Leading a Lecture/Discussion

When I was first told that I would have to give a lecture in order to complete the requirements for the teaching practicum I was scared half to death. That was over a year ago and since then I have managed to lead a handfull of classes. My first opportunities were a string of three classes wherein I had to try and fill in for a professor who was unable to attend the final 3 classes of the semester. Needless to say I did not necessarily have to go about gathering materials to deliver to the class since I had a packet of materials handed to me. Instead I had to make sense out of materials for a class that up until that time I had nothing to do with. The students had never met me and were quite concerned that their professor was MIA. Another major issue was the fact that, getting close to the end of term, anxiety was quite high surrounding final projects, exams and who was going to be marking their work. I did my best, closely reviewing the notes that I was to deliver beforehand, so that I could talk freely about the pertinent issues, while being able to field questions on a topic that is not my area of expertise. I had a span of three classes and was thus able to try out a few distinct teaching styles in order to better understand how the group would react.

I was merely expected to place notes on an overhead and have the students copy it down - but in all honesty that isn't my style at all - I much rather prefer to have lecturing/discussion blend seamlessly and continuously turn the task of reflection and teaching back onto the students in an effort to keep the engagement level quite high. I also used specific questions as guides for small group discussion. Smaller groups tended to result in a higher level of interactivity, especially for students who would otherwise remain silent. I genuinely wanted to hear what the students had to say about a given issue and I would make my best attempt at leading them in a direction that would allow them to come to a conclusion or a better understanding on their own.

To move ahead to my latest teaching endeavor - October 2007. I have been a TA for the fourth year class: Sociology of disability which sees a range of students from Social Work/ Sociology and Gerontology in attendance. The wide range of students means that different disciplines are represented as well as a range of learning styles. In this case I was already familiar with the material of the class due to attending the same offering the year prior. As well I was familiar with the students because the professor had me attend all the classes as well as being the facilitator for the blog. This meant that there was a kind of familiarity with all parties involved.

My opportunity was tailored to reflect my experience and knowledge. I was gifted with the week dedicated to disability and the built environment. Fortunately I have a keen interest in the topic and was thus able to think in creative terms regarding how to effectively lead a discussion with a limited amount of lecturing. The first step was to get prepared - do the readings - do extra readings - read them again and then determine what the most important details or what the most important topics ought to be discussed in class. By the end of my lecture arrangement I had over 10 pages of material to deliver over a two class period.

In an attempt to get creative on the class I planned a course of action as such: Feed them some information, pose verbal questions, discuss, present new information, have the class free-write for 4 minutes and repeat. The goal was for the class to build up, individually, through free writing a total of 4 bodies of writing. Meaning that by the middle of the second class - after 4 bouts of free writing, they would each have enough material to motivate small group discussions. The idea was for them to build their free writing exercise into kindling for small group discussion. I must say, everything went off without a hitch. It went splendidly. Students took their free write time very seriously and appreciated the time they were given to discuss their thoughts.

Following the classes I received many compliments from students who enjoyed the classes and the structure very much. I was told that the free writing was something that most had never experienced - additionally they commented that I knew the material very well and answered their questions competently and respectfully while maintaining a good level of discussion at all times.

As for my professor who sat in on both classes, she told me that she was quite pleased with my performance. I knew the material very well ( a key factor) and I did a wonderful job keeping the students engaged and interested while introducing new and exciting techniques into the mix. A compliment from a mentor is always taken with much grace and this was no exception.

In terms of an assessment of student learning, an engaged student is one who takes part in discussions, reacting and acting critically in away that propels the discussion forward. It becomes obvious what 'thought' looks like on a students face, as well as the accompanying 'what about...' comment. My goal with these classes was to foster the movement of ideas in a way that was exciting and seen as important. Meaning that the motivation stemmed from a deep desire to share techniques of critical thinking/analysis. Discussion, free writing, small group, presentation... these methods seemed to work well with this class.

Thanks to this opportunity I was able to gain some confidence in terms of delivering a lecture. I was enlightened to the amount of work that is necessary for structuring and preparing lectures. I was also granted enough freedom to work with the class in a manner of my choice. A valuable set of lessons indeed.

