Chapter 11:
Roland Tharp
Institutional and social context of educational practice and
reform
Reviewed by Jacques Haenen
To start with, I would suggest to the reader of this review to
search his/her memory for instances of true teaching in
his/her educational career. According to Tharp (p. 275), these
instances are so exceptional that each of us remembers them as
small epiphanies. Actually, Tharp's chapter can be conceived
of as a manifesto against current school practice starting
with the somewhat generalizing complaint that North American
schools are characterized by an overwhelming conservatism and
apparent impermeability when faced with forces of change. He
sketches a rather dismal portrait of North American education.
However, apart from ventilating his discontent, he also offers
a cure: to reform schools into learning communities able to
provide time and resources for teachers to teach learners on
the basis of a neo-Vygotskian concept of teaching. In Tharp's
terminology, "teaching consists in assessing performance
through the zone of proximal development" (p. 272).
In order to further elaborate the concept of 'learning
community', Tharp proposes to consider the school system as
"activity settings" defined as nested systems of social
activities and social institutions within which classroom
activities are embedded. Tharp shows that "the processes of
school instruction are reflected and supported in structures
at the level of school organization, and at the community,
cultural, and national levels of concept meaning. These
interlocking structures provide an apparently unassailable
wall of defense that helps to account for school conservatism"
(p. 270). Neither set of levels can be understood in isolation
from the other, and Tharp brings these levels together and
analyzes them with the help of a number of concepts from the
"neo-Vygotskian lexicon", as he calls it.
I have two minor comments (1-2) and two points for discussion
(3-4):
1. Tharp's chapter is rather short (13 pages), while at the
same time addressing the complex issue of school reform.
Actually, the reader has to be familiar with Tharp's earlier
publications (e.g., Tharp & Galimore, 1988, and Galimore &
Tharp, 1990) in order to fully appreciate the text under
review. Without this background, the reader will find the text
somewhat 'programmatic'. However, most readers will probably
know these other publications, and, consequently, will
consider this chapter a summary of Tharp's innovative approach
to schooling.
2. At several places in his chapter Tharp uses the indication
"neo-Vygotskian" in order to designate his approach. I would
prefer "post-Vygotskian", because Tharp's inventory could be
considered as somewhat beyond Vygotskian lines; his line of
reasoning is closer to Leont'ev than to Vygotsky.
3. In this chapter, I have found - but this is merely an
impression -, that Tharp expresses his criticism of North
American education more sharply than elsewhere. He reiterates
his criticism throughout the article from slightly different
points of view. Obviously, Tharp has become more and more
pessimistic about the possibility of reforming the school
system. Frankly speaking, I have been somewhat taken aback by
Tharp's vehement rejection of current schooling in North
America. Is it so bad or am I not familiar enough with the
daily facts of American education? On the other hand, I also
have my doubts about "the arch-conservatism" (p. 280) as the
sole feature of schooling. One could think about alternative
explanations. Couldn't it be possible, e.g., that it is not
the resistance to reform that brings about the conservatism of
schools, but that it is the overload and incoherence resulting
from fragmented and uncoordinated innovations, that lead to
limited progress in school reform?
4. Which brings me to my third point. I totally agree with
Tharp that the strength of the sociocultural theory is the
fact that it provides a comprehensive framework for the
understanding of educational problems both vertically (at the
level of the classroom, school organization, school district,
and the state) and horizontally (the implementation of
educational changes at each level). In order to elaborate and
discuss the dynamics of the similarities and differences
between these horizontal and vertical levels from a post-
Vygotskian perspective, Tharp introduces the concept of
'activity setting'. 'Activity setting' is the basic unit for
analysis within this perspective. Its distinctive features are
nestedness (a better term would be 'embeddedness'?) and
jointness. However, such terms have a somewhat static flavour,
while Tharp has in mind that 'activity settings' are first and
foremost dynamic systems creating their own zones of proximal
development. In this sense, 'activity settings' are constantly
changing due to their learnability and teachability.
Obviously, activity settings are almost human: they contain
both objective and subjective features (p. 275). I think,
Tharp's almost ontological interpretation of 'activity
settings' requires further consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Haenen
Utrecht University
IVLOS Institute of Education
P.O. Box 80127 tel +31 30 2533400
NL-3508 TC Utrecht fax +31 30 2532741
Netherlands email j.haenen who-is-at ivlos.ruu.nl
--------------------------------------------------------------------