-----Original Message-----
From: Paul H.Dillon [mailto:illonph@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 1:50 AM
To: hbeetham@plymouth.ac.uk
Cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Motives and Subjects (was something on unit analysis and
institutionalized education)
"The process of the "exarticulation" of teaching/learning from all human
activities with its corresondent transformation of the structure "complex,
polyphase, but single" activities (e.g, from hunting deer to buying a Big
Mac) of which teaching/learning was a subordinate action also has a
historical genesis that can be followed in historical materials such as
college catalogs (see the online Amherst collection 1832-1900 for example).
This transformation has produced an educational structure whose unit or
concrete universal I'm calling "instructional units", of which "lessons" as
mike mentioned might be considered an example. In general I see this as a
part of the general commoditization of all branches of human activity that
Marx very clearly foresaw as the trajectory of capitalist development."
I think most would accept the "general commoditization of all branches of
human activity" no matter if we situate that in capitalism, liberalism, or
modernism. What I am left wondering is if this comoditizcation is a good
thing in your view or simply a contraint we have to deal with living in
capitalist societies.
I think your right when you point to the historical division of motives (in
the proposal) between the teachers and students object, yet find myself
wondering if that division should be accepted "as is". In this sense I have
mixed feelings about the teacher / student being in different activity
systems. If as you point out "instructional units" are part of the general
commoditization of all human activity is its use as a unit of analysis
accepting or going against this commoditization.
I guess what I am asking is, does "instructional unit" accept the
development, logic etc. of comodification as inevitable in capitalist
societies? One thing I have found useful about CHATs' theorizing is its
ability to not "dichotomize" as in teaching-learning, student-teacher, or
subject-object. Maybe a misunderstanding on my part, but even with
"instructional unit" their seems to be a clear cut division between teacher
and student/s. I assume your comments to Helen were in reference to your
proposal, here your clarification was useful because with the student's
activity system I took it as an individual motive being mediated by the
collective (teacher's) activity system.
I have in mind figure # 4 and wonder if it is static or dymamic. Is this a
given as in we have an instructional unit - educational objective or does
the unit and therefore objective become transformed in the process. As a
teacher who comes up in his/her head an instructional unit would it be
mediated throughout both the teacher and student's activity systems. Often
it seems in the technical college arena a classical notion (1 way
trasmission) of internalization is invoked. Teachers as good soldiers
following orders that is becoming more common in elementary education with
its 2 tier educational system.
Lastly, I have found your use of "instructional unit" in relation to
concrete universal unseful - made it a little more concrete. Maybe I have
not read clearly enough, but still trying to understand what is exactly
included in this unit. Is it a lesson, doing twenty worksheets without any
sort of interaction, a collaborative project etc. Is it somewhat dependent
on the organization of community colleges in which we have a set time block
for a certain educational theme.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:45 PDT