Authors
- Pure Natalia M.
Annotation
There is an opinion that the clip thinking, which has been increasingly talked about in recent years, is the sign that distinguishes representatives of generation Z from other
generations. It is widely believed in scientific and near-scientific literature that irreversible cognitive changes have occurred in young people under the influence of digital technologies, which, in turn, require a restructuring of teaching methods in favor of even greater digitalization, gamification and visualization. However, the excessive introduction of digital and gaming technologies into the educational process only leads to an increase in the negative manifestations of clip thinking, which entails changes in a person’s worldview and a crisis of self-determination. In this case, it is education and the choice of the right teaching methods that can neutralize the negative manifestations of clip thinking and the anthropological crisis.
How to link insert
Pure, N. M. (2025). GENERATION Z IN THE FACE OF AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL CRISIS Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 1 (53), 47. https://doi.org/10.24412/2078-9238-2025-153-47-62
References
1.
1. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
2.
2. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9 (6), 1–6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
3.
3. Mannheim, К. (1998). The problem of generations. New Literary Review, 2 (30), 8–63. https://vk.com/wall-173410493_9 (In Russian).
4.
4. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. Morrow. https://archive.org/details/GenerationsTheHistoryOfAmericasFuture-1584To2069ByWilliamStraussNeilHowe/page/n15/mode/2up
5.
5. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: the rise of the net generation. McGraw-Hill.
URL: https://archive.org/details/growingupdigital0169taps/mode/2up
6.
6. Koutropoulos, A. (2011). Digital natives: Ten years after. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7 (4). https://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/koutropoulos_1211.htm
7.
7. Frumkin, K. G. (2010). Global changes in the thinking and fate of textual culture. Ineternum, 1 (2), 36–46. (In Russian). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/globalnye-izmeneniya-v-myshlenii-i-sudba-tekstovoy-kultury
8.
8. Gorobets, T. N., & Kovalev, V. V. (2015). “Clip thinking” as a reflection of perceptual processes and sensory memory. The World of Psychology, 2 (82), 94–100. (In Russian). https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_23826337_88860909.pdf
9.
9. Staritsyna, O. A. (2018). Mosaic thinking vs education. Who is to blame and what to do? Azimuth of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology, 2 (23), 270–274. (In Russian).
10.
10. Dorf, T. V, & Mironenkova, N. N. (2021). Recommendations for lecturing students with clip mind. Meždunarodnyj žurnal gumanitarnyh i estestvennyh nauk, 6-1, 71–73. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/2500-1000-2021-6-1-71-73
11.
11. Zemlinskaya, T. E., & Fersman, N. G. (2016). Teaching methods and techniques in the context of teaching students with clip thinking cognitive style. Terra Linguistica, 4 (255), 153–160. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.5862/JHSS.255.18
12.
12. Kozyreva, G. I., Kolupaeva, E. A., Kniga, M. D., & Sobkalova, M. I. (2023). On the issue of Generation Z training. Education and Law, 1, 77–80. https://doi.org/
10.24412/2076-1503-2023-1-77-80 (In Russian).
13.
13. Feldstein, D. I. (2011). Profound changes in modern childhood and the actualization of psychological and pedagogical problems of educational development caused by them. Bulletin of Practical Psychology of Education, 8 (1), 45–54. (In Russian). https://psyjournals.ru/journals/bppe/archive/2011_n1/47607
14.
14. Zilberman, N. N. (2019). Responding to challenges of Generation Z in university (based on teaching experience). In Ed Crunch Tomsk Proceedings of the International Conferenceon New Educational Technologies Tomsk, May 29–31, 2019 (pp. 244–252). TSU Press. (In Russian).
15.
15. Muhametzyanova, F. G., & Stepanova, K. I. (2021). Reflection on new generation of students and features of the Alpha generation in global education. Global Economy and Education, 1 (2), 42–50. (In Russian). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/razmyshleniyao-novyh-pokoleniyah-obuchayuschihsya-i-osobennosti-pokoleniya-alfa-v-globalnom-obrazovanii
16.
16. Beschasnaya, A. A. (2020). Generation Delta: searching for the characteristics of the Russian present and future generation. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 23 (4), 7–39. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2020.23.4.1 Abstract. Stud
17.
17. Shukova, G. V. (2013). Intensity of digital experience and age-specific features of cognitive processes. Psychological Studies, 6 (27), e6. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v6i27.726
18.
18. Firsova, A. M., Pure, N. M., & Treushnikov, I. A. (2024). Youth and moral choice today (on the example of teaching the academic discipline “Fundamentals of spiritual and moral culture of an employee of the internal affairs bodies” at the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia). World of Science. Pedagogy and Psychology, 12 (4). (In Russian). https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/98PDMN424.pdf
19.
19. Pfanenstil, I. A., & Panarin, V. I. (2020). Digital educational and problem «humanization ». Professional Education in the Modern World, 10 (2), 3656–3665. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15372/PEMW20200202
20.
20. Khokhlov, V. V., & Andreikin, A. B. (2020). Types of modern lectures and their characteristics. Smolensk Medical Almanac, 4, 33–37. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.37963/SMA.2020.4.33