This isn’t a victory for any particular “side” in this particular echo chamber.  But here I am, about to write something that you most likely will take as a vindication of your particular worldview.  And note that I’m not looking to vindicate anything, I’m just another guy trying to figure it all out.  But still, this totally resonates:

Debating 21st-century methods vs. 20th-century methods is a cheap sub for debating student engagement vs. student disengagement.

Because you know what?  I teach half my classes in a classroom where the computer is broken (and by broken I mean when you turn on the power, the whole unit shakes and whines like a dog that’s been outside in the cold a little too long, then shuts itself off), and it’s almost impossible to book a computer lab.  And also, you know what?  That’s fine, because on Thursday, we (myself and my 24 juniors and seniors) spent about 45 minutes reading and discussing Arthur Miller’s essay “Tragedy and the Common Man.”  No webquests were involved; Google was not consulted; we did not blog about it or use Twitter or any of the dozens of other Web 2.0 tools that are available at schools without ridiculous filtering regimes.  We just talked.  And dammit, I felt better leaving that class than I’ve felt leaving any other class this year.

Not to say, of course, that the tech couldn’t've enhanced the lesson.  If we had a couple of hours together that day, we could’ve tried to get into a lab somewhere, looked up some stuff, written about it, etc.  But in terms of just being-together-as-an-American-Lit-class-and-talking-through-some-ideas, it was awesome.  And if it’s low-tech and 20th century of me to teach that way, well, I’m voting Roosevelt.