Book and Media Review pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Review of Making Scientists: Six Principles for Effective College Teaching Sarah B. Boesdorfer* Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614, United States 59), even using second-person language at times, namely, “Bring examples of real-life research into your [emphasis added] classroom whenever possible” (p 213). At other points in the book, the audience seems to shift to a wider audience, policy makers or academic leadership, by talking more generally about faculty: “They [faculty] need to find ways of facilitating that same deeper conceptual understanding” (p 58). This audience confusion also stems from the authors’ use of notes and references throughout the book. During some sections of the book, the text is written to describe a lesson they learned from the program with anecdotal descriptions and quotes from the program participants as support. In other similar sections, the authors include not only anecdotal evidence and quotes from program participants, but also referencesnumerous referencesto the research literature as support for their point. For example, in the final chapter in the section “Engaging Problems”, the authors provide multiple notes, which include more than one reference within each note, along with ideas from GSW to support the suggestions. The next section, “Connecting with Peers”, has no notes or references, yet there are a number of relevant sources within the research literature on group and cooperative learning that supports their points. It is not clear what level of evidence the authors think the audience of this book needs to “believe” their findings and implement some of the changes they suggest for STEM classrooms. As a reader, this inconsistency can be frustrating. One characteristic of the authors’ intended audience is clear, they work at large, research-focused institutions of higher learning. Northwestern University, arguably, has a very different population of students and faculty than, for example, a two-year college. Some of the problems identified as an issue GSW addressed, for example, lecture halls with hundreds of students, would not apply at other institutions. In addition then, the solutions to some problems proposed in Making Scientists may also not be possible for other institutions. For example, students in GSW voluntarily attended the workshop offerings for no credit; students who work full-time (e.g., while attending a two-year college) would have a problem making this happen even if they were interested. This does not make the authors’ suggestions irrelevant to different institutions, in fact they suggest taking parts of the ideas in the book and implementing them slowly at any institution. But the manner in which the ideas are implemented would require a unique approach at primarily undergraduate institutions, two-year colleges, or other institutions with a quite different population than Northwestern. The authors do not clearly acknowledge this difference or
Making Scientists: Six Principles for Effective College Teaching, by Gregory Light and Marina Micari. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2013. pp. ISBN: 978-0-67405292-5 (hardcover). $24.95. Making Scientists: Six Principles for Effective College Teaching describes the Gateway Science Workshop [GSW], an ongoing STEM program at Northwestern University, including how the program has evolved, and the lessons learned from the program. Through quotes from students, student facilitators, faculty, and other data they have collected over the past decade, the authors provide the reader with a quite clear picture of GSW at Northwestern and its impact on the STEM students and STEM faculty there. The book provides ideas and recommendations for those looking to change or improve their STEM courses or programs, including examples, resources, and “Suggestions for Practice” lists at the end of most chapters. For example, they discuss creating relevant problems for students to work on, and having students work collaboratively with peers. The ideas presented in the book, such as problem-based learning and group learning, are not novelthere is a great deal of research literature to support their suggestionsbut the book, and GSW, does a good job of combining these ideas into one place and providing specific, concrete examples and tips for implementing ideas in other classrooms or programs on even a small scale.
Cover image provided by Harvard University Press and reproduced with permission.
My main critique of this book is that the audience for the book is unclear, seeming to change throughout the book without clear acknowledgment of the change. Many times it appears that the audience of the book is STEM faculty. The “Suggestions for Practice” are worded as directives; for example, “Provide ‘forums’ for students to share ideas with others” (p © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Published: August 20, 2013 1111
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4005497 | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1111−1112
Journal of Chemical Education
Book and Media Review
support the implications of their work for different institutions with other research or program findings. The book jacket describes Making Scientists as “rich in concrete advice and innovative thinking”, a reasonable description of the book, which has lots of advice. And though not always clear from the book itself, much of the authors’ “thinking” is well supported in the educational research literature. But the book is “innovative” in bringing it all together into one place and in one description of a program. The practical tips and ideas for STEM classrooms may spark some ideas for your own classroom, department, or university. In the end, if it does that then I think the book has been successful at helping move the reform movement in science education forward. I would recommend this book for anyone thinking about ways to improve or alter their courses. It should be on library shelves as a reference and source of inspiration for those looking to make changes.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Dawn Del Carlo for discussing the book with me as I formulated my thoughts.
1112
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4005497 | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1111−1112
