Authentic Teaching and Learning

Authenticity is a term that is loosely used around schoolhouses.  Often, it refers to having students do original work, as opposed to mindless worksheets or skill and drill practice.  I would like to be more precise, and so I will adopt a definition first put forth by Newmann, and his colleagues (Newmann, Byrk, & Nagaoka, 2001; Newmann, Lopez, & Byrk, 1998; Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1995; Newmann, Secada, & Wehlage, 1995; Newmann & Wehlage, 1993) that help us understand how to think about and plan authentic activities and assessments in the classroom.  I like to think about authenticity as a three-legged stool.  Such as stool in order to stand must have all three legs or it will collapse in a heap on the floor.  Such is the case with authenticity.  There are three aspects to authentic classroom behavior; all three must be present or the activity, inquiry, project, or assessment cannot be called authentic.  These three aspects are are:

• Assignments or assessments must have value to the student beyond the classroom.
• Assignments or assessments must be academically rigorous so as to challenge students to think that the highest levels.
• Assignments or assessments must have an audience beyond the teacher, although the teacher may be included in the audience.

Let's think about these for a moment.  The very simple idea that assignments and assessments must have value to students appears so obvious that it hardly needs mentioning.  The sad truth, however, is that assignments and assessments that are valuable students often do not fit in the epistemological pattern of real school (Metz, 1989).  Often, what counts as knowledge in school, consists of facts or factoids; what Alfie Kohn (2000) calls the bunch-o-facts model for teaching and learning.  Of course the problem here is that details are boring and have been little value for students in isolation.  Don't get me wrong; it's not the facts aren't important or that details aren't significant--they are.  But importance is not excitement and significant is not engaging unless one comes to the conclusion on one's own that they are foundational to understanding.  Practitioners of any discipline are so deeply engaged in the critical practice of their discipline that the facts and details surrounding ideas are no longer boring, rather they become second nature.  In order to encourage students to develop into practitioners they must first be engaged in valuable activities without which there is little reason to willingly participate in stuff of learning.  In this sense, learning has to be so much fun that what students are doing doesn't translate into being beneficial in their minds.

 But wait, how can learning the rigorous and fun at the same time.  The concept of rigor is one that refers to the appropriateness of the challenges posed students; it is the stuff of normal discourse or the ability to pose meaningful and appropriate questions or problems that challenge students to think critically about what it is their studying.  In this book, I pose problems like:

• If Columbus wasn't first, why does he get all the credit?
• What was so revolutionary about the American Revolution?
• How did Jews become White Folks and what does this have to say about assimilation and acculturation patterns in America? (Brodkin, 1998)

Each of these problems, along with the others will find in the activities section of each chapter, poses a significant and engaging question for students to tackle doing inquiry based assignments.  In order to answer even tentatively any of these or other questions students must understand the background of each question and make inferences about the facts and details they discover as a result of doing their rigorous inquiry.  These are questions that are asked by practicing members of the discipline and as such are by definition rigorous.

But what's this about audience?  Why, as a teacher, should I let go of my responsibility to assess student work?  After all, isn't that one of the primary purposes of teaching?  In this case, shifting audience from strictly the teacher to a broader base, which may include students, parents, members of the administration, members of the community, or others, is, in fact, not designed to usurp or replace the teacher's responsibility for assessing students progress, rather, it shifts responsibility, in very subtle ways, for how students approach the work that they are doing.  When students perceive that they are only performing for the teacher, especially if the work is likely to be dull and boring, there is a tendency on the part of students to work below their potential.  When an audience for the work is introduced, especially when that audience is comprised of peers, there is a strong predisposition to perform well so as not to be embarrassed in front of one's peers.