Book Reviews - May 2008 - Volume 108 (5)

Science Safety in the Community College

Authors: J. Summers, J. Texley, & T. Kwan
NSTA Press, 1840 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22201
2006; 222 pages, Paperback $46.66

Reviewer: Lloyd H. Barrow
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65203

Science Safety in the Community College is the fourth in a series to provide direction to K-14 teachers of science as they implement the recently adopted NSTA Safety Position Statement. This resource address unique aspects of teaching at a community college including diverse ages of adult learners, facilities guidelines, part-time faculty, generic aspects of safety, English as a second language, and awareness that many students lack science understanding and aspects associated with safety (chapter 2).

The first chapter provides an overview of the resource plus ways to implement safety via of syllabus and maintaining explicit records of your use of safety procedures. Chapter 3 utilizes NSTA facilities guidelines related to promoting safe laboratory operations. Safe storage of chemicals and various laboratory equipment is the focus of the chapter 4. Chapters 5-9, with extensive sidebars, has separate chapters devoted to living organisms, chemistry, earth and space science, physics and field studies. Each of the chapters has extensive web based resources plus SciLinks related topics. The final two chapters focus upon general aspects of safety related to teaching in community college laboratories where the four P'S - prepare, plan, parent, and protect are intended to broaden readers understanding of safety.

Each chapter has descriptive headings, vignettes, and extensive web resources plus SciLinks associated with each topic. An extensive glossary, disposal of chemicals, NSTA safety position statement and index are separate appendices. Readers can focus upon chapter related to their discipline or read it from cover to cover. The author's stress their orientation that ... “safety is more than a set of rules. It's a state of mind” (p. viii). The concluding chapter has a series of major bullets associated with each of the earlier eleven chapters. Faculty with limited time should read the concluding chapter first, and then decide which chapter(s) to read next.

The authors are veteran NSTA leaders although; they did not list community college experiences in their biographies. National safety experts reviewed the manuscript. Even though the resource was intended for community college faculty, the book will also be applicable to undergraduate science faculty and teaching assistants.

Basic Concepts Of Mathematics And Logic

Author: Michael C. Gemignani
Dover Publications, Inc., 31 East 2nd Street, Mineola, NY 11501
2004; 280 pages, Paperback $15.95 in USA, $23.05 in Canada

Reviewer: Daniel J. Schneck
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0219

Let me be frank with you right up front: this is far from the best book I have ever read on the subject. First of all, I consider it very bad practice for an author to judge the ability of his or her audience - by preparing a manuscript replete with phrases such as: “The reader should have recognized that ...” [as opposed, for example, to the more appropriate, “Note that ...”]; or, “It's easy to see that ...”; or, “Obviously ...”; or, “Clearly ...”; or, “Of course, it is self-evident that ...”; or, “Common sense tells us that ...”; or any of a number of comparable phrases that could prove to be quite intimidating to the reader for whom the material is not “clear, obvious, apparent, self-explanatory, immediately evident,” etc.

Second, contrary to the author's assertion on pages 70-71 that, “It is a fairly common failing of the novice in mathematics to try to find something complicated in the midst of simplicity;” I found many examples in this book of simple concepts that were way overcomplicated in the author's attempt to explain them. In particular, Chapter 6, dealing with “Counting” is totally ridiculous, and, in my opinion, falls into the category of “much ado about nothing!” Similarly, Chapter 2, “Introduction to Logic,” is far from “logical” in the way that the material is presented. Again, in my opinion, this Chapter illustrates that mathematical definitions are often confusing and unnecessarily complicated, using elaborate wording to express ideas that are otherwise ... to use the author's own word ... obvious! I would even go so far as to say that much of the wording amounts to sheer gibberish. What doesn't help any is the author's use of poor examples that, in many cases, really don't make the point they are trying to make. Quite to the contrary, they add to the confusion. I could say the same things about Chapter 4, “Sets.“

Third, the author does not do a very good job of tying the Chapters together. The book reads like a series of anecdotal “vignettes” that are tied together only by the title of the book. Following an Introduction (Chapter 1) ... in which the author makes a pretty strong case for the uniqueness of mathematics, compared to other forms of knowledge, in the sense that, “Of all scholars, the mathematician is most free to do as he pleases ...” the reader is forced to mentally “shift gears” as he or she moves from Chapter to Chapter. “Now we'll talk about Logic” (Chapters 2 and 3); “Now we'll talk about Set Theory and Logic” (Chapters 4 and 5); “Now, how about we talk about Cartesian Products and Functions” (Chapter 7); “or Relations and Ordering” (Chapters 8 and 9); “or Probability” (Chapter 10); “or Elementary Geometry” (Chapter 11), etc. - but the Chapters don't build on one another in a sequencing pattern that is “user-friendly” and easy to follow. Each Chapter has to be approached with a totally new mind-set; they do not build on one another in some meaningful paradigm that allows the reader to follow where all of the material is heading; it's difficult to “connect the dots,” which detracts from the book's continuity.

Fourth, I had to chuckle when I reached the Index of Symbols. Why not a glossary that simply defines the symbols for easy reference? Why send the reader back to the text to locate where these symbols are defined and used? And fifth, contrary to the author's promise (page 13) that, “As a rule, this text will be relatively sparing in its use of notation,” he is obviously enamored by short-hand notation, and uses it not-so-sparingly throughout the book! That might be fine for those who use it regularly and are comfortable with the symbolism (the “in-group”). However, for the reader just trying to absorb “Basic Concepts,” and who does not use mathematical short-hand notation of this type on a day-to-day basis, such symbolism - necessary as the author claims it is - can be cumbersome and quite distracting - as he or she has to continually “look-up” what the symbols mean.

Similarly, I am not an advocate of lumping terms and definitions in one place near the beginning of a book. Terms should be defined as they are introduced, in context ... for clarity and relevance. Otherwise, they are too abstract to be useful, and the reader, again, finds him-or-herself constantly having to go back in the book to find where these terms were originally introduced and “refresh the memory“ (which has long-since forgotten) as to their definition.

Finally, without belaboring the point, suffice it to say that I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this book to science and/or mathematics teachers ... even though the text has been around for a long time (this Dover edition is an unabridged republication of the 1968 edition published by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts). The book uses poor examples (even though there are many of them, as well as homework exercises with answers available to odd-numbered problems); the writing is not clear and easy to follow (especially for a student); the material is sequenced poorly; the chapters do not build on one another in any meaningful way; many definitions are too abstract, even cumbersome, to be of any useful value; terms and definitions are not presented in context; there are no “suggested reading” references made available for further exploration or clarification; the book makes definite (and often offensive) assumptions about the “intelligence” of the reader; it definitely puts mathematicians “on a pedestal,” if you will; and, it is replete with symbolism that I consider to be in-appropriate for an introductory-level book. Dover claims that, “Students who take no further courses in the field will find this text an excellent resource for developing an appreciation for the nature of mathematics and the processes of mathematical thought.” I disagree!