Spillane, James P. (2004). Standards deviation: how schools misunderstand education policy. Reviewed by Adam Lefstein, King's College

	Spillane, James P. (2004). Standards deviation: how schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Pp. xi + 205 $45     ISBN 0674013239 Reviewed by Adam Lefstein King’s College, London December 15, 2004 Educational reform efforts that seek to deeply and positively change classroom practices have been notoriously unsuccessful. James Spillane’s Standards Deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy adds an important perspective to study of this problem: how National and State policies are understood and implemented at the local district and classroom levels. Reading Standards Deviation reminded me of a John Trever cartoon (Note 1) about the No Child Left Behind Act. In the first frame President Bush hands an Education Bill to the States, announcing, “No child left behind!” Next, a State policymaker exclaims, “Leave no child behind!” to a District superintendent, who passes the message, “Don’t let any child fall behind!” to a school principal. The latter then instructs a teacher, “Don’t let any child fall behind and fail!” The teacher exhorts parents to “Don’t fail to get behind your child!” Finally, the parents warn their child, “Don’t fail or it’s your behind!” The cartoonist has captured one of Spillane’s main ideas, namely, that policy messages are distorted as they filter down through the various levels of educational administration. However, Spillane might argue, the cartoonist has mistakenly depicted local educational administrators as relatively passive conduits of National policy. Spillane claims that this simplistic approach to local policymaking is common also in the scholarly literature, which has largely overlooked the role of school districts in educational reform. Standards Deviation is an attempt to fill this gap, by demonstrating the active and critical roles played by local policy-makers in interpreting and shaping National and State initiatives. In this review I first give a general overview of the book and then critically discuss what I see to be its primary advantages and shortcomings. Spillane explores the implementation process of standards-based reforms of Mathematics and Science teaching in Michigan between 1992 and 1996. He adopts a cognitive perspective, which foregrounds how agents in the implementation process make sense of the policies upon which they act. Spillane offers a vivid analogy for how this process can be conceptualized: Policy implementation is like the telephone game: the player at the start of the line tells a story to the next person in line who then relays the story to the third person in line, and so on. Of course, by the time the story is retold by the final player to everyone it is very different from the original story. The story is morphed as it moves from player to player – characters change, protagonists become antagonists, new plots emerge. This happens not because the players are intentionally trying to change the story; it happens because that is the nature of human sense-making. (p. 8) The book follows the “stories” of the Mathematics and Science standards as they are picked up by Michigan Department of Education officials from National agencies, and passed on to district and classroom level players. The organization of its eight chapters reflects this progression: chapter one provides an introduction to and overview of the book; chapter two discusses the context and content of State policy-making with regard to Mathematics and Science standards; chapters 3-5 explore how policymakers in nine school districts interpreted, responded to and incorporated the standards into their instructional policies; chapters six and seven examine how teachers in those districts understood the standards and enacted them in their classroom practice; and the final chapter discusses implications of the study for policy analysis, research and design. In the late 1980s two loose coalitions of state officials, academics and school professionals in Michigan sought to significantly transform the teaching of Science and Mathematics in the state. Whereas previous policy – embodied in the State’s statement of “Essential Goals and Objectives” and in the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) – had emphasized basic skills, the reformersendeavoured to join a National movement for more intellectually challenging standards. Spillane emphasizes that this program did not involve merely superficial modifications, but an ambitious and substantial shift in how Science and Mathematics education should be conceived. These mathematics and science standards sought tremendous changes in Michigan classrooms. The successful implementation of these ideas about mathematics and science education would involve much more than adding to, subtracting from, or shuffling around mathematics or science topics. The standards required a reconceptualization of science and mathematics education. (p. 29) Spillane summarizes this reconceptualization as a shift from an exclusive emphasis on procedural knowledge (i.e. “following predetermined steps to accurately compute correct answers”) to a curriculum that balances procedural and principled knowledge (i.e. conceptual understanding). Spillane expects this shift to be manifested in fundamental changes in the academic tasks given to students and in the way students and teachers discuss Mathematics and Science. State policymakers faced multiple challenges, including severely limited resources, an unstable political environment and a fragmented governmental system. Some of these problems led to inconsistencies in the policy. For example, in a fascinating section, Spillane recounts how policymakers’ attempts to align the Mathematics standards and the MEAP were thwarted. State officials designed a testing instrument relying on multiple choice questions for one third of the examination, with the other two thirds consisting of free- or extended response questions, which were deemed to be better suited for assessing conceptual understanding. However, financial constraints and legal concerns ultimately led to a predominantly multiple choice examination, 90% of which measured procedural knowledge, according to one official’s estimate. Successful implementation of the standards depended on what Michigan’s 545 school districts did with them. Spillane studied how a sample of nine diverse districts responded to the standards. He found that State policymaking was accompanied by a flurry of local policymaking in all nine districts, as district officials attended to the new standards and sought to align their own curricular guides, materials and professional development activities to the new State policy. However, in two thirds of the districts, modifications were for the most part superficial, primarily involving changes to topic coverage and sequencing. In only one third of the cases studied did district policy support the fundamental shifts intended by State policy. What explains the differences between the high and low support districts? Spillane suggests that the differences stem from different understandings of what the standards entailed: Most district policymakers understood the reform ideas in ways that preserved conventional views of mathematics and science as procedural knowledge, teaching as telling or showing, and learning as remembering. (p. 81) These policymakers construed new policies as being essentially similar to previous ideas they held, focussed on surface level features of policies and attended primarily to the familiar (at the expense of the novel). Spillane found that officials working in districts with low support of the standards were far more likely to have surface understandings of the policy than their counterparts in the high support districts. He also inquires into the factors that influence these different understandings, highlighting human, social and material resources. The next stage in this policy implementation process is to follow the standards from the districts into the schools. Spillane surveyed teachers in order to inquire into the sources of instructional advice that influence them (e.g. district policies, State standards), their beliefs about Mathematics and its instruction and the teaching practices in which they engage. Teachers reported that the district policy was their main source of advice, often mediating and amplifying messages from State and national sources. Results from the survey suggest also that teachers’ beliefs about Mathematics were more closely aligned with the reform ideas (e.g. “To be good in mathematics [it is very important] for students to be able to provide reasons to support their solutions.”) than with conventional beliefs (e.g. “To be good in mathematics [it is very important] for students to remember formulas and procedures.”). Regarding teachers’ reports about their own instructional practices results were more mixed, with some practices promoted by the reforms being adopted more widely than others. A regression analysis suggests that district policies are an important factor in teachers’ (reported) practice. In the districts with high support for the standards, “teacher familiarity with their district’s… curricular guide was a significant predictor of standards-oriented instruction” (p. 135). Spillane is aware that teachers’ reports of practice do not necessarily reflect what actually happens in their classrooms. Thus, he and his colleagues randomly selected a sample of teachers from among the 10% who reported practices most closely aligned with the standards. Each of these teachers were observed and interviewed twice. Of the 25 primary teachers observed, Spillane judged only four to be balancing principled and procedural understanding as intended by the reform policy. He terms this “level I” implementation. In Level II implementation (10 classrooms), students engage with principled tasks, but classroom discourse is devoted to procedural issues. Level III implementation (11 classrooms) can be summarized as “new activities, old mathematics”: “while we observed tasks that involved problem solving and applying mathematics to real-world situations, these tasks focused almost exclusively on procedural knowledge and facts… represented mathematics as being chiefly, often exclusively, about computing right answers using predetermined formulas and procedures” (p. 148). These results are sobering for anyone hoping to enact meaningful reform of instructional practice. Recalling that these teachers were selected from a subsample of respondents reporting highest adherence to the standards, it is reasonable to assume that a very small proportion (e.g. 16% of %10 = %1.6?) of teachers are implementing the standards as intended. On the other hand, Standards Deviation does give some room for hope: it shows that policy is not irrelevant to practice, and that the system has worked for some of the teachers. In the final sections of the book Spillane looks closely at the Level I implementers and their circumstances. He describes teacher sense-making of the standards as complicated and arduous. Among the factors that positively impinge upon this process are sense-making resources, opportunities for investigation and a school culture that enables and encourages teacher collaboration. I highly recommend Standards Deviation to academics and professionals interested in school reform. Its subject matter is timely and important, and it adds important perspective to studies of policy implementation, both in terms of its cognitive focus on individual sense-making and with regard to the way it highlights local district policymaking. It is very well-written: the prose is straightforward