Tara Star Johnson

The Twisting Path of Concept Development in Learning to Teach.

Teacher education is often viewed as too theoretical and not sufficiently concerned with the realities of classroom practice. From this perspective theory and practice are cast as distinct realms whose only connection comes when theory influences practice. We argue that the theory-practice dichotomy lacks the richness of Vygotsky’s notion of concepts, in which abstract principles are interwoven with worldly experience. More specifically, Vygotsky distinguishes two types of concepts, spontaneous concepts and scientific concepts. Spontaneous concepts are learned through cultural practice and, because they are tied to learning in specific contexts, allow for limited generalization to new situations; scientific concepts are learned through formal instruction and, because they are grounded in general principles, can more readily be applied to new situations. Vygotsky argues that while spontaneous concepts may be developed without formal instruction, scientific concepts require interplay with spontaneous concepts; hence the problematic nature of the theory-practice dichotomy. He further identifies two types of generalization that approximate concepts yet do not achieve their theoretical unity: complexes, in which some members of the set may be unified with others but all are not unified according to the same principle; and pseudoconcepts, in which members of the set appear unified but include internal inconsistencies. We argue that teacher educators should strive to teach concepts, though the overall structure of teacher education programs makes it more likely that their students will learn complexes or pseudoconcepts. We illustrate these problems with examples from case studies of teachers making the transition from their teacher education programs to their first jobs.

Qualitative Research in Question A Narrative of Disciplinary Power With/in the IRB

This article narrates the authors experience of obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval for her dissertation study. Although her research topic was particularly sensitive, this case is illustrative of the increasing level of difficulty qualitative researchers are facing in conducting not only risky research but also work that is not aligned with the National Research Councils conception of “scientific” methodology. The author nests her story within the larger social context of surveillance and disciplinary power operating on todays educational researchers. She focuses her attention on the complex power relations among researchers, IRBs, and arbiters of what counts as quality research.

Performing A/Sexual Teacher: The Cartesian Duality in Education

Huddled conspiratorially in a corner of the gym, our eyes scan and appraise the dancers’ rhythmic undulation to ‘‘Baby Got Back’’ by Sir Mix-a-Lot. ‘‘Would you look at that,’’ I say admiringly, indicating by a slight motion of my head the cluster of basketball players with the afterglow of victory, a testosterone-laced aura about them. ‘‘Mmmm . . . Jason can have a piece of my back anytime,’’ says Brenda, my long-time best friend and partner in crime. ‘‘Nah . . . I’d choose Chad. I hear he’s well-endowed,’’ I reply, and we giggle like schoolgirls. Only we’re not schoolgirls—we’re teachers chaperoning a high-school dance, and Jason and Chad, as well as most of the students present, have been in our classes. Shelly, one of our favorite students, comes up to flush us out of the corner. ‘‘Come on, you guys! Dance with us!’’ and with that invitation we join the periphery of dancers—here we can pass as marginally appropriate, in the safe zone, amongst the girls. Shelly, always bubbly and enthusiastic, pushes the margin by freaking me, and despite her rumored bisexuality, her behavior (and my response to it) is still acceptable—heterosexist assumptions protect us. The scene I describe was a common one in Brenda’s and my four years of teaching together at a small high school in the Midwest; we enjoyed blending in with our students. After all, they were often better company than our colleague-sentinels, who watched with narrowed eyes from their various posts about the building. Though our private fantasies remained just that, we worked within a patriarchal system that assumes a Cartesian duality—only minds, not bodies, are to be involved in teacher=student interaction—and so our acts of resistance in forming close relationships with our