Generation Z: A Century in the Making, by Corey Seemiller and Meghan Grace. Rougtledge, 2019. ISBN: 978-1138337312
The title’s reference to “a century in the making” reflects the book’s premise: Gen Z parallels The Greatest Generation--people born between 1901-1924. Although the book draws interesting comparisons and backs them with data, I didn’t find the parallel particularly helpful or even convincing. Its demographic information (chapters 3-10) and description of Gen Z learning preferences (chapters 15-16) were the most useful sections.
According to authors Corey Seemiller and Meghan Grace, Gen Z consists of 70 million people born between 1995-2010 who are “smart, digitally infused, driven, and ready to bring about change in our world” (28). In being “optimistic and self-interested” (29), Gen Z is most opposite “independent and cynical” Gen X (born between 1965-1980)--the generation teaching it (28, 7). Gen Z continues Millennials’ apathy toward rites of passage cherished by preceding generations, such as registering to vote, obtaining a driver’s license, and dating (269). Gen Z's political leanings are heavily liberal (263-4).
Gen Z is the most racially diverse and technologically dependent generation in U.S. history. Most members had their first phone or tablet between the ages of 5-8 and average 9 hours of screen time per day (50-59). They are the least likely generation to use screens for news, preferring to spend time on their favorite app: Snap Chat. At least 2/3 of Gen Z use multiple devices simultaneously while completing schoolwork, attending religious services, eating dinner, spending time with family, and dating (50-59). Ironically, however, 83% prefer face-to-face communication (61). A majority prefer print reading materials and dislike phone calls; they use their phones for online activity instead (61-70). Although they have had constant exposure to technology since childhood, their use of it for learning produces mixed results. Numerous studies show that students who used technology in the classroom earned lower test scores, though other research found that classroom technology led to quicker learning (208). Unfortunately, the book doesn’t define “quicker learning,” so it’s difficult to assess those results.
Gen Z’s attitude toward education is value- and self-interest-driven. Their social lives are largely online, so they don’t care as much for social gatherings or interactions on campus, especially if those gatherings are initiated or guided by the institution. They show less preference for institutions that brand themselves as “premier” or a “tight-knit community” than for those that emphasize “hands-on learning,” “real-world experience,” and “professional opportunity” (204). They learn independently rather than interpersonally and socially, though they don’t like to be isolated, which fits with their desire for flexible spaces, such as classrooms with movable furniture and technology that allow for varying configurations (208-9). Gen Z is risk adverse, especially when it comes to verbal participation in class (206), which explains their strong preference for observing and imitating models before trying something new (207). These depictions explain why Gen Z believes “research is less about acquiring new knowledge and more about accessing a quick answer to complete an assignment” (203), which is an unfortunate challenge for educators.
Gen Z has a tendency toward “group think," adopting narratives proposed by media, spread on social media, or cultivated by educational fads. Its members often struggle to distinguish between purpose and method and between high priority concepts and minutiae, especially when it comes to rules/laws. For example, Gen Zers have no qualms about using digital innovations to cheat on tests but obsess about unimportant formatting details like margin and text size when submitting assignments for grading (159).
Although this book prompts important questions, it gives an overly-simplified and -sympathetic snapshot of Gen Z without acknowledging or analyzing the complicated individuals who comprise the group. The authors seem more like consultants intent on promoting their careers via TED Talks than teachers using their research and classroom experience to improve educator effectiveness.
While I wouldn’t warn educators away from Gen Z, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it. Its most important takeaway is one already obvious to classroom educators: “With Millennials, the focus was on helping them determine the credibility of the information they retrieved before communicating it as truth. . . . With Generation Z, though, we have to go one step further—helping them unlearn misinformation” (203-4). I don't plan to use this book in my classes, but it was a good resource for background and context regarding the students I teach.