The rise of Generation Z

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Almost four million children in the UK do not own a book, according to a report by the National Literacy Trust. (source)

Experts estimate that nearly 40 percent of U.S. 4th graders do not achieve basic levels of reading proficiency. (source)

Today's children are reading less than seven years ago as their time is taken up with other activities, research suggests. (source)

Computers are 'wrecking children's reading skills as they abandon library books'. (source)

Myself being an Icelander, this issue is of particular interest to me, considering how maniacal Icelanders are about books. Well, let us dig a little deeper then. It is a fact that today's children are different from previous generations, in that they spend much less time reading books... while we, their parents, probably often tell ourselves that the time they are spending online with a tablet in their hands is wasted time. But are the children of the "digital" generation actually as illiterate as some of us imagine?

My 3 year old son is having no troubles selecting games from the menu on a tablet. My 5 year old daughter can create and delete files, draw pictures, update programs and change settings on her laptop. If you ask an IT expert, they might say that the kids demonstrate about a 80% computer proficiency. If you ask a sociologist, they would conclude that these are the kids of the so called Generation-Z.

They are the children who were born roughly between 1995 and 2010. They live entirely immersed in the digital technologies. (I am speaking of the developed world of course). And though many of them may not seem to be too friendly to grammar and spelling, we could not say outright that they are illiterate. Definitely not even in what we understand to be the conventional interpretation of the term.

In fact if we investigate a little more, the first great surprise is that the Generation-Z kids are extremely educated and informed, they mature early and they often exhibit logical and mental skills that we are used to observing in kids at a much later age. The vast majority of them usually continue their education in secondary school and beyond. It is this generation that is with the highest rate of use of digital readers. If we look closer, we might realise that many of them actually possess and regularly use personal libraries that dwarf anything any previous generation has ever had.

It is essentially a transition from the Britannica era to the Wikipedia era. In the 21st century, the information gap between the old "paper" generations and the new "digital" generations is seemingly deeper than ever. And Wikipedia is one of the most eloquent pieces of evidence for that. The younger generations perceive the web encyclopedia as more reliable and useful than the conventional encyclopedias that are compiled by academicians.

The reason is that the so called Generation-Z gives a priority to visual information. The forecasts point to a tendency that by the time these Z-kids have become adults, the video images will have achieved a complete domination over printed word as a main conveyor of information. Which by the way brings us back to our monthly topic. =)

But how should the gap be closed between the "old" culture and "the new"? And should it be? Well, it certainly cannot be done by putting them against each other, but instead through reconciliation of their differences. And this means that the traditional, "outdated" models should not automatically be contrasted and opposed to every new fashion wave. And these waves tend to alternate through ever accelerating intervals.

The Generation-Z and those coming after it are complex social phenomena, and they should be approached through simultaneous engagement on many levels, using many channels of communication. The printed books will not die completely, but they will certainly be no longer dominant. And the next page in this development is sure to be turned very soon, and it will be written by those born after 2010. Those kids will be starting school earlier than "usual", and they will be spending more time for studying. Their knowledge will be deeper, more universal and more profound than ours. The next generation, now dubbed the Alpha-Generation, will probably be more materialistically orientated and technologically versed, and it will continue what Generation-Z has already begun. And that is a full transition away from the traditional "Gutenberg" authorities of the 20th century, and continuity in the direction that has already been taken.

Comments

[mutive.livejournal.com]

How so? We already require far more humanities in most schools than science or math. (Typically it seems like someone can get a high school diploma without having to do algebra - which is equivalent to saying, "Sure, you can't read a full sentence, but here you go!") And teachers in those fields are paid the same as those in STEM disciplines - despite that the STEM disciplines would make more in private industry.

[404.livejournal.com]

Once I passed Algebra, I have never needed to be able to recite the quadratic equation from memory. I have no bones to pick against STEM, but the fetishization of STEM in our schools, especially in lower grades (k-8) where I am active I believe does a disservice to our kids. The humanities provide context to what they learn, and (when taught effectively) give them the tools to express themselves and to think critically. It does no one any good if future scientists can't write a grant proposal or journal article or they have no knowledge of the past and how to ethically view their work.

[mutive.livejournal.com]

Fetishization? So...your average class load (for a college going high school student) is one hour of math, one of science, one of history, one of English/literature, one of PE, and one of foreign languages. Possibly with another hour for an elective, which is generally arts. By this count, 4-5/7-8 is humanities. 2/7-8 is STEM. From what I can recall, in elementary school, it was something like 1 hour a day (out of 7) of math, with science *maybe* being taught on a Friday. If the teacher got around to it.

I would expect that if we were "fetishizing" STEM, it would look more like, "1 hour of English, 2 of math, 2 of science, 1 of technology, 1 of whatever." Aside from magnet schools, I'd be hard pressed to find one that puts *this* much emphasis on STEM fields.

And science provides context, too. It and mathematics also teach critical thinking. As for ethics, I don't recall that being covered in elementary English or history classes. (Or was I supposed to have gotten that while learning Spanish? Maybe in drama?)