Below is simply a copy of my lecture guide notes and embedded free writing questions.

The Built Environment as Disabling

October 2 – 4, 2007

1] What’s so great about independence? Sally French [1993]

The myth of independence.
Fitting into others plans = loss of freedom and autonomy.
Independence as restricting people’s lives. I.e., as when a helper and person being helped turns into an unbalanced situation.

Is it right to insist on this kind (struggling with clothing) independence?

Librarian – believed that the main goal ought to be ‘independence.’
The potential for pigeonholing, due to variations of disability. (The tendency for the able to ‘box’ disabilities into some impossibly uniform concept.)
The ‘expectation’ of the librarian and the general public to ‘use’ the ‘assistive’ device - for to shun an ‘expensive’ device would be “thoroughly ungrateful.”
The result of the ‘device’ may lead to the inability to fully function or integrate with the ‘machine’ as well as disallowing one from ‘asking for help.’

“Disabilities tend to make us slow.”

The assumption, by the able bodied, that the disable ‘want to be independent.’
The librarian may have felt like the assistance she provided was of a second rate quality compared to an ‘obviously’ superior independence.
“The librarian undervalued the help she was providing, and was so sure of what was best, she did not think to ask.”

Independence is a way of individualizing the disability rather than thinking of it in social terms. Individualizing a disability is a way to depoliticize an issue, an underhanded way of manifesting political convenience. Politics, in a capitalist society, tends to be the overarching ‘system’ we all work for, the big-business. Business is concerned with profits, not people. The usual drama is for those in power to turn the ‘raised issue,’ like a ‘raised curb’ with no ramp, back on the individual with the disability.

Words like, try harder and you’re not doing enough, would come in handy here. Status quo – in this context means that if you can’t get around in this city, on this university, to ride the bus, to go to the washroom, to use a photocopier, a computer, go see a movie, get in and out of a vehicle… if you can’t do these things easily – or if they take a long time for you – or you simply cannot do these everyday tasks – then something… is wrong with you!
Our built environments are made for, and designed with able bodied-ness in mind.

The thought is that disabled people want to be independent above all else. That they are supposed to be grateful for everything that is given to them. It is a FANTASY to say that we are all completely independent – food, water… It is more effective to state that we are all interdependent –

The ramp by the security office is conveniently placed – the ramp in the ATAC is not – and when you have to rely on an inconvenient RAMP you begin to think that you are certainly an ‘afterthought’ of the design community.

There doesn’t seem to be a commitment that disabled people are valued.

Consider that mechanical devices often frustrate disabled people – however given that mainstream society feels as though it has ‘given ‘ something – the thought is that no more is needed..



The Modular

“Le Corbusier developed the Modulor in the long tradition of Vitruvius, Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, the work of Leone Battista Alberti, and other attempts to discover mathematical proportions in the human body and then to use that knowledge to improve both the appearance and function of architecture. The system is based on human measurements, the double unit, the Fibonacci numbers, and the golden ratio. Le Corbusier described it as a "range of harmonious measurements to suit the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and to mechanical things."

Le Corbusier published Le Modulor in 1948, followed by Modulor 2 in 1955. These works were first published in English as The Modulor in 1954 and Modulor 2 (Let the User Speak Next) in 1958.





The Librarian: Sally French Says’

If the librarian continues to help me, I will have more time to read. Especially important because my (Sally French) reading time is slow.

“Striving for independence in terms of basic practicalities when, for that person, there are better things to do can seriously reduce independence by restricting the disabled person’s freedom of thought and action.”

The Normal Image – i.e., prosthetic limbs and hands – poor substitutes for the purely functional devices such as wooden legs or hooks they replace.

Prosthesis – were designed by able bodied people, to make sure that they would not have to deal with disabled people. Prosthesis may be uncomfortable for the wearer – it may not even provide any function – the whole point it get the ‘look’ right so that a person can ‘pass’ –

The argument goes on to say that disabled people do so much in private – just to seem, or to appear Normal. For if they ask for special accommodations – they would be labeled difficult. Once again, to stress, difficult and different are bad.

