BEING AN AUTHENTIC TEACHER IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Taylor s University College Teaching and Learning Symposium, Sat 11 Oct 2008 Associate Professor Gavin Sanderson, PhD Deputy Director: Academic Learning Services, Learning and Teaching Unit, University of South Australia BEING AN AUTHENTIC TEACHER IN HIGHER EDUCATION Preamble Salam alikum. Selamat pagi. Nama saya Gavin Sanderson. Saya dari University of South Australia. Colleagues, I am very grateful to be able to speak with you today and I sincerely appreciate the invitation to participate in this Teaching and Learning Symposium at Taylor s University College. The University of South Australia and Taylor s University College (or TUC, as I call it for short) have established a sound and mutually beneficial relationship that is characterised by a depth of engagement that lends itself to rich outcomes for both institutions, not the least in the areas of learning and teaching. As well as the transnational teaching of students in UniSA degrees by TUC staff, I m also pleased to say that I have witnessed the development of strong collegial ties between staff at the two institutions. For example, as a result of visits of TUC academic staff to UniSA, I ve had the pleasure to meet Wai Fun, Yoke Moi and Mike Siew in Adelaide and our staff have appreciated their presence, their input and their thought provoking presentations. I m also aware that Dr Lim, the Head of the Accounting Department, delivered a well received presentation at UniSA last week titled The teaching and learning experience of first year tertiary (twinning program) students at Taylor s Business School. I should also mention that TUC is a partner institution in a UniSA led Australian Learning and Teaching Committee funded project titled Moderation for Fair Assessment in Transnational Learning and Teaching. It begins this month and runs for two years. The project has attracted funding of approximately RM560,000 and I m very happy to be working with Parvinder and Thava from the American Degree Program and the Teaching and Learning Centre who are representing TUC on the project. I must also thank the Provost, Mr Lim, for his assistance in helping formalise TUC s involvement in the project and his ongoing support, and also Dr Irene Tan who, as you know, has since left TUC, for her assistance in the development of the application. This is about my 20 th visit to Malaysia in about 13 years and in a sense it feels like coming home each time I return. The very first time I came to Malaysia before the existence of KLIA I remember thinking to myself in the taxi on the way to the then Hilton Hotel on Jalan Sultan Ismail, I have a wonderful feeling about this place. In the years since then, I ve been fortunate to make multiple visits to KL, JB, Penang, Taiping, Ipoh, Kuching, Sibu, Miri, KK, Sandakan and Tawau. I ve been out on islands and water villages off KK. I ve seen the majesty of Mt Kinabalu. I ve been overawed in the presence of orang utang at Sepilok. I ve sat in a longhouse with Indigenous people in the Batang Ai national park. I ve eaten incredible black pepper crab in JB. I ve walked the back streets of Penang and eaten off banana leaves in obscure local restaurants where the tourists are nowhere to be seen. Malaysia has so much to offer. The vibrant and rich cultural diversity and multi cultural heritage; the sincere friendliness of the people and their hospitality; the thunderstorms and rain something we increasingly know little of in Adelaide these days, which is a concern; the simply incredible food; the high levels of personal safety on the streets; the evident lack of vandalism; the amazing shopping; the crazy traffic; the inspiring old and new architecture; the industriousness of the people; and in a positive way, the chaos of daily life in Malaysia and in KL in particular have helped to enrich my life many times over. I urge you to continue to be inspired by what is best in the Western world and there are some great things but

never give up your distinctive Malaysian way of being in and moving through the world. There s something quite special about it. And that goes for approaches to education, too. That brings me to the point of my speaker s role today. I m not here to tell you what to do. I am here to give a certain point of view. How you interpret and what you do with the message is really up to you. I don t know everything about learning and teaching in higher education. I have, however, constructed knowledge about learning and teaching in secondary and tertiary sectors and in industry for 30 years. That s about 11,000 days and now that I ve said that I m feeling like I might be approaching middle age! I feel quite strongly about what I said before in relation to Western ontological and epistemic views and how they are manifested in education. So many times, Western academics go to other places in the world thinking that they can be saviours of non Westerners; that the more their views are adopted, the better off everyone will be. One only has to think of common stereotypes of non Western (particularly Asian) students in Australia to quickly form the view that Asian education produces students who rote learn, cannot speak English, are shy, struggle with progressive teaching methods, feel comfortable with didactic teaching approaches, surface learn rather than engage in deep learning, cannot think critically or analytically, and do not mix easily with non Asians. In reality, however, many of these deficit based stereotypes are unfounded and a paradox presents itself when many academic prizes in Australian universities are won by Asian students. Further, and also paradoxically, despite the assumption that contemporary teaching in the Western academic tradition is based on the student centred model, research has established that, in practice, much of the teaching at university in countries such as Australia and the United States is more about lecturers being knowledgeable about their subject and being