Biddle, B. J., & Saha, L. J. (2002). The untested accusation: Principals, research knowledge, and policy making in schools. Reviewed by Ruth Rees, Queen's University

Biddle, B. J., & Saha, L. J. (2002). The untested accusation: Principals, research knowledge, and policy making in schools. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. P. xvi + 302. $71.95   ISBN 1-56750-622-4 Reviewed by Ruth Rees Queen’s University December 19, 2005 The purpose of this book is to address the concerns that the public has raised against educational research, with its supposed deficiencies and alleged lack of impact. This book documents a comparative study of 120 schools principals, representing different types of schools in Australia and the United States, about their use of educational research knowledge: the techniques they employed to acquire their knowledge how they evaluated it, and what they know about it, and how that knowledge might have been used in their schools, if at all. To explore whether research knowledge use differs among various types of schools or experiences that impinge on the lives of principals in both countries, qualitative and quantitative data collection help to answer the general question: Does research on education have an impact? First the authors, Bruce J. Biddle and Lawrence J. Saha, reviewed related research on educational research. They defined ‘research’ as empirical investigations only, focusing either on education or having implications for educational practice. Second, they also distinguished between two forms of understanding: salient ideas, in which elements of knowledge are ‘up front’ and appear readily in the thinking of the person; and ‘latent ideas, where such elements are ‘further back.’ Salient ideas are said to reflect recent experiences and matters of current concern to the individual, but latent ideas are said to include both thought elements that were once salient and others the individual has perceived from the beginning to be peripheral to his or her interests. The authors contend that answers volunteered in response to open-ended questions are assumed to reveal salient ideas whereas responses to closed-ended structured questions may reveal both salient and latent thoughts. (pp. 9-10) Through research on principals, they investigated: the ways principals acquire knowledge from research bearing on education; the opinions they hold about that knowledge; the research knowledge they are familiar with, as well as the depth and breadth of their understanding of that knowledge; and how they use that knowledge in their professional lives. The authors chose principals in the United States from the state of Missouri; in Australia, the principals came from the Australian Capital Territory and the state of South Australia. Both groups represent schools of diverse populations, according to the authors. The schools from which the principals were selected represented public schools, parochial schools (Roman Catholic), and independent schools (e.g., private schools). In the United States, the sample came from metropolitan, suburban, small-city, and rural communities. In Australia, the sample came from metropolitan and rural communities. They represent 37 primary schools (46%), 44 secondary (54%) in US schools, totaling 81; in Australia, the sample was from 16 primary schools (41%), and 23 secondary schools (59%), totaling 39. All principals had to be in their jobs for at least 12 months (i.e., to have had some experience) in order to be selected. The demographics revealed that the Australian principals are older, more experienced, and have less formal education than American principals, but work less hours than their American counterparts. These points come up over and over again in the writing. The one demographic variable that I do not understand the reason for including was the sex of the principals: the US principals were comprised of 43 women (53%); in Australia, 12 women (31%). I fail to understand the reason for including this demographic: are these proportions representative of the state or region, or of the two countries? The authors in their final chapter claim that their comparative findings could be applied to principals in either the United States or Australia. Yet before this can be done, I would suggest that a more thorough discussion about the representativeness of the samples be provided. The authors developed their own questionnaire, or rather two versions of the questionnaire adapted for relevance from principals from either the US or Australia, comprised of six sections. Section one explored research-associated knowledge that was salient in the thinking of respondents. Respondents were to provide examples of research knowledge that they had found useful in some aspect of their job as a principal. Section two was designed to explore whether respondents were expected to innovate or to resist innovations as principals. Section three asked participants to describe a recent event in which a decision had been made about policy issues in their schools, the role that they played, and whether that decision had been influenced by research knowledge, and if so how. In Section four, respondents were asked about their recent involvement with sources that can provide access to research-based knowledge (from a given list of ten such sources) which were put into Appendix A3. Principals were then asked to provide details of their access to these sources, to volunteer examples of research knowledge they had recently acquired (if any) from each source, and to judge the usefulness of each source for acquiring research knowledge. Section five explored the range of respondents’ latent familiarity with a number of different phrases representing example of important research traditions: phrases denoting technical concepts with which they might be familiar, phrases individual some theoretical explanation they might know about, and phrases alluding to a theoretical explanation they might understand. Finally, Section six explored opinions about principals’ research knowledge: their attitudes about the value of research knowledge, whether research generates knowledge useful for educators, and how they characterize their own professional use of research knowledge. As well, the participants were asked to complete a document about their background and experiences. Variables between groups were considered statistically significant if there was a difference of at least 2.0 between results. Six following chapters explored the findings from the different sections in the questionnaire. Detailed descriptions of the data analysis methods are described in each of those chapters, complete with discussions of how the data categorizations were developed. Overall results were provided in each chapter, and then presented again in the final chapter. Some interesting findings are documented below, followed by the entire list of findings quoted from that final chapter. It was interesting to me that principals reported that they received their research knowledge most commonly from a variety of journals. Interestingly, US principals reported workshops by others as their next most common source; Australian principals said post-secondary courses. The Australian principal participants cited The Australian Journal of Education and the Journal of Educational Administration, primary sources of research, as the most popular journals. The others were secondary sources, to include the American journal Phi Delta Kappan. The American principal participants sited secondary resources as being most common, with the two most popular journals being Educational Leadership and Phi Delta Kappan. No single journal or group of journals has a monopoly on providing these principals with their research information. They all indicated that they read at least one professional book per year. Another finding suggested that principals in both countries tend to have more command of salient research knowledge when they are regular readers of professional books, have more scholarly interest, and lead a school where teachers have more academic qualifications. Moreover, principals in both countries tend to have greater command of the auxiliary details of salient research knowledge when they have acquired the detailed habits of scholarship and spend more time in settings where those details are discussed, but the Australian and American principals differ, in part, in the degree to which they are in command of this knowledge. While principals are more often familiar with salient research knowledge when they read professional bulletins regularly, the kinds of bulletins varied. In the US where schools are structured by districts, principals read district and system bulletins regularly. In Australia, where it is state-run, the Australian Council for Educational Research distributes broadly educational research reports called SET which are said to have been widely read by Australian principals. (Note. I went to the ACER website to try to locate some examples of these SET reports, but was unsuccessful finding reports with that overall name. Perhaps they are only available to principals within Australia. I only mention this because the authors referred to these reports many times.) I reaffirm the authors’ contention that the results of the study indisputably indicate that the accusation that educational research has little or no impact on those educational practitioners is incorrect with respect to “typical principals” in both United States and Australia. Their many findings as quoted from the authors (pp. 223-241) are reported under the following headings provided by the authors: A. Educational research truly feckless? Most principals are frequently exposed to information sources where knowledge from research is regularly displayed and discussed. Most principals also learn about research knowledge from the sources to which they are exposed. Most principals hold positive opinions about research on education; surprisingly few think that it is valueless or are hostile to its use. Most principals are rarely concerned about supposed serious flaws in educational research; rather, they are more often concerned with problems associated with the transmission and use of the knowledge that research generates. Most principals find it easy to volunteer examples of useful educational research knowledge that are salient in their thinking. Most principals are also familiar with a surprising range of educational research topics that are latent in their thinking. Most principals serve in schools where research knowledge has an impact on policy decisions and educational practices. B. Secondary sources and depth of knowledge. Most principals are not regularly exposed to primary sources for research knowledge; rather, the sources…are secondary. Most principals retain details about salient research knowledge examples that are appropriate for a user population. Most principals do not retain other details about salient research knowledge examples that are more useful for researchers or scholars concerned with creating and interpreting that knowledge. Most principals retain fewer details for research knowledge examples that are latent in their thinking than for research knowledge examples that are salient for them. C. Breadth of research knowledge and its effects. Most principals are in regular contact with many types of information sources that provide access to research knowledge about education. Most principals retain various examples of salient research knowledge in their thinking that cover different realms of their responsibilities. Most principals retain many examples of research knowledge, covering multiple topics that are latent to their thinking. Most principals serve in schools where research knowledge affects policy decisions and educational practices for many types of events. D. Forms of utilization. Most principals do assimilate and ponder the implications of research knowledge that may (or may not) be directly and immediately applied. Most principals also believe that research knowledge is used directly in their schools, particularly to affect professional colleagues and target persons. In some cases, principals play key leadership roles when research knowledge is used directly, whereas in others, complex event histories appear in which key roles are played by other actors, particularly authorities and other professionals in the schools. E Principals’ opinions about innovation Most principals favor educational innovation, an active role for themselves in innovative