Millennials are the first generation to be educated at a time when knowledge is both plentiful and accessible.

Educators are struggling to make the shift from a model that was intent on helping students acquire knowledge through a prescribed path (a path that had been tried and tested over centuries), to one where it’s not necessary to know the answers, only how to find them. Indeed, the key skills today are knowing how to discern credible sources from those that are less trustworthy.

The benefits of information democratization are undeniable. One only has to look at the DIY’ing of “elite” professional services (legal, health care, finance, academic etc.), to understand that free flowing information is a terrific thing.

At The London School of Business Finance, you can now get an MBA via Facebook. Over 30,000 students have already registered and 500,000 are expected to. Courses in accounting, corporate finance, ethics, marketing, and strategic planning are free, students only pay when they take a test. The total cost of the online MBA degree? About $23,000, an incredible value when measured against $80,000 or more for a traditional MBA degree.

In looking at the world in terms of knowing what one doesn’t have to know, something is also lost. We seem to be losing an appreciation for complexity and nuance.

Everything is Not a Data Point

Douglas Rushkoff observes in his book Program or Be Programmed, that “not everything is a data point.“ Rushkoff warns that “net research is more about engaging with data in order to dismiss it and move on – like a magazine one flips through not to read but to make sure there’s nothing has has to be read. Reading becomes a process of elimination rather than deep engagement. Life becomes about knowing how not to know what one doesn’t have to know.”

A Generation of Information Hunter Gatherers

We are becoming adept at scanning, looking for the nugget rather than context. But are we losing an appreciation for the deep understanding that comes from immersion in one discipline? Rushkoff believes this ‘surfer’ experience that substitutes impressions with real knowledge is especially true of Millennials:

“Young people, in particular, are developing the ability to get the gist of an entire area of study with just a moment of interaction with it. With a channel surfer’s skill, they are able to experience a book, movie, or even a scientific process almost intuitively. For them, hearing a few lines of T.S. Eliot, seeing one geometric proof, or looking at a picture of an African mask leave them with a real, albeit oversimplified, impression of the world from which it comes. This works especially well for areas of art and study that are ‘fractal’ or holographic in nature, where one tiny piece reflects the essence of the whole.”

As a professor, I have experienced this subtle shift over the past five years in the form of pressure to distill my classes to the essence of what is important. The photo above is of my brand building library. As I sit down to plan a syllabus or class, I look at this bookshelf and despair – how can I possibly encapsulate this body of knowledge into finite, digestible, byte-sized pieces? It’s overwhelming. Somehow I doubt the professors of 50 years ago felt the same way. But then they didn’t have competition from a Facebook app.

Textbooks are becoming shorter and more condensed, in response to students’ impatience with long pages of text. Irrationally, I have come to judge my own competency as a teacher by how efficiently I can convey the concepts and complexity of the marketing and brand strategy without making unreasonable demands upon students. Increasingly, I see my job as the explorer coming back from a distant land to convey as much of what I know as is humanly possible to the untravelled audience in just 28 sessions.

Critical Thinking at Risk

A new book, Academically Adrift, is about to be released that reports the results of a study of 2,322 college students at a range of institutions from 2005-2009. Researchers discovered nearly half of the students didn’t learn “the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education” during their first two years of college.

“Many of the students graduated without knowing how to sift fact from opinion, make a clear written argument or objectively review conflicting reports of a situation or event, according to New York University sociologist Richard Arum, lead author of the study. The students, for example, couldn’t determine the cause of an increase in neighborhood crime or how best to respond without being swayed by emotional testimony and political spin.”

Aside from the dismal overall finding, the specific findings of who did and didn’t learn are also telling:

“…The study also showed that students who studied alone made more significant gains in learning than those who studied in groups.”

“Students who majored in the traditional liberal arts — including the social sciences, humanities, natural sciences and mathematics — showed significantly greater gains over time than other students in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills.

“Students majoring in business, education, social work and communications showed the least gains in learning.”

“Greater gains in liberal arts subjects are at least partly the result of faculty requiring higher levels of reading and writing, as well as students spending more time studying, the study’s authors found. Students who took courses heavy on both reading (more than 40 pages a week) and writing (more than 20 pages in a semester) showed higher rates of learning.”

These results should be a wake up call to those of us in higher ed. College is not about byte-sized learning, it is about mastery and mastery requires more attention than what is required by hunting and gathering facts, or even learning how to hunt and gather facts.

The world is complex and getting more so. We can’t settle for simplicity.

*Carol Phillips is the president and founder of the brand strategy consulting firm “Brand Amplitude.” She is also a Professor at the prestigious University of Notre Dame. Carol began her career as a market researcher and strategic planner at Leo Burnett. Later, as an Account Director, she led agency teams at four different agencies – Y&R, Leo Burnett, Mullen and JWT – for a variety of clients including Sprint, Nextel, Ameritech, Heinz, 7UP, and Philip Morris. She blogs at www.millennialmarketing.com.

By Carol Phillips*

At over 80 million strong, Millennials are a consumer market force today and will be even more important in the future. According to Alloy Media, the college market alone is made up of a record 16 million young adults with collective economic power of over $300 billion, $69 billion of which is discretionary. Yet economic clout is only the most rudimentary reason marketers should be paying attention to this cohort.  Young adults today have greater influence on consumer behavior than their enormous spending power even suggests.

The main reason Millennials matter to marketers is that they indicate future trends to a greater degree than young adults in the past. Here are a few reasons why:

• Technology proficiency has empowered Millennials to weild a disproportionate influence on the culture and on the buying decisions of other generations.
• Millennials are the first to put new technologies to use to make the most of their media time.
• Gen Y’ers are less impulsive shoppers. They place a priority on experiences rather than possessions, and are more likely to make every purchase a considered one.
• Gen Y’ers also display a distinct generational “personality” when it comes to responding to marketing programs and messages. Consequently, push marketing is on its way out, the new marketing is all about engagement, and much of the shift is due to Millennials.
• Finally, Gen Y cares more about the company behind the products they buy and the places they work. Corporate branding and brand architecture are more important than they have been in the past.