able to impart this knowledge to their students. This is particularly so in the case of young, inexperienced lecturers. Further, poor learning outcomes are generally attributed to student deficiency rather than to teaching methods. It is ironic that this teacher centred approach remains a feature of Western education, despite its tendency, according to Kember (1998), to depress the use of a deep approach to learning (p. 18). Biggs suggests that if you want to see examples of didactic teaching and students who rote learn, look no further than local students in the UK, the USA and Australia! Now despite these critical observations about Western countries, there is much that is positive in teaching in Australia and a renewed focus on learning and teaching over the past decade means that some very good work is being done to ensure that the rhetoric of student centred learning at least has a chance of becoming a reality. Introduction Higher education has changed in both quantitative and qualitative measures over the past few decades. There are now more institutions in more countries delivering more academic programs to more diverse students in more ways than ever before. Improvements in Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) have revolutionised the way that teachers can teach and students can learn. The question might be asked, then, of What are the qualities of the ideal lecturer for teaching in the 21 st century? To this, there are many different answers. Some say an entertainer, whilst others emphasise prowess in ICTsupported environments. Some say they need to be trained in adult learning theory to teach, whilst others say they should be researching their teaching through the learning of their students. Others, still, say all of these qualities and approaches are required! Indeed, the literature is replete with ideas about what constitutes good teaching and anyone who tries to meet the many requirements of the multitude of views would surely fall perilously short of fulfilling them. This paper will address the question posed above by discussing the

important notion of authenticity in teaching in higher education. It provides a foundation for anyone who is interested in becoming a good teacher. The presentation draws on Transformative Learning theory which introduces existential and phenomenological themes, as well as critical reflection and self reflection, into the discussion around teaching. Particular focus will be given to the work of Cranton who maintains that lecturers who are open to understanding more about themselves and their teaching practice can construct a sound base for both their personal and professional development. Rather than ignoring their Self and instead of shaping their ideas of good teaching on a multitude of different teachers and teaching approaches, they can become better teachers by being true (authentic, genuine) to themselves through focusing on the teacher within. Being an authentic teacher in higher education Cranton s (2001) idea of the authentic teacher in higher education introduces existential and phenomenological themes into the discussion of teaching and learning in higher education. Cranton (2001) believed that critical reflection and critical self reflection on the basic assumptions of a person s own culture and worldview can facilitate a transformative process which can result in greater self awareness and self acceptance. The following sections briefly outline the main aspects of Cranton s (2001) work and elaborate on the central characteristics of transformative learning which is the body of knowledge associated with adult learning that supports both Cranton s (2001) ideas. Reflective practice in tertiary teaching Reflective practice has emerged in recent decades as an important feature of teaching in higher education (Watkins, 1998, p. 20). A model of reflective practice in relation to the theory and practice of teaching is presented in Figure 1. The origin of contemporary engagement with reflective practice is generally attributed to the work of Schön (1987) who advocated its use to ameliorate the dissonance that often resulted between the instrumental, technical knowledge of the practitioner and their experience in the real world, the latter being described as a swampy lowland [wherein] lie the problems of greatest human concern (p. 3). Figure 1 Theory & reflective practice in teaching (Source. Biggs, 2003, p. 251) The contemporary literature is replete with references on the importance of reflective practice to the practitioner. For example, Prosser and Trigwell (1998) stated that good teaching involves reflection on the processes and consequences of teaching (p. 254). Ramsden (2003) said that it was a necessary condition for improving teaching (p. 8). The Teaching and Educational Development Institute characterised reflective practice as a hallmark of effective university teaching, where the lecturer, through critical self analysis, is

engaged in a progressive cycle of planning, action, observation, and reflection to improve their teaching (TEDI, 2005). Whilst the reflective process that underpins Cranton s (2001) thesis deals more with personal and cultural values than knowledge and skills associated with teaching practice, it nevertheless complements reflection on teaching practice by providing lecturers with the opportunity to understand more about themselves. This, in association with reflection on teaching practice, provides a sound base for both the personal and professional development of individual lecturers. Deconstructing the Self The Self is commonly used to express existential and phenomenological themes in social science disciplines, particularly in philosophy, sociology, psychology, and education. It is also frequently encountered in discussions about identity, self identity, and culture. For Cranton (2001), the Self indicated a person s basic nature, preferences, values, and the power of past experiences (p. vii). A thorough understanding of the Self can empower individuals