Here I want to response to Gordon's message on October 29. The issue that
Gordon raised is a continuation of a long xlchc discussion on the notion of
goal that I can track back to two years ago (there might be something in the
fall air causes us to discuss the notion of goal every fall again and again
:-) I think that continuing discussion on goals is extremely important and
productive. Gordon wrote in the context of disagreement with Jesper and me
about our stress on an artificial (ideological) character of pre-proclaimed
motives (and goals),
"... I agree in recognizing 'motives or intention as something which emerges
and develops through the activity.' [H]owever, this does not mean that
participants never embark on action with an object in view. Nor does it
mean that there are no situations in which one can say why one made a
particular contribution to an ongoing discourse. I agree that, in most
cases, the choice of words and even the "point" of the contribution is
formed in detail in the act of speaking/writing, but that does not mean
that one does not have a strategic goal in view in contributing as one does
at a particular point, in order to try to develop the discussion in a
particular direction. Surely this is what we each do when we contribute to
this discussion."
I'll try carefully to define my position here in my response. I don't
believe that goal (and motive) exists in any other form different from
action itself. I believe that goal (and motive) is an aspect of action.
The goal is being transformed together with the material/symbolic object
during the action. Action transforms both its subject and its object (but
may not be at the same degree). Action transforms its psychological subject
in terms of changing the subject's goals, motives, knowledge, emotions and
so on. Action transforms its material/symbolic object it terms of changing
object's properties.
These two global transformations occur in any action. However, in some
actions one or the other transformation remains almost unseen for the
individual (and an observer). For example, my recent nut cracking action
(sorry, folks, for my lack of creativity and imagination at this moment)
directed almost entirely on a change in nuts (specifically, in their
relationship between shells and cores). I can barely notice any changes in
myself in this action (however, there were enriching my nutcracking skills
and developing ambiguous feeling of both enjoyment of nutcracking success
and disgust of excessive eating nuts, there might be something else as
well). On the contrary, my recent reading Dewey was directed on a change in
my goals, knowledge, and worldview. It is difficult to notice for myself
that I might transform the symbolic object of the text (by developing of my
personal interpretation of Dewey). Also intensity of these two
transformations (i.e., of the subject and object) can be different in
different dynamic phases of the action.
People may make verbal statements (for others or themselves) and draw plans
about their goals of their future actions. However, in this case we deal
with at least two actions: 1) action of stating the goal of their future
action (let's call it "planning ahead action") and 2) consecutive action
(let's call it "implemented action"). The relationship between this two
actions is that the first action develops a special means namely "plan"
(that has often symbolic properties) for carrying out the second action.
This "plan" or named "goal" is never absolutely identical with the dynamic
form of directionality of the "implemented" action. One reason for that
(but not only) is that pre-defined goal expressed in words or plans and the
dynamic directionality of the consecutive action have unique and different
contexts, environment, and participants.
It seems to me that Western civilization has developed extreme preference to
or even obsession for this two-action activity to a degree that this culture
either oversees planning property of any action or devalues it as
unsophisticated. At this point, I want to recognize the importance of
planning ahead and two-action activity. As Gal'perin correctly pointed out,
planning ahead is especially valuable when the future activity involves high
risk for individual(s). In this case, participant(s) can develop symbolic
model of the activity and perform the desired action in this model to
develop a special means called "plan" that can be used in the future actual
activity. Thus, predefined plan or "goal" are guiding tools in the activity
rather than real activity goals.
However, I think that excessive use of planning ahead and the two-action
activity (i.e., first "plan," then "implement") can be dangerous especially
for education and especially if educator wants (and values) to teach
children how to plan. Very often in a traditional school, the adult
monopolizes the first action, the action of planning (i.e., an action with
high degree of subject transformation) letting students participate only in
the second action, the action of "implementing" (i.e., an action with high
degree of object transformation). Jackie Baker-Sennett, Cindy White,
Barbara Rogoff, and I studied children's playcrafting activities under
direction of child vs. adult (novice parent volunteers in school). We found
that when adult directed the playcrafting, s/he did planning ahead before
entering the classroom and then tried to implement his/her plan with the
children making children marionettes of this plan and objects of his/her
activity, allowing the children to be involved only in planning of minor
details. When child directed the children's playcrafting, although the
child also prepared some ideas, the ideas were open for transformation and
negotiation (and were always transformed at high degree by the group).
Under child direction, the children spent more time in planning overall and
especially in thematic, detailed, and mindstorming types of planning.
Gordon wrote, "In 'planning' for individual class meetings, too, I have
goals which I try to make fairly explicit - and negotiable. So, for
tomorrow morning's class, for example, I could describe both motive and
goal with some specificity in advance of the actual meeting. And, unless
something totally unexpected happens, I shall, at various points in the
meeting, 'deliberately' make contributions that I judge, in the
circumstances at the time, will realize those prior goals in the light of
those that have emerged and are emerging in our jointly constructed
discourse. [I] can't imagine what 'instructional conversation' (Tharp and
Gallimore) is about if the teacher doesn't engage in this form of
goal-directed strategic action. But maybe others see things differently?"
I can see how 'instructional conversation' can be done with or without
planning ahead. Both cases can be valuable for the students especially if
they are part of all phases. But let me give an example that I saw myself
in an innovative school in Utah where 'instructional conversation' occurred
without planning ahead. Once, a parent volunteer (a co-oper) usually
responsible for art activities was asked by the teacher to supervise math
activities (something about fractions) of a group of 6-8 kids. One child
asked the co-oper how to add fractions. The co-oper honestly confessed that
she did not remember because it involves some manipulations with "upper" and
"lower" numbers for both fractions. She asked other kids if they knew.
Some proposed different solutions (one of which was correct). The co-oper
said that all proposed ways looked familiar for her. So she raised a
question of how find which solution is correct. Several children suggested
to check dictionary. They checked a dictionary and find the correct
solution. But the co-oper said that she still couldn't understand why the
given way of adding fractions is correct. This question produced an
interesting discussion among the group (including the co-oper) and finally
the children raised this question for the whole classroom (including a few
co-opers and the teacher) in the afternoon circle before the recess. The
topic was alive for several weeks in the classroom. The co-oper clearly
guided the initial group of kids in inquiry development, meta-planning
(e.g., how and where find help), and math (i.e., that in math, a way of
formulae development is more important than the formulae itself) through
Tharp & Gallimore's "instructional conversation" but without planning ahead.
Moreover, I think that Tharp & Gallimore (1988, "Rousing minds to life")
specifically emphasized planning on fly and taking advantage of
opportunities emerging in the ongoing classroom conversation.
At the end, I want to make clear that I do NOT argue against any form of
planning ahead or against teacher knowing well the subject of their
guidance. I just argue that both of planning ahead and knowledge of the
taught curriculum are not absolutely necessary conditions for successful
teaching if the later means involving students in and guiding them through
inquiry development and resolving.
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz
------------------------------------------------
Eugene Matusov
Psychology Department
University of California at Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
EMATUSOV who-is-at cats.ucsc.edu