processes and shared decisions concerning innovations. Most principals’ opinions about innovation are not tied closely to their opinions about research knowledge and its application in any simply way. Next the difference findings between the Australian and US principals are detailed below: F. Effects of national context. The ways the principals learn reflect the structure of education in their country: U.S. is state-wide education and through school districts; Australia has no school districts. By comparison, Australian principals are more likely to learn about research knowledge through face-to-face contact; Americans are more dependent on secondary sources. By comparison, Australian principals are more likely to be thoughtful about research knowledge and its application than are American principals. By comparison American principals retain more details about and examples of research knowledge in their thinking than do Australian principals. By comparison, American principals retain more details about and examples of research knowledge in their thinking than do Australian principals. G. General effects of environment and experience. Principals who read professional books more often favor the use of research knowledge, know more about that knowledge, and are more likely to serve in schools where that knowledge is used. Principals who have higher levels of professional education and who desire to obtain a university position more often know about examples of salient research knowledge and are more likely to serve in schools where that knowledge is used. Principals who attend religious services frequently are less likely to know about the auxiliary details of research knowledge. H. Effects of environment and experience that appear in one country. Australian principals who are younger are more likely to know about examples of salient research knowledge. Within American schools where teachers hold high levels of academic qualification, principals are familiar with more examples of salient research knowledge, and applications of research knowledge more often appear. American principals who make use of district/system bulletins more often know about examples of salient research knowledge and the auxiliary details of latent research knowledge. The authors close with three strategies for improving research impact. They are, and I quote: Improve user understanding. If principals play a key role about educational policy and policy making in school, they should be made aware that they have a responsibility in keeping up ad using educational research. Moreover, their training should include, among other things, assessment in the quality of educational research and how to best disseminate that information to staff. Promote better tertiary reports on and reporting of educational research. Journalists and members of the media have a key role to play in this regard. Revise the knowledge distributing system particularly in the United States, to try to emulate something like the Australian/New Zealand SET (with the understanding that they did not think the SET idea would work within the US, and indeed seemed to be on the decline in Australia, but not in New Zealand). I have some suggestions for improvement for this book in its second edition. First, the references should be updated. Most of the references are in the 1990’s, when the bulk of the literature review for this study took place; to ensure its applicability well into the twenty-first century. Second, I also suggest eliminating such words as “recently published…study” to work that is now ten years old; this was in reference to Weiss’s 1995 study of principals. It is especially annoying when it is mentioned not once, not twice, but several times. Third, another revision of this book should attempt to eliminate redundancy as well; it is quite repetitious in parts, unnecessarily so. Four, the authors should consistently present the data both in figures and in the body of the writing in the same order. For example, all but the first two figures have presented the data for Australian principals first, followed by American principals. I would suggest reversing this for consistency sake in figures 4.1 and 4.2. Five, while I like the title of the book, I think that it would make more sense if the title was changed to something for explicit such as: The untested accusations about educational research. One, there are many accusations or fallacious assumptions in the public purview about educational research, many of which addressed in this book. Two, adding the words ‘educational research’ to the title would allow it to be more easily accessed through general topic searches, and hence increase the probability of its being used. I have two more suggestions. Six, the word ‘feckless’ is overused in this book. I’d suggest using synonyms such as ‘weak,’ ‘inconsequential,’ ‘ineffectual,’ as a few examples. Finally, my seventh and last suggestion is for the authors to rethink sentences starting with the word “And.” Too many sentences starting this way, and I for one find it unnecessary and inappropriate. All that aside, this is a very informative book to read. The book is well-written, very clear in both its structure and content, with lucid introductions to and summaries of the book in its entirety, and of each chapter. It should be useful to both academics and practitioners in education. Much thought and care have been taken in developing the different response categories. It is these categories themselves that could be open to criticism because they force responses from participants. However, the authors have remained open to emergent categories, and have provided some explanations which should anticipate and then minimize others’ criticism about how the research was carried out. Indeed, two of the main responsibilities for academics should be to ensure that what research we carry out is carried out properly but also is disseminated broadly to the correct target audiences. While many researchers focus on the first responsibility, we are said to neglect the second. Yet, as was pointed out by Biddle and Saha, the utilization of our research in schools is what really demonstrates it impact. Both researchers and practitioners take note! About the Reviewer Ruth Rees, PhD, is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Her expertise is in the area of school leadership, and specifically principals’ training in Ontario, Canada. She is a regular reviewer for Education Review. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Coles, Martin J. and Southworth, Geoff. (Eds.) (2005). Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow. Reviewed by Jorge Aguilar, Arizona State University

Coles, Martin J. and Southworth, Geoff. (Eds.) (2005). Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow. Buckingham: Open University Press. Pp. xxi + 180 $35.15     ISBN 0335215424 Reviewed by Jorge Aguilar Arizona State University December 27, 2005 At a time when social complexity seems to increase and educational challenges become more demanding, ways of improving schooling seem to be distant. Education policies come and go, and a variety of strategies implemented to bring about change have failed. In this context, noted educational scholar Michael Fullan, (2001, 2003, 2005) has put forward “leadership” as a key element that can affect both educational change and student learning and achievement. The term, however, has been used so ubiquitously that its meaning has become vague and imprecise. A range of definitions and interpretations can be found in the literature. Consensus on its meaning is still lacking. Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow is just about that: reaching a consensus by touching on a number of key issues in the development of the skills school leaders will need to run the schools of tomorrow. It is also about “opening up debate and describing possibilities.” (p. xii) Edited by Martin Coles and Geoff Southworth, heads of the research department of National College of School Leadership, the book also examines leadership development programs and strategies in different regions of the world. The book, which is part of the Professional Learning Series of the Open University Press, is the outcome of Learning from best practice worldwide, an international conference that brought together researchers and experts on leadership from the U.S., Britain, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Asia. The conference was organized by the National College of School Leadership that was established by the British Government in 2002, and whose raison d'être is “to ensure that school leaders are supported, developed and have access to research and leading-edge thinking on leadership from across the world” (p. xiii). Ivor Goodman and Andy Hargreaves, editors of the Professional Learning Series, describe in the preface the general picture of the current situation of education in Britain, the U.S., and Canada as a point of departure for the book. They critique how schools have been invaded by standardization and how “years of obsession with the management of standards and targets in tested achievement are giving way to a new era of leadership that will create learning for all in a creative and complex knowledge society.” (p. xiii) They assert that teaching is in a predicament and that “it is the core profession, the key change agent in today’s knowledge society.” (p. xi) They suggest that educational efforts should focus on student learning and achievement, which means there should also be a commitment to improving teachers’ and school leaders’ professional learning, knowledge and development. As Hargreaves and Goodson put it, “leaving no child behind means leaving no teacher or leader behind either.” (p. xi) Key leadership issues Developing leaders for the future. In the first chapter, Dean Fisk, proposes an answer to the question, how should leaders be prepared for their future as leaders of learning? He critiques the fixation of educational agencies and policy makers on practices that maintain a focus on lists of proficiencies and a rigid profile in the training and development of school leaders. In reaction to this fixation, he advocates an approach through which future leaders could be identified, recruited and selected based on their potential to become ongoing learners of leadership. Fisk makes the case for explicit attention to such human qualities as ethics, common sense, imagination, intuition and memory. He explains that these qualities would help leaders to develop the skills and tools they will need as future school leaders of learning. The preparation of future leaders, according to Fisk, should be based on a holistic rather than a reductionist view. Training programs based on a holistic focus should make leaders aware of understanding learning, making connections, futures thinking, contextual knowledge, critical thinking, political acumen andemotional understanding. He sees these “learnings” as essential for leaders to understand and face future challenges. Another important issue he highlights is the immersion of future leaders into ”communities of practice” (Wenger, 1998) and their ability to become active members of such communities. Leadership succession and sustainability. Putting together the qualities, learnings, and involvement in communities of practice noted by Fisk requires thoughtful consideration of leadership succession. Hargreaves, in Chapter 2, urges educational authorities to plan carefully and control the frequency of succession (rotation and replacement) of school leaders. Efforts to achieve sustainability, a vital issue in educational leadership and change, are dependent on leaders staying in schools at least five years provided goals are being achieved. In addition, leadership should be favored over management, because management produces order and stability whereas leadership yields change and progress that can lead to student achievement. Distributed leadership. Limiting the frequency of leadership succession and lengthening the stay of leaders in school is not enough. Leadership practice is identified and shaped by the interaction of leaders, followers and the context they find themselves in. That is, leadership is distributed, stretched over the leaders, co-leaders and their situations (Cf. Spillane et al. in Chapter 4). In distributed leadership, collaboration and interdependencies are recognized and encouraged. The leader is conceptualized not as the know-it-all but as a person who identifies and makes the most of the potential of school