education-theory

The 1960s and now the 1970s are now portrayed in the corporate media nostalga machine as a combination of disco dancing and platform shoes. The activism of this period is often neglected or viewed simply as some kind of adolescent rebellion, a psychological issue. The forgetfullness regarding activism by students as well as anti-war and community groups is a byproduct of what the social historian Russell Jacoby would call "Social Amnesia." With the stock market collapsing, Nazi youth gaining recruits even in social democratic countries of Northern Europe, and homelessness reaching hundreds of thousands in New York City, I can't say that the contemplative life or New Age health movements are all that they're cracked up to be. I myself am now a regular consumer of B-6, B-12, Vitamin E and live plant enzymes and assorted anti-oxidants. But, look at how our inner cities are deteriorating and you'll long for a different kind of 1960s nostalgia. That period of 30 years ago was a time when poverty really counted as a national policy issue. Martin Luther King made the link between disarmament and the reversal of poverty. Military budgets for the Vietnam War meant less funds for housing and jobs at home. The university itself was a key institution in this equation. It became a central battle ground between students concerned with the university's role in promoting military objectives overseas and administrators who defended such links in the name of "free speech." For those with a sense of social commitment, poverty, war, and environmental decay are sometimes viewed as isolated problems. Yet, if military budgets were reduced and directed towards pressing needs, we could apply resources where they are most needed. One obstacle towards demilitarization is that we often lack a "political space" for action. Another barrier is that in the era of globalization, corporations and governments are united but activists are not. This book illustrates how the university itself can provide a space for common international action, joing citizens in the so-called developed world with others in the Third World, or "post-colonial" societies. The university is also a space where persons with political awareness of social ills live side by side with the informational, investment and political networks that support unethical transnational corporations and the military state. This book illustrates these links and provides a guidebook for those concerned with making the crucial links between demilitarization and a future worth living for.

The standard image of the Cultural Revolution is red guard hooliganism, economic disruption, factional wars, violent army repression, closed schools, extreme emperor worship, persecution of intellectuals, and ideological rigidity. These are all true, for most areas and in certain periods of the CR. However, there was a wide variety of experiences, and all such experiences must be examined for an all-around accurate perception of this tumultuous period. This volume is an account of an altogether different Cultural Revolution period experience.

In this Shandong village, where the author grew up (eventually coming to the US for a Ph.D. in political science), the Cultural Revolution was not "10 lost years" at all, but rather a period that saw substantial gains in educational opportunity and economic development.

The author argues that the advances in education in his village during the CR and a change in the local political culture both facilitated economic development, that the three cannot be disentangled.

Traditionally, he argues (citing a Chinese scholarly work, among other sources) China's political culture was one of "officialdom", where local officials had unchecked power and peasants felt powerless and thus were politically passive. One might cite the occasional peasant rebellions in Chinese history as point of balance (there are likely subtler ways of resistance as well), but in general the point is good. He argues that the traditional education system's bias against peasants, which continued after the establishment of the PRC, helped stabilize this political culture by keeping the peasants ignorant.

In this village, when the "serve the people" communist guerrillas (who had received enthusiastic support from Shandong peasants during the wars against the Japanese and Nationalists) became the new rulers after 1949, they -- having no constraints on their power -- gradually abandoned many of their war time populist ways and adopted the old "officialdom" ways. Han argues that a major purpose behind the many campaigns from 1953-1965, many of which had vague anti-corruption tags, was to challenge continuing "officialdom". But these campaigns were successfully steered away from the practitioners of officialdom and often towards scapegoats, often supposed "class enemies". These pre-Cultural Revolution campaigns, and their alleged failures are quickly brushed over; more detail would have been better (but one can read about some of them, for instance the "Four Clean-Ups", in other village studies like _Shenfan_, _Chen Village_, _The Spiral Road_, _Cadres and Kin_, _Red Earth_). Han argues that the Cultural Revolution was Mao's last major attempt to root out the culture of officialdom and establish a new political culture where the peasants would be empowered to challenge the village elite, and this time it worked, in this particular area, thanks to the actions of CR inspired rebels.

Han also has chapters detailing the reforms in education, which widely increased both access (especially to girls) and the local applicability of the curriculum, and economic development (agricultural yield growth and rural industrialization), which followed the political and educational changes.

