Anderson, Phillip. (2009). Pedagogy. Reviewed by L. L. Aull, University of Michigan

Anderson, Phillip. (2009). Pedagogy. NY: Peter Lang Publishing Pp. vii + 174         ISBN 0-8204-8140-1 Reviewed by L. L. Aull University of Michigan July 16, 2009 Phillip Anderson’s Pedagogy offers a synopsis of pedagogy with a wide scope. The book reflects the complexity of defining pedagogy by addressing concerns and practices in political, cultural, (and) academic spheres, and it offers some helpful corresponding figures and references for each. As a primer, the book also offers many explanations and definitions (expanded in the margins) that do not take for granted readers’ familiarity with educational terms and issues; in this way, it can serve as one reference guide for readers new to the concerns of pedagogy. At the same time, some of Anderson’s broad generalizations suggest that his sense of history is inconsistently applied: pedagogy itself as admitted to be variable, but political schema are not. As a result, while such an overview can never be “objective” or “neutral,” Pedagogy often fails to represent the nuances and variety of pedagogical groups. This gave me pause as a reader (and former high school and current university instructor) particularly since a primer is intended, as he writes, as a “short introduction to a subject” (p. 4) and one in which “everything” concerning pedagogy is “illuminated” as much as is humanly possible (p. 112). For example, in Anderson’s description of university K-12 teacher education, he describes that in the “educational foundations approach,” foundations professors often do not want to teach in schools of education, and that “[a]ctual liberal arts faculty who populate the ‘academic’ departments also spend little or no time on pedagogical questions”(p. 74). This statement speaks (rather bleakly) for two large and diverse groups of educators. In another example, in describing the tension between “subject-centered” teacher and “student-centered” pedagogy, Anderson writes, “Strangely, given their mostly radical worldview – that is, empirical materialism – scientists tend to be pedagogically conservative, mainly because of a belief that there is significant prerequisite knowledge necessary to pursue scientific studies and a rigor necessary to scientific method”(p. 89). This assessment offers not only a description of scientists “tendencies,” but also a cause-and-effect trajectory for them as pedagogues without nuance and without a clear premise for such generalizations. Given Anderson’s apparent dedication to presenting pedagogy as dynamic, complex, situated, and ideological, it seems curious that he offers unqualified correlations and versions of entire group beliefs. Such descriptions present educators and education in ways that may not be accurate or helpful in Anderson’s otherwise thoughtful consideration of the (re)production of pedagogy, particularly for newcomers to the larger landscape of education. In describing the chapters of the book, I offer examples that speak to my above concerns but also to the relevant information and scope that Pedagogy offers. Anderson’s Pedagogy is divided into six chapters. Chapter one, entitled “The problem of pedagogy: The cultural contexts of teaching,” lays out the complexities and challenges of 20th and 21st century education, including such contemporary issues as achievement gaps and differing notions of the role of the teacher. Most of these issues are couched in terms of politically Left and Right positions (as is much of the book). Some of these characterizations suggest definitive group beliefs rather than suggestions or possibilities, thereby suggesting a stagnant version of politics while simultaneously evoking pedagogy as a dynamic concept. For example, Anderson writes that “Politically, there are those who react against both neoliberal and neoconservative tendencies, focusing primarily on the political position associated with ‘social justice’ and ignoring pedagogy as inadequate to their goal of transforming the larger society through school reorganization”(9; emphasis mine). Such a statement seems at odds with a nuanced understanding of the multiple iterations of critical (and) cultural pedagogy studies. Chapter two is called “The Definitions of Pedagogy: The Structures of Teaching,” and, as the title promises, the chapter shares a variety of definitions of and approaches to pedagogy, including cognitive, developmental, subject-centered, and student-centered. The chapter also details various forms of curricular implementation, including pragmatism and scaffolding. Like other chapters, this chapter alternates between presenting an opinion-driven overview and presenting multiple sides of an issue. For example, the definition of “values clarification” suggests some nuance and variety of opinion: A theory asserting that people make decisions based on their core values. As an educational method, values clarification assists individuals in articulating and organizing their