The aim of this study is to analyse the views of young people belonging to Generation Z about the role of technology in future schools in 2030. Without listening to young people’s voices, it has been stated that there is a strong need to increase the use of technology and digitalization in teaching and learning. Based on the essays collected from 89 Finnish young people aged 15–18 years from four different regions, this article presents four qualitatively different future images of technology in future schools. Our results show that the representatives of the same generation are divided into different units with different responses to the rapid technological change and hence one of the key formative experiences of their generation.
AhvenharjuS.MinkkinenM.LalotF. (2018, December). The five dimensions of futures consciousness. Futures, 104, 1–13.
2.
AmaraR. (1981). The futures field: Searching for definitions and boundaries. The Futurist, 15(1), 25–29.
3.
BassiouniD. H. (2014). ‘Generation Z’ children adaptation to digital consumer culture: A critical literature review. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 13(2), 113–133.
4.
BaumH. S. (2002). Why school systems resist reform: A psychoanalytic perspective. Human Relations, 55(2), 173–198.
5.
BeckU.Beck-GernsheimE. (2009). Global generations and the trap of methodological nationalism for a cosmopolitan turn in the sociology of youth and generation. European Sociological Review, 25(1), 25–36.
6.
BeckertJ. (2016). Imagined futures: Fictional expectations and capitalist dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BénekerT.PalingsH.KrauseU. (2015). Teachers envisioning future geography education at their schools. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(4), 355–370.
8.
BennettS.MatonK. A.KervinL. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.
9.
BergR. A. (2009). Teaching strategies for the net generation. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 3(2), 1–24.
10.
CalvaniA.FiniA.RanieriM.PicciP. (2012). Are young generations in secondary school digitally competent? A study on Italian teenagers. Computers & Education, 58(2), 797–807.
11.
CilliersE. J. (2017). The challenge of teaching generation Z. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 188–198.
12.
CookJ. (2015). Young adults’ hopes for the long-term future: From re-enchantment with technology to faith in humanity. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(4), 517–532.
13.
DatorJ. (1998). Introduction: The future lies behind! Thirty years of teaching futures studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(3), 298–319.
14.
DatorJ. (2009). Alternative future at the Manoa school. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(2), 1–18.
15.
DemnehM. T.MorganD. R. (2018). Destination identity: Futures images as social identity. Journal of Futures Studies, 22(3), 51–64.
16.
EckersleyR. (1999). Dreams and expectations: Young people’s expected and preferred futures and their significance for education. Futures, 31(1), 73–90.
17.
ElderG. H. (1975). Age differentiation and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 1(1), 165–190.
FranceA.RobertsS. (2015). The problem of social generations: A critique of the new emerging orthodoxy in youth studies. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(2), 215–230.
20.
HamiltonJ.ColeS. N. (2017). Imagining possible selves across time: Characteristics of self-images and episodic thoughts. Consciousness and Cognition, 52, 9–20.
21.
HenninkM.HutterI.BaileyA. (2011). Qualitative research methods. Washington, DC: SAGE Publications.
22.
HicksD. (1996). A lesson for the future: Young people’s hopes and fears for tomorrow. Futures, 28(1), 1–13.
JärvinenT. (2003). Urheilijoita, taiteilijoita ja IB-nuoria. Lukioiden erikoistuminen ja koulukasvatuksen murros. [Athletes, artists and IB-youth. The specialisation of upper secondary schools and the new direction of education in Finland.] Helsinki, Finland: Nuorisotutkimusverkosto & Nuorisotutkimusseura.
25.
JonesV.JoJ.MartinP. (2007). Future schools and how technology can be used to support millennial and generation-Z students. ICUT 2007 (Proceedings B, pp. 886–891), 1st International Conference of Ubiquitous Information Technology, Dubai, 12–14 February, 2007.
26.
KaboliS. A.TapioP. (2018). How late-modern nomads imagine tomorrow? A causal layered analysis practice to explore the images of the future of young adults. Futures, 96, 32–43.
27.
