Thanks John

I did pose my suggestion as a *thought experiment*. The earlier
reference to 'contamination' was in relation to a paper (URL given) in
which I explored how the conceptualisation of learning differs between
different discourses. I argued, unassailably of course ;-) , that the
meaning of the concept in psychology is different from its meaning in
political-economy, which is different from the meaning in educational
and pedagogic discourses - and the conceptualisations of learning in
these discourse arenas are all what Ryle called 'technical concepts',
carrying 'theoretical luggage' that makes them different again from
mundane discourse. The problem is that there is 'leakage', 'infection',
contamination' [any other metaphors?] that, unless we are very careful,
tends to lead to confusion ('bewitchment of our intelligence'). A key
distinction is where the concept has an explanatory function (eg in
psychological discourse, to explain patterns of behaviour) and where it
has a normative/ evaluative function (ie in educational and pedagogic
discourse, where it is used in relation to what is considered desirable
behaviour/ conduct (as observed or as anticipated). I would argue that
we need to view the concept learning in its educational and pedagogic
uses in terms of social processes and cultural practices, not in the
naturalistic, hypothetico-deductive 'scientific' mode that (most)
psychological analyses adopt.

Most texts that I have seen on 'learning and teaching' oriented towards
staff in HE tend to trot out the usual psychological perspectives. If
situated learning is discussed at all, it's usually a bastardised
version about 'learning through practice' - a form of learning from/
through experience. The *socio-cultural* analysis by Lave and Wenger
(Jean Lave is of course an anthropologist)  doesn't fit with such
psychologistic framing. They don't talk of learning *through* engagement
in practice
but say that learning *is* engagement in practices (of a community).
Learning, in such an analysis, is not a process internal
to individuals but a social process of becoming a member of a community
of practice. Such an mode of conceptualising learning (although I would
critique some aspects of it) renders nonsense the managerialist pretense
at understanding the nature f learning in higher education that was at
the heart of the issue that started this thread, which was of course
Christine Keenan's message: "Does anyone have any views on the argument
that staff should not "own" the units they teach on, but rather be
available to teach on any unit as required by course management? [etc]"

In an article just published in Journal of European Industrial Training,
in a special issue on 'Critical Perspectives on HRD' [Human Resource
Development - yuk!], I refer to the problem of  learnerism giving rise
to "the corruption of the emancipatory potential of the discourse of
learning".

So I'm not against using the term 'learning' - I want to take back the
term to use as a key educational and pedagogic concept freed from the
'contamination' by inappropriate conceptualisations that cause problems
- and deploy it (and 'skill' etc) in a way that will help us in our work
as educators. We need to be vigilant, but not vigilantes (well, maybe
I'll think about that bit - sounds fun).

regards


Len





John Hilsdon wrote:

>Dear All
>
>I resist opposing teaching and learning and I suspect it would be nigh
>impossible (and not especially useful) to undertake the
>'decontamination' Len proposes - in fact I reckon Len would also resist
>the notion of 'purity' in use of language in any case, so I am not
>arguing 'against' him, but:
>
>The point, I feel, is to expose 'taken for granted' and 'common-sense'
>uses of these terms (and others such as 'skills') where such usage
>mystifies or obscures aspects of our work; or where they are used
>politically to serve particular ideological agendas. This happens when
>opportunities for genuinely open or critical enquiry and study are
>subverted by pressures upon teachers and students to follow paths or
>take actions they would not see as being in their interests. Examples
>could be where there is fabrication of learning logs or critical
>reflections (perhaps prompted by fear of inappropriate scrutiny); the
>spurious uses of 'action-planning' to fulfil a course requirement rather
>than a real learning need, or the railroading of our language use as in
>terms such as 'black and minority ethnic' students, which we might
>prefer to contest.
>
>I am sure most of us believe teaching and learning to be closely related
>and interdependent activities. I would be happy to be referred to as a
>facilitator of learning as well as a teacher; I try to adopt a
>facilitative style, rather than a didactic one in my teaching. I do not
>think that the root of facilitation needs to be wedded to 'facile' (and
>its associations with a simplistic level of understanding) but can more
>usefully be related to the Latin 'facere' - the verb meaning 'to do':
>facilitation as enabling action!
>
>Where I am most wary of the substitution of 'teacher' in favour of other
>terms ('support worker', 'assistant', 'advisor', 'demonstrator' for
>example) is where it implies a restriction on the kinds of contract of
>employment available to those working in our field of learning/academic
>development in HE. I would seek to have those in this work re-designated
>as academics, lecturers or teachers with all the associated benefits of
>involvement in research and developmental work. This work of
>facilitating learning would then be more likely to be viewed as of equal
>value to that of any other academic - as, of course, I believe it should
>be!
>
>I do refer to my students as 'learners' at times - especially when they
>occupy roles where they are attempting to interpret information, seek
>answers to questions; solutions to problems or procedures best suited to
>situations. The word 'learner', used thus, is not necessarily any
>'better' or 'worse' than 'student' - and etymology will not help us
>decide in this case: the Latin root of student in 'studere' could, for
>example, be interpreted as a fundamentalist zealot (equivalent to a
>taliban?).
>
>I appreciate and applaud Len's efforts to make us think about the key
>terms in education and to question them, but I also want  to resist
>attempts to purge, purify or proscribe - which, I fear, will give
>comfort only to those sitting smiling on the sidelines, claiming that
>(as they always knew, of course) academics are self-obsessed and
>irrelevant windbags, too fond of the sound of their own voices to help
>students learn anything of value!
>
>Hmm ... off now to facilitate an eating experience by presenting a group
>of omnivores with a flavourfully motivated and nutritious array of
>comestibles - prepared, of course, in accordance with appropriate
>dietary benchmarks.
>
>Best
>
>John
>
>
>John Hilsdon
>Co-ordinator, Learning Development
>
>