The Rise of Generation interactive or BTWIMLMAO@ULOL;)

By Patrick Aievoli
 and Kristine O’Malley-Levy


In recent years the Internet has made yet another impact on the conventional and traditional paradigms of the world as we know it. This new generation – Gen-i – has truly come of age. Gen-i stands for generation interactive, isolated, iterative, Internet driven, immaterial, isogonics, isomorphic, (cyber) itinerant, inoculated, etc. This new group views the world through a flat 20” screen. But how have they changed the way the world works on a social, legal and ethical level?

The change is apparent in the ways that this new group deals with the real world. This has occurred due to a new demographic and geographic effect, this effect is referred to as “flatteners” by Thomas Friedman in his book “The World is Flat: A Very Brief History of the Twentieth Century”. In this work he outlines ten “flatteners” that have changed the world. It was through these “flatteners” Friedman believes that the world changed seemingly overnight and forever.

This paper will discuss these topics as well as issues such as the digital divide as it pertains to higher education, and specifically a segment of population referred to as “the lost boys”, the 18-34 year old men.

Chapter excerpt –

Social effects – The Flat World

Before we talk about how Gen-i is changing the world we need to understand just four of Friedman’s “flatteners” and to discuss how these “flatteners” changed the world.

Flattener #1
When the Walls Came Down and the Windows Went Up.

In this section Friedman discusses how the world changed dramatically on the days that the Berlin Wall came down and the World Trade Center was attacked for the second and final time. Friedman describes how the demolition of that wall liberated the mindset of the East and West German people and the world. He describes it as a “get out of jail free card” not just for the locally restricted but for free trade as well. This he believes opened free trade to that part of – if not the now “entire world”. He also goes on to describe how the extremists who demolished the World Trade Center also freed the mindset of the rest to start thinking of terrorism as activities happening not at a distance but also locally, through telecommunications.
 The localization of terror would not have been possible without the ability to communicate internationally in a nanosecond. This is where the second “flattener” comes to play.

Flattener #2
When Netscape Went Public

Friedman sees the Netscape IPO as the catapult that finally pushes us over the edge of reality and into a “new world” of cyber-communications. He talks about how Netscape was the start of the bubble and how it created the niche for all others like Google and Yahoo!. This browser intellectually also changed how we think as people and more prevalently as students of all knowledge. Ted Nelson first describes how knowledge was to be disseminated via this new medium with his Xanadu project. Nelson believes that information should not be stored and copyrighted but left on each person’s workstation to be picked at when needed. On his Website Nelson describes his model as “The Xanadu model has always been very simple: make content available with certain permissions; then distribute and maintain documents simply as lists of these contents, to be filled in by the browser (in the same way that browsers now fill in GIFs.)” This was the early concept behind the structure we find through the workings of Gen-i’s most heralded stalwarts – P2Ps – “peer to peer”– YouTube, BigThink, Napster, Kazaa and LimeWire. It has been this ability to “share” information that has truly flattened the world.

Flattener #9
Google, Yahoo!, MSN Web Search

I would imagine that nothing previously has changed the field of educational research in the same way that these aforementioned search engines have. How students do research has been affected forever by these marvels of technology. The “stacks” of most libraries are bare of students while they sit hunched over glowing depositors of information. A double-edged sword to say the least! The rise of these machines has clearly altered how educational research is conducted. Search has now replaced the concept of Research. Although I love Google I am concerned with those that are in love with Google. Search, especially research needs to be validated before it can be used. Too many students are simply copying and pasting their way into idiocy. There needs to be a better structure in place in order to assure the content has merit. In a recent honors conference on plagiarism I asked students how they feel about using the Web for research. After polling the class the level of students who used the Web for research was approximately 80 to 90%. The question that was then asked was how many used verbatim the content they found? I was surprised to see the honors group would merely use it as a springboard for more research initiatives. This was a good thing however when I asked the same question later to a group of non-honors students the results were different. Not only would they use the content but also in some cases students would actually get papers translated via Google in order for them not to get caught for plagiarism. This new vehicle for research was truly making the students smarter in some ways. Friedman states that “Google levels information – it has no class boundaries or education boundaries”; this is both good and bad. It helps educate through delivery of information however, the information may be in question.