to make informed choices based on who they really are which, in turn, can free them from the constraints of uncritically assimilated values, assumptions, and social norms [of] the herd (Cranton, 2001, p. vii). The objective of Cranton s (2001) work was to encourage lecturers to reflect on the relationship between their personal value system and their culture in a bid to better understand their own worldview, or Weltanschauung. This process interprets culture in terms of Pedersen s (1988) observation that: Culture is not a vague or exotic label attached to faraway persons or places, but a personal orientation to each decision, behaviour, and action in our lives (p. vii) culture, like a network of traits, is located within the person. Like traits, culture provides a flexible disposition toward one or another perspective that changes from time to time, situation to situation, and person to person. Although a person s culture can be known in part, there are core elements of our culture that are not known even to ourselves. (p. xi) Cranton s (2001) work leads readers through a number of interactive exercises designed to help them reflect on, deconstruct, critically analyse, and then transform (reconstruct) their personal value system. The first step is for individuals to ask themselves Who am I, really? This question provides a mechanism to reflect on the constitution of the Self in terms of who they are, what they do, and what they value. This reflection on the content of the Self can be achieved, for example, by listing ten nouns or phrases that define the Self and then asking how it was that the person came to see the Self that way. This, in turn, is followed by an exploration of why each noun or phrase is important to the person (Cranton, 2001). After this, they can ask why they see themselves as such; why they do the things they do; and why they value certain things over others. This is referred to as process reflection and it leads people to question the premises that underwrite their definition of Self. It is a more critical approach than mere reflection (Cranton, 2001). Cranton (2001) believed that the overall process by which people come to understand themselves is grounded in psychological type preferences and depends on how much their sense of Self is derived from the four functions of experience (sense), vision (intuition), logical choice (thinking), and values (feeling). To determine this, Cranton (2001) presented an exercise which constructs a picture of a person as either introverted or extraverted in terms of sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling (pp. 10 11). Table 1 provides examples of some of these psychological type preferences. After the exercise is complete, people can then reflect on the nature of the composite Self and consider how they came to have such preferences and whether they are a useful way of thinking about their Self and their place in

the social world. (My question to academic staff at Taylor s University College is whether they see these preferences as being readily transferable to the Malaysian cultural context.) Table 1 Examples of psychological type preferences Extraverted sensing: Down to earth Nonreflective [sic] Sensuous Practical Factual Sensible Experiential Fashionable Active Realistic Extraverted thinking: Uncritical Sympathetic Susceptible Agreeable Responsive Compassionate Harmonious Adaptable Accepting Sociable Introverted intuition: Enigmatic Mystical Eccentric Indifferent Mysterious Quixotic Prophetic Psychic Clairvoyant Imaginative Introverted feeling: Amiable Gentle Elusive Compassionate Intense Placating Considerate Receptive Complex Enigmatic Note. From Cranton (2001, pp. 10 11). Cranton (2001) also believed that a person s experience plays an extremely important role in determining their values and how they see the world: the way we make meaning out of experiences determines our habitual expectations and our habits of mind our assumptions, beliefs, values, and perspectives (p. 15, emphasis in original). Again, interactive exercises are utilised to contemplate major experiences and ask why they came to be significant and why they are important to the person at all (Cranton, 2001). With regard to values that influence behaviour and other aspects of the Self, Cranton (2001) said that many are unquestioned or sometimes not even articulated. We take them for granted, and often they have been uncritically assimilated (p. 21). Examples of such values are presented in Table 2. Once again, Cranton (2001) offered interactive exercises as a way for people to make their values explicit. After listing ten cherished values, they are then asked to reflect on how they came to have such values, before working through a series of questions about why each value is important. Thus far, this section has concentrated on outlining the sort of reflective processes that are promoted by Cranton (2001) for teachers in higher education to have a better appreciation of who they are as individuals, why they see the world the way they do, and the role that social forces have played in helping to construct their personal identity or Self. This is important from the point of view of understanding how individuals who are self aware and self accepting might be able to better comprehend, accept, and work with other staff and students. Cranton s (2001) work encourages individuals to take a step back from how they view their place in the world and interrogate why it is so. This process is potentially transformative in the sense that it can provide new ways of looking out through looking in. It is the acquisition of a heightened knowledge of what is outside by more deeply knowing what is inside and is perhaps the fundamental activity that Said (1995) would promote as being critical to understanding Otherness. The various self assessment tasks outlined by Cranton (2001) would be valuable exercises in any professional development setting which sought to assist lecturers to think about themselves and their teaching.