and clear, the argument coherent, and personal profiles and vignettes at the beginning of each chapter bring the material alive. I would also recommend Standards Deviation to research students interested in a good example of an elegant combination of multi-level analysis, methodological flexibility and a coherent framework. Finally, without intending to diminish that recommendation in any way, I want to offer two criticisms of Spillane’s argument and what I see as problematic assumptions upon which it is based. The first assumption I wish to question is that there is one correct understanding of the policies advanced. Spillane is very clear in distinguishing between policymakers’ true intention – i.e. instruction reflecting a balance of principled and procedural knowledge – and users’ surface or mis- understandings of the policy – i.e. aspects relating to the organization of topics covered and/or selection of activities. This distinction seems problematic in light of the book’s discussion of the inconsistencies in State policy. Specifically and most strikingly, the MEAP and the “Essential Goals and Objectives” reflected two different instructional approaches. Similarly, districts communicated to schools conflicting messages. As Spillane notes in his concluding chapter, “policy might best be thought about as plural rather than singular” (p. 172). However, Spillane does not discuss the implications of this plurality for his argument as a whole. If “the policy” is actually plural, and thus lends itself to multiple understandings – why cast any interpretation except that favored by Spillane as a misunderstanding? Perhaps district policymakers and teachers have understood the mixed messages being transmitted by the State and have chosen to adopt the version upon which they will be tested. Or perhaps they have understood the ambitious intentions behind the standards, but see them as unworkable. While I am personally sympathetic to the educational aims and values implicit in Spillane’s interpretation, it is unfortunate that he has denigrated others’ divergent interpretations by casting them as the result of a cognitive shortcoming. This approach may limit a more complete understanding of the problem. The second problem I wish to raise concerns the assumption implicit throughout the book that teachers’ beliefs and understandings about instruction are key determinants of their practice. Spillane writes, for example, [T]eachers who view mathematics exclusively in terms of procedural knowledge will differ in how they present mathematics to students compared with teachers who appreciate mathematics as involving principled knowledge. (p. 124) While this assumption seems common-sensical, there is good reason to believe that the relationship between a teacher’s cognition and practice is not so straightforward. Rather, much of what happens in the classroom is the product of unconscious habits and routine interactional norms. Spillane’s discussion of level III implementers is suggestive of this dynamic. He documents how discourse in these teachers’ classrooms focused on getting the right answer instead of providing opportunities for exploring mathematical reasoning. Teachers nonetheless seemed to recognize the importance of having students publicly explain and support their ideas… Yet we found scant evidence that these teachers encouraged students to explain or justify their mathematical thinking. They were aware that engaging students in conversations about mathematics was important, but acknowledged that nurturing these conversations was difficult. One elementary teacher remarked, “As a teacher, I find it really hard not to give them the answer.” Other teachers made similar comments. (p. 154). If teaching activity is primarily governed by a teacher’s beliefs and understanding, why would the teacher interviewed find it “really hard not to give them the answer”? The answer, I believe, is that most actions in the classroom are a function of habit, not conscious decisions. They are a function of one’s identity, “as a teacher”. The teacher in this example experiences tension between what she thinks (i.e. the teacher shouldn’t always give students the answer) and the teaching role to which she has become accustomed (i.e. the bearer of truth and solver of problems). Moreover, teachers’ actions are not entirely their own. Rather, they are at least partially the product of interaction with students, who bring their own expectations about mathematics instruction to the classroom. Frustrating those expectations, at least in the short term, can create numerous other difficulties, which may partially explain the sketchy implementation Spillane documents. In closing, I would like to emphasize that, notwithstanding these criticisms, Standards Deviation makes an important contribution to understanding the complicated yet critical problem of implementing meaningful and ambitious instructional change. Note 1. AlbuquerqueJournal, January 10, 2002. (Available on-line at http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/trever.asp?Action=GetImage) About the Reviewer Adam Lefstein is a doctoral student in Educational Studies at King's College London. His research explores teacher enactment of the UK National Literacy Strategy. He has previously worked as a teacher, facilitator of teacher learning and director of a school reform program at the Branco Weiss Institute in Jerusalem.

Clarke, Anthony and Erickson, Gaalen (Editors). (2003). Teacher Inquiry: Living the Research in Everyday Practice. Reviewed by Alcione N Ostorga, University of Texas Pan American

	Clarke, Anthony and Erickson, Gaalen (Editors). (2003). Teacher Inquiry: Living the Research in Everyday Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Pp. xvi +247 $ 139.95     ISBN 0-415-29795-8 Reviewed by Alcione N Ostorga University of Texas Pan American December 21, 2004 Currently, there are two general views of teaching as a profession. In one view, teachers are seen as technicians, or experts in how to apply prescribed methodologies in the classroom. This perspective considers teachers as consumers of the professional knowledge of teaching and learning. In this perspective, teachers do not think about the right approaches but follow the guidelines and curriculum prescribed by the school administrators. In the second view, teachers are considered professionals who are not only knowledgeable of learning theories and methods of instruction, but also active constructors of knowledge. They are critical thinkers and therefore capable of engaging in research about practices. The book Teacher Inquiry is an example of the latter view. The volume represents a collaborative effort among school teachers, teacher educators and program administrators comprising a collection of action research to examine and improve practice. Action research conducted by teachers is a growing practice that is gaining acceptance among educators and administrators as seen by rise in efforts to promote its use. Benefits of engaging teachers in action research include the promotion of reflectivity and development of the critical stance necessary of effective teachers. Furthermore, teachers who engage in action research not only promote their own development and the development of their practice, they also contribute to the evolution of their field. Nevertheless, there are still some who view this practice suspiciously. Critics of teacher research question the teachers’ preparation to engage in such endeavors. They may see action research as a non-scientific process lacking the necessary rigor of systematic methods of inquiry. Yet, a close analysis of action research conducted by teachers reveals that high quality action research can be considered scientific if it meets the strict standards of good research practices. In a recent editorial of the Journal of Teacher education, Cochran-Smith cites a National Research Council report (NRC 2001, as cited by Cochran-Smith, 2002) as an authority in defining what constitutes scientific research in education. The report states: To be scientific, the design must allow direct, empirical investigation of an important question, account for the context in which the study is carried out, align with a conceptual framework, reflect careful and thorough reasoning, and disclose results to encourage debate in the scientific community. (p. 4) In reviewing the book Teacher Inquiry, I find that all of the studies reported seem to meet the criteria above. In fact, the high level of scholarship is commendable. It is evident that teacher research empowers the teachers to become active participants in making decisions about curriculum and to help shape the knowledge base of the profession of teaching. Therefore, proponents of teacher research should work to develop the construct not only as a viable form of inquiry, but also a valid one. This book helps to support the notion that teachers action research can bring new and important knowledge of the teaching/learning process and that this knowledge can improve the effectiveness of teachers. The book begins with an overview presented by the editors. In chapter 1, Clarke and Erickson define teacher inquiry as insider research that critically examines teaching and student development. They affirm that teaching as a professional practice which differs from technical labor, requires continuous learning about the profession by staying abreast of developments in the field and experimenting with innovations that may lead to improvements in practice. They present a collection of papers based on their assertion that teaching as a profession evolves from the insider’s research. The remaining 21chapters of the book are grouped into three categories. Part I, entitled Enacting Teacher Research, is composed of 12 chapters written by teacher practitioners focusing on examining their own classroom practices and impact of these practices on student learning. This part begins with Chapter 2, written by Kim Douillard. It presents a descriptive account of her work in developing a tool for the assessment of writing. In her study, she analyzes the relationships between assessment and writing instruction. The detailed account examines the complex process of assessing students’ writing and designing instruction to address the findings of the assessment. In Chapter 3, Miriam Cooley, an art educator and Chris Lugar, a teacher of English and Drama examine the impact their practices had on the personal and artistic development of their students while they integrated visual arts and drama in the instructional process. They write from the perspective of reflective practitioner researchers explained by Taylor (1996) using reflection-in- action as away to guide their research. The work demonstrates how their reflections informed their practice. In Chapter 4, Danan McNamara investigates the impact of an instructional approach that combines sketching and writing with a multiage group of 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders. She found that her approach helped children to think deeply about the world. The thinking helped to promote their written and oral expression and helped them to understand writing as process rather than a product. Furthermore, McNamara found that engaging in research helped her become more creative and more willing to try out new instructional approaches in her classroom that were tailored to the needs of her students. Shall We Dance is the title of Chapter 5, written by Peter Gouzouasis and Barbara Leigh. The writers use the dance metaphor to illustrate the relationships between student teachers and sponsor teachers. The inquiry took place within the context of the FAME cohort (Fine Arts and Media Education), a project that infused