education-theory

On my high praise of Mr. Edward's approach (in my review of the first two volumes of this series), it may come as a bit of a surprise that I consider this - a continuation of the method - unworthy of the rest of it. However, there are several reasons for it, and few, if any, of them are the author's fault. His intent is to keep the series accessible to as wide an audience as possible.

The first two volumes, which I recommend in the combined anniversary edition, go through the organization of guitar as an instrument, with the promise of actual music coming into play at a later time. Well, this volume is where the music not introduced in the second volume comes in.

Applications - Creative and Analytical (ACaA) is not necessarily something to be read in sequence. Rather, it is something to refer to as an encyclopedia, upon need of certain elements. If you're anything like me, you may find that you will buy this book for 20 out of the 170 pages of it, and end up using the rest just to make yourself feel that you haven't wasted any money.

ACaA goes through the fundamentals of music theory in this book. He uses guitar, not piano, to expain them, which is a bonus, but learning, or re-learning, to read standard notation may be a bit of a drag. Not that it isn't worth it, but it's something that can be acquired in other sources. It's not that difficult.

Another thing ACaA covers are technical development exercises, particularly for lead playing. Again, something we can easily find elsewhere. Rhythmic and melodic exercises, same thing. In short, there is a lot of material that, unlike the stuff in the first two volumes, can be found in other places in a duplicate fashion - Mr. Edwards simply adjusts it to his teaching style.

ACaA also includes some original compositions by Mr. Edwards, which is a nice addition, but the analytical application takes away from the creative aspect - having the tool (the guitar), to discover the music for oneself and grow with it. I've seen bands with guitarists who have mastered this approach - their playing is quite bland, with very little spark to it. In other words, this third volume is insufficient to make one a great guitarist, not just a great guitar player.

There is a very useful section on chord progressions, from which any player would benefit, and which all fans of volumes I and II will love. And to give credit where credit is due, there are many great pedagogical techniques in this volume, which are worth looking at, even if only academically. Also, there is a ton of great advice regarding learning techniques for everyone in this book, so don't write it off based on its negative aspects.

Also, on a negative note, there is a number of typographical errors in this book, which, unless you already know the concept being explained, might give you a little trouble.

To conclude, this book is something to consider. However, as Plato notes, be careful with logic - use it only once you've verified that the axioms of your system are true. I will use similar advice: use this book well, but don't limit yourself to it.

Containing a load of chord progressions and theory it makes for a very thick book. The only sections in the book that can be of use to most guitarists is the specific styles section, and the section that is used to build up your dexterity on the fretboard. The other stuff is complicated and imo unnesscesary theory. As another reviewer put it, it may not be worth your time. I reccomend instead finding a book by Troy Stetina that goes into the style of rock or blues you wish to play.

I had been struggling to learn guitar for years, that is until Fretboard Logic.I have both the Video and Volumes I & 2 and let me tell you I am playing G U I T A R NOW!

The moment I got the book and began pouring into it I was turned on. I figured out what I was doing wrong after just reading a few paragraphs of certain topics.

The way Bill (I kinda feel close to the guy now after hours of watching him on video) teach in the book and on video is very logical... that is, he makes it simple. Once you understand the fretboard, scales are no problem. But trying to learn scales without understanding the fretboard you are probably in for years of frustration; believe me, I know.

The C.A.G.E.D. system takes you all over the fretboard. Once you learn the forms and positions (which is simple) along with the CAGE system you are on your way. The rest is just mechanics and preference.

I am now playing with a band and getting great reviews from both the band members and the audience. BTW, I am lefthanded so I had to reverse a lot of figering shown on the video and was still able to do well, so I know you righthanded folks can.

My son, who just started playing bass 2 mths ago is learning at a fast pace. I ordered the Fretboard Logic video and book for Bass for him and he loves them.

