Woolfolk's book reflects educational psychology ca. 1975. She cynically - and selectively - cites references that are much more recent to give this the gloss of being current, but don't be taken in.This book ignores the last two decades of neurobiological research, and presents obsolete theories as still being valid. She presents Piaget's theories, then suggests they have "some limitations." I guess so - since they are almost entirely disproven by PET-scan based research.
(Which is not meant to be a jab at Piaget per se. He did initiate much of the THINKING in this field. Subsequent research has simply unearthed different truths, based on actual neurobiopsychological evidence.)
Woolfolk gets more than cognitive development wrong. Language development? She appeals to outmoded works of Vygotsky.
Gender-identified differences in math skill? Due to "stereotyping in the preschool years," according to Woolfolk. No mention, not a breath of illumination, of the recent work identifying inherent differences (not deficiencies!) in spatial reasoning in young children.
Woolfolk even opines that neurocortical stimulants (e.g., Ritalin) are "controversial" in the treatment of hyperactivity. Go to brains.org and read any of the hundreds of recent journal articles listed there. You won't find a legitimate study that suggests a "controversy."
Beyond being dated, two things are really disturbing about this book. First, it is cynical to keep archaic views fresh-seeming by selectively citing modern writers. Other reviewers have called this "bias," which seems too nice a word.
Second, and worse, this book suggests bad educational policy - precisely because it's ignorant of current research.
Consider this chestnut in the chapter on language acquisition: "Learning the standard speech is easy for most children...as long as they have good models, clear instruction and opportunities for authentic practice." Ummm, NO. It is not easy. It is precisely because it is not easy that children of color are often tagged as 'slow' when they have difficulty shifting from one dialect to another.
This book offers bad science and perniciously dated pedagogical advice. It's disheartening that it's still assigned to education majors - and appalling that it is defended by practicing educators.