The attempts to move to the general, away from the experience of this village raise questions. How typical is this positive experience? It's hard to say In the north at least, it's probably not rare. Some village studies indicate the Cultural Revolution was not the kind of bottom-up populism as described here, but rather horizontal factional jostling for power. Also, the rebels were not always good. And we know from Andrew Walder and Yang Su's extensive examination of county annals (China Quarterly, March 2003) of the sobering level of violence inflicted in the 1968-71 period, often the army and party crushing rebel groups, which the "establishment radicals" (see Peter Moody -- Journal of Contemporary China, Fall 1993) were either unwilling or unable to stop. China is so large and complex there is no one-size-fits-all description. Nevertheless, Han's village experience at least shows the potential of mass education and populist politics to facilitate equitable rural development, and needs recording as one of the varied experiences of the Cultural Revolution.

Han goes on to point out how the reforms have rolled back many of the achievements in rural education during Cultural Revolution years, failed to maintain equity (an important value for Chinese peasants), and also brought back the familiar officialdom style of rule. A case could be made that Han underemphasizes the overall nationwide problems with Cultural Revolution (doubtlessly influenced by his own village's success), and doesn't give enough praise to the reforms' positive aspects (ex: much more freedom for locals to grow what they want, and market it at fair prices). But just as the reformers were right to blame the Cultural Revolution for ideological rigidity and intolerance and the many problems that caused, the reformers should be called to answer why they have not extended or in some cases even maintained the social justice gains of the previous period. Unfortunately, voices like Han's are usually left out of the debate on rural policy in China, because they challenge the official view, and vested interests.

I came to this book knowing almost nothing about Ole Miss or its integration history. This book was an excellent summary of the history of the college, especially in its early years, and how that history played into the integration struggles. It was interesting to see how racial relations at the college have changed and not changed since the 1960s, and to get another perspective on the Confederate flag.

The book is well-written and it's hard to believe that the author didn't spend her whole life in Mississippi. The book bogs down towards the end a bit, but otherwise is quite engrossing.

An excellent book, especially for those who were not taught much about integration in the South.

In the year this book was published, one of the main subjects, Cleve McDowell, was murdered. Nadine Cohodas (Thank goodness!) had interviewed McDowell about his treatment at Ole Miss when he became the first African-American admitted there as a law student. Times were difficult, and McDowell was left with absolutely no protection from the Justice Department - on a campus where students still had guns from the James Meredith riot. This is a wonderful history of those moments and provides excellent insight into those times. More is on McDowell at http://uncivilrites.com

I used this book as my primary information source during a recent History class research project on the James Meredith affair. Frankly, from reading it, I believe it to be one of the best nonfiction books I have ever encountered. Cohodas really did her homework on this one, and the detail evident the book shows how well she conducted her research. The other aspect of this winning combination is that she possesses a real ability for relating a story-- I have never been so captivated by a nonfiction piece. While part of this is due to the fact that the subject matter (the history of the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss)) is engrossing, it continues to amaze me that Cohodas has not been more prolific in her documentation of Southern politics, for she certainly does it better than anyone else I have read.

Learning Gap is a thoroughly researched book highlighting concrete problems in America's education. It is of particular interest to me because I was brought up in the Chinese education system until I was 16 with two parents who were both Chinese teachers, and went through high school, college, and graduate school here in America. I, like the authors, also happen to be a psychologist whose research focuses on K-12 education. Reading both the Learning Gap and the Teaching Gap reminded me of my own experience growing up in Chinese classrooms, at home, moving to America, and now researching in American classrooms. Many of the phenomenon described in the book are prevalent in classrooms I have observed in Pennsylvania schools, even in award-winning teacher's classrooms. While I do believe the authors overstated the positives of the cultural and school environments in China (since I've been to many Chinese schools with lousy teachers and unmotivated kids), it did not understate the problem in American education today. Most imporantly, the book established that within-culture difference, while strong, is small compare to cross-culture differences. Its arguments are not based on hollow idealogy or fad, but data. That makes Learning Gap a rare gem of high academic integrity. It can serve as a good reference book for the evaluation of education for schools, parents, and students themselves. For an educator, a parent, or a concerned citizen, this book is very uplifting and energizing. Not because it highlighted problems (we hear problems every day just on the news), but because it narrowed down to the relevant, important, significant problems. The first step to saving education is to know which limited set of problems must we devote our limited resources towards. To quote a popular American slang, we need to "get the biggest bang for our buck" in education. I believe the Learning Gap and the Teaching Gap has done a marvelous job towards that end. My kudos to the authors for their research scholarship, for their strong stand based on data, and for a thoroughly well presented and uplifting book. I recommend this book for teachers, parents, concerned citizens, and even students themselves.

