Reflection on Us versus Them: The Theory That Students Are Digital Natives and Teachers Are Digital Immigrants

If you read most current treatises on education these days, it seems as though the sky is falling simply because teachers have not learned how to “integrate technology” enough. Proponents of this idea describe that students are disengaged, curriculum is outdated, and teachers are underprepared to face the challenges of teaching the techno-savvy student body that schools now serve. 

For example, in Marc Prensky’s article, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” he describes a fairly bleak picture that today’s students are from a completely different world than their predecessors, and that most teachers are completely incapable of teaching them. He believes that students are “digital natives” while their elder teachers are “digital immigrants.” His theory is based on the idea that nearly anyone under the age of eighteen has been born and bred with a device in their hand, that their brains function differently than ours, and that they cannot learn successfully in traditionally-run schools.

I only partially agree with Prensky’s assertions. While it is true that this is the first generation of student’s to have grown up completely surrounded by technology, I don’t think there is enough evidence to show that “our students’ brains have physically changed and are different from ours.” While their thinking patterns may have changed, this is true of each successive generation. I’m quite sure that even someone my age does not think in exactly the same way as my parents’ or grandparents’ generation, mainly due to changing societal norms.

It is also true that today’s students are used to “receiving information really fast,” and “thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards,” and “prefer games to “serious” work.” However, I do not believe that these preferences mean that students are not capable in learning in multiple ways, and I also do not believe that students lack the patience and focus to do well in school simply because they are “used to” certain kinds of gratification.

I do not believe that students’ lack of success in school has anything to do with teachers’ inability to deliver “instant gratification” or are too slow to deliver information. Quite the contrary.

Has Mr. Prensky seen most of America’s schools? The larger problem has more to do with social class, family resources, and emotional support. If you look at the students who are achieving the highest test scores and getting into the best colleges, it is the students who have the most access to computer technology at home, because their families can afford it, their parents are highly educated, and going to college is a requirement for them. They also attend more affluent neighborhood schools. The students who are not as high achieving tend to be English Language Learners with very few “built-in” resources, lack a strong system of support at home, and are not emotionally resilient. Most of them attend very poorly resourced schools.

Blaming lack of student success on teachers’ lack of technological prowess may be expedient, but it does not address the real, deep-seated realities that educators must face every day. While increasing the use of technology in classrooms might help to make school seem more “exciting,” it will not solve all the budgetary, staffing, and facility problems that schools today must face. Most educational decisions today are made by politicians, and teachers have very little control over most of these decisions.

The teachers I know would love to use the latest, greatest technological gadgets in the classroom, but their first priority would be to have chairs that aren’t broken, windows that don’t leak, a heating system that works, and voting taxpayers who care about the future of education.

If there are teachers who are resistant to change and are not doing a good job, then yes, by all means they should be retrained. All teachers should care deeply about the success of their students, and they should be willing to achieve it “by any means necessary.”

However, most students with whom I have discussed this topic tell me that “it’s not the lack of technology—it’s just that teachers don’t seem to care.” Many of teachers who started teaching with the best of intentions  are just not nice people to be around anymore—after years of dealing with overcrowded, underfunded schools and a society that is experiencing deep moral decay, they are burned out. We are going to burn them out further by suddenly slapping on all kinds of new requirements, from Common Core to technology.

I also disagree with Prensky’s idea that “today’s teachers have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their students.” I think teachers should continue to be who they are. We will not help matters by adopting a style that mimics that of the students. Most students I know can’t stand the inauthenticity of adults who try to speak and act like them, and this also takes away from the fun of being a teenager if all the adults start to emulate them. I know that I never would have had as much respect for my teachers or professors if they did not carry themselves in a wise, articulate manner. I want to learn from them, not “hang out” with them.

 In Mary Beth Hertz’s piece entitled, “Digital Native vs Digital Citizen—Examining a Dangerous Stereotype,” I found more common ground. She espouses the idea that students should not necessarily be described as “digital natives,” but that “digital citizen” would be a more appropriate way to describe them.  Ms. Hertz explains that, “Rather than stereotyping our students as "digital natives," we should be calling them "digital citizens." She describes the complexity that being a “digital citizen” entails.

We should not simply assume that just because students have access to technology does not mean that they know how to use it responsibly. Students need direct instruction on the social and moral implications of how to be a good digital citizen. She cites her fifth grade students as an example: While they can easily learn how to find a resource on the Web within minutes, they must be taught about the importance of copyright laws.

While we “can place a tablet in the hands of children who have never seen a package label or a sign, and they will learn on their own,” but it is not guaranteed that they will be ready to navigate etiquette and intellectual property rights on their own.” By buying into the idea of students being “digital natives” we are assuming that they will be able to learn everything there is to know easily, simply because they were born into it. But, like any native speaker of any language, this cannot assume that they will never make a grammatical mistake, to extend the metaphor. They must be taught how to appropriately use their knowledge responsibly and for the good of others, not for the detriment of others. As we have seen through the prevalence of “cyberbullying,” simply having access to technology does not mean the technology will be used for the proper purposes.

Although older teachers may not be as quick to send a text message, do a Google search, or set up a Skype session, most of them still know a thing or two about ethics and fairness. These cannot be learned simply by just logging on to a device.