BOOK REVIEWS

B UILDING A P HILOSOPHY OF E DUCATION . By Harry S. Broudy.
I NTERGROUP E DUCATION . By Lloyd and Elaine Cook.
H OW W E F OUGHT FOR OUR S CHOOLS . By Edward Darling in collaboration with members of the staff of the Center for Field Studies of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
P URITAN S AGE : C OLLECTED W RITINGS OF J ONATHAN E DWARDS . Edited by Vergilius Ferm.
T HE W ORLDS ' G OOD . By Carleton Washburne.     

BOOK REVIEWS

Book Reviewed in this article: So what's a boy? W. Martino & M. Pallotta‐Chiarolli Women teaching boys M. Ashley & J. Lee Investigating gender: contemporary perspectives in education B. Francis & C. Skelton (Eds) Women as headteachers‐striking the balance M. Coleman Supply teachers' survival guide G. Segall Education denied K. Tomasevski Economic geography of higher education. Knowledge infrastructure and learning regions R. Rutten, F. Boekema & E. Kuijpers (Eds) Democratic education: ethnographic challenges D. Beach, T. Gordon & E. Lahelma     

BOOK REVIEWS

Books Reviewed in this Article: Statistics For Biologists. School Census and Resource Pack. Statistics Concepts and Controversies. A Question in Dispute. The Design of Experiments: Statistical principles of practical application.     

BOOK REVIEWS

A study conducted with 15 teachers and their classes in two Western Australian high schools indicated that laboratory activities are perceived by a majority of teachers and students as an effective means of learning science. However, laboratory activities were not presented on a regular basis in most classes and appeared to have low status compared to activities that emphasized science content. The laboratory activities were of a cookbook type with most emphasis being directed to data collecting. Few opportunities were provided for students to plan investigations or to interpret data.

The amount of time scheduled for laboratory activities was dependent on the topic being taught, the ability level of the students, the presence of disruptive students, the use of non‐science classrooms, large class sizes, and a perception of insufficient time because of the amount of content to be covered. Several of the problems observed in laboratory activities were attributable to a management style which enabled students to be slow to get started and for off‐task behaviour to increase towards the end of each lesson. Also, the rule structure was different in laboratory activities in the sense that student movement and behaviour was not as strictly controlled as in other activities. Students appeared to have at least two agendas, to get the job done and to interact socially with others. In most instances the cognitive demands of the activities were such that both agendas could be realized.

The results of the study have implications for the manner in which teachers plan and implement laboratory activities and for in‐service and pre‐service programmes designed to improve and sustain the quality of science teaching.     

BOOK REVIEWS

The courts traditionally have supported the belief that the public college campus is a public forum for the open exchange of ideas. Therefore, public colleges and universities should not be subject to the preferences of groups that would seek to limit expression they may find objectionable. Yet, the continuing challenges to constitutionally protected free speech on college campuses suggest that some institutions could be persuaded to exercise illegal censorship. If administrators and faculty are to protect the foundation of the public forum in higher education and avoid potential litigation, they would be wise to exercise caution when censorship is a possibility. On the public campus, students, faculty, and administrators have the right to speak and to hear a wide range of opinions, even those that may be unpopular. Institutions may only determine the time, place, and manner of these expressions. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Fourth Annual Texas Higher Education Law Conference at the University of North Texas in Denton.     

BOOK REVIEWS

Data from NCES indicate that it is two to three times more expensive to educate a student at a public four-year college than at a community college. These figures exaggerate the difference between the two when you calculate the costs of the first two years of education for students working on a bachelor's degree. Using modified Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data from the recently released Delta Project, this study shows that the cost per full-time equivalent (FTE) and the public subsidy per FTE are lower at public master's level colleges than at the community college. Trend data from 1987–2005 are examined along with appropriate cautions for interpreting the results.