Flattener #10
The Steroids
Digital, Mobile, Personal, and Virtual

In this section I believe Friedman gets to the heart of the matter. Here is where the addiction of Gen-i students comes to full fruition. The connectivity and the wireless quality are the most dangerous. Those of you old enough to remember The Who’s rock opera “Tommy” should empathize with my statement. We appear to be creating a generation of plugged in, turned on, tuned out zombies! Just as television was the babysitter of my generation the iPod and the iPhone are the televisions of this generation. The problem it generates is isolation. Think of the difference between the old 9-volt transistor radio and today’s iPod. The difference is the music was free – really free. Not just free because it is available but free because we couldn’t store it or in essence possess it. True we had cassette decks, and we could copy record open-air version but usually the quality made them worthless. However today with mp3 quality available the ripped and burned versions are as good as the original. This is a big issue not just to the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) but also to the mindset of the “ripper.” If taking other people’s property is acceptable at a young age how can that ever change with respect to stealing ideas and intellectual property in college and the workplace. If the magic of talking to anyone anywhere at anytime also exists how and when do individuals feel distance? In a recent survey of honors students I asked them the following questions. Do you think it acceptable to steal music? Over 90% said more than acceptable, typically stating that the music was simply there for the taking and why not? I also asked how they develop an original theme to their work? This was the more difficult answer to give. Many thought it okay to depend heavily on packaged research by this I mean research that exists at a secondary source level. Is this the exponent of invalid search methods or simply laziness? Maybe they really didn’t know how to research or they just didn’t think it necessary? If we are developing a society of “rippers” then what can we expect? Gen-i is going to get what they want exactly when they want it. There ain’t no stopping them now! I actually hated disco (for the record – no pun intended).

The Digital Divide

Described by Phluid in the article “The Digital Divide in America “ – the term “Digital Divide” was created by Lloyd Morrisett, the former president of the Markle Foundation, an organization dedicated to promoting information technology for health and public needs. Lloyd Morrisett coined the term to differentiate between technology “haves” and “have-nots” (Hoffman 55) Today this differentiation has developed into “capable” and “incapable”.

Speaking about the capable

In a recent honors conference given at the C. W. Post campus of Long Island University an impromptu survey revealed that 90% of the students had access to high-speed Web connections. This coupled with their research habits. Where as the majority still favored the traditional approach to primary source research many stated that they were tempted to use secondary sources, primarily Web-based search engine sources. This spoke a lot about the capability of this generation and of those “capable” of accessing the information. 
In his article “Age” Matthew Gartland states the following,

“The techno youngsters, however, have the ultimate edge. They were raised in environments filled with new technologies and were introduced to these concepts are far earlier ages than their parents. The birth and accelerated growth of the Internet and high-speed broadband has fueled their interest and passion to learn more and capitalize on the many wonderful and dynamic opportunities that have emerged in tech fields at home and across the globe. To succeed in a society where globalization is running rampant and job outsourcing is becoming more common, these techno youngsters have acquired the evolved understanding that knowledge is more powerful than ever and that to rise to the top one must be willing to continually pursue higher level education and stay current with the leading technologies”.

If this is true, can one withhold from this Gen-i their right to information? How can we teach them to credit sources? On what level and what is the validity? And if appropriating Internet material is becoming the norm then has the process of researching changed for good? On what level can we accept their work as valid – or in art as original? Many issues come to play here. Is it influence or derivation?
 In his article “The Need for a Strategic Foundation for Digital Learning and Knowledge Management Solutions,” Mehdi Asgarkhani, C P I T, Christchurch, New Zealand states the following.

