They are somewhat vague about how the contrasting learning needs of younger and older groups can effectively be met in a single classroom setting, but nonetheless note that there is a great need for community research to clarify this issue. The conclusions and attitudes of these authors are also much more accommodating of the differences in learners than those of Caudron. Having noted the above, the article could benefit from a clearer explication of different teaching methods that could work not only for the different groups, but for integrated groups as well. Another limitation is that the article differentiates between two age groups, without acknowledging that there could be learning style differences within a single age group. While therefore accepting that there could be different learning styles, the article still treats these somewhat simplistically.

By far the most complex in terms of learning style application is McCarthy's article, which focuses on four students in the same age group, who learn in vastly different ways. Four different learning styles are identified, with suggestions on how to integrate teaching techniques to bring about the best in all of them, even if they are in the same classroom. The main distinguishing factor between this article and the others is that teaching techniques are not adjusted according to each learner's specific style, but rather that learners are expected to use their strengths in order to mitigate their weaknesses in order to make the best of the teaching provided.

Furthermore, another contrasting factor in this article is the fact that teaching is not focused on only one single aspect of a student group's learning need. Instead, the author acknowledges that each student brings to the classroom a variety of differentiated personality and learning traits. Instead of attempting to focus on each of these individually and creating a teaching approach that would address it, the "whole person" of each student is addressed by creating a teaching approach that is designed to both cater to the strengths and challenge the...

In this way, learning is stimulated by a multi-level approach.
This does not however meant that the author does not make assumptions. Each of the four students mentioned are classified according to a learner type. Each learner type displays a number of characteristics, and the type of learning that each responds best to. The fundamental difference is however that these assumptions are neither the starting point nor the ultimate aim of teaching. Instead, the teaching this article recommends advances beyond learning type towards the further inner aspects of each learner. Learning is seen as a cycle rather than a linear process of optimal teacher/learner interaction. Instead McCarthy sees teaching and learning as providing students with the opportunity to grow.

Perhaps one of the reasons for this attitude lies in the fact that McCarthy's focus is on children rather than adults. Children are often assumed to be very flexible in their learning environments, and can therefore adjust more easily. The article however goes beyond mere action and reaction, as noted above. Indeed, the teaching paradigm in this article strikes me as the most likely to be applicable to more than one age group. The first article, while very appealing in its attitude towards the "fun" side of training that doesn't "suck," caters mainly for Generation X and for few older age groups, while the third makes very distinct assumptions about younger and older learners. McCarthy on the other hand appears to acknowledge that, no matter how similar the age group in a classroom, personalities and learning styles will differ. The only way beyond this is to see it not as an obstacle, but as a challenge to provide learners with the opportunity to integrate their learning strengths and interact with the material.

Sources

Caudron, Shari. Can Generation Xers Be Trained?

McCarthy, Bernice. A Tale of Four Learners.

Murray, Corey & Bank, David. Intergenerational Learning. Community College Journal Washington: Aug/Sep 2007. Vol. 78, Iss. 1