co-leaders; namely, he or she empowers them to accomplish their common goal: improving student learning. A special emphasis is placed on leadership practice as a critical element of distributed leadership, which is achieved through the interrelation of leaders, followers and tools. Leaders not only work with co-leaders but also make use of tools to make leadership practice possible. It is a tripartite structure that assists schools in accomplishing their goals. Examples of tools they discuss are materials artifacts, observation protocols, and tests. Leadership development in situ. Context-sensitive leadership development is a crucial element that underlines most of the chapters. For example, Stott and Kong in Chapter 7 contend that effective learning and ongoing development take place in the contexts where school leaders work and that attempts to separate them from their work cultures should not be allowed. It is also argued that when it comes to designing the preparation and development of school leaders, their opinions and experience should be taken into account. School leadership should be context-based and activities that raise awareness of the elements that make up school leaders’ environments should be favored over generalizations. Generalizations tend to overlook key contextual influences that can make a difference in understanding their situations better and in decision making processes. Moreover, some of the chapters suggest that leaders cannot be separated from their settings, from their co-leaders and from where student learning comes into action, where all human and organizational elements mingle to bring about students’ learning. Leaders’ development and leadership ability are too important to divorce them from their educational milieus. In the case of preparation of aspiring school leaders, efforts should be made to bring them close to practical situations and to make them work with mentors and to spend time as interns. Professional learning communities. In various chapters, the contributors reiterate the importance of making schools learning communities because they can build their capacity to deal with change and to face the external forces that shape schools. Leading robust learning communities, however, requires the establishment of good relations and trust among the members of the learning community. It also calls for a set of conditions including the creation of a culture of learning, the ongoing development of leaders themselves, teachers and support staff, and attention to their affective side. Other conditions are evidence-based decision making, pooling everybody’s capabilities to face challenges and solve problems collectively, and interconnecting the programs, projects and schemes that schools operate to bring about change. Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow undoubtedly reaches the consensus it sought and makes it clear that to provide the foundations for leadership development and the creation of the schools of tomorrow, a number of developmental and constructivist practices and theories should be considered. For example, it is evident throughout the book that to become a good school leader, the preparation and development of aspiring or existing leaders ought to be context-specific, process-based, and group- and goal-oriented. It is also apparent that developing leadership is about identifying and distributing leadership, achieving sustainability, influencing rather than coercing change, creating learning communities, planning succession, thinking strategically about Information and Communication Technology, and being an ongoing learner of leadership. But above all, it is clear that leadership development should be valued and perceived as having one paramount goal: paving the way for successful student learning and achievement in a just environment. A strength of Developing leadership is that in the description and evaluation of the leadership development programs and projects in the book, the contributors introduce concepts and ideas that are clarified and supported by research findings, professional experience, vignettes, and up-to-date literature. They also make use of an engaging narrative that is coherent and accessible to anyone interested in becoming familiar with the principles and practice of leadership development for the first time, or those interested in furthering their understanding and knowing more about leadership practices and innovations in other parts of the world. Any educationist will find Developing Leadership thought provoking and an opportunity to reflect on his or her professional and academic goals and practices. On a more critical note, it should be also noted that contributors to this book tacitly offer suggestions for the creation of the schools of tomorrow and for the preparation of the school leaders for the future. A more explicit and extensive discussion would have been welcome. In the discussion of such important issues, implied suggestions should be brought more into the open. Let us not disguise them in the subtlety of the printed word. Developing Leadership provides a lot of introspection and insight for education stakeholders, and more specifically for policy makers and education authorities at many levels. Developing Leadership could be used as a springboard for thinking aloud within schools, teacher education programs and colleges of education to find ways to imagine and then put into practice innovative techniques for developing the school leaders of tomorrow. But as the book often reminds us, educational leadership should not be seen as an end in itself but as a means to achieve the key goal of improving student learning and achievement. References Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2003). The Moral Imperative of School Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and Sustainability. Thousand, Oaks, CA: Corwin. Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. About the Reviewer Jorge Aguilar is a PhD student in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the College of Education of Arizona State University. His areas of interest include teacher education and learning, teacher belief systems, classroom dynamics and curriculum theory and development. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Southworth, Geoff. (2004). Primary School Leadership in Context. Leading small, medium and large sized schools. Reviewed by Roland Vandenberghe, University of Leuven, Belgium

Southworth, Geoff. (2004). Primary School Leadership in Context. Leading small, medium and large sized schools. London-New York: RoutledgeFalmer 192 pp. $39.95 Paperback     ISBN 0-415-30396-6 Reviewed by Roland Vandenberghe University of Leuven, Belgium January 6, 2005 The title of the book indicates that nowadays context matters for school leaders; leadership is strongly influenced by the context in which it is exercised. “The school as an organisational context for the work of leaders is complex. It requires leaders to deal with multiple variables which combine and interrelate in subtle and shifting ways so that leaders must always be watchful and aware of what is happening”( p.158). But context also refers to the turbulent national policies. School leaders need to understand national policies and to know what is expected of them and must be able to develop a local policy for the implementation of not always clear and sometimes continuing changing national policies. The purpose of this book, written by Geoff Southworth, Director of Research at the National College for School Leadership in the UK, is to focus on one feature of context, namely the size of the school and this feature is chosen because it is “an important factor in the primary sector” (p.2). According to the author little empirical work has been devoted to leading different-sized primary schools; consequently we need to study carefully how different contexts influence leadership by examining the variable effects of school size upon leaders. The first part of the book consists of an introduction, with a well-balanced presentation of the questions to be studied, and chapter 1. This chapter explains in a more elaborated way why context is important and also reviews the literature about school size and how it is related to leadership. Part two covers the chapters 2, 3 and 4 and reports and reviews the findings from three studies conducted in small-, medium- and large-sized primary schools. After having looked at leadership in small, medium-sized and large primary schools, the author explores in part 3 similarities and differences that exist between the three groups of schools and how they affect certain key aspects of school leadership. Chapter 5 is devoted to a vital question for school leaders: how can they influence what happens inside classrooms (learning-centred leadership)? Chapter 6 focuses on the relationship between leadership, school structures and systems and school size. Using findings presented in the previous chapter, Southworth very well explains, although the leader as an individual is still important, leadership also involves the creation of organizational, curricula and staff development structures and systems. Chapter 7 explores a very important theme, namely how leaders develop professionally while doing the job. And the author rightly remarks: “The focus of this chapter could easily form another book” (p.139). Those of us who believe (or wrongly assume) they don’t have enough professional time to read the whole book, should read chapter 7. In a first part of this chapter the author discusses what the research into small, medium-sized and larger primary schools implies for developing leaders of these different school sizes. The second section contains an elaboration of a theme already introduced in chapter 5, namely “learning-centred leadership” and looks at the implications for leadership development . And in the third section, under the heading “Developing leadership capacities in schools” three interrelated themes are presented: schools as learning organizations, distributed leadership and teacher culture. Chapter 8 contains a well-structured overview of the main themes in the research findings and presents a set of conclusions. Part 3 and 3 are of a different nature. In part 2 the main findings of three studies (ch.2, 3 and 4) are presented in a reduced version and in the concluding section of each chapter we find a limited number of references to other studies. By contrast, in part 3 research findings, other related studies and personal reflections are combine in a fruitful way. The reader gets a good summary of several studies, is confronted with challenging questions and useful ideas about school leadership. By doing so, the author explores in a successful way future research themes and questions and creates a useful framework for those of us who are interested in training programmes for school leaders. Chapter 2 reports on the findings of research conducted into 10 successful head teachers in small-sized (less than 150 pupils) primary schools. The author spent one day in each of the selected schools and interviewed the heads, two teachers and one governor. The chapter contains an interesting overview of the main themes (illustrated by many quotations) from the head teacher, teacher and governor interviews. And the end of the chapter eight interrelated themes, emerging from the findings, are summarized and discussed. One of this these themes relates to the finding that all interviewed heads were improving their schools and that each of them used a number of strategies to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the school. Three broad strategies stand out from what all the respondents said: modelling, monitoring and discussion. And on page 46 – and also in an insightful way in chapter 5 – these three strategies are analysed and elaborated in terms of specific tactics. By doing so, the author not only specifies what successful head teachers actually do (and how successful actions are experienced by for instance teachers), but he also creates a framework which leads to an understanding of successful leadership and how learning-centred leadership influences what happens in classrooms. Already in chapter 1 Southworth remarks that, in order to understand how school improvement occurs, it is not only important to analyse what school leaders do, but also to look at how they put in place school structures and systems. The findings presented here confirm a well-known observation that structures and systems ( organisational and curricular