De-constructing Transformation of Learning

by techagogy

From Chapter 5 of Educational Research Undone: Mobilizing meaning, demobilizing critique? Dilemmas in the deconstruction of educational research – I am starting to reflect, examine, consider, the issue around transformation of education. I have perhaps alluded to this in the last previous quotes about “I Cyborg” and the lure of Circe, these I feel come from a Lacanain perspective of desire and drive, yet the concept of “Transforming Learning” I have accepted, there is a need for me to de-construct this, to examine it in a way as quoted :-

This book is already a story of irredemption, of sins that cannot be committed, binarisms attacked yet never destroyed, ideologies in oppositions that are irresolvable in any classical dialectical sense, solutions that are never final. That was, if the opening chapter be recalled, our promise of disappointment. A promise that was not Utopian, and a disappointment that was not intended to be negative.

By starting to look straight at the word “Transformation of Learning” or “Transforming Learning”, does this not setup a binary of right/wrong, good/evil, old/new? The agenda is still an enlightenment one, born of the failure of the old version of enlightenment. Will the transformation, whatever this is be again a failure by our measures? Is it designed or willed by the state to failure to maintain the grip of the professional class on society?

If we set up a matrix of measurement of transformation, this measure will be a measure of its failure due to the need to measure. Perhaps by wanting the need for measurement, we have already defined it as a failure? There is a need then not to measure, stop the accounting, say no to the statistics.

The transformation has an ideology, and ideal to give the student a voice, democracy, getting them to take control of their learning. Is this pushing the responsibility of learning away from a patriarchal model to an anarchical model feared by the state?

There is a paradox here, personal desire and drive, I am Cyborg, and I have a considerable libidinal investment in technology, I am perhaps jumping on the available wagon to further my own agenda. By deconstructing this will I be acting against my own will?

Yet by going along this path I can open up fissures in the argument, engage with the disappointment, seek to unsettle the polarization of the argument.

From Chapter 5:-

Our intention, then, is not to dismiss policy critique but to argue that deconstruction is a necessary part of reading the relations and shifts of meaning that produce critical discourses, and a way of re-conceptualising what may count as critique. In Prospect, accordingly, a more positive rendering of the negative. After all, the act of deconstruction, as Spivak insists, is not a negation of critique or an exposure of ‘error’, as much as an opening up of critique to a more comprehensive and less complicious formulations. It acknowledges ‘the dangerousness’ of something one cannot use-pg5.