language, facial expressions,
and hand gestures that students typically use to interpret
messages in face to face classrooms.

Case 3: Online Learning Communications of

Female Old-Aged Political Generation Faculty with
Generation Z Students
Older adult political generation faculty’s purposes for
communicating with students include giving instructions,
responding to queries, and clarifying misunderstandings.
Meanwhile, students communicate with faculty to air
concerns, clarify information, and make suggestions.

The faculty also uses a variety of online

communication tools. She believes that having a child
who belongs to this generation helps her communicate
better with the students. She shares that she uses a variety
of styles of communication as may be required by the
communicative act. Her chat messages follow casual, short,
and impersonal languages that are to the point in answering
students’ questions and giving instructions. In synchronous
communications, she prefers not to be disrupted during her
discussions. In asynchronous communications, however,
students observe delays in the responses of the faculty (3C).

Meanwhile, students have some uncertainty about

encoding messages for the faculty. Hence, they are cautious

16
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

about maintaining respectful communication. They also make

conscious efforts to learn the styles that are acceptable to the
faculty. Students are careful to make sure that they consider
the timing of their communications (2C). Students also ensure
that their communication provides full information and
is written for ease of understanding. All these adjustments
taken by the students to encode their messages in a respectful
manner are indicative of the high respect obligation of the
Filipino young adults to the older generations.

In spite of the efforts taken by both parties to adjust

communication to bridge IG gaps, miscommunications still
happen. For instance, she was offended by the tone of the
student, which sounded demanding. She, however, chooses
not to address these misunderstandings at the height of her
emotions. She takes time to cool down before initiating
dialogue with students to negotiate meaning or clarify
misunderstandings. Because the faculty would not want to
deal with the student in her anger, the online environment
gives her the chance to be selective in self-presentation which
helps avoid further misunderstandings.

Meanwhile, students appreciate that the camera of

the faculty is turned on during synchronous sessions because
non-verbal cues are sent (3C). This opportunity to see the
faculty through the camera gives the students some non-
verbal cues vital for the interpretation of the messages.

Students try to make sense of messages that are

difficult to understand by consulting their peers or faculty or
researching them on their own. If more explanation is needed,
3H waits for synchronous sessions. In misunderstandings,
students engage in reflections to verify whether the failure
was due to their part in the process. It is remarkable, however,
that students are appreciative of the efforts of the older faculty,
whom they believe to be having more difficulty adjusting to
the present learning delivery (3A, 3C).

17
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Case 4: Online Learning Communications of Male

Middle-Aged Political Generation Faculty with
Generation Z Students
Faculty communicates with the students to give instructions
or to answer student concerns and questions. Meanwhile,
students’ purposes for communicating with faculty include
making suggestions, airing concerns, and clarifying
information.

He uses a variety of tools to communicate. He admits

that he makes a conscious effort to learn more about online
communication tools. This determination of the older faculty
to learn the online tools could be one of the reasons for the
diminishing technology knowledge gap between the old and
the younger generation (Tamme & Siibak, 2012).

Communication beyond official office hours is also

observed in the faculty’s written messages through chats
(4A GenZ, 4D Millennial). The faculty is nurturing with
the students and shifts from formal to casual and nurturing
communications, addressing students as “anak” or child
(4, 4B). He frequently uses a thumbs up reply to students’
messages. It is also interesting how the professor uses
spelling alterations in his written messages. Nonetheless,
students stick to formal spelling conventions in their replies
to his messages.

Students are cautious when communicating

with the faculty and make it a point to communicate
respectfully. Due to the faculty’s instructions, they stick
to formal spelling conventions in spite of the faculty’s
switches. They also phrase their communications for ease
of understanding. Heart reactions are used in the faculty’s
messages. Nonetheless, because the faculty does not use
emoticons, students are also hesitant to use them when
communicating with him.

18
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

In decoding, the faculty makes conscious efforts to

adjust to the communications of the students’ generation
through constant consultation with their Gen Z children.
Nonetheless, due to differences in levels of understanding,
miscommunications still happen (4A).

Meanwhile, students are quite considerate

and empathetic towards the faculty, although their
communications get delayed or no responses at all. They
tend to give consideration to the faculty and simply adjust
by asking their questions during the synchronous sessions to
get immediate responses. Further, while thumbs up appears
to be a mere style of communication by the faculty, students
tend to interpret this reply as an expression of the faculty’s
disinterest in the communication process. Participant 4F
shared, “Often, I am likezoned. I just opt to ask or find other
ways to learn.”