play, creativity and imagination in the traditional curriculum of teacher education. The authors analyze the series of field experiences implemented in the program and how each experience contributes to the growth of the student teachers. The logical reasoning for the matching of student teachers to their respective mentors is explained through the dance metaphor. Chapter 6, written by Vinnie Acklin, presents her research of instructional practices that promoted the development of vocabulary as a means to improve reading proficiency. The study included a quantitative analysis of the outcomes through the use of a test administered to second and third graders. In her conclusion she articulates the direct impact of the inquiry on her teaching practices. The chapter shows how teacher research can be a systematic inquiry where teachers validate their practices because they make informed decisions based on data (Fueyo & Koorland, 1997). Chapter 7, entitled Teaching From the Inside Out, Kit Grauer and Rosamar Garcia present a case study of a teacher’s beliefs and practices while integrating the arts in all areas of the curriculum. The image based study uses photographs to prompt reflection, interpretation and analysis. The authors concluded that the use of the digital camera as a data collection medium was positive in many ways, it opens the possibility of allowing the participants to be actively involved in the research process, in addition the images prompted reflections on practice, and provided a way for teachers to dialogue with parents about their values about art in education. In Chapter 8, Elizabeth and Jim Kreuger examine the implementation and evaluation of a family-school partnership where parents were asked to help children with their homework. The program attempted to include parents in the dialogue about curriculum needs and to develop a program that rose out of the needs of the community, important components for successful parent involvement. The analysis and evaluation are thorough and included an examination from the perspectives of the different stakeholders. Chapter 9, written by a group of teachers under the mentorship of Carl Leggo, a university professor of language and literacy, is a descriptive narrative of the teachers’ reflections on their practices. The work is presented as a performance in a style often referred to as Readers Theater. It includes prose and poetry reflecting the main theme of caring as the teachers’ responses to their experiences in the classroom. Chapter 10 was written by Sharon Shockley Lee and Owen van den Berg, both university professors. The self-study examined issues of ethics and power. In their conclusion they argue that teacher researchers should strive to be ethical by seeking safety for all involved, allowing for free and equal voice and minimizing power inequities. Another example of research that includes the voices of all participants is the longitudinal narrative research done by Hasebe-Ludt, Bright, Chambers, Fowler, Pollard and Winsor, the authors of chapter 11 of the book. The essay describes the first year of a longitudinal study to examine the meaning of literacies. Given the expanded understanding of the term literacy present today to include media literacy, technological literacy and numeracy, in addition to the more traditional meaning, the researchers seek to develop a more updated definition of the term by examining the narratives of teachers, supervisors of student teachers and young students. They also examined the impact of new expanded forms of literacies on pedagogical practices and implication for teacher educators. Chapter 12, the final chapter in Part I is a collaborative self-study that examines the professional growth of three teachers; Donna F Nelson, Kay Strouse and Christine Waechter and a field experience director, Henry St Maurice. The study takes place within the context of the current reform in teacher preparation programs and new rules for teacher licensure. The chapter includes each teacher’s reflections on professional growth and action research over a period of five years. The conclusion includes a discussion of the implications of the findings for teacher preparation policies. The work in the first part represents both, research that is scientific and empirical, as well as artistic in nature. The empirical studies show a direct relationship between the conclusions of the study and the impact on practice. In other words, the teacher researchers findings informed their practice and made them better teachers. The descriptive work that is more artistic does not articulate this type of relationship though it brings to light important aspects of practice that in turn may become the subject of future research. Part II, entitled Methods and Models of Teacher Research, is comprised of four chapters, each highlighting a specific model of teacher research. Garry Hoban developed an approach implemented with pre-service teachers. He developed an Internet web site to assist pre-service teachers in the process of analyzing and sharing their own experiences. The chapter explains how pre-service teachers were guided to research and theorize about their own experiences as learners. Another model of action research presented in this part makes use of Problem based learning. The chapter written by Elizabeth Jordan, Marian Porath and Gillian Bickerton explores project based learning as a viable approach to inquiry where teacher researchers are actively involved in learning while researching. The method involves the teacher setting the classroom activities so that students are engaged in a problem based learning project. This project then becomes both “a teaching strategy and a foundation for research.” Amanda Nicole Gulla explains how poetry can be used as a self-reflective tool that informs both the teller of the story and the listener. In the final chapter of this section, Susan Walsh, explores how a collaborative arts-based inquiry can be used as a way to do teacher research. In this approach teachers share art work that is created to symbolize the fears and pains of teaching. The chapter includes actual images and text of the nine teachers who participated in the research carried out by Walsh to illustrate how art can be used as a tool for interpretation of experiences. The last part of the book is comprised of six chapters focusing on emergent issues in teacher inquiry. The section begins with an analysis of the nature of teacher research by John Loughran, a respected figure in teacher education. In this chapter, Loughran explains teacher inquiry as valuable, because teachers have the ”authority of experience” and risky, because teacher researchers are directly impacted by the consequences of the interventions that are a part of their research. He outlines three conditions for the successful support of teacher research: teacher researchers should 1) collaborate in their research and share their findings with others, 2) develop self confidence to withstand the critical exposures of their own practices, and 3) communicate findings in a manner appropriate to the intended audience, other practitioners. Another important issue is the use of teacher research not only as a way to inform educational leaders and administrators but also an approach used by administrators to examine the validity of their own knowledge of education. Jack Whitehead and Jacqueline D Delong explain this topic as they narrate their own self-inquiry. Ian Mitchell explores why teacher research is important from the perspectives of four stakeholders: the teacher researchers, school administrators, system level officials and university-based teacher educators. The four perspectives are ways to examine reasons for engaging in teacher research, risks, costs and barriers to teacher research, how to initiate and sustain teacher research, the costs, benefits and reasons for sharing findings and standards for judging the products of teacher research. He concludes that all stakeholders should be key players in making research a regular feature of the teaching field. Judith McBride explains how teacher research needs to meet strict criteria to make it valid research and be more than a teacher’s story. She explores the issue through her own self study and explains that qualitative teacher research may be considered valid when it promotes transformation in practice which is evidence of learning. Jean McNiff examines the issue of evaluation as an important aspect of teacher research. She explains evaluation as a process of self-reflection that promotes growth and improvement of practices. She also affirms the value of different voices rather than an affirmation of one right or wrong, good or bad approach. This view of evaluation recognizes that each action research describes a perspective that is correct within the context of the lived experiences of that particular researcher. In the last chapter of the book, Sarah Fletcher and Jack Whitehead examined the use of digital video to investigate their practice with the aim of improving it. This approach to teacher research uses the digital medium as a technological tool of self-reflection that may lead to transformation of practice as teacher researchers become aware of the contradictions present in their daily professional lives. The tension lies in the differences between the educators’ values and their professional actions within the context of the classroom. They argue that the use of digital video to record classroom practice brings awareness of these contradictions and promotes improvement as the educator/researcher seeks to integrate professional values and practice. Each chapter in the book illustrates the growth of teachers as they engaged in inquiry and examined their practice. Concurrently, each chapter represents the contributions that teacher practitioners, as insiders in the field, can make to the knowledge of their profession through systematic research that informs practice. This book demonstrates that a high level of scholarship may be attained by teacher researchers. Therefore Teacher Inquiry is a book that makes an important contribution to the field of teacher education. Fueyo and Koorland (1997) explained that preparing teachers as researchers requires careful curriculum planning and on going dialogue through school based forums to promote inquiry. This approach to the preparation of teachers and staff development requires specific knowledge of how to guide teachers in the process of inquiry. This book can be an excellent text in graduate courses for teacher educators and administrators because it provides examples of how teacher inquiry can become an important component for the promotion of professionalism in every school setting. References Cochran-Smith, M. (2002). What a difference a definition makes: Highly qualified teachers, scientific research and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 187-188. Fueyo, V. & Koorland, M. A. (1997). Teacher as researcher: A synonym for professionalism. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 336+. Retrieved November 23, 2004, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com. Taylor, P. (1996). Doing reflective practitioner research in arts education. In P. Taylor (Ed.) Researching Drama and Arts Education: paradigms and possibilities. (pp. 25-58) Washington: Falmer Press. About the Reviewer Alcione N Ostorga is assistant professor of early childhood and bilingual education at the University of Texas Pan American. She teaches courses in educational technology, instructional methods and classroom management and student teaching seminar. He research focuses on the development of reflective thinking in preservice teachers and supporting new teachers' in action research.

