Thoughts on Teaching and the role of authenticity
Lorraine Affigne UA ‘27, Allison V. Craig, and Jim Stellar
Teaching is an art. Teaching is a science. Most of all teaching is a connection between the instructor and the students.
Allison and Jim connected over their teaching – hers was a writing course, his was an introductory psychology course that involved only essay tests. In the spring term of 2024 they both had Lorraine as a student in their separate courses. That term we three committed to talking to each other and writing about teaching, starting with the role of authenticity and how writing can help make that authentic connection between the teacher and student.
“Cliché as it may sound, teaching is, at least for the teachers I admire and surround myself with, a calling–an inexplicable necessity, both logical and illogical. It is joy, sometimes despair, and, if one pays attention, occasionally, a reckoning.”
“Teaching is joy and can be time-consuming, especially in a modest size class like introductory psychology with 65 students, and especially if one emphasizes concepts in class and then has the students write essay-based tests (vs. multiple choice) as the best way to interact with those concepts. The idea is that from the information presented on a topic, a student actively integrates and synthesizes to get to an underlying concept and then expresses that understanding on the essay test. The student knows when they have authentically gotten that concept since they can easily express it. It is that authentic feeling from learning that best serves understanding. It also may create excitement with the concept that they will remember because the learning was active. As an instructor, it is a joy to see that understanding in an exam or in conversation.
“Authenticity from a student perspective is an emotionally freeing experience. I experienced this new found freedom through both of their courses. I learned that writing can serve you, and not just someone else who is grading it. Writing can be so gratifying and transformative when you have the opportunity to write the way that best suits you and feels authentic to you. Writing is a powerful tool, and it has many forms, and there is no “right form” or “wrong form”. I never really saw the truth in that until being a student in both Dr. Craig’s and Dr. Stellar’s courses during my first year in college. Being authentic granted me the room to explore myself beyond means even if it was not “pretty”, because ugly is real. The freedom that authenticity came with allowed me to get to the place where I could be true to myself on paper, and that ultimately made me the happiest in my academic endeavors.”
We take these three statements as a starting point and go on to this question: What is authenticity?
As another question, how is purpose (Aristotle’s telos) related to authenticity?
On Purpose: The purpose, or telos, of courses in college is to exchange information with the student so that they learn the topic. Given the widespread availability of information on every student’s device, we think that the focus needs to be on critical thinking. We think that insight into that information is more than the information itself. It is the concept that organizes that information and it is best learned when the student is an active learner. Students are not a passive receptacle into which an instructor pours knowledge by their brilliant lectures. If students and instructors can meet each other authentically, then the student has a better possibility of getting that critical insight, of being active and of learning those concepts. It is all about engagement to turn on inspiration and that goes back to the need for authenticity to serve telos. Besides, it is just more fun to engage.
About Trust: Trust is vital in order for authenticity to be born and remain alive. A strong sense of trust must be established between the instructor and the student. Authenticity involves allowing one to be vulnerable: expressing the fullest and truest with no boundaries placed upon them. Additionally, a level of comfort must be felt by the student so that they can produce authentic work without the fear of being judged, criticized, or academically punished through an established grading system. The instructor must open the floor to authenticity in their classroom so that students can act on it and flourish. With the level of vulnerability that comes with being authentic, trust is key to let the student feel comfortable enough to actually be authentic without consequence.
About Writing with Authenticity: One of the first times I talked with my students about writing authentically, a student said something along the lines of, “It sounds like you’re telling us to dumb ourselves down, like if we sound smart, you won’t think we’re being authentic.” I can’t remember if those were her exact words, but her point was clear and resounding. It’s not unimportant to note that the student population in our school is diverse, or that the student willing to push back on me was a young woman of color (shout out to Didi). When I play back that moment in my head, what she says is, “You saying we’re stupid, Dr. Craig?” And I wonder, if she hadn’t been willing to speak up, how many of my students would have been thinking that very thing?
When I talk about authenticity, I mean it first and foremost as aligning your beliefs with your actions. So, automatically, authenticity is aspirational, a moving target. After all, in teaching, and life in general, it’s not hard to act, inadvertently, in ways that undermine the very things you value. If, for example, you implore students to write authentically, on what do you base your evaluation? (Careful: that’s a trick question.) Being authentic is contextual and nuanced. And also, sometimes, dangerous. How authentic you should be in a given situation depends on many variables, including who you are, or are not. Research has shown that authenticity cultivates trust, builds teamwork, correlates with well-being, and connects to self-awareness. But calls for authenticity are fraught, and if not intentionally thought through, can be unrealistic, disingenuous, or even damaging.