structures and systems; systems providing opportunities for professional development for teachers and leaders) create a range of organisational conditions and capacities which work in combination with a head’s leadership and management. And Southworth concludes: “Together, the leadership strategies, organisational and curricular structures and systems were the processes by which shared educational values and goals were created , the ways in which consistency in teaching and high expectations were put in place and the means by which improvement in pupils’ learning outcomes and progress were achieved” (p.47). Chapter 6 focuses in a more detailed way on the relationship between leadership, school structures and systems and school size. In chapter 3 nineteen school heads, working in primary schools (with 150 to 330 pupils) facing challenging circumstances and where there was evidence of sustained improvement in pupils’ achievement, were studied. The data were collected during three twenty-four-hour residential workshops and several one-day seminars. During these meetings the participants wrote short notes about themes such as: “How they led their schools”, “How they shared leadership with others in schools”, “What they learned from working together”, etc…(p.50). In other words, the project (the ‘Heads in Essex Leadership programme’) produced a wealth of material, “…grounded in the heads day-to-day practice and the fruit of their deep professional knowledge and understanding” (p.51). It is quiet clear from the findings presented in chapter 3 that the larger the school, the more important structures and systems become and consequently “context matters”. One strong point of this chapter is that information supplied by the heads in the context of a training programme, was particular detailed and thus very valuable. From these data we learn that structures and systems do not only serve bureaucratic purposes, but they enable teachers to work together, share ideas and day-to-day experiences, work on individuals concerns, etc… Structures and systems create many opportunities for professional development and lead ultimately to a culture of collaboration and learning. The relationship between structures and systems and professional development and a learning culture is more extensively described in chapter 6. And here we especially refer to figure 6.1 in which the development towards a “learning and teaching school” is summarized in an attractive way. Another attractive theme presented in chapter 3 concerns the descriptions of the changes heads had introduced and which had a positive effect on children’s achievements (p.62-64). And it is no surprise that actions related to improving constantly the quality of the teaching staff are considered as the most important strategy. Other important strategies are: the development and use of a monitoring system, effective curriculum planning, the use of data, target setting, positive behaviour management, etc… Chapter 4 is devoted to leadership in large (more than 400 pupils) primary schools. Already in chapter 1 Southworth noted that in the last five years the number of large primary schools is increasing rapidly, an observation that is confirmed in the introduction of chapter 4. The data presented here are based on interviews of the heads and deputies in approximately one-third of the very largest primary schools in England. From the analysis of the interview data, a questionnaire was constructed and sent to all remaining heads in the largest schools (601-plus pupils). And the same questionnaire was also dispatched to a random sample of 25 percent of primary schools with 401-600 pupils (p.70). Two conclusions are worthwhile to mention here. The author concludes that in large primary schools effective management of communications systems is very important. In large schools there are not only more teachers, but also more ‘leaders’. In such an organisational context formal communication channels must be used and it is “inadvisable to rely on informal communication channels” (p.89). And secondly, large and particular very large schools are characterized by shared and distributed leadership. Shared leadership means that the head works in partnership with the deputy and for instance a few senior teachers. However in very large schools, given the size of the staff and the different tasks and related responsibilities, there are many additional leaders. Thus leadership is distributed across the school. One of the consequences of this greater organisational complexity in terms of leadership is that heads and deputies of (very) large schools are responsible for and need to support the development of other leaders. To create and sustain a distributed model of leadership are difficult tasks and according to Southworth it is necessary to develop specific training programmes for heads of large primary schools. This theme is further explored and analysed in chapter 8. And especially the combination of this theme with the ‘learning centred leadership’-theme leads to valuable perspectives on school leadership in general. It is not possible to give a complete overview of the many findings, well formulated conclusions, suggestions for future research and for the development of training programmes for school leaders. This is a publication that everybody who is interested in school leadership has to read. The author presents an evidence-informed portrait of leadership in small, medium and large primary schools. He sets out the main features of each category based on the views and experiences of heads, deputies and governors. But at the same time, using this trilogy of related research projects, he explores three other related issues: learning centred leadership (the main question here is: how to influence what happens in classrooms?); structures and systems in schools (the main question is here: how do leaders develop and use structures and systems in schools and especially in large and very large schools?); developing leaders and leadership (the main question is here: how to build leadership capacities?). I can imagine that some colleagues researchers would like to read something more about the development of the interviews and questionnaires (chapters 2, 3 and 4) and also about the way data were analysed. I also can imagine that some of us, reading the conclusions and discussion sections of chapter 2, 3 and 4 will experience a kind of unnecessary repetition. But repetition is an acceptable teaching strategy and well formulated conclusions have sometimes a stronger influence (for instance on policy-makers) than a long description of data and observations. This is a very informative book because it combines empirical findings, an exploration and useful synthesis of relevant literature and above all a thoughtful presentation of important interrelated leadership themes. Academics and students of school leadership will find this book useful. But this publication is also valuable for headteachers, deputies and those who aspire to a leadership position About the Reviewer Roland Vandenberghe University of Leuven, Belgium Center for Educational Policy and Innovation Email: rvandenberghe@pi.be Professor Roland Vandenberghe is, since October 2004, Professor Emeritus of the University of Leuven (Belgium). He was Chair of the Center for Educational Policy and Innovation of the Department of Educational Sciences. His main research interests are related to school improvement and professional development of teachers and principals. At this moment he is still involved in a study about professional development of beginning primary school principals.

Fullan, Michael. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Reviewed by Damian Curley, Bishop's University (Quebec)

Fullan, Michael. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Pp. xvii + 88. $24.95 (Paperback) ISBN 0-7619-3873-7 Reviewed by Damian Curley Bishop's University (Quebec) January 8, 2005 Michael Fullan’s book, The Moral Imperative of School Leadership (2003) is a practical handbook for educators focusing on the pivotal role played by principals as agents of systematic change. The reader is guided through five chapters as a vision of effective systematic change unfolds. Practical, user friendly and relevant strategies are provided for reshaping culture and leadership within schools and beyond. The writer’s philosophy and advice are corroborated throughout with practical examples, case-studies and vignettes that allow the reader to experience the journey towards sustainable change through effective leadership. Fullan proclaims, “…this book is about school leadership” (2003, p. xv) and proposes that leadership with a moral purpose is the key not only to school change but also to system change. The author echoes the opinion of other notable writers such as Roland Barth and Andy Hardgreavesin championing the role played by the leader with a moral purpose. Fullan asserts that “the role of principals is to help create and sustain disciplined inquiry and action,” and wonders “what has to be done to help create and sustain in numbers school principals” (p.7). The author believes that the context around which change takes place is important and seeks to redefine the principal’s role within the school, as well as the larger school system, and the wider context of societal change. Fullan paints a bleak picture of our education system in his Preface, describing the 1990’s as a “dismal decade for the principalship”(p. xiii), when expectations piled up while leadership training and development were neglected resulting in an exodus from the profession (p. xiii).Ultimately, the author points to a brighter future, aided by a practical model which outlines a “hierarchy of moral purpose” (p.30). Later, a comprehensive six-point strategic model for transforming leadership (p. 73), supporting the devolution of authority to the principal is added. Fullan agrees with the conventional opinion that reform has swept through our education system and with it has overtaken many educators who were not able to face the added demands but could have been the people to lead the reform. Meanwhile, the methods by which change has been implemented have been ineffective causing resistance, subverting actions or apathy among educators. The result is a system not meeting required standards and left with many experienced but aging leaders and disillusioned or inexperienced teachers. Fullan advises that there is great need now for strong leaders to provoke a cultural change that will lead to the development of professional learning communities with a sustained capacity for leadership and learning. Fullan examines the power of context and asserts that if you change the context, then you can change behaviour (p.1). This is a very powerful statement but not easily realized. Fullan maintains that to change behaviour one must create a community within which new behaviours and values are nurtured. People are more likely to change in a “see-feel-change sequence” (p.2). This notion is similar to Daniel Goleman’s idea of “attunement” as opposed to “alignment” in his book Primal Leadership (2002), where he writes, “people need to see, feel, and touch the values and the vision of the organization” (p.220). Like Fullan, Goleman claims that if people find meaning in a vision they will develop a moral purpose without compromising their own dreams. Terence Deal and Kent Peterson in their book Shaping School Culture (1999) also capture this notion by stating that, “people create culture; thereafter it shapes them” (p.85). Similarly, Fullan’s hope is that leadership capacity will become reciprocal by building capacity over time, and cautions that disciplined inquiry and moral purpose are vital components for this to happen. He adds that it is important for the principal to get the right people into the right positions with a common vision. We are introduced to such terms as the “reconceptualizing leadership,” “performance training sects,” “hierarchy of the moral imperative,” and “moral compass,” “underresponsibility” and “the responsibility virus.” The author looks at the barriers faced by administrators and concludes that administrators perceive there are self-imposed barriers and system imposed barriers which he feels may cause administrators to loose their “moral compass.” Fullan wonders, despite all the research and attention being given to leadership, why are we still loosing ground (p.13) and admits that “the system is in deep trouble” (p. 24), citing underresponsibility among teachers, poor change