Table 2 Examples of values Personal values: Knowledge Independence Love Meaning Trust Openness Courage Integrity Comfort Adventure Inner peace Equality Happiness Pleasure Relationships Self esteem Compassion Religion Honesty Beauty Possessions Self actualization Development Empowerment Professional values: Security Autonomy Effectiveness Job satisfaction Achievement Money Being with others Success Recognition Expertise Responsibility Cooperation Stability Competence Power Quality Hard work Loyalty Efficiency Authority Being liked Social change Growth Learning Note. From Cranton (2001, p. 23). Reconstructing the Self to be an authentic teacher in higher education This section brings together Cranton s (2001) observations on how a personal transformation through deep and critical reflection can contribute to authenticity in teaching in higher education. Cranton (2001) noted that the literature is replete with ideas about what constitutes good teaching and that anyone who tried to meet the many requirements of the multitude of views would fall perilously short of fulfilling them. They could, however, become better teachers by being true (authentic, genuine) to themselves. Cranton s (2001) advice was for a person to focus on the teacher within (p. 47) (the Self) rather than try to be the teacher without (p. 50) that is represented by all other teachers and various approaches to teaching (for example, those based on behavioural psychology, humanism, John Dewey s functionalism, Kolb s experiential learning, or Gardner s theory of multiple intelligences in the classroom). A person would be inauthentic if they were to ignore their Self and instead try to replicate the Selves of good teachers they come into contact with: The authentic teacher understands who she [sic] is as a teacher, works well and clearly with her own style, and continues to reflect on her practice, grow, and develop (p. 36) [and] we each, individually, find our own place within these perspectives through questioning, contemplation, and reflection on our basic nature, preferences, experience, and values. (Cranton, 2001, p. 41) Another important observation in Cranton s (2001) work is that authenticity implies the merging of the Self and the teacher. Cranton s (2001) description of Self as teacher, teacher as Self (p. 43) indicates a whole of person approach to both teaching and living. Cranton (2001) believed that the teacher as a person defines the teaching and learning experience. Good teaching and learning is not achieved if the teacher simply plays the role of good teacher during work hours.

This view distinguishes between what Suits (1978) called native and proprietary parts. The former is a person s real life role whilst the latter is playing a part. The native part conveys no misinformation about one s identity, whereas the proprietary part, whilst not necessarily perceived by others as conveying misinformation, entails dislocation between the Self and the part that is played. As put by Patterson (1973), the genuine teacher is, then, not using a method or a technique as something outside himself [sic], for his methods or techniques are an integral part of himself (p. 103). The Self as teacher, teacher as Self is an expression of authenticity that allows individuals to genuinely engage with others in teaching and in life in general (Cranton, 2001). Critical reflection and critical self reflection are important mechanisms by which individuals can remain aware of the context in which they live and work. Finally, whilst Cranton s (2001) work does not explicitly mention intercultural engagement, this possibility is nevertheless supported: Authentic expression leads to further self understanding as we encounter people and situations at odds with our Self (Cranton, 2001, p. 114). Transformative learning theory Cranton s (2001) work draws upon Mezirow s (1991, 2000) deliberations on the concept of transformative learning which has emerged over the past two decades as a powerful way to understand how adults change their beliefs, values, and perspectives (Cranton, 2000, p. 21). This section briefly covers the main features of this theory. Mezirow (2000) said that transformations often occur after individuals clarify meaning from events such as: A disorienting dilemma. Self examination with feelings of fear, anger, guilt, or shame. A critical assessment of assumptions. Recognition that one s discontent and the process of transformation are shared. Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions. Planning a course of action. Acquiring knowledge and skills for implementing one s plans. Provisional trying of new roles. Building competence and self confidence in new roles and relationships. A reintegration into one s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one s new perspective. (p. 22) Mezirow s (2000) work is very much concerned with the individual qua existent and the ways in which they interpret the world to give their lives meaning and avoid the threat of chaos (p. 3). The prime focus of transformative learning is to become critically aware of one s own tacit assumptions and expectations and those of others and assessing their relevance for making an interpretation (Mezirow, 2000, p. 4). For both Mezirow (2000) and Cranton (2001), a greater understanding of the Self can lead to authenticity which is the expression of one s genuine Self in the community and society (Cranton, 2001, p. viii). Such a view reflects the fundamental aspects of existentialist thought where much value is placed on the idea of the aware Self as a thinking being with beliefs, hopes, fears, desires, the need to find a purpose, and a will that can determine one s actions. An existential approach takes a first person or subjective consideration of ultimate questions and believes each self aware individual understands their own existence in terms of their experience and their situation, that is, their station in life. Authenticity, in the existentialist view, is the best expression of a worthwhile life. Individuals are expected to confront their challenges and flourish in the process of dealing with them.

