Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Authenticity and Constructivism in Education

Abstract

This paper examines the concept of authenticity and its relevance in education, from a philosophical perspective. Under the heading of educational authenticity (EA), I critique Fred Newmann’s views on authentic pedagogy and intellectual work. I argue against the notion that authentic engagement is usefully analyzed in terms of a relationship between school work and: “real” work. I also seek to clarify the increasingly problematic concept of constructivism, arguing that there are two distinct constructivist theses, only one of which deserves serious attention. I explain that the correspondence view of authenticity pays insufficient attention to the reality that the presence of “real world” connections does not guarantee that teaching and learning will be truly authentic. As a bridge to a philosophically acceptable understanding of authenticity, I reflect on John Dewey, who famously strove to base his views on education on the experience of the child, while rejecting that such experience requires validation from the “real” world. And Jean Jacques Rousseau offers several clues as to how the search for an authentic self might proceed beyond the Romanticist vision of an inner essence. These include the idea of the self as constructed inter-subjectively, which I capture by the term “one among others” and which, in turn, reveals persons as dialogically engaged in working out who they are and what they stand for (an idea found in the work of Charles Taylor). There is a clear affinity here with the imperative proposed by Newmann. I embrace the idea that the cultivation of dialogue should be a key priority in classrooms, because dialogue drives each individual to seek meaning in the context of seeing her/himself as one among others. I highlight the role of the classroom community of inquiry as an environment which has the dual function of cultivating disciplined inquiry and facilitating the kind of personal development that can, most properly, be termed “authentic”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    I have constructed this classification (the “Three Cs”) in describing the importance of concepts in our thinking. See Splitter (2000, 2003).

  2. 2.

    Petraglia postulates that the focus on authenticity in education can be linked to the history of the United States as a modern democracy. Petraglia (1998), 1ff.

  3. 3.

    Authentic has both Latin (authenticus) and Greek (authentikos) roots. A brief perusal of dictionary and thesaurus sources reveals several connected etymological strands, including not counterfeit or copied, of verifiable origin or authorship, and—interestingly—positing oneself, setting oneself as a thesis (see Ferrara 1998, p. 15). This last idea shifts the object of authenticity to persons. It will reappear below in the views of Rousseau.

  4. 4.

    Newmann’s writing, while somewhat dated, has been enormously influential in curriculum and assessment development over the past few years. Several state governments in Australia, for example, have incorporated his work on authentic education in current curriculum and policy initiatives.

  5. 5.

    I am not presuming that the characterization of social constructionism offered here is the only one that might be put forward. My target is any version of constructionism that abandons a commitment to some kind of objective reality.

  6. 6.

    These terms come from Whitehead (1929) and Paul (1993). Splitter and Sharp (1995) contains a more detailed discussion than can be offered here.

  7. 7.

    Petraglia labels this phenomenon the problem of “preauthentication”. 1998, p. 98.

  8. 8.

    These recordings were made and analyzed as follow-up studies to the Third International Maths and Science Study (“TIMSS”). See Stigler et al. (1999).

  9. 9.

    Inquiry-based teaching is not context-free; providing appropriate contexts is, by and large, the job of the teacher. What the Japanese students then did with such contexts and the problems they uncovered, still warrant being described as authentic inquiry.

  10. 10.

    Dewey, in Kantian mode, refers to the outcomes (objectives) of inquiry as objects, even though they were, at some earlier point, the subject-matter of inquiry (Dewey 1938b, p. 119). He traces the educational practice of referring to objects of knowledge as subject-matter to the Greeks (Dewey 1938b, p. 84).

  11. 11.

    At several points in his 1938b treatise, Dewey acknowledges his debt to C. S. Peirce and the latter’s focus on inquiry as fallibilistic and the rules of thought as non-psychological. See, for example, 9n, 40.

  12. 12.

    Guignon (2004) provides an excellent philosophical treatment of authenticity from an historical perspective. See also Nehamas (1999).

  13. 13.

    An idea which, as Appiah (2005), p. 15, points out, is also in J. S. Mill.

  14. 14.