*** Maybe what disabled people need to do is – draw attention to themselves to make it known how difficult it is to be disabled.

Assistive devices usually send the message that – a person may require ‘no assistance’ at all – when in fact the contrary may be true.

Wolff proposes that technology can never replace the quality of interpersonal relationships. Instead it can lead to isolation – meaning that the problem is once again lumped onto the disabled person. Once again when the challenge of ‘doing’ something is placed back within the sphere of the disabled person, the able-bodied can once again ‘forget’ about the person. No longer, will a door be held open or a book brought down from a top shelve – rather the person and their assistive device will be seen as a ‘near’ equal – a person who is ‘already’ being assisted and thus – ‘they must not want or need any further assistance.

Job find:

Showing that you can cope – rather than the fact that you may need some assistance – for the workspace is another space that demands efficiency – especially when profits are involved.

Able-bodied persons restrictions are often seen as normal and acceptable – however… in terms of Sally French and working at the polytechnic – asking for academic assistance was seen as ‘normal’ however – asking for assistance because of the disability – like reading papers – was too much to ask - not to mention that the favor could be returned any number of ways.

(5 min free writing on this question set)
Consider this: Have you ever asked a disabled person for help? Have you ever offered your services to a disabled person? What are the normal rules of conduct? What could you suggest in terms of the socialization and acceptance of help?




2] Can Technology Overcome the Disabling City? Brendan Gleeson [1999]

Is disability a natural ill that technology can supposedly cure?

Technology meaning – small things like hearing aids to urban design technologies such as accessible design regulations.

There is a mixed opinion of hearing aids – for instance there is a stigma attached to ‘being seen with any kind of assistive device.’
Meaning that when you are seen with an assistive device, it is seen as ‘different,’ and in our culture, different is bad.

In terms of hearing aids, they have become a fashion statement, companies have started to make devices, smaller and smaller, meaning that, they do become less visible, however, they also become more difficult to maneuver into place. The batteries have become increasingly small, in addition, they may be lost easily, plus, the cost – like the crutches that we spoke of earlier, where does the interest lay in a capitalist society?


It seems to me that – faith in technology, reflected in laws, policies, institutional arrangements and social attitudes – privilege Technology above all else.

This article aims to present us with a critical appreciation for the limits of ‘technological solutions.’

The cultural materialist view:
Socially produced through 2 interdependent modalities –
Function and appearance. I.e., political economic marginality and cultural deviation.

Cultural materialism – views disability as naturally given set of limitations which can be reduced through environmental innovations.

The disabling city:
Industrial revolution meant the scale and complexity of cities increased… markets, urbanization, technological change… it is from this ‘event’ that urban industrial landscapes characterized as western were effectively created… These verses sound like the creation of Machines –
A range of social scientists now agree that the industrial city was not a machine designed for disabled people – built for the average, plus/minus half a standard deviation – In terms of a bell curve – persons with disabilities that are placed in the tails of the distribution are effectively isolated by their environments.

The layouts of cities – land use, internal building designs… discriminates against disabled people by not accounting for mobility requirements.
1) physical barriers, broken surfaces.
2) Building architecture, stairs.
3) Public transport modes, assumes a common level of mobility
4) Public information. Signage.

Machines or Nature:

So why? Did contemporary cities assume forms and functions that discriminate?

Gleeson talks about 3 reasons – natural limits, thoughtless design, and historical-geographical construction…
Natural Limits:
Placing the emphasis on the limits of the individual – the arguments states that natural limitations can be compensated for through “specialized urban technologies.” Motorized wheelchairs – tactual maps – moving ramps –
Meaning that the individual will be able to undertake meaningful social and economic activities.

‘Environmental modifications seek to increase access for disabled people by compensating for the disability.’

