- with respect to learners current and prior knowledge, skill and understanding: authentic to the person now
- with respect to the epistemology of the discipline/field: authentic to the accepted canons and methodological protocols of the discipline, laws, theorems, etc
- 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)
(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 SchoolStudents 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
rWorld2 