strategies, an excessive volume of initiatives and neglect of leadership succession (p.25). The author also maintains that the idea of the principal as instructional leader is limited. This observation, while extreme, seems to be based on findings from England that showed no improvement in teacher or principal morale despite great accomplishments in literacy and numeracy between 1997 and 2002 (p.27). Fullan contends that we need to go much deeper in transforming schools, towards what he terms as “accountable, informed professional judgment” (p.27). This view is supported by Richard du Four and Robert Eaker in Professional Learning Communities at Work (1998) who state that “principals of professional learning communities lead through a shared vision and values rather than through rules and procedures” (p. 184) Fullan’s use of the model entitled “Making a Difference” (p.30), expands the idea of “going deep,” with a hierarchy of moral purpose containing four levels: first the individual, then the school, followed by region, and then society. Involvement in one or two of these levels may result in some limited change but will not be sustained. “Those making a contribution at Level 4, by definition, need to be involved in the work of the previous three levels if they are to be effective” (p. 29). The author provides a variety of examples illustrating surface-level cases that show a lack of depth, consistency or integrity, adding that schools that transcend the individual and school levels display a list of essential characteristics such as, high expectations for students; assessment data that supports student success, and encouragement of staff collaboration (p. 40). Fullan’s model is reminiscent of Steven Covey’s “Four levels of Principal-Centered Leadership with Key Principals” in his book Principal-Centered Leadership (1992). Covey identifies personal, interpersonal, managerial and organizational principles, indicating that each level is “necessary but insufficient” (p.31). Like Covey, Fullan insists that there must be involvement in all levels and also lists trust and disciplined inquiry as being key elements of the leadership model. Fullan’s model, however, goes further as it also includes societal change. This book encourages leaders to take the moral imperative on the road. Making a difference is why people get involved in teaching. Let’s go one step further and make a difference to society. Parker Palmer in The Courage to Teach (1998) pleads for a resistance to the “perverse but powerful draw of the ‘disconnected’ life” (p.35), and identifies fear as the culprit for shutting down those “experiments with truth that allow us to weave a wider web of connectedness” (p.36). Similarly, Fullan expands this notion of “disconnectedness” and asserts that there must be “lateral development” (2003, p. 47) to promote regional development and ultimately system development. This idea of lateral development that results in capacity building resonates throughout the book and neatly fits into Fullan’s practical approach to system change. Consequently, schools leaders must have the courage to realize that they can influence not only their school but also the system. The more that principals identify with this bigger picture, the more that moral purpose will become a feature of the whole system. Fullan’s guidelines for systematic change evoke many of his earlier ideas put forward in What’s Worth Fighting for in Your School (1996), but there has been an evolution. Previously, the writer seemed to accept an ineffective system. In “The Moral Imperative,” the principal takes a more central role in changing the context, and is challenged to influence the system, as well as the individual, by building capacity within the organization (capacity will lead to capacity). In dealing with how to implement the moral imperative and the ominous undertaking of transforming society, the reader is reassured that “school leadership is a collective enterprise” (2003, p.xv) and that participation in all levels will result in societal change. Fullan extends this notion further in Leadership and Sustainability (2004), where he examines what leaders at all levels can do to pave the way for large-scale sustainable reform. Unlike many contemporary books that deal with this subject, Fullan’s empathic writing style connects with educators and is interspersed with case studies and vignettes from his own research in England, Canada and the United States as well as reference to extensive research and data. One is left with a renewed belief that change can take place, and readers are encouraged and challenged to put themselves and their ideas on the line. Fullan appeals to something all educators have: the desire to do the right thing and the wish to make a difference. This book could be a great professional development tool when developing a mission for a school or organization. A mission should be something that people are willing to defend. People will defend something only if it is meaningful to them and if they truly believe they are doing the right thing. “Living” missions influence people and organizations only if the people in these organizations believe that what they are doing is right. We need to appeal to people’s moral purpose in this way to create effective organizations. After all, deep down everybody wants to leave a legacy and what greater a legacy than to create sustainable societal change? References Covey, S., (1992) Principle-centered leadership. NewYork: Franklin Covey Co. Fireside. DuFour, R. & Eaker, R., (1998) Professional learning communities at work. New York: National Educational Service. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A., (2002) Primal leadership. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Fullan, M., (2003) The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Fullan, M., (2004) Leadership and sustainability. (2004) Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A., (1996) What’sworth fighting for in your school? New York:Teachers College Columbia University. Lambert, L., (2002) Beyond instructional leadership. Educational leadership. 59(8), 37-40. Palmer, P. (1998) The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. About the Review Author Damian Curley is Principal of Onslow Elementary School in the Western Quebec School. He is currently engaged in a Masters of Education program in Leadership at Bishop's University, Lennoxville, Quebec. He is exploring the idea of transforming school culture through shared leadership and how this approach can influence student participation in leadership and healthy activities. Other areas of research interests include evaluation and assessment, and instructional intelligence.

Holliman, Richard and Eileen Scanlon (2004). Mediating Science Learning through Information and Communications Techology. Reviewed by John Rothfork, Northern Arizona University

Holliman, Richard and Eileen Scanlon (2004). Mediating Science Learning through Information and Communications Techology. London and New York: Routledge Falmer Press. Pp. xi + 211 $129.95 (hardback) $39.95 (paperback) ISBN 0-415-32832-2 Reviewed by John Rothfork Northern Arizona University January 2, 2005 The first thing to say is that the book is overpriced. Only a university library would pay $130 for this short collection. The book is one of two that provides readings for students in a course on “Contemporary Issues in Science Learning” <http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01SEH806>. This class is part of the curriculum required to earn a MSc degree at Britain’s Open University (p. xi); see the program description at <http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?Q01F12>. As a textbook, I give it a “B” grade. Several essays are helpful; a few are formulaic in citing study and after study that no one but the author is likely to read. I wonder what students learn from this? They do not learn how to better teach science and I doubt that they access online journals to read the works that the author cites. I fear that some will learn how to imitate such author-centered research pieces that mostly convince us that the author read a lot of journal articles. Such annotated bibliography pieces fail to be helpful because the author is typically more concerned to impress an editor or to live up to professional standards than to offer useful advice to classroom teachers. Whoever is responsible for the book design at Routledge or at the Open University deserves a failing grade. The book is about Internet resources. It is used, for the most part, as a text for a class taught over the Internet. Why, then, does it avoid giving URLs for the Internet resources it discusses? I understand the concern about ephemeral Web sites, but most of the sites I looked up were government or university sites that are as stable as anything to be found on the Net. Moreover, the discussion of nearly all the examples in the book is necessarily tied to the Web sites that offer the resources. Doesn’t a book like this provide a creative publisher with the perfect opportunity to offer a parallel online edition with hyperlinks or to offer a Web site to support the text? The point of several essays is to acquaint teachers with science resources on the Internet, but the publisher and book designer were apparently too hidebound to make the book truly useful. The situation is almost medieval. Teachers read descriptions of science resources on the Internet but are never invited to go look at them! The tacit message of the book seems to be that the Internet is fine for kids but teachers and graduate students should read serious books that look like books. The author of one of the essays (see #3 below), Jerry Wellington, is a coauthor of Teaching and Learning with Multimedia (1997), which Routledge published as both a paperback and an MS Reader ebook <http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/html/moreinfo.asp?bookid=5368 85642>. So, we know that Routledge publishes parallel editions as both print media and ebooks. Is it the stodgy conventions of professional education research that dictated the traditional form of Mediating Science, which limits it to being just another collection of academic essays rarely picked from a library shelf? Although the focus is on science education, the interests of the authors in educational methods and in Internet resources make the essays familiar material for teachers in almost any discipline. In addition to the obvious unities provided by the topics of science education and Internet resources for science education, the work is committed to a subtextual thesis, which might be described as a teacher centered understanding of education. Almost all the essays are addressed to teachers in the expectation of helping them develop curricula, participate in evaluation, and take ownership of every area of the science classes they teach. Despite efforts to mandate and test for uniform standards, American teachers will no doubt think this is obvious. Britain has a National Curriculum <http://www.nc.uk.net/about/values_aims_purposes.html>. Many will be quick to point out that the National Curriculum only sets standards, methods, and goals. It does not specify content or what is taught. See, for example, the “ICT Statutory Requirements” for Science at the National Curriculum in Action Web Site <http://www.ncaction.org.uk/subjects/science/ict-reqs.htm>. The editors and authors of Mediating Science take a distinctive stand in this context; one that focuses on the classroom teacher as curriculum developer for science classes using, in part, online resources accessed through the Internet. The text comprises ten essays briefly described below. 