I do agree that people need to be literate. They also need to be able to do basic math. Oh, and understand that bleach + ammonia = very bad combination. I fail to see how knowing, say, that Picasso was a great painter is more critical than knowing that if you take a curve at too high a speed, your car isn't going to do so well...because...you know...physics.

[404.livejournal.com]

The fetishizing of math and science is that since Sputnik, politicians and education groups have been pushing for more and more emphasis of the hard sciences in education, only recently with NCLB has reading and writing really been addressed as well, but those are still in the lower levels of education and only really cover the acquisition of reading and writing skills, not the artistic or creative use of them. And forget about worrying about Social Studies or History.

In the schools I have taught in (elementary and middle schools), math and science were stressed: the middle school curriculum was three hours of math and science, and two hours of Language Arts and Social Studies. The elective was an alternating PE and an elective, usually a foreign language or technology class. The CRCT and the Georgia Standards movement and NCLB were major factors in this change.

I don't expect students to learn ethics like they would learn calculus, but a well read student develops their own set of ethics as they progress through their education career. It's a piece of the human experience that can't be tested or measured, that's why it is usually disparaged or ignored.

I fail to see how knowing, say, that Picasso was a great painter is more critical than knowing that if you take a curve at too high a speed, your car isn't going to do so well...because...you know...physics.

I'd say it is more important for students to understand why Picasso was a great painter, rather than just that he was, but that's just quibbling. I can tell you without knowing the physics that driving fast on a curve is dangerous.

Math and science proficiency is important, but I believe a more balanced approach is needed and for educational leaders to appreciate the hard work those 'soft science" teachers put in and to reward them appropriately as well.

[mutive.livejournal.com]

Oh, come on now. We may keep talking about improving science and math. But we are *so* far behind most developed countries on both measurements.

As for artistic uses of "soft skills"...what are you saying? That we need more barely employable creative writers, visual artists, and actors? I am not seeing this as a way forward for the US.

I think it's quite important for people to understand the why of everything. Such as why bleach and ammonia shouldn't mix, and why cars get less traction in the rain. And I certainly think that the last two are more important than being able to rattle off a list of important artists, or even understand why Impressionism hit it big when it did.

And we need to pay STEM teachers more because they have other avenues where they can make money. Basic economics. If an engineer can make $100K in private industry but $35K teaching, only a few who are very disinterested in money (or interested in teaching) will teach. However, that same historian isn't sacrificing nearly so much - so don't need the same compensation to tilt the scales. Universities know this (and so pay certain specialties more). High schools and elementary schools don't seem to get this - and then complain about why they can't find decent high school math or physics teachers.

(Also, while this seems to be puzzling to you - people are required to read and write in the sciences and even math fields! And there's nuance there, too. But it's hard to get around to that nuance when students are still struggling with how to solve simple problems like 2X + 18 = 48. It's a bit like arguing that it's hard to get the nuance in Shakespeare if you can't read a sentence.)

[404.livejournal.com]

The answer for X is 15, even a math illiterate history teacher like myself got that one. Don't ask me much more, though!

[mutive.livejournal.com]

Oh, come on. Just a basic differential equation. Maybe one used in carbon dating?

[404.livejournal.com]

I've never liked to date carbon, when things get hot and heavy with them, they always turn to stone.

[mutive.livejournal.com]

Oh, but it's such a pretty stone! All sparkly and crystalline!

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Science and mathematics teach critical thinking, and I guess you can say context, but what I think 404 is talking about is that humanities help people understand, construct, and provide meaning to all those hard facts. How many people were inspired to go into STEM fields because they grew up reading Asimov, or watched Cosmos narrated by Sagan? Of course those guys had foundations in science, but their storytelling and communication and ability to make sense of complex concepts are skills very much based in the humanities.

[mutive.livejournal.com]

Do they? I always thought that science did - it tries to address some of the biggest questions in the universe - what are we? How did we come to be? What's our place in the universe? Math does some of the same things. What's infinity? What are the patterns that create the universe? Even engineering asks a few (although it's not real great at that). But still...it asks questions like, "How do we measure?" "What do we measure?" "What assumptions do we make when trying to describe a system?" "How do we describe a system?" I don't see that as any more context free than, say, memorizing a string of dates and names. (Of course, a good historian does put that into context, just as a good scientist isn't just saying, "Hey, that's the mass of a boson!" Nor is a good engineer saying, "Take out a rule of thumb and plug some numbers in." But not all teachers are good historians or good scientists. And pretty much none are good engineers, as engineers can make a pretty good living in the private sphere.)

Regardless, that you're citing Asimov and Sagan I think shows that there is a lot to be said for the literary abilities of scientists. (Watson also comes to mind as a brilliant writer.) Although probably all had some humanities education (and note that I'm not saying we shouldn't teach people to read and write - just that science and mathematics are also critical and teach a bunch of the same skills as the humanities), their primary field of study *was* scientific.