As well as having an existential aspect, transformative learning theory also has a critical element. This is evident in the meaning attached to the terms critical reflection and critical self reflection. Brookfield (2000) noted that the terms reflection and reflective practice are commonly used in contemporary educational discourse. An undesirable outcome of this, however, has been the conflation of the processes of reflection with critical reflection, with the latter often taken simply to be a deeper, more profound form of reflective practice (pp. 125 126). Brookfield (2000) believed that critical reflection was qualitatively different from just reflecting deeply on something. To this end, he suggested that it is important that critical reflection be associated with the intellectual tradition of critical theory that was developed by scholars at the Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt (known as the Frankfurt School) in the 1930s. In its strongest form, critical theory deals with concepts of hegemony, power, control, legitimacy, privilege, equity, social justice, struggle, conflict, autonomy, advocacy, contradiction, and values. A central theme of critical theorists, therefore, has been to articulate a view of theory which utilises dialectical means to emancipate people from the positivist domination of thought through their own understandings and actions. It seeks to have people treated as subjects rather than objects and ends rather than means (Comstock, 1982, p. 371; Prunty, 1985, p. 136). For Brookfield (2000) and Cranton (2001), the process of reflection is simply thinking about things. Critical reflection and critical self reflection, however, require people to seek an understanding of why those things are the way they are, from the point of view of their construction as part of a social reality that is sustained by hegemonic power(s). The outcome that is desired from critical reflection and critical self reflection is individual and social emancipation which is not only intrinsically valuable as an end in itself, but also provides the ability to understand the mechanisms that bind some groups to uncritically accept irrational and distorted ideas about their social reality (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, pp. 96 130; Rizvi, 1986, p. 3). This is the heart of Cranton s (2001) thesis and transformative learning theory. Conclusion This paper has provided a brief conceptual overview of authenticity in teaching in higher education through the lens of Transformative Learning theory. The work of Cranton (2000, 2001) and Mezirow (1991, 2000) in this area has been used to flesh out some key points and to introduce the sorts of thinking and activities that might be utilised to assist teachers to better understand their personal and professional selves. The development of individual teachers relies upon them being reflective, critically reflective and open to change. Without such qualities, their students are likely to encounter teaching which is largely unresponsive to their academic needs, nor changes in the external environment. References Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Brookfield, S. (2000). Transformative learning as ideology critique. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 125 148). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: knowing through action research. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.

Comstock, D. (1982). A method for critical research. In E. Bredo & W. Feinberg (Eds.), Knowledge and values in social and educational research (pp. 370 390). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Cranton, P. (2000). Planning instruction for adult learners (2nd ed.). Toronto: Wall and Emerson, Inc. Cranton, P. (2001). Becoming an authentic teacher in higher education. Malabar: Krieger Publishing Company. Kember, D. (1998). Teaching beliefs and their impact on students approach to learning. In B. Dart & G. Boulton Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 1 25). Camberwell: ACER Press. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3 33). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Patterson, C. (1973). Humanistic education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc. Pedersen, P. (1988). A handbook for developing multicultural awareness. Alexandria: American Association for Counseling and Development. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching in higher education. In B. Dart & G. Boulton Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 250 268). Camberwell: ACER Press. Prunty, J. (1985). Signposts for a critical educational policy analysis. Australian Journal of Education, 29(2), 133 140. Rizvi, F. (1986). Bureaucratic rationality and the possibility of democratic governance in education. The Australian Administrator, 7(1), 1 4. Said, E. (1995). Orientalism; Western conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin Books. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.