What does this mean for writing authentically? Authenticity in rhetoric and composition literature is often discussed in relation to voice and style. Sometimes it’s about tone, as if authentic writing requires one to evoke a type of raw emotion. Sometimes it’s discussed in relation to content, but often to suggest the negative, as when Chimamanda Adichie in her TED Talk, “Danger of the Single Story,” mentions the American professor who critiqued her novel as not “authentically African.” Authentic writing is about all these things, but not for the reasons most people think. No one can tell you how authentic you are. Half the time, I struggle to recognize whether my own writing is authentic. If I ask students to write authentically and then downgrade them for doing so, I’ve negated the purpose, as well as lost whatever trust we might have established together.
About AI/Software in Writing: AI and other software that is used to elevate or upgrade a student’s writing immediately takes away the authenticity of that body of work. Why do students use it? There are many factors involved in that decision. One factor is simply because it’s “easy” and the student can finish an assignment in the matter of a few minutes with little to no work involved. Another factor however, is because the student is trying to mold their work into what the instructor wants or what they think the instructor is expecting. The pressure of grades in writing courses can affect a student’s confidence in their own abilities and work, causing one to default to AI and other computer editing software to write something for them or to enhance their language with bigger or more “sophisticated words”. Again,this process strips away the true voice of the student from their work, and the authenticity is no longer present. It is no longer what was authentic to them, but rather a filtered version of the original product. When the student cheats by using AI, the student cheats themselves by abandoning their authentic self and not learning to think for themselves. Nothing can be more authentic to an instructor than when the student thinks for themselves.
About pressure from Grading Systems: From a student perspective, grades can be one of the most daunting things in school and especially in college. When grades start to take on a heavier weight, the students experience high pressure to perform and produce work the instructors want in order to get that higher grade. Across all subjects, grading is present. Especially in English classes and in writing essay tests. Students who are subject to criterion and standards that do not leave adequate space for them to be authentic and to write what/how they truly want and/or critique and punish a student and their authentic work. This leads to grades becoming a focal point, and putting authenticity on the back burner for many. When a student’s paper is marked up in bright red ink with points marked off, it can damage one’s confidence in their abilities and their feelings/views that they portrayed on paper. From that point on, a student strives to write how their instructor wants, which leaves little room for how the student wants to write and hinders authentic writing. Breaking that mold after being creatively and authentically “censored” can be challenging and feel risky to students who have experienced the traditional grading system. Thus, at the collegiate level, it is important that learning environments are embracing authenticity through their instructors efforts to break that mold and norm.
Overvaluing product at the expense of learning: The ways academia privileges outcomes over intellectual growth is part of why, I think, when I ask students what makes an essay “academic,” their top two criteria are consistently “citation” and “formal language.” And what they mean is, essentially, “proper” grammar and syntax (which means mainstream standardized English), smart-sounding words, and something between emotionless reporting and hyper-argumentation. But these commonly held beliefs are not academic writing, they are the trappings of academic writing. And let’s face it, it’s not unlike putting on an ill-fitting suit for a formal occasion you have no desire to be at. What’s worse is that the trappings of academic writing are designed to be exclusionary, to weed out those who “can’t hack it” or “don’t fit in,” which is and has always been little more than code for the marginalized and underrepresented.
Focusing less on the trappings and more on the purpose of writing can reorient teachers and students to the purpose of being in college: learning. This is why I encourage students to reframe their writing in my classes as scholarly rather than academic. I define scholarly writing as any writing in which the author makes a genuine attempt to understand a subject in as much depth, nuance, and complexity as possible with the best information available (academic writing is that too, but it’s also peer-reviewed and published by an academic publisher). Instead of fixating on formality, I ask students to take their subject matter seriously. Argue less, inquire more. Don’t just write a paper. Figure something out through writing.
But the entire endeavor is rendered moot if I ask for personal investment and then grade in typical, product-oriented ways. Be yourself and let me judge you for it is not just a bad look, it’s contrary to learning and detrimental to the psyche. This is why I encourage authentic writing but doing so means I have had to rethink what criteria are necessary to succeed in the course, and how to evaluate those criteria. Students could not take intellectual risks and allow themselves to be alright with those risks not working out as they hoped if I didn’t use a process-based upgrading scheme. The unanticipated benefit of reworking my pedagogy has been a classroom experience that seems to be, by and large, more intellectually rigorous, inclusive, and fun. After all these years, I feel like I’m finally starting to understand more and better ways to teach writing, and how true it is that we teachers need to set the stage, get out of the way, and let students shine.
LA asks: Is there a certain amount of innate curiosity that leads to the development of authenticity? Curiosity is an innate trait that one is born with that enables exploration and allows for them to explore the complex world around them. This is essential in a child’s development. However, environmental factors also play a vital role in curiosity as what someone is subjected to around them influences their actions towards it. Thus biological development and the environment in which one is in factors into one’s curiosity.
