BOOK REVIEWS 761

The three papers that are placed under medicine are more research oriented than the othersin the book, although Oudshoorn’s paper is more of a historiographical look at how scholarsin the field of the body shifted focus over time. In the early days of feminism, feminists didn’tlook at body but denied body. Once gender emerged as a concept, however, the body becamea historical body and thus a possible subject for the social sciences. Yet she is right to pointout “the sex-gender distinction did not challenge the essentialist notion of a natural body”(p. 200)—the wealth of research on women’s bodies contains the danger of suggesting thecentrality of the biological in women’s lives compared to men’s. Martin carefully takes thereader through the shifting interpretations of manic–depression. Whereas once seen as anillness, it is now being viewed as an advantage in certain areas; whereas once consideredpredominantly a problem of women, it is now seen as experienced by men as well. Theemotionality of the manic phase has become positive and thus open to male experience.Hammonds queries the strength or purpose of feminism itself in her examination of AIDS.In the 1980s women were placed in one of two categories: those infected by the HIV virusand those affected by those who had it. For feminist activists, the strategy was to makethe infected visible and to break down the stereotypes about them. Yet when the feministliterature of the 1980s is examined, AIDS does not loom large. Hammonds leaves us withthe troubling question: “When we say we are feminists, who are the ‘we’ and at what price?”(p. 240).

While the papers that focus on medicine seem rather different in concept than many ofthe others, they are responses to the central question of the book: what impact has feminismhad? The research agenda is so much more nuanced, complex, and reflective than it was30 years previously. This is in large measure a consequence of feminism.

WENDY MITCHINSONDepartment of HistoryUniversity of WaterlooWaterloo, OntarioCanada N2L 3G1

Understanding Science Lessons: Five Years of Science Teaching, by Michael J. Reiss(2000). Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia, PA. v + 170 pp. ISBN0-335-19769-8.

This book reports a longitudinal study of the science lessons experienced by 21 schoolstudents, in a school in Cambridgeshire, England, during the years of their compulsorysecondary science education. The book opens with a quotation from Lea and West (1995,p. 178) “the autobiography of the researcher is always present.” Michael Reiss writes inthe first person throughout the book, being as explicit as possible with the reader about thepersonal interpretative lens through which the science lessons are presented. My review ofthe book could perhaps begin with this same quotation: while reading, I found myself remi-niscing about my own teaching career, the early part of which was spent in Cambridgeshire,and about my experience of English science teachers and learners. Reiss brings the sciencelessons, the students, and the teachers to life through his accounts, and I certainly enjoyedreading the book.

Understanding Science Lessons is structured around seven chapters. The first of thesegives an introduction to the aims and methods of the study. The next five chapters followthe school science careers of 21 students chronologically through the 5 years of secondary

762 BOOK REVIEWS

schooling that are compulsory in England, between the ages of 11 and 16. In Chapter 2, weare introduced to the students, to their parents, to their school, and to their science teachers,and our knowledge of all of these is developed through short and more extended vignettes inthe next four chapters. In Chapter 6 we learn something of the destinies of the 16 remainingstudents as they finish their compulsory schooling, and we hear how their parents’ aspirationsfor their children have developed over the 5-year period. Throughout these chapters, weare also introduced to another important character in the narrative: Michael Reiss himself.We learn that his doctorate is in animal behaviour, and we see how the techniques learntin that field have influenced the research reported in the book. We learn about his workas a counsellor and as a priest, and how that background influenced his relationships withparticipants in the study, and his analysis of the data. We also learn, through a small numberof well-placed asides, that he has quite a sense of humor. None of this detail representsself-indulgence on the part of the author; rather, it indicates due regard to the role of thestoryteller in shaping the narrative that gets told.

In the final chapter of the book, we learn, perhaps unsurprisingly, that science educationhas not been a particularly significant or positive influence on the lives of the 16 students,although many of them may use science in some way in their work or studies after the ageof 16. The chapter reflects on possible reasons why some students enjoy science and dowell in it, while others don’t. In spite of Reiss’ unerringly nonjudgmental voice throughoutthe book, we are left with a less than positive picture of English science education.

