In this study we have borrowed and applied the concept of use- and exchange value first developed by Marx (1973). Leont’ev (1981) and Engeström (1989) elaborated on the concept within the framework of activity theory. Based on Leont’ev’s work, Engeström discusses use and exchange value as primary contradictions in an activity system. Each component in an activity system contains a primary contradiction, which also constitutes a source of change and development. Translated into the context of higher education, we discuss exchange value and use value in terms of education vs. learning. Rationale; Education can be understood as an activity aiming at preparing the student for work and further studies whereas learning can be understood as a leading activity (Elkonin) facilitating individual growth and development. Within the activity of education, a student can be understood as someone to be taught and educated jet as a source of revenue and profit. For example, the university’s state funding is based on how many students pass their exams. For the instructor, the funding rule compels her to organize the interpreted curriculum so that the content of the course becomes achievable within the course time limit and the level of achievement is measurable. From a student perspective educational activity means that he or she has to pay attention to rules and regulations that form the structure of the educational institution. For example, the Swedish educational system requires that a student maintain a certain number of credits per semester in order to qualify for a study loan. For the student, the credit requirement often leads to a strategic approach to learning governed by a wish to pass the test as the major goal. In this regard, the student and the instructor have a shared interest in maintaining the educational activity as is. We define these interests as the exchange value of education. Learning in this perspective has a value because the outcome is a commodity that can be exchanged with something else. However, both the instructor and the student have an interest in reaching a goal beyond the immediate satisfaction of obtained credits. This goal is about personal learning and development, i.e., development of subjectivity, but also obtainment of competence, capabilities, skills and insights held as important in higher education. We define these goals as use value of education. By that we mean that learning has a value in it self. The struggle between exchange value and use value of education is present on a daily basis in the life and work of instructors and students. We take as the point of departure that higher education contains the components of use value and exchange value, which simultaneously are internally contradictory and dependent. In this paper we are particularly interested in the way this tension impact how the individual students approach their learning. We look at learning approaches in terms of surface and deep level learning (Marton & Booth, 1997) but also in terms of learning as an activity to mediate personal growth (Wihlborg, 2004) and development.

Data will be collected from seminars, during spring and autumn 2008, with students conducted in the videoconference system Marratech. Data will be analyzed using a qualitative approach and by the support of N’Vivo (Richards, 2005). Approximately data from 6 seminars will be included, involving about 40-50 student altogether. In this paper we ask the following three questions. – What are the signs of use and exchange value in communication between students and instructors in higher education? – How are manifestations of use- and exchange value approached by students and instructors in higher education? – What is the outcome in terms of (forms of) learning and development? The overall question could be formulated as follows: How do the forces of use and exchange value, as defined in this paper in the context of higher education, mediate teaching and learning in higher education? Thus, the purpose of the paper is to contribute to an understanding of the dialectical tensions in the activity of higher education and its relationship to (forms of) learning and development.

Thus, the purpose of the paper is to contribute to an understanding of the dialectical tensions in the activity of higher education and its relationship to (forms of) learning and development.