Having been in one of Brookfield's workshops I must I think this book captures a lot of what he is about. There are lots of teacher educators out there who write about how important it is to be reflective, or to think critically, without it ever showing in their work. This is something I'm frankly OD'd in in staff developments I've had to go through. But Stephen truly walks his talk. Everything I like about this book I found in his workshop.

One of this book's strengths is that it's very easy to follow. I found it very easy to read and several of the examples could have come from my own classes. The four lenses on practice are things I keep constantly in mind these days having read the book carefully and also seen how Stephen uses them in his workshop. I also found the book extremely helpful in terms of giving me specific techniques. I've always basically agreed that reflection is useful (even if I'm fed up with people telling me) and would improve my teaching but I had little concrete idea about how to go about it. Each of the lenses Stephen examines has lots of techniques and exercises attached to it. One of the most useful was the critical incident questionnaire he explains in the students' eyes lens. I started to use this to evaluate my classes and I've learned lots of surprising things were going on that I had no clue about.

Finally, I appreciated the linking of critical reflection to something a little stronger than just being thoughtful. I'd never really thought about a focus for reflection before, certainly never thought about power dynamics being a focus. And the staff developments I've gone to never really deal with it. This book really got clear in my mind what my own power was as a teacher. I've always known I had it but never really been up front about it. I feel much more comfortable with this now and am ready to make sure my students think I'm using it properly.

I shudder to think that this book is being used for teacher training. There is no content. In a sense, the title belabors the obvious: who, after all, does not reflect? A physician, a car mechanic, and a refrigerator repairman all reflect on their craft, and all are problem-solvers in the context of their activity. What, then, does this book say that applies to teachers specifically? Absolutely nothing. The discussion (I use the term loosely) is couched in such broad generalities as to be meaningless. For example,take a section heading such as "Critical Reflection as the Illumination of Power" -- how can this possibly shed light on thinking? The book is replete with such hollow chapter and section titles.

A more fundamental objection that can be levelled against this book -- and others of its ilk -- is related to the question: what does "critical reflection" mean? The premise of the book is that the idea of "critical reflection" can exist without context in, or reference to, a specific recognised discipline (such as, for instance, history or physics). This is absurd; the craft of teaching takes place within the context of a specific discipline with its own methods and problems; teaching itself is not a discipline, no matter how much professors of education may protest otherwise. This attempt to treat the craft of teaching as a discipline ("education"), and to describe "critical reflection" within this pseudo-discipline, is the primary reason why the book lacks any substance whatsoever. There is simply nothing to talk about; "critical reflection" is a bogus notion, both in the abstract and with regard to "education"; hence the vacuous talk of "lenses", "autobiographies", and "critical conversations".

To provide some further elaboration of the vacuity of the notion of context-free "critical-thinking" -- and as such, intimately related to the discussion in the previous paragraph -- the problem is we cannot teach "critical thinking", because there is no such thing. There are areas of study such as mathematics and geography. Each has its own ideas, problems and epistemology. The overlap, such as may exist, belongs to philosophy -- metaphysics and epistemology, where we treat problems in the most abstract setting possible -- and hope to say something useful in the more concrete settings they emerged from. There is no "critical thinking" that applies to all, or even most, disciplines. The kind of thinking mathematics requires will be quite distinct from that which history may require. The only things we can say about thinking *in general* are superficial, misleading and platitudinous. These professional educators need a more rigorous schooling in the history and development of ideas.

Those training to become teachers are not (truth be told) the brightest people around. Unfortunately, drivel like this will leave them even more confounded than before.

The decent books on the craft of teaching remain Highet's "The Art of Teaching, James' "Talks to Teachers", and Barzun's "Begin Here". I warmly recommend them.