Great Book. I am in the special education field as a result of not meeting my full potential as a student. When I read about the Asian school systems for teaching especially maths I could not keep saying to myself - if only my teachers taught it that way. I especially liked the idea that materials are taught in a more hands on manner and the group learning which make for better ties between children in the class room. definitaley buy this book if you were left unawares as to why or how the school system didn't quite succeed when you were a student.
Jason Alster MSc
Author
BEING IN CONTROL : Natural Techniques for Increasing Your Potential and Creativity for Success in School

This is the most amazing book I've ever read on education, and one of the most eye-opening books I've read period. Every day on the news you hear about 'education reform.' Politicians and administrators are refering to things like smaller classes, better equipment, and other non-issues. The reason American kids are doing so poorly compared to other countries is much deeper and fundamental than that. What makes this book so amazing is that it explores the issues from several angles. American parents' expectations are much lower than Asian parents'. They would rather the kids be well-rounded with extracuricular activities and a social life. School takes a lower priority. American society thinks natural ability is more important than effort. Asians think effort is much more important. American's way of thinking is a dead-end for students. They will not be motivated to keep trying, thinking they just don't have the ability. American teachers rate 'clarity of explanation' as among the least important qualities a teacher could have. They rate 'sensitivity' as the most important. In Asian society, teachers gave the opposite rating. How amazing, the quality of imparting knowledge is among the least important things considered by American teachers. The profession of teaching is much more respected in Asian societies. So Asian students do far better than ours, in spite of these facts: their societies are poorer; their parents are busier; they have a lot more time than American children for social interaction at school; they even watch more t.v. than American children.
If we as a society would read this book (and others like it), our eyes would be opened to the real problem with our schools, and we could take the first steps to transforming our society.

If you believe everything you hear from the Bush Administration, if you believe what your told by the media tycoons such as AOL/Time Warner - DON'T READ THIS BOOK!

Seeming weened on the internet of unlimited exploration and assimilation, Metzger has an unquenchable thirst for those creative and daring personalities operating "outside of the box".
With a charismatic passion for the lunatic fringe, Metzger suspends judgment and delves into the psychosis of individuals who dare to examine the means of normative thought production.

Knowing first of Metzger's work as an interviewer as well as editor, I became aware of the illuminating and brilliant thinking of Douglas Rushkoff interpreting future media, along with the utopian dreams of Paul Laffoley and Peter Russell. It's true that Metzger "participates" rather than "observe", but he's clearing taking it all in, and so will you.

No other source will give you such an overview of "reality" as it is meant to be in real time.

I first picked up this book out of curiousity when it was among the "Staff Picks" at Forbidden Planet book shop in NYC.

Challenging interviewing that gets to the core can only come from a writer who chooses to be interested as well as interesting.I always like when work like this is smart but not detached. By the very exploration of such arcania, there is no detachment and Metzger doesn't pretend there isn't.

So many books on these subjects are either uncredible as crack pot advocacy, or conversely are snarky oh-so-cynical jabs at the subject's expense. A voice like Metzger's is refreshing and cool. Welcome is a writer who can be present in style, yet confident to know it isn't about him. Keep them coming Richard.

This book is comprised of selections from nearly a dozen important interviews conducted for the Disinformation television series, which unfortunately most Americans have never been allowed the opportunity to see. That may change soon with the release of the Disinformation DVD, but in the meantime this book gives you an excellent overview of the varied thinkers, artists, and pop-cultural agents provocateurs whom Richard Metzger had the good sense to engage in conversation.

All of the material here is extremely thought-provoking and these subjects are fascinatingly articulate in presenting their distinctive worldviews.

Generally the mainstream media avoids any acknowledgment of the sort of ideas you will be exposed to here, which is no wonder since after encountering some of these lines-of-thinking, you'll probably have little use left for the opinions of the status quo.

With its slick packaging and design, this book is akin to a glittering trojan horse, loaded with an army of hardened suicide bombers who will feel no pain as they detonate all your preconceptions. Open the gates!