Kumashiro, Kevin K. (2004). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice. Reviewed by Regina Trudy Praetorius, Louisiana State University

	Kumashiro, Kevin K. (2004). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice. NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Pp. ix + 121 ISBN 0-415-94857-6 Reviewed by Regina Trudy Praetorius Louisiana State University December 24, 2004 Anti-oppressive education is “against common sense.” This is the premise for Kevin Kumashiro’s book, Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice which concerns itself primarily with how to teach teachers to be anti-oppressive educators. Additionally, the book gives pertinent examples and illustrations that are useful for teachers practicing in the field. At first glance, this statement that anti-oppressive education, or teaching toward social justice, is against common sense may itself seem “against common sense.” However, Kumashiro gives a thorough treatment supporting this premise. He begins by eloquently sharing a very intimate account of his first teaching experience as a Peace Corps volunteer in Nepal. Not only is this an intimate account, but one that leaves him rather vulnerable to the reader. His vulnerability comes from his description of his many faux pas during his tenure in Nepal as a result of his American worldview or lens which he used to view the educational system in Nepal. Being an idealistic new teacher, he approached education in Nepal with American ideas and strove for innovation. He met with resistance and he does an estimable job of explaining the disconnect between his American understanding of education and the Nepali culture of education. This willingness to be vulnerable and expose his experiences using, unknowingly, oppressive techniques in the classroom is part of what entreats the reader to continue past the introduction. This is partly because his disclosures of his own errors as a teacher immediately comfort the reader. It is a clear message that the book will not be a chance for Kumashiro to lecture and preach on his own prowess in the subject of anti-oppressive education. In fact, Kumashiro approaches the subject very humbly and throughout the book, reflects on ways he can improve in his own teaching. In the introduction, Kumashiro sets the stage for the book’s subject: anti-oppressive education. After defining his own experience in Nepal and the realization that his educational practices were oppressive to his Nepali students, he defines the “common sense” that the title alludes to that is found in the schools in the US. He then goes on to introduce anti-oppressive education and the four main approaches traditionally taken in producing anti-oppressive educational techniques. In this piece, Kumashiro relies heavily on his experiences in the US educational system, his experience as a Peace Corps volunteer teacher, and his experiences as a teacher educator on the university level. Throughout the book, he uses these experiences as vivid examples for bringing the reader into his conception and understanding of oppressive and anti-oppressive education. As Kumashiro (2004) states: The question for educational reformers is not whether schools should be addressing issues of oppression. Schools are always and already addressing oppression, often by reinforcing it or at least allowing it to continue playing out unchallenged, and often without realizing that they are doing so. The question needs to be how schools should be differently addressing issues of oppression. And therein lies the reason for re-centering education on issues of social justice, that is, on a social movement against oppression (p. xxiv-xxv). In defining this how, Kumashiro begins by describing ways that teachers are deemed “good” in US educational systems: the learned practitioner, researcher, and professional. He uses this as his foundation for the remainder of the book in describing ways that current teaching methods are oppressive and in beginning to address how to move from oppressive teaching toward anti-oppressive teaching. In the second chapter, Kumashiro introduces the concept that learning and teaching should result in a crisis state for the learner and the teacher. This may seem odd since in our understanding, education should result in growth and increased knowledge, not crisis. However, it is important to look to a different understanding of crisis here. In thinking of crisis, anxiety may be the first thought; contrastingly, what usually accompanies crisis, and is often overlooked, is opportunity (James & Gilliland, 2001). Kumashiro (2004) defines crisis in this case as “a state of emotional discomfort and disorientation that calls on students to make some change. When in crisis, students feel that they have learned something that requires some response” (p. 28). In this particular crisis that Kumashiro recommends teachers create for their students and themselves, the opportunity is for growth and deeper critical thinking on the given subject through the obligatory response. Kumashiro posits that it is impossible to ever be completely anti-oppressive as educators. So one might ask, what is the purpose of the book then? Kumashiro is meticulous in providing examples across disciplines of how oppression, like crisis, is self-defined. To expand upon oppression as self-defined, what may be oppressive for one student given his/her set of cultural identities (e.g. ethnicity, socio-economic status, religion, family structure) may not be oppressive for another student. It is impossible for a teacher, as much as he/she knows the students and their backgrounds, to know every aspect of what may or may not be oppressive to each of the student. This impossibility is rooted in the truth that we are all so unique in our experiences and world views. The answer to this conundrum is to create crisis by exposing all sides and views of a subject when teaching. Creating crisis in the learner, by pointing to contrasting views of a subject, lead the student to think critically on the topic and to begin to develop and embrace his or her own truths. While the obvious example here might be a history or social studies lesson, Kumashiro shows that this type of crisis can be created across disciplines. In fact, in part two of the book, he dedicates separate chapters with extensive examples of these crises in social studies, English literature, music, foreign languages, natural sciences, and mathematics. After discussing the concept of crisis as integral to teaching anti-oppressively, Kumashiro also focuses on the ways that students may learn lessons unintentionally, how students are hindered in their learning when teachers do not tend to their emotions, and how teaching and learning are related to activism. He explains that sometimes, in choosing content, what is overly focused upon or what is not included at all, teaches lessons on a subconscious or hidden level that was unintended by the teacher. Kumashiro uses the illustrative example of how gender differences are infused in both the lessons of the classroom (which is intended in the curriculum) and unintentionally through school culture (e.g. using gender as a means of grouping for various activities, perpetuating stereotypes through things like only boys are asked to help with moving furniture and the focus on males in literature and history books). He points out that not only are the unintentional messages often harmful but also, the intentional ones (e.g. Women’s History Month, focus on women writers) are much more scarce and sporadic. Not only are teachers to be concerned with the intentional and unintentional lessons that are below the surface of the daily goings-on of a school but they should also tend to the emotions of the students. In the chapter on Healing, Kumashiro uses a touching example from his career of student reactions to one of their classmates being murdered. During this time of grief for the students, many of Kumashiro’s colleagues had tried to leave the students emotions at the door of the classroom and move on with the curriculum as if nothing had happened. Kumashiro relies on a Buddhist philosopher, Thich Nhat Hanh, for a framework that is useful in conceptualizing how learning can be used to relieve human suffering. Kumashiro’s own conceptualization of how Nhat Hanh’s teachings can be applied to teacher education offer a unique vision: I can imagine, for example, courses that center on addressing social problems in the here and now, rather than on abstracted orderings of what someone has already defined to be the things future teachers need to learn. I can imagine programs that strive to prepare teachers who relate to the world and to knowledge in very troubled, paradoxical ways, rather than in ways that value the accumulation of what someone has already defined to be valuable. I can imagine teacher educators who care about teachers and students working to reduce suffering, rather than conforming to commonsensical ideals of who they are supposed to be and become. And I imagine that such aspects of teacher education can help us address our students who are suffering from tragedies or from just living in this world (p. 42). Inherent in this vision of Kumashiro’s, is a goal toward social reform. However, in understanding Kumashiro’s particular view of social reform, it is necessary to realize that when one approaches social reform, there is an inherent trap. This trap is a society’s or group’s understanding of normalcy or what should be epitomized as the common goal. Kumashiro (2004) is very careful in noting that normalcy, like crisis and anti-oppressive education, must be self-defined. He devotes a chapter to this in terms of “A Reflection on Things Queer” (p. 43) where he explores the common definitions of normalcy and an alternative understanding, provided by the “queer” culture. As was mentioned earlier, in part two, Kumashiro devotes time to chapters focusing on examples of crises in a variety of disciplines. For example, in the chapter on music, he uses a well-known piece of Christian music and a song from Hawaii to illustrate how the whole story is not always told. He used these two pieces with some of his students in a teacher education class. He asked them first to share their feelings and images when hearing the Christian piece and then do the same when hearing the Hawaiian piece. He later explained to them the history of how Hawaii was once ruled by a monarchy and the US played a part in the monarchy falling out of power. He also explained that the song, though using Hawaiian musical style, used the Hawaiian language to convert the native Hawaiians to Christianity and was composed by missionaries. He went on to expose the suffering of the Hawaiian people that we “mainlanders” never think of because we view Hawaii is a domestic vacation land where everyone, especially its residents, are in paradise. This is a compelling example of how education can be unknowingly oppressive. Kumashiro provides similar innovative examples in the other disciplines but one worth mentioning is the chapter on natural science which includes discourse on teaching reproduction and how the words used can subtly be oppressive. In particular, the way we describe the process of conception can be laden with sexist preconceptions. The language or images we use often reflect commonsensical, sexist assumptions about gender and gender relations: Maleness is active (penetrates, changes), femaleness is passive (is there to be penetrated, is what results if no changes are made). Maleness is more developed or somehow beyond femaleness, which is where both males and females “start,” or which is easier to construct in terms of appearance and function. By thinking within this framework, we are already assuming that males are not just different but better than females (Kumashiro, 2004, p. 91). As is evidenced by the content of this and other examples Kumashiro gives of ways educational methods are oppressive, he does an admirable job of bringing the reader into his/her own crisis. This crisis leads the reader to think beyond the surface of teaching and see the hidden messages in all that we do as educators. Kumashiro’s style is also a gift here. As stated previously, he is honest about his own mishaps with teaching which endears the reader to him rather than putting the consumer on the defensive. While Kumashiro notes that there is no easy or correct answer to approaching anti-oppressive education, he provides the reader with illustrative examples and reflections. These feed the reader and lead to growth and reflection so as to consider our own solutions to teaching anti-oppressively. In closing, Kumashiro (2004) states: Becoming anti-oppressive teachers requires not that we first reach a certain point, or that we first revamp everything about our teaching, or that we step outside of practical and political barriers. Anti-oppressive teaching happens only when we are trying to address the partial nature of our own teaching. As illustrated throughout this book, it happens when we focus on one unit, or one lesson, or one moment of our teaching, and rethink the possibilities for change within the particular social, historical, political, and pedagogical context in which it arose (106-107). Reference James, R. K., & Gilliland, B. E. (2001). Crisis intervention strategies. Brooks/Cole: Blemont, CA. About the Reviewer Regina Trudy Praetorius, MSSW, LCSW is an instructor and co- program director for Louisiana State University’s (LSU) Academic Programs Abroad. She teaches a course in the School of Social Work using service-learning in a course on healthcare service delivery. The course takes place in Belize, Central America. She is also pursuing a PhD in Adult Education from the LSU School of Human Resource Education and Workforce Development.