Here are a few of the Millennials trends I have been seeing lately.  I wonder how many will move mainstream?

1. TV is escaping the home. Many Millennials are talking about cancelling their cable subscription in favor of seeing shows via their Internet connection or on their mobile devices.

2. Nostalgia is Cool. Maybe it started with Toy Story 3 but Millennials are reconnecting with their childhoods.

3. Facebook Fatigue. Facebook fatigue has begun, or perhaps there are just better options now for connecting with friends. Long live text! (Until something better comes along).

4. Byte Sized: Posts are shorter. Texts are shorter. No one reads to the end.

5. Who Needs a Car? Many are forgoing a car in favor of less expensive and more environmentally conscious transportation.

6. Let’s Be Spontaneous! Last minute travel. Last minute dining. Who needs to plan? Text me!

What are you seeing? What trends are hot? What else is about to jump the shark?

*Carol Phillips is the president and founder of the brand strategy consulting firm “Brand Amplitude.” She is also a Professor at the prestigious University of Notre Dame. Carol began her career as a market researcher and strategic planner at Leo Burnett. Later, as an Account Director, she led agency teams at four different agencies – Y&R, Leo Burnett, Mullen and JWT – for a variety of clients including Sprint, Nextel, Ameritech, Heinz, 7UP, and Philip Morris. She blogs at www.millennialmarketing.com.

By Sarah Newton*

I recently saw this post and it really got me thinking about how we can manage Gen Y better by taking lessons from video games.

And while, in my experience, I am not sure that Gen Y in the UK keeps score (as stated in the article), so to speak, I do think that bosses can certainly learn how to manage youth by pulling information from the gaming world. As for understanding youth by understanding gaming, well certainly that would apply to boys in the UK but for girls you need to understand social gaming, which is so different.

For me, what they gain from gaming is not necessarily to keep score but to get a reward to keep going. In this modern day world it is a well known fact that young workers will not just go along for the ride as they use to, most want feedback and rewards to keep them going and they want to feel excited. As far as I can see, it goes far deeper than merely keeping score; it is about feeling the buzz of being alive.

So, if you manage lots of young employees, here is what I believe you can learn from their use of video games.

1. Instant feedback – a game gives instant feedback; you do something wrong, you die! You do something right, you move up a level, go further into the game, etc. Young employees want instant feedback, not a Sit down, how are you doing? once a month thing, but after the moment it happens. Ensure your on the ground managers know what to look for and how to correct and praise in an instant.

2. In a game the players know the objective, they know what they are supposed to achieve and when they reach that they get set another very clear task or goal. Make sure objectives you set youths are clear, concise, short-term, achievable goals and if you can link little perks to them, so much the better.

3. I know we all have this image that game play is very individual and people compete against each other or themselves, but that is simply not true anymore. Games are social and achieving something as a team or getting rewarded for helping another out are commonplace. How can you encourage collaboration rather than competition in your workplace and how can you reward helpful behavior?

4. Most games have rewards for achievement so, for example, in the popular Farmville when you gain more points and move up a level more options are open to you, such as things you can buy and how big your farm can be. How can you emulate something like these levels, which open up more privileges?

5. Above all see how you can install some fun into the day. It doesn’t have to mean that the work environment or day has to be interrupted, but the best way to get the most out of young employees is to keep it light, fun and exciting. Innocent in the UK do a great job of this and are seen as an aspirational company to work for. Their canteen has astro turf and their employees are encouraged to blog and share funny pictures. While this might not be appropriate for your company, I am sure that there is some way you could put some youthful energy into your everyday that will make everyone feel happier.

One of the biggest myths about Millennials is that they are all digital natives, blogging and tweeting their way through life. The truth is a bit more nuanced.

True, Millennials are some of the most avid USERS of mobile and Internet technology.

The age of first cell phone is dropping rapidly and now stands at about 9 or 10. Currently nearly six of every ten 12-year olds have their own cell phone, a figure that increases to 83% by age 17. On average, 75% of all 13-17 year olds have a mobile phone, 93% go online (76% with broadband), and 80% have a console gaming device (Pew Research).

It’s also true that Millennials rely heavily on digital media to manage their daily life activities, stay informed and stave off boredom.

Digital media so pervades their lives, they cannot imagine living without it. Digital content and communication literally enables their social lives. Some even refer to this dependency as ’addiction’.

A new study conducted at the University of Maryland asked 200 college students to give up digital media for 24 hours and write about the experience. The students’ journals, which amounted to the equivalent of a 400-page novel, were full of stories of deprivation and emotional angst. “We noticed that what they wrote at length about was how they hated losing their personal connections. Going without media meant, in their world, going without their friends and family.”

“I clearly am addicted and the dependency is sickening,” said one person in the study. “I feel like most people these days are in a similar situation, for between having a Blackberry, a laptop, a television, and an iPod, people have become unable to shed their media skin.”

“Texting and IM-ing my friends gives me a constant feeling of comfort,” wrote one student. “When I did not have those two luxuries, I felt quite alone and secluded from my life. Although I go to a school with thousands of students, the fact that I was not able to communicate with anyone via technology was almost unbearable.”

One student said he realized that he suddenly “had less information than everyone else, whether it be news, class information, scores, or what happened on Family Guy.”

The Maryland researchers concluded that “most college students are not just unwilling, but functionally unable to be without their media links to the world….Without digital ties, students feel unconnected even to those who are close by.”

