features of reciprocal causality, mediational strategies by students, more individualized data analyses, and a systematic view of the natural classroom experiment.

Phillip Winne and Ronald Marx in their chapter, “Perceptual Problem Solving,” focus on the informa- tion processing strategies that students use, i.e., “how students perceive how to learn from teaching” (p. 211). In “Teachers’ Thinking,” Clark and Yinger also use in- formation processing on teacher mediation, i.e., teacher perceptions of teaching. In the final chapter, “Generality of Dimensions of Teaching,” Nathan Gage discusses the issue of whether programs of research on teaching should be “generic” or “specific.” He proposes a hierarchical model to integrate the role of curriculum, grade level, and subject matter in our search for rela- tionships between teaching and learning.

After reading this volume, I could infer that research on teaching has been systematic and progressive. In each succeeding decade over the past 50 years, more and more variables have been considered and studied; the methodology has gone from correlational to intensive and rigorous ecological investigations. Ecological validity is now being stressed. The exposition of the pre- sent status of research on teaching and the projections

148 BOOK REVIEWS

for future research also heavily reflect the conceptual orientation of current psychologists’ thinking in learn- ing and reading, e.g., use of metaphors in learning, information-processing stragegies that students use to learn in the classroom, and the psychological meaning students give to information.

The logic of the history of this research is both in- teresting and compelling. To me this book illustrates that an understanding of a planned human service pro- gram (i.e., teaching) requires more than the collection and summarization of data and evaluative information. If evaluators are to help program administrators and various publics better comprehend and interpret pro- gram processes as well as impact, they may need to more fully employ relevant theory currently available to them. Perhaps evaluators have been too data-based and not enough theory-based in their work. Although evaluators interested in other types of human services may not find the subject matter of teaching to be direct- ly relevant to their work, they should find the history of research on one of the oldest forms of human service to be enlightening and should be encouraged to assess the potential role of theory in evaluation.

Educational Environments and Effects, edited by Herbert J. Walberg, Berkeley, Calif,: McCutchan, I979,419pp., $15.20 (hardcover).

Reviewer: H. Dean Nielsen

For decades social scientists have sought ways of con- ceptualizing and measuring the environmental press of educational institutions. Their concern has been chiefly with instrument development and with ever more precise descriptions of school and classroom interac- tions. Walberg’s new book, Educational Environments and Effects, represents an attempt to put learning en- vironment research within the purview of educational policymakers and planners by demonstrating that learning environments can influence (and be influenced by) inputs and outcomes which educators would like to

(and can) manipulate. Interested in educational environments and in educa-

tional policymaking, I was both enticed and confused by the book’s title. Was this a book about educational environments and their effects, or about both educa- tional environments andeducational effects? The subti- tle, consisting of three fashionable buzz-words, evalua- tion, policy and productivity only added to my confu- sion. I soon discovered that the original intent of the editor (as expressed in his instructions to potential con- tributors) was neither of the above exactly: the book was to illustrate the “impact of either inputs on educa- tional environments or environments on outcomes” (p. 4). Yet not all of the 20 articles in this collection em- phasized the causal linkages between educational en-

vironments and inputs and/or outcomes. Some treated educational environments with little concern for causality and others treated educational impacts with little reference to environments. Thus the ambiguous ti- tle may have been a necessary vehicle for uniting a greater diversity of articles than was originally ex- pected.

Another source of confusion in the book lies in the fact that Walberg never defines what he means by educational environments. His equating “educational means” with “manipulations of the environment” (p. 1) leads one to wonder if every aspect of schooling (teaching, curriculum, policies, ideologies, charter, financing, buildings, books, media, social structure) can all be considered part of the educational environ- ment. If so, then it is illogical to ask, for example, how inputs affect educational environments, since they have already been included as part of the environment. Such confusion is clearly present when one of the con- tributors states: “Television is unquestionably an

educational environment” (p. 72). In short, we are simply not given the tools for distinguishing educa- tional inputs from environments from outcomes.