I just wanted to give Bill his "props" and say to anyone who's trying to learn or get over the hump, Fretboard Logic is the way to go. I've wasted thousands of dollars on videos where the instructor seems more impressed with himself than trying to teach; and books where you are taught songs, scales, modes, etc, not application. Fretboard Logic is a godsend. If you are brand new to guitar I think you need to get books or videos that will teach you the basics; how to hold a guitar, a pick, etc. Don't spend a lot of money just get something that will familiarize you with the basics. Once you have the basics down, order Fretboard Logic (get the workbook that has both volumes in it I & 2). if you are a visual person like myself you may also want to order the video too.

Just wanted to spread the Love,
Peace

This series of lectures sheds light on the major contributors to Economic thought since Plato and Aristotle. Since the book is made up of transcripts of his lectures, he doesn't manage to cover the figures or the ideas in depth. However he does manage to give some guidelines as to what you should read if you want to be well informed on the history of Economic thought.

I did not find the language in it frustrating, it just made the book seem like a personal lecture with Robbins (minus the questions) which added to my enjoyment. He stops at Fisher, so if you were hoping for ideas and icons after that, you will be disappointed.

The book is split into five sections. The first deals with those philosophers that preceded the formal study of economics; Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas etc... Very interesting stuff, especially if you aren't familiar with the relationship between the ancients and economics.

The second to the fourth sections deal with famous economists, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx. His treatment of Marx is brief so don't expect anything more than a few pages. While he goes into some length about Adam Smith and the other classical economists.

Finally he lectures on Jevons, Menger and others of the "Marginal Revolution", ending his series of lectures with Fisher.

A good read, I would recommend it to undergraduates in Economics or any one else who is interested in the history of economic ideas.

This is a collection of lectures given at the LSE. So DON'T think it is a history. Nevertheless, it is a comprehensive journey from aristotle's economica thru the modern era. Good as a reference. Not bad as a read -- but be aware you are reading a transcribed lecture and adjust your expectations accordingly.

A well-organized and well-considered series of concise lectures are codified in this book. This is a substantial, but not overwhelming, chronology of the more influential contributors to economic history and thought.

"Professing Feminism" professes nothing but sensationalist backlash against feminism within the academy. The anecdotes illustrate extreme positions in an extraordinarily narrow view. As a women's studies major, the continual attacks on "anti-intellectualism" and indoctrination reflected nothing of my experience in WS programs. As WS programs are mostly inter/cross-disciplinary (and the most popularly enrolled cross-listed courses), the authors blatantly omitted the wide material covered within a major's academic career, as well as the fact that the primary thing that WS teaches in critical thinking. You learn to question everything, even that which is taught in a WS course. The often cited "indoctrination of feminism" is an oxymoron. Cultural critique IS scholastic and academically worthy. If you look at the writings from WITHIN the academy, such as academic journals, newsletters, and recent WS publications on feminism and pedagogy, WS is far from static and continually seeks to improve, integrate, and shift their programs as needed. (Good luck on convincing the sciences to alter THEIR pedagogy.) The ivory tower needs WS in order to maintain the integrity of other disciplines as well as to provide intellectual space for those subjects commonly marginalized in the academy, such as ethnic studies and sexuality. The authors condesceningly stereotype and deride the complexities of both of subjects. Those within WS vouch for its profound influence in increasing student engagement with the material. As a student, I work harder in my WS courses and I find I can apply the skills of analysis that I develop to other disciplines, from economics to literature.

Yes, WS must continually be self-critical, but what Patai and Koertge conveniently gloss over is the fact that WS paradoxically seeks to subvert the hierarchies/structures of the academy while simultaneously working within them. Shifting the focus of knowledge from a male center shatters the system. Why would colleges and universities want their "objective" knowledges undermined by a bunch of women? Of course WS isn't welcome!

A far more explanatory and better documented history and description of the debates within WS is Marilyn Boxer's "When Women Ask the Questions." Nonetheless, I read "Professing Feminism" in its entirety, appalled that it claimed to describe my educational experience - and worse, distort WS to other readers outside of WS the reality of the programs. WS has permanently changed "higher" education by including the view, knowledge, and experience of over half of the world's population. To claim THAT as an "embarrassment" or a "massive failure" that lacks "integllectual rigor" simply reinforces the not-quite-gone idea that women belong on the periphery of the world of knowledge. But that's what (conservative) backlash is, right? Divide and conquer. But Women's Studies is here to stay. Perhaps we could make a bit more headway if we didn't have to continually stop and justify our position - our existence - in academia. But the progress WS has made in 30 years is unmatched by any other discipline.

