What hasn't changed

I have to say that I was both encouraged and discouraged by Marc Prensky's article "Listen to the Natives" printed in Educational Technology. In his article Prensky juxtaposes the technological competence of 21st century students whom he refers to as “digital natives” with the technological incompetence of 21st century teachers, who are “digital immigrants.” He observes that while our students speak the digital language fluently, as teachers we are struggling to master the digital language. Even those of us who master the digital language, we will always have an “accent” that exposes our pre-digital upbringing. According to Prensky, this difference calls for a major makeover of the educational methods of teachers. His article includes several ideas of how educational can be changed to appeal to and serve our “digital natives.” Using “gameplay” to teach so that kids are both involved and can progress at their own pace, allowing students to self-select groups to work on in projects, and incorporating programming training and 21st century subjects into the curriculum are among his suggestions for how to reform education to make it relevant and effective.
Though I see the benefit to these reforms and hope to integrated technology into my educational methods, I think it important to remember that you can be a good teacher without them. Prensky argues that students' fluency in the digital language has rendered teachers' expertise virtually obsolete. Students can access information anytime and anywhere in an instant through the web and they are more versed in the ability to use technological and the information obtained through them than teachers will ever be. It is true that students have access to more information now than when I was growing up and they certainly have a different relationship to technology. It is at this point that I get discouraged. I am overwhelmed by the responsibility to learn the digital language and by the fact that I will always have an accent. I am also discouraged by the relative futility of the knowledge that I have worked hard to hone and that I am passionate about sharing with students.
However, then I remember that the key characteristic of a good teacher hasn't changed. Prensky concludes that because students need teachers less for knowledge with the dawning of the age of technology what is needed from teachers is “empathy and guidance.” Is this any different than fifty years ago? Perhaps teachers played a more pivotal role in the dissemination of knowledge and in teaching skills, but what made a teacher great then is the same thing that makes a teacher great now-caring for students. Caring for students includes taking interest in their lives, validating their opinions and input, asking for their input on things including teaching and assessment methods, and allowing them to shine when they know more than you do. I would add humility to Prensky's list of essential characteristics of good teachers. It takes humility to ask a student to teach a skill in which he is more proficient or a piece of knowledge of which she has a better grasp. It takes humility to ask for honest input on your teaching and assessment methods. It takes humility to laugh at your apparent pre-digital “accent.” Finally, it takes humility to invite the students to work with you rather than for you in the classroom because you become in many ways a fellow learner rather than the teacher. With this kind of honesty, humility, and transparency you win the hearts of your students and are able to motivate them to learn and to engage them in learning. I am encouraged to know that though many things have changed in the field of education, the pivotal role of the teacher in caring for students and directing them has not. This I can do by the grace of God.