THE CHALLENGE OF TEACHING GENERATION Z

Authors

  • Elizelle Juaneé Cilliers Urban and Regional Planning, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.31.188198

Keywords:

Generation X, Generation Z, Urban Planning, Technology Hype

Abstract

Incredible technology changes are defining our current reality, impacting on our approach to society, to planning and to breaking new ground in terms of education. There is a rise of a new generation that is "location-aware" and speaks a “technological-language”. This has a great impacts on the teaching-learning environment within the current university structures, as students (the new Generation Z learners) are more equipped with technology, than typical Generation X (lecturers), which increase complexity of education processes involving instruction, guidance, and supervision. This study investigated the preferences of the new Generation Z student, in terms of technology usage within formal educational systems, based on the surveys conducted among the Urban Planning students on the Potchefstroom campus of the North-West University, South Africa, over a 7 year period. It also tested perspectives and technology usage and preferences of current lecturers (of the same group of students), in order to reveal some of the complex realities and challenges faced when teaching Generation Z. The research concluded with the viewpoints of both groups and presented some solutions to bridge the gaps and enhance teaching-learning strategies.

References

Consultancy.uk. (2015). Generation Y less satisfied than other

generations. http://www.consultancy.uk/news/2061/generation-y- less-satisfied-thanother-generations. Date of use: 1 August 2016.

Dauksevicuite, I. (2016). Unlocking the full potential of digital native learners. Henley Business School, Mc Graw Hill Education handouts.

De Varco, B. (2004). Earth as a lens: Global collaboration, geocommunication, and the birth of ecosentience. PlaNetwork Journal, 1(1).

Du Plessis, N. (2011). Social Media in Higher Education: The case of Facebook. Vaal University of Technology, North-West University: Vaal Campus. September 2011.

Forbes. (2016). More woman than men are playing Pokemon

Go. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/07/26/more-women-than-men-areplaying-pokemon-go-by-a-lot/#5ee741774f16. Date of access: 1 July 2016.

Hanzl, M. (2007). Information technology as a tool for public participat ion in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, Vol. 28(2007):289-307. Elsevier Ltd, Great Britain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.003

Lopez, G. (2016). Pokémon Go, explained. Available at: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12129162/pokemon-go-android- ios-game (Date of access: 2 January 2017).

Olivier, V. (2013). Students’ Preference and Use of Information and Communication Technology at the North-West University. Academic support services Information Technology in Education.

Rothman, D. (2016). A Tsunami of learners called Generation Z.

http://www.mdle.net/Journal/A_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf

Sinaga, M. (2015). #Ktpuntukahok: The role of social media as a tool of social movement. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, Special Issue 2015: 369:374. Global Research and Development Series.

Stern, R. (2014). Generation Z, Teachers--how's today's "creative classroom" working for you? http://www.chicagonow.com/gifted-matters/2014/05/generation-z-teachers-howstodays-creative-classroom-working-for-you (Date of access: 5 August 2016).

Streetline. (2013). 5 Urban Technology Trends Impacting City Planning. Streetline: Connecting the real world. Blog of 15 Jan 2013, available at http://www.streetline.com/blog/5-urbantechnology-trends/, Date accessed: 10 August 2015.

Van Zyl, A.S. (2009). The impact of social networking 2.0 on organizations. Stellenbosch: Emerald Insight.

Downloads

Published

2017-01-21

How to Cite

Cilliers, E. J. (2017). THE CHALLENGE OF TEACHING GENERATION Z. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.31.188198