The only thing "anti-intellectual" about women's studies is Patai and Koertge's depiction of it. But go ahead. See if they can indoctrinate YOU. After all, that's what WS is all about, right?

This book is a quite devastating criticism of academic feminism, written by well documented and articulate insiders who seem familiar with the philosophy, theory and practice of academic feminism. The criticism hits on all these levels. If we are to take the book at face value, academic feminism is an intellectual disaster comparable maybe with Stalinism, Scientology or the Inquisition: its method is anti-intellectual, critical thinking is discouraged, dissenters are ostracized. No redeeming qualities are found to mitigate its defects. The whole enterprise is deemed a failure and an embarrassment to its noble origins. Ultimately, feminism as taught and practiced today is presented as a danger to civilized society.

The authors are convincing and the various points are illustrated with interesting anecdotes. Particularly funny was the story of a women's studies lesbian professor announcing the heterosexual students that, if the course works as supposed, all students will be lesbians by the end of the term. One student, a married women with children, was persecuted by the professor by being given substantial extra assignments because she was deemed to be 'stubborn' regarding her (hetero)sexuality.

My qualm is a methodological one. The authors start by saying that they will apply "feminist methodology" in their study. Only later in the book it is explained that feminist methodology prefers anecdotes and testimonials ('connected thinking', which is good) to the "patriarchal" statistics ('compartimentalized thinking' which is bad). But the context of their description of this methodolgy is, again, one of scathing, devastating criticism. Feminist methodology is exposed as pseudo-intellectual. So I can't help but wonder why the authors use the very same methodolgy which their book dismisses as unsound. The effect is that, with a lack of statistical figures, it is impossible to say how pervasive are the problems they mention. Some problems, the ideological ones, are universal by definition. But they are not the most striking. The more striking are the ones regarding the practice of feminism, especially the instances where dissent is supressed and dissenters are punished. But the feminist methodology used by the authors gives us no clue how wide-spread this very important problem is.

I wish to god this book had been available when I was an undergrad at a university that was a nightmare of PC. Deserves to be kept in print until the current generation of posturing wackos have faded away.

It is true that the authors make advances to the field of intellectual assessment, compared to the earliest contributors of the last century. However, their model still remains a suspect one, given that the tests they used are mere correlates of what we know occurs using cognitive neuropsychology. Better approaches need to be developed.

A must for those who are familiar with Luria's works, Assessment of Cognitive Processes is a wonderful book, explaining the best intelligence theory to date: the PASS theory of intelligence. Focusing more on abilities and not in capacities or mere base of knowledge, the PASS stands for Planning, Attention, Simultaneous and Successive processes. I use a lot this theory in conceptualizing my cognitive and neurocognitive cases. The PASS Remedial Pogram (PREP) who stand for PASS Reading Enhancement Program is very useful for children with reading disorders, training them to develop Succesive and Simultaneous strategies. A wonderful addition to the field. If you are a cognitive psychologist or a school psychologist and do a lot of work with children this is the right book for and introduction to remedial instruction

I read this book in 1994 when it wasn released and, to date, I've taken 4 seminars with Dr. Jack Naglieri about the PASS theory and the Cognitive Assessment System. I use the PASS theory as a Counseling and Rehabilitation Psychologist and its useness is wonderful.The Planning and Attention subtests were missing on other cognitive batteries, although they overlap too much on the CAS. I'm working on doing the PREP, the Remedial instruction program, in Spanish. More studies need to be done with the CAS but it is a wonderful test and the PASS a wonderful theory. If you are a psychologist that have a great mastery of the neuropsychological framework and have a knowledge of Luria's works, then this book is for you