Thoughtless design:
Too often this rhetoric becomes a static diorama – meaning that academic and policy literature sees the oppression of the disabling environment in an over-simplified spatial analysis – meaning that they pinpoint the source of disablement upon the arrangement of the built environment.
Things like: Broken surfaces, poor maps, inaccessible transport, low-density urban form i.e., Thunder Bay… In this sense space is reduced to an inanimate configuration of objects – and the dynamics of the social character are disregarded.

Thoughtless design is criticized for being – technologically determinist – that faith in environmental solutions will solve all the problems of inaccessibility and immobility. Plus the approach is technocratic because it assumes that ‘expert and professional’ knowledge can identify and implement technological improvements to cities.

ATAC – the walkway – the smooth graded path up to the front doors was actually an aesthetic accident – making it relatively easy for a person in a wheelchair to maneuver – however – when it comes to the doors – there seems to be the same ableist perspective re-occurring – Standard double doors – that are heavy – and usually open from the right side – often times the left door is locked – in addition – the automatic door buttons have only been installed within the last 3 years – meaning that they were added after the building was built.



Historical Geographic Explanation:
Feudal life was governed by, a localized economy that encouraged cooperation instead of competition… Meaning that there was no imperative to discriminate between stronger and weaker forms of labor power… People with low mobility could work at jobs that did not require much mobility such as weaving and cobbling.
Localized work was easier to carry out than labour set to mechanized and standardized rhythms. In industrialized work there were very few specific workspaces for impaired people – doormen, guards, street vendors, entertainers, and domestic workers – these were merely shadows of the more inclusive labour that characterized feudalism.

Industrialization meant that – slower, weaker and inflexible workers were devalued in terms of their potential for paid work. This kind of arrangement meant the steady decline in disabled peoples labour power.

The shift from local to factory based wage labour meant that - the labour market of the 19th century effectively depressed handicapped people of all kinds to the bottom of the market.
The separation of home and work, which was absent in the feudal era, became a major disabling feature for an entire range of disabled people.

Karl Marx wrote: Industrialization and Urbanization, produced too great a section of the population which is… incapable of work, which owing to it’s situation is dependent on the exploitation of the labour of others or on kinds of work that can only count as such within a miserable mode of production.

Environmental Re-engineering, is it the answer?

A principal of competition presupposes that certain individual or (bodies) will be rewarded and enabled by paid employment – whilst others are disabled as socially dependent.

Better building standards, will not on their own revalue the labour power of all physically impaired people – these changes will not guarantee economic security and social acceptances for disabled people – these strategies can reduce ‘friction’ of everyday life for people with disabilities – but they will not solve the social-spatial oppression of disablement.

Of More importance than accessibility and enhanced functioning are – basic needs like security, autonomy, affiliation, accomplishment, intimacy and identity.

Recently, powerful corporations in the US have argued against requirements for businesses to provide wheelchair access – as an unnecessary restriction upon private property…

In Germany, while legislation has been passed that strives for inclusive labour processes, meaning that disabled folks are allocated a percent of the jobs in a given company relative to size… this example also is incomplete in it’s process – while this rights based approach guarantees the prerogative for work for disabled people it does not provide the institutional means for such a goal to be realized.

Gleeson Conclusion:
Natural Limits and Thoughtless Design – are both technologically determinist – inappropriately emphasizing the role of technology as an oppressor and as a means for overcoming problems such as inaccessibility and social-marginalization.

In terms of new adaptive work technologies – framed around computers – there has been a bi-polarization – between exploitative domestic labour and professionalized forms of individual contract based employment = neither of which are readily available or desirable for most disabled people, who remain handicapped by poverty and lower education standards in most western countries.

The overwhelming distinction is that we have become less interdependent on people and more dependent on technology.

Disabled people desire and have struggled for (as we all desire and struggle for) valued social roles, ensuring material welfare, cultural acceptance, and socio-spatial inclusion… As the historico-geographical perspective has shown, this value cannot be secured simply through technological innovations but must be won through lasting transformation of the political-economic, institutional and cultural forces that shape our cities and societies.

(5 min free writing on this question set)
Consider this

How has technology been implemented in ways that assist everyday life for disabled people?

Is technology letting us down?

