Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)1. Short summary of the scope and focus in the article
The article „A framework for authenticity in designing a research-based curriculum” by Navé Wald and Tony Harland (published in Teacher and Higher Education in 2017) conceptually maps different notions of authenticity in general and when applied to teaching in higher education. They demonstrate that there is two or even three dimensions commonly associated with authenticity: reality-relatedness, identity-building, and involvement. In a sense, something authentic is “real”, something that reveals something about oneself (or helps one develop a clearer sense of self), and that wakens intrinsic motivation.
They try to synthesize all three dimensions when developing an “authentic” curriculum in an ecology study program at University of Otago, New Zealand.
2. Quote a statement that summarizes what the author claims they contribute to the field.
„In ecology, we had not previously considered the precise meaning of “authenticity” and in this essay the discursive rhetoric around the use of the term will be examined in relation to theory and teaching practice. We then use this knowledge to offer a framework for authenticity in teaching through research.“
3. In your own words, compare the results/arguments presented in the article with the authors’ claim(s) you identified in question 1.
I think the goal the authors define is sufficiently vague to fit the arguments they make. However, I could not have predicted where the authors’ argument goes from the beginning, I had a somewhat different expectation. The divergence between my expectation and the paper’s contribution probably results from the vague goal.
4. Is the argument that the authors provide solid enough based on the evidence and/or theoretical considertaions to convince you of their claim(s)?
I am convinced that the authors are correct in their mapping of the usage of the term authenticity, though there may be other and more meanings than those they map – I do not know. But I am convinced that the two or three dimensions they identify exist. However, the overall argument does not convince me because there is a very strong unspoken assumption: that there is some inherent meaning in the term “authenticity” which we have to identify to make use of it. We should of course not define terms arbitrarily, but definitions are to some degree arbitrary and there is no such thing as a “real” meaning of a term. This seems to be the point of departure here, and this is against my conviction that “terms” and “concepts” are mere tools. I would approach the conceptual development very differently. The key to a convincing argument would be to show how identity, realness and meaningfulness are inherently related and/or can meaningfully complement each other in a single teaching framework. What are the interdependencies between them? This question would be at the core of the argument.
5. What is missing in the article?
What I am missing are more details about the study program and its curriculum, the types of courses, the objectives and outcomes – and how they relate to the framework. Also, some evaluations of the program in terms of its achievements, practical problems, unexpected benefits, student satisfaction, employer responses etc. would make the argument much more compelling.
6. What was most interesting for you?
The identity-related aspects of authenticity and the philosophical groundwork for that line of thought was new to me, and also some of the criticisms regarding “letting students do “real” reseach” were interesting.
7. How does this article relate to your own teaching?
I generally think that a lot from this article is applicable to my teaching, though I am not designing an entire curriculum (that would be fun, but also a lot of work – so: not for now). But locating your own courses in the larger curriculum makes it applicable. I do a lot of research-based teaching, so this is immediately applicable, and I will certainly review some of my practices when I prepare these courses.
8. What can you learn from it?
I always tried to praise research-based teaching and tell students what their take-aways are or will be. This article provides quite a few additional arguments, particularly regarding the self-growth and identity-building from which I can probably build some more justifications of this type of teaching that are motivating.