Furthermore, recent studies of learners’ attitudes towards e-Learning within tertiary educational institutions (e.g. Burns et al 2001, Asgarkhani 2003) indicated that there is an increasing demand for web-assisted courses. A recent pilot study of trends and attitudes within the CPIT in Christchurch, New Zealand (Asgarkhani 2003) suggested that in general, there is an increasing interest in the application of e-Learning (despite the fact that most of their learning still happens in the classroom). Even though the results of this study are not considered as being final, it appears that the demand for quality web-assisted courses with multifaceted person-to-person interaction will increase rapidly in the near future? With this being said we need to rethink how we are teaching. How are we providing the information to a generation that expects updates instantly? A generation that realizes knowledge grows minute-by-minute and second by second. Dynamic content management is quickly becoming a double-edged sword. Here we wish to update daily the content of a Website for educational purposes but at the same time we make it more difficult for a teacher to find the source of the plagiarism. It is like playing whack-a-mole with the entire world. As soon as something gets updated the teacher or validators has to find the material and hold it in their own database. Not an easy task. The question is now how do we hold back the tide of new information?

Products like are trying to combat these issues but not every school or university can afford the license fee. However companies like Blackboard are integrating “Turnitin” into their learning management solution structures. Recently I conducted another survey of both honors and non-honors students. The purpose of the survey was to determine both Internet usage and research habits. Some of the questions asked were as follows. Do you have cable modems? Only 80% said they had cable modems while 10% said they had dial up and the other 10% said they had something like a Digital Subscriber Line. Almost all had a CD burner and 50% had a DVD burner. Now with the technology in place the other questions were more so geared towards their use of such technology. Do you use the Internet for research? How heavily do you rely on the Internet for your primary source? Do you use it for secondary sources? In these cases almost all of the non-honors students stated yes to these questions while the honors students stated that they still use the library and librarians for their research needs. When the group was asked do you use the Internet to steal music and or images? Almost all said yes. Do you use the Internet to steal research papers? Almost all said no. They stated that stealing research papers was reaching a bit too far and not worth the risk. However when asked do you think it right to take information or intellectual property from the Internet the group still seemed confused by the question. For if it is okay to steal music and images what was actually considered intellectual property seemed to be still up in the air. However the only concern seemed to be getting in trouble for stealing research papers only because of the possible punishment. 
 What was most disconcerting of this survey was how they drew their own lines in the dirt. Stealing forms of art was okay but stealing written papers was not acceptable. But again it seemed to be based on the act of punishment and not moral reasoning. This is where the problem lies. For how long until that line fades away? How long until the need for citation and reference becomes fogged to the point of non-distinction?


If this new Gen-i has a right to their path of knowledge how will we as educators facilitate that path? How will we pave this path towards valid content? Will we be able to handle the ten billion web pages available? How will we manage the truth that is truly out there? It increasingly looks like the student may truly become the teacher of the new “generation interactive.”

How are they wired?

Are the users of this new technology wired differently then their predecessors? Are they more prone to multitasking and receiving information at a greater pace? Do they actually use this new knowledge or is it just stored like random trivia?

To answer these questions you need to sit and talk with these new users. You need to find out what they are expecting from an experience. What do they want to walk away with that is different from the older generation and how will we position ourselves to adapt to their needs and desires?

What changes will have to be made when you will be able to download a movie set or DVD box set in three to five seconds? What will happen to the mindset of these users? With all of these choices will their attention span deteriorate or expand? Will they kind of mutate to a different mindset?

This has happened in the past. The individuals of the past have adapted and changed the way they decipher information. They adapt and absorb differently. They weigh choices on further information not just what is in front of them. This is a form of multi-tasking. In an article from “Multitasking Millennials Work Well in the Web 2.0 World”, published: May 07, 2008 in Knowledge@W.P. Carey states the following.

