BOOK REVIEWS offers nothing new and exciting for the reader. But remembering the poor quality of many of the teacher-prepared examinations I have encountered over the years and realizing that far many teachers this hook contains much that is new lo them, its potential for improvement of science teaching a t all levels hecomes apparent. Chapter 1, How to Make a Good Science Test, should he required reading for inexperienced teachers. I t is a. concise and praeticd guide stressing the importance of clearly outlining the objectives before attempting test construction. Chapters are devoted to five types of examinations with examples in the fields of general science, hiology, chemistry, and physics. The advantages and disadvantages of essay, multiple-choice, matching, true-false, and completion examinations are presented in some detail. Three chapters deal with the general problem of measuring knowledge, understanding, and higher level results of science teaching. The last category includes application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. A brief chapter an Statistical Concepts adequately covers the essentidls while avoiding the confusing mass of seldom-used material so often found in treatments of the statistics of educational measurement. The chapter on Assigning Grades, while admitting the subjectivity of the temher's final judgment, gives some practical advice and justification for the grading system commonly used in this country. There is a. four-page bibliography far those desiring more detded information and appendixes devoted to: Science Tests in Print, Periodicals of Interest to Science Teachers, Publishers of Standardized Tests, Item-Analysis Procedures and Scoring Keys and Answer Sheets. The author is to be commended for making available a very readable book on a much-neglected phase of teaching. Too many teachers consider testing a necessary evil concerned only with the assignment of grades. Anyone who prepares examinsi tions for science courses should find something- useful in this hook-and this andies .. to college and university instructors as well as t,o elementary, junior, and senior high school teachem. NELSONW. HOVEY Uniuersity of Tole& Toledo, Ohio Nobel Lectures in Chemistry. 1, 1901-1921
Volume
Published for the Nobel Foundation by the American Elsevier Publishing 409 pp. Co., Nevr York, 1966. xii Figs. and tables. 16.5 X 24.5 em. $85 for set of threevolumes.
+
This volume completes publication of the English translations of Nobel lectures in chemistry. Previous volumes were 42, 346 (1965) reviewed in TEIS JOURNAL and 43, A762 (1966). As before this book contains the presentation speech, the Nobel lecture, and a. biography of each awardee.
(Continued on page A474)
A472
/
Journal of Chemical Education
BOOK REVIEWS --
-
The honorees in this volume are a virtual "who's who" of pioneers in modern chemistry. Accomplishments of such greats as Fischer, Arrhenius, Rutherford, Curie, Grignard, and Haher should be familiar to anv student of ehemistrv. The accounts of their work make j u s t a . interC J I : ~rending in l!hi s.; ~ h r vdid i n t h ~ early 1900's.
JANETB. VAN DOREN College of Woosler Wooster, Ohio
The Cautionary Scientists: Priestley, Lavoisier, and the Founding of Modern Chemistry Kenneth S. Davis. G. P. Potnam's Sons, New York, 1966. 256 pp. 14 X 21 cm. $5.75. This is a dual biography of two of the leaders in the founding of modern chemistry. Since the author is not a scientist he does not bring forth any new facts, but rather demonstrates how old material can be made very interesting. IIe presents the mein facts about Priestley and Lavaisier snd the oonditions under which each worked. He compares their backgrounds, social standing, a8 well as their places in the political turmoils of England and France. Neither of these men pretended that their living came from chemist,ry; both were simon-pure amateurs and their chemical activities were their hobbies. Lavoisier was an importmt figure and an extremely nseful servant of the state; Priestley, a member of the clergy, was xla.:~r-:lirtanrinlly Irr.iecure hln r*tremrly indrprudmt i n h13 pol~ticalviews. J.:..irt,tially self-rducated iu scientific m>tter.s,he eventually was awarded the coveted Copley Medal of the Royal Society for his work on "airs" (gases) but died still firmly believing in the phlogistic hypothesis. Lavoisier had the benefit of the best educsi tion in science then available in France; he worked on a big scale in a well-equipped laboratory and in the minds of many broueht ahant a revolution in chemistrv. The Kwo men met only once and then h i d difficulty in communication becau.se of the Iangoage barrier. Lavoisier died under the blade of the guillotine, his scientific and other accom plishments counting for nothing in the minds of the inflamed Terrorists. Priestley was driven from his homeland because he had fearlessly antagonized both the Establishment and the Anglican Church. He died in "exile" in Pennsylvania. Scrupulously honest he sought only to do good (as he saw it) in this world; Lavoisier, though a philanthropist, did not hesitate t o appropriate the thoughts and discoveries of others. The author clearly indicates that in his opinion Priestley was the greater scientist of the two. This is a very interesting book to read. It is well written and brings out the facts about these two men and their times in excellent fashion. It will fit well into the libraries of schools and of chemists in gen(Catinued on page A478)
A474
/
Journal of Chemical Education
