Reviews for The disciplines of education

The average rating for The disciplines of education based on 2 reviews is 1.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2011-04-16 00:00:00 Anatole Manniste Nauseating. I expected so much more from this book--I mean, it's HOWARD GARDNER. Of multiple intelligences fame! This was the theory that I most resonated with in college, & although I got it second-hand (through textbooks) I have always wanted to read Gardner's theory in his own words. I expected enlightenment. I expected originality. What I got was CONCEITEDNESS. I truly can't understand why Gardner published this book. Most of it is just self-aggrandizement & ideas that are completely unpractical & unoriginal. Gardner makes the point that what schools should be teaching are the true, the beautiful, & the good. Now, I realize that the education world on a large scale is NOT set up to do this today. I realize that schools are pressured to cover the topics (superficially)...but that does not mean that everyone involved in education is on board with it. I know plenty of teachers who believe in narrowing the curriculum & teaching deep. These same teachers have been doing so for decades. It's just good sense...nothing ground-breaking. Gardner's next "ground-breaking" idea is even less original. According to "him," teachers should evaluate for understanding, not by administering a test, but by requiring a PERFORMANCE (aka project.) OH MY GOSH! A PROJECT?!!! I never would have thought of that in my wildest dreams! Now, let's be clear: Do multiple choice tests exist in schools? Yes. Are they the best way to evaluate students? No. Are they overused? Yes. Do most teachers know this? Yes. Did Gardner break any new ground in this book? No. Gardner's remedy for remaking US schools then takes an idealistic, but utterly unpractical turn. After "modeling" how he would teach three topics (aligned with the true, the beautiful, & the good), he says that all subjects should be handled this way, by teachers who have mastered their disciplines. I'm not talking about educators who have their bachelor's degrees, or teaching certifications, or who have even passed a nationalized teaching test. He's talking about teachers who have mastery level of teh subjects they teach at the level of doctorate degrees. Don't get me wrong, I think it is important that teachers are curious, smart, & active learners. I wish there were no mediocre teachers in schools today. And it certainly is IDEAL to have a teacher who has deep mastery of her/his subject. But Gardner fails to address two problems with his solution: first, every year in virtually every state there is a battle over funding for education. How does Gardner expect to attract the talent his solution demands? On this he is silent. (Memo to Howard Gardner: we've all been trying for decades to get highly-qualified teachers, but the problem is that there is no money! Why not chew on that for a while & write up a book for us?) Second, Gardner totally overlooks the fact that teaching requires its own set of skills. A great physicist may make a lousy teacher. I know some fabulous parents with little or no formal education who are amazing teachers. It's awesome when the mastery of the subject coexists with the talent for teaching...but if I had to choose between a superb teacher with only a decent grasp of the subject matter versus a superb scholar with only decent teaching skills, I'd opt for the former. The demand for teachers means that every teacher just can't be a scholar. At least, not in public schools. And that's where Gardner is silent again. He SAYS he wants this great education for every child, but only the wealthy could really afford what he calls for. Making better schools for the wealthy is not the kind of book I was really interested in reading about. Last of all, I have to just mention the total arrogance Gardner displays in this book. He spends a good amount of time defending himself against the critics of his earlier publications. I don't mind some of this--in all honesty, I usually find myself on the same page with him. But he's sooooo condescending it makes me want to throw up. After reviewing the pros and cons of establishing a national curriculum & national standards, he states that he supports the measure...but ONLY if HE and s handful of LIKE-MINDED INDIVIDUALS (whom he names) get to write the standards! And he's serious about this, as if he is the only person who is competent to do such a thing, & nobody else (except those who fawn over him) has anything else to bring to the table. Ugh. Even his idea on having separate pathways is so condescending. His pathway is called the one for "understanding." As if another pathway isn't devoted to understanding. Arrogance! I was disgusted in a similar way to his handling of religion/spiritual matters. It's not even that he doesn't believe in it (there are many atheists that I respect), but he scorns those who do. His explanation (I tell my students to slice up the brain & look for a "spirit" to prove there is none) was totally illogical. (How much else would we have to eliminate if we couldn't find physical material of it?) No wonder he is having such a hard time recognizing "existential intelligence" as a ninth addition to his multiple intelligences! Finally, a word about his favorite word. I'm talking about the word idiosyncratic. This word appears once or more on virtually every page of the book. Why? There were certainly times when "many" or "peculiar" or "various" or "multiple" would have been an improvement in the text. Why then did he insist on using & using & using this word? (The same went for the word "antipathy" for about twenty pages.) I didn't understand it...but I guess a six syllable word sounds more intelligent? I guess? Oh well. After all this...I probably still might try to read Gardner's book "Multiple Intelligences." But I won't invest so much time into it unless I feel it has more to give me right from the start. I kept reading this book because I thought there would be some nugget somewhere...but in the end I thought it was a 1/5 stars from beginning to end.

Review # 2 was written on 2015-08-19 00:00:00 Scott Taylor Very convoluted with a bunch of listicle chapters. Didn't really dig it, perhaps because it's aimed at K-12 education. People are better able to chart their life course and make life decisions when they know how others have dealt with pressures and dilemmas. We need an education that is deeply rooted in two apparently contrasting but actually complementary considerations: what is known about the human condition, in its timeless aspects; and what is known about the pressures, challenges and opportunities of the contemporary (and coming) scene. Continuing illiteracy in the world is not due to ignorance on how to teach the 3 R's, but rather failure to devote adequate resources to these tasks. With lengthening lifespans and rapidly evolving body of knowledge, lifelong self-directed learning is now a necessity. The goal of education should be to inculcate a love of learning such that it will continue to take place even outside of the system. Everyone must become as comfortable as possible with change. And one must remain ever conscious of the constant of human experiences - the things that do not change, either because they cannot or because we do not want them to. Decisions about what to teach, when to teach and even how to teach entail value judgements. Such decisions can never be dictated by knowledge of brain (e.g. even if children learn languages better when young is no reason to do so) Young children have distinctive moral outlooks; for example, they focus on the amount of damage an act results in, rather than on the intention of the actor. The persistence of early misconceptions is due to a number of factor: the unexpected strength of early representations; the fact that educators have not appreciated that strength and so ignored them; the tendency on the part of many adults to confuse the accumulation of factual information or cultural literacy with the alteration of robust mental representation; the pressure to cover too much material in a necessarily superficial manner. Solution: Depth over breadth. *Singapore gets a mention!* Forty years ago, Singaporeans were so poor that many children went to bed hungry each night. Singapore has virtually no natural resources, just the minds and energy of its 3 million citizens (circa 1999). Today, Singapore ranks among the top nations in the world in productivity and income, and students regularly occupy the number one slot in international comparisons. On understanding: An individual understands a concept, skill, theory or domain of knowledge to the extent that he or she can apply it appropriately in a new situation. The more a person knows about how music and drama work, the more value they are likely to glean from a performance. Lack of appreciation has no meaning if no effort has been made to understand. Begin with entry points (compelling examples to lead in), offer analogies (bridging to current knowledge), and converge upon multiple representations of the core idea.