116 CJHE / RCES Volume 37, No. 2, 2007 poses set or to grade it” and appropriately reminds the reader that “adequacy or grade will be judged against a set of criteria that should have been set in advance, and which should be known by the writers of the journals” (p. 107). Moon covers some very interesting ground in this chapter as she illustrates how important it is to be aware of the difficulties that can be created when a learning task is to be assessed. In many ways, although this chapter maintains the practical handbook approach to journaling, it also offers a reminder of the need to be sensitive to the interplay teaching, learning and assessment and how the politics and ethics of learning need to be apprehended and responded to appropriately. Chapter 11 draws the links between journal writing and story and is interesting in the way that it moves across the narrative landscape unpacking understandings of episodes and events to make sense of stories. The chapter explores the world of fiction in story and how that links to journal writing but still draws the reader back to the importance of learning and how purpose in learning matters in shaping not only what is done through story, but also why. The final two chapters are examples of journals and activities to enhance learning from them. A most extensive range of ideas are touched upon briefly and offers a feast of opportunities for ways of thinking about the use of journaling. These chapters then flow nicely into the Resources section of the book. The materials in the resource section include instructions for exercises on depth and quality of reflection, a generic framework for reflective writing followed by three resource exercise sets. In reading this book, it appears to me as though Moon set out set to create a text that would offer a practical guide to journal writing. She was keen to ensure that learning and reflection would be seen as central to the purpose of journaling in ways that would give added value to the ideas, procedures and activities associated with journaling. For any teacher or student of higher education seeking a helpful resource or handbook on learning journals, this would certainly be one to keep close at hand. Fraser, J. W. (2006). Preparing America’s teachers: A history. New York: Teachers College Press-Columbia University. Pages 288. Price: 33.95 USD (paper) Reviewed by Ted Christou, Doctoral Candidate, Queen’s University. Preparing America’s teachers: A history is a well crafted book that looks back at the preparation of teachers in the United States since the American Revolution. The text seeks to unpack the question – wittily invoked by David Labaree, quoted to open the book – of why teacher education, like the late Rodney Dangerfield, gets no respect. James Fraser explores how this situation evolved historically, as well as what we, presently, can do to improve it. The book is an institutional history, moving chronologically through American history and examining the schools and structures that were established for Book Reviews / Comptes Rendus 117 the preparation of teachers. It starts with Schooling Teachers for a New Nation, 1750-1830, and closes with a chapter entitled Preparing Teachers in the Era of a Nation at Risk, 1965-2000, followed by an Afterword on Teachers for the New Millennium. The institutions that Fraser analyzes often overlapped, merged, mutated, and evolved, resembling waves of water washing on the shore. New schooling structures emerged before others fully receded. Each chapter opens with a short biographical outline or personal stories of individuals who were trained in or were related to the institutions examined in the chapter, thus broadening the approach and framing the chapters in a novel way. I found that the stories and biographies were, despite their brevity, poignant segues into a historical setting. They remind the reader of the individual and personal relationships we can build with historical narratives. The study is motivated by the author’s conviction that educational history can be a powerful means of informing contemporary debates on learning and teaching. In the introduction, Fraser refers to David Tyack’s observation that historians of education have neglected teachers and teaching. He quotes Ellen Langemann who noted that history of teacher education was understudied. Fraser tries to correct what he refers to as a gap in the literature. Further, Fraser makes the powerful admission that as dean of an education faculty, his efforts to reform and improve teacher education replicated others’ past efforts and initiatives. That teacher education seems to go through repetitive cycles of reform speaks to the peculiar state of amnesia in which we find ourselves. Fraser came to see that history can liberate us from the repetitive cycles of change by making us aware of the roots of and reasons for reform. That said, the author’s sobering realization that there has been no “golden age” to which we should or can return makes plain that historical studies are not meant to romanticize the past, nor do they hearken to better or more wonderful times. Fraser concludes that each generation of teacher candidates has experienced pedantic preaching, utilitarian scheduling, and myopic training. It follows, he seems to argue, that there is no single best system by which we should prepare teachers for their profession. This strikes a blow against advocates of ‘best practices’ who might believe that, despite the fact that we know more about teaching and learning today than we did in the past, these processes can be analyzed and examined scientifically for the purpose of distilling certain absolute truths that should dictate action and thought. Humans do not grow and develop as apples in nature typically might. There is too much diversity and variability in human social interaction for us to reduce teaching to a manual or almanac. Fraser’s careful historical analysis led him to think that there is no single and perfect model of teacher education and concludes that that diversity of methods and means will best meet the needs of prospective educators. Fraser’s examination of the institutions that developed for the purpose of supporting teacher learning since the American Revolution may help us examine our own educational structures from multiple lenses and perspectives. It permits us numerous insights into our selves and our assumptions about teacher 118 CJHE / RCES Volume 37, No. 2, 2007 education. Further, it suggests that there are a wide array of possibilities for future thinking about and structuring of education faculties. This is particularly relevant in the present intellectual climate where educational research is largely defined as scientific and, as the book’s final chapter explains, accountability standards or standardization of aims tend to be dominant pursuits. Fraser’s book on the history of teacher preparation in the United States represents a fecund educational resource and a source of hope. As a student of educational history, I can admit to be anxious. In Ontario, the history of education is not required coursework for undergraduate or graduate students, and has been increasingly marginalized over the last century. That said, Fraser’s ambitious effort to represent more than two centuries of teacher education in less than three hundred pages resulted in an interesting scholarly book and a happy read. This book demonstrates educational history’s utility in addressing current debates and future goals. I have concerns, however, with the author’s view that universities have been unwelcoming of teacher education because they embody a hierarchy that posits theoretical knowledge above practical know-how. Fraser’s claim does not explore the multifaceted dimension of the divide between what is often referred to as the theory-practice divide in teacher education. This divide falsely dichotomizes what is perceived to be directly applicable in classrooms (say, methods instruction and practice teaching) with what appears not to be immediately relevant (history or philosophy of education). This divide, one may argue, has been increased due to an emphasis on “what works” and on accountability. As the last chapter describes, governmental and institutional demands for accountability as means to secure funding are escalating. The book provides a comprehensive and badly needed history of teacher education. It is well researched innovative in its approach, and futuristic in tone. I think that this historical study generates a space where theory and practice, as well as the present, past, and future, intersect and meet dynamically. Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, K. (2006). One size does not fit all: Traditional and innovative models of student affairs practice. New York: Routledge. Pages: 187. Price: $29.95. USD (paper). Reviewed by Jason Laker, Associate Vice-Principal (Academic) and Dean of Student Affairs, Queen’s University. This book was unexpectedly difficult to read and review. At first blush, it is an unassuming and fairly succinct (under 200 pages) text with a straightforward title, and its contents are laid out in a logical and understandable fashion. The difficulty, it turned out, had to do with two competing stand points: my mind as an American, a Chief Student Affairs Officer in Canada, and my role as a Women’s Studies instructor given to critical theory. Thus, this review intends to inform the reader about what the text is, and to discuss what the text is not.