Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995
From: Jacques Haenen (J.Haenen@ivlos.ruu.nl)
Subject: Contexts - Ch. 11 - Tharp

E.A. Forman, N. Minick & C. Addison Stone (Eds.), "Contexts for Learning." Sociocultural dynamics in children's development; New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993

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
Netherlands

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995
From: Angel M.Y. Lin (mylin@oise.on.ca)
Subject: Contexts- ch. 11

Hi Jacques and fellow xmca'ers,

I've just read your review Jacques, and in the mail today, I also received this issue of Educational Researcher (ER), which is devoted to Educational Reform... the issues of educational reform, classroom practices, activity settings, activity systems, structural changes, and changes in practices... become interrelated all of a sudden in my mind...

In this issue of ER, there's an article by Richard F. Elmore: Structural Reform in Educational Practice, which I find related to our discussions: changes in macro structures, and changes in micro practices... how can the 2 be related or unrelated...

Jacques you talked about Tharp's pessimism about American schools' "arch-conservatism", and you mentioned the other side of the problem: maybe it's the overload and incoherence resulting from fragmented adn uncoordinated innovations, that lead to limited progress in school reform.

I agree with what you said about the fragmentedness of many innovations, which tend to be dumped onto practitioners without considering the local context of the practitioners... I'm not sure about the situation of American schools, but I guess there would be differences between working class and middle class schools? or schools in rich districts c.f. schools in the inner city?

I feel that the activity setting/system perspective can give us a way to link structure and practice. Lave once commented on the limitations of focusing on one without the other: experience without system, or system without experience.

The tough part seems to be:
(1) how to understand micro-level classroom practices in light of the constraints and resources imposed on or afforded by the macro-level structural/institutional/societal organizations...

(2) how to work out a practical, feasible approach to educational reform: that will take care of both structural and practice issues, and will help dissolve the usual opposition between the "reformer" and the local practitioners... how to build a collaborative relationship and to have the kind of educational reforms that are not imposed on the practitioners but initiated (at least partially) by the practitioners?

Just sharing some ideas off the head... and hope to arouse some discussions on these issues...

Best wishes,
Angel