1. Using ICT [Information and Communications Technology] to teach and learn science Internet resources are less needed to teach new facts than to explain connections among facts and “previously held ideas” (p. 11). “‘Pivotal cases’ […] prompt students to reorganize their ideas in order to explain challenging phenomena” (p. 12). An example of using case study methods is provided by an NSF project at UC-Berkeley called WISE (The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment <http://wise.berkeley.edu/>. WISE offers a free, on-line science learning environment for students in grades 4-12. Students learn about scientific cases and arguments by designing, debating, and critiquing solutions with other students on the Web. After studying and discussing case data, “the WISE inquiry map guides students” in their effort to explain it (pp. 14-15). The WISE site also gives teachers or “new designers a head start in creating” their own pivotal cases. The NSF also funded The Center for Innovative Learning Technologies (CILT) <http://www.cilt.org/>, which focuses on “scaffolded knowledge integration,” a fancy term that is concerned with how to get students from what they know to what we want them to know. Framework thinking is interested in making science accessible and in making the steps of thinking and analysis visible. It is also interested in collaborative projects, peer discussion, and autonomous learning (p. 16). Another UC-Berkeley project, Thinker Tools <http://thinkertools.soe.berkeley.edu/>, offers materials and methods to support analysis that leads to an understanding of the underlying and causal principles illustrated by experimental data. That data might come from a simulated experiment offered by MIT’s StarLogo <http://education.mit.edu/starlogo>, which offers a modeling environment to study such complex and dynamic phenomena as bird flocks, traffic jams, ant colonies, and market economies (p. 18). At the University of Michigan, Kids as Global Scientists <http://www.onesky.umich.edu/kgs01.html> assumes that the best way to learn science is to do science in discourse communities that resemble those of actual research science. Consequently, the site offers a kid-scale research community to study weather using observation, experiments, Internet data, and email. At the secondary level, Constructing Physics Understanding “is aimed at creating laboratory and computer-based materials” for a high school class <http://cpuproject.sdsu.edu/>. The American Virtual High School <http://www.govhs.org/website.nsf> offers the rest of the secondary curricula by relying on a cooperative arrangement in which a secondary teacher at a traditional school volunteers to develop and teach an online course for VHS, which earns her school 25 seats in VHS classes. Theoretically, this might allow some students to enroll in esoteric or advanced courses unavailable at their traditional school. It doesn’t appear that VHS has grown to this level yet. Such Internet projects as these “support far more customization” of traditional science classes to allow, for example, more sophisticated, “real science” study of “local lakes, current weather conditions, new science standards or new technologies” (p. 22). Internet material is often abstract enough to permit local customization to allow teachers to tailor material for their individual classroom needs: online “learning environments support the design of multiple projects, each tailored to a specific topic” (p. 24). 2. Rethinking the teaching of science The author of this essay, Diana Laurillard, is the head of the e-Learning Strategy Unit for Britain’s Department of Education <http://www.des.gov.uk/>. Her essay features a half-dozen flow charts with as many as 16 arrows indicating different actions. The charts are too abstract to easily connect with specific classroom activities. Her thesis is obvious: teachers should adopt “technology with a clear sense of what we want to achieve for learners” (p. 26). She concludes that “interactive learning methods enable the student to do science,” and, if we ignore the government flow charts and education jargon, the essay is helpful in introducing the use of simulations, virtual environments, microworlds, and what she calls “tutorial programs” using computer aided instruction. I guess the editors couldn’t admonish the government official to drop the charts and her abstract concerns to help classroom teachers find, choose, and work with Internet resources to develop curricula (p. 49). I found the same problem at Laurillard’s government Web site (identified above). It promises “Curriculum Online” and I did find buried bits and pieces that took seven or eight clicks to uncover. Laurillard alludes to an interesting commercial resource that resulted from Seymour Papert’s work, which was inspired by his association with Jean Piaget. LCSI <http://www.microworlds.com/> provides software to allow students to build “their own runnable systems” in contrast to a simulation where they only control “a system that someone else” built (p. 46). 3. Using ICT in teaching and learning science This is a well written piece that will help teachers develop science curricula. The author, Jerry Wellington, does a good job to make implicit values explicit. For example, he warns that “simulations give pupils the impression that variables in a physical process can be easily, equally and independently controlled.” The model can be controlled; nature is rarely so cooperative. Jerry has an acute awareness for rhetoric, warning that “every simulation is based on a certain model of reality” that is “hidden from the user” so that students “are neither encouraged nor able to question its validity” (p. 58). Finally, he warns teachers that Internet resources can twice distort the attempt to understand data because a simulation “uses a computer model of a scientific model or scientific theory, which itself is an idealization of reality” (p. 59). The author introduces us to the National Grid for Learning <http://www.ngfl.gov.uk/>, a British government portal for education. This includes the ScI-Journal that allows students to be involved in an appropriate scale science research journal community <http://www.sci-journal.org/> (p. 71). There is also a Russian edition translated into English, which provides a window to see science education projects there. 4. Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences This is a rather unexpected essay that advocates a pragmatist understanding of learning to suggest that the role and action of the instructor is at least as important for learning as anything to be found on the Internet. It argues for a recognition of curricula as praxis (teacher centered) against those who think of curricula as a static or deliverable product developed by curriculum and instruction, and instructional technology specialists who hope to “teacher proof” their wares. This essay is all the more unexpected because Britain’s National Curriculum <http://www.nc.uk.net/index.html> is sometimes cited as an illustration of the effort to have “experts” design and produce curricula outside the classroom and even outside the school <http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm>. Internet resources in general and learning objects in particular (see #5) suggest that the argument over who designs and produces the curricula need not be an “either or” choice. The authors, John Leach and Phil Scott, say that in educational research, “the role of the teacher, as planned by the researchers at the design stage [in theory], and the role adopted as teaching progresses [praxis], should both be addressed explicitly in any methodological account” (p. 84). Not surprisingly, the authors find few such studies. When researchers or curriculum developers ignore the indispensable agency of the teacher in the learning process they produce information with no context. Instead of instruction, we have library information. Instead of students, we have readers. The subtext for most of the essays in the collection calls for classroom teachers to claim every area of instruction as their concern and responsibility from curriculum development to assessment. The authors view science instruction as, in part, gaining a facility in the discourse community of science. Consequently, they are not impressed with science instruction “conceptualized in terms of activities, with no reference to the talk which surrounds them” (p. 88). Science is not simply puzzle solving. It is also a culture characterized by email, seminars, conferences, Web sites, and hundreds of journals. The authors alert teachers to the “differences between ‘real’ science, as carried out in various professional settings, and ‘school’ science” where the outcome is known and where the focus is on instruction instead of argument and theoretical explanation (p. 89). 5. Designing multimedia e-learning for science education Tom Boyle echoes the concerns of Leach and Scott (#4) by asking who is responsible for the lesson plans and conduct of a class? Much of the hoopla surrounding ICT instruction casts the teacher in the role of a consumer who “selects a prefabricated multimedia learning environment” and passes it on to students by adopting the role of user consultant who knows the program but who had no hand in producing it (p. 116). In this way “support for learning rather than teaching becomes the focal issue” (p. 105). Especially in distance education, the instructor is admonished to become a facilitator. Boyle also talks about Papert’s work to create microworlds that kids can control so that learning becomes “an active constructive process” (p. 107). Extrapolating from that model, Boyle advocates building an Internet warehouse of learning objects so that teachers “will be able to retrieve” chunks or parts to plug into course lessons they develop (p. 114). The hope is to shift the emphasis from creating commercial “monolithic systems to creating repositories of learning objects” so that “users will no longer be locked into proprietary systems” they can facilitate but not alter or control (p. 112). Boyle directs us to the Learning Resource Center Project, but one must be affiliated with one of the 24 member Universitas 21 schools to access the material <http://www.lrc3.unsw.edu.au:8010/default.cfm>. Purdue hosts an open site <http://www.learning-objects.net/>, which illustrates that we are a long way from shopping through a catalog of software components that can be downloaded to easily assemble a custom course. You can find a list of emerging learning object repositories at <http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CIE/AOP/LO_collections.html>. Boyle’s advice is for developers who should, he says, make discrete “chunks” that minimize dependence on other programs (p. 115). “We want learning objects that are not only cohesive, de-coupled and packaged, but also are pedagogically exciting” (p. 117). 6. Evaluation of ICT Many of us groan at the mention of assessment feeling that our authority in the classroom is about to be interrupted while we meekly follow some bureaucrat’s notion of what we should be doing. Researchers often think of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in a similar way, as obstacles to overcome on the way to doing a research project. Martin Oliver takes the interesting view of recognizing the rhetorical nature of assessment or IRB policy “as a political and social activity,” which is a polite way of saying that the contest is for institutional power and control (p. 123). He hopes to turn the tables on the presumed authority of objective studies and methods, and the tacit hierarchy in which administration is considered to be more important than instruction, by borrowing technical writing techniques to say that “few research studies appear to question who their audience might be” or to recognize that they are employed to give “an account written for a particular group” that, like every group, has implicit values and methods. Oliver doesn’t say that this is institutional propaganda and marketing, but the implication is obvious. We probably cannot use Oliver’s essay to confront assessment personnel, but his essay is very useful in suggesting methodological points that we could use to become more informed and interested in the process, and to feel less like we must relinquish control of our classes to simply follow administrative orders. He asks, “If evaluation enables action, whose actions will be supported? Whose agendas will be served?” (p. 134). He reminds us that “evaluation remains a contested practice, not a precisely definable skill to be acquired” (p. 136). The problem is that one must read enough of “their” literature to become informed enough to hold up “our” teacher end of the argument without becoming one of “them.” 7. Evaluating information and communications technology Recognizing that few science teachers “have the skills required to carry out evaluations of ICT use and fewer still are aware of the range or scope of methodologies available to them,” this chapter offers a topical list of issues, such as: Authenticity to judge “how closely an evaluation captures the context of an existing course.” Exploration to ask if the study has “well-defined initial hypotheses or is […] tackling an open problem.” Scale to consider “the number of participants involved in the study” (pp. 141-2). The subtext in this piece, co-authored by Martin Oliver, is to offer more ammunition to classroom teachers to constructively participate in assessment requirements without necessarily or immediately capitulating to passively do whatever the assessment office or government orders. 