Personal note: I keep getting later and later on these blog entries. I guess that I'm in a state of paralyzed panic, because I just realized that the conference I thought I was presenting at in two weeks is actually this coming weekend. If I can get these blog entries caught up, I might feel almost normal...until tomorrow.

You Are Where You Teach?
Trying to find some inspiration for this entry, I went back and checked out the dialogue on the discussion board. It seems that, when setting up an ideal computer classroom, each instructor prefers something different. However, there are some common trends: de-centering the instructor's authority, improving the physical atmosphere of the learning space, allowing for movement and flexibility on the part of the instructor and the students. There's a bit of a continuum here, though--some teachers still preferred the a modified version of the traditional proscenium setup, while others wanted a completely free-form classroom with laptops on carts and such. My own ideal was for something on the moderate side: a large perimeter classroom with a computer-free discussion space in the middle. As I mentioned in my last post, I believe that technology tends to make visible that which is hidden or unresolved. So, I have to wonder, what does my choice of computer classroom setup reveal about me as a teacher? I don't mean just the obvious things. I wonder what my choice says about my internal conflicts both in pedagogy and in the use of technology generally.

On the Couch with the Pedagogy Psychologist
My ideal classroom is characterized by the rigidly-defined computer and no-computer spaces. Who am I that I would choose such a setup? Am I really so inflexible that I wouldn't allow students to use computers wherever they are comfortable? Would I allow them to bring laptops? I don't know. What I do know is that I am a person who responds extremely well to structured environments, and I always have been. Because of this characteristic, I often felt like an outcast among my fellow teaching assistants, who constantly complained about the lack of "freedom" any given curriculum allowed them. It's not in vogue to say that you prefer to play by someone else's rules, even if you are just starting out in your endeavor. It's not the American way to be a follower, as those TD Waterhouse commercials keep telling me. Does this speak to my timidity, my lack of confidence, my lack of a solid, internally-defined self? My tendency to relinquish control of my classroom to unruly students and undercut my own authority, often to the detriment of the class? Does this speak of a gross lack of ambition or ingenuity? Okay, maybe I'm going too far with this. But it seems that choosing a free-form classroom means the instructor can effortlessly mediate and calibrate the space between herself and her students (I've noticed this with Erin's teaching style). It's not that easy for me, so I rely on structured spaces to help me.

And what about defining a space where computers are not allowed? I certainly extend a general embrace computers and have had lots of "lab days" in the various classes I've taught over the years. But I realize now that, even though the opportunity was presented to me more than once, I've never deliberately chosen to integrate computers fully into my course, that is, I've never asked for my class to be scheduled exclusively in a computer classroom. What does this say? One thing I know: I get distracted by computers. It takes me forever to get my work done when I have internet access. I've even gone so far as to ask my boyfriend to hide my wireless adaptor so that I won't be tempted to surf. I don't want my students to fall victim to the same kind of distraction--the internet is a kind of soft addiction that I'm trying to manage. But, of course, I'm assuming that my students will automatically become distracted by the computer the way that I do. Am I imposing a kind of "computer methadone" by restricting my students' access in this way? Do I assume they can't control themselves at all, or do I assume that another heavily structured  space--the face-to-face discussion table--is the answer to the scariness of a computer-dominated space that I can't control?

Well, everything I've said up to this point has been negative. What are the positive things about my teaching that this choice represents? I do like to decenter myself as an instructor and return the classroom to a student-centered space when I can. I love full-circle discussions, as do my students, and I want to have a space where full attention to discussion is possible, without computer screens flashing in our eyes. I enjoy having my students work independently, and I like being a one-on-one kind of teacher. I think that conferencing is one of my strengths, and having a space where I could sit with a student who is focused on her writing--in the perimeter setup of a computer lab--would help enhance that strength.

Now back to worrying about my conference paper...