Discussion

Lessons learned from four IG online learning communications

among faculty and students were summarized into three
themes. These are: (1) adjustment of generational styles; (2)
generational distance as an advantage and disadvantage; and
(3) more manageable misunderstandings.

Adjustment of Generational Styles

Participants have certain styles for online communication.
For instance, Gen Z prefers the use of emoticons and chat
messaging, thrives in flood messaging, and expects instant
responses. Meanwhile, the political generation faculty uses
thumbs up as okay and makes delayed responses. These
varied styles are consistent with literature findings (Delvin,
2018; Mupinga et al., 2006; Salvosa & Hechanova, 2020;
White et al., 2018). Nonetheless, as they interact with
each other, generations adjust these styles to what they

19
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

perceive to be acceptable for effective communication.

Faculty, regardless of age and cohort, adjust to the younger
generations by using varied tools. Similarly, younger
generations adjust their language to what is acceptable to
the faculty to avoid misunderstandings. However, their
assumptions of what is acceptable for the other generation
may be based on actual observations or pakikiramdam
(sensing), or stereotype beliefs.

The use of pakikiramdam is vital to determining what

is acceptable and what is not. However, looking at Filipino
social relations, it could be said that the use of pakikiramdam
to adjust styles of communication is both a necessity (for
effective communication) and an expectation, for its absence
as a Filipino virtue is typically frowned upon (Librero, 2020).

While faculty report regulation of online

communication styles, students exert more effort in
adjustment. This could be because seniority (whether
biological or social) is expected as part of the Filipino culture
(Librero, 2020) or because misunderstandings could have
more severe consequences for students. This could also be
because the faculty's role that makes him/her the figure of
authority who sets the standards. While recent literature
claims that in the postmodern era, it is no longer clear who
holds the authority (Lü & Hu, 2021), it is quite evident from
the data that students are submitting to the set standards of the
faculty (Bongco et al., 2023).

Generational Distance as an Advantage

and Disadvantage
It is notable that the extent of generational distance could have
advantages and disadvantages in online communications.
While it is easier for students to communicate with younger
faculty because of their similar styles and languages, the
study found that where the generation gap is minimal,
students have the tendency to see the gap as insignificant.

20
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Considering the Asians’ self-restriction when they observe

group differences (Ota et al., 2007), this implies that they
do not see much difference with the younger faculty. On the
other hand, while it is more challenging for older faculty to
interact with students due to bigger gaps, it could also serve
as an advantage for them because students appear to be more
considerate and empathetic towards older faculty members,
whom they believe are having a harder time adjusting to this
form of communication. For instance, Participant 4B said,
“Naintindihan ko naman po iyon kase po baka po busy sa
ibang gawain. (I understand because the teacher might be
busy with something else.)” In spite of their expectations,
they try to understand that the faculty might be busy with
something else or unfamiliar with the tool. (Mupinga et al.,
2006; Nambiar 2020).

More Manageable Misunderstandings

While it is often assumed that online learners are fully
autonomous learners, reality shows things differently. Online
platforms of open communication cultivate better relationships
between faculty and students (Gonzalez-Flor, 2020). Hence,
students and faculty continuously engage in communication.
However, the danger of miscommunication is always present.
In the absence or limitations of cues for better interpretation
of the messages and the existence of new features on the
online platforms, encoding and decoding messages is always
a complicated process. For instance, due to the limitations
of available non-verbal cues for interpretation, some students
might find short emails unfeeling (Dickinson 2017). Further,
miscommunication due to the “tone” of the message was
reported to be the root of two-thirds of the misunderstandings
(Edwards, 2017). Even though emoticons could serve as an
alternative (Dickinson, 2017, Edwards, 2017), the impression
in the academe that their use is childish or unprofessional
limits their use in online learning communications.

21
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Nonetheless, even when miscommunication happens

on the online platform, the consequences prove to be less
severe because participants tend to reflect, recognizing that
a lot of misunderstanding is rooted in the limitations of the
platform and generational differences. For instance, online
platforms allow an individual to plan his/her self-presentation
which helps avoid misunderstandings. Further, the mode also
compels them to consider the limitations of the channel used
in communication, which compels them to give each other
the benefit of the doubt (Edwards, 2017).