The idea of critical pedagogy emerged with Paulo Freire; a Brazilian educator focused on adult education. In light of his untimely passing a few years back, this book constitutes a tribute to his work as it has been read and used in recent decades. Shor and Pari's collection of essays is a foray into the ways in which Freiere's concept of critical literacy has been extended and applied to American classrooms. These essays explore different setting for the usage of critical literacy, but generally concern adults, i.e. at a college level or within different forms of adult education. However, the implications of the ideas are manifold, and there is usage for all levels of education to be extracted from the volume.
Although this is by no means a total coverage of all the issues that critical literacy, it does enter into many nooks and crannies of critical literacy, exploring how the ideas of race, gender and class interact with its ideas, in theory as well as practice. There are also several essays that examine the political implication for the use of critical pedagogy. If you are curious about how critical literacy functions in today's society, and how it has developed beyond Freire, this is definitely a book you want to give a closer look. And even if your interest is just education in general, the ideas of Freire are compelling, and are a fresh batch of ideas, which could be used to breathe life into the American classroom.

In light of the idea that critical literacy is ¡§learning to read and write as part of the process of becoming conscious of one¡¦s experience as historically constructed within specific power relations¡¨, this book, from a practitioner¡¦s perspective, questions how can we, as researchers or teachers or both ¡§use and teach oppositional discourse so as to remake ourselves and our culture¡¨? That is, if we have been shaped by the words we use and encounter, how can we find ¡§words that question a world not yet finished or humane¡¨, and work with the students to develop critical literacy to ¡§question knowledge, experience, and power in society¡¨?
The following chapters then offer certain innovative approaches considering how critical literacy can be ¡§done¡¨ in the classroom. A central belief that connects those chapters is that ¡§teaching is context specific¡¨, and that ¡§critical teaching is not a one-way development, not something done for students or to them for their own good¡K Rather, a critical process is driven and justified by mutuality.¡¨ I am, however, more concerned with the extent to which a teacher is aware of the replacement of status quo. In other words, how can we dismantle the old authority without imposing a new one? ¡§How and when a teacher should use authority and expertise to promote rather than to silence student agency¡¨? Are we comfortable with a society that has no authority anyway?

Overall, I found Shor and Pari's edited edition of articles discussing Critical Litearcy to be a good introduction to the variety of ways educators have chosen to implement and define critical literacy pedagogies. This book primarily looks at critical literacy in college level classes, however some mention of work with high school students is also present. I would describe this book as a thorough, though certainly not exhaustive, presentation of both theory and practice as instructors struggle to bring issues of race, class and gender into classrooms. If you are interested in critical litearcy, and curious to see how others have engaged with this topic, this book is both relevent and insightful.

TEXTUALISING WITH A DIFFERENCE

Himansu S. Mohapatra

The Rise and Fall of English : Reconstructing English as a Discipline. By Robert Scholes. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1998. pp. 203. $ 16.50.

Scholes's book about the rise of English, its fall and its possible re-rise as a vastly augmented domain of textuality is quite simply the best book to have been written on the subject till date. Where the earlier accounts, especially the ones by the English Left named above, had stopped short at detecting the crisis and suggesting, in the name of a cure, a wholesale dissolution of such an ideologically tainted project, Scholes charts out a 'militant middle position', firmly convinced that the extremes of traditionalism and iconoclasm are no help. Another aspect of the book's goodness is that it is addressed to the actual teacher of English, who, like Scholes, loves language, but who is lying dormant, if not dead, at the moment, and, who must rise phoenix-like from her ashes in the reconfigured domain of textuality.