If we have become more dependent on technology, is it productive to think of a society in which technology is used less, and interpersonal relationships are more apparent, or do we need to rethink this conceptualization? Meaning, can we ever go back to a feudal organization, likely not. Thus how can we imagine the future as a place that attempts to create balance between new technological advancement and interpersonal interactivity?




















Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environment. Rob Imrie. [1998]

A recent awareness generated in terms of disabled people and the built environment. To confront hostile environments, access to buildings and streets is often impossible.

“Western cities are characterized by design apartheid where building form and design are inscribed with the values of an ‘able-bodied’ society.”

Some consider the built environment as disablist. Projecting able-bodied values which legitimize oppressive and discrimatory practices against disabled people purely on the basis that they have physical and/or mental impairments.

What do we take for granted – stairs… what is unavailable, and out of reach, cash machines…

Consider the ability to perform – is it severely diminished based on elements of the environment.

Consider this: what do you want your built environment to do for you?

Architecture:

The production of disablist and disabling environments are the roles of architects and/ design professionals.

Over the past 20 years, much criticism has befit the role of the architect in terms of the perpetuation of gendered, racial and other divisions of the city. Institutional practices of design professionals has served to exclude minority interests while reinforcing an alienating and oppressive built environment.

There is an assumption of sameness, or normality – that all sections of the population want the environment to do the same things for them.

There has been a rise of the professionalization of architectural and design practices – creating a technical. ‘expert’ elite; plus the rise of the corporate economy as the dominant clientele.

There appears to be an architectural myth that states “that art has a high moral purpose in the formation and transmission of culture… of the design of aesthetically pleasing forms of poetic spaces.” This projects the architect as a perveyor of beauty and truth, an elevated being, somehow with the abilities and skills to construct for (and in distinction with) the population as a whole.

Some writers note that it has never been a feature of the culture, social ethics and/or practices of design professionals to see themselves as part of wider political practices.

Postwar – Modern movement – minimalist sought to reduce the complexity of human movement – used a set of rules/laws – and the idea that all human action is knowable and controllable. I.e., winter cities, covered spaces, such as the tunnels of Lakehead University – the idea was that human movement and action was knowable and thus reducible to a set of laws and rules that dictated that space in essence does not matter, people would be fine in buildings that are underground and buried, without windows, hidden away and huddled under the artificial light of bulbs emitting a constant white glow… depression…

Architects have increasingly established themselves under the title of professional – in terms of space – ‘they know it all’… or what is best? In this sense, they could deny subjectivities of individuals by reducing everything to rationalism.

The post war emphasis on mobility instead of accessibility. Think Chapters, Wal-Mart – the powercentres that rely on the easy flow of traffic – rather than dense urban centers that could potentially host many people and services within less space. However compaction has its own pitfalls in terms of spatial accessibility.

The propagation and reification of the Normal person ‘a white male’ has been a powerful element of the design process. This is a model that perpetuates clear racist, sexist and albeist underpinnings.

Disability perspectives, where they may actually be taught, usually account for ‘after-thoughts to whole designs.

Throughout the 1950’s and onwards – architects became increasingly subject to building systems, new technologies and the global economy – meaning that autonomy was undercut to give way to the ‘limits, and costs, meaning that uniformity costs less…’ In this respect – money is the bottom line. Cost-effectivity - means that the able-bodied client is served, while the disabled client or user is relegated to the margins.

Able-bodied designs, implicated a demand for ableist environments catering to the able-bodied workforce.

Modernist forms that stressed – mono-functional forms, mass produced technology, seemed to deny human subjectivity.

“The avante-garde is intoxicated by the machine aesthetic… the intense intellectualism wants to suppress everything which is marvelous in life… Architecture without soul…”

Minimalism bereft of bourgeois ornamentation. Louis Sullivan - form should follow function.

Normality – LeCorbusier – believed in universal properties – he commented that “all men have the same organism, the same functions… the same needs”
-The idealized man was the embodiment of normality.

This concept reified the denial of bodily differences – as well as the idea of asexuality as the moral, or ethical standard bearer of the emergent esthetics of modernism.