Since the conceptual boundaries of educational en- vironments are never marked out, I found myself wondering how articles were selected and how the

CAPSULE BOOK REVIEWS 149

various subsections of the book were created. I con- cluded that articles were sorted by a kind of factor analysis, that is, those articles which became available

(by whatever process) were grouped according to similarities in content. After the grouping, labels were created to identify the various “factors”: Home En- vironments, Socio-psychological Environments, In- structional Environments, Macroenvironments and Research Methods. As in factor analysis, some of the resulting labels are almost bereft of intuitive meaning

(e.g., Instructional Environments), and some theoretically interesting dimensions are excluded (e.g., peer group environments, political environments, organizational environments, cognitive climates, physical environments and work environments as educational milieux).

Although there is no clear conceptual focus to the book as a whole, a number of individual articles present advances in the conceptualization of various aspects of educational environments and their effects. Notable, for example, are Marjoribank’s concept of proximal en- vironmental press variables (“subenvironments”) as determinants of specific kinds of personal develop- ment; Moos’ general framework for characterizing social environments according to relationship, personal growth and system maintenance/system change dimen- sions; Slavin and DeVries’ conceptualization of classroom task and reward structures; Epstein and McPartland’s distinction between formal and informal authority structures; and Levine, Kukuk and Meyer’s concept of institutional dysfunction in areas of concen-

trated urban poverty.

Not so compelling in terms of conceptual advance- ment but still worthwhile by virtue of their methodological or expository elegance and/or policy relevance were articles by Fraser; Power and Tisher; Welch; Horwitz; Wolf; and McPartland and Karweit.

The other articles in the collection in my view provided uninspiring reading, mainly because of conceptual weaknesses (Lightfoot, Gordon), methodological flaws (Coles and Chalupsky, Cort), tedious writing (Walberg and Rasher), or triviality (Kuert).

The book, with its emphasis on the causal relation- ship between educational ends and means and Walberg’s urgings that policy implications of research findings be made explicit, was clearly intended to in- fluence educational policymakers. However, since the format and tone of the book are so thoroughly academic, I fear it is not the kind of book that most policymakers will have the time or patience to read. The book would have served policymakers better had there been an attempt to interpret, integrate and summarize the most important findings of the contributors. For ex- ample, Marjoribanks, Fraser, and Levine, Kukuk and Meyer all made observations about the family’s in- fluence on student academic performance, observa- tions which are mutually reinforcing. Furthermore, the articles by Moos, Epstein and McPartland, and Slavin and DeVries present differing yet complementary views on the interaction between structure, teacher control and student involvement in the classroom. A synthesis of such interrelated findings would have been a great help to the policy-oriented reader.

In sum, research on educational environments will be useful to policymakers only to the extent that policy im- plications are clearly summarized and compelling. The ingredients for such formulations are beginning to ac- cumulate, many within the current work. In this respect, Walberg’s accomplishments in creating in- struments and promoting their use, developing a field of inquiry and bringing points of view together, should not be minimized. Perhaps his next book will give us a clearer synthesis of what has been accomplished in the field to date.

CAPSULE BOOK REVIEWS

Evaluating Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment Effectiveness, edited by Linda Carter Sobell, Mark B. Sobell, and Elliott Ward. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1980, 188pp., $20.00 (hardcover).

This books is a collection of eight distinct chapters, most of which are devoted to the methodology of evaluating either alcohol or drug abuse treatment effec- tiveness. In their introduction, the Sobells accurately describe the three emphases of each chapter: (1) discus- sion of the practical problems of treatment outcome evaluation; (2) the introduction of innovative measures and procedures; and (3) the presentation of exemplary

studies. This book is not a collection of studies of alcoholism and drug abuse treatment, but rather a col- lection of useful discussions of methodology and ap- plication, with well-conceived use of illustrative studies.

Four chapters concern evaluation of alcohol treat- ment programs. Mais To and McCollam critique tradi- tional models of alcohol abuse, and support the