Bohan, Chara Haeussler. (2004). Go to the Sources: Lucy Maynard Salmon and the Teaching of History. Reviewed by Brett A. Berliner, Morgan State University

Bohan, Chara Haeussler. (2004). Go to the Sources: Lucy Maynard Salmon and the Teaching of History. N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Pp. xix + 165 $29.95     ISBN 0-8204-5504-0 Reviewed by Brett A. Berliner Morgan State University December 25, 2004 In the nineteenth century, history came into its own as a discipline, breaking away from philosophy and philology. If there was a paramount goal of this evolving field, it would be that of the great German historian Leopold von Ranke who claimed he only sought to write history "as it actually happened." By the end of the century, Ranke and his successors defined a science of history that had a rigorous methodology and an obsession with objectivity. Thomas Gradgrind, the absurd positivist who opened a school in Charles Dickens's Hard Times and who exclaimed, "facts alone are wanted in life," would have been at home in this scientific history. So too are the likes of Diane Ravich and her ilk today who subject students to "objective" exams and contemptuously point out what they do not know and then disparage our public schools and teachers. Predictably, those who are now obsessed with high stakes testing of content only look to the most traditional approach to academic history. But they and their opponents, not to mention all of our students, would be well served to examine the work of Lucy Maynard Salmon (1853-1927), a progressive era educator, reformer, and proponent of the "new social history." Salmon, like so many women, has long suffered from the condescension of our collective memory—but perhaps no longer. She is now sympathetically championed in Chara Haeussler Bohan's Go to the Sources, a thin biography that ably sketches Salmon's life and innovative approach to the teaching of history. Salmon's life was remarkable in many ways and yet typical of a few middle class progressive woman of her generation. Born in upstate New York, Salmon was well educated, graduating from the University of Michigan in 1876, one of only a dozen women. Fresh with a degree in history, she went into teaching and administration in a rural high school in Iowa. Depressed and not looking for a marriage, Salmon returned to Michigan for a master's degree. Her education enthralled her, but the degree bought her a dissatisfying experience teaching in a normal school, so much so that she came to believe normal schools should not exist. Despite what Bohan argues was a sincere democratic ethos, Salmon fled from the masses and returned to her studies, this time as a fellow at Bryn Mawr under a young, pedantic and misogynistic Woodrow Wilson. One year later, in 1887, Salmon accepted a teaching position at Vassar, the elite woman's college, where she would remain unmarried and totally dedicated to her students and profession for the rest of her life, a not untypical choice for educated and professionally minded women of her generation. Despite the gender barriers she faced, some of which Bohan details, Salmon made significant contributions to her profession and American education. She was an institution builder, helping to establish the American Association of University Professors and the American Association of University Women. In addition, she was an early member of the American Historical Association (AHA), and it was through the AHA that Salmon's ideas had their first and, perhaps, widest impact on public education. In 1896, Salmon joined the AHA's Committee of Seven and was charged with examining the actual teaching of history in the secondary schools and making recommendations for reform. The Committee did not recommend the memorization of facts; rather, history, it argued, was to inculcate a "'sympathetic knowledge of… [the] political and social environment.'"(p. 79) The Committee's progressivism went even further, claiming history should give rise to a "'broad and tolerant spirit.'" (p. 79) More than just establishing a uniform four-year history sequence, which, Bohan suggests, shaped our school's curricula for decades and still influences them, the Committee recommended, in part, how history should be taught. Here, Salmon had her most influence, arguing that students should be introduced to original sources and taught "how to analyze the relationships between evidence and historical statement." (p. 80) The Committee's recommendations, like most committees, were born from compromise. Salmon's own beliefs about history and education, Bohan argues, were much more progressive. Dissatisfied with the limitations of scientific history and its emphasis on facts, high politics, and military engagements, Salmon and a number of her colleagues, like Frederick Jackson Turner, James Harvey Robinson, and Charles Beard, expanded the grand narrative and developed "the new social history" around the turn of the century. This new social history was revisionist; it employed a wide variety of sources and disciplines to construct a history of ideas, culture, and social change, topics largely omitted from the nineteenth-century historical paradigm. Moreover, for history to be useful, it had to be continually rewritten, updated and made useful to contemporary society. Indeed, Salmon, for one, wanted to reveal the stories of the common person and thus researched domestics, not just for its own sake, but to improve the condition and status of this profession. In writing this biography, Bohan sought to demonstrate that Salmon's work is relevant today. Indeed it is, especially for her beliefs about facts. Salmon stated in no uncertain terms that facts in themselves were useless: "'no fact is in and of itself either important or unimportant; its importance is due altogether to its association with other facts.'"(p. 60) The consequences of this rather simple truth are profound for the teaching and testing of history. Historical understanding is not to be gained by pouring "important" facts into the empty vessel of our students, nor is to be assessed on fact-based multiple choice exams. Rather, content must be taught and learned through the historical process where one constructs the relative importance of a fact only in relation to other facts—the historical context. This belief informed Salmon's own teaching and could be instructive for ours today. Central to her teaching was her belief that history must be constructed from all available sources—and that virtually everything, not just archived government documents, was a historical source. Indeed, Salmon would have students look at a fence and then challenge them to ask questions about this ostensibly insignificant source, which in Salmon's hands led students to discuss property rights, isolation, and privacy. Furthermore, she would ask her students how the very city of Poughkeepsie could be used as a historical source in the absence of any other written records. Or she would use her own kitchen as a material artifact of history. Salmon's teaching was, obviously, process based; simply put, she asked her students to "go to the sources" and construct history. The doing of history and the emphasis on process was not, however, without rigor; in fact, it is arguably more rigorous than memorizing great names and battles. Indeed, she assessed her student's knowledge by having them answer open-ended questions that required not just factual information, but also the process of constructing knowledge and the ability to articulate an argument, what "objective" examinations rarely or poorly assess. Thus her students suffered-or perhaps exalted in such questions as: what is a better use of sources, "'to reconstruct or to illustrate history.'"(p. 91) Or in 1915, Salmon asked her students to compare the Revolutionary War to World War I. And in 1912, in a question we still grapple with today, she asked, "'Who is an American?'"(p. 92). Bohan's biography succeeds in making the case that Salmon's thought is still relevant today. But this brief biography, based on Bohan's dissertation—and sadly reading like one—falls short of her subject, a not uncommon problem in writing biographies. Bohan did her research, studying the volumes of published and unpublished sources Salmon left, but she was never able to give voice to Salmon. We do not hear what truly animated her, nor are we privy to the depth of her thought. Perhaps most maddening is that we do not know who truly influenced Salmon's education. Did she read Rousseau? Freud? Or Dewey? We know she met Dewey once, but we do not know of her intellectual influences. Some progressive reformers rebelled against the nascent creeping social Darwinism in public policy; did she? We simply do not know. Nor do we really know how Salmon’s experience of gender informed her research or teaching. Moreover, a good biographer should challenge Salmon's own beliefs. She was democratic in spirit, clearly, but perhaps in a limited way. Indeed, there is not a single reference made to Salmon's understanding of race—something she could not have been unfamiliar with, given that she lived through Reconstruction and Jim Crow. These criticisms are merely to suggest that after being forgotten for so long, Salmon deserves a much brighter spotlight, as do many women written out of history, now just brought in from the shadows. Despite these shortcomings, this work—or rather Salmon's life and work—is a useful corrective to our present ills. Livy, the great Roman historian once claimed that "history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things rotten through and through, to avoid." Perhaps we should attend to our history, all of it. Among the ills our schools suffer from today is a preoccupation with scientific, fact-based history on our tests, while we mouth the importance of higher order thinking skills in our curriculum. Salmon, and her colleagues, presciently saw these ills a century ago and recommended a tonic that, sadly, only the elite truly received. It is also instructive today to return to our exemplar of a businessman who had political ambitions: Thomas Gradgrind and his fact-based education. It was only when Gradgrind discovered that his own kids suffered from his positivism that he was thrown into a state of cognitive dissonance, and he ultimately rejected his facts for a more humanistic approach to life—and his children. Similarly, today, some are rejecting our testing mania because their own kids—not some one else's—are not measuring up. If one searches for alternatives and precedents in history to remedy our ills, one need search no further than Lucy Maynard Salmon who not only taught history and rigorously tested her students but also taught students to think historically and rethink accepted truths, something crucial to the functioning of a democratic society. Even Gradgrind would have ultimately approved. About the Reviewer Brett A. Berliner is an Assistant Professor of History at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland. He teaches World History and Western Civilization, both from ancient times to the present. Trained as a cultural historian, he researches interwar exoticism, racism, and marginal movements and peoples.