This point gears towards the subject of development of authenticity in students. The flourishing of curiosity with allowance of creativity nourishes authenticity and builds trust that the student can produce authentic writing without being judged or receiving critiques. A student who is fearful might not be apt to be curious or explore themselves in writing and not reach their authenticity.
Curiosity is a propelling factor in learning amongst students. Curiosity involves a built up desire to learn more, understand more, and know more. Bringing this curiosity into the classroom can produce a learning environment that is more engaging.
This curiosity is strived to be built in classrooms during early elementary school years to promote passion for learning, which involves writing. Curiosity in the mind goes in tandem with creativity, allowing for students to story build and express themselves through multiple media. When writing is introduced to a student in early years, it is important that the teacher or instructor maintains balance between teaching the “rules and standards of writing” and not being overly critical. This critical nature can subject the student to become “turned off” by writing, and their curiosity and creativity can dwindle with it.
For authenticity with a student’s perspective, I think it is important that writing stays fun, engaging, and freeing. It is crucial throughout a student’s academic career from first grade to college years that the passion for writing and expressing themselves remains strong and the comfortability of writing is not hindered.
From a neuroscience perspective, I would only add that curiosity and authenticity are likely large-scale brain network properties whose neurology is a mystery right now. But we have better brain scanners and better analysis of the data, in part driven by artificial intelligence applications. Some studies are emerging suggesting certain brain areas, like the precuneus, may be associated with authenticity. But it seems to us still a bit too early in this research field to link such a complex trait to a brain area. For example, consider the Default Mode Network, which is supposed to turn on when your mind wanders and when the Task Focused (or Task Positive) network turns off. This is when you have a moment to think. We now know that the Default Mode Network broadly links the planning frontal part of the brain with other parts in the back of the brain. We also know now that this network involves self-referential, often emotional thinking and is sometimes about interactions and not just pure mind-wandering. It could be where creativity comes from, but we are far from knowing that now from brain scanners. How these systems work is an interesting but still emerging neuroscientific work in progress.
One recent paper cited above shows that the amygdala is associated with authenticity. It has a general reputation for being primarily involved in fear and negative emotions. But that raises the question of whether you have to be comfortable with being uncomfortable to be authentic. That may be a better question for our next blog.
I’m going to do that teacher thing and flip the question. What if it’s not that curiosity leads to authenticity but instead, or also, that authenticity leads to curiosity? Rather than unidirectional, it’s cyclical, and reinforcing. The more authentic one is, or perceives oneself to be, the more likely they are to take intellectual and emotional risks. A failure to succeed at a given task isn’t as much of a threat to someone who has a strong sense of self. They’re the same person regardless of the failure, and being willing to fail, and failing, helps develop resiliency.
But the opposite is also true. The less authentic one is, the less likely they are to take intellectual and emotional risks. Students who fear failure are more likely to engage in taking short-cuts like AI or short-shrifting their own learning potential by “giving the teacher what they want.”
I may be talking in circles–curiosity cultivates authenticity and authenticity cultivates curiosity–but it seems wholly relevant, especially for students newly embarking on their college careers. Without creating an atmosphere where students can think authentically, we risk eroding their self-confidence and demotivating them from intellectual risk-taking.
Is authenticity real (limbic system conclusion) vs cognitive? How real can you make authenticity?
With my student perspective, I alone have heard my peers express a class in a positive manner when they take a liking to a professor. It seems that having a “good” professor transforms the class into a place they don’t mind waking up and going to. Once a connection between professor and student or students in the class is cultivated, the classroom supports trust, comfortability, and realness. These all coupled together brings in that authenticity aspect into the classroom.
In addition, it is not just the connection between professor and students that is key. Peer-to-peer connection is key as a student may need a classroom of individuals whom they can fully express themselves without feeling uncomfortable or uneasy. While the first day of classes might not show this result, over time this comfortability can be built with professor and student effort with ice-breakers, creating conversation, and having a “confidential classroom” type disclaimer. Having a tight-nit class dynamic I found to be how I was able to write and share out my most personal stories and feelings. While it was anonymous, I don’t think I could ever have fully committed to be my authentic self without knowing in the back of my head that I was supported by both my professor and my peers.
Through this thoughtful discussion on authenticity, we discovered that the understanding of authenticity is more complex and expansive with many nuances and meanings attached. As we conversed, we came across new questions and ideas that built onto the next. While we have made headway in our thoughts, there is still curiosity shared amongst Allison, Jim, and Lorraine on authenticity in education with the relationship between teacher and student in mind. We recognize the power of a strong teacher-student relationship, for authenticity in the classroom to exist. We also recognize the power of this discussion amongst the three of us. While it may be an uncommon grouping, it is telling of what a relationship between teachers and students can cultivate–bigger conversation around topics that serve great purpose and impact. This conversation among us is not over but rather continues to grow into new avenues that attempt to make sense of authenticity as each of us know it.