KuusiO.LinturiR. (2014). Oppimisen uudet teknologiset mahdollisuudet vuoteen 2030 [New technological opportunities for learning by 2030]. Futura, 33(3), 63–66.
28.
LevickaitéR. (2010). Generations X, Y, Z: How social networks form the concept of the world without borders (the case of Lithuania). LIMES, 3(2), 170–183.
29.
MannheimK. (1952). The problem of generations. In KecskemetiP. (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–320). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
30.
MikkonenA. (2000). Nuorten tulevaisuuskuvat ja tulevaisuuskasvatus [Future images of young people and futures education]. Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu.
OzkanM.SomazB. (2015). The changing face of the employees—Generation Z and their perceptions of work (A study applied to university students). Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 476–483.
33.
PalfreyJ.GasserU. (2011). Reclaiming the awkward term: What me might learn from ‘digital natives’. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 7(1), 33–55.
34.
PekkarinenE.MyllyniemiS. (Eds.). (2019). Vaikutusvaltaa Euroopan laidalla. Nuorisobarometri 2018 [Influence on the edge of Europe. Youth Barometer 2018]. Valtion nuorisoneuvoston julkaisuja 60. Nuorisotutkimusseuran/Nuorisotutkimusverkoston julkaisuja 216. Retrieved from https://tietoanuorista.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NB_2018_web.pdf
35.
PilcherJ. (1994). Mannheim’s sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology, 45(3), 481–495.
36.
PolakF. L. (1973). The image of the future (BouldingE., Trans.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
37.
PriporasC.-V.StylosN.FotiadisA. K. (2017). Generation Z consumers’ expectations of interactions in smart retailing: A future agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 374–381.
38.
PurhonenS. (2007). Sukupolvien ongelma. Tutkielma sukupolven käsitteestä, sukupolvitietoisuudesta ja suurista ikäluokista [The problem of generations: Essays on the concept of generation, generational consciousness and baby boomers]. Helsinki, Finland: Helsingin Yliopisto: Sosiologian laitoksen tutkimuksia nro 251.
39.
RubinA. (2000). Growing up in social transition in search of a late-modern identity. Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
40.
RubinA. (2013). Hidden, in consistent, and influential: Images of the future in changing times. Futures, 45, 38–44.
41.
RubinA.LinturiH. (2001). Transition in the making: The images of the future in education and decision-making. Futures, 33(3–4), 267–305.
42.
RubinA.LinturiH. (2011). Toinen koulu, toinen maailma. Oppimisen tulevaisuus 2030 [Another school another world: The future of learning 2030]. Tutu-julkaisuja 1/2011. Turku, Finland: Uniprint Suomen yliopistopaino.
43.
SeginerR. (2009). Future orientation: Developmental and ecological perspectives. New York, NY: Springer.
44.
SelwynN. (2016). Is technology good for education?Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
SuddendorfT.BusbyJ. (2005). Making decisions with the future in mind: Developmental and comparative identification of mental time travel. Learning and Motivation, 36(2), 110–125.
47.
TEM. (2013). 21 paths to a frictionless Finland: Report of the ICT 2015 working group. Publications of the Ministry of Employment and Economy. Innovation 18/2013.
48.
ThulinE. (2018). Always on my mind: How smartphones are transforming social contact among young swedes. Young, 26(5), 465–483.
49.
TrommsdorffG. (1983). Future orientation and socialization. International Journal of Psychology, 18, 381–406.
50.
TurnerA. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and social interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103–113.
51.
WoodmanD.WynJ. (2015). Youth and generation: Rethinking change and inequality in the lives of young people. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
52.
WynJ.WoodmanD. (2006). Generation, youth and social change in Australia. Journal of Youth Studies, 9(5), 495–514.
53.
YLE. (2019). Tuhoaako älypuhelin keskittymiskyvyn, mielenrauhan ja lapsen aivot? ‘On meneillään ihmiskoe’. [Does the smartphone destroy concentration, peace of mind and the brain of the child? ‘Human experiment in progress’]. Retrieved 25 October, 2019, from https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-1086259
54.
ZimbardoP. G.BoydJ. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288.