Roth, Wolff-Michael and Barton, Angela Calabrese. (2004). Rethinking Scientific Literacy. Reviewed by Jennifer K. Holtz, DePaul University

	Roth, Wolff-Michael and Barton, Angela Calabrese. (2004). Rethinking Scientific Literacy. N.Y.: RoutledgeFalmer. Pp. vii + 227 $24.95     ISBN 0-415-94843-6 Reviewed by Jennifer K. Holtz DePaul University December 26, 2004 The premise of Rethinking Scientific Literacy is that current efforts to enhance the scientific literacy of students and, thus, the general population, are perhaps well meaning, but inherently flawed, in that those designing and making the efforts fail to address the underlying stratification of power and marginalization of many learners. Scientific knowledge is privileged in those who both choose and are able to function within traditional science curricula, curricula that, in fact, are not made more accessible through current reform efforts, including those by the National Research Council and by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Indeed, the authors’ goals for scientific literacy are not simply to promote functional literacy (understanding how a small engine, e.g. a lawnmower, works and how to repair one) over traditional literacy (description of the structure and function of a neutron), but also to empower learners to apply their collective scientific literacy to social issues of importance (defending a watershed against development). A strong thread of critical theory and critical pedagogy is woven throughout. In Chapter 1, Science as Collective Praxis, Literacy, Power, and Struggle for a Better World, Roth and Barton introduce science gone awry (e.g. September 11, 2001 and the subsequent military action in Afghanistan, pharmaceutical recalls, genetically modified organisms) as reasons for the typical citizen to not trust the business of science or scientists. Few other than those in the anti-GMO and anti-globalization efforts seem to be concerned and challenge scientists to account for their actions. Time and again, industry, which often uses scientists are their mouthpieces, tells television audiences to leave them with all decisions because, so they say, they know best. Looking at the history of scientific “advances” (nuclear arms, GMOs, drugs), we doubt that scientists individually or as a community know best what is good for society. (p. 2) While reform efforts focus on increasing the amount and types of scientific knowledge that students develop, Roth and Barton argue that reforms should instead address scientific literacy as the development of knowledge through authentic, experiential learning, from very young children through adulthood. “For too long, science educators and scientists have proposed a model according to which science for all citizens ought to look and sound like scientists’ science” (p.6-7). Taking Fensham’s (2002) call for socially structured reforms further, Roth and Barton argue that authentic experience, by definition, needs to be removed from the school. “Schooling is an activity system in which students are coaxed, urged, coerced, or forced into learning—the traditional discourse about objectives…producing artifacts…(that) produces or reproduces his or her identity and her or his role in society” (p. 8), thereby reproducing the inequities and value-laden structures inherent to the society. Instead, “citizen science…’a form of science that relates in reflexive ways to the concerns, interests and activities of citizens as they go about their everyday business’” (p.9) should be the norm, whereby science literacy becomes a collective knowledge base through which individuals experience science while addressing personal and community issues. By doing so, they develop agency while repositioning science as “but one of many contested field and tools in the service of a truly democratic and equitable society” (p. 15). Examples of such instances comprise much of the rest of the book, from the building of a desk by a young, homeless child to the concerted effort of Canadians to maintain a watershed. While Roth and Barton neither cite nor discuss the critical pedagogy of Paolo Freire, their work resonates with Freirian themes (Freire, 1994) Chapter 2, Scientific Literacy as Emergent Feature of Collective Praxis, introduces and focuses on the Henderson Creek watershed project, “where the boundaries dissolve to the point that students and ordinary people can participate reciprocally in activities that previously have been created for their respective age group,” (p. 21). The project arose through collaboration of three concerned residents “a farmer, a professor of environmental policy, and a research oceanographer” (p. 25), and ultimately involved students in summer projects, addressed aboriginal concerns, and implicated experts in both traditional science and politics. Situated knowledge, experiential learning and legitimate authority are pivotal themes, again alluding to the work of Freire. Habermas’ theories of legitimacy, communicative action, and communicative ethics are obvious influences as Roth and Barton introduce the concept of legitimate authority through participant dialogue (Vogel, 1991; Warren, in White, 1995). They focus on efforts by those vested in the status quo—including some residents—to silence dissenting voices, and to instances where the authentic scientific literacy of residents, developed through years of experience situated on the land, trump traditional science. However, perhaps the most powerful statement comes from an aboriginal friend of the authors, who implicates everyone involved, including those residents having “authentic” literacy, in the destruction of the watershed. One is reminded, albeit briefly and only in Chapter 2, of the ambiguity inherent in claims of legitimate authority. Discussion of the Henderson Creek watershed project and the scientific literacy that is both evidenced and developed through dialogue continues in Chapter 3, Scientific Literacy, Hegemony, and Struggle, as Roth and Barton further develop their argument for the de-privileging of scientific knowledge. In the past, science and society have been thought of as two entities, two categories that are opposed like the citadel (of science) and the polis (the untutored public). Recent work in the anthropology of science suggests that the citadel is porous…Differences in interests, motives, power, and action possibilities abound. From such a perspective, we see how much science really is tied up in the thread of life as a fiber among fibers…From the perspective of the thread, science plays a role as do all the other forms of knowledge and practice; any attempt to privilege it abstracts the fact that it itself exists only because of all the other threads. (p. 50-51) Hegemony shifts as voices are heard or not heard, based on the controlling interest of those chairing public meetings. The group’s composite scientific literacy is dependent not only on what individuals know, but on what those individuals are permitted to share. The presumption is that necessary information would evolve from discussion, given that the discussion is allowed and power is negotiated. Indeed, “(o)verlaying this public and collective construction of scientific literacies are relationships between individuals, organizations, and subjects of study that ultimately frame what kind of work or talk gets done” (p. 77), and this social mediation of scientific literacy shifts far from rural locales in Chapter 4, Politics, Power, and Science in Inner-City Communities. The premise remains that those with power design scientific literacy, but “extending discourse networks and the accessible forms of discourse among inner-city youth provides them with opportunities to engage in new forms of knowledge and power” (p. 78). Traditional science curricula, life circumstances and societal perceptions of those circumstances marginalize the youths, but engaging them in new relationships is empowering. Barton was instrumental in developing an after-school science program for youths aged 12 to 18 living in a homeless shelter. She describes how discussion of various issues of importance to the group led to the decision to develop a vacant lot into a community garden, a project they named Restoring Environments and Landscapes (REAL), primarily to keep drug dealers from using the lot and making the area unsafe. With the assistance of a postdoctoral fellow and a doctoral student, the youth engaged in authentic activities that, in retrospect, paralleled National Science Standard 1 Grades 9-12, Understanding Scientific Inquiry, including the use of mathematics and technology. These clearly drawn parallels are documented in Table 4.1. The students expanded discourse to include community members and engaged experts (urban environmental designers, architects and gardeners) in working meetings, thus engaging in collaborative learning and critical thinking, as well. “For many of the youth involved in REAL, extending their discourse practices and networks around doing science with and in community was much more complex than learning a list of science concepts” (p. 93). Discussion of experiential learning, situated learning and anchored instruction, while not identified as such, continues in Chapter 5, Margin and Center. “In science education, we often talk about students as being either marginal or central to science through the lenses of the nature of science, participation in science, and inclusive classroom practice” (p. 109). Yet, the experiences of homeless and inner city youths are far removed from that of youths in the center in ways well know to educators. The deficiency needs of Maslow’s Hierarchy are of primary importance theoretically, but also in fact for the marginalized youth described by Roth and Barton. Yet, the youths’ needs to know and understand and their needs for aesthetic order, mid-range needs per Maslow, remain (Huitt, 2004). In fact, those needs form a center distinct from that of students whom educators traditionally consider non-marginalized. Roth and Barton present three vignettes that illustrate need fulfillment: Latisha, who did what she perceived as required, then proceeded to design a purse; Jason, who instead of making merely recycled paper, made edible paper; and Claudia, who did not design what she was asked to design, but instead made a desk. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of Roth and Barton’s book for a reviewer steeped in traditional science, albeit a reviewer dedicated to making science accessible to all, was understanding the vignettes presented. On the surface, each youth performed a task that did or did not, to some degree, follow the instructions provided. Per Roth and Barton, each youth’s actions involved a power shift and the need for self-actualization. However, on a far more basic level, each youth appeared to address an obvious deficiency need: Latisha, the need for security—a private place—as well as the need for beauty and order; Jason, the need for food, in addition to the need to create; and Claudia, again the need for a place, as well as the need to create. Roth and Barton call these actions “creating new authority from the margin” (p. 119). For this reviewer, each was an excellent example of anchored, experiential science, situated in learner needs that had little to do with learning. There is no mistaking that scientific literacy at this level is not what is intended by current reform efforts and, in fact, fails to bring these students into the realm of power knowledge in science as it currently exists. For those seeking to engage more students in science, as evidenced by initiatives such as National Science Foundation grants to the Miami Museum of Science and Planetarium (Girls Re-designing and Excelling in Advanced Technology (GREAT!) Judy Brown, Grant 0114669) and Kansas State University (Women on the Prairie: Bringing Girls into Science through Environmental Stewardship, Beth Montelone, Grant 0114723), defining science literacy in this manner can seem to both minimize their efforts and further marginalize affected youths. Still Roth’s research indicates that students identified in Vancouver as learning disabled scored either equivalent to or higher than non-learning disabled students after participating in “innovative, hands-on, and discourse-focuses curriculums…designed with resident teachers to promote an agenda of science for all students” (p. 129). Building on this only a bit, but not providing any details of the research, in Chapter 6, Constructing Scientific Dis/ability, and repeating the themes developed in Chapter 4, Roth and Barton present additional vignettes and evidence in favor of experiential, situated learning that transcends both classroom and age stratification, incorporating community-wide activity whenever possible. “When educators focus on creating situations that enable rather than disable students, new possibilities of participation arise” (p. 155). Success at such tasks often leads to greater enthusiasm for science, as well as other learning with experiential formats. Oddly, in Chapter 7, Science Education As and For Citizen Science, Roth and Barton again repeat previously presented material, in this case the Henderson Creek watershed project covered extensively in Chapters 2 and 3. While they include additional dialogue vignettes, the material does not add to readers’ understanding from earlier material. After focusing on Western education, specifically Canadian experiences, throughout the book, in Chapter 8, Dangerous Teaching, Roth and Barton present vignettes about the challenges faced by three women teaching in Pakistan, as they return to Freirian themes of critical pedagogy and critical theory, power, legitimate authority and expanded discourse. The challenges vary little from those presented earlier in the book, except stereotypical issues related to gender. Rethinking Scientific Literacy is highly praised on both the back cover and by the Series Editor; indeed, the first half of the book is “detailed” (Bruce V. Lewenstein) and encourages the connection of “formal science curricula to funds of knowledge that are developed in fields away from classrooms” (Kenneth Tobin). Roth and Barton establish scientific literacy as socially constructed and, thus, often ambiguous and subject to power structures. From a reader’s perspective, they do this well in the first five chapters, which are rich with examples and explanations. Indeed, the chapters are dense and provocative; not all readers will agree with Roth and Barton’s arguments, a fact that the authors presage, often asking and answering questions that readers might raise. However, Chapters 6 through 8 are less effective, in that they repeat themes covered thoroughly in previous chapters and offer little additional, substantive material. For example, Chapter 6 would benefit significantly from detail about Roth’s research, which he addresses briefly in his introduction to the chapter, before reiterating much of Chapter 4. References Freire, Paolo. (1994). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. Rev. ed. New York: Continuum. (1973). Huitt, W. (2004). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved October 7, 2004 from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html. Vogel, Steven M. (1991). New Science, New Nature: The Habermas-Marcuse Debate Revisited. Research in Philosophy and Technology 11: 157-179. Warren, Mark E. (1995). The self in discursive democracy. In White, Stephen K. (Ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Habermas. New York: Cambridge. About the Reviewer Jennifer K. Holtz, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor at DePaul University’s School for New Learning in Chicago, Illinois. She previously taught and conducted both medical and educational research with the University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita. Her areas of interest include the actual act of research and characteristics of researchers, medical and research ethics, and how cognitive aspects of creativity affect both teaching and learning. Her doctorate is in Adult, Continuing and Occupational Education, emphasis medical education, her Masters is in Gerontology with clinical emphasis and her Bachelors is in Biology with emphasis in human biology.

Dann, Ruth. (2002). Promoting Assessment as Learning: Improving the Learning Process. Reviewed by Michael Friga, State University of New York College at Cortland

	Dann, Ruth. (2002). Promoting Assessment as Learning: Improving the Learning Process. London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer Pp. vi-162 $25.95 (Paper)     ISBN 0-415-24007-7 Reviewed by Michael Friga State University of New York College at Cortland January 5, 2004 Educational assessment, both in the United Kingdom and the United States, increasingly focuses on uniform educational standards and accountability for students and teachers in order to meet common educational standards. Small but growing groups of researchers are now turning their attention to assessment embedded in the context of the classroom (Stiggins, 2001a; Shepard, 2001). Studies of classroom-based assessment frequently open with salvos aimed at the negative effects large-scale testing programs (Wiggins, 1993; Kohn, 2000). Ruth Dann does not waste words discussing the merits of accountability assessment. While acknowledging teachers’ responsibilities in preparing students for external standards, she avoids complaining about the “lemons” of large-scale standardized testing and instead turns her attention to making lemonade by emphasizing the “ . . . capacity to transform any educational encounter into a valuable learning experience” (p. 3). She utilizes the framework of accountability assessment, but transforms the intent in order to serve learning rather than merely evaluating it. Assessment of student learning appears, on the surface, to be an objective, clearly definable and scientific process. One need only determine the standards of achievement, outline the objectives necessary in acquiring these standards, and then create the tests to determine the acquisition of objectives. In other words, educators must create “tests worth taking” and teachers will align their classrooms to the agreed upon standards (Resnick & Resnick, 1989). The current push for standards-based educational reform in England and the United States is predicated on the assumption that large-scale testing paired with performance-based consequences will improve student learning. While standards-based assessment may tell us how many students can hurdle the bar we set for them, it contributes little to the strategies for improving teaching and learning in the classroom. In the first two chapters of Promoting Assessment as Learning: Improving the Learning Process, Ruth Dann develops the idea that teachers may use accountability assessment for the purpose of improving student learning outcomes. She acknowledges the necessity of holding students and teachers to similar standards, but emphasizes the limitations of reducing the educational process to the constraints inherent in the tests of achievement. Two visions of education are at the heart of Ruth Dann’s argument. In the first, large-scale standardized assessment most closely follows the behaviorist or "objectives” model in assuming that specific “objectives and targets may be established and used to frame learning” (p. 13). This model assumes that we can summarize well-defined content areas into clear objectives presented to students in a linear fashion and assessed through objective measures. Dann terms this assumption the “achievement agenda” (p.21). The second vision of education combines two models of education: the “social constructivist” and “self-regulatory” models. The first focuses on the individual learner within the social context of the classroom ("social constructivist" model). In the second, assessment provides feedback to the learners and their peers so they may be better equipped to aid each other and themselves in improving their understanding of the curriculum ("self-regulatory" model). Dann describes the orientation of these two models as a “learning agenda.” This orientation acknowledges the centrality of the learner in the educational experience. Woven throughout the text are examples of the summative and formative purposes of assessment. In Chapter 3, she defines large-scale assessment as focusing on summative assessment or knowledge as a product acquired after a period of learning. In contrast, formative assessment involves learning within the context of acquisition and during the process of learning. It is within this context that teachers and students can effectively use assessment data to improve learning. The difficulty with formative assessment is that each student acquires knowledge uniquely, not necessarily within a lock-step hierarchy prescribed by external standards. Especially in the early grades, students learn and develop at widely differing rates. This demands that teachers apply their own intuition and awareness of the diversity of learning styles within the assessment process. Dann points out that while large-scale evaluation relies exclusively on objective measurement, intuition and subjectivity have a valid role in the dynamic interplay of classroom-based assessment. Framing classroom-based assessment as both an art and a science is not a new idea. Scates (1938, 1943) described the assessment environment in which teachers draw upon recurrent interactions and observations to form picture of learning. According to Scates (1943) a scientist is “concerned with abstracting a specific element out of a complex...” while the “...teacher’s concern is just the opposite. He is working with variable individuals to build a variable product” (p. 3). Teachers evaluate students using assessment data, repeated observations, and an understanding of student variability. Test scores inform teachers’ professional judgments, but other sources of information also play a role in evaluating students. Why would we assume otherwise? If doctors spent as much time in assessing their patients as teachers spend assessing students, would we assume a single external test could do a better job at diagnosing the clients’ needs than the professional? Doctors certainly rely on external tests in the process of evaluation, but they provide the interpretation, diagnosis and intervention. For teachers the situation is reversed: their opportunities to observe, assess and