In synthesis, students’ generational style of

communication is not a reflection of their independent style
(age, period, and cohort). Findings show that as both parties
consciously try to adjust for successful communication
practices, the styles that emerge in IG communication are the
result of interactions. It is the result of a student’s adjusted
style that interacts with the faculty’s adjusted style of online
communications. And these adjustments could be based on
pakikiramdam or stereotyped assumptions about the other
party. This implies that IG sensitivity must be supported by
a contextualized understanding of IG diversity to achieve
successful communications across generations.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study aimed to give an in-depth description of IG

communication among multigenerational higher education
learners and faculty and model the use of the APC model.
The study findings provide a local understanding of Filipino
cohorts, which shall provide a more contextualized basis
for education program initiatives addressed to Filipino
generations of learners and educators.

Findings show that the styles of online communication

of faculty and students are the result of the interaction of their

22
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

generational styles (age, period, and cohort). Parties adjust

their styles to achieve successful communication through
pakikiramdam or the use of assumptions about generations
that may be correct or incorrect.

These findings have implications for education’s

perception of diversity, which usually focuses on student
diversity alone. However, the findings of this study show that
student diversity cannot be separated from the faculty, for their
values and practices interact in education processes such as
online communications. Specifically in terms of generation,
even though students have their own styles, the actual styles
that they bring into the learning situation are a product of the
interaction of their and the faculty’s IG diversity. Hence, an
exclusive focus on student generational diversity might not
capture the whole dynamics of diversity as they play out in
the academe.

The limitation of the study is that it was conducted

only at one public higher education institution in Bataan.
Further, due to the interaction of age, period, and cohort in
the study’s conceptualization, findings apply only when all
three layers of generation are true. Hence, caution must be
taken in applying the findings of the study. It is recommended,
however, that the study be replicated in urban and private
HEIs to capture IG communication in these contexts.

Future research in online IG learning communication

could also look into the changes in the period effect. The
present study was contextualized during the time when online
communication was the only means for students and faculty
to communicate during the pandemic. As education shifts to
a more blended use of online and in-person communication
between generations of faculty and learners, the dynamics of
online IG communication are also expected to change.

■■■

23
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Acknowledgment

The researchers acknowledge the support of Bataan Peninsula

State University for funding the study.

■■■

References

Alwin, D. F., & McCammon, R. J. (2003). Generations, co-

horts, and social change In Serpe, R. T. (Ed) Hand-
book of the Life Course (pp. 23-49). Kluwer Academ-
ic/ Plenum Publishers
Bongco, R.T. (2020, December). Intergenerational
relationship building among Filipino Teachers: A
Grounded Theory [Doctorate dissertation, Philippine
Normal University Manila]. PNU Online Commons.
Boysen, P. I., Daste, L., & Northern, T. (2016).
Multigenerational challenges and the future of
graduate medical education. Ochsner Journal, 16(1),
1101–107; PMCID: PMC4795490.
Delelis, M. G., Talosig, G. C., Lardera, M. G., Sarmiento, S.
J., & Macabadbad, R. C. (2018). E gadgets of genera-
tion X and Millennials: Their social life. International
Journal of Advanced Research in Management and
Social Sciences, 7(2),78-94 ISSN: 2278-6236.
Devlin, T.M. (2018, January 17). Baby boomers and mil-
lennials: Are they even speaking the same language?
Babbel Magazine. https://www.babbel.com/en/maga-
zine/are-millennials-killing-language
Dickinson, A. (2017). Communicating with online student:
The impact of e-mail tone on students performance
and teacher evaluations. Journal of Educators Online,
14(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2017.14.2.5

24
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Edwards, R., Bybee, B.T., Frost, J.K., Harvey, A.J., Navarro,

