It is no secret that I have a deep passion for the study of generational cohorts. Reading the book Generation Z Goes to College by Corey Seemiller and Meghan Grace was what inspired me to want to enter the field of education and training within higher education. After completing our assigned readings for the week, I hope to compare and contrast this book's findings for conflicting messaging or holes in its data.
A generational cohort can be defined as a group of people though a span of (usually) around twenty years that have shared experiences similar to other born around the same time. (Something I think is cool and totally irrelevant to what I am talking about -- because of advances in technology moving so rapidly, the shared experience is vastly different over a 20 year span. Some have predicted that Get Z is the last "traditional" 20-year cohort.) Of course, the traits associated with each generation are largely conjecture and generalizations. There are undoubtedly Baby Boomers that are extremely tech savvy or Generation Z members that do not have an online presence. Other demographical data plays into these features such as socioeconomic background and geographical locations. All of my experiences with generational studies have been through the lens of American generational cohorts.
In general, generations of recent focus have been the Baby Boomers (1946-1965), Gen X (1966-1981), Millennial (1982-1997), and Gen Z (1998-2018). I would be remiss to exclude the micro-generation of Xennials which fall somewhere in between the Millennials and Gen X. Those that consider themselves as a part of this micro generation demonstrate that the accepted dates and experiences of these groups are fairly fluid. Members of Gen Z are often referred to as "Digital Natives" as they have grown up in a world with advanced technology that has shaped much of their world in a way that looks different than others that came before.
In all of my facilitation experience, it is almost the exclusive topic that I covered over numerous conferences and training summits. Even when my topic did not focus on communication across generational lines or playing to the strengths of younger generations, I usually found ways to weave this information in my sessions.
So, why am I nervous to look into Digital Natives? Connecting people to best communicate and collaborate with Generation Z was a large focus of mine in which I utilized this term frequently. I am hopefully that the overall discovery will be the noting flippant utilization of these types of generalizations among large groups of people while noting that just because Gen Z grew up with these technologies available, does not inherently make them more apt to adopt to new technologies.
Is there any truth behind the concept of a Digital Native? Is it all a fallacy? Only week two will tell! (okay, not ONLY week two, but you get it.)
Kendyl, this post offers a general overview and also a great point to think about Digital Natives. The term has been used worldwide, and we've assumed that the descendants are willing to deal with new state-of-the-art tools. However, I've noticed that many young students are struggling with adopting new technologies in online learning settings after COVID-19 outbreak. I think it is better to be cautious to cite or apply the concept of Digital Natives, and it is definitely a key term that we should discuss in this class.
ReplyDeleteHi Jaesung, I agree with your point here completely. I think there is merit in the thought that younger generations have some semblance of comfort in a technological realm but also realize that the idea of a natural ability based on their birthday is absurd. There is a unique opportunity in education, I believe, to leverage young learners in such a way that blends their education with technology to create a tech savvy workforce -- not just a generation that spends their lives scrolling online and calling it technologically advanced.
ReplyDelete