My concern with "ownership" or Wenger and Lave's similar notion of
"identity construction" is it being a prerequisite for authenticity or
community of practice. I am not apposed to a teacher trying to persuade
their students into their own values, its part of teaching, but defining
authenticity by how well the students take ownership of that is what I
struggle with.
If on the other hand, we emphasize the negotiation, mediation, students
being able to be what there not (performance) ownership may be a byproduct,
but it will not be what defines the activity as authentic. My fear which
is beyond your intention is "ownership" being seen as the outcome rather
than the byproduct. "Authentic" activities maybe have such a thing as
"ownership", but making ownership the criteria can lead us to places we may
not want to be. I would rather talk of activities that are dynamic and
mutually transformative in which throughout an educational activity; the
activity, teacher, and students are transformed and transforming. This may
at times include the student taking the activity as his/her own, and at
other times deciding they would just rather own something else.
I was browsing through Brofenbrenner's book of "Two Views of Childhood" and
the emphasis on neighborhood centers, like within our own progressive
tradition, was for the purpose of some kind of ownership. It was part of
the belief of being attentive to the interests, language etc. of the local
groups would allow "ownership" to take place that would be impossible with
only school. My point being ownership in and of itself is also the
criteria for more reproduction types of projects.
A good educational environment in my view is one of transformation rather
than ownership. It is not so much ownership in the activity itself, but
how mutually transformative it is. One of negotiation as you described in
which both teacher and students have a role in transforming the activity.
This of course may just be an example of the "many senses" of a word that
Vygotsky talks about.
> 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
> >
> >
>