    While the ideal of reconstructing social interactions that preserve individual freedom and a sense of self (authenticity) is a recurring theme in Rousseau’s political writings, and one which resonates with the major argument of this paper, Emile, his classic educational treatise, contains important elements which are less easy to swallow—particularly his insistence that young children should be guided by feeling rather than reason, and in isolation from other children rather than in community with them, not to mention his skewed ideas about gender relations.

  15. 15.

    Guignon (2004), Chapters 5–7, offers a convenient summary of the relevant views of these writers.

  16. 16.

    The thesis which places dialogue at the center of the struggle for authenticity may be viewed in conceptual terms, as an elaboration of what being a person amounts to. In the manner of a Kantian “transcendental deduction”, we begin with the relatively modest premise of our own subjectivity—and, hence, an intuitive sense of authenticity as “being true to oneself”, “being the best I can be”, etc.—and demonstrate that this premise makes sense only if certain other things are also accepted: that each of us must see him/her self as “one among others”, that we must be members of a dialogical community whose members value both one another and their capacity to reason together, that our growth and development in this community (or communities) goes hand-in-hand with my own growth and development, and so on.

  17. 17.

    I am thinking of the idea of the inquiring community as understood and manifested in the Philosophy for Children project, albeit extended to embrace all disciplines and content areas. The community of inquiry is the paradigm of an environment in which each participant exists as “one among others”. It is bigger than any one of its members—an important consideration for children who may otherwise be tempted to develop an inflated sense of themselves or one another—yet it is no bigger than the sum of its members, i.e. unlike other collectives such as families, communes, cults, tribes, cultures, gangs, cliques, even nations, the community of inquiry bears no extrinsic allegiances and loyalties; just those (which, one hopes, would include such values and commitments as striving for truth and honesty, etc.) that are defined, constructed and—if necessary, reconstructed—by its members.

References

  1. Alexander, R. (2004). Toward dialogic teaching (2nd ed.). UK: Dialogos.

  2. Appiah, K. A. (2005). The ethics of identity. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

  3. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  4. Dewey, J. (1938a). Experience and education. New York: Collier.

  5. Dewey, J. (1938b). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

  6. Ferrara, A. (1998). Reflective authenticity: Rethinking the project of modernity. London and New York: Routledge.

  7. Guignon, C. (2004). On being authentic. London and New York: Routledge.

  8. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  9. McTighe, J., Seif, E., & Wiggins, G. (2004). You can teach for meaning. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 27–30.

  10. Nehamas, A. (1999). Virtues of authenticity: Essays on Plato and Socrates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  11. Newmann, F., Bryk, A., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? In F. Newmann, A. Bryk & J. Nagaoka (Eds.), Improving Chicago’s schools (pp. 2–33). Chicago, Ill: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

  12. Newmann, F., et al. (1996a). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  13. Newmann, F., Marks, H., & Gamoran, A. (1996b). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(August), 280–312.

  14. Newmann, F., Marks, H., & Gamoran, A. (1995). Authentic pedagogy: Standards that boost student performance. Issues in Restructuring Schools, 8(Spring), 1–12.

  15. Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.

  16. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Ass.

  17. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  18. Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

  19. Splitter, L. (2000). Concepts, communities and the tools of good thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 19(2), 11–26.

  20. Splitter, L. (2003). Transforming how teachers teach and how children learn. Critical and Creative Thinking: The Australasian Journal of Philosophy for Children, 11(2), 40–56.

  21. Splitter, L. (2005). Meanings as connections: Implications for teaching and learning. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 25(1), forthcoming.

  22. Splitter, L. (2007). Do the groups to which I belong make me me? Reflections on community and identity. Theory and Research in Education, 5(3), 261–280.

  23. Splitter, L., & Sharp, A. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The classroom community of inquiry. Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research.

  24. Stigler, J. W. et al (1999). The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and Findings from an Exploratory Research Project on Eighth Grade Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan and the United States. Research and Development Report No. NCES-1999-074. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/timss.

  25. Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

  26. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic enquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  27. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: Free Press 1976.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Laurance J. Splitter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Splitter, L.J. Authenticity and Constructivism in Education. Stud Philos Educ 28, 135–151 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9105-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Authenticity
  • Educational authenticity
  • Dewey
  • Newmann
  • Rousseau
  • Taylor
  • Constructivism
  • Meaning
  • Self among others
  • Community of inquiry