This is a great example of how the rigor of game theory can give startling insights into outcomes of common situations. Although I'm no mathematician or economist, all business people are at some point required to base their decisions on how they think others will behave. This book provides some great frameworks for structuring that thought process.

This book is a solid introduction both to game theory and its application in legal analysis. It does a nice job of serving two audiences: lawyers who want to see some game theory and how it can illuminate analysis of things like liability regimes, and game theorists/economists/formal political scientists who are interested in a novel application of game theory. (Well, I'm only the second audience, but it seems like the first would be well served also.)

The book is very verbal. I believe there are two equations in it, in all (but many game matrices). So for legal scholars it can be a useful introduction to what game theory has to say, but it can't give much guidance on how to build a model. Given the importance of spreading these ideas, the non-technical nature is probably a plus.

The authors deserve credit for covering a lot of ground in game theory, much of it seemingly impossible to understand without the math, with minimal technical investment. Most basic topics that might be covered in a graduate course for economists are treated -- at an intuitive level, but one that is very understandable.

A couple drawbacks come to mind. First, the authors do not stress enough the knowledge assumptions behind Nash equilibrium. Moreover, there is not enough discussion of solution concepts, like correlated equilibrium, that subsume wide possibilities of communication or even implicit contract signing, which seems important, given the nature of the book.

Altough it's often just theory, is a unique book, rxpressing the Chicago school's view on law. Do not expect something you can use practically.

Howard Gardner's book The Unschooled Mind is an excellent source for teachers and administrators alike. It examines the different kinds of learners and how current educational practices are not addressing those learners. By reading this book, teachers and administrators will gain a better sense of cognitive development and can therefore design curriculum to best suit their students' needs. The Unschooled Mind is organized in a very pleasing format. There are three main sections. The first section tells about cognitive, psychological, and educational research, including the theory of multiple intelligences. In the second section, educational norms and institutions are discussed. The third section of the book gives suggestions for solutions and calls for educational reform. I especially enjoyed the format of the book because it sequences theory, practice, and reform. The main question addressed is why students do not master what they should be learning. Gardner states that educators have traditionally accepted rote and ritualistic learning. However, does this show genuine understanding? Even "successful" students often do not possess a deep sense of class material. Teachers need to take into account multiple intelligences and realize that not all students learn, solve problems, or undertake tasks in the same manner. People acquire knowledge in different ways. Studies have shown that children can master complex domains, but not those designed in school curriculums. It was so fascinating for me to read about developmental theorists and, especially, to compare the studies of Darwin and Piaget to modern research about brain development. Since society, education, and culture influence children as they grow, it is important for teachers to create meaningful learning experiences. A quote in the second section of the book completely intrigued me: "By the time the child has reached the age of seven or so, his development has become completely intertwined with the values and goals of the culture. (Gardner, chapter 5) It made me think of how my job as a teacher-in addition to the jobs of administrators, who design school curriculum-is so important. If educators, as experts, design school curriculum, they contribute to the understanding of learners. So how should knowledge be taught so that it provides that deep sense of understanding we seek? Reading the examples of content areas and students' understandings and interpretations of them was very interesting to me because it helped me to see the importance of constructing instructions well. It also helped me to see the great variety of understandings that students have and how to take those different understandings into account for assessment purposes. Education today calls for constructive, activity-centered learning (a la John Dewey). I know that my entire school day does not consist of strictly collaborative learning. Learning basic skills requires some drilling. I just need to find the best balance in my teaching. The Unschooled Mind helped me realize how important parents and teachers are to children's lives and how they need to take great care in creating meaningful learning experiences for their children.

I read this book a few years ago as part of a course in my Master's degree program. I had some familiarity with Gardner's work, mainly the seven intelligences. However, until an educator has read this book, the educator can not apply the seven intelligences in the class room or teach effectively.

My dad once told me that I never learn anything until I break something. I was 16 and had just wrecked my first car. I never crashed again. This is the concept behind Gardner's book. We learn from our experiences. We learn by applying knowledge in real life situation. Knowledge is not necessarily power, but it is part of the equation. After teaching concepts in my class with follow-up assignments which were real life activities/experiences, I saw test results improve and student interest increase dramatically. Students only want to learn what is useful to them so teachers must show subject matter to be relavent to the student's lives. Gardner explains how a students mind can grow through these means.

This is a great read even if you are a parent who want to explore how your child learns. Highly recommended!