The wild and wooly world of Web 2.0 development is a comfortable work environment for 20-something employees, says Harbrinder Kang, director of collaboration technologies for Cisco Systems, Inc. “Especially those with attention-deficit disorder,” he adds, with a laugh.

Kang says if you stroll through Cisco’s San Jose headquarters, you’ll see plenty of young employees sitting behind computer screens, with three, four or five windows open, simultaneously texting, talking, instant messaging and maybe even participating in a teleconference — insouciant and alert at the same time.

“This generation functions differently. They’re able to multitask and bounce around,” Kang told information technology managers gathered for the “Achieving Innovation through Collaboration” symposium hosted by the Center for Advancing Business through Information Technology at the W. P. Carey School of Business.

A leader in Internet networking, Cisco was founded in 1984 by a group of computer scientists at Stanford. The company went public in 1990, and reported $34.9 billion for fiscal year 2007.

As Baby Boomers scramble to keep up, the youngest segment of the work force — often referred to as Millennials — are taking the lead when it comes to certain styles of work, such as the creative tag-teaming favored at Cisco.

Natural-born surfers

They also are key to Cisco’s goal of finding better ways to aggregate and distill data flooding in from the Internet. The average knowledge worker is flooded with data every day, swamped by information both relevant and irrelevant to performing his or her job, Kang said. “Skype, wiki’s, instant messaging, voice mail, e-mail, blogs, forums, RSS feeds — it’s overwhelming. We’re overwhelmed,” he explained. “How do you surf up the information you need?”

Cisco’s solution: develop new software applications designed to tie into business processes such as metrics, marketing and sales. And while developing these new products, Kang said, Cisco leaders realized the company needed to change directions to be able to produce what customers need.

“Our business-model evolution has moved us from a centralized command and control environment to collaborative teamwork over the last three years. We actually eat our dog food,” he continued. For example, work groups — broken into smaller “boards” and larger “teams” — focus on specific product lines.

New technologies being sold to customers are often first embedded in Cisco operations. Launched in January, 2008, “CVision” is Cisco’s internal version of YouTube, and contains blogs and video blogs focused on aggregating data, using RSS feeds to enter information into one’s blogs or discussion groups. More than 10,000 of the company’s approximately 65,000 employees regularly participate.

Collaborating on new technologies pays off in several ways; Kang noted, including employee productivity, boosted innovation, recruitment and retention and revenue growth.

With this kind of evidence it is hard to dispute that there is a new mindset evolving. Are the workplace and the gray hairs ready for these new workers? Are there mechanisms in place that allow for their speed and efficiency? Are we able to take full advantage of it as opposed to other countries? Are we wasting these natural resources because we are holding on to the whip and buggy mentality of old business?