8. Extending access using ICT This essay acquaints teachers with various ways that computer aided instruction can be adapted to overcome learning problems caused by physical and mental (e.g., dyslexia) handicaps. Martyn Cooper reminds developers not to do things that would prevent a user from making custom browser settings and to design Web pages that can be easily followed by screen-readers. The authority in this area is the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) <http://w3c.org/> and specifically the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) page <http://w3c.org/WAI/>. The principle guiding this essay is the recognition that “It is far easier and less costly to incorporate accessibility features at the beginning” of a project than to request “‘fixes’ once prototypes are in an advanced stage of development” (p. 165). 9. Redesigning practical work Occasionally we run across news stories about a surgeon or radiologist using remote tools to treat patients and of course we know that scientists can remotely operate mechanisms such as the Mars Rovers <http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/home/>. Internet resources can allow science students to remotely manipulate and “control traditional apparatus at a distance (as opposed to a graphic rendering of the apparatus)” (p. 171). The authors describe the PEARL (Practical Experimentation by Accessible Remote Learning) project, which allows students to use an electron microscope, to test digital circuits, and to examine printed circuit boards (p. 173) <http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/m.cooper/PEARL/PEARL%20Project%20summa ry.htm>. These virtual laboratory experiences produced comparable educational results when compared with traditional undergraduate level lab experience. I have to smile at the PEARL Web site, which illustrates the puritanical and austere thread in the culture of science that is uninterested in frivolous things like document design, graphics, and usability. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a computer science graduate student years ago who told me that anyone who relied on MS Windows as an operating system shouldn’t be allowed to use a computer (or, apparently, to ask him questions)! Yet another UC-Berkeley agency, the Lawrence Hall of Science <http://www.lhs.berkeley.edu/>, provides related material at the Hands-On Universe <http://www.handsonuniverse.org/>. 10. ICT for science education: current prospects and trends This is the fourth essay to stress that science instruction has “moved away from an acquisition or construction metaphor towards a culture or participation metaphor,” which implies that “students, like scientists” should participate “in a community where communication is enabled by ICT.” Eileen Scanlon says that “Much of the practice of science education is influenced by a view that what scientists do should be reflected for the students” (p. 191). The essay also ventures to make predictions about computers and computer aided science instruction. The predictions are obvious: computers will be increasingly important to: Interact with individual students. Offer simulations, models, and remote instruments. Access information. Allow students to communicate, consult, and network with peers, teachers, and scientists. Warehouse and retrieve learning objects. Assemble complex lessons using Internet resources. Develop and teach Web courses (pp. 189, 197). Scanlon expects new teachers to have sophisticated ICT literacy skills. She quotes a 2000 study that says “only a minority of science teachers use ICT regularly in their teaching” (p. 192). Scanlon clearly expects that to change. The collection of essays is above average, obviously useful for its intended audience of Open University students enrolled in “Contemporary Issues in Science Learning,” which, by the way, is unavailable to American students. The course objectives say that if we took the course we would learn to “critically assess literature on learning and teaching science” <http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01SEH806#souk>. Doesn’t this seem too entrenched in the university and in theory, and too far removed from the classroom and learning how to better teach science? I often found myself more engrossed in the Internet resources than in the gloss of them provided by the text. Of course, students enrolled in the course will have to buy the paperback edition of the book. Will I order the hardback copy for our university library? No. About the Reviewer John Rothfork English Department Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ 86011 John.Rothfork@nau.edu John Rothfork teaches online courses in a graduate certificate program in professional and technical writing at Northern Arizona University.

Kaufman, J., Ewing, M., Montgomery, D. Hyle, A., & Self, P. (2003). From girls in their elements to women in science: Rethinking socialization through memory-work Reviewed by Shirley Gholston Key, University of Memphis

	Kaufman, J., Ewing, M., Montgomery, D. Hyle, A., & Self, P. (2003). From girls in their elements to women in science: Rethinking socialization through memory-work. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 160 pp. $29.95 ISBN 0-8204-4512-6 Reviewed by Shirley Gholston Key University of Memphis February 6, 2004 How often do we as science educators hear how females and elementary teachers say they fear science, they can't do science, and how they have had so many bad experiences in science classrooms? Yet, the elementary student is the most naturally curious student about scientific concepts in natural phenomena. As educators we try to build bridges between these two groups so science education can be beneficial and rewarding for both groups. From Girls in Their Elements to women in Science by Kaufman, J., Ewing, M., Montgomery, D. Hyle, A., & Self, P. (2003), is an example of how to use student's personal science memories to show the value of science and the non-threatening aspects of science in our personal lives. From Girls in Their Elements to women in Science makes all readers appreciate the informal science experiences, which one participates in throughout their lives. The authors remind us that we are products of our environments and all activities influence our lives. Yet, upon first impression one will probably say many of our experiences just happened and did not have any lasting impact. The memory work research proves that our experiences do have impact on our future behaviors and how we interact with our environment. Scenarios in each chapter are used to demonstrate this. In the Introduction and nine chapters of this book, the authors share with us how their science experiences from their natural play environment influenced their future and empowered them in the process but they did not recognize this until they undertook the memory work process. The Introduction presents the subjects to us and the theoretical framework, that science is social and can be feminine and experienced by females. The work enabled the authors to present science on a personal level of experience through the many stories, which they shared. The works of Haug (1987), Vygotsky (1986), and Cataldi (1993) influenced the methods used to develop and analyze this memory-work. In Chapter 1, “Nature to Natural Science,” the characteristics of science were emphasized and the cultural notion of science and scientists laid the foundations for the authors’ experiences and their memory-work. The traditional view of children’s perceptions of science has and still captures it as the white male dominant discipline. Children still do not see women and people of color as scientists and have a hard time defining daily activities as scientific work (Jarvis, 1996). Views of science have changed over the years but still include science as disciplines e.g. physics, chemistry, biology. Others see science as a systematic way of knowing and a systematic way of explaining as in the scientific methods. By examining these views, it showed that science is not seen as a social vehicle. The positivist tradition separates empirical science from nonscience, and this view has dominated Western science for at least 100 years. There is a distance associated with objectivity and empirical science characterizing elite science as in prestigious laboratories across the country. It does not characterize the common daily tasks one uses experimentation to solve or conduct as shown via the tasks of the authors. They use nonempirical approaches to convey their relational science. This distance in science is the threatening aspect of science seen in elementary and elementary preservice teachers. Feminist critiques of science notes that science usually ignores the concerns of women and people of color. The scientific method, the positivist view, usually reflect the concern of white middle-class men. There is a contention that there is a conflict between feminist views in science and the masculine view. Through the scenarios in the chapters, one is able to see this conflict. Women’s views of science usually include the notion that science is everywhere, yet it has nothing to do with me. Whereas, women do not have the power to name what counts as science, they do have the power of experiencing science. For example, the science of women’s kitchens and gardens (Hubbard, 1988) and the personal science as demonstrated in the scenarios in the text are different from the formal science we experience in chemistry and physics classrooms and laboratories. It took memory work for Kaufman, et al. (2003) to realize this. This memory work demonstrated that becoming a scientist in the traditional sense is a conflict in their identity and much of what they believe science should be about. There are fewer females receiving degrees in science and engineering on all levels than males. There are several reasons for this assertion: classrooms discourage females, the invisibility of female representation in curricular materials, the hierarchical nature of traditional science, and the competitive nature of the classroom. Their research indicates that mentors play an important role in helping females to remain in the field and in obtaining higher degrees at competitive research institutions. The message that there is a conflict in the female scientists occur in grades 4-8 subtly and not-so-subtly; later environmental constraints restrict females from majoring and choosing a science career. Yet, a few females manage to make it through this narrow pipeline. I thought at this point that the focus of the book would use memory work to show how to get more females through this narrow pipeline or how to use social science to increase this pool of potential scientists. I had to resign to an implication in the conclusion of the book. Yet, examining this conflict from a different angle allowed the authors to look at traditional vs nontraditional ideas about where science is pursued. Memory work allowed them to look at women experiencing science outside of sterile laboratories and in the natural world around them as children in the natural world. Using memory work took them back to their childhoods and their fun activities. Children play spaces became places of informal science learning and children became scientists. Chapter Three describes the “methodology “ section in traditional research. It begins by defining memory and memory work, the population, subject, and methodology. Memory work is accepted as the bridge to span the gap between theory and experience. The subjects were five white, middle class, women. They noted in this chapter that they were lesbian and heterosexual women but nothing in the book showed where this made a major difference in the memory experiences. They lived in various locale in the United states from the Midwest to New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, and D.C. This is important in promoting science for all children and especially elementary students in impoverished urban schools where science is often neglected. Originally the group was on the same campus and met weekly for writing and research sessions. The method used was the rules established by Haug (1987) and Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, et al. (1992) which are: write one of your earliest memories; of a particular