The empowering concepts that Scholes has used throughout are those of the 'text', 'textuality' and 'intertext'. Although a slight concession to 'hypocriticism' (which in Scholes's usage designates a surrender to critical fashions) cannot be ruled out, Scholes is certainly no Barthesian glorifier of textuality as pure difference. This is despite the fact that he defines text, a la semiotic and deconstructive writers, as the 'fabric of culture itself, in which we and our students find ourselves already woven' (73). For one thing, his notion of textuality does not exclude concepts like truth ad reality. Thus, if his version of text has an ideology, it is certainly not the pernicious non-cognitivist ideology of the poststructuralist and postmodernist text that Fredric Jameson and Satya P. Mohanty have chosen to criticise. For another thing, Scholes's position on the subject of textuality seems to be an echo of I.A. Richards's 1924 prefatorial claim in The Principles of Literary Criticism to 'reweave on the loom of Literature some of the tattered sleeves of civilization'.

It is all too apparent that Scholes shares Richards's concern with truth, reality and with the well-being of civilization. Furthermore, both of them find themselves driven to the metaphors of weaving and textuality to express their sense of the worth of written compositions. The only difference between them is where Richards spoke of Literature with a capital 'L', Scholes speaks of verbal and written texts, that is, textuality in its unrestricted sense, something that would include both poems and bumper stickers. It should be noted, however, that Scholes has both retained the Richardsian moment and gone beyond it.

Scholes himself traces the roots of such an attitude to the evangelical fervour of his former Yale colleague Billy Phelps. The rise of English to a place of prominence in the curriculum of Yale and Brown at the turn of the nineteenth century intersects with the career of Phelps. Classics and philology were on their way out, and, the full professionalization literary studies, signalled by the New Criticism, was yet to begin. Phelps, who studied at Yale from 1883 to 1887 and later taught there from 1892 to 1933, represented a moment of poise between philology and New Criticism. What this particular location implied was the synthesis of teaching and preaching, of reading and writing. Ironically this unity was broken during the period of full professionalization, first under the New Criticism, and, then under 'theory'. This was the period when rhetoric yielded place to the speculative bias of literature, turning the earlier 'actant', who did things, to the present 'patient', to whom things were done. Scholes resurrects the past with such ardour in his opening chapter only in order to highlight its contrast with the doggy plight of the present-day teacher of English.

The rest of Scholes's story is soon told. He embarks in his last two chapters on a full-blown reconstructive programme. First of all he puts forward a 'a trivial proposal'. This is an attempt to revive the medieval trivium of grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Scholes's innovation is to rewrite these categories in modern and contemporary terms. For example, rhetoric gets redefined as 'persuasion and mediation'. Scholes moves on to outline a proposal for a modern quadrivium. If English is to be a discipline proper, then it must be organized around a 'canon of methods' rather a canon of texts. This quadrivium of theory, history, production and consumption is the best guarantee of a paradigm shift in English studies. It is our best bet for recapturing the earlier Phelpsian unity of theory and practice, but in a modern context of difference, diversity and a pervasive intertextuality.

There is just one missing strand in this otherwise superbly-woven fabric. It is to do with the whole discourse of the colonial rise of English. Scholes has, at two places in the book, conceded its central importance. There is no attempt, however, to go into the matter of the colonial origins of English at any length and to draw out its implications. It does not matter to the reader that this ground has been covered in earlier studies such as Gauri Viswanathan's Masks of Conquest (1989), Sara Suleri's The Rhetoric of English India (1991) and Harish Trivedi's Colonial Transactions: English Literature and India (1993). What the reader would like to know is how a consideration of the colonial underpinnings of English can be accommodated within Scholes's textuality paradigm without at the same time punching a gaping hole in it. As postcolonial critics have reminded us, English as a subject was forged 'in the smithy of empire'. Scholes's textuality paradigm is conceived within the framework of the national culture. It will perhaps not survive a bracing encounter with the imperial formations. But that is no reason for us not to salute this bracing, witty, candid and infinitely charming book that sets out to textualise with a difference.

This book will probably never make the NYTimes Bestseller list, but for its intended audience of literature and English composition instructors, this is a thought-provoking text which provides a much-needed jab in the ribs to English departments everywhere.

This is not a dry critical review, but a practical, specific and inspirational text regarding the declining status of English studies in the U.S. Scholes doesn't just whine about what's wrong, but shows readers some ways to make English a useful and necessary component of a university education.