Given this level of dependency, it follows that Millennials are adept at manipulating and adapting technology to their needs. However, this is not the case, at least for the majority of Gen Y.

The top six web sites by volume according to Experian’s Hitwise service are pretty mainstream: 1. Facebook 2. Google 3. Myspace 4. Yahoo 5. Yahoo Mail 6. Youtube. Although my students are adept at Facebook, and finding information, music and videos online, few make use of Twitter or maintain a blog. This is in line with statistics by Forrester, which shows only half of 18-24 year olds are what they classify as ’creators’. Few students make use of RSS feeds, wikispaces or other productivity enhancing tools.

A 2007 study by Northwestern professor, Hargittai on web use among so-called ‘digital natives’ reached the conclusion that there is a wide range of web use and skill levels among young adults. Over 1000 college freshman were surveyed on the frequency and diversity of their web use as well as indexed for skill on 27 variables. The study found a range of skill and use and concluded, ”web-use skill is not randomly distributed among a group of young adults who have grown up with digital media.” While some of the diversity could be explained via socio-economic status and ethnicity, much could be attributed to what the authors called ‘context of use’, which included the number of years online, the time spent online, access to a laptop and more. ”Overall, these findings suggest that familiarity with the medium is very much related to how people use the Internet and user savvy mediates some of the otherwise observed relationships of user background and online activities.”

A recent article in The Economist also questioned the assumption that all Gen Y’ers are Internet-savvy (“The Net Generation Unplugged”, March 2010).

“Michael Wesch, who pioneered the use of new media in his cultural anthropology classes at Kansas State University, is also sceptical, saying that many of his incoming students have only a superficial familiarity with the digital tools that they use regularly, especially when it comes to the tools’ social and political potential. Only a small fraction of students may count as true digital natives, in other words. The rest are no better or worse at using technology than the rest of the population.”

The article goes on to point out that according to Pew Research, “internet users aged 18-24 were the least likely of all age groups to e-mail a public official or make an online political donation. But when it came to using the web to share political news or join political causes on social networks, they were far ahead of everyone else. Rather than genuinely being more politically engaged, they may simply wish to broadcast their activism to their peers.”

For marketers, this diversity of use is a caution not to confuse digital dependency with digital savviness. Not all Millennials will be jumping up and down to respond to your latest crowd-sourced campaign, app or contest.

Many of the popular digital marketing tactics require a level of involvement and expertise may be beyond the skills of many Gen Y members on the far side of the digital divide. Far safer, and more broadly appealing, are approaches where the call to action is easy and intuitive, requiring nothing more than a working knowledge of how to use XBox, text messages, Facebook or Youtube.

*Carol Phillips is the president and founder of the brand strategy consulting firm “Brand Amplitude.” She is also a Professor at the prestigious University of Notre Dame. Carol began her career as a market researcher and strategic planner at Leo Burnett. Later, as an Account Director, she led agency teams at four different agencies – Y&R, Leo Burnett, Mullen and JWT – for a variety of clients including Sprint, Nextel, Ameritech, Heinz, 7UP, and Philip Morris. She blogs at www.millennialmarketing.com.

Thanks to strong pre-order rates, Apple’s manufacturing partners now expect to ship 2.5 million iPads between March and May.  Device sales are only the beginning for Apple of course. As with iTunes, the real money is in the ‘after sales’ – in this case revenue from content providers and advertising. Apple just announced its mobile ‘iAd’ platform for the iPad, which will bring Google and Apple face to face in mobile advertising. Things are starting to get interesting….

I am doubtful Millennials will be among the early adopters.

My students at Notre Dame show no interest. They have all the devices they need to listen to music or access the Internet.  The $499 to $829 price is also a significant barrier. On the other hand, they may not be all that representative. Focus group research by Frank Magid suggests the appeal knows no demographic bounds. Consumers of all ages expressed enthusiasm.  Even stronger evidence of Millennial appeal comes from a study by NPD, which suggests the iPad enjoys its strongest appeal among young adults and Apple owners.

NPD’s Apple iPad: Consumers’ Perceptions and Attitudes report found that awareness is highest among current Apple owners, (82 percent), consumers with $100,000 or greater income (80 percent), and 18-34 year olds (78 percent).  Those demographic groups are the ones with the most interest in buying an iPad. Only 18 percent of all consumers surveyed expressed a real interest in owning an iPad while 27 percent of 18-34 year olds and 24 percent of Apple owners said they were extremely or very interested.

A lot depends on how much new functionality the iPad brings. If it just allows you do to more of what you already do, why invest in a new device and ongoing data plan?

Smart phone penetration is growing smartly. Penetration of smart phones like the Blackberry and iPhone was just 21% in Q4 ‘09 according to Nielsen, but is expected to reach 33% by the end of Q4 ‘10 and be half of all cell phones by Q4 ‘11. With that kind of mobility in your pocket, many will certainly find another device superfluous.

There are suggestions, however, that the iPad will be ‘transformational’. I am especially intrigued by the announcement from MTV this week of a co-viewing app developed specifically for the iPad and mobile phones.  They observed that 59% of people multi-task when watching TV, and are betting that tablet devices and mobile phones will be easier to play with while watching TV than laptop or desktop computers.  This would mean true ‘interactive’ TV – you interact with friends while watching.  IPad apps for “Beavis and Butthead”, “MTV News” and “VH1toGo” are due in April.  I’m sure this is just the first of many ‘firsts’ we will see from the iPad (social shopping anyone?!)

Integration of interactive ads, social networks and cool, fast visuals could make the iPad a ‘must have’ for Gen Y, especially after the price comes down.

