Seeking the source for a three-part typology of authenticity in teaching and learning. Help if you can. Thanks

I am seeking the source of a particular three-part typology of "authenticity".

  1. with respect to learners current and prior knowledge, skill and understanding: authentic to the person now
  2. with respect to the epistemology of the discipline/field: authentic to the accepted canons and methodological protocols of the discipline, laws, theorems, etc
  3. with respect to the practice of professionals in the discipline/field: authentic to the messy reality of practice, which at times confounds authenticity

These ideas are informed by a number of strands. Fullick (2004) refers to three aspects of authenticity: creativity, activity, language. Tatsuki (2006), following Taylor (1994) speaks of language, task and situation. Both these three-part typologies are quite similar to mine and I wonder if I have unconsciously paraphrased or adapted Fullick?

In these cases:

  • "language" aligns with my concept of authenticity 1): to where the learners are now: don't buffalo them with jargon too early, etc
  • "task" (Tatsuki) and "activity" (Fullick) correspond (I think) with my authenticity 2): to the canons of the discipline
  • Fullick's "creativity" corresponds, I think, with my authenticity 3) and may correspond with Tatsuki's "situation"

Kreber et al (2007) did a thorough lit review of authenticity, but do not reproduce this three-part structure. They cite another 3-part approach to authenticity in teaching where:

The three pedagogical principles … are (a) learners are validated as "knowers," (b) learning is situated within their experience, and (c) learning itself is conceptualized as mutually constructing knowledge. (Taylor 1991)

 
This, for me, all addresses authenticity 1.

Taylor (1991, cited in Kreber et al 2007) has another three-part conceptualisation:

(i) creation and construction as well as discovery, (ii) originality, and frequently (iii) opposition to the rules of society and even potentially to what we recognize as morality.

This all seems to align with my authenticity 3.

Can anyone shed light on this for me?

Thank you

References

Fullick, Patrick Leslie. 2004. Knowledge Building among School
Students Working in a Networked Computer Supported Learning
Environment. University of Southampton, Faculty of Law, Arts and
Social Sciences, School of Education.

Kreber, Carolin, Monika Klampfleitner, Velda McCune, Sian Bayne, and
Miesbeth Knottenbelt. 2007. “What do you mean by ‘authentic’? A
comparative review of the literature on conceptions of authenticity in
teaching.” Adult Education Quarterly 58 (1) (November): 22-43.
doi:Article. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27329878&site=ehost-live.

Tatsuki, Donna. 2006. What is authenticity? In Authentic
communication: Proceedings, 1-15. Shizuoka, Japan: Tokai University
College of Marine Science.
http://jalt.org/pansig/2006/HTML/Tatsuki.htm.

Taylor, C. 1991. The ethics of authenticity Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Taylor, D. 1994. Inauthentic authenticity or authentic inauthenticity? TESL-EJ, 1 (2) A-1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.