a. Conspiracy theory?
b. Have they been engineered this way?
c. Did we know this would be the new economy?
d. Was Vannevar Bush right or just warning us?
V. How has Gen‐i dovetailed with this new economy?
a. Is it prepared for the new workforce?
b. Is it typical of other new workforces?
c. Are they the new buggy whip makers?
2. Defining Gen‐i
I. What was the world like prior?
a. Is the TV & radio generation so different?
b. Did video really kill the radio star?
c. Is the entitlement the same or greater?
II. How were they raised?
a. Were they more isolated as children?
b. Did the cost of housing contribute to this isolation?
c. From car seats to play dates
III. Did media play an important role?
a. Has the news and other media outlets created this consumer?
b. Is this what they wanted?
c. Huxley was right on target?
IV. How did the housing bubble create this generation?
a. What happened when Mom went to work
b. What happened when Dad didn’t come home
c. When did they learn to make three meals a day and do the laundry
V. Have other political‐economic issues formed a generation?
a. Wars
b. Innovation
c. Economic restructuring
d. Gaslight villages
3. What is Gen‐i thinking?
I. Are they accepting of previous generations or simply waiting?
a. Are they waiting for their time to come?
b. Have they learned how to use the wisdom of this generation?
c. Are we simply in their way?
d. Has it always been that way?
II. Do they have a true respect for history?
a. Has the rip and burn mentality become a priori?
b. Have they learned that one culture is built on the previous one?
c. Do they know its worth and are they using it wisely?
III. Do they feel totally entitled or endowed?
a. Did we make them that way?
b. Will it be empowering or an Achilles heel?
c. Do we need this entitlement for them to rise up again?
d. Disposable is the new antiquity?
4. How will gen‐i change the world?
I. Will they push the educational structure to change?
a. Should it change?
b. Does it need to change?
c. What will be lost in translation?
d. Have we always lost something in the transition and translation?
II. Will the educational structure agree or disagree?
a. The jury is still out.
b. 68% growth rate to online
c. Over 400 colleges in Second Life.
III. How is it or will it affect the training of teachers?
a. Will the pedagogy change?
b. Would Socrates have gone along with it?
c. Would this be a more practical use of theory?
d. Would the true hands‐on approach lend itself to better penetration of learning?
e. Would it better prepare them for their own futures?
IV. Will they need to be certified in technology as well as educational methodology and
a. Will technology become the new penmanship?
b. How are we going to approach grammar and spelling?
c. Would and could we still require primary sources?
d. Who becomes the expert, the practitioner or the clinician?
5. Has the world already started to change?
I. Is Gen‐i a product of the world or is the world a product of Gen‐i?
a. Chicken or the egg?
b. Engineered to be this way?
c. Does the global economy just happen?
II. Was it all planned?
a. Is there a 50‐year plan?
b. Was Vannevar Bush the innovator or the public relations person?
III. Was a new economy planned?
a. Are all economies planned?
b. What about the tulip bubble or gold rush?
c. How long of an arc does this new economy have?
IV. Was Vannevar Bush the architect?
a. Visionary or spokesperson?
b. What did he envision?
c. How close was he?
d. Digital Nostradamus or know‐it‐all?
e. Scientist or economist or both?
V. Did the innovators of today have entrée to that plan?
a. Were academia, Xerox and Bell Labs, etc. all partners?
b. Did the government fund it all?
c. Was it just for defense or economic futures?
VI. Were they just opportunists?
a. Who isn’t?
b. Insider info or vision?
c. Meerkats or moneymakers?
6. What technological breakthroughs have made these changes possible?
I. The creation of the Internet.
a. Why was it developed?
b. Who were the key players?
c. Why were they selected?
d. Who owns it today?
II. The advent of the personal computer.
a. Early days of computing
b. Xerox to JooJoo
III. The first cell phone
a. Bell to Droid
b. What is the plan?
IV. The Newton to the Palm to the iPod to the iPhone.
a. The advent of handheld devices
b. Next gen devices
V. The penetration of Ethernet to fiber to wireless.
a. Origin of Ethernet
b. Why glass?