According to the NPD research, price is currently the main barrier.  Among the 18-34 year old demographic, 57 percent of those survyed by NPD cited price as the number one reason they aren’t ready to buy, 25 percent more than the overall percentage of non-interested buyers.  That discrepancy suggests there may be pent up demand that can be tapped by lowering the price. Given the pattern of start high, end low followed by the iPhone and iTouch, Millennials may in fact be the main sales driver for the iPad.

By Renato Andrade

Another edition of the “Results ON Day” took place in São Paulo, this time on the theme of social media.

Besides for the latest tendencies, research, and case studies about social networks (Twitter, Orkut, Facebook, blogs, etc), Gen Y’s behavior and life online was a topic of frequent discussion.

Here, I’ve made a summary of 12 topics which were commented on during the debates by 8 social media experts.

- Network, follow interesting people on Twitter, participate in blogs and virtual debates. Sign up for classes that have to do with your work or other interests. Personal tip: Many classes that are advertised on social networks are also transmitted via the web.

-Everything you write online is monitored, even if it’s unconscious it can influence the success and price of a product. A question on Twitter like, “What cell should I be” or “Buy the cell phone by brand X” is constantly evaluated by advertising agencies specializing in digital marketing.

-We live in the era of the impatient consumer, also a characteristic of Gen Y. Businesses spend fortunes to serve and comprehend this new generation.

- The consumer today has the following thought process: “I want everything now, or I’m going to cry very loudly!” this is the infantilization of the Internet.

-I’ve read almost everything on “Cloud Computing.” It’s the buzz word right now, and is being used by companies like AT&T, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Microsoft e Yahoo.

-Specialists in education believe that University education is still important, but the mistake is creating the “package of courses” that the student will never use in the business world. In the future, it won’t make sense to study for 4 years if only a few classes are necessary for your work.

-Young people from other parts of the world don’t used social networks in the same way Brazilians do. The biggest social network in oriental culture is a version of Twitter where users have two accounts: one is their personal account and the other is a character which represents them. Because it’s such a conservative environment, full of military repression, individuals are afraid to show their true identity.

- Students are lost when they have to decide what they want to do with their lives. One reason for this is the lack of references and real knowledge when it comes to the future. Generation Y, in many cases, is the first of their family to pursue higher education.

-Different from the opportunities other generations had, it’s now easier to enroll in University. But there’s a lack of real role models and references when it comes to choosing one’s profession.

-Universities in the future need to help the student choose their profession. This isn’t happening today.

-The web has created a professional world which is more competitive and complex. Proof of this are new positions that are emerging (IT, webmaster, programmers, etc.) However businesses have a lot of trouble finding qualified professionals to carryout roles in these new departments.

-The majority of research regarding online behavior talks about generation Y, but executives (currently Baby Boomers for the most part) are the ones who navigate the web most.

In conclusion, participating in ResultsON Day made me realize that businesses are opening up space for consumers to give their opinions about products and services. Therefore, we should enjoy being a collaborator, and make use of the tools we have in the market, creating a virtual identity, which adds value to this universe.

What about you? Are you part of a virtual community exchanging ideas and information? What’s your opinion on the current use of social networks for young people?

Leave your comment here.

For more info visit:
http://resultson.com.br/day2009midias/

It’s no secret that today’s audience, especially Generation Y, have more sympathy for villains than heroes. Brazilian actors, after coming to this realization, are now delighted in portraying malicious characters, especially in Brazilian soap operas, in which the positive repercussion seems to be even greater.

Why are villains considered to be more charismatic than today’s heroes? Has it always been this way? Haven’t past generations usually embraced the good guy rather than the bad guy?

I did a bit of research to try to understand this. The following idea really caught my attention: villains aim to do what they desire. They are strong. They fight for their beliefs and ideals, even if that means they will have to suffer the consequences.

Does this mean that this generation will pursue individual success at whatever cost? Don’t we need characters representing good personality traits?

I came up with the idea for this post when I heard that Mickey Mouse was going to be adapted for Disney. His girlfriend, Minnie lost her sweet, loyal, companion, who nowadays appears as a selfish rat in a bad mood. This new version of Mickey will appear in the video game for Nintendo Wii called “Epic Mickey,” which will be launched in 2010.

This is just the beginning of tactics used by Disney to attract a new generation of consumers to one of its biggest icons, who is losing his charisma and current appeal, when it comes to new generations.

“Epic Mickey” is a story about all the forgotten Disney characters that have had less than 15 minutes of fame. When nobody cares about them anymore, they are taken to a dark world, with broken and strange machines. (Who knew that Disney could be so cruel?)

The game, produced by Warren Spector, one of the masterminds behind RPG, keeps Mickey at the center of the universe. He paints scenes of a post-apocalyptic world. Images of a devastated beach, with black and white characters, and machines that look like the faces of the seven dwarfs in Snow White…

For those who don’t remember, the seven dwarfs were loyal, hardworking, and great friends. In the game, Goofy is depicted as a sort of zombie.

Compare this crazy fantasy world to the corporate world. If business professionals don’t have charisma and aren’t in touch with today’s world, they get left out of the corporate world all together. In the end, is the competition for fame and glory, all that’s left? Are the lack of idols and heroes, what makes Gen Y thrive on the bad guys?

By Ines Schinazi

Perhaps what makes Generation Y’s educational experience most different from the experience of past generations is the overwhelming presence of technology in the classroom, and all the implications this brings.

While cell phones and laptops are often considered to be distractions in school, they can also be powerful learning tools, as demonstrated by UT Dallas Professor Monica Rankin in “The Twitter Experiment.”

Prof Rankin explains that she saw an opportunity to use “…the technology and equipment that students are very comfortable using already, and incorporate that into what we’re doing in the classroom to give them an alternative and a new way to learn.”

The Twitter Experiment makes us think about how technology is “flattening” education. Twitter changes traditional class dynamics, stimulating more dialogue within class, while also allowing for class information to be diffused to a global audience.

