edited by
Jeffrey Kovac University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996-1600
Flickering Clusters: Women, Science, and Collaborative Transformations edited by Cheryl Ney, Jacqueline Ross, and Laura Stempel The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, Wisconsin, 2001. 151 pp. Paperback. ISBN 0-9679587-0-9. $16.95 reviewed by Sally Chapman
In 1992, the University of Wisconsin launched a project on women and science. Funded by a major grant from the Division of Undergraduate Education at NSF, this multi-campus project sought “curricular transformation of the sciences of the UW system”. Flickering Clusters is a report of this project. While the initial NSF funding ended some time ago, the project and the energy continue. This interesting book describes how the project was started, how it grew and evolved, what lessons were learned, and how the effort continues. The book may be viewed as an integral part of the project, representing the dissemination phase so important to funding agencies seeking systemic change. The NSF-sponsored phase of the project had several components. One was a series of Distinguished Visiting Professors (DVP’s), experts in pedagogy who came to a campus (or consortia of neighboring campuses) for a semester or more. DVP’s taught a model course in their subject area, where faculty interested in learning the new methodology could observe, worked with groups of designated Faculty Fellows, and ran workshops. Several sections of the book include reports from the DVP’s as well as observations from program participants about how the DVP roles evolved. An obvious strength of the program was its careful attention to continuing assessment and adjustment. Some of the early DVP’s encountered difficulty with inadequate preparation and communication at the host institution, so later visits were constructed to avoid some of these pitfalls. The initial design of a one-semester visit was found to be too brief, so more extended visits were arranged later. Faculty Fellows constituted a second key feature of the program. Three Faculty Fellows at each site were to be the early adopters of the new pedagogy, and would help continue its dissemination, both at their own campuses and beyond. A “science community” at the host institution, one or more departments involved in the program, worked with both the DVP and the Fellows.
JCE’ s Buyers Guide. It’s searchable!
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 8 August 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
943
Chemical Education Today
Book & Media Reviews Although entirely within the University of Wisconsin system, an interesting aspect of this project is the involvement of a variety of departments at a range of institutions, including the main campus at Madison, several four-year institutions, and some community colleges. (The book has very little to say about the last group). An interesting and lasting “Collaborative Community” emerged when a DVP visited the campuses at Eau Claire, River Falls, and Stout. The book provides insight and advice about the “how” of such curricular reform. Many of their conclusions are not surprising, but still worth reporting: the need for a deep involvement on the part of the administration, the importance of engaging a sufficient number of senior faculty, and the need for an appropriate reward structure. An important lesson was that the faculty must experience as they learn the same pedagogy that they plan to adopt. There is also extensive discussion of the “why” and the “what” of this reform effort. Flickering Clusters is a collaborative effort, so we hear a number of voices. The NSF project arose from the Womens’ Studies Consortium, a multi-campus organization of Womens’ Studies departments. One project goal was making science courses more accessible, attracting a more diverse population into careers in science. Initially called the “Science, Diversity, and Community Program”, it later became the “Women and Science Program”. Despite this change, it is argued that reforms benefit not just women, but other underrepresented groups. There is an insightful essay by Cathy Middlecamp about cultural diversity issues. Sheila Tobias’ 1990 book They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier was important in the early framing of the program. Tobias argued that university science courses were turning many capable and interested students away from science. She identified content, climate, and pedagogy of introductory courses as serious problems. It is now a canon among educational reformers that the fastpaced, content-heavy large lecture course, designed to weed out the undeserving, is the principal villain. In its place, a student-centered, discovery-based, constructivist learning community is advocated. This is what Flickering Clusters calls feminist pedagogy.
944
Flickering Clusters describes these goals well. Less jargonladen than much material on educational reform, it describes the desired pedagogy, both its underlying philosophy and its tools, including things like reflective teaching practices, journalling, and building on learning cycles. There is a good annotated bibliography, inviting further reading. Feminist discussions about science often start with epistemology. The image of science as an objective discovery of truth, here termed positivism (realism), is contrasted with the viewpoint that science, as a human activity, is constructed, called constructivism (antirealism). While the authors do not take the latter to its postmodern extreme, their sympathy is clearly with the constructivist view. One author describes herself among “recovering positivists”. An interesting (and to me unconvincing) equation is made between epistemology and pedagogy. This book is both engaging and frustrating. It stakes out a clear position, and defends it fiercely. But often the villain is ridiculously extreme. The scientists I know, passionate seekers of truth, do not deny that science is a human and fallible activity. Do they share this with students? Perhaps not enough. But no good science teacher presents science as a compendium of received facts. Another target is “the sage on the stage”. Introductory science courses, taught as large lectures (and frequently first thing in the morning), have problems. But is the lecture format the central issue? In a classroom filled with interested and prepared students, a wellcrafted lecture is deeply student-centered, and provokes active learning. If lecturing is evil, why do we lecture to each other? This book is a must-read for anyone embarking on a large-scale educational reform project. It is recommended to those interested in learning about women and science education. Even if you disagree, you will find some interesting ideas. Written as a group effort, it is sometimes repetitive but generally clear. The NSF funds were well invested. Sally Chapman is in the Chemistry Department at Barnard College, New York NY 10027;
[email protected].
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 8 August 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