evaluate their students may be discounted and a single external assessment used to determine high-stakes educational outcomes. In a recent example in the state of Florida, over 30,000 students failed the 3rd grade language arts assessment resulting in recommendations for grade retention (Farrington, August 24th, 2003). In determining which students to retain, a single test determined the outcome, nullifying the teachers’ role in evaluating the students. The first developer of standardized tests, Alfred Binet, also recognized the unique opportunity of teachers to repeatedly evaluate their students. He commented that teachers’ evaluations were “based upon long observation, continued during weeks and months…” and recognized the benefits of repeated observations: … they are numerous, diverse, and when needful they correct one another. Herein lies the incontestable superiority of observation over the test; the latter is an experiment; moreover a short experiment, which, therefore, contains a certain element of chance. (Binet & Simon, 1916; p. 311). Binet’s recognition of the superiority of “observation over the test” reflects a position rarely articulated in discussions about assessment. Stiggins (2001a) suggests that in the years since Binet expressed his opinion, teachers’ assessment competence has decreased due to lack of training in valid classroom-based assessment procedures. Dann attempts to shift the emphasis back to the classroom by putting forward an agenda for co-opting the culture of national assessment to support the learning environment in the classroom. In Chapter 4, she tactfully defines this process as a “creative reinterpretation of policy directives and guidance in the midst of severe regulatory pressures” (p. 48) and explains the limitations of high stakes testing on the improvement of classroom learning. Bolstering her explanation, the author presents a small study in which eleven teachers, in partnership with Keele University in England, developed strategies to improve student performance on national tests while creating a learner-centered classroom environment. She suggests teachers create opportunities for students to revisit important concepts related to curriculum standards (“reminder opportunities”), increase student fluency in key tasks (“repetition opportunities”), and generalize student knowledge to new contexts (“recontextualising opportunities”) (p. 70). Teachers must also help students link their knowledge together through problem-solving tasks, discussion, and concept mapping (“reconceptualising opportunities”). Finally, teachers should encourage students to think about their own learning through self-assessment (“reflection opportunities) (p. 71). Dann then expands upon the theme of self-assessment in Chapter 5. She presents a case study supporting her premise that student involvement in the assessment process reframes testing as a method of dialogue rather than a summary of achievement. Creating dialogue, however, requires teachers to listen to student understanding and motivation rather than to determine the “correctness” of their responses. Teachers who participated in this study found that their students’ perceptions of achievement often had more to do with their own educational histories than with the criteria emphasized by the teacher. The impact of grading also played an important role in students’ perceptions of achievement. Discussions between students and teachers regarding achievement often boiled down to the grade assigned to a classroom product. Such negotiation between teachers and students regarding grades adds a level of complexity to discussions of classroom learning that must be addressed for self-assessment to serve purely learning-oriented goals. While introducing the issue of evaluation for learning and grading, Dann does not provide an opinion as to how teachers should address these potentially conflicting purposes of assessment. Others have tackled this thorny issue more directly and suggested that meeting course requirements (e.g. turning papers in on time) and the acquisition of knowledge should be graded separately (Siggins, 2001b). Utilizing the two assessment perspectives developed throughout the book, Dann synthesizes a framework that enables teachers to balance measuring student performance and influencing student learning. In Chapter 6, she points out that teachers must go beyond simply teaching students to interpret their assessment data; they must also help students maintain their confidence and motivation as learners. Our current assessment culture emphasizes what is wrong with student performance. Teachers must learn to emphasize and encourage what is right with it. Once again, by introducing the relationship between assessment and motivation, the author introduces an aspect to testing that receives too little attention. Student motivation represents the greatest source of “content-irrelevant variance” during testing. I would speculate that test score improvement on high-stakes tests has more to do with teachers getting students to take the tests seriously than any real improvement in student learning. Teachers are situated to reduce this variance by assessing children on many occasions and in different moods. Dann assumes that teachers’ primary goal should be to foster students to become independent or “self-regulated” learners. Self-regulation involves a sense of self-efficacy, the motivation to improve, the metacognitive ability to examine self-performance, and meaningful feedback from teachers (p. 113). This goal requires teachers to spend individual time with students to encourage them toward their successes, ask questions that lead them toward greater examination of their own learning, and describe for them the academic areas where they should focus. In a sense, teachers strive for their students to become self-regulated, motivated learners as meta-goals in teaching. Moreover, if these meta-goals are important learning outcomes, teachers must evaluate students’ learning in these areas. The title to the final chapter of her book summarizes her central thesis in three words: "Assessment as learning." For assessment to directly influence the educational process, it must not be considered an extraneous measure of outcomes, but a piece of the dialogue that occurs between students and teachers. By moving assessment back into the educational process, teachers' roles as professionals are acknowledged. In the end, effective assessment does not alienate teachers and students, but brings them together as parties motivated for successful learning. Successful assessment requires students who want to improve and teachers who are professional participants. Without aligning assessment with motivation of classroom participants, large scale testing will merely document the increasing disenfranchisement of the students and teachers who are subject to the evaluative process. Ruth Dann contributes a timely and persuasive argument for teachers in favor of utilizing assessment to foster learning in the classroom. She also frames the context for conducting research in classroom-based assessment that emphasizes the social milieu and self-regulatory aspects of learning. With so much interest in large-scale testing, researchers often ignore the student's role as an active participant in the assessment process. As Dann states in the introduction, this book is not intended as a practical guide, but as a means of drawing attention toward using assessment to improve the learning process. I would like to see Dann expand upon Promoting Assessment as Learning to provide the practical guide that many seek. For assessment to effectively reflect a student’s learning, teachers and researchers must consider the influence of motivation and other student characteristics on achievement. The book effectively provides a waypoint for this examination, but does not offer a guide. Ruth Dann provides a valuable contribution to the dialogue on academic assessment. She introduces the idea that a child’s educational history and the cultural influence of a society focused on numbers will add to the challenge of using assessment to help learning. She only briefly explores the increasing disparity between the teacher’s professional role and the growing influence of single test scores. Teachers are in the situation of being the closest educational professional to the child, with opportunities to assess needs over an extended time and in many areas not within the narrow boundaries of standardized tests. Despite this, their voices are being disregarded in a culture focused on a prescribed and uniform set of standards. Dann takes a pragmatist’s approach, facing the realities of a culture focused on assessment, identifying how teachers can improve their assessment practices, and pointing out the importance of what students bring to the assessment environment. While the study presented in the book is small scale, it introduces the importance of learner characteristics (self-efficacy, motivation, metacognition and response to feedback) on successful assessment. In addition, the study points to the obstacles faced by teachers in creating learner-centered assessment. Dann takes the metaphor of assessment as yardstick and reframes it into a metaphor that is more powerful: assessment as lens. Teachers who use assessment as a lens to focus their instruction take a significant step in developing learner-centered classrooms. References Binet, A. & Simon, T. (1916). The Development of Intelligence in Children, Vineland, NJ: The Training School at Vineland New Jersey. Farrington, B. (2003, August 24). 5 times more Florida kids to repeat 3rd grade: State’s new policy links promotion to reading test scores, The Washington Post, pp. A12. Kohn, A. (2000). The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Resnick, L.B., and Resnick D.P. (1989). Assessing the Thinking Curriculum: New Tools for Educational Reform. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Learning Research and Development Center: University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University. Scates, D. E. (1943). Differences between measurement criteria of pure scientists and of classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 37 (1), 1-13. Scates, D. E. (1938). The improvement of classroom testing, Review of Educational Research, 8, 523-36, 560-563. Stiggins, R. J. (2001a). The Unfulfilled Promise of Classroom Assessment, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(3), 5-15. Stiggins, R. J. (2001b). Student-Involved Classroom Assessment (3rd ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall. Pp. 409-466 Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29 (7), 1-14. Shepard, L. (2003). A Survey of Teachers’ Perspectives on High-Stakes Testing in Colorado: What Gets Taught, What Gets Lost. University of Colorado at Boulder: CRESST Technical Report 588. Pp. 1-81. Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pp. xi – 307. About the Reviewer Michael Friga is an assistant professor at the State University of New York College at Cortland. He teaches measurement and evaluation for teachers as well as courses in research methods. He received his doctorate from University of California Berkeley in 2001.