Prof Rankin describes her own Undergrad experience as consisting mostly of “…the kind of talking head at the front of the room, addressing a large group of students, and the students passively trying to absorb all that information.” She says, “There was very little interaction between the Professor and the students.”

While there are obviously many problems that come with using Twitter in class, the playing field between Professors and students is leveled, as communication between both parties is facilitated, stimulating a dialogue rather than an ongoing lecture. As Prof Rankin demonstrates, Twitter allows her to achieve a level of class participation that would otherwise be impossible in such a large class.

The “flattening” of education also transcends the classroom walls, flowing into the larger realm of society, making the information discussed in Rankin’s class, available to anyone who can access Twitter. As Cameron Quitugua, one of Prof Rankin’s students, explains, “We’re putting stuff that college students are paying for to learn, out on the Internet, and that college students are researching, out on the Internet, for other people to find. I’m really big on Wikipedia and the ability for you to find whatever you need to know on the Internet. For us to put more History and knowledge out there, through intelligent discussion, is pretty cool.”

In an exclusive interview, Prof Rankin speaks about her experiences conducting the “Twitter Experiment” as well as her thoughts on the growing intersection between Education and Technology.

Image: Professora Monica Rankin
Ines: In the video “The Twitter Experiment” you state that prior to the experiment, you weren’t really familiar with Twitter yourself. So what exactly drove you to incorporate Twitter in your class?
Prof Rankin: That’s exactly right. I had never used Twitter. I had heard about it, but I didn’t know a lot about it. What I did know, was that people could send updates through computers or by text messaging from their cell phones. I was teaching in a classroom that had limited technology already built-in for students. A lot of students would bring a laptop to class, but not all of them, and everyone brings a cell phone to class. Some professors are upset by this, and try to ban cell phones, since they see this as a distraction. But I was thinking maybe there’s a way to incorporate the technology and this equipment that students are very comfortable using already, and incorporate that into what we’re doing in the classroom to give them an alternative and a new way to learn.

Ines: Clearly, Twitter successfully encourages a great deal of student participation. From your experience, why do you think this is?
Prof Rankin: I think there are a couple of things. To be very practical about it, students found it interesting. It was different and I think that attracted their attention to start with. This is something that many of us had never seen in a classroom before, certainly not in a class of this size with 90 students. So I think just having a slightly different approach automatically peaks their interest a little bit. But further than that, I think that our use of Twitter really appeals to a lot of students who might not be comfortable in a traditional classroom discussion setting. In any typical discussion that I’ve done regardless of the class size, usually what you will have is about 10% of the class dominates the discussion. The vast majority of the class may say one or two comments, but they remain pretty quiet. Then you have another 10 % of the class who says absolutely nothing. Well I think that Twitter changes that dynamic significantly and it allows people, who’s strength might not be speaking in front of large groups of people, it allows them to have an opportunity to play to their strengths. It gives them the opportunity to incorporate things they are comfortable with into the learning environment. It changes the dynamic quite a bit. I was really pleased with what I saw happening in the classroom for the most part. I think certainly there are a lot of problems with Twitter. It wasn’t the ideal solution, but I think that with what we had to work with in the classroom, and what we had access to, it was one of the best solutions we could have found for that particular semester.

Ines: You mention how the “140 characters” limits the sorts of comments students can make, but at the same time really forces them to make a concise argument, which they often have trouble doing. However, from your perspective, do you think 140 characters risks making class discussions too superficial, limiting the ideas or topics one can explore?
Prof Rankin: I suppose there is always that concern. I’m not overly concerned about that myself. I think that the new generation, raised with all this technology, have learned to process information, in a way that us older folks don’t really understand. I think that with having a small snippet of information, a lot of people can take that small snippet, and go through a deeper internal process, of understanding it and analyzing it, and kind of picking it apart. I think that I would prefer students have access to a larger character limit. 140 is really quite limiting. I think that allowing them to form more complete thoughts with a larger character limit, would be highly beneficial. But I also think that forcing them to limit those statements to some extent is a really useful exercise. It really helps them form “to the point,” “concise,” arguments. So I’m not overly concerned about it. I didn’t see that it was a problem, especially the way that we combined Twitter with group discussions. I don’t think Twitter alone is going to be the solution, but combining it in various ways, can help get around some of those limitations.

Ines: In the video, many students seem to like the idea of not having to speak up in front of a large class. Twitter offers that comfort since they can just express their thoughts through writing.
However, do you ever worry that as technology increasingly intersects with education, students may lose the ability to convey their perspective “out loud?”
Prof Rankin: I’m not terribly worried about that. I think that instructors are going to come up with new ways, all the time, to incorporate the various modes of communication. One of the things that we did in the experiment in the classroom, is we actually did have them working in small groups where they were interacting with each other, and then based on what they were talking about in their small groups, that’s what they would “tweet.” So it wasn’t like a classroom of students, completely isolated as individuals, doing nothing but using technology, and not speaking to anyone. There was a lot of face-to-face and personal interaction going on, in their small groups. I was roaming the room the entire time, interacting with the groups as I was going around. So it was kind of a combination of all of these different methods and I think that worked really well. Students could talk to each other in the small group setting, and they could also share their thoughts with a group of 90 people, and do it fairly comfortably.

Ines: As a college educator you prepare your students to enter the workplace. Obviously, the classroom is changing. But how do you think the workplace is changing and does incorporating technology and social media in class help students as they enter the professional world?
Prof Rankin: My impression is that students are going to get far better practice at using technology and social networking than what I can provide in the classroom. I’m certainly not an expert on anything technological or anything having to do with computers or digital media. So the actual “hands on application” of using those kinds of technologies, I think I’m the last person who needs to be training people.
But I do think that what students get exposed to in the classroom are new approaches to using things like this, and new ways to combine technology and Humanities for example, that often times are considered to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. Education is certainly not the only area that’s looking at innovative ways to combine these types of things, and challenge the way that people had traditionally approached these kinds of things. They’re certainly going to face those expectations when they enter the workplace, the kind of “thinking out of the box” and the “looking for alternatives.” So hopefully this exposes them to what some of the possibilities are, and how some people are trying to face those challenges.