c. Photonic lasers
VI. The increase of bandwidth availability.
a. Net neutrality
b. Peeling the onion
c. What is going to happen when it all goes wireless?
VII. Going mobile.
a. Will it be device centric?
b. How will we handle permissions?
c. Download from anywhere to the cloud?
7. What social impact will this change have?
I. From Kermit to WWW to Friendster to MySpace to Facebook to Ning
a. Is the concept of intellectual property is gone for good?
b. Anywhere, anytime, anything, anyone?
c. Creating distance
II. Isolation Row
a. Does Gen‐i have a handle on this?
b. Do they want this?
c. Texting circle of friends
III. Subterranean Homesick Blues
a. Are they just reaching out to form a family?
b. Has the new economy created this need?
c. When did this shift occur?
IV. Teenage Wasteland
a. Will this generation be better off than their parents?
b. Will this generation make it to retirement?
c. Will this generation have children?
V. Tommy Can You Hear Me? Or You Know Where to Put the Cork
a. Have we numbed them into oblivion?
b. Will they make it back?
c. Will they rise from this metamorphosis?
d. A new breed coming?
8. What legal impact has there been?
I. Cyber‐bullying
a. Has it just morphed to the Internet?
b. Do they feel more empowered y distance and disguise?
c. What is the extent of the liability?
d. Who pays the price ultimately?
II. Sharing?
a. Has it always existed?
b. Did the technology just make it easier and more prolific?
c. Where will they draw the line?
III. Blurring the lines.
a. Can they draw a line or is it out of control?
b. Has the legal system given up or just preparing?
c. Has it affected morals?
d. What impact has it had on the economic structure of the arts?
IV. Nation to Nation
a. How does the law work internationally?
b. What are the consequences?
c. Case studies
V. The Wild, Wild West
a. Is Internet law in its infancy?
b. What are the precedents?
c. What are the ramifications?
d. How will it be enforced?
9. What ethical impact has there been?
I. Do ethics even exist?
a. Spinoza’s Law
b. Outside the tribe
c. Staying alive!!!
d. Can society exist without ethics?
e. What is the path to ethics?
II. Yours, Mine, Everyone’s?
a. Where did this come from?
b. Is it fair?
c. Does acceptable become fair?
d. Have laws always been developed this way?
III. I Download Therefore I am
a. Has it become unacceptable to follow the rules?
b. Has it become unacceptable to act properly, responsibly?
c. Does it give them credence to their peers?
IV. Share, share, share.
a. Is it morally wrong to “share”?
b. Is it what Ted Nelson had in mind?
c. Is the basis for the Internet?
V. Open courseware for all
a. Is open access a bad thing?
b. Will it destroy the economic structure?
c. Is it merely a gateway to a new economic structure?
VI. How do we pay?
a. Creating new revenue streams
b. Generating alternative revenue streams
c. New model – new content
d. User generated content
VII. How Long Can a Good Thing Last?
a. Is it self‐sustaining?
b. Will the model progress to a new standard?
c. Will it be supported?
10. How will we adapt?
I. Speaking in Tongues.
a. Will the current parental generation need to learn this language?
b. What cultural hurdles are there?
c. Will it reach critical mass and dissipate?
d. Will it produce a new change?
II. Wider than ever Generation Gap
a. Will the gap widen?
b. Does this have the “legs” to keep going?
c. Will it change the world?
d. Is it a beneficial change?
III. Did We Lose Them Forever?
a. Will this create a final separation of “haves” and “have‐nots”?
b. Will they have time for us to make the “curve”?
c. Has multi‐tasking replaced basic organization skills?
d. Can we evaluate the difference?
IV. Stepping into the Abyss.
a. Do we need to take the first step?
b. How far down the rabbit hole will we have to go?
c. Can we come back from this hyperbole?
d. Will there be an advantage to the trip?
V. Old Habits Die Hard
a. What baggage are we bringing with us?
b. Will it be of any benefit to Gen‐i?
c. Will they let us “steer”?
11. How will media adapt?
I. Must See PC?
a. Breaking out from 1 foot to 10
b. People’s choice award?
c. Can we let the audience decide what is popular?
d. When they stopped making television shows.
e. Everybody is a “star”
II. Back to the Philco?
a. Portable video – the 10” screen
b. What happens when they make the choices?
c. Have ratings worked before – will they now?
