Lionel Ward and Mary Gauld survey in their respective papers aspects of mixed-ability teaching. They draw attention to the need for a variety of teaching strategies to meet the range of preferred modes of learning, which are by no means exclusively verbal. Two interesting papers emphasise this conclusion. Donald Moore contributes a cautionary tale for those teachers who think that words, creating 'linear, sequential thought patterns', pro- vide the only means of furthering historical study. He draws attention to the significance of the visual means of communication, in pictures and artifacts, and suggests that 'history will lose its interest for the majority if it relies too much on the printed word'. Similarly, the contribution of field work and the study of history 'on the ground' are identified by Arthur Peplow as significant avenues to the stimulation of the pupil's interest and imagination. Resources abound, in the form of photographs, film and documentary as well as in graphic and three-dimensional material, whether Stone Age axe-head, Elizabethan mansion or industrial relic, to provide imaginative and rewarding approaches to the teaching of history. Two further papers describe recent research. Brian Scott reports on an examination of 'concept learning within the enquiry process' among upper junior school pupils. He concludes that children's skills in historical thinking could be developed, using problem-solving studies. Martin Booth, however, in his account of research with a 14-16 age group, maintains that the primary task of the historian is not to solve problems and concludes that history teaching should concentrate on the acquisition of knowledge and concepts, while making ample provision for inductive activity. The tension revealed here points towards the general positions adopted by the supporters of the two schools of history teachers, those who endorse, respectively, traditional or 'New' objectives and methods, and Gareth Jones, in the concluding paper, makes a significant attempt to bridge the gap between them in his contribution, 'Towards a Synthesis'. He casts doubt upon the relevance of taxonomies of educational objectives for teachers of history and makes a shrewd analysis of Bruner's thinking as applied to the history curriculum. He sees the way forward through schemes in which 'instructional, expressive and experiential objectives interlock'. Whether consciously or unconsciously, these are the ends to which good history teachers have always directed their attention. The volume is a most useful contribution to the current discussion on the 'New History' and deserves to be widely read by teachers and students of the subject. When they have made their assessment of the suitability of skill-based and content-based schemes in their particular situations, most will still agree, with one of the contributors, that learning about history is an emotional as well as an intellectual experience. Their task, and their problem, is to try to ensure that this experience is a rewarding one for every pupil. WILLIAM H. JOHN South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education