This one got my blood flowing. It's in response to an article on blogs in the classroom I had to read for my 701 class and even though I posted it over at 701 B.C. I thought I would put it up here for everyone else too. The link for the article is here http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/moving_to_the_public.htmlThis is going to be a long one. Gird your loins and settle in. I'm about to break all the brevity rules.

I (in an attempt to get homework done early so that I could enjoy my weekend) thought I would read the blogging article tonight because it was short, looked fun, and why not? All jokes about Terminator, Tron, and I, Robot aside I'm incredibly disturbed, not by teacher's choice to use blogs or even the public vs. private issues, but by the assumption, unchallenged by anyone who replied, that computer communities are superior to real live ones. To explain I must share a bit of personal information, but I promise it is relevant.

I used to be a computer nerd. What I mean by computer nerd is in the computer lab from the time it opened until the time it closed playing Tsunami, a MUD (a telnet program that is purely text based, a precursor to Everquest and all other online roll-playing games). On this game we could chat, we could play, and we could dream. I learned many valuable skills such as how to type upwards of 80 wpm, how to process text incredibly fast, and how to reinvent myself into whomever I wanted to be. I started playing around the age of thirteen so really it was perfect timing. We, of course, played all other manner of games but Tsunami, being a text-based game, is particular to this discussion.

By the time I graduated college with my undergraduate I had learned several incredibly important lessons: life is more fun when not encapsulated on a computer screen, friends are more real when you've met them, and no amount of pretend teaches you much of anything except how much everyone wishes they were someone other than who they are. And make no mistake, when the brunt of your interaction occurs via the internet it is all pretend.

As I read this article I grew increasingly upset by the teacher's unfettered excitement at student's opportunities to interact via the Internet. The pressures of the classroom could be avoided, shy students could engage, and writing could be shared more publicly and more easily. The last part about the writing is fantastic--I agree with the idea of public and easily accessible writing; it is important to give authority to the students. But the first two issues, avoiding classroom pressure and not demanding live interaction in a serious way is ridiculous and quite possibly harmful. Also, their assumption that any writing is as good as any other writing is false. Not because we need to write college essays of particular types, but because what matters, specifically, is the thinking process. That does not occur through everyday text messages, emails, and musings. Unless you discover or are directed towards the sort of dialogic cognitive moves that it takes to truly write well, you will have a significantly harder time mastering the writing process. It isn't about introspective, personal assignments, it's about thinking about your thinking and attempting to force the students into that sort of rhetorical move. A blog might very well be the best place to do it, but not just because it's more "normal" for them or because they might like it better.

Computer relationships are not the same thing as real relationships, teacher-student, student-student, or otherwise. I say this as a former serious computer-user. With things like match.com and eharmony we live in an age when relationships are increasingly being handled online. I understand the appeal. When instant messaging you can think through what you want to say before you type it. You can avoid confrontation. You can say what you want without having to deal with someone staring at your or challenging you vocally. Computers offer a buffer that allows for the user to feel powerful and if that user has a margin of rhetorical ability they can feel like a god.

But I'm not interested in promoting that sort of behavior in my students. Perhaps you think I overreact to this article and it isn't the use of the blog that bothers me, but, specifically, the replacement of in-class writing and dialogue with the blog. That is what is prompting my reaction. I've seen computer relationships and I've seen what they have done for people and to people. I do not consider my job as a teacher to be one that encourages this sort of disconnect with humanity. Yes I strive for dialogism in myself, my classroom, and my students, but while I may accept their lack of awareness of my message I do not accept the inevitability of that lack.

With the aid of the internet students don't have to write for themselves; they write for who they imagine themselves to be. With the lack of classroom interaction there is no accountability and the image of what they imagine can reign unchallenged. I'm not in the habit of judging my students or even praying for their change, but when one of my student's says something unacceptable (like Jews are greedy, or fat people cause children in Africa to starve) I can hold them accountable for that thought process, demand they prove it through verbal debate in a way that teaches them more about discourse, writing, and their own thought processes than blogging ever can. There is a barrier when you blog. It is not nearly as public as reading a paper aloud or watching someone read it in front of you. The danger of the internet is that it is a one-way mirror. You can see everything while remaining safely at home, hidden in your booth.

I am not opposed to blogs as tools to use in conjunction with freshman writing classes and I am not unaware of the theoretical advantages blogs offer to a classroom. But blogs must be recognized as what they are, a tool, and harnessed as any other tool is to a teacher's personal teaching philosophy. The assignments still need to be recursive and sequenced. The writing still needs to be held up to some sort of a standard (not grammatical, but dialogic, meaning-making). And teachers should not hide themselves behind computers because it's easier to deal with people through a screen.

And it is easier. They aren't challenged and you, while giving them the authority to write what they will are always, ultimately, in control. It's the perfect solution to a society with all the aspects of free thought and none of the responsibility. We certainly won't be making them better people then. But I guess we can shoot for better writers.