episode, or event; related to the identified cue; in the third person; in as much detail as is possible; but without interpretations, explanation, or biography. They adopted an additional rule of being nonjudgmental of other memories. Following this, they read memories aloud to the group, asked questions, clarified details present and missing, and added needed context. Discussions were audiotaped and transcribed. The criteria for choosing memories were that they generated extensive discussion and as a result were elaborated by the rememberer and understood more complexly by the group. The elements air, water, earth, fire, and tree were used to focus the group’s relationship to the natural world. Each was viewed through the young adult and adolescence phases of life. From this point everything was unique and varied for each individual. It appeared that memories were stirred and recorded then each was analyzed for the scientific aspect. The exact procedure was confusing to me as the reader. Strategies for memory generation were diverse and many times they were not written until minutes before the scheduled meetings. An explanation of how memories were accessed led to the three ways, cognitive recall as a sequential and logical process of linking the element to the age, sensory stimulation as Anna tasting dirt, and finally the visual or imagery stimulation as in Sue’s memory being based on a picture. They generated two types of memories, amalgams and events. Events are linked to a specific point in time and specific events. Amalgams are between episodic and semantic memories. Semantic memories hold general knowledge that is built up from repeated experiences. They still found it hard to break away from the traditionalist mode of viewing and analyzing the research to the extent that they reduced the method to a linear and causal perspective. Therefore, contrary to Haug (1987) and Crawford, et al. (1992), they reread all of a person’s memories from early childhood through adulthood. (Which is probably the way that the book should have been written) and found emergent themes of creativity, use of metaphor, family, and power. The themes were helpful to understanding memory as a concept. Memory in the traditional research literature is regarded as a social construct and memory does not exist in the material sense. Memory-work can only provide another way of thinking about who we are and how we have been socialized. The discrete memories retrieved through memory-work were determined by posed questions asked by the other subjects. In Chapter Four, Making Sense, brings the subjects and readers to reality and thus deal more with this conflict of personal science and the very respected, traditional science. This chapter demonstrates how making sense is necessary to science. How the sensuous in their memories provides the observations, the data, for understanding how the senses meld with the social in influencing their connections to nature. Another reality was admitted in this chapter also. They admitted that ordinary embodied experience, neither necessarily systematic nor abstract, may hold keys to girls’ development in relation to nature and perhaps to their interest (or lack of interest) in science. Integration of the senses was essential in these experiences of personal science. Knowledge gained and applied in domestic settings typically is not considered science but it is considered as personal science for this memory work. Personal science is believed to begin in childhood and continues through life. An example of the adult personal science is demonstrated when a woman’s knowledge of an almond tree is anchored in memory by the sensation of taste. This shows that personal science is an interaction or web of elements. Within that web, girls develop complex relationships to nature and fruitful approaches to their science from an early age, as is particularly evident in many of the memories. The memories suggested a range of social settings where personal science has taken place and highlighted exchanges that valued curiosity and observation of nature as well as those that discourage further exploration of nature. Chapter Five describes how metaphors associated with the elements illuminated basic human experiences. For example, fire represents through metaphor warmth in relationships. They took the traditional definition of metaphor used in language and extended it to the personal science experiences. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) says that metaphor structures the development and understanding of concepts. Originally Kaufman, et al. (2003), resisted the concept of metaphors. Some metaphors drew them in close connection to particular aspects of nature while others pushed them away. The group found metaphors particularly productive, not just in identifying metaphors but having the group develop the practice of using their own metaphors to understand it. The metaphors were used to express feelings, to tie two or more experiences together, and used to help provide insight (e.g. Bell’s tree house memory as a child). Using and recognizing metaphors helped the subjects to see the emergent themes/subthemes of fear, efficacy, relationship, and growth and development. Fear was mostly memories of natural disasters. Efficacy, as a subtheme, related to being successful or not and usually was cued by the memory of fire and water. Science in school presented challenges to their efficacy, which also represented rituals in many of the memories. Growth as a metaphor extended to the appearance of hated objects to be cleaned up year after year by adolescents like planting gardens, harvesting vegetables, and cultivating the earth. The fact that personal science is different and distant from traditional science is also a thread throughout the text. In summarizing the chapter on metaphors, it was said that “the results of thinking about metaphor and the distancing of women and girls from nature is a clearer understanding of the roles that science in school may play in that distancing” (p.82). The memory work led them to believe that the traditional science in schools could still be positive for girls as Anna’s lecture on the importance of chemistry. What they did not find to be true was that memories of science in school would be readily cued by the elements and that these memories would provide insight into their socialization as apprentice scientists. They were surprised that they did not find this to be true. In some instances school science was inviting as in Rae’s carrot water and Bunsen burner experiences. In other cases, it interfered with the interest in natural science as in Bell’s sweaty palms memory. Chapter Six shares with the readers how memory work created a new understanding of their relationship to nature. They discovered how they made new meaning in nature while playing, solving problems, imagining, exploring, and experimenting. Acts of play in nature throughout their lives seemed to bring new values and differing perspectives to everyday life. They realized that traditional science requires distance from its objects of study, the natural world, while creativity is thought to be essential to science and its processes. Memory-work enabled them to see that creativity in their playing as children reinforced close connections with nature. They found that there were creative spaces, that playing is at the heart of human experiences, and through the memories, that play is more characteristic of childhood than it is of adulthood. They also found that not all play resulted in an obviously creative product. Major influences in the memories were examined in Chapter Seven and usually that was a family member. Most of the memories involved the father as a controller and the mother as an agent of choice for the subjects. Fathers were prominent in the wet sand and sandbox memory by Sue, in Cele’s cool clear water memory, and Anna’s description of smoke. There was the conflict between enjoyment in the natural world and structure introduced by fathers in the form of rules and/or orchestration of events. Their mothers did the typical “motherly” things and were not noticed as much as the fathers. Sue found that while the father exerted control with rules, her mother expressed control with choice. Inside learning with her mother was characterized as natural, safe, easy, and fun. With ant farms, gerbils, and fish, Sue had stated that her early memories were not “sciencey.” Bell’s mother was a gardener, which facilitated Bell’s growing rock memory. This act of gardening was interpreted as a socialization act so Bell did not view this as science. Cele’s mother and activities structured for Cele left her with the memories of powerful women as seen in the campfire memory and the Order of the Arrow. The results of the memory work and personal science project can be found in Chapter Eight. The results were measured in empowerment. The power in the memories was demonstrated and changed from early to later memories and from having great power with nature to distancing themselves from nature. They saw power in the relationships of the women in their lives. They also gained power as they took on the role of transmitter of their culture and their values. As a result of examining this work, they can now offer an opportunity for power to the next generation. In the Conclusions on page 130, it states “Power and apprenticeship are significant in the construction of both our personal science and professional science. Although some of the linkages are less direct than we originally envisioned, a number of interesting considerations emerged in our analysis. For some of us, control of the elements or the environment was crucial in the construction of our personal science. This control was seldom autonomous and often exerted within the context of our families". This conclusion ties in with Chapter Nine and the analysis of their power and apprenticeship, which established a bridge between their personal science as girls and their professional science as women. On the way to this realization, they found that in both theoretical and experiential way that they were part of nature. They engaged in personal science as a child and revisited these experiences in themes of sensuous, metaphoric, creative, family, and power. Some emerging questions arose from this method of research like: Can the findings be generalized? Are the findings useful? Are the findings of this study specific to this group? Is this a valid study? A definite finding was that this type of work is transformative. Memory-work suggests that one can open up the data beyond the boundaries of regular discourse, which is not usually possible within a traditional research paradigm. If one goal is to stop reproducing aspects of the culture that we believe are in need of change, then perhaps it is time to seek other possible stories that can be told about educational practice. In this case, the researcher would need to join with educators in conducting memory-work research and to this end, this work was successful for it did allow for a valid research paradigm shift. The book ends with a chapter of pictures, which leave the reader with a feeling that these memories were very real, for we can see the elements in the photos. Further documentation of their work and a final effort to "traditionalize" a nontraditional format was shown in the Appendix of numbers and charts. References Cataldi, S. (1993). Emotion, depth, and flesh: A study of sensitive space. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton, P. (1992). Emotion and gender: Constructing meaning from memory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Haug, F. (Ed.). (1987). Female sexualization: A collective work of memory (Erica Carter, trans.). Towbridge, Wiltshire, UK: Doteios Ltd. Hubbard, R. (1988). Science, facts, and feminism. Hypatia, 3(1), 5-17. Jarvis, T. (1996). Examining and extending young children's views of science and scientists. In Lesley H. Parker, Leonie J. Rennie, & Barry J. Fraser (eds.), Gender, science and mathematics: Shortening the shadow (pp.29-40). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute Technology Press. (Original work published in 1934). About The Reviewer Dr. Shirley Gholston Key is an Associate Professor of Science Education in the College of Education at the University of Memphis. Her research interests include science education (cognitive learning in science education, multicultural science education, preservice science education) and mentoring of the science professionals.