Print

Print


I don't know whether thisclarifies or muddies the waters, but what I
think of as "product" is not separate from "process" but the
(theoretical) last step in a process--the entelechy to which the process
points, if you like.

Let me put it another way.  Most students, being intelligent human
beings, don't take process-for-process-sake very seriously unless they
can see what it is they're working towards, however dimly.  There's a
real difference between learning to build a house by working with
lumberand nails in the abstract, and learning by building a house, even
if it turns out to be a shack that the first stroing wind will blow
down.  The "real" learning is both cases is in getting the feel of the
wood, making mistakes and getting out of them, learning the relationship
between an idea in the head and what some wood really looks like when cut
and nailed together.  But the sense of a house at the end of it is the
force that drives the process along, gives you something to get up in the
morning for.

So it is with texts.  I think that Russ is right that a "dialogic"
process, a process of discovery, is better than a purely instrumental
process.  (The latter is what drives students to copy, or download, their
texts instead of making them themselves.)  But the idea of producing a
text at the end  is not to reduce the process to the "merely" useful but
rather to see the emerging of something as being vital to the whole
enterprise.  It sticks all the pieces of learning together instead of
letting them drift as isolated bits.

Time for lunch.  But the most improtant question, of course, is--Rick, do
you think you'll get your pantload of money for the Web pedagogy, and if
so, do you think that you can subvert whoever's agenda is involved and
spend it so that students really learn something?  Sounds like an
exciting opportunity.

Doug
References: <[log in to unmask]>