Who might read this book, and why? I would have no hesitation in recommending it toEnglish science teachers, and other science teachers within the United Kingdom. Traineeteachers would benefit from the rich description of science lessons from the perspective ofstudents and their parents, and I can imagine the book provoking interesting and reflectivediscussions about the aims, purposes, and practice of science teaching amongst the moreexperienced. Indeed, anybody with an interest in the practice of science teaching in Englishsecondary schools in the late 1990s could learn much from this book. However, althoughReiss has been scrupulous in providing contextual information about the curriculum andschool structures in England, I suspect that the richness of descriptions in the book may belost on readers who are not familiar with the norms and rituals of English school life. Ofcourse, it is easier to explain the structure of the school curriculum in the text of the bookthan to communicate to non-English readers the cultural significance of reading comicssuch as the Beano, and participating in activities such as “red nose day” or Gilbert andSullivan.

I am less convinced that the book will be of interest to researchers in science education—though, in fairness, I do not think that researchers are intended as the primary audiencefor the book. Although the first chapter presents aims for the study, and an account ofthe methods that were used, at no point was there an explicit presentation of researchquestions and methodology that could be scrutinised and critiqued. The study was notreally contextualized within the existing research literature, other than some mention ofother longitudinal studies of science learning at the beginning of the book, and these stud-ies were not revisited in the light of the reported findings. In other places, I found thatthe odd citation of a study in the literature felt unsystematic and got in the way of myreading.

In some parts of the book, Reiss presents interesting analysis of the science teaching thathe observed. For example, in Chapter 2 he presents an account of a large change in the relativeattention sought by, and given to, boys during science lessons. However, although I verymuch enjoyed reading the book as someone with an interest in school science in England,the researcher in me became increasingly frustrated by an apparent lack of analysis as thebook progressed. As I read through page upon page of (engaging) vignettes, I became more

BOOK REVIEWS 763

and more desperate to hear from Reiss why these particular situations had been selected andtreated in the way that they had, and to hear what he made of them. I have already alluded toReiss’ nonjudgmental voice: by the middle of the book I was desperate to see some analysis,against an explicit framework, of what he as a researcher was making of the lessons thathe was observing. Instead of this, I was left with impressions, possibly incorrect, about hisopinions about the things that he observed.

Reiss is an engaging writer, and I suspect that the chronological sequence used in thebook is the best approach for a teacher audience. However, I think that other organizationalsolutions may have been better for presenting evidence to support claims arising from thestudy. The main claims are presented in a short section of the final chapter, addressingwhy some pupils enjoy science and do well in it, while others do not. These relate to theimportance of the school, of the curriculum, of teachers, of the home, of peers, and of thepupil herself or himself. I found it difficult to see how evidence was being mustered tosupport these claims, given the chronological structure of the previous chapters. In somecases, I would have found it helpful to see an analysis of students’, parents’, and teachers’responses to particularly significant interview questions presented in one place. I was leftwondering whether or not there was anything in the data through which issues such as theapparent indifference of students to chemistry could be explored further.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, I think that the book’s main achievement is the wayin which science education has been humanized. We hear an account of science educationas a phenomenon from the perspective of human beings with varying backgrounds andmotives. This original approach to describing science education in itself makes the bookworth reading.

REFERENCE

Lea, M., & West, L. (1995). Motives, mature students, the self and narrative. In J. Swindells (Ed.),The uses of autobiography. London: Taylor and Francis.

JOHN LEACHCentre for Studies in Science and Mathematics EducationThe University of LeedsLeeds LS2 9JTUnited Kingdom

DOI 10.1002/sce.10103

Mapping Biology Knowledge, by Kathleen M. Fisher, James H. Wandersee, and David E.Moody, 2000. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 215 pp. ISBN0-7923-6575-5.

On page 157 of Mapping Biology Knowledge, the first author, Kathleen Fisher, providesreaders with a thought-provoking quote. She cites Pagels (1988) who describes how a mastertranslator at the state department interprets remarks to and from a dozen different languages.Pagels (1988, p. 23) tells us that the translator “ ‘hears’ the remarks not in any language atall, but rather as ‘a matrix of meanings’—a conceptual format of some kind that he creates.When asked to translate into a specific language, he consults the matrix and expresses that