Ines: Did you notice any differences in terms of the way female and male students use and interact with Twitter in class?

Prof Rankin: I didn’t actually pay a lot of attention to gender differences. I didn’t do as good of a job as I would have liked in tracking who was using a computer or a cell phone, and we also had a number of students who weren’t comfortable doing either, so they would just handwrite notes. I didn’t think about it early enough in the semester, to actually keep very specific statistics on that kind of information.

Ines: Since you teach History, which is a pretty traditional discipline, did you encounter a lot of resistance, in terms of other Professors or students, as you brought Twitter into class?
Prof Rankin: I wouldn’t really call it resistance on the part of students. I think some students were reluctant to participate in the public forum of Twitter, and others didn’t have the same access to the technology.
Either they didn’t have a laptop that had a wireless connection, or they didn’t have an unlimited texting service on their phone.
I think that a lot of the students who didn’t directly participate opted out of it more for practical reasons, than because they had some fundamental disagreement with what we were doing. But you know, I think others weren’t into social networking and weren’t really comfortable with it, and I think that’s fine.
The reaction I got from other Professors has been mixed. There’s a lot of Professors that have been really interested in it. A lot of my colleagues at UT Dallas have asked for more information and have tried to look at ways to see how they can incorporate similar kinds of experiments in their classrooms. I’ve talked to a number of colleagues at other Universities.
But I’ve talked to other Professors who say that they would want absolutely nothing to do with this kind of thing. That this has no place in the way they conduct their classrooms. And I think that’s fine. I think that’s one of the great things about University Education. Students get access to Professors who use a wide variety of approaches and come at their classrooms with various strategies and variety. So the Professors who are comfortable with it, will start “playing around” with it. Those who aren’t will not, and students will be better off, having those different experiences with those different professors.

Ines: From the Professor standpoint, did you find it at all chaotic or overwhelming to have to field all these Twitter comments in such a large class?
Prof Rankin: I think that it would have been more overwhelming for me, had I not had a really good Teaching Assistant. My TA Megan Malone, was a really integral part in making this successful. She helped to monitor the digital discussion, while we were in the classroom, and while things were unfolding, so that I could be going around the room, and interacting face-to-face with the students. If she hadn’t been helping me “behind the scenes” I think it would have been a very different environment, it would have been much more chaotic, and a lot more for me to handle by myself.

Ines: You make clear how positive Twitter can be in a large class. However, what about using Twitter in smaller classes? Is this something you would consider?
Prof Rankin: I would consider using it for a smaller group. I’ve given it some thought. I think a lot would depend on what we’re trying to do in the class, and what we’re trying to accomplish, and what kind of students are in that class. I’m not using it right now. But I haven’t ruled it out for smaller classes in the future.

Ines: The Twitter experiment makes us think about the ways in which education is evolving. How was your own learning experience in college, most different from the experience of your students today?

Prof Rankin: Well that was a long time ago. But when I was in college there was very little interaction, particularly in some of the traditional courses like my History courses. There was very little interaction between the Professor and the students. Aside from the traditional lecture, [there was] the kind of talking head at the front of the room, addressing a large group of students, and the students passively trying to absorb all of that information. That was the traditional approach, and that was essentially what I was exposed to as an Undergrad. Things are far different today. More often than not, Professors are trying to encourage more interaction from students, a kind of active participation from the students sitting in the classroom, recognizing that there are a lot of benefits to the learning process, as students become more engaged. I think that’s a great advance that Education has made over the last several decades, as more and more Professors are engaging those types of approaches. I think technology will help to facilitate that. Precisely what I was looking for, when I decided use Twitter in the classroom, was to be able to engage 90 students, all at the same time in 50 minutes. And I think the more technology continues to evolve, the more opportunities and options they’re going to be for educators to use technology to help do that.

By Manuela Mesquita

I’ve always thought of my mother as a baby boomer, but a baby boomer who doesn’t fit the stereotype. My mother introduced me to e-mail, even though I’m part of generation Y. My mother got on MSN chat before I did. She knows way more about computers than I do. I always relied on her knowledge whenever I had any doubts! She downloads music onto her cell phone. She’s always updating her computer with the latest software, and yes she’s on Orkut! (Brazil’s leading social network.)

She’s very present in my life. She tells me to update my pictures. She leaves comments and messages for me in cyber space. She doesn’t have a blog (yet), but I won’t be surprised the day she creates one.

Yet in the past few days, I’ve gotten concrete proof that some things go beyond the cyber world. Culture and the way people have been raised, ends up creating a gap between baby boomers and Gen Y.

A friend of mind has just lost someone very dear to her. The wake will take place in another city. I couldn’t be with her at that moment. I didn’t know how to act.

The first person I thought of in this situation was my mother. I didn’t think twice, I called for help. Immediately she told me,

- “In these moments, only a telegram will do.”

- What? Tele what?

You know, that thing people used back in World War II. In a few words they had to send a very succinct and expensive message. That’s what my mother was talking about!

I didn’t burst out laughing simply because I was going through such an emotional moment. She continued explaining that sending my condolences through the Internet would be extremely indelicate.

I decided to send flowers, along with a card, to the site of the wake.