Modernism could never hope to know the subjective experiences of the users of the built environment – because the philosophies more or less discounted the realm of the experiential, personalized, experience.

Consider this. Think of spaces, places, buildings and rooms that you hold attachment to, or memories. What makes the space important to you?

Technocracy, vain arrogance, elitism,

Modernism – Bauhaus movement – to reduce space, automate, standardize, use off the shelf materials, in an attempt to persuade people into using a certain kind of predetermined design. In essence bodily differences were being denied – as architects sought to standardize and engineer, people’s bodily interactions with the built environment.

Buildings come to embody fixed and unchanging functions… However, people are fluid, transformative and multi dimensional… Denial of the dynamic nature of society.

The Front Door:

A place that supports people’s activities and desires, permits them to do what they want, and causes a minimum of pain, frustration and embarrassment is more accessible than a place that confuses, harasses or intimidates people.

Schemes that allow for variation…? Can we name any?

APL is Oakland… A design success – a deep pink pavement – wide – shallow gradients and well positioned grab rails. The conflict of aesthetic vs humane.
“How ethical is it to practice architecture, to be a professional licensed to design buildings, without having first developed an intellectual and emotional understanding of people? The suggestion is that architects need to confront the social psychological context of design, how it feels for the users, and to acknowledge that there are no simple technical solutions.”

Empowering people with disabilities is multi-faceted, multi-dimensional – at a minimum it requires an engagement at the level of values and ideology, as well as the material base of building processes.

Consider this: Could you suggest ways in which the built environment could be dismantled and reconstructed to create an equality of accessibility, thereby smoothing a range of pitfalls that usually befall the disabled. The question is: how could the built environment.

The Back Burner...

Well it's been over a year since I began working on the Teaching practicum here at Lakehead University. My reference to the back-burner comes from the fact that no matter what, projects always seem to take on a life of their own. In this case the teaching practicum has laid dormant for some time. The back burner has kept the project tepid and in wait for its chance to shine. I welcome the return.

The List of topics to be covered by the teaching program include the following list:
1. Learning Styles
2. How to Deliver a Successful Lecture
3. How to Facilitate Small Group Learning
4. Human Rights and Equity Issues in Teaching
5. How to Teach Critical Thinking and Writing Skills
6. Principles of Instructional Design
7. Technology and Teaching
8. Assessing Student Learning
9. Pedagogy Theories

10. Is a statement of teaching philosophy, the part am yet to complete, but the other topics have been touched upon at least to some extent except for #7.

So lets hit #7, and blend the rest along the way. Lets go, we've got a stew to make.

Technology and teaching.

In an effort to get creative within the bounds of an academic world that is seeing vast changes in terms of the rise of student apathy and disengagement, I have decided to counter the problem while trying to employ technology to feign for some sort of engagement and interactivity with students by employing a blog.

Most students, I say most, because I am referring to the majority of undergrads who happen to be between 17 and 30 years of age, have come of age at a time when the internet has become a main source and medium of communication. Less and less do we see any 'actual' participation between students on a get-together level. Rather, students are increasingly kept 'connected' with their friends and classmates through digital mediation.

Sites like myspace and the increasingly popular facebook have managed to corner the college market into having to make the choice to 'get on' to lose touch. In a sense, if a student chooses not to join an online network they run the risk of losing touch and virtually disappearing. These issues have been widely discussed and the social implications will continue to be a major topic of study and conversation for years to come. See: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/bigge/index.html
for a discussion.

To return to age and users, one must also recognize that there is a proposed limit to who can stay connected through these virtual channels. Those without access, or with limited access to a computer and the internet, also run the risk of having a difficult time with this form of connectivity. Age and class seem to be factors, among others, that determine 'user status.'

To return to my project and the class I am currently TA'ing:
Sociology of Disability: a fourth year offering.
I was fortunate in the fact that I attended this class the year previous and now have the opportunity to provide assistance as a TA.

