The Value of an Emergent Notion of Authenticity: Examples from Two Student/Teacher–Scientist Partnership Programs

We make the case for an emergent notion of authenticity of science based on systems theory and neo-Piagetian thought. We propose that authentic science is an emergent property of a dynamic system of learning precipitated by the interactions among students, teachers, and scientists that occur within the contexts defined by the internal and external constraints of the cultures of the schools and communities within which they operate. Authenticity as an emergent property of the learning process challenges the basis for many science curricula and current pedagogical practices that take scientists’ science as their norm and that assume a priori that such is authentic, i.e., it practices preauthentication. We argue that what constitutes authentic science can be taught neither in the traditional didactic modes nor through simulations of scientists’ science in the classroom. Instead, authenticity needs to be seen as emergent and as diverse in meaning. To illustrate this point, we draw from two different face-to-face, teacher/student–scientist partnership programs. Both studies support a notion of authenticity that emerges as teachers, students, and scientists come to interact, make meaning of, and come to own the activities they engage in collaboratively. We conclude by considering the implications of such an analysis for science education. 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 40: 737–756, 2003 Authentic science has become a popular term in the current science education reform movement, but what authenticity implies is often unclear. For many, authentic science has become Correspondence to: J. Rahm; E-mail: [email protected] DOI 10.1002/tea.10109 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. a synonym for science activities that resemble scientists’ everyday practice (Martin, Kass, & Brouwer, 1990; McGinn & Roth, 1999; Roth, 1995, 1997). This notion of authenticity has led science educators to develop practice fields for doing science in the classroom where students talk and think science, and help decide what is to be learned through inquiry and discovery under teacher guidance (Cunningham & Helms, 1998; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Krajcik et al., 1998; Lemke, 1990; Martin et al., 1990; Radinsky, Bouillion, Hanson, Gomez, Vemeer, & Fisherman, 1998; McGinn & Roth, 1999; Nicaise, Gibney, & Crane, 2000; Roth, 1995). For others, authentic science embodies participatory models of science education that allow students to work at the elbows of scientists and become members of a research team through work on a real problem that may advance science (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Barab & Hay, 2001; Bouillion & Gomez, 2001; McGinn & Roth, 1999; Radinsky, Bouillion, Lento, & Gomez, 2001; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Richtie & Rigano, 1996). We argue that the focus on designing and establishing authentic science learning environments and tasks has neglected to ask what authenticity means, to whom, and according to whom. School communities consist of teachers rather than professional scientists, with training in science content only, and hence often a rudimentary understanding of what real scientists actually do (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Cunningham & Helms, 1998; Hodson, 1998). If the science of scientists or the participatory models were used, the questions about whose science practice and which components of it are simulated become pertinent (Buxton, 2001; Eisenhart & Finkel, 1998). Finally, what is considered authentic by a teacher may not be considered authentic by the scientist or the student (Barton, 1998a, 1998b, 2001a, 2001b). Yet, the current widespread practice of designing learning environments and tasks that are considered authentic a priori embodies a passive view of the learner and the teacher, treats authenticity as static rather than dynamic and as fixed rather than emergent, and ignores the potential of transformations of learning environments by its participants. The central aim of this article is to develop an emergent notion of authenticity as seen through the lens of systems theory as widely used in the biological sciences (Salthe, 1985; Bateson, 1973, 1979). Accordingly, authenticity is no longer taken as being located in the scientists’ science, the learner, the task, or the environment, but instead perceived as an emergent property of these components as they interact in a complex manner (Simon, 1962). In short, authenticity is taken to be emergent and diverse in meaning by nature (Barton, 1998a, 1998b, 2001a, 2001b; Fusco, 2001; Hodson, 1998; Wellington, 1998). Authenticity as an emergent property grounded in ecological and self-organization models has been previously proposed by Petraglia (1998) and applied by Barab, Squire, and Dueber (2000) in their evaluation of a professional development model focusing on the authentic use of technology in classroom teaching. While acknowledging such work, the goal of this article is to describe what an emergent notion of authenticity from a systems theory approach means for science education. We begin by clarifying the meaning of an emergent notion of authenticity through an analysis of a university outreach project that shows how negotiations among components of such a partnership come to define multiple meanings of authenticity over time. We then discuss two defining characteristics of an emergent notion of authenticity: (a) the need for sustained involvement and experiences over time, and (b) the need for ownership of such experiences by the participants (teachers, students, and scientists). To illustrate what these two characteristics imply, we draw from a project in fire ecology that is part of a federally funded Math and Science Upward Bound Program. In conclusion, we address the consequences of an emergent notion of authenticity for science education and science literacy development. To guide our readers, we begin by first offering a brief, albeit selective description of authenticity as it has been used and become redefined over time. 738 RAHM ET AL.