Oh, just put it down anywhere

Considering that so much work in a technology-rich classroom is focused on cyberspace, I found it interesting in this week's readings that physical space dominated the conversation. The research and experience from Palmquist, et al, and Balester was helpful with its practical suggestions for creating an environment in the computer classroom most conducive to the teaching of writing. I find it intriguing to consider my classroom as a "complex cyborg system in which technologies, institutions, and people interact and shape one another" (Selfe, 55). The concept of place and writing takes on many new dimensions when the element of technology is added to the mix.

Selfe points out that a vision for a technology-rich environment is more than a clever idea for arranging the furniture in the classroom. "If paying attention to the complexity and beauty of cyborg environments is difficult, understanding what is not there...is even harder" (58). I think this difficult task is part of what I find daunting about the use of technology as a teacher. What else is out there - or could be/should be there?

Selfe suggests we begin integrating technology in the classroom by identifying the instructional needs of students. Two of his questions to focus our efforts are to consider what literacy problems do students exhibit? And what future literacy skills, values and understandings will students need in technological communication contexts? As we formulate answers to these questions, I think it’s helpful to consider, as Selfe recommends, what is not there. Does technology change what literacy problems students do and do not exhibit? What future skills do they bring/lack in the computer-rich classroom – and what will they/won’t they need in the future that we are now teaching or not teaching? Examining what we cannot see in this place might be an excellent way to start expanding our vision of technology in the writing classroom.

So, I have to know what I'm doing?

I am noticing a recurring effort by the authors in TWWC to ensure that teachers are grounding technology in our rhetoric and composition-based goals. In Blythe's discussion of integrating CMC into the class, he advises "think first about what you want students to be able to do" (125). And previously we heard from Eldred and Toner: "Instructors need to envision the kind of classroom they are trying to create" (43).

But I'm a little frustrated with this approach as it seems to imply 1) we, as instructors must be cognizant of all aspects of the technology in order to decide how to integrate it; or 2) we are limiting ourselves to outdated applications in the classroom and thus limiting our instruction.

I agree that rhetoric and composition work should be enhanced by technology - and not the reverse. And I can see how easy it would be to allow a class to run off-track over the semester as students are caught up in all the bells and whistles of the technology, and the class never accomplishes the pedagogical writing goals you initially intended.

And yet, without an expansive knowledge of classroom technology (MOOs, podcasting, PowerPoint, blogs, etc.)I feel limited in trying to decide what I want students to do and I'm sure my vision for the classroom is narrowed.

Undoubtedly, there is wisdom behind a teacher limiting her efforts during the first semester of incorporating technology - i.e. posting journal entries on a blog instead of handing them in on paper, or using Blackboard for sharing papers and peer revision. But it seems that we can and should strive for more - widening our vision based on those "bells and whistles" that technology offers. For instance, compare a discussion of visual literacy done with the classic overhead projector vs. a PowerPoint presentation. It's not just the medium utilized, but the subject matter itself that expands. Two-dimensional images as examples can be replaced by video clips, audio, and more. Suddenly, not only how I am teaching changes, but also what I am teaching.

Teachers with a solid working knowledge of technology definitely have an advantage in deciding how to facilitate learning in the classroom. And it also seems that they can broaden the vision of what we are teaching our students.