I have read and re-read Unschooled Minds by Howard Gardner to better understand how my colleagues and me, as teachers, can better instruct our students with regard to each student's cognitive and skills abilities in mind.

Gardner's theory that each child contains several intelligences (i.e., mathematical/logistical, intrapersonal, interpersonal, kinesthetic, with one or more predominating) appears to be a viable thoery in my experiences as an instructor. This book has allowed me to understand why some children simply don't respond to the traditional ways of teaching. Reading this has reduced the frustration level for both me and my students, and has let me expand my methods and level of instruction. Since I also am in favor of apprenticeships for students (matching their skills w/ jobs) and taking risks, this book appealed to my own philosophies.

Possibly the best legacy of Gardner's teaching is that many children who would otherwise be left-for-dead instructionally are now being taught to good results using Gardner's methods, including my own.

This book was definitely a good summary of the thoughts of eight main historical figures (with a few others thrown in here and there). However, in many cases, the summaries were not so much about religion, but rather mythologies that sometimes masquerade as religion, at least in some people's opinions. For example, the ideas of Mircea Eliade, to me, are simply mythologies and barely constitute the basis of a veritable religion (and are pretty boring reading, to boot). And Karl Marx's ideas are so stepped in the socioeconomic realm that one cannot really call his work a "theory" of religion. On the other hand, the interesting work of Freud and Durkheim are specifically related to the subject of religion and are good additions to the book.

Thus, for me, this book is sort of a smattering of material that is worthwhile and entertaining reading - but may not be living up to the title of the book. As just one example, there is actually no discussion of the major thinkers who have put forward cognitive and biological hypotheses (for they are not "theories") of religion. (The section on Freud does not really count towards this because his work was not so much cognitive, as psychoanalytic.) Thus, for me, this book did not really discuss theories of religion, per se, but theories of various aspects of what some might call religion and others might call folklore, legend, or mythology.

This is a worthwhile book because you get a condensed view of the thoughts of many notable thinkers from wide ranges of disciplines (such as anthropology, sociology, etc.) but keep in mind that these are not "theories" of religion. They are, if anything, hypotheses and they are, if nothing else, only about relative aspects of various belief systems. If you are more concerned about the origins of religion (and thus a true "theory") I recommend a book like Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained" or the books by Michael Shermer, such as "How We Believe."

Another problem I had with the book were the footnotes. Sometimes they contained just references and other times they contained material worth reading. In all cases, the "material worth reading" was short enough that it should have been placed in the main text. The constant shifting back and forth in this book made it a slower (and less entertaining) read for me than it probably otherwise would have been.

Overall, however, I think this was a well-researched book and contains a lot of good material. It just did not really cover the aspects of religion that I was hoping for.

This is a very good, even-handed look at some of the great thinkers of the last 150 years, and what they thought about the phenomenon of religion, whether Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, polytheism, etc..

These thinkers can be categorized as either "reductionist" or "non-reductionist." Tyler, Frazer, Freud, Marx, and Durkheim are reductionist. To Tyler and Frazer, religion can be reduced to "irrationality" or the "primitive mentality." Freud reduces religion to "neurosis." For Marx, religion is the "opium of the masses" and nothing more than a symptom of the "class struggle." Durkheim reduces religion to "the social"; that is, religion is society, society is religion.

Eliade is non-reductionist. He thinks religion cannot be reduced to psychology, sociology, economics, theology or anything else, but has to be seen as something unique in its own right. Eliade studies myths and other phenomenon of religion, compares them, tries to find universal similarities.

Evans-Pritchard and Geertz are also non-reductionist. But they don't try and "theorize" like Frazer or Eliade; they don't try to find the "origin" of religion. They are content to do in depth studies of particular culures.

The History of Religion, anthropology, ethnology--these are all fuzzy sciences. The debate over what religion is, how it came to be in various cultures, whether or not it is needed or unneeded, whether or not it is rational or irrational or just a product of the "prelogical" mind--all this still rages on amongst anthropologists, ethnologist, pyschologists, sociologists, and historians of religion. The reductionists vs. the non-reductionists. Who will win?

Overall, a good and fair-balanced read.

This was used as the primary textbook for my senior seminar as a religion major in college. Pals provides a great introduction to the major theories of religion, which we then used to help us understand the primary writings of Freud, Eliade, Marx, Durkheim, Geertz and others. In the years since taking the class, this is one of the few books that I have recommended to a number of friends along the way who have been interested in learning more about religion from a philosophical/academic standpoint.