value systems. Values clarification is subject to criticism for its relativistic approach to values and/or for its liberal bias. Some parents also object to its therapeutic intent in some instances, raising questions of privacy. (p. 61) On the other hand, in portraying third-grade tests in New York City, Anderson’s description is clearly sardonic: Given the complexity of the school population in New York City, one would think that the officials would see the limitations… On the other hand, one can see where reducing all the complexity to a simple sequence and then blaming the kids for their “failure” would be a wonderful political solution. It is also a wonderful accountability model, as long as you do not feel accountable to the kids. …The federal government uses the criteria of the “scientific” model to deny grants to educational researchers who want to pursue other methods and worldviews”(p. 55) Despite the wide range of issues and research Anderson lays out, passages like these make the book seem at times more like a set of specific rants than a broad introduction to the various positions and issues implicated in pedagogy. Chapter three addresses “Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Professionalism and Teacher Thinking” by laying out various approaches to teacher preparation, including debates about what counts as teacher knowledge, how these values translate into various stances of university schools of education, and how different models of teacher apprenticeship and preparation reflect different (at times conflicting) worldviews. Anderson also addresses “effective instruction” and some of its related issues as they play out in “culture wars” and “process versus product” orientations. Chapter four, entitled “Scholarly Disciplines and Content: Teaching Aims and Sources of Knowledge,” reiterates subjects addressed in the previous chapter vis-à-vis developmental levels of education (Anderson outlines his deliberate use of repetition in his “Note to the Reader”[p. vii]). The chapter presents an impressive range of related issues: reasons for and aspects of the discrepancies between secondary and post-secondary educational and curricular models; approaches to school content areas including domain specific and interdisciplinary curriculum; data-driven approaches and scholarship on multiple learning intelligences; and philosophical and psychological theories and traditions toward teaching. As with the other chapters, a helpful part of the work Anderson does is provide references and leaders in the various approaches he lays out. Chapter five, “The Intellectual Teacher: The Epistemology of Pedagogy,” covers the challenges of teaching and teachers, including culturally-influenced understanding and biases, the role of error as a way of learning, the professionalizing of teachers and facets of teacher researchers, and the influences of mandated curriculum and standardized testing. All of these descriptions work to lay out knowledge and literacy as cultural and situational/situated. These ideas lead nicely into the final chapter of the text, “The Language of Pedagogy: Texts, Narratives, and Discourses,” which emphasizes the cultural, contingent qualities of language and language use. Like the others, this final chapter attempts to lay out the complexities of issues at stake in the socioculturally-specific standards of contemporary national education; however, there are points where the narrative digresses into sweeping descriptions that do not acknowledge a variety of models of teaching and teaching interaction. Anderson writes, “Alll the English Teachers ever hear from other teachers is how bad the ‘grammar’ in student papers is, as if the English teacher is the only one who can do anything about that”; Anderson then quickly shifts, apparently talking to these alleged “other teachers”: “You assign the paper; you need to teach the skills or set the appropriate standards. Do not expect that to be done somewhere else, by somebody else, in some magical way” (p. 141). While Anderson’s (valid) point is to suggest that writing is discipline- and genre-specific, this description may gloss over important cross-curricular attempts at language skills and may lead to unhelpful (and unhopeful) assumptions about teacher relations that are not always true. Overall, as a primer intended as an informational overview of multiple worldviews, I believe Anderson’s Pedagogy is un-selfconsciously partial in a way that can be misleading, especially to newcomers to the field(s) and study of pedagogy. However, when used as one reference among many and as clearly an opinion-driven “negotiation and attempted reconciliation of competing worldviews” (p. 1), this text can be helpful to educators (and) scholars seeking a multifaceted description of pedagogy, one which portrays pedagogy as complex and situated in historical and social contexts – and not as a stable entity that exists waiting to be “discovered” by the astute educational practitioner or theorist.