But I still wasn’t satisfied. How could I be certain that the right person had gotten the flowers? Would my friend know just how much I wanted to express my solidarity? How long would the flowers take to get there? I logged into Orkut, and found that people had left several messages. Now, I’m against this. I find it really morbid. But I couldn’t resist the urge to speak to my friend. So I sent an e-mail, expressing my feelings, and asking if she had gotten the flowers. In less than 5 minutes I got a “thank you” e-mail, sent via Blackberry. I finally felt at peace. At least my message had been delivered.

As far as my mother’s surprising advice goes, it reveals just how much communication has changed. Yes, an e-mail is impersonal. It’s impersonal, and it’s not the most well-mannered way to go about expressing my condolences. But this isn’t important. What is important is that my friend got the message, and that my message seemed to help her.

What I take from this whole situation is that for us, Generation Y, it’s important for information to flow, and to arrive at the right time. We haven’t stopped using our common sense or etiquette. But in this case, the message I was sending would have had no value even a day later. Timing was extremely delicate.

How would I have known that she had gotten the telegram? And if I had sent a letter, it could have gotten lost. Why risk it when we have all this technology?

To generation Y, it would have been rude not to communicate right away, especially since there are so many different ways to get in touch! I do understand my mother’s perspective, and she’s incredibly modern for her generation. Still, culture is culture. Even the Internet or social networks can’t bridge this gap, at least not as quickly as we’d like.

By Ines Schinazi

Technology is obviously changing the way we speak, communicate, interact, and relate to each other. But is technology also changing our brains? Dr. Gary Small thinks so. Of course, the brain’s extreme plasticity is nothing new. But the overwhelming flood of technology in nearly ever aspect of our lives is.

Technology has greatly contributed to making Dr. Gary Small’s research possible. In many ways, technology has sparked his thinking.

He explains, “It was really in my personal life, noticing these technologies, that I felt I wanted to understand it more… I was struck how they’re have been so few direct studies of brain function while our brains are using these new technologies.”

Of course, without technology, Dr. Small’s elaborate research wouldn’t be possible at all.

While technology propels us forward, permitting someone like Dr. Small to explore these questions, it also paradoxically holds us back.

Through his research Dr. Small also reveals the widening “brain gap” occurring between “digital natives” and “digital immigrants,” thus affecting the family, the workplace, and society at large.

Dr. Small is a world- renowned expert on memory, aging, and the brain. He is currently the director of the UCLA “Memory & Aging Research Center at the Semel Insitute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior.” His latest book is the cleverly titled “iBrain.”

His extremely innovative research has made the headlines of “The New York Times,” “The Wall Street Journal,” and “USA today” among other publications. “Scientific American” magazine has named him one of the world’s top innovators in Science and Technology.

His recent UCLA study titled “Your Brain on Google” makes us wonder if our own brains are under the Google influence. In an exclusive interview, Dr. Small shares some of his thoughts.

Ines: Could you talk about the “Your Brain on Google” study you did at UCLA?
Dr. Small: We wanted to see what the brain looked like the first time it searched online. To do that, we had to find [older] people that were “naïve” to the Internet. That was probably the hardest part of the study. So we found these people, and matched them up with people who had Internet-search experience.

We put them in a functional MRI scanner, where we can measure brain function from moment to moment.

We simulated Internet searching and reading a book in the scanner. We found that when the Internet savvy people searched online there was a greater than two-fold increase in activation throughout the brain. We thought that that had to do with the neural networks knowing how to search online and showing greater activation.

We also have found, and are presenting this next month, that if you take these “Internet Naïve” people and have them search online for just an hour a day during a week or two, that their brains look identical to somebody who has been searching online for years. It tells us that an older brain really can adapt quite quickly.

Ines: You are considered one of the world’s top experts on memory, aging, and the brain. Specifically, how did you start exploring the connection between digital technology and the brain? What sparked the interest?
Dr. Small: My work has been primarily in Alzheimer’s disease, in memory, and in how the brain ages. I’ve spent much of career developing technology on how to measure the brain, like PET scan techniques, and so forth.

And it struck me in the past few years that all the technology that we are developing, which improves our lives, may also have an effect on the brain. It was really in my personal life, noticing these technologies, that I felt that I wanted to understand it more.

That’s why I wrote the book “iBrain.” During the course of writing “iBrain,” we did this study at UCLA called “Your Brain on Google.” Because I was struck how they’re have been so few direct studies of brain function while our brains are using these new technologies.

Ines: Your research reveals the wide disparity between digital natives and digital immigrants, which you call the “Brain Gap.” How do you perceive this brain gap affecting the family?
Dr. Small: I think it definitely affects the family. I can see that in my own family. The younger people, the young teenagers, are using technology more, they’re better at, but they’re not spending time face-to-face with human contact.

We have a rule at our house that there’s no technology during dinnertime. Yet it’s a strange situation. The other day, I said to my son, “Stop playing that video game, and come watch television with me!”

It speaks to my concern about the repeated use of technology, and not socializing. It’s a moving target. It’s a complex topic, and I don’t have all the answers. In writing “iBrain” I was hoping to generate some discussion, raise some questions, and get people to study it more…

Ines: How does the brain gap affect the workplace, as digital natives and digital immigrants must now collaborate to accomplish the same tasks?
Dr. Small: In the workplace, when people have to adapt, they do. An example is my father, who was already in his 80’s, and was still working. He wouldn’t use a computer at all. But when they changed to an electronic filing system at the office, he was forced to use a computer, and he adapted quite readily.

I think some older people will have advantages because of the “face-to-face contact” [skills]. Yet younger people will have advantages because of the technology skills in the workplace. The people, who excel the most, are those who can master both approaches.

Ines: What are the steps we can take to minimize the “brain gap” in the workplace and in the family?
Dr. Small: I think they need to first become aware of the issues, and have discussions. I think the way to bridge the gap, is to upgrade the tech skills of the older generation, and help young people, with their human contact face-to-face skills.