As an English graduate student, I was particularly intrigued by Scholes' ideas of making English composition courses more than just a dumping ground for underpaid instructors and unenthusiastic students. Scholes expanded my own conceptions about what English composition should do, and how it can be made more relevant to today's attention-challenged students.

Scholes has renewed my faith in English studies. Anyone who has taken or taught a college-level English course and wondered what the hell they were doing should read this intelligent and challenging book (or text, if you prefer).

Tired of eggghead profs and "scholards" (scholar + dullard)? Does Barthes make you barf? Will you blow up your university libary if one more person mentions words like "discourse," "interpellaton," "the signified," or "technologies of self"? Ah, then you must be in "grad skool"! My deepest condolences.

I found many of his insights to be refreshing and right on the mark. Some scholars will disagree with Scholes and criticize his strategies (that's why they're dull eggheads after all), but he identitifies a very real problem in English and humanities departments today (and academia in general). He attempts to address it in simple, highly readable prose--and with humor as well--while avoiding the jargon and the pretentiousness that plagues most scholary writing. I found myself staying up until the wee hours of the night to finish the book in one sitting. It was a wonderful respite for me during my first year in grad school, and it lifted my spirits considerably. As many of you already know, graduate school is an experience that basically chews you up and spits you out, destroying your self-esteem, dignity and health in the process. While it may not prevent you from throwing your Foucault and de Certeau books out the window, it may give you back your sanity--remember, it's not you, it's the system's power structure and its discursive effects!

It's been a while since I've used this book - I borrowed and used it for a few months a few years ago, when I first started teaching and had almost no other resources. I did not like it enough to buy my own copy.

This is maybe a little better than some other books I've seen, but I don't seem to like *any* pre-made worksheets. The idea of notes "spelling words" strikes me as pedagogically flawed, and the ways of explaining rhythm are very dry and meaningless and don't seem to help students, in my opinion. I've seen so many students who have had music for years and yet have no idea what the difference between a half note and quarter note are. Kind of makes you wonder what we're doing wrong.

Anyway, now I personally create all my worksheets for all grades and find that the amount of learning is much greater.

One other point, although I'm not absolutely positive it was this book, I think it was: when I was first teaching, one day I needed a warm-up worksheet and was in a hurry. I quickly flipped through this book (I think) and xeroxed a sheet about spelling words with notes on the clef. When my middle schoolers completed it, I was stunned and embarrassed to realize that one of the words was "Fagged"! Needless to say, some of my eighth graders did not handle it very well. So watch out for that one!

First the pluses, Progress chart, great for tracking students progress. Everything is divided into concepts. Concepts progress in a logical manner. Answer key is in a handy place. Minuses, some of the questions are not presented in a consistent manner. For instance, when comparing whole note values to those that are smaller the question should have always read "The tone of a whole note is ___ times as long as the tone of a quarter note." Then Half note is __ as long as a whole note" In my experience students understood better when the larger note value was placed first. It is also confusing when the answer is sometimes a fraction and sometimes a whole number. Some terminology may need to be changed if you only use the word tone for the sound of a note and not it's duration. Overall a valuable resource, I mean, who wants to reinvent the wheel when Ms. Adair has done such a good job?

This book is a Music Teacher's dream! No matter what concept you're teaching, this book always seems to have an activity to reinforce what you've taught, and see if it is being understood! Very Useful!

This book was not terrible, but was quite dry. It talked mainly about how teachers should approach teaching students with multiple intelligences. One thing I did like though, was that Gardner described his seven intelligences. This was more of what I was interested in. It gave me something to personally relate to. For teachers, this book would be excellent, but for an ordinary person, I wouldn't recommend it. It's wordy in the middle of the book, but the beginning catches your attention by describing the intelligences. They also give examples of the intelligences. The examples make it easier to understand and possibly relate to.