M. (2017). That’s not what I meant: How misunder-
standing is related to channel and perspective-taking.
Journal of Language of Social Psychology, 36(2),
188-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X166629
Geeraerts, K., Vanhoof, J., & Van den Bossche, P. (2018).
Teachers’ intergenerational advice and information
seeking: content matters! Journal of Professional
Capital and Community, 3(4), 256-271. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JPCC-11-2017-0026
Gonzalez-Flor, B.P. (2020), Talk to Them, not at Them: A
Teacher-Initiated Model of Engagement (TIME) in
Online Learning. International Journal on Open and
Distance e-Learning, 6(2), 13-26
Hernando-Malipot, M. (2021). ‘There is no going back’:
CHED says flexible learning is here to stay. Manila
Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2021/05/21/there-is-no-
going-back-ched-says-flexible-learning-is-here-to-
stay/
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007, July- August). The next
20 years: How customer and workforce attitudes
will evolve. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.
org/2007/07/the-next-20-years-how-customer-and-
workforce-attitudes-will-evolve
Librero, A.F.D. (2020). Effects of culture on online engage-
ment: The University of the Philippines Open Univer-
sity (UPOU) setting. International Journal on Open
and Distance e-Learning, 6(2), 1-12
Lü, L., & Hu, J. (2021). Understanding teacher authority.
Journal of Education and Development, 5(2), 44-
52. https://doi.org/10.20849/jed.v5i2.916
Löfgren, K., Niemi, E., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Mekota, A.-M.,
Ojala, M., Fischer, F., Kahlert, J., Cernochova, M.,
Achterberg, F., Haak, E., Peltonen, A., Prokysek,

25
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

M., & Heikkinen, P. (2013). Meeting the challenges

of generational change in the teaching profession:
towards a European model for intergenerational
teacher collaboration. Educational Research
eJournal, 2(2), 107-119. https://doi.org/10.5838/
erej.2013.22.03
Macapagal, M. E., Ofreneo, M. P., Montiel, C.J., & Nolasco,
J.M. (2013). Social Psychology in the Philippine con-
text. Ateneo De Manila University Press.
McCrindle, M. (2014). The ABC of XYZ. Australia: McCrin-
dle Research Pty Ltd.
Mupinga, D., Nora, R.T., & Yaw, D.VC. (2006) The Learn-
ing Styles, Expectations, and Needs of Online Stu-
dents. College Teaching, 54(1), 185-189 http://web.
simmons.edu/~brady/CE/Reading%202.pdf
Nambiar, D. (2020). The impact of online learning during
COVID-19: Students’ and teachers’ perspective. The
International Journal of Indian Psychology, 8(2),
783-793. https://doi.org/10.25215/0802.094
Novotný, P., & Brücknerová, K. (2014). Intergenerational
learning among teachers: An interaction perspec-
tive. Studia paedagogica, 19(4), 45-79. https://doi.
org/10.5817/SP2014-4-3
Ota, H., Giles, H., & Somera, L. P. (2007). Beliefs about
intra- and intergenerational communication in Japan,
the Philippines, and the United States: Implication
for older adults’ subjective well-being. Routledge:
Communication Studies, 58(2), 173–188 https://doi.
org/10.1080/10510970701341139
Pew Research Center. (2015, September 3). The whys and
hows of generations research. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/ 2015/09/03/
the-whys-and-hows-of-generations-research/

26
 The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

Polat, S., & Kazak, E. (2015). Primary school teachers’

views on intergenerational learning. EDAM. Edu-
cational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(5), 1189-
1203. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.5.2523
Salvosa, H., & Hechanova, M.R. (2020). Generational
differences and implicit leadership schemas in the
Philippine workforce. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 42(1), 1-14. https://doi.
org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2018-0314
Sun, L., Tang, Y., & Zuo, W. (2020). Coronavirus pushes
education online. Nature Materials, 19, 687. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41563-020-0678-8
Swist, T., Collin, P., McCormack, J., & Third, A. (2015). So-
cial media and the wellbeing of children and young
people: A literature review. Commissioner for Chil-
dren and Young People, Western Australia. https://re-
searchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/
uws:36407/
Tamme, V., & Siibak, A. (2012). Enhancing family cohe-
sion through web-based communication: Analysis of
online communication practices in Estonian families.
Observatorio (OBS*) Journal, Special issue, 1-28.
https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS000581
Tay, A. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the work-
place: expectations and perceptions of different gen-
erations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.5897/
AJBM10.335
Tengco-Pacquing, M. C., Bustamante, R. N., Cabanban, A.
E., Cosare, M. M., & Gamez, V. C. (2019). Positive
framing effect: A mixed method study on the buying
behavior of Filipino Millennials. North American
Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 151-164.

27
The Normal Lights
Volume 17, No. 1 (2023)

White, A., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Verheyen, S. (2018).

Mind the generation gap: Differences between young
and old in everyday lexical categories. Journal
of Memory and Language, 98, 12–25. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.001

28