Ines: There’s always a great deal of discussion about the “left” and “right” sides of the brain, which determine people’s natural aptitudes.

Do you think technology-use, is comparable to other skills like Art, Math, and Literature? Do some people have more of a natural aptitude or talent? Or are people’s technological skills directly proportionate to their technology-exposure?
Dr. Small: That’s a complex question. We haven’t studied it directly. My sense is that this is something that some of us are better at innately. But it’s also something that can be learned. So it’s not just one or the other. The brain is quite plastic, and does respond well to these kinds of exposure. We found in our study “Your Brain on Google” that an older brain really adapts quite quickly.

Ines: You find that digital natives often lack basic “people skills,” such as reading facial expressions, or feeling empathy. In the future, are digital natives at risk of losing their “people skills” all together?
Dr. Small: Yes. That is an issue. People see it anecdotally all the time. Young people are not showing eye contact when they’re having a conversation. They really can’t read non-verbal cues when they are having a conversation. So I think this is a risk, and that’s one reason I try to heighten people’s attention to it.

Ines: We live in the world of the iPod, the iPhone, the iMac, and now the “iBrain.” How did you come up with the creative title for your latest book?
Dr. Small: I have to credit our editor, Mary-Ellen O’Neill. It was a very good idea. It’s a terrific title. The book is about the brain, and the effect of new technology on the brain.

So, you were just doing a play on words with “iBrain, iPhone, etc.” [In regards to the meaning of the “I”] you could say it stands for “intelligent” or “interactive.” It’s interesting because in the study “Your Brain on Google” we found the frontal lobe was particularly activated, and that’s the interactive part of the brain. So searching online is quite interactive. You’re making lots of decisions. You’re going back and forth. It really engages neural circuits in the frontal lobe of the brain.

Ines: Your research insists on the positive aspects of internet-use. You find that the Internet helps develop important skills like multi-tasking, complex reasoning, and decision making, in both the young and the aging. That said the effects are only positive if people use technology responsibly, not giving into its addictive nature.

We know that Internet addiction is a growing problem all over the world, as there have recently been a lot of rehab centers opening up to treat this problem. Are the brains of addicts wired differently?
Dr. Small: We do know that some people have a predisposition for addiction. So they’re brain wiring may be a bit different, and there may be some genetic determining of that.

But I think all of us have the capacity to become addicted to things. It depends on the amount of exposure, the situation, and a lot of different factors. I think that just like with any condition, there’s a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

You find that people that get addicted to technology are often the same people that have a tendency to get addicted to alcohol, drugs, and food. It’s the same dopamine reward system. The primitive systems of the brain drive these addictions. We talk about this to some extent in “I Brain.”

Ines: What are your suggestions for avoiding the addiction problem as a society?
Dr. Small: I think there’s a lot of controversy about it. Not so much in Asia, and in some other countries. But in the U.S. the American Psychiatric Association hasn’t decided yet that there is such a thing. I think there is, and I think we should take it seriously and try to help people.

Ines: What are your thoughts on popular social networks like Facebook and Twitter? Are they good for the brain?
Dr. Small: I think like anything they can be good. But when overdone they can be negative. I’ve talked to a lot of schools, and a lot of kids, who are spending a lot of time on Facebook.

A negative is that they’re losing their face-to-face communication skills. But they’re getting good at their “Facebook-to-Facebook” skills.

You know, it’s marvelous how we can network with this. But I think that we need to use it in moderation, and not overdue it. I always recommend a balance, that you spend time offline, to balance the online time.

Ines: And these social network sites seem particularly addictive…
Dr. Small: Yeah, anyone who has been involved with [social networking sites], really sees the draw. For me, it’s not Facebook, but I have so much business on e-mail that it’s hard for me to get off my e-mail. It’s helpful. But too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I think you have to have a balance and know when to use the electronic communication and when to use the old-style communication.

Ines: Much of your research works towards helping the old stay as young as possible. Your research is an effort towards reconciling good health with old age.

However, do you think that some of the enormous attraction to this type of research comes from our society’s general fear of aging?
Dr. Small: Yes. We want to stay young. We want to stay healthy. There’s certainly an emphasis on youth.

What we’re learning from science is that we have more control than we think. Genetics only accounts for part of what determines how well and how long we live. So we’re trying to help people understand that, and figure out when they can do today to live better and longer.

Ines: We know that with the excessive use of technology, individuals are developing more “virtual ties” and “virtual relationships” than “real life” ones.

Is the trend of virtual relationships also a product of the changing brain? Or does it say more about our society and socialization in general?
Dr. Small: I think it speaks to how enticing all these things are. I love technology. It’s really tremendous. I think that it’s something that can really enhance our lives, and it does.

But I think it’s “sneaked up” on us so quickly, we haven’t thought about the positives and the negatives. That’s what “iBrain” is about. To try and put it in balance, and think about it intelligently, to enhance our lives, to control the technology, to make things better rather than the other way around.

Ines: A study affirms that women are inherently better at multi-tasking because ever since ancient times, while their husbands were out hunting, they sustained the family, by multitasking. This same historical context also caused men to be better at focusing on a single task at a time.

In your opinion, how will the digital age, with its constant multi-tasking, impact future generations and their gender roles?
Dr. Small: I think there’s a kind of “narrowing” of the gender divide as a result of this.

Interestingly men seem to get into the technology earlier, but now there’s not so much of a divide.

But there are some differences in terms of “use patterns,” going back to evolutionary development, defining the roles of men and women, where men were the hunters, and women the nurturers.

That’s interesting, the thought of multi-tasking, and women being better at it. I think there’s some truth to that. I find I can focus on a single task, whereas my wife has a little bit harder time doing that, and will notice other things going on.

I think all bets are off with the technology today. We’re seeing fewer differences between men and women.