I came to Multiple Intelligences as a parent of two young children seeking to learn more about Howard Gardner's theory. Multiple Intelligences gave me all that and more, and I think that this book would probably be fabulous for people looking for more than I was. I found the beginning and ends of the book very helpful and informative, but the middle was a little too theoretical for my purposes. I kept thinking that it would be more appropriate for an education student or PTA president than a mere curious parent. That being said, the beginning does an excellent job of laying down the groundwork for what MI is and what all the different learning styles are. Gardner also has many interesting things to say about standardized testing, which is particularly timely given the current debate on the usefulness of the SAT. I think MI theory will help any parent striving to get a grip on their children's educational experience. MI theory has you look more at the whole child, rather than one or two particular skills, something I think we parents have known all along. It's just nice to see that this theory is given such weight.

Howard Gardner wurde von dem Erfolg seines Buches Frames of Mind (1983) überrascht. Besonders im Bereich von Schule und Erziehung fielen seine Gedanken über die sieben Intelligenzen auf fruchtbaren Boden. Diese Tatsache machte genauere pädagogische Überlegungen nötig und ein Buch, das sich mit den Auswirkungen und Anwendungen der Theorie von den multiplen Intelligenzen befasste. Dieses Buch liegt nun vor.

Der 1.Teil von M.I. - The Theory in Practice fasst noch einmal kurz die theoretischen Grundlagen zusammen, wie Gardner sie in Frames of Mind zuerst veröffentlicht hatte.

Im 2.Teil berichten Gardner und sein Mit-Autorinnen (Tina Blythe und Mara Krechevsky) von Versuchen und Projekten im Erziehungsbereich, die sich auf die M.I.-Theorie gründen. Sie beschreiben unter anderem:

- den Project Spectrum Approach: Hier wird versucht, bei Kindern schon in einem sehr frühen Alter die unterschiedlichen Intelligenzbereiche zu erkennen. Die Ergebnisse dieses Ansatzes werden denen des Stanford-Binet Standard-Intelligenztests gegenübergestellt. Selbst bei vorsichtiger Interpretation zeigt sich, dass der Project Spectrum Approach, wie zu erwarten war, mehr Fähigkeiten in Kindern erkennen lässt, als die Tests nach der alten Methode. Darüber hinaus werden Beispiele für die Implementierung dieses Ansatzes auch bei Schülern anderer Altersgruppen beschrieben.

- Arts PROPEL: Speziell auf den Bereich der künstlerischen Erziehung ist dieses Projekt bezogen. Es wird durchgeführt von Gardners Harvard Project Zero in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Educational Testing Service und den Pittsburgh Public Schools. Die Schüler sammeln ihnen wichtige Arbeiten in einer Kunstmappe (Portfolio oder Processfolio) und werden nach den Kriterien der M.I.-Theorie beurteilt.

Der Portfolio-Ansatz als Alternative zu den Standard-Testverfahren wird im 3.Teil des vorliegenden Buches noch genauer beschrieben. Wie an mehreren Stellen, so auch hier, kritisiert Gardner die Kontext-Unabhängigkeit der Standard-Intelligenztests. Sie verlangen häufig andere Fähigkeiten, als die eigentlich zu untersuchenden; nämlich die, unter Zeitdruck abstrakte Probleme gut durchdenken und sich schriftlich angemessen ausdrücken zu können. Auch der schulische Erfolg eines Kindes hängt mehr von diesen Fähigkeiten ab als davon, auf einem konkreten Gebiet (Zeichnen, Sport, Gärtnern, Werken etc.) gute Leistungen zu zeigen. In diesem Zusammenhang kommt Gardner auch auf sein Verständnis von Understanding zu sprechen, wie er es in The Unschooled Mind (1991) dargestellt hatte. Es geht ihm, kurz gesagt, darum, dass ein Schüler erworbenes Wissen auch wirklich anwenden kann.

Der 4. und letzte Teil beginnt mit einer systematisch-historischen Übersicht über die Sieben Phasen der Intelligenz, von laienhaften Vorstellungen angefangen über die Verwissenschaftlichung und die Pluralisation und Kontextualisierung bis hin zur Individualisierung der Intelligenz, also bis hin zur Erkenntnis, dass offensichtlich jeder Mensch einen einzigartigen Verstand/Geist besitzt.

