14 of 27 people found the following review helpful
not very useful,
This review is from: How Babies Think: The Science of Childhood (Paperback)
This book was recommended by my university lecturer but to be honest I didn't find it helpful at all. Perhaps useful as an introduction to some of the issues involved, but it's not by any means a textbook, and for academic purposes i found it of no use whatsoever - there's too much general rambling around the issues and not enough substance. As an example of the book's style, there are no references whatsoever in the text - the authors seem to wade through the topics, discussing relevant research simply on a passing basis, and researchers/their works are referenced generally by chapter at the back of the book. Basically no good if you want to know about anything specific, or learn about anything in any kind of detail.
This is developmental psychology as light entertainment - an informal style and interesting to the casual reader, but for academic purposes it doesn't really cut it.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Oct 2010 20:53:31 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Oct 2010 20:57:15 BDT
A. J. Bradbury says:
One university undergraduate slags off three professors - one professor of psychology who was a pioneer in the study of how babies think and learn, one a professor specialising in mental development in infants, and one a professor specialising in the study of speech and language development.
But that isn't why I find this review uncredible.
The reviewer refers to "my university lecturer", aparently unaware that undergraduates normally attend multiple lectures per week given by different lecturers.
"Psychology Student" asserts that "researchers/their works are referenced generally by chapter at the back of the book". Which is simply not true.
There are, in fact, 11 (eleven) pages of references, most of them to multiple sources, listed by page number and the specific point in the text that they relate to.
These in turn point to some 37 pages of specific references listed by author(s), date, title, etc., of relevant books and articles.
Maybe "Psychology Student" could actually learn something by asking his/her lecturer WHY this book was recommended, instead of making unhelpful and inaccurate comments such as these.
Posted on 17 Oct 2010 20:55:16 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 17 Oct 2010 20:57:52 BDT]
‹ Previous 1 Next ›