Perhaps "ownership" is too ambivalent a term, when taken alone. What I
intended to emphasize was that "authenticity" of an activity requires that
the participants are engaging in it for purposes that they value and not
simply to meet someone else's requirements. But my primary argument was
for making" interest and commitment criterial for authenticity". Of
course, these presuppose choice for students and the assurance that what
they have to say will be taken seriously. On the part of the teacher,
they presuppose a valuing of students' contributions and a willingness to
negotiate both ends and means.
As one of the members of the class, to whom my previous message was
originally sent, replied:
>In developmental learning, then, the key to being a good teacher is being
>a good learner in the ways, as Vygotsky has shown us, young children are.
>It
>means doing what you don't know how to do. . . it means shaping whatever
>expertise you do have into a constructing of the joint activity of
>discovery
>rather than imposing it in the manner of an authority; it means creating
>a playful and completive dialogic environment. (Holzman, 1996)
But the replies on this list also set me thinking further.
Nate writes:
>
>I guess what I have a problem with not so much "ownership" in itself, but
>by defining authentic or good educational practice simply by ownership it
>does not allow us to focus on its positive and negative aspects.
>Ownership
>can be used for purposes other than a more inquiry based approaches which
>I
>see as the more positive aspect of the concept. When I organize an
>environment or instruction in a way where children are more likely to take
>ownership, where is that in relation to my biases, values, ideology etc.
>Is it so they will feel the same ownership to activities that I value or
>privilege, or is it so learning contexts are valued in which they feel
>ownership to.
And Donna Phillips:
>In other words, activities become authentic when
>
>> learners take "ownership" and make the goals their own.
>
>This seems to duck a certain value judgment implicit in authenticity, and
>perhaps some other things as well.
There seem to be two objections here. If I have understood correctly, the
first was that my suggesting that authenticity involves students taking
ownership was that they could still be coerced into accepting the
teacher's values and perspective and making those values their own. I
hope that what I have written above disposes of the charge of "coercion".
But I agree that it is still the case that teachers may try to persuade
their students to buy into their own values. Is this wrong? It seems to
me that a teacher ought to be convinced of the potential value to students
of what he or she teaches and believe that it may be in their interests to
extend their range of interests and competences accordingly. In
principle, this still leaves the students the choice of whether or not to
give the proposed activities a try.
It was at this level that I initially raised the issue of authenticity:
authenticity has to do with the way in which the activities are presented
in particular situations and the stances toward them that are made
available.
The second objection is of a different order and has to do with the wider
social context in which the individual classroom is situated. This can be
seen in terms of a hierarchy of levels, each of which imposes constraints
on the mode of functioning of those below.
The individual teacher may be required by the building administrator
and/or school district to "cover" a specified curriculum and to ensure
that students are able to demonstrate specified "learning outcomes".
This already limits the teacher's choice of what to teach though not to
the same extent, I would argue, how to do so. (In some cases, I agree,
the how may also be constrained - as when methods of teaching reading are
prescribed in specific detail.)
At a higher level in this hierarchy, states/provinces enact legislation
concerning the organization of schools (age-based grades, tests,
curriculum, etc). Universities also play their part in setting specific
entry requirements and by teaching and enacting certain beliefs and values
in the education of future teachers and administrators as well as future
leaders in other fields.
At a still higher level, governments and universities are influenced (if
not constrained) by the values of the wider society - or at least those of
powerful interest groups within society. And each of us implicated to
varying extents, both in trying to change these values according to our
own beliefs and values, and in sustaining exisiting values through our
participation in many situated activities as consumers, wage-earners, etc.
All these levels constrain what an individual teacher can do and play a
part in the development over a career of what he or she believes and tries
to do. They also play a major part in constraining and influencing
students' beliefs about what is possible for them and what is in their
interest.
(There is an important issue here: the tension between students' interests
and what is in their interest. Donna gave the example of students having
to achieve adequate scores in a second language in order to gain entrance
to university. This is a form of constraint (as are all forms of public
examination that act as entry gates) but if the students themselves wanted
to enter university, then presumably learning the language was (in) their
interest and their commitment to doing so was authentic.)
There are thus many dimensions to authenticity, and many inherent tensions
between them: judging our own interests and what is in our interest and
at the same time trying to act according to other people's interests and
what we believe to be in their interests. Perhaps one implication of all
this is that authentic learning and teaching activities must necessarily
involve making these tensions explicit and being willing to enter into
dialogue and negotiation about them. I am well aware, though, that that
does not provide a final solution. We must inevitably continue to live
the tensions and make the best judgments we can in each situation as it
emerges.
Gordon Wells
OISE/University of Toronto
>
>