I think this is a good book if you have prior experience and know some basics about music because this book will teach you nothing about playing songs or theory or anything like that.I teaches you more how the fretboard is set up in patterns which is pretty useful for people that already know a little about music theory.

Overall, I would say this book is for people with a little bit of musical knowledge and want to understand how the fretboard works hence the name fretboard logic.

I'd played a variety of styles for nearly 8 years and was relinquished to the 'brute force' memorization methods I'd been taught by instructors and books alike...until I picked up Fretboard Logic I upon a friend's recommendation. It should be the STANDARD INTRODUCTION TEXTBOOK FOR EVERY BEGINNING GUITARIST. But anyone who has not yet read this book may benefit from it.

I wish I had this book when I first got a guitar.

It took some work to get through, but things are finally making sense. He teaches you the basic building blocks that will free you from rote memorization of chords & scales. I am just digging into volume 2 and right out of the gate he is already decoding some mysterious concepts that have baffled me.

I could not recommend this book/series more highly!!

Fretboard Logic SE is a valuable book and you'll understand a great deal more about the logic of the guitar's tuning and fret system within the first few pages but if you have small hands and/or short fingers you may find some of the alternate fingerings and barres required in this system to literally be beyond your reach. People with long fingers and/or average to larger than average hands will no doubt have an easier time of it.

Example: The standard way of learning an open G chord requires playing it with the index, middle and ring fingers (think 1st, 2nd and 3rd fingers) with the fourth finger (pinkie) along for the ride and possibly available to change the voicing within the chord or to maybe add a ninth ("A" above G). In the Fretboard Logic way of doing things the standard open G chord is played with the middle, ring and pinkie fingers (2-3-4) so as to leave the index available to "barre" in the moveable form as you go up the fretboard. This requires spanning the space of a full open fret with your index finger at the same time you are using fingers 2-3-4 to fret the E, A and E strings. I can't draw a picture here so it's best to pick up a guitar if you have one or draw yourself a picture of a fretboard to help visualize. Basically, if you can make that reach back with your index finger across a full fret while fingering with 2, 3 and 4 then this system should be fully workable for you. If you can't do it (and I can only manage it with difficulty), you'll still get a lot out of the book and increase your knowledge but portions of the system may well be "literally out of reach".

The CAGED system of moveable chords/positions really is rather brilliant. Even if you don't buy the book, borrow a copy from your local library or from a friend. There's nothing wrong with adding to your knowledge. If the system was totally workable for everyone I'd have rated it five stars. As it is, with limits on people (most women, children, young teens and some men) with smaller than average hands, I can only go three. (Too bad Amazon doesn't have a way to go three and half.)

If your attempts at learning the guitar have been frustrating and you always thought, "there has to be a better way," then this is your book. Most books treat the guitar like it's no different than a keyboard...and never unlock the basic secret every guitarist must understand: the brilliant organization behind the guitar's tuning. Bill Edwards changes all of that. He shows it doesn't have to be that hard to understand the guitar. Fretboard Logic doesn't try to teach standard music theory, per se. You can learn that anywhere (and you should). Instead, it teaches you how to use that theory and apply it to the guitar and its unique tuning. It's not the "only" guitar or music book you'll ever need. It's just the most important! And yes, you will still have to practice. But it's a lot easier when you can see what you're doing, rather than just using what the author calls the "bootstrap" method (rote memorization of scales & chords) or the "academic" method (trying to understand the guitar using basic building blocks of music theory without ever seeing the "big picture"). I can't recommend it highly enough.

I've been playing for 15 years. Thats a long time to not really know anything about my instrument. Well, the Major and natural minor scales, pentatonics, and a few positional arpeggios, but its sad how little I know about the Fretboard.
Enter this book. It takes the guitar, sectiosn it off in bite-sized chunks and then reassembles the whole thing into a tastier morsel. It views things in terms of 5 movable chords. There are scales and arpeggios associated with these scales. Learn them. Then it tells shows you how they are connected.
This is not a lesson book. It just gives you some patterns and suggeswted fingerings for the major scale, its modes, harmonic minor, melodic minor, chords and arpeggios. Its good if you feel like you were weak in this department and it opened up doors for me again.
I'm very glad I got it.