This class has allowed me the freedom to provide input into the structure of the class, the outline, the reading list, the films to be watched, the subject material, many opportunities to practice student assessment. Additionally I have been afforded the opportunity to be responsible for the grading and monitoring of participation of students in an online forum.
Also, I have been granted time and space to create a weeks worth of lecture material and deliver the discussions in the manner I saw best fit. I will return to my experience of planning, structuring and delivering later. At present i want to discuss the BLOG.










The impetus behind the blog was to create an online forum for discussion about the topic of disability studies. Much thought went into creating a motivational system that would allow the Blog to function in a manner that was productive.

The final decision was to give marks to students for participation. In total 15% of the class mark is devoted to this section of the class. The requirement is three fold. 5% each. The first part is to post one of the comment papers that a student has written online. (This section is pretty much a giveaway because the students already have to write 4 comment papers anyways for the class, by posting it, they just have to take a piece they have already written and make it public on the blog. To get the other 10% of the grade, students need to make at least 2 substantial comments on their classmates posts). In a sense the effort level for a student is relatively low, but should they complete the tasks they are awarded with the full 15%.

The blog is also designed in a way to foster online discussion of any topic related to disability studies or the class in general. At first the majority of posts dealt explicitly with technical difficulties that students faced while trying to get onboard with the blog.

A technical point: Since LU email is provided by GOOGLE, access to BLOGGER is rather seamless because the companies are the joined.

Once the technical difficulties passed and the whole class managed to find time to join the blog began to roll at its own speed. Moderation was provided by myself and the course instructor. The blog also, largely took over any of the roles that WEbCt may have provided in the past. When given the choice I decided to stay away from WebCt and use the blog instead as a way to introduce a popular modern online format to a class that had largely been unaware of Blogging or it's possibilities.

There was some apprehension from students about the prospect of having their writing being made public, but the fact that their first post (the comment paper) had already been given a grade allowed them the freedom to choose what to post, and to only post that which they felt comfortable with and had been approved (graded).

Additionally, students and the moderators have been using the blog to create links between the academic discussion of disability as a topic of study and a world of practicality and 'reality.' In this sense the blog has provided a way to create links between discussion and other forms of movement accessible through links. Things like videos from YouTube and other disability resources online have been linked in order to draw out or expand the experience that has begun in the classroom. To open a door to the world of real life disability has been a major goal and motivation. Plus, the blog provides a definitive location that students can point their friends, families and others towards, a place that offers the public an entry into a specific discussion.

Meaning that the blog offers an opportunity for discussion to flow, between the students and the teacher, between students, and outwards - including a seemingly infinite community accessible by web.

When a post has been made that offers an opportunity for much discussion, the communication is completely logged and is made available for other to join in at any time.

Certainly, a major consideration of this experimental project was 'how will the class respond, will they use it at all.' In response to this I must say that the Blog has exceeded my expectations. Students have become active in writing and responding. Some have become more involved, posting more frequently and on more whimsical topics that tend to stimulate short discussion all on their own, without the apparent need for valorization through awards of grades.

Thanks to the class, my project can be called a success. Since there is little or no time outside of class time where students may otherwise gather to discuss the issues I feel that the Blog has taken the place of face to face interactions which have seemingly disappeared. Additionally, the blog provides its own kind of accessibility, especially to students of a privileged university like Lakehead - providing a space free of the constraints of time. Also, the forum allows for links to be made between students who may otherwise feel uncomfortable discussion issues in class. The internet provides a blending of space that allows for comfort and anonymity as well as the support through various channels and networks to gather and discuss specific issues.

The blog also offered the students an opportunity to do something that is seldom if ever offered. They were able to interact with their classmates by reading and contemplating their posts. By reading others writings, students were afforded access into a world that most often remains closed. Students could gain an understanding and a knowledge of a topic from a different perspective as well as learn from others writings. Since the skills of writing seem to be disappearing, it seems important to me to have students read their peers work and critically analyze it. This is done through the second step where students are expected to make critical comments on their fellow students writings. In this sense, small group discussions may be formed as students work interactively on quite a personal level to generate a deeper understanding of pertinent issues.

I will return to my adventures in delivering a lecture at a later time

a