Mit einem Ausblick auf das Jahr 2013 (also 30 Jahre nach Veröffentlichung von Frames of Mind) und der Hoffnung, dass die Idee der Multiplen Intelligenzen Bestandteil der Lehrerausbildung wird, schließt das Buch, das insgesamt einen guten Versuch darstellt, zugleich pädagogische Praxis und Theorie zu umfassen.

I did a book report and presentation for my secondary education class at Oakland University on this book. The first few chapters are excellant. Barth has an excellant conception on schools and has brilliant ideas on what, we as teachers can do to improve our schools and make our communities a "community of learners". I love his ideas on how there is always room for learning on all levels of the education spectrum. He has exellent advice for principals who are having trouble with their jobs. This is an excellent book, but for every excellent book there are a few downfalls. While doing my presentation and discussing Barth's views, I received negative comments because my audience felt that his ideas could only work in a utopia community. But you will just have to read this book to find out. My other complaint is in the latter part of the book, where Barth discussed Principal Centers. In these last chapters he becomes an advertiser for these "principal centers" that he runs instead of conveying his own ideas on how to improve schools. I highly recommend this book for principals, but if you are a future teacher, then I would not recommend reading this book, because it is not directed to you.

I approached the book with anticipation of finding answers for me now as a teacher and in my future as an administrator. I was inspired to be a better visionary, but left in the dark when it came to practical applications.

Several of our Site Based Council members read this book a few years ago in planning for a staff-wide summer retreat. This book changed the way we looked at staff development and helped us bring everyone (well almost everyone) on board with whole school change. We continue to use quotes from this book during current staff development opportunities. We've shared this at numerous national conventions and at workshops that we put on in our own school. We now see many of the same excerpts (the bee story!)that we've shared at other conferences that we go to.

The preceding review of Richard King's fine work is a scandalous misrepresentation of its content. This book is not an analysis of Indian philosophy, but an analysis of the reception of Indian thought in the West: it explores the processes by which the East has been represented in the West so as to maintain a view of Western superiority. In brief, it challenges Eurocentric views of the East. In order to evaluate Richard King's own appreciation of Indian philosophy, one should read his other books.

Richard King has written a very provocative and very useful book. In Orientalism and Religion, King argues that the term "Hinduism" does not represent any single ancient "religion." Rather, Hinduism is a construct of western scholars who, upon encountering Indian culture, created a religion along the lines of their own Christian conceptions of what a religion ought to be. These scholars of the nineteenth century sought out Indian equivalents of their own Christian culture (i.e. sacred texts and authority figures), and from these (largely the Vedas and the Brahmin caste, respectively) created the "religion" of the Hindus, or "Hinduism." This construction of a "world religion" abetted the colonial exploitation of Indians. King effectively argues the point through examinations of the works of early "Orientalist" scholars and works of more recent scholars who exhibit the same "essentializing" tendencies.

King's account draws quite explicitly on the work of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, but King deals creatively with both Foucault and Said in generating his own unique approach to the study of the "West's" colonial encounter with India. King is not content with an account that denies the agency of native Indians. He thus focuses on how "native informants," often in reaction against colonial forces, ironically helped perpetuate, and indeed bring into being, the "Hinduism" created by Orientalist scholars.

This book should interest all students of religion, as it is part of a growing recognition that the use of the term "religion" when discussing non-western or ancient cultures is highly problematic. Indeed, a possible difficulty for King is his insistence that there were indigenous "religions" in India before the colonial encounter (as on p. 103). Orientalism and Religion should greatly impact specialists in Hinduism, but it is also accessible for the general reader willing to put forth a little extra effort.

This is an excellent book that does much to dispel both the Eurocentric and mystifying Orientalist myths that have grown up around the relation of East and West. A truly impressive piece of post-colonial scholarship that refuses to cater to the prejudices of Hindu fundamentalists, convert Neo-Buddhists, or Euro-American boosters.