III. The Message is the Medium
a. McLuhan had it backwards?
b. Does the device create the message?
c. Drums to digital waves
d. Frequency has always had the power
IV. Traveling Man (and Woman).
a. Mobile use of the medium
b. Isolation for the masses
c. How do we create interaction?
V. Fifteen Minutes of Fame.
a. Will everybody be a star?
b. Who will be the audience?
c. Do they care?
d. Who will drive the cultural bus?
12. How will the economy adapt?
I. Has Ford Got a Better Idea?
a. Reaching out to the public
b. Working the line
c. The true people’s car
d. Case studies
II. BTW Social Media is Hear to Stay
a. What is the ROI?
b. What is the future of SMM?
c. Will it replace current media strategies?
d. How is Gen‐i adapting?
III. New Jobs for Everyone
a. What are the vertical markets for this new economy?
b. Entertainment
c. Information
d. Promotion
e. Education
f. Art
IV. 99¢ Tube socks and $200 Cable Bills
a. Where will the money be spent?
b. Will atoms replace bits?
c. How will Gen‐Ii find its place in this new economy?
d. Are they just laying on the barbed wire?
V. Muscle is Gone, Cerebral is Here to Stay
a. Will we ever produce atoms again?
b. Is it a diminishing marketplace for jobs
c. Was that the plan – NAFTA, Global Trade, Outsourcing?
d. Will the country make it?
e. What will it take to make?
f. Are we sacrificing this generation to make it?
13. Do we have a choice?
I. Going Off the Grid
a. Can we afford to just go off the grid?
b. Will economic isolationism work?
c. Do we need to become global citizens?
II. King Canute
a. Fighting the waves
b. Do we have enough power left to hold back the tide?
c. Is our educational system teaching how to make rafts
III. Immersing Ourselves
a. Up to our nose in it
b. Will we the transition?
c. Will we sink or swim?
IV. Taking It on the Chin
a. What countries will be our competitors?
b. How are they preparing their generation?
c. Is the new generation responsive?
d. Is it all based on discipline?
14. What has happened in the past with these kinds of seismic changes?
I. Papyrus to Paper to Calligraphy
a. Imhotep’s Accomplishments
b. Book of Kells first steps
c. Charlemagne creates the distribution model
II. Calligraphy to Moveable Type to Electronic Delivery
a. Monastic Scribes – beginning of the trade
b. PiSheng beats Gutenberg
c. Bell taps out the start
III. Telegraph to Radio to Television
a. Bell transcribes the future
b. Tesla/Marconi the fight for dominance
c. Farnsworth to RCA – the first licences
IV. Television to Laser Disc to DVD
a. Farnsworth wins
b. Bell Labs makes major steps
c. SONY – from tape to disc
V. DVD to on‐Demand to IPTV
a. SONY burns the future
b. CERN opens up the world
c. Samsung clicking away
VI. IPTV and Beyond
a. Samsung alters the stream
b. The dissolution of Network Television
15. What lays ahead for us?
I. Why the Future Does Need Us
a. Every generation needs a guide
b. Will we know the way?
c. Will they listen to the directions?
II. Do We Lose Them?
a. Crawling in the clubhouse
b. Does our isolation cause their distance?
c. Will we have the strength to guide them?
III. Beating the Tsunami
a. Will we weather the tide?
b. Will we know the signs?
c. Will we head for the hills?
IV. Embracing the Waves
a. Getting the boat ready
b. Strength in numbers
c. Learning how to hang ten
V. Using It for the Better
a. Harnessing the power
b. Keeping the goal in mind
c. Preparing for the next step
VI. Everyday is a New Morning
a. Embracing the dawn
b. Making the most of the time
c. Looking back to yesterday
16. Epilogue

Works cited (partial list to date)

Asgarkhani, Mehdi C P I T, Christchurch, New Zealand. The Need for a Strategic Foundation for Digital Learning and Knowledge Management Solutions

Cooper, Joel and Kimberlee D. Weaver. Gender and Computers: Understanding the Digital Divide. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003

Friedman, Thomas. The World is Flat: A Very Brief History of the Twentieth Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005

Gartland, Matthew. The Digital Divide: Age Spring 2004

Government Information Focus. The Digital Divide: Understanding and Addressing the Challenge. Christopher P. Latimer. December 2001.

Phluid. The Digital Divide in America.

United States. U.S. Department of Education. Overview. 2006. .

U.S. Department of Education. “Guidance on the Enhancing Education Through Technology (Ed Tech) Program.” March, 2002