Articulating a teaching philosophy

I've been trying to write a teaching philosophy over the past few days. It's an interesting exercise fraught with what seem like numerous pitfalls. Advice ranges all over the place and the lists of "do's" and "don'ts" seems endless. I've decided the only real solution is to focus on what I do and let the advice go its own way.

But when I think about how I teach and why I teach the way I do, I find that my teaching philosophy seems to be a result of negotiating between contradictions.

On the one hand, it's important for students to see the relevance of what they do in the classroom to their lives.
On the other hand, they need to learn basic terms, ideas, and critical habits whether or not they're "relevant" to their lives.

On the one hand, post-secondary students are adults.
On the other hand, especially junior post-secondary students are not experts in the conventions of their field or the academy and they need to be taught the behaviours expected within the post-secondary educational setting.

On the one hand, I am not an entertainer.
On the other hand, I need to gain and keep the attention of my students if they are to learn what I am trying to teach them.

On the one hand, I am the one expert in the room.
On the other hand, collaboration with peers can be a powerful way of learning.

On the one hand, students need to know how to use available technology in order to succeed in their fields.
On the other hand, I need to use the best tool available to convey an idea, even it its one of the simplest tools available (like say a pen and piece of paper).

On the one hand, course objectives are there to set ou the minimum expectations for everyone in the class to achieve.
On the other hand, each student comes into the class with their own strengths, experiences, weaknesses, and goals, and I need to be able to recognize and respond to those differences.

On the one hand, the semester is very short.
On the other hand, what I teach can last a lifetime.

See what I mean? The way I teach and the reasons that I teach the way I do seem to arise out of these conflicts. I use technology, but only when I think it will be the best way to convey information or to facilitate learning. For example, I've always like to teach film. But films are between 1 1/2 and 2 hours long usually, and unless you have a three hour time block, it's difficult to show a film in its entirety in one session and then have a significant discussion about it. But showing a film and then discussing it several days later also tends to be less dynamic because the students don't have the experience of watching it immediate to mind. But the last time I taught a film, I required the students to log onto a threaded discussion and continue discussing a film we watched earlier that day, which provided an immediacy that you can't get by waiting for the next class meeting and generated a good conversation. In this case, the technology is a tool that helps me provide the students with a richer learning environment.

But at the same time, I also often use a comprehension exercise with my students that requires them to graphically represent one of the readings they've done. I supply the markers and colored paper - they supply the interpretation. It's simple, but students regularly tell me that having to visually represent a written text helps them understand the text better.

So where do I stand on technology in the classroom? Well, it's nice to have (when it works!) but it isn't the solution to every pedagogical problem.

So what do I write in the teaching philosophy about technology? I suppose I'll just have to say "it depends". But I think the tension produced by all these conflicting ideals is what produces my explanation of how I teach and why I teach the way I do.

It just seems